The science of faith

I was chatting with an acquaintance recently, and our conversation wandered into the topic of Evolution. He thinks Evolution is all fake. Naturally his view of Evolution is entirely based on the fact that he has already accepted on faith that the Bible as absolute truth. Once your reality is based on faith, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

But I've found that many religious people are at least willing to attempt to debate on facts, because nobody wants to be seen as being irrational. (Never mind that they retreat deeper into faith if they start to lose the battle of facts.)

This individual wasn't even willing to debate me. The reasons he gave were reasons I've heard before, and reasons I'm hearing more and more lately...enough to think there is a real movement behind this.

The argument goes something like this:

"Look, people have been debating the existence of God and the meaning of life for thousands of years, and nobody has ever come up with a winning answer. How could I be smarter than all of them? I have accepted God on faith, and there is no use in thinking about it or debating it any further. You can show me any reason to doubt God's existence, and I can find someone on the other side who would counter your argument. Debating gets you nowhere. I'm going to focus on living my life and being happy."

Obviously there are holes in every part of his "just believe and be happy" argument. It assumes mankind has collectively learned nothing at all, it assumes that human beings are totally incapable of reasonable judgment, it assumes that happiness is a greater goal than truth, and it is a defeatist attitude in the face of an imaginary challenge of their own creation! It is a complete abandonment of reason. You could justify anything with that kind of logic.

And yet what this presents is a more difficult and vexing form of faith that what I usually encounter. Many people want to believe that their religion is reasonable and logical and can easily stand on the facts. They want to believe that we all live in the same reality and that reasonable people will come to the same conclusions when presented with the same evidence.

But this "believe and be happy" form of faith takes the shape of a conscious decision to see the world as they want to see it, to willfully believe whatever they want to believe, without any concern for seeking any absolute truth. If mankind has proven itself unable to discern what is real and what isn't, then everything must be faith, and we might as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.

It's like something right out of the movie "The Matrix", and yet this is real, and it's happening right now. Hundreds of millions of people are making a conscious choice for the blue pill.



Do I value truth over happiness? Yes...but I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. A life without magical thinking offers the freedom of the mind that is necessary to have an enriched and well examined life. I also don't believe that a blue-pill life leads to happiness. I know plenty of religious people who suffer terribly and are miserable people.

But I do sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in a bubble of blind faith...to be able to believe whatever I want to believe, and be absolutely certain that it was the truth. I would never even be aware that I had traded truth for fantasy. I would never know a red pill even existed.

But once you've seen the real world, it is most difficult to go back. And when I think about that, I wonder how I got "unplugged" in the first place. Why do a few of us escape the bubble of faith that traps so many?

How can the world be so full of religion, and yet I feel so sure that I have reached an awareness that most people have not? I don't consider myself as being any better than the believers. I've met religious people who are brilliant and wonderful people. So it is a puzzle to be an Atheist in a world full of religion. Atheists sensed that something wasn't right, and that there was more to the world that what we were told. We were skeptical and inquisitive, and we wouldn't stop digging until we found some answers. And what we discovered turns out to be vastly different than what most of humanity just accepts on faith because they aren't so inquisitive.

But why are the majority people people not inquisitive?




"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." -- Morpheus






Most people aren't inquisitive because most people have a lot invested in their chosen reality. And that is what makes atheists such an unpopular minority: We deny their reality. We are a much greater threat to their world than any other religion. Having multiple religions in this world only serves to reinforce their reality. The existence of Islam reinforces Christianity, and vice-versa. Worshipers look around the world and only see other worshipers. So they see no need to question their reality. The only question is who picked the right god.

But atheists deny the reality of what these religions have all collectively created. We are the weirdos. We are the glitch in the system that they want fixed. Every religion throughout history has had it's "enforcers" who have attacked and hunted us. We are the one group that everyone can agree to hate. Polls have shown that people would rather elect someone from another religion than an atheist.

In this country, "religious freedom" is interpreted to mean that you can believe in God any way you want...just so long as you still believe...just so long as you remain plugged-in to the system and admit that faith is all there is. I can't count the number of times I've heard religious apologists claim that even Atheism is an act of faith...that we are no different and we play by their rules.

And this brings me back to my blue-pill friend who just doesn't care about science, philosophy, or religion. To him, atheism is just one of many ways to view this reality. But no, he is very wrong. They are all very wrong. Something fundamental has changed, and even many atheists don't realize it. This is not the same philosophical debate that has been raging for thousands of years. This is something brand new. In very recent human history we have seen the enthusiastic and universal application of the scientific method, and this has given us our first true glimpse of the real world.

For the first time in history, we are developing the ability to see the raw data of this reality. It is only in the past 100 years that all of the pieces of biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and psychology have come together into a coherent picture of the real world.

100 years ago, within the lifetime of many people living today, there was no concept of galaxies, no concept of continental drift, no DNA, no general relativity, no protons, no neutrons, no big bang, no understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, and no way to see the "code" that makes up reality. What science has delivered in the past century is nothing less than the physical reality that lies underneath our perceived reality. This is an absolutely brand new challenge to religion and it is the ultimate challenge to the inevitability of faith.

Atheism has teeth now. The Atheistic stance has changed from "Maybe the world could work without supernatural influence" to "Here is actually how the world actually does work without supernatural influence." It is a switch from inductive to deductive arguments based on our new-found ability to observe the physical reality of this world.

Religion is losing it's last foothold in reality and is being forced entirely into the realm of faith, and faith is losing it's legitimacy. In the past, faith was the act of believing in the absence of hard evidence. Today, faith is the act of believing in spite of hard evidence. The doorway to reality is finally open for all of us, and the only way to miss it is to willfully choose to look away. And this, of course, is exactly what most people will do.

If science becomes the tool that unplugs humanity from the false realities of religion, then science will eventually be attacked or be abandoned by large segments of the population. I can only hope it's not a majority of people. But even a rabid minority can cause catastrophes. The theory of Evolution will be the front line and the pivot in this battle. We can gracefully progress to the next stage of human society, or we can willfully close our eyes and slam ourselves back into another Dark Age. A significant percentage of the world's population, including my blue-pill friend, will absolutely prefer the latter.

I would no more push Atheism on someone than I'd want them to push Christianity on me. (And believe me, they do!) You can't force someone to take the red pill. But what I will advocate with utmost conviction is science. As a species, we are strong and we are many, but to survive we must move forward, and to move forward we must learn. We need the collective insight and wisdom to solve our own problems instead of waiting for the man in the sky with the white beard to save us.

It's not that I'm optimistic that science will find easy answers to all the problems that face our planet, but rather science will allow us to see our problems for what they are, and science will give us the best options for dealing with them. Science will give us the red pill we desperately need, and then the rest is up to us!

(To help support the advancement of science, please visit http://www.aaas.org/)

A reason happens for everything

If you've never heard of Jacqueline Saburido before, then beware this video is a bit gruesome and a major downer...

http://www.glumbert.com/media/drunkdriving

And that video isn't anywhere near as gruesome as the full details of everything she's been through and continues to go through.

If you do a Google search on Jacqueline Saburido (Jaqui), you'll see there are multiple websites devoted to her and her story. She has been the focus of a major outpouring of sympathy and consideration. She has become a powerful figure in the campaign against drunk driving. When you see the videos of her and her story, you can't help but feel twisted up inside.

But why is it that nobody seems to notice, or care, or even remember that two other kids actually DIED in that car accident? Death is not a strong deterrent to drunk driving?

Everyone cares deeply for Jacqueline's father and feels sorry for what he's had to go through...but nobody even remotely cares for the parents of the other two kids who died. You have to dig deep in all the news stories to even find the names of those kids! They are almost totally forgotten.

The reason nobody notices the death of the two other kids is this: We all instinctively know that there are things worse than death. It is absolutely true, and we all know it, but when forced to confront that fact, most of us will deny it. This is exactly why the doctors brought her back to life even though they must have known it would be an abomination to do so, and would put her through an experience worse than letting her die. This is why laws that allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients never pass. If nothing is worse than death, then why is euthanizing a suffering pet an acceptable practice? We allow more peace and dignity for our pets than for our own kind.

Jacqui is interesting because what she has been through is more horrifying to us than just dying in a car accident. And yet a majority of us refuse to honestly confront that kind of thinking. We can't bare the weight of these decisions upon us. We want easy and guilt-free answers to our biggest questions, and we will do anything to anybody to get them. If you let a suffering person die, people will call you a monster. If you prolong their suffering indefinitely by keeping them alive, people will call you a miracle worker.

It is highly ironic that the people who are most unwilling to accept death are religious people who believe that there is a better world after death. They hide behind catch phrases like "Everything happens for a reason" and "This was God's will". I get so infuriated with these philosophical lightweights. Maybe it was "God's will" for Jacqui to die that day, and the doctors disobeyed His will by bringing her back? Surely the doctors are not agents of God's will, for they become better at avoiding death every year, and the day will come when they cure aging and stop death altogether.

It is only an atheist doctor who could make a reasonable argument for giving a patient every opportunity to hang on to this life, if that is what the patient wants. But no, the rabid strain of "live at all costs" thinking actually comes from the religious individuals. And yet these same people believe that this life on Earth is infinitely insignificant compared to what awaits us beyond. If you believe in Heaven, then surely you realize that Jacqui would be enjoying Heaven all this time instead of enduring over 50 surgeries and agony of an intensity and duration that few people will ever suffer. Her parents could have grieved and moved on instead of being trapped in an ongoing ordeal that will last until the day they die...at which point Jaqui might wind up under institutional care!

But are we to believe there is a good reason for Jaqui to be denied Heaven only to be put through a living Hell? If everything happens for a reason, then what was the reason for death of the two other kids in this car accident? Nobody even remembers them. Their lives have had no impact on drunk-driving awareness at all.

Everything does NOT happen for a reason...rather...human beings are surprisingly capable of making a reason happen for everything. Jacqui has a horrific story to tell, and people have been able to make use of that in drunk-driving awareness campaigns. But Jacqui could have just as easily had the same thing happen to her at the hands of a sober driver who just lost control due to a flat tire. Then what would you do for Jaqui? Have her campaign for tire safety? Well, you could make Jacqui into an inspirational speaker who demonstrates how the human spirit can triumph over adversity. (And you quietly hide the fact that Jacqui does, in fact, suffer from depression and has had many bouts of wanting to die, and might have actually killed herself by now if she had fingers or the means to do so.)

There have been tens of thousands of women in Congo who were so violently raped that they've suffered permanent internal organ damage and can't lead normal lives. Do we suppose this happened for a reason too? Would you try and argue that the reason for their suffering was to draw attention to the horrible situation in the Congo? As if a death toll of 4 million people since 1996 has NOT conveyed that message? And if it hasn't, then what was the "reason" for the death of the 4 million? To make matters worse, there is such a cultural stigma against rape that most of these women keep it a secret to the day they die. They fade away, unnoticed by anyone, with all their suffering left unbalanced by any later positive outcome.

There is some validity to using a horrific experience to remind people that horrific experiences can happen. Yes, you can find meaning and purpose in that goal, but the purpose is not the reason for the experience!! A divinely inspired world would have no such experiences to begin with, and would need no such lesson...or at the very least would find some other way to teach that lesson than "by example". Surely an all-powerful being could educate us about the dangers of drunk driving without very SLOWLY burning a young woman alive while she is conscious and screaming in agony (as Jacqui was).

I don't want you to think I don't feel sorry for Jacqui. I feel more-than-sorry for her, I feel downright heartbroken. She haunts my thoughts. But now that she is past the worst parts of her ordeal, I am trying to be optimistic that she'll be able to find peace and meaning in her life. She seems to have an incredibly strong character. But will the rest of her life be worth everything she has had to endure and everything she will yet endure? That is an unknown, and at no point will the doctors allow her to make that call for herself.

She has paid an unbelievably high price in order to have these additional years of life, so she might as well try and make the best of them. But instead of raising awareness of drunk driving, maybe she could raise awareness of the hypocrisy and childish fantasy that muddies the waters of some of the most important decisions we'll ever make in our lives.

Villa Alegre!!

This is awesome. I've been searching for the theme song to Villa Alegre for nearly 20 years. It was a T.V. show I really loved when I was very little.

Finally someone found a recording and put it online:

http://www.myspace.com/villaalegre

and

http://www.myspace.com/villaalegremusic

Thank you internet!!!!!!

I haven't heard this song in over 30 years...and it seems slower than I remember it being. But this is definitely the song! The theme song to Speed Racer also seems much slower than I remember from when I was little. I guess my memory somehow speeds up songs over time. :)

Children of faith

In "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins attacks the notion of children being labeled with the faith of their parents.

"There is no such thing as a Christian child, there is only a child of Christian parents. Whenever you hear the phrase Christian child or Muslim child or Protestant child or Catholic child, the phrase should grate like fingernails on a blackboard" -- Dawkins

Dawkins is a brilliant writer, and I agree with many of his positions. But on this point, I couldn't disagree with him more.

We absolutely SHOULD refer to a child of Christian parents as a "Christian child". This is the reality of the situation, and it serves as compelling evidence that religion is a subjective cultural phenomenon and not an objective discretionary phenomenon.

In reality, an overwhelming majority of children adopt the religion of their parents for the entirety of their lives. A child may choose for himself a wide array of personal interests and goals, but he or she will almost certainly follow a religion that is not significantly distant from that in which he or she was raised. And why is that? It's because all other choices in life can be made objectively, logically and honestly. Religion is immune to such influences and we must remind people of that fact at every opportunity.

Your religion is every bit as culturally indoctrinated as the language you speak, and yet we would consider it ridiculous to claim that God would send people to hell based on the language they spoke. Why is it ANY less ridiculous to claim that God would punish people for any other cultural influence such as faith?

This is a glaring discrepancy within religion that goes right to the heart of the faulty premise that any significant understanding of our world can be obtained through faith. By removing the label of faith from our children, we only serve to support the delusion that faith is somehow largely a matter of personal choice, as if a child could choose a faith as thoughtfully as they choose their first car.

Would Mr. Dawkins also object to referring to a child of French speaking parents as a "French speaking child?" Surely not! Yet I defy anyone to show how religion and language are different in terms of relative cultural indoctrination.

I understand the desire to break the strangle hold of religious labeling, but at the same time these labels can be used to draw attention to the ridiculous reasons behind the assumptions.

My heart goes out to all children of faith in the world. Their lives will be profoundly shaped and limited by thoughts and ideas that will necessarily elude rational examination. They will be deprived of the ability to make a reasoned and objective choice of religion, and yet they will be held eternally accountable for their choice.

I will continue to refer to these children using the label of their affliction, for we should all be reminded at all times what is being done to them.

Purple America

This is just a neat map that I like to look at sometimes. (Click on the picture for a larger view).

The rough trend I see here is that people in high-density population areas are more liberal than people in more rural areas. So, the more contact you have with a wider variety of people, the more open-minded you become. What a surprise.

The Pardox of Choice

This is a video I saw a few months ago. I thought it was just interesting at the time, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is profoundly true. Every day, I see more and more examples of dissatisfaction that comes from having too much choice.

Paradox of Choice

Here is a longer version of this talk

Faith: The Gathering

Keith Sader sent me a fascinating article about a reporter who found and lost his faith. It's a really profound and cool article, and will no doubt generate nothing but a mountain of hate mail for his efforts.

What struck me was his conclusion where the author said "Either you have the gift of faith, or you don't".

Part of me finds that statement distasteful. It's like saying either you have the gift of being blind, or you don't.

And yet, there is some truth to the statement. I've met many people in this world who have an amazing ability to "fix" and idea or a point of view in their mind. With little thought or effort, they can etch a belief into their brain that is absolutely permanent for the rest of their life, no matter what they see, hear, do, or learn. It must be comforting to have that kind of certainty, and maybe that's why they are able to maintain it.

Sometimes it's harmless. Countless people (usually men) will adopt a favorite sports team as a child, and then remain loyal to that team their whole life no matter how many times they move to other cities. They don't seem to grasp the fact that their choice of favorite team is arbitrary thing, based solely on where they happened to be living when they developed an interest in sports.

I knew a co-worker named "Dave" who was determined to be a rabid loyal fan of the Philadelphia Eagles for his entire life...despite the fact that he only actually lived in Philadelphia for 8 months as a child. It just happened to be the "right" 8 months when he saw his first live football game and developed his interest in the sport. He doesn't consider it the least bit odd that he's still a rabid Eagles fan, despite having lived in San Diego (a city with a pro football team of their own) for the past 20 years.

And if people are able to form a bond of unwavering loyalty to an arbitrary sports team, then just imagine how strongly they can bond with something even more significant...like religion. Most believers don't grasp the fact that their religion is almost certainly determined by the religion of their parents. If they had been adopted by Muslims as a child, they would be Muslim now, with every bit as much certainty that their beliefs were right and everyone ELSE was going to hell.

This "gift of faith" is a strange gift indeed. I can't imagine what it is like to be absolutely certain of anything, and then on top of it be absolutely certain about something that is absolutely arbitrary! Jeez, that's messed up!

As much as I wish I had that level of confidence and conviction, I would still consider it a curse...not a gift...to have a brain that worked like a "write-once" CD-ROM.

Conspiracy or Faith?

An anonymous reader left a comment about my article on Simulating Evolution. I thought his comment was interesting enough to deserve a full response.

To the anonymous poster:

Thank you for your reply and the explanation of your stance. :)

I couldn't help but notice that the tone of your comment suggests disgust and ridicule, and I'm sorry you feel that way. You find it infuriating that people would be dumb enough to accept evolution as accurate. And yet, I assure you, the people who accept evolution as fact feel the exact same way about your point of view.

So, I feel I cannot respond directly to your points, because reasoned debate cannot be had when each side thinks so precious little of the other.

You have to step back and be willing to accept that there are many reasonable, intelligent, honest, and upstanding people who believe evolution is true. Likewise, I am willing to accept that there are many reasonable, intelligent, honest, and upstanding people who DON'T believe evolution is true.

So, how can this be? You really should think about this question. We ALL should think about this question. It's humbling to be reminded that our grasp of the truth is so tenuous and so subjective.

We could debate the actual facts and evidence for evolution until our faces turn blue, but it would do no good since we've already established that reason alone doesn't seem to bring about revelation in this matter. Rather there is something beyond reason that is interfering with this debate. People are subconsciously (or even consciously) warping reason by choosing to selectively pick the facts that support the side they've already chosen to support in the first place.

People are really good at this kind of selective filtering, especially when they are emotionally motivated. And evolution is a subject that has surely sparked emotional responses. Either the evolutionists, or the creationists, or both, are being motivated by something more than just honest truth-seeking.

If evolution isn't true, why do so many scientists study it and continually reaffirm it? Why do a staggering majority of scientists of all branches of science accept it as fact? Why has evolution stood ever stronger for 140+ years?

One option is that there is some kind of global conspiracy among the scientific community to convince the public of a lie. I don't know what their motive would be other than to erode our belief in God. Maybe it's also some kind of power-play to give intellectuals more control. Young scientists graduating from college are also somehow indoctrinated into this global conspiracy. Maybe learning science opens some kind of gateway that lets the devil control your mind. Scientists who claim to believe in God must be lying.

Another option is that there is no conspiracy among the scientific community and no mind-controlling devil. What is happening instead is people who have faith in the Bible see evolution as a challenge to one aspect of that faith. The Bible, if taken entirely literally, suggests that we were directly created by God. And the idea of being directly created by a God is very compelling, for many reasons. It gives people of faith a strong emotional bias against evolution. Since they have already made up their mind (by faith) that the Bible is completely literally true, they must faithfully fight against anything that disagrees with any part of the Bible.

We all need to ask ourselves, which one of these scenarios is more likely? Is it more likely there is a global conspiracy of science that has lead to (or is a result of) a global brainwashing? Or is it more likely that what we are seeing is human resistance to change, couched in arguments from faith?

Which one of these patterns of behavior have we seen before in human history? I don't remember there ever being a global conspiracy on the scale of evolution. However, I do remember there being many historical events where religion took a strong, emotional, and even violent stance in support of something that was accepted on faith alone. There are even many well documented cases of a religious institution attacking a scientific theory, not with facts, but with the sword, the branding iron, and the rack...and other instruments of torture far worse.

Given that both sides of this debate are populated with reasonable, normal human beings, I ask you, seriously, which side is more likely to be caught up in a well-meaning but misguided response to this issue? Which side has more to lose? The evolutionary scientist might worry about losing his job, but the creationist is worried about losing salvation. Which side is likely to have a more emotional response? And finally, which side is going to be mostly likely to hold their ground against any amount of reasoned debate?

There is no use for me to debate you on the facts. I don't mean to say that in a demeaning way. I have respect for your opinions, and I'm sure you are a reasonable person, just as I am a reasonable person, just as the vast majority of us are reasonable people.

But you have something at stake here that I just can't compete with, no matter what I say.

Perhaps we should just talk about sports? NFL summer training camps start pretty soon.....isn't that something to look forward to? Do you think they have football in heaven?

Fusion: There is no substitute

If news reports are any indication, the general public seems to be overly optimistic about science's ability to deliver truly effective alternative energy sources in the near future. Those who don't have a strong background in chemistry and physics seem to think inventing a new energy source is just an engineering problem like making a faster CPU.

Even recently, I saw a news article touting an "amazing new invention" that can burn saltwater as a fuel by using radio waves. (Look it up in Google. Stories of this invention are all over the internet.)

The very first question that anyone should have asked, before even reporting this story, is "How much energy does it take to generate those radio waves, and is it more energy than you get in return from the hydrogen?" But that question was never asked.

The basic problem is this: When you burn hydrogen (with oxygen), it turns into water. The amount of energy you get out of this reaction is the same amount of energy it takes to separate hydrogen from oxygen in the first place. At best, this invention is a super efficient way of producing hydrogen so that you get back almost 100% of the energy you put in to cause this reaction. That is really neat, and could make generating hydrogen cheaper, but it is no source of "new" energy. It will still take electricity to make hydrogen, and that electricity must come from either nuclear reactors or fossil fuel (for the most part).

It really pains me to be a cynic in this matter. Normally, I would be the last to claim that something was "impossible". Given enough time and ingenuity, mankind seems capable of doing almost anything. However, we must be guarded against the wide-eye view that science can do anything, and do it quickly.

By every model of matter and energy we have come up with to date, including quantum mechanics and string theory, there are only two fundamental sources of energy in the universe: Fission and Fusion.

All sources of energy we use on Earth come from either fusion or fission. Oil is just a form of stored fusion. Fusion powers the sun, which allows plants to bond molecules for storing energy. Plants are eaten by animals who digest these molecules for energy. Large masses of plant and animal material decay and compress over millions of years underground, and that forms oil. Oil has energy because it retains the original complex molecules.

Solar energy, wind energy, and hydro energy are also all forms of fusion power. Every renewable source of energy that we can possibly use must come from the Sun in one way or another.

The only exception to this rule is fission power. Fission power draws energy from the decay of radioactive elements. We can purify and control radioactive materials in ways that can produce great amounts of power.

However, radioactive materials are, themselves, a result of fusion power. Radioactive elements are produced in the cores of massive stars.

Every source of power imaginable comes from fusion power. And strictly speaking, even fusion is not a "source" of energy, but rather a local temporary increase energy that comes at the expense of generating greater entropy in the Universe as a whole.

Unless science comes up with some radical new way to manipulate the very fabric of reality (not gonna happen for a long time), we need to focus on fusion and fission as our only plausible sources of energy. We need to work on technologies that can collect energy from the sun, such as solar panels, wind farms, hydro-electric damns, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.

We also can build more nuclear reactors to take advantage of the radioactive materials we have. But keep in mind that radioactive materials are not a renewable resource. And it also takes a lot of expensive safeguards to use nuclear power safely.

One possible breakthrough in energy generation would be if we could create our own fusion reactor. Right now, fusion technology seems a very far way away. Recreating the center of a sun is no trivial task - it takes fantastic amounts of energy, and it is very difficult to sustain. The sun has the advantage of tremendous amounts of gravity to sustain its fusion reaction.

If it turns out that immense gravity is the only way to sustain a fusion reaction, then the only way to make a fusion reactor is to make another star.

For the the lifetimes of anyone reading this article, we are going to have to maximize solar energy technologies, because our sun's fusion is our best and only long-term solution. All the other things you see making news (ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen fuel cells) only move the problem.

The other shoe that no politician dares to drop is the population problem. Having cheap oil might allow the population to grow to a level that might not be sustainable. There is not enough productive land in the world to grow enough corn and wheat to feed AND fuel the entire Earth. The slight increase in ethanol activity has already caused corn prices to rise.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but I do think it is going to be more difficult (an inconvenient) that most people realize to provide energy and food for 7 billion people using only fusion-derived technologies.

But fusion-derived technologies is all we have.

Simulating Evolution

I recently read an interesting article on simulating Evolution that was posted by ordinarygirl.

This IS a very interesting article! Way cool!

I've seen experiments in simulated evolution before, but this one is one of the most surprising yet.

However, I want to share my own opinion that many of these simulations of Evolution operate under an incomplete view of Evolution. They see Evolution as just natural selection through some kind of "survival of the fittest" mechanism.

That is definitely one aspect of Evolution, and it is an effective mechanism to keep a species adapted to a gradually changing environment.

However, natural selection is not the only driver in Evolution. The other is natural potential.

If you have a pair of mice, and give them easy access to unlimited food and resources and territory, you will have an exponential population explosion of trillions of mice that will cover the entire surface of the Earth with a solid layer of mice in under 5 years.

The fact that our planet isn't covered in mice, even after millions of years, is a reflection of their limited access to resources, and the "virtual" death toll of trillions of unborn potential mice. This outweighs the death toll caused by maladaptive traits, and so is potentially a larger driver of Evolution than merely "survival of the fittest".

If a small number of species can find a way to exploit an untapped resource, or develop a unique adaptation to a given environment, then that variety will temporarily experience that explosive growth potential that leads to the biggest leaps in Evolution.

While this new variety rapidly grows and flourishes, the old variety continues to maintain itself in the manner it always has before. As natural selection continues to put pressure on both varieties to maximize their adaptation to their own environments, this causes the two varieties to pull apart until they become distinct species.

Dog breeding, for example, produces a WIDE variety of dogs. But it doesn't produce a new species. This is because the only mechanism at work is selective breeding (semi-natural selection). There is nothing fundamentally changing in the dogs environment. A dog is still a dog and does doggy things and eats doggy food provided to it by doggy people. :)

But if a group of dogs were able to adapt to a different environment with a different manner of survival...one in which they had different interactions with species around them, and yet had little competition and thus could survive while they adapted to their new life...then you would start to a true split into a new species, and a wildly successful one at that.

To use an analogy: Imagine a large and established corporation. Such an organization is generally only capable of gradual changes as needed to meet changes in it's environment. A large corporation that gets caught up in rapid change usually goes extinct. (Just like well established animals cannot survive rapid changes in their environment.)

But now imagine some of the employees from this large corporation go off and start a new business of their own, taking advantage of some untapped or newly developed market. They might struggle at first, but if they have no immediate competition, and if they are successful, they will grow like crazy with a completely different "corporate DNA" than the parent company. Since this company started small, it had the ability to make rapid fundamental changes as it grows. Established corporations can't do that.

Rapid progress in any industry comes from small companies blooming, not from from killing off (Naturally Selecting) failed companies.

Likewise, having a small population of animals allows favorable genetic changes to spread more quickly and not be drowned out by the masses.

So, a true simulation of Evolution would include simulating a vast and changing multi-variable environment, with an incalculably large number of possible interactions and dependencies. This kind of environment with such vast numbers of possibilities is needed to give all species a chance to stumble into something that is new and yet survivable. And this is what is needed for a new species to arise.

Most of what I've said here is in Darwin's original Origin of Species book. Darwin quite rightly figured out that the Evolution of animals was a far more complicated phenomenon that simply "survival of the fittest". Darwin did not use that phrase in his book. It was coined by someone else later.

So, the whole point of my whole posting is this: It is very tempting to want to simulate evolution with a computer, and see what kind of virtual species you can create. But understand that such a program, if it is to be accurate, would have to be far more complex than any software written to date. Simply trying to create new species by selective breeding is not going to mirror reality. You indeed might create new and surprising species, but it won't be in exactly the way nature would have done it. Such programs tend to succeed by having far more "open-ended" possibilities for viable mutations than what nature actually provides.

If anyone is interested in Evolution, I highly recommend reading Darwin's original book cover to cover. It is a far more complete and insightful coverage of the theory of Evolution than I have found in any other book. (And surely more than I have found in any science class.)

Modern books on Evolution try too hard for the dumbed down approach to explain Evolution in simple and obvious terms. But you miss out on something important if you don't follow all of Darwin's research and reasoning from beginning to end.

Oh, and if you are going to read Origin of Species, you need to find a reproduction of the FIRST edition. There were six editions total, and unfortunately, in each edition, Darwin kept adding crap or tinkering with part of the book to better address questions that were raised in those days. The first edition is best at standing on it's own.

The Grand Delusion

This is a great video. Biting sarcasm, and yet a message with a point comes through loud and clear.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/atheistdelusion

My future is better than your past.

This is just a small observation:

For people of faith, new ideas are merely the children of old ideas. The older a doctrine is, the more certain it is true, for it has stood the test of time and tradition. No books are as sure and true as the oldest books, like the Bible. Old ideas must be given respect and reverance, and not be questioned, for who are we to counter thousands of years of wisdom? New ideas should be treated with suspicion until they are proven to not exceed the bounds of any old idea.

For people of art, philosophy, science, and reason in general, new ideas are maturations of old ideas. It is the old ideas that are childlike and simplistic. What science has learned about nature in the past 100 years trumps (overall) what it has learned in the previous 1000 years. Old ideas are continually questioned and tested. The overthrowing of a old and long-standing scientific theory is especially exciting for a person of reason, and a cause for celebration.

By contrast, overthrowing an old idea is terrifying for a person of faith. And this fear is responsible for centuries of religious persecution and torture in order to preserve those old ideas.

And in these two points of view, we can see echos of the differences between "conservatives" and a "liberals". It's the difference between valuing what has been done in the past, versus a desire to experiment and try new things.

And these differing views of past and present reach into every aspect of everyday life. I know people who put great value on a cookie recipe that has been passed down through many generations. They refuse to make cookies any other way. And I know people who constantly try new and different cookie recipies in a never-ending quest for the "best" cookie.

This is no small difference in personality and character. This is a fundamental difference in the way we see the past, present, and future.

I won't judge which view is "best", because that would depend on what you believe the purpose of life to be. If you believe the purpose of life is to cautiously maintain and preserve our way of life, then perhaps it's valid to look to the past for what has worked best. But if you believe the purpose of life is to progress and improve and change, then it's valid to look to the future for what we can do differently.

Maybe a happy median is to embrace science and technology, and be ready to adapt to the changes (and benefits!) that it brings...but at the same time, keep making those cookies that your great-great-grandmother made, in tribute to her and to those that got us here. :)

An Open Letter to the South

Dear South,

Shut-up.

I was born and raised in Kentucky, and while that is not the deep say-owth, it's close enough that I got a taste of rural suthrn' livin'. And, I think I do have some appreciation for southern life.

I can romanticise small-town southern living where everyone is friendly and honest and happy; where there's always a freckled little boy holding a baseball glove and walking with his dog along side a white picket fence, and there's a little girl with pigtails pulling a red wagon filled with her dollies; where all the women wear long white dresses and bake pies, and all the men have weathered faces and freshly-cut hair.

And I can understand the comfort and attraction of a way of life where everyone is like you, and where change happens slowly, or not at all; where work is hard, but life is easy, because life is simple, and the people are simple; where a man can build his whole life out of a few manual skills and a pocket full of Bible verses.

There is something very "Zen" about mastering the simple life. And I appreciate the wisdom in that. But with the isolation of rural life comes a lack of exposure to a diversity of thoughts and experiences...and that leads to ignorance and an over-simplified understanding of life and of the world around you. In this environment, you become ignorant. It doesn't matter if you have a genius I.Q.; if you live in Mississippi, you live in a comic-book reality, and it will warp your mind. You become resistent to complex answers to any questions.

I know that sounds narrow-minded and harsh for me to speak this way. And I know it sounds like I'm being judgmental. I'm bordering on hypocricy since one of the things I dislike about the Southerners is their tendency towards narrow-minded prejudices.

But here is my point:

The tendency towards ignorance happens in all poor and rural areas all around the world. But it is especially strong in the Southern USA. There is a strain of anti-intellectualism that runs deeper in the south than in any other rural areas in the rest of the country. And I think it can be traced all the way back to the Civil War and their distrust of outsiders. Southerners have really cultivated a pride in their history and their identity, even to the point of being proud of their ignorance. The term "redneck" is flattering praise in the south.

That's what upsets me about certain elements in South: Arrogance combined with Ignorance. And that's dangerous and disruptive. It enables individuals to act strongly and confidently, with great passion and conviction, but without having a clue what they are talking about. And yes, I can't help but think of George W. Bush with his strong moral character and loyalty and leadership, and all these human traits I would ordinarily admire if only he had an intellectual rudder to steer himself. But he seems to be a student in the school of thought that says what we all need is less curiosity and more conviction! Honestly I think we need BOTH.

Every time I hear someone speaking with a southern accent on T.V., I just want to change the channel, because I just assume that something dumb is being said with great conviction. But that's an unfair stereotype and prejudice on my part. I'm old enough now to have been wrong more times that I can count. I do consider myself a bit of a thoughtful and clever person, but I offer all my opinions cautiously and without false pride. I'm willing to waffle in my opinions because that just shows that I'm still thinking and learning.

"A man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."
-- Muhammad Ali

Southerners see "waffling" as a weakness, and so it necessarily follows that they see learning and personal growth as a weakness. It is pure hubris to assume that you are born knowing everything.

So, to the South, I say you DO have much reason to be proud. You have shown great character and resiliency to rebuild your land from some of the darkest periods of our nation's history. But, the pride you have in your accomplishments does not gift you with more "common sense" than the rest of the country. Don't forget the reason you've had to rebuild in the first place: Because you have been fundamentally wrong before, on multiple occasions, and in the not-so-distant past.

You have a wonderful culture to be very proud of, but there is also much you can learn from other cultures. And to those few individuals who I especially target with this Open Letter: put down the microphones and megaphones once in a while, and just relax for a little while and listen. I know that when you grow up in such a close-knit society of people similar to you, it can be so stressful and exasperating to hear opinions contrary to what is obviously true to you. And that just makes you angry enough to shout. But what is plainly true to you is just not plainly true for others. And you need to take the time to understand why that is, because the answer is not so simple as "those people are dumb or brainwashed or lazy". In fact, that's what outsiders think about YOU!

The truth is that the truth is more complex and multi-faceted than anyone realizes. You in the south are so strong, and yet you have seen so little of the world. Take some time to stop and understand the other 98% of the planet that is not like you.

It will do us all some good.

--VL

March of the Presidents

In my lifetime, I don't ever remember so many serious candidates running for President all at once. And each candidate is delivering such cautious and watered-down policy statements that it's hard to tell them apart.

But there are differences between them. You just have to dig.

Here is a cool tool for matching a presidential candidate to your own personal political views.

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

I'm sure it's over simplified, but it was nice to get a "ballpark" feel for where I should start.

Global Warning

This is a really informative article. One of the best I've seen. It covers the common myths and misunderstandings about global climate changes.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Conform or be cast out

Here is an interesting news story...

http://www.glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism

Conspiracy Theories

This is how I feel about conspiracy theories:

http://xkcd.com/c258.html

There are very few true conspiracies out there. It is much more common that the "powers that be" are just plain ignorant.

A House Divided

In public, we tolerate different points of view. But in private, people are narrow-minded bastards....

http://www.glumbert.com/media/atheistkid

An Intelligent Discourse

Even more interesting than the subject matter of this interview, is the highly intelligent and civilized way in which the conversation unfolds. It's a very British (and wonderful) manner to debate politely, and openly admit when the opposition makes a point that carries some merit.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop

Republicans: You're on Notice

I'm putting Republicans on notice for misuse use of the English language.

The current Republican leaders are masters of creating deceptive and manipulative (but catchy!) sound-bite sized phrases that can turn any large or complex topic into a bite-size straw man.

Examples:

"Intelligent Design" - Creationist mythology trying to disguise itself as science.

"Death Tax" - There is no tax on death. There is an income tax on income amounts over $625k that come from estate inheritances. And even then there are plenty of loop holes to ensure that your precious spoiled brat gets all the millions he/she deserves.

"Partial Birth Abortion" - A horribly twisted phrase that doesn't refer to any known medical procedure.

"Patriot Act" - Shortly after 9/11, who would want vote against anything with the word Patriot in it? Nobody would have voted for it if it was called the "Spy on America Act"

"Marriage Penalty" - Nobody ever intended to penalize marriage. The tax code is very complex, and yes there have been times when the tax code worked against low-income couples by placing them in the same tax bracket as a single person making their combined income. However, this tax code also benefited married couples at higher incomes. The marriage penalty is more about tax loopholes for the rich than anything.

"Cut And Run" - This phrase implies cowardice. There was never ever a single democrat who ever suggested "Let's order the troops to RUN AWAY."

"Tax And Spend" - Both parties drove us into the financial trouble we are in. But even worse than "Tax and Spend" is the current Republican policy of "Cut-Tax but still Spend".

"Liberal" - This used to be a good word, meaning someone who was open minded and willing to try new things. Now it's somehow become a slander word, somewhere between "coward" and "traitor".

There are plenty more examples.

Now, I don't want to unfairly pick on the Republicans, because I know all politicians have to be masters of spin to some extent. But I really think the Republicans are more cynical and manipulative with their sound bite spin than Democrats are.

When liberals twist phrases, it's usually in an attempt to put Political Correctness on a subject.

It's not done to scare people or paint the opposition as evil.

Interview Me

I volunteered to be part of an interview chain.

This is where you have to answer 5 questions about yourself to someone, and in return you can ask 5 questions of anyone else who wants to participate.

Here are the questions I got, and my answers:

Q: As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up and why?

A: I wanted to be an astronomer. Once I learned about planets and galaxies, I just couldn't ignore them or get them out of my mind. Like in the movie "The Truman Show", once I got a glimpse of a bigger reality out across the cosmos, I couldn't stop looking for it.

Q. List three things you would do with more free time.

A:
1) I would travel more. I've always wanted to see Europe, and also some of the very remote spots of the globe not yet changed by humans.
2) I would read more. I've collected books for years, like I'm somehow gathering pieces of a puzzle. And someday I want to have the time to read all the books and put it all together. For now, I only have time to read little chunks....a chapter here....a chapter there...etc.
3) I would spend more time with my friends.

Q: If you had to choose between being blind or being deaf, which would you choose and why?
A: Oh my gosh that is a tough one to answer. I've never regretted hearing anything I've ever heard. But I regret seeing many things I've seen. Sight can be so awful. Sight is also a source of great distraction, and a killer of imagination (T.V., video games, etc.) So in many ways, the thought of being blind seems more interesting than being deaf. It would bring my whole world in much closer to me, and would allow me to use much more of my imagination. But from a purely practical aspect, I need my sight more than my hearing to do my job and to do most of the things I love. So, darnit, I guess I'd rather be deaf. That's my practical answer. Being blind would be my "romantic" answer.

Q: What do you most like about your life right now?
A: The security that comes from being "established"...having an established career, and having money saved. No matter what catastrophe befalls me next, I won't end up living under a bridge and digging through garbage. And that feels really good to someone like me who spent the better part of my life alone and living "on the raggedy edge", with little resources and no family to catch me if I failed. I'm really proud of how far I've come and what I've accomplished given the really awful hand I was dealt early on in life.

Q: If you could change one thing in the world, any one thing, what would it be and why?
A: I wish we could move the solar system closer to clusters of other stars. Our long-term survival depends on our ability to get off this Earth before we "use it up" or otherwise find a way to wipe ourselves out.

Okay, that answer went way out of bounds of the question. Let me try again:

I wish we had some kind of technology that could educate people more quickly and easily. Like in the Matrix where they could download lessons directly into the brain. Life is getting increasingly complicated and sophisticated and technical. And the education level of the general populous is not keeping up. So many important issues require at least a college degree (or equivalent study) to understand. I would argue that making informed decisions about global warming, evolution, genetics, stem cell research, foreign governments, health insurance, civil rights, economic theories, etc. requires about 20 years of total education. And the vast majority of people just don't have that. And so they are too easily swayed with appeals to over-simplified (and often religious) answers.

Global Warming? Don't worry, the Rapture is soon. Evolution? Didn't happen. Stem cells? Each one is a human being with a soul. Civil rights? The Bible says women must obey men. Foreign governments? If they aren't Christian, screw em'. Health insurance? God will answer the prayers of the sick. And so on.

The whole planet needs a way to get a lot more educated in a lot less time. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to say that if everyone is educated, they will agree with ME. But I do bet an educated populous would not fall for the polarizing tactics of the major political forces in this country.

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

Okay, those are my answers. If anyone else wants to be interviewed with 5 questions, leave me a comment. :)

VL

When we choose to care

So all the news today is all about the mass murder at Virginia Tech. It was a creepy, scary, violent, and sad event. Sympathy, support, love, and money poor in from all over the country to the surviving families of this tragedy. The news media covers the lives and stories of the slain students.

But I am concerned about the narrow focus of this response. Thousands of people die from gun violence every year, and all those deaths go largely unnoticed. If you want to be remembered for a shooting death, make sure you die with a lot of other people. Don't be gunned down alone!

A family who's house is wiped out by hurricane Katrina gets national media coverage, national sympathy, and financial aid. A family who's house is wiped out by a tornado in Oklahoma is ignored.

15,000+ people are killed every year from drunk driving, and people barely notice. Millions die from war and famine in Africa each year....and we really couldn't care less.

But the 32 people who died at Virginia Tech will receive the full grief and support of our whole nation.

That many people are killed almost every DAY in Iraq, and we don't care (much). And then we wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

I'm not saying I don't understand why this happens. I've been a sucker for the news coverage and sad stories from the Virginia Tech massacre myself. But I do find it terribly unfair and unfortunate that our national sense of tragedy is only capable of such limited and narrow focus.

There is more death and suffering in the world than any person can deal with, and so we pick and choose just a very few people to help and feel sorry for. And we pick those people who are most like us, and who come in the most convenient packaging.

I'm sure there are many parents across the nation who have lost a child due to senseless violence, and watched their child pass into obscurity, never to be remembered. And I wonder if they look at the news coverage of the Virgina Tech massacre...and the video tributes to individual kids who died...and I wonder if they think "What about MY child?"