Stereotypical penny-pinching Scotty?!

I was amused recently by the story of James Doohan's ashes being blasted into space and then lost upon re-entry to Earth (link). It seemed ironic given that the character he played in Star Trek (Scotty) travelled across the known universe and back several times and yet in real life he couldn't make it past low Earth orbit. It seems, however, that it was intented to return to Earth with a bang (although losing the ashes was not part of the mission).

What I found difficult to imagine was why he (or his family) decided that this low level voyage was appropriate. I had discussions with my wife about this where I was arguing that it can't be too difficult to go a bit further and leave the Earth orbit entirely, whereas my wife argued that it must be more difficult and hence more expensive and that was the reason they don't do it. After numerous discussions involving Escape Velocities and Return On Investment we agreed to differ. It seems, though (link), that we were both right. The aeronautical company that runs the space-ashes-blasting services offers different grades of ashes-blasting including the one that Mr Doohan opted for (Earth Rise Service), but also a Voyager Service which includes sending ashes out of Earth-Moon system gravity and into "deep space" (which probably means smashing into Jupiter). The difference in price is great, but you still have to wonder why $12,500 was considered not worth it and an ignoble return to Earth was acceptible.

Let's hope Messrs Nimoy and Shatner's ambitions for space travel are more worthy of their on-screen personae...

A non-parasitic woman has arrived

I had thought that perceptions of beauty and handsomeness changed over time, however seeing this article today (link) has made me re-think. Nefertiti, if this ancient reproduction is anything to go by, was a beautiful woman by today's standards (most people's standards in Western countries anyway) as well as by ancient Egypt's.

I have never seen a more life-like antiquity and it's a very stunning image and one that could certainly grace the cover of any fashion magazine these days.

I understand some of the psychology of beauty, including ideas like symmetry and averaging, but I had assumed that these were relatively recent ideas (mostly sub-conscious) and, like ideal body-shapes, varied with each civilisation. It would appear, however, that beauty is more constant than that and, in fact, hasn't changed much in a long, long time due to deep-seated psychological necessity (see this link for examples). In the distant past, to have "beautiful" charactersistics must have been relatively rare and therefore more desirable. Our brains have carried this idea forward to today (via the ancient world, including Nefertiti) and so today we still desire more perfect (i.e. not damaged or infected) appearances.

In our "advanced", Western civilisation, where there is little disease and certainly not much parasitic infection to worry about, it would seem that this idea of beauty is not necessary for propagation of genes (the very reason we have ideas like beauty and child-bearing/child-rearing fitness at all).

Some say that evolution is finished for humanity and that we have progressed beyond being controlled by it. I would dispute that idea entirely and even with the fact that we have technology that will undoubtedly change the way we evolve, it's obvious to me that even in the short term (hundreds or thousands of years) humanity will evolve, in unexpected and obvious ways (e.g. we will probably not evolve an extra finger so that we can reach the CTRL key on computer keyboards!!), but in ways such as moving away from the dependance on physical attractiveness, or wealth to find an appropriate mate.

This in turn would have profound affects on society. A civilisation not bound up in superficialities is a dream for some people and I believe it to be a reality for my great, great grandchildren.

Either that or they'll have a tummy pouch for keeping the TV remote in!!