Question 1: Is Evolution by Natural Selection a correct description for Nature?
Answer: No
Result: I probably can't get through to you so stop reading right now.
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 2
Question 2: Does Evolution by Natural Selection describe the survival of the fittest?
Answer: No
Result: Go read evolution
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 3
Question 3: Is perturbing the survival of the fittest against evolution and therefore against Nature?
Answer No:
Result: What you talkin' about, Willis?
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 4
Question 4: Is allowing the weakest in society to gain from the strongest a perturbation of the fittest (e.g. deliberately feeding the weakest over the strongest)?
Answer: No
Result: Don't want no more jibber jabber
Answer: Yes
Result: You believe that giving to the poor is unnatural
This is perhaps a little harsh because there are other factors that need to be considered and this is obviously grossly simplified. Are civilisation and charity a part of natural selection? By making our society better by sharing out resources to the weaker members are the fittest altruistically helping themselves and thereby fitting in with evolutionary theory by creating as better society for their descendants? Quite possibly in my view.
It would certainly be extremely right-wing and bordering on fascist or naziist to start to examine society and try to "help along" evolution by cutting off support for our weaker members (by weaker I don't just mean obvious examples like people with disabilities or lack of certain kinds of intelligence, it could also mean members who have genetic "faults", e.g. disposition towards violence etc).
In no way would I condone a change to the way society helps the needy (except for increasing it, in my opinion), however there is sometimes in the UK, perhaps inevitably, and running throughout all walks of life, an anti-fittest attitude. For example, it's common to knock those who are better at something; I remember distinctly feeling embarrassed about my intelligence at school and learnt to feel that to not care and to "dumb oneself down" (albeit superficially) was preferable to enable getting on with people; being labeled a swot (not that I was). It's not a well-known part of our culture, but I think it's definitely there in contrast to many other countries.
This was brought to my mind by recent news on the American health care crisis. About one fifth of Americans have either no health care or limited cover. This is an astonishing number and makes one wonder how this can come about. The thing that struck me is that there must be a pervading selfishness amongst many who have sufficient care that enables them to ignore the fact that a large proportion of their own society are so poor.
It then struck me that it's not a real selfishness, but of a feeling of survival of the fittest. America was founded on a sort of free-for-all society where the strongest did best. I think this attitude still prevails today to a certain extent, especially amongst Republicans, and it seems easy for them to look down their noses at the less well off because they think that they deserve it. This is not selfishness, but a specific decision to prejudge. More evidence of this is the increasing fracturisation in American society into those who have and those who have not. Gated communities are growing faster than ever and are most often desirable not for what's inside the gates, but what's outside the gates (e.g. the lower classes). The lower classes, for whatever reason, including, on occasion, their own ineptitude, have been denied some of the benefits and opportunities that the other tranches of society have profitted from. This places them on an uphill struggle made worse when others look down on them and hinder their progress.
In any event, whether the UK values its fittest or not or whether the US values its weakest or not, it can be argued that in the US and the UK there is a growing amoral sub-class with too few prospects and it's a fear of this that gated communities seek to benefit from (and they do).
The governments are just hiding from these facts. Crime is increasing and society is becoming increasingly fractured. No-one seems to be stating the obvious, honest reasons for any of this (I have certainly not heard it if they have).
I imagine the US will sort their healthcare out (when the Democrats assume Executive power), but it will certainly be a hot potato! I can't see what will happen in the UK. Supposedly we already have a left-wing government, but they don't seem too keen to address the problems of either the high crime rate or the issues causing them. I guess we'll have to wait for a right-wing government to clamp down harder on crime. In the meantime I'll be looking for a nice gated community somewhere (seriously).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4664
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/05/argument-wanted-universal-health-care.html
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
DNA
Q: Why are redneck murders so hard to solve?
I honestly don't know what the fuss is about (see this link). It seems obvious to me that we should have everyone's DNA on record so that in the event of a crime being unsolved the police can use this database to pinpoint (with some technical caveats of course) the guilty person.
I have many liberal and free-thinking views, but when it comes to law and order and crime I believe that the most important objective of society is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. There are many philosophical and moral arguments about how we structure our laws and how society itself breeds criminals, but at the end of the day everyone knows wrong from right (and therefore knows what the law is, especially violent crime) that it's pure arrogance on the behalf of criminals to commit any sort of legal wrong.
The only argument I have heard against keeping innocent people's DNA on record is that it may be used for purposes for which it is not designed or authorised, but I would say that is a different issue and there should be legal, unbreakable rules governing the use of sensitive data like this which must make it impossible to use this data for anything else.
I would also be happy to hive the innocent DNA into a separate database so that it is only used for unsolved crimes and the guilty DNA is searched first (purely a technicality, but there has to be some sort of way to sell this better to the idiots in society who, perversely, have a vote).
In my opinion our DNA should be stored from birth. There are probably scientific benefits which we haven't seen yet to having this material available. In the future it will almost certainly be possible to clone a human from DNA samples. I believe that in the future our morals and sensibilities will change too which will allow us to consider cloning a dead relative for example. This may seem abhorrent now to some (not to me), but at some point this sort of thing will be quite normal. There are surely many other benefits from recreating sperm or eggs when infertility strikes prematurely to growing organs for transplant.
So why prevent our DNA from being on record? It seems that there are people who just want to hide from society. They're very happy to have the trappings of a modern, successful civilisation (bananas, TV, electricity etc), but they're not willing to pay the inevitable price for this: to be part of a society properly where everyone works together to prevent others from harming the group. People talk about Big Brother, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as there are foolproof checks against data being used wrongly then what's wrong with having a Big Brother watching out for us all. Anything that prevents crime gets my vote.
A: The DNA is all the same and There are no dental record
I honestly don't know what the fuss is about (see this link). It seems obvious to me that we should have everyone's DNA on record so that in the event of a crime being unsolved the police can use this database to pinpoint (with some technical caveats of course) the guilty person.
I have many liberal and free-thinking views, but when it comes to law and order and crime I believe that the most important objective of society is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. There are many philosophical and moral arguments about how we structure our laws and how society itself breeds criminals, but at the end of the day everyone knows wrong from right (and therefore knows what the law is, especially violent crime) that it's pure arrogance on the behalf of criminals to commit any sort of legal wrong.
The only argument I have heard against keeping innocent people's DNA on record is that it may be used for purposes for which it is not designed or authorised, but I would say that is a different issue and there should be legal, unbreakable rules governing the use of sensitive data like this which must make it impossible to use this data for anything else.
I would also be happy to hive the innocent DNA into a separate database so that it is only used for unsolved crimes and the guilty DNA is searched first (purely a technicality, but there has to be some sort of way to sell this better to the idiots in society who, perversely, have a vote).
In my opinion our DNA should be stored from birth. There are probably scientific benefits which we haven't seen yet to having this material available. In the future it will almost certainly be possible to clone a human from DNA samples. I believe that in the future our morals and sensibilities will change too which will allow us to consider cloning a dead relative for example. This may seem abhorrent now to some (not to me), but at some point this sort of thing will be quite normal. There are surely many other benefits from recreating sperm or eggs when infertility strikes prematurely to growing organs for transplant.
So why prevent our DNA from being on record? It seems that there are people who just want to hide from society. They're very happy to have the trappings of a modern, successful civilisation (bananas, TV, electricity etc), but they're not willing to pay the inevitable price for this: to be part of a society properly where everyone works together to prevent others from harming the group. People talk about Big Brother, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as there are foolproof checks against data being used wrongly then what's wrong with having a Big Brother watching out for us all. Anything that prevents crime gets my vote.
A: The DNA is all the same and There are no dental record
Friday, September 14, 2007
Taxonomi
Being a geeky sort of database guy I come across problems involving data and information all the time. A classic example is the classification of objects or entities in order to store, search and manuipulate them. Relational Databases are very good at doing this, however they need to be used correctly. In order to use them correctly it's often necessary to categorise every entity with a unique number.
I mentioned to the wife a year or so ago about how it would be helpful to have a global categorisation for every object or entity on the planet (think of an object as a type of thing, like toilet seat or laptop or diamond). This would make our lives so much more easy if every kind of thing had a unique reference number. For example if you knew that you wanted a specific thing like a bracket to attach a toilet seat to the porcelain base unit and you were able to search through a catalogue, then you could pinpoint the reference number and take it with you to the local shop and purchase with ease the item you need instead of having to grapple with technical details with the local expert in the shop.
I was reminded of this idea by an article today. It only touches on the idea, but the fact that it is being mentioned at all has made me think about my idea again.
If there was a website that acted as a search facility and entity registration portal then I think that would be a good start. The amount of work involved in getting something like this to a usable point is huge and I really don't think it'll every come to anything, but it's certainly worth thinking about and for the sake of a simple website and some research I might just try it out .... The growth pattern for this project would be exponential (or certainly slow initial growth followed by huge later increases).
By the way: if anyone knows of a service already like this please let me know
I mentioned to the wife a year or so ago about how it would be helpful to have a global categorisation for every object or entity on the planet (think of an object as a type of thing, like toilet seat or laptop or diamond). This would make our lives so much more easy if every kind of thing had a unique reference number. For example if you knew that you wanted a specific thing like a bracket to attach a toilet seat to the porcelain base unit and you were able to search through a catalogue, then you could pinpoint the reference number and take it with you to the local shop and purchase with ease the item you need instead of having to grapple with technical details with the local expert in the shop.
I was reminded of this idea by an article today. It only touches on the idea, but the fact that it is being mentioned at all has made me think about my idea again.
If there was a website that acted as a search facility and entity registration portal then I think that would be a good start. The amount of work involved in getting something like this to a usable point is huge and I really don't think it'll every come to anything, but it's certainly worth thinking about and for the sake of a simple website and some research I might just try it out .... The growth pattern for this project would be exponential (or certainly slow initial growth followed by huge later increases).
By the way: if anyone knows of a service already like this please let me know
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Energy
The world is heating up and it's due to human consumption. That's the theory, but I am yet to be 100% convinced that it's not just "natural" fluctuation. There is certainly a lot of hot air (;-}) spouted about the subject and it's becoming a multi-billion dollar industry to manage the "crisis".
One of the chief arguments that bloated Americans (for example) give for their use of energy is that there's nothing to worry about since most inventions and discovery come from adversity and if we need a way to cool the planet then science and technology will provide it. You certainly can't deny that so much is invented in times of stress and need, but it's a risky premise, isn't it?
Apparently not. It would appear that we have no problems: our planet is teeming with free energy (we're all made out of the stuff anyway, aren't we?!) if this link is anything to go by. Also take a look at this!
I don't exactly think our worries are over, but it just doesn't make sense to me to panic about this since there's so much energy out there for the taking (long term affects aside: the planet is not a closed energy system and therefore we need to be thinking in global energy/entropy terms about our wind and solar panel farms).
What worries me more is that bureaucracy and inertia will hamper developing the multitude of techniques available (here's another one: link). It seems much more likely that we will be wiped out not from being too hot, but from being too lazy, stupid and officious.
I'm still going to recycle as much as I can, but I will continue to use energy as I have done (which already includes turning off lights etc). It can't hurt to be more aware of one's energy footprint.
One of the chief arguments that bloated Americans (for example) give for their use of energy is that there's nothing to worry about since most inventions and discovery come from adversity and if we need a way to cool the planet then science and technology will provide it. You certainly can't deny that so much is invented in times of stress and need, but it's a risky premise, isn't it?
Apparently not. It would appear that we have no problems: our planet is teeming with free energy (we're all made out of the stuff anyway, aren't we?!) if this link is anything to go by. Also take a look at this!
I don't exactly think our worries are over, but it just doesn't make sense to me to panic about this since there's so much energy out there for the taking (long term affects aside: the planet is not a closed energy system and therefore we need to be thinking in global energy/entropy terms about our wind and solar panel farms).
What worries me more is that bureaucracy and inertia will hamper developing the multitude of techniques available (here's another one: link). It seems much more likely that we will be wiped out not from being too hot, but from being too lazy, stupid and officious.
I'm still going to recycle as much as I can, but I will continue to use energy as I have done (which already includes turning off lights etc). It can't hurt to be more aware of one's energy footprint.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Pigs might fly
Whilst I appreciate that I'm becoming more and more middle-aged and the trappings of middle age are becoming me more and more, specifically issues relating to law and order and society in general I have to protest, yet again, to my blog about the state of the legal system in the UK at the moment. Perhaps I am missing something and perhaps the press are misrepresenting the truth, but since this seems to happen with worrying and increasing frequency (see previous post) I have to think that it is really happening and our society is going mad! I remember my parents railing against similar injustices so perhaps it's just "my time" and there is no greater incidence of crazy sentencing or judgements than previously, but for God's sake (!), what is this about: link !!!
I have nothing at all against drinking and smoking and in fact I have nothing against any substance at all if used with care, but to drink 2 bottles of wine and smoke a shit-load of pot whilst looking after a child is, in my opinion, a criminal offence worthy of 12 months in gaol. This woman (whilst not deserving of that title) almost certainly deserves 10 years in gaol.
I guess I'm not privy to the information that the jury is privy to, but I cannot understand (my bad, of course) why a jury found her not guilty. What part of "imbibing oneself to semi-consciousness and allowing a dog to kill a child" did they not understand!
I can only imagine that the law has become so back-footed that it has to be outrageously obvious for any conviction to occur.
I have recently seen an interesting article which I balked at at first, but upon reflection began to believe it (if only partially): link.
I think another consequence of heading towards one's middle age is becoming more conservative. I have mentioned in this blog before about the rising anti-Islamic feeling in the West and how it's not necessarily a racist issue, but more one of respectfulness. This recent article reminded me of that and also made me think that perhaps it is right to react against change when it is only for people who seem to keep on taking without end. This is in no way a racist outburst. I feel strongly that we need immigration, but only with full integration. I don't think that many immigrants feel that way; it seems that immigration is fine, but integration is not. Of course it's not an easy issue and the incumbent population are more to blame than the immigrating one.
The onus is on the West to stand up for what it believes in. This is what George Bush Jnr et al think they have done, but they have done it in an underhand and calculated way. There has to be an honest and open discussion of what our values are in the West and once we can agree on that we have to stick to them.
.... and then pigs will truly fly ....
I have nothing at all against drinking and smoking and in fact I have nothing against any substance at all if used with care, but to drink 2 bottles of wine and smoke a shit-load of pot whilst looking after a child is, in my opinion, a criminal offence worthy of 12 months in gaol. This woman (whilst not deserving of that title) almost certainly deserves 10 years in gaol.
I guess I'm not privy to the information that the jury is privy to, but I cannot understand (my bad, of course) why a jury found her not guilty. What part of "imbibing oneself to semi-consciousness and allowing a dog to kill a child" did they not understand!
I can only imagine that the law has become so back-footed that it has to be outrageously obvious for any conviction to occur.
I have recently seen an interesting article which I balked at at first, but upon reflection began to believe it (if only partially): link.
I think another consequence of heading towards one's middle age is becoming more conservative. I have mentioned in this blog before about the rising anti-Islamic feeling in the West and how it's not necessarily a racist issue, but more one of respectfulness. This recent article reminded me of that and also made me think that perhaps it is right to react against change when it is only for people who seem to keep on taking without end. This is in no way a racist outburst. I feel strongly that we need immigration, but only with full integration. I don't think that many immigrants feel that way; it seems that immigration is fine, but integration is not. Of course it's not an easy issue and the incumbent population are more to blame than the immigrating one.
The onus is on the West to stand up for what it believes in. This is what George Bush Jnr et al think they have done, but they have done it in an underhand and calculated way. There has to be an honest and open discussion of what our values are in the West and once we can agree on that we have to stick to them.
.... and then pigs will truly fly ....
Friday, September 07, 2007
Murder
This is murder: link.
How anyone in their right mind can think that 1 year in prison is enough punishment is completely beyond me.
We have just returned from France, and whilst I don't have details of the French legal system and sentencing I get the feeling that they are more right-minded than the Brits who let people literally get away with murder.
This is an embarrasing and gut-wrenching disgrace that makes me want to leave this country for good.
How anyone in their right mind can think that 1 year in prison is enough punishment is completely beyond me.
We have just returned from France, and whilst I don't have details of the French legal system and sentencing I get the feeling that they are more right-minded than the Brits who let people literally get away with murder.
This is an embarrasing and gut-wrenching disgrace that makes me want to leave this country for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)