Futile Attempts for a Purpose in Life

It is often the case that as people try to find purpose in life, they often redefine the universe to suit their feelings. Often, they feel they know the truth, and that by just closing their eyes, and touching the spirit of the universe, the truth is revealed to them. These people are not necessarily religious, not in the organized sense. In fact, many moderate religious people believe that there is some truth in all religions, and often attempt to explain that they all lead to a similar path of supposed enlightenment. It's as though all the roads lead to a place that they seek, and from which some type of esoteric truth can be discerned. The actual truth is that human curiosity can lead to numerous imaginary, but false roads, when in fact, a decent rudimentary knowledge of science can actually illuminate the processes that govern our universe. Outside of any solipsism, where one believes that their own mind is the only reality that exists, and all others are subject to one's unique thought processes, the physical properties of our universe are there to be uncovered and understood through the empirical and rigorous process of the scientific method. Besides a world-view entrenched in solipsism, we can make a few general assumptions governing properties of our universe that we can use to explain the emerging physics, chemistry, and biology found within. Of primary importance is to realize that there are certain physical laws common throughout the length and breath of the universe, and that these laws have resulted in complex interactions that have lead from random fluctuations in quantum physics, to arrangements of atoms into chemical structures. Furthermore, we know that in at least one closed environment (the Earth), the natural laws were favorable for chemical reactions that lead to complex information carrying molecules which subsequently arranged themselves into biological structures, eventually leading to the human species. With mountains of data in various different scientific disciplines, there is very little contrary evidence to this. Naturally, gaps in the processes that lead to life on earth do exist, but as we progress, both technically and scientifically, we come to understand a great deal more. As old questions are answered, countless new ones are generated, and the accumulative power of the scientific method is strengthened. Furthermore, with the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, using comparative methods, we may indeed get nearer to understand how life got a foothold, and perhaps to define life itself. Still, even with all of this scientific progress, there are spiritual types who believe that we are all bound by some undefined energies link us all together in some kind of soul or spirit (depending on who is asked, some believe that every living being has a soul, others that every object within the universe, and still others that only sentient, self-aware life). These people are just hoping for something, out of fear, comfort, and ignorance. They are far from stupid people, in fact, many are very intelligent. Yet, they compartmentalize their minds and due to a highly active emotional response, keep areas of their brain from letting go of constructed garbage, and in doing so, accepting credulous nonsense. These days, the credulous things have evolved towards new-aged religions. It's an offshoot of principles from their indoctrinated traditional religious views, mixed and melded with tolerant principles of other religions. They have drifted from defining a sense of God in a personified form, into defining it as the "binding spirit" of the universe. In essence then, defining God as the prime mover, or the prime observer, or the binding energy of everything, for some just living things, while for others, all that is matter and energy combined. It all sounds wonderfully poetic and meaningful, but ultimately childish. It's hard to break this attachment to a higher authority, and realize that we're on our own as human beings. All we have for comfort and support are other human beings. This understanding will not destroy civilization but save it from religious hysteria, illogic, and inherent hypocrisy. Progress is possible, even with the interjection of spirituality in daily life, but ultimately, the process is slowed by archaic notions and traditionalists who attempt to define reality by altering the governing processes of the universe.

Republicans are the Borg

While observing the Republican party's PR machine, it's striking that they have developed a system by which they assimilate thoughts and ideas, forming them into a collective, and disseminating their treacherous message to any victim that may fall prey to their arguments. The issues that Republicans stand for may appear morally just on the surface (at least to those with weak minds), but their archaic and aged rhetoric is a result of inherent fears. They fear change that may suddenly take the reasoning abilities of average people to higher levels of cultural and moral development. Without the constraints of religion, the moral and ethical guidelines that we, modern human beings should follow, would come from our biological, evolutionary adapted past. We evolved certain moral sensibilities to function within a small social network. We are no longer small tight-knit clans aiming to expand our territory and adapting the environment to suit our personal needs. We have evolved culturally to a point where millions of people inhabit the same amount of land that perhaps a few clans 10,000 years ago were living. With these added social pressures, constraints, and stresses, we have come to realize that our ethical codes must adapt towards humanism, protection of civil liberties, and the inherent freedom that every single human being should be born with. It's unfortunate that so many people are born into poverty, disease, warfare, and other such malicious environments. These disadvantages may be overcome in isolated instances, but for the most part, many are trapped within their socio-economic bubbles. Of tantamount importance, in order to break free of these chains, is the concept of a thorough early education, and the method of learning involving critical thinking and rationality. The lack of these two factors is a major contributing force towards polarization and the unrestrained tyrannical control of a population. The Republican party's platforms include social restraints, religions indoctrination, polarized populations, and domination through fear, intimidation, and sheer lust for power. The Democratic party certainly has their own demons to fear, but their weakened will, and tolerant behavior towards tyranny is by far the most shameful and disgusting characteristic. It reminds me of Patrick Stewards famous line in Star Trek "First Contact" when speaking of the Borg threat "We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" The parallels between this particular fictional narrative and reality are not that different. We progressives (not singling democrats but all liberal thinkers) are constantly standing down when faced with the Republican rhetoric. They intimidate the populace through fear, and draw anyone who stand in their way as cowards and unpatriotic drolls. They assimilate entire worlds of ideas, and reformulate them to fit within the unsound bounds of their ideologies. The line truly must be drawn within this generation, and we should no longer have to play by their rules. Every time they attack our progressive ideas, we retreat into behavioral modes of niceness. We assume that only through our understanding, patience, and kindess, will their ideas falter. The truth is that we cannot remain in the defensive. We must attack these stupid ideas head-on, without flinching or feelings of remorse. We must take back our sovereignty by abiding to the constitutional framework that changed not only America but the world. We must use our Diplomatic skills cunningly, engage the scientific curiosity of the population, and constantly fight to highlight the benefits of a progressive, rational and reasonable world. The countless issues involving the environment, medicine, disease prevention, poverty, international debt, resource exploitation, political interference through saber rattling and clandestine games, must be brought to the forefront and placed on the collective palate of the American people. We should re-establish a Democracy of the people, not of the powerful lobbyists and corporations. The future of the United States and the World depends on this generation taking a stand against this Borg-like entity of conservatives that manipulate the system to attain new levels of power and influence.

Listen here all you politicians, you lying, cheating, war-mongering, theocratic, tyrannical bastards of all walks of life (yes, this includes you Democrats as well), the time for compromises is at an end. Your time as leaders is going to be over real soon, and you will find a generation of non-compliant Americans fighting your every move. The Borg Menace must be, and will be stopped. You cannot restrain progress, no matter how you try. Your resistance will be futile.


A Similar Article: Fighting Words: How to Humiliate -- and Convert -- a Right-Winger

Lessons on the 5th year of the Iraq War

It has now been 5 years to the day that the Bush regime allowed the travesty that has been the Iraq War to commence. They had thousands of advisers, and whether they really believed them, or decided to manipulate the American people even though silently knowing that the current situation was inevitable, doesn't change the fact that we are now entrenched in a quagmire like Vietnam, with no end in sight. Should American troops withdraw today, then Iraq will probably revert to a long period of drawn-out extensive internal conflicts, a deepening of the civil war currently raging, and drawing neighboring countries into the ensuing pit of despair. Should the troops remain, then they would be stretched too thin, and our standing in the world will continue to freefall. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions, but clearly, one of them has to be to reduce our presence in Iraq, regardless of the ramifications. We cannot continue on a path towards idiocy when all efforts have proved futile. At the moment, some optimists and delusional individuals assume that the reduction in recent violence will continue unabated. The truth is that both Shi'a and Sunni are arming themselves for a long drawn out bitter conflict over the ruins of what will be Iraq. This short-sighted, treacherous administration has allowed, through perjury, rampant idiocy, and stupid ideological beliefs, a conflict that will only escalate for the coming decades. When people look upon this generation, they will wonder how so many followed in such silent and obedient steps behind the stupidest and most ill-conceived international policies. We handed the world a hate card for being American, and allowed ourselves to enter a period of dwindling resources, severe recession, and heavy pessimism. Digging out of this hole is a task that may take decades to accomplish, and even then, our standing in the world will never be what it once was.

A lesson to be learned from this tragedy, beyond all the obvious ones such as checking facts, relying on proper information, upholding constitutional standards, and abiding by a moral code that puts human beings ahead of economic agendas, is that even individuals with powers that far exceed our own can often be wrong. They are no better at judging our future then the educated person with a rational and open mind. We provide so much faith in our so called leaders, to guide us, drive our agendas, and hope that through it all, our desires can be accomplished, and we will all be better off in the end. The truth of the matter is that these individuals are selfish and greedy human beings, who look out for their own skin and their own bank accounts. They are above the law in so many ways, that it's unbelievable that they have the freedoms they do. They wantonly commit perjury, desecration of our civil liberties, and constant hypocritical modes of behavior that would shame even the most extremist terrorists. Their constant control of the masses, over polarizing issues like abortion, gun control, sexual orientation, religious values only blind the population from seeing the lying pathetic pigs that they are. There is no aura or mysticism associated with these bastards who hold high elected offices. Who cares about their degrees in politics, law, economics, etc, when they act selfishly? We are so quick to criticize Communist or Fascist dictators, when our elected officials don't exactly behave differently. Our democracy is a facade hidden under greedy corporate capitalists. This doesn't mean one must advocate communism or socialism, but our mode of capitalism only helps the elite, and encumbers the masses. We are far from a truly egalitarian society, and although there are many complex reasons for the divisions, greed and power are never far from the equation.

Ultimately then, just as blind faith in religion, a higher power, or some supernatural entity is wrong, similarly, blind faith in elected officials, ideology and nationalism are also wrong. There are various levels of faith, but as long as one suspends their skepticism and their rational mind, and allows some idea that has no basis outside of the human mind to exist, then we're all slaves to a system. It does help to have some level of background education, but many are capable of breaking the chains of mental manipulation when taught to think skeptically and rationally. Basing facts on empirical evidence, and observation, is but one change that must be sought. Increasing an interest in the real world, outside of human ideology is another aspect that must be strengthened. For all of our ills, and problems, ultimately, they are meaningless to the cosmos. Does the universe really care if one decides abortion is moral? Some may say yes, but those individuals are allowing their faith in an imaginary entity to dictate what moral and humanitarian beliefs should be upheld. Our morality is based on our evolutionary past, and we should strive to approach an egalitarian society, where disparity between people is more equalized. Not to argue for complete equality, because as individuals, every human being is different, but as more people begin to think critically, and question ideology, much can be accomplished in the world.

Although the Iraq war, among many other facts active in the American experience, has set us decades back from rigorous democracy and global diplomacy, all is not lost. As long as a segment of the populations operates skeptically, and with an open and rational mind, then there is hope for the future. The divisive issues of the time are just props used by the elite to control the general populace into herd behavior. We, the people, are cattle, to be driven across the landscape, milked of everything we have, devoid of freedom and the open air, constantly providing resources to those few we ourselves select. It's unimaginable that an enlightened human being can provide someone else with so much power. These idiots speak of freedom, liberty, and democracy; they talk highly of being moral, law abiding, religious individuals, when they are often, worse then the general populace. Their supposed religious values are a farce. They claim that they abide by a higher power, and those who are not religious are egotistical, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly abiding by a higher, moral power is stunning. They are just using these religious values to control the populace, pretending to be interested in what some idiot preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, monk, guru, or sociopath has to say. The only true democratic development would be to rip the power away from the hands of these tyrannical bastards and back to the properly educated people. The way to do that would be to reorganize the electorate, allow more then 2 parties to dominate the political landscape, have a truly independent, open and honest media, and allow for greater accountability for elected officials. Reorganize the corporate democracy we have now wouldn't be such a bad idea either, and last of all, no campaigning years before an election. Campaigns should be as short as possible, with 10 debates, with questions that are asked by randomly selected individuals. No prepared statements or speeches, but a true test of the capability of these candidates. Finally, and most importantly, spend as much money as possible on a centralized educational system where every student across the country between kindergarten and high school has the same curriculum. A little freedom should be allowed by the high school level. All the trillions that are projected to be spent in Iraq could better have been spent on education, science, research and development, social services, etc. The greatest tragedy of all is that people are willing to be lied towards entering a costly and unending war out of fear, but spending the same amount of money on infrastructure and the advancement of society is frowned upon and argued endlessly.

On the Celebration of Darwin's Birthday

This year marks the 199th birthday of Charles Darwin, and the 149th since his seminal paper "On the Origin of Species" was published. Every year, on the anniversary of his birth, those of us who revel in the wonder that is science, especially in biology and evolutionary theory, celebrate this amazing man's birth. It must be understood that we're not deifying him, or placing him on some unreachable platform. We realize that he was a human being, just like every human being, with faults, and fears. His thoughts, of course, are archaic to us now, because even the most progressive individual of Darwin's time is considered racist in our current society. We can't fault a man for being wrong in certain ethical and moral ramifications when the social currents of his time were quite different then our own. Yet, he furthered our understanding of how nature created the vast diversity in species that we see in our world. Before Darwin, it was simple for many people to assume that species were created by a creator in their final form, yet, with Darwin's help, we now know that we don't have to inject a creator into explaining species diversity and forms. In fact, there is no such thing as a final form, or a static species, since we're constantly evolving anyway.

Not only was Darwin's discovery brilliant, but was further solidified with the isolation of the molecule in charge of genetic inheritance -- DNA. With DNA, we now had the proverbial smoking gun that allowed for random mutations and genetic changes within or genetic code. We could now follow and track the changes in the genes that resulted in such species diversity. By using molecular clocks, small fragments of certain genetic information that mutate at a known rate, we could date the approximate times that species diverged from each other. Coupled with the amazing new fossil discovery, an increase in understanding comparative anatomy, geological breakthroughs, radio-chemical tools, and other such data, we can correlate these scientific principles into a cohesive whole. Out of all this evidence, Darwin's idea has become irrefutable. When we say that Evolution is a theory, it must be understood that in science, a theory is a postulate that is backed up by evidence. In the case of Evolution through natural selection, we have a mountain of evidence to support it. Further, understanding evolution and natural selection has allowed us to probe deeper into unrelated fields like artificial intelligence and economic cycles. We now have a better understanding of a diversity of subjects because we can grasp the principles of natural selection.

In essence then, we can't fault a man for being far from perfect, because like all of us, Darwin had behaviors, characteristics, and personality traits that were less than ideal. However, we are not judging Darwin on his moral or ethical behavior, but on his scientific theory. He deserves the highly praised merit he constantly receives because his enlightening theory allowed the true study of biology to flourish. Before understanding such a deep and far reaching natural process, biologists were relegated to categorizing organisms based on appearance, whether anatomical or behavioral. As we slowly begin to fill the gaps in our understading of certain evolutionary traits, transitional fossils, and anatomical developments, we inch closer and closer to fully realizing our origins and place in the grand scheme of life on Earth. All does not begin and end with evolution however, because there are countless areas in the sciences that need to be further realized. For one, evolution does not explain how life started in the first place. There are many good theories, but no discrete evidence just yet. These, and other such unknowns are why science will always strive to fill gaps in our knowledge. We are a curious species, and the more of the natural world that we can uncover, the greater not only our understanding, but our ability to treat and cure the ills of society. These scientific principles are not just a selfish attempt at attaining knowledge but also a tool towards furthering out understanding and treatments of diseases, even helping to establish a more balanced environment such as reduction carbon emissions through modifying bacteria to fixate carbon and methane at a faster rate into harmless byproducts (perhaps even carbon containing waste that can be used to burn cleaner fuels).

Presidential Elections = Childish Game

As you may have all heard, there are Presidential elections coming up in November, and the field of candidates is continuously narrowing. We now have a clear front runner and probable Republican nominee in McCain, and as for the Democratic Race, it's a tight one between Obama and Clinton. What an interesting and politically charted development, but unfortunately, it's all a strategic game of bullshit. Thanks to Bush's idiotic presidency, we are now headed into a dark chapter of American history, and the next President will be unable to do anything to prevent it.

Looking at the current field of presidential candidates, a few things have become clear. The future is based not on who is the next President, but who will be held blame for the impending chaos. With Mitt Romney having dropped out of the race for the Republican Presidential Nominee, the lead is clearly and decisively in John McCain's hands. The reality is that he's just fodder tossed by Republicans because they're as certain they'll lose the presidency as the Democrats are on winning it. With 8 years of complete incompetence by Bush, the US is now a pariah in the world, and hemorrhaging money to wars that were completely mishandled, and in fact, should not even have been implemented. There's a looming recession in the horizon, and the housing bubble has finally started to collapse. What all this means is that regardless of who wins the elections as President, the country is going to be in terrible shape. All the blow-back from the Bush presidency does not stop with a new President in office. It will take years, if not decades, to undo what's been done by this current regime. The Republicans know that whoever is elected, whether it be Obama or Clinton, have little chance for surviving 8 years. Their presidency is doomed from the start because of the impending recession. Further, should the blow-back from Bush result in another terror event, we've already shown that most Americans are going to cower under the threat of terrorism and will need some kind of authoritarian figure "a protector to watch over us", while further stripping us of our inherent freedoms and rights. Clearly, this is when Romney will come in like a cowboy, just as Reagan did after Carter, and seem like the savior of the world.

So what have we learned from all this? That the next President, most likely Obama or Clinton will be "Cartered" out of office. What this means is that just as Carter was blamed for the Oil and Hostage crises in the late 70's that set the stage for Ronald Reagan to come in and save us from mismanagement, the next President (whether it's Clinton or Obama) will be blamed for Bush's misdeeds (just as Carter was blamed for Nixon's, Ford's, and even LBJ's transgressions), and Romney will come in and act as the savior. He has four more years to continue to vote as conservatively as possibly to convince the right wing that he's truly a hard core republican. That's also four more years to find a way to pander and whore his way to the Evangelical movement.

As far as my bias goes, I'm not affiliated with either party because they both pander to the special interests and there is no way that they'll tax the rich. Ultimately, the only true way to generate more income is start pouring more money into research and development (For future technologies and sciences), and tax the rich to generate revenue to pull us out of this Iraq deficit. Even the Democrats, considering that they're the lesser of the two evils will not be willing to do what needs to be done to further our future as a nation. They've all failed us badly, and perhaps, my brother's support for Ron Paul's correct, we should just shoot the system in the face, let anarchy reign and decide on how we should proceed. Either that or actually hold the government accountable for their promises, and keep them on a very tight leash. It's your call America, what do you want to do? Let rich assholes convince you through fear and cowardice that we need a fatherly figure in office to protect us against some unknown enemy while stripping us of our inherent right to freedom, or to actually educate ourselves, and vote out every lying idiot who places their own self interest ahead of the country.

Following the Herd off a Bridge

Having previously discussed religion as a product of both the human need for comfort, and our ignorance regarding the natural world, one additional religious catalyst must be mentioned. This catalyst can be considered a direct result of our social structure and behavior. Before attempting to understand and explain our behavior, it's important to step back from our own human perspective, and try to view our species as an investigative biologist from another planet.

"By looking at the comparative fossil history that lead to the eventual emergence of the homo sapiens species, one can note certain defining species' traits. They are foremost, a social creature, and as such, have a complex social hierarchy, with some individuals in superior positions, and most at various expanding levels of reductive social influence. As part of their social evolution, they have evolved the useful trait of language to communicate and increase group cohesion. In addition, their reasoning abilities, and tool usage allows them to greatly effect and directly influence the environment around them. As their culture has evolved, they have progressed towards greater senses of group identification. Initially, they were nomadic, traveling in small packs (clans), but as their social organization and cultural evolution progressed, they developed a greater sense of pack identity, and eventually, very large groups of this species retained a shared cultural belief. The great extent of this belief was related to the awe and reverie of the supernatural. Out of these longings for something that would provide them comfort and an understanding of the world they lived in, many grasped at illogical beliefs and traditions. As a social animal, their instincts to identify a person of authority and grant them permission to impact their lives became greatly important for self-identity and comfort. It appealed to their social instincts, and provided them with security in a world and a universe that they saw and felt to be cold, apathetic, and lonely. A few individuals, through countless generations, developed the necessary tools to properly investigate the world around them. Eventually, the tools known as science, and the scientific method ripened in this species to a point where it was accessible to a vast majority of the population. Yet, many greatly resisted this expanded understanding, and reverted to a very limited world-view. They allowed irrational beliefs, instinct, and their own fears to guide their lives. The large majority however, quietly resisted, allowing the tools of science to infiltrate their lives, but continuing their unreasonable beliefs against a mountain of data and evidence in the contrary."

As can be discerned from the last paragraph, this is an hypothetical observation that extra-terrestrial life forms may provide to their own exobiologists. None of what was said is untrue; just the perspective, or point of view is different. However, looking from the outside in, to the human species, one can't see our biological story much different. There is of course, much more descriptive detail than explained, and a paragraph can't do our species justice, but it's just a cursory summary so that our social nature can truly be discerned.

We truly are prone to social hierarchies, and we do provide a great deal of authority to people who we view as vitally important towards preserving our social structure. It's as though we're providing our resources to those individuals we deem as protectors against a hostile planet. Unfortunately, most of these so called authoritative protectors are mostly useless. Why, for example, do we provide so much authority to diluted, uneducated, irrational, and wasteful individuals such as the Pope, priests, ministers, mullahs, rabis, imams, gurus, monks, nuns, spiritual healers, and other such wasteful members of society? These individuals have dedicated their lives towards the study of empty, outdated, and useless processes of the imagination. We can laugh at individuals who devote their whole lives towards reading and studying about wood nymphs and their influential behaviors. We don't give them authority towards influencing anyone however, because group consensus tells us that those individuals are in the extreme minority and few believe that specific garbage. The one or two billion individuals who believe in some other irrational beliefs shouldn't however, expect to be treated any differently.

One must understand that although consensus is an important part of the scientific process, it does not necessarily translate to other areas of human reason. Just because consensus tells nearly three billion people in the world that there is a single entity in the universe called god (of course, the actual mechanism differs among almost every single individual), doesn't necessarily make it reality. Consensus does not equal reality, but is vitally important towards our social nature in allowing group identity and cohesion. It is within our instincts to allow certain individuals to lead us, and consensus results when many individuals agree upon the method of authority. Some individuals in a position of Authority actually deserve the respect and admiration. University professors, outside of theology and useless garbage like that, deserve the authority and consensus bestowed upon them. They have spent their lives devoted to a process that can help explain our world, whether it's language, mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, economics, etc. Even culturally important studies like art, music, and yes, the study (but not the practice), of religion are all important in furthering our understanding of our world, ourselves, and our capacity towards growth and the future. One can argue that even subjects like poetry, that although don't specifically confer a selective advantage to cultures, are important because they help define cultural traits, and subtle nuances of our language. Not only that, but poetry allows for self reflection in a sense and understanding of the world that doesn't require one to reject the physical nature of everything around us. There are many such similar abstract studies that although seem useless, are vastly important to our understanding of our nature and culture. Religion is useful in that capacity as well, but it should be handled as poetry. People who disagree with each other on irrational grounds shouldn't be waging wars. It's as though those who find Haikus aesthetically pleasing war with those who find Shakespearian sonnets revolting. The reason no war occurs between the two is that perhaps some can find both revolting, or both pleasing, and even should there be a division of the two, no authority is given to someone who can wage war on behalf of a sonnet or haiku. Few have heard of the "poet wars", because none have resulted from such abstract notions.

It must then be understood that Faith that is popular means nothing other than enough people have been influenced to believe the same irrational thing through indoctrination, credulity, force, or other such means. Religion itself is shaped along the way to comform to the largest masses that can possibly be influenced without fully diluting some supposed sacred message or path. Why are we so willing to give credit to those who head these brain influencing and rewiring belief systems? As already explained, due partly to our sense of culture, and our social nature (with our need for authority and consensus fulfilled equally).

Unlike religion, consensus in the field of science is very important because one discovery often builds on another. All new scientific discoveries happen because there's a large foundation of data behind it. Without evidence, and gathered data, scientific discoveries would be useless. It is our observation of the universe, the experimentations to verify the theories based on the observation, and the gathering of data that helps to build positive consensus. The question then is how do we know the difference between positive consensus, and the negative kind that allows us to fall of the proverbial bridge? To avoid negative pitfalls, we must first be aware of our social nature. As a social animal, it is ultimately fear that guides us and forces us into a group environment. Once we identify our instincts, we can control them in a positive way by releasing these carnal fears. Comfort and security are both very valuable things in a society, but deciding to provide authority and cultural cohesion to the religious and misguided is completely incorrect. We should strive to analyze the world with the best possible tools that we have (science), and look at human society, our actions, and our instincts objectively. For those that fear science, there are many other fields that one can encounter rather then wasting time believing in what's likely to be wrong. One can look to the fields of philosophy if they wish to muse on metaphysics and possibilities. They can broaden their horizons in ethics, and the arts, psychology, even journalism. Those that fight for religion tooth and nail are doomed to live a life of ignorance. Our goals as a society should be to further our cultural progress and whatever disagreements we should have should focus on ethics and morality (both already explained in previous posts as outside the realm of religion). When we use religion as a crutch, and an explanation for our ethical and moral behavior, we are severely shortchanging our potential for progress. To avoid the chasm beneath the bridge then, one must educate themselves into appropriate forms of consensus and to seek comfort in the company of rational thoughts and actions. Our future as a human species depends on our understanding of the world, and how to modify it with the least amount of impact. These principles cannot be found in any religion or belief system, but with the tools that countless generations have tirelessly spent to develop and modify for our understanding and usage. We must not turn our back on progress just because it may disagree with the infantile belief system of the majority.

God's days are numbered with Emergence

As science helps further our understanding of the universe, the large areas of knowledge that were once unattainable are now becoming greatly understood and expanded. There was a time when people were certain that although they knew the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sky was fixated as layers of shells (crystalline spheres), there would be no way to reach those points of light in the heavens. We now realize that Earth is not the center of the universe, that those points of light are suns similar to ours, and that it is possible to reach them. Just because we now know and understand the cosmos better then we did before does not mean that we're able to reach those stars yet. We now realize just how far they are from Earth, with the closest over 4 light-years away from us. That would mean that if we were traveling at the fantastic speed of 1/4 the speed of light, it would take us 12 years to reach the nearest star. We are a few hundred years away from reaching those capabilities at least, but we can imagine them nonetheless. Even with our expanded knowledge, we're still physically as far away as the nearest star as we always were. What changed in those span of centuries is our potential towards reaching those goals, and intermediate steps, such as landing on the moon (which also at one point was thought impossible by humans) definitely help us along the way.

There is no question that with all the knowledge we have attained, the gaps that exist are continually narrowing. Although we may never understand everything we attempt to, our base of knowledge is growing exponentially, and we're covering areas of physics, biology, and chemistry unknown even 50 years prior. A great deal of the current gaps relate to the concept of Emergence, or the phenomena of an Emergent property. Emergence is the phenomenon that relates to how complex systems arise from simple interactions. For example, how do termite colonies develop from the interaction between termites, their genetic programming, and the environment? These Emergent systems are very difficult to understand because there are so many variables involved, and understanding one system, does not make it that much easier to understand others. Emergence exists through all interactions of the universe but differs by mechanism in each system. Although the concept is similar, the technical details and the mechanism for complexity depends on many factors. To understand this aspect of Emergence, one can think of money. In general, the concept of money around the world relates to a certain nation, group of people, economic bloc, etc... agreeing to a common currency, and using this currency as a standard for trade. The currency can greatly vary, being a mix of paper and metal in some places, plastic in others, giant rocks, shellfish, animal teeth, beads, straw bricks, etc... Similarly, Emergence is like the general property we call money, but the actual mechanism and working detail vary, just as currency does for the monetary concept.

To better illustrate Emergence and how it can lessen the impact and reach that religion uses to wedge itself into reason, some examples must be shown to illustrate this phenomenon. The first relates to the concept of the human mind, or what we call consciousness. A good question to ask is how do the interactions between the neurons in our brain relate to the emergent property of the "mind". We know that we need our brains to process the world and communicate with it. Much like a computer, we input data from outside, process it, and output it in various ways. How does such complexity develop from these neural interactions? With the growth of the computer industry, we are slowly and steadily gaining ground in understanding this concept of the mind. One thing we do know is the network within our brains is vastly more complex and flexible then the static network in computers. We are just beginning to realize how complex a single neuron can be, the types of information it can send, and how billions of them can allow for the emergence of consciousness. We do know that other animals, like chimps, dolphins, and even in some experiments, birds (like parrots) have a limited sense of self and consciousness. Since our closest animal relatives are chimps, we must find those changes in our DNA and subsequently our brains that lead us to have a greater sense of self-awareness. Because of this gap in fully comprehending consciousness however, people are able to fill it with non-empirical concepts like the soul, or a universal consciousness, etc... Once we're able to explain how the mind develops from neural connections, we'll be able to completely discard supernatural notions like the soul.

Another example of Emergent behavior is global economics, or to simplify, national economics. How does the interaction between two people, one who has something, and one who needs it, lead to the complex web of economics as we know it today? There are many ways to observe these trends and attempt to understand the emergent properties involved. One is called the "top-down" approach. In this, one must first look at global economics as a single entity. Try to understand how nations deal with each other, and in doing so, perhaps this will lead to a theory which can trickle down towards lower levels. Another approach is called "bottom-up" where simple interaction between two people at the lowest levels can lead to a greater understanding of more complex interactions. Emergent properties seem to develop from looking at things from the bottom-up, while at the same time, noting the point where certain levels of organized, self-perpetuation complexity arise. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed to understand emergent properties, and with economics, one must not only understand how simple supply and demand functions between two people, but how this relates to a whole community, a city, a state, the country, and eventually the world. At some point, economics appears to be an organized, self-perpetuation organism, and that is another example of emergence.

Once one thinks about it, the universe, at every level is in a constant flux of developing emergence. One way to categorize emergence (can't be by mechanism since there are so many individuals variables) is through a hierarchic system ranging from the smallest most miniscule levels to the largest ones imaginable. In this, the lowest levels involve the subatomic/quantum universe. Our whole universe and world, everything that we know and will ever know starts at the quantum level. The first and most pertinent question to ask is how do space and time emerge from the mess that is the quantum universe? That is, the universe at the smallest possible levels and energies (smaller then a subatomic particle). Imagine inventing the most powerful microscope possible, and looking at space. At this level, space has a completely different property then at our relatively large levels. Space in the quantum universe is a foamy mess, with particles popping in and out of existence (called virtual particles), interactions between particles so exotic that it's hard to grasp. A particle can co-exist in two places at once, called entanglement, and without knowing the mass and direction of a particle, it remains a probability, instead of a specific object (called the wave function). This means that light for example can either be a wave, or a particle, but without measuring it, it remains in two possible states at the same time. Only by doing an experiment and measuring it, do we "collapse the quantum wave function" and turn it into a particle. How then does this wild and chaotic quantum world emerge into a more or less predictable universe? By this, I mean how is it that we can't pop in and out of existence, or find ourselves entangled with our twins across the universe, or even remain a wave function until observed, and then collapse into a physical entity? This is one large mystery, with so much complexity that although we're nearing towards a greater understanding, its still a large mountain to ascend. As the physical world at our levels emerges from the quantum world, we also note that chemistry emerges from physics, and subsequently, biology from chemistry. So the lowest level of the Emergence Hierarchy would be the quantum (which would still involve everything in the universe, since the accumulation of quantum processes eventually leads to the birth of stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, and eventually the whole universe.)

As we scale higher levels of Emergence, we reach a point where we find ourselves in the familiar world we live in. Looking at the familiar, emergence can be found in everything. Beginning with life all together, how did certain chemical processes enclose themselves from the external environment and begin the process we call life? Once life started, how did single celled organisms develop the complexity needed to harbor multicellular structures and eventually into the mass of organisms that are required to generate complex life such as trees, mushrooms, birds, dogs, and even human beings? For as long as human beings have been around, god (or gods, ancestors, spirit animals, or any other supernatural entity or entities concerned with our health and welfare) was used as the initiator of this complexity. In fact, not only was god supposed to be the initiator but often the brooding figure that spent every waking moment looking after all, or certain groups of human beings. As our understanding of evolution and the development of complex life has progressed, god has slowly and methodically taken a back seat to natural processes. The emergence of these natural events has become the reason for the flourishing of life. The fight for survival in the form of an evolutionary arms race, where all creatures struggle to balance evolutionary costs and benefits, is but one example.

One way to look at life is like a sidebar in the hiearchy of emergence where we occupy levels in which we can create artificial intelligence that may itself soon self-perpetuate and therefore, even discover its own intelligence. As universal scale gets larger from our planetary point of view, soon, emergence can be found in the gravitational interaction which presents itself as solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, super-clusters of galactic clusters, and eventually into the overall physical existence of the universe. There are a lot of gaps in de-mystifying the emergent properties responsible for such large and complex structures, but with each mounting source of evidence, insight, and reason, we can slowly grow to understand the whole vastness of the universe without having to impose our silly and imaginary notions of god, superstition, and the "supernatural".

As an example, figure 1 here shows the nature of an Emergent hierarchy from the Human perspective. As can be seen, it takes many levels of emergence for consciousness to emerge, then language, and afterwords, economics, culture, and eventually, artificial Intelligence, which is another level of Emergence yet to be reached.



Figure 2 here demonstrates an Emergence Hierarchy from the Universal Perspective. The Human Hierarchy is just an offshoot at about the star level.

Almost any object can have a similar Emergence Hierarchy, whilst as mentioned before, the mechanism for emergence can vary. As for the large towering termite mounds, their emergent hierarchy's will mimic ours until the level of Biological, and from then, it would branch into perhaps insectoid, then social cooperation, and eventually a termite mound emerges. With the mechanisms present here, we have a decent understanding of how termite brains are programmed to create such structures. Of course, there are gaps, but these gaps are slowly being filled by science.

As can be seen from these Hierarchies, the need to invoke a divine presence is completely useless in explaining the phenomenon of emergence. It is easy to claim that a god(s) intervened in this emergence, but that would not help us explain our observations. We know that there are many forms of emergence which we can explain, so our goal is to find a scientific and empirically based explanation for those which we have yet to fully explain.

The Burden of Proof

One of the prime irritating factors of debating my atheism with others is that it often appears that the burden of proof falls upon me to explain how the supernatural is not possible. What's accepted in our society is that those who adhere by some religious or spiritual doctrine have an elevated status as far as raising doubt about the non-existence of their deeply held belief system. What confounds the thinking is that those who find solace in their version of religion or spirituality feel as though we atheists must through logic and the scientific method completely disprove every tenet of their belief structure through the tools of science. Upon such achievement, it is only then that grounds for debate are established, and we apparently are on equal footing. It must be understood however, that the scientific method was not developed solely to refute the illogical beliefs of others, but to inquire and understand the universe that we live in. It has long been established that reason, with just religion and spirituality as tools alone could not help us understand the inner workings of our physical world. It is only through the accumulation of evidence and empirical thinking along the scientific method that we have begun to understand how the sun provides heat, gravity allows us to remain bound to the Earth, evolution through natural selection provides the variety of life, and even which areas of the brain activate to allow for lively philosophical debate. None of these answers can ever be attained by deeply studying some ancient texts that are deemed holy, or praying endlessly for weeks to understand the cause of an underlying disease. Perhaps religion's role is to sharpen our mental acuity for philosophical debate with others who hold on to an illogical and ill conceived faith-based view of the world?

With the burden of proof shifting to those who hold onto arcane notions of religion or spirituality, the task is completely up to them to explain their logic and endearing faith to such tenuous notions. It is only when one is able to step away from their indoctrinated belief structure for even a few moments that the illogic of their faith can be revealed. It is ultimately those who have the most enduring faith that see other's illogical belief as ridiculous, while justifying their system through jarring logical gaps. For these reasons alone, I shall try to briefly highlight the ridiculous notions of the major worldly religious and hope that even those who rigorously grasp at their faith can at least find the absurdity of some of these notions.

Christianity -- circa 2000 years ago in some backwater region of a backwater village in a backwater area of the Middle East, an omnipotent being sent himself through some dichotomous duplication even via his own offspring to cleanse humanity of their sins by dying. He was born through a virgin, convinced of his own superiority, managed to thoroughly convince some disciples and then eventually, nailed to a cross because he was inciting the revolutionary idea that he was the savior of humanity.

Islam -- A man, whom we must never depict from threat of death, reared in another backwater area, of a backwater region, of a backwater..... in the Middle East had the truth revealed to him while on a mountain by a supremely powerful deity who's greatest wish was adoration and unceasing, zealous, enthusiastic worship. He then married a woman much older then himself and sent about spreading this message through threats of violence, loosely woven metaphors, and strict adherence to fasting rituals and complete submission to the same deity of the previous faith.

Hinduism -- A pantheistic belief, originating in an extremely rural region of India, that incorporates the essence of animals as true gods, worships them in a variety of ways, depending on the regional difference, and through ceaseless rituals, countless gurus, and the doctrine that one's essence will be reanimated into another creatures upon their deaths attempts to achieve an enlightened state that can never be totally fulfilled.

Buddhism -- A malleable and ethereal essence that pervades the universe and continually transmits a notion of tranquility, requiring countless meditative trances and chants, while constantly adapting to regional differences and yet, will still always remain unattainable because perfection can never be achieved and can never be known (originating in another extremely rural region of India).

Judaism -- An all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent entity, who was vengeful, genocidal, jealous, treacherous, and out right malevolent decided to choose a group of people and continuously test them through pain and suffering to gauge their loyalty and faith. These people then felt the need to quell any dissent from others of the same group who questioned such a hateful deity through mass slaughter, genocide, and of course the natural wrath of their deity. Plagiarized much of these ridiculous notions from neighboring regions and then attempted to pass them off as original (and although claimed to originate in a certain backwater region of the middle east, actually originated and spread through another backwater region of the middle east --is there a trend here?).

Scientology -- A group of space aliens from tens of millions of years ago from the planet Xenu escaped to Earth and were trapped, killed, and then their spirits were imprisoned before binding to certain human beings and then reanimated.

Quadrapteradragonism -- A four winged dragon that lives in an unseen parallel dimension ultimately chooses only the morally just people who have sacrificed their spare time to praying for rain on the 5th full moon of the year, fasting during the summer solstice for 3 days and then retreating to mass orgy on the nearest shoreline (whether sea or lake) after the 1st blue moon of the leap year. These people then control the direction that their offspring will take from the as yet unseen parallel dimension.

Well, obviously, having made up the last one, one can see how ridiculous these notions of religion can get. Yet, one can't easily leave those portending to adhere to some "spirituality" off the hook easily either. The thoughts and reasoning of these people tend to run in even greater notions of absurdity, and ultimately, one can truly be lost in this jumble of religions/spiritual insanity. The most reasonable mode of escape is to conclude that although any of these notions are possible, their likelihoods are so infinitesimally small that the burden of proof falls least upon the "de facto" atheist (a term coined by Richard Dawkins). This ultimately then is the starting point of logic, and it is up to the extraordinary beliefs to support their claims (as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"). In other words, the burden of proof lies not with the atheist, but with the religious and spiritual.

As a final note, much of this, and previous posts may come off sounding arrogant. That cannot be helped when one clears the garbage and attempts to inquire about the universe; ultimately leading to our understanding of our own place within it. These arguments only seem arrogant because there is a lot of working science behind them. To fully understand this position, one must embrace the scientific method, and learn to shy away from scientific ignorance. Before deciding that evolution through natural selection doesn't make much sense, try to understand the theory first. Before determining that there is no possible way the Earth can be 4.6 billion years old, try to educate yourself in introductory geology. The same however, cannot be said of religious or spiritual views. As much as one attempts to educate themselves with these notions, they are still ultimately an imaginary creation of the mind. It's like trying to obtain a degree of theology in quadrapteradragonism. Even though that may sound funny, this is exactly how other religions should be viewed. The only difference being that tradition has allowed the existing "official" religions to survive through virulent and self-perpetuating memes (another term coined by Richard Dawkins which represents tiny informational packets for the mind, much like genes are for the body). Much has been made of the fact that science explains the hows and religion explains the whys, but this is a very unreasonable estimation. Science can explain the whys about as well as religion, while also adhering to the working knowledge of the universe. As a final meme for thought, it must be remembered that, just because one seeks to find an answer doesn't mean there's an answer to be sought.

Iran Again?

Because of the awful job the mainstream American Media does in portraying events that unfold in the world, many noteworthy news items are quickly overshadowed by useless information containing superficial material such as celebrity gossip. Even when the Media does feel responsible in covering important stories, they are so biased in the subjective analysis that those critical items are easily marginalized. We rarely have the pleasure of receiving objective information because as soon as the information filters down to the mainstream media, it is picked apart, over-analyzed and sucked of any importance by TV analysts, both on the political left and right. Those of us who've grown distasteful of such subjective bias have either become completely apolitical and apathetic, choosing to dissociate ourselves from politics all together, or forced to actively search for unfiltered and objective news on the internet. Sometimes, both of these forces come into play in determining how we interact with the outside world. As the world has become closely linked, and globalization a fact of life, news that happens on the opposite side of the world can have a serious impact on our way of life. When many politically unstable countries possess nuclear weapons (Looking at you Pakistan and Israel), any minor error in judgment can lead to a nuclear outcome. Choosing to close our eyes, ears, and mouth, remaining ignorant to global developments can have disastrous consequences. We can't grow accustomed to being spoon fed information that has been completely removed of impact and importance.

Having already written about Iran in at least 3 or 4 other blogs, recent key developments must be addressed. Thanks to the media coverage we have received, to those who obtain their news from the mainstream media, Iran appears to be this evil entity hell bent on destroying our way of life. We choose to forget that our actions towards Iran have never been completely benevolent. In fact, Iran's current non-secular Islamic Extremism is a product of the CIA's plot to overthrow their democratically elected leader, and installing in his place a corrupt dictatorship run by the Shah. The reason for this was an attempt at exploiting Iran's resources, especially the oil, and as the people grew weary of an inept government, they rose up and thus, the Islamic Revolution in Iran was born. As mentioned before, the US government has a track record of interfering and vilifying those countries that have the self respect to control their own resources. Venezuela for example is a recent player in global politics, mainly because as our dependence on oil has grown (thanks to an auto industry that for years has lobbied for continued production of gas guzzling fuel exploiting mini tanks called SUVs), we have become inadvertent financial supporters of their economies. For those sovereign nations that have allowed exploitation like Saudi Arabia, we have turned a blind eye to their globally dangerous behavior, while attacking those regimes that are a threat to our oil industry. Enter Venezuela, Iran and Russia. We demonize their political mistakes and constantly criticize and berate their leaders, when in effect, most people in those democratically elected countries support them. Having elected Bush, American's can't exactly feel any superiority to the general population of those countries in the negative spotlight.

Continuing with recent Iranian developments, the National Intelligence Estimate has just established that Iran stopped the development program for Nuclear Weapons in 2003. Naturally, news like this, though beneficial to global prosperity and peace, has become problematic for the Military-Industrial complex. As long as Iran was a credible nuclear threat, then forces could be amassed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran's northern neighbor, Azerbaijan, in a bid to contain Iran's political and economic influence. The pursuit of nuclear weapons development was just peripheral to the Administrations policy of security sanctions in an ever desperate bid to exploit Iran's internal divisions and thus control their resources, particularly oil and natural gas. When news of the Intelligence Estimate was released (1), the Mainstream media had to put some kind of negative spin (Washington Post Article). In addition to the saber rattling practiced by the US State Department, Israel, seeing itself as a self-imposed "party of interest" in containing and vilifying Iran, increased the tired rhetoric of Iran malicious intentions (2). As is often the case, Israel seems to consistently seek conflict and instability in the Middle East in order to receive protection both financial and militarily from the United States. The glaring hypocrisy in this instance is that Israel does possess nuclear weapons, hasn't ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran has ratified), and continually interferes with neighbors through cross-border raids into Lebanon and Syria (3). Claiming to have neutralized a "nuclear plant in Syria", it has now become clear that this was most likely a hostile act of pre-emptive bombing to send a message to Iran that the biggest threat in the Middle East is Israel (4). These kinds of actions are not exactly conducive towards peace in the region. As far as Israel's influence in the United States, beyond just a powerful lobby, it is American troops and American tax-payer dollars that will continue to fund Israel's amoral and misguided behavior. Israel's poweful lobby also stands in opposition of the United State's opening diplomatic channels with Iran on an official level. In direct contrast however, much of the current Middle Eastern mess would be better solved through an increased Diplomatic presence, and an attempt at understanding Iran's point of view. It should be noted however that understanding a point of view is not the same as accepting that behavior or condoning it.

It's understandable that Iran doesn't exactly provide a message of hope and stability for the future because ultimately they have a theocracy backed by Islamic Fundamentalists. Besides diplomacy, which is but one avenue of pursuit in achieving a stable region, how can we extend beneficial strategies to help usher in a more prosperous future? Of primary consideration is to endeavor in spreading the message of secularism, which can ultimately be propagated by science and education. Before embarking on such a grand scheme however (not just limited to Iran and the Middle East but other troubling regions of the world), we must strive to provide a solid core of science and mathematics education within the United States. Our own flirtation with theocracy is a direct result of the power that religion plays in the political process. Religion should have no power whatsoever in the secular political sphere. The only way to promote secularism and critical thinking is to increase science education at all levels and attempt at standardizing curriculi across American schoolboards. As we reform our educational system, we should also strive to promote the same in all countries of the world, especially those mired in political trouble. As we distribute foreign aid, we should hold accountable the educational bodies in those countries and help to promote their educational spending. When people start to think more critically, both domestically and abroad, their personal growth and prosperity is unlimited. They come to realize that the world is a far more complex place. Both the subtle and more obvious nuances that separate cultures can ultimately be resolved without a loss of the richness that the cultural fabric provides us. By understanding other cultures, and striving to support the beneficial elements within them, very little hostility need be exercised. Instead, some understanding, a change in perspective, and perhaps empathy can go a long way in resolving future conflicts and also raising the general awareness of the population.

Life-Affirming Perspective as an Atheist

Having come to terms with atheism, the most difficult aspect is making sense of life from the completely materialistic perspective. By Materialism, I am not speaking of acquisition of wealth or status, but of living in a non-dualistic, physical universe, which is governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In general, for all the mysterious phenomenon of the universe we don't easily understand, I'm not quick to pile them into a corner and label them as supernatural. Being aware that very little of the vast network we call the universe is understood, grasping a greater knowledge requires a foundation in empirical, evidence based science. So far, no religion in the world has ever explained our universe better then science. Science however is not to be confused in the same light as religion and spirituality. Unlike science, religion, with no need for evidence requires complete and total faith. Faith however, as noble as some believe it to be, cannot and is not an objective stance. Those whose faithful convictions are unassailable have often proved to be wrong. Science on the other hand thrives on rigorous proofs and any theory that turns out wrong is progress because it can be ruled out. Just believing something then does not make a rational explanation of the universe. Early on in Western Civilization, especially during the development of Greek Philosophy, much was made of theorizing. Generations of pederasts would sit in circles speaking of complex topics in a form we now call a dialectic. They would debate about vast topics that covered the length and breadth of human knowledge. Yet, without experimentation and verifiable proof, all their theorizing had little evidence based proof. Many concepts then, such as the atom, surely came to be proven correct, but only through the rigorous and empirical tools of science and mathematics. Furthermore, their ideas, though influential, where not grounded in the true material universe. In the case of atoms, they may have theorized that if you continue to partition matter into smaller pieces, eventually you will reach an end point. Similarly, atoms as we know today, are extremely exotic particles, and can in fact be further partitioned into subatomic particles like quarks and gluons. Yet, we do know that atoms form the basis of all matter and that in one aspect, the early philosophers were correct. Eventually, the belief in atoms that was propagated by Democritus was overtaken by the more elegant and appealing Aristotlian theory of the four elements. They may not have understood the nuclear processes that form the atoms as we know today and to them four elements made more sense than the 120 or so that we have in the periodic table. The false Aristotlian model was carried with us for nearly 1500 years, until the advent of the scientific method and the rigorous experimentation that went along with it.

With a solid belief in materialism then, the warm comfort that religion and spirituality provide is suddenly uncovered. To some, the cold, unforgiving universe is just too difficult to bear, and even though they have reasoned for the possibility of a material universe, they would rather the universe have a pre-purpose (an intelligence at work often referred to as "the primary mover"). They can compartmentalized their illogical beliefs to allow them to function even within the realms of science, but the psychological comfort of religion and spirituality are difficult to break. The inevitable truth however is that the universe truly is a hostile place to live in. There's only one way to be born (when sperm meets egg, at least for now), but incomprehensibly vast ways to die. As the famous contemporary astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has described; on a galactic scale, one can be torched by supernovas, gamma ray blasts, active galactic nuclei, black holes, etc. Even just on a global scale, one can succumb to hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, tornadoes, volcanoes, ice ages, tsunamis and other such natural disasters. Within just our daily neighborhood and social interactions, one can suffer in the hands of carjackers, murderers, school shooters, swat officers mistaking addresses, drunk drivers, sinkholes, etc. With all of these seemingly malevolent forces at play, it is a wonder we continue to survive and thrive. Many liken this survival to a god-like entity, but they ignore the violent universe in which we've come to exist. This is not a perfect place that's created just for us to enjoy, but nevertheless, we must make the most of it. Life then is so fragile, even so much as a cosmic whisper can sterilize it without malice or criminal intent. Knowing all this, and rejecting the supernatural does lead to a dilemma of sorts. How are we to continue on with our lives knowing and accepting that we live in such an ambivalent, unforgiving and apathetic place?

In order to prosper, we must first recognize that even though our existence is truly an accident of chance, we are actually alive and have the ability to scrutinize our environment. We can reason, and through our linguistic abilities perpetuate our knowledge to countless others. As all animals, we are geared towards survival, even if it means crawling and clawing our way out of a deep dark hole in the ground. This inherent ability to survive (after all, without this inborn drive, life and the scarce competition of resources would not be possible) has not only provided us with instincts that can help protect us, but with the tools to apply our reasoning, intellect, and social bearing on the perpetuation of our existence. Almost every single species that has ever evolved on Earth has gone extinct (99%), yet, of all of those creatures, we are alone in the ability to look beyond just our local environment. We, above all other Earthly creatures have within us the potential to develop technologies that could avert major global catastrophes like an asteroid impact. With our developed sense of perspetive, other more menacing developments have also evolved. We not only have the potential ability to protect the world from catastraphic accidents, but also have the potential for destroying it. With our arsenal of nuclear bombs, we are but hours away from completely voiding the planet of dominant life. Yet, if we apply ourselves to more benevolent purposes, we can enhance the protection of our planet. Looking at life through this perspective tends to irk those who view such notions as egotistical. They claim that by acknowledging our superiority above mythical beings, we are leading delusional lives of megalomania and self importance. They feel that such a stance will lead to moral and ethical errors in judgement. Yet, as mentioned in my previous blogs, our ethics and morals don't come from any holy books, or any mythical beings. They lie somewhere in our biological makeup, but as of today, a well encompassing theory has yet to materialize. There are many good theories, but few have been tested against empirical research. What is known is that there has to be some link to our evolutionary past, and observing the behavior of our closest living relatives, such as the Great Apes can prove useful. In truth, accepting materialism is a life-affirming process, not a selfish mode of thought as perpetuated by the religious. Recognizing that all human beings have the same inherent rights, freedoms, and privileges upon birth is more intuitive to those embracing a material universe. Praying for invisible entities to come to the rescue when in need is a lot more frustrating then accepting that what all humans share is a bond called humanity. As a member of a single species, it is upon us to protect each other, the environment, and ultimately all our resources for survival.

We must accept the liberating fact that we are in charge of our own destiny. How we treat other human beings, the environment, and our potential towards a prosperous future of discovery and progress is in itself a wonderful sense of purpose. There was no consciousness behind the creation of the universe and life, but now that we are here, we can use our consciousness and self awareness towards the future. We must look at the universe in mystical awe, and realize that our existence is so unbelievable, we must do everything in our power to apply our inherent potential. Of all the possible humans that could have formed in our species' history, each of us as an individual is a unique development provided by the universe. We shouldn't mourn for those who've passed because the simple fact of they have existence is far grander then their non-presence. Even our existence, as fleeting as it is in relation to the universe as a whole is vastly important to the social network we interact with. Rearrange just one atom in any of the previous stages of life that lead to our development (from the first multicellular organism to one's conception) and our existence would be utterly nullified.

In conclusion, to some degree, religion and spirituality provides people with a type of psychological comfort, but science, although intuitively more difficult to grasp has rewards beyond mere dogma and faith. Science allows us to view the universe beyond the physical tools of our evolutionary past. We have come so far, not just as creatures with 4.3 billion years of evolution behind us, but as a culturally dominant force with just 10,000 years of major growth. Evidence for our external phenotype (to borrow a concept from the eminent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins) is all around us. The genes of the beaver (their genotype), for example, have evolved to provide it dense fur for warmth, an oily coat for better insulation, perpetually growing front teeth for gnawing wood, etc. These external characteristics, called the phenotype, can be furthered by the actions of the beaver on its environment. Beaver dams are a result of all of the special genes within a beaver allowing it to construct such a complex structure (external phenotype). Likewise, humans have also evolved certain genes that allow us to not only alter our environment for comfort, but expand on our genetic template. Our cultural evolution is unprecedented in the biological world, and our reasoning abilities provide us the tools to expand beyond our genetic constraints. I believe that it would be a shame to have evolved, both genetically and culturally to such an introspective point, and then throw it all away because of our need for comfort and warmth. We can derive comfort and warmth knowing that life is so fragile and fleeting that we must do all we can to appreciate it to the fullest. Of prime importance is understanding who we are, where we come from, and where as a species we're headed. Keeping such an optimistic view in light of a random and chaotic universe can by hard at times, but humans prosper and thrive under adversity. After all, adversity is the invisible hand that guides evolution and natural selection. Thus, adversity can also guide our cultural, ethical, and moral behavior.

Measure of a Man

What is the purpose of life in our modern society? Is it the acquisition of wealth and other material things? How about the acquisition of science and information to attain a working knowledge of the universe and the world we live in? Perhaps using one's intellect to benefit humanity, or even one's local community are also important purposes. Where do the notions of helping others, charity, good will, and attaining other such altruistic behavior lay? In this Winter Solstice (most people call them Holidays, some Christmas, other's Winter, etc) season, it's always the materialistic things that get notice. Now, even in a non-dualistic physical universe, as I'm convinced we live in, there are abstract notions such as philosophy, ethics, morality and countless other concepts that need to be explained and expanded. Most people are constantly on a quixotic quest, searching for a purpose to their own reason for existence. Some intuitively or culturally believe that the prime objective to life and a sense of purpose is the acquisition of wealth whilst others in the non-binding free spirited nomadic existence. Still others maintain that importance lies in family ties and the continuing support of a large extended family. In essence then, What defines the measure of a man (person)?

Culture is the first important motivator for a sense of purpose. Depending on the environment with which we're raised, and the values instilled in us, we develop a generalized notion of behavior. Taking altruism for example, some believe that helping others is beneficial because it's reciprocated in the future by some universal source called Karma. Other's believe karma to be selfish, and help others based on vague notions of moral righteousness. Still others that their invisible deity has inspired them to help, often in fear of negative judgment upon death. Yet, altruism is coded in our biological behavior and evolutionary past. It's still impossible to determine, based on looking at a person's genes whether they're going to be altruistic or highly selfish. In general however, most people do have a sense of altruism -- reasons often varying based on shared values and culture.

Ultimately, an objective perspective on our cultural values plays a large role in how we accept certain truths. Will we constantly be slaves to our cultural values or is it possible to look at life from the fresh points of view. I believe that we must break free of those cultural constraints that keep us tied to primitive notions of ethics and morality. We can't continue believing that religion is good for the masses, or that all cultural behavior should be protected from disintegration. As liberal and progressive as one's notions are of liberty and free will, some behavior, due to our evolving sense of morality is deplorable and should be terminated. Infanticide, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and slavery are notions that almost all people can accept as improper and in dire need of termination. Yet, some are unwilling to questions fundamentalist religious behavior. In general, nothing that harms others, whether psychological (as in the case of religion) or physical is above criticism. We should all accept individual freedoms as long as they don't interrupt those of others. Forcing outdated views on a population because most people are yet to awaken to a decent understanding is still wrong. Many creationists are rabidly attempting to force creationism or intelligent design to be taught along with general science in public school curriculum, when those beliefs, even if in the majority are completely wrong. The facts of the universe stand in isolation of majority thought, but many people still can't grasp that.

With these thoughts in mind then, it's difficult to judge how society measures a person objectively. However, with some critical thinking, fact based evidence, and ultimately progressive thought, we can establish a new agenda. At the moment, many are occupied by attaining wealth, social status, fame, attention, etc. Few stop to think that within a century, their personal status is but a whisper in a vast ocean. Yet, if more people focused on attaining knowledge as their sense of purpose, instead of wealth or fame, the future would be far more prosperous. Progress is fueled by cumulative steps, and with more people involved in each initial stage of knowledge, more of it will be passed along. Just as in the case of populations, with larger gene pools leading to healthier more vibrant communities, a larger knowledge base in the general public will lead to a healthier and more vibrant future. Many obstacles prevent the transition to this mode of thought. Of primary consideration is that our society does not reward knowledge as it does wealth and success. Speaking of the situation in the United States for example, a decent education of the general public is frowned upon by the elite because it prevents their overthrow. When individuals awaken to understand their oppressed nature, they will have no choice but to revolt and overthrow the corporations and the 5% of the population that owns 70% of the wealth. An educated populace is a danger to the elite, but with a majority of people unable to awaken to the truth, then tyranny is the natural course of things. Of particular importance here is that a working democracy needs an educated populace. For all the faults of the Founding Fathers, one can't deny their ideals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals are founded in a period of Enlightenment when rationality and common sense pervaded. They Founders knew that a voting population must be educated and well informed to further democracy. Threats from hell, eternal damnation, or spiritual destruction do not provide the means for a proper basis in morality, ethics, and in effect democracy.

Society therefore will prosper and stagnate based on the foundation that is the general populace. With societies which allow irrational thought and archaic useless notions like religion, then progress will eventually be halted, resulting in disorder and chaos. People must make a choice as to what they measure themselves with. Measure yourself based on those notions that will be widespread and acceptable centuries from now, and you are already progressive beyond the common cultural trends.

Ultimately then, regardless of the status quo and our current moral and cultural values, those who look ahead will always remain progressive and assist in ushering a clear path to a more evolved cultural, ethical, and moral future.

Legitimacy of the Founder Effect

One very pertinent question that always comes to mind when looking at the Founder Effect is the viability of the extant founder population and the subsequent deleterious effects from the lack of genetic diversity in their offspring. How is it possible for the offspring to continue to be viable when their genetic diversity is so severely reduced? We often hear about the likelihood that a population of less then 500 founding individuals is doomed to fail because they lack genetic diversity causing lethal alleles to accumulate through inbreeding. For example, the state of the Cheetah is in peril because their species went through a recent genetic bottleneck which lead to only a few individuals surviving and passing on their limited genetic diversity to future generations. In fact, cheetah's are so similar to each other that one can swap organs between two regionally distant animals and due to their histocompatability, their bodies will not reject the donor organ. This means that the organs of one cheetah are recognized by another cheetah's immune system as though they came from the same body. In essence, the variation between proteins on the surface of the cells (major histocompatability complexes) are small enough that there's a lack of an antibody mediated immune response, minimizing cross-donor rejection. This reduced genetic diversity limits the adaptability of the cheetah and major stressors can severely crash the population. Thus, the question once again can be restated by asking why are certain species able to cope with such limited founding diversity and suddenly flourish, while others are prone to extinction?

To further investigate this question, one must delve deeper into understanding not only the Founder Effect, but the interplay between Genetic Drift and Natural Selection as well. All of these factors occur to help perpetuate speciation. Speciation can occur when one or more daughter groups are isolated from the founding group, or the founding group itself branches into two or more extant populations that are isolated enough from each other to speciate. There are four main methods of speciation, ranging from complete geographic isolation, to mostly geographic, somewhat geographic, and finally no geographic barriers at all. Island populations that suddenly get cut off from the mainland when sea levels rise speciate due to complete isolation. Some species evolve to occupy certain ecological niches within the same geographic area. For example, perhaps a mutation for a slightly thicker bill in an outlying area within the same geographic boundaries results in a finch that has a thicker bill and perhaps the ability to extract insects from dead bark. This group then eventually exploits the rotten wood insect niche throughout the initial geographic range.

Genetic drift then is the random rate of variation that occurs within a given population and depending on the initial numbers and environmental conditions can be either kept in check by Natural Selection or allowed to proceed. Smaller populations are more likely to undergo genetic drift because of the limited genetic diversity, while larger populations intermix well and barring environmental changes that open new ecological niches for certain groups within the population to occupy leave little room for major drift. Natural Selection functions by allowing only those alleles that are biologically or reproductively adaptive to perpetuate, while genetic drift is just the random shuffling of alleles mostly irrespective of the adaptive pressure. Examples of Genetic Drift in Humans can include epicanthic folds in the eyes of Asians, increased hairiness in the bodies of Mediterraneans or Okinawans, Blond Hair and Blue Eyes in Scandinavians, wavy hair in Polynesians, and etc. Examples of Natural Selection in Humans on the other hand include darker or lighter skin, thicker, stockier builds in colder regions, barrel flared chests in Andean and Himalayan people, reduction of perspiration in Australian Aborigines, etc. It must further be noted that not all of these human characteristics are strictly a result of natural selection or genetic drift, some are a product of the interplay between the two forces.

Coming back to the Founder Effect then, we can look at a hypothesis as to how New World Monkeys came to Occupy the Americas when in fact, there was already a large gap between the continents when their ancestors branched from their African counterparts. It has been established, through the fossil record, and mitochondrial analysis that New World Monkeys emerged approximately 35 million years ago (link), during the early oligocene. At the time, the geographic distance between Africa and South America was at least 1300 miles (link) and therefore, quite a barrier for a founding population of pioneering monkeys. Vegetative Rafting has been proposed as a solution to the large oceanic gap that was bridged by these accidental voyagers. Due to the large volume of water discharged in the rainy season within Tropical locales, occasionally large swaths of vegetation get swept out to sea by huge rivers like the Amazon or the Congo. These vegetative rafts then float hundreds of miles out to sea, usually drying up. However, with prevailing winds and currents, some of these rafts can travel quite far, and this is the possible scenario that lead to the ocean voyage of some African Monkeys. This initial founder population then must have been very limited, perhaps a half dozen individuals. The genetic analysis has shown that they all originated from a small group of founders (just like a population bottleneck) but because of the rich geographic and environmental diversity, their populations exploded and speciated. In particular, population drift probably had a very large role to play in the diversity of current New World Monkeys and the ecological niches they occupy. The Question again is how this small founding population, with limited genetic diversity, blossomed into numerous species, irrespective of the initial inbreeding that could have resulted in numerous lethal alleles and population crashes. Several possible theories are likely, but none definitively stand out. Perhaps some animals are better able to cope with limited genetic diversity. Or, perhaps the new ecological niches helped increase the rate of speciation and variation within the population. Given that Genetic Drift had a large part to play with the small founding population, how did that effect the likelihood that lethal alleles were mitigated.

Such questions are the reason why Evolutionary Biology is such a fascinating field of study, and rarely are answers as complete as one would like. However, should anybody reading this have better knowledge on any of these topics or answers to my questions, please e-mail me or let me know in the responses what possible theories or holes in my reasoning can help to further illuminate this subject.



http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/10/1620
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/035_Oligocene_3globes.jpg&imgrefurl=http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/globehighres.html&h=1008&w=1584&sz=855&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=WQWa2YzEjzzBJM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doligocene%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

**02/17/2009 Update
The possible role of r/K selection in the founder effect.

The concept of r/K selection describes the selection of certain traits which promote success in particular environments. It comes about from an algebraic equation related to population dynamics. In general, species that are K strategists have increased investment in fewer offspring, while r strategists maximize the amount of offspring with as little investment as possible. Competition is the major key differentiating these two strategies. Since r strategists have little competition, they can focus on increasing their numbers as quickly as possible. Yet, once competition pressures increase as new species come about, other strategies, such as more investment in less offspring, evolve to cope. Ultimately, an ecological balance is reached between r and K strategists. From this, the relevance to the founder effect seems intuitive. Founder species, especially those like the ancestors of New World monkeys must have been r strategists. Finding themselves in an environment with countless niches, they must have reproduced quickly and evolved to fill them. Once enough speciation occurred to sufficiently increase competition, some monkey species may have adapted towards K selection.

Still, even though we can identify the ecological process that r/K selection plays within the founder effect, we must still explain the eventual success after the initial lack of genetic variability. Perhaps r strategists, with their hi fecundity, mutate rapidly enough that their genetic diversity is readily expanded within a few hundred generations, reaching a critical threshold when lethal alleles are balanced with genetic variability. The critical number of founders certainly differs among species, with those that are K-strategists probably requiring a larger gene initial gene pool. It's also possible that some species, regardless of their ecological strategies, are naturally prone to greater mutations; perhaps a less accurate DNA repair machinery, or environmental constraints that increase the adaptive advantage of survival through increased offspring variability.

The Embrace of Atheism

Reading through some of my early blogs, even up to February of 2007, I realize how non-dramatic my acceptance of atheism has become. Initially, I viewed myself as an agnostic because I thought that there is no way to be conclusively sure that the physical universe is all that we have. Since we cannot rule out the existence of the supernatural, then agnosticism seemed the best view. The simple change that occurred was the inclusion of probability. The probability that something supernatural exists is infinitesimally small. We can't use the tools of science to prove the supernatural. We can attempt to explain the processes of the universe without invoking the supernatural, and through various fields of science, we have been able to probe and investigate our environment. We have developed tools that have shown the reason for the variability of species, why large bodies stay together, why subatomic particles don't float apart, etc. Just as the probability is infinitesimally small for the existence of gnomes that invisibly live in the attic of houses older then 100 years, yet, their existence cannot be proven because as soon as they are attempted to be found and sense this by magically disappearing, the probability of an invisible being occupying some unexplainable space controlling our every thought and answering prayers as sees fit is also just as unlikely. The difference being is that more people have faith in the omnipotent being then the attic gnomes. There may even come a time, after thousands of years that a large group of people come to believe in attic gnomes because nothing else, including their idea of ghosts can explain the noises. Yet, this doesn't change the fact that believe, either widespread, or limited, does not prove the existence of anything. With this in mind, I eventually realized that I cannot continue to remain "on the fence" just because some things cannot be disproved. Therefore, yes, however unlikely it is, there is a small chance, an infinitesimally small probability of the truth behind a religion or another but knowing how well science can explain and predict the universe (even with so many unknowns, the fact that we have grown so much in our knowledge within just the last 400 years), I can happily shed any remaining doubt and exist for this life that we have. Considering even one atom of change within any ancestors we may have had could nullify our existence, we should be happy to have the life that we have. We get one chance to live a life and use our potential as best we can. Sure, we can pursue a life of destruction, and neglect, but knowing that we only have one chance, and exercising the chance for the best possible outcomes is a venture that cannot easily be explained. Our destiny as a species is within our hands, not in the hands of some invisible beings, or whatever, but in our common goals for preserving this one world that every single creature we know of has called home. If we rely on some existential, outside force to govern our behavior, we are doomed to repeat the ineptitudes of the past, and never learn from our mistakes. To grow and prosper is to understand and love the world which we are a part of; to understand the creatures and use our knowledge for good. The topic of morality, and where it comes from in our evolutionary past, though still debatable is a part of our society. Although what we know as good and beneficial changes, the progress that we see can allow us to use our potential for good. We're still agnostic in understanding our evolution of morality and ethics, but with our skills as investigators, time is but a testing field for discovery.