I’ve always believed that the notion of race was irrelevant. I was raised by liberal Christians who felt that everybody should be equal, and to this day I take a same-but-different stance. My opinion, honestly, is that there are a lot of adjectives to describe a person. Race is one of them. Gender another. I am apathetic to the sum total of those adjectives. If I was hiring a person for a job, I would base my opinion on those adjectives, looking for the combination that best suited the job in question. Race very rarely comes into this equation, unless the job was something that actually related directly to qualities possessed by a particular race. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one. without really stretching, like pretending I had to hire someone to perform experiments on for a study on sickle cell anemia, a disease that is statistically more common in people who’s ancestors lived in malaria-ridden tropical and sub-tropical climates. But that’s a weak example at best, as race wouldn’t be the issue, presence of sickle cell anemia would be.
But I digress. Clearly, the world is full of people who actually care very deeply about the shade of their flesh, the shape of their face, and all the other myriad traits associated with a given race. And so long as you aren’t a dick about it, I call it no harm no foul. But I do find it strange that people worry about this. Perhaps that’s because I’m a honky, and was raised in a honky part of a honky city.
Read more…
I have lots of vegetarian friends. I hold no complaint to people who take the vegetarian way of life (or even the vegan way of life), but as with all things I believe a skeptical eye is key. Making the decision to stop eating meat for reasons of personal preference, dislike for the meat industry, sustainability, or any number of reasons are absolutely valid choices. Me, I’m trying (badly) to eat a lot more vegetation simply because I recognize that my diet has for too long been too focused on pasta and meat. But the idea of saying goodbye to meat completely just doesn’t seem like one I’m willing to make.
So I’m not actually debunking the idea of vegetarianism, but I wanted to post a link to this article on Science-Based Medicine about a book called The China Study: Startling Implications For Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-Term Health. It was a book that evaluated a rather huge data set and made claim that a vegetarian diet was one that would prevent or cure the vast majority of diseases. As the author, Harriet Hall, states, she had reviewed the book initially and had some issues with it, but left the in-depth combing of the data to others. Now that combing has been done, and it would appear that the book suffers from a bit of confirmation bias on the part of the author.
I particularly suggest my vegetarian and vegan friends read the article by Dr. Hall and the evaluation of data that inspired it. I am in no way suggesting that your lifestyle choice is wrong, but simply that some of the things you may believe about the health impacts of your decision may not quite be entirely accurate. That doesn’t mean I’m asking you to start eating meat, just that you should (as should I and all others) be aware of the impacts your diet has on your health one way or the other.
If I sound like I’m tip-toeing around a bit, it’s not intended that way. I have no trouble bashing vegetarians when they are obnoxious to me about the horribleness of my decision to continue to eat meat. However, in this case I see no reason to be a cock. Most of the vegetarians I know are fantastic people who do not make their politics my problem, and I present this to them in the interest of sharing new information. To those vegetarians and vegans who are jerks about it, you can instead cram this study up your cram-hole, ya carrot-eating mudkip.
Jim
The Inside Insides blog just crossed my path, and I thought it was really neat, really interesting, and probably a really expensive way to make art. I found the link on PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula, and I can’t think of a better explanation than his:
I’m sure it was a moment of epiphany. Person in charge of an MRI takes avantage of an idle moment in the parade of patients to have lunch. Pulls a banana out of a brown paper bag. Looks at banana. Looks at MRI. Looks at banana. Looks at MRI. And the rest is history.
The posts are each a series of different fruits and veggies run through an MRI. They take a bunch of slices and turn them into animations. By “slices”, I’m using the MRI-specific term, and not the “knife knife stab stab” usage of the term. Way less fruit mess that way. If you aren’t familiar with how this can be, here’s a very basic explanation of how an MRI works. But I’m sure if you watch House you are already familiar with the term.
Broccoli looks kind of like fireworks, mushrooms look like eerily-lit jellyfish, and kiwis look like a big wet smooch. Very cool stuff.
Jim
When I woke up this morning, I read an interesting piece on Neurologica about a meta-analysis of some of the interesting research that has gone on with regards to conspiracy theories. I then read the analysis (The Truth Is Out There by Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles) and couldn’t help but see interesting ties between the topics of conspiracy theories and faith. So naturally, I thought I’d provide my thoughts. But please, take a moment and read both the Neurologica article and the analysis it was based on. They’re both exceptionally interesting reads.
Of course, it’s easy to see the relationship between the nuttier faith groups like Al-Qaeda and The Westboro Baptist Church. Their faiths are essentially a marriage of faith and conspiracy theory. For Al-Qaeda, the evil infidels are an international conspiracy trying to destroy the word of Allah and bring pain and suffering to the faithful. For the Westboros, it’s the American government’s pollution by homosexuals, abortionists, et al that is devastating the country. In examples such as these, it’s easy to see the marriage between the two.
But what about the not-crazies? That’s where my mind has been bouncing based on a few of the statements in the analysis article, so let’s go through them one at a time.
Read more…
The other day I had another one of those conversations that leads to a blog post. It’s not the first time I’ve heard this sentiment, but it always grates at my nerves and I’m forced to counter with a few examples that prove the contrary of everything the person is saying. This is partly because I’m a bit of a nerd who believes that information is important, but also because I’m also a bit of a prick who enjoys showing people when they’re wrong about stupid things. But I do it really charmingly, so the people don’t want to punch me in the face.
I don’t really recall how the topic came up, but at one point she made the comment that we’re such a unique species. And honestly, I disagree. There are certainly things about us that are unique, but most if not all of the examples people have used in these conversations with me are incorrect, and serve largely to further some personal agenda of the individual. So I thought today I would take about a few of those oh-so-unique qualities of humanity and see if we can’t pop a few holes in them. Sounds like fun right?
Oh, and while you’re reading this, please understand that the links I provide to things like youtube are not things I have directly seen with my own two eyes, and as such should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Read more…
Each and every one of us is a transitional creature. That’s one of those thoughts that changes how you think about evolution. As a kid I understood as most do that we had evolved from apes, but I didn’t, as I think most don’t, understand that the process wasn’t finished. Its easy to look at the wonder of human society and believe that we are the end product of everything; evolution, culture, understanding, you name it, we do it best. Or at least we do from our perspective. But as with all things, we can always do it better.
I used to teach a class in Systems Analysis to students who were studying computers, and one of the important tenets of systems analysis is that any system can always be iteratively refined and made different. The hope, of course, is that the system is made better, but anyone who has ever worked in the field knows that this is not always the case. Evolution is the systems analysis of life, with refinements happening in perpetuity on a tiny scale, but lacking an analyst who directs the changes.
The goal of evolution isn’t to get somewhere, achieve some perfect creature. Far from it, evolution is a process, not a path. Random minuscule mutations happen, and if they help then they may get passed down to future generations. That’s all there is.
Read more…
I have always had a thing about bees and wasps. It never made sense to me. They’re entities less than the size of my thumb who couldn’t possibly hurt me more than the discomfort I put up with for a tattoo, and yet when they come flying by I get antsy. I’ve chalked it up to the notion that I have personal space issues. If people are too huggy, I’m just as likely to swat them as I am an ant or spider who carelessly wandered onto my leg. And I don’t feel at all bad about that. Billions of years of evolution and bugs still can’t tell if I’m a plant or not? Sorry, folks, but I am all for natural selection.
However, I’ve always been fascinated by the dark side of bugs. If they were made by God, as I had once upon a time thought, then how could the crawlies of the world be so darned nasty? At first it was things like trapdoor spiders that caught my attention. What would they have done back in the days of the Garden of Eden, when man and animals were all super happy and sang songs together and nobody ate anybody else? Did they just figure out one day after Eve bit the apple that hiding behind a trap door and launching at your prey is a good hunting strategy? Is this behavior learned or instinctive?
Then there was my first encounter in a book with ichneumons, that branch of wasp that embodies yucky better than any other animal I’ve ever heard of. I forget now where I had read about the tarantula wasp, but the image of their behavior definitely gave me the willies. For those who don’t know, what they do is paralyze a tarantula and then lay their eggs on top of it. The tarantula has to sit and wait until the larvae hatch, and then they devour it. This is a shit state of affairs for the tarantula, who is alive but unable to do things like play dodgeball or eat food, waiting for the inevitable mouths of his devourers to awaken.
Read more…
I just finished reading a fabulous book entitled Stiff: The Curious Lives Of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach. It discusses the interesting and curious history of the use of cadavers in science. This topic runs that gamut from anatomy classes to medicinal cannibalism, which I’m sure you can imagine makes for a very interesting read. I must admit, though, the topic definitely made me think on what my own wishes would be for my body when I die, so I thought I should lay them out here. Because, you know, blog entries are as good as living wills, right?
Of the many options available, the least intriguing to me is to be the victim of medicinal cannibalism. Fortunately, it doesn’t sound like there’s an awful lot of that going around these days. But still, allow me to get that one out of the way first and foremost. I do not want to be eaten, even if it would cure someone’s dropsy.
I imagine that many would be surprised at the fact that I don’t put traditional burial far beyond cannibalism as distasteful ways to dispose of my corpse. I have never understood graveyards, though I certainly enjoy jogging through them. The practical side of “well, we need to put the body somewhere” obviously makes sense, and barring other options available that makes some sense. But the options are there, so that leaves only what I guess I would call the curious social aspect of burial. I do not want my loved ones coming to a plot of land to remember me. I do not want them clearing away detritus from the plot, leaving flowers and lanterns and weird ceramic things to keep me company, or even standing about having a one-sided conversation with me. Believe me, I’ve had my share of one-sided conversations with family and the last thing I need is to suffer through them for all eternity.
Read more…
The seed point for this particular post comes from Dr. David Gorski’s recent post on Science-Based Medicine about the Pharma-Shill Gambit. But I’m not going to dwell on the idea that anyone who speaks out against the alt-med industry is deeply in the pockets of Big Pharmaceutical. Instead, I seek to pose the question of who should be responsible for paying for scientific advancement.
I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It’s a great place to live for the most part, and I love it here. But the biggest down-side is the lack of foresight. I don’t believe this is a Calgary-only problem, but one that is all over the world and impacts almost every imaginable aspect of human society. But Calgary is a good model. Many years ago, I sent an email to my alderman wondering about urban sprawl. At the time, we were nearing the one million people mark, and the city’s solution to growth was to build outwards. The direct result of this decision as has been seen in countless other cities is the massive problems in the inner city, and the huge cost of building schools, transit service, hospitals, and all the other amenities needed as young families continue to move further and further into the sticks. The response was typical of all of the conversations I’ve had with my elected representatives. I received a form letter assuring me that they were going to be starting a group to evaluate options and opportunities using best-practices learned from other cities of similar size and growth patterns. Never fear! A council would be formed!
Today, nothing has changed. We’re closing schools and building new ones as fast as we can because applying the brakes to urban sprawl is a necessary but unpopular decision. People want their own brand new house. Telling them they need to consider anything less is just out of the question because that’s not how you get re-elected.
Read more…
I’ll be the first to admit that I have at times been a smug dick when it comes to my atheism. I’ve had conversations with everyone from apologists to creationists and all manner of weird in between, and there are times when I’ve been humble and polite and times when I’ve been a raging asshole. Really, it depends on the overall timbre of the conversation and what comments are being bandied about on both sides. I have my hot buttons and I have my overall calm nature, and one will always get the best of the other. I think that’s true of all people, we have this knack of knowing what we know and assuming that others will understand it properly. When they don’t, we often become frustrated either with our lack of ability to communicate our thoughts or with the other person’s inability to hear what we are saying. But at least I know when I’m being a smug dick.
This morning when I got in to my office, I had an email waiting from my friend Chris “Bad Mutha” Hubbard, who is currently enjoying the life of a kept man in Brazil. I was working from home last week due to a brutal head cold, and he and I had been emailing about things. He thought I’d be interested in this link that he found by Paul Prather about how the New Atheists are just a bunch of mean jerks who are just as fundamentalist and dogmatic as Christians.
Read more…
