Guest Post by Ivan
*The following article has been written by Ivan and strictly reflects his personal opinion. This article should not be interpreted as an attack against any religious organization or individual.
The existence of a God has often been widely debated. As a nonbeliever of any supreme being or creator God, I will attempt to bring the scientific evidence against the possibility of a God or transcendental form of consciousness beyond the limits of neurological processes.
Philosophy
Before I begin discussing about the various evidences for the nonexistence of God, I will first discuss about the fundamental philosophy regarding the debate. First of all, the existence or nonexistence of a God cannot be proven. If a God does not exist, then obviously its nonexistence can never be proven. As an analogy, if I say that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Russel's teapot), can anyone disprove me? Of course not. Likewise, no one can prove if it exists. Of course, we know that it does not exist because nothing proves its existence. On the other hand, if a God exists, we can never prove it unless the God decides to show itself to the world. Despite this impossibility of proving or disproving God, it is still possible to provide evidence for and against each side to add to the argument. Like the Chinese teapot analogy, an absence of empirical observation would mean that its nonexistence would be accepted unless proved otherwise.
However, the important thing to note at this juncture is that the debate revolves around evidence that shows how probable or improbable God’s existence is. It is in this post that I will give evidence for the latter in the form of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
Part 1: The Origin of the Universe
One of the most important arguments put up by theists is the concept of the first mover, or primum movens. The idea is based on the axiom of causality which would logically indicate that a set of causes for the universe’s existence would extend to infinity, which is impossible. In order to solve the problem, theists would invoke the idea of a God. This idea is augmented by the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy in a closed system can never be created nor destroyed.
However, an important philosophical argument would render this concept false. Since the laws of physics, as well as the axiom of causality, is created at the time of the big bang, it is perfectly possible for energy to be created out of nothing and spontaneous creation to take place without the need for physical laws to be fulfilled. It is the nonexistence of causality and physical laws before the big bang that permits spontaneous creation to occur. Presently, it is thought that a hyperspace exists to allow such spontaneous creation of an infinite number of galaxies. I will discuss this on more detail later on.
Part 2: The complexity of the Universe
For most people, space is simply the black sky that hovers over their heads every night. In the past century, however, the magnificence of our universe has started to reveal itself to science. To put things into perspective, the observable universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years across (one light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometres), with the Earth being at the centre (since the calculation of the horizon is based on Earth’s perspective). In the observable universe, there are approximately 8 quintillion stars, with the sun being just one of many. I derived this number from the calculation of the number of galaxies observed by the Hubble ultra deep field, multiplying that value to the area of the night sky, and multiplying that number to the number of stars in one galaxy. This is a staggering number indeed, and it shows that Earth, being only a tiny speck of dust in the great cosmic depths, is not as special as it was once thought to be.
The universe has a beautiful set of physical laws in terms of mathematical aesthetics. Equations are always symmetrical in terms of the values on both sides, the golden ratio is found naturally in organic life, and the precise arbitrary constants of the standard model allow the existence of stable matter for life to exist. I have realised that many theists enjoy using the complexity of the universe as evidence for intelligent design. Of course, all becomes clear when the anthropic principle is understood.
First of all, the laws of the universe are undoubtedly perfect for life to form. Should the mass of the proton change by a tiny fraction, stable matter would not exist. The Earth has a perfect atmosphere and temperature for life to evolve, and the laws of physics and chemistry drives evolution in a positive direction. However, this apparent coincidence is actually based on a sort of observation-selection bias. If the conditions of the universe (and Earth) were not perfect, there is absolutely no way that life could exist. If life did not exist, we wouldn’t even be here to ponder about our existence. In today, modern physics has begun to unravel a world that is much stranger than we thought. Most scientists now believe that there is more than just the three dimensions we know today. In total, eleven dimensions are thought to exist, with only the limits of sensory perception limited to the familiar three causing the illusion that higher dimensions do not exist. With this, it is also thought that an infinite number of parallel universes exist alongside ours; each with a different set of physical laws that determine how the universe works. Using the anthropic principle, we would then realise that only habitable universes can contain life. Since life is indeed formed upon rare chance, we would assume most universes to be devoid of life, or even stars. Likewise, it is only through habitable conditions of Earth that life could exist here.
Another argument related to the anthropic principle on a planetary scale is the low probability of abiogenesis. According to creationist statistics, the probability of a protein molecule forming by itself is less than that of a hurricane sweeping through a metal scrap yard and assembling a working Boeing 747 (Hoyle’s fallacy). However, when we look at the staggering number of stars in the universe, it is obvious that this probability is overcome easily. Furthermore, the 15 billion-year old universe would have provided sufficient time for this to occur. Most importantly, however, the autosynthesis of liposomes and microspheres (membrane-bound RNA, believed to the earliest form of life on Earth) has been performed in the laboratory. This shows that the probability calculated by the creationists is not accurate in the first place.
Another argument that is often put up by theists is the apparent beauty of nature. To them, the grandeur of the sunset and breathtaking views of Earth from atop a mountain is due to the work of intelligent design. However, what they fail to take into account is the fact that our brains are adapted to the Earth and universe that we inhabit after four billion years of constant evolution. As an analogy, us humans would often feel repulsed at the sight of a female cockroach. To a male cockroach, however, the structure of a female cockroach is perfectly and beautifully designed. This was a requirement for reproduction and their survival as a species. The most important thing about this analogy, however, is that it shows how beauty is only the result of adapted psychology. This means that the mathematical and aesthetic beauty of the universe is the byproduct of evolution and not a creator. This brings me to my next point on evolution.
Part 3: Evolution
The theory of evolution is often one of the most widely-debated topics as it directly challenges the claims made by the Christian genesis. Although evolution is described as a ‘theory’, it has as much doubt in biology as quantum physics had in physics. This is important to note as many creationists argue that evolution is ‘only a theory’. By their definition, atomic theory and the theory of relativity would be only theories. As an analogy of scientific theories and facts, the constant rising of the sun in the East everyday is now established as a fact since all observational evidence proves it. If, however, the sun rises in the West one day, the theory would be proved wrong. The same goes for evolution: to date, all scientific data supports it. However, it is very susceptible to being disproven because a single evidence against it would render it untrue. In fact, the theory is supported by a massive amount of evidence which I will now put forward. At the same time, I will also clarify some of the misconceptions about evolution based on the people who argue against it.
First of all, what exactly is evolution? Evolution is actually the process whereby small changes in the form of genetic mutation occur along every generation that produces a substantial shift in genetic composition of an organism from its distant ancestors and is naturally selected due to its chances of survival. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs in every generation. While the genetic composition of the offspring is almost genetically identical to that of the parents, small changes in genes over hundreds or thousands of generations would eventually cause a significant change in the observed characteristics that differentiate the descendent species from the ancestral species. Traits that are beneficial for an organism’s survival is selected preferentially due to the fact that organisms with beneficial traits would survive better and hence be able to reproduce. Over time, constant sexual reproduction would cause beneficial genes to be spread across the entire population of a species, causing a shift in the genetic composition.
It is important to note that all organisms are transitional species between two others. Due to the fact that evolution is a gradual process, transitional fossils exist to show the smooth transition of one species to the next. In the case of humans, the chimpanzee-like australopithecines evolved to species with the genus homo, such as Homo erectus and homo habilis right up to homo sapiens as shown by fossil evidence. Although many creationists maintain that evolution is false because humans evolved from monkeys, it is important to note that modern species do not evolve from modern species. Rather, humans and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. In fact, all organisms share a common ancestor with one another. The only difference is, the greater the difference in genetic composition, the more distant that common ancestor is.
Another important evidence for evolution, besides the transitional fossils, is the experimental observations of evolution occurring in the laboratory. Known as the Escherichia Coli Long term evolution experiment, twelve containers of the bacteria are allowed to grow in a nutrient broth of glucose and citric acid. Due to the rapid rate of reproduction, a small sample of the bacteria would be extracted from each container daily and allowed to reproduce to the original amount on the next day. The rest of the bacteria would be frozen for observational analysis. The experiment has been going on for over twenty years, and has recently reached the 50,000th generation early this year. The significance of this experiment is that the results showed ongoing evolution in all of the different containers. The bacteria in each different container would take a different evolutionary path due to random mutations. The results were indeed stunning. At first, the original bacteria sample could only thrive on glucose as the source of food. However, one sample suddenly managed to evolve and utilise the citric acid mixed with the glucose in the nutrient broth, resulting in a sudden surge in bacteria count for that particular flask. This shows that ongoing evolution can and has been observed, and the fact that it is done based on empirical methods would mean that evolution can be directly verified.
Intelligent design, besides having only a few arguments, has much evidence to disprove it. In human males, the vas deferens (the tube carrying semen from the testes) loops over the ureter before making its way down to the penis. This is unintelligent design as the looping of the vas deferens requires the wasting and channelling of more resources to the building of the extended tube. From an ecological perspective, this is a detriment to the survival of the organism as the resources used could be channelled to other areas that would have otherwise improved other aspects of survival. From an evolutionary point of view, however, all becomes clear. In our ancestors, the scrotum was located above the bladder. After millions of years of evolution, the location of the scrotum ‘moved’ downwards to its present position due to the benefits of having it exposed to the ambient air which is of a lower temperature. During this process, the vas deferens would have to loop over the ureter by that path.
Another evidence of unintelligent design is from the ecological perspective of a forest. In forests, and especially in tropical rainforests, trees compete for sunlight by growing taller than the other trees. Although resources are wasted to increase the tree’s height, the benefits of gaining more sunlight for photosynthesis outweighs the extra resources used. From the perspective of a single tree, this is a requirement for competition. From the perspective of the entire forest, however, large amounts of resources are wasted: if all the trees did not compete with one another, the resultant intensity of sunlight falling on the surface of the trees would still be the same. As an analogy, spectators from a concert might start to stand to get a better view of the performance. However, since their act of standing up would block the view of the people behind that person, the people sitting behind would thus stand up to prevent the person from blocking their view. Over time, everyone would be standing up and the result would still be the same. From an evolutionary point of view, the wastage of resources is due to the fact that evolution occurs on an individual basis and not as a whole.
Part 4: Morality
Many theists disregard the study of science as they think that it is the work of a devil. This is an extremely closed-minded thought. Good and evil do not exist: They are concepts created by us humans. Good usually refers to morally upright acts, or acts that seem ethical. There is no clear distinction between good and evil, as changing circumstances would change what defines both. Furthermore, behaviour is the result of both our psychology (i.e. greed, sex drive), and the living environment (e.g. bad childhood). All people are created with a somewhat similar psychology (with slight variation as a result of genetic mutation), but different living environment. Personality is determined by experiences and not the existence of a soul.
Yet, why do we stand up against injustice? The answer does not lie in a god, but with evolution once again. By feeling pity for another member of the same species, we are increasing our chances of survival. Of course, you might argue that animal-lovers are common and this would contradict evolution. However, evolution does have an explanation for it. It is known as reciprocal altruism (you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Reciprocal altruism refers to the apparent non-selfish act involving first helping another organism at the expense of one’s own survival. This is evident in symbiotic relationships between species. Within a single species, each organism has ideal behavioural characteristics that lie somewhere in between all-greedy and all-giving. This ensures that while an organism would aid and cooperate with other members of the species, a form of selfishness must exist to ensure the survival of itself.
Evolution cares nothing for the comfort of any organism. The many wasps sting an insect prey as a host for reproduction. By strategically stinging the ganglia of the host prey, the prey would be paralysed, thereby enabling the wasp to inject its eggs into the body of the insect. Throughout this process, the host insect is kept alive, only paralysed. The larvae hatched from the eggs would then move on to devour the meat of the host insect while it is still alive. This is indeed a traumatising death for the host insect. Yet, this is important for the survival of the wasp as it ensures that the meat is kept fresh. This is a fact of evolution, and nature does not care whether the host insect suffers a traumatising death. Justice often fails to be done. That is a fact of life that has to be accepted. Morality is merely an illusion created by reciprocal altruism. Does this mean that the theory of evolution would cause chaos in society? Perhaps it will. Theists often use this argument that by accepting Darwinism into society, injustice would pervade. This argument is also known as argumentum ad consequentiam. However, our preferences do not decide how nature works. Whether we like it or not, evolution is still true. Per contra, even if Darwinism is accepted by the scientific community, it does not mean that society would function based on its principle. This, however, is beyond the scope of this post.
Part 5: Are humans the only species to qualify the entry to heaven?
This is perhaps one of the most direct evidence against the existence of a God. Many religions assume that only humans would go to heaven. However, fossil evidence shows that there is no clear distinction between humans and apes. Transitional fossils exist with a smooth transition until the human species. If this is the case, how do we define what a human is? Humans are continually evolving, and because the process is so gradual there each successive generation can be considered genetically identical from the previous one. Yet, there exists a slight change in DNA from one generation to the other. This amounts to large scale changes over millions of years. This also means, however, that there is a loss of clear definition of a human, and thus who goes to heaven. The idea of hell is also based on a fallacy. How do we define good and bad? There is no common consensus that clearly defines the two.
Even if all creatures go to heaven, how do you differentiate conscious life from non-conscious life? You might say that this lies in the presence of a brain. However, there is also no clear distinction between what is considered as a brain. For one, some organisms contain a centralised and complex network of nervous tissue but lack what we would consider as a brain. Like I mentioned previously, evolution is a gradual process and no clear distinctions can be made. If a conscious organism is but a smooth transition from an unconscious one (as proven in fossil record), how do we define what can transcend physical death? It is unlikely that a benevolent and omnipotent God would favour a certain group of organisms over another.
Even assuming that all creatures, both conscious and unconscious, would transcend death and go to heaven (or hell), how do we define life and non-life? Viruses show characteristics of both, and the first organisms were just a clump of membrane-bounded RNA. From all the evidence above, it is thus obvious to note that it is unlikely that a God could exist. The absence of any clear distinction between all forms of life, as well as life and non-life, would indicate that it is impossible for any afterlife to exist.
Part 6: The Paranormal
Paranormal activities in the form of haunting by entities returning from the afterlife have been reported in most, if not all cultures across the globe. These cultures exist independently from one another. It is possible, however, that the idea of the supernatural has existed in the very first humans who originated in Africa. For the benefit of the doubt, however, I will assume that the ideas of ghosts were created independently from the different cultures.
If the idea of supernatural forces influencing human lives were created independently across the world, does this mean that ghosts really do exist? The answer is a vehement ‘no’. Reports of paranormal activities are more likely to be the side effect of an evolutionary byproduct. First of all, our natural curiosity towards the universe (which has benefited us by enabling us to develop technology that started in primitive humans) results in a tendency to attribute unknown gaps in information to an unknown force. For example, our distant ancestors believed that fire was the result of a God and required the adding of firewood as a way to appease it and continue producing fire. This characteristic of the human mind has far-reaching consequences that resulted in many theists arguing about gaps in science through an argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignoratiam.
The second cause of supernatural beliefs is the result of the psychological need to believe in the continuation of consciousness beyond death. When organisms evolved from non-conscious life to conscious life, the need for survival is transferred from a physical level to a psychological level. This results in us not being able to perceive a time when conscious activity ceases. As a result, we would tend to think that some sort of continuation of one’s self and mind would transcend beyond physical death, resulting in a belief that dead ancestors would manifest in a ghost-like entity capable of returning from the dead.
Most paranormal encounters are the result of psychological activities that stem from psychological inadequacies prevalent in all humans, such as paraedolia, or the natural tendency to look for patterns. Hallucinations are also a common cause, and are often augmented by one’s belief system. Experiments in virtual reality have proven that whenever a person enters a place believed by that person to be haunted, he or she would observe entities or objects that are not really there. This effect can be increased by the addition of electromagnetic fields and infrasound.
Reports of paranormal activity observed by more than one person simultaneously cannot be attributed to psychological effects. However, they too, can be explained by physical effects not quite understood. Human emotions are extremely powerful energies that can leave a signature at a certain location. This is often the cause of residual haunting. Although the neurological model of consciousness and emotions is not yet completely understood, biochemical reactions occurring as a result of powerful emotions such as a traumatic death might release vast amounts of energy, possibly electromagnetic in nature. If the energy is powerful enough, local conditions such as the presence of material in soil that can be easily magnetised might act as some sort of natural recorder. This energy can be replayed continuously for centuries when the electromagnetic fields interact with the brain of the visitor. Note, however, that this is only a theory and that a diverse range of scientific phenomena can account for this. The growing field of Quantum mechanics might also provide another explanation for such paranormal activity.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the existence of a God is highly unlikely. Given all the scientific evidence, rational thinkers would easily assume that the existence of a God is highly improbable. While there is still the possibility that a God exists, our current understanding of the universe shows that it is highly unlikely that there is such a possibility. For one, a God is not required for all that we see today, and closer observation of life and the universe indicates that God does not exist.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Spamming for idiots
I feel very inspired to do a post on spamming thanks to “hairylongcock” (HLC), which I have publically dubbed as the ”baldshortworm”, who had made the conscious effort to return to my blog, not once, but TWICE to spam my wonderful (because its free) Chatroll with meaningless messages such as “jk”, “gh”, etc in random order. I'm not categorizing this post under the "What is" series because it lacks sufficient detail and does not cover a broader spectrum of the global issue of spamming.
I must say I’m honored with the effort taken by HLC to key it random alphabets approximately 50 times each time the dear spammer pops by, however due to its unconstructive nature, I had to ban him. I must say I prefer hecklers who will scold me at my Chatroll, I’m not perfect and I need a scolding now and then to squash my big head back into size. =) I’ll be more specific and say, I rather know WHY you hate me than to see you clutter up my entire Chatroll, only for me to delete it ALL away with 2 clicks… Hardly worth the effort, isn’t it?
So these are the common variations of spam, are there others that fall under this umbrella? HLC would still fall under the umbrella of a IM spammer who sends out bulk messages in person rather through a virus trying to promote some product. Personally, I always looked down on such IM spammers, because you can tell quite a few things about them (I’ll use HLC as a case study here):
I still believe in respecting the basic rules of courtesy- "be polite unless aggression is called for" & "don't overstay your welcome". I think I need to justify myself, I produce unsolicited advice indiscriminately, that’s all. I didn’t start off with an aim of pissing the blog owner off unlike most IM spammers like HLC. I’m a fair person, I’ll praise people if they are good and scold them if they are bad. If they fall between the grey area, I’ll shut up and hold my peace (or piss).
So back to the topic of spamming, what is spamming? Spamming is now universally accepted as the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. “Traditionally” speaking, spam used to refer to unsolicited adverts that unknown idiots shove into your letter boxes. With the progress of technology, spam now refers to unknown idiots flooding your emails, IM, mobile phones and fax transmissions with more adverts that you do not need.
Spam is harmless by nature, but they are certainly a hassle. For one, I have to clear my emails more often before they jam up the entire system. Furthermore, many spam emails and IM messages contain viruses in attached folders/links that actually compromise your account security and send out more spam emails to annoy those on your contact lists. For those of you who use msn, I’m sure you’ve received random links from friends who appear to be offline with messages ranging from “I can’t believe you were so cheap! (link)” to “Is that you in this picture? (link)" to “I lost over 20 pounds in three weeks! You should try out this acacia berry pills! (link)". Clicking on the link provided would only result in a viral invasion of your beloved computer.
So how to deal with spam? I say, ignore them and don’t respond. When spammers realize that there is no benefit in sending out such messages, the whole system will be redundant. As for annoying buggers you will meet online, just delete their post, ignore them and live goes on, WITHOUT them. They’ll get tired and stop after some time. In summary, don’t take things personally, they are people too, they’re just attention seeking and immature. Sex maniacs will die of STDs and the verbally abusive will get beaten up one day. Unsolicited hecklers like me will give up once we realize that your skull is thicker than a coconut.
P.S. whatever I said about ignoring spammers doesn’t work on me, I have this obsessive-compulsion to insult them back.
I must say I’m honored with the effort taken by HLC to key it random alphabets approximately 50 times each time the dear spammer pops by, however due to its unconstructive nature, I had to ban him. I must say I prefer hecklers who will scold me at my Chatroll, I’m not perfect and I need a scolding now and then to squash my big head back into size. =) I’ll be more specific and say, I rather know WHY you hate me than to see you clutter up my entire Chatroll, only for me to delete it ALL away with 2 clicks… Hardly worth the effort, isn’t it?
So these are the common variations of spam, are there others that fall under this umbrella? HLC would still fall under the umbrella of a IM spammer who sends out bulk messages in person rather through a virus trying to promote some product. Personally, I always looked down on such IM spammers, because you can tell quite a few things about them (I’ll use HLC as a case study here):
1.They are incredibly free. I think any decent person with time on their hands can think of better things to do than to come to people’s IM and leave a brandom string of alphabets behind.I’ve been tagging randomly at some Ah Lian’s blogs as well as at AALT2. Thanks to my heckling nature, I made a lot of enemies, not that I care because all of them are still immature and have underdeveloped brains (a.k.a. below 21 years old). I was quite amazed that liannies like to call me a spammer. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts about liannies. For one, I don’t do BULK messages, I just leave innocuous messages like “why must you swear so much? It makes you look crude and stupid.” That is enough for them to reply “who are you to tell me what to do!!!!” to which I’ll usually post my replies and get labeled a spammer once the blog owner is tired of me. I'll leave the blog when I'm asked to nicely.
2.They are hard up for attention. Obviously, no one gives a damn for HLC, whether he’s dead or alive. He’s so desperate that he is reduced into being a faceless persona who failed to market his obviously handicapped anatomy as something mightier than it actually is. You know, they said “the pen is mightier than the sword”, I say “a worm is more pitiful alive than dead”. If you don’t get what I mean, too bad. =P
3.They are very stupid. Their vocabulary and knowledge is extremely limited. In HLC’s case, all he knows is how to beg for a blowjob because no one wants to do it even if he pays them to and how to type alphabets in random order.
4.They are failures in every sense of the word. When I had a tagboard as my guestbook, HLC drew a picture of an inch long penis and called it big. As you
can tell, I’m hardly impressed and I was trying very hard to keep a straight
face when HLC begged for blowjobs.
I still believe in respecting the basic rules of courtesy- "be polite unless aggression is called for" & "don't overstay your welcome". I think I need to justify myself, I produce unsolicited advice indiscriminately, that’s all. I didn’t start off with an aim of pissing the blog owner off unlike most IM spammers like HLC. I’m a fair person, I’ll praise people if they are good and scold them if they are bad. If they fall between the grey area, I’ll shut up and hold my peace (or piss).
So back to the topic of spamming, what is spamming? Spamming is now universally accepted as the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. “Traditionally” speaking, spam used to refer to unsolicited adverts that unknown idiots shove into your letter boxes. With the progress of technology, spam now refers to unknown idiots flooding your emails, IM, mobile phones and fax transmissions with more adverts that you do not need.
Spam is harmless by nature, but they are certainly a hassle. For one, I have to clear my emails more often before they jam up the entire system. Furthermore, many spam emails and IM messages contain viruses in attached folders/links that actually compromise your account security and send out more spam emails to annoy those on your contact lists. For those of you who use msn, I’m sure you’ve received random links from friends who appear to be offline with messages ranging from “I can’t believe you were so cheap! (link)” to “Is that you in this picture? (link)" to “I lost over 20 pounds in three weeks! You should try out this acacia berry pills! (link)". Clicking on the link provided would only result in a viral invasion of your beloved computer.
So how to deal with spam? I say, ignore them and don’t respond. When spammers realize that there is no benefit in sending out such messages, the whole system will be redundant. As for annoying buggers you will meet online, just delete their post, ignore them and live goes on, WITHOUT them. They’ll get tired and stop after some time. In summary, don’t take things personally, they are people too, they’re just attention seeking and immature. Sex maniacs will die of STDs and the verbally abusive will get beaten up one day. Unsolicited hecklers like me will give up once we realize that your skull is thicker than a coconut.
P.S. whatever I said about ignoring spammers doesn’t work on me, I have this obsessive-compulsion to insult them back.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Does technology help or hinder social interaction?
WRITTEN WITH THE HELP OF PHONG
Man is a social animal, evolution has made us so. Why? In the past, the world was a dangerous place where every man needed and extra eye or hand to aid survival. In a social unit, they can share their resources and help each other survive the harsh environment that they live in. As time passed, writing progressed from pictures to symbols and characters. Communication was primarily through verbal and written means. As time progressed, we opened up a whole new world of mobile communication through SMS, emails, MMS, cyber platforms like MMORPGs, Friendster or Facebook! People from all across the world can communicate with each other without meeting up personally and yet know how each other looks like, what are their preferences, age, birthday, etc.
But are these communication methods helping or destroying peoples’ social skills? There are 2 prevailing view regarding technology (the internet) and social relationships. The first theory is old and conservative (mostly created in the 1990s), it proposes that no form of stable or genuine relationship can be formed online and the Internet only served to atomize society, isolating the individuals. In contrast, the modern view was predominantly advanced by Walther, with this theory of the hyper-peronal effects claiming that the Internet and its communication tools actually help to create a lot of affordances to facilitate communication and socialization. More recently, Dmitri Williams also suggests that online games like MMORPGs actually have characteristics of a "third place", which is a sociological concept advanced by Ray Oldenburg to refer to sites of socialization, with the first place being home and second place, school or work.
So this bring out another question, where is the border between virtual versus reality? Yes, MMORPGs, Facebook and Friendster are just social platforms online that are virtual, regardless of how they look. But then, the relationships there are real because real friendships are made, often offline and many become couples. But this line is blurred when people have virtual marriages with ceremonies and attendees (other gamers who are their friends). Facebook and Friendster are based on cyberspace, so their communities are cyber-based, yet their relationships are real in the sense that today A insults B on Facebook, tomorrow, B can kill A for it. That is the real thing. Also, the cyber world has become a platform for people to share their “fantasies” that they are unable to enact in the real world due to social norms and rules- virtual rape, virtual bullying, etc...
Thanks to the technology, disagreements can be displayed using cowardly methods such as cc-ing every “important” person in the company in a bid to “cover ka-cheng”. Either that or cowardly attacks on people’s personal blogs such as leaving hostile messages on tag boards, or making their enemies’ blog links public on community blogs. I’m sure you have heard of stories about husbands or wives telling each other “I want a divorce, I’m leaving you” through emails or sms because they lack the courage to do it face to face.
I’ve also noted that many teenagers today are slaves to technology. It has gotten so bad that many of them are incapable of interpersonal interaction face to face. When I mean incapable, I don’t mean that they are unable to make friends, I mean they are unable to speak their minds, nor are they capable of conveying their opinions through verbal (choice of words) or non-verbal (i.e. body language) means.
Despite this, the internet has been a good place for people to socialize and interact with others from other parts of the world, socioeconomic groups, languages, race and religion. On my end, I’ve gotten to know new people- some good some bad, but every one of them left me a precious lesson on differences in people and their beliefs. I just find that with the ready availability of emails, I hate to call people up or meet them face to face. I prefer long emails that leave me a record of what transpired. =)
Man is a social animal, evolution has made us so. Why? In the past, the world was a dangerous place where every man needed and extra eye or hand to aid survival. In a social unit, they can share their resources and help each other survive the harsh environment that they live in. As time passed, writing progressed from pictures to symbols and characters. Communication was primarily through verbal and written means. As time progressed, we opened up a whole new world of mobile communication through SMS, emails, MMS, cyber platforms like MMORPGs, Friendster or Facebook! People from all across the world can communicate with each other without meeting up personally and yet know how each other looks like, what are their preferences, age, birthday, etc.
But are these communication methods helping or destroying peoples’ social skills? There are 2 prevailing view regarding technology (the internet) and social relationships. The first theory is old and conservative (mostly created in the 1990s), it proposes that no form of stable or genuine relationship can be formed online and the Internet only served to atomize society, isolating the individuals. In contrast, the modern view was predominantly advanced by Walther, with this theory of the hyper-peronal effects claiming that the Internet and its communication tools actually help to create a lot of affordances to facilitate communication and socialization. More recently, Dmitri Williams also suggests that online games like MMORPGs actually have characteristics of a "third place", which is a sociological concept advanced by Ray Oldenburg to refer to sites of socialization, with the first place being home and second place, school or work.
So this bring out another question, where is the border between virtual versus reality? Yes, MMORPGs, Facebook and Friendster are just social platforms online that are virtual, regardless of how they look. But then, the relationships there are real because real friendships are made, often offline and many become couples. But this line is blurred when people have virtual marriages with ceremonies and attendees (other gamers who are their friends). Facebook and Friendster are based on cyberspace, so their communities are cyber-based, yet their relationships are real in the sense that today A insults B on Facebook, tomorrow, B can kill A for it. That is the real thing. Also, the cyber world has become a platform for people to share their “fantasies” that they are unable to enact in the real world due to social norms and rules- virtual rape, virtual bullying, etc...
Thanks to the technology, disagreements can be displayed using cowardly methods such as cc-ing every “important” person in the company in a bid to “cover ka-cheng”. Either that or cowardly attacks on people’s personal blogs such as leaving hostile messages on tag boards, or making their enemies’ blog links public on community blogs. I’m sure you have heard of stories about husbands or wives telling each other “I want a divorce, I’m leaving you” through emails or sms because they lack the courage to do it face to face.
I’ve also noted that many teenagers today are slaves to technology. It has gotten so bad that many of them are incapable of interpersonal interaction face to face. When I mean incapable, I don’t mean that they are unable to make friends, I mean they are unable to speak their minds, nor are they capable of conveying their opinions through verbal (choice of words) or non-verbal (i.e. body language) means.
Despite this, the internet has been a good place for people to socialize and interact with others from other parts of the world, socioeconomic groups, languages, race and religion. On my end, I’ve gotten to know new people- some good some bad, but every one of them left me a precious lesson on differences in people and their beliefs. I just find that with the ready availability of emails, I hate to call people up or meet them face to face. I prefer long emails that leave me a record of what transpired. =)
Monday, August 10, 2009
De Maitre’s list of 10 important inventions across time Part 2
This is a continuation of another 10 important inventions to me. You can read part 1 here: http://contemplasian.blogspot.com/2009/06/de-maitres-list-of-10-important.html
1. Toilet Paper
As a clean freak, I get very upset when there’s no toilet paper around after I’ve conducted my business. Our toilet paper today are nicely soft and smooth, they won’t cause any abrasions. In the 15th centuries, sailors out at sea had no toilet papers to use. So they had a rope hanging down from the ceiling of their “toilet” (it’s just a huge gap at the side of the sea. By the end of the voyage (normally about 3-6motnhs), you can image how the rope looked and smelt like. Most of our landlubber ancestors used leaves- it’s a trial and error thing that certainly taught them some leaves are poisonous and cause severe inflammation/itching. So be thankful for your toilet papers today.
Read more here for other methods of cleaning asses in history: http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/02/9-bizarre-methods-once-used-to-wipe-ass/
2. The Sewing Needle
This is what an ancient needle looks like. It’s pretty big compared to our modern needles, so it always brings this question to my mind- are they sewing up the hole or making even more holes?
3. The Wheel and axle
Without them, there would have been no carts, therefore no chariots, therefore no bicycles and therefore no cars today. They were the first in our step towards automated transportation and contributed greatly to the great human migration. It is also the basis of modern machinery (i.e. cogs) due to its nature as the foundation of all moving parts.
4. Trepanation
Most of you never heard of this, it is the drilling or scraping of a hole in a human skull. It is done for a few reason- releasing “bad vapors” in the head (i.e. migraines and headaches), to release the soul (through a hole in the head) so the person can commune with the Gods better, or surgery to reduce remove excess bone/bleeding from a head injury. Most people do survive this surgery. In the cave man era, they normal use obsidian chips to scrap out a hole in the skull. It was a pretty messy and painful business.
5. The Oven
I love food- baked chicken, bread, cookies, pizza, etc. The oven was an improvement over the common cooking methods of roasting. It was typically a small little clay/brick dome where a fire was lit inside (around the edges) and the bread was placed in the center. I think food tastes better when cooked over wood or charcoal because they are a lot more aromatic.
6. Ink (Pigment)
Nothing much remains of our caveman ancestors’ way of life except the paintings left on the walls. They depict stories of the hunt, village life and their reverence for Nature. From them, we know that our ancestors hunted in groups and they liked to engage in body painting. These cave paintings were the stepping stones for the transition from oral to written history. Do note that these two forms of history are by no means exclusive as they go hand in hand together.
7. Aqueduct
If you thought the Romans were the first people to construct aqueducts, you were wrong. Our ancestors have been doing there for a looooooooooooooooong time. The Romans only deserve the credit for building Mega-Aqueducts that stretch over huge distances. Even “backward” civilizations like the Aztecs had a sophisticated system of aqueducts bringing in water from the mountains down to their valleys.
8. Ships/ Log Boats
Our ancestors spread out from Africa thousands of years ago by foot and water. Did you know that the indigenous population in South America had aboriginal ancestry? Unfortunately, this has been bred out over the generations. That would mean the Aztecs, Incas, Moche, etc were survivors of people who crossed the entire Pacific Ocean from the Pacific Islands on primitive ships!
9. Basket Weaving
Now that we have plastic bags and plastic containers, the modern world has relegated baskets to trivial use such as floral arrangement and presentation at bread shops. In the past, they were the shopping and storage bins for people. They were used to hold fruits, grain, eggs, bread, etc.
10. Pottery
Pottery was important to our ancestors because they allowed us to store liquids for prolonged periods without having to worry about them going bad. Animal skins could only hold so much, and water or wine turned stale in them. Furthermore, pottery allowed our ancestors to eat and drink in a “civilized” manner through the use of bowls, cups, etc. It also allowed our ancestors to cook stews, lentils, soups, etc over the fire, providing them a change in diet.
1. Toilet Paper
As a clean freak, I get very upset when there’s no toilet paper around after I’ve conducted my business. Our toilet paper today are nicely soft and smooth, they won’t cause any abrasions. In the 15th centuries, sailors out at sea had no toilet papers to use. So they had a rope hanging down from the ceiling of their “toilet” (it’s just a huge gap at the side of the sea. By the end of the voyage (normally about 3-6motnhs), you can image how the rope looked and smelt like. Most of our landlubber ancestors used leaves- it’s a trial and error thing that certainly taught them some leaves are poisonous and cause severe inflammation/itching. So be thankful for your toilet papers today.
Read more here for other methods of cleaning asses in history: http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/02/9-bizarre-methods-once-used-to-wipe-ass/
2. The Sewing Needle
This is what an ancient needle looks like. It’s pretty big compared to our modern needles, so it always brings this question to my mind- are they sewing up the hole or making even more holes?
3. The Wheel and axle
Without them, there would have been no carts, therefore no chariots, therefore no bicycles and therefore no cars today. They were the first in our step towards automated transportation and contributed greatly to the great human migration. It is also the basis of modern machinery (i.e. cogs) due to its nature as the foundation of all moving parts.
4. Trepanation
Most of you never heard of this, it is the drilling or scraping of a hole in a human skull. It is done for a few reason- releasing “bad vapors” in the head (i.e. migraines and headaches), to release the soul (through a hole in the head) so the person can commune with the Gods better, or surgery to reduce remove excess bone/bleeding from a head injury. Most people do survive this surgery. In the cave man era, they normal use obsidian chips to scrap out a hole in the skull. It was a pretty messy and painful business.
5. The Oven
I love food- baked chicken, bread, cookies, pizza, etc. The oven was an improvement over the common cooking methods of roasting. It was typically a small little clay/brick dome where a fire was lit inside (around the edges) and the bread was placed in the center. I think food tastes better when cooked over wood or charcoal because they are a lot more aromatic.
6. Ink (Pigment)
Nothing much remains of our caveman ancestors’ way of life except the paintings left on the walls. They depict stories of the hunt, village life and their reverence for Nature. From them, we know that our ancestors hunted in groups and they liked to engage in body painting. These cave paintings were the stepping stones for the transition from oral to written history. Do note that these two forms of history are by no means exclusive as they go hand in hand together.
7. Aqueduct
If you thought the Romans were the first people to construct aqueducts, you were wrong. Our ancestors have been doing there for a looooooooooooooooong time. The Romans only deserve the credit for building Mega-Aqueducts that stretch over huge distances. Even “backward” civilizations like the Aztecs had a sophisticated system of aqueducts bringing in water from the mountains down to their valleys.
8. Ships/ Log Boats
Our ancestors spread out from Africa thousands of years ago by foot and water. Did you know that the indigenous population in South America had aboriginal ancestry? Unfortunately, this has been bred out over the generations. That would mean the Aztecs, Incas, Moche, etc were survivors of people who crossed the entire Pacific Ocean from the Pacific Islands on primitive ships!
9. Basket Weaving
Now that we have plastic bags and plastic containers, the modern world has relegated baskets to trivial use such as floral arrangement and presentation at bread shops. In the past, they were the shopping and storage bins for people. They were used to hold fruits, grain, eggs, bread, etc.
10. Pottery
Pottery was important to our ancestors because they allowed us to store liquids for prolonged periods without having to worry about them going bad. Animal skins could only hold so much, and water or wine turned stale in them. Furthermore, pottery allowed our ancestors to eat and drink in a “civilized” manner through the use of bowls, cups, etc. It also allowed our ancestors to cook stews, lentils, soups, etc over the fire, providing them a change in diet.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Is Love really worth all that Effort? -Coral Castle
Every time I recall Coral Castle and the Taj Mahal, I just wonder if love is worth such a tribute and sacrifice? I will focus more on Coral Castle because it is the work of one man, rather than a ruler capable of mobilize an army of workers.
Edward Leedskalnin built his castle from coral stones that he had hewn from his parcel of land. He carved and put together every single block of stone within his castle single-handedly. The largest of these rocks weighed approximately 30 tons and two of the tallest stones stood over 7.6m high. He carved out an accurate sundial, a water well, 25 rocking chairs, a fountain, a bath tub and even a polaris telescope! [Read More Here]
Amazingly, he didn't do this for love, he did it for his lost love, his "Sweet Sixteen". Is it possible for someone to be so hardbroken that he spent the rest of his life building his dream home for the woman he wanted to be with? Or is it a vain attempt to prove his undying love for her throught a symbolic construction a a monument to her beauty, like the Taj Mahal?
The most amazing part is yet to come, Coral Castle was built by Edward alone, without the help of any machinery. He was very secretive as to how he actually managed to move such huge pieces of masonry without the help of a crane or scaffold. All we know is that he used a simple system of pulleys that we know to be incapable of holding that much weights! The only tool that Edward spoke of using was a "perpetual motion holder."- Lord knows what the heck that is....
I've attached 3 documentry clips to show you all the miracle that this man has single handedly constructed for a woman who never loved him and rejected him because he was too old.
Edward Leedskalnin built his castle from coral stones that he had hewn from his parcel of land. He carved and put together every single block of stone within his castle single-handedly. The largest of these rocks weighed approximately 30 tons and two of the tallest stones stood over 7.6m high. He carved out an accurate sundial, a water well, 25 rocking chairs, a fountain, a bath tub and even a polaris telescope! [Read More Here]
Amazingly, he didn't do this for love, he did it for his lost love, his "Sweet Sixteen". Is it possible for someone to be so hardbroken that he spent the rest of his life building his dream home for the woman he wanted to be with? Or is it a vain attempt to prove his undying love for her throught a symbolic construction a a monument to her beauty, like the Taj Mahal?
The most amazing part is yet to come, Coral Castle was built by Edward alone, without the help of any machinery. He was very secretive as to how he actually managed to move such huge pieces of masonry without the help of a crane or scaffold. All we know is that he used a simple system of pulleys that we know to be incapable of holding that much weights! The only tool that Edward spoke of using was a "perpetual motion holder."- Lord knows what the heck that is....
I've attached 3 documentry clips to show you all the miracle that this man has single handedly constructed for a woman who never loved him and rejected him because he was too old.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Evolution of Male-Female Relationships in the Modern Context
Typical of WK to come up with such long titles, but the topic I’m going to explore is something that has been talked about very often, and which De Maitre had an interesting interpretation of:
Relationships (Romantic, sexual, platonic, whatever) between males and females.
To be very honest, I’m not been in any relationship, so I don’t have the “authority” to talk about boy-girl relationships. But I certainly can talk about it using a sociological, philosophical, even technological approach, as De Maitre had done.
The points that De Maitre had identified are as such:
First, women have long been subordinated by men, and hence they desire and deserve freedom.
Second, technology and social change has helped free many women from that subordination, and created that freedom.
Third, because of the first and second point, women don’t really need men.
First, it’s true that women were subordinated by men for too long in history. Women had no legal or constitutional status, and in many places and times, no social status as well. And times haven’t changed much since. Women in many places are free, but millions of women are still subordinated to men, often with saddening and horrifying consequences.
Second, the same millions of women are still subordinated because technology and social change hasn’t reached them. Even when it did, enforcement is a key problem in spreading freedom for women.
Take for example, in India, child marriages (imagine marrying your eight-month old daughter to a, say, eight year old boy?) and sati (a form of ritual suicide where the widow immolates herself in her husband’s funeral pyre), and in China, female infanticide (killing of babies), still very prevalent in rural areas today.
In addition, the same standards for female equality in say, Europe, are unrealistic for other parts of the world, where the problems are much worse. In Africa for example, female genital mutilation (female circumcision is one) is a major problem.
Social, constitutional, legal, economic equality for women cannot be expected without first dealing with this more prevalent and dangerous problem. One should be realistic and aim for gradual, marginal improvements.
Alright, that’s all for the depressing stuff. So what IS freedom for women? I think it’s the right to an unmolested life.
Why the word “unmolested”?
“Unmolested” has many important connotations.
It has the idea of protection physiologically, where women have rights over their own bodies. If you know how female genital mutilation works, trust me, you’ll be horrified.
It has the idea of protection psychologically, where women have freedom of thought and expression.
It has the idea of protection socially, where women can govern their own lives without the pervasion of irrelevant social doctrine.
So, do women need men? And vice versa?
De Maitre has pointed out that technology has created the scenario where women are no longer dependent on men. But the same can be said of men to women.
The thing is, technology allows us to create the ideal for both genders. It reminds me of Japanese pop culture, where they explore the idea of having robot boyfriends or girlfriends.
Like the J-drama Absolute Boyfriend, and the anime Chobits.
Technology is fundamentally value neutral. People sculpt ideals and values into value-free technology, deriving different meanings from them.
As De Maitre said, “They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous…”
I say, for men programming female robots, “they can be programmed to be caring, considerate, and cute…”
So De Maitre is right in this respect.
But there is something slightly more to it, in my opinion. This is because there is a possibility for a different outcome.
I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, Robots, Their Quest to be Human and the Meaning of Humanity, robots can help us understand more about ourselves. Here, our understanding of human relationships deepens when we recognize the imperfections of robots in their perfection.
The perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, as created by technology, can fulfill one’s every dream and desire.
But ultimately, one can get too caught up with the idea of perfection, and forget that imperfect humans exist alongside oneself, not to mention that one is him/herself an imperfect human.
Technology has not so much freed women from men, than both men and women from themselves and each other. Given this freedom, wouldn’t it be possible that humans can explore their relationships further?
Relationships (Romantic, sexual, platonic, whatever) between males and females.
To be very honest, I’m not been in any relationship, so I don’t have the “authority” to talk about boy-girl relationships. But I certainly can talk about it using a sociological, philosophical, even technological approach, as De Maitre had done.
The points that De Maitre had identified are as such:
First, women have long been subordinated by men, and hence they desire and deserve freedom.
Second, technology and social change has helped free many women from that subordination, and created that freedom.
Third, because of the first and second point, women don’t really need men.
First, it’s true that women were subordinated by men for too long in history. Women had no legal or constitutional status, and in many places and times, no social status as well. And times haven’t changed much since. Women in many places are free, but millions of women are still subordinated to men, often with saddening and horrifying consequences.
Second, the same millions of women are still subordinated because technology and social change hasn’t reached them. Even when it did, enforcement is a key problem in spreading freedom for women.
Take for example, in India, child marriages (imagine marrying your eight-month old daughter to a, say, eight year old boy?) and sati (a form of ritual suicide where the widow immolates herself in her husband’s funeral pyre), and in China, female infanticide (killing of babies), still very prevalent in rural areas today.
In addition, the same standards for female equality in say, Europe, are unrealistic for other parts of the world, where the problems are much worse. In Africa for example, female genital mutilation (female circumcision is one) is a major problem.
Social, constitutional, legal, economic equality for women cannot be expected without first dealing with this more prevalent and dangerous problem. One should be realistic and aim for gradual, marginal improvements.
Alright, that’s all for the depressing stuff. So what IS freedom for women? I think it’s the right to an unmolested life.
Why the word “unmolested”?
“Unmolested” has many important connotations.
It has the idea of protection physiologically, where women have rights over their own bodies. If you know how female genital mutilation works, trust me, you’ll be horrified.
It has the idea of protection psychologically, where women have freedom of thought and expression.
It has the idea of protection socially, where women can govern their own lives without the pervasion of irrelevant social doctrine.
So, do women need men? And vice versa?
De Maitre has pointed out that technology has created the scenario where women are no longer dependent on men. But the same can be said of men to women.
The thing is, technology allows us to create the ideal for both genders. It reminds me of Japanese pop culture, where they explore the idea of having robot boyfriends or girlfriends.
Like the J-drama Absolute Boyfriend, and the anime Chobits.
Technology is fundamentally value neutral. People sculpt ideals and values into value-free technology, deriving different meanings from them.
As De Maitre said, “They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous…”
I say, for men programming female robots, “they can be programmed to be caring, considerate, and cute…”
So De Maitre is right in this respect.
But there is something slightly more to it, in my opinion. This is because there is a possibility for a different outcome.
I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, Robots, Their Quest to be Human and the Meaning of Humanity, robots can help us understand more about ourselves. Here, our understanding of human relationships deepens when we recognize the imperfections of robots in their perfection.
The perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, as created by technology, can fulfill one’s every dream and desire.
But ultimately, one can get too caught up with the idea of perfection, and forget that imperfect humans exist alongside oneself, not to mention that one is him/herself an imperfect human.
Technology has not so much freed women from men, than both men and women from themselves and each other. Given this freedom, wouldn’t it be possible that humans can explore their relationships further?
The Potential Extinction of Men in the face of Technology
In the past, the patriarchal social model insisted that women had no rights- before marriage, a woman belonged to her father or her older brother in event of her father’s demise; after marriage, a woman belonged to her husband; after being widowed, she belonged to her son. A woman never had any rights or property to her name. If her husband was a gambler, he had the right to pawn away ALL of her stuff, including her. Many a prostitute in old England had a husband for their pimp. A woman who henpecked her husband could be burnt as a witch- her only crime was her sharp tongue.
Today, women have more rights and they don’t hesitate to draw the boundaries in terms of properties with their partners. It is funny how women still cling to the old idea of males as the providers when many reject the old ideals of women keeping the home clean and preparing a meal for their husbands. In Singapore, that role is delegated to the maids whilst the woman of the house goes out and carves a career for herself. Their partners have to settle household expenses whilst still paying for their lady’s shopping sprees. To a modern woman, her husband’s money is her, but her money certainly isn’t his! Personally, I think it isn’t fair to the men. I don’t believe in using social pressure to squeeze money out of them so that it can be squandered elsewhere.
I’m not saying all women do that to their husbands, but I’ve seen it enough to know that it is a predominant trend today. Mothers have been teaching their daughters the importance of creating a Plan B in case their husbands turn out to be rotten apples. Daughters were taught how to spend their husband’s money, whilst saving a portion aside for emergency situations. They were taught never to reveal the amount of money they had in their accounts to their husbands. Why weren’t sons taught the value of having their own personal account away from their wife’s knowledge?
Thanks to advances in technology, women can have children without the aid of sperms! Women no longer need men to defend them thanks to guns! Even an old lady in a wheel chair can shoot a vigorous fit young man dead instantly. Food can be grown in labs soon, so we don’t need a man to do the hard labor anymore! What’s more, women are capable of bringing home the bread/bacon today. They are as well educated, if not more educated than their male counterparts and they have been freed from the constraints faced by our “domesticated” ancestors.
Perhaps in future, we will have androids that are highly intelligent and capable of rendering emotions. Women may prefer their company over that of normal men! They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous. Something that no woman can guarantee her husband might be after the honey moon period. They may be the perfect accompaniment to any woman’s emotional and physical needs. An android won’t dump her just because she put on a little weight over the years, it won’t dump her because she’s undergoing an emotional patch, it won’t complain if her cooking tasted terrible, etc. Given such perfect company, will there be a need for men in the future years to come?
Hibari brought up the question about whether men are needed for defence. Well, androids SHOULD be stronger, less prone to psychological traumas associated with war and have greater stamina. They make better soldiers that men! =D Maybe, we can women can even control robots via remote!
Update!
Aussie women are chosing dogs over men! [Read here]
Today, women have more rights and they don’t hesitate to draw the boundaries in terms of properties with their partners. It is funny how women still cling to the old idea of males as the providers when many reject the old ideals of women keeping the home clean and preparing a meal for their husbands. In Singapore, that role is delegated to the maids whilst the woman of the house goes out and carves a career for herself. Their partners have to settle household expenses whilst still paying for their lady’s shopping sprees. To a modern woman, her husband’s money is her, but her money certainly isn’t his! Personally, I think it isn’t fair to the men. I don’t believe in using social pressure to squeeze money out of them so that it can be squandered elsewhere.
I’m not saying all women do that to their husbands, but I’ve seen it enough to know that it is a predominant trend today. Mothers have been teaching their daughters the importance of creating a Plan B in case their husbands turn out to be rotten apples. Daughters were taught how to spend their husband’s money, whilst saving a portion aside for emergency situations. They were taught never to reveal the amount of money they had in their accounts to their husbands. Why weren’t sons taught the value of having their own personal account away from their wife’s knowledge?
Thanks to advances in technology, women can have children without the aid of sperms! Women no longer need men to defend them thanks to guns! Even an old lady in a wheel chair can shoot a vigorous fit young man dead instantly. Food can be grown in labs soon, so we don’t need a man to do the hard labor anymore! What’s more, women are capable of bringing home the bread/bacon today. They are as well educated, if not more educated than their male counterparts and they have been freed from the constraints faced by our “domesticated” ancestors.
Perhaps in future, we will have androids that are highly intelligent and capable of rendering emotions. Women may prefer their company over that of normal men! They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous. Something that no woman can guarantee her husband might be after the honey moon period. They may be the perfect accompaniment to any woman’s emotional and physical needs. An android won’t dump her just because she put on a little weight over the years, it won’t dump her because she’s undergoing an emotional patch, it won’t complain if her cooking tasted terrible, etc. Given such perfect company, will there be a need for men in the future years to come?
Hibari brought up the question about whether men are needed for defence. Well, androids SHOULD be stronger, less prone to psychological traumas associated with war and have greater stamina. They make better soldiers that men! =D Maybe, we can women can even control robots via remote!
Update!
Aussie women are chosing dogs over men! [Read here]
Australia's single women are turning their backs on men and opting for a much more loyal and reliable companion - a dog.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Guest Post: The Death of True Beauty
COSMETIC SURGERY: THE CYCLE OF IMPERFECTIONS
--WRITTEN BY: P3ST
Ok, look at the picture below carefully. Now tell me which is Janet Cunliffe, age 50, and her daughter Jane, age 29. Maybe it's just me, but I had to take a few long looks before figuring out that the woman on the left is the product of nearly $15,000 worth of cosmetic surgeries (the hands gave her away!). One might be impressed by the wonders of medical science today in transforming a woman of that age into that of her daughter 21 years younger, but I cant help but think, is this what our society has come to? I'm sure many mothers out there have looked enviously at their daughters in the prime of their lives while shrugging resignedly at their winkles, droopy eyelids and all other signs of old age, but now you know it's perfectly possible to regain your youthfulness as long as you have the money to spare.
I'm not saying that what Janet did was wrong- she's perfectly entitled to spend her money in what ever that makes her happy. What I'm more concerned about is the role of cosmetic surgery being increasingly perceived as the instant solution to problems like low self esteem and poor self image over other traditional means such as counselling. I believe everyone is insecure about their bodies at some point, but are we taking our insecurities too far? In fact, are we even being unknowingly led to think that our flat noses,laugh wrinkles,small breasts, love handles are all wrong because hey, those celebrities and models you see in the media dont have them, and that happiness and success in life can only be achieved after correcting these imperfections?
Take South Korea for example, with many well known celebrities 'coming out' about their plastic surgeries over the years in order to please their fans and garner more showbiz opportunities. The resulting media interest on cosmetic surgery is so overhyped that parents are giving their offsprings plastic surgery packages as graduation gifts in hope that better looks will lead to a brighter future. More and more young koreans are being led to think that exernal beauty is more important in ensuring their success in life, with eight out of ten women over the age of 18 feeling the need to go for cosmetic surgery and nearly 70% suffering stress because of their appearance in a recent survey. What is even more disturbing is that one in two women in the same survey indicating that they had undergone cosmetic surgery at least once. Media programs too, has excebated this phenomenon by distorting the vision of beauty and sending messages to the masses that cosmetic surgery will solve all problems and completely transform lives. In USA reality shows like The Swan, Extreme Makeover, participants are given free cosmetic treatments in return for meeting their own personal goals from getting a job, saving a marriage gone cold to winning a beauty pageant.Ever noticed how such shows always focus on interviewing the subject and their families over the transformation while editing away massive portions of the process and ugly post surgery effects like swollen face? That's right, what these shows did not tell viewers are the risks and pain involve in undergoing such treatments, and the high maintenance and regular follow ups needed in order to keep the changes going. Instead they choose to glorify the process and concentrate on protraying the idea of the means justifying the ends, thus grossly misleading viewers with extremely wrong perceptions on cosmetic surgery that it is a small price to pay for vanity and everlasting happiness.
Now here lies another problem. When do we know enough is enough? We are all pressured into coping with the stress of modern living- the need to fit in with everyone else, having an edge over others in order to stand out and be chosen for success. This fear of being left behind in the race for perfection has inevitably led to some people resorting to drastic means in order to make them feel better about themselves. Coupled with deep seated insecurities or other forms of obsessive compulsiveness to be perfect, problems of unrealistic expectations have surfaced. As one well known Korean plastic surgeon remarked “ I'm not a psychologist, I can only improve what's on the outside.”
The danger of addiction is very real. What most people dont realise is that cosmetic surgery is ultimately still an extremely lucative business, and how patients might be subtly manipulated by their own plastic surgeons into undergoing more and more treatments in their quest for ultimate beauty. For example, many plastic surgeons have taken on offering lunch hour procedures such as botox injections and microdermabrasion. While these low risk, instant result treatments are very popular and considered affordable, they are only temporary in terms of effectiveness. The surgeons themselves know it, and they cant be happier to slot you in for more appointments or recommend treatments once you point out an imperfection on your body. Afterall, it's all possible as long as you can pay them. Before you know it, you are seeing your plastic surgeon every month, looking into the mirror everyday and finding new things to get upset about, getting more disatisfied with the last treatment or surgery because you think your nose should be even higher now that you know you can make it so and it's time to start saving for it.
This brings us to the Dorian Gray Syndrome.I know an ex-colleague who admitted frankly “once you are in, it's hard to stop, no one wants to look like an old hag when you know you can avoid it.” She first started out with a simple botox injection out of curiosity, and over the years it had branched out to various nose jobs,liposuctions, breast enlargement and whatever impefections about herself that she can think of and knows can be corrected through surgerical means (I hope she's just joking about perfecting her vagina). But will changing the physical aspects of our bodies really remove those hidden fears and difficulties in coping with the realities of aging and maturation of both body and mind? I really do not think so. What I think everyone needs to understand is that we will all grow old eventually, and that it's part of nature. Changing the physical body through artificial means is as good as deceiving youself because ultimately, if you are rotten inside, everyone will still be able to see it and you will never achieve happiness for long. The more insecure you are, the more people will notice and in turn leads to you getting more and more drastic or even dangerous treatments in order to compensate the fear-it's really a neverending cycle. Instead, it's a less painful and much more enriching experience to just embrace your years and see the changes on your body as a positive testament to getting over hundles in life and appreciating what you have achieved,no matter how big or small.
That I think, is really what life is about.
Taken from: http://thejamkingshow.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/50-year-old-mother-who-has-spent-10000-on-surgery-to-look-like-her-daughter/
--WRITTEN BY: P3ST
Ok, look at the picture below carefully. Now tell me which is Janet Cunliffe, age 50, and her daughter Jane, age 29. Maybe it's just me, but I had to take a few long looks before figuring out that the woman on the left is the product of nearly $15,000 worth of cosmetic surgeries (the hands gave her away!). One might be impressed by the wonders of medical science today in transforming a woman of that age into that of her daughter 21 years younger, but I cant help but think, is this what our society has come to? I'm sure many mothers out there have looked enviously at their daughters in the prime of their lives while shrugging resignedly at their winkles, droopy eyelids and all other signs of old age, but now you know it's perfectly possible to regain your youthfulness as long as you have the money to spare.
I'm not saying that what Janet did was wrong- she's perfectly entitled to spend her money in what ever that makes her happy. What I'm more concerned about is the role of cosmetic surgery being increasingly perceived as the instant solution to problems like low self esteem and poor self image over other traditional means such as counselling. I believe everyone is insecure about their bodies at some point, but are we taking our insecurities too far? In fact, are we even being unknowingly led to think that our flat noses,laugh wrinkles,small breasts, love handles are all wrong because hey, those celebrities and models you see in the media dont have them, and that happiness and success in life can only be achieved after correcting these imperfections?
Take South Korea for example, with many well known celebrities 'coming out' about their plastic surgeries over the years in order to please their fans and garner more showbiz opportunities. The resulting media interest on cosmetic surgery is so overhyped that parents are giving their offsprings plastic surgery packages as graduation gifts in hope that better looks will lead to a brighter future. More and more young koreans are being led to think that exernal beauty is more important in ensuring their success in life, with eight out of ten women over the age of 18 feeling the need to go for cosmetic surgery and nearly 70% suffering stress because of their appearance in a recent survey. What is even more disturbing is that one in two women in the same survey indicating that they had undergone cosmetic surgery at least once. Media programs too, has excebated this phenomenon by distorting the vision of beauty and sending messages to the masses that cosmetic surgery will solve all problems and completely transform lives. In USA reality shows like The Swan, Extreme Makeover, participants are given free cosmetic treatments in return for meeting their own personal goals from getting a job, saving a marriage gone cold to winning a beauty pageant.Ever noticed how such shows always focus on interviewing the subject and their families over the transformation while editing away massive portions of the process and ugly post surgery effects like swollen face? That's right, what these shows did not tell viewers are the risks and pain involve in undergoing such treatments, and the high maintenance and regular follow ups needed in order to keep the changes going. Instead they choose to glorify the process and concentrate on protraying the idea of the means justifying the ends, thus grossly misleading viewers with extremely wrong perceptions on cosmetic surgery that it is a small price to pay for vanity and everlasting happiness.
Now here lies another problem. When do we know enough is enough? We are all pressured into coping with the stress of modern living- the need to fit in with everyone else, having an edge over others in order to stand out and be chosen for success. This fear of being left behind in the race for perfection has inevitably led to some people resorting to drastic means in order to make them feel better about themselves. Coupled with deep seated insecurities or other forms of obsessive compulsiveness to be perfect, problems of unrealistic expectations have surfaced. As one well known Korean plastic surgeon remarked “ I'm not a psychologist, I can only improve what's on the outside.”
The danger of addiction is very real. What most people dont realise is that cosmetic surgery is ultimately still an extremely lucative business, and how patients might be subtly manipulated by their own plastic surgeons into undergoing more and more treatments in their quest for ultimate beauty. For example, many plastic surgeons have taken on offering lunch hour procedures such as botox injections and microdermabrasion. While these low risk, instant result treatments are very popular and considered affordable, they are only temporary in terms of effectiveness. The surgeons themselves know it, and they cant be happier to slot you in for more appointments or recommend treatments once you point out an imperfection on your body. Afterall, it's all possible as long as you can pay them. Before you know it, you are seeing your plastic surgeon every month, looking into the mirror everyday and finding new things to get upset about, getting more disatisfied with the last treatment or surgery because you think your nose should be even higher now that you know you can make it so and it's time to start saving for it.
This brings us to the Dorian Gray Syndrome.I know an ex-colleague who admitted frankly “once you are in, it's hard to stop, no one wants to look like an old hag when you know you can avoid it.” She first started out with a simple botox injection out of curiosity, and over the years it had branched out to various nose jobs,liposuctions, breast enlargement and whatever impefections about herself that she can think of and knows can be corrected through surgerical means (I hope she's just joking about perfecting her vagina). But will changing the physical aspects of our bodies really remove those hidden fears and difficulties in coping with the realities of aging and maturation of both body and mind? I really do not think so. What I think everyone needs to understand is that we will all grow old eventually, and that it's part of nature. Changing the physical body through artificial means is as good as deceiving youself because ultimately, if you are rotten inside, everyone will still be able to see it and you will never achieve happiness for long. The more insecure you are, the more people will notice and in turn leads to you getting more and more drastic or even dangerous treatments in order to compensate the fear-it's really a neverending cycle. Instead, it's a less painful and much more enriching experience to just embrace your years and see the changes on your body as a positive testament to getting over hundles in life and appreciating what you have achieved,no matter how big or small.
That I think, is really what life is about.
Taken from: http://thejamkingshow.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/50-year-old-mother-who-has-spent-10000-on-surgery-to-look-like-her-daughter/
Flesh Eating Robots
Futuristic-looking robots like Honda's sleek humanoid Asimo don't cut it for designer James Auger, at the Royal College of Art, London. Believing that they need to fit unobtrusively into the home, he has built robotic furniture. And, believing they need to be useful and entertaining, he has given the furniture an appetite for vermin, like mice and flies.
The pests are lured in and digested by an internal microbial fuel cell. This exploits the way microbes generate free electrons and hydrogen ions when oxidising chemicals for energy. Electronics can be powered by directing the electrons around an external circuit before reuniting them with the ions.
Taken from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17372-gallery-domestic-robots-with-a-taste-for-flesh.html
Oh man, I can't get my hands on the ultraviolet lamp!!! I have lots of mozzies and houseflies at home... I hope it'll generate enough power to charge up my iphone and fish tank... =P
And because its organic energy, we can feed the microbial fuel cell all the left over meat from the buther, roadkills, amputated limbs from the hospital and even little fetuses aborted by people. All in the name of clean and safe energy.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Inconsiderate Behavior(s)
I really hate inconsiderate people on MRTs. Seriously, I really hate the living crap out of them. In this video, this woman was picking her nose like some lucrative gold mine. Its ugly and she's flicking it everywhere!! You know, after watching this video, I swear I'll never look at MRT and chairs floors the same way every again.
As if that wasn't horrific enough, this lady has single-ass-edly occupied TWO seats!! It looks like her personal dragon throne, with her sitting there in all her comfy glory, picking her nose, with her tributes lying around her and her royal umbrella enjoying an exalted position of sharing a seat with her!
For those of you who don't know how a the Dragon Throne looks like, here it is:
Although its an ugly picture of an ugly Singaporean, I don't believe in the "hall-of-shame" method of correcting people negative social behavior. I would have prefered it if the face of the lady were to be blocked out so as to protect her privacy. People make mistakes and the smart ones learn from the mistakes of others. To me, there is no point in humiliating people in such a degrading manner.
When I visit http://aalteam.blogspot.com, I really dislike it when they post up pictures of Ah Lians on their blogs as examples of their rabid cam-whoring activities. I dislike Ah Lians, but they are humans too, to insult them as a social group is fine, but pasting up the photos of individuals in such a derisive manner is just plain vicious. Its truly cyber bullying.
Some people might comment that if it serves them right for posting their pictures online and leaving themselves open to cyber attacks. Well, that is partially true. If you don't want others to use your pictures in a negative light, don't put them online. However, it takes two hands to clap- cyber bullies are bad but they can't do anything if they can't get their hands on your photo!
Isn't the world such a miserable place to be in? =)
UPDATE!! I have more videos for you!!
This is worse... She's pasting her dirt all over the window... People who lean back against the window while they take a nap BEWARE!!
I really don't like smelling people's feet at the MRT nor do I like to see the color of her underwear. Neither do I relish on sitting on her toe clippings after she leaves.
He's obviously oblivious to the "NO SMOKING" rule on the MRT.
I'll probably do a post on AGGRESSIVE AUNTIES FROM YOUTUBE soon... Scold people for a reason but know where to stop- no need to rant and humiliate yourself anymore than you need to.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Robots, Their Quest to be Human and the Meaning of Humanity
I’m not an engineer or scientist. I’ll just talk about robots from a popular science, and more importantly, from a philosophical perspective.
But first, for those of you who don’t know, the word “robot” comes from the Czech word “robota” which means “compulsory slave labour.”
The word first appeared in Czech playwright Karel Capek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), a play about industrial machines and their conflict with humankind. This was the play that marked the beginning of robot culture.
The theme of Man vs. Machine, inspired by R.U.R., perpetuates itself throughout sci-fi, from movies like Terminator to The Matrix, to I, Robot, among others.
But in Japan, people’s attitudes towards robots are different. The Japanese imagined robots to be extensions of themselves, and were fundamentally value-neutral. They could serve both good and evil, but the matter is that good robots in the control of good forces would ultimately prevail.
This theme also perpetuates Japanese popular culture, from Astro Boy, to Transformers (yes, Transformers is a Japanese creation), to Gundam.
Robots didn’t start out looking human. The first true robots were industrial robots, usually being little more than an arm. They perform tasks deemed too dangerous or tedious for humans, their values being tireless and precise in their actions.
Gradually, robots came to look more and more like human beings. There is a term for it, called Anthropomorphism.
This is because for robot scientists, particularly Japanese robot scientists believe that robots could better serve society when they could relate better with humans. By making them more similar to humans, they bring robots closer to humans, and increase their sense of familiarity to people.
And so far, they have been very successful, with examples such as Honda’s ASIMO, and Sony’s Qrio.
But so much for an introduction, what is my post going to discuss?
What I’m going to explore is the philosophical approach in understanding robots and how they relate to us.
You see, robots can look exactly human (there are already models developed as such), but two things separates man from machine. The first is what Masahiro Mori (a robotics scientist) calls the “Uncanny Valley”, which compares human likeness to familiarity.
To put it simply, a robot like ASIMO may look less human but people are accepting of it, but a zombie, who looks more human than ASIMO, is less acceptable to humans. When this happens, we say a zombie is in the Uncanny Valley.
A robot may look human, but subtle differences between man and machine causes us to reject them.
Second, is the critical element of emotion.
I remember watching a documentary about the world of the future. There was a scene where a child of the future giving an ASIMO (by then obsolete) instructions, and having a sense of frustration when the robot could not understand the instruction. The robot could not understand the feeling of frustration in its master, only mindlessly repeat the question.
So, what does it mean for a future with robots?
When the time comes for androids to be living and working side by side with us in the world, would we be accepting of them, despite our differences, however subtle? We as humans already struggle to live with each other, having this irrelevant difference called “race”, how different would our interaction with androids be?
We are learning to cope, but have we? In Japanese companies, robots are treated with respect. New robots are welcomed in ceremonies; they are named, and are well maintained.
In the US, however, robots are still treated as what their names mean: Slaves. They work till they break.
I think for we should accept robots, which have helped us so much in our lives, doing the dirty work, plus others simply too difficult to do by ourselves, like visit Jupiter.
Because futures like R.U.R., or the Matrix, where robots revolt out of human oppression is truly scary.
And this understanding will be critical when robots have emotions. Now they don’t, and even robots today can only simulate emotion. Emotion is an extremely complex system of behavior unique to humans. It governs our interaction with people, and even non – living things.
Almost everything of our civilization is an expression of emotion. Our art, literature, language, society…
When robots have emotions, do they become human?
I don’t have the definite answer, but this video, which inspired this post, might provide some ideas.
KOKORO, by RIN (by the way,a vocaloid, actually a program)
It’s a song about a robot, which was created without emotions. But her/its scientist designed a program called “KOKORO” (heart in Japanese), an emotive program. But the program was too powerful for the robot, so the scientist warned the robot not to open the program.
Hundreds of years passed, and the program was opened. The robot recalled memories of her/its time with the scientist, and with emotions, these memories acquired meaning.
She then realized how much she loved the scientist/father, and the scientist/father loved her.
Quoting from the lyrics:
"I now know how to feel happy
...
I now know how to feel sad
...
How deep and touching they are..."
A Pinocchio story with a tragic twist.
Sometimes, robots have this ability to help us understand more about ourselves as humans.
But first, for those of you who don’t know, the word “robot” comes from the Czech word “robota” which means “compulsory slave labour.”
The word first appeared in Czech playwright Karel Capek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), a play about industrial machines and their conflict with humankind. This was the play that marked the beginning of robot culture.
The theme of Man vs. Machine, inspired by R.U.R., perpetuates itself throughout sci-fi, from movies like Terminator to The Matrix, to I, Robot, among others.
But in Japan, people’s attitudes towards robots are different. The Japanese imagined robots to be extensions of themselves, and were fundamentally value-neutral. They could serve both good and evil, but the matter is that good robots in the control of good forces would ultimately prevail.
This theme also perpetuates Japanese popular culture, from Astro Boy, to Transformers (yes, Transformers is a Japanese creation), to Gundam.
Robots didn’t start out looking human. The first true robots were industrial robots, usually being little more than an arm. They perform tasks deemed too dangerous or tedious for humans, their values being tireless and precise in their actions.
Gradually, robots came to look more and more like human beings. There is a term for it, called Anthropomorphism.
This is because for robot scientists, particularly Japanese robot scientists believe that robots could better serve society when they could relate better with humans. By making them more similar to humans, they bring robots closer to humans, and increase their sense of familiarity to people.
And so far, they have been very successful, with examples such as Honda’s ASIMO, and Sony’s Qrio.
But so much for an introduction, what is my post going to discuss?
What I’m going to explore is the philosophical approach in understanding robots and how they relate to us.
You see, robots can look exactly human (there are already models developed as such), but two things separates man from machine. The first is what Masahiro Mori (a robotics scientist) calls the “Uncanny Valley”, which compares human likeness to familiarity.
To put it simply, a robot like ASIMO may look less human but people are accepting of it, but a zombie, who looks more human than ASIMO, is less acceptable to humans. When this happens, we say a zombie is in the Uncanny Valley.
A robot may look human, but subtle differences between man and machine causes us to reject them.
Second, is the critical element of emotion.
I remember watching a documentary about the world of the future. There was a scene where a child of the future giving an ASIMO (by then obsolete) instructions, and having a sense of frustration when the robot could not understand the instruction. The robot could not understand the feeling of frustration in its master, only mindlessly repeat the question.
So, what does it mean for a future with robots?
When the time comes for androids to be living and working side by side with us in the world, would we be accepting of them, despite our differences, however subtle? We as humans already struggle to live with each other, having this irrelevant difference called “race”, how different would our interaction with androids be?
We are learning to cope, but have we? In Japanese companies, robots are treated with respect. New robots are welcomed in ceremonies; they are named, and are well maintained.
In the US, however, robots are still treated as what their names mean: Slaves. They work till they break.
I think for we should accept robots, which have helped us so much in our lives, doing the dirty work, plus others simply too difficult to do by ourselves, like visit Jupiter.
Because futures like R.U.R., or the Matrix, where robots revolt out of human oppression is truly scary.
And this understanding will be critical when robots have emotions. Now they don’t, and even robots today can only simulate emotion. Emotion is an extremely complex system of behavior unique to humans. It governs our interaction with people, and even non – living things.
Almost everything of our civilization is an expression of emotion. Our art, literature, language, society…
When robots have emotions, do they become human?
I don’t have the definite answer, but this video, which inspired this post, might provide some ideas.
KOKORO, by RIN (by the way,a vocaloid, actually a program)
It’s a song about a robot, which was created without emotions. But her/its scientist designed a program called “KOKORO” (heart in Japanese), an emotive program. But the program was too powerful for the robot, so the scientist warned the robot not to open the program.
Hundreds of years passed, and the program was opened. The robot recalled memories of her/its time with the scientist, and with emotions, these memories acquired meaning.
She then realized how much she loved the scientist/father, and the scientist/father loved her.
Quoting from the lyrics:
"I now know how to feel happy
...
I now know how to feel sad
...
How deep and touching they are..."
A Pinocchio story with a tragic twist.
Sometimes, robots have this ability to help us understand more about ourselves as humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
