... and the courage of one female to challenge it. Born in Somalia and brought up to think that total submission of women was the right Muslim thing to do, like the majority of Muslim women are brought up, Ayaan once believed that genital mutilation was fine, heretics should be killed and one of her duty was to participate in Jihad. However her family went one forced marriage too far, and she fled and sought asylum in the Netherlands. There she met the Enlightenment for the first time and underwent liberation from Islamic laws. She have come to embrace the freedom of speech and thought of the Western world and fought for the liberation of women from religion. However she found that the Netherlands had undergo Islamic radicalism and was threatened with death from fellow Arabs, while witnessing the death of a colleague from once such murder. To protect herself, again she had to flee, this time to the US. Now the Dutch are withdrawing her protection, while the US is unable to provide that kind of security, in the light of this plight she still stands as the ex-Muslim who is staging a revolution against the force of subjugation.
For standing up for freedom even under the very real threat of death, Ayaan truly deserves the title of a hero. If the newspaper article in the link doesn't even bring a tear to your eye, then you have absolutely no feelings for humanity and the threat our freedoms are under.
In addition, there are other articles that show the religious insanity of Islam like the Sudanese government convicting a British teacher who allowed students to vote to name a teddy bear Muhammad for inciting hatred. As well as an article on the Saudi government sentencing the victim of a rape to punishment for not being with a male relative while being raped. And finally an article that sums up all these atrocities.
All these just goes to show that a majority of people in the world are utterly stupid and can't prioritise their actions, and that I have been right all along in entirely bashing those religions that have never underwent a Reformation. And also that we are too submissive to religion to publish any article like those in the British newspaper.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The British dinner
The British has a strange but intellectual habit every time they have a meal, one that even their closer descendants (relatives?) like the Americans feel uneasy about. It so happened that I was reading a British newspaper column and found that a commentator was having a dinner with some American friends and got stuck in a rather awkward situation, because he replied to a sentence a friend had just finished by saying that it is entirely illogical. Apparently the Americans took that as a personal offence, but for the British, it serves as a challenge to start a debate during a meal about a serious topic.
Perhaps it is time that we follow suit, in most countries the chance to start a real debate doesn't come very often, and no, I'm not referring to that kind of 5 minutes on each side debate. Often we find our times wasted by talking about the unimportant events we witness, or maybe passing on the other unimportant events that other people witness. Maybe there is some need to keep on talking that is wired into our brains, and I admit that when I'm with anyone, I feel a nagging feeling to talk about something, but at least we can change to topic of conversation. Perhaps it might feel weird having a structured argument in public, and maybe that's why the British like having them during meals, because there really isn't much of any other options. However by conducting serious discussions during meals, they are actually paving the way to make public discussion more socially accepted.
One other thing that we can learn from the British is that instead of feeling insulted by, well, insults, they actually are comfortable with having their arguments trashed and then improving on them. (Stupid Asian sense of dignity) In a time whereby insults can be hurled across the entire world, it really helps to be able to take others' insults logically and use it for self-improvement. They are admirably a people who have truly embraced and mastered the freedom of speech.
Perhaps it is time that we follow suit, in most countries the chance to start a real debate doesn't come very often, and no, I'm not referring to that kind of 5 minutes on each side debate. Often we find our times wasted by talking about the unimportant events we witness, or maybe passing on the other unimportant events that other people witness. Maybe there is some need to keep on talking that is wired into our brains, and I admit that when I'm with anyone, I feel a nagging feeling to talk about something, but at least we can change to topic of conversation. Perhaps it might feel weird having a structured argument in public, and maybe that's why the British like having them during meals, because there really isn't much of any other options. However by conducting serious discussions during meals, they are actually paving the way to make public discussion more socially accepted.
One other thing that we can learn from the British is that instead of feeling insulted by, well, insults, they actually are comfortable with having their arguments trashed and then improving on them. (Stupid Asian sense of dignity) In a time whereby insults can be hurled across the entire world, it really helps to be able to take others' insults logically and use it for self-improvement. They are admirably a people who have truly embraced and mastered the freedom of speech.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Submission
If you don't read the newspaper often, there is one article on the Sunday Times which shows some people getting unreasonably very angry over a packet of meat. And of course it all makes sense once you realise that the packet of meat contains pork. Apparently someone with some spare time on his hands bought a packet of pork from NTUC and either pasted a halal sticker on it or photoshoped it on and posted it on the internet and NTUC wants to bring that guy to "justice". Wow, I didn't know that you could still get into trouble for mislabelling a product after you bought it and have complete ownership over what you want to do with it.
Now, I have a few thoughts about this weird occurrence, first of course is that now that I know I'll get fined for doing such a thing, I'm not going to do it, of course that probably wouldn't happen anyway as I have no idea what a halal sticker looks like. Next is, you don't own that packet of meat anymore NTUC, it's not as if that the person is conducting a check on whether your packaging is accurately labelled and then falsely placed a tampered package on the shelve to instigate you, so stop trying to get it back and live with it! I know you're stingy with money (look at those overpriced batteries), but even that has its limits.
As for those religious people who have food restrictions imposed by a work of fiction, do what everyone else does - Read the labels on the packaging. I can think of some people who really have these special food needs, like lactose intolerant patients, but they still have to content with studying the contents of the packaging, what's more it is not as if eating that packet of meat is going to kill you, this is just another excuse to be lazy in the name of religious tolerance. And when this kind of joke come up ever so occasionally, don't you dare have the nerve to say that the action should be punished in the name of religious harmony, the only possible reason that action will go punished is for religious submission, namely to YOUR religion. In fact you should be glad that we have been submitting for much more than we should, because of you all my catered food have to be halal, just once I would like to see pork or at least pork oil during the lunch of a function I attend, but no, you must have it your way. Why don't you just do what anyone who have food preferences would do? That is, just don't eat the food.
That's it, the next time I invite anyone over to a meal, I'm sprinkling a little bit of all kinds of animal/plant extract that I can find (unless you have a condition) without telling the person, forcing the person to eat whatever banned substance imposed on him/her. And do you know what the result would be? Nothing of course, the person wouldn't even know that it was there. The reasonable vegetarians wouldn't mind it because they aren't trying to impose their diet on my food, would you?
*Update: I almost forgot to mention that the article posted a comment made by a Muslim which goes something like, this is totally unacceptable and the authorities should crack down on it in the name of promoting religious harmony. Wow, you're not even eating or buying that fictional product that someone posted on the web and you want that person to be punished? That's like not going to watch the movie The Golden Compass because YOU think that it contains anti-religious elements and then trying to get countries to ban the movie while letting your own religious movies have free passes. Wait a minute. What? The Christians are doing that? Damn, I've nothing else to say about that. Funny why there isn't a Muslim who say that he/she is okay we labelling your own can of food whatever you like in defence of free speech who get their comments published.
Now, I have a few thoughts about this weird occurrence, first of course is that now that I know I'll get fined for doing such a thing, I'm not going to do it, of course that probably wouldn't happen anyway as I have no idea what a halal sticker looks like. Next is, you don't own that packet of meat anymore NTUC, it's not as if that the person is conducting a check on whether your packaging is accurately labelled and then falsely placed a tampered package on the shelve to instigate you, so stop trying to get it back and live with it! I know you're stingy with money (look at those overpriced batteries), but even that has its limits.
As for those religious people who have food restrictions imposed by a work of fiction, do what everyone else does - Read the labels on the packaging. I can think of some people who really have these special food needs, like lactose intolerant patients, but they still have to content with studying the contents of the packaging, what's more it is not as if eating that packet of meat is going to kill you, this is just another excuse to be lazy in the name of religious tolerance. And when this kind of joke come up ever so occasionally, don't you dare have the nerve to say that the action should be punished in the name of religious harmony, the only possible reason that action will go punished is for religious submission, namely to YOUR religion. In fact you should be glad that we have been submitting for much more than we should, because of you all my catered food have to be halal, just once I would like to see pork or at least pork oil during the lunch of a function I attend, but no, you must have it your way. Why don't you just do what anyone who have food preferences would do? That is, just don't eat the food.
That's it, the next time I invite anyone over to a meal, I'm sprinkling a little bit of all kinds of animal/plant extract that I can find (unless you have a condition) without telling the person, forcing the person to eat whatever banned substance imposed on him/her. And do you know what the result would be? Nothing of course, the person wouldn't even know that it was there. The reasonable vegetarians wouldn't mind it because they aren't trying to impose their diet on my food, would you?
*Update: I almost forgot to mention that the article posted a comment made by a Muslim which goes something like, this is totally unacceptable and the authorities should crack down on it in the name of promoting religious harmony. Wow, you're not even eating or buying that fictional product that someone posted on the web and you want that person to be punished? That's like not going to watch the movie The Golden Compass because YOU think that it contains anti-religious elements and then trying to get countries to ban the movie while letting your own religious movies have free passes. Wait a minute. What? The Christians are doing that? Damn, I've nothing else to say about that. Funny why there isn't a Muslim who say that he/she is okay we labelling your own can of food whatever you like in defence of free speech who get their comments published.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Clash of two civilisations 2
The Western world has a history of valuing individuals since Ancient Greece, but more particularly during the Enlightenment, the Eastern world on the other hand runs on aristocracy. Valuing individuals is not just important but vital for new discoveries, Science and the like can never be a government directed initiative for the reason that the government isn't as proficient as the scientists, and that's why Western universities come complete with funding where scientists can pursue whatever proposal they submitted when accepted. Much less can be said of the East before the idea of universities spread.
In addition the Western world has it's privacy straightened it out. Ever since the Reformation, beliefs have always became a private part of a person's life, no more Inquisition or Crusades, no more apostles or heretics, the Bible has been transformed into a metaphor book, and nothing within it has to be taken seriously, except for the fundamentalist minority. Unfortunately, beliefs in the East can be more or less summed up as being public, from the Taoist gods, to Hindu deities, the beliefs may have underwent splits in ideology but never a reformation where they are meant to be kept private. In Islam it's worst, there is only word of god that must be kept, apostles get stoned to death, and liberal Muslims are seen as deviating from the true face. Even in Britain, those prophets are unwilling to lift the death penalty from those "capital punishments" in their story book.
We stand here in a divided world, the choice is between a civilisation with infrastructure developed from the Enlightenment or a less civilised civilisation with a structure not suited to maintain the current social order.
In addition the Western world has it's privacy straightened it out. Ever since the Reformation, beliefs have always became a private part of a person's life, no more Inquisition or Crusades, no more apostles or heretics, the Bible has been transformed into a metaphor book, and nothing within it has to be taken seriously, except for the fundamentalist minority. Unfortunately, beliefs in the East can be more or less summed up as being public, from the Taoist gods, to Hindu deities, the beliefs may have underwent splits in ideology but never a reformation where they are meant to be kept private. In Islam it's worst, there is only word of god that must be kept, apostles get stoned to death, and liberal Muslims are seen as deviating from the true face. Even in Britain, those prophets are unwilling to lift the death penalty from those "capital punishments" in their story book.
We stand here in a divided world, the choice is between a civilisation with infrastructure developed from the Enlightenment or a less civilised civilisation with a structure not suited to maintain the current social order.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The clash of two civilisations
Or rather one civilised and one not so civilised.
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, there was always the presence of assimilation between cultures. The Romans did it so well that even after their fall, the people that revolted still bear unmistakable traces of their Roman origins, in law, the sciences and even in naming conventions (the name Caesar has become and unmistakable sign of a ruler in many countries in all its different forms). In Europe three successive waves of assimilations swept through the continent from the 14th to 17th century, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. And today, we face perhaps the last possible assimilation yet due to globalisation, and that is the westernisation of the entire world, unfortunately we also face some of the greatest threats to its success, tolerance and the knack for preserving culture.
Perhaps the best examples of resistance to westernisation is shown in Afghanistan and Iraq, while examples of the threats are displayed in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Britain.
(too lazy to continue today, have 2 enormous non-fiction book to finish)
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, there was always the presence of assimilation between cultures. The Romans did it so well that even after their fall, the people that revolted still bear unmistakable traces of their Roman origins, in law, the sciences and even in naming conventions (the name Caesar has become and unmistakable sign of a ruler in many countries in all its different forms). In Europe three successive waves of assimilations swept through the continent from the 14th to 17th century, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. And today, we face perhaps the last possible assimilation yet due to globalisation, and that is the westernisation of the entire world, unfortunately we also face some of the greatest threats to its success, tolerance and the knack for preserving culture.
Perhaps the best examples of resistance to westernisation is shown in Afghanistan and Iraq, while examples of the threats are displayed in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Britain.
(too lazy to continue today, have 2 enormous non-fiction book to finish)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Holiday Internet Movie Event
If you only have time to watch one movie this year, let it be this political-scientific documentary covering a case in Dover, Pennsylvania. The whole world was watching as the landmark decision was made by the judge, which ended up influencing the establishment of a law in the European Union also in this year. For a court case that caused international impact, it has surprisingly gain very little attention here in Singapore. The video documenting the conditions and the event in the trial is now available free on the Internet here.
If you only have time in your life to watch one documentary on evolution, let it be the 1991 Michael Faraday's Christmas Lecture conducted by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a series of 5 one hour lectures hosted by the Royal Academy of Science in Britan, now available here on Google Video.
If you only have time in your life to watch one documentary on evolution, let it be the 1991 Michael Faraday's Christmas Lecture conducted by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a series of 5 one hour lectures hosted by the Royal Academy of Science in Britan, now available here on Google Video.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Rules of altruism
Argh, I'm kind of edgy after experiencing 6 consecutive days of renovation works in the apartment next to me, barring Thursday's holiday. It is so bad that my sister and I decided to come up with a sport to irritate them back, I won't say anything about it except that it has got to do with ice.
Society is established on the grounds of reciprocal altruism, which means "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" in monkey language or "you pick my ticks and I pick yours" in bird language. And for us humans, you don't operate that irritating drill in your house, and I won't operate mine, or find some other innovative way to irritate you. Of course, every now and then someone would like to cheat these unwritten rules, so others have to gang up to punish them so that others can enjoy a peace of mind. That's why there are written rules, and law enforcement agency to enforce the rules, and sometimes that gets out of control. Of course, that isn't the point, the point I'm going to talk about is about the unwritten rules.
Obviously, every now and then you might need a house renovation that needs a lot of drilling, so you're going to have to break the unwritten rules from time to time, so how should you do it? Well, first thing you should do is to inform anyone that it affects so that schedules could be rearranged and generally people aren't so mad at you, something my neighbour didn't do. That is one reason why most animals usually have courtship rituals before actually mating.
Second, you try to space out the time interval before breaking the rule again. For evolutionary reasons, all advanced animals have a tendency to forgive a rule breaker that occurs infrequently, since benefits probably outweigh costs, and as we all know, more benefits, more survival. Breaking a rule six consecutive times will put you into the bad books of any animal.
Third, you try to be smart at how you break the rule. For example, arranging the renovation once weekly. Or renovate opposites sites of the house on consecutive days, or putting the really irritating parts on alternate days. There is a wide variety of ways to break rules, so make sure you break yours correctly before someone gets mad at you and start shoving ice down your mouth (metaphorically of course).
Society is established on the grounds of reciprocal altruism, which means "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" in monkey language or "you pick my ticks and I pick yours" in bird language. And for us humans, you don't operate that irritating drill in your house, and I won't operate mine, or find some other innovative way to irritate you. Of course, every now and then someone would like to cheat these unwritten rules, so others have to gang up to punish them so that others can enjoy a peace of mind. That's why there are written rules, and law enforcement agency to enforce the rules, and sometimes that gets out of control. Of course, that isn't the point, the point I'm going to talk about is about the unwritten rules.
Obviously, every now and then you might need a house renovation that needs a lot of drilling, so you're going to have to break the unwritten rules from time to time, so how should you do it? Well, first thing you should do is to inform anyone that it affects so that schedules could be rearranged and generally people aren't so mad at you, something my neighbour didn't do. That is one reason why most animals usually have courtship rituals before actually mating.
Second, you try to space out the time interval before breaking the rule again. For evolutionary reasons, all advanced animals have a tendency to forgive a rule breaker that occurs infrequently, since benefits probably outweigh costs, and as we all know, more benefits, more survival. Breaking a rule six consecutive times will put you into the bad books of any animal.
Third, you try to be smart at how you break the rule. For example, arranging the renovation once weekly. Or renovate opposites sites of the house on consecutive days, or putting the really irritating parts on alternate days. There is a wide variety of ways to break rules, so make sure you break yours correctly before someone gets mad at you and start shoving ice down your mouth (metaphorically of course).
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The Vatican should consider relocation
I'm a little engrossed in something right now, so this article's going to be quite short. Let me direct you to another article first.
Yes people Europe have become the continent with the least religious people, just look at their polls. Well, to tell the truth since the Enlightenment, Europe have been pretty much holding that position (except for a brief period in the years following the declaration of independence of America, then something had to go wrong), but today, it's at an all time low. For Catholics, there seem to be only two major countries that seem to be fairly devout, Portugal and Italy, since Spain decided to leave the Catholic league. Of course we all know France is the European power with the highest level of non-believers, 70% of their population, courtesy of the French Revolution. Germany have been more open to non-belief and protestants since Hitler was removed, Eastern Europe is a legacy of communist and orthodox teachings and England has a long history Anglicanism.
There was once a time when Catholicism was rampant all over Europe, that time ended with the Reformation, today the power of the Roman Catholic Church has been removed far from the seat of Europe, maybe they should move to Latin America? Those people still don't use birth control, have high unemployment, hate gays, sponsor their churches, etc...
Yes people Europe have become the continent with the least religious people, just look at their polls. Well, to tell the truth since the Enlightenment, Europe have been pretty much holding that position (except for a brief period in the years following the declaration of independence of America, then something had to go wrong), but today, it's at an all time low. For Catholics, there seem to be only two major countries that seem to be fairly devout, Portugal and Italy, since Spain decided to leave the Catholic league. Of course we all know France is the European power with the highest level of non-believers, 70% of their population, courtesy of the French Revolution. Germany have been more open to non-belief and protestants since Hitler was removed, Eastern Europe is a legacy of communist and orthodox teachings and England has a long history Anglicanism.
There was once a time when Catholicism was rampant all over Europe, that time ended with the Reformation, today the power of the Roman Catholic Church has been removed far from the seat of Europe, maybe they should move to Latin America? Those people still don't use birth control, have high unemployment, hate gays, sponsor their churches, etc...
Sunday, November 4, 2007
If there was one thing I could change in history...
History is in the dead past, never changing and so unforgivingly setting the conditions in the present. It doesn't repeats itself, and seldom resembles itself again in time, but it effects resonate far out into the future. There isn't any point putting the blame on events that happened, or to hope to be able to change them, we should just make the best out of it, but just because we shouldn't, doesn't mean we can't. It could be just for the sake of pointing out what went wrong, or perhaps to draw out a better plan for future actions, or even to warn people of things that have yet to occur. Whatever my intention is, here is my list of single events that I would like changed, in chronological order.
1. Have Alexander the Great live much longer. That guy was the Great, what else could I ask for? In only a few years, he carved out a huge empire, and his conquests began only at 16.
2. Have Archimedes do more experiments, I know we were all fascinated by the time Archimedes jumped into his bathtub and then ran round the city naked and shouted 'Eureka', but the beginning of real Science could actually have began from this guy and not Galileo 2 millennium later. Besides his displacement principle, he also discovered the Archimedes screw, the principles of levers, pulleys, and even make progress in Mathematics like pi, and the area of a sphere. Now only if he had a telescope, or did experiments with gravity like Galileo did, modern Science could have sprang up so much earlier. And of course, that would continue on into the Roman empire after Greece was assimilated.
3. Have Julius Caesar choose the next successor to the throne of the Roman Empire based on merit, and not set up a dynasty. If you don't know your history, Julius Caesar chose his stepson (he didn't have a son, so he figured he adopt one) Augustus to be the first Roman Emperor. Augustus wasn't the real problem, but his descendants were, creating some of the messiest problem the Empire had to face, and future weak emperors eventually help hasten the downfall of the Empire. Up till Caesar's time the Empire was the most secular state ever established (excluding some Greek city states, but come on, they were cities) containing people of many different cultures, and as history tells us, you don't get that very often.
4. Have Christians get persecuted more often in the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was peaceful enough with their secular state, Christians were rightly a threat to the Empire, there was no need to turn it into the Christian Roman Empire. One more thing, if Christianity didn't spring up, there wouldn't exist the most dangerous religion present today, Islam, the illegitimate child who share father Abraham with the Judo-Christians.
5. Have people dig up fossils centuries earlier, again I would probably put this in the Roman Empire. Actually what I can't believe is that no one in the past actually stumbled across fossils, haven't anyone dig up a grave and saw that the skeleton was all that was left of a person? It really wasn't all that hard to find parts of a buried fossil exposed on the ground, why didn't any of the ancient people notice them? If someone had collected the fossils, then maybe someone could piece up the age of the Earth and evolution so much earlier that many superstitions of today would never have taken root.
6. Have Emperor Constantine killed. First he made Christianity the official Roman religion, which part of secular doesn't he get? Next, he split up the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western, sure let the West fall so that a new dynasty can sit on the throne of the newly built city of Constantinople. Do I need to say any more?
That's about it for the ancient world, now to move on to the Middle Ages. However, apparently I don't really have anything much to change except prevent some untimely deaths.
7. Maybe I played Age of Empires II too much, but I would like to have Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa not die. He died by drowning in a pool while trying to drink water, a pretty anti-climatic death. Without him, his army was devastated while fighting the Crusades, paving the way for the Turks to invade the remaining portion of the Roman Empire.
8. Joan of Arc was another untimely death, though France seem to manage just fine after her death.
Well, I'm pretty much contented with the situation in the Middles Ages because the tensions between countries pretty much ensure that everyone was up to date on technology, and how can I ever be angry with the Enlightenment. Now let us travel past the Industrial Revolution.
9. Have Charles Darwin find Gregor Mandel's work on genetics. The only problem with evolution at that time was that Darwin could find out what causes variation in animals and how it is passed on, something that Mandel had already worked on long before. If only they had met, then Science would have flourished.
10. Probably the last, have Britain step in when Hitler was trying to militarise Germany. All problems in the future could almost be certainly traced back to this single event. Had Britain put its foot down, there would never have been a World War II, and there are reasons to believe that the Hitler at 1933 wasn't as evil as the Hitler at 1939. In addition, Communism would never have spread so much, first of all, Hitler would allow his neighbours to be Communist, we have already seen how fast Communism was gone from Germany, and with Germany's help, from Spain too. The big difference between Communism and Fascism is that Communism has the power to last much longer, while Fascism collapse when their leaders die.
In addition, Japan would be under much more pressure to get out of China since the Allies are no longer occupied with Hitler. Korea probably wouldn't get split into 2, and would probably be democratic, since Russia have only a small border with it, and probably wouldn't invade Japan. There wouldn't be any North Korea to deal with today. Without a huge Communist threat there wouldn't be a Marshall plan which splurges money without care on any non-Communist country that existed, stopping a number of dictator from ever coming to power.
What's more is that the Europeans would still have their colonial empires and wouldn't start the whole lot of pity for their colonies. Their pity has caused them to be too tolerable to other people's believes, no matter how strange or dangerous they could be, leading to a whole lot of terrorist bombing, and the Netherlands are currently being so overrun by Muslims that Sharia law is being enforced in some places, the law that says chopping of hands is the punishment for robbery, that stoning is required when committing adultery and that women must cover all parts of their body and are not to leave house unless accompanied by a man. And of course the law which any civilised person is disgusted most at, death to any apostles.
Think, so much that we can do with just one change, yet that change was never made and we are set upon this course of history. Now, only the future can still be changed and its getting shorter all the time.
1. Have Alexander the Great live much longer. That guy was the Great, what else could I ask for? In only a few years, he carved out a huge empire, and his conquests began only at 16.
2. Have Archimedes do more experiments, I know we were all fascinated by the time Archimedes jumped into his bathtub and then ran round the city naked and shouted 'Eureka', but the beginning of real Science could actually have began from this guy and not Galileo 2 millennium later. Besides his displacement principle, he also discovered the Archimedes screw, the principles of levers, pulleys, and even make progress in Mathematics like pi, and the area of a sphere. Now only if he had a telescope, or did experiments with gravity like Galileo did, modern Science could have sprang up so much earlier. And of course, that would continue on into the Roman empire after Greece was assimilated.
3. Have Julius Caesar choose the next successor to the throne of the Roman Empire based on merit, and not set up a dynasty. If you don't know your history, Julius Caesar chose his stepson (he didn't have a son, so he figured he adopt one) Augustus to be the first Roman Emperor. Augustus wasn't the real problem, but his descendants were, creating some of the messiest problem the Empire had to face, and future weak emperors eventually help hasten the downfall of the Empire. Up till Caesar's time the Empire was the most secular state ever established (excluding some Greek city states, but come on, they were cities) containing people of many different cultures, and as history tells us, you don't get that very often.
4. Have Christians get persecuted more often in the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was peaceful enough with their secular state, Christians were rightly a threat to the Empire, there was no need to turn it into the Christian Roman Empire. One more thing, if Christianity didn't spring up, there wouldn't exist the most dangerous religion present today, Islam, the illegitimate child who share father Abraham with the Judo-Christians.
5. Have people dig up fossils centuries earlier, again I would probably put this in the Roman Empire. Actually what I can't believe is that no one in the past actually stumbled across fossils, haven't anyone dig up a grave and saw that the skeleton was all that was left of a person? It really wasn't all that hard to find parts of a buried fossil exposed on the ground, why didn't any of the ancient people notice them? If someone had collected the fossils, then maybe someone could piece up the age of the Earth and evolution so much earlier that many superstitions of today would never have taken root.
6. Have Emperor Constantine killed. First he made Christianity the official Roman religion, which part of secular doesn't he get? Next, he split up the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western, sure let the West fall so that a new dynasty can sit on the throne of the newly built city of Constantinople. Do I need to say any more?
That's about it for the ancient world, now to move on to the Middle Ages. However, apparently I don't really have anything much to change except prevent some untimely deaths.
7. Maybe I played Age of Empires II too much, but I would like to have Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa not die. He died by drowning in a pool while trying to drink water, a pretty anti-climatic death. Without him, his army was devastated while fighting the Crusades, paving the way for the Turks to invade the remaining portion of the Roman Empire.
8. Joan of Arc was another untimely death, though France seem to manage just fine after her death.
Well, I'm pretty much contented with the situation in the Middles Ages because the tensions between countries pretty much ensure that everyone was up to date on technology, and how can I ever be angry with the Enlightenment. Now let us travel past the Industrial Revolution.
9. Have Charles Darwin find Gregor Mandel's work on genetics. The only problem with evolution at that time was that Darwin could find out what causes variation in animals and how it is passed on, something that Mandel had already worked on long before. If only they had met, then Science would have flourished.
10. Probably the last, have Britain step in when Hitler was trying to militarise Germany. All problems in the future could almost be certainly traced back to this single event. Had Britain put its foot down, there would never have been a World War II, and there are reasons to believe that the Hitler at 1933 wasn't as evil as the Hitler at 1939. In addition, Communism would never have spread so much, first of all, Hitler would allow his neighbours to be Communist, we have already seen how fast Communism was gone from Germany, and with Germany's help, from Spain too. The big difference between Communism and Fascism is that Communism has the power to last much longer, while Fascism collapse when their leaders die.
In addition, Japan would be under much more pressure to get out of China since the Allies are no longer occupied with Hitler. Korea probably wouldn't get split into 2, and would probably be democratic, since Russia have only a small border with it, and probably wouldn't invade Japan. There wouldn't be any North Korea to deal with today. Without a huge Communist threat there wouldn't be a Marshall plan which splurges money without care on any non-Communist country that existed, stopping a number of dictator from ever coming to power.
What's more is that the Europeans would still have their colonial empires and wouldn't start the whole lot of pity for their colonies. Their pity has caused them to be too tolerable to other people's believes, no matter how strange or dangerous they could be, leading to a whole lot of terrorist bombing, and the Netherlands are currently being so overrun by Muslims that Sharia law is being enforced in some places, the law that says chopping of hands is the punishment for robbery, that stoning is required when committing adultery and that women must cover all parts of their body and are not to leave house unless accompanied by a man. And of course the law which any civilised person is disgusted most at, death to any apostles.
Think, so much that we can do with just one change, yet that change was never made and we are set upon this course of history. Now, only the future can still be changed and its getting shorter all the time.
Friday, November 2, 2007
There isn't another line in life except the evolutionary imposed one
For centuries people have always asked themselves what is it to be human, and for centuries they have always been getting it wrong because of not having any good education in biology, so let's get out all the wrong definitions first.
Wrong
1. A human is a cell after fertilisation from human parents
Well, first of all, a human is not just made of solely cells, also present are various chemicals, as well as proteins, antibodies, water, and lots of many other components. Also when considering what a cell really is, what happens when a cell divides and reproduces 2 cells? Is each one a separate human? Or are they together considered one human? If we were to split up the two cells, they can become two humans can't they (identical twins)? How do we draw the line between one human or many humans? All these questions would perhaps never be answered, not because biology can't answer them, but because biology describes the process, but doesn't distinguish anything along the way.
2. A human is a being shaped like a human
Obviously this definition have a huge problem, not considering robots and all other fanciful things we can make up, in a life cycle of a person, the person takes on many different shapes and sizes. While on the other hand a person can die of permanent vegetative state, and we wouldn't want to call that human. No, a human must carry the essence of what it means to be alive.
3. A human is whatever has the potential to be a human
This is perhaps the most ridiculous definition that I have ever came across. First of which, almost anything has the potential to be human, including cells of any species of mammals, through a process of transplanting the nucleus. Perhaps the worst way to argue this is to say that a cell has the potential to become a great person, and so we can't kill it. Well, many other cells have that same potential and they die by the trillions, perhaps even magnitude more, each day. Anyway, doesn't all the cells have the same potential to be a, hmm, lion or tiger?
4. A human is a person capable of reproducing with a human
This is the standard biological/taxonomical definition of what a species is. To biologists, Homo sapient as a species is just a linage that have branched out from chimps and early Homo ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago and have the property to interbreed with one another, but not with other animals. One of the great drawbacks of this method is that any person have to first reach reproductive age and then attempt reproduction for the standard to be ascertained.
One thing that the above definitions all share is there is no standard to compare what a human is in the first place. They assume that there have never been a first human, in effect comparing humans with, well humans. For all purposes, the term human that we should use, should be one that can be practically put into use in game theory, that means discarding the notion of biological appearances and description, and work at a whole different level of biology.
Therefore, the new candidates for qualities of humans as far as I can come up with are:
1. Able to hold responsibility
Responsibility is perhaps one of the greatest contributing factor to living in society, a quality even chimps understand, but not foetuses. Any animal taking at least a minimal personal responsibility can be considered human, at that point in time. The title of human however is not permanent and can be easily lost any time.
2. Able to reciprocate to an action made by anyone else
Another property of a society is that individuals can have a certain developed way of depending on others, necessary for survival. A human must be able to have the intention of repaying or retaliating to either a friendly or hostile response made by, not just individuals in one's own species, but by any other thing.
So evolution have forced us to draw lines to judge what qualifies to be human, in the end all these lines are just arbitrary. In the eyes of nature, no divisions exist between any species of life, but due to the need for survival, the products of nature are required by the mechanical forces of nature, namely survival, to draw up the lines for themselves.
Wrong
1. A human is a cell after fertilisation from human parents
Well, first of all, a human is not just made of solely cells, also present are various chemicals, as well as proteins, antibodies, water, and lots of many other components. Also when considering what a cell really is, what happens when a cell divides and reproduces 2 cells? Is each one a separate human? Or are they together considered one human? If we were to split up the two cells, they can become two humans can't they (identical twins)? How do we draw the line between one human or many humans? All these questions would perhaps never be answered, not because biology can't answer them, but because biology describes the process, but doesn't distinguish anything along the way.
2. A human is a being shaped like a human
Obviously this definition have a huge problem, not considering robots and all other fanciful things we can make up, in a life cycle of a person, the person takes on many different shapes and sizes. While on the other hand a person can die of permanent vegetative state, and we wouldn't want to call that human. No, a human must carry the essence of what it means to be alive.
3. A human is whatever has the potential to be a human
This is perhaps the most ridiculous definition that I have ever came across. First of which, almost anything has the potential to be human, including cells of any species of mammals, through a process of transplanting the nucleus. Perhaps the worst way to argue this is to say that a cell has the potential to become a great person, and so we can't kill it. Well, many other cells have that same potential and they die by the trillions, perhaps even magnitude more, each day. Anyway, doesn't all the cells have the same potential to be a, hmm, lion or tiger?
4. A human is a person capable of reproducing with a human
This is the standard biological/taxonomical definition of what a species is. To biologists, Homo sapient as a species is just a linage that have branched out from chimps and early Homo ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago and have the property to interbreed with one another, but not with other animals. One of the great drawbacks of this method is that any person have to first reach reproductive age and then attempt reproduction for the standard to be ascertained.
One thing that the above definitions all share is there is no standard to compare what a human is in the first place. They assume that there have never been a first human, in effect comparing humans with, well humans. For all purposes, the term human that we should use, should be one that can be practically put into use in game theory, that means discarding the notion of biological appearances and description, and work at a whole different level of biology.
Therefore, the new candidates for qualities of humans as far as I can come up with are:
1. Able to hold responsibility
Responsibility is perhaps one of the greatest contributing factor to living in society, a quality even chimps understand, but not foetuses. Any animal taking at least a minimal personal responsibility can be considered human, at that point in time. The title of human however is not permanent and can be easily lost any time.
2. Able to reciprocate to an action made by anyone else
Another property of a society is that individuals can have a certain developed way of depending on others, necessary for survival. A human must be able to have the intention of repaying or retaliating to either a friendly or hostile response made by, not just individuals in one's own species, but by any other thing.
So evolution have forced us to draw lines to judge what qualifies to be human, in the end all these lines are just arbitrary. In the eyes of nature, no divisions exist between any species of life, but due to the need for survival, the products of nature are required by the mechanical forces of nature, namely survival, to draw up the lines for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)