Simple Ethics for a Better Life

Apple Computers Denial Costs Resources to the Planet

2014-06-12T18:30:00.000-05:00

We are a breed of human beings committed to develop applications; these must be practical, efficient and easy to use. Several hundred thousand of us—probably more in the region of several million—are pursuing the ultimate application. If only one of them reaches the goal—perhaps shared by several thousand—that will be enough for final users; they do not need more developers working on something they already have!

The really BIG names like Google, Apple, Microsoft—and other big names—revolve around entities financially much smaller than them. Who keeps the standards of JavaScript up to date? All I know is that, as a developer of a WEB application, I must be constantly visiting developers.mozilla—or something similar. That is where I find answers.

But some environments are definitely better than others. As developers, we need to cope up with representing numbers—accounting and other sorts. As you, the reader, may already know by now, a quantity like this:

34497.6771

Will be represented in different ways, depending on the region of the world where the web page visitor is located:

USA: 34,497.68 (Notice the rounding)
UK: 34.497,68 (Rounding, again, but commas and periods have been exchanged)

France, Germany or Spain follow rules that are different from the rules followed by countries in America, Asia or Africa.

And that is the part about representing numbers. Just think about the part representing Dates!

Computers store dates and numbers in binary structures. As web visitors open pages from different parts of the world, numbers and dates are expected to appear according the reader’s geographical location.

JavaScript is where the Web Page intelligence is constructed. Developers must write really efficient JavaScript code to interpret correctly what Internet browsers are receiving from servers located anywhere in the world.

And for representing values of numbers and dates, JavaScript offers a fantastically brilliant function:

toLocaleString(Arg1, Arg2)

If developers read carefully developers.mozilla instructions, it will all work just fine! Right?

Wrong!

It will not work fine simply because people at Apple Computers, those who designed iPhones and iPads and the iOS (operating system) that runs them, decided to laugh at regional needs!

And people at Microsoft decided to make things more difficult for code writers, by ignoring function Intl. (an object) in their JavaScript implementation.

The following function works well in MSIE, Chrome and FireFox; however, it is simply ignored by Safari:

parseFloat(p.rows[i][p.fields[j].alias]).toLocaleString(ltag,lpat);

The purpose of that line of code is simply to present—print, show—a number value in the proper way, according to where the page is being shown. That code effectively shows the proper format when using any of the following browsers:

Chrome (under Android, Windows 8.+)
FireFox (under Android, Windows 8.+)
MSIE (under Windows 8.+ in a PC)

Both, Chrome and FireFox fail when their iOS versions are used, including MACs.

The same JavaScript function is ignored by Safari under any platform. We need to conclude that the implementation of JavaScript under iOS devices is something that was developed under the supervision of persons like Steve Jobs. I have to wonder: was he mad at regional differences? Neglecting proper attention to the representation of numbers and dates, processed by the JavaScript engine, is a serious denial, especially considering the millions they make by the minute.

And Microsoft… What about Microsoft? Here we go:

If the following code is entered in a JavaScript function of globally, then, the next code can also be used, instead of the first one mentioned earlier.

var nfr = new Intl.NumberFormat(ltag,lpat);

Then any JavaScript coding could have included the following code part (more efficient):

nfr.format(parseFloat(p.rows[i][p.fields[j].alias]));

Instead of this part (less efficient):

parseFloat(p.rows[i][p.fields[j].alias]).toLocaleString(ltag,lpat);

Which is less efficient and takes up more CPU time. Fortunately, we are talking about the CPU of the machine where the web browser is being used. But because Microsoft decided not to implement object Intl, the millions of web browsers opened all over the world, must use more CPU power, that somebody—the Planet, the rest of us—must pay for.

To Google Chrome: Is it so difficult to provide your application for iOS devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod) along with your implementation of JavaScript?

To Apple Safari: Is it impossible to put 2 programmers to implement the proper JavaScript functions for representing numbers and dates correctly in your computers and devices?

To Microsoft Internet Explorer: Those hundreds of programmers in Redmond are incapable of implementing the correct Intl function in your browser?

It is the time of millions of programmers and developers that is stolen daily by the negligence and lack of responsibility of those to-make-money organizations.

That is one of the mechanisms that make the small human individual remain economically small; just one more reason to advocate for the zeitgeisty idea of ending the money model for good!

Is Hawaii's Anti-GMO Movement Really Just Anti-Science?

2014-04-09T18:39:00.001-05:00

Are we on the right track with this GMO products debate? Who's right? Who's wrong? If we stop all GMO's, what would the consequences for the species be?

Daily Kos :: The One Comic That Explains Just How Screwed America Is

2014-02-11T08:22:00.001-06:00

Daily Kos :: The One Comic That Explains Just How Screwed America Is

We need to pay very close attention to such issue. It is affecting all of us.

This is one of the smartest ways to explain the issue of free education:

Imagining a better world

2013-10-03T22:22:00.000-05:00

Imagining

Let us imagine a world where people have been educated to do what makes them feel good and when they feel like doing it. That is, a society or a human community—global—where people act on their own. Some people produce food, plant food; a few stubborn individuals are still in the food-made-of-animals activity, yet, but not for much longer.

Other individuals get together and build cars, motorcycles, airplanes, cameras, mobile phones, tools for agriculture. They do these things in groups. They get together because they all enjoy what they’re doing.

Of course, they all need materials and other individuals are organized in groups to gather materials and send them to places where they are needed. It is the whole industry thing, but things are produced because someone somewhere demands them, not because there is a profit to be made on things. There is no exchange of anything when goods and services are provided. People do what they do because they feel capable of doing it, and because they feel like doing it when they do it.

They are all connected over the Internet.

On the other side, a lot of people do from nothing to absolutely nothing. They get together, have fun. Eventually those who do things get in contact with the less active persons and take a few days off. While they are having conversations some of the inactive persons feel attracted to try those activities related to produce stuff.

The activity centers contain or are located nearby living facilities for groups. The people staying at those places might or might not be active at the nearby center. Very few persons use any other kind of vehicle other than their feet, to move around their activity centers.

Persons who drive trucks and any other vehicles—land, water, air—to deliver stuff to pick-up centers, eventually decide they want to rest and pass the vehicle on to somebody else; they do this after explaining the details of routes previously planned.

People live in groups; they are all friends and have no social boundaries, but are free to engage in sexual entertaining activities. They share everything and don’t know or need privacy for any life activity. Some women are pregnant and some have born children. The children move around freely and are taken care of, when in need, by any person available or capable of capturing the child’s momentary need.

They all move to eating places together. At these food places, there are people enjoying the art of cooking. You hardly see the same persons everyday. Some of them do go daily; others go two or three times in ten days. The thing is that anytime any group appears, there are plenty of people willing to help them get what they want.

Eating is a freedom process. You get what you see around, eat, wash your utensils and help clean the place if you feel it needs it. Some persons carry with them raw or processed foods and deliver them to the cooking staff. It’s probably something they made earlier.

People are covered with simple clothes depending on the weather. It’s common to see persons in the nude everywhere. No parts in the human body are considered as needed to be covered or concealed from the sight of others. During hot days, hardly anybody wears anything. Because they eat a lot less than in the times of hurries and schedules, they have lighter figures; however, the chubby ones get as much of everyone’s share of sexual entertainment as anybody else.

There are public places to take showers. They are also attended by volunteers who find their activities highly valuable for the community.

As one walks around, it is possible to find groups of young persons together listening to another person—adult or young—very much versed in the piece of knowledge that is now being passed on to the attending group. The talking persons are challenged by others; it’s possible to notice shifts of persons as the podiums are occupied by the challengers in endless, very intelligent debates taking place all the time. Very seldom are these debates left without registering: they can all be watched over the Internet, live or later on.

Most people do nothing most of the time. A minority keep themselves busy in cyclical terms. Cooperation is free for anybody who feels like committing for a given number of days or weeks or months. The commitment is never final and can easily be dropped. Some people hardly ever abandon their activity centers. They are usually concentrated on getting something done or a discovery refined. Everybody is connected over the Internet and whatever is being investigated here is also being investigated there; stages and results are constantly being compared.

Nothing stops; when anything is needed, it is advertised over the Internet and immediately—or progressively, depending on the complexity of the needed items—offers arrive and other centers of activity in other parts of the world start working to deliver whatever has been defined by the research center.

People know about the new products and eventually subscribe their regions as zones where they will be welcome.

The new system works only because every single person knows that there is absolutely nothing that anybody must do in order to gain the right to take from what is being produced, anything needed to live. Money has completely disappeared from the scene of human existence. People work because and when they want to; they don’t do things to earn some money for later exchange for food or other goods. Most people, thus, don’t need to work. These people do nothing most of the time, or engage themselves in groups to do art and entertainment—movies, theater, writing, TV—for those who may want to watch.

Only first high quality movie and picture cameras are circulating. A person uses equipment that is needed at the moment. Then the equipment—highly refined, always the highest quality—is then safely and carefully returned to pick up centers. Sometimes it is cleaned—by lovers of the quality of these gadgets—and left to be taken when needed. All pick up centers have literally hundreds of these high quality equipments. They are massively produced by those who used, in the past, to produce lower quality gear—so it could be “sold” at lower prices.

All challenges are met by those involved in developing products that might or might not be necessary for some people. Competition is for the satisfaction of getting results, not money, since this commodity no longer exists.

Luxury yachts and private jet planes? Yes, what about them? You would have needed to be a millionaire to own one of those. But who needs to own one? You might enjoy a few days on board of one, and you’re going to, but not all by yourself—which would be boring—but accompanied by those willing to have the same fun experience. People who produce the luxury yachts will continue to work on them simply because of the sheer pleasure of seeing them, enjoying them and sharing them. Of course, production turns shifting will be constant. A lot of people who might have wanted to work in the production of such beautiful machines, will now be able to do it.

Contrary to what might have been predicted, you don’t see long lines of people waiting for their turn to enjoy a yacht ride. People wander around, sometimes sleep in yachts, but they move on to other activities. Fishing has been banned. Humans have finally understood that eating fish is not only unnecessary for their well being, but it is actually harmful. So, you will find a lot of underwater observation equipment in these yachts, with quite a number of individuals concentrated in helping others use and enjoy the activity.

Also, without the money game—profit making—soon scientists will find the perfect energy solution, which won’t need to be covered up due to monetary interests.

Basically, in this new world, the only one element that changed is the total disappearance of money as a commodity to use for exchange of goods and services. Humans have learned in a rather short time, to forget the concept of exchanging. They have learned that life is a lot easier for everybody if things are done by those who know how to do them, when they feel like doing them. Life is easier for everybody if everybody takes what they need at the time they need it. If it isn’t to be consumed, they simply return it to places where others will be able to find it and use it in the same terms.

Nobody needs to guard from thieves or acts of robbery. Jewels are there to be enjoyed and shared. Some people are busy working on jewelry and it abounds more than ever. They do it because they like it and they can occupy themselves without risks in doing it.

Sex? Well, humans were never really monogamous. Women and men have always loved variation and they used to find themselves stuck with one partner “for life”. Of course, most of the time it didn’t work and when it seemed to work, the cheating was being done behind their backs. The absence of money in the scene has managed to fix the problem of forced monogamy. Women and men entertain themselves sexually all the time, in total lack of worry. Women let themselves get pregnant if they feel like doing it. They know that the offspring will be everybody’s responsibility and not only hers—as things used to be with the money game around. Nobody seems to have problems finding sexual opportunities; since encounters might only be one-time events, nobody really cares about the quality frame—or Hollywood Model Image—of males or females.

Since no medical laboratories exist with the sole purpose to make huge profits, no sexual calamities need to be taken care of, or expensive medications need to be bought. No false positives to elaborated stories like HIV exist anymore. People are definitely healthy, physically as well as mentally.

Serial sexual events can be seen taking place everywhere and mostly unexpected. One female feels like having sexual pleasure; she takes the position to receive males and yells a little, or a lot. Males come and penetrate her, respecting her wishes concerning ejaculating inside them or with protection. In either way, the female continues to feel like calling another male, and then another, and another. In the meantime, everybody around is having fun and getting aroused for their own sexual pleasure, which is all performed in public.

Yes, humans are living a constant orgy. They are finally enjoying in groups—and with zero moral hangover, thus, no need for evasive drugs—what they had always longed for, but were afraid to manifest in the open.

Love? Yes, what about it? The concept is no longer hidden in mysterious disguised cultural arrangements. Instead, the feeling is floating in the environment, everywhere, with everybody for everybody.

Utopia?

This Utopian scene is only possible if humans decide to completely ban money from their lives.

There’s nothing Utopian as long as no magic or esoteric, intangible beings are needed to make things happen. Our human cultures are responses given by human groups to the needs and/or challenges posed by the environment for human life to be possible, for survival to be achieved.

As such, those human responses are neither the only ones that could have been given nor the best ones. As a matter of fact, history—and today’s human condition in general—are more than enough to demonstrate that we need to work on ways to improve what we have.

In 2013 the global production of human food—not necessarily the best quality for the species—has reached levels never, ever before achieved. Today’s daily production of human food is good and enough for 4 times the amount of people on the planet. At the time of the Roman Empire, the production of food was barely to satisfy between 80 and 90% of the existing population.

So, the drawbacks of the human condition are not the result of lack of food. Hunger is due to lack of money to buy food, not lack of food for everybody. Then, is the problem money? “Oh, mine! How can such a thing be possible?”

The argument for money is so simple that we swallow it easily, without any counter arguments. But, is it so definitive that it is unbeatable? Some of us are beginning to see the big picture, making some of us not so easily gullible for the money argument.

The pro- money argument states that a mechanism is needed to certify the amount of goods and services that any individual is entitled to at any given time. Theoretically, if you have with you 300 units of money, you are entitled to whatever those 300 units can buy in goods produced, and services provided, by others.

The problem is that the value of those 300 units changes without your control. If your government, for instance, requires money, it will proceed to print it. As more of it is printed, the 300 units in “our hands” diminish in value, that is, you will be able to buy less and less as your government prints more and more.

Enterprises are organized to capture and accumulate as much money as possible. They aren’t organized to provide goods and services with value, but with the magnetism—commercial, marketing games—to make the consumer go ahead and spend it on things and services they most certainly do not need.

We aren’t buying the dresses and blouses and shirts and pants we need, or good enough to move around, but those clothes with strong marketing campaigns to convince everybody that they need it. The game aims at grabbing more of your units of money for less than the real value they have, either for you or by the materials they are manufactured with.

So, the money in the hands or accounts of the outstanding majority of individuals loses value either if they use it or if they keep it—save it. The name of the game is Do Business; but this game doesn’t mean to generate more goods and services that provide value, but simply make things to attract from consumers the most units of money for the least possible value given back to them.

“But the idea was a good one”, is a possible and probably valuable argument. “The idea of money isn’t bad in itself; what is not so good is what it has become…” And this brings us back to what we call a response of the human mind… which was probably OK at the moment of its introduction in the scene of human life, but which has actually become a drawback for the healthy development and enjoyment of the event of living.

The problem with the idea of money was at fault from the very beginning. Yes, it was! Sorry, but we need to see further than the end of our noses. So, allow me! Every single human group observable in an environment where things to survive are there to be taken—if needed—by anybody, and thus, no concept of “property”—private or public—exists, the idea of measuring how much each individual has contributed was ever absent. Nobody needed to prove that he/she had contributed enough to have a right to the group’s collection of assets of the day.

Oh, yes! If you’re thinking right now that the losers in a world without money will be those that today hold millions to their names, of course you’re right! And unfortunately those persons are also the individuals closest to the power elites, the ones that have direct lines to the military generals and weapons of mass destruction responsible ones. What can we do about this? This is certainly what might cause delays in the construction of the New Model (without money).

A person that doesn’t have millions to his/her name, will probably tend to understand and accept much more easily the New Model, than the person who has amassed fortunes—represented in money and/or properties. So, the problem of the laymen might become one of confrontation with the Power Elites. The time is now ripe to look for ways to diminish destructive confrontations. The coup must be executed in such a way that not one drop of blood will be wasted, and not one single human life will be lost. Will the millionaires give in so easily?

No, they won’t. But they should know that their money—not their properties—will lose all its value. This is unavoidable. There is no way to stop this. It’s unavoidable simply because the value given to money is highly subjective and linked to social and cultural attachments. The people in general can be freed from such attachments if they are—at the same time and unequivocally—freed from activities they need to perform that they only commit to doing because of the need to earn money. Since this need will be banned, wiped out from the scenario of society and culture, it’s easy to foresee a rather smooth transition from the public’s attraction to money and the end of such attitude.

Today, a job is a rather serious concept. People cling to their jobs even if they don’t like them. They don’t risk trying to get jobs that would be more attractive to them, simply because they don’t want to go through the uncertain moments of transition from one job to another. Changing jobs is usually a process that evolves in secrecy. The present employers need to be kept uninformed of the intentions of the employee. However, the new employer needs data that can only be obtained by inquiring about the employee to the HR department of the present employer. Thus, it’s never a safe or an easy process.

Could a World Without Money cause shortages of production? Certainly, it could! That’s why the transition must be made with the utmost carefulness. People must be progressively taught that some persons will do nothing, and yet will have the same rights to that which the rest of the people are producing. The stupidity of 8–hour work shifts will be immediately modified. A lot of people will have nothing to do, simply because all those jobs that today exist only to “count money” will have no reason to be! All those people will be set free to offer themselves—when and if they want—to do other activities.

If all this sounds subversive it’s because it is subversive. However, banning the value of money can never be considered an act of robbery, corruption, treason, or similar. In other words, the properties that the millionaires own today will continue to be “theirs”, except that the money they used to use in order to make other people work on them and for them, will no longer have any value. The point of having a property—of being the owner—of a factory, land, huge houses or buildings—which used to be to amass more and more money— will no longer have any sense.

Today it is us—those who don’t have enormous amounts of money—the ones who give those huge properties and money the value they are supposed to have. In themselves, the properties and the money to the name of those who own enormous amounts of it, only have value inasmuch as we—the people in general—give them value.

The process of change requires people to be massively conscious of the concepts commented here. Our species will continue to need a lot of people to do tasks with output that will not go to the hands or control of those who did the tasks. Instead, the output of any task will be yielded to the global species, with immediate beneficiaries being those persons closer to where the goods will be produced.

The Real Needs

People will learn to need what really helps them live a healthy life. They will start to avoid goodies that used to be offered as bail to attract spending towards the producers of absolutely unneeded goods and services. The shift to a life of minimal effort and maximal enjoyment here and now will present itself as the logical step for humankind.

Today, people eat too much, thus too many are obese. Food is produced in order to be attractive—addictive—, so people love to spend in it. Casein—the addictive substance from dairy, milk and cheese—will need to be effectively banned. It has generated a substantial toll of death and illness. So have all sorts of meats—including fish and chicken—done to the health of the human individual.

We aren’t a species evolved to eat a lot every certain amount of hours and nothing in between. It simply doesn’t work. We evolved to eat all day long, but not food intensively loaded with carbohydrates, protein and fat; no sir, not ever! We evolved to eat all sorts of light vegetables all day long; just as we evolved to go to sleep when the sun sets, and probably engage in social interaction for sexual pleasure at all times—day and night. Of course, things needed to be changed when sex became part of a contract of exclusivity, instead of an open, socially enriching pleasurable activity.

We’ve missed so much, have we not?

But the human target has been, apparently, that of reaching enormous amounts of individuals simultaneously alive, without any interest in the happiness achieved by the masses. Statisticians have only recently—and as a rather peculiar interest—started to suggest that instead of measuring the richness of countries by the amount of goods and services they have, they should focus on measuring the levels of happiness achieved by their populations.

More and more individuals are pushed to live in conditions of absolute uncertainty. Can there be a more effective way to cause unhappiness in the human individual, than that of generating rules of life filled with uncertainty? The formula is one of cynicism: “Accept that this is the way life is”. Is it? Really?

Some come up and order you to “think positive”. They tell you that you’re responsible for anything that happens to you, because simply “you weren’t positive enough…” I suppose that’s a lot easier than to make serious statistical analysis of failures Vs. successes in the general population. Millions are thinking positively, a few have become real cynics and see life with eyes of realism. Of those millions thinking positively, millions fail and a few succeed. Of course, the “positive think” pushers only see the successes, ignoring the millions that failed at the same time.

Usually, the think positive statement is related to money. “You must love money and it will come to you! You don’t have money because you don’t love it!” What!? How could anybody in the culture of money not love money crazily? If a rite existed to adore money every single morning as the Sun rises, with proven success, every single person in the culture of money would be performing the Money Adoring rite at sunrise! Wouldn’t you?

Some people definitely focus only on making money. To make money means to accumulate as much money from the others, by giving them as little value as possible, or nothing at all, as the perfect exchange. They have begun using the expression Win-Win as the desirable balance in all transactions. However, for the large corporations to amass fortunes, Win-Win doesn’t seem to work. They need Win-Lose, being the side that loses, always, the little person in the street or “consumer”.

In all transactions, some of it must go to governments. It would be OK if only governments were really acting on behalf of the people. But we know this isn’t the way things work. Governments are run by corporations and these are only interested in their profits. So, even the taxes the small people in the street pay, go to entities that will use them against their benefit.

That’s how sick and sickening the Money Model works. But you know it; you feel it daily along with your “loved” ones, except that you don’t see the big picture, because the system simply requires people to be blind to the underlying reality of it all.

Oh, yes, you don’t have to say or think it again! A model Without Money would contain a lot of people who would be doing exactly nothing. So what? Today, there are myriads of persons doing exactly nothing for the benefit of the general population, and yet they’re getting paid and with those coins they justify their right to that which is being produced, which is really necessary for survival. I’m referring here to the millions occupied in banks and accounting who generate no richness at all, but need to push papers where the story of the movements of money is registered. Society—us—pay them for doing nothing in our benefit.

So, the model without money will not be the only one generating millions doing exactly nothing for the benefit of the rest. The money model is already doing that, except that today, the occupation of those people counting money and pushing papers, provides those involved in it, little or no real enjoyment of life.

Those who will be doing something will most certainly be the best ones at the tasks they will be involved in, and not as the result of a commitment to make money, but as the result of a commitment with themselves to be useful in the things they feel themselves capable.

Instead of hiring and contracting—with the obstacles involved in the processes—people will freely move from activity to activity, from production center to production center. Productivity in general will gain with this mechanism, since most of the time persons with full commitment to their activities will be in charge of important tasks.

Free time will be the regular way of life for some, whereas for others—probably selected minorities—busy time—strictly by choice—will be their regular life. Since sex fun will not be a commitment for life, no search for the perfect partner will steal time from those committed to creativity and production. What we call today sexual harassment will have no reason to be or exist. Both genders will participate in high value activities for the same reasons: personal commitment to things of their liking and personal skills. And sex among peers at work will be just as normal as sex among unknown people at social gatherings and what have you.

Finally, an open recognition of sex being an element of fun for our species—and not solely a reproductive process—will have become the norm, universally accepted by all individuals and in all societies.

Reproduction will finally become a responsibility and total freedom of the woman. However, upbringing of the offspring will become part of the community, where all men could have been “the father”—but nobody really cares—and all women could have taken care of the kid. Love? A general feeling, flowing naturally all over the environment.

What is more Utopian, 1) the banning of money or 2) the transformation of our sexual attitudes?

And yet, none of the above are biological traits of our species! Of course not! They are cultural, social constructs, which become traits, so universally spread, that we fall in the trap of thinking of them as biological determinations. False!

We Need a Change

We hear that statement several times weekly. Some of us daily. People are looking for the secret of life, how to be happy and stay happy. A very popular saying states that “if you change, the world changes”. In other words, it is an effort targeted at the happiness of the individual. The idea forgets the social essence of the individual and recommends to forget it all, to ignore it all, or to avoid having feelings towards things that make life difficult.

It is intended to work as if the cultural environment of the individual were something of choice. But the cultural surroundings of us all, become part of our inner conceptions of existence. Very few individuals are capable of overcoming their personal socialization. For the human species to function as a social species, mechanisms must be taken advantage of that convince the individual that the logic of things—the best edition—is the one embedded in “your” particular culture.

The “normal” human comes equipped to internalize in her/his personality, the collection of values and definitions of what is good or bad, what is convenient for her/his life. The set of social rules and the laws become embedded in the mentality of all individuals, with varying degrees of adaptation, from total acceptance of the rules and values, to total rejection of them.

However, we need to observe carefully important differences within those who do accept all social rules. They need to be divided into two important groups: those who observe the rules and those who cheat, or violate the rules when “nobody is watching”—until they are caught.

The cheaters are not to be confused with the rebels, that is, those who openly reject the rules, but still obey them. For the cheaters, the rules should be obeyed—they don’t question the rules—, but they find it difficult or impossible to live according to them.

Rebels object to rules and promote changes. Their objections are usually based upon the proportion of cheaters in the social group. Rebels reason that if the proportion of cheaters grows to significant statistical levels, something must be wrong with the rules themselves—and not with the individuals. The issue is, what proportion of cheaters should be considered statistically significant?

Some rebels respond: zero. If a system—culture, society, laws—exists that can not be obeyed naturally by 100% of the population, then such system is at fault and needs improvement.

During the last ten thousand years, our species, the humans, using this incredibly large brain that we possess—a gift from the process of evolution—, we have arranged to create the most varied collection of cultures. The norm or constant element in all of them, has been a higher or lower degree of suffering that the rules and structures exert on the individual humans living within them.

Our brains give us, the humans, the enormous capacity of almost immediate adaptation to environment challenges. Where other species need to experiment with physical—genetic—changes in order to reach species capable of surviving in the changing environments—taking from hundreds of thousands to millions of years—us, the humans, in only 220,000 years have managed, without genetic changes, to elaborate cultural responses—that is, brain elaborations—that have been incredibly successful—compared to other species of similar proportions—in making of humans the most successful species of its proportions in conquering the planet.

This “success” needs to be measured in the light of the enormous amount of human individuals populating the planet today. In the last 200 years, humans grew in population from less than 1 billion—a level maintained for at least 10 thousand years—to 7.3 billion—August, 2013.

Species that have been on the planet for millions of years have not been able to adapt to challenging environments with the speed and efficiency with which us, humans, have been able to do it. Why? Because of the enormously complex brain we possess! Do not look for the answer on anything else. You will find that no matter what you mention, in one way or another is related to the size of our brain in proportion to our total size and weight.

But those adaptations—mostly cultural, being culture just one form of technology, that is, social technology—have come at a price, a cost that has had to be paid in the form of suffering by billions of individuals.

And today, in 2013, that’s where we are. Some rebels believe that it’s possible to improve the human condition, especially because the present state is the result of a culture, and all cultures are nothing but human creations. So, anything that humans have designed, humans can modify and improve.

Things complicate themselves for everybody when elements of the esoteric type are introduced in the dialog. Some people tend to believe that our cultures are not human elaborations, but instructions from the “gods”. So, we need permission from the deities in order to change the rules promoted by our cultures. Such permissions are—for obvious reasons—quite difficult to obtain.

And that’s how a situation already complicated in itself, gets even more complicated when elements resulting from sheer imagination, pretend to be included as arguments with equivalent validity as conclusions sustainable by observations made under the discipline of the scientific method.

The Secret

Let’s analyze the following situation. It’s about two possible outcomes, or two possible wishes. Which one would you choose?

You to be happy, with lots of money in a guaranteed way, while the rest of the people in the world—with the few exceptions like yourself—continue to live in the same uncertainty they are right now—and in which you were before the “transformation”.
Everybody to live with certainty, with not ever a hint of shortage or uncertainty about the things that humans can solve by themselves in total solidarity.

OK. Let’s visualize what fills your mind. When you wish for yourself a situation of privilege, you must make some sort of negotiation within yourself. You must find a way, a reasoning process that will settle your mind in peace about the uncertainty of millions of people. Your condition of bliss will constantly be in danger, because it will depend on privileges—like having a lot of money—that in turn depend on other things being maintained—that the Money Model will continue to be accepted by everybody else.

But then, the second alternative—the Money Model is banned—will provide a human environment safe for everybody; freedom will be a matter of natural existence. Your happiness will really depend on yourself, since your possibilities of interaction with the rest of the people will be open and, for all practical purposes, really limitless.

In the second alternative, the limit is set only by natural causes, today out of humans' control already. Your level of enjoyment will depend on your own capacity to be free, being the boundary of your freedom only where the freedom of the others begins.

So, isn’t the image formed in a human condition where uncertainty is not part of the scenario a better one? Let’s visualize a situation in which we will always be able to do that in which we are good. When we perform our activity, we will generate the best possible results, since others will be there to back us. The flow of actions will always be an accepted automatic sequence of events, expected by everybody around us.

I Love You And You And You - End of Monogamy

2013-10-01T23:58:00.001-05:00

The problem I see here is that they are trying to define relationships within the "groups". They are still very concerned about the bonding game. This needs to be gotten rid of in our minds.

It should be 1 individual, with other individuals. Just be anywhere with anybody you want. Be clean; you should probably be a vegan.

This is complicated multi-gamy. We need anybody-gamy. We need to live the moment and the bond to be groupal. Let's be happy, not concerned about who is getting more attention. Let's leave the sex to be a spontaneous activity, fun for all those participating.

The Adequate Human Sexual Model is NOT Creation of the Brain

2013-06-19T22:07:00.001-05:00

If you haven’t read the book Sex At Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethà, you better read it. This entry in my Blog is a critique of the critique made by Emily Nagoski about the book. But you will find, today, a quite extensive list of books along the lines of Sex At Dawn, like How to Think More about Sex by Alain de Botton, who has applied to practical life some immediate conclusions of scientific studies cited in the book.

One more quite interesting book, also very much to the dislike of Emily Nagoski, is Daniel Bergner’s What do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire. It is an extensive review of Meredith Chivers’s study, one of the interesting foundations of the thesis suggested by the book Sex At Dawn.

But then, again, this is about Emily Nagoski’s stubbornness in neglecting one, to me, extremely simple fact, which I proceed to quote here:

It’s true that the human brain itself doesn’t come with a built-in sexuality model. No, it doesn’t. Not the brain. It isn’t that, the part of the human animal that defines the biological sexuality model that would be 100% acceptable for all human individuals. The human brain is capable of designing all sorts of models of sexuality and also of elaborating mechanisms—culture, society, economy, religion, the law—to force entire populations to follow the elaborated model. The acceptable human sexual model is chaotic but coherent and it is built into the species' integral biological entanglement, not in the brain.
Franz J Fortuny Here and Today, June 18, 2013

We need—it’s urgent—to discuss the critique of Nagoski against Sex At Dawn; the critique is so extremely wrong, that it needs special attention…

Nagoski is a great writer. Her wording is excellent! She has an incredibly persuasive way of exposing her views. However, fortunately, her clarity of language makes it even easier to notice immediately what her mistake is.

Statistics show that the main stream solution to sex life is not working. Polyamory is not natural, just like monogamy isn’t. For the human species, the only thing natural as far as sex is concerned, is total freedom, acceptance, certainty and abundance.

Freedom of Eroticism

The human animal requires to feel free of engaging in erotic behavior at any time, anywhere and with anybody. The human animal will end up suffering if this need isn’t met or constantly repressed.

All known cultures have needed to repress and/or organize eroticism leading to sexual activity and reproduction.

This needed freedom of erotic behavior does not necessarily lead to reproduction. It doesn’t.

However, this needed freedom is a constant provider of bliss to the individuals of the species when they can exert it, just as it—the needed freedom—becomes the source of a constant feeling of deprivation when it is encased within any form of conditioning.

The problem becomes especially hard on the individuals of the species when the feelings of eroticism are provided as a reward and only after they have earned it. This really stinks!

In the book Sex At Dawn, they suggest that in any post-agricultural model, something needed to be designed in order to tame sexuality and control reproduction. Of course, the human brain has been very capable of designing models to keep sexuality tamed. However, it has been a constant that the first transgressors of all systems, have been the social leaders, the highest in rank.

How am I going to prove this Need of Erotic Freedom? I don’t need to: go ask anybody ready to give an honest response; they will all agree. They will also say that they want such freedom for themselves, but not for the others, and here, of course, is where the ego business of culture walks in.

Unconditioned Acceptance

The physical differences among human individuals of 2013 are incredibly substantial and acute. Some individuals really look like they belong to a different species, since they have grown to look so far from the average. No matter how much they may argue in “good will” about everybody being accepted, some people’s appearance is far from acceptable and automatic rejection happens.

This subject of “appearance” must be understood also as a subjective appreciation. Some people are sure they will never be accepted; then they revert to really terrifying crimes.

There was a time when our species didn’t need to design methods to combat the contestants competing for the common resources. These were not conceived as scarce; so there was no need to store them and keep them protected from “thieves”. Survival resources were scattered all over the initial densely populated and perfectly coherent ecological tropical system.

Since all resources were available for everybody, nobody was different from the others due to more or less agility to accumulate anything—as today, the thing is money, for instance. Things like sexual manifestations would happen in groups; sexual coitus was probably something done in the open and with the participation of several males with one or more females.

So, everybody was accepted, because nobody was supposed to be seen as the partner for life. They were all human colleagues for life, to enjoy in groups and to face their—truly—minor problems in groups, too.

Thus, it was possible to live without the deprivation of general acceptance. Who doesn’t want to be accepted? Do you know anybody that suffers from acceptance deprivation? Who needs to prove this need?

Sexual Certainty

Deprivation from sexuality is today’s norm. Please, listen to this very carefully: yes, it’s true that it seems to be available everywhere and by everybody. But, is it really? With the lack of Freedom of Eroticism and the lack of Guarantee of Acceptance, who can be 100% sure that a good sexual encounter will happen?

Sexuality has become a random—at its best—happening, with total uncertainty about its actual happening. Also, the quality of the event will mostly leave a lot to be desired. Apply a poll and you’ll have your proof.

Did this feeling of sexual uncertainty ever exist in the dense initial environment where our species primarily evolved? Another blatantly and heavy NO. Freedom of Eroticism along with constant Guarantee of Acceptance, didn’t allow any room for sex uncertainty. Sex, for each and every individual and gender, was, like eating daily, a fact of life, shared by the group.

The human brain is undoubtedly a determinant part of the species; however, no matter how well connected it may be to the rest of the human body, it is still, by gene determination free to elaborate “on the go” any solution or response to problems posed to the species as it struggles to survive in different environments.

Of course, Sexual Certainty was not a problem or anything the brain needed to elaborate about within the ecological condition of no-scarcity, and no need to control, store, distribute, measure, and all those things necessary when scarcity becomes the norm. Which is exactly what happened when the human brain was challenged to elaborate solutions to survive in a different environment.

I say to the Nagoskis of the world, that the reasoning in the book Sex At Dawn is indicative that, no matter how efficient and fantastic the human brain may be, it isn’t infallible when it comes to elaborating a response for survival. As it all works in nature, all of the elaborations of the brain produced during the last ten thousand or so years—since agriculture became a necessity—have been a compromise.

In this case, Sexual Uncertainty was one of the prices to pay. Sex has become a goal that must be earned; in the process, the individual invests a lot of energy; however, there isn’t any certainty as to the final outcome, no matter how much energy is invested.

Abundance of Sex

Abundance is a concept to be understood at the level of the perception of the individual. If anybody needs one anything of certain kind daily and it’s there, for her to pick up, every single time she feels like having one, then there is abundance of it, whatever it may be.

Abundance can also be visualized as a desire that is felt when certain stimulus is received, being what generated the stimulus itself the element that will satisfy the desire that it evoked by just being there.

I’m not hungry, but I see a beautiful fruit at my reach as I walk by a tree. I can feel the juices flowing inside my mouth; so I grab the fruit and enjoy it!

That’s what I call abundance. Do we enjoy this kind of abundance today?

Did you say yes? Come on, please, think again! This kind of abundance is exactly what we lack today, in spite of being surrounded by abundant everything… As long as you pay a price, mostly with money, everything is scarce, because money is seldom abundant—or never for 99.8% of human beings. And that includes sex, even if it’s at home. And this is not only the guys; it’s everybody. Sex has become a reward, not an abundant source of pleasure, joy and peace. Sex has become a merchandise to trade for or to trade in.

We live in a world of scarcity. Nothing is abundant for the individual, except uncertainty.

This is the socio-economic-cultural environment our fantastic brains have elaborated for us. And along with the system, a sexual model has also been elaborated to go along with the complete mess. Of course—who said no?—it has evolved, into what we see in the world of today, 2013.

So, not because the human brain can elaborate all kinds of responses, they are all natural and thus, must be acceptable.

Monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyamory, celibacy, polyandry, masculine homosexuality, feminine homosexuality, and the rest, are all elaborations of the brain; but not because the human brain designed them, they have to be right or must be acceptable—and fees to psychiatrists and psychologists must be paid in order to adapt the maladapted ones.

Has anybody seen a human group in the habitat where the species as we know it today, first appeared circa 220,000 years ago? Unfortunately, no. However, are there any species alive today, very close in genes to humans? Yes, the closest one is called with the scientific name of Pan paniscus or “Bonobo”.

Our line of evolution separated from that of the Bonobos only about 2 million years ago. Any other species close to us between then and now has extinguished. Bonobos and Humans are the only two species left from that point of departure 2 million years ago. Bonobos and Humans are so close genetically that we better get a good understanding of what the Bonobos have to teach us about ourselves. (Humans are significantly closer to Bonobos than to Chimps).

Bonobos, even though they probably would be able to, have not needed to elaborate, with their brains, alternative social organizations from those naturally formed without any brain elaboration.

So, we need to emphatically affirm that the human brain depends on the adequate human sexual model, which is embedded in the whole essence of the human species. The brain might generate elaborations to adapt the human natural sexual model to survival conditions, but as long as those elaborations contradict basic needs of the human sexual model, human life will not be as blissful as it most probably was during the initial 150,000 years of the species. Ultimately, the adequate human sexual model is NOT a creation of the brain, inasmuch as the brain, though, is very capable of elaborating a better adaptation than all the variations we have seen throughout the last 10,000 years—which have been rather of cruelty for most individuals.

The thesis of the book Sex At Dawn, thus, is on the right track to make the human brain generate a better elaboration for a less cruel culture.

Culturally Acceptable Moments to Enjoy Sex

2013-06-18T12:31:00.001-05:00

And here she comes again. This was even before all the other discussions. You should read this and then come back here, so we can discuss the issue:

Read this: Dangerously Untrue in Psychology Today

Here is the thing: As we read the above article by Dr. Emily Nagoski, we might get to the point where we need to accept that there is no guarantee that what the genitals are showing is also what the brain is accepting. Now, the big question is why the discrepancy. And this is what we need to focus on.

Sexuality is a subject that has been extensively encased within a social box of what is practical, acceptable, convenient, not only for the individual—during social programming, as growth happens—but mainly for the culture, society, the establishment, the—at any one time—current survival system. Of course, as I type this I can remember hot arguments of persons that insist that they do what they do because that’s what they feel like doing. Of course, they can’t be blamed for being human, i.e., organisms with programmable brains, which is the main evolutionary advantage of this species.

You see, Ph.D.’s like Emily Nagoski should not be in need to be reminded that the evolutionary advantage of the human brain is the so called gregarious instinct. This is the instinct that allows humans in general to internalize the patterns of behavior and cultural formulas in such a way that they get to believe that they do what they do because that’s what they want, and not because they have been socialized.

So, is what you feel like doing the result of your sole free will? Do you really believe that you are 100% free to feel as you wish? (Some people are free; but they have gone through very special training and, actually, what they have been able to overcome is any ego identity formed during socialization.) So, what you feel like is not the result of our free will. Our freedom is confined to clear limits, which happen to be, also, what cultural systems need in order to function.

So, what is really dangerously irresponsible and untrue is to suggest that the discrepancies between conscious feelings about situations, and the actual responses of the sexual organs to those situations, are something natural or embedded in our genes.

Following Dawkin’s reasoning—The Selfish Gene—sexuality is part of our biological essence; the human brain, though, is a successful gene elaboration. The evolutionary advantage of the human brain could be, precisely, that the genes “decided” to make it huge, capable, but empty at birth. It became, thus, the perfect element upon which to build cultures. As part of the genes' guarding box, the power of the brain lies on the fact that it was left on its own for it to choose the most convenient way to take successful survival decisions.

Thus, it should be clear that the sexual responses of the human parts are truly and irremediably the unambiguous agent(s) of sincerity. Our sexuality has been encased, jailed within the boundaries of the boxes defined by different cultures. Yes, the body does receive from the brain the OK signal to behave as though engagement in sex were something imminent; that’s the part of the brain connected to biological sexuality; at this point interferes the cultural formula to respond to sexuality, and the conscious person says: “I’m not really interested”.

The other way around is just as true. Our brain is a very complex machine. The occasion is culturally positively sanctioned, the persons are the culturally “OK” persons, but the biological essence of the individual is not interested in the engagement-to-be; then a good lubricant must be used for the event to be a culturally acceptable moment.

What we need to accept is the fact that, not because our culture dictates that we should be crazy about sex at certain moments, our bodies—more connected to the bare universe of biology—are going to respond accordingly.

Culture does have a price to pay. However, Dr. Emily Nagoski insists: Monogamy is not the problem. Really, scientist?

Is Monogamy “The” Problem?

2013-06-17T22:22:00.001-05:00

This is an issue of my fascination. Let me tell you briefly why.

As you grow up within certain cultures, they want you to believe that women and men are entirely different. You learn that males are looking for sexual mates all the time, but females—on the contrary—are absolutely uninterested in anything sexual; if they engage in sexual activities, they do so only to please the male with whom mating has been “approved” by those who lead their lives.

Sigmund Freud, when confronted with the question What do women really want?, replied, at once: That’s something I still don’t know. So, a man dedicated to dealing with men and women whose problems seemed to be that their lives demanded from them attitudes towards sex that were incompatible with their biological nature, was—within the confines of the main stream human culture—unable to answer such an important question.

My experience throughout life has been more towards what Meredith Chivers found out in her experiments than towards what Emily Nagoski implies that we should believe and accept and control ourselves to be happy with. This is what she has to say:

Indeed, the whole a-woman’s-genitals-are-more-honest-than-she-is [bold is mine] thing is a zeitgeisty thing lately, with Alain de Botton saying that genitals are “unambiguous agents of sincerity.”

Emily Nagoski The Dirty Normal

“Zeitgeisty” Thing Lately…

If you have seen the documentaries named “Zeitgeist”+something else, you know now what Emily Nagoski is worried about. This woman is tremendously in love with the establishment and believes very deeply and with great conviction that her goal, her mission as a scientist, is to convince everybody that what our culture demands from us—all the behaviors and values systems—is what rocks, what should be followed.

Thus, the goal of all scientist of behavioral sciences is to find ways of making people live in a bliss within the confines defined by the status quo. As far as she is concerned, any findings that shake the foundations of the main stream culture, are Zeitgeisty things. I can imagine her and those that think of themselves to have such missions, arguing endlessly on behalf of the structures ordered by the culture, and even trying to find connections to the nature of humankind in the “main stream” cultural system.

Her attitude is identical to that of traditional medicine: help the patient endure the pain, but continue feeding her the same food that’s making her sick.

My question is: Why is it so difficult for this kind of persons to understand that, precisely as scientists, it’s their most delicate obligation to be totally honest with the individuals of the species and act on behalf of the happiness of them? Instead, they seem to be acting on behalf of the Establishment, which organizes things to benefit only very strict minorities among the human groups.

So, yes, Dr. Nagoski, yes, it’s true: it’s all very zeitgeisty, and hopefully everything will follow the same path.

A woman’s genitals are more honest than her carrier

Does that mean we need to distrust women because they lie? Why would Emily Nagoski get so pissed off about a fact found in a perfectly controlled experiment? Why doesn’t she simply proceed to accept the facts and try to understand them without the bias of what the culture needs things to be?

When Emily Nagoski—herself a Ph.D.—reacts to Chivers' study, she is projecting a gender identity feeling—one of being attacked. “Oh, no, we are not liars! We simply don’t find, in the brain, what our genitals are expressing.” Why is her need to say this so strong?

I would say: They are lying, so what? Have they not been trained by culture to hide their real feelings about sex? Aren’t they supposed to be educated so that they will never sound like they want or need or would like to engage in sex?

The “main stream” culture—if you allow me to call “Western European Culture” like that—has mostly dictated that women should behave “low profile” when sex is involved. The background of such attitude is probably buried in the horrible 450 years or so when the dark ages—called like that precisely because nobody would like to remember—wanted to tame the feminine character by applying the fears of the Inquisition.

If their acts of repression over women were registered, any registries must have been destroyed or effectively buried to be never found. The Christian fundamentalists of those times were no different than the present time Taliban in Afghanistan. Didn’t the latter destroy a Buddhist Temple that had been carved on a mountain side for centuries? Wasn’t that an act of barbarism? Well, the acts perpetrated by Christians during the dark ages and earlier in Alexandria—remember Hypatia—were no different in intolerance than the recent Taliban acts.

The way women are treated by the Taliban is probably just as bad as they were during the times of the Inquisition. Women who behaved with any air of freedom and sensuality, were immediately denounced to those in charge of handing them over to the Inquisition for trial. It is calculated that over three million women’s lives were interrupted—they were separated from the pool of genes and were not allowed to reproduce. How many were actually burned in the fires of the Inquisition? The number is probably impossible to determine accurately.

The women who would survive were those capable of disguising their real feelings—as discovered by the Chivers' study. Today the world is somewhat different—not entirely so, though. Some attitudes prevail, probably as disguised in men and authorities as the real biological feelings of women were found to be in Meredith Chivers' study.

“Monogamy is not the problem”

Wow, wow! Dr. Nagoski is concentrated in one objective, one task, one main agenda—does she really work for super special entity?—and that is, to make us believe that, no matter how difficult it may be to adapt to the needs of monogamic marriage, it isn’t in such kind of arrangement where the problem is, but in the lack of practice and imagination to make it work.

Is what Dr. Nagoski implies different in any way to what—for instance—the Roman Catholic Church proclaims? Perhaps the only difference comes from the fact that the aforementioned religious institution pretends to convey the monogamous model as something ordered by the Super Entity of the Universe, which they call “God”. This Super Entity, understanding the limitations of the human species, approaches some individuals of said species and gives them “instructions”—The Bible—of how things should be.

And, of course, the order—“Be Monogamous”—can’t be the problem, since it was given by the Creator of the Universe Himself!

Is that what Dr. Nagoski is implying? Please, somebody out there, use the comments space of this Blog to help us understand Emily’s agenda.

Are you, Dr. Nagoski, really trying to tell us that the problem is in the human species, which obviously did not evolve to be monogamous?

Can you be monogamous if you're human?

2013-06-12T14:00:00.000-05:00

Emily Nagoski accepts that as a valid question. She compares it to another question: Can you be an astronaut if you aren't good at math? As far as I'm concerned, it's difficult for me to see the parallelism in such questions.

To be or not to be good at math, golf, tennis, etc., is a matter of practice. All those sports are designed to be played by regular humans with arms, legs, a working brain and a lot of training. As far as I know, nobody is born trained to play golf or tennis; however, some people will do better at math and golf and tennis with less practice than others with more practice.

How do those activities compare to monogamy? According to Ph.D. Emily Nagoski, monogamy for humans is just one more activity to be trained for. Is she recognizing the fact that we aren't born with a natural tendency to be monogamous? Maybe she is!

Please, read what she has to say and then come back here and comment at the end of this entry.

The debate Ph.D. Emily Nagoski is suggesting is against the conclusions presented in the book Sex At Dawn by Ph.D. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethà, MD. The book gathers evidence that supports a serious revision of the biological trends of our species, the humans, concerning sexual behavior. Some authors have classified us as naturally monogamous; apparently, Nagoski sees monogamy as a “no problem” condition, something that can be learned and practiced—with no consequences.

However, the book Nagoski seems to dislike, suggests otherwise. It sustains that monogamy is a specific way of organizing reproduction, imposing upon the individuals of the species, a burden of forced behaviors that result in a constant condition of sexual deprivation or, better, of sexual uncertainty. This condition generates a state of unbalance that manifests itself in sexual deviations like pornography, prostitution, rape, pederasty and the constant violations of the exclusivity of sexual partners expected by the monogamy model.

Sex At Dawn presents interesting arguments that indicate the natural sexuality of the human species to be deeply in disagreement with what the models monogamy and polygamy have demanded from the human individuals of both genders. Both models were the result of a new form of adaptation demanded by socio-cultural conditions elaborated by humans in their pursuit of mastering the environment for an efficient survival.

The main technology—the one that caused the need to elaborate new ways of organizing sexuality and reproduction—applied to exploit the environment more efficiently is agriculture. However, such cultural innovation needed paternity certainty. In the original habitat, humans simply took whatever they needed as food—most probably they didn't even eat dead animals. Such habitat of abundance, was gone, terminated, by a planetary event. A lot of species simply didn't make it: they are now extinct. Humans applied the power of their brains to find solutions.

The result has been so successful—in terms of numbers—that today we are 7.2 billion human individuals walking on Planet Earth.

But the success came with a price: paternity certainty required polygamy or monogamy. And paternity certainty was necessary because only identified offspring came to have the right to that which was produced in land owned by the father, with the personal energy of the couple—or the “hired” labor.

So, becoming happily monogamous is not a matter of practice. No matter how much practice is invested, the individual remains biologically non monogamous. It will always be a compromise imposed by the needs of culture.

However, today we are a more mature species. We are more conscious of things like biology versus culture. We know today that ultimately we own any cultural elaboration that we may find ourselves imposing upon our lives. And just as we designed it a few thousand years ago, we are entitled to revise it and modify it according to the better understanding we are capable of having based on our latest scientific process of knowledge.

If we're honest and accept the imperfections we all feel—at more or less intense levels—from living in the conditions imposed by the culture to be overcome, then we shall be able to allow ourselves the freedom to find ways of enjoying our lives, our sexuality and our interaction with other humans.

“The Dirty Normal”, scientific thought processes and debate

2013-06-11T13:48:00.000-05:00

Some blogs exist only to attract people in agreement with the blogger. The authors leave no room for debate: they don't want to see any comments that too strongly argue against their primary point of view.

One such blog is The Dirty Normal by Emily Nagoski.

I am sensitive to rejection, especially when I'm careful in stating my points of views—perhaps in a not so subtle way—with some hard comments towards the person exposing the ideas I feel I need to combat.

Now, is such attitude a valid one? In the case of Emily Nagoski, the Ph.D., my intention was to call the attention of her readers to the fact that she might have a personal problem with what has been very carefully exposed in the book Sex At Dawn, which she has fervently disqualified from any possible value in the goal of understanding ourselves as a species.

In a few words, Sex At Dawn states that there must be something wrong in the way us, humans, have been trying to organize our lives surrounding our sexual needs, since all serious statistics show openly that marriages aren't working, neither males nor females can be naturally monogamous—that is, neither gender of the species naturally chooses one sexual partner and is perfectly happy, forever, to stick to it.

The sexual attraction for other individuals besides the “legal partner”—the socially accepted one—is constant and comes from both genders. We seem to be willing to forget that the socio-cultural organization by which we live today, is a response of our brains—a human elaboration—to try to be able to keep track of “who is the father of the children”. Now, was such a need something valuable for survival in an environment previous to the creation of agriculture?

The answer is a very simple no. On the contrary, it must have been much more a survival advantage to consider all males in a human group as contributing fathers to the lives of all children. Such an attitude is observable in groups of bonobos—the smaller chimpanzees—but mainly, with tribes organized differently—from the agricultural model—such as the Zoe from the Amazon.

Persons that become so delicate and sensitive about their conservative opinions—such as Dr. Emily Nagoski—raise suspicious about possibly underlying agendas in their general attitudes.

The way we eat when we sit at tables, the way we dispose of surplus material from our bowels, the way we cover our genitals and the way women can't even breastfeed their babies in public places, are all attitudes learned through social programming exerted upon us during our lives, since the day we first appeared in this world. Nothing in the mentioned behaviours is natural in any way; it is all the result of what our culture needs from us, the individuals.

Well, then, that's exactly what happens with our sexual behaviour. Just as we feel like visiting a toilet—but we withhold our urge until the time is right—we also feel some mild arousal when we see individuals that we feel attracted to; we control such arousal according to the cultural needs, just exactly the way we control our bowels until the time is right—which is slightly different for everybody: while some are quite comfortable visiting any toilets, some can only feel at ease at home.

Some people—Emily Nagoski is one of them—want to see our genes pre-programmed to behave in this or that way; they simply ignore the highly important and deterministic socio-cultural programming of our minds/brains throughout our regular lives, starting the day we're born.

Dr. Emily Nagoski denies and neglects culture as a reality

2013-06-08T20:10:00.000-05:00

Somethings need to be dealt with at once, with the proper tranquility and peace of mind needed, without any kind of hurry to prove one's point. But things need to be laid out in a functional perspective, one that will really help us understand how our species was evolved to work as opposed to how our species, by its own elaborations, has needed to adapt itself to function within cultural frames —not necessarily in connection with biological sources.

Emily Nagoski, the Ph.D. suggests this to us: “if nothing else, let’s get at least this one detail right”, and proceeds to argue in such a way that one can only infer that she hates reality and needs to find a scientific way to prove that it's the way it is.

About a dozen people have sent me this gushing Salon review of Daniel Bregner’s book.

In the interview, Bregner makes two of the (dozen or so) mistakes I’ve devoted this blog to correcting.

Is there room for debate? She has dogmatically called whatever Bregner says, two of the dozen or so mistakes that she has devoted her Blog to correct! Yes, other people are making mistakes and, no matter how many those persons are or where their conclusions come from, for Emily Nagoski, those are nothing but mistakes.

(1) Sex is not a drive. I’ll write about that another time (you can read about that here if you aren’t familiar with this tidbit and want to know more.)

OK, fine. Dr. Nagoski wants to apply a different vocabulary, with different semantic connotations, to terms that were supposed to have been sufficiently explained and studied in volumes of studies. So, what's the problem here? No big deal: sex is not a drive, and she will write about that in the future.

And (2) Genital response is not desire. Meredith Chivers would NOT say anything like, “the physical responses, registered in the plethysmography, really might well be a measure of being turned on, being in a state of desire.”

Genital response, is not desire? An erection in a man might be the result of desire—the guy is ready for copulation—but not so in women: a wet vagina does not necessarily mean naturally—that's what Dr. Nagoski implies—that the owner is ready to copulate.

But, wait a minute. Is she talking about biology or about the cultural adaptation of homo sapiens sapiens female to the elaborations of a culture? This is the most confusing part for most people who tend to deny the enormous importance of culture—brain programming through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc.—that appears disguised to even the most outstanding scientists when they deny themselves the vision of what gets into you through culture as opposed to what is within you as part of your biological equipment.

This is a big one. Chivers’s work has been misrepresented more or less universally in trade books – Sex at Dawn, for sure, and also in Brooke Magnenti’s “Sex Myth.” Indeed, the whole a-woman’s-genitals-are-more-honest-than-she-is thing is a zeitgeisty thing lately, with Alain de Botton saying that genitals are “unambiguous agents of sincerity.”

Ah, of course, “this is a big one”... The study of Meredith Chivers finds that the body reactions in women tend to show something the women themselves deny: they get biologically excited, but don't admit it to the machine by the button they press. Dr. Nagoski wants to liberate women from the burden of “lying” to the machines. Dr. Nagoski wants us to believe that women were not conscious of their arousal. But, why is she so insidious about this?

But it’s incorrect. Simply incorrect. And also wrong, in every sense.

Of course, what else? It must be wrong: women can't lie! They will always tell the truth. The process of social programming has absolutely no value for Dr. Nagoski... I suppose a course in Anthropology would have been of great help for her and persons like her.

Here’s how it actually works, according to my best understanding of the research:

And, of course, her “best understanding of the research” is the only understanding that could NOT be wrong, right?

Your sexual excitation system (SES) is constantly engaged in the scanning the environment for sexually relevant stimuli, which causes it to send “Turn on!” signals down to the peripheral nervous system (e.g., your genitals). That’s simple enough, and it tells us why a woman’s body may display physical arousal even when shown something as marginally sexual as videos of monkeys mating. “Sexually relevant,” says SES. “Go.” Genital response.

But, wow! What is this? She is totally accepting that such arousal is possible—but, of course, not acceptable... (by the Vatican?)—and introduces SES or Sexual Excitation System—one more system that needs to be defined in order to avoid any inclusion of social brain programming through culture.

And at the same time, you sexual inhibition system (SIS) is also busily engaged in noticing all the very good reasons NOT to be aroused.

Dr. Nagoski has just introduced one more system: SIS, or the Sexual Inhibition System. This system—and not cultural programming—is busily engaged in all the very good reasons—biological reasons!; this is incredible for a Ph.D. to ignore at such depth any existence of socio-cultural brain programming—NOT TO BE AROUSED. She implies that the reasons are embedded in the neurons of the brain, pre-programmed just like a bird knows how to build a nest.

“Desire” comes along when (a) SES activation crosses some threshold of awareness, which is different depending on the sensitivity of that system, and (b) all the OTHER brain systems involved agree that sex would be an interesting and non-problematic thing right now.

It's difficult for me—my BG is in Sociology—to understand how a Ph.D. could be out there, moving freely by the world, with zero knowledge of how the brain is programmed to function and respond according to the needs of culture. The lady Ph.D. is confusing everybody, by making a mess of things, simply to prove that “women don't lie; it's their biology...”

Your sexual inhibition system (SIS) needs to DE-activate, your stress response system needs to be calm, your attachment system very often needs to be engaged in its forward pull toward attachment an object, your overall wellness needs to meet some baseline criteria – how sleep deprived are you? are you starving for nutrients? dehydrated? can you really afford to shift your attention toward something as luxurious as sex right now? should you not be saving your energy for something more immediate to your own (and your existing offsprings’) survival?

Our SIS—not social values and cultural teachings—deactivates, the stress response system (SRS?) needs to be calm, and your attachment!!! system—nothing cultural, it's all biological; what's the matter with Nagoski?—needs to be engaged in its forward pull toward attachment of an object, your overall wellness needs to meet some baseline criteria: this is even MORE incredible!!! In each and every single word that refers to reactions that would be entirely different in different cultures, she wants us to believe that it is not cultural, but totally and absolutely biological, embedded within us as we are formed inside the womb.

When all of these things align, desire happens.

She is precisely talking about social conditions, which are what make up the environment to which the individual will respond but not according to biology, but according to social programming, through cultural adaptation.

Arousal comes first. Before desire. Genital response is not desire.

Genital response might not be desire, but it certainly IS arousal, and that's where sex starts. Whatever comes after the arousal IS NOT at all something embedded in the biology of humans, but learnt through social brain-mind programming

Dr. Nagoski, thanks for going back to your basic Anthropology books: Margaret Mead and others.

How can we make Americans respect us?

2012-10-15T10:03:00.000-05:00

How can we teach Americans that Mexico is not just another third world country? It is sickening for some of us to open WEB sites that treat Mexico and Mexicans as if they were from a strange land, incapable of coping up with the «Great American Way».

They should be informed that the Mexican Peso is a truer currency than the American Dollar, simply because it's backed by a Government that is not playing with deficit—and charging it to the rest of world—like the US Government is doing.

I'm sick and tired of seeing web sites made by Americans, incapable of adding the Mexican currency as one more currency with which they would be able to do business with.

Is there something that I don't know about doing business with Mexico and Mexicans? We're stupid enough in Mexico to be using Windows 7 over Linux—unlike they do in Europe. So, we are more partners with American Business than with business anywhere in the world. Thousands of kilometers in common boarders make of us natural partners.

The terrible violence generated by the drug cartels in Mexico is nothing more than a consequence of the Americans needing the substance, buying it, generating a demand, which reflects in the cartels killing themselves in the streets of our cities and towns, corrupting all levels of governments.

Our president decides to combat these criminals. The American government is perfectly informed of the attitude of the Federal Government being a genuine one. Their internal intelligence knows in detail the strength and determination in the Mexican President's decision. They know it isn't only a political affair, a stage to show off; they know better than any Mexican that the so called «war on drugs» in Mexico is real. And what do they do to back it up? Nothing!

There are a bunch of anti-Mexicans among the media «big men». They love to spit out words of contempt against Mexico and the Mexican efforts to change things. Today, in 2012, Mexico is a different nation from what it was 12 years ago. Can the Americans recognize that? Yes, they can, but they don't want to recognize that they recognize it. The Media Giants continue with an attitude that does exactly the opposite of helping.

It is that lack of support from the international media that has resulted in the electoral behavior of this past July 1st. People in Mexico are confused. They don't really understand what is happening. Whatever the international media publishes, becomes the background of the Mexican national media; even if the local media contradict what is said internationally, the Mexican public would have a different frame of reference.

It's time for some intelligent Americans to speak out on behalf of the real change that has taken place in Mexico since December 1st, 2000. The process is now over and power is going back to the same political group that kept Mexico a third world country for 100 years, making it enter a process of counter-development that was completely halted and reversed during the years of real government (2000-2012). Growth? Did you say GNP growth? The worst world crises took place within these last 12 years. Take a look at the world around and see which country was able to overcome the consequences with the least harm to their people.

Yes, that country was Mexico! Viva México! This time it's for real. A renowned economist in Europe suggested that the Mexican economy looked as if it were from another planet! It was one of the few economies doing well, in spite of the destructive crisis the Mexicans suffered in 2009, due to the AH1N1 virus unexpected looming.

So, what is it that Americans don't seem to be willing to understand from Mexico? Rest assured: We aren't trying to make us or anybody else believe that Mexico is the gate to heaven. What is really important—and it's that what needs to be accounted for—is the real changes that have taken place in the daily life of the country. A lot is going on, especially now that we are a nation of free media, some of them especially conscious of what the public needs and the country deserves.

Paragraphs, please!

2012-08-13T14:17:00.002-05:00

Paragraph, a simple concept has become a giant issue all over the Internet. Why was it such a difficult concept to understand? was — and still is today — the HTML tag to indicate that a new regular text paragraph was starting. Initially, it wasn’t necessary to indicate the end of the paragraph with . The beginning of the next one with was enough.

However, all of that has remained in the past, because Microsoft® decided to ignore it. Then people started writing their e-mails with double enters. Today, believe it or not, Microsoft® has changed the way their programs work: they all generate an automatic empty paragraph with just one enter. That is, internally, they’re generating one simple tag.

Too late! The incredible generalized public ignorance about the concept of paragraph has driven more than one code programmer crazy. Just take a look at the blogger.com site. The regular HTML language would simply ignore empty space. In other words, if you typed inside an HTML page two or three or four empty lines, they would all be ignored. If you wanted an empty line, you needed to write — which later on became — and then you would get one empty line, even if you were within a paragraph. That makes a lot of sense!

Back to blogger.com… Today, if you write inside the HTML section, and you enter empty space, the most horrible thing happens: it prints the empty space! That’s what I would call a total aberration! I would like to punish whoever made that decision.

Also, if you type from the rich edit editor, instead of generating tagged paragraphs after an Enter, you generate empty lines! The aberration completed and rounded up.

It all comes from the error that Microsoft® started several decades ago. And they have corrected the mistake, but now others are actively resuscitating it, making of it even a more aberrant issue. Back to blogger.com, the aberration goes as far as forcing the HTML page to behave — and for this they must do something special — in such a way that you need to write without empty spaces!

What a way to rewrite the world upside-down!

It’s time for us to ask them to get their act together. All rich text editors should generate simple HTML formatting text, so that a style sheet can easily define the personality of the paragraph, the <li> personality, and other very simple and useful stuff.

Thinking In Written Words

2012-03-12T18:00:00.000-06:00

Thinking, An Exercise

If you want your muscles to get strong, you need to exercise them. That's a fact. Writing is an activity performed by your brain, an organ that needs to be treated like a muscle, and more. If you don't use your brain, it will lose its capacity to do quickly and efficiently that which it's designed to do: think, invent, imagine, create, solve, decide, write, speak, dream, and similar things. Those are actions. They're all performed by our brains. When you say I, what do you imagine you're referring to? Your brain! Of course, what else?

For some people it's simply impossible to accept the fact that our brains are the organs in our bodies that execute our actions of thinking. All of our memories exist within our brains. Nothing that we imagine, that we decide, think, dream or feel has its origins in any other part of our bodies, but our brains.

What a fantastic piece of design our brains are! They are so incredibly fantastic that we reject to believe that when we say "I", it's our brain the one that's speaking, thinking, deciding, remembering and making choices. We have not been able to design any machine even close in power, to our biological brains. Computers, and the network of them have an incredibly efficient memory system at the service of millions of brains. But they are way less powerful than one single human brain.

We've been able to teach our computers to make decisions. If they're capable of moving robots and robotic arms and robotic storage houses, then they're close, but not quite that close to mirroring what our brains do. Our brains make decisions considering a literal myriad of factors simultaneously. Computers are capable of reasoning down a gigantic hierarchy of if-then-else's at lightning speeds — probably much faster than our brains — but we don't seem to have been able to make any computer consider, simultaneously, variables chosen by the computer itself, in order to end up with a refined decision. Our brains do that all the time, and we don't even know they're doing it!

Also, the most powerful computers — as far as I know, maybe some of you know better — are ordered to consider a preset collection of conditions, including any conditions that might derive from the initial tree node, but not any conditions outside the initial node of reasoning — which is really that hierarchy of if-then-else statements.

The closer we push computers to do what our brains do, the more energy they need to fulfill their tasks. That should give us an idea of the efficiency with which our brains are capable of using energy. The energy we provide to our brains is fed into our system via the carbohydrates of the food we eat. That's all our brains need to function. The modern and most integral dietitians recommend that our calories should come from protein, fats and carbohydrates. We need only 5% of our calories to come from proteins, which leaves 95% to come from carbohydrates and fats. The myth of "high protein diets" for muscle building has been busted. (Please, investigate the details by yourself and let me know what you found out.)

This Was All About Thinking

That's it! We said that at the beginning, and there isn't a good reason — at least, one we could think of right now — to change our minds: this was supposed to have been a thinking exercise. As such, we are free to consider it concluded anytime we feel our muscle — our brain — has worked enough.

And it has! Just as I sat to write this, it occurred to me that, after all, it's our brains the ones that have generated every single piece of culture that exists today or has ever existed on the surface of our planet, The Earth.

And I have questions that were the result of this exercise, and I asked you, the readers, to proceed to finding answers to those questions. Are we getting closer, with computers, to the way our brains work? Have we chosen — randomly, of course — a line of development that will force the increments of technology in our computers to follow a line different from the line our brains followed during evolution?

Losing Work

2012-02-26T20:06:00.001-06:00

Probably one of the most hateful experiences has to do with losing minutes or hours of writing work. I love my iPad — combined with the Apple external Bluetooth keyboard — as the perfect tool for writing my articles and blogs. You can’t beat the tool for that kind of work. It’s kind with the environment — burns very little electricity — and it’s extremely easy to take wherever you go.

The problem has to do with applications to create content. Of course, your iPad comes with the Notebook, a great application. It’s always in control of the spellchecking system and never loses a single character. It’s an extremely trustworthy application. However, it doesn’t help at all when you like to write using commands to generate rich text.

Pages is out of the question. It has become an extremely slow application — in my iPad1— and it isn’t flexible at all concerning output in different formats. If you write articles for Blogs, forget it! I like to generate html code, and Pages doesn’t understand or care about that possible need.

One excellent application used to be — and still is — Blogsy. It was specifically created to make the life of bloggers a lot easier when they write using their iPads — not iPhones. The only drawback with Blogsy has to do with a rather constant problem with all iPad writing applications: you need to touch the screen with your fingers in order to generate rich text words, titles, lists, etc. If you’re a touch typist, you simply don’t want to separate your fingers from the keyboard.

That’s where Markdown — and all the applications that take advantage of it — comes into play. Using the MarkDown system, the writer can type and generate rich text without ever taking her fingers away from the keyboard. Phraseology is just one more application that takes advantage of the MarkDown system. It’s incredibly simple, but this isn’t the right place to get an explanation about it.

As I’m typing — using my iPad — I suddenly notice that the program isn’t underlying the misspelled words anymore. That is, it had been doing it, but then, suddenly, it simply stopped doing it. When this happens, it’s a real hassle; you can’t know right away if your text is coming out all right. It seems to be all right, but since the spellchecker is resting — or whatever, Apple People could give us a hint, because the fault is in all applications, except the native ones — but it might not be OK. One can’t know, unless one types a crazy combination — a sure misspelled word — like kisharma — whoa! it’s working, so far — and as it appears underlined with the red little dots, you know you’ve made a mistake.

Phraseology is a rather decent application. So far, I haven’t lost an article. However, if I need to paste the html code in Blogsy, I need to make it in 2 steps: 1) I need to copy and paste into yet another application — Textastic — and then, 2) from there I obtain the html code, that I will be able to paste into Blogsy or directly into the Blog Web Editor — they all accept html.

When I leave my city to stay at a far away place to write my book — and screenplay — I will want to take with me nothing but my iPad, and of course, the aluminum Apple bluetooth keyboard. I just hope all of these applications will have already been perfected to the point of Zero Faults. Something tells me that I will leave for my trip before the Zero Faults condition is met.

I spent most of my active life using Windows® PCs, until the iPhone appeared. I was unable to resist the iPad. I haven’t tested any other tablets out there. However, let me tell you that if the Mother Of All Tablets has all of these faults, flaws and drawbacks — applications crash or slow down — then the world is still rather far from overcoming the PC.

Did I mention that the most expensive keyboard in the world — the Apple Aluminum Bluetooth — doesn’t have an On/Off switch? Do they have a special commission from the battery companies? I know, it’s extremely economical as far as using batteries is concerned — a set of two, lasts for about 3 months, using it 3 hours daily — but, why the lack of switch? I take out the batteries when I won’t be using it for a while; and I need to do it during transportation, or else the keyboard is “live”, looking for matching equipment — and wastefully burning batteries!

Your "LifeStyle" Affects Everybody

2012-02-06T13:22:00.000-06:00

Politics and science tend to mix in detrimental ways. We always lose when politics tries to influence science. If science is honest, we always win when science influences politics.

It is not political that one very specific amino acid, present in animal protein, has been found to be a positive catalyzer of cancer development. It is a scientific fact. If the person involved in the discovery of such fact has links to any kind of political organizations, the scientific fact remains valid. It doesn’t sound intelligent in any way, to discard a fact encountered through the application of plain, good, valid science, just because the person who did the study votes for political party A or B or C.

PCRM is not the only institution in our modern world that contains names that will deny having ever signed to be part of it. AMA, more in agreement with the establishment stream, will probably include names that never specifically signed to be members. Our societies are incredibly complicated and require lots of efforts with information systems in order to keep lists up-to-date.

If Dr. Campbell were a dishonest person, we would know by now. I have seen how those things work. Sometimes, the agents ordered to make a specific personality look bad in the eyes of the general public, deny participating after meeting the personalities they would have been supposed to discredit. Dr. Esselstyn is another person, another doctor, who has been successful in substituting surgical intervention with 100% plant based diets. More than 200 individuals have been able to skip bypasses by following a strict, 100% plant based diet under the supervision of Dr. Esselstyn and his wife. They have tried myriads of ways to discredit him, until they meet them.

It is incredibly eloquent, coming from AMA, to state officially, in 2004, that milk, after all, will not be actively endorsed or discouraged. The “milk panic” perhaps had a real reason to be. Take a look at what they are now saying from the Harvard School of Medicine about what they endorse as “healthy sources of protein”. Also, try not to miss how they have — I would say, shyly — begun to lower the pitch on “milk mustaches”, once proudly shown by celebrities — at least one of them now dead from a rather typical chronic disease of the kind white robe bearers elegantly show perplexed faces, while presenting to the insurance companies giant receipts for their “professional time”.

Slowly, but solidly, something is happening that hasn’t been made public. In the years to come we will see insurance bills being lowered if you declare to be on a 100% plant food diet, while, of course, they will have found ways to analyze your blood and check if you’re declaring the truth. It is so much lower in cost to die from old age, in your sleep on your home bed, than it is to die after lengthy, futile surgical interventions and “intensive care”.

How does a diet rich in animal stuff make your lifestyle better than a diet rich in plant food? It can only be understood if you haven’t tasted the gourmet dishes that are being prepared progressively in more and more homes and restaurants all over the world.

Some arguments in these debates tend to be so empty in real content, especially those aimed at defending a stubbornly withheld meat diet.

It isn't easy to jump to 100%-plant-food lifestyles: our culture is not organized for such diet. You will need to be very careful about including a real symphony of plant food products, all of them requiring specific treatment — from picking it and eating it, to cooking it after lengthy or complicated processes. We have said it a zillion times: not because we don’t die on the spot after we drink a glass of milk or enjoy a melted cheese, or feel in heaven with juicy beef in our mouths, it means that we can base our diet on such products; they all contain an amino acid that simply, isn’t adequate at all for at least 1 in 3 individuals, in a short time; and, in a longer time, it will also harm the other 2. How? By triggering the progressive formation of degenerative and chronic diseases. These are incredibly expensive to treat — using stupidly futile processes. Moreover, we all carry their high costs on our backs.

The tobacco industry invested enormous amounts of money to try to “prove” that cigarette smoking wasn’t bad at all. What has happened in the end?

“I am not going to give up my lifestyle…” Fine, but bear in mind that your decision is affecting you, your beloved ones, your friends, your neighbors, the whole species!

Undoubtedly, we are a stubborn species of habits! We need to learn to accept change when it is mandatory for the good of all of us!

Food for Humans. A New Paradigm?

2012-02-05T16:52:00.000-06:00

Evolution works by avoiding anything that will make survival of the species less likely. Food intake is something that happens at a given moment, when hunger commands actions. Our species, the humans, is supposed to have appeared in Africa. It was no more than 50,000 years ago that the first group left the African environment, to wander in regions where the food supplied must have been different from what was available in the original African habitat.

Some groups left Africa, some groups stayed in Africa. During the last 250,000 years, the conditions of the Planet have changed. Our species has been living only for 220,000 years. We are a relatively new species, who has had to endure radical changes in climate and general habitat conditions.

It is a fact that we are capable of eating almost anything without falling dead on the spot — except for some specific poisonous fruits, seeds and minerals. So, our daily diet could have been almost anything.

However, our bodies bear important indicators that we evolved — as we became humans — into

creatures perfectly fit for the consumption of plant food, and capable of eating — without falling dead on the spot — a number of other foods, mainly animal meat, eggs, milk, fish or poultry.

We do not posses anatomical traits similar to those species specialized in eating meat. It’s a fact that we don’t use our teeth — we don’t even have the proper ones for such job — to kill our prey. We like to dismember them, preferably with some kind of tool, cook it, and only then proceed to eat it. However, if we find fresh fruit or even vegetables, we can take it directly into our mouths.

It must have been a problem for those groups wandering in territories without the concentration of plant food offer, when they discovered that they would need to rely mostly on hunting and cooking, instead of simply picking up and sharing. But we are a highly intelligent species. Intelligence means high capacity to adapt to changes in the environment. And that’s exactly what we must have done in order to populate regions of the world rather poor in plant or animal food offering.

Our response to those difficult regions is what we call today agriculture, which includes planting crops or grains, legumes, fruits, nuts and growing domesticated animals — chicken, lamb, cattle, pork, and their byproducts. We have used our brain capacity to adapt to any habitat that we chose to occupy on the Planet.

We are 7 billion individuals today, and counting. We are in a messy situation. A lot of the “intelligent” people are now immersed into a magic trust for the system, which includes medical doctors. Our medical technology has made possible incredible workings in damaged human bodies. Individuals who would have died in the past, have survived thanks to medical surgery and proper drug administration. I am not thinking here about chronic diseases, but about accidental or combat events.

And it has been precisely that very advanced medical technology that has uncovered what we now know as chronic diseases, including cancer, heart failure, artery clotting, auto immune problems, lupus, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and what-have-you. Our medical sages are rather perplex in front of these chronic diseases. They use medical high tech to remedy damaged bodies, but they have no real, honest idea, of why such bodies are getting damaged.

“It’s in your genes”, they say. “Take these supplements”, is another story. “Avoid breathing this and that”, they proclaim. But the Fight on Cancer has had, as a result, more cancer!

If we look around us, our latest beloved ones have died, all of them from one of those so called Chronic Diseases. Take your pick: which one is more acceptable for you?

And then a number of studies made by responsible people, without commercial agendas, start linking diet to any one of those chronic diseases.

And then, one study, finds that at least ONE AMINO ACID present in ANIMAL PROTEIN acts as a positive catalyzer of cancer in rats. Take the animal protein away from the diet, and away goes the cancer! Put the animal protein back in, and in comes back the cancer! Or put some plant food protein in without the amino acid and no cancer! Include the plant food protein with the amino acid and back comes the cancer!

That is enough for me to decide that I better keep away from any protein that might contain such amino acid. Google “PlanEat” and watch the documentary. More and more independent studies are linking animal food to the other chronic diseases.

The fact that we are capable of eating almost anything and not die on the spot — but die after several years from any one of the variety of chronic diseases — is a heavy trick, a real challenge to human intelligence. Sometimes we need to accept that a different paradigm is on the verge of erupting. Change is always uneasy for humans, and change is always the basis for continual survival.

(This post is an entry in my Blog:

What then, once your life is over?

2011-12-13T22:54:00.001-06:00

Life is special in every way. It's statistically rare, improbable. However, it's great to be in it! Feeling life at liberty is what this is all about. We can't live life focused in worries about death. What happens once our bodies cease to function? So far, we have no connection with those who have died. Once they're gone, we only hear more from them by their acts and deeds, but never ever from them personally. They aren't persons any more, their bodies have ceased to function.

It bothers people to imagine that their thoughts and images exist only within their bodies. It's incredibly difficult for most people to accept that once life ceases, thoughts and images and feelings are gone for good. So, we better enjoy our special state, while we are awaken and alive.

Most matter around us, near or far, in our planet or in our Universe, is not conscious of itself, except us. We are matter, too. We are made from the same atoms everything else is made of. It's true: our combination results in thoughts, feelings, memories, images, creativity, love, hatred, selfishness and altruism. But that's all it is: our very special combination. We are living systems; we are conceived, born, educated; we love, hate, think, get anxious, stay calm, get sick, get well, enjoy, die.

It's important, I would say, not to live under false promises, expecting things which won't be. It's important to be conscious of how valuable our condition—matter conscious of itself—can be. Our cultures seem to be built upon strange grounds: "games" that might have worked at some past time, do not work now. Today we need to face reality as positively as it can be understood by our most careful methods of studying it. It would certainly help to move around using basic scientific attitudes.

Why can't we teach our children that we are alive and, in so being, we are privileged beings? Why can't we help children understand life and death? Anything taught soon enough, will become understandable reality for any being capable of thinking. We hide death from them. Why do we do that? Why do we lie? We cherish honesty and truthfulness, and yet we plan our children's education upon lies—that we dare to call practical. Why haven't we decided collectively that designing our cultures orbiting truths will certainly be more liberating than making people face hidden realities deceptively.

Living is our great privilege. We have some choices. We aren't as free as we would like to believe. We need to be realistic about our true limits. Not everything is possible, however, most reasonably envisioned goals are attainable applying proper methods and strength, will strength. Are we truthful with our children as we speak to them? Do we let them grasp reality in its wholeness, or do we purposefully hide dubious corners from them? It's time, now, to rethink our universal culture. And, yes, it's an absolute necessity, this new culture must be universal. Every single human being must be included. Our planet has already become small enough. We're all incredibly tight together.

So, what matters is your life today, now. We are mandated by existence itself, to enjoy life fully and ethically.

Metaphysics, a waste of time?

2011-12-12T17:01:00.001-06:00

"War of the Worldviews", written by Deepak Chopra (pro spirituality) and Leonard Mlodinow (pro science), is one incredibly interesting book. I can't stop reading it; I can't put it down. Page after page, both authors deal with this eternal discussion about our origins. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Is it important to know why we're here? Do we need reasons to exist? Does our Universe need reasons to be? Is existing not complete in itself? Does it need initial reasons? Is everything planned ahead? Are we the result of preconceived ideas? Is our Universe planned of self designed?

Today we understand better than ever every single force that participates in generating our present material and conscious reality. We know with high degrees of certainty, that our consciousness is something that emerges due to our brain cells combining and interacting amongst themselves. Our consciousness is the final totality of what we experience. It forms itself as pieces of information enter our brain through our senses. We have at least two sources of information feeding our brains regularly: our senses—providing images, sounds, smells, feelings and taste of that which is outside of us—and our memories, combining information from our senses with information from within. Thirdly, we need to be very careful in including what our bodies need, which they communicate to our consciousness through our drives. There we have: three sources of information, of stimuli. Each one exerts its special degree of influence over every single decision we make.

Why do so many people—more than 56%—insist on explaining consciousness as something that can only exist if everything is within a greater, superior, transcendental consciousness?

When we say, individually, "I, me", who is there? Who speaks and thinks and refers to herself/himself as "me"? Is it not that combination of what entered our brains through our senses, mixed with our memories and our drives, what builds up our final consciousness, which, incidentally, is continuously changing?

Anybody with some understanding of processes will categorize human reasoning as something very special. It is! That can't be denied. However, the origin of such richness in handling complex issues is what is being debated. Some will fearlessly affirm that such complex processes are indicators of our spiritual nature. Thinking is first; existence comes after. Do we think consciously because of our brain's processes, or our brain processes are possible, because we originated from intelligent entities, beyond matter?

World views are radically split in at least two groups: skeptics and spiritualists. Skeptics account for less people than spiritualists. This is not something that would be expectable today! What happened? Why haven't most people been captivated by such beautiful methodology as that defined within anything scientific? Is it because perhaps it's one more deception, similar to discovering realities concerning Santa Claus?

Why do we insist on raising our children upon lies? Do we like to see them deceived as they find out reality? What is good about such game? We hold honesty and truthfulness as human utmost valuable assets, and yet we grow our children telling them lies that we amiably call "fairy tails"? Do we not know, yet, that deceipt is highly conducive to frustration and misbehavior? Why are we tolerating such falsehood as something "nice"? Is it because it generates sales?

We need to find ways to free people from illusions. Some of us are convinced without any hint of doubt, that freedom depends highly on depending on what is true.

Mexico in Serious Danger of Moving Backwards

2011-12-11T13:02:00.001-06:00

It's difficult to explain this in the USA, but Mexico has moved forwards intensively in the last 12 years or so. Do they understand this in the USA? They probably don't. At least, most of them simply do not have the slightest interest in the subject. But it is a subject of superlative importance for the North American continent. Some companies in the USA are still unaware of Mexico being part of a commercial treaty that should make it really easy to expand their markets. Most web sites ignore this and can't sell or do not want to sell anything to Mexicans.

As I am writing this—December, 2011—things are happening in Mexico that might lead this struggling nation back to the past. "The Past" deserves a definition.

Ballots and elections. It took Mexicans about 200 years to design an idiosyncrasy proof electoral system. They got this in 1997 and in 2000, the PRI party—the one in power for 71 years—gave in. President Salinas de Gortari declared in several international forums that "Mexico hadn't just changed political parties, but Mexico had decided a shift in political regime". It's clear that what this expresident meant was that the change hadn't been a simple thing, but a rather very complex shift towards an uncertain new "regime". Why did Salinas say that?

During the campaign months people would very often express that, as happy as they could be that the PAN party was going to win, they were sure it was going to be a disaster, but they didn't know how or why. Today, most of those who commented about the "future disaster", are prompt to express that what really happened is that the PRI structure was never torn down. It's up and powerful, today perhaps more than ever. In the past, the PRI bands used to need to be careful and protect themselves from the other bands. Today, they are protected by the system. They don't need to be careful of each other: they're now dwelling a country of laws, not exactly the one they contributed to create, but exactly the opposite.

Mexico is an extremely difficult country, mainly because of the complexity of a culture that forgives narcotics organized crime more easily than child sexual abuse. For some of us, Mexican born citizens, it's impossible to understand and least of all, accept, the attitude adopted by important editorial figures who have insisted on disseminating the idea that president Calderon's frontal battle against organized crime is a "wrong political action". What would the "correct" action be?

Obviously, this isn't even about political correctness, but simply about political propaganda. The media in Mexico had been traditionally at the mercy of the group in power. Freedom of the Press is only a constitutional formality. In reality, it was never respected. The media were used to communicate whatever the empowered group needed in order to "look good" in front of the people.

It wasn't until year 2000, right when Vicente Fox took office, that the Freedom of the Press became a reality. However, the change meant a serious problem for the entire structure. The media directors were used to receiving "official suggestions" about what to communicate, how to emphasize it, what not to mention, and so forth. Fox and his group of break-in politicians—most of them, convinced believers of democracy—never sent a signal demanding what the journalists still believed to the president's prerogative.

Confronting the presidential power from a newspaper column used to be considered a real act of bravery and civil courage. It shouldn't be, anymore. At a time, it became a "national sport" to destroy the presidential couple using the media. And it was an incredible efficient process. Fox's presidency showed numbers that have only been improved by president Calderon's. However, somehow the media have been incredibly effective at showing to the public an image of constant conflict, lack of imagination to rule and an extensive set of negative traits.

If some or all the negative traits are real, would be a thing to be carefully analyzed. What is undeniable, is the fact that both non-PRI federal governments have yielded numbers that speak marvels of them as responsible administrators, lawful officials and human rights honoring politicians.

Whenever all they needed to do was to abide by the law, they got excellent results, the best ever in the Mexican nation. One clear example of this is the growth of home building, with three-party administered funds. All employers in Mexico have the legal obligation of paying 5% over the salaries paid, to a home building fund called "Infonavit". During the Fox and Calderon administrations, the number of homes built amounts to 1 in 4 houses that have ever existed in the country!. In 1982, the funds of "Infonavit" were seized by Lopez Portillo, and were used to diminish the government internal debt.

Calderon's decision to combat the bands of organized crime was an obligation once he took office. It wasn't something optional to do. Why would it be optional for a government to combat crime? Has it ever been optional to chase criminals? I mean, is it something that should be left "to see what happens"? As a matter of fact, if Calderon had not shown a determination to combat organized crime, he would have been criticized for not doing his duty. The violent encounters between bands of crime groups have resulted in close to 50,000 deaths. Were these deaths caused by bullets from the Army or the Navy? Absolutely not! Then, why are they saying this everywhere? That's the heck of an important question, to be answered with the most accuracy, and be learned accordingly by all Mexican citizens....

The media had never paid any attention to the encounters between gangs. Why did it become so important to record the daily deaths of the armed gangs? Simply because it was the perfect combination: mention the death toll of the day, and concatenate it with "Calderon's 'peronsal' war", and that's it! You've got your journalistic critique of the presidential decision to abide by the law by combating the criminal bands.

In December 2011, as I'm typing this, the weekly polls reflect nothing but a total lack of understanding of what is really important for their country on the part of the citizens of Mexico. If the intention was to generate total confusion, they have been incredibly successful at achieving such goal. Not even the PAN friendly people—a mere 21%—know why their option is a valid and valuable one. Electorally speaking, the benefit is only on behalf of the loser of the elections in 2006, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. This man has had an erratic behavior concerning his relations to the PRI party. Incidentally, during the elections in the state of Mexico, his participation was frankly and openly on behalf of the PRI candidate, even in detriment of the candidate of his alleged party, the PRD, Alejandro Encino. What happened there?

What we see today is a PRI "super candidate" quickly being diminished in the polls. The last heavy stroke against him being his uncomfortable muting during an interview as he was unable to mention 3 books that he might have read that would account for his political views.

The PAN party has always attempted—and achieved, most of the time—democracy in its internal processes to select candidates. As of right now, 3 pre candidates are running for the PAN presidential candidacy: Josefina Vazquez Mota, Santiago Creel Miranda and Cordero. Neither has the stamina and high oratorial capabilities that President Calderon has. So, their performance as candidates is uncertain. The election process has been going on for at least 5 years. The PRI candidate has been on the news daily, competing only with President Calderon. If the information handled by the public were the correct one, the PAN brand would be the highest, well above the PRI and PRD party symbols. However, the extremely clean financial administration of the federal Government—along with its dutifully administered respect for Human Rights—have been opaqued by the daily media sort of pathological necessity to transform every single official act or event, a target for the most severe and unfounded critique.

The future of Mexico is uncertain if whoever holds the presidency decides to break the rules of the IMF. A lot of Mexicans wish our country to continue in the path of sustained growth, rather than in a path of financial upheavals similar to Greece, Italy and Venezuela. We could have grown a lot more during the last 10 years, but the needed Constitutional Amendments were systematically denied by the Congress—with a majority of seats under the control of the PRI party.

Just a physical body ... "just"?

2011-12-03T14:27:00.000-06:00

It's extremely difficult for me to believe that when I think of myself as being "just a physical body" I'm missing something. I am "just" a physical body, but ... what a fantastic entity this physical body is! If we think only for 10 seconds about the incredible number of events that needed to take place in the "right direction" for this "inferior" physical body to exist, then we are no longer going to to say, ever, that "just being a physical body" is not something extremely special in the Universe.

Yes, I am very proud to be a physical body, and a great one at that. I don't have to imagine a supreme being with whom to connect in order to transcend my physical body. And there is no way that I will ever accept that the being inside this body is anything else but one of the functionalities of the body itself. Do you want to call this inner formation "a soul"? Go ahead! Call it anything you wish! However, it won't change what it really is: a physical body with incredible intellectual capabilities.

Our body is a mixture of atoms, fixed into molecules. As an entity, it is simply marvelous. It takes longer for a Sun to form itself and start generating energy to supply to surrounding planets, than it takes, once the proper planet is formed, to generate living creatures. The rare thing here is the planet appropriate for life.

Once the proper planet exists, then the level to which these living entities can evolve depends on time and lots of different and complex conditions. In our case, our species, homo sapiens sapiens, is an extreme amongst the extremes. It's so special! If you conceived for a moment the degree of value that our body has, you would never think that believing of ourselves to be "just physical bodies" is something that needs to be fixed with connecting with "supreme beings". We are supreme beings!

The simple fact that we can conceive our existence, that is, to be conscious of the fact that we exist as aware entities, is already a great marvel in itself. We are aware that we exist, we are aware that we evolve, we are aware of the Universe in which we exist. We have made up a large number of expressions to call our essence and that which surrounds us. We are now aware—if we don't get ourselves lost in the "supreme being" attractive idea—that the simple event of our existence is an incredibly improbable happening in the Universe. And yet, we also know now that, after all, the Universe itself has a tendency to create places where beings similar to us can exist.

We are—something difficult to understand—just one form of life. And life is the concept we have developed so we can name entities that evolve according to a program embedded in helical molecules, perfectly bound together, that we call DNA. We get to become whatever we become—as living organisms—because during millions and millions of years—"year" being just one unit of time, so we can get the idea—molecules of certain elements get together, bind themselves using the free orbits of their atoms and determine to register the bindings into DNA, so the same variations of molecule bindings can take place in almost exactly the same way, time after time after time.

Why do we need the concept of "soul"? Even if the soul, spirit, supreme being hypothesis were true, things would not change for our living condition. We would still need to forego the living paths programmed in our cells and then in our particular creations as a different species. So, what do the souls or spirits need to "come down" to matter—the inferior element—and invade bodies that are already equipped with every single element they need in order be conscious of their existence? If the souls are real, then do they duplicate the capabilities of the physical body?

Everything that traditionally has been intended to be explained as possible only because of the soul, we know now that happens inside the brain. It's the brain and the way its neurons are connected, and they were they interact, that what we call "thinking" happens. Our memories are nothing but active connections amongst neurons. Our feelings and what we call consciousness exist within the brain functions, and the brain itself is only one more organ of the "physical body" they are always under valuing in the name of the superiority of the soul.

I don't even need to ask the question of where the idea of the soul came from. It's useless and we all know the answer. We have learned that different human conglomerates throughout their histories developed different theories to explain what they didn't understand. They created hypothesis and tried to improve them as some deeds were impossible to explain. The soul is the most logical concept to design, since our thought and our imagination almost depict ourselves as separate entities from our bodies. But the fact is that we aren't! Our consciousness, no matter how "superior" it might look to you, is something that exists within the confines of your working organism.

Yes, sadly, when the body stops working, it all ceases to exist. So, the soul doesn't go anywhere? Is there no soul? Then, what is the meaning of life?

Who said that life needed a meaning? Does the Universe need a meaning? Things need meanings only because we abstract them from the flow of events in which they are all embedded. We become real slaves of our beliefs, false beliefs. Why don't we try to concentrate in appreciating the real value of what we are? We are great bodies in an incredible Universe and we know we are! And this is the most fantastic element of it all.