The Rantings of a Gothic Atheist

Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a prostitute

2012-03-01T02:26:00.000-06:00

Rush Limbaugh once again proves to the slightly more sane of us that he is still a raving idiot. I'm sure for most of you reading, this is far from a revelation. But there are times when someone says something so horribly wrong and offensive that they must be called out on it.

It is all the more important to bring this quote under scrutiny as it very clearly states what many of the religious 'right' and their puppets in the GOP have been stating as of late. If this has been done by someone else, I would probably consider it a great sardonic remark against such idiocy. But instead it shows that Poe's Law is alive and well.

In a comment in reference to Sandra Fluke's being refused the chance to speak before a congressional committee on contraception, Rush stated:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

When I first read this line, I was unsure of exactly how to react. I was torn in equal directions of being disgusted, furious, and trying my best not to laugh.

I was disgusted because this is purest form of the current Republican view on women's rights. It is everything they have been striving for against about half of the human population under the guise of 'morality'. When the rhetoric is removed, this is what is left. The view that if any woman dares to want to take control of her own body and what could happen to them if they dare to speak out. After all, to such individuals they are nothing more than dirty, filthy whores.

I was furious because I know that Rush Limbaugh is not some crazy living in a box somewhere talking about how his underwear is blessed by Jesus (that would be closer to Mitt Romney, now wouldn't it). He is listened to by many and there will be quite a few who will believe his blatantly offensive and painful inaccurate remark. And his remark will be used by others to continue to perpetuate the mistreatment and oppression of millions.

I nearly died laughing because the statement and its sentiment are so utterly disconnected from reality. In my head, I could see Rush hiding under his bed in terror because the evil feminists might come for him in his sleep.

This is the mentality the rational of this country are up against. It is equal parts vile bigotry and pant staining lunacy. In a world where the secrets of the universe are being unveiled through massive particle accelerators and we combat diseases through our understanding of evolution, the sentiments such as those espoused by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should have no place other than the scrawling found on a bathroom wall. But, unfortunately, this kind of hatred is alive and well. It threatens all we have and will work for.

It must be raged against, it must be demonstrated against and it must even be lampooned. There may always be those who vomit forth such bile as Rush Limbaugh has spewed here, but we can make such individuals so utterly non-relevant that laughter and/or pity become the only appropriate responses.

DNA Defence Systems

2012-02-24T13:39:00.000-06:00

What is fundamental to all life that we have ever encountered? The answer, is DNA. Unless you count RNA viruses as alive, every single bit of life on this planet encodes the genes for its offspring using DNA. While DNA may be the tool life uses to reproduce, this is actually a bit of a self-centered way of looking at things. We don't so much use DNA as DNA uses us.

We are taught that the basic unit of life is the cell. And a cell is simply a self replicating structure built around a particular collection of DNA. Granted the DNA couldn't self replicate without all the supportive proteins, but those very proteins would not have their particular arrangement without DNA. But this wasn't a problem for some of the earliest strands of replicating nucleic acids. The conditions they formed in gave them just enough material to, by pure chance, construct a way to replicate themselves.

As mutations accumulated in the various offspring of this first replicating DNA strand, different populations began to compete over resources. Those early units of DNA that could make the most efficient use of resources, as well as gather it the fastest, were able to replicate the most readily. As time went on, the accumulation of mutations would guide different populations down different roads.

Some would eventually construct full cells around them so that they could move out of the chemical cradle that formed them. Some would have only the most basic of covering and would hijack the support structure of the self-replicating ones. Novel forms that made the best use of the environment would soon thrive where as those that stagnated would be out competed at faster and faster rates.

More complex cellular structures became required if the DNA that operated the cell hoped to be able to continue to replicate. Competition became fierce and the changing forms constantly found more exotic forms to be able to survive. These new forms were expensive to form and maintain, but as other niches filled up, they became the only way a lineage of DNA could hope to compete with other lines.

Some lines that diverged eons ago would begin to work together for the common goal of self-replication. The first Eukaryotes arose and, with their larger and more complex cells, found their own niche to exploit. Some of these newer models for DNA replication began to work together for the common goal. For if even one of them would replicate, then the shared DNA lineage would continue. Such communal behavior allowed for the first multicellular life. DNA no longer would just encode for a single replicating unit, but for the eventual diversification of its own progeny into more efficient ways for the DNA itself to replicate.

Eventually such multicelled life would take on even more elaborate formations to compete with other lineages of the first DNA. Such larger forms allowed for new resources to be exploited, including the dismantling of other DNA and their cells to maintain their own functionality. While such tactics was not new, the size of multicellular life allowed for an arms race of size to develop.

As size increases, more regulatory systems were required, especially with other complex DNA structures to contend with. One of these regulatory systems is the first nervous system. It allows for quick communication between cells so that the whole can find resources faster, escape predation more efficiently, as well as reproduce more readily.

The DNA strands that had the more efficient variations in this nervous system would become more successful under different conditions. It became so successful that the nervous system had to centralize if it had any hopes to quickly responding to the new stimuli its nervous system allowed it to detect. This line of DNA, began finding itself quite successful in a myriad of environments. All thanks to the DNAs extended support structure that we know as the central nervous system. Lines of DNA with this trait would compete amongst themselves just as their ancestors did and, eventually, the nervous system became able to make predictions about its environment. Intelligence is born.

Intelligence allowed for an understanding of the outside world. It allowed the DNA to respond to even more complex stimuli then it ever had before. One line of DNA eventually amassed the requisite genes so that the nervous system became advanced enough so that it could ask, "What am I?"

Being an imperfect system, this newly formed self-aware intellect could only make wild guesses as to what it was and where it came. Myths began to form to answer these questions. These myths would compete amongst one another, extensions of the DNA that spawned the minds themselves, if indirectly. Some would allow for greater survival, some less so and thus, were selected for.

The idea of experimentation arose and the DNA that exploited such refined ways of understanding the world thrived enough so that this tool of science was passed on. Eventually, after millenia, this intelligence had uncovered enough about itself and its world through its questions and resulting experiments that it could begin to accurately describe its own origins.

This line of DNA had, for the first time, understood what it was that life had been doing blindly for billions of years. Here, the supportive structure the DNA used to propagate had actually described its very existence. Natural selection, after going through a seemingly endless menagerie of new DNA defense and replication systems, developed a form that could see itself for what it really was.

There was no soul, no creation event, no supernatural guidance. Just strands of interconnected nucleic acids doing its best to out compete itself.

The Porbeagle Shark, Lamna nasus

2012-02-22T10:06:00.000-06:00

Courtesy University of Denver

The Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) appears to be, at first glance, the very stereotype of the shark. Its streamlined body and strong jaw give it away as a fast and efficient predator. But there is more to this shark then one would expect. In fact, it can even be described as adorable.

Other than the vaguely smile like appearance of the mouth, you might be asking yourself what one could find cute about this shark. The reason can be found in their behavior. Porbeagles have become well known for actions that can be described only as playing. Young sharks have been seen rolling around in kelp until they are covered in it and then speed off, while other Porbeagles will then give chase trying to grab bits of the kept off, but never harming the entangled shark. Soon, another shark will start rolling around until tangled as well and the group then begins chasing this individual.

Some originally thought that the sharks were trying to find small prey items hidden within the kelp, but they were never observed eating anything. Others suggested that the action was done to remove parasites, but this idea was also shown to be lacking. The only explanation that has been provided that makes any sense is that the behavior is done for play.

Another play like behavior can be seen when these sharks come across a floating object. They will grab at the object in a way that goes beyond mere investigation and will even go so far as to throw their 'toy' out of the water repeatedly. The idea that it is more then just curiosity at a novel object can be seen when multiple Porbeagles gather around a single object. They will each attempt to play with it and have even been seen passing the object from one to another!

The leading hypothesis as to why Porbeagles engage in play is related to why most other organisms are thought to play. It is a learning process, helping to develop and maintain their hunting techniques. If this is accurate, then such playfulness likely gave these sharks an evolutionary advantage over those species that never developed this unusual behavior.

Porbeagles can be either solitary or gregarious, especially in the case of juveniles, but adults have been witnessed in groups for reasons other than mating as well. Though these groups are often transitory.

They primarily reside in colder waters though the females will migrate to warmer climates to birth their pups. To combat the cold, they are able to thermoregulate, making them endothermic. They conserve heat produced by their muscles through a series of specialized blood vessels known as the retia mirabilia, or wonderful net. This allows them to maintain an active lifestyle despite living primarily in cold waters. Their ability to raise their body temperate is among the best of all sharks, second only to its close relative the Salmon Shark (Lamna ditropis).

A member of the order Lamniformes, the Mackerel Sharks, they are closely related to other more well known fast swimming predatory sharks such as the Great White and the Makos. The Porbeagle is, like its relatives, aplacental viviparous, which means that the eggs are internally fertilized and the young will hatch before being fully developed and continue their gestation internally. The Porbeagle also displays what is known as oophagy. When the pups, still within the uterus, have exhausted their yolk supply, the female will begin to release unfertilized, yolk rich eggs that the young can feed on. Once fully developed, the female Porbeagle can give birth to, on average, a litter of four, two from each uterus.

These sharks are harmless to humans with only three attacks being recorded. One was a provoked non-lethal attack on a person, the other two were on boats. Considering that they are common game fish, this is not surprising. In fact, the over fishing of these sharks has led to them being listed as vulnerable.

Have a request for an article? Leave your suggestion in the comments and I shall do the best I can to answer your question.

Why a unified fight for rights is vital

2012-02-20T18:55:00.000-06:00

The idea that there is a schism between various human rights issues is dangerous. While there is often a variety of reasons for the lack of basic human rights in differing groups, this does not mean they are unrelated. Nor does it mean that each individual struggle against oppression operates in a vacuum.

The belief that different human rights movements should not work together is one of the single greatest ways for any and all of those movements to be greatly hindered, or even blocked entirely. For a group to say that it only wants the aid of those fighting the same fight does nothing but strengthens the opposition and reduce the support base of those working for their own rights.

I mention this because of Erin Nanasi's recent post "Women’s rights and LGBT: It’s not a competition". Both in her article and in the comments that follow, there is mention that women are in no place to complain when the LGBT community has it so much worse. There is also mention that for the LGBT rights movement to join forces with women's rights and the atheist community would "cloud the issue at hand".

These claims utterly ignores certain key facts, ones that have consequences for all human rights groups. Whenever any group of individuals has its basic rights under attack, those that look to revoke these rights are rarely content to stop there. To those in any of these groups who think that the fight for their rights is a stand alone issue, I ask you this: Do you really think that they will be content to stop with just one group?

Time and time again we have seen such bigots and hate mongers use their successes in opposing or removing the rights of one group as a test bed for future attacks. If their backwards views can be accepted against one group, they will quickly begin to branch out and start targeting other groups more openly and with increased vigor.

The rolling back of women's rights has dire consequences for the LGBT movement, and vice versa. For the more radical of a 'win' against one group, the more bold they will become and the more they will want. It tells them that just because rights have been established in the past, there is nothing stopping them from stepping in and taking that all away. If they succeed in their attack on women, what is to stop them from more aggressive attacks against the LGBT community?

In fact, the LGBT community has a lot to lose with the loss of rights for women. By setting up such a standard, not only does it make future attacks against them more likely, but it also reduces the influence of half of its own population. When women's rights are mentioned, it is not just straight women, it is every woman. This would be a set back the LGBT community can not afford.

But the inverse is true as well. Any gains in rights of one group can strengthen the cause of the others. Any win for those who see all humans as deserving of basic rights not only stop the advancements of the bigots, but it also frees up many supporters to help in the fight for rights in other areas. While this has, sadly, not always happened, we must not let dissension from the past carry over into our future. With every win, those in favor of rights have had other violations revealed to them for which they can fight against. We cannot afford to be content with one area of success and must strive for more as the forces against us never tire.
With disgustingly large numbers of those in the LGBT community faced with the possibility of rape, women's rights become even more vital. For if a straight woman cannot get the proper care after being raped, what hope will someone that the establishment sees as less have?

To those who claim that such a unified fight clouds the issues at hand, I will admit there is some truth to this based on the nature of politics. It is impossible to strive for all rights in one fell swoop and they must be fought on a myriad of fronts. Sometimes, the establishment will use the connection of one group to another against them, saying that they are supported by 'immoral' individuals. But this misses that such statements are attempts to scatter and dis-empower those who fight for their rights. It is a move to shatter the support base and reduce the number of voters in support of an issue. We cannot allow such tactics to win because we believe that we have to play by their rules. We are the ones who are in the right after all.

Now this should not be seen as a statement in support of those who struggle in one area to drop what they are doing and focus on something else. This would only destroy what those groups have fought so hard for. Instead, I am stating that the work of one group does not negate the work of another and can help their ultimate cause in the end. The fight for human rights is a universal thing, it is something everyone who has been seen by society as less deserving wishes to correct.

So to every group that has been pushed aside by those in power. To everyone who has had their rights kept from them because of the beliefs of the religious. To all that want more for their future, let us not fall into petty quarreling that will only hinder us all. Let us fight side by side against a common enemy so that, one day, none of us will have to be afraid.

The We Are Woman March

2012-02-17T12:39:00.001-06:00

With all the idiocies that the GOP led congress has put forth and all the state led offenses, enough is far more than enough. Bearing the blunt of such assaults has, quite often, been women. A prime example of this being the recent congressional hearing on contraception that denied women the chance to speak.

The list of offenses is both large and infuriating. Still more seem to be coming daily. So to combat this, a new group is starting up and plans to demonstrate against such ignorance and intolerance. And by new I mean it is just being organized now.

The group has been named The We Are Woman March on Washington D.C. It has been started by Erin Nanasi, fellow writer and, I would like to think, friend over at Mad Mike's America. Erin composed a video to explain the reasoning and need for this, which I have included to help spread the word (the original post can be seen here).

So please, spread the word, the time for this sort of action is well past due. If this idea can come to fruition, then perhaps there is a chance to work towards getting some change done. Or at the very least, prove to the GOP that we are not about to stand back and let them do as they wish, that, as Erin said, women are not chattel.

I shall include more information in future posts as it becomes available.

The song of Archobollus musicus

2012-02-14T02:04:00.000-06:00

Within a sparsely populated coniferous forest, night is quickly approaching. As twilight pushes on and the sun slowly disappears from the horizon, the nocturnal singers of the forest begin to awaken. Joining the choir of amphibians and other mistrals of the night a lone katydid begins to play its chirping melody.

Staying low to the ground, the katydid hides amongst the foliage of the giant fern Caniopteris. It sings its song as it scrapes its wings together, passing one along the rides of the other. Quieting down only when a small mammal or dinosaur becomes too curious about the source of the ethereal sound. A scene that would play out nightly for millions of years.

For, like the katydid, the forest died long ago. But in the mid-Jurassic, both thrived in what is now northwest China. This particular katydid, known as Archabollus musicus belonged to a family known as Haglidae, a group of Orthopterans that existed from the early Triassic until ultimately becoming extinct in the late Cretaceous.

Orthoptera is the order of insects that includes all crickets, grasshoppers, locusts and katydids. Like so many of its now living relatives Archabollus musicus produced sound through the process of stridulation (the action of creating sound by the rubbing together of the wings or the legs). This process can produce one of two types of sound, resonant or non-resonant. The non-resonant producing insects create a wide variety of tones where as the resonant, or musical insects, produce pure-tones. A. musicus was a member of the later and more ancestral group, producing a resonant sound at 6.4 khz, well within the threshold for human hearing.

One might wonder how we can know the specific frequency of sound produced by an insect that lived 165 million years ago. The answer comes from a particularly well preserved fossil recently unearthed. In it, the wing is so well preserved that the stidulatory file, the series of ridges along one of the wings that the other wing scrapes along to produce sound, is almost perfectly preserved.

As the plectrum, the appendage that scrapes along the file, passes over each tooth, the resulting vibrations produce sound. The shape and spacing of the teeth dictate the kind of sound that will be produced, just like how the sound of running your thumb over different combs produce different sounds. And just like with combs, how fast the plectrum passes over the stidulatory file affects what kind of sound will be produced. Based on the shape and size of the teeth, there is a specific speed that produces the optimum tone.

The fossil wing of Archabollus musicus next to a representation of the stridulatory file.

Using this knowledge, Fernando Montealegre-Zapata of the University of Bristol in the UK and his colleges Jun-Jie Gu, Daniel Roberts, Michael S. Engel, Ge-Xia Qiao, and Dong Ren were able to begin work on reproducing the sound of this long extinct katydid.

From the cavernous expanse of deep time, a sound that has not been heard upon this Earth for 165 millions years begins to resonate. It is a sound both familiar and haunting. While it is a simple sound, it is one that deserves respect and elicits awe. It is the sound of our own curiosity and ingenuity. It is the sound of beauty.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Gu, J., Montealegre-Z, F., Robert, D., Engel, M., Qiao, G., & Ren, D. (2012). Wing stridulation in a Jurassic katydid (Insecta, Orthoptera) produced low-pitched musical calls to attract females Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118372109

Happy Darwin Day

2012-02-12T10:27:00.000-06:00

On this day in 1809 in the town of Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, a man was born who's name would become synonymous with the diversification of life. Described as a "gentleman naturalist" by his friend and botanist, John Stevens Henslow, Charles Darwin would become one of the most celebrated scientists in history. On this day, 203 years later, we celebrate the life of a man who's curiosity and passion for the natural world allowed humanity to understand its connection to every other organism that we share this planet with.

His insights gave us the first scientifically rigorous explanation for the diversification of species. While his concept of evolution through natural selection has seen many changes throughout the years as new data has been incorporated, the core tenants of his idea are still essential to all of biology.

In fact, one cannot even hope to understand any part of biology without viewing it through the lens of evolution. To do so otherwise would be like trying to understand cosmology without taking gravity into account. And while his revelation has changed the very way we see ourselves and all life, his young self would never have guessed what he would one day accomplish

He started out confused about his future and eventually found himself enrolled in a theological school as a last resort. It was here, oddly enough, that he began his in depth exploration of the natural world. It was through the writings and his friendships with various 'natural theologians', those that believed that through the study of the natural world one could understand the mind of god, that he got a varied training in the sciences and his recommendation for a spot on the H.M.S. Beagle.

He began the trip with the belief that the Bible was a true account and quoted it frequently. But as his work during the voyage continued, he quickly began to have doubts. He noticed that many of the fossils of mammals he unearthed in South America resembled those of living organisms. He started to see connections between organisms all around him. He saw geological evidence for a changing world that acted through entirly natural processes.

He could not fathom how a deity would allow for the extinction of entire species, nor why those extinct species and living ones would share so many common traits. As he continued his sampling of the natural world and his eventual study of those samples over many years, he could not doubt the connections between the various animal species around him. By the time he returned from his voyage, he was openly critical of the bible that he once held so dear and began asking why Christianity would hold a special place in the pantheon of religions.

The more questions he asked and studied, the more he doubted. By the time of his father's death, he had abandoned religion entirely. Though he still would attend a Unitarian church with his wife, Emma, for her sake. He loved her immensely and knew that she did not share his lack of belief. Though many of his children did inherit their father's curious nature and love of science, three of which would go on to become members of the Royal Society, one of the most prestigious scientific groups of the time.

Besides his great insights, Charles Darwin was also remembered for his talent as a writer. Even while still away exploring the world, he gained notoriety within both scientific and popular circles. His notes and journal entries became so well known that his journal, originally a part of a collection of books revolving around the second voyage of the Beagle, had to be published independently to meet public demands. Everything he wrote sold astonishingly well, from his On the Origin of Species to his final work The Formation of Vegtable Mould Through the Action of Worms.

He had a love of the natural world and through it, found inspiration and understanding. And today, on the aniversary of his birth, we celebrate a life that has forever changed our views on the world and ourselves.

To find out if there are any planned events today in your area, look at those registered through The International Darwin Day Foundation.

Earliest animal fossil was the size of a grain of rice.

2012-02-10T01:08:00.001-06:00

During the Cryogenian, a tiny organism began to spread across the shallow seas. 750 to 550 million years ago, these tiny organisms, just 0.3 to 5mm in length became a dominant force in the ancient oceans. But despite their size, their importance cannot be underestimated. For they are the oldest animals to be discovered, predating any other animal fossil by 100 to 150 million years.

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Otavia antiqua taken from the Kuibis Subgroup of the Zaris Formation near Kliphoek in southern Namibia.

Given the name Otavia antiqua and found in the oldest rocks in Namibia, they show that animal life has it roots much further in the past then had been previously expected based upon earlier fossil evidence. They thrived during a time known as the Cryogenian, the second period of the Neoproterozoic that lasted from of 830 to 635 million years ago. A period that gains its name from two events where global temperatures plummeted causing the most extensive glaciation events in our planets history, known as the Snow Ball Earth events. During these occurrences glaciation covered most, if not all of the planet, if the hypothesis is correct that is.

The earliest Otavia a. fossils predate the first of the two predicted glaciation events, known as the Sturtian. Fossils persist up until till the end of Precambrian, where the rise in numbers of complex animals truly begins. They were simple animals, believed to be Poriferans, sponges. They have most of the features shared by modern sponges with the exception of spicules (shards of hardened material that are produced by the sponge for structural support), though they may have possessed these too but due to their tiny size and ancient age, little trace is left of them.

They had a very simple body plan. Most were ovoid to globular in appearance with three distinct sections. The outer layer was covered in many small pores, known as ostia with a size of 5 to 20 microns in diameter. These let water into the second section, the peripheral labyrinth.

This section most likely allowed for the start of absorption of nutrients via consumption of algae and bacteria, making Otavia a simple, if sessile, predator. This section lived up to its name with many winding passages, allowing for the most surface area, increasing nutrient absorbtion as well as gas exchange.

Water would then pass into the central chamber that made up the majority of the internal space of the animal. This spongocoel (called a paragastric chamber in the paper) would have, most likely, been lined with choanocytes, just as the peripherial labyrinth would have been.

These cells, common to all sponges, beat the water with their flagellum to create a current to aid in respiration and bring in new nutrients. Water is then evacuated from the spongocoel through the largest opening, known as the osculum. In Otavia, this opening would have attained a size of many tens of microns in diameter in the larger individuals.

Otavia also features a trait common to most sponges, mineralization. While the exact mineral is still in question, Calcium Carbonate or Dolomite are the two most likely suspects based on the composition of Otavia fossils. This shows that by the time these tiny sponges evolved, they had already begun mastering the process of depositing minerals within their internal structure to provide a more rigid structure. In essence, the earliest evidence for something akin to a skeleton. While non-living and quite different from the skeletons that would emerge later within the animal kingdom, it still sets a precedent.

The genus name for these tiny creatures comes from the rock structure where the most specimens were discovered, and by chance, the oldest known individuals. They were removed from a black limestone portion of the Otavi Group of Namibia. Combined with the other rock structures that Otavia specimens have been recovered, over a thousand fossils have been recovered, suggesting that they were an incredibly successful group.

While the emergence of these creatures predates the occurrence of any other animal fossil by at least a hundred million years, the discovery was not totally unexpected. In what is sure to become yet another famous success story in the field of molecular biology, the first animals were predicted to have a common ancestor at exactly the time period when Otavia dominated.

Using a process known as a molecular clock, genomes of various organisms are compared to one another to look for both commonalities and how far apart various genes are. By understanding just how differences in genes arise through evolution, we can look into the deep past and predict when organisms shared their last common ancestor. These predictions have been supported by fossil evidence time and time again. The emergence of Otavia at precisely the time when the last common ancestor of all metazoans was predicted to have lived, suggesting that it may very well be the ancestor of all modern animals, or lived along side it.

This suggests that we owe our very existence to an organism hardly the size of a grain of rice. A rice grain that survived some of the most hostile climatic changes that our planet has ever experienced, allowing for the vast array or animals seen today to differentiate and spread into every ecosystem on the planet.

---------------------------------------------------------------
References:

Brain, C., Prave, A., Hoffmann, K., Fallick, A., Botha, A., Herd, D., Sturrock, C., Young, I., Condon, D., & Allison, S. (2012). The first animals: ca. 760-million-year-old sponge-like fossils from Namibia South African Journal of Science, 108 (1/2) DOI: 10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.658

Karl Marx and the "Opiate of the people"

2012-02-08T04:15:00.000-06:00

"[Religion] is the opiate of the people" is probably the most often quoted line from the collective works of Karl Marx. To many, this is all the exposure to Marx that they truly have, other then some vague lines about his views on government that they might remember from a history class. It has been argued as a critique of religion by most and even as being in support of religion by a few.

But what does Karl Marx really have to say on the subject? What is the source of this oft quoted line and what is the actual context? When prompted, few can give the actual source or its significance. Something I find quite sad as it reveals much more about his views on the nature of religion and says more then most have been led to believe.

The quote comes from Marx's Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and the entire quote is thus:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

To put this in further context, we must consider the piece Marx was critiquing, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Without getting to far into detail, Hegel's work can be loosely summed up as the argument that humans cannot experience true free will outside of the confines of an established government of some sort. His arguments include such things as humanity having the chance to be free from the basic needs of survival in the wild as well as access to such state sponsored services such as education and protection. He further argues that such establishment of government is the direct will of god.

To clarify, he never argued that any and all governments held sway by divine right, just that the abstract concept of a central government was divinely willed. This is crucial, as his philosophies, like those of Nietzsche's have been hijacked by fascist and totalitarian governments in the past, the most famous being Mussolini's.

While Karl Marx agreed that a government was key to humanity reaching its potential, he was highly critical of how it had gotten to its point of power and the intentions of current forms of government. His views on class warfare are still highly relevant today and he saw the ruling class as essentially parasitic upon the lower classes. He argued, and I believe rightly so, that for any form of equality as well as the free will that Hegel saw dependent upon government to exist, there had to be a gross restructuring of government.

While I do not agree with everything Karl Marx had to say, I believe he was on the right track. The fact that so many of his works had been hijacked has made his name almost taboo in some circles. This I believe is unfair as it dismisses what the man actually had to say on a vast array of subjects within the field of government and human freedoms. His views on religion are a prime example of this.

"[Religion] is the opiate of the people" is one such line. It is often embraced as the end all be all argument against religion, as an argument for religion as a sort of salve for the common 'man', or as the foolish ramblings of a mad man. But it is, in reality, none of these.

It is an argument that takes one of (though surly not the only) the root causes of the modern choke hold religion has upon both the multitude and so many governments and succinctly exposes it to the light of logic. Karl Marx argues that religion is a numbing agent used by the down trodden masses. That in a society that seems unfair and uncaring, religion offers an escape for those that might see no other.

This may sound like an argument for religion, but it is anything but. While Marx was highly critical of religion, he was not entirely without sympathy for those who followed it. He knew that, at least at the time of his writing, that many had no hope of escaping their place in life, either due to those in power or due to their own upbringing, or even the religion itself.

He also knew that religion was a tool of those in power to keep those it dominated in their place. We now believe that government and religion co-evolved together. Religion gave those in power a reason to have their power and those that received such blessing of the dominant religion allowed the religion to flurish. While there is a symbiotic relationship, there is also an arms race between the two. If the government became too powerful and independent, it would negate the need for religion. If those in power were too quick to shun those who controlled the religion, they could be ousted and replaced with a more submissive ruler.

Marx saw religion as the very tool those in power used to maintain their dominance. The fact that he likened it to opium is no mistake. Opium is a central nervous system depressant. Those who are users will become lethargic and clouded in mind. It will ease their pain, but only temporarily and by over riding the pain signals, not by curing the ailment. Its addictive properties were not lost on Marx either in his analogy. He knew, just like opium, the more a religious 'user' devoted themselves to a belief, the more they would need it. And the more they needed it, the more they would defend its use.

The fact that religion had become the source of the masses oppressors power would be lost on many, something those in power counted on. Marx argued that the only way for humanity to be free would be to shake off the shackles of their addiction and see past their own illusion. See the very classes that strove to control them and keep them in a place of dependence and weakness for their own gain.

Karl Marx went beyond labeling religion as a simple stupefying substance and as a part of a power play that has existed longer then history has been able to record. He saw it as a tool of subservience and control. In many ways, his views reflected those put forth by Plato in his Allegory of the Cave, a series of illusions meant to keep the human mind docile. Illusions that could be broken by the bright light of day that would, at first, leaving those that experienced it afraid and overwhelmed, but would soon become the source of their joy, enlightenment, and freedom.

Mark Driscoll's seven sex essentials from the bible.

2012-01-30T01:27:00.000-06:00

A while back, Michael John Scott over at Mad Mike's America shared an article by Mark Driscoll on sex and the bible. He did so for the sake of how absurd it was, not in support of it. At one point in the article, Mark includes a list from his and his wife's book Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, & Life Together. The list was about seven sex essentials from the bible. Unfortunately it was not about the seven sexiest references in the bible (excluding the Song of Solomon bit).

In the comments I referenced that I hadn't had a chance to properly give a list a proper taunting in quite a while. So here I am today to rectify that. Let the snark commence!

1. God created us male and female in His image and likeness with dignity, equality, value, and worth. Men and women are different and complement one another (Genesis 1:27-28).

Male and female in his image? Mark, you are already not getting off to a good start. If your idea of females is that they are modeled around the image of males then I doubt you have the requisite expertise to be writing anything on sex.

As for the equality part, I wonder if he has even read the book he is writing about. Unless being essentially property is his idea of 'equality'.

2. Love is more like a song than a math equation. It requires a sense of poetry and passion to be any good at it, which is why people who are stuck in their heads struggle and are frustrated by it, and lovers prefer songs to syllogisms (Song of Solomon, all of it).

Take that brainy intellectuals! We know you all suck in bed and cannot possibly have any sense of passion or understanding of how to please your partner! What do you mean there are actually people who are turned on by intelligence? They couldn't possibly be Christians and therefore are evil.

Though I cannot really argue with his reference to the Song of Solomon, it is probably one of the few things worth reading in that dust old tome.

3. Marriage is for one man and one woman by God’s design. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible from the table of contents to the appendix and the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself (Genesis 2:24-25, Matthew 19:4).

Translation: gay people are icky.

The fact that he is supporting his bigotry with a book that involves a guy who lives in the sky who created a naked man and then proceeded to give him everything he could desire and watch over him daily seems to have eluded him. And don't even get my started about the part where the sky man grabs Adam's 'bone' to create a women from it, bad touch god, bad touch!

4. God created sex. God made our bodies “very good” with “male and female” parts and pleasures. When our first parents consummated their covenant, God was not shocked or horrified, because He created our bodies for sex. The reason that sex is fun, pleasurable, and wonderful is because it is a reflection of the loving goodness of God who created it as a gift for us to steward and enjoy (Genesis 2:24-25).

So what you are saying is that god created sex to be the way it is as the first porn flick? Well in that case, I think I have a few 'holy visages' to observe myself...

5. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sinful sex includes homosexuality, erotica, bestiality, bisexuality, fornication, friends with benefits, adultery, swinging, prostitution, incest, rape, polygamy, polyandry, sinful lust, pornography, and pedophilia (I Corinthians 6:9-11,18-20, Hebrews 13:4).

So according to Mark, having dirty thoughts about someone you find attractive is one slippery slope ride away from going on a child and animal raping spree. You know, perhaps we should let these people keep their holy book, it seems to be the only thing keeping them from destroying civilization as we know it.

Or perhaps this is the real rationale as to why the sheep always seem nervous in conservative areas...

6. Sex is to be done in such a way that there is no shame (Genesis 2:25; Proverbs 5:18-23). Many people experience shame in regard to sex. Sometimes shame is a gift from God in response to our sexual sin, sometimes it is the devastating feeling we bear because we have been sexually sinned against, and other times we have not sinned or been sinned against sexually but feel shame because we have wrong thinking and feelings about sex in general, or a sex act in particular.

Shame is god's way of telling you that he is actually kind of vanilla and would rather watch you in the missionary position as he gets his heavenly rocks off. Either that or it is the affect of some kind of brainwashing done from being raised in a religion that sees sex as evil and dirty, but that couldn't possibly be the case now could it.

7. Your standard of beauty is your spouse. God made one man and one woman. He did not ask them if they wanted someone tall or short, light or heavy, pale or dark skinned, with long or short hair. In short, He did not permit them to develop a standard of beauty. Instead, He gave them each a spouse as a standard of beauty (Genesis 2:23, Proverbs 6:20-35).

Your god given standard of beauty is the person you are married to. To marry someone you should, ideally, be attracted to them to start dating them and eventually marry them. To find them attractive you must be married to them. To...eh...I...*error*...rationality centers overloading due to circular logic...system rebooting.

Is this really some sort of argument to shut up the whinny believers who just couldn't do any better and settled for a spouse they have no desire for? I'm kind of sad now...

The Copernican lie

2012-01-29T18:37:00.000-06:00

I have been living a lie. I have just realized that I have been indoctrinated by the evil sciences into believing the baseless claim that the Earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the Sun.

But thanks to the Fair Education Foundation, Inc, the truth has been revealed to me. I now know such seeminly obvious facts such as that the Earth is the center of the universe and at a fixed point just as god intended.

I now now that stars are not suns light years away but simply fixed points of light in the sky. I can eschew such evils as 'occult mathematics' and the 'Kabbalist evolutionary mythology'.

I no longer have to rely on tools of Satan such as the telescope and computer models. Apparently the website uses a god approved computer though, I'll have to look into where I can find one of these holy relics.

I can see how every lie of science from psychology to evolution to quantum physics to modern cosmology rests upon the the fact-less claims of a heliocentric solar system model. As soon as this lie is removed, the whole houses of cards collapses around us and we are left with the only truth. The truth that a magic man in the sky waved his wand and poofed everything into existence because a book written by a bunch of desert nomads written ages ago tells us so.

All this was shown to me thanks to the ramblings of someone who created a website back in 1997 and refuses to update the design of the webpage despite still writing it to this day. So in between the confused looks and having to wipe away the blood streaming from my eyes I was able to learn god's truth.

I'm still not entirely sure what these 'obvious facts' are that the author is so certain of. I know it has something to do with the bible and more crazy then you can shake a straight jacket at. The author jumps from point to point so quickly that I never had chance to comprehend one set of ramblings before he moves on to the next

I do know that he is in a Ph.D. program for "Advanced International Studies" somewhere. This apparently gives him the necessary education to see through the lies of science, NASA and the modern education system. Why he thinks being in a doctorate program is a good thing when he believes that the education system is nothing more than a brainwashing system based upon 'Copernican lies' I have yet to discern.

I do know that he hates NASA. From the moon landing 'hoax' to the evil instrument that is the Kepler Telescope, he foams at the mouth at the mere mention of any of them. He goes on quite a bit about how telecopes cannot possible work and that they are nothing more than the tools of satan.

For satan, you see, is the source of science. At least non-bible based science, whatever this may be. satan is everywhere and he hates the truth of the bible. Apparently it is like sun light to vampires to him. He hisses and runs away cursing you in the way befitting a cartoon villain.

But now with the facts in hand (I think), I can begin to combat scienceless science and openly tout the true bible based science. I now know that all I have to do is open a bible and just read what it says and stop thinking there. That if I question further I am being mislead by satan and my soul will burn forever because god loves me. I hope that my suffering through horrible page design and rambling crazy has enabled me to save your soul and shine the light of the Truth (TM) upon you.

2012 the 'year of the bible'?

2012-01-29T17:29:00.001-06:00

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has decided that it wants to get in on the useless crazy bill train. I was as shocked as you were that there was still room on said train to begin with.

In a unanimous 193-0 vote, the Pennsylvania House declared 2012 "The Year of the Bible". No word as of yet as to whether they plan to retire this outdated book of crazy after the year has ended.

In describing House Resolution 535 (pdf), the sponsor of the bill, Representative Rick Saccone (I won't even bother mentioning what party he belongs to) states that:

“As not only Pennsylvania, but the United States, continues to face great tests and challenges, House Resolution 535 serves as a reminder that we must look to our faith in God and the Holy Scripture to provide us with the strength, wisdom and courage to conquer these great trials,”

His statements mirror the contents of the bill itself which concludes with the line:

“[The] House of Representatives declare 2012 as the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania in recognition of both the formative influence of the Bible on our Commonwealth and nation and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures,”

This non-binding resolution (read: utter waste of taxpayers money) does absolutely nothing other than pander to the religious voters as well as violating the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

To show how deluded the creators of this bill were, the bill was labeled as "noncontroversial" in its own text. While it seems the House has agreed on this, it makes one wonder about the kind of understanding they have for Constitutional law if they found this noncontroversial.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has already responded by stating:

“Our constitution grants sovereignty not to a deity or a ‘holy book,’ but to ‘We, the People.’ There is no reference to God, the bible, the Ten Commandments or Jesus in the U.S. Constitution, just as there are no references to ‘consent of the governed,’ ‘civil liberties’ or ‘democracy’ in the bible...Those who have truly studied the bible realize that it is a moral quagmire, a behavioral grab bag, which has been used to justify automatic rule, tyranny, slavery, the degradation of women and gays, child abuse, war, atrocity and mayhem.”

The FfRF have also provided a downloadable sample letter in .pdf form for any Pennsylvania resident who wishes to contact their Representative and speak out against this idiocy.

So who will be next to introduce or even pass useless bills while on the tax payers dollar? I cannot be sure, though I can guarantee that it will lower my respect for humanity just a little bit more.

With thanks to The Raw Story and The Friendly Atheist.

Keep fetuses our of our food!

2012-01-27T05:28:00.000-06:00

Senator Ralph Shortey has introduced a bill in my state of Oklahoma that moves to bad the use of aborted human fetuses in food. Apparently he thinks the film Soylant Green was a documentary.

Bill SB 1418 states that:

"No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients."

So where did Sen. Shortey hear about this frightening occurrence? The anti-abortion group known as the "Children of God". Back in March of 2010 they called out a for a public boycott of biotech firms that used embryonic stem cells to test their artificial food preservatives. A claim that has left everyone just a little bit confused.

The claims of the religous group were backed up by the Senators own internet research. Where he found such information, one can only speculate. Though he does admit that he has never heard of any instance of this actually occurring, but wants to be sure that it never does.

So yes, the Senator wants to waste tax dollars to protect the public from something that sounds like the drug addled rantings of a conspiracy theorist.

And in case you couldn't figure it out by now, yes, he is a Republican.

With thanks to the LA Times and the Republic of Gilead.

I...Eh...What?

2012-01-26T20:26:00.001-06:00

I encountered this over at Picture Is Unrelated and I am confused and a little bit scared. I have no idea exactly how I'm supposed to react to this. I think it should be filed under 'nightmare fuel' but I'm not sure if it is not secretly genius. I am so confused right now...

So A guy finds himeslf in a flood

2012-01-26T00:40:00.002-06:00

A guy finds himself in a food but refuses to leave his house because he is certain that "God will save him." Eventually he is forced up to his roof to avoid the waters. A bus comes by to evacuate the townspeople, but he says he won’t go because he’s certain that “God will save him.” As the waters begin to rise a boat comes by his house. Boat comes to his aid but he declines because he’s certain that “God will save him.” When the helicopter comes by to try to scoop him up from the chimney he again declines because he’s positive that “God will save him.” When his story is mentioned on the news, atheists let out a collective “what a fucking idiot.”

Deepak Chopra thinks physicists stole quantum from him.

2012-01-23T15:45:00.000-06:00

Deepak Chopra is a name that gets exasperated sighs from the scientifically literate whenever it is heard. He is one of the most profitable names in the world of newage (rhymes with sewage) and his ability to misuse words is legendary. His personal favorite is the word 'quantum', much to the chagrin of actual physicists. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

He relies on the fact that most people are utterly baffled by the world of quantum mechanics to sell his particular brand of snake oil. He understands that your average person knows that quantum is a word used by scientists and nothing more. As such he knows that if he throws it and other equally exotic sounding words around, he can convince the credulous of anything.

Recently, in a short interview by Richard Dawkins for his recent documentary "Enemies of Reason", Deepak Chopra took his hijacking of the scientific terminology to an even greater depth of depravity. During a segment (which can be viewed here), Chopra claimed that:

"the aficionados in the world of quantum physics have somehow hijacked the word for their own use"

This is a rather amazing feat by physicists considering that the word first entered the scientific literature in 1841, 105 years before Chopra's birth. Apparently quantum theorists have mastered time travel in their spare time.

The word quantum was first used by Julius von Mayer in a letter on the formulation of the first law of thermodynamics. The word comes from the Latin "quantus" for "how much". It is generally used as a short hand way of writing a 'quantum of energy', meaning a single unit of energy. A good example being how a photon is a single quanta of the electromagnetic force.

The term quantum has since gone on to refer to the area of physics that involves the very small. It is renowned as being an area of science that is both counter intuitive and hard to grasp. This was summed up perfectly by Richard Feynman when he stated "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

This quote, along with the myriad bizarre concepts of the quantum realm have fed an ever growing number of charlatans who profit off the ignorance of the general public when it comes to the various fields of advance science. They know that such words as quantum lend an air of respectability to their otherwise meaningless ramblings. In doing so, they further mislead the public away from the discoveries of science, not to mention out of their hard earned cash.

Despite sounding authentic and wise to laymen, Deepak Chopra and his ilk earn nothing but ire and perpetual face palms from the scientific community. His stance on 'quantum' can be summed up by this clip from the ever poignant "Futurama", enjoy.

Why our species might depend on GMO.

2012-01-19T12:36:00.000-06:00

This is the second, and concluding piece on GMOs. The first can be found here. In this article I want to point out what is and what is not good ideas for GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).

A prime example of the success of GMOs can be seen in various experiments conducted with a group of fish known colloquially as Tilapia. Due to an ever increasing population, some tried to shape the fish to meet the demands. Certain genetically modified Tilapias were released into West African lakes to counter the ever increasing decline in catch. These fish grow faster and reach sexual maturity at a younger age, allowing for them to contiue their line while adapting to the increase in human population.

In a way, this is a perfect way to show what we can do with GMOs. It allows us to modify various features though the process of hindering or reinforcing the expression of certain proteins This can lead to all kinds of issues if one were to intentionally mix genes together with the sole purpose of creating some sort of super organism that could survive in nearly any environment. It seems most of the fears surrounding such 'Franken-foods' are just this, which is nothing more than the howling of those who are mad at corporations that want to exploit their customers as much as possible.

There may come a time, in the not to distant future that we as a collective species have to use GMOs for our very survival. With GMOs we can engineer a plant to produce food items in the amounts needed and at the nutrient densities that are vital for everyone's health. Not only this but we can create organisms that are naturally resistant to all kinds of stressors. Stressors such as fungi, insects, competing or parasitic plants, or even viruses.

They can be modified to thrive in differing environments. This will open up wide areas of otherwise unusable land to be used for crop production. It will also increase the production per acre per

By creating such organisms, we will have to use less fertilizers, herbivicides and pedsticideds. This, oddly enough, actually makes these organisms safer. The irony can be found when organic growing practices can actually lead to fewer crops, both in size in nutrient grade. Not only this, but they still require all of the old treatment that all other plant strains require.

Some have made the argument that bits of the new genes could get out of the crops and into human cells causing harm. Besides being a rather silly idea (how likely is it that you take on the DNA of the corn you ate last night?), it is based on rather felonious sciences. It uses the fears of the average person who, rather often, does not know how to go about researching such concepts. While there might be some gene swapping amongst our gut bacteria, if they take up any of this new, modified DNA, it wouldn't be any different than if they took up some of the DNA from non-modified. It is not as if the modified has bits of metal sticking out of it, it is just a natural genetic code, just spelled out right.

As more and more strains of diseases and parasites become more resistant to traditional chemicals. As mores species of plant form immunity to herbicide and species of insect form resistance to insecticides; what are we to do? We could always do as previous generations have done and hope for newer and more potent toxins. Or we could look to nature for hopes in finding better evolved resistances to use. Perhaps we can even start to adapt specises to our specifiying needs.

These specifications can come in organisms with more nutrients in them. They could be organisms that are better adapted to their environment, after taking into account modern humanities affects. While it is possible for such organisms to escape and start our breeding natural species, there is a safety net for this as well, just make all the organisms sterile. A practice that has actually worked to the advantage of companies such as Monsanto where they have to sell their seeds back each year.

With an environment that is bound to change, either by our own hand or through the slow machinations of the wandering tectonic plates. The environment will change. Not only that, but the organisms surrounding it will continue to evolve and compete with our 'domestic' strains. So if we hope to feed the ever growing masses, we must stand behind GMOs, when used right, to better the living condition of millions. If ever such things come to be a problem, you will know that these very scientists will be the first to admit it and the first to figure out how to counter the situation.

What are genetically modified foods?

2012-01-17T00:07:00.001-06:00

I recently had a stimulating conversation with fellow Mad Mike's America writer Erin Nanasi in the comments section of her piece "Obama and Monsanto". The conversation revolved around whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be allowed to be used in things such as agriculture.

There were a couple times during the conversation when I wanted to write an article based on the conversation. The first being a more in depth explanation of what GMOs actually are (which this piece shall be). The second being a realization that I, and many others, have come to. That the future of our species may very well depend upon GMOs. For breviaries sake, I shall leave the second part for a follow up article to be written soon.

I would first like to point out that this article is in no way supportive of Monsanto or any of its business practices. I am rather critical of them myself for a few reasons, including their desire to patent certain lines of genetic code. A concept that is both absurd and detrimental to scientific inquiry.

So what are genetically modified organisms? GMOs are any organism that has had some of its genetic material artificially and purposely altered. The words 'artificially' and 'purposely' are key in this definition as if they were not present, GMOs would define all life on this planet.

The process of evolution can be seen, essentially, as nature's way of creating GMOs. The process of mutation creates novel genetic codes that affect the organism in question in varying ways. Those mutations that are beneficial may allow the organism to propagate its genes just a bit better and out compete other, less successful genetic codes. Life is, essentially, a never ending struggle between collections of genes trying to replicate themselves the most.

Humans have been harnasing these mutations for millenia through the process of domestication and selective breeding. We have breed plants and animals in ways that allow for the dominant expression of key traits that we find desirable. Until recently, we had no idea that what we were doing was fiddling around with their genetic codes. Once we discovered this, we have started moving towards stream lining this process. The latest incarnation of this is genetic engineering.

We look at the very genes that create the traits that we desire and place them in the organisms we are interested in affecting. This has allowed us to quickly and effectively modify organisms in ways that would have taken decades at the very least, if we could do it at all.

Previously, if a trait was observed in one species of domestic plant or animal, it would be limited to that species. If we wanted that trait to be in another species, tough luck. We would just have to hope it would evolve all over again in the species in question. But now, with genetic engineering, we can simply take the desired gene and move it to the species we would prefer it to be in. All life is made from the same genetic code, we all evolved from the same stock billions of years ago, so we can copy and paste where we see fit.

This is actually a trick that nature stumbled upon first, not us. A prime example can be found in bacteria. Bacteria trade bits of genetic material back and forth all the time. The individuals doing the trading don't even have to be of the same species. Genetic material is genetic material, it is the universal currency. If a novel gene allows for better survival, you can guarantee that it will spread.

It was after observing such bacterial genetic promiscuity that we humans got the idea. It seems that without nature to guide us, we would, quite often, be more then a bit lost. We adapted this and techniques borrowed from certain retroviruses -- viruses that can embed themselves into the genetic codes of their hosts -- and have used them to insert the desired genes into the place in the genetic code of organisms that we want them.

Most of the time, scientists take genes that have arisen in other organisms in the first place. We might modify it a bit for simplicities sake or to improve upon things a bit, but it is rather difficult to do much more. We are getting better at building genes from scratch, but why go through the trouble when there is the giant genetic laboratory that is the natural world? Just like how we look to nature for new chemicles and medicines, we are now looking to it for new genetic information.

These new genes, if used right, can increase the fitness of the modified organism. Such increases in fitness may include things such as natural resistances to diseases or parasites. It may allow the organism to survive in climates and environments it otherwise would not thrive in. It may increase the amount of nutrients found in a particular part of the organism. It can affect how quickly an organism grows or reaches sexual maturity.

These changes can have dramatic affects when they are done to plants and animals that we as a species depend upon. Crops may suddenly need less fertilizer to grow or even be capable of growing in soil that was previously deemed unusuable. The part of the crop that we use may grow larger while the 'extraneous' parts may be reduced. They may no longer be as susceptible to the ravages of disease and insects or the various weeds that we would otherwise be dousing with pesticides and herbicides to eliminate. They may produce food products of larger size or even with greater nutrient and mineral levels.

All of these factors allow for the GMO in question to be cheaper, more efficient and even healthier for consumption. Unfortunately, this is an area that few truly understand and is seen as a frightening new technology to many. Some see it as 'playing god' where as others see it as distorting natural processes. But these are things that we have been doing since early humans first realized that by breeding different strains together, they could create even more useful organisms.

Because of such fears, human consumption of GMOs in the states and other countries has been limited. Despite there not being any reliable evidence to suggest that GMOs pose a health risk for humans, they are still limited to being used as animal feed only. By doing so, opponents can further state that GMOs are just taking up space that could be used to grow crops to feed people. Besides being an underhanded tactic, this ignores the fact that we need animal food crops if we hope to continue raising animals for various uses.

The time will soon be upon us when we will need GMOs for our own survival. That without them, we could face mass starvation, or worse. But that is a story for my next article.

The Sound Of Freethinking #14: Alibi

2012-01-15T15:40:00.000-06:00

I know it has been a while since I have done one of these segments, but I could not resist doing one over Cindergarden's Alibi. The song was released on their 2008 album The Clandestine Experiment.

I was immediately drawn into the sound of this song when I first heard it. But while I enjoyed the song, the lyrics kept nagging at me. One time I would listen to it and I would pull away one meaning, another time a different one. I wasn't sure if I was just not understanding the lyrics properly or I was trying to create a meaning that I preferred despite what the lyrics actually said.

But the other day, I really took the time to listen to the lyrics coupled with how they were sung. I realized then that part of my problem came from the song being sung from multiple different view points within the same person. Quite possibly while remembering different view points from her life. Once I started thinking in the way, the lyrics started to slip into place.

Before this, the first verse was a bit confusing, but after considering this new possibility, things made perfect sense. The song starts out being sung from the point of view of someone who is critical of science. Someone who sees it as a destructive force that is willing to shred even the most deeply cherished of views in the name of 'progress'.

The second chorus, however, is sung by the same person but as she realizes that those she is criticizing do not need any excuse. "You don't need an alibi, I'm the one that lives a lie." The person knows she is wrong, that her views are based upon faulty thinking. But that doesn't make her clinging to old ways of thinking any easier. They may be wrong, but she don't have to like it.

The progression of choruses continue in this fashion, with each iteration of the 'anti-science' view becoming more accepting of the fact of things, if with a sense of bitterness at first. Lines such as "Confess your sins to a crippled god" show a sense of anger and hopelessness at their views being torn apart around them.

The final two lines of this verse "Lie detector test tube morals, Face the truth compromised" suggests the common view that many hold. The idea espoused by those who see science as cold and without 'human' morals. But that this person already realizes that such views are just looking to reality and hoping for a compromise with their own particular brand of faith.

Again the chorus takes on the resigned tone of someone who knows that they are in the wrong. But with the line "Resistance level fading" they find themselves losing the desire to fight back against reality.

The final 'anti-science' verse seems to me, in light of the previous verse to have one of two possibilities. Either it is more of the angry rhetoric they had previously spread, possibly in a resurgence of faith that many have. Or, as I prefer to think, it is them singing their previously held beliefs in a tongue-in-cheek way. That she has accepted reality for what it is and sees her previous rage at scientific inquiry to be absurd.

Not only this but the wording it essentially accurate. She had hated such ideas for the fact that they did exactly what she thought it did and it horrified her. People actually saw material things a beautiful and worthy of contemplation and 'worship'. Worship because that is what she and others did, they worshiped, they never understood as science requires of us. But this idea no longer revolts her, instead, she find it to be the beautiful truth that she was missing all along and doesn't mind pointing out her previous absurdity in taking such a negative stance.

While the middle of the 'accepting' verses first introduced the line "Where I am to here I come", the final verse reiterates it with a bit more intensity. When it was first used it was the view of a person right on the edge of understanding and seeing where it might take her. With the addition of the word 'from' to this line in the final verse, it reveals that she has moved further ahead. Not just to furthering her understanding, but towards tackling the very views she once held so vehemently. That she now sees the error of her ways and doesn't want anyone else to suffer as she did. Not to mention the idea that others are attacking such a beautiful thing as scientific understanding as she once did in her ignorance and fear.

Am I reading too much into the lyrics? Am I misrepresenting them? Perhaps. But when looked at from this point of view, every line makes sense and it becomes a much more inspiring song. The slightly disturbed and aggressive sound of the music lends itself to this viewpoint as well. From the anger she felt at the start to the increasingly resigned 'accepting' verses. The music progresses just as one might expect for a mind in transition from bitterness and ignorance to one that is ready to take on the misguided masses that she once belonged to. Seen in this light, it becomes akin to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, but done from the personal perspective of a freed mind as it is pulled out of its ignorance.

Lyrics

Unmasked portals
Still connecting
Uncover the ending till it bleeds till it bleeds

You don't need an alibi
I'm the one that lives a lie

Ritualized fictionalize
Confess your sins to our crippled god
Lie detector test tube morals
Face the truth compromised

You don't need an alibi
I'm the one that lives a lie
Resistance levels fading
Who can turn me around now
Chemical defacing
Where I am to here I come

Hypno science
Trapped inside
Worship matter
Praise the whore

You don't need an alibi
I'm the one that lives a lie

Who can turn me around now
Who can turn me around now
From where I am to here I come
Who can turn me around now
From where I am to here I come

How Isaac Asimov helped me embrace my atheism.

2012-01-15T10:03:00.000-06:00

I am an atheist, out and out. It tooke me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrepectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that god doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." --Isaac Asimov

I have admired Isaac Asimov for many years. I knew of his fiction for years, first being introduced to him through his brilliant short story Nightfall (which, if you haven't read, I have included a link to the entire story, it is one I strongly recommend to everyone).

It wasn't until a few years later that I encountered one of his books on religion. The book, In The Beginning, pulled me in and I soon found I could not get enough. In it, Asimov took the book of Genesis and looked at it from three different angles: how the religious see it, how such writings came to be as they are now, and what science says about the idea in question.

I had known for a long time that something was seriously wrong about religion and that it didn't fit quite with reality, but I was still something of a deist bordering on agnostic. But this book helped me along the road to leaving belief in the past. Finally someone else who saw what I did and didn't try to give some lame excuse as to why religion didn't match up with reality.

Years later I discovered that not only was the whole thing ridiculous, but it could actually be damaging and rather terrefying. Not just for the harm it does to the vulnerable mind, but how it views those who do not believe in their specific brand of magic. Not to mention the often downright rage they would express to those who dared to actually doubt the concept all together!

These people had made not believing in an invisible man in the sky such a terrible thing that to consider it openly was one of the deepest of taboos. It was so strong that someone who had such a powerful mind and, through much of his life, was such an open atheist, was pushed to hide his own views. Views that he knew made sense, that were the only ones that really did make sense in light of the evidence. But still he hid them because they were frowned upon.

If someone such as Isaac Asimov could be bullied into such a belief then what does it mean about so many others, including myself?

But instead of the 'dangerous' view that far too many often claim it is, atheism is, to me, as it was to Asimov, freeing. It was the universe laid open for us to scrutinize and wonder over. It was finally no longer being afraid of ones lack of belief and openly saying "there isn't enough evidence to support the view and it isn't one that is important enough to waste any more time considering further". It is finally being able to look at religious belief in the same way one does believers in the Loch Ness Monster and not think that ones has to suppress such views.

The quote that I started this article is a prime example of these views. It is his looking back and realizing that he had been silly the whole time and should have just been open with himself the whole time.

To be clear, when Isaac Asimov says that he is an "emotional atheist", he is not meaning what so many theists claim. He is not someone who 'believes' atheism is accurate like a theist believes in their particular patented version of a deity.. It is the feeling of elation you feel when you realize that the universe works without the need for a 'man behind the curtain'.

It is seeing the workings of a cell or the life cycles of stars and realizing "I can understand this!" followed soon after by "Wait...what? I can understand this? A critter that evolved as an overly complex way of replicating strands of amino acids can look at the universe and say, ok, I see how that works!" If that does not instill within you a sense of awe then I pity you to the point of sadness.

Some theists may cling to the end of the quote where Asimov says "I don't have the evidence to prove that god doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." They point their finger and go "Aha! You don't have any evidence and you still believe there is no god? Where is your science now!" and then, I imagine, go feel rather pleased with themselves and bet Jesus would give them a high five.

To which those of us go on to ask them, at least those of us who have patience for it, whether they have evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist. Our imaginary theist might respond saying the idea is absurd, they have never seen a tooth fairy and that parents are the ones who have the absurd tendency to hoard discarded dentition.

"Exactly" is the only needed response. The believer might not see it, but I do. It is obvious to the point of absurdity and to waste any further time with it seems meaningless. The only reason myself and others must is because we are surrounded by people like those we have such conversations with and some of them seem to think we should just sit back shut up or get what's coming to us.

So here is to you religious extremists. You are the reason we have to step away from the adult conversations and deal with such silly ideas as invisible sky daddies. I would much rather be doing what Asimov and many of my others heroes have done and still do today and get to excitedly talking about things like evolution, stellar formation, the big bang, quantum physics, and the possibilities for xenobiology.

Not to mention other things more important then whether their deity exists such as what I'm going to have for breakfast or where my jacket is.

Envisat captures image of a phytoplankton bloom

2012-01-14T12:05:00.000-06:00

The European Space Agency's (ESA) Envisat satellite captured a stunningly gorgeous image of a phytoplankton bloom in the southern hemisphere.

This compressed version of the image is beautiful enough on its own, but is nothing compared to the full size image, which can be found here.

The image was taken on December 2nd and was just released by the ESA. The location of the bloom was approximately 600 km east of the Falkland islands. Blooms such as this happen frequently around the globe during spring and summer. They are caused by an abundance of nutrients and minerals that have been dredged up from the deep ocean. As the deep and shallow waters mix, the populations of varrying species of phytoplankton explode in responce.

Phytoplankton are vital to the health of both the oceans and the planet as a whole. In the oceans they form the basis of most of the ocean's ecosystems. They are also vital in oxygen production and CO2 sequestration, producing over half of the world's oxygen.

Phytoplankton is a collective term for a multitude of microorganisms that are photosynthetic. Nearly all are exclusively autotrophs (produce their own food) but a few examples of mixotrophs exist (those that can be either autotrophs or hetertrophs). They are composed of a mixture of a range of organisms, including, but not limited to, cyanobacteria, dinoflagellets, and a wide variety of algae.

Phytoplankton form the basis of nearly all the oceans food webs and, as such, are of vital importance for understanding the effects of human activity on the planet. While this is a fully natural bloom, some blooms occur from fertilizer run off and can be devastating to the environment as certain species produce deadly toxins. The 'red tide' is a famous example of the damage such blooms can wreck on an ecosystem.

Individual kinds of phytoplankton reflect light at slightly different wavelengths, giving each their own unique color (even if this color can not be resolved without certain instrumentation). This gives the image the greens and blues and can be used to determine which organisms are at what densities in this image. This information can then be used to tell what the environmental conditions at the site are, as different organisms require different conditions to flourish. Such blooms give a wealth of information as to the condition and health of the world's oceans.

The Envisat satellite was created for the purpose of monitoring environmental processes from space, including the affects of human accelerated global climate change. This image was taken with Envisat's MERIS (MEdium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer) instrument, a device that measures light reflected from the Earth and its oceans at a range of 390 to 1040 nm. Envisat was launched in March of 2002.

With thanks to the ESA for the original story.

The Epomis beetle

2012-01-11T09:13:00.002-06:00

So you happen to find that you have suddenly turned into an toad. Not only that, but instead of being at your computer you seem to have been transported to the coastal plains of Israel. Normally you might find this to be a slightly unusual set of circumstances. But you are now a toad, and toads, as a general rule, are not known for their mental prowess. So instead of having a mental breakdown at the discovery of being transformed into an amphibian, you go about your new life as if it is all you have ever known.

Before long you come across a beetle larvae that looks rather tasty. As you approach it in hopes of getting your munch on, it starts waving its antennae and mandibles at you. Your instincts to attempt to eat anything small and twitchy kick in and you are drawn towards what is sure to be a succulent meal.

The closer you get the faster and more frantically the little morsel waves about. At this point, you cannot resist and pounce on the beetle larvae and just as your tongue darts out to grab your first meal as a toad, the larvae quickly dodges your attack and sinks its mandibles into your soft flesh.

Somewhere in the back of your toad mind, you realize that this shouldn't be. You are the predator. Insects are merely crunchy snacks to the likes of you. Yet despite this, you can't ignore the fact that what you thought was to be your meal is now feeding on you.

You feel your blood being drained as you flail about frantically trying to dislodge your attacker. As you begin to weaken, a glimmer of hope returns to your tiny brain as you feel the larvae dislodging itself from you. Could you have finally fought off the surprise attack?

As you attempt to crawl away, the larvae repositions itself on your back and bites down with surgical precision. You feel its sharp mandibles biting through the muscles of your back, leaving you effectively paralyzed. Whatever hope you had is now gone as the reality of your situation sinks in. You are about to be eaten alive.

Now that you can no longer fight, the larvae can eat at its leisure until there is nothing left but a pile of bones that used to be your new toad self.

Had you not been transformed into a toad, you might have realized that the flailing of antennae and mandibles was a cunning ploy of the beetles and their larvae of the genus Epomis. These beetles, whose relatives are all preyed upon by amphibians, have turned the tables upon their once predator. Using the instincts of amphibians against them, Epomis beetles actively prey on any and all amphibians that still believe themselves to be the predator.

The larvae feed exclusively upon amphibians, while the adults feed on a variety of prey items, including amphibians. When observed, the beetle or its larvae win the match close to 100% of the time. Even after being eaten, the beetle or larvae will thrash about until the amphibian is forced to regurgitate it. The beetle, seemingly unharmed, will start feeding on the would be predator right away. Even after staying in the stomach for two hours, the beetle will not be beaten and once regurgitated, will attack its choice prey item.

Epomis is the only known natural instance of a prey item using its one time placement as a predated upon species as a means to evolve into the predator. Since the beetle wins essentially every match it finds itself in, there is little hope for the amphibians to evolve a proper counter, nor are the beetles numerous enough to damage amphibian populations significantly. Thus leaving the species of Epomis in what is sure to be a rather comfortable position as one of the most unexpected of predators.

------------------------------------------------
References:
Wizen G, & Gasith A (2011). An unprecedented role reversal: ground beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) lure amphibians and prey upon them. PloS one, 6 (9) PMID: 21957480
Read the original paper.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty

2012-01-05T02:23:00.001-06:00

Back in 1819, John Keats concluded his poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" with the lines:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

This is a line that has always held a place of deep importance within me, despite not always knowing the source (something I deeply regret as I now consider this one of my favorite pieces of poetry).

However, when it was first released, there was a significant debate as to the importance of this line. T..S. Eliot was especially critical with his responce in 1929 of:

[T]his line strikes me as a serious blemish on a beautiful poem

Many might agree with Eliot by following along the belief that an existence that is limited to this universe is terrifying and restricted. But to agree with this criticism is to miss the very purpose of this line.

The poem encompasses the thoughts of Keats of what historical events a Grecian urn might have 'experienced'. But in the end, it takes all the hypothesizing and wonderment at the possibilities and tosses them aside. It does not do this because it feels they are ugly or useless. Instead, he does it because he realized that, not matter what we might believe, the truth of the universe will always be more beautiful than our beliefs, simply because it is the truth.

This is an idea that has become increasingly lost amongst many. Instead of looking at the beauty of what is, many would prefer to believe the stories of the disenchanted. While not always their fault and, at times, seeming more appealing than what is, this is the kind of thinking that can cripple a mind for life.

Many people feel more comfortable with thinking the universe was created by some deity thousands of years ago for the sole purpose of glorifying it (I will, for simplicities sake, ignore the sexism of the traditionally used pronoun 'him'). But this view is diametrically opposed to the final line penned by Keats. Not only this, but it sets itself up as the opposition to reality and truth itself.

They will often stat that the facts revealed through rational inquiry using a tool known as science is, by its very nature, something that is incomplete. That there must be more than just reality. So they ignore the beauties and truths hidden within in favor of their myths.

I would like to think that they do so not out of spite, but out of ignorance and fear. That they either do not truly know enough about the subject (or had it displayed to them properly) or that they fear it because it is different.

I am sure there are many who find the idea of being told what to do and think comforting. But I doubt that they even realize many of the causes behind such beliefs. It is simply what has worked best for them as they developed, thus they cling to it like a child does a favorite toy.

What such people do not see is that there is a beauty without compare just beyond their grasp. That, for a potential myriad of reasons, they have held fast to their 'truths', instead of looking to the information itself. They see a cold and unfeeling existance without the familair and calming embrace of their beliefs. But this is just an illusion created out of ignornace.

For the universe as we understand it through the lens of science, is more beautiful than we could ever hope to comprehend. Think for a moment that we know, with an incredibly high degree of certainty, the reasons for many things in our universe.

That, despite our various inner conflicts, biological failings and tendency for various forms of cognitive dissonance, we have started to understand the universe that we are a part of. That we have looked into the molecular machinery of life and found an unbroken thread connecting us to every other organism that has, will or does exist.

That we have looked up at the seemingly permanent stars and uncovered an ever changing tapestry. With every discovery, a new piece of the universe is revealed. Enormous, fiery gas giants, devastating hypernoavea, black holes producing jets of matter and energy powerful enough to shred stars, organic molecules forming in nebulae, and an ever present echo from the formation of the universe itself.

Think for a moment upon the fact that, other than hydrogen, helium and a little bit of lithium, all other elements were made within or by stars. That, all elements above iron can only be formed, naturally, by the explosive death of massive stars. That we, and everything else that surrounds us, are made of these long dead stars.

These are but a few of the things we have begun to understand in our short time as a species. Each day, new discoveries are made. New connections form between seemingly disparate ideas. Links forming towards a single unified view of what the universe is.

We have done this. We, a group of primates that were forced down out of the trees due to an ever changing environment, have started to reveal these and other hidden truths.

Where once we relied on myths and superstition, we now rely on what we can prove. And unlike the cold empty existence that many have feared, we find that Keats was right all along. There is no greater beauty than truth.

Happy (slightly late) New Year

2012-01-02T21:08:00.001-06:00

I wanted to write this earlier, but between having to work and getting quite ill, I have had neither the time nor the energy. Thankfully I think I'm moving out the phlegm factory zombie stage and into the quiet acceptance of what is certain to be a prolonged and agonizing death. Like the seasons, I do not fear the reaper and will face down my own demise while attempting to celebrate a belated New Year.

As part of this, I would like to take on the humble role of thanking the entirety of existence for being too indifferent to humanities existence to annihilate us for yet another solar year.

Thank you for not hurling some large rock, allowing a massive plague to spread, nudging a black hole in our general direction or any of the myriad other ways you could make living somewhat difficult. I would just like to state that I do enjoy living and have grown quite accustomed to doing so. Though, since you are indifferent, I doubt it will matter much to you (not there is a you either, but it would be really hard to thank you without having at least the idea of a you to thank).

Thank you cosmos, for not having some kind of grand ruler or 'god', if you will. As if this were true, I think the shit would hit the fan quite hard. And by shit I mean a Gamma Ray Burst and by fan I mean the Earth. So while I know you are incapable of anything that approaches understanding, I would still like to thank you for letting a silly group of hominids scurry about our little rock in relative peace.

I hope to see you next year.

How sexism hurts skeptical inquiry, and everything else for that matter.

2011-12-30T08:13:00.000-06:00

Just the other day, there was an event over on the r/atheism section of the site Reddit that has just been brought to my attention. It seems that a 15 year old girl posted an image of herself holding the book The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan that her highly religious mother gave her for the holidays. She had posted it in hopes of an open discussion on the matter of her atheism in a religious family as well as her excitement over receiving such a wonderful and thoughtful gift from a parent that has often disapproved of her daughter's lack of belief.

Instead, she was met with levels of misogyny and sexualized comments that are beyond reprehensible. Many of these comments were up-rated in excessively large numbers, showing that it was more than just a few idiots vomiting up their own brand of moronic bile. At the girl's original post, comments of such a horrid nature can be found that I am loath to even repost them. But I know that I must for the sake of pointing out the scale of the event as I know there will be people who would rather downplay such occurrences as trivial.

Comments such as “Well 15 is legal in many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.” “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.” “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.” “Tears, natures lubricant.” “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!” were posted. Not only this, but as I said, they received far more up votes then down votes instead of being pointed out as vile comments they obviously are. How many you may ask? The second one on that list received, as of the writing of Rebecca Watson's original article on the event, 1715 up votes and only 648 down votes. This makes it plainly obvious that they are being viewed by far to many as normal or even funny, instead of as the acts of horrible and hurtful people.

While not everyone who posted responded with such vile comments, the very fact that any occurred should be a source of shame for any decent person. This is doubly so when it comes from a community that claims to pride itself in rationality and equality. This is not to say that such traits are not held in high esteem by the skeptical community, but that there is much work that still remains to be done, otherwise this would never have transpired

Such behavior should be vociferously deplored the moment it creeps up. There should be such a stigma against any such disgusting and clearly idiotic behavior that anyone who holds or exposes such beliefs should be afraid to mention them, or is forced to reevaluate them. No one should ever have to fear speaking up on the internet because of how they will be treated by clearly damaged people.

Some will claim that to treat such commenters as the backwards and harmful individuals that they are is a violation of their right to free speech. The fact that such things can be thought without having a melt-down of their irony meters shows a severely deranged and self-entitled mode of thinking. It is to say that such commenters right to free speech is more important than the free speech of those they are attacking.

And yes, this is an attack and it should not be assumed to be anything less. It is not playful trolling or harmless joking. It is stating that someone else is so much less then you as to be unworthy of even the most basic of levels of human dignity and respect.

Not only have they harmed this girl who was only trying to show her own love of rational thinking and a great book, but they have also made what should be a rational and accepting community into the kind of place that has no place for those silly women-folk with their absurd illusion of having worth as something other than an object for a man to use.

Thankfully, many atheist writers have taken a stand against this behavior. I was introduced to this account by the ever wonderful Greta Christina who goes on to link others who have also written in protest of this occurrence. Many others have read about these accounts and have taken it upon themselves to speak out against this behavior as well as give their support to this girl on her original post. I hope that many of those reading will follow the link and offer your own support.

Some may hope that if we ignore such fools they will simply shut up and go away. I cannot fathom why anyone would think this, especially amongst a community that often does what it can to speak out against the crimes of others in religious and political arenas.

It displays and underlying misogyny that cannot be ignored. For to do so will only serve to alienate half the human population. Non-believers (and believers alike) of all forms must stand in unison to put this to a stop. We should be above this and those that truly are must speak up. Otherwise the voice of the misogynistic morons will be the only voice budding young female skeptics will hear and be turned away from what, I for one, see as one of the most fulfilling realizations possible. That the universe can be understood on its own merits and is all the more beautiful for it. If we do not stand up, then we are only quietly condoning such behavior. We should be showing such individuals our passion for a rational understanding for the world and nurture their own love for it as well, not letting them suffer at the hands of others. To do anything less is to deny such individuals humanity and lose a part of ours in the process.

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'