Is This Not Enough?

Some people see a star and believe it has some effect on their future.

Some people see extraordinary events and believe it happened for their benefit. Even if that benefit is only as small as giving them something pretty to look at.

Some people are told how big the universe is, how small they are and get depressed and frightened. They would rather be important.

There is no need for this. Reality is a wonderful place and is made all the more wonderful by understanding it. I know that when I stand outside at night, over 300 billion stars are bathing me in their faint light. I have seen the Milky Way without light pollution, seen the immense dust lanes blot out the intensity of the galactic core, seen it for what it is. An immense disc, turning just once in 250 million years. Absolutely, staggeringly huge beyond any comprehension. The image at the top of this post is what you actually see.

The Galaxy is immense. But it is itself only one of several hundred billion galaxies. These galaxies pull each other together. They form clusters. And these clusters form threads and filaments to produce one incomparably huge structure-the universe.

Many people know this. But to comprehend it is something else entirely. No one does this. Not all the time, at any rate. I have perhaps managed it twice. The first time was in Australia, when I first saw the Galaxy. It really hits you like a mental brick wall. It is a spiritual experience, but I at least did not feel it actually came from some spirit.

So many people look at reality and ask "Is this it? Is there nothing more? It's alright, but it's not that good, is it?" So they create stories and fictions around it. They desecrate reality with their childish daydreams and imaginings, when they could be getting so much more by making the effort to understand and comprehend.

Yes, this is it. It is reality. What more could you fucking want?

Monomoron-a new concept

The term "moron" is thrown around a lot. Mainly at stupid people, because they deserve it. But what about people who are actually really intelligent, but hold the occasional stupid belief? For example, a creationist doctor, or an astrology-believing scientist? Or a neo-Nazi rationalist? Or a homophobic psychologist?

I have decided to call these people monomorons. They are reasonable, sensible people who also hold batshit crazy or fucktarded views. Everyone knows several. A lot of people are one themselves, but might not recognise it. I might be one, but the nature of monomoronicism means that I could never tell unless it was pointed out to me. I would hope, however, that I would at least be able to self-rectify such an irrationality.

A Good Book That You Should Read

It's called Foundation.

It's science fiction, but stay with me here. Now I am well aware that science fiction isn't everyone's cup of tea. I mean, when you think of science fiction you probably think Star Trek and similar. Hell, I don't much like Star Trek. But Foundation is a classic to rival any book you care to mention, scifi or not.

It's set approximately 23,000 years in the future, so far ahead that civilisation has forgotten which world was the original cradle of humanity. Humans have colonised millions of star systems across the entire galaxy.

There are no aliens in Foundation. The story is set in the future, but it doesn't focus on the fact that it is the future. There are references to technology, but the technology rarely if ever actually plays a key part in the stories. The science fiction setting is basically just a way for the author to tell any story he likes, which is why it might appeal to a reader with little to no interest in science fiction.

It starts off on the capital world of the Galactic Empire in the last years before visible cracks start to show themselves in society. Although all appears well on the surface, the Empire and galaxy have in fact been in subtle decline for centuries. Scientific research has effectively ground to a halt across the galaxy and corruption is rife.

A group of about a hundred thousand people have been developing a science known as "Psychohistory" which basically combines psychology and mathematics to predict how large groups of humans are likely to behave. Under the leadership of genius Hari Seldon, they are able to plot the course of history and see that Trantor, the Galactic Capital, will lie in ruins within five hundred years.

The psychohistorians' findings are controversial, and they manage to engineer the Empire into exiling 70,000 of them to a remote world called Terminus, where they will compile an Encyclopaedia to preserve knowledge through the coming dark ages. The organisation is named the "Encyclopaedia Foundation number one" (later shortened to just "The Foundation"). The overarching aim is that the Foundation will be subtly guided through a series of crises over 1000 years, eventually emerging as the seed for a second, greater, more compassionate and more powerful Galactic Empire.

The story is told through a series of short stories, spanning 200 years, from the beginning of the end for the Empire, through to the emergence of The Foundation as a major galactic power, ending just over a generation before the first conflict between The Foundation and the remnants of the Empire.

Read it. You won't regret it, whether you normally like science fiction or not. Foundation is one of the literary greats and has played a crucial role in influencing our culture. Star Wars and many other influential cultural works were directly inspired by Foundation.

How to Utterly Bamboozle Strangers in the Street

Well that was the most obnoxious thing I've done in ages.

I was walking along Hunter Road (in Brough, near my house) eating what was left of my broken galaxy bar when some couple maybe in their late forties or early fifties were walking towards me. As I got near them they crossed the road and glanced at me in a nervous "ooh, better avoid that teenager wearing a hoodie" sort of way.

That kind of pisses me off when people do that. What do they expect me to do? Pull out a knife and attack them? I'm just some awkward, slightly gawky person. I'm not some bloody psycho.

So I crossed the road to say hello.

They weren't very comfortable about me crossing the road towards them. Were their worst fears were coming true? Would I perhaps gut them both there and then and escape like a ghost in the night?

"Hello, would you like some Galaxy?!?" I said.

Stunned silence.

"Go on, take a bit."

So the woman did. The man still held back.

"You sure you don't want any?" I poked the air in front of him. He took some, eventually.

"See?" I said. "Just because someone's wearing a hoodie doesn't mean they're a thug or whatever. Some of us give out chocolate to passers-by!"

Baffled silence. The woman glanced nervously at her husband.

"Bye then," I said and crossed the road.

They probably didn't even eat the chocolate, to be honest. They just sort of held it.

Intimidating old people with savage acts of senseless, arbitrary niceness is fun.

A Short Story (not mine)

As I say in the title, I did not write this. It is a transcript of this video. It is quite a moving story, so I'm posting it here:

Carl Sagan had been right. The first signal of extraterrestrial origin that SETI received was mathematical. A series of pulses grouped into sequences; 1… 2… 3… 5… and so on. The first one hundred primes. Then ten pulses, then a repeating sequence.

But he had been wrong about the source. It wasn’t Vega. What the telescopes showed when they swung around to view the origin of the signal was not a star, but a previously unknown patch of hot gas that appeared to be travelling towards the solar system at high speed. The conclusion was obvious. This cloud of ionised hydrogen and oxygen was the exhaust plume of a rocket engine pointed towards us. Someone was paying us a visit. And that someone was saying hello.

Of course, the news leaked. First into the internet, then out into the mainstream news media. ET was phoning our home. Religious and political leaders appealed for calm but, contrary to their expectations, there was no rioting. No mass-panic. Instead, there was a sense of joy and elation with the world. Joy that we are not alone, and an excited anticipation and speculation about this incredible visit. Who are they? What do they look like? What stories do they have to tell? What can they teach us?

The wheels of politics ground away in secret and, independently, the US decided to respond. The US sent a sequence of the next one hundred primes and then a count of ten. Four days later, the signal changed.

What came back was a brief set of instructions specifying a radio frequency and modulation. Then, on that band, was another more detailed message. A message of greeting from the travellers to the people of Earth. But not really the message we had been expecting. There was more. It was also a distress call.

There had been an accident. When the travellers had started the deceleration phase of their journey, part of the propulsion system had malfunctioned. The explosion had destroyed the ship’s main drive and environmental systems, and killed most of the crew. Only a few hundred had survived. Trapped in the remaining part of their vessel and with dwindling supplies, they needed our help.

The calm atmosphere that had gripped the world for a week evaporated in an instant, replaced first by stunned disbelief, then grief and anger at further news. We confirmed that the travellers were just under two light-days from us and travelling at just under twenty percent of the speed of light. There was no hope of rescue.

Again, the world’s political and religious leaders called for calm, but this time there were riots. Anger, despair and frustration at the unfairness of fate. Desperation to find someone or something to blame, to make some sense of tragedy and reconcile the loss of hopes and dreams ripped away so cruelly.

The next series of transmissions contained instructions on how to build hydrogen fusion reactors and how to use them as drive systems for spacecraft. One of the traveller technicians had added a humorous note on the end that we should keep a careful watch on the engines as it seemed they could be a little temperamental.

Humanity responded with a message of regret and despair. The technology that we had available to us meant we were unable to help. Even with the instructions we had received, we wouldn’t be able to construct a rescue ship in time. All we could do was watch helplessly as they died.

The response to this message was also not at all what humanity had been expecting. It read simply:

“We know. Don’t worry.”

The four day time lag meant that only one more transmission was received before the ship fell silent. This message was a detailed description of the travellers’ ship. How to enter it; how to use the libraries and other technology and its flight path through the solar system and beyond. Within twenty or thirty years it should be possible for humanity to construct a craft to reach the travellers’ vessel, then make preparations to bring it back to Earth. Contained within the archives, we would find a history of the travellers’ people, their technology and their cultures.

The final part of the message was directed to the whole of humanity. It was written in English and read as follows:

“Time is short for us. Do not regret our deaths by blaming yourselves for being unable to save us. Accept that some things are beyond your control. Remember us with love. Remember that we are thankful to have known your kindness, compassion and empathy. We thank you for being a part of our lives. If there is regret, it is ours for not having made ourselves known to you sooner. When we asked for your help, you provided it. You did all that you could possibly do under the circumstances. You offered us your kinship. You let us know that we do not die alone. You let us know that we will not be forgotten. You let us know that you will miss us and grieve for us and that our being here meant something to you.

“And for that gift, we thank you.”

Anti-Nuclear Asshattery

A certain woman came to my attention earlier today. She is called Katharine Hamnet. She is a fashion designer. And she thinks herself qualified to tell us that nuclear power is bad. We shouldn't look at the scientific evidence, oh no. Those damn scientists 'r feedin' us LIES! Clearly, a fashion designer with little to no formal scientific education (her degree was in Textiles and Fashion) is a good source of knowledge who should be taken seriously in scientific matters.

[/sarcasm]

Now, let's have a look at what Ms Hamnett has to say. Her website has a whole section devoted to her anti-nuclear stance. What immediately strikes me is the immediate use of conspiracy-nuttery in the foreword:

"Could it be because the government for over a year has been secretly working with the Americans on a replacement for Trident nuclear warheads?"

Her only citation is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Now I'm all for the disarmament of the world's nuclear weapons, but doesn't such an organisation come across as perhaps slightly biased? In any case, as she herself points out subsequently, this would be in clear breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something the UK is not going to do as it would risk re-igniting the Cold War.

But let's move on to her more substantial argument.

One page on her website is devoted to the Health Hazards associated with Nuclear Power. This is what she has to say:

"A major study conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) into the dangers of low-energy, low-dose ionizing radiation concluded that there appears to be no safe radiation exposure level. The 750-page NAS report entitled The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Report VII (BEIR VII) �Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation´ found that the risk of getting cancer from radiation released into the environment by US nuclear reactors is approximately 35 per cent higher than current US Government risk estimates. The report also found that even very low doses of radiation can cause cancer and that there is no safe level or threshold of exposure. It also found a causal relationship between radiation exposure and non-cancer health effects such as heart disease and stroke. Finally, the NAS study also warned that it is possible that children born to parents who have been exposed to radiation could also be affected by those exposures."

Okay, Ms Hamnett. Let's talk about health risks. I wonder how many deaths are, on average, caused by nuclear power. It turns out that IBM Research have looked into this. Their answer is that 0.04 people die for every Terrawatt Hour of energy produced by nuclear power. If it sounds callous for me to be talking about people dying to give us energy then I apologise, but that is the case. Now let's look at other forms of energy. Guess how many deaths are caused by Hydroelectricity per Terrawatt Hour. The answer is 1.4. I don't see Ms Hamnett raging about the dangers of hydroelectricity. In fact, she actually promotes it. In any case, the cost of setting up alternative clean energy sources costs far more and is less efficient than nuclear and as I have demonstrated above, some forms of renewable energy sources are in fact more dangerous than nuclear.

And here's something interesting. 161 deaths are caused by coal power for every Terrawatt Hour produced. Statistically, coal power is over 4000 times more dangerous than nuclear.

"Ah," you might say. "But what about nuclear waste?" Katharine Hamnett, once again, has a thing or two to say about nuclear waste. But there is something wrong here. Let's go back to coal again. As it turns out, a 1978 paper published in Science shows that coal ash from power plants is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste (NOTE: that's stored and shielded waste, not waste just left lying around the countryside, which it never is).

Why is Ms Hamnett not even more strongly against coal? Why the tirades against nuclear when coal power is demonstrably more harmful? I suspect the answer lies simply in her blatant lack of scientific understanding and her inability to understand the real facts and research. Like so many others, she is all too easily swayed by spectacular displays of nuclear power going badly wrong (Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukishima etc) and so unable or unwilling to see nuclear as an acceptable alternative to fossil fuel energy.

Anyone who is against nuclear power must surely be even more strongly against coal. Otherwise, they should admit that their position is illogical and drop the issue.

Not that they ever would. It is an annoying habit amongst people that they often refuse to admit being blatantly wrong. I'll admit that this is a flaw I too possess, but I at least try to cut down on it and I would like to think that I flip positions more readily than others when shown that I am demonstrably wrong.

"What if it's all a hoax and we've created a better world for nothing?"

Anthropogenic climate change is happening, whether you believe it or not. That's the beauty of science. It doesn't matter whether you accept what every scrap of evidence available indicates. It doesn't care. It just objectively is. Just as a dropped ball will fall towards the ground even if you believe with all your heart that it will levitate, so too evolution by natural selection is happening and anthropogenic climate change is happening even if you really, really don't think it is. A billion people could think it doesn't happen and yet it still would.

The denialists-or "sceptics" as they label themselves (a misnomer, since one thing they are not is sceptics) often point to data indicating-or so they claim-that the current warming trends are simply natural occurrences. Or that the whole thing is a hoax and Global Warming simply isn't happening. A great deal of people jumped on misquoted, out-of-context segments of emails from the East Anglia University, causing a crippling public relations disaster to climate scientists.

Let's be blunt here. The denialists have no argument. The actions taken to reduce negative human influences on the planet are creating a better world for us and our descendants to live in. If it means a few inconveniences like walking or using public transport every so often, so what? The only arguments one could possibly use against the measures that can be taken are entirely selfish ones, so the denialists choose to be deliberately dishonest in their tactics and smear the honest scientists who toil in obscurity, yet leave an impact on future generations that few of us could ever hope to match.

Anthropogenic climate change doesn't have to happen. The word "anthropogenic" means "man-made". It happens because we humans make it happen. As individuals, we can't hope to make much of a dent in halting global warming, even if we are a Chris Taylor. In our thousands or even millions, however, we can do a great deal. On Saturday, at 8:30 in the evening, turn off something. Your computer, perhaps. Or even just an unnecessary light. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people around the world will be doing this as part of "Earth Hour 2011". It will make bugger all difference. Let's be honest. And yet, the power of this simple action in raising consciousness will have a more subtle yet far more powerful and far-reaching effect over longer timescales.

Shit Aspects of Our Culture...

I do wish that some aspects of our culture would die. Here are a few:

-The insistence on the part of film producers on mass-producing action films anyone with a teaspoonful of brain matter could keep up with. Hollywood is the worst offender here. Make more engaging films more often! I want to be forced to think when I watch it. I want the film to stay with me for ever!

-The concept that losing an argument is somehow bad and deserves ridicule. Likewise, the idea that winning an argument gives you the right to gloat. Losing an argument is fine and the winner should allow the loser to reshape their ideas without fear of being mocked or accused of weakness.

-Patriotism/nationalism. I am not "proud" to be British. I didn't choose to be British, so what is there to be proud of? I am proud of the individuals who fought and died to make a better life for those of us who follow. I am proud of some of the achievements of the organisation governing the patch of land I was born in. But I am not proud of my country simply because it is my country. If Britain was occupied by another power, I would collaborate if life would remain the same or get better for the people. I would likewise fight if I perceived the occupation to worsen life for the people and myself. I wouldn't fight for a flag or an organisation.

I would be happy to see the formation of a federal European Union (or even United Nations) in my lifetime. Borders are increasingly irrelevant. Why let them outlive their usefulness?

-Segregation. This one is already almost dead, so I am hopeful about this one. Nevertheless, it is still there, albeit in a weakened state.

Read Carl Sagan's Books!

"These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, but it is simply a description of the evolution of the cosmos as revealed by science in our time. And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we have begun at least to wonder about our origins -- star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms, contemplating the evolution of nature, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet earth, and perhaps throughout the cosmos." -Carl Sagan

Clickable link!

Fucking Hollywood...

Got annoyed at the cinema yesterday. There was a trailer showing the Apollo 11 orbiter and words flashing up talking about "Mankind's Greatest Achievement". I thought "Ooh great, they're making a film about the moon landings!"

Were they fuck. The trailer then spouted some gibberish about Apollo 11 losing signal and the astronauts having twenty minutes. They hop over the crest of a ridge and see an alien space ship.

It's the next fucking Transformers film. Fuck you, Transformers.

Astrology is Bollocks

So in 2009, did the Earth's axis magically snap into a new position with acceleration forces capable of hurling people off into space? Or are the astrologers talking out their arses?

The latter, I think. The Earth's axis has been gradually wobbling since astrology began. Your "new" star sign was always your star sign. The whole system is blatantly and demonstrably false. Mars going into retrograde motion in Libra never affected you and never will. There is no proposed mechanism for astrology, no way the planets' gravities would affect you, no justification of any kind whatsoever for any kind of belief in that two thousand year old bollocks superstition.

The "predictions" have never predicted a single major world event.

Ever.

9/11? Nope. 7/7. 'Fraid not. Boxing Day Tsunami? Not a fucking chance. Perhaps the astrologers were so busy with mundane, day-to-day lives on those days that they all managed to miss those events.

Ever wondered what the zodiac looks like from outside our solar system? Perhaps you think they actually are patterns of stars. You would be wrong. From outside the galactic rim, the constellations become jagged and deformed. They point towards a small, insignificant star in the cloud of billions more like it. They point to a humdrum yellow dwarf with no great significance to the galaxy whatsoever. They point to Sol. Humans in their arrogance chose to label their section of the galaxy by drawing these imaginary lines, all centred on their home star.

So if you ever get the urge to ring up the premium rate astrology hotline (soon to have an all-new, thirteenth number!), spend the money somewhere more worthwhile. Buy yourself a telescope off Amazon and go out from the city and see the sky as it really is, and us as we really are. Insignificant apes scuttling about on a tiny rock, going around a small, perfectly normal star in an average galaxy in an absolutely astounding universe. There is more grandeur in the view that we are insignificant than in the idea that everything is here for our petty benefits.

Okay... now what?

Well, that was easy. Now, I'd like to believe that I could say anything original in a "first blog post" entry, but of course, I can't. Anything I say will not only be unoriginal, but also not funny or insightful for that very reason. Why even bother, you might ask? Mainly, I might answer in the unlikely event that you actually asked, because I can't honestly claim to have something better or worthwhile to put as a first blog post without painfully limiting my capacity later on.

This blog will be where I put every vague ramble, every long-winded rant and generally other things that are too long to have as a status on facebook. I don't expect many readers. In fact you, reader, might be the only person ever to visit this otherwise barren, desolate excuse for a blog.

The first few posts here will be copy-pastes from the "Notes" I've written in the past on facebook. I will put them up over the next few minutes and then simply update this blog, then share the articles on facebook, rather than just writing notes on facebook.