critic-AL

Unileaks

2011-03-23T14:01:00.001-07:00

Hey everyone... its been almost 2 years since my last post. I have been posting regularly at

http://unileaks.wordpress.com/

where I am 'leaking the truth about the universe'... Not too pretentious, eh?

The Answer to EVERYTHING

2009-06-12T07:21:00.000-07:00

In a daydream the other day, everything came together. As I watched pedestrians walking on Yonge street from my balcony, I solved life's riddle. Putting it into words was a little tough, but this is the best I could come up with:

People are a product of their era: an essence, a soul molded by the struggles of their time.

Our identities are the product of a random but unique pairing of genetic and environmental factors

If we were all came to this realization, the divided but once mighty people of Babel would reunite.

War, injustice, greed, aggression would cease.

Perspective, we all need to change our God dammed perspective.

My subsequent posts will break down each of these five statements and shed light on what I mean.

Strip generator

2009-03-11T07:48:00.001-07:00

Click Image to make it larger

I found a site through www.lifehacker.com called strip generator (http://stripgenerator.com) that allows anybody to generate quick 3 panels comic strips, feel free to post a link to your own comic strips in the comments!!

Its 2009...

2009-03-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

So its 2009. Everybody has an ipod, a smart phone, high speed internet or access to internet via school or a library. We have pretty much flattened the world into a leveled playing field. Globalization has made international collaborations not only possible but favorable. Its 2009 and the world is changing, everybody has a voice, access to information. Do we still need Members of Parliament to vote on our behalf?

Maybe its the quote from the V for Vendetta, where V says that although governments are responsible for atrocities, it is truly the people who are guilty. The people vote for a government and hide behind it when times get tough. Its sort of an easy way out, to relieve oneself of any responsibility. A citizen will vote for his government, disagree on several decisions and merely complains behind closed doors without any further reaction. "The government should be afraid of its people, not the people afraid of their government" (paraphrased from V for Vendetta).

Many US citizens disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Many in Canada are unsatisfied with sending our troops to Afghanistan or our unwillingness to abide by the Kyoto protocol. Do we really? Do we have the courage to do anything else after complaining? Lets find out. I have the solution: the internet.

How cliche right? Seriously, we elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, but what happens if we disagree with how they vote. Grassroots organizations will say "write to your MP", but how efective is a letter writting campaign once the decision has been made? Can't we have a more direct influence on our government besides our 1 vote every election? I think the internet can be used to get the each citizen's vote on important issues voted in Parliament. In principle, the MP casts his vote based on what the people in his district want. Does an MP actually do this? How does he know what his voters want?

What if there was some sort of online vote for every citizen to participate in several days before Parliament officaly votes on the issue. This way if 58% of a certain district agrees with the deployment of Canadian troops in Pakistan, then that district's MP can confidently vote with the best interest of his people. This sounds more like democracy doesnt it?

For those afraid of voter fraud and hackers, technology alows us to file income tax statements online, many of us trust online banking. Thus, verifying someone's ID online is not a factor anymore in 2009.

What about people whod "don't understand politics"? It is your duty as a responsible citizen to inform yourself. Also, politicians simply need to break down the nature of each issue, debate it if necessary so the population understands what it is voting on. However, if a citizen is still unsure about an issue, he can always vote to "trust the MP" instead of making his own decision on the online poll. People who really dont care could even preset all of their future online votes to be a "vote of confidence in their MP". Be warned... this will take away your right to complain!!!

My biggest fear is lack of interest. However, if the next generation of children is brought up to be active citizens, informed about their country and its policies this should remedy present day apathy. Also once a citizen eventually disagrees with its government then this will encourage more voting next time around. Look at the voter turnout after 8 years of GW Bush! I think a lot of voter apathy in Canada is due to the lack of any real choice. This online voting suggestion makes us all directly involved in Canada's future, in a very tangible way.

Any thoughts?

The social fart

2009-02-23T07:01:00.000-08:00

If there is one place that is completely impersonal in urban life, it’s the elevator. There is one simple rule: two is eye contact, three is a frown. Part one of the rule addresses one specific context: if person A is in the elevator and person B walks in it is OK to acknowledge each other's presence with eye contact and the optional head nod. Part two limits the nature of this interaction: if person C comes in, it is proper etiquette to look down at your shoes. If you are feeling particularly social you can look at someone else’s shoe. The more people there are the less likely the chance of eye contact. In the crowded elevator this morning, (its Monday… I know) I was looking at my shoes and thought… this is ridiculous… I looked up to find the other occupants either looking down or at the ceiling. The ceiling? That’s brilliant… shoes get kind of mundane after a while, especially in the winter when your toes are not visible.

The only superstars in the cold cold elevator world are dogs. In a crowded elevator, everybody will look at a dog and someone might even say “what kind of dog is it?” or “what’s his name?” And it becomes like a mini-party in the elevator…

The only other option to instigate some sort of social interaction is the fart. I have thought of this on a few occasions, because whenever there is a strange smell in an elevator things get interesting. Everybody acts casual but subtly looks up and shifts their eyes from side to side trying to figure out who the culprit is. It’s like a murder mystery… everybody is a suspect. If the farter is a skilled criminal he will also look disgusted to hide his guilt. In this case, it is advised to use the "smell gradient". Does it smell more like fart on my right or my left. This helps eliminate suspects.

Enjoy your next elevator ride!

Please Comment!!!

2009-02-21T10:45:00.001-08:00

I just realized I had the comments section set to "users only". Now anybody can comment.

For me, the most satisfying thing about writing this blog is the comments and discussions it generates.

Vedanta

2009-02-20T14:00:00.000-08:00

I recently stumbled upon the works of Alan Watts, a British philosopher, writer, speaker and guru of comparative religion. He essentially spent different parts of his life learning about all the major religions. His biography includes zen training, a Masters in Christian theology and a stint as a Episcopalian priest. He is best known for his interpretation and explanation of Asian philosophies to the Western world. Reading one of his most well know books (The Book - On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are) I came across an interesting concept I wanted to share: Vedanta. Vedantic philosophy is based on any single book and has 2 simple postulations:

1- Human nature is divine
2- The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine

Based on Watts’ book this is my understanding of this philosophy. Everything in the universe that we define has an opposite because without day there is no night, no mountain top if there is no valley, no space if there are no objects. In a nutshell, you would not know what light was if there was no dark. This is the same as the yin-yang concept in Chinese philosophy.
There is however one concept with no counterpart: God. I am choosing the word “God” because I speak English, but this is in no way the same God as Christianity. This is the concept of “God” which encompasses all of creation, the Self of the universe. In this context, God cannot be described since there is no counterpart. Thus, to this extent EVERYTHING is god: you, me the laptop you are using, oxygen molecules, etc. Watts uses a childish analogy to explain this concept: it’s as if God was playing hide and seek with himself through all of his creations: humans, stars, animals, plants, etc. God does this so well that he does not remember doing this and it takes time to remember. Ultimately, one day we will all wake up, stop pretending and realize we are all the same universal self. So when good or bad happens, it’s always “self-inflicted” by the Universal self.

I won’t complicate things with more details. I just thought this concept was pretty mind blowing. It reminds me of another concept I read awhile back which says that since the whole universe is made up of the same matter/atoms/energy, it is all one giant unity. We are a part of it, indistinguishable.

Have a good weekend my atom-brothers...

Funky bones

2009-02-20T08:06:00.001-08:00

Listening to a BBC podcast about Beatemania in the USSR, I came across an interesting historical tidbit. Apparently most countries in Eastern Europe and in the USSR were denied access to Western music. However, some vinyl records were smuggled across the “Iron Curtain” and made it into the hands of some crafty bootleggers who distributed it illegally to the masses. Since the 1950’s and 60’s were tough economically for the USSR, bootleggers had to find cheap accessible materials on which to make copies of the original vinyl records. After some experimentation it became apparent that discarded x-ray films from hospitals were the best and most freely available material for pressing bootleg records. So imagine buying a Beatles record from a bootlegger, going home and taking it out of its package. You take the record, put it up against the light and you are looking at some stranger’s ribcage. Maybe I am morbid kind of guy, but that’s pretty damn cool…

Toronto Vs Montreal: Skyline edition

2009-02-19T13:54:00.000-08:00

When I first moved to Toronto, the first thing to hit me was the overwhelming number of impressive skyscrapers. Although there is a cluster of massive financial buildings downtown, there are also hundreds of towering condo buildings throughout the rest of the city. Sure big buildings block the sun and create mysterious wind tunnels that make cold days even colder, but I do enjoy a good skyline.

The skyline is a good indicator of a city's status. Montreal has Place Ville Marie and... Well there aren't very many that go beyond 25 floors. This is quite telling of Montreal's economic stagnation. All of our skyscrapers are quite old and there have not been any projects affecting the skyline since 1980. Montreal has not degraded economically in the last 3 decades per se however nobody is pumping money into the city. This is most likely a consequence of the rise of the sovereignty movement culminating in the 1980 referendum. This caused several companies to move their headquarters to the more stable city of Toronto. Toronto got the “big boy” status and the big buildings...

Although skyscrapers are impressive at first glance, they tend to ruin the city at the street level. Skyscrapers generally have a spacious lobby and elevators on the ground floor. This reduces the amount of restaurants, shops and bars that pedestrians can access. This unfortunate side effect saps the charm and practicality away from clusters of skyscrapers.

I have noticed something else in the last year: Toronto city planners have terrible taste in architecture. If the buildings are impressive in size, they rarely are in their design. Everything Toronto has built since their expansion in the 70's is quite awful. The city hall is supposed to be designed like an eye (top picture)... it might look good from a hot air balloon, not from the ground. The back of city hall is brown cement! More recently, the royal Ontario museum reopened on Bloor Street which is supposed to be avant-garde/crystal-like, but it just looks like it's been chewed up and spit out by Godzilla (bottom picture).

Montreal is a much older city, so the oldest buildings really give the city its charm. This is true for most cities I’ve visited: the older the city, the more charming it is. However, having travelled to cities such as Lisbon, Porto and Chicago it has become clear that new buildings can also have style. Therefore if anybody reading this is a struggling architect... please come to Toronto, the city needs you.

Montreal vs. Toronto: Street Meat Edition

2009-02-11T09:13:00.000-08:00

On February 9th it was the one year anniversary of my move to Toronto. I will post a series of articles giving my two cents on the major differences between the two cities.

Let’s start somewhere random: street meat. For those unfamiliar with downtown Toronto, it is impossible to walk more than two blocks without being enticed or assaulted (depends on hunger) with the smell of hot-dogs. Every few blocks a small metal booth is visible. These plastic tarp-sheltered booths typically contain a propane grill, various condiments and a hard working immigrant trying to satisfy his customers’ need for sausage.

The glistening “street meat” served by the vendors is tasty although a little disappointing. I don’t think I ate more than 1 or 2 in my first year in Toronto. They seem to be a perfect end to a night of drinking and dancing! Since I don’t frequent clubs anymore, this might be responsible for my low sausage intake. To be honest I would trade all the hot dog stands in Toronto for a decent falafel or shawarma sandwich. Nothing but disappointment in terms of Arabic food in Toronto… I miss Lebanese immigrants!

What's the value of Money?

2009-02-09T08:39:00.000-08:00

These days, with the US printing money like Wal-Mart flyers, it makes you wonder what the global monetary system is based on. With the words “speculative bubble” popping up everywhere it makes you wonder if money itself is simply a giant speculative bubble!

For those not familiar with the term, speculative bubbles refer to any market (such as telecoms, real-estate, food, oil) where values are driven up beyond their actual worth by investments. It’s a supply and demand of a supply and demand! During the dot com boom, telecom companies were thriving (high demand) and this attracted a lot of investors trying to get a piece of the pie (high demand). This additive effect drove up stock prices beyond the actual value of the companies. Once the honeymoon period is over (bubble bursts), there is a rapid decrease in the market’s value and it becomes undervalued due to a loss of confidence.

This also happened in the summer of 2007 with record high food prices and in 2008 with the 140$ barrel of oil. This is most likely going to happen with gold now that the economy is in shambles. To go back to my original point: the US can ultimately print as much money as it wants even though its gold reserves stay the same. This begs the question… what decides money’s true value. Why is the US dollar worth specifically 1.21857 Canadian dollars or 0.76525 Euros today? This is all very speculative isn’t it? Financial experts have pretty much shown in the last 30 years that they honestly have no real sense of a market’s true value. How true are those monetary exchange values quoted? What happens when that bubble bursts?

Same name new gimmick

2009-02-06T05:58:00.000-08:00

I am about to try something a little different: Shorter articles twice a week.

Come back later today for the first new article.

RIP x-bomb

2008-04-04T12:12:00.000-07:00

For those who don’t know, I make music under the alias “x-bomb”. Nothing too serious but there is a significant numbers of mp3s on my disk drive with “x-bomb” in their file names. Today it saddens me to retire that moniker.

This is the reason.

From the Tallahassee Democrat, Florida:

April 4, 2008

A briefcase marked "A-Bomb" in a pickup truck in Florida State's parking garage Thursday caused classes to be cancelled […].The Tallahassee Fire Department, police and bomb squad were called.

The bomb threat turned out to be bogus. It turns out the term "A-Bomb" is a nickname for a 17-year-old high-school student, Brooks said. A parking attendant originally spotted the briefcase in the bed of the boy's truck on the fourth-floor of the Woodward Avenue parking garage and notified authorities.

No arrest was made Thursday, but the case has not been closed.

Absolute Certainty

2008-04-03T05:44:00.000-07:00

The other day, as I walked through a hospital, I noticed an older man struggling to sip his apple juice through a straw as his son looked on. The son looked distraught. Maybe he was upset that old age and illness were changing his father…

Life is a gift.

None of it should be wasted.

Go ahead, live.

“Look alive
See these bones
What you are now
We were once
Just like we are
You will be dust
Just like we are
Permanent”

Taken from Nada Surf’s “See These Bones”
http://www.myspace.com/nadasurf

Something in the water?

2008-03-26T07:43:00.000-07:00

It's been a little over six weeks since I moved to Toronto. Listen to this interesting dream I had last night. I think Toronto's water supply is drugged!

The following takes place between 6 AM and 7 AM inside my head.

As dawn covers the battlefield in its orange hue, myself and a dozen archers approach the castle we are going to attack. As we approach the castle walls, the draw bridge lets out a dull metallic moan. They know we’re here…

“READY…” I yell and we all reach for an arrow, load it into our bows and wait for the onslaught of soldiers sent to protect their castle. The first soldiers to appear are pelted with a storm of arrows and fall dead. However, in the next few seconds, a hundred soldiers storm through the castle entrance and rush towards us. Although a few more castle defenders are killed my whole group is dead within seconds.

Pause.

A window pops up:

Mission Failed. Would you like to restart?
(OK) (Cancel)

Mission restarts, however this time I am in a fort not on the battlefield. As I am getting my team of archers together for the attack, a man stops me: an important and powerful man.

- “We can’t attack Quebec” says the man after he grabs my arm.
- “These are my orders, sire” I reply.
- “THESE ORDERS WERE GIVEN WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE. This is not an acceptable course of action. If we attack Quebec, this will re-ignite old rivalries and too much blood will be spilled! ”

The alarm clock buzzes.

Author's notes:

I have not played Warcraft 2 in years!

I have no intentions of attacking Quebec.

Homo sapiens redux

2008-03-24T12:30:00.001-07:00

Are we really more than the sum of our parts? Reductionism originally arose from French philosopher Rene Descartes. In his 1637 treatise entitled "Discourse on the Method" he postulated that "the world was like a machine […] and that the machine could be understood by taking its pieces apart, studying them, and then putting them back together to see the larger picture"(Wikipedia). Essentially this has been the basis of science the last 371 years. Originally this postulate was thought to be true for both objects and living organisms. Presently, the consensus is that no living system can be explained by the sum of its parts.

Can we really be sure? As science progresses and keeps finding all of the machine's parts, a complete understanding of our surroundings seems unlikely at this point in time. Let's look at a simplified timetable of science's understanding of the human body:

1- Corpse dissections allow early scientists to identify the various colorful organs inside our bellies.
2- Further inspection of the organs reveals the intricate architecture of tissues within a single organ
3- Microscopes allow for the observation of cells
4- Stronger microscopes reveal that every cell has its own organs (such as the nucleus, vesicles, etc.)
5- Discovery that cells are little "bags of proteins" and each protein has its own specific role
6- A protein's construction is encoded by DNA
7- Human genome is sequenced…80-90% of the human genome is baptized "junk DNA"
8- Junk DNA is used by a cell more than non-junk DNA

This list highlights one thing: just when we start to take the "machine" apart and look at the pieces we realize that each piece is itself a machine. If each new discovery brings forth another machine to take apart, is it right to say “we are more than the sum of our parts”? Maybe once all the parts have been discovered, characterized and understood we will have answered all the questions.

The problem with saying “there is more to something than the sum of its parts” is that it takes into account only past discoveries. Can we still be sure of this statement if we consider future discoveries? For example, the human body is a lot less mysterious in 2008 AD than in was 2008 BC. Contrast current ideas such as stem cells, DNA and vaccines with the Bronze Age. That’s how different things will be in another 4000 years. I am sure Bronze Age “doctors/scientists” knew about the body’s organs but obviously not cells. Likewise, it 2008 who knows which pieces of the puzzle science has not discovered.

Reductionism considers that all the pieces of the machine are known. How can you see the big picture with only 10% of a puzzle’s pieces? If science persists long enough on a given topic, is it possible to find all of the puzzle’s pieces? Can you imagine its impact on religion/spirituality….

What doesn't kill you...

2008-03-18T17:57:00.000-07:00

The blog has been quiet lately. I have not abandoned ship, I have actually spent the last three weeks recovering from surgery. This week I was feeling like my good old mischievous self. I will be back soon with some more of that thought provoking goodness you all love.

An Inconvenient Truth About 9-11

2008-03-02T11:23:00.000-08:00

I was having a small talk with a friend of mine at a new lounge (called Touché on College West, check it out!!) and we were talking about conspiracy theories. Maybe I have watched too many X-files in my life, but although they are incredibly entertaining I rarely (i.e. never) believe them. One of the most entertaining theories is how 9-11 is an inside job by the US government. REALLY???

I saw that online documentary called "loose change", I have read several essays, and I have seen the whole "type Q33NY in MS Word and change the font to Wingdings 1". The documentary was well executed and raised some interesting points. I think it had me believing the whole conspiracy on the spot but a few hours later I was back to my good ol' skeptical self! The Q33NY Wingdings e-mail is a perfect example of how conspiracy theories are usually weak. The e-mail claimed that Q33NY was the tail number of one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center (WTC). There is no proof of this...

My main problem with this whole US government "inside job" theory is all of the resources needed for setting up such an operation. This includes remote controlled airplanes flown into the WTC, a rocket fired into the pentagon, explosives secretly set up and detonated at the base of the towers and passengers of flight 93 secretly transferred onto another aircraft. If my memory is correct all of the aforementioned elements are described in the "loose change" documentary.

If the US government organized the whole thing how many people were involved? At least a few hundred (if not thousands) to plant the explosives, fly the remote controlled airplanes, fire the rockets, transfer the Flight 93 passengers, etc. Also, who would execute these orders? Patriotic soldiers who signed up to defend their country? Please don’t say "brainwash" because a patriot killing 3000 of his country's own people seems a little far fetched. Even by assuming a hundred brainwashed US soldiers executed their orders, it seems unlikely that not a single conspirator has cracked under the guilt of treason and revealed the awful truth.

Now my question to all those conspiracy theorists: "Who is responsible?". Let me guess: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the CIA and Elvis in a secret coalition with the Saudis and the Israelis bent on making money from the "tragic events of 9-11".Does anyone honestly believe that a secret meeting took place where a PowerPoint presentation was given outlining the destruction of the WTC, the framing of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden leading to an eventual invasion of Iraq for their precious oil! COME ON!!!

I think the biggest problem with this theory is that it supposes that the US government is a powerful all-seeing entity. If this is the case how can a conspiracy theorist explain the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq? We all know that "faulty intelligence reports" prompted the Bush government to invade Iraq. So here’s the problem: how is it that the same government capable of killing thousands of its own citizens using secret military technology and the same government capable of finding Saddam hiding in a hole cannot plant some WMDs in Iraq. This would have been an obvious move on the part of the US either in 2002 for the UN inspectors to discover or in 2003 after the invasion. They could have easily built a nuclear silo or planted some uranium enriching equipment. To date nothing has been found. How hard is it to plant some evidence so that Bush can say “You see… we told you so!!!”.

My theory? South Park said it best: "it was just a bunch of pissed off Arabs"! I think 9-11 was a terrorist act and the US got caught with its pants down. These events were used to justify the occupation of Iraq but even without 9-11 I think the Bush administration would still be in Iraq today. The reason: the energy crisis. It’s been known for a few years now that Cheney had some “super secret meetings” with oil company execs to discuss the future of the US’s energy policy. Apparently Iraq’s oil was discussed with interest in the aforementioned meeting. Here’s the kicker, this meeting took place in the spring of 2001, several months before 9-11. Some will say this is proof of a conspiracy, I think its proof of America’s opportunistic response to 9-11, using it to accomplish their to-do list.

Any questions?

Google hits: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10715149
Loose change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
Cheney’s secret meetings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
More on Cheney: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0718taskforce.htm

Genetic Fatalism

2008-02-22T14:59:00.000-08:00

Since writing the "Religiously Scientific" entry I have been thinking about several of the points I raised. I think for the next few submissions I will branch off from that first article in various directions.

In my first draft of the "Religiously Scientific" essay, I went on a lengthy genomics tangent, elaborating on the recent trend to link everything to our genome. As I previously mentioned there is no doubt in my mind that most facets of our health are in fact linked to our genes such as predisposition to heart problems, cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc. My problem is with over-reliance on genes or any other branch of science to explain or predict everything. In my opinion genomics is the successor to psychology as the reason for all of society’s ills. Instead of saying "he was abused as a child" we are on path to saying “he had the psycho gene"!

This whole topic reminded me of a concept I learned about in a high school philosophy class: fatalism. Fatalism is defined (by wikipedia) as a “philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination”. In other words, all events are inevitable. What’s for diner next week? It doesn’t matter if you haven’t got a clue or want to decide last minute, if you are a fatalist you believe that choice is an illusion and the future has already been written. Although we appear to choose one option over another, a fatalist will tell you that our choice was predetermined.

Doesn’t fatalism sound eerily similar to genetic predisposition? Doesn’t it seem that having a “psycho gene” or having a traumatizing childhood limits one’s fate? Presently, several companies are offering personalized genetic testing: a service which screens the customer’s entire genome to determine what diseases he or she is susceptible to (link provided below). Is this same as a crystal ball for a fatalist? Would you want to know what’s waiting for you in your old age? Imagine this tool being used to screen for future rapists, psychos or pedophiles! Would it be fair to imprison someone for crimes they are “predisposed to commit”? Is it acceptable to be scared for potential genetic diseases?

If you read the article (link provided below), they criticize the genetic screen because nobody can predict how many gene mutations are actually required for eventual onset of a given disorder. Genetics is typically a study of correlation (i.e. 70% of people with breast cancer have a mutation in gene X). Therefore I doubt a DNA test will ever be used to imprison potential criminals. Similarly, I doubt that recently discovered “obesity”, “alcoholism”, “anger” and “depression” genes can condemn a baby to a terrible future. My fear is that these genes will be used in the future to remove accountability for one’s actions (i.e. “its not my fault I am lazy, I have the lazy gene!”).

The problem with fatalism is it leads to reckless abandon. If our choices don’t matter then why should we put in any effort into our lives, we can’t change our prewritten destinies. What happens if you find out you have the so-called “anger gene”? Do you yell excessively because you know that ultimately you will be an angry bastard/bitch? Do you try to bottle it up inside and develop a stress disorder? Do you take happy pills? Do you do nothing and live your life ignoring the fact that you have “anger” in your DNA?

I believe in choice. No pre-written destinies. No pre-established diseases. In science there are usually two factors to most diseases: genetics and environment. Even though you are at risk for an illness or obesity or alcoholism, it’s not necessarily a guarantee. With the right diet, lifestyle, support and possibly preventative medicine you may get lucky and beat the odds. Similarly, growing up in a shitty neighborhood predisposes you to plenty of terrible things but some people make it out and beat the odds!

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250288

Religiously Scientific

2008-02-21T15:07:00.000-08:00

Science has itself become a kind of religion." –Carl Sagan

I stumbled across this quote and thought it would be a great first topic. These words really describe what I have been feeling for a long time. For those who don't know me, I obtained my Bachelors and Masters of Science a few years ago in Microbiology & Immunology, thus my "official background" is science. The reason I chose to focus on this quote is the current overwhelming reliance on scientific research to answer and justify EVERYTHING.

One example is genetics. Why are some people overweight? Fat gene. Why are there alcoholics? Alcoholism gene. If you survey headlines in the last 10 years you will find reports on a so-called "anger gene", "depression gene", etc. Next time you are staring at a Google search page type in any random affliction and the word "gene". My guess is 50% of the time you will come across a published study!

Now I don't want to be misquoted or come off as cynical because I know for a fact a lot of diseases are due to genetic predisposition. I spent 2 years studying the effect of one gene on autoimmune diabetes. My point is that we have reached a point of scientific overindulgence. It's an ego thing if you ask me. One of the hottest topics in science right now is the creation of artificial life. J Craig Venter (who was crucial for the original sequencing of the human genome in 2000) is now trying to cut and paste several bacterial genes to make the most basic yet functional life form. In my opinion it's a classic God complex: trying to "create life" for a second time. Now most people who read the press release (link below) at first glance will be amazed at the limitless possibilities of science. Make them proud at humanity's accomplishments in the last few millennia. But after some scrutinizing, this project is "cheating" quite a bit. They will cut and paste pre-existing genes from an organism and then plant them in a cell which will have been stripped of its original genome.

To make an analogy it's similar to those old cartoons where they perform brain transplants and although the body is the same, the personality of the patient will be dependent on his new brain. The reason neither the genes (brain) nor the hollowed out cell (body) were synthesized from scratch is because we haven't got the faintest clue how!

This synthetic bacterial genome project is a good example of science's "all-knowing" attitude. Truthfully, science in all contexts ends up bringing up more questions that we hadn't even thought about asking in the first place. To quote Carl Sagan again: "Science is like a candle in the dark". Basically, a candle will clearly illuminate one spot of a giant (infinite) room but everything else is pitch black. If we notice a carpet, then we will wonder "how big is it?", "how many are there?", "are they all similar?", "what's the carpet made of?" But before we knew about the carpet we couldn't ask the proper questions. Furthermore, another issue arises: how relevant is that carpet? Is that little bit of information about the room enough for predicting what the rest of the room looks like?

When something is of interest in science the classic approach is to isolate the phenomenon and create a model in vitro (Latin for "within glass", however "within a plastic test tube" is more appropriate!). When the phenomenon is well characterized, the study continues in an animal model and it is at this point that things get tricky. Things are never as logical or "black and white" as within the test tube and this is when many more questions are brought up. It's an exciting albeit frustrating process! but a far cry from the "all knowing" aura science projects these days.

Think of the big answers science has produced in the last hundred years: the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, theory of relativity, black holes, dark matter, genetics, etc. Can we be 110% sure about all of these? I am not a physicist, but in 1000 years can we be sure that we won't be laughed at for concepts such as the Big Bang and dark holes... Will we be laughed at for relying on the subconscious or the genome to define one's personality? Evolution has some very large gaps in what we believe and actual evidence. The whole survival of the fittest would mean that there are some failed prototypes somewhere right? Where are the 2 legged mammals or 1 eyed fish?

Now my point is not that all of these theories are false, simply that they are substantiated theories and not absolute truths. Science's conclusions have garnered a supernatural finality to them that is undeserved. To believe science can answer any question and is the absolute truth takes some blind faith. The same type of blind faith that scientists sneer at when religion is brought up. There was a time when scientists claimed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Should we laugh at those theories? Back then, they had not seen the metaphorical carpet (in reference to my analogy above). Back then they were limited by their tools. So are we.

Fanaticism is dangerous in religion and in science. Being a fanatic in either will numb you to the complexity and/or the beauty of the world we live in and are apart of. Neither science nor religion has all the answers even though they each claim to. Let me know what you think!

alcoholism gene - http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene

obesity gene - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1484659.stm

anger gene - http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218391876&cat=1_7

depression gene - http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2003/mccord/5-HTT.html

Artificial genome - http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/

Manifesto

2008-02-19T19:37:00.000-08:00

This elaborate definition of “critical” includes various context-specific meanings for the word and will serve as a manifesto for this blog.

Statement #1 is the most important goal of this little artistic experiment: stimulate critical thought. In 2008, with information at our fingertips and free of charge (e.g. free internet access at your public library) it pains me to see how many people don’t ever question what they hear. I am not condoning the “doubting Thomas” approach, but we should not take any information for granted. We must explore perspectives.

Statement #2 will require the active dialogue of readers. A good discussion/debate can sometimes cause “a chain reaction” of thoughts leading to an “abrupt change” in opinion.

Statement #3 pertains to the quality of submissions in this blog. I will try to carefully evaluate and judge my words prior to posting them. A quality control of sorts.

Statement #4 reflects my need (and hopefully yours) for grey matter stimulation.

Statements #5 and #6 are representative of life. There is no specific “critical phase” per say in my opinion. Life is a constant sequence of potential “turning points” and “crises” on a personal level. On a larger scale, from evolutionary survival of the fittest to various medical, military and ecological challenges man is constantly “verging on a state of emergency”.

Statement #7 is what I will try my best to stray away from. Although I plan to stimulate some critical thought, I AM NOT A CRITIC nor do I wish to fill my blog with criticism.

And with that said, lets begin...