Principles of Natural Philosophy

There are many people out there who will call me a bit of a geek, and I am one of them. Without getting too introspective, I like to think of myself as a competent geek. Not competent at any particular skill within the pantheon of geekdom, but conversant in the noble arts enough to get by.

In recent times, the once humble and overlooked geek has been raised within the public consciousness to a newly-built pedestal. I claim no part of that – it is almost certainly due to the perennial shifting of admirations from the global media – but the world now gazes on those who can use a scientific calculator with a more equitable split betwteen admiration and pity. I wish I could say it were ever thus.

One symptom of this new dynamic is that where science and the pursuit of knowledge were once overshadowed by the commercialism and avarice of the 1980s, they have now been dragged out in to the light of day. Scientists stand blinking in the floodlights of attention, doing the same fine job they have been doing for decades and yet – suddenly – with the approbation of the masses. And I wonder why.

I am no scientist, but I am an admirer of scientists. I cannot hope to win that most coveted of academic awards – the Nobel Prize – in any field, but what I can hope to do is assist with the understanding of something which I hold very dear. The scientific principle.

From the birth of my political self, one thing I have been aware of is that for some reason, the length of time one has held a belief for is somehow a market of how ‘right’ one is. Within politics, it is seen as being ‘unwavering’ or stalwart, as if a refusal to change ones opinion due to new information is somehow a good thing. And that changing ones belief to suit new evidence is somehow weak. I would argue that it is the opposite.

Many people think of science – or perhaps I shoud capitalise it – Science – as a doctrine, or dogmatic religion. Once again, I am no expert – but I see science as the opposite of this. It is a process and structure. Science is also – I believe wrongly – seen as the enemy of Religion. Here there may be some truth. Science is, at the most basic level, based on observation and replicable experiment, whereas religion is based on hearsay and faith, so it is possible that they are in opposition. I am making no claims to the contrary.

But science is, at its heart, the pursuit of knowledge, and the questioning of what we claim is reality. The willingness to learn new truths, and to overturn long-held beliefs are important tenets for the honest scientist. The works of Newton and Einstein, Darwin, Mendel, Faraday, Hooke and Boyle – perhaps some of the most famous names in Science – are constantly being tried, tested and questioned. No one is beyond such reproach. In future years, behind their backs and without the right to reply, today’s heroes of science – Feynman, Hawking, Dawkins et al will be both revered and condemned by the work they are doing now. And I would hope they will welcome it. As our knowledge increases, so does our ignorance.

The knowledge on which our current understanding of the universe – and everything in it – is based is being added to daily. Every small step forward adds to the sum of wisdom available to it. We can – being ensconced in a fairly liberal society – choose to accept it, learn from it and move on, or we can choose to ignore it, condemn it as false, and stay put. But increasingly, the world chooses to call on Science as our saviour, to repair the damage inflicted by previous generations of both the enlightened and the ignorant. Moving on is the imperative, which rubs some people up the wrong way.

Our ancestors made strides forward in the development and industrialisation of the world, so that today we have every right to expect nearly every baby born to western society to live well in to middle age. But this was at a cost. Medicines brought about larger populations, which required the cultivation of large areas of land. The furnaces of the industrial revolution – essential for improving the quality of life for the average human – brought the scourge of the 19th and 20th centuries – pollution. And the descendants of those who developed the poisons in which we now immerse ourselves every day on our commute in an air conditioned car to an air conditioned office are now the ones saving us from them.

I hope that we will continue to invest in those people who choose science as a career. It is often underpaid, and almost always thankless, but these people are not only the ones who will be responsible for the cleaning of our skies and seas; they are also the only ones capable of delivering those things we will desperately need in the near future. Energy, food, medicine and clean water, air to breathe and perhaps even space in which to consume all of the above.

For my part, I am extremely happy that somewhere out there is a person who is questioning every fact laid before them, subjecting newspaper headlines to the scrutiny which so many of us fail to impart. The balance has shifted, and now those willing to consider a change in their opinion may – at last – be seen as reasonable, honest and worthy of support.

Perhaps the biggest benefit we can expect from the acceptance of the nerds, the reverence of science and worship of the truth is that at last, the geek shall inherit the earth.

To Hope for the Death of Charity

Charity is a wonderful thing.

Originally the word related to a personal feeling of goodwill towards, and activity to help, those in reduced or less fortunate circumstances.  It still means the same thing, but these days what people generally refer to with the word, is an organisation set up to do this for us.

It used to be that every person (and especially every lady) of a certain class – usually the staunch british Middle Classes – would be involved in a charity.  It was seen as the way to “do one’s bit” to repay the kindness the lord had showered on you, whether by the accident of your birth or the circumstances of your marriage.

As the 20th century progressed, however, charities became more like organised and well-run businesses.  Which is to say, they became professional in the manner of both their fundraising and the manner in which they apply said funds.  After all, a streamlined and efficient charity ensures the largest proportion of the monies raised is used to support their beneficiaries.

Within a few decades, the Charity community (note the use of the capital) became a huge industry, employing many thousands of people who – because of their talents and the freedom from poverty that paid employment affords – were able to efficiently and effectively run their organisations in such a way as to maximise their impact at the coal-face of despair.

It used to be the case that after many years spent in employment, we could rely on the taxes we had paid to support us in our dotage.  Or that, should injury or illness befall us, we could reach out for the support of our healthcare system, welfare state or once again the government to assist us.  In both cases then, we would have no need for the angels who work at the call of Charities. 

When I think of charities I know well, in the UK, I tend to put them in to a mental apartment block in order to distinguish between them.  There are the Big Boys – on the third floor.  These guys and gals – like Medicines Sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc, are all operating on a governmental level.  They use the funds we send to assist their beneficiaries, but they also use them to lobby and demonstrate – on behalf of their benefactors (shareholders, in a perverse way) for governmental intervention.  They argue against wrongs at the highest level, calling for changes in international laws, local regulations, or even national identities in order to achieve their aims.

On the second floor, I see the large research groups.  Many are medical – Cancer Research – and others are scientific.  These fellows use the monies we send in order to make the difference we are hoping for, but without effecting change in the lives of the individuals.  Of course, 50% of those on clinical trials may benefit individually, but that is not their aim.

Below them, on the first floor but in a larger flat, I place the next group.  This consists in the slightly smaller, yet just as active bunch, including Water Aid, Oxfam, Macmillan and Marie Curie nursing and support organisations, British Legions, Make A Wish, Help for Heroes and other very famous and hard-working groups.  These guys are applying hundreds of millions of pounds to effect changes not on a global level, but to make a difference for individuals or groups of people.  We may all at some time be touched by the cold finger of cancer, but we are not all subject to it constantly. 

At the ground floor, working locally for much smaller sums, are the individuals.  These fantastically motivated people are working very locally for the smaller causes.  Almost everything they do is for an individual or group, and little can be used to change the wider world.  I can think of many such organisations – from church tower funds to a charity set up by the parents of a boy to buy him artificial limbs, as the government will only do so every two years. (He needs them every 6-12 months, at a cost of thousands of pounds a time, as he is a growing faster than the government want him to.)

Now, all of these charities are doing fantastic jobs.  They work together on occasion, but more often apart, to change lives either locally or nationally, even internationally.  They stop people going without human contact (Help the Aged) and they support the ecologies required for Orangutans to survive the 21st century (WWF), they give our service men and women the support they need when returning from war (RBL & Help for Heroes) and help to pick up the pieces in the coutries they have left (OXFAM). 

And we, as people of compassion, rightfully dig in to our pockets to support them.  We throw coins in buckets at supermarket checkouts, we sponsor a friend to run the Marathon, and we rally our employers to match our funding with huge cheques. 

Meanwhile, there are people who we are also paying to care.  These people live far less frugally than Dave or Marion who shake a tin outside the town hall.  They are paid far more than the Chuggers we have learned to avoid.  They have many houses, and claim far more than in many cases they spend.

We employ a vast army of Civil Servants, Council workers, carers and other professionals to ensure that our elderly and infirm are cared for.  We pay taxes in order that we can believe that those who have done us a great service will be rewarded for it.  Our soldiers return with broken hearts at the loss of their closest friends, only to be betrayed and left to sleep on cold streets, washed only by rain and fed by the kindness of strangers.
 
Our universities hold some of the best resources, and are home to the finest minds in the world.  We look to them for the groundbreaking research that will lead to the curing of all disease, the technology to end our dependance on fossil fuels, the next breakthrough in space travel to enable us to fly to the stars.  And yet, without the government reducing our tax burden, suddenly we have to charge our poorest – the youngest students – thousands of pounds to be there.

In short, our government has outsourced its need to care.  If someone needs food, then they can rely on a food bank.  If they need medicines, and the drugs they require to return to a healthy and (importantly) economically useful life are not approved, they should start their own charity.

And all this while our taxes have increased.

I don’t blame one party or another.  They have all taken over running this country from their opponents over the last 30 years, and while transitions are difficult, none of the governments I have lived through – survived through perhaps – have reduced the tax burden they so volubly condemned in opposition.  

So yes, I long for the day when Charities will no longer be needed.  I hope they do too. 

When we fight the last war, and bury our last hero, the Legion will be needed to fold the banners, hold them, and salute.  But no longer will they be feeding a starving ex-soldier in his dark, unheated slum. 

When the cure is found, Carcer Research will wash and pack away their Petrie dishes and clap themselves on the back for a job well done.  Redundancy would be a cheap price to pay for many of them for a life free from the fear of painfull, drawn out death.

When we finally find an equality we can share, Stonewall can fold its rainbow banners and retire in peace. 

When our government start serving us in the way we require, by providing those things we have already paid for, we can thank Charity profusely for its efforts, and smiling and waving close the door as it leaves.

I wish Peace and Heath to you all.

Coding for Failure: HSCIC & You.

There have been many recent announcements which could easily be cause for concern. Russia is standing fast on the borders of the Ukraine. Uganda have published the names of leading homosexuals in an effort to clamp down on something which is now, unbelievably, illegal. An ex-actor from The Only Way is Essex* ALMOST stepped in a puddle. Oh, alright, forget that last one. But, somewhat hidden in the daily mire of speculation, opinions and well-dressed adverts for the latest phone or makeup was little announcement regarding our medical records.

(*for readers in the US, think Jersey Shore without the class.)

I was first made aware of the potential problem through Facebook. Not, you might think, the first place a potentially life-changing bit of information would be posted, but rather insidiously it would appear that making a big song and dance about this subject was hardly high on the agenda for our healthcare leaders.

The essence of the scheme is simple. In order to ‘provide the best level of care’ and to enable developers of new techniques and medicines to work more effectively, our medical records will soon be shared with third parties. These interested groups would not, I have been assured, have access to the full details, but would see something called ‘Pseudonymised’ information – something I am not 100% sure can actually exist. As far as I can tell, this is to be organised by a group called HSCIC – Health and Social Care Information Centre.

So far, so good. If this works properly then I would remain unidentified and healthcare professionals throughout the UK would gain access to very important, extremely valuable data. Ah – valuable. Is that perhaps the point?

So, a few concerns perhaps.

The first one was triggered by the information that I was able to Opt Out of the system of data sharing by sending a brief letter in to my doctor, asking for my information to be withheld. Now, with information held on a centralised computer – the better to enable emergency care to be provided to me when eventually my luck cycling on British roads runs out – this withholding CANNOT take place at a local level. All this Opt Out will do is tick a little flag on the database, so that my information will not be included in the data sent to the interested third parties. As far as data security goes – and we all know how brilliant the people in this field are expected to be – there is nothing there to calm my rasping nerves.

Secondly, this system is supposed to be implemented in order to save lives. It is our healthcare bosses that are bringing this in, is it not? So you would think they take the saving of lives seriously. Well, I would. But the system is an opt-OUT choice. It is INCLUSIVE rather than the very EXCLUSIVE (opt-IN) Organ Donation system. It seems that the government finds the donation of data a far more important goal than, say, the hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, corneas and other hugely ‘valuable’ body parts that go to waste every day, because someone failed to opt in to the donation scheme. (I also find it disgusting that even when people HAVE opted in to the Organ Donor system, their family can override their wishes, but that is a rant for another time). Could it be, perhaps, that the harvesting and selling of organs is too squeamish a subject for our NHS ministers and leaders? The VALUABLE data they are getting, on the other hand, is perfectly saleable. If these people are serious about the importance of this information, and about saving lives, the very least they can do is make BOTH scemes either opt-in or opt-out. Stop the hipocrisy.

My next immediate concern was where the information could possibly go. Once you have a huge amount of data, it becomes a commodity. And with healthcare data, one direct and immediate customer is our beloved insurance industry.

(I’m going to have an aside here to mention what happened a few years ago, when the time came for me to renew my insurance. As usual, my premium had nearly doubled due to my insurance company once again taking advantage of the average person’s unwillingness to look elsewhere, so I did the usual thing of calling them to have a laugh, and get them to reduce it to a reasonable level. The phone jockey informed me that this was not possible, because of data from crash (sorry – incident) reporting they had received. I asked what he meant. It boiled down to this – in the past 12 months, the (rather rare and imported) model of car that I had chosen to drive had been involved in a higher number of accidents. Note – this was nothing to do with accidents involving MY car, just cars of this MODEL countrywide. This – in their eyes – increased the risk inherent in covering me to continue to drive my, undamaged, machine, and they had adjusted the figures accordingly. It was only when I pointed out that, due to the evidence of this data and the fact that I had NOT been involved in any collissions, I was by definition a SAFER driver than the rest that he shut up. I eventually found insurance cheaper elsewhere, which possibly showed that it was not industry statistics they were working on, but a small sub set – prehaps their own information?)

Anyhow – the point is this: The data has a value to our healthcare services because it can be used to target services, develop medicines and potentially reduce the long term burden on the NHS. I’m sure (spot the sarcasm) that it will also be responsible for reducing waiting times for vital operations, and will be of huge benefit to the nation as a whole. But who else will benefit? The other group who have an interest in the sharing of this data are those insurance companies. ‘Pseudonymised’ or not, by definition we remain identifiable – otherwise the data would have been called anonymous instead. And if we are identifiable, the insurers can adjust our individual premium accordingly. And here was I thinking insurance should be there to protect us. Soon, insurance will simply be unavailable to anyone who needs to buy it.

Then there is the issue of who will be maintaining and storing the electronic information – therefore who is also going to be doing the ‘pseudonymising’ of the raw data. So far, and based on past form, I do not trust any government department to be able to do this either efficiently or effectively. (NB – I did hear that ATOS would be in line for the contract but had to dismiss this out of hand. Quite apart from the competency gap – canyon perhaps – there would also be the massive conflict of interest with their Benefits screwing department to think of…)

So where is the optimism here then? Well, for one this I hope it will bring enough interest to bear on the conflict between saving actual lives and saving potential lives. This will allow the Organ Donor scheme to become Opt-Out, with the objections of families overruled in order to allow us to save lives and qualities of life immediately. And do it soon.

Secondly, we can now rally for a ban on sale of our raw, identifiable information to ‘Interested’ but unqualified third parties. If they can show a need for access, they should be able to provide the search terms to the data-holder, who can then provide them with the report they need, with all personal and identifiable information properly scrubbed.

Third, it will be a great opportunity for competent and properly safe data management companies to enter government service. You can’t be any worse than the people currently in charge, surely.

And failing that, we all need to opt out until such time as we can be confident that the corporations benefitting from our own information are the ones we want to succeed. Even actuaries should be in favour of this – after all it is their lucrative positions in the job market that are at risk.

We are, I think, at an important juncture. To continue regardless of the risk is greasing an already slippery slope to the full commercialisation of our health and wellbeing – all for our government to benefit from the lucrative ‘back end’ of data sales. To cancel the whole plan would impact the fantastic potential of our future healthcare services.

A more sensitive route is needed, and one which needs consideration. A message to those making the desisions should be clear. It is the same one my teachers used to write when I handed in badly considered homework, and should be delivered in the same patronising tone – “Not good enough – try again.”

The Egalitarian Principle.

There is a big problem I have with Feminism.  It’s the aim of feminism.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of equality. In fact, I genuinely believe that if equality was the aim, then feminism would be laudable.  Unfortunately, in many many ways, feminism is the antithesis of equality.

Historically society has been rather (or completely) misogynistic.  I think it is fair to call that statement a truism.  In many parts of the word this is still the case, with women being unable to hold positions of authority, driving licenses and even bank accounts.  A situation which most rational people will abhor.  However, arguing that in order to redress this historical inequality, we now should be condemning men for the roles their (and women’s) male ancestors played in the subjugation of females is surely as wrong as the historical paradigm.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but women’s rights have come a long way.  I’m not suggesting that we are in a position where women are treated equally, but I am suggesting that from now on, feminism should be discarded in favour of something far less discriminatory.  We need, instead of arguing for women’s rights, to be arguing for true equality.

There is a difference inherent in this distinction.  Feminists argue to increase the representation of women, while egalitarians argue for the best possible person to provide this voice.  In case the effect of this is not clear, consider the following:

We decide, in sport, to separate the male and female athletes.  In the final of the 100m Olympic races, we have 8 men competing against each other, and 8 women doing the same in in a separate race.  Why do we do this?

Well, if we look at the times for the two races, we would see that the last female winner – Shelley-Ann Fraser-Pryce was a very speedy (and well won) 10.75 seconds, which beats my best ever time by at least 6 seconds.  This would, however, have been far slower than the time required to progress from the heats stages into the men’s competition.  (She would have beaten the slowest man on the track, by over a second, due to a groin injury).

So, in athletics it makes sense to distinguish – that is to discriminate – between the sexes.  Failure to do so would result in many, if not all female athletes failing to qualify for the games in the first place, and would make a travesty of the culture of inclusion which the modern games have become.

But what would be the effect of requiring the final to be made up of 4 men and 4 women?  The answer should be obvious.  On average – certainly at the top level – we would see four men cross the line, followed by four women.

Translate this to everyday life, where we are not reliant on purely physical ability (and the mental stamina which I these athletes possess) and the effect is less dramatic, but just as obvious.  Let’s say we have a committee of 8 people, like the final of the 100 metres.  The committee is meeting to discuss the future investment in space exploration/genetics/renewable energy.  You get the idea, something potentially very important.

Now, in order to demonstrate our equality, we insist that half of those sitting on the committee are female.  What effect will this have on the ability of the committee to function effectively?

Let’s suggest that, of the applicants to join the Space committee, we are offered 30 senior NATOSAT scientists.  NATOSAT is a wholly made-up but faintly believable company, and the vast majority of their senior staff are male.  They are in their 50s and 60s, and joined the company in the 1970-80s at a time when few women were interested, or able to begin, a career in the aeronautics industry.  They put forward 26 men, and four women.  This is pure conjecture, but go with me.  We also have a number of applicants from a progressive company – make one up if you like – but it is far less male dominated than our fake NATOSAT.  They put forward a group of 15 men and 15 women.  We have a base group of 60 applicants for the 8 positions.

We hire a panel of judges, who screen the applicants for us.  We set them the task of identifying the best 8 people to make the decisions about the future of space exploration, and they do so purely on the basis of qualification, experience and the results of an examination.  They are completely unaware of the applicants’ genders.  They choose a panel of 8, six of whom are male and two are female.  This hypothetical result is based on a basic average weighting.

Now we introduce the rules of the committee – 50% of the panel members must be female.  Now we need 4 men and 4 women.  So, the two least suitable men – although better than at least all but 2 of the women – are told to pack their bags, and the two female runners up are called back to fill their places.

Many people may not see this as a problem, but I do.  You see, of the 60 applicants, only 19 were female.  Now we have a situation where – because of discrimination – two of the panellists can reasonably be expected to be a lower grade of applicant, and yet are working on the committee purely as a result of their gender.  I do not see this as a positive effect – in fact I see all discrimination as a negative.  If we rely on no discrimination at all, then the committee will be more effective, which has to be a positive thing, surely?

And another point.  Recently, the BBC made a statement that in future there would be no more all-male panels on comedy (and other) quiz shows.  I agree that in the past, they have often been testosterone heavy, and these comedy panel quiz events – from the aggressive and sometimes shocking (and great, by the way) Mock the Week and 8 out of 10 Cats, through interest-based gems (Buzzcocks et al) through to the rather more cerebral QI – have lacked a certain feminine touch.

Now, whether or not you agree with my diatribe above, you can at least see that there is an edge of discrimination in the BBC’s statement.  By dictating that one panel member must be of a certain gender, we are not only impacting the potential effectiveness but also tainting those people who are of that gender due to association with discrimination.

(In fact, and as an aside, Dara Ó Briain (host of Mock the Week and panellist on many of the other shows) was terribly misquoted within the last week, when he opined that the issuing of a statement was unnecessary and demeaning, possibly in the way I mention above.  Of course, in order to make a decent headline, this needed to be changed around a bit, and the Times thereby accused Dara of arguing against women appearing on panel shows.  I’m pretty sure that’s not what he was saying at all, but never let the truth get in the way etc…

I’m sure he had fun explaining that in 140 characters or less.)

So, how about trying to find a way forward?

First of all, I think we should do away with all discrimination.  Positive and negative.  Instead of a Minster for Women, why not have a Minister for Equality?  He or she could deal with all aspects of discrimination, whether it be due to gender, race, age or sexuality, and may actually be useful.

Look at how the gay-rights movement has worked.  Within the last few decades, perhaps since the 60s, the campaigners for equality of sexuality have really turned things around.  We are getting closer to a society in which I would like to live, where people are treated with compassion without reference to their preferences or their gender association.  We may not be there yet, but in 50 years, homosexuality has ceased to be illegal.  We now associate with a (fabulous?! (sorry)) section of society openly and without shame.  Gay men and women are serving useful roles in every aspect of our daily lives, and soon will be able to marry with the full rights that this brings.  How was this achieved?  Not by campaigning and demonstrating on a ‘Gay-is-Better’ or ‘Gay is more Natural’ platform, but one which instead included the straight world.  Equality was and is a goal, and I would like to think we get closer to achieving it every single day.

What next?  Oh, yeah.  Put men in to feminist politics.  Not all the way, not by stealth or legislation, but allow men to have an opinion on feminist issues.  Without doing so, you are alienating 50% of the population – something which the feminist movement has been arguing against for centuries.  Again, how far has feminism come in the same time as the LGBT communities?  It continues to be marginalised and ignored because it fails to engage with those people who believe in actual equality, very many of whom are men.

Moving on:  We should throw out the notion that women are reliant on men for their ideas of what femininity is.  The fashion and beauty industries are led and controlled in the main by straight women and gay men.  Beautiful ladies, let me say this to you: Straight men, on the whole, have less of an interest in the shade of eye-shadow you are wearing or the designer of your clutch, and frankly if you show an interest in us and are confident, we will not only accept you for who you are but we will also love you for it.  We love beauty, and it comes in many forms.  It’s the fashion media which is teaching you to hate your bodies and doubt your abilities.  Throw off these hurtful and damaging teachings and think for yourself.  No more reading tales of how all men are disgusting, all they are after is your body, and here’s how to make him want you even more.

Discard hypocrisy, and engage with everyone.  When someone asks if you are a feminist, say “No.  I am a egalitarian, and proud of it.”

The Entitlement of Opinion.

Right, here I am stating my opinion.  In a post about opinions, and how they are really not all that great a thing after all.  More than a little hypocritical, I will agree.

I do want to make a general point here about the validity of opinions, but before I do I think I should set out my stall a little more neatly than usual.  We are all entitled to our opinions.  There, I’ve said it.  We are all not only permitted, but within the context of education and society we are actively encouraged to hold opinions on everything from which football team is better to the inherent dangers of vaccination.

Unfortunately I think we go too far in pursuit of freedom of speech however.  We seem to have reached the very strange situation where not only is an opinion permissible, but the validity of each and every opinion is perceived to hold equal weight.  It has led, among other things, to the BBC offering “Half an hour of news and comment” instead of a proper news programme.  The Vox-Pop has suddenly the same impact as the professional opinions of the learned and qualified.  And I think that is dangerous.

While your freedom to speak your mind – whether banal and uncomplicated or offensive – is important to me, what you are actually saying (in many cases) is not.  If I want to hear opinions on the evolution of mankind, I will search out the missives of those who have studied it in depth, those who can quote not only the sound-bite and infamous generalities, but truly understand the impact they have.  Which is why, when I wanted to know more about genetics, I started reading Richard Dawkins.

OK, here’s where some readers will undoubtedly leave me, or at least cease to stand alongside me.  This man – largely but not universally upheld as a great scientist – causes a rift in opinion largely because his name is also synonymous with the great debate concerning religion.  As an advocate – sometimes very outspoken – of secular life in general and atheism in particular, he naturally is seen as the enemy of Christianity and organised religion.  And I couldn’t be more happy about that.  He was largely responsible for my own personal enlightenment, but I’ll gloss over that for the moment.

His works, in particular The Ancestor’s Tale and The Selfish Gene are not, specifically, a gospel for godlessness, but they do lead the reader to the natural conclusion that there need not be a god in order for life to exist.  In fact, in contrast to his assumed personality on Twitter and in situations where he is actively debating organised religion, he is positively welcoming the churchgoer.

So, here we have a credible vision of how the human race could have evolved.  An on the other hand, we have a performing monkey.  Sorry, that’s ridiculous.  Instead, we’ll have dictated creationism – the belief that the world came about EXACTLY as described in the bible.  Not much better than the monkey, possibly.  Now, I have studied the bible.  Well, I have read it and thought about the stories it contained, which is possibly more than most.  And from the earliest age I can remember, reading a children’s bible, complete with brilliant illustrations, I was unable to take it at face value.

Please bear in mind I was probably around seven or eight at the time.  At an age where distinguishing between allegory and truth – certainly that truth delivered by my parents or other notables who may have passed such a book on to me – was probably a tricky issue.  To me, it was a good story, presented in the same manner as Grimms Fairy Tales, or the works of Robert Louis Stevenson – bound and bedecked with beautiful pictures of animals, men (usually with beards) and women (usually without) frolicking in wild gardens and being unequivocally caucasian.

OK, so the issue of the first couple’s race didn’t bother me then, and nor does it now.  It’s a story.  That’s all it ever was to me, a great tale of people being thrown out of a garden, almost drowning, floating down river in a basket and parting seas which were actually red, rather than only being named as such.  As a child, I tried to assimilate the teachings it contained, and I don’t think my religious education did me any harm.

Right, on to the problem.  There are people out there, who call themselves Christians, who seem to take these writings as a literal truth.  What is written actually happened, just over six thousand years ago.  Now, we could look at their evidence in favour of this proclamation.  It’s written in a book, which indeed is based on some very old texts, some of which still actually exist.  We can choose to ignore the evidence presented which refute it – usually very effectively.  Any such written evidence is drawn from other, just as ancient texts, or from accounts of the meetings of the Councils of Nicaea etc, which ‘prove’ just as eloquently as the bible itself that the text we have now is in effect an “approved” text.  Some would think that were enough.

But no, they want more.  So we use something much newer to the majority of us than these parchments.  We use a combination of logic, reasoning, testing and review which lead the best thinkers of the ages to create ideas of how the world works.  They call these ideas Theories.  Which is probably where the scientists go wrong.

To the layman, including of course creationists, a theory is an idea.  The science community have a different word for this type of idea – they call it a hypothesis.  Once they have designed (all right, thought up) a hypothesis, they test it.  And the way they test it is not only to attempt to show it is correct, but also try (a lot harder in many cases) to show it is wrong.  Once they have tried it, and shown it is as right as they can make it, they give it to their mates.  Now, sometimes their mates are friendly, and other times they are more like the “frenemies” of modern parlance.  Either way, they try to mangle this hypothesis too.  Genuinely, they try as hard as possible to destroy the (often times life’s-) work of their muckers.  And if they fail, then the hypothesis becomes gradually more and more accepted.

Sometimes, indeed you could say often – it takes years for a hypothesis to become accepted.  Once it is, it is generally given the title of a Theory.  It’s still open for debate, and as methods of testing become more and more accurate, they can be shown to be wrong.  When they are, a new theory may arise to take its place.  It is, and always will be, the best possible answer.

Which leads me back to my main point.  Opinions.  When we want to attempt to see within a problem, or discuss a topic which may be controversial, it seems fairly reasonable to call on the most educated (and sometimes eloquent) among the multitude of opinions available to present the case for a particular theory.  And we listen in amazement as our world is – suddenly – more beautiful.

Then we go wrong.  It seems fair, in any debate, to call for a voice of dissent – an opposing view to counter the argument.  This happens even when the argument is as simple as “the sea is wet” but never mind.  My main problem is, the majority of opinions which are counter to the well thought out, and extremely well tested theories of evolutionary biology, and certainly the most vocal ones, are from the creationist church.  People with no genuine scientific interest in testing their ideas, or even discussing them at all.  And yet, because opinions are all believed to be valid, we have to accept every counter-point as a valid one, and even give credence and (tellingly) air-time to these people.

So, I feel slightly sorry for Dawkins and his troupe of well meaning and enlightened colleagues.  While he may have studied for decades to reach the peak of his field, and be considered a renowned expert by those whose opinion I’m sure he values, the general public’s opinion of him reflect what he is possibly best known for:  Arguing against god.

And because their opinions matter just as much, that will be the truth for years to come.

Now, he may be happy with that, and I would agree with many others that religion is the cause of so much suffering and pain worldwide, and that there is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural (note that I did not say this is evidence against god…) but I do think his work on gene-based evolution is one of the most beautiful works in modern scientific history.  And it has been overshadowed.

I don’t know Prof Dawkins, although I would like to meet him one day, I do have a couple of questions regarding speciation he may be able to answer.  I do however hope this man, who introduced us to the word meme and laid out probably the most credible explanation of our own origins, can eventually come to mean more than that to us all.  He is just one example of the way in which, because even uninformed, biassed and divisive opinion is now considered the most important trinket out there, our minds become clouded by disinformation and rhetoric rather than true learning.

I am, though, hopeful.  Science is enjoying yet another renaissance.  The age of the geek is upon us, and with modern society ever more reliant on those technologies which would not be possible without the science I love, I think the future may be one where opinions are weighted, more credible when they come from a reputable source.  Perhaps this is our opportunity to demand so.

So turn off the vox-pops.  Disregard the ‘balanced view’.  Listen to those who have shown they are trustworthy, and – above all – give yourselves and your children the tools to combat propaganda, hate, and fear of the unknown:  Education, patience and understanding.

Viva la Evolution.

The Art of NekNomination

Oooh – a craze – let’s blindly follow it.  Or not.  Either way, these internet-based phases are bound to rub some people up the wrong way.  Now, however, people are dying, and the resulting carnage is being blamed on a meme which is largely innocent.

For those who don’t know, let me explain what NekNominate is. Simply put, one person receives a nomination, has a drink (a pint of beer) on camera, and nominates two people to do the same.  They then post it on YouTube of Facebook.  Can you see now, why this is such a terribly dangerous activity.  For many years I have been going to the pub and having a pint, without realising that on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION I was dicing with death.  I thought I was enjoying a few refreshing suds.

But now parents across the country, indeed the world, are blaming this stunt – I will repeat – drinking a pint of beer – for the deaths of their kids.  Tragic it may be, but one pint of beer does not kill the huge, indeed vastest majority of people.  OK, if you have an allergy to the old booze, probably best not to do it.  But even the most featherweight of drinkers are not going to fall in to an alcohol induced coma as the result of a pint of the landlord’s finest.

No.  What IS killing these poor, backwards wretches is stupidity.  Fatalities come in a number of guises, but stupidity is a deciding factor in the majority of these.  Drinking a pint is drinking a pint.  It is NOT drinking a pint and then jumping in to a river.  It’s not downing a beverage, and then ‘chasing’ it with a bottle of vodka.  The one-upmanship is fine, but killing yourself in the process is really hoisting yourself by your own petard.  Or ‘retard’ – as The Thick Of It would have it, probably justifiably in this case.

A friend – who will remain nameless – dealt with his NekNomination in style.  He poured a pint of Guinness, waited for it to settle while explaining what NekNominate was, then drank said pint (in about two seconds – he may be sensible but he’s no slouch) and nominated two friends to continue the chain.  That was a textbook NekNominate.  Well done.  He didn’t then stab himself in the chest, drown himself by taking a walking holiday on the Somerset Levels, or have a drain-cleaner chaser.  In other words, he imbibed a pint, and then inexplicably failed to kill himself.  If only everyone else could be so sensible.

Losing a friend or family member so young is a tragedy.  I would like to say I was spared such anguish in my youth, but like the vast majority of us I lost my first friend before the age of 20.  A school friend dropped dead on a sunny weekend afternoon, and for a while the world became a darker place.  So no, tragedy did not leave me behind.  On the other hand, we didn’t seek it out either.  I know how some of these people are feeling, and I sympathise.  I really do.  But please, stop blaming these torturous, painful bereavements on a craze – it’s the stupidity which has taken its toll, not a nomination.  And blaming the person who nominated them is surely causing far more grief for them than it is saving for yourself.  Consider this – if you are a parent who has brought up a child who – when challenged to do so by a member of their peers – will jump off a riverbank in to a raging torrent, who has really failed here?

The question my mother used to ask on these sorts of occasions rears its little head.  “Well, if Gareth jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?”  I never knew this would be taken literally.

The only thing we can do to prevent these deaths is ban people from filming themselves having a drink.  I don’t see how that is possible within a free society.  Of course, a knee jerk parliamentary reaction may be to ban alcohol, which I am not willing to consider at the moment.  Or – and here’s a thought – stop being fucking idiots.

Here’s how I first phrased this on the demon Facebook:

“Drinking a pint can be dangerous if you inhale it. Downing a pint can kill you if it is overproof rum or everclear. Life has risks and we manage them using intelligence.

If you down a beer, that risk is tiny. Doing the same and then jumping in to a freezing cold river or running across a 6 lane highway increases the risk exponentially.

Neknominations may be a little childish, but they can be a bit of fun too. They don’t kill people. In fact, I’ve seen them done in an entertaining and mature way. Thanks for showing us the way, Chico. No, it’s not drinking 20 ounces of 4-6% abv beer (for US citizens, 2-4%) that kills people. Being a dickhead kills people.

So, when in doubt, remember this handy little guide:

Don’t be a knobber.

Simple, eh?

Enjoy your beer. Whatever speed you drink it at.”

CJ

Extended Optimism

Well, they’ve done it now.  A beautiful creature, one of the ‘Big Five’ no less, has been slaughtered in Copenhagen in the name of “Science”.  Now, before any readers jump to the wrong conclusion regarding my motivations for writing this piece, I should explain something:

I am not a hippy, vegetarian, animal rights protester or particularly squeamish.  Nonetheless, my initial response to the headlines was probably one of displeasure, even disappointment at the revelation that a creature was to be destroyed because of the accident of its birth.  Then I decided, on a whim, to try to see both sides of this story.

On the one hand, we have the Animal Rights lot.  Well meaning – well most of them – and with a loud voice too.  Their point – we don’t have the right to kill such a magnificent creature, and it is wrong to do so. There were also comments relating to the cruelty of zoos in general, and tying Copenhagen in with the infamous “Zoo of Death” in Indonesia.

On the other hand, we have the scientists, who were arguing quite cogently, if more quietly, that the zoo needed to clear space for the ongoing breeding programme, and that as a result their only option was to destroy the animal.

“Oh Yes,” cry Swampy et al, “why does he have to be killed?  Why can’t he go to another zoo, where he can be cared for?” – a question I immediately felt was both intelligent and obvious.  My ego shining through a bit there, eh?  Well, that has been answered too.  Apparently, the Giraffe in question is a very poor specimen, and in order to maintain a high quality of stock he should be destroyed in order to make room for other, better quality examples.  Therefore IF another zoo or wildlife park has the space available for this particular animal, then they should get another, BETTER giraffe in his place. To pull on emotional strings from another direction, it’s like choosing to breed a whole new generation of human beings using ONLY people who have appeared on The Only Way is Essex.

The argument boils down thus: On one side, the rights of every animal to life a decent life, and on the other, the need to best safeguard the species, including unborn generations, so that it can continue.

OK, so that’s the basics out of the way.  It sounds like I have made my mind up, and as a result, everyone can hang their own and either join in with me, or go to hell.

Not the case.

In fact, I think this particular one is so divisive, I couldn’t say for certain where anyone else would come down, including my floweriest of mates.  In fact, it’s so subjective, I am likely to be swayed by any reasonable argument right now.  One thing I think we can all agree on though, is that it would have been a lot better for everyone if this creature had never been conceived at all.  Except a few lions and other carnivores in Copenhagen zoo, that is.

Right – on to my point.

The big stumbling block here is that every side has made the mistake of thinking that the world agrees with them on some fundamental points.  The animal welfare lot think that the zoo and everyone they oppose is a mindless murdering bastard, bloodthirsty and wanting to kill for the sake of it, and that EVERYONE else is in love with the individual animal which was destroyed.

They use their own emotional response to judge whether something is right or not, and the reasoning of the zoo ‘professionals’ does not enter in to the equation.

On the other hand, the directors at the zoo rely on safe, scientific choices – they use blind reason in the same way as our tie-dye chums use their visceral responses, but without recourse to public ‘opinion’. (Please bear in mind that while I agree every individual has the right to hold an opinion, the rest of humanity has just as much right to ignore it.  When I want to build a power station, I will consult an engineer, not an arsonist with ‘a good idea’.)

Do I think one side is right and the other wrong?  No.  I think both sides could do with trying to empathise with the other.  The zoo should be considering the emotional response to this catastrophe, and the protesters should actually consider what the zoo is saying, without resorting to attacks on emotional levels.  The protesters were the ones publicizing this, and then they are the ones to complain that the zoos actions will cause offence to millions of people worldwide.  If it is the feelings of other people they wanted to protect, why publicise it in the first place?

The events, unfolding as they did in the public eye, were the outward symptoms of a tragedy which – once the animal was born – could not be avoided.  Either it would have to be destroyed to make way for other animals, or another, possibly better specimen, would never be born. One animal, or the species.  I’m not arguing that this was as simple as that, nor that this creature was the be-all-and-end-all, but where one comes down on that line is a personal choice, and how one deals with those on the other side of it is just as crucial as the arguments you use.

Perhaps science should consider the emotional needs of the world, or perhaps their opponents should at least listen to reason… There needs to be a middle ground.  I’m off to find it.  Bring a tent.