K2-18b

James-Webb Telescope in Relative Repose

Are we alone in the universe? Whether alone or in a universe teeming with life, both prospects are equally terrifying. To date, we have zero definitive evidence for the existence of life outside our terrestrial bubble. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an international research institution set up specifically to search for life in the universe and has been running for the past 41 years. Currently, it is estimated that over 50 billion US dollars have been spent on what many folk would contend is a fruitless and ultimately useless programme. The money would have been better spent on practical projects helping to sort out, or at least contributing to and ameliorating, the many problems affecting humanity. I will not become mired in the controversy here; suffice it to say that, in my opinion, it is money well spent.

Various techniques are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. My primary interest concerns 'life forms' outside our own solar system. In contrast, a sister research programme focuses on the possibility of life within the solar system. Of course, in this instance, the emphasis is on detecting lower life forms, akin to our Earth-bound bacteria. Indeed, our companion planets and our moon appear essentially inhospitable to life. An absolute requirement for the formation and propagation of life is the presence of liquid water. Liquid water only forms under restrictive physical conditions, and water, in liquid form, has not been unequivocally observed on planets within our solar system. However, there are indications that liquid water may exist on Jupiter's moons. Interest has centred upon Jupiter's satellite, Phobos, and the possibility exists that water may be present under occluding bodies of surface ice. Furthermore, other celestial bodies within our solar system might be viable candidates for the presence of life. I won't be discussing these possibilities today, as the purpose of this post is a tad more ambitious.

Today, I want to concentrate on the search for life outside our solar system. It is sobering to think that only within the last 30 years have we been able to detect planets belonging to stars within our Milky Way galaxy. Planets are commonplace, and most stars have their own collection of orbiting planets.   

Two methodologies are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. The most ambitious involves looking for advanced technological signs that would indicate the presence of highly advanced organisms at least as advanced as ourselves. There is also a more modest sister programme. In this instance, the researchers are looking for general biomarkers. It is possible to detect the presence of chemicals in a planet's atmosphere using spectroscopy. I'll not discuss spectroscopy here, although its discovery and methodology are worthy of a separate post. For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the device analyses electromagnetic emission spectra. By examining the spectra for specific absorption profiles, it is possible to determine the chemical composition of the source of the electromagnetic radiation. This is a powerful tool with applications in astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics.

There are a variety of organic compounds associated with life, albeit simple life. These chemicals usually cannot be formed by known inorganic, physical processes; therefore, their presence can be used as a general marker for the presence of life. A number of planets outside our solar system have recently provided promising results using spectroscopy. Although the results are indicative, they are often equivocal. However, in a recent paper, researchers claim they have detected a planet with a very strong set of biomarkers. Again, it needs to be stressed that these markers do not indicate advanced life and, if confirmed, are likely to be associated with primitive non-complex life forms. A Cambridge University team examined the atmosphere of a planet aptly named K2-18b and discovered a set of chemicals usually associated with simple bacterial organisms. This is another great discovery for the James Webb telescope. To date, it represents the strongest evidence for extraterrestrial life. However, it needs to be stressed that additional work is required for validation. 

The planet in question lies 124 light years from Earth and is roughly 2.5 times the size. In addition, the planet lies in the so-called 'Goldilocks Zone '.  This implies that temperatures on the planet are compatible with the formation of life and indicate the presence of liquid water. The atmosphere is analysed as the planet passes across its small red dwarf sun. Two chemicals have been detected, dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). Both of these chemicals are associated with phytoplankton found in the seas on Earth. If the results are confirmed,  the implications are profound. Intriguingly, the analysis suggests that the chemicals are in very high concentrations. These high concentrations are impossible to replicate in our terrestrial setting by non-biological means. From the report, the latest measurements provide a three-sigma certainty, which is tech jargon for a 99.7% certainty. Although this result provides strong evidence for DMS and DMDS, further confirmatory work is required before everyone gets too excited.

So what does all this mean? Even if the work is confirmed, this does not necessarily prove that life exists on K2-18b. While it is true that DMS and DMDS have previously only been linked to biological processes in a terrestrial setting, this does not rule out the possibility of a non-organic origin. There may be unknown physical forces responsible for this unusual chemical profile. Current research is focused on the possibility of producing DMS and DMDS under laboratory conditions without recourse to biology- watch this space. 

Although the results from this study provide the best evidence of extraterrestrial life, so far, extreme caution needs to be exercised. DMS has been detected on comets, which may suggest production by physical and chemical means alone, although past biological processes can not be ruled out. Let us assume that after the Astrobiologists have performed their due diligence, the results can only be interpreted as indicating the presence of life, albeit simple bacterial life. Of course, in reality, there is never absolute certainty in science, only a level of statistical validity.  With that caveat out of the way, let's speculate. The presence of extraterrestrial life would have fantastical implications. It would confirm our strong suspicion that independent life is possible elsewhere in the universe and suggest that the formation of life is inevitable given the right physical conditions. Our Milky Way Galaxy contains at least 100 billion stars, most of which contain orbiting planets. From a 2015 study, scientists have estimated that, on average, 1 to 3 planets exist within the habitable zone of their host star. Each of these planets is a possible incubator for life. Therefore, our galaxy should be teeming with life. Again, it must be emphasised that this does not necessarily mean we are inevitably dealing with the presence of sophisticated, technologically advanced life. I suspect that the probability of advanced life is extremely rare for reasons I will expound in a future post.   

References     

Nikku Madhusudhan et al. ‘New Constraints on DMS and DMDS in the Atmosphere of K2-18b from JWST MIRI.’ The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2025). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8 

 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society on March 18, 2015.

        

Carrhae II

Surena Sporting a Cool Tan and Hair Style

 Carrhae- Analysis and Aftermath

The battle of Carrhae was a decisive loss in the annals of Roman history. Of the confident army that crossed the Euphrates in 53 BC, 20,000 were dead, 10,000 captured, and only 5,000 made it back to tell the tale. 

Many leading Romans opposed the campaign, including Cicero, who claimed it was a war without cause. This was true, as a treaty existed between the two empires. Others claimed it was a war of aggrandisement, allowing Crassus to achieve military success equal to the other Triumvirs, Pompey and Caesar. Again, this is also true. His campaign route was also criticised. His senior officers strongly suggested that the invasion should occur through Armenia to secure that nation's significant military aid. Crassus coldly rejected the offer. He likely wanted an exclusive victory. A victory reliant solely on his own merit and the subsequent glory, Crassus didn't want to share. In this regard, Crassus was no different from a class of Romans on the treadwheel of the Cursus Honorum. The act of provoking war and chasing personal fame was inbred into aristocratic Romans. Honour and accolades awaited. The Parthians were a mere vehicle for Crassus's soon-to-be Triumph in Rome. But first, he had to swat away those pesky Parthians. Of course, the Parthians had other ideas and a well-honed battle plan.

The Roman political system was built for ambitious aristocrats to obtain money and secure honour, which could only be achieved by the force of arms. In this regard, Crassus was no different from Caesar, Pompey, and many other Romans. The clamour of approbation would have vanished if Crassus had achieved a solid military result.    

Crassus's worst mistake was not acquiring intelligence about his enemy. He had little knowledge of how the Parthians waged war and made no effort to rectify his mistake whilst on campaign. Crassus suffered from the belief that the Roman military system, once unleashed, was unbeatable. His gravest fault was hubris. Not acquiring crucial military information concerning your enemy is unforgivable in a commander, and Crassus would suffer accordingly. The Roman way of war consisted of set-piece infantry battles; however, the Parthians did not oblige in this instance. The Romans, unfamiliar with this type of warfare, as it consisted of cavalry archers adroitly managed, suffered accordingly. Surena showed his mastery of logistics by using camels as arrow bearers to replenish his mounted archers- the arrow barrage would continue to nightfall. The Parthians were skilled mounted archers who could shoot frontally and backwards on the feigned retreat. Although the Romans were heavily armoured and protected by the large scutum, inevitably, the arrows would find a mark. Publius' cavalry sortie was ill-considered. It was quickly surrounded and destroyed after being lured away from the main body of troops. It is telling that when Publius exhorted his cavalry to attack, his men protested, exhibiting their pierced hands and feet. 

Crassus was too trusting of his native guides and failed to unearth their motivations for providing help. In fact, they had been planted by the cunning Parthians to purposely lead the Romans astray (silly Crassus).  He was lured into the waterless desert, a terrain perfect for Surena's horse archers. The treacherous Arab guide, Ariamnes, also assured Crassus that the opposing Parthian army was relatively small in number and posed little threat to the mighty Roman legions. Again, during Crassus' final retreat, he was lured into unfavourable marshland by treachery.

No doubt, Crassus was a fool for not accepting Armenian help. The Armenians could supply 36,000 troops, and an invasion from Armenian territory benefited the Romans. Surena would have had difficulty enacting the battle on favourable terms due to the hilly terrain, which was totally unsuited for cavalry. Also, the Armenians knew the territory well and would have guided the Roman army along the most advantageous route into the Parthian heartland. Furthermore, the Armenians were well aware of the battle order of the Parthians and their reliance on horse archers. This knowledge would have served the Romans well and helped formulate troop dispositions. Although the Romans had encountered horse archers before, these experiences were little more than skirmishes. The battle of Carrhae was the first time a Roman army faced a massed cavalry army entirely devoted to archery.

Crassus was complacent. The Romans had previously faced off against eastern armies and generally had defeated much larger armies with relative ease. Crassus, therefore, underestimated the Parthians—a grievous fault in any general. Ultimately, his overweening confidence contributed greatly to his downfall. This is particularly puzzling as Crassus was no novice to war. Indeed, he was deemed a competent soldier and was responsible for finally ending the Third Servile War led by the legendary Sparticus. However, this victory occurred decades ago in 71 BC.     

Aftermath

This was a decisive Roman defeat, and with the defeat came lost prestige. Also, seven Eagle Standards carried by the legions had been lost to the enemy, a major disgrace for Rome. The standards were finally returned in 20 BC after negotiations with the Parthians mediated by Augustus.

The Triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar had been a difficult political balancing act. Crassus' death changed the political dynamic, and soon, Caesar and Pompey would go to war to vie for ultimate power in Rome. The scene was set for the dreadful and debilitating Civil War of 49-45 BC. The aftermath signalled the death of Republican Rome and the introduction of Imperial Rome. In addition, Rome's ambitions in the east were curtailed, and the Parthians took advantage of the defeat by invading Rome's ally, Armenia. This placed the Parthians in a favourable position to invade Roman-held Syria. Initially, they were beaten by Cassius, he of Caesar assassination fame. Over the next two decades, Parthia invaded the Roman East at will, occupying Syria twice. The Parthian victory ended the concord between these two great empires and placed the Roman province of Syria under grave danger for decades.

Conclusion

Crassus's bid for vainglory not only ended in personal tragedy but also brought grave consequences for Rome. Rome's perceived invincibility was no more. It also precipitated the collapse of the Republican system that had served the Romans well for many centuries and hurried the arrival of one-man rule. The defeat broke the peace with the Parthian Empire, and the following incursions by the Parthians into Roman-held territory would be the source of much mischief and calamity for the Romans for years to come. Thus, Crassus' defeat had profound implications for Rome and ultimately would set the scene for great misery, death and destruction.

Footnote

Suruna, the Parthian general at Carrhae, did not survive long following his great victory. Unfortunately, he was seen as a threat to the incumbent Parthian monarch, Orodès II, and was thus unceremoniously dispatched.   

 

  

Carrhae Part I

Parthian Shot

Rome of 59 BC was in a state of political flux. The Republican system was coming to an end. Ambitious Romans were vying for ultimate rule. The first Triumvirate, which consisted of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, was an informal association between these talented, rich and powerful men. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, while Pompey was a highly successful general. Caesar was the junior member of the group, but the other two recognised Caesar's undoubted political and burgeoning military ability. The idea of the Triumvirate was to influence and dominate the political scene using their wealth and political reach. They utilised this combined power to ensure each member was assigned a province to maximise their political ends. In 55 BC, Crassus secured the governorship of Syria. At this time, Caesar was busy conquering Gaul while Pompey was sent to govern Spain,

Although Crassus was extremely rich and immensely influential on the political scene, he wanted to increase his gravitas by a spectacular military victory. He felt inferior to his two political colleagues in this regard. Pompey was an acclaimed general with many important victories under his belt, and Caesar was making a name for himself during the conquest of Gaul. That said, Crassus was no military slouch himself, although his greatest feats were decades ago- he needed to burnish his military reputation with a great victory.  It was no secret that once ensconced as the governor of Syria, Crassus intended to provoke war with the powerful Parthian empire to the east. Thus, in the autumn of 54 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates River with an army of 50,000 men. He quickly overcame several towns in Mesopotamia. Many of the towns in the region contained a large Greek contingent sympathetic to Rome, greatly aiding his success. After leaving garrisons in the subdued towns, he retreated back over the Euphrates and retired into winter quarters. Crassus was puzzled. During the campaign, the Parthian army was nowhere to be seen, leaving the Roman army unmolested.

Whilst in winter quarters, Crassus was approached by the king of Armenia. The king offered to supply 36,000 men for the campaign if Crassus invaded Parthia from Armenian territory. Undoubtedly, the wily Armenian king hoped his help would aid in annexing territory from the Parthians. The alliance made good military sense, but was rejected by Crassus. Perhaps Crassus did not want to share and dilute his military victory by invoking the help of a foreign power. Thus, Crassus crossed the Euphrates again in the summer of 53 BC. It was hoped that this time he could provoke the Parthians to battle, undoubtedly securing a decisive Roman victory and bringing glory and accolades that Crassus thought were rightly his. However, the Parthians had other ideas. A traitorous Arab guide persuaded Crassus that the best route was through desert territory, but this was a ploy to draw out the Romans into a waterless wasteland.  

The Roman way of making war was the standard Western method of war inherited from the Greeks. Large infantry armies would face off and engage while cavalry occupied a subordinate role. Here, Roman discipline, training and arms would prevail over the ragtag Eastern army. Once again, Roman arms would sweep all before it- a new Roman province would be born. While marching east, Crassus' scouts encountered a Parthian army on its way to battle. Crassus' day of glory had arrived. But unlike his expectations, he was not to face an infantry army. The army, 10,000 strong, was mostly comprised of mounted horse archers. The remaining contingent consisted of heavily armoured horsemen (Cataphracts).           

To counter the archers, Crassus had his men form an open square. In this way, he sought to avoid envelopment as he continued his march. The archers surrounded the Romans and shot volley after volley into the Roman square. The large scutum carried by the soldiers protected them well from the arrows, but an arrow would occasionally find a foot or hand. Crassus surmised that the arrow storm would soon end as the archers exhausted their supply of missiles. However, the cunning Parthian general, Surena, had ensured that his men would be well supplied as he had organised teams of camels laden/burdened with replacement arrows. Crassus hadn't bargained for this continuous barrage, and the casualties were starting to add up. It must have been infuriating for the troops as they could not reply. At this stage, Crassus reasoned that the only way to get to grips with the enemy was to utilise his cavalry. Under Crassus' son, Publius, the cavalry stormed out of the square. In response, the archers took flight and retreated. As the archers retreated, they twisted and delivered a backwards parting shot. This technique became known as the 'Parthian Shot'. The retreat was a feint, and soon Publius and his men faced archers and heavy Parthian cavalry. The Roman troop became surrounded, and in desperation, Publius beseeched one of his men to kill him lest he fall into the clutches of a cruel enemy. The defeat became known to Crassus when a lone Parthian rider paraded in front of the Roman line holding Publius' severed head.   

At the sight of his son's detached noggin so carelessly displayed, Cassius suffered a bout of 'Nervous Prostration' and lost the will to command.  Two legates took control and issued orders for a night march back to Roman-controlled territory. As night fell, an eerie silence descended upon the Roman camp as the Parthians called a halt to all offensive activities. The Romans took advantage of the lull and set out in the dark, desperately seeking to reach friendly lines. It was a pitiful sight as the wounded were abandoned, knowing that morning would bring certain death.   

By the morning, the battered remnants of the Roman army had reached the Roman-held town of Carrhae. During the night march, wounded men and stragglers had been left behind only to fall into the hands of a vengeful enemy in the morning. Eventually, the Parthian general, Surena, arrived outside the town and demanded that Crassus be sent to him in chains. It was deemed that the town could not be defended from the Parthians, and Crassus decided that his men should split up into separate groups and make a forced night march to reach the Euphrates. However, a traitorous guide led Crassus's ragtag army into a swamp. Under these dire conditions, the Romans took refuge on a hill. In the morning, Crassus agreed to treat with the Parthians. Surena offered safe passage from Parthian territory if Crassus signed a peace treaty. During the meet, the Parthains placed Crassus on a horse draped in rich trappings, clearly mocking Crassus for his wealth. The Roman party recognised the insult, and a fight broke out between the opposing troops, and during the melee, Crassus was killed. It is said that molten gold was poured down Crassus' mouth, but this report is likely hyperbole on behalf of the reporter.    

This post is already too long, and I haven't started on my analysis. It will have to await until the next post, coming soon.            

Ancient Folk and Big Stones

This post was inspired by a YouTube video I watched about a Mesoamerican site earlier today.

The author was examining the massive granite blocks at the site, some of which weighed 120 tons. In addition, these stones had been quarried 2.5 miles from a mountain, moved across a river, and then moved uphill to their final resting place. This feat of engineering would be a challenging endeavour today, given modern engineering tools and technology. Yet, a pre-metal culture managed this problem on multiple occasions.  Graham Hancock etal would argue that this was not the work of Mesoamerican Indians but a lost civilisation (c12,000 years ago) applying advanced technology. This is a serious argument that needs addressing. 

Some support the proposal that there were technologically advanced civilisations before our present system. These civilisations existed thousands of years ago (?12,000) but were destroyed by a cataclysmic event, erasing all trace except for the monolithic stones that stand today. They often point to various authors of ancient pedigree who discuss and narrate oral traditions that existed in their day. The most famous of these authors is Plato and his presentation of the lost Atlantis.   

Let us look at the claims objectively. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 300 thousand years. These folk were as intelligent as anyone gracing Tipton High Street today (may the gods help us!).. The first civilisation, which we know, occurred around the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. We might ask what humans were doing before this time, and, given the time involved, why didn't a civilisation arise before this period and flourish?  And when I mean civilisation, I mean a highly technologically advanced civilisation, perhaps even more advanced than today. Is this unreasonable given the time scale involved? Remember, much of our technical advances have been achieved over a relatively short period of 200 years. All traces of a civilisation from 12000 years ago would now be lost. Metals would corrode and deteriorate, and even persistent plastic would degrade. The only structures left are the colossal stone works that we observe today, scattered throughout the globe. It is a compelling argument, but it suffers from two fundamental problems.

Any technologically advanced civilisation requires a substantial energy source. That energy resource must come from fossil fuel exploitation—coal, oil, and oil-refined derivatives such as petrol. Natural sources of energy simply won't do the job. They are too dispersed and geographically isolated. Before the introduction of nuclear fission, oil/petrol was by far the best energy resource we had. This is because these products, especially petrol and diesel, are highly energy-dense. For instance, the energy available in a litre of petrol is 33 megajoules and is only exceeded as an energy source by diesel (39MJ/L). It is hard to comprehend how an advanced civilisation would not have exploited the large reserves of fossil fuel at least during its initial stage of development.  Now here is the rub: there is no evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels were extensively extracted until the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. No doubt, coal was mined by the ancient Chinese and the Romans, but not to the extent that would be required to fuel the vast energy requirements of the 19th century and beyond. The same applies to oil utilisation. In certain regions, natural oil deposits bubble to the surface, and the ancients capitalised on these easily obtained resources. The point is that there is no geological evidence for extensive mining of coal or oil extraction by an unknown, very ancient, advanced civilisation. If there had been heavy exploitation from a lost age, c10000 BC, it would have certainly left a 'geological imprint' readily observable today.

My second point also relies on geology to a large extent. It is hard to consider an advanced civilisation without metallurgy. There is only so much that can be achieved with stone and wood. Metal and metal ore mining is a game changer in the evolution to become an advanced technological civilisation. Imagine a combustion engine made of wood and stone.. Metalworking is essential, particularly the science of blending metals to form alloys—alloys with particular and peculiar properties designed to overcome a specific engineering problem. Again, as with the energy issue, there should be evidence of large-scale ore exploitation going back to before known civilisation, and this is simply not the case. Gold and copper appear in their pure form on the surface or in river beds and thus were utilised by humans (c7000 BC). The first mining shafts to extract copper ore were found at Rudna Glava in the Balkans (c4000 BC), and by 3800 BC, copper mines had been excavated on the Sinai Peninsula. By 2800 BC, tin was also mined, bringing forth the amalgamation of copper and tin to herald in the Bronze Age. Iron was first mined and utilised by the Hittites (1500 BC), and further processing of iron to steel came forth in the 11th century BC. Aluminium extraction and widespread usage did not occur until the end of the 19th century. While bauxite, the ore containing aluminium, was mined for various uses in the ancient world, its extensive mining did not come about until modern times. Thus, there is no evidence in the geological record for extensive metal ore mining before known ancient cultures and certainly not the exploitation required to maintain a highly developed technological society. The evidence is in the stone. 

My final point concerns perceptions relating to our ancient ancestors. For Hancock and similar folk, an insulting stain spreads throughout their thesis. There is an underlying insinuation that known ancients were somehow inferior in intelligence to ourselves, and of course, to a lost civilisation from 12000 years ago. And this is not the case. The ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and other ancients were smart, and though they might not have had our advanced tech, they were not devoid of advanced ingenuity. Nuff said. What do my readers think?       

   

Da Papa is no more

An Old Man in a Silly Hat

I must be living in a closet of indeterminate dimensions. Yesterday, we were visited by a couple of old friends. As an aside, I am not an individual overly endowed with close mukkas. I am the archetypal loner, and I have always been so as far as I can remember. I firmly believe you should have no more friends than fingers on the left hand after a chainsaw accident. Anyway, back to the thrust of this post.

During the conversation, my friend mentioned the recent demise of the Pope. My mate expressed surprise that this was news to me. In truth, this important world event occurred without my knowledge, and my friend expressed incredulity about my ignorance of events of such cosmic importance. He has a point, as I spend a good portion of the day wedded to my laptop. Even though I use the internet to its fullest, I ignore the news snippets that appear when using Gogle. Of course, I'm aware of the images and headlines accompanying the text, but both remain blurred and unread. I have noted that lately, the images are predominantly of the Trumpanator. And yes, I'm vaguely aware of worldwide consternation concerning Trump's tariff revision. 

I purposely avoid interacting with the News for a variety of reasons. First, the news thrust upon me without my consent or choice is clearly sensationalised and, for the most part, exaggerated. Sensationalism is the order of the day, and solid facts and clear-headed interpretation are not of prime importance. There is also a consistent theme of 'Doom and Gloom', which I find depressing. You may think that my 'Ostrich head in the Sand' posturing is unhealthy and leaves me uninformed of earthshaking world events. That, of course, is simply true. However, with that said, 99% of what happens on the world stage impinges on my well-being, not at all. New Zealand is unique among Western countries in several ways. We are isolated geographically from our nearest neighbour, Australia, which is 3,000 miles away. This isolation fosters a self-sustained insularity which is both maddening and endearing in equal measure. For instance, I occasionally, whilst driving, am subjected to the news summary blaring from the radio. Invariably, the news is about New Zealand; rarely are we exposed to international reporting. At least 50% of the news report is dedicated to sport, mostly rugby. 

So, the Pope is dead, and no doubt the Cardinals will gather in conclave and vote in another incumbent to the See of St Peter. The Pope is dead; long live the Pope. His Holiness's inauguration will be an ostentatious affair resplendent with pomp and ceremony. What would Jesus make of such a gawdy, flamboyant show? An expensive display of anachronistic pomposity, and fatuous at that. How relevant is this theatre compared to Jesus' simple message of love, charity and forgiveness?  I don't think he would be impressed.

 

The Mugumbo Abduction

Artist Rendition of the Mugumbo Abduction

Breaking news from the metropolitan domain of Tipton, incorporating Netherton West and Stewpony. Mr Enoch Mugumbo a frequent patron of the local hostelry, the Felching Ferret, claims that he is oft visited by aliens and has been abducted on multiple occasions. In his own words, take it away, Mr Mugumbo: "As was my wont, I was engaged at imbibing copious amounts of, 'Ole Nipple Blurter' Ale' in the snug at the Felching Ferret public house. After partaking in the consumption of 15 Imperial pints of fine ale, 12 pickled whelks, 8 pickled eggs and a packet of crisps, I decided to wend my way home to 12 Acacia Avenue, Tipton. To assuage my nagging ravenous pangs, I went to Pong's Korean Buffet and home for stray dogs. The restaurant has a succulent selection of salivating, inducing savouries with a canine edge. I chose a menagerie of delicacies, including Poodle noodles, Chow main, Bolognese sauce with Collie vegs, washed down with a Mango Lassie. For dessert, I chose a collection of Maltesers and Afghan biscuits. The establishment owner took extreme umbrage when I failed to come forth with the required monetary equivalent to pay for my comestibles. As I left, he screamed obscenities in a dialect of unknown provenance. As I continued my way home, a flashing blue light assailed my eyes, and three alien beings suddenly manifested and impeded my further/future progress. They were bizarre creatures indeed. Naked and totally blue with large conical heads. A guttural speech emanated from one of the creatures: 'whatsallthiserethen'.  I bravely stuttered back, take me to your leader. They bundled me into their spacecraft and whisked me away to a destination unknown. At this point, I became overcome by extreme lassitude, and when I awoke, I was deep in the bowels of the alien spacecraft. Here, I became the object of their arcane, outre experiments. At one point, I was viciously anally probed by an alien with the mysterious and otherworldly name, 'Luggerlessdugless'.  After the aliens had obtained all the information that could be extracted by rectal examination (sans vaseline), they discarded me on the local Tipton midden pile. I awoke in a pitiful state, my head and arse aching aboninably from alien rays and alien probe technology". 

After this, Mr Mugumbo's testimony tailed off, although he did ask for 50 bob for beer, Preparation H and the funds to further his research into alien abductions and rectal reconstruction.  

From what we can determine, these out-of-this-world aliens came from a star system far away in the constellation Tiptonpolicestation. The hunt continues.

Reconstruction of the Aliens. Note the Probing Instruments

Arse, big sore, ARSE...

Neolithic Violence

Ancient Modern Art

There is an idea that the days of yore were somehow idyllic. I'm not talking about the Middle Ages or two thousand years ago. Any attentive student of history would be aware that such times were far from wonderful for 95% of the population. I'm talking about the proverbial 'Cave Man'. Those endowed with a wild imagination depict Neolithic humans as subsisting on berries and embracing others in an all-encompassing commune of love and peace. This quirky ancient depiction was once popular with the hippy, ultra-left-leaning types. It is as if they want the ancients to be a reflection of themselves. However, scholars have known for quite some time that this utopian depiction is complete fiction/utter bollocks.

Conveniently, we have no written records from the Neolithic period of our ancestors' existence. That said, we have images left on cave walls exquisitely rendered in ochre and charcoal, documenting everyday life. Some depict hunting scenarios, while others show obvious armed conflict between distinct groups. Humans have always had a great propensity for violence, even more so in the 'Dawn' of our existence. Aggressive behaviour is etched in our genes. In our remote past, natural selection favoured those males who were able and willing to inflict bloodshed on others. Violence is a successful life strategy. This is particularly so when resources become limited or difficult to obtain. Natural selection is not interested in what is morally or ethically sound or fair. It is just concerned with the reproductive fitness of an individual. 

Archaeology has uncovered graves from the Neolithic period, where it is clear that a significant number of the deceased were the recipients of violence inflicted by others. A recent study in the journal PNAS published in 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209481119) examined 180 sites in northwest Europe, dated 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. Analysis of 2,300 skeletons found that 10% exhibited signs of violence inflicted by weapons. Some of the sites showed mass burials indicative of whole communities being destroyed. In certain instances, there was evidence of torture before death. Many of the graves showed a dearth of young females. The likely reason will not sit well with ardent feminists. The victors were likely sparing the young women for their own carnal purposes.  

Can we obtain wisdom from primate behaviour, especially from those species with which we have a close genetic affinity? Our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is the only known animal species to exhibit warlike tendencies (wot about ants?). Chimpanzee troops, which range from 20 to 150 individuals, control a territory and jealously guard the resources therein. They actively patrol perimeters, and incursions are met with gleeful violence. They are known to dismember intruders and will continue to violate their corpses over time. Groups of males are known to raid their neighbours' territory, selectively attacking lone males, females or juveniles. An instance recorded by biologists (1974-78 see Gombe Chimpanzee War) documented a conflict between neighbouring troops. Over 4 years, the larger group systematically targeted and ambushed lone males from the second group. Eventually, the smaller troop was vanquished, as all its members were killed or migrated elsewhere. The victorious troop then incorporated the now vacant territory into their own. Chimpanzees ape (sorry) our warfare behaviour in many regards, such as employing tactics and setting ambuscades. They differ in not hefting weaponry (yet).

Back to Neolithic Homo Sapiens...

Interestingly, this era of intergroup human conflict coincided with the advent of farming and crop cultivation in these regions. Is the change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to a cultivation/farming existence significant somehow? The settled existence based on crops and domesticated animals undoubtedly offered advantages unknown to the hunter. The hunter-gatherer life was precarious at best. The settled life involving crop cultivation and the art of animal husbandry offered a reasonable degree of resource 'certainty', allowing for the accumulation of excess foodstuffs. With excess comes population growth. However, there are disadvantages to the sedentary circumstance. The new way of living ensured that the people were tied to their patch of land, and the excess generated had to be protected from avaricious hunters who covetously watched from the periphery. This new way of living, based on land cultivation, resulted in accrued generational wealth. For the first time in prehistory, we see social stratification based on accumulated commodities such as land and livestock. And thus, this not only contributed to intergroup violence but also intragroup violence. 

At this time of societal change, we observe a concomitant loss in male genetic diversity throughout the late Neolithic. Analysis of Y-specific chromosome sequences has shown that over a 2,000-year period, there was a downturn in male genetic diversity, indicating a cumulative loss of 95% of the male population. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA did not mirror this loss, suggesting that female diversity was unaffected. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this selective population loss. However, the most compelling proposal cites violence between patrilineal 'War Bands'. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6). According to this analysis, individual groups would be expected to exhibit a high degree of intragroup genetic homogeneity amongst the males, suggesting a 'founder effect' whereby the genes from a relatively small number of males subsequently dominate the group over generations. This model refutes the notion that distinct groups were composed of unrelated males during the late Neolithic. Computer simulations involving several different initial starting parameters support this hypothesis. This does not mean that intense and widespread warfare was continuous. The important point is that change occurred over a relatively long period. The trend would involve large patrilineal groups progressively dominating (annihilating) smaller groups over time. This tendency would aggregate, resulting in a pernicious decline in male genetic diversity. My explanation is a gross oversimplification of complex processes operating over time. For edification, please refer to the Nature article in the link. Admittedly, this paper is highly complex, long and technical- good luck.

The 17th-century savant Thomas Hobbes described life before the development of civil society as "nasty, brutish and short", and he seems right. The average lifespan was calculated to be 35 years, and clearly, intergroup conflict was a significant factor influencing lifespan. The transition from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled agrarian existence did not happen overnight. There was a period in prehistory where both lifestyles coexisted, but not peaceably. Eventually, the settled lifestyle prevailed, possibly due to the increase in population size it could support. At this time, farmers started to dig defensive ditches and raise earthbanks to thwart raiders. It was a tough life, and the loss of male diversity is a testament to our vicious past. We are the survivors of this crucial period in prehistory. It cannot be denied that Homo sapiens has an inordinate capacity for great violence. Studies concerning our latest shared ancestor, the chimpanzee, illustrate that intraspecies violence is ingrained in our genetic makeup stretching over aeons- but not all researchers would agree.   

I'll finish with an illustration of a somewhat controversial theory proposed by Dr David Carrier in 2015. The biologist conducted numerous studies on cadaver arms and boxers (whole live bodies in this instance). He noted that of all the animal species, Homo sapiens appears to be the only one capable of the 'balled fist' characteristic of the typical pugilist stance. His research determined that the balled fist with the overlapping thumb was optimal for preventing damage to the fist during strikes. Also, the fist is optimal for delivering blows reminiscent of wooden ball-ended clubs. Dr Carrier argued that selective evolutionary pressure might be responsible for this unique anatomical finding in man. Furthermore, he contends that humans have evolved “a suite of distinguishing characteristics that are consistent with the idea that we’re specialized, at some level, for aggressive behaviour.” Critics point out that teleological explanations* often fall short in science as they ignore the randomness and complexities inherent in natural systems. A goal-oriented model tends to oversimplify, assuming intent or design where none exists.           

The debate about whether we are innately genetically programmed for violence or whether cultural and environmental factors prevail can get rather heated. Clearly, the question has political and sociological implications. Some feel that to accept that we are genetically predestined for violence is a rather bleak analysis and prognosis for our species. Regardless of the underlying mechanisms involved, whether nurture or nature predominants, it cannot be denied that Homo sapiens, based on circumstances, have an inordinate capacity for violent and even cruel behaviour. On that depressing note, I'll end.   

*Teleology definition: Explanations are based on the idea that systems are working toward a final form. The use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena. Teleological concepts were first considered by ancient Greek philosophers and are particularly associated with Aristotle. Teleological explanations are much beloved by religious apologists as evidence for an overarching causal entity they call god. For instance, we live in a highly complex natural world. This end could only have been achieved by god working toward this goal. This explanation directly contradicts a solution based on naturalistic selective processes, culminating in change and complexity. An example of teleology in biology: Grass species exhibit continual growth to provide herbivores with a predictable and constant food resource. To my eternal intellectual discredit, I used a similar argument in an essay concerning the coevolution of herbivores and plants. To compound my shame, at the time, I was not a 'green as grass' first-year undergrad but a postgraduate working towards a Master's degree; the shame burns hot even today. 

    

     

Flaxen Babbling About Life and Death, Once Again

Looks a Bit Like My Mate Barry After a Night on the Ale

I've touched on this topic previously in my blog. The meaning of life, and of course, death, should intrigue everyone, and to a certain extent, it does. Regarding death, most folk barely scratch the surface of the problem without digging deep. It comes as a dark thought (or dream) when we wake at 4 am slathered in cold sweat. Philosophers have pondered this intertwined duality of life/death for the past 2,500 years without any clear answer. If you want certainty, then you must turn to religion. Depending on the religion concerned and the denomination, the answer is different. Consider Judaism. Interestingly, unlike most religions, Judaism focuses heavily on this life, and their conception of the afterlife is often vague or none existent. Their Tanakh, the Christian Old Testament, is virtually bereft of commentary about what happens when we die. Apparently, due to Jewish tradition, we all have souls that leave the body at death. What happens after that is somewhat murky. Ask the Rabbi, but don't expect a clear answer. Christian tradition is murky as hell. This is where Judaism meets Platonic philosophy. But it is not apparent to the simple believer. The Priest and Vicar know this but are reluctant to share. Christianity has inherited the nebulous soul from Judaism but can be vague on its post-mortem destination. That's not strictly the case. Some Christian denominations are reassuringly certain about what happens. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance; righteous JWs receive heaven on Earth except for the 144,000 elect who go to heaven. The rest of humanity is annihilated- seems fair. According to the folk who collect this information, 61%  of Americans believe in an actual Heaven and Hell; no comment. Considering how many Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, they can be surprisingly inarticulate about what happens in the actual and final destination. This is interesting as, according to tradition, they are expected to reside there forever. Tis strange that some Christians believe their god to be just and benevolent but are happy to accept that sinners deserve to be punished for eternity. Likewise, Heaven is seen as a place of perpetual bliss. Surely, eternal bliss must become staid and banal after a couple millennia. 

Hinduism is highly explicit when it comes to what happens when we die. According to the Garuda Purana, the soul leaves the body at death. What happens to the soul depends on the accumulated karma achieved when alive. Most fall short, and the soul enters another body for reincarnation. Those souls that have accrued sufficient karma merge with the Divine (? enter Heaven), and the life/death cycle ends. There is also a concept of Hell for the very naughty. Hell has gradations of nasty experiences. But unlike the concept of Christian Hell, the punishment is not eternal and is a means of purification. Once purified, the cycle of rebirth/death continues. That is enough comparative religion and the notion of an 'active' or 'redemptive' afterlife. 

My Own Observations and Tentative Musings

The only certainty in life is death. As I grow old, I contemplate that I won't be here one day. As for the 'Meaning of Life', I've concluded that it is what you want it to be. For me, our existence has no meaning or sense of purpose. My existence is just a colossal cosmic accident. When pondering the statistics involved in the chance of any particular individual's existence, we must simply gape and stand in awe. And yet I am here. Like Descartes, I know I exist. Of that, I'm sure. As for others, there is always an element of doubt. To stave off the horrors of solipsism, I am happy to accept the existence of others unless future data suggests otherwise.

I'm not afraid of Death. I'm afraid of dying. I don't want to die as my father did. I want my demise to be swift and pain-free. As for what happens when I die, I have to say, if I'm going to be intellectually honest, "I don't know". The empirical evidence is lacking for a definitive conclusion. But that said, I can take a judicious guess.  According to all the empirical evidence, the seat of consciousness is tied inexplicably to the organic brain. I'm aware of the philosophical stance concerning mind/body duality that separates consciousness from the physical realm. I am not convinced this is a true reflection of reality and remain unrepentant in my conclusion. Without this 3 lb of organic matter between my ears, I would be one with none existence. 

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are oft-touted as evidence of an afterlife. We are familiar with the dark tunnel and the bright light scenario. Perhaps a dead loved one comes to mind, or maybe a religious figure dependent upon the person's religious affiliation. I'll not dig down on the neurobiology and psychology of NDEs here. It is enough to state that we can disregard NDEs as data for a continued existence after death. Although the heart may have stopped, and while that may have been sufficient to confer the state of death in earlier, less technological and scientific times, it is not considered a definitive metric these days. To state the bleeding obvious: NDE patients do not die. No matter how heartfelt the testimony, their anecdotal outpourings should be dismissed.

Before we were born, we were nonexistent. To ask what it was like before we were born is both obtuse and ridiculous. Whether extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere is uncertain, as we have zero evidence for life outside our small terrestrial bubble. I suspect that life elsewhere is scarce but likely. However, I suspect that complex life with the gift of 'consciousness' is a rare situation indeed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we are the only technologically able organism in the universe. I'm starting to stray from the remit. How uncharacteristic. 

I suspect that imagining Death as a perception of eternal darkness is inaccurate. We cannot conceive of what it is because death is the privation of all sentience. It is not eternal darkness, as both the concept of the 'eternal' and 'darkness' presuppose that we experience darkness and the passage of time. However, how can we experience darkness without consciousness? The passage of time likewise becomes meaningless without awareness. Consciousness is all we have; as far as I'm concerned, the self and the universe cease to be at death. It is comforting to contemplate that you are all coming with me when I die. I'll not delve further into this concept of death for fear of becoming mired in a field of inconsistencies and contradictions. I'll leave the arena to Epicurus (b. 341 BC) and his pithy reflection upon death: I am, then death is not. And if death is, I am not.   

O sweet Angel of Death,

You come uninvited, but your visit cannot be denied.

I beseech for another breath, another crave fulfilled,

But no brook to fate ordained.

Your visit tarries not, not a second to waste,

 Other souls wait in ignorant bliss for your sojourn.

Beggar and king alike cannot escape your final caress,

All must face the faceless and cower.

No wit or beauty can turn aside the scythe's blade,

The fate of all is preordained in a sweep of the arc.

Phragmosis

                                                 Looks Like An Oreo To Me

I will make this a brief post because the subject matter is boring/bordering on the freakish. Phragmosis refers to physical and behavioural adaptation noted in multiple genera. The body of the animal concerned exhibits morphological characteristics that aid in the defense of its burrow. An excellent example is to be observed in the humble ant. Cephalotes varians, colloquially known as the 'Turtle Ant' is a fine representation as shown in the above illustration. In this instance, the head is modified to resemble a shield. And indeed, the ant utilises the cephalic structure to block the entrance to its nest. In this way, predatory ant species and parasitic wasps are denied entry into the abode. In addition, the ant can use its outstretched head structure to glide from trees in parachute fashion, guiding its descent to elegantly alight at the nest's entrance. Characteristically, this adaptation in its most extreme form is confined to soldier ants, although the worker caste does exhibit a small degree of head modification. On their way out of the nest, worker ants stroke the soldier with their antennae. Once alerted, the soldier will stand to attention, allowing egress. Once the worker returns, it uses antennae to gently tap the 'door'. Is there a code that must be followed regarding the velocity and sequence of the drum play? This could constitute a weakness in the blocking system. Evolutionary pressure would quickly modify a predatory wasp's behaviour to mimic the worker ant to crack the code. No doubt, behavioural adaptation would be easier to evolve than a physical appendage with the ability to remove the head. It is easy to conceive mutual coadaptation between predator and prey as a continuous battle as each species responds to the prevailing evolutionary pressure.          

Further examples of this remarkable bodily adjustment can be found in vertebrates, such as frogs and snakes. However, very few examples are found in mammalian species. The only example I can find relates to a small armadillo resident of western Argentina. This six-inch-long creature sports a bony carapace to the rear that blocks the burrow while digging. A burrowing snake species indigenous to the Indian subcontinent has developed a bony shield at the tail. Again, like the armadillo, this shield blocks the snake's tunnel during excavation. 

In the unenlightened past, theologians used physical adaptations to denote god's glory and providence. In the 18th century, Rev. William Paley put forth this idea eloquently in his analogy of the watch. Imagine you are strolling upon a sandy beach, and your eyes should suddenly alight on a watch, deftly awash with spume and sand. You examine the watch and marvel at the delicate intricacies of the components and engineering. The good Reverand argued that it is reasonable to postulate that the watch had a maker. And therefore, the complexity observed in natural organisms is sufficient reason to conclude that they are the product of a divine architect. But not just any craftsmen, but the Ultimate Craftsman, Yahweh, the jealous deity of a Bronze Age barbarous folk. And yes, before Darwin, thoughtful individuals could be excused for thinking that a divine artificer was responsible. The manifest complexity of nature would pose a serious barrier to atheistic thought before the conception of natural selection, whereby small accumulative, adaptive changes could occur due to environmental pressures applied over aeons. 

Post-Darwin, the hand of God is no longer required to explain the manifest complexity of life. In fact, the 'Hand of God' was never a satisfactory explanation for nature's evident complexity. The explanation ultimately relies on the irrational concept of Divine Intervention or an invisible deity by unknowable means doing stuff. This does not inspire those taking a rational stance. Before we posit the action of supernatural causation (whatever that means), tis best to exhaust all that is natural and grounded within this world. If we look hard enough, a natural explanation will come. To post an explanation outside nature is easy to articulate and just as easy to dismiss.      

CHAOS

Father of Chaos Theory

The human condition craves uniformity and certainty. Unpredictability is a gross insult and offence to our sensibilities. That said, we are surrounded by a morass of chaos. Some folk seek rational refuge, but we are a small island surrounded by the havoc of absurdity.

The 17th century was a wondrous time for the relentless march of science and rational thought. After a millennium of intellectual darkness, religion in the West was receding from secular dominance at long last. It was a time for intellectual giants to shine. And of all the bright stars in the rational firmament, none was so bright as Sir Isaac Newton.  Newton's tome, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), represented a paradigm shift in Science and Mathematics. Newton's scholarship was so profound that the foremost scholars of the day could only gape in awe. Within this seminal work, Newton outlined his new mathematics, Calculus, and utilised this powerful and versatile mathematical discovery to complement and add new light to his laws of motion and gravity.    

Newton's unravelling of nature's laws pointed to a deterministic, clockwork universe controlled by equations that predicted everything. Perhaps the mind of God had become clear, and God was a mathematician.      

Newton used his new-fangled mathematics to calculate the motion of two celestial bodies, the Earth and the Sun. All well and good. However, when he tried to apply his equations to three celestial bodies, he confessed that the problem was beyond solution. His exact words: "...to define these motions by exact laws admitting of easy calculation exceeds, if not mistaken, the force of any human mind." I've discussed the intractable Three-Body Problem elsewhere on this esteemed blog- go seek and find.  

It is time to introduce  King Oscar of Sweden and Norway. The gracious king decided to mark his 60th birthday (1889) by offering a prize of 2,500 Crowns and a gold medallion to anyone who could solve a very difficult mathematical problem. Of the problems submitted, it was determined that the following question should be put forth: 'Is the solar system stable? Would the system remain, as if by clockwork, forevermore, or at some predetermined date, would collapse ensue? A very difficult question indeed. Solving this conundrum meant reevaluating the very equations that Newton considered unsolvable.

Enter our hero, the French mathematician Henri Poincare (b 1854), stage left. Poincare considered himself the man of the day and confidently set to work on the problem. First off, he had to solve the Three-Body Problem. He quickly realised the problem was too difficult and devised a shortcut. Firstly, he imagined two bodies interacting and introduced a speck of dust for his third body. He reasoned that the two bodies would be unaffected by the speck of dust, and thus, they would continue with ellipses around each other. The gravitational force of the two planets would attract the dust speck, and Poincare then attempted to work out the pathway the dust speck would take. The upshot of his analysis showed that the bodies under investigation would exhibit periodic paths, and periodic paths, by their very nature, are highly stable and repeatable. Obviously, the solution fell short of the rubric by a large margin. Newton's insight was vindicated, but Poincare's work set the stage for future contributions. Regardless of failing to come up with a definitive answer to the problem, the submitted paper was deemed impressive enough for Poincare to win the prize. 

A Little Oopsie With Big Consequences

Poincares' paper was about to be published in the Swedish journal Acta Mathematica when one of the editorial staff posed a point of clarification concerning the rounding out of data. Each step in a mathematical proof requires rigorous attention. Poincare had made an assumption that seemed justified in his chain of reasoning. He assumed that rounding out some of his data points by small amounts would not significantly change the overall predicted orbits. He reassured his detractor that his data and reasoning were sound, but just in case, he would double-check. To his horror, he found that even the slightest corrections in his data could result in huge changes in the outcome of orbits (O Bugger!). Unfortunately for Poincare, by then, copies of his paper were already cascading from the press. In a desperate bid to save Poincare's reputation, the next few weeks were spent scooping up copies of his paper to prevent wide readership and limit the damage. Poincare offered to pay for the print run, which ironically exceeded the money gained for the prize.   

In 1890, Poincare penned a second paper discussing the stark realisation that small deviations in the parameters defining stable systems could result in large deviations, culminating in unpredictable instability. His mathematical blunder led to the concept of Chaos Theory—a new and exciting branch of mathematical endeavour. However, it wasn't until meteorologist Edward Lorenz's rediscovery of chaotic dynamics in the 1960s that the concept became widely known. This story and others will have to await the second part of this saga. 

                                                

Glorious Leader

 

Ferret Wobbler of Renown

We all know Kim Un Jong as the loveable, affable, glorious leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea. But what do we know about the prodigy himself, really?  Often as I leave the 'Scrofula Arms', Tipton, on a Saturday night imbued with 17 pints of Banks best bitter, I'm accosted by sundry revellers who regale me with their lamentable deformities and once satiated, and replete, vocalise, thusly: "Flaxen, you big hairy inebriate and ferret fancier of renown. Why don't you un-lift the veil of enigma and trepidation which shrouds the glorious nation of North Korea, in a miasma of gross turpitude. But specifically, we want to know more about the god/man (more god than man, mayhap?) that bestrides the nation like a bespoke colossus".

Frankly, after much discussion with my psychiatrist, Professor Defacto Mugumbo, I have decided to unload my insistent knowledge gained when incarcerated, as a guest, in Ping Pong's Mental Health and Indoctrination Centre, North Chorea. So here, in no definable order, is Flaxen Saxon's insight into the life of Kim un Yong.

1. Kim Un Jong's haircut has been adopted as the only official haircut endorsed in North Korea. Hence, it only takes 20 minutes to train the average barber with a template.

2. Kim un Jong is 6 foot 3 inches tall, but to express solidarity with his well-nourished and beloved people, he has insisted that all photos of himself should be taken at a jaunty angle, which shows him represented as 4 foot 9 inches, thus in accord with the prevailing height of the average Northern Korean.

3.  North Korea is all about being healthy, slim and fit. Obesity has been officially banned. Few edicts have been followed with such universal fixation and dare I say it, aplomb. The glorious leader is the exception that proves the rule. Also, he is an acknowledged breatharian with a glandular problem.

4. Kim un Jong was manufactured fully formed and did not undergo gestational restriction as mere mortals experience. Henceforth any representation of Kim un Jung's belly button is a mere figmentation (not a real word) of Photoshop enthusiasts.

5. Kim Un Jong has never endorsed a nuclear programme in glorious North Korea. North Korea is rich in plutonium isotopes, and all citizens are encouraged, at the point of a bayonet, to visit all North Korea's non-radioactive facilities to achieve that all-around healthy tan and that all-too-fashionable and in-vogue disease, leukaemia. Cough. 

6. Kim un Jong encourages animal rights and is particularly interested in young succulent dogs. In accord with his wishes, da Glorious Leader has set up a pound for itinerant hounds serendipitously housed next to 'Mr Kim ate Chow's slaughterhouse, cum restaurant for party members not on the latest list to be executed by anti-aircraft gun fire. 

7. The Leader eschews alcohol and drugs of any description/prescription. His favourite beverage is a rum vodka mix with a hint of angostura bitters. Because of his unearthly metabolism, before he quaffs said elixir, the concoction turns to the sweetest spa water.      

8. Kim Un Jong's favourite sport is skiing. He is a frequent and notorious participant on the piste. In his finer moments, he has been described as a: 'Slope on the slope, pissed'.     

9. The Leader's education was prolific and swift. Indeed, his absorption of knowledge was unequalled by any previous scholar. It is prophesied on the wind, that he has gained several degrees in woodwork, geography, social studies and physical education.   

10. The Leader leads a simple life as only a man allowed access to a poor countries' resources can be. The simple people are devoted to Kim un Jong, as are the military elite. The 'Kim' brand has merit and should be continued until lack of issue or impending political collapse evokes change. Anyway, the Generals with the broad hats are expected to be watching China, closely.  

      

Arse, big fat, arse.

Owning A Business- Six Years On

Couldn't Have Done It Without Him

When I retired six years ago, my son and I decided to start an online archery business. Combining my passion and hobby with a money-making enterprise would be exciting. Even though the business was small in scope, I had vastly underestimated the amount of work required. We engaged a third-person company to manage the administrative activities and taxes. Stock needed to be sourced and ordered, and on top of that, there were various regulations and additional taxes that the government imposed on an arbitrary basis, or so it seemed to us. The company required registration, a logo was designed, and business cards were printed. 

At the outset, we focused on 'old-fashioned' traditional bows such as English longbows (ELBs) and Asian-style horse bows (AHBs). However, we also kept several modern-style recurve and Olympic-style bows in stock. Archery accessories such as arrows, armguards, gloves, tabs, and quivers were obtained and stored. Inventory and stock regulation systems were implemented, and my son designed, set up, and worked very hard on our professional-looking website.

At last, after much tears, sweat and long nights, we were ready to open our online store to the New Zealand public. I was very much aware that our company sold a niche product. Of our total customer audience base of 5 million, only a few thousand Kiwis shared our passion for traditional archery. I was under no illusions. If we could break even, I would be happy. Turning this passion project into a highly profitable corporation would be challenging as there were but a few potential customers and competition with other archery companies was fierce. And now, in 2025, we face the harsh realities of a problematic economy. New Zealanders are cutting back on spending as they become dismayed at rising rents and food prices. There is little left for luxuries and hobby expenditure.  

Of course, my son and I had to parcel up the various business activities. Flaxen Junior gravitated toward stock acquisition and maintaining the website while I was concerned with logistics and customer service. Looking after customer queries, complaints, and other strange requests has placed my compassion and empathy under severe strain. Folks are weird, and some of their requests and enquiries should not be tolerated in any civilised society. However, I remained professional and treated all customers respectfully and courteously. In fact, I acted with a modicum of aplomb and self-possession.   We recently attended and set up a stall at the local fair and did surprisingly well. We hope to reprise our success at this weekend's market and are keeping our fingers crossed regarding the weather.

I doff my hat towards my son. Not only does he manage to hold down a professional (proper) job as a Project Manager and direct many of the activities concerning our joint venture, but he also has another business setup hosting Archery Combat. I don't see how he can find the time for everything he does.   

While I wouldn't call the joint venture lucrative, it pays for itself, and I even manage to take home a little pocket money. Also, I've learned a lot. After a lifetime as a professional scientist, it has been refreshing and enjoyable, though challenging, to change tack and engage in an activity never before experienced. Taking on a demanding and totally alien activity has made me realise the importance of maintaining and utilising the thinking structure between our ears, ensuring that it is used and not allowed to atrophy.  I have also gained an appreciation and respect for those who put forth the effort to start a small business venture/adventure, especially those bereft of substantial financial and other support systems. And those folk looking to gain a livable livelihood from their enterprise deserve my infinite esteem in addition to lashings/dollops of good luck. According to Statistics New Zealand, only 37% of start-ups are trading after two years of operation. Those who remain in business can only do so by remortgaging their family home or taking out loans they can ill afford to pay.

      

Diogenes

Alex, Have You A Drachma For A Cup Of Tea. Arse?

Diogenes was a Greek fella of the diaspora and was born around 413 BC and died in 324 BC, or thereabouts. Apparently, he was a well-to-do citizen of Sinope, a Greek colony in what would be now northern Turkey. As a man of independent means he was the recipient of the liberal  Greek education of the time. This education focussed on learning the epics of Greek literature and memorising Homer while cultivating a healthy body through gymnastics. His father was a money changer responsible for exchanging foreign currencies for the local coin. When Diogenes came of age, he followed in his father's footsteps and assumed the position of Money Changer. Early in his career, he became embroiled in an accusation of Defacing the Currency. This was a serious charge, and he either fled from Sinope or was officially exiled. The details concerning the interlude are not clear. At some stage, he migrated to Athens, the seat of high Greek culture and philosophical thought. His banishment affected his economic status, and he was forced into penury. For many, the shock from wealth to sudden impoverishment would have had a baleful effect on their character. However, Diogenes embraced his hardship due to the adoption of Cynic philosophy. Cynic philosophical thought flourished at this time, advocating the rejection of political and social norms. They preached a simple, austere life, valuing reason and virtue above all else. A most admirable stance to take, especially if you are penniless. Diogenes would take the Cynic worldview to the extreme by living in a large jar, begging and defecating/pissing/masturbating in the street. He considered possessions as encumbrances and consequently owned nothing. Although he possessed the skills and wit to earn a good living as an administrator, orator or teacher, he chose to do nothing. He believed that true virtue and simplicity came from living like a dog. He would berate passerbys as they went about their driven and pointless lives. Better to contemplate the absurdity of life by not taking part in it. Be content with nowt and be free of society's fetters. Diogenes did not believe in government or private property and preached oneness with nature. There are elements of hippy culture, communism, anarchy, and nihilism in Stoic thought, but not coherently stated. 

Though Cynic philosophy is immediately associated with Diogenes, he was not the founder. Diogenes had a teacher named Antisthenes, another aristocrat turned beggar. Cynic philosophy is not a philosophy spawned of optimism. Indeed, it is a philosophy of its time and reflects a degree of pessimism born of political reality. The politics of the city-state had been upended by those pesky and barbarous Macedonians led by Phillip and Alexander. Optimistic philosophical thought in the ancient world ended with Aristotle. Aristotle was an unabashed elitist. Greeks were superior to non-Greeks, and Greek aristocrats were superior to all. This is interesting as Aristotle was a Macedonian and considered by Athenians semi-Greek at best. By the power of the Macedonian sword, the Greeks had lost their autonomy and independence. Macedonia had imposed political stability on the quarrelsome Greeks; they were fettered if not tamed (go tell it to the Spartans). Thoughtful Greeks, by dint of political reality, became weary and resentful of the trappings associated with their old Greek city-state conception of 'stability'. Proud and supposedly 'superior', Athens had been humbled and stripped of its age-old power. The solution: nothing matters in this world. Turn to a simple life of no material consequence. Cynic philosophy would never have emerged in Pericles' Athens.

Diogenes is oft remembered for his acerbic one-liners. Once, he was visited by Alexander of Macedon. During the visit, Alexander stated that he would grant Diogenes anything he wanted, and Diogenes supposedly replied, "Move out of my light." And my favourite, "There is nothing more beautiful than freedom of speech."    

What are we to make of this mixture and the man himself? Diogenes advocates a simple life without all the baubles that we exalt but do not make us happy. The long hours at work at a boring job, physically demanding and unfulfilling. And for what purpose? Do you really need that 'top of the line' luxury car? Do you need to live in a five-bed home when there are only two occupants? Strip it all down and list what you really need to be happy. I'm not promoting penury here. When we lay our existence bare, what are the important things to sustain life and peace of mind? This is not a mindset that is appealing to most. Diogenes would be admired more if he had willingly given up his luxurious lifestyle for that of a mendicant, but this was not the case. In this regard, Diogenes' mentor and founder of Cynic philosophy, Antisthenes, deserves our accolades and applause. 

Diogenes was true to his beliefs and remained a harsh and consistent critic of contemporary Athens throughout his life. There was no hypocrisy in Diogenes, or so he thought. Although he embraced poverty, he was happy and willing to accept alms from those he admonished and abused. Folk, unless impoverished, do not naturally lend themselves to this mode of life. Very few can follow its strict precepts. Diogenes was an exception and a very odd fellow at that. In the final analysis, I baulk at considering Cynicism as true philosophy—there just isn't enough intellectual and structured merit in the 'thought' system. From a philosophical standpoint, it proffered no new science or deep ponderings. In its purest form, it is reminiscent of the Eastern aesthete, of which I have no interest. Parts of Cynic teaching were absorbed into a contemporary philosophy, Stocasiam. Now Stocasism, is a much more interesting philosophy by far.         

In the final analysis, was Diogenes a wise sage (without onion) or just an eccentric, dirty old man?