Ground Zero

Christchurch February 2011

I've just returned from a scientific conference in Christchurch (NZ). It has been at least 10 years since I last visited this delightful city. Things have changed a bit since then. In February 2011, a massive earthquake hit Christchurch resulting in total devastation of the central city with the loss of 185 lives. At the time, the incumbent government promised a total rebuild within 5 years...... Of course, this hasn't happened. To be fair, finding 40 billion dollars was never going to be easy with a population of 4.5 million souls. It would have been more honest if they had stated that the rebuild would take decades- but it was election year.

Driving in by taxi from the airport: On the edge of the city everything appeared pristine, but the closer we approached ground zero the greater the frequency of houses undergoing renovation and work. However, nothing could prepare me for the city centre. Great swathes of the central city had disappeared and replaced by seemingly never ending car parks. Large numbers of buildings awaited to be demolished; rebuilding seemed almost non-existent. The whole area was, eerily, people free. But good old Kiwi ingenuity has intervened and modified shipping containers have appeared along the streets and fashioned into shops. Shame that there was no one about to take advantage of this unique shopping experience.

I like attending conferences. I get to meet old friends and colleagues and we usually indulge in a lively conference dinner. If you think scientists are a lot of fusty, head in the clouds, and tedious wankers, you need to think anew; I've got the photos (and scars) to prove otherwise. The science is pretty important also. I'm privileged/cursed to belong to a profession in flux. Things are changing rapidly and the technology underpinning genetic knowledge advances at an increasingly, dizzying pace. The content, as usual, was great (especially my oral paper) and so I thought I'd share some of the scary highlights.

Salvage kids coming to a neonatal unit near you 

I wrote a few weeks ago about non-invasive prenatal diagnosis and how chromosome abnormalities in the foetus can now be diagnosed by a simple maternal blood test. Pre-implantation diagnosis has been around for a while and involves fertilising the egg in a 'test tube'. Cells from the developing embryo can be removed and tested for genetic disorders. This technique is very useful where the parents carry a genetic condition and where conventional prenatal genetic testing is not an option for whatever reason. If the embryo proves positive for the disorder it can be discarded (ultimate consumer society). Multiple embryos are tested and those testing negative can be introduced into the mother's womb and the pregnancy can continue as normal. Nothing very controversial about the technique or the ethics involved, or at least the debate has fizzled out and a rough consensus has been reached, but not in this world. But what about the situation where a couple has an existing child with a genetic disease and would like a second child, not only disease free, but also a genetic match to provide a curative stem cell transplant for the ailing sibling?  This is not a hypothetical scenario. There are couples willing to discard  embryos, although free of genetic disease, but do not have the required genetic profile compatible with the diseased child. The ethical issues are legion and were vigorously debated at the meeting. Of course, I don't have space to consider the fascinating and complex issues raised.....       

Design me a baby: here is da list

If you consider the previous discussion (no discussion, tis a fucking Flaxen monologue) slightly gnarly, keep tuned, 'cause it's gonna get worse and never better. Clever geneticists can now manipulate embryos in the 'test tube' and remove genes or add genes at will. I think I mentioned the designer baby angle in my previous post, but the implications of this new technology are far reaching. We are now at the stage where we can design a babies' traits according to the whim of the parents. And when I say parents, I mean the wretched rich and not the wretched poor; there is a difference not always measured by wealth. There be ethics committees and everyone knows that committees in the enlightened West work for the greater good. Not all countries have committees but seem to achieve science and results, nonetheless. China does well on science but not so great on the 'hand-wringing' aspect. Thus, if you have a hundred thousand dollars and want a six-foot blond(e) haired, blue eyed child, look East.  Alas, some of us can achieve it naturally. Recipes are diverse but in the end what people really want is conformity to an unnatural norm. Don't shoot the geneticist, biology makes us this way and it makes us bad, given the right financial incentive. In the end the folk, who can, will get exactly what they want because they can and because they have always had that privilege; dicephalic monsters come with a price- if that is what you want.

 I just heard that Chinese scientists can produce a 'micro-pig' by knocking out a growth factor gene. The result is a cute tiny pig. Tis going to be the next big thing on the pet market. Frankly, I don't trust those incurable Chinese; call me Occidental. Pigs make great pets because they are very smart; smarter than hounds, perhaps. Also, small pigs are easier to get on the BBQ. I suspect the Chinese will appreciate this last attribute more than those in the silly decadent West. Angel of Death, take me now.

Unfortunately, due to the conference programme I didn't get much time to see the city. What I did see made me sad. I came across a simple memorial to the fallen. It consisted of 185 plastic chairs laid in rows on a wasteland. Symbolism rarely imposes on this simple soul, but frankly I was moved by this sparse, poignant monument. The wind was blowing from the south which dislodged a contact lens thus provoking a single tear. Luckily, for me, no one noticed.

Caption not necessary

               

The Great Wheel of Life

Go, Shagger!

The wheel is a ubiquitous tool in the human world and it is inconceivable to imagine how the modern world could function in their absence. Wheels are an efficient means of locomotion and given a power supply allow puny bipedal humans to travel faster than the fleetest of animals. All this raises the question- why haven't animals evolved wheels rather than the preposterous gangly appendages called legs? Good question Flaxen, and well stated.

The greatest engineers are animals; many of our inventions were first anticipated in animals. Wings for flight and echolocation in bats; night vision in cats; electric fields in eels and SONAR in dolphins, but not an axle or rotating wheel in sight/site. There is one exception, I suppose, but it occurs in bacteria, so not an animal at all, but certainly a living creature. Many bacteria propel themselves in water by means of a whip-like appendage called flagella. Flagella rotate freely on an axle which passes through the cell wall. The fact that multi-cellular organisms have not evolved larger versions of the unicellular 'wheel' is revealing. Biologically speaking it would be difficult to develop a free moving wheel. All limbs and organs require a blood supply for oxygen, nutrients and energy. This necessitates an attached, continuous circulation with conduits (veins and arteries). How could this occur in a wheel like object without severing the life line every time the wheel moved? The same thing would apply to nerves and other support structures.

Is the wheel really the most efficient means of travel? It certainly allows speedy perambulation, but it is not on all terrain solution. Wheels require smooth surfaced roads. Wheels don't work too well on rocky, swampy and rough land. But legs do. Legs are remarkably efficient at negotiating all types of terrain. Some animals are incredibly efficient at traversing rough ground- enter the mountain goat, stage left. So, if the wheel could evolve, which I suspect it can’t for reasons outlined above, it would have to be preceded by the evolution and adoption/adaptation of the road. Not as daft as you might think. Animals can be very adept at making quite sophisticated structures. Behold the ant-hill and the beaver’s dam. From an engineering perspective, road building is relatively simple and I'm sure, technically,  within evolution's grasp, if it could be bothered. As outlined by Richard Dawkins, a trait can only become established by evolution if it confers an advantage (ultimately a reproductive advantage), to an organism, at the individual level. Evolution should never be viewed at the level of the species as originally espoused by Darwin, it can only occur at the level of the individual and to be evolutionary successful individuals need to be selfish and deny resources (whatever they may be) to competitors of the same species. This is why territories, nests and dams work- they are defensible and therefore, work for the maximum good of the builder. Roads are not defensible and can be used by any lazy individual who comes along. Road building is an evolutionary dead end. Any creature deciding to build a road would have to put a great deal of energy and resource into the enterprise, this is only worth it if it confers a reproductive fitness advantage. The strategy is exploitable by the lazy parasitical opportunist and it is impossible for the builder to deny access to its competitors. The opportunist need not apply any energy and resource into building and would reap the reward of the industrious builder and consequently would have more time and energy for reproductive success thus outcompeting the dedicated and exhausted road maker. Therefore, the evolution of road building and consequently wheel making, even if it was biologically feasible, could not occur, because from an evolutionary standpoint, it is an exploitable strategy. Selfish strategies are always rewarded by evolution until a counterstrategy, by selfish evolution, prevails.

And thus the wheel of evolution continues to turn with aplomb……… (Flaxen, for god's sake start taking the blue pills, as directed). Arse.

                             'There's a green one and a blue one and one with a bit of poo on, and they all taste just the same.'

Verity, all is verity

Sitting in a bar having drinks with a friend, I casually pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar from us and said: "That's us in ten years".

He said:"That's a mirror you dozy twat". 

Flaxen The Estate Agent: A Trilogy in Four Parts

Flaxen in a moment of clarity- but only in the right eye

For continuity and sanity, you are recommended to read this and this and this before you read this. Otherwise, you will be bewildered and think me a madman. Arse.

Flaxen sat replete at the faux Formica dining table in the bijou but perfectly appointed kitchenette type dining area. His hand rested on his double headed Danish war axe, 'Twat Cruncher' as the other set of digits shovelled a variety of dainty, delicate, delicious pastries into his gaping, pitiless maw. Loki/Bubbles, half wolf, half Maltese terrier rested supine, his coal black, limpid orbs forever restlessly resting on his master as he continued to consume sundry comestibles (?Flaxen or the halfling). The only sound to be heard was the jingling and jangling of Flaxen's chain mail. Flaxen's mastication was suddenly aroused and interrupted by the appearance of Flaxen's house mate, Roger, the flamboyant homosexual replete with a comb-over, pink bouffant. "Good morning dear heart, you scrummy northern generic barbarian type personage." Flaxen slowly regarded Roger's countenance with his bright blue, unblinking eye. A low growl hissed between tightened lips and an involuntary blast of flatus escaped from Flaxen's sphincter. Loki/Bubbles momentarily choked before rolling on his back, legs writhing akimbo as low whimpers left his poor writhing body. Small flecks of foam and blood be-speckled  the snow white fur of his muzzle. Flaxen growled: "Hrogar, you test me sorely. If it was not for the fact that you make a divine Paella to die for, I would remove your turbulent bonce and place it on a stake for my future rumination and delight." Roger stood respondent/resplendent in a gold spandex 'onsie' bestrewn with cunningly fashioned peep holes and sequins. "O, Flaxen you do make me chortle and judging from the pungent effusion emanating from your posterior you have not been eating up your golden, wheaty oaty bran flakes, have you". Loki/Bubbles stirred and let out a low gasp before collapsing anew. "No viewings today, Flaxen. No dream homes to be inspected by an ever stream of rose cheeked couples looking for a place to call their own."  Flaxen pursed his pastry encrusted lips and narrowed his one good eye, before replying. "I have been suspended on full pay pending an investigation into why an alarming percentage of prospective home owners seem to disappear under my watch. My explanation that they have been taken by a wandering war band of Jutish reavers did not go down well. I did myself a disservice by shouting out: 'I will brook no dissent from wastrels and knaves!' Thereafter it all got a bit sketchy. A dark mist descended upon my soul and when I awoke several middle managers had entered Valhalla before their appointed time".

"O my, seems a bit of a to do. I'd better make some Paella, that'll fix it." 

Roger and fiends, resplendent

Next week Roger dies of AIDS and Flaxen arranges the funeral. 

To be continued........              

IF

1865-1936. A man who served the Empire. Good man, that Kipling.

Back in 1995 Rudyard Kipling was voted Britain's favourite poet and the favourite poem was Kipling's, 'IF'. No doubt voted for by people who have not read his work, apart from 'IF'. Fast forward to 2015 and the nation's favourite poet morphs into TS Elliot. Quite a change in subjective taste- go figure. 

Kipling, in my opinion, was a poor poet prone to pomposity and moralising and yet all the same had the knack of juxtaposing platitudes in a pleasing manner. Perhaps I'm being unfair, some of his prose ascends to the sublime although much of his work is simply silly, especially to the modern mind. Read the following and tell me if I'm wrong: "I heard the knives behind me, but I durns't face my man, Nor I don't know where I went to, cause I didn't stop to see, Till I heard a beggar squealing out for quarter as he ran, And I thought I knew the voice and- it was me." Kipling had the annoying habit of dropping haitches and the ending, 'g' when portraying the working class soldiery. Tis a condescending and distracting trait which adds nothing to the composition, so in the quoted version I have erred on the side of correct English usage.

It is interesting to note that Kipling has remained 'popular' with non-literary folk and despised by those with literary pretension- quite a legacy. Those on the 'left' hate him for his jingoist imperialism irrespective of any intrinsic poetic merit. The views of Kipling are well portrayed in his verse and reflect a 'Kipling' who was very much a man of his time: A Victorian. Not only a Victorian, but also a member of the ascendant race which ruled the world; heady stuff. This was too good to last and the man's poetry changed as the world changed. But like the true Victorian he was, he failed to comprehend that change and was left adrift in a Modern World where certainty had perished on Flanders field.  Indeed, his poetry undergoes a modification after the Great War. Before that time, it is bold, sure-footed and on the side of god, king and country. Kipling's god is a good god and punishes hubris and his king never strays from his queen's bed chamber. The war changed him. Idealism was lost and he was smart enough to realise that 'right' was no longer enough to prevail, the only thing that really mattered was 'might'. This has always been the case and yet is not always appreciated, especially in times of prolonged peace. After the war, a strain of cynicism and bitterness enters his work. Gone is the certainty of the privileged middle-class man living in an Anglo-centric world. What enters is bewilderment and incomprehension. Although the British Empire had prevailed in the greatest war ever known, it had inexplicably become weakened and superseded by 'lesser breeds'. Kipling acknowledged the reality but failed to understand it. Anyway, here is the poem, 'IF', in its entirety. In my opinion, it is cloying and 'preachy' although some of the couplets are very seductive at the emotional level. Please judge and let me know what you think.

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you   

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too;   

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   

    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same;   

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

    And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   

    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

    If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   

    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Religion, statistics and damn lies

Anyone reading my mixture will no doubt be aware of my stance when it comes to religion. I detest all religions with a passion and consider human kind would be better served without the unctuous, simpering cleric, the mad frothing Imam and the sanctimonious bejewelled, Pope. Even peaceful Buddhism does not escape censure. The doctrine of reincarnation is ludicrous and based on nothing more than wishful thinking and esoteric Eastern mysticism. And yet Buddhism attracts respect and kind comment from folk who understand its doctrines, not at all- also, that Dalai Lama is a bit of a cunt and not just because he looks a bit like my uncle Reggie.

Atheism is arguably the most misunderstood of all the philosophies and is mistakenly associated with a host of negative connotations including immorality, pessimism, nihilism and downright wickedness. Although to be fair, none of these characteristics are incompatible with atheism, but neither do they necessarily follow from religious non-belief. Reactions to atheism/atheists vary, even amongst the enlightened, Western nations (read: enlightened, sub-population). North Western Europe is generally kind to atheists and the atheistic principle, as is Australia and New Zealand. The United States, especially the midwest and the southern states, is the least tolerant of the Western nations. However, even in the States, atheism is on the rise, although only about 5% of the population openly state they are atheistic (?an underestimate). To place this statistic in perspective, it should be compared to the 25% of the population professing atheism/agnosticism in my adopted country of New Zealand. If you include those of 'no religion' this percentage rises to nearly half of the population, at least according to the 2013 census. Admittedly, the 'no religion' group is a very mixed bag indeed, ranging from frank atheists, to believers in a deity but not allied to a formal religious group, all through to 'new age' types (fucking hippies) who believe in some form of guiding spirit which may, or may not, be equated with the conventional conception of god. Sweden comes out as the most atheistic nation on earth with 46% to 85% of the population declaring atheism/agnosticism. It will come as no surprise that levels of atheism are higher in the young and the well educated; the greater the level of academic achievement, the greater the level of atheism. There are claims that over 90% of US scientists are atheists. I am not uncritical of the figures presented here, although all are garnered from respectable studies. Getting the right answer is difficult and reliant upon asking the right question. We also need to  take into account the 'unreliability factor' when trying to extract data from fickle humans. Nonetheless, I think the trend, over time and overall, show an expanding percentage of atheists and agnostics in the West, even amongst the relatively 'religious and conservative’, Americans.

It has just occurred to me that I have been blithely wittering on about atheism and agnosticism without defining what these terms actually mean. Foolish Flaxen, may the gods send a thousand furies to torment your heretical soul! For if we have no formal definition and appreciation of a concept how can we even consider starting a discussion? Intelligibility is the handmaiden of epistemological rationality (Flaxen waxing lyrical and teetering on the exposition of bollocks, once again).

Theism is a belief in god or gods. Adding the prefix ‘a’ denotes a non-belief in gods. This is the most basic definition and in logic represents the proposition: ‘God exists’ as being false. Strictly speaking, atheism is not a belief, rather it is the absence of belief; a term of negation. Agnosticism, as I understand it, prevents us from asking the question: 'Does god exist?', within the framework of achievable knowledge (epistemology). Therefore, the only ‘logical’ approach is to suspend judgement and confine the concept not just to the unknown, but to the unknowable. Thus, agnosticism is often considered a valid alternative to atheism and theism, ‘a third way’. I would argue that agnosticism is not a third way but a representation of either theism or atheism, but I don’t have the space to consider my reasoning here- perhaps, another article? Before leaving ‘agnosticism’, for now, I would like to state that, in my opinion, the concept has acquired an intellectual patina which it does not deserve; nuff said.

Theists often assert that the burden of proof should lie with the atheist. That is, atheists are honour bound to provide arguments for the disproof of deitie(s). However, this is not the case. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. They should supply valid propositions and arguments for their belief. If there are no valid propositions or if the reasoning is false, then the belief, should on rational grounds, be discarded. Atheism is not a positive belief and consequently there is no obligation to provide proof. The onus of proof weighs upon the head of the believer no matter what that belief actually is. In the same way, a believer in unicorns should be able to support their contention that 'unicorns exist' with cogent, rational arguments. As a non-believer of unicorns, I am under no obligation to provide evidence for their non-existence.

As mentioned earlier, atheism is often attached to a whole raft of assumptions and atheists are automatically shoe-horned into other belief systems, by religious believers. For instance, communism is famously atheistic and therefore, to be an atheist is also to be a communist. Whilst it is true many card carrying communists are atheists, it does not follow that atheists are necessary communists. I, for instance, bestraddle the 'right wing' of the political spectrum. Atheism is compatible with all political beliefs or non-beliefs for that matter, such as anarchy. The same can be said for morality, happiness and mental health. Atheists are not necessarily, mad, bad and dangerous to know, although it helps.

The point of the above discussion is to illustrate a simple and often neglected truth: When someone tells you they are an atheist, that statement alone tells you nothing about that person's core beliefs apart from their lack of religious beliefs. Atheism is not a way of life and does not entail a set of common core values and beliefs necessarily shared by other atheists. Nor does it tell you why a person is an atheist. People become atheists for a variety of reasons. I'm a critical atheist who considers the concept of the deity irrational, philosophically unsubstantiated and absurd. Others may become atheists as a reaction against their strict fundamental religious upbringing or because a belief in god is incompatible with an insouciant, futile and insentient universe.

My stance as a critical atheist does not mean I have to be intellectually passive when confronted with arguments for the existence of god. When a theist tells me that ‘god exists’, I don't ask him or her for evidence, instead I ask them to define their god; what are its attributes? How will I know this supernatural being if I have the misfortune of bumping into one? Some theists think that this is a subsidiary issue that can be worked out at some later date or at leisure. I would argue that this 'definition' needs to be tackled even before the preliminary debate can commence. If we don't have a fundamental intellectual grasp of the topic in hand how can we talk about it in any rational sense? When someone suggests we talk about dining tables, I already have a sound grasp of the subject. I know what dining tables look like and I'm sure, if pushed, could come up with a very acceptable definition for a generic dining table. But when someone mentions an invisible supernatural god which can interact with the visible natural world I am at a loss to conceive such an entity. This is why the believer in god, or gods, need to take  time and intellectual energy to define the subject matter in a rational coherent sense, otherwise we are not actually talking about anything, are we? Many believers have a problem with this approach and consider the concept of god as self-evident. Few things are self-evident in this life except axioms of mathematics and fundamental laws of logic and the concept of god is no exception.

To be continued..........  

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow, perhaps......

I had hoped to post something sensible today, but 'real life' and events intervened and made me relinquish my steady, fixed grip, on my laptop/lap dancer. Therefore, you will have to do with the pseudo-clever crap placed below. Not profound, but mildly amusing. However, it does have a modicum of truth about it.

I don't get number 7.

At age 4, success is not peeing in your pants.

At age 12, success is having friends.

At age 16, success is having a drivers licence.

At age 20, success is having sex.

At age 35, success is having money.

At age 50, success is having money.

At age 60, success is having sex.

At age 70, success is having a drivers licence.

At age 75, success is having friends.

At age 80, success is not peeing in your pants.