Nerve Gas Part I

Should Have Had the Chicken Biriani Instead

I'm taking a break from theology and related philosophical conundrums to consider a topic rarely discussed: Nerve Gas.  

Today, the word GAS came into my fevered, tortured brain. For what reason, I have no cogent idea. Regardless, I regarded the intrusion as a sign. I'm at a loss as to where this random thought came from. A cluster of neurons firing in concert directed my mind to spit forth this word. Mayhap, an imbalance of neurotransmitters was to blame. The originator may have been the dodgy vindaloo the night before. There is little doubt that said comestible wreaked horrendous physiological havoc. The clue is ingrained in the name of the very curry itself! May Woden furnish me with frozen suppositories and give me strength to leave the bathroom. I digress. The upshot: Regardless, the very word GAS inspired me to put pen to paper and write furiously about the topic of Nerve Gas. I have already put forth a post concerning the use of gas in the Great War. It is undoubtedly a capital idea to read that post first.   

Mayhap, before considering the subject matter of the title, a little recap about the first use of gas in warfare will help.

By late 1914, the Western Front consisted of a double trench system stretching from the Belgian coast to the Swiss border. Defence had become irresistibly strong, and both sides sought ways to break the stalemate and restore mobility. A notable German chemist, Fritz Haber, suggested to the High Command that the impasse could be broken with the use of poisonous asphyxiating gases. Many in the military hierarchy were against its use on moral grounds. But more importantly, Germany was a signatory to an international agreement banning the use of asphyxiating gases in war. However, expediency and the grim reality of the war persuaded the High Command to unleash the 'Devil's Breath'.     

On the 22nd of April 1915 at 5pm, gas cylinders, containing chlorine gas, were opened in the German lines, and a favourable breeze drove the chlorine cloud toward the French and Algerian lines near Ypres in Belgium. Within 10 minutes, 5,700 cylinders released 160 tons of gas. I have considered the consequences of the action elsewhere. Suffice it to say that a 7-mile breach was blasted in the French trench line. This novel form of attack had taken the French completely by surprise. Within minutes, 1,400 soldiers were killed, and many more were injured. Although a success, the Germans were not prepared to exploit the situation to any significant extent, and the gap was quickly plugged by Canadian troops.  Although Haber was hailed as a hero in Germany, the adulation was marred by the suicide of his wife, Clara, who was also a chemist. She begged her husband to abandon the use of poisonous gas, but Haber would not relent, and Clara shot herself through the heart with Haber's military pistol on the 2nd of May 1915.  

Several months post the German attack, the British would reply in kind, again using chlorine. Soon, the belligerents relied on delivering the gas by artillery shell. Other noxious agents would follow, such as phosgene and mustard gas. Although gas was used extensively between April 1915 and the end of the war, casualty rates remained low, with a total death tally involving all combatants of about 100,000. However, many soldiers would suffer long-term effects long after the war had ended.  

Once a major technical innovation had been developed in warfare, it would remain, be improved and would alter the course of warfare in general. This has been the case for the development of tanks, submarines, aircraft, and aircraft carriers. Pandora's box could not be closed, and once discovered and refined, the new weapon would remain as an integral part of war. Gas, however, is the exception to the rule, well, mostly anyway.

Poison Gas Development 2.0

During the late 1930s, German chemists were conducting research on a group of chemicals called organophosphates. This research focused mainly on developing more effective insecticides to protect crops. One chemical was manufactured under the quaint designation Tabun (a German word for Taboo). This chemical proved to be highly effective as an insecticide. In fact, it proved too effective and was deemed too toxic for use. However, the German chemists were quick to discern that it might have a role in warfare and quickly reported this finding to the German authorities. The Germans had discovered a particularly potent agent soon to be called 'Nerve Gas'. This class of chemical had a different mode of action compared to the chemicals used in the Great War. These older agents acted by destroying lung tissue and/or causing burns. First off, Tabun was highly effective at very low doses. As little as 0.01 mg/kg is considered lethal. Also, it did not require inhalation to exert an effect. This chemical could be readily absorbed through the skin, rendering conventional gas masks ineffective. The Germans quickly realised the gas's potential as a weapon of war. Further, more effective agents were soon discovered (Sarin). By the time hostilities began in September 1939, the Germans had small stocks of these agents. As the war progressed, the Germans amassed great quantities of these nerve agents that could be easily dispensed by bomb or artillery barrage. So, the burning question is: Why didn't the Germans release these gases upon the enemy? This is interesting in view of Hitler's obsession with Wunderwaffe. This question, along with others, will be addressed in Part II.

Again, this post is turning into a 'Long Read', and thusly, in my infinite wisdom, I have decided to divide the subject matter into two posts to avoid 'Reader Fatigue'. Therefore, the conclusion will follow on the morrow. This follow-up will be a thrilling instalment filled with a personal anecdote, and a few hot Gypo flamenco dancers thrown in to tempt the lurid imagination of my readers. Hola!

Stay tuned for more informative material interspersed with insights into my tortured, forever wandering mind, scarcely reigned in and barely controlled by the author. I seek peace, rarely found. Pity me as I seek solace from a mind in churning, roiling turmoil. I seek comfort and freedom through the written word. It is but a temporary release. I crave a peace that is rarely found. Arse, big sore arse.

' 

The Final Gap Plugged. Post 2 of 2.

The second post has descended upon this platform with undeniable alacrity.

To maintain consistency and continuity, I respectfully request that the esteemed reader engage with this second post as soon as possible after reading the first. Hopefully, this will help with comprehension. It is to be remembered that the human brain is a vain and frail vessel and responds well to prompt succession, as an aid to ultimate understanding. Only then can a man succeed on the path to wisdom and, mayhap, enlightenment. Delay will foster mind lapse, and the connection between the two posts will be lost in a web of synapses that often misfire. Do not fall into the trap of delay and procrastination, as this will foster a slothful mind and, dare I say, a laggard, indolent countenance. Brook no delay and engage the posts in dogged sequence. Only a fool would digest the second before the first. Remain diligent for distractions and those who will divert you from my noble/ignoble composition. Remember, detractors and wastrels abound, ready to pounce and endeavour to veer you from your august literary quest. 

Some say I'm an unrequited genius. Why others aver that I'm a mad old man with a tenuous grip on reality who bothers check-out girls in Tesco. Only you can decide!

We have an evolutionary mechanism that thrives on waste and inefficiency. It is hard to square these problems with the Christian conception of god. Could god not have come up with a mechanism that negated universal suffering and waste? Mayhap god has limitations on his powers and must follow natural laws. This explanation does not sit well with the theologian, but they are unable to offer a solution that is satisfactory to both the biologist and the theologian.  

There is a common misconception that evolution is working toward 'perfection'. This would imply that evolution is somehow a directive process seeking a final goal. However, this is not the case; organisms are not optimal for many reasons. Often, structural limitations lead to suboptimal solutions for a specific function. Examples abound. Let us take the human body, for instance, and examine an anatomical feature that, from an engineering perspective, could be improved. I chose this particular example as it is the bane of many older men. Recently, I had a PSA test, due to my age, and luckily, I'm fine, for now.

The male prostate provides fluids for the ejaculate. It is a walnut-sized organ that surrounds the urethra, which conducts urine from the bladder to the outside. The prostate contributes nothing to the urinary process, yet there it sits. Unfortunately, not only is this organ prone to cancer in older men, but it also has a propensity to enlarge as we age, with the obvious adverse symptoms as it slowly strangles the urethra. Surely, god in his infinite wisdom and love could have devised an alternative anatomical location. A good engineer would have placed the prostate within the scrotal sac, next to the sacred/sacral testes. The products that leak from both organs act in concert to ensure the proliferation of the next generation. The prostate's position is notably sub-optimal. Why the prostate is positioned thusly is hard to fathom. Mayhap there was no selective pressure in the past to remedy the situation, as men did not live long enough to suffer the consequences of natural selection that could effect change. Perhaps it provides evidence that god is female with a wicked sense of humour. This example is just one of many instances where there is room for anatomical improvements in the human body. This is also true for many animal species. A quick Google search will reveal a plethora of such examples.

The above shows that evolution is capricious and often defies logical analysis. Optimisation is not a quest. Natural selection may produce a solution that, while not perfect, is good enough for the circumstances and purpose. The critical point to make is that if an Intelligent Designer had a role in the process, he did a piss poor job. In the final analysis, it makes it difficult to square theological evolution with naturalistic evolution. There is no need for a supernatural guiding hand, as nature has the whole situation covered. The theologian must either accept the evidence and suffer the consequences or retreat into the presbytery, and confront matters best suited to their temperament and intellect, and leave science to the scientists. What say ye?

I'll leave the last word to Darwin. Take note and heed.

“what a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!” & “there seems to be too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.” 

Fine words indeed, Mr D.

The Final Gap Plugged. Post 1 of 2.

In my wisdom, which, these days, is effectively infinite, I have decided to cut this post into two. The reason should not concern mere mortals like my readers. With that said, the folk who visit my blog are within the top strata regarding intellect. As for the rest of humanity: they see nothing, think nothing, and go about their petty, miserable existence with a smartphone permanently glued to their mortal frame. This blog is not for them- it is far from their ken. Pity them, for they have no comprehension of anything beyond the minutiae of life and the size and shape of Kim Kardashian's voluminous arse. Big fat, Arse.  However, I am a magnanimous, beneficent and clear-headed writer. On this occasion, I will deign to my readership's evident, blatant curiosity and thusly share a wheel in a cog of my restless, remorseless and often disjointed intellect.  

Anyway, for some baffling reason that eludes me, and is essentially inexplicable, my original work was deemed too long for a single posting. Under the guiding principle: 'TOO LONG, WON'T READ', I have made the painful decision to split my original post into two. As can be seen, the first thrilling instalment has been published today. Do not despair, and descend into a quivering state of wretched despond, for the second post will follow but 24 hours later. 

This post is another in the series of Evolution through the process of Natural Selection.  Today's post considers the disquiet that must logically exist between the scientific concept of evolution and theist imposition and interpretation of the same. It is also true that even educated lay folk have an incomplete understanding of how natural selection works and often harbour dangerous misconceptions. However, this is a topic for another day. This post will mainly deal with the tension and conflict that must logically exist between Theology and Evolution. Liberal theologians may embrace the concept but baulk at the implication that no guiding supernatural hand is required. And therein lies the problem. Has god left evolution to occur only by natural law, or has he had a guiding hand by miraculous action? Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) believe that evolution is a fantasy of the scientific mind and that god is the cause of the existence of all we see. Both ideologies have their problematic issues. Let the lesson begin!

Let us tackle the ID argument first, as it is the easiest to discard. The problem is that the Intelligent Designer is assumed to be god, and a Christian god at that, often replete with white hair and a golden staff. The proposition is easy to state: complexity is attributed to the deity through unspecified mechanisms. In truth, no mechanism is stated because there is no mechanism. Arguments may be wrapped up in esoteric fluff, such as god's majesty or will, or profundity. This is typical theological sleight of hand. At the end of the misdirection, it still remains that an unknown, invisible entity exerts action by means unknown. This sort of drivel is full of logical holes and is unappealing to the rational mind.

The thinking theologian knows that Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory supported by a myriad of evidence from multiple sources. It has stood the test of time, and 160 years after its conception, it remains solid and underpins all that is biology. Also, the process can be explained exclusively by natural phenomena. No god needs to apply for a non-existent position, and this is deeply troubling for theistic evolutionists. Science has pushed god out of the natural world. Perhaps they clutch at the prospect that god had a hand in the formation of life, a provider of the initiating spark. While it is true that scientists have not figured out how the first proto-life came to be, they have made significant inroads into the problem. I'm confident that science will develop a rational, data-driven model of the ultimate process, given time.

It is an anathema to theistic thinking that god has had no role in life formation and progression. There seems little point to a passive deity that absolves all to capricious natural processes. Thus, they can't help but ponder that their beloved god is redundant and unemployed; surely he must be involved somewhere. As science hasn't worked out how life came forth from the mud, a waiting god is in the wings, ready to provide a miracle or two and, mayhap, a guiding hand as time goes by. 

There are many problems the thoughtful theologian must face if he truly accepts the concept of the 'all-loving,' 'all-powerful' god as true. Is Evolution through Natural Selection compatible with the conception of an 'all-loving', 'all-powerful' deity? Notwithstanding the logical issues inherent in these concepts and their contradictory implausibilities, would we expect this theological concept of the deity to be compatible with a mechanism that is immeasurably wasteful and cruel? Natural selection can only work through the death and/or non-reproduction of the majority of organisms. A testament to waste lies in the statistic that 99% of all species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct. Death by predation, disease and parasitisation are natural consequences of the evolutionary process. Consider the horror of the Ichneumonidae wasp as it lays a single egg in the humble caterpillar with implacable, remorseless indifference. After laying the egg, the developing larva devours the organs, in sequence, to ensure that the caterpillar does not die immediately. The wasp larva saves and savours the critical part of the caterpillar until last. The larva excavates the caterpillar, leaving but a hollowed husk (double redundancy, Flaxen!). During the feast, the poor caterpillar remains alive throughout, twitching and writhing in a macabre rhythmic dance of death. This is just one example of the horror repeated through time and geography throughout the natural world. How can this be reconciled with the all-loving god of Christianity? This problem parallels the general argument of the 'Problem of Evil'. This contradiction of god's nature has spawned a whole theological philosophy, called Theodicy. Clever believers throughout the ages have devised many schemes to explain why a benevolent deity allows evident evil. The explanations, although intricate and contrived, fail to provide a satisfactory account. The world is an evil, cruel and capricious existence. It is this observed and blatant injustice in this life that spurred the concept of an afterlife that eliminates pain; jam tomorrow, not today. A lie to keep the simple believers from revolting, 

Nuff said for now. The thrilling instalment will follow in just a thrice.

Flaxen Over Thinking Again About Mortality and Other Matters

Begone: According to the deal, I have five years left

I've been reflecting on many things lately, especially concerning my mortality. We are likely the only species on our planet —and perhaps in the universe —that can ponder the great question of what happens when we die. Once the spark that animates our body leaves, we are left with a mere husk, a meat disposal problem. Religious folk of all types have considered this eventuality and have come up with various solutions that are generally mutually incompatible. For Christians, the good go to heaven, a place of internal bliss and the home of Jesus and God. I've always wondered whether Jesus and God remain separate in heaven, or whether they conjoin to become the One God they ultimately are (Wot no Holy Ghost!). Other supernatural entities exist in heaven, such as Angels, which appear to be ranked in a hierarchy. Are other gods present, as hinted at in the Old Testament? Also, it gets a bit blurry on who can enter. Are the good and bad deeds we have performed in life weighed, and if the good outweighs the bad, do we enter? Or is it based on accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour? A belief that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross atones for our sins. 

The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) believe they are the only ones who will enter eternal life. Most JWs will be resurrected into perfect organic bodies and live forever on a perfect Earth —Garden of Eden 2.0. However, 144,000 will go to heaven to exist spiritually with Jehovah/Yahweh.  The folk who run the organisation are part of this select group and receive divine guidance that they pass on to other JWs as 'New Light'. It seems the members of the governing body are not short of money- interesting. My mother was a JW and tried to convert me when I was young, to no avail. Even when I was eight, I could see that their doctrine was a pile of ferrets' poo. A simple message for simple folk. 

As stated, many times on this blog, I can't envisage any form of consciousness following the death of the organic brain. That said, like the true empiricist I am, and if intellectually honest and fair, the answer to the question: 'What happens to our consciousness after death?' It's an earnest, I don't know. There is zero data, as no one has returned from true death to relate what happens. Don't be beguiled by so-called near-death experiences. These folk are not dead, just resting. Empiricism can only take us so far; in this case, it is found wanting. We have to rely on our intellect to develop plausible solutions. On that basis, the most highly likely scenario, by a vast margin of probability, is eternal oblivion. This only holds true if we live in a finite universe. If the universe is infinite, then all bets are off.

Christians no doubt find solace and comfort in believing in a blissful and eternal life after death. Interestingly, very few think deeply about the details and the consequences of an eternal existence. Bliss is wonderful in small doses; otherwise, it becomes mundane and the norm. The teachings from the church are a meld of Jewish and Greek thought and doctrine; they make an uneasy alliance. The Sadducees, an orthodox Jewish sect of old, thought that there was no life after death. Concepts of a joyful afterlife emerged after the Babylonian exile in 586 BC. The destruction of the temple and the exile of the ruling elite profoundly affected Jewish thought. They asked the obvious question: "Why, as god's chosen people, does he allow such misery in life? Surely if god is absolutely righteous, there should be some redress, if not in this life then in an afterlife." Many Jews took up this train of thought. The Jews had no concept of a soul that leaves the body for a separate existence after death. God had animated Adam by breathing into him, and all humans were blessed with God's gift of breath, which left the body upon death. If there is to be a resurrection after death, it would involve the reanimation of the physical body. This is what Jesus believed, and a close reading of the New Testament illustrates this teaching. There is no spirit, or what we call the soul. There is a very odd passage in Mathew 27, 51-53, that I think most  Christians would want to go away, especially those with a literal understanding of the bible. It concerns events in Jerusalem, just after Jesus' death on the cross. I'll quote it in part, here: "...and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." What a curious snippet indeed. Surely, Mathew is not to be taken literally here? Is he playing with metaphor, bandering words for poetical licence? Mathew leaves it there, and enlightenment concerning this passage is best left to the very stupid or very bright. And with that said, I will say no more.  

With all that said, most Christians are taught that upon death, an ethereal soul leaves the body and ascends/descends according to whatever they believe- take your pick. The soul is endowed with the identity and consciousness of the physical body it departed from. There is no resurrection of the physical body. If Jesus did not teach this doctrine, from whence did it come?  

The doctrine of the soul is derived from Greek thought. Many of the early converts to early Christianity were Gentiles. In contrast, Jesus' brother, James, and the Apostles remained in Jerusalem and Judea, focusing on converting fellow Jews to Christianity. *Saul/Paul, who had converted to Christianity a few years after Jesus' death, admittedly under mysterious circumstances, went forth to the Greek-speaking cities such as Corinth and travelled throughout the Eastern territories of the Roman Empire, converting Gentiles to the new religion. As history would show, early on, most of the converts were Greek-speaking gentiles. The Christian church in Jerusalem, led by Jesus' brother, would fizzle out or be reabsorbed into conventional Judaism. As centuries passed, the Christian Church became a religion of converted Gentiles. The Greeks thought of life in dualistic terms and believed in a soul that left the body after death to have a separate existence independent of the body. They did not think in terms of bodily reanimation. These ideas were to be imposed on Christianity. In fact, this was not the only Greek idea absorbed into Christianity, with the concomitant loss of many Jewish religious concepts. For instance, the confused and muddled doctrine of the Trinity (three gods in one) is not an early Christian teaching and is not explicit in the NT. However, Christian fundamentalists are quick to twist and bend NT teachings to fit whatever suits their needs. The consensus among scholars is that the 'Trinity', as observed by the Catholic Church today, developed within Greek philosophical thought and did not become church doctrine until the later part of the fourth century AD (Council of Constantinople 381 AD); murky waters indeed.

Enough, for now. My ramblings must desist for now. To be continued at a later date, mayhap?

*  Paul is a fascinating character worthy of a few posts- I'll see.