Human Rights?

So, the big man finally says, he is proud of the chaos surrounding the flame of Olympia. That he is proud of the violence created by his people, putting innocent bystanders as well as torchbearers in so much danger that they have no choice but to prematurely stop the race. That he is proud of people needlessly turning an honorable and memorable event into a disaster simply because of a completely unrelated situation. And he calls this a new way of challenging great minds? And he calls it a new method of uncovering a basic truth? This so called "human rights" that resulted in so much violence, economical standstill, and hatred being correct is the basic truth? Or is the basic truth that he allows to be showed through violence simply the fact that we humans are nothing more than selfish primates? In what way does forcing an Olympic torch bearer into hiding in the name of human rights show that the Tibetans deserve to be given independence? In what way does this show the virtue of human rights? In all the protests: trying to bully a Paralympic torchbearer into giving up the torch, fighting with the police who probably want nothing more than to finish his job safely to return to his family, climbing to the top of public suspension bridges to hang banners and forcing resources to be diverted to clear the mess, blocking off the road and stopping all cars from moving properly just so that the torchbearer can be attacked; WHERE IN THE WORLD DO ANY OF THESE EXAMPLES SHOW THE VIRTUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS?? To those who claim that china is using the Olympics as a political move, what in the world do the Olympics have anything to do with Tibet's release?? Even if somehow someone manages to link an Olympic torch relay to politics, who gives you the right to turn this further into a political affair? Is a harmonious Olympic event so hard to achieve? Must we kill a torchbearer, forcing the entire event to end before we are happy? Do we have to send hundreds to jail to maintain order, injuring others in the process, forcing the runners off their roads before we are happy? Is this the cost of human rights? Is this the price of freedom of expression? Is this what peace really is?

Mr big man here, PROFESSOR of HUMAN RIGHTS Geartly, still has the cheek to say that this is a good way to challenge the great mind? He still has the cheek to say that this is a new way of revealing the basic truth? What next? Violence is the road to peace? Murder gives life? Mobs, just for your information, resulted in the death of so many women in the middle-ages simply because they were thought to be witches. Can someone PLEASE remind me of one single event of violent protests that resulted in a positive change? Mind you, the American civil war doesn't count. Really, that statement should stand next to the president of science society's "whatever that can be invented has been invented." Do you really think that stopping a world event is really the way to make someone listen? Do you really think this is some new way of revealing some truths? Do you really think this lets the rest of the world see the wonder of human rights?

He said the enemy is not human rights. Of course it isn't. Is the cause of crimes money? Is the enemy of civilization communism? NO! Human rights, just like money and communism, is simply a concept to empower. Just as money is a tool, "human rights" is a tool that empowers every individual. HOWEVER, like money, it can be abused, like money, it can corrupt. Like communism, it can make life hell for everyone. To everyone down there protesting, "human rights" is just an excuse to insult a nation that is becoming a threat to them. If they really felt about human rights, they would leave the matter about this to after the Olympic events. What about the rights of the runners? What of the rights of the guards to pass through unharmed? What of the rights of the Olympic organizers, who have nothing to do with Tibet, to successfully execute their event without being caught up in Tibet's political struggle? What of the rights of the rest of china, who want nothing better than to show to the rest of the world what they can offer as a culture, to hold a happy Olympic event without getting shouted at in the face by angry protestors? Sigh.. disappointed..

Interesting articles

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080408-bear-video-ap.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impact-from-the-deep

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080403-fish-photo.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080407-alligator-blood.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080403-planet-embryo.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/photogalleries/giantcatfish/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-seaweed-mend-a-broken-heart&sc=rss

http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=303D360A-C95E-F224-F70927B95F900ECF&sc=rss

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-AP-japan-whali.html

some are quite cool, others are just plain disturbing..

 

Life and Evolution

Hmm.. quite a random question.. what is the definition of living thing? A thing that is able to evolve such that overall, the population of things slowly improve?

Something that is able to reproduce on its own?

What defines reproduction?

Something that can move?

Something that can think?

What is thinking?

 

Questions like these come in when we look at stuff on the very edges of life: viruses. They lack self-reproduction mechanisms, but then, so do many other animals. Bacteria species such as Rickettsia and Chlamydia are considered living organisms but are unable to reproduce outside a host cell. What about parasitic wasps, or fig wasps? Are we being short-sighted by insisting that reproduction can only be referred to the certain known reproduction methods: birth, binary fission, budding, laying eggs?

Must a living thing be able to move? The Chlamydia has virtually no metabolism when outside its host. Does this mean that the bacterium comes to life when it comes into contact with another cell?

Who are we to say what can think and what can't? How are we to know that the battery can't think and it's just that it is unable to prove it?

If viruses are nothing but a cluster of chemical reactions, aren't we too? We can't prove that we have a soul can we?

Isn't it disturbing that a non-living thing is able to not only populate our bodies, adapting to our every defensive mechanisms, and in many situations, overpowering us?

If viruses are living things, then what about viroids, or even prions?

If anything that can evolve is a living thing, then sooner or later, we're going to have to add machines to this category. (see link): http://www.nerdshit.com/wordpress/2007/03/02/evolving-robots-and-a-comparison-of-individual-vs-group-selection-awesome/

 

On a side note, slime molds have been known to be able to move as an aggregated clump in complete unison-not one cell gets left behind. So are they one multi-cellular organism, or are they just many with a communications system that far exceeds ours?

Love

Such a beautiful thing, separated into 4 general parts: agape, philia, eros, and storge.

 

Storge: the first love we come into contact with

It is the love of a parent to a child; a love from one sibling to another. It can also be a love from a familiar one to another. It's the love of familiarity. The love that transcends all faults, simply it is the love for someone because he/she has always been with you. The closest word that describes it is affection. It is natural and defused; natural because it's not coerced, and neither does it favor lovable features.

 

Eros: the love between couples (roy and zhao ye!)

Romantic love, sexual love, intimate love, hit by cupid's arrow; these explain eros. No elaboration needed.

 

Agape: all Christians should know this. If they don't they ought to be shot. The love given by God, the unconditional and altruistic love given by one to another. Also known as caritas. As they say, Deus est Caritas.

 

Philia: one of the more beautiful loves, the love for a friend. To love the relationship. Thus, it's solid, firm, unbreakable. End point? Complete and total understanding of one another, complete and total acceptance of one another, and many more "complete and total".

Love between one person and another will almost never be placed under only one category. For one, a couple's love will be a mix of eros, philia and storge. Couples married for 50 years and still really love each other have a mix of all 4. Friends: a mix of storge and philia. A love towards a sibling can be both philia and storge.

Love is such an easy thing to experience, such an easy thing to speak of, and such an easy thing to know of. Yet, it's so hard to understand, appreciate, and to give. If the world understood love, how much better will it be?

YAY

Yay! Birthday! Never expected so many people would bother to chip in for my birthday! Thanks to all of you!

Will be very short this time since it's a "filler" post.

What defines “Me”?

This speech is not an answer, and does not attempt to answer any questions. In fact, it simply raises questions for us to ponder over.

There is essentially 2 observable parts that make up anyone- the physical appearance, and the personality. For the sake of argument, we will ignore the existence of the soul as we can neither proof nor disproof its existence. Now here comes the difficult part: which of these do we accept as the person? Or is it the two combined? Let me explain with some scenarios.

Scenario 1: your significant other suffers from a car crash. He/she is bedridden, had half his/her face burnt off, crippled and is unable to move anything below his/her neck. Yet he/she maintains the same personality that you know: jovial, caring, selfless/hurtful, spiteful, whatever. In terms of physical appearance, he /she is essentially a different person. You cannot even recognize who this person is if he/she does not open his/her mouth. In terms of his/her personality, he/she remains unchanged. In other words, he/she is the same person in a different body. Now is that still your significant other? Most will say yes.

Scenario 2: your significant other suffers from another accident. He/she suffers minor scratches, but had a severe concussion, to the point where he/she has a different personality. That person is now completely changed in terms of personality, from jovial to grumpy, caring to violent etc. Now since we take it that the scratches completely heal, but the brain damage is permanent, we can safely say that he/she is essentially a different person in your spouse's body. Now is that still who you love? Many will still say yes.

Scenario 3: same as the first 2, except that now the person is both brain damaged and injured. Your spouse, who originally looked and acted like snow white or tom cruise, now looks and acts like the evil witch or the hunchback of Notre dame. Now it brings another question: is that still your spouse? Many will still say yes.

Scenario 4: your significant other suddenly comes up to tell you after being married for 10 years, that in fact he/she died 3 months after the marriage, but was cloned to completely replace him/her. The person is identical; every physical appearance is identical, even to the point of childhood injuries and mitochondrial DNA. Memories are implanted such that psychologically he/she is the same as well. Essentially, he/she is the same person in the same body. Now how many would agree that this is still the one they love, that this is still the same person they met over 10 years ago before they got married?

Now let me explain in detail why we will ignore the existence of the soul in each of the scenarios. Firstly, who are we to say that due to the crash, soul switching occurred somehow and thus another person's soul is in your spouse's body? What if during the accident, somehow the personality of twin brothers in the same car was switched? How do we know if it was simply due to chance that they personality changed in the direction of their brother and not that their souls switched? How will we know that somehow again, by implanting memories in that person, the soul was moved over to the new body?

Now before you change your answer to the fourth scenario, what if you accept that clone as your real spouse and your REAL spouse comes back because he/she never really died? Now what if scenario 1/2/3 happened to this REAL spouse? Who is your real spouse then?

What defines us? What that can be observed can be changed. Does that change the person? The questions have been asked. Now it is up to you to answer it.

thought of the day

here's for some new i'm bored thoughts of the day:

i've been trying to figure out why when we are sleepy we want to close our eyes. i mean, fine our eyes dry up and stuff, but doesn't blinking cover that? we're suppose to feel sleepy when our brain starts to feel the strain from the continuous thoughts and stuff. so, if that's why we feel sleepy, why does only our eyes feel the strain and not say, our sense of touch, or hearing or taste, or we suddenly start feeling that the dustbin smells better than.. flowers or something?

they say that insects our size are unable to support their weight, so such insects don't exist. but i just wonder (again): imagine a knight wearing a full metal plate with legs, full helmet and a 2 handed, that can add up to over 60kg. if i'm not wrong, the plate itself weighs a staggering (literally) 45kg. now if a knight can walk around the bloody square in that hulking piece of armour, why can't an ant with the full exoskeleton (which probably weigh lighter than that) support its own weight? of course if we take the cube/square rule: assume ant is 2mm, increase in size 1000 times. strength increases 100 times. thus, if it can carry 50 times its weight before, it should be able to carry 5 times its weight yea? of course that means the ant is only 2cm long. and we've seen 2 cm long ants before. but then again, we've seen those ants carry big stuff. so.. i guess i'll come back another time to answer this question

ok now for some interesting random comments (since i think almost no one reads this blog so i'm fine writing this): i've always wondered why girls like to cut their hair. personal opinion but i think girls with longer hair look much better.

now before i go crazy thinking about it, IF anyone reads this post, can you please give me ideas on how to successfully interrogate people like kenneth?