"Your Inner Fish": A book review

In Your Inner Fish, A Journey Into the 3.5 - Billion - Year History of the Human Body, Dr. Neil Shubin details how evolutionary adaptations in the early history of life on earth helped to shape, and left their stamp on the human form.

Professor Shubin begins the book with a chapter detailing his discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, an important transitional fish species, fossilized in a remote region of northern Canada. He then proceeds to show how important aspects of human anatomy can be traced back to the limbs of this primitive fish, how discoveries about stages of embryo development can shine a light on how genes work to build our bodies, and how our current body structures evolved from our more primitive ancestors, all the way, comparing parts of human anatomy with earlier, more primitive forms in other animals, from fish to jellyfish, to anemones to bacteria.

Shubin may well be one of the best writers of popular science today. I recommend this book heartily to anyone who wants to learn a lot more about themselves and the natural world.

Why We Should Argue More

There is strong social pressure put on individuals to "not argue"

particularly about important things like politics, religion and

ethics. We are pressured not to discuss these subjects because people

may become upset if foundational beliefs are questioned.

But which is worse, becoming upset, or basing one's life on false

precepts. There are several reasons why we have this taboo, and I

hope to address each that I am aware of.

First roadblock is the word "argue" itself. This is a troubling word

with several different meanings. First it means "give reasons or cite

evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the

aim of persuading others to share one's view", this is the definition

I am referring to. The other (perhaps more common definition) is

"exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a

heated or angry way." In other words, to verbally battle.

If we use a more verbally neutral word, for instance "discuss" rather

than "argue," the objections don't, however, go away. It seems to me

that we each have two competing social needs that vary from individual

to individual. One is a need to share our beliefs with others, and

another is the need to blend in and just get along. Different

cultures may encourage one more than the other, but all have strong

taboos that favor and encourage the latter need.

It is my belief that these taboos arose out of the need for "unit

cohesion" amongst the small bands of hunter gatherers. Where survival

required all the members to act together without delays while

individuals debated the relative strengths of one course of action

over another.

Indeed those organisations that most restrict individual opinion and

debate today are those military and paramilitary organisations where

quick cooperative action can make the difference in life and death.

However, outside of a few unusual circumstances, we do not need to

make those sacrifices in our daily lives. In fact, I argue we would

be better served to encourage open argument about all subjects.

Argument benefits us in 2 ways, First it helps us to see errors in our

understanding and therefor create a more accurate model

with which to base our decisions on. Having a flawed model of

political systems, the universe, or ethics can have profound negative

effects on decision making. Second it helps us to flesh out our

current understanding of our own beliefs. Someone's opposing beliefs

may help us to better understand our own beliefs by putting them to

the test.

So whether You win or loose, you win.

Panic Over Non-Fatal Condition Puts Children's Lives At Risk

Whilst quietly sipping my coffee and reading the paper today, I came across this story in the LA Times, California schools' risks rise as vaccinations drop.

What is happening to our nation, when parents are so afraid of a non-fatal condition (that there is NO evidence is caused by immunization) that they will put the lives of their children, at risk? I could understand it if these were uneducated hillbillies with no concept of germ theory and an unhealthy fear of outsiders, but the core of these people are college educated professionals who have no excuse for this stupidity. I wish I could say more, I wanted to write a longer, more coherent piece, but the overpowering vastness of man's potential for stupidity has me awed. I am sorry, I'm just speechless.

I am not Left, Right or Center!

It bothers me when Democrats accuse me of being right-wing, or when Republicans accuse me of being leftist. Which is true, neither. Furthermore, I am not a centrist, nor am I in anyway middle of the road. In-fact I'm firmly not anywhere on your road, I'm off blazing my own trail. If you ask me nicely, rather than assuming you know, I'll gladly tell you what my politics are, I am a liberal.

All of my politics are informed by my deep belief in the importance of the individual's rights. I believe laws are only acceptable for the defense of the individual's liberty.

I am for ending drug prohibition because all consenting adults have the right to do whatsoever they want with their own bodies. If you want to do stupid things to yourself, that is your right, and I'm ethically required to act in defense of that even though I think it's stupid.

Likewise, passing laws against suicide are not only absurd (in reality you cannot punish suicides, only attempted suicides), but abhorrent. Not because taking your life is good, but because its your own damn business.

While I don't condone marriage, I believe that if the government is going to support heterosexual marriage, it should also support and recognize homosexual and polygamous marriage, so long as all individuals are consenting adults. The best thing would be to remove marriage from government control, they have no place in peoples relationships.

Nor should the government, nor anyone else for that matter, be able to coerce individuals into spending their hard earned money for things they don't want. If I want to help financially support someone, I'll do it of my own free will thank you. If I want to pay for someone's medical bill, I'm able to make up my own mind about that. Nor should I be able to use the government to shake down others to help clothe, feed and heal me when I'm in need. We all have the right to fail too.

"Carbon Dioxide Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful

I was reading the New York Times website, when I came upon this story: E.P.A. Clears the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases. This inspired me to pose the following question.

Is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere bad?

Let me start off by stating that I personally believe that global warming is a real phenomenon, and that its cause is the buildup of green-house gasses in the atmosphere. I don't know to what extent that buildup is the cause of human agencies, and I don't care. I do not care if it is natural, or unnatural. The natural/unnatural dichotomy is essentially meaningless in nearly every case.

I also believe that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released by our industries is a good idea, and may reverse or at least mitigate the effects of global warming. I don't know that it would, but it is certainly worth a try. This is however not the reason I posed the opening question.

What I want to know, is if it is wise to instill a negative connotation on greenhouse gasses. After all, if we know anything from the geological history of our planet we know that drastic climate change is truly the norm. What may be now a beneficial policy of reduction of green-house gasses could be detrimental down the road a few hundred years if we demonize carbon dioxide whole cloth.

Nor should we delude ourselves into thinking that what we want is the natural balance. Geological history tells us the planet has no "normal" climate. Instead, I propose that we admit to ourselves that what we ideally need to do is take the global climate under human control, to keep it in the zone that is most beneficial to us. Us being the majority of the species that are extant on the planet at the moment. Because we know that these major shifts in climate that have occurred in the past correlate with mass extinctions.