I took my grand-daughter (age 11 at the time) to hear the Vienna Boys Choir perform. On the way home, she and a friend were talking and giggling in the back seat when my grand-daughter suddenly asked, "Papa, why did Heavenly Father make leeches?" I don't know where that question came from. My reply that He must have thought they were important, simply provoked a large, "Yuck!" from my grand-daughter. She obviously disagrees with Heavenly Father.
For several years I was involved in mosquito control activities. One of the most frequently asked question was, “What good are mosquitoes?” At first I took the question quite seriously because it provided me with the opportunity to showcase my otherwise useless biological knowledge and understanding of ecological matters. But it soon became apparent that people didn’t really care about the role mosquitoes might play in the natural ecosystem. For most people, the mere existence of mosquitoes is simply unfathomable.
But recently I had the random thought, “What are people for?” I think maybe people need to think about that a little.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
EZEKIEL SAW A WHEEL . . . .
“Ezekiel saw the wheel, way up in the middle of the air.”
(Negro spiritual)
Actually, he saw two wheels, one inside the other (Ezekiel 1:16). When two wheels are set inside each other they are made to turn together, in the same direction, in harmony. And Ezekiel tells us that where the living creatures went, the wheels went. These wheels are united inside one another, turning in the same direction, with similar purpose. Working together favors life.
In contrast, William Blake wrote, in his poem “And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time” (second stanza only presented here):
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
What mill wheels did he reference? It is generally thought that he spoke of a wheel outside of a wheel, as found in an industrial mill of his day: the two wheels in opposition to each other. In this arrangement, one wheel turns the other by inter-meshing cogs. These two wheels are divided in space, direction of rotation and purpose. And this image he found “Satanic”.
The word “control” literally means to roll against. It is interesting that as a mechanical principle, opposing wheels are excellent forms of control. But as a metaphor for a culture, or a person, it suggests that sometime after Ezekiel, man began to see himself as turning, not with the forces of creation and God, but against it.
(Negro spiritual)
Actually, he saw two wheels, one inside the other (Ezekiel 1:16). When two wheels are set inside each other they are made to turn together, in the same direction, in harmony. And Ezekiel tells us that where the living creatures went, the wheels went. These wheels are united inside one another, turning in the same direction, with similar purpose. Working together favors life.
In contrast, William Blake wrote, in his poem “And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time” (second stanza only presented here):
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
What mill wheels did he reference? It is generally thought that he spoke of a wheel outside of a wheel, as found in an industrial mill of his day: the two wheels in opposition to each other. In this arrangement, one wheel turns the other by inter-meshing cogs. These two wheels are divided in space, direction of rotation and purpose. And this image he found “Satanic”.
The word “control” literally means to roll against. It is interesting that as a mechanical principle, opposing wheels are excellent forms of control. But as a metaphor for a culture, or a person, it suggests that sometime after Ezekiel, man began to see himself as turning, not with the forces of creation and God, but against it.
Monday, July 19, 2010
GDP AND FAILURE
Can a country survive when it is more profitable to be sick or broken than to be well or repaired? Soon the major portion of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will not be about production, but about health care. No one can make money out of keeping people healthy, so we are worth more to our country sick and well. Why? Because we will spend more. Of course, this is true only if the only our culture values only money. GDP does not measure many other variables such as top soil, stability, creativity, safety, friendliness, food quality, reliability of products, or freedom.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work together, diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth to that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
They will be worth more, financially, to the economy if they divorce. Then they will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and they will need child care. There will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community and to society, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries? Perhaps the GDP could be used as a measure of just how broken and inefficient a nation is: the higher the GDP, the worse off it would be in many of the things that matter most. Is the GDP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work together, diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth to that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
They will be worth more, financially, to the economy if they divorce. Then they will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and they will need child care. There will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community and to society, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries? Perhaps the GDP could be used as a measure of just how broken and inefficient a nation is: the higher the GDP, the worse off it would be in many of the things that matter most. Is the GDP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
CONTROL
Humans are obsessed with control. We say we want to “keep things under control”. We try to “control” inflation, erosion, traffic, crowds, development, and even our selves. Much of our efforts are spent in trying to control the forces of nature. But we have been successful enough that we sometimes think we have control.
However, it is impossible to control anything, if we refuse to identify, and set, the limits of the extremes. So while we use the word, we have no real intent. If one cannot limit the cause, one cannot limit the effect. And humans refuse to limit spending, borrowing, cars, houses, or just about anything else, even ourselves. We wish to control the forces of nature, but not limit human nature.
For whatever reason, humans have taken control mostly through violent means. How much of our society depends on explosions? We use the concept in mines, building highways, weapons, inside internal combustion engines, even fighting fires. And wherever there is energy there is always the risk of explosion. We even experience “boom and bust” economic cycles. The industrial revolution could be called the explosion revolution.
When something is very complex we generally assume there must be some single cause. Early scientists discovered a law that for every action there must be an opposite and equal reaction. While this appears to be true, it has led mankind to believe that there must always be central control. In fact, in nature, control is almost always decentralized. But humans have difficulty seeing how order can arise spontaneously from disorder, even though it appears to happen over and over again.
Thus we continuously try to control the world with central control, when all of nature testifies that it is not possible. Nature and human nature are not the same thing.
However, it is impossible to control anything, if we refuse to identify, and set, the limits of the extremes. So while we use the word, we have no real intent. If one cannot limit the cause, one cannot limit the effect. And humans refuse to limit spending, borrowing, cars, houses, or just about anything else, even ourselves. We wish to control the forces of nature, but not limit human nature.
For whatever reason, humans have taken control mostly through violent means. How much of our society depends on explosions? We use the concept in mines, building highways, weapons, inside internal combustion engines, even fighting fires. And wherever there is energy there is always the risk of explosion. We even experience “boom and bust” economic cycles. The industrial revolution could be called the explosion revolution.
When something is very complex we generally assume there must be some single cause. Early scientists discovered a law that for every action there must be an opposite and equal reaction. While this appears to be true, it has led mankind to believe that there must always be central control. In fact, in nature, control is almost always decentralized. But humans have difficulty seeing how order can arise spontaneously from disorder, even though it appears to happen over and over again.
Thus we continuously try to control the world with central control, when all of nature testifies that it is not possible. Nature and human nature are not the same thing.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
THE SHAPE OF THINGS
I have decided to get in shape. And the shape I have chosen is a triangle.
On second thought, all those sines and cosines would probably confuse me. I have enough trouble following street signs. But the shape of things, including signs and sines, have always interested me. Why do things even have shapes? I mean, a chair has a shape suited to sitting in. But why do things like rocks, trees, rivers, and crickets have the shape they have? And who gets to decide what shape they will be? No one ever asked me. As you can see I also have problems with tangents.
But to have a shape, something must be a solid. It’s hard to have a shape if you can’t hold it, and only solids can hold their shape. Solids are a result of the interface between order and disorder, and the arrangements of elemental particles called atoms.
Atoms always strike me as odd things. I think of them as particles, but I am told they are mostly empty space, with a few smaller particles like electrons and protons floating around. But these packages of mostly space can be packaged together in different ways to make what we call the three states of matter.
The nature of what physical state we perceive is less about which specific atoms are involved, although that is often important, and more about how close together these packets of space are packaged. Atoms, which are mostly empty space, when packed close together become the thing we call a solid. And solid things have shapes.
Someone has said that “solids are those parts of the physical world which support when sat on, which hurt when kicked, and kill when shot.” So if I understand this correctly, if we pack something that is mostly empty space closely enough together we get a solid.
But of course, the space in atoms isn’t really empty, it is just empty of material. Uhm, what else is there? Well, I am told that the space in atoms is filled with things such as electronic fields. Fields are empty space so you see the space inside atoms is filled with fields. Is this getting more clear?
But electronic fields actually can fill space, in the same way that a magnetic field can fill space. If one take two magnets and bring like poles together you will feel a resistance filling the space between the two magnets. Depending on how strong the magnets are, and how strong you are, it may be very difficult, or impossible, to push the two together. The space between the two magnets seems to be full of something.
So it doesn’t really matter which atoms we are talking about, just how close together they are, for us to experience solidarity. (Wait, isn’t that a political movement?) Anyway, a solid is a substance in which atoms and their accompanying fields are packed together very closely. If the atoms are not closely packed they can slide around across each other, much like two magnets with like poles seem to slide around each other, instead of ever actually touching. Such a substance can’t hold a shape and is called a liquid.
So, much of what we experience in the physical world, the shape of things, depends simply on how close together the atoms are packaged. Solids are closely packed empty spaces, liquids are less closely packed empty spaces, and gasses are empty spaces packed into a larger empty space, loosely. Seems perfectly clear to me.
Of course, once atoms are brought into close proximity to one another, they have to fit together according to their shape, like a pattern on wall paper. That is where it becomes important which shape of atom is involved. Some fit together in hexagons, some as cubes, and some even as triangles. That’s my kind of shape.
On second thought, all those sines and cosines would probably confuse me. I have enough trouble following street signs. But the shape of things, including signs and sines, have always interested me. Why do things even have shapes? I mean, a chair has a shape suited to sitting in. But why do things like rocks, trees, rivers, and crickets have the shape they have? And who gets to decide what shape they will be? No one ever asked me. As you can see I also have problems with tangents.
But to have a shape, something must be a solid. It’s hard to have a shape if you can’t hold it, and only solids can hold their shape. Solids are a result of the interface between order and disorder, and the arrangements of elemental particles called atoms.
Atoms always strike me as odd things. I think of them as particles, but I am told they are mostly empty space, with a few smaller particles like electrons and protons floating around. But these packages of mostly space can be packaged together in different ways to make what we call the three states of matter.
The nature of what physical state we perceive is less about which specific atoms are involved, although that is often important, and more about how close together these packets of space are packaged. Atoms, which are mostly empty space, when packed close together become the thing we call a solid. And solid things have shapes.
Someone has said that “solids are those parts of the physical world which support when sat on, which hurt when kicked, and kill when shot.” So if I understand this correctly, if we pack something that is mostly empty space closely enough together we get a solid.
But of course, the space in atoms isn’t really empty, it is just empty of material. Uhm, what else is there? Well, I am told that the space in atoms is filled with things such as electronic fields. Fields are empty space so you see the space inside atoms is filled with fields. Is this getting more clear?
But electronic fields actually can fill space, in the same way that a magnetic field can fill space. If one take two magnets and bring like poles together you will feel a resistance filling the space between the two magnets. Depending on how strong the magnets are, and how strong you are, it may be very difficult, or impossible, to push the two together. The space between the two magnets seems to be full of something.
So it doesn’t really matter which atoms we are talking about, just how close together they are, for us to experience solidarity. (Wait, isn’t that a political movement?) Anyway, a solid is a substance in which atoms and their accompanying fields are packed together very closely. If the atoms are not closely packed they can slide around across each other, much like two magnets with like poles seem to slide around each other, instead of ever actually touching. Such a substance can’t hold a shape and is called a liquid.
So, much of what we experience in the physical world, the shape of things, depends simply on how close together the atoms are packaged. Solids are closely packed empty spaces, liquids are less closely packed empty spaces, and gasses are empty spaces packed into a larger empty space, loosely. Seems perfectly clear to me.
Of course, once atoms are brought into close proximity to one another, they have to fit together according to their shape, like a pattern on wall paper. That is where it becomes important which shape of atom is involved. Some fit together in hexagons, some as cubes, and some even as triangles. That’s my kind of shape.
Friday, June 4, 2010
PROGRESS
I have just recently been through a time of perplexity and complexity. It occurs to me that whatever good we might accomplish in this life is not done by raw intelligence, information, or determination alone. It requires knowledge, skill, and subtle characteristics such as restraint and judgment. Much knowledge, and many of these characteristics, come from our past, handed down through generations. There are at least two forces in our modern world that threaten past knowledge and character development.
In our modern world, run as it is from electronic connections, we value the ‘new and improved’ over the ‘tried and true’. The newest electronic equipment or software package is desired, even when older ones perform tasks perfectly well. Often the promise of the new simply means more applications that are seldom, or never, used anyway. Progress is always seen as forward and upward towards something better. But, of course that assumption depends entirely on what one defines as better. A straight line can also go straight down. Without the past we have no way of knowing what trajectory we are on.
Another difficulty we face today is the question, which past do we learn from? Multiculturalism has clouded this issue by attempting to make all pasts equally valuable. To the individual all pasts may be equally valid. But to a culture it is not so simple. The past that has given us freedom, democracy, order, the rule of law, and economic opportunity is not the same past that is based upon tyrants, social justice, bribery, or the collective domination of community. For example, science, which today is often seen as anti-religious, was born only from Christianity where the habit of reason and critical thinking was actually encouraged for centuries. Science did not arise spontaneously in other cultures where different religions held sway such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. Not all pasts are of the same significance in the modern culture.
At one time, humans were thought to exist in our own sphere, somewhere between the angels and the animals. With this knowledge we were able to act benevolently towards the latter and reverentially towards the former. It generated a thoughtful approach to life and our own proper role. This idea has been mostly abandoned, and modern man sees himself as just another animal. Animals are seldom benevolent towards one another, and have little regard for the future. They do not plan ahead and the capacity of self-restraint or wisdom. That’s progress, of a sort.
In our modern world, run as it is from electronic connections, we value the ‘new and improved’ over the ‘tried and true’. The newest electronic equipment or software package is desired, even when older ones perform tasks perfectly well. Often the promise of the new simply means more applications that are seldom, or never, used anyway. Progress is always seen as forward and upward towards something better. But, of course that assumption depends entirely on what one defines as better. A straight line can also go straight down. Without the past we have no way of knowing what trajectory we are on.
Another difficulty we face today is the question, which past do we learn from? Multiculturalism has clouded this issue by attempting to make all pasts equally valuable. To the individual all pasts may be equally valid. But to a culture it is not so simple. The past that has given us freedom, democracy, order, the rule of law, and economic opportunity is not the same past that is based upon tyrants, social justice, bribery, or the collective domination of community. For example, science, which today is often seen as anti-religious, was born only from Christianity where the habit of reason and critical thinking was actually encouraged for centuries. Science did not arise spontaneously in other cultures where different religions held sway such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. Not all pasts are of the same significance in the modern culture.
At one time, humans were thought to exist in our own sphere, somewhere between the angels and the animals. With this knowledge we were able to act benevolently towards the latter and reverentially towards the former. It generated a thoughtful approach to life and our own proper role. This idea has been mostly abandoned, and modern man sees himself as just another animal. Animals are seldom benevolent towards one another, and have little regard for the future. They do not plan ahead and the capacity of self-restraint or wisdom. That’s progress, of a sort.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
TOP SOIL
Can an object have conflicting characteristics simultaneously?
• Could an object be strong and flexible at the same time?
• How about an object that is soft and rigid simultaneously?
• Could something drain and retain all at once?
Well, in fact, these kinds of objects are quite common. Almost all biological objects are combinations of attributes, often in opposition to each other. Wood is strong and flexible. Sponges are soft and rigid. Good top soil both drains and retains water.
Man-made objects are often quite different. Humans tend to focus on the characteristic they need for a given task and engineer for that task over everything else. Modern industry simply doesn’t know how to make top soil. It can make steel that is strong and inflexible, or steel cables that are flexible, but lack the same strength. And modern agriculture usually practices water retention and water drainage as two separate issues, never practiced at the same time, in the same place, or in the same way.
Modern humans have bedroom communities in which to live, but they have to work many miles away. Men have stores where they get their food, but the food must be shipped long distances. Mankind has an extended learning period to function in the world, so they put their children into school far away from home, work or the natural world to learn.
Could it be possible for people to live in small communities scattered across the land, live and work in their own fields and businesses close by, and educate their children in their own homes or businesses? That was the way it was for centuries. Many now believe that is impossible because we are now too big. But there is reason the world must be structured the way in is in the United States now. In fact, most of the world is not structured in the modern way at all.
Our present world of full of these odd behaviors developed only after World War II through government programs and incentives. The government purposely encouraged the movement of people off the land and into towns in order to benefit large industry. This was part of the progressive dream. Society would take care of us all and the efficiency of society was all that was important. Not the sanctity of freedom and human life. In fact, our country accomplished this massive reallocation of the population, greater than Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung ever dreamed of, in the course of a single generation.
The world could be more like top soil, more organic, more able to retain and drain water simultaneously, if it were more organic.
• Could an object be strong and flexible at the same time?
• How about an object that is soft and rigid simultaneously?
• Could something drain and retain all at once?
Well, in fact, these kinds of objects are quite common. Almost all biological objects are combinations of attributes, often in opposition to each other. Wood is strong and flexible. Sponges are soft and rigid. Good top soil both drains and retains water.
Man-made objects are often quite different. Humans tend to focus on the characteristic they need for a given task and engineer for that task over everything else. Modern industry simply doesn’t know how to make top soil. It can make steel that is strong and inflexible, or steel cables that are flexible, but lack the same strength. And modern agriculture usually practices water retention and water drainage as two separate issues, never practiced at the same time, in the same place, or in the same way.
Modern humans have bedroom communities in which to live, but they have to work many miles away. Men have stores where they get their food, but the food must be shipped long distances. Mankind has an extended learning period to function in the world, so they put their children into school far away from home, work or the natural world to learn.
Could it be possible for people to live in small communities scattered across the land, live and work in their own fields and businesses close by, and educate their children in their own homes or businesses? That was the way it was for centuries. Many now believe that is impossible because we are now too big. But there is reason the world must be structured the way in is in the United States now. In fact, most of the world is not structured in the modern way at all.
Our present world of full of these odd behaviors developed only after World War II through government programs and incentives. The government purposely encouraged the movement of people off the land and into towns in order to benefit large industry. This was part of the progressive dream. Society would take care of us all and the efficiency of society was all that was important. Not the sanctity of freedom and human life. In fact, our country accomplished this massive reallocation of the population, greater than Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung ever dreamed of, in the course of a single generation.
The world could be more like top soil, more organic, more able to retain and drain water simultaneously, if it were more organic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
