My blog wasn't named without reason: I HATE technology with a passion. At times I feel I would have been better off in the time of the Crusades, even though I would probably have died before the age of thirty. But I digress, because I've found this excellent article that finally vindicates me:
http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/personal-autonomy-is-evaportating-should-we-care
As I said, I believe it's excellent, but you should probably see for yourself - I'm really biased on the subject. But the article has undeniably valid points: technology is getting more complex, more controlling, and more prevalent. And as this occurs, people are becoming more and more dependent upon technology for everything. To those of you who think I'm technophobic, that's what I'm afraid of: reliance on technology. Because, in my experience, technology is extremely unreliable. Just in the last day or two, Anika failed to send Danny a video clip for one of his commercials - not for lack of trying, but because the technology let them both down. And it's not just that - emails don't always send, Google Maps and GPS's almost always tell you to take the long way, and voice/fingerprint recognition technologies, such as the ones beginning to be used in cars and homes, are faulty and easy to fool. And there's the increasing danger of cyber warfare - when society becomes dependent upon the Internet, and GPS's, and other satellite-controlled technologies, what happens when a rival nation starts shooting down your satellites, or hacking into those programs? You get chaos, because in fifty years, driving your own car, getting into your house with keys, and spending a night without a computer will be considered catastrophes. And that could be a very serious problem. So I can promise you all this: in sixty years, I will be that crotchety old guy who drives his own car and gets apprehended all the time for breaking the law (see the article). In fifteen, my kids will be among the few in America who won't be watching T.V. or playing on their cell phones. In ten, I will be the guy who uses a map made of actual paper when he goes on the road. And in three, I will be the guy who still reads books made of paper.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Mousetrap Fiasco
So...I've had an interesting day.
Things sailed smoothly until about 3:20 this afternoon. School had proceeded normally, as school goes, and I'd made a fair amount of progress on my STAC Art project. After school, I endured the arduous thirty-foot hike from the STAC room to the auditorium, where we were supposed to have had auditions for the dramatic production, The Mousetrap. For those of you who don't know, this play was written by Agatha Christie, perhaps the greatest mystery writer of all time, responsible for such masterpieces as And Then There Were None. As for the play itself...I can't reveal much without spoiling it, but it is masterfully written, and contains Christie's habit of throwing off the audience/reader. So there we were, filling out the audition forms, and looking forward to getting up on stage...when Mrs. Latham, our director, came back from the music office with bad news. Apparently, Agatha Christie somehow made it illegal to perform The Mousetrap within seventy-five miles of Manhattan. Why? Who knows? She didn't ban any of her other works from Broadway. We have permission to perform Ten Little Indians (based upon And Then There Were None), according to the music office. What's more, Herricks has performed The Mousetrap in years past, or so I've been lead to believe. And I can't find any source online that mentions the play being banned in the New York area, and it isn't for lack of trying. So why can't we put on the damn show? The only thing I know for certain is that this whole fiasco has definitely lowered my opinion of Ms. Christie.
Things sailed smoothly until about 3:20 this afternoon. School had proceeded normally, as school goes, and I'd made a fair amount of progress on my STAC Art project. After school, I endured the arduous thirty-foot hike from the STAC room to the auditorium, where we were supposed to have had auditions for the dramatic production, The Mousetrap. For those of you who don't know, this play was written by Agatha Christie, perhaps the greatest mystery writer of all time, responsible for such masterpieces as And Then There Were None. As for the play itself...I can't reveal much without spoiling it, but it is masterfully written, and contains Christie's habit of throwing off the audience/reader. So there we were, filling out the audition forms, and looking forward to getting up on stage...when Mrs. Latham, our director, came back from the music office with bad news. Apparently, Agatha Christie somehow made it illegal to perform The Mousetrap within seventy-five miles of Manhattan. Why? Who knows? She didn't ban any of her other works from Broadway. We have permission to perform Ten Little Indians (based upon And Then There Were None), according to the music office. What's more, Herricks has performed The Mousetrap in years past, or so I've been lead to believe. And I can't find any source online that mentions the play being banned in the New York area, and it isn't for lack of trying. So why can't we put on the damn show? The only thing I know for certain is that this whole fiasco has definitely lowered my opinion of Ms. Christie.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Big Think: The Stonehenge Man
I still hate it, but technology is amazing. I found this video on Big Think, and I don't doubt its authenticity:
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/reconstruction-gives-stonehenge-man-a-face
It's amazing that scientists today can redesign someone's facial features, excepting the color of their eyes and hair, based solely on their skull. Even a skull that's over five-and-a-half-thousand years old. That, however, raises another question, of whether or not Stonehenge, where the skull was found, existed at the time of this man's life - and death. Because, after all, we don't really know what Stonehenge is, or why it was built, or by whom.
So just how old is Stonehenge? Well, the best evidence suggests that it was built in the second millennium before Christ, between three thousand and four thousand years ago, though nobody can agree on the exact century, or why it was built (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7625145.stm, http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2008/05/29/stonehengeuse-as-cemetery/). At any rate, it would seem that the "Stonehenge Man," whose skull is seen in the video, perished centuries before Stonehenge was built, and was likely discovered there by chance. But that still doesn't explain why Stonehenge was built. There is, of course, the famous calendar theory, which states that that the rising sun, when viewed through the stones, indicated the time of the year. However, there's no evidence that this is anything more than a coincidence, and that if it is, it was the sole purpose. There's also the theory that the site was constructed as a cemetery, but there haven't been enough bodies discovered near the site for this to be the case. The theory I subscribe to is that the site was constructed as a sort of grave marker for the aristocracy or monarchy of the area, akin to the pyramids of Egypt, as evidenced by the discovery of elaborately-buried individuals there. As for the idea that Celtic pagans constructed Stonehenge as a religious site, there is no evidence for this. Although pagans did construct stone circles, they would not have remotely resembled Stonehenge: they were simply circles with a perimeter of stones. And as for other theories, including those stating that Stonehenge is a memorial for victims of some battle or hallowed ground for a lost culture...we simply have no way to know if they are true, and likely never will.
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/reconstruction-gives-stonehenge-man-a-face
It's amazing that scientists today can redesign someone's facial features, excepting the color of their eyes and hair, based solely on their skull. Even a skull that's over five-and-a-half-thousand years old. That, however, raises another question, of whether or not Stonehenge, where the skull was found, existed at the time of this man's life - and death. Because, after all, we don't really know what Stonehenge is, or why it was built, or by whom.
So just how old is Stonehenge? Well, the best evidence suggests that it was built in the second millennium before Christ, between three thousand and four thousand years ago, though nobody can agree on the exact century, or why it was built (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7625145.stm, http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2008/05/29/stonehengeuse-as-cemetery/). At any rate, it would seem that the "Stonehenge Man," whose skull is seen in the video, perished centuries before Stonehenge was built, and was likely discovered there by chance. But that still doesn't explain why Stonehenge was built. There is, of course, the famous calendar theory, which states that that the rising sun, when viewed through the stones, indicated the time of the year. However, there's no evidence that this is anything more than a coincidence, and that if it is, it was the sole purpose. There's also the theory that the site was constructed as a cemetery, but there haven't been enough bodies discovered near the site for this to be the case. The theory I subscribe to is that the site was constructed as a sort of grave marker for the aristocracy or monarchy of the area, akin to the pyramids of Egypt, as evidenced by the discovery of elaborately-buried individuals there. As for the idea that Celtic pagans constructed Stonehenge as a religious site, there is no evidence for this. Although pagans did construct stone circles, they would not have remotely resembled Stonehenge: they were simply circles with a perimeter of stones. And as for other theories, including those stating that Stonehenge is a memorial for victims of some battle or hallowed ground for a lost culture...we simply have no way to know if they are true, and likely never will.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Free Post: More on Mr. Martin
As I'm sure most of you know, I had my appendix out on Friday. What this means is that I've been hopped up on pain medications these last few days, and have mostly-closed cuts on my abdomen that feel ready to pop open when I sit or stand up straight. I'm still hoping that I'll be able to make it into school tomorrow, but I'm not making any promises. Needless to say, I'm not in one of my better moods right now. So what have I been up to these last few days? Well, I've been reading further into George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which I discussed briefly in my last post (which I wrote on Thursday with the intent of editing on Friday). And I came to this conclusion about three hours ago: the history of Martin's fictional continent of Westeros is parallel to the mythology and history of the British Isles, regardless of whether Martin intended this. The events in this history resemble myth and history from both Great Britain and Ireland, and I'll explore both.
HISTORY OF WESTEROS:
I wrote a massive summary of the events I'll be discussing, but honestly, who wants to read that? So...enjoy these links!
Note: The drawback of the links is that they contain more spoilers than my summary did. Read at your own risk.
The Children of the Forest/The First Men: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dawn_Age
The Others/The Wall: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Long_Night
The Andals: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Andal_Invasion
The Targaryens: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_Conquest
Robert's Rebellion: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Robert%27s_Rebellion
So how is this all parallel to the tales and history of the British Isles? In many ways:
1) The Children of the Forest
Irish legend speaks of the Tuatha de Danann, remembered today as the fairies. Legends remember them as Celtic pagans with some supernatural powers, somewhat smaller and daintier in stature than the Milesian Gaels, the ancestors of the modern Irish.
2) The First Men
The First Men most likely represent the Roman Empire (see #3 for the explanation), though you could argue that they represent the Gaels. In both cases, a new people arrived and made the island their own. The difference between the two: whereas the Romans mixed and mingled with the Britons, the Gaels waged a relentless war upon the people they met.
3) The Others/The Wall
The Others are clearly based on the Picts, Celtic barbarians from pre-Gaelic Scotland. The Picts terrorized the Romans stationed in Britain on their forays into what would become England. As a result, the emperor commissioned (and lent his name to) Hadrian's Wall, the obvious inspiration for Martin's Wall, to deter the invaders of the north.
4) The Andals
The Andals seem to be based upon the Normans, who invaded Britain and Ireland (the south of Westeros) but failed to capture Scotland (the north of Westeros). The realms they create (several kingdoms competing for power) is reminiscent of the pre-Norman Irish kingdoms of Munster, Leinster, Connacht, Ulster and Meath.
5) The Targaryens
In this case, the Targaryens are the English, and Westeros the Emerald Isle. English artillery, represented as dragons, spelled doom for the Norman-Irish troops fighting the invaders. Throughout it all, the English tried to garner the loyalty of the Irish, succeeding in many cases by appealing to the Norman lords, just as the Targaryens won support in Westeros.
The fall of the Targaryens is peculiar, in that the events (particularly the cause and the aftermath) don't seem to be based on anything I can think of or find at the moment. At least, not in the history of the British Isles: a man fighting to reclaim his wife, and inadvertently becoming king, seems more the stuff of legend than of history. As for the rest of the rebellion, it's similar and dissimilar to any revolution from history. But I don't want to give too much away. I highly recommend the books to anybody who enjoys reading and writing. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
HISTORY OF WESTEROS:
I wrote a massive summary of the events I'll be discussing, but honestly, who wants to read that? So...enjoy these links!
Note: The drawback of the links is that they contain more spoilers than my summary did. Read at your own risk.
The Children of the Forest/The First Men: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dawn_Age
The Others/The Wall: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Long_Night
The Andals: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Andal_Invasion
The Targaryens: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_Conquest
Robert's Rebellion: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Robert%27s_Rebellion
So how is this all parallel to the tales and history of the British Isles? In many ways:
1) The Children of the Forest
Irish legend speaks of the Tuatha de Danann, remembered today as the fairies. Legends remember them as Celtic pagans with some supernatural powers, somewhat smaller and daintier in stature than the Milesian Gaels, the ancestors of the modern Irish.
2) The First Men
The First Men most likely represent the Roman Empire (see #3 for the explanation), though you could argue that they represent the Gaels. In both cases, a new people arrived and made the island their own. The difference between the two: whereas the Romans mixed and mingled with the Britons, the Gaels waged a relentless war upon the people they met.
3) The Others/The Wall
The Others are clearly based on the Picts, Celtic barbarians from pre-Gaelic Scotland. The Picts terrorized the Romans stationed in Britain on their forays into what would become England. As a result, the emperor commissioned (and lent his name to) Hadrian's Wall, the obvious inspiration for Martin's Wall, to deter the invaders of the north.
4) The Andals
The Andals seem to be based upon the Normans, who invaded Britain and Ireland (the south of Westeros) but failed to capture Scotland (the north of Westeros). The realms they create (several kingdoms competing for power) is reminiscent of the pre-Norman Irish kingdoms of Munster, Leinster, Connacht, Ulster and Meath.
5) The Targaryens
In this case, the Targaryens are the English, and Westeros the Emerald Isle. English artillery, represented as dragons, spelled doom for the Norman-Irish troops fighting the invaders. Throughout it all, the English tried to garner the loyalty of the Irish, succeeding in many cases by appealing to the Norman lords, just as the Targaryens won support in Westeros.
The fall of the Targaryens is peculiar, in that the events (particularly the cause and the aftermath) don't seem to be based on anything I can think of or find at the moment. At least, not in the history of the British Isles: a man fighting to reclaim his wife, and inadvertently becoming king, seems more the stuff of legend than of history. As for the rest of the rebellion, it's similar and dissimilar to any revolution from history. But I don't want to give too much away. I highly recommend the books to anybody who enjoys reading and writing. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
Which is Stranger: Fact or Fiction?
I suppose I heard the phrase "You can't make that up" one time too many, and that's why I have this question on my mind. Does the phrase hold true when we apply it in the real world? Are events we experience, or have experienced, actually stranger than events in fiction, literature and myth? I would say yes. Picture this: in a small fraction of a vast empire, a small group of individuals cries for their freedom. One such individual assassinates a leader of the empire. Fearing the full wrath of the imperial military, the rebels turn to their ethnic brethren to the east, who have a vast empire of their own. War breaks out between the two empires, with both the western and eastern empires dragging their allies, and the allies of their allies, into the conflict. Eventually, the great eastern empire collapses from within and withdraws from the conflict, leaving the rest of the combatants to fight for no real reason. Around this time, one of the allies of the first empire joins the opposing side. In the end, from across a great sea, military aid comes to the allies of the now-dead eastern empire, and together the allies crush the three empires opposing them. We all know I'm talking about the First World War, but remove the names of Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, Italy and America, and it sounds like the plot of some fantasy novel. And these events are tame in the long term.As I mentioned in my last post, I view the two world wars as a single chain of events, beginning long before conflict was sparked a hundred years ago. World War Two really began with the Treaty of Versailles, when France and Britain basically said "F##k you all" to the rest of the world. We all know the rest: a tale of betrayal, of bloodshed, of desperation, of horrors unimagined by any, and effects felt by all. And we can't ignore the fact that all fiction has some basis in fact. Tolkien's battle scenes were inspired by his own experiences on the western front during the First World War. George Lucas's Battle of Endor saw lesser-equipped natives defeat a superior invasion force, substituting the Viet Cong and American soldiers with the ursine Ewoks and Imperial Stormtroopers, respectively. Even George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, perhaps the most unpredictable work of modern fiction, is guilty of this: Martin, a self-proclaimed history buff, has stated that many aspects of his tale have historical roots: the fictitious Wall is based on Hadrian's Wall, Henry VIII inspired the character of Robert Baratheon, and so on. At the end of the day, in my opinion, events aren't the factor that makes fantasy fantastical.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Big Think: The Significance of Language
http://bigthink.com/floating-university/humans-make-language-language-makes-us-human
This article appealed to me from the start. Any anthropology geek worth his salt knows that language gave the first modern humans an edge over their Neanderthal cousins. Scientists agree that Neanderthals could speak, but most hold to the belief that they couldn't communicate complex ideas or events. This likely contributed to their extinction. The video accompanying the article, both of which discuss the hard-wired ability of toddlers to acquire language skills, is excellent. It's pacing is just right, so the audience stays interested in the subject matter and doesn't feel rushed. It also has a friendly quality than most other lecture videos lack. The body of the article itself is curious. The second half supports the idea that humanity's use of language and increased ability to communicate over long distances has lead to a decrease in violence since the start of human history. While this theory does have some valid points (the author cites the Enlightenment and the Internet as examples), I'm not sure I would agree. The start of human history was one of the most violent times our species has ever known, but most of the violence was human against animal or human against Neanderthal. Our species was too busy fighting the rest of nature to fight itself. Human-on-human violence only increased with the dawn of civilization, and there's no evidence to the contrary. While the article states that humanity has "tamed itself" over the years, is this really the case? Granted, society no longer practices slavery, nor does it tolerate many forms of persecution that have been the norm. But that doesn't change facts: conflicts have only escalated over time. Of course, after all the blood is spilled, the combatants go on a hiatus that can last for decades, even centuries, which leads to the impression that we're "taming" ourselves. But new conflicts always emerge, with newer, deadlier weapons wielded by people who've forgotten the suffering of war. Humanity is in such a period of hiatus now, as we have been since the Second World War. The question isn't if this period will end; it's when.
This article appealed to me from the start. Any anthropology geek worth his salt knows that language gave the first modern humans an edge over their Neanderthal cousins. Scientists agree that Neanderthals could speak, but most hold to the belief that they couldn't communicate complex ideas or events. This likely contributed to their extinction. The video accompanying the article, both of which discuss the hard-wired ability of toddlers to acquire language skills, is excellent. It's pacing is just right, so the audience stays interested in the subject matter and doesn't feel rushed. It also has a friendly quality than most other lecture videos lack. The body of the article itself is curious. The second half supports the idea that humanity's use of language and increased ability to communicate over long distances has lead to a decrease in violence since the start of human history. While this theory does have some valid points (the author cites the Enlightenment and the Internet as examples), I'm not sure I would agree. The start of human history was one of the most violent times our species has ever known, but most of the violence was human against animal or human against Neanderthal. Our species was too busy fighting the rest of nature to fight itself. Human-on-human violence only increased with the dawn of civilization, and there's no evidence to the contrary. While the article states that humanity has "tamed itself" over the years, is this really the case? Granted, society no longer practices slavery, nor does it tolerate many forms of persecution that have been the norm. But that doesn't change facts: conflicts have only escalated over time. Of course, after all the blood is spilled, the combatants go on a hiatus that can last for decades, even centuries, which leads to the impression that we're "taming" ourselves. But new conflicts always emerge, with newer, deadlier weapons wielded by people who've forgotten the suffering of war. Humanity is in such a period of hiatus now, as we have been since the Second World War. The question isn't if this period will end; it's when.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Big Think Post: Cats and Dogs
Today on Big Think, I read this article. And I couldn't disagree with it more:
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/cats-are-just-as-loving-as-dogs-maybe-more-so
The author of this article bases their claim, that cats are more loving than dogs, on the example of a cat that attacked a pair of dogs that were attacking its owner. By that logic, all dogs must be savage, vicious demons, because those two dogs attacked the woman. I'm not saying that cats can't be just as loving as dogs. I am saying that cats who can even approach dogs in their level of attachment to their humans are the exception, not the rule, while the majority of dogs unconditionally love their humans. When's the last time you saw your cat lying on the floor, gazing at the door, waiting for one family member to return? When's the last time your cat sought you out when you were upset, resting its head on your knee to let you know that you were still loved? When's the last time your cat sprang up when you opened the door and sprinted towards you, for any reason other than that it needed to go outside? When's the last time your cat followed you for hours, after you'd fed it its dinner, just because it wanted to be near you? I'd be shocked if any of you can recall something like this, but all three are daily occurrences for almost all the dogs I've encountered in my days (with the exception of the breeds I know as "rat dogs"), including my own boxer-whippet mix. The author passes off these behaviors in dogs as acts of submission. Wolves, the ancestors of dogs, completely disprove this theory. When a low-ranking wolf greets a higher-ranking animal, it will approach cautiously, its tail lowered to show respect, adverting its eyes, maybe giving the other animal a small lick here and there. It certainly won't bound straight up to you, wagging its tail, barking and jumping up on you. Those greeting rituals, common in most domestic dogs who have been treated well, do not indicate a submissive animal. They indicate pure, genuine, unconditional love. I'm not saying that there aren't some cats who love their owners just as much as dogs do, but to the vast majority of the world's felines, the human is just an animal that shares the cat's space, provides it with food, and occasionally gives a friendly stroke. I believe cats like us, but they just don't love us like dogs do. There's a reason felines didn't receive the title of "Man's Best Friend."
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/cats-are-just-as-loving-as-dogs-maybe-more-so
The author of this article bases their claim, that cats are more loving than dogs, on the example of a cat that attacked a pair of dogs that were attacking its owner. By that logic, all dogs must be savage, vicious demons, because those two dogs attacked the woman. I'm not saying that cats can't be just as loving as dogs. I am saying that cats who can even approach dogs in their level of attachment to their humans are the exception, not the rule, while the majority of dogs unconditionally love their humans. When's the last time you saw your cat lying on the floor, gazing at the door, waiting for one family member to return? When's the last time your cat sought you out when you were upset, resting its head on your knee to let you know that you were still loved? When's the last time your cat sprang up when you opened the door and sprinted towards you, for any reason other than that it needed to go outside? When's the last time your cat followed you for hours, after you'd fed it its dinner, just because it wanted to be near you? I'd be shocked if any of you can recall something like this, but all three are daily occurrences for almost all the dogs I've encountered in my days (with the exception of the breeds I know as "rat dogs"), including my own boxer-whippet mix. The author passes off these behaviors in dogs as acts of submission. Wolves, the ancestors of dogs, completely disprove this theory. When a low-ranking wolf greets a higher-ranking animal, it will approach cautiously, its tail lowered to show respect, adverting its eyes, maybe giving the other animal a small lick here and there. It certainly won't bound straight up to you, wagging its tail, barking and jumping up on you. Those greeting rituals, common in most domestic dogs who have been treated well, do not indicate a submissive animal. They indicate pure, genuine, unconditional love. I'm not saying that there aren't some cats who love their owners just as much as dogs do, but to the vast majority of the world's felines, the human is just an animal that shares the cat's space, provides it with food, and occasionally gives a friendly stroke. I believe cats like us, but they just don't love us like dogs do. There's a reason felines didn't receive the title of "Man's Best Friend."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)