Ladies and gentleman, I present you three evolutionary theories. One of these theories is proposed by a comic book writer. Another, by a scientist, with the remaining one created by yours truly off the top of my head.
1. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be stronger, smarter, more adaptable, and will be forced to deal with persecution and misunderstanding by differently evolved, or unevolved, members of humanity.
2. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be smarter, but in lesser numbers, and no longer the dominant species on the planet. They will have adapted into continentally-specific sub-races, and reverted from nations to smaller tribes.
3. Future evolutionary variants of humans will be of two variants. One will be smarter, taller, more physically attractive, with men having larger penises and women possessing more appealing breasts and hairless skin. The other class will be short, slow-witted, goblin-like race who will likely be subservient to the attractive and intelligent race.
If you can guess which is which, please do so. As far as I'm concerned, all three are science fiction. Evolution is nearly universally accepted in the scientific community, but science is based on empirical evidence. Speculation is merely that. Educated as it may be, it's just a guess. Fiction is great. I majored in it. I love it. But seriously, my BA in English doesn't make me a hell of a lot less qualified to predict the next evolutionary stages of humanity.
Since these things are more or less just spitballing ideas, why not let me get in on the action? If you can't guess which of the three theories is from an actual scientist, then clearly you have nothing to lose. Just send me a research grant, and I'll tell you what humans will be like 10,000 years from now with the exact same degree of certainty as the last theory you invested in. I'll even do it for less than your average scientist.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Stop protesting, nobody cares
I'm a somewhat politically aware person. Moreso than the average person, but I'm not the type who will recoil in horror when I find out someone voted differently than I did. That's not my game, and anyone who considers political affiliation an important part of deciding who to be friends with is taking it way too seriously. Firstly, the majority of political parties are pretty close to eachother on 90% of the issues, especially in Canada. Universal Healthcare is, well, universal. Balanced budgets are always promised (and sometimes delivered), and the question is never "should we" but "how do we" when it comes to social programs.
Fine by me. It's not perfect, but it gives ample wiggle room, and making a difference without the government's assistance is both practical and feesable.
However, that doesn't stop the occasional dissenters, and it certainly doesn't keep them quiet. Frankly, it just bores me. Watching the news and seeing protests over this issue and that is just getting boring, and only fuels my growing apathy.
Let's get the main issue out of the way. Protests over the Iraq War. I'm with those protesting in terms of disagreeing with the invasion and occupation, but guys, we need to talk.
Firstly, tone it down a notch. Effigy burning looks pretty cool, but it's a far cry from civil debate, which I don't think the Iraq war (as handled by Bush and his team) stands up to anyways. Effigy burning, posters of Bush with a hitler-stache, and flag burning are visually arresting to be sure, but they don't sway opinions. If anything, they distract and make it easy to brush people off as just radicals, even if the cause is supported by the majority.
Second, take a look at the impact of protests and demonstrations. The Iraq war was protested by literally millions before it even happened. But it still happened. Protests continue. It's still happening. Do the math. Protesting doesn't work because people who make the decisions don't feel compelled to listen to protesters. There's exceptions to this, but nothing at the G8 conference changes because of the anarchists outside.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protesting shouldn't be allowed. It absolutely should be allowed. It just needs to be seen for what it is: sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm also all for political dissent. It's absolutely essential in a democracy, but there's a better way to dissent than to rally in the streets. If your ideas don't stand up to civil debate, they must be discarded. This goes for those who think the Dixie Chicks are unpatriotic as well as those who think they're martyrs.
Fine by me. It's not perfect, but it gives ample wiggle room, and making a difference without the government's assistance is both practical and feesable.
However, that doesn't stop the occasional dissenters, and it certainly doesn't keep them quiet. Frankly, it just bores me. Watching the news and seeing protests over this issue and that is just getting boring, and only fuels my growing apathy.
Let's get the main issue out of the way. Protests over the Iraq War. I'm with those protesting in terms of disagreeing with the invasion and occupation, but guys, we need to talk.
Firstly, tone it down a notch. Effigy burning looks pretty cool, but it's a far cry from civil debate, which I don't think the Iraq war (as handled by Bush and his team) stands up to anyways. Effigy burning, posters of Bush with a hitler-stache, and flag burning are visually arresting to be sure, but they don't sway opinions. If anything, they distract and make it easy to brush people off as just radicals, even if the cause is supported by the majority.
Second, take a look at the impact of protests and demonstrations. The Iraq war was protested by literally millions before it even happened. But it still happened. Protests continue. It's still happening. Do the math. Protesting doesn't work because people who make the decisions don't feel compelled to listen to protesters. There's exceptions to this, but nothing at the G8 conference changes because of the anarchists outside.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying protesting shouldn't be allowed. It absolutely should be allowed. It just needs to be seen for what it is: sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm also all for political dissent. It's absolutely essential in a democracy, but there's a better way to dissent than to rally in the streets. If your ideas don't stand up to civil debate, they must be discarded. This goes for those who think the Dixie Chicks are unpatriotic as well as those who think they're martyrs.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Rationality is for suckers
At Redeemer, students are forced to take a number of core classes, such as history, philosophy, political science, psychology etc..
One recurrent theme in the liberal arts is reason and rationality. It seems as though since the greeks, every single movement in every single discipline has been to further the cause of reason and rationality. Think about it: The enlightenment. Causality. Democracy. Realism. Plato. Apologetics. The scientific revolution. Darwinism. Building a more reasonable and rational world is the cornerstone of western thought, at least as far as I can tell. Those two r's are basically the building blocks of the last 3000 years of thought and action.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think we're about as rational as we'll ever get. Seriously. After well over 3000 years of reason and rationalism being promoted by the leading thinkers of the last three millenniums, I think it's fair to say that the concept has either run it's course or escaped us. There's been absolutely no shortage of time to let it sink in or to let it define our society. Either it doesn't work, or we just don't get it.
Of all the philosophical concepts, reason has probably been around the longest. Academia is founded on it. Compared to other philosophical and political movements, it's the elder statesman. Communism is, comparably, fairly new, and save a few holdouts, has run it's course. The Soviet juggernaut collapsed less than 20 years ago and just over 200 years after Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. As a form of government, it only had roughly a century in practice, and assuming Cuba and China go democratic in the next decade, exactly a century. I'm not holding out hope for either, but communism is generally speaking considered a failed concept at this point.
So why can't we let reason go? Even if we assume the french revolution to be the start of reason in society, it's fairly obvious that it's been less successful than Marxism in terms of cultural adoption. Don't believe me? Take a look at cultural trends. We clearly don't care for reason, otherwise we wouldn't be living in a world where people put profit before humanity. In a truly reasoned and rational world, Canada wouldn't be the kind of place where you can walk into Toronto and see someone living on the streets and someone who pays six figures for an apartment standing next to each other. There's nothing reasonable about people who appear on TV shows where they compete for the affections of a man with the intellect of a bag of hammers for millions to see.
The way I see it, we've given reason a shot, and we've decided we don't care for it. Simple as that. We've heard about it all our lives, and we've chosen another way to live. Deal with it. I, for one, embrace it. I'm certainly not a reasonable person. I act on emotion. I act on impluse. I go with my gut. I have faith in things unseen. And I'm in the majority, even outside religious folk.
So give it a rest. Reason has had it's chance time and time again, and we simply don't care. This is as good as it's going to get, so we may as well just sit back and embrace it.
One recurrent theme in the liberal arts is reason and rationality. It seems as though since the greeks, every single movement in every single discipline has been to further the cause of reason and rationality. Think about it: The enlightenment. Causality. Democracy. Realism. Plato. Apologetics. The scientific revolution. Darwinism. Building a more reasonable and rational world is the cornerstone of western thought, at least as far as I can tell. Those two r's are basically the building blocks of the last 3000 years of thought and action.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think we're about as rational as we'll ever get. Seriously. After well over 3000 years of reason and rationalism being promoted by the leading thinkers of the last three millenniums, I think it's fair to say that the concept has either run it's course or escaped us. There's been absolutely no shortage of time to let it sink in or to let it define our society. Either it doesn't work, or we just don't get it.
Of all the philosophical concepts, reason has probably been around the longest. Academia is founded on it. Compared to other philosophical and political movements, it's the elder statesman. Communism is, comparably, fairly new, and save a few holdouts, has run it's course. The Soviet juggernaut collapsed less than 20 years ago and just over 200 years after Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. As a form of government, it only had roughly a century in practice, and assuming Cuba and China go democratic in the next decade, exactly a century. I'm not holding out hope for either, but communism is generally speaking considered a failed concept at this point.
So why can't we let reason go? Even if we assume the french revolution to be the start of reason in society, it's fairly obvious that it's been less successful than Marxism in terms of cultural adoption. Don't believe me? Take a look at cultural trends. We clearly don't care for reason, otherwise we wouldn't be living in a world where people put profit before humanity. In a truly reasoned and rational world, Canada wouldn't be the kind of place where you can walk into Toronto and see someone living on the streets and someone who pays six figures for an apartment standing next to each other. There's nothing reasonable about people who appear on TV shows where they compete for the affections of a man with the intellect of a bag of hammers for millions to see.
The way I see it, we've given reason a shot, and we've decided we don't care for it. Simple as that. We've heard about it all our lives, and we've chosen another way to live. Deal with it. I, for one, embrace it. I'm certainly not a reasonable person. I act on emotion. I act on impluse. I go with my gut. I have faith in things unseen. And I'm in the majority, even outside religious folk.
So give it a rest. Reason has had it's chance time and time again, and we simply don't care. This is as good as it's going to get, so we may as well just sit back and embrace it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Is sci-fi dead?
During the promotional tour for the long awaited Blade Runner: Final Cut DVD release, Director Ridley Scott said something that has been stewing in this brain of mine for a few months now. I merely lacked the time to really think about the implications of it. Scott said that sci-fi has gone the way of the western; a niche genre with as many duds as classics, but ultimately a relic of the past at this point. The latter being my own commentary on the statement.
Mr. Scott, I respectfully disagree.
When it comes to sci-fi filmmaking, Ridley Scott has only a handful of rivals. Spielberg (when he dabbles in the genre, anyways), Lucas (before he made the prequels. Imagination, not vision, is his strong suit), and James Cameron. It's no coincidence that James Cameron was the one who tackled the sequel to Scott's 1979 Aliens. The Alien series, at first anyways, set the bar higher on cinematic sci-fi.
But where has it gone in the last 25 years? Obviously, you have a handful of masterful sci-fi pieces released since Blade Runner, including Aliens. But there's also been no shortage of sci-fi mistakes. But is the same not true for every other genre? Take romantic comedies. How many unremarkable and downright forgettable romantic comedies have there been in the last 25 years? There's only been a handful of them that have been worth remembering, and only one I would dare call a good movie (Love, Actually).
Dead also implies that it's, well, no longer functioning. Sci-fi has always been something of a fringe genre, but take a look at what TV shows are big these days: Lost isn't pure sci-fi, but it definitely has enough supernatural elements to be considered sci-fi. Heroes is a huge hit and it's fanbase has been growing steadily. The reinvisioned Battlestar Galactica has a devoted following. There's a new Star Trek in the works. The Firefly series has an incredibly devout flock, and there's even talk of a sequel to Serenity in the works.
I suppose one could argue that sci-fi movies are no longer a box office draw. There's some validity to that. Except for the massive box-office draw of Transformers. Hardly a shining example of sci-fi brilliance, but it's sci-fi, and it made a huge amount of money. But again, sci-fi is mostly underground and only rarely a cultural juggernaut. Star Wars and Star Trek are the exception, not the rule. As one of the most influential sci-fi filmmakers, you would think he would pay more attention to the genre he helped cultivate. It's probably healthier than it ever has been, both in terms of quality and quantity.
Mr. Scott, I respectfully disagree.
When it comes to sci-fi filmmaking, Ridley Scott has only a handful of rivals. Spielberg (when he dabbles in the genre, anyways), Lucas (before he made the prequels. Imagination, not vision, is his strong suit), and James Cameron. It's no coincidence that James Cameron was the one who tackled the sequel to Scott's 1979 Aliens. The Alien series, at first anyways, set the bar higher on cinematic sci-fi.
But where has it gone in the last 25 years? Obviously, you have a handful of masterful sci-fi pieces released since Blade Runner, including Aliens. But there's also been no shortage of sci-fi mistakes. But is the same not true for every other genre? Take romantic comedies. How many unremarkable and downright forgettable romantic comedies have there been in the last 25 years? There's only been a handful of them that have been worth remembering, and only one I would dare call a good movie (Love, Actually).
Dead also implies that it's, well, no longer functioning. Sci-fi has always been something of a fringe genre, but take a look at what TV shows are big these days: Lost isn't pure sci-fi, but it definitely has enough supernatural elements to be considered sci-fi. Heroes is a huge hit and it's fanbase has been growing steadily. The reinvisioned Battlestar Galactica has a devoted following. There's a new Star Trek in the works. The Firefly series has an incredibly devout flock, and there's even talk of a sequel to Serenity in the works.
I suppose one could argue that sci-fi movies are no longer a box office draw. There's some validity to that. Except for the massive box-office draw of Transformers. Hardly a shining example of sci-fi brilliance, but it's sci-fi, and it made a huge amount of money. But again, sci-fi is mostly underground and only rarely a cultural juggernaut. Star Wars and Star Trek are the exception, not the rule. As one of the most influential sci-fi filmmakers, you would think he would pay more attention to the genre he helped cultivate. It's probably healthier than it ever has been, both in terms of quality and quantity.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Outline
This blog will fulfill a handful of duties. First and foremost, it's a place for my essays. Some of these have/will been handed in as papers, some have been published in The Crown, Redeemer's student newspaper, some are political pieces, some are cultural commentary, some satire, and some humourous ones.
Actually, that's all it's a place for. My essays.
The title, Curses and Prayers, is taken from Hey, Nostradamus! a novel by the wonderful Douglas Coupland. A character in purgatory states that the noises in heaven are only prayers and curses. I've found that to be both challenging and comforting, so it seems like an apt title for a blog. And both prayers and curses will grace this blog, to be sure.
Cheers,
Scott William Fairley
Actually, that's all it's a place for. My essays.
The title, Curses and Prayers, is taken from Hey, Nostradamus! a novel by the wonderful Douglas Coupland. A character in purgatory states that the noises in heaven are only prayers and curses. I've found that to be both challenging and comforting, so it seems like an apt title for a blog. And both prayers and curses will grace this blog, to be sure.
Cheers,
Scott William Fairley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
