(This is an old, very true story of mine. I am releasing it in 3 parts. Enjoy.)
In their minds, everybody has their ideal "dream job" in which they get to do everything that makes them happy - and get paid for it. Its a job that your friends hate you for having it; where you do hardly anything and get paid a comfortable salary doing it. What's your dream job? Video game tester? Esteemed food critic? The guy responsible for perking up a celebrity's nipples before she goes onto a movie set? (They do exist.) Well, I once got mine, and I'm here to say that it was both everything I ever wanted it to be with a whole lot of shit I didn't expect.
The Interview
The lead was inconspicuous; an ad on craigslist seeking a webmaster for an established website. All the normal nerdy requirements, which I met, were there. The starting pay was more than I had made at my previous job. There was one rare detail that caught my attention for a moment; to work for this company, I had to be over the age of 18 and open to viewing material that may be offensive. Check and check. I eagerly sent in my resume for consideration.
Two weeks later, I received a response. This guy by the name of Matt wanted to know when I could come in for an interview, and he also wanted to clarify, one more time, that I was indeed open to viewing offensive material. We agreed to a date for the interview and I got excited. I hadn't been to an interview in a couple years, so I polled my friends for tips. They all chimed in with suggestions to prepare me for the barrage of questions that was about to come my way. One friend gave me a seemingly clever idea that the most important thing to have during an interview is a pair of nice shoes.
The day of the interview arrived and I showed up at a high class apartment building in Hollywood wearing a silk dress shirt, a nice pair of slacks and the same shoes I had worn to my prom. I left my car at the free valet and headed up the elevator toward my glistening destiny.
I was greeted at the door by a girl who I would later know as Raluca. For the moment, though, she was "fucking hot." Passing behind her in the hallway as I stood in the doorway was Ginger (also fucking hot); she waved and greeted me. Raluca invited me in with her sexy British accent and I helplessly complied.
"Matt will be back in about ten minutes. He went down to grab some coffee. Have a seat. Get comfortable."
Raluca lead me into the large living room of the apartment and gestured toward a red satin couch, then disappeared into another room. Unbeknown to me, this was THE red couch. I sat down on it without a thought. Had I been more conscious of what a couch was used for in this industry, I would have been more reluctant to get as comfortable as I did. I sat there and let my eyes drift around the room. Another girl appeared, Gia, and greeted me as she quickly left the apartment. I began to get suspicious about all of these fleeting glimpses that I was getting. I decided to pay more attention; I wasn’t going to let anything in this interview catch me off guard or distract me.
I resolved to remain stoic in the face of all the delicious sights flashing from room to room. Surely my ability to remain professional in the face of all this temptation would be a virtue. This delicate thread of concentration remained taut for only a minute more, until my eyes found something I couldn’t quite process. On the tiny glass-top table not four feet from me stood a large flesh-colored dildo about fourteen inches tall. I paused to contemplate its existence for a moment. Raluca emerged again as I was trying to decide if staring at the dildo was considered rude or not.
"Oh, I'm sorry. How improper." She rushed over and picked up the silicone phallus from the table. A loud, sharp *pop* resounded in my ears as the suction cup on the bottom released its grip on the glass. My concentration was lost. She gave an exasperated giggle as she scurried back to the shelter of that damn room.
"Awkward," I thought to myself.
Not a moment later, Matt made his entrance. He carried with him three large (sorry... Venti) drinks from Starbucks. He was, by all considerations, just an average guy. He had no strange quirks or mannerisms. He was not soft, abrasive, loud or quiet. He was a normal, completely regular guy. We introduced ourselves quickly and settled down to the moment I had been preparing for: the interview.
"So, uh, when do you think you could start?"
My Job Description
My job by itself was nothing special. It was the context I did it in that made it worthy of this write-up. Matt was a photographer who took amateur-style (read: no technique at all) digital photographs of hot naked girls stripping off their clothes, posing provocatively, and spreading their labia for all the world to view. Along with all the standard programming, design and maintenance, it was my burden to select the best photographs from the sets that he shot and update the site with them. I worked in the living room, where most of the action took place. Not only did I get to be there when these photo shoots took place, I got to stare at these naked pictures for hours afterward.
Now, I know what's going through your mind right now. How could I possibly work that job without walking around all day sporting one of Egypt's pyramids in my pants? Well, you may be a little disenchanted to learn that one can get quite desensitized to sights most men can only fantasize about. They can even become repulsive.
Imagine this schedule: Every week, we shot two brand-new girls. For each girl, Matt took about 500 photos. It was my job to whittle those 500 down to half that amount so that they formed two different sets with different outfits and different poses. There were to be no duplicates, no bad angles, no awkward poses or facial expressions, and nothing that might cause our dear sweet subscribers to hurl all over their keyboards. (I've never vomited while masturbating, have you?) I was the filter.
I'm not sure if anyone can necessarily sympathize with me, but looking at porn all day is tough. Especially if it's porn where half of it is never meant to be seen again. Months into my job, I began to suspect I was suffering from synaesthesia. I would close up my nose as I shuffled through what we called the "pink shots," as the sight of a vagina stretched to the size of my computer screen would tease my senses with the imagined scent of a wet dog. It was in those same months that I learned what a yeast infection actually LOOKS like. I consider myself lucky to have grown up around three vocal women who held little back about what was going on with their bodies, otherwise such sights would have had me thinking twice about this wonderful job.
Still, I was there for all the photo shoots and I got to talk with the models. What more could a guy ask for?
Part 2 tomorrow...
31 March 2010
29 March 2010
Good Without God: Secular Philanthropists
The desire and inspiration to help a fellow man has no divine origin. It is a natural emotion; one that is borne of empathy and the natural high of appreciation. Everyone feels it, regardless of faith. It goes beyond being decent and nice and it goes further than helping one's own kind. Our helpful spirit has roots in our ancestors' cooperative instincts, but it has evolved into the capacity to be generous beyond expectation. Here are ten very notable secular philanthropists who do their work for the good of mankind because they know it is the right thing to do, not because they will go to hell if they don't.
Andrew Carnegie
Regarded as the second richest man in history (John D. Rockefeller being first), Andrew Carnegie earned his vast wealth building the US steel industry in the 19th century. He then turned to philanthropy, founding the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. Each entity uses its endowment to further education and relations within the human race. Carnegie was an outspoken atheist who recognized evolution and believed that religion caused more harm than good. By devoting the latter part of his life to the betterment of the human condition, Carnegie set an amazing example for many atheists and agnostics who would come along after him.
Robert Wilson
As a hedge fund manager who has amassed over $225 million over his career, Robert Wilson seeks to gives away 70% of his wealth before he dies, and he does it in huge chunks. His main focuses are in conservation and education. In 2007, he gave $22 million to the Nature Conservancy and in 2007 he gave $22.5 million to the New York Roman Catholic Archdiocese. The foundations he has set up give away more than any other Wall Street personality. They're not all evil. Even though he is an atheist, he does not have a problem donating money to a fund linked to Catholic schools. While we're talking about setting examples, Wilson teaches us that we're all citizens of Earth, no matter what our creed, and we all deserve the same dignity.
Richard Dawkins
An outspoken and renown author, Oxford University professor and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins is the quintessential atheist. In 2006, he started the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which raises money to fund education and humanitarian efforts. It raised $500k for the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders for Haiti Relief. Though not nearly as wealthy as some of the other people on this list, Dawkins is committed to making the world a better place through secular initiatives, including the OUT Campaign which encourages atheists to identify themselves to family and friends, using the same method that Gay Rights activists do to help bring the public's view of atheists into a positive light. Dawkins has also received many awards for his humanist work, including American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award in 1996.
Ted Turner
Another Humanist of the Year winner (1990), Ted Turner has given heavily to numerous foundations, including a $1 billion pledge to the UN Foundation to promote world peace. Though he is known for founding CNN, Turner's other contributions to the media world include the popular cartoon character from the early 1990's Captain Planet, who protects planet Earth with the help of children. His list of philanthropic foundations include: the Turner Foundation, which focuses on conservation and the environment, as well as the problem of population growth, the Captain Planet Foundation, which educates and empowers children to make a positive impact within their communities, the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. If there was any doubt about Turner's atheism, he divorced one of his ex-wives over the conflicts that arose when she adopted Christianity.
George Soros
Soros, a currency speculator who is among the world's richest men, admitted to being an atheist in an interview with 60 minutes. Soros made $1 billion in a single day, Black Wednesday (16th of September, 1992). Usually, we hear of such great fortune corrupting people, but Soros had the fortitude to turn his wealth into a positive force for others. In the 1970's, he provided funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town during apartheid. The Open Society Institute was founded in 1993 by Soros to promote non-violent democratization of post-Soviet states. As of 2003, the OSI had given away a total of $4 billion. Soros has also given large amounts to other foundations than his own to help fight world hunger and poverty. While some would say that a humble life is a good life, George Soros shows us that with great wealth we can also be an enormous source of good.
Norman Ernest Borlaug
The founder of the "green revolution," Norman Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, the 1977 U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2002 Public Welfare Medal from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the 2002 Rotary International Award for World Understanding and Peace and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2006. Even Penn & Teller think this guy is amazing, calling him the "Greatest Human Being That Ever Lived." What did he do? As a result of being responsible for developments that increased crop yields in third world countries, as well as creating disease-resistant wheat, Borlaug is credited with saving 1 billion lives. His faith, or lack thereof, is a matter of much debate. Both atheists and Christians would love to claim him as their own. Regardless of his beliefs, which he did not make known, Norman Borlaug was clearly a humanist, saying, "You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery."
Todd Stiefel
In 2009, GlaxoSmithKline bought Todd Stiefel's family business for $2.9 billion, leaving him with a huge fortune and a lot of ideas. Stiefel resolved to use his fortune to better the world and has become one of the nation's biggest donors to atheist causes. In February of 2010, he gave $500,000 to the Secular Coalition for America, lobbyist group for secular and humanist organizations. During that month, he also joined the Richard Dawkins Foundation as a trustee. Though his wealth is very new and he's still a minor figure on the topic of secular philanthropy, Stiefel has only begun his work in making the world a better place. He wants everyone to know that atheists are "equally capable of being ethical as people who are religious. We just want to be good for goodness' sake." Todd Stiefel has recently made news by donating $20,000 to the ACLU of Mississippi to help them organize a high school prom for students whose original prom was canceled in reaction to the idea of a student bringing her lesbian girlfriend as a date.
Louis Appignani
Another name on this list that you may not recognize, Louis Appignani is a successful entrepreneur. In 2001, the Appignani Foundation was created to "support secular activities that will address significant, viable and long term human goals on our planet." An ardent humanitarian, Appignani also founded the IHEU Appignani Center for Bioethics, and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center. He believes that all mankind is part of the same family and we share the same home, Earth, and that the best way to solve our society's problems is to set aside our differences and embrace humanism, science and futurism. It is interesting how each name on this list has its own approach to the human conundrum. Appignani's is through the law and ethics.
Bill Gates
Everyone knows Bill Gates as the once richest man in the world, and they probably hate him for how he got that title. While his business practices may have left more to be desired, his legacy will probably be much more valiant. As of 2007, his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had given over $28 billion in charity, making Gates the second most generous philanthropist in America. The Foundation, created to be completely transparent in how it uses its money, focuses on health and poverty, including AIDS research and child vaccination. In 2005, Bill, his wife Melinda and the singer Bono were Time magazine's Persons of the Year. Gates has stated that he does not believe in the Sermon on the Mount and has diplomatically dodged the question of his own beliefs.
Warren Buffett
Buffett identifies himself as agnostic, and he sits proudly atop the list of the most generous Americans. He has pledged $30 billion in assets to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is just one of five foundations to receive a total of 85% of his Berkshire Hathaway shares that he holds as its Chairman & CEO. Buffett has long planned to give away his money, citing that he does not believe in dynastic wealth. Other charities he has given to include Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat initiative, Planned Parenthood, the World Food Programme, and the Glide Foundation. Buffett is very outspoken about many issues, mostly involving money, but he shows through his actions that he is not a greedy man. You could say it is better that he has the money than someone else.
Andrew Carnegie
Robert Wilson
Richard Dawkins
Ted Turner
George Soros
Norman Ernest Borlaug
Todd Stiefel
Louis Appignani
Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
26 March 2010
Sports: The Ultimate In Subjective Reality
As both a sports fan and a student of psychology, I find plenty of ways to combine the two passions as I make my daily rounds through the scores, articles and fan forum discussions. To me, there is no better indicator of the fallacy of individual observation than in the modern sports world, where every single player, every single play, every single sound byte is dissected ad nauseum from a million different angles. Who is the best player? What made the spectacular play possible? How will the team fare in the playoffs? These are all attempts to define reality through an individual's single perspective and the results are all hilariously varied. It is a subjective, personal experience, and that method of thinking carries over into other areas of life. To explain what I mean, I'm going to be using my favorite player as an example. He has been the most controversial sports personality in the US over the last decade. He is the starting shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers of the NBA. He is Kobe Bryant.
Comparative Reality
Start with the most popular debate: Who is the best player in the NBA right now? I'm guessing (quite confidently) that 98% of all responses to this question will name one of 4 or 5 players during any given year. These days, however, the debate usually whittles down to two candidates: Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. Suspending, for a moment, the truth that it is logically impossible to declare a single best player without a consensus on the measured values that constitute "better," we now look at the argument for either player. LeBron James is a stat machine. He leads the league in scoring and on any given night, he can get 7 rebounds and 8 assists. This shows that he is a great player AND a team leader. Part of this is owed to his size; he is probably the most intimidating player at his position and this allows him to get to almost anywhere on the court that he pleases. More to his credit, his team has the best record in the current regular season. Kobe Bryant, by comparison, is just as good of a scorer, if not better. He doesn't always show his scoring touch, as evidenced by his lower statistical average, but he is more skilled (meaning: he has a greater repertoire of moves) and has many more high-scoring, record-setting games than James does (including an 81-point game which stands as the second-highest total ever). Kobe Bryant is also more "clutch" than James, which means that he is more reliable when the game is on the line and the clock is running out. Also, one thing that Kobe has that LeBron does not is a championship ring; four of them, in fact.
You can argue with my above assertions of "skilled" and "clutch" but there are plenty of undeniable numbers to count for either to be considered the best. In any case, no matter what sports bar you walk into (outside of Los Angeles and Cleveland), the debate rages on. People simply value different evidences over others. For myself, I look at the stunning ability for Kobe to score in the most absurd of situations, as well as a history of success at the most important times (see above). A LeBron fan may simply see a man who can do whatever he wants on the court and declare his argument a winner. Alas, it is my own opinion that the argument for LeBron James is nothing but a simple judgment based off of obvious factors, whereas the argument for Kobe is analogous to his game; nuanced and refined. These approaches shape our reality when we watch a game and when we argue in bars... and when we debate healthcare reform. It is not hard to see how our personal biases come into play in other areas of life.
Nostalgic Reality
Kobe Bryant will probably never escape the shadow of Michael Jordan. He plays the same position that MJ did and has the same insanely competitive drive propelling him forward. Let's get away from numbers for a while and talk about favoritism that extends beyond the game. Michael Jordan is seen as a fierce warrior who took over a game when he was needed most. Kobe Bryant is seen by his detractors as a whiny, overpaid ball-hog. These two separate judgments are, to my observation, based off of the same behavior. How can this be? Both men were/are outstanding basketball players. Both men cheated on their wives. Both men made public statements denouncing their teammates (Jordan, actually, has a much larger portfolio of teammate-bashing quotes than Bryant). Both men had ungodly training routines and dedication. Both men played through grievous injuries and sickness. Why, then, is Kobe Bryant such a runt while Jordan is an enduring basketball deity?
Nostalgia. Everyone is a sucker for the good old days. It is simply a matter of incident that Jordan is the predecessor and Bryant follows in his path. We see this in so many other areas, like music and politics, where history is looked back on with a whimsical sigh, while modernity is scrutinized harshly. Says an ardent Kobe hater, "Jordan is an originator. Kobe is an imitator. HUGE difference. One is knocking down doors and the other is walking through those same doors." While I am a huge fan of Kobe, and would usually be quick to point out the many ways in which the two are different, this quote is quite true in a sense. If you understand the sugarcoating that memories receive each time we recall them, you'll understand why the current can never be as great as the past. We paint our memories a lot prettier than our current reality. To hell with nostalgia.
Moral Reality
Without a doubt, the single greatest mistake in Kobe's public life would be having sex with that hotel employee in Colorado. She would go on to accuse him of rape, summoning up a legal and media hurricane that would impact his personal and professional life for years afterward. Even after the girl refused to testify, thus dropping the case, Kobe's image had been irreparably damaged. Now, fans like myself are forced to endure "rapist" comments from others who would much rather use morality as a keystone for debate than the actual subject at hand. All other points are immaterial in the face of a single moral transgression. Nothing the man can do will ever be justified because of this. It reminds me of a joke:
Alas, it is easy for people to process information if they can whittle down concepts to a single piece of data. Part of it is intellectual laziness and another part is the relish of a judging loophole that allows someone to conclude a matter to their own satisfaction while wasting as little energy as possible. Unfortunately, reality will always be subjective to those people, as they make no effort to see otherwise.
Self-Affirming Reality
To me, being a sports fan is a combination of living vicariously and seeking self-affirmation. Fans have a number of reasons for rooting for their teams, but the reasons always reflect the type of person that the fan would like to be seen as. Rooting for a perennial champion could mean that the fan wants to embody the prestige of a winner. Rooting for a home team (as the Lakers are to me) or an alma mater usually comes with some sort of default territorial allegiances. Fans of an underdog usually relish their role as loyal supporters in the face of intimidating adversity. Fans who put player allegiances ahead of teams claim an affinity with their favorite star. Part of the fun of sports is choosing a team and then, in the end, being right. Following not only games but news, rumors, analysis and fantasy sports helps a fan feel an even deeper bond with their picked ponies, allowing even more bragging rights and satisfaction.
Self-affirmation is incredibly important to the human psyche. Most of our conscious mental processes are spent contextualizing information (that is, explaining) and then justifying it within our world view. We see our ideas as possessions and so we want the very best. Thus, we are prepared to go to great mental lengths to see our ideas in the best light we can manage. While a championship is the pinnacle of vicarious accomplishment, fans of teams who place second or lower usually find a positive light to see their effort in. There's always next year, right? So it goes with any other conviction we hold; in the absence of hard evidence, we create secondary justifications to put our minds at ease.
Observed Reality
I've been in this situation and maybe you have, too: You're watching a game with friends and you happen to have different team allegiances (some friends!). A player makes a drive to the basket, is stripped of the ball and you yell out, "That was a foul!" (Or, "That was a strike!" Or, "Flag!" Or what have you.) Of course, everyone else is shaking their head and giving you the "poor chap, someone should put him out of his misery" look. When, upon viewing the slow-motion replay, you discover that it wasn't actually a foul, you're usually left recalling the image you had in your head and wondering why it was so different the second time around. It isn't that you are watching two different games, it is just a simple fact about our visual compensatory functions within our brain. The human eye is far from perfect and it is up to our brain to fill in the details that our manual vision fails to perceive. Indeed, anyone claiming the eye as one of god's great accomplishments is surely misinformed about its plentiful shortcomings. You're not always seeing what you think you're seeing.
It doesn't take much effort to find a parallel of this subjectivity in other arenas. I even had a whole blog post about this last month. Indeed, seeing is JUST believing. In order for something to qualify as actual reality, it must be correlated by independent sources. In this case, that source is the referee (or umpire, or linesman).
Perspective Reality
Sports are to war as porn is to sex. This partly explains the attraction many of us have to them. Some of us want to be the strategical general. Some of us want to be the heroic soldier. Our outlook on the game reflects our aspirations as we notice the details that are most important to us. Let's not forget that every situation reveals different information depending on the way you look at it. For every sport, there are enough intricacies to enrapture an avid fan. Two friends of mine, one an ex-professional pitcher in baseball and the other a "professional" fan of baseball, seem to constantly teach each other new factoids as they exchange their knowledge of the game from their unique points of view. Individually, you'd think these guys knew all there is to know about baseball, but it's quite magical when you get them together. In this way, sports can teach us about the fault of perspective that we run into everywhere else we look. A single point of view is not nearly enough to really know something.
Comparative Reality
Start with the most popular debate: Who is the best player in the NBA right now? I'm guessing (quite confidently) that 98% of all responses to this question will name one of 4 or 5 players during any given year. These days, however, the debate usually whittles down to two candidates: Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. Suspending, for a moment, the truth that it is logically impossible to declare a single best player without a consensus on the measured values that constitute "better," we now look at the argument for either player. LeBron James is a stat machine. He leads the league in scoring and on any given night, he can get 7 rebounds and 8 assists. This shows that he is a great player AND a team leader. Part of this is owed to his size; he is probably the most intimidating player at his position and this allows him to get to almost anywhere on the court that he pleases. More to his credit, his team has the best record in the current regular season. Kobe Bryant, by comparison, is just as good of a scorer, if not better. He doesn't always show his scoring touch, as evidenced by his lower statistical average, but he is more skilled (meaning: he has a greater repertoire of moves) and has many more high-scoring, record-setting games than James does (including an 81-point game which stands as the second-highest total ever). Kobe Bryant is also more "clutch" than James, which means that he is more reliable when the game is on the line and the clock is running out. Also, one thing that Kobe has that LeBron does not is a championship ring; four of them, in fact.
You can argue with my above assertions of "skilled" and "clutch" but there are plenty of undeniable numbers to count for either to be considered the best. In any case, no matter what sports bar you walk into (outside of Los Angeles and Cleveland), the debate rages on. People simply value different evidences over others. For myself, I look at the stunning ability for Kobe to score in the most absurd of situations, as well as a history of success at the most important times (see above). A LeBron fan may simply see a man who can do whatever he wants on the court and declare his argument a winner. Alas, it is my own opinion that the argument for LeBron James is nothing but a simple judgment based off of obvious factors, whereas the argument for Kobe is analogous to his game; nuanced and refined. These approaches shape our reality when we watch a game and when we argue in bars... and when we debate healthcare reform. It is not hard to see how our personal biases come into play in other areas of life.
Nostalgic Reality
Kobe Bryant will probably never escape the shadow of Michael Jordan. He plays the same position that MJ did and has the same insanely competitive drive propelling him forward. Let's get away from numbers for a while and talk about favoritism that extends beyond the game. Michael Jordan is seen as a fierce warrior who took over a game when he was needed most. Kobe Bryant is seen by his detractors as a whiny, overpaid ball-hog. These two separate judgments are, to my observation, based off of the same behavior. How can this be? Both men were/are outstanding basketball players. Both men cheated on their wives. Both men made public statements denouncing their teammates (Jordan, actually, has a much larger portfolio of teammate-bashing quotes than Bryant). Both men had ungodly training routines and dedication. Both men played through grievous injuries and sickness. Why, then, is Kobe Bryant such a runt while Jordan is an enduring basketball deity?
Nostalgia. Everyone is a sucker for the good old days. It is simply a matter of incident that Jordan is the predecessor and Bryant follows in his path. We see this in so many other areas, like music and politics, where history is looked back on with a whimsical sigh, while modernity is scrutinized harshly. Says an ardent Kobe hater, "Jordan is an originator. Kobe is an imitator. HUGE difference. One is knocking down doors and the other is walking through those same doors." While I am a huge fan of Kobe, and would usually be quick to point out the many ways in which the two are different, this quote is quite true in a sense. If you understand the sugarcoating that memories receive each time we recall them, you'll understand why the current can never be as great as the past. We paint our memories a lot prettier than our current reality. To hell with nostalgia.
Moral Reality
Without a doubt, the single greatest mistake in Kobe's public life would be having sex with that hotel employee in Colorado. She would go on to accuse him of rape, summoning up a legal and media hurricane that would impact his personal and professional life for years afterward. Even after the girl refused to testify, thus dropping the case, Kobe's image had been irreparably damaged. Now, fans like myself are forced to endure "rapist" comments from others who would much rather use morality as a keystone for debate than the actual subject at hand. All other points are immaterial in the face of a single moral transgression. Nothing the man can do will ever be justified because of this. It reminds me of a joke:
A young man is walking down by the docks one day and decides to stop by a bar and have a beer. He walks into a bar, and sees a grizzled old fisherman crying into his beer. Curious, the young man sits down and says, “Hey old timer, why the long face?”
The old man looks at him and points out the window, “See that dock out there? I built that dock with my own two hands, plank by plank, nail by nail, but do they call me Simon the dockbuilder? No, no."
The old man continued, “And see that ship out there? I’ve been fishing these waters for going on thirty-five years, but do they call me Simon the fisherman? No, no.”
The old man starts to cry again, “But you fuck one goat…”
Alas, it is easy for people to process information if they can whittle down concepts to a single piece of data. Part of it is intellectual laziness and another part is the relish of a judging loophole that allows someone to conclude a matter to their own satisfaction while wasting as little energy as possible. Unfortunately, reality will always be subjective to those people, as they make no effort to see otherwise.
Self-Affirming Reality
To me, being a sports fan is a combination of living vicariously and seeking self-affirmation. Fans have a number of reasons for rooting for their teams, but the reasons always reflect the type of person that the fan would like to be seen as. Rooting for a perennial champion could mean that the fan wants to embody the prestige of a winner. Rooting for a home team (as the Lakers are to me) or an alma mater usually comes with some sort of default territorial allegiances. Fans of an underdog usually relish their role as loyal supporters in the face of intimidating adversity. Fans who put player allegiances ahead of teams claim an affinity with their favorite star. Part of the fun of sports is choosing a team and then, in the end, being right. Following not only games but news, rumors, analysis and fantasy sports helps a fan feel an even deeper bond with their picked ponies, allowing even more bragging rights and satisfaction.
Self-affirmation is incredibly important to the human psyche. Most of our conscious mental processes are spent contextualizing information (that is, explaining) and then justifying it within our world view. We see our ideas as possessions and so we want the very best. Thus, we are prepared to go to great mental lengths to see our ideas in the best light we can manage. While a championship is the pinnacle of vicarious accomplishment, fans of teams who place second or lower usually find a positive light to see their effort in. There's always next year, right? So it goes with any other conviction we hold; in the absence of hard evidence, we create secondary justifications to put our minds at ease.
Observed Reality
I've been in this situation and maybe you have, too: You're watching a game with friends and you happen to have different team allegiances (some friends!). A player makes a drive to the basket, is stripped of the ball and you yell out, "That was a foul!" (Or, "That was a strike!" Or, "Flag!" Or what have you.) Of course, everyone else is shaking their head and giving you the "poor chap, someone should put him out of his misery" look. When, upon viewing the slow-motion replay, you discover that it wasn't actually a foul, you're usually left recalling the image you had in your head and wondering why it was so different the second time around. It isn't that you are watching two different games, it is just a simple fact about our visual compensatory functions within our brain. The human eye is far from perfect and it is up to our brain to fill in the details that our manual vision fails to perceive. Indeed, anyone claiming the eye as one of god's great accomplishments is surely misinformed about its plentiful shortcomings. You're not always seeing what you think you're seeing.
It doesn't take much effort to find a parallel of this subjectivity in other arenas. I even had a whole blog post about this last month. Indeed, seeing is JUST believing. In order for something to qualify as actual reality, it must be correlated by independent sources. In this case, that source is the referee (or umpire, or linesman).
Perspective Reality
Sports are to war as porn is to sex. This partly explains the attraction many of us have to them. Some of us want to be the strategical general. Some of us want to be the heroic soldier. Our outlook on the game reflects our aspirations as we notice the details that are most important to us. Let's not forget that every situation reveals different information depending on the way you look at it. For every sport, there are enough intricacies to enrapture an avid fan. Two friends of mine, one an ex-professional pitcher in baseball and the other a "professional" fan of baseball, seem to constantly teach each other new factoids as they exchange their knowledge of the game from their unique points of view. Individually, you'd think these guys knew all there is to know about baseball, but it's quite magical when you get them together. In this way, sports can teach us about the fault of perspective that we run into everywhere else we look. A single point of view is not nearly enough to really know something.
24 March 2010
Fielding Guest Bloggers
Throughout the last half of April, I would like to feature a couple guest blog posts here on DFTA. As it happens, I will be traveling Japan then, and though I intend to continue writing, it would be nice to transfer some of the load while I use most of my brain power to navigate around a completely foreign country. So, I will be taking submissions to be featured as blog posts here, with a link back to your blog. I get a fair amount of traffic for each post, so it is a great opportunity to expose your writing to a new audience and do me a huge favor at the same time.
DFTA accepts original reflective or educational posts on the following topics:
Science (and all topics within)
Psychology
Society
Politics
Atheism
Philosophy
Economics
Personal Growth
Generally Interesting Stuff
Propose your article to: andrew@andrewgonsalves.com
Submission deadline: April 14th.
Thanks!
DFTA accepts original reflective or educational posts on the following topics:
Science (and all topics within)
Psychology
Society
Politics
Atheism
Philosophy
Economics
Personal Growth
Generally Interesting Stuff
Propose your article to: andrew@andrewgonsalves.com
Submission deadline: April 14th.
Thanks!
Debating Metaphysics
The topic of ABC Nightline's Face-Off: Does God have a future? This was a debate that featured Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debating on behalf of the sane people, with Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston debating on behalf of the batshit crazies. Now, unless you have over an hour to just sit and listen to this stuff, (I did so at work with my headphones as I got other stuff done) I suggest just listening to the first couple clips, because they set the tone fairly well. In any case, here is my summary, along with commentary.
Sam Harris, if you watched the TED talk, is a very thoughtful speaker who never fails to make a great point. Michael Shermer is a founder of Skeptic magazine and he is constantly nonplussed by the arguments of the other side. Deepak Chopra, as you may know, is a metaphysics self-help guru and his bullshit is on full display here. Jean Houston is hardly a part of this debate, which is for the best, because she has evidently indulged in her fair share of peyote over her lifetime.
Neither side of this debate advocates the practice of Abrahamic religions. It was actually ironically refreshing to hear the cuckoo spiritualists putting all of that aside and aiming at a more humanist goal. My issue with them is that for their honorable intentions, they still cannot resist the urge to include some mysticism in their interpretations of the world. Deepak, in particular, constantly rattles off streams of hoity-toity words and then claims that his opponents do not understand the vocabulary of his expertise and therefore are not qualified to pass judgment. Jean constantly goes off on unrelated tangents about one love and rainbows and shit.
Deepak Chopra is a very charismatic speaker. He constantly makes claims about "upgrading" science to include the realm of the metaphysical. He insists that experiences, conscience and emotions have some mystical value, but he makes these claims to the face of Sam Harris, a PhD in neuroscience, who can only diplomatically dismiss the notion. Deepak then tries to use a quote from Stephen Hawking to enforce his own argument, which is a horrible tactic that the atheists jump on immediately.
The atheists make their points along the lines of the TED talk featured in my previous post; that science, as it is, can answer questions of morality without including god. Obviously, this grates on Deepak, because he insists on adding another layer of complication (despite even invoking Occam's Razor) to the idea of science. Jean, meanwhile, simply pleads for the worth of spirituality without really impacting the discussion.
When the audience is brought into the discussion, things get more interesting. A quantum physicist who actually works with Stephen Hawking calls out Deepak and offers to teach him about quantum physics. Deepak tries to graciously accept the offer, but he cannot resist throwing out a barb at the physicist. The resulting exchange is amusing, as the audience member becomes amused at the outlandish claims of the so-called expert. Another audience member later challenged Deepak on the lucrative business of metaphysics. This sets Deepak off on an arrogant rant about the evil science that is much more lucrative. In my opinion, this is what exposes Deepak as a complete fraud; he cannot say a word to defend himself but instead tries to deflect the argument toward a different target.
The topic of "god's" future is rarely breached throughout the entire debate. When everything settles down for the conclusion, the atheists simply accept that the spiritual kooks aren't their most urgent opponents. Everyone is grateful that nobody is advocating Christian or Muslim morals and that is as far as we get.
From my own perspective, the question itself (What is the future of god?) is telling of the bullshit that surrounds belief. God is constantly being re-worked in every culture that believes in one. The lack of any consistency was the very point that set me off on my realization of my own atheism. Deepak Chopra is very clever for trying to attach god to science, but his brand of god is only useful to people who don't know anything about science. He uses words that try to sound complicated and special, but he fails to impress the people who actually know what they're talking about.
To give you an example of how crazy metaphysics are, I would like to bring up a book you may have heard about: The Secret. This book is about the "Law of Attraction" that states that if you think positively, metaphysical forces in the world will draw positivity to your life. The book was joined by a video titled "What the (bleep) do we know?" Within this video, several "experts" are seen giving their testimony on this Law of Attraction and it is all dressed up to look nice. The hilarity starts when you dive into the origin of this. It is all published by a front for the cult of Ramtha. These people believe that the soul of a 35,000 year old warrior has inhabited the body of a middle aged woman. Enough said.
Metaphysics are sold in the following fashion: "Is the real world not special enough for you? Now you can walk around and imagine a hidden world of mystical forces that drive the physical world around you!" Obviously, this approach is not for anyone remotely interested in the truth. It boils down to what any old religion is about: assuaging fear. Metaphysics assert that individuals have more control and awareness than they actually do. In the end, it is just a security blanket. It may be a waste of money, and it may possibly interfere with someone obtaining actual help for a real problem (see: homeopathy), but its not our biggest problem these days. By far.
Sam Harris, if you watched the TED talk, is a very thoughtful speaker who never fails to make a great point. Michael Shermer is a founder of Skeptic magazine and he is constantly nonplussed by the arguments of the other side. Deepak Chopra, as you may know, is a metaphysics self-help guru and his bullshit is on full display here. Jean Houston is hardly a part of this debate, which is for the best, because she has evidently indulged in her fair share of peyote over her lifetime.
Neither side of this debate advocates the practice of Abrahamic religions. It was actually ironically refreshing to hear the cuckoo spiritualists putting all of that aside and aiming at a more humanist goal. My issue with them is that for their honorable intentions, they still cannot resist the urge to include some mysticism in their interpretations of the world. Deepak, in particular, constantly rattles off streams of hoity-toity words and then claims that his opponents do not understand the vocabulary of his expertise and therefore are not qualified to pass judgment. Jean constantly goes off on unrelated tangents about one love and rainbows and shit.
Deepak Chopra is a very charismatic speaker. He constantly makes claims about "upgrading" science to include the realm of the metaphysical. He insists that experiences, conscience and emotions have some mystical value, but he makes these claims to the face of Sam Harris, a PhD in neuroscience, who can only diplomatically dismiss the notion. Deepak then tries to use a quote from Stephen Hawking to enforce his own argument, which is a horrible tactic that the atheists jump on immediately.
The atheists make their points along the lines of the TED talk featured in my previous post; that science, as it is, can answer questions of morality without including god. Obviously, this grates on Deepak, because he insists on adding another layer of complication (despite even invoking Occam's Razor) to the idea of science. Jean, meanwhile, simply pleads for the worth of spirituality without really impacting the discussion.
When the audience is brought into the discussion, things get more interesting. A quantum physicist who actually works with Stephen Hawking calls out Deepak and offers to teach him about quantum physics. Deepak tries to graciously accept the offer, but he cannot resist throwing out a barb at the physicist. The resulting exchange is amusing, as the audience member becomes amused at the outlandish claims of the so-called expert. Another audience member later challenged Deepak on the lucrative business of metaphysics. This sets Deepak off on an arrogant rant about the evil science that is much more lucrative. In my opinion, this is what exposes Deepak as a complete fraud; he cannot say a word to defend himself but instead tries to deflect the argument toward a different target.
The topic of "god's" future is rarely breached throughout the entire debate. When everything settles down for the conclusion, the atheists simply accept that the spiritual kooks aren't their most urgent opponents. Everyone is grateful that nobody is advocating Christian or Muslim morals and that is as far as we get.
From my own perspective, the question itself (What is the future of god?) is telling of the bullshit that surrounds belief. God is constantly being re-worked in every culture that believes in one. The lack of any consistency was the very point that set me off on my realization of my own atheism. Deepak Chopra is very clever for trying to attach god to science, but his brand of god is only useful to people who don't know anything about science. He uses words that try to sound complicated and special, but he fails to impress the people who actually know what they're talking about.
To give you an example of how crazy metaphysics are, I would like to bring up a book you may have heard about: The Secret. This book is about the "Law of Attraction" that states that if you think positively, metaphysical forces in the world will draw positivity to your life. The book was joined by a video titled "What the (bleep) do we know?" Within this video, several "experts" are seen giving their testimony on this Law of Attraction and it is all dressed up to look nice. The hilarity starts when you dive into the origin of this. It is all published by a front for the cult of Ramtha. These people believe that the soul of a 35,000 year old warrior has inhabited the body of a middle aged woman. Enough said.
Metaphysics are sold in the following fashion: "Is the real world not special enough for you? Now you can walk around and imagine a hidden world of mystical forces that drive the physical world around you!" Obviously, this approach is not for anyone remotely interested in the truth. It boils down to what any old religion is about: assuaging fear. Metaphysics assert that individuals have more control and awareness than they actually do. In the end, it is just a security blanket. It may be a waste of money, and it may possibly interfere with someone obtaining actual help for a real problem (see: homeopathy), but its not our biggest problem these days. By far.
22 March 2010
Sam Harris explains morals better than I
I've written about morals before, but I don't think I was able to put things quite succinctly. This just in: TED today released this talk by Sam Harris about how science can answer moral questions. It is an amazing listen.
19 March 2010
The Zen of Atheism
I observe so many people mentally beating themselves up over a variety of things. Part of it is uncertainty over what they've been told is right and wrong. Part of it is conflict between their inner desires and social pressures. All of this observation lead me to acknowledge my own lack of belief in a higher power as one reason for my relatively peaceful mind. Of course, I am not perfect; I have my own torment imposed on me by my ambitious personality, but I acknowledge it as personally inflicted conflict. On the other had, we don't have to look very hard at the world around us to see how religion unsettles the lives of those who follow it. It kills people. It sexually abuses them. It creates a struggle. It is a perfection that nobody can obtain and it tears people apart.
This is my counter-argument to the "enlightenment" that religion purports.
On accepting reality:
Why do bad things happen to good people? To anyone inclined to believe in a loving god, answering this question would require a feat of mental contortion. The friction of a harsh reality heaving against a palatable fantasy causes a taut, uncomfortable uncertainty. This results in a brief tearing of one's perceived reality, which is quickly patched by a fantastic back-stitch of fancied justification. To a non-believer, however, the answer is simple: there is no inherent reason for things to happen; the intrinsic chaos of the universe deals fortune and misfortune without bias. In other words, there is no need to dwell or plead. Knowing this makes it easy to move on from tragedy, to accept conclusions, to be at peace.
On morals:
Because atheists do not follow a central code of ethics, individuals end up creating their own views on the treatment of others. This usually turns out to be the ultimate incarnation of the golden rule. Without an authoritative voice justifying the mistreatment of a particular person or minority for arbitrary reasons, individuals are more likely to simply treat others with the same kindness that they hope for in return. The motivations for this behavior hardly deserve the label of "morals," because, as mentioned, they are not conforming to a central standard. Looking in the other direction, a believer's execution of moral standards under the threat of damnation amounts to being good under coercion. If one is only good because they face penalties for not being so, then that is hardly moral.
On guilt:
It is not outlandish to acknowledge that guilt within a conscience creates turmoil that is likely to result in actual unethical behavior. Surveys reveal that applied guilt surrounding the viewing of pornography or sexual conduct results more often in sexual abuse or dysfunction. Furthermore, guilt over pleasure of any kind is likely to inspire one to bar others from that pleasure. It is only in a mind filled with masochistic hate for its own natural impulses that a positive thing can be seen in a negative light. In the realm of non-belief, the lack of guilt-inducing constraints allows individuals to develop healthy attitudes about sexuality and other behavior.
On humility:
It is one thing to grovel before a supreme being, which is in itself humble. The problem with this picture is that it only shows one relationship along the Great Chain of Being that many religions observe. That is, while humans are inferior to god, they are thought to be superior to animals and plants. Then, within the human category, men are superior to women and both of them are superior to non-believers or minorities. Further, many believers are arrogant enough to think that a supreme being is watching over them, as if they are worthy if its attention. There goes the humility, right out the door. Without all of this hokey spirituality to affect the perception of our place in life, we are once again left to understand the world from our individual perspective. A clear understanding of the world leads one to realize that there is no intrinsic chain of being, and that we are all equal in our origins and contributions to the universe.
On pragmatism:
The idea that I should "sell" atheism through my debating style has never held much importance to me. I've never seen atheism as a lifestyle choice; it is simply the conclusion I've reached after factoring all of the knowledge I have together. When someone claims that I do my argument no favor by putting it harshly, it smacks of a closed mind to logic. No amount of niceties or moodiness surrounding my conclusion could ever sway it because it is not a value-based decision. Whether I state, "Here's my logic," or, "Here's my logic, motherfucker," makes no difference in the point I am making. Within the logical mind, the essence of an argument is separated from any emotional inflections or imperfections in its delivery. A believer's faith is based off of an emotional desire to be acknowledged by a supreme being or other subconscious motivation, which explains the vast inconsistencies in available theist ideologies. Atheists make the same, simple argument: there probably is no god.
Disclaimer: I understand that not all atheists are as at peace as this article may claim them to be. This is simply my way of stating how the lack of belief has the potential to relieve a lot of tension within the mind that religion contributes. Your mileage may vary.
This is my counter-argument to the "enlightenment" that religion purports.
On accepting reality:
Why do bad things happen to good people? To anyone inclined to believe in a loving god, answering this question would require a feat of mental contortion. The friction of a harsh reality heaving against a palatable fantasy causes a taut, uncomfortable uncertainty. This results in a brief tearing of one's perceived reality, which is quickly patched by a fantastic back-stitch of fancied justification. To a non-believer, however, the answer is simple: there is no inherent reason for things to happen; the intrinsic chaos of the universe deals fortune and misfortune without bias. In other words, there is no need to dwell or plead. Knowing this makes it easy to move on from tragedy, to accept conclusions, to be at peace.
On morals:
Because atheists do not follow a central code of ethics, individuals end up creating their own views on the treatment of others. This usually turns out to be the ultimate incarnation of the golden rule. Without an authoritative voice justifying the mistreatment of a particular person or minority for arbitrary reasons, individuals are more likely to simply treat others with the same kindness that they hope for in return. The motivations for this behavior hardly deserve the label of "morals," because, as mentioned, they are not conforming to a central standard. Looking in the other direction, a believer's execution of moral standards under the threat of damnation amounts to being good under coercion. If one is only good because they face penalties for not being so, then that is hardly moral.
On guilt:
It is not outlandish to acknowledge that guilt within a conscience creates turmoil that is likely to result in actual unethical behavior. Surveys reveal that applied guilt surrounding the viewing of pornography or sexual conduct results more often in sexual abuse or dysfunction. Furthermore, guilt over pleasure of any kind is likely to inspire one to bar others from that pleasure. It is only in a mind filled with masochistic hate for its own natural impulses that a positive thing can be seen in a negative light. In the realm of non-belief, the lack of guilt-inducing constraints allows individuals to develop healthy attitudes about sexuality and other behavior.
On humility:
It is one thing to grovel before a supreme being, which is in itself humble. The problem with this picture is that it only shows one relationship along the Great Chain of Being that many religions observe. That is, while humans are inferior to god, they are thought to be superior to animals and plants. Then, within the human category, men are superior to women and both of them are superior to non-believers or minorities. Further, many believers are arrogant enough to think that a supreme being is watching over them, as if they are worthy if its attention. There goes the humility, right out the door. Without all of this hokey spirituality to affect the perception of our place in life, we are once again left to understand the world from our individual perspective. A clear understanding of the world leads one to realize that there is no intrinsic chain of being, and that we are all equal in our origins and contributions to the universe.
On pragmatism:
The idea that I should "sell" atheism through my debating style has never held much importance to me. I've never seen atheism as a lifestyle choice; it is simply the conclusion I've reached after factoring all of the knowledge I have together. When someone claims that I do my argument no favor by putting it harshly, it smacks of a closed mind to logic. No amount of niceties or moodiness surrounding my conclusion could ever sway it because it is not a value-based decision. Whether I state, "Here's my logic," or, "Here's my logic, motherfucker," makes no difference in the point I am making. Within the logical mind, the essence of an argument is separated from any emotional inflections or imperfections in its delivery. A believer's faith is based off of an emotional desire to be acknowledged by a supreme being or other subconscious motivation, which explains the vast inconsistencies in available theist ideologies. Atheists make the same, simple argument: there probably is no god.
Disclaimer: I understand that not all atheists are as at peace as this article may claim them to be. This is simply my way of stating how the lack of belief has the potential to relieve a lot of tension within the mind that religion contributes. Your mileage may vary.
16 March 2010
Pardon Me While I Gush
Once upon a time, you were a single celled organism. That cell then divided once, then its two resulting cells divided again, then your four cells became eight, and on and on. Once your original egg had divided a bit, things began to take shape. The ball that your cells had formed (blastula) began to neurulate, creating a divot, then a dent, then a dome, then a socket, then a fish bowl, until it closed off again, leaving a sphere of cells inside another sphere. That outer sphere would eventually become your skin and nervous system and that inner sphere would eventually become your organs, with the space between becoming your skeleton. The amazing part of this entire process is the fact that each individual cell has no awareness of its role in the grand ballet it is a part of. Each cell is simply following conditional rules dictated to it by the chemical compound of its DNA protein sequences.
Every time I think about this, it blows my mind again and again. The fact that all of this contributes to the fact that I have a mind to blow is even too much to consider. I wiggle my fingers in front of my face and imagine the tiny cells that make up my skin, my muscles, my blood; they're no more aware of each other than they are of their role as part of me, but they work together in such a complex fashion. Even the nerve cells that tell your brain where a sensation is coming from are dumb, even though they appear to be highly advanced. The fashion in which they signal to your brain about a sensation is based on a chemical signature that is completely unique to its original placement along the nerve network. If you were to move your flesh from your back to your chest before your nervous system grew in, there would be no market for back scratchers. Scientists once did this to a frog (they swapped a patch of a tadpole's flesh from belly and back, then let it grow to full size) and when they tickled its belly, it would scratch its back.
Each one of your body's cells has a lineage that can (theoretically in large life forms, certainly in much smaller ones) be traced back to those original 4 or 8 cells of your morula. The incredible story here is in how those basic cells, without any guiding hand, divided and divided until there emerged specific-purpose cells that would make up your marrow, your blood, your liver, your nerves or your brain. The simple answer is that it is all just chemical reactions that prompt asymmetrical cell division, gradually shaping a cell into its destined purpose. A more detailed answer would be found in the differences of the proteins within the two halves of a cell that splits unevenly. One half will, on account of its different chemical makeup, go on to form a different type of cell than its sister. The DNA within all of our cells provides chemical "instructions" for all of this, ensuring that eventually, you will develop to the point where you can read my blog. (Congrats!)
All of this is done without any guidance from outside. Each cell has its own instruction manual, copied from the original cell, that it uses to determine its own individual actions. Somehow, it all comes together and we have this world, this incredible world, as a result. Even after writing all of that, I'm mouthing, "Wow..." Order from chaos from order from chaos.
We see a lot of examples of hordes of entities working with only their individual awareness in nature. Starling birds are an obvious example. They flock in thousands, performing amazing shows for onlookers, diving and weaving at great speeds. There are no choreographers or leaders within the flock, each bird only follows its own instincts to dance with the rest, avoiding others by inches. Not only is this principle of behavior quite astounding, it is an example of how a macro view of nature reveals characteristics of its behavior on a micro level.
I want to dedicate this post to my sister, Mikie (the sane one). She knows why.
Life is fucking beautiful.
Every time I think about this, it blows my mind again and again. The fact that all of this contributes to the fact that I have a mind to blow is even too much to consider. I wiggle my fingers in front of my face and imagine the tiny cells that make up my skin, my muscles, my blood; they're no more aware of each other than they are of their role as part of me, but they work together in such a complex fashion. Even the nerve cells that tell your brain where a sensation is coming from are dumb, even though they appear to be highly advanced. The fashion in which they signal to your brain about a sensation is based on a chemical signature that is completely unique to its original placement along the nerve network. If you were to move your flesh from your back to your chest before your nervous system grew in, there would be no market for back scratchers. Scientists once did this to a frog (they swapped a patch of a tadpole's flesh from belly and back, then let it grow to full size) and when they tickled its belly, it would scratch its back.
Each one of your body's cells has a lineage that can (theoretically in large life forms, certainly in much smaller ones) be traced back to those original 4 or 8 cells of your morula. The incredible story here is in how those basic cells, without any guiding hand, divided and divided until there emerged specific-purpose cells that would make up your marrow, your blood, your liver, your nerves or your brain. The simple answer is that it is all just chemical reactions that prompt asymmetrical cell division, gradually shaping a cell into its destined purpose. A more detailed answer would be found in the differences of the proteins within the two halves of a cell that splits unevenly. One half will, on account of its different chemical makeup, go on to form a different type of cell than its sister. The DNA within all of our cells provides chemical "instructions" for all of this, ensuring that eventually, you will develop to the point where you can read my blog. (Congrats!)
All of this is done without any guidance from outside. Each cell has its own instruction manual, copied from the original cell, that it uses to determine its own individual actions. Somehow, it all comes together and we have this world, this incredible world, as a result. Even after writing all of that, I'm mouthing, "Wow..." Order from chaos from order from chaos.
We see a lot of examples of hordes of entities working with only their individual awareness in nature. Starling birds are an obvious example. They flock in thousands, performing amazing shows for onlookers, diving and weaving at great speeds. There are no choreographers or leaders within the flock, each bird only follows its own instincts to dance with the rest, avoiding others by inches. Not only is this principle of behavior quite astounding, it is an example of how a macro view of nature reveals characteristics of its behavior on a micro level.
I want to dedicate this post to my sister, Mikie (the sane one). She knows why.
Life is fucking beautiful.
14 March 2010
The Abbreviated Future of Human Evolution
When I study evolution, it is one thing to understand how the system works, it is quite another to imagine how it will unfold in the future. We know that from chaos emerges order, but we cannot predict that order. One of my favorite things to do is imagine the next step in our evolution, but it is quite difficult to do so. I place myself in the role of a novelist who is constructing a story set 100,000 years in the future. How will the human race develop? What new developments will we experience? What will happen to technology, language, nature?
In order for the human race to speciate into two different paths, a subsection of the population will need to be geographically separated for long enough to change to a point where they are no longer able to mate with the main population. With modern technology, that seems like an impossible proposition, as the gene pool is continuously being mixed about. What it means is that, most likely, the human race will continue to evolve together with no speciation.
Another possible scenario would find our species divided through social segregation. This seems less likely to happen, as it would literally take tens of thousands of years to accomplish. I think it is safe to say that anything can happen in 50,000 years, but gene pool mixing is almost certain.
Instead of speciation, the human race will probably experience continued development and "perfection" of its current strengths. That is, until we blow ourselves to oblivion.
All of these ideas are exciting to think about, but I am always sad when I realize that I will not live to see any of it. No, my life will end before 2100 comes and I will have experienced no more change than the expansion of the knowledge we currently possess. Knowing that the prefrontal cortex is an evolutionary advantage in the realm of mindspace, it is impossible to imagine what new brain structures our successors will possess that will allow them to perceive who-knows-what that we cannot. It sure is enticing to dream about, though.
In order for the human race to speciate into two different paths, a subsection of the population will need to be geographically separated for long enough to change to a point where they are no longer able to mate with the main population. With modern technology, that seems like an impossible proposition, as the gene pool is continuously being mixed about. What it means is that, most likely, the human race will continue to evolve together with no speciation.
Another possible scenario would find our species divided through social segregation. This seems less likely to happen, as it would literally take tens of thousands of years to accomplish. I think it is safe to say that anything can happen in 50,000 years, but gene pool mixing is almost certain.
Instead of speciation, the human race will probably experience continued development and "perfection" of its current strengths. That is, until we blow ourselves to oblivion.
All of these ideas are exciting to think about, but I am always sad when I realize that I will not live to see any of it. No, my life will end before 2100 comes and I will have experienced no more change than the expansion of the knowledge we currently possess. Knowing that the prefrontal cortex is an evolutionary advantage in the realm of mindspace, it is impossible to imagine what new brain structures our successors will possess that will allow them to perceive who-knows-what that we cannot. It sure is enticing to dream about, though.
11 March 2010
Why believe?
Why should I believe? This is the question I can't seem to answer. There appears to be no good reason for me to believe in god, despite the fact that some may insist I have to. If that is the case, then I don't see why I have free will to decide in the first place. Given that, if belief in god requires faith, evidence for it cannot exist, I am free to understand my reality without including a creator or almighty being in the picture. I have found it to be quite pleasant to the point where I often feel sorry for those who do believe. I suspect that they do not want my pity, though, as bearing a cross of their own has some significance to them. As it stands, the subordination and guilt is not appealing to me when I don't even feel that the benefits are all that great.
Let's start with this lifetime. One claim of faith is that it will make you happy. We can use research to help us estimate our relative happiness levels in any given situation. Dan Gilbert explained this in his TED lecture. It doesn't matter if you just lost your leg or if you just won the lottery, in 3 months, you'll be just as happy as if you had experienced the other. No amount of divine euphoria will sustain because it will normalize. If someone were to plead to me that giving my life to Jesus will make me happier than ever, I would simply point out that my extreme happiness would become a normalcy and thus lose its charm. After all, happiness is a relative state; we can only comprehend being happy because we know what being sad is. Remove sadness and you no longer have appreciation for happiness. Even if you claim that pride plays a part in the normalcy, the expectancy, of happiness, you still cannot contend with the happiness we manufacture when we need it most.
The difference between real happiness and manufactured happiness lies in how you obtain it. In the end, though, they are both just as effective. While, from an honest perspective, I would much rather achieve my happiness through a positive occurrence (being the best at playing a game, for instance) instead of through accepting and owning up to a negative (acknowledging that I suck at games and just playing for the experience), the two opposite situations have different implications on future avenues for happiness. If I become used to positive happiness, it takes increasingly more positive things to placate my high dopamine levels and maintain that happiness. However, if my happiness comes from my acceptance of my reality, it does not take much to give me a little endorphin rush. This is all to say that Jesus cannot make me happy without also teaching me to suffer. I can get that from anyone, not just the son of god.
There is another aspect of belief that I admit to being nonplussed about. That is the community aspect. Obviously, if you go to church, you form friendships within your community and you become a part of a large support group network. For agnostics who have fallen out of faith from the inside, losing their religious friends is one of the harshest realities they face when considering leaving their religion. For myself, I could not imagine living in a world where everyone agreed with me. In fact, one of the main reasons why I moved to New York City 5 years ago was because of the diversity of race and culture to be found here. The lure of assimilation is more of a repulsion.
I once read an article that stated that atheists get off easy because they don't believe anything that requires them to sacrifice. Beyond the near-sightedness of this claim (see the above statement about agnostics leaving their church), there is a flaw in the logic. Who says we have to suffer? Why does sacrifice have to come built into a given ideology? Why can't it come as a consequence of following one's dreams instead of following dogma? It seems to me that some paths through belief are paved by masochists who become, in turn, sadists that want others to feel their pain. Not only is this undesirable, it is quite creepy. It is said that Pope John Paul II was favored by his peers because he beat himself with his belt and slept on the floor for penance. Why would a sane person want this?
Back to the evidence point. I think it goes without saying that I could not possibly unlearn everything I know about cosmology, biology, logic, and philosophy simply to believe. If I were to have faith, I would need to either find something real that contradicts my current knowledge or work the concept of god into a non-literal mental nook. This already feels like a boring tact. While there are very smart people who believe in god, it does not appear that any of the ones who originally began as atheists took the sane route of reasoning their way to belief. I think I would need something of a vision, a surreal experience, to pluck me from my rationality. Once my rationality is gone, though, there's no telling how far I would go to destroy every thought I ever had before.
Let's move on to the real fun, though; the afterlife. As the comedian Jim Jeffries points out, hell can't be as bad as Christians paint it. If god represents the light, then he is obviously beholden to sell his path as the way to go and the opposite path as a blatantly bad choice. However, if one admires the logic of Pascal's wager, then surely you'll appreciate this idea: the devil has no reason to punish those who advance his efforts. He would reward them, I think. If the guy is as bad and as crafty as everyone claims he is, then he would not dispose of his loyal agents. Because the bible is supposedly the word of god, it is admittedly a one-sided affair. Similarly, as other comedians have stated, heaven sounds like it is populated by the most boring people.
There isn't much in faith for me, I must say. As a happy, healthy, sane, smart and optimistic atheist, I don't know what anyone could offer me to make me desire otherwise. Even if they did offer it, that wouldn't sound like a savior to me. More like a soul monger... pardon me while I question the motives.
Let's start with this lifetime. One claim of faith is that it will make you happy. We can use research to help us estimate our relative happiness levels in any given situation. Dan Gilbert explained this in his TED lecture. It doesn't matter if you just lost your leg or if you just won the lottery, in 3 months, you'll be just as happy as if you had experienced the other. No amount of divine euphoria will sustain because it will normalize. If someone were to plead to me that giving my life to Jesus will make me happier than ever, I would simply point out that my extreme happiness would become a normalcy and thus lose its charm. After all, happiness is a relative state; we can only comprehend being happy because we know what being sad is. Remove sadness and you no longer have appreciation for happiness. Even if you claim that pride plays a part in the normalcy, the expectancy, of happiness, you still cannot contend with the happiness we manufacture when we need it most.
The difference between real happiness and manufactured happiness lies in how you obtain it. In the end, though, they are both just as effective. While, from an honest perspective, I would much rather achieve my happiness through a positive occurrence (being the best at playing a game, for instance) instead of through accepting and owning up to a negative (acknowledging that I suck at games and just playing for the experience), the two opposite situations have different implications on future avenues for happiness. If I become used to positive happiness, it takes increasingly more positive things to placate my high dopamine levels and maintain that happiness. However, if my happiness comes from my acceptance of my reality, it does not take much to give me a little endorphin rush. This is all to say that Jesus cannot make me happy without also teaching me to suffer. I can get that from anyone, not just the son of god.
There is another aspect of belief that I admit to being nonplussed about. That is the community aspect. Obviously, if you go to church, you form friendships within your community and you become a part of a large support group network. For agnostics who have fallen out of faith from the inside, losing their religious friends is one of the harshest realities they face when considering leaving their religion. For myself, I could not imagine living in a world where everyone agreed with me. In fact, one of the main reasons why I moved to New York City 5 years ago was because of the diversity of race and culture to be found here. The lure of assimilation is more of a repulsion.
I once read an article that stated that atheists get off easy because they don't believe anything that requires them to sacrifice. Beyond the near-sightedness of this claim (see the above statement about agnostics leaving their church), there is a flaw in the logic. Who says we have to suffer? Why does sacrifice have to come built into a given ideology? Why can't it come as a consequence of following one's dreams instead of following dogma? It seems to me that some paths through belief are paved by masochists who become, in turn, sadists that want others to feel their pain. Not only is this undesirable, it is quite creepy. It is said that Pope John Paul II was favored by his peers because he beat himself with his belt and slept on the floor for penance. Why would a sane person want this?
Back to the evidence point. I think it goes without saying that I could not possibly unlearn everything I know about cosmology, biology, logic, and philosophy simply to believe. If I were to have faith, I would need to either find something real that contradicts my current knowledge or work the concept of god into a non-literal mental nook. This already feels like a boring tact. While there are very smart people who believe in god, it does not appear that any of the ones who originally began as atheists took the sane route of reasoning their way to belief. I think I would need something of a vision, a surreal experience, to pluck me from my rationality. Once my rationality is gone, though, there's no telling how far I would go to destroy every thought I ever had before.
Let's move on to the real fun, though; the afterlife. As the comedian Jim Jeffries points out, hell can't be as bad as Christians paint it. If god represents the light, then he is obviously beholden to sell his path as the way to go and the opposite path as a blatantly bad choice. However, if one admires the logic of Pascal's wager, then surely you'll appreciate this idea: the devil has no reason to punish those who advance his efforts. He would reward them, I think. If the guy is as bad and as crafty as everyone claims he is, then he would not dispose of his loyal agents. Because the bible is supposedly the word of god, it is admittedly a one-sided affair. Similarly, as other comedians have stated, heaven sounds like it is populated by the most boring people.
There isn't much in faith for me, I must say. As a happy, healthy, sane, smart and optimistic atheist, I don't know what anyone could offer me to make me desire otherwise. Even if they did offer it, that wouldn't sound like a savior to me. More like a soul monger... pardon me while I question the motives.
07 March 2010
There's an explanation...
I have been challenged by one of my commenters, Kev, to prove the existence of a few things. I would normally respond in kind - through a comment, but I'm bored, so I'll take a stab at a few. It should be made clear that the commenter believes in god and I do not. He is challenging me on my logic.
Moral right & wrong
Being that many animals can grasp right and wrong on a basic level, it confuses me that anyone would suggest that morality comes from a holy origin. A dog understands benefit and detriment. Apes have a sense of humor. Elephants show emotions. Dolphin families spread culture. It doesn't take a human to understand right and wrong, so it makes sense that a man-god cannot be the only authority for morality. We, as human animals, have a natural internal sense of what is right and wrong, developed through the evolutionary process.
Human consciousness, the world outside yourself
I categorize this into the same bin as all the masturbatory existential questions we've all heard before. Is it such a leap to assume that... I think, therefore I am? Sometimes challenging reality is nothing more than an attempt to scuttle the debate before it advances onto the really interesting topics.
Love
It is apparent to me that everyone has their own interpretation of what love is. To a ravenous believer, "love" is the obsession they have for their savior. To a romantic, love is the longing they have for the object of their desire. To me, love is an intense loyalty felt toward those who have endeared to me. In any case, as with all emotions, its origin rests with the chemistry of our brains. I cannot prove the existence of something that has a different definition to everyone who has experienced it.
Mathematical consistency to which all things are subject, Chaitin's number
This one has me tickled. As I stated in my entry, Proof of Evolution, nature does NOT adhere to mathematical models. There are no perfect circles, no perfect spirals. The Platonic model is not valid in the real world. I would suggest the book, The Black Swan, if you're interested in understanding the real mathematics of nature.
The existence of black holes, dark matter, strangelets
Strangelets, as I recall, are hypothetical, so nobody claims any proof of their existence, only conjectures. Dark matter is said to be detected through its gravitational effects on other matter. Black holes are detected by their distortion of the light emitted from galaxies farther away, like a giant lens, which bends toward them as it passes by on its way to Earth. They have also visibly devoured whole parts of galaxies, leaving a telltale sign of a massive source of gravity. Similarly, we can detect planets in other solar systems as they pass in front of their home stars and temporarily disrupt the light and radiation that we detect.
I didn't answer all of the challenges, but at some point I have to stop and make a point. There are good reasons for scientists to be doing what they do. First, if the basics of what we understand about our reality are wrong, then we, in turn, would not be able to have the technology that works so precisely in our daily lives. For example, if our understanding of chemistry were off by just a little bit, we wouldn't be able to have digital watches. It's as simple as that. Second, there are many things we don't know, but it is quite a different thing to say that what we DO know is wrong. There's a reason why you leave your house through the front door and not the window.
Moral right & wrong
Being that many animals can grasp right and wrong on a basic level, it confuses me that anyone would suggest that morality comes from a holy origin. A dog understands benefit and detriment. Apes have a sense of humor. Elephants show emotions. Dolphin families spread culture. It doesn't take a human to understand right and wrong, so it makes sense that a man-god cannot be the only authority for morality. We, as human animals, have a natural internal sense of what is right and wrong, developed through the evolutionary process.
Human consciousness, the world outside yourself
I categorize this into the same bin as all the masturbatory existential questions we've all heard before. Is it such a leap to assume that... I think, therefore I am? Sometimes challenging reality is nothing more than an attempt to scuttle the debate before it advances onto the really interesting topics.
Love
It is apparent to me that everyone has their own interpretation of what love is. To a ravenous believer, "love" is the obsession they have for their savior. To a romantic, love is the longing they have for the object of their desire. To me, love is an intense loyalty felt toward those who have endeared to me. In any case, as with all emotions, its origin rests with the chemistry of our brains. I cannot prove the existence of something that has a different definition to everyone who has experienced it.
Mathematical consistency to which all things are subject, Chaitin's number
This one has me tickled. As I stated in my entry, Proof of Evolution, nature does NOT adhere to mathematical models. There are no perfect circles, no perfect spirals. The Platonic model is not valid in the real world. I would suggest the book, The Black Swan, if you're interested in understanding the real mathematics of nature.
The existence of black holes, dark matter, strangelets
Strangelets, as I recall, are hypothetical, so nobody claims any proof of their existence, only conjectures. Dark matter is said to be detected through its gravitational effects on other matter. Black holes are detected by their distortion of the light emitted from galaxies farther away, like a giant lens, which bends toward them as it passes by on its way to Earth. They have also visibly devoured whole parts of galaxies, leaving a telltale sign of a massive source of gravity. Similarly, we can detect planets in other solar systems as they pass in front of their home stars and temporarily disrupt the light and radiation that we detect.
I didn't answer all of the challenges, but at some point I have to stop and make a point. There are good reasons for scientists to be doing what they do. First, if the basics of what we understand about our reality are wrong, then we, in turn, would not be able to have the technology that works so precisely in our daily lives. For example, if our understanding of chemistry were off by just a little bit, we wouldn't be able to have digital watches. It's as simple as that. Second, there are many things we don't know, but it is quite a different thing to say that what we DO know is wrong. There's a reason why you leave your house through the front door and not the window.
06 March 2010
The Fallacy of Irreducible Complexity
There's a term floating about that I have an epistemological problem with: irreducible complexity. The premise of this phrase is that the modern biological systems that make up our bodies and those in nature are too complex to have happened "by chance." To me, the use of this argument represents a lack of understanding of many different concepts: chaos, evolution, time, probability and history. Funny enough, these are the very subjects I've been studying over the last year, so I'm prepared to give a brief glance over them here.
To understand how our biological systems came to be so complex, you must understand the concept of a self-organizing system like evolution. The coupling of the chaos theory and natural selection perfectly explains it, but first, you must change your perspective to a very impersonal, time's eye view. The chaos theory states that in a given dynamical system (on the micro level, this would be the interaction of elements), while individual reactions are predictable, chains of reactions become exponentially more random. For instance, I was playing pool last night and I could accurately predict the angle of any ball bouncing off my cue-ball. I could not, however, guess what would happen to any particular ball on a break. With so many reactions happening that depend upon each other, the fate of any particular ball is completely up in the air.
Now that we understand the randomness that is provided by chaos, we must understand the behavior of the elements subjected to it. Elements, as we know, come in various flavors, each with different behaviors and tendencies to combine. Some, like helium, are not very reactive, but others, like carbon, are complex and eager to create many different compounds. Not only that, every compound has its own shape. We understand this through the formations of crystals. This is all to say that elements themselves are self-organizing.
Now that we have self-organizing elements in a chaotic system, let's add another ingredient: time. 4.6 billion years, to be exact (or, 14 billion years if you want to take it one step further). To most, this much time is almost impossible to comprehend, so let me put it this way: in this much time, if something is remotely possible, it is almost sure to happen at least once. This goes for abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life), with the right conditions. Then, once we have life, we start the evolution engine! Now we're talking about self-organizing elements lively participating in a self-organizing system of natural selection.
Here's where "irreducible complexity" likes to sink its slimy fingers in. From our perspective, as intelligent humans with culture and ego, and from the present looking into the past, we see a string of events that all chained together to create our "perfect" bodies and the amazingly coincidentally harmonious dance of nature. The problem with this perspective is that it completely neglects all of the paths that evolution went down, only to reach a dead end. There have been quite a lot. Like history told through the eyes of a 11pm news cast, we see just the facts that are important to the story. We see our past as a narrative; one thing leading to another, which leads to another, until we arrive at the present. It is easy to be deceived by this view because it plays right into our self-centered tendencies.
The universe doesn't work like that, though. At any given time, there is an innumerable amount of activity and we only see the result of a very small fraction of it. This is where probability comes into play. With enough time, we are given a nigh infinite number of chances to become what we are now. Evolution through natural selection is nothing but a massive trial and error scheme that trends toward improvement. What works survives and reproduces and what doesn't work dies off. We would surely have a greater appreciation for the process if we could see it happening before our eyes, but, once again, the severe amount of time we are up against clouds our vision.
Taking all of this into consideration makes it very plausible to consider our current existence as both a lucky one and an inevitable one. However, to ignore the very systems that combine to create our wonderfully complex bodies and claim that we must have been designed is a cop-out. Even if you argue that a creator set all of this in motion, you still have to contend with all of the failed trials that gave way to the successful ones that eventually begot you. If you see it the way I do, you'll realize there is no design, only a framework. Within it: ataxia. Any complexity and order you see within that framework is a result of the intricacy of its building blocks and the sheer amount of time they have had to develop.
To understand how our biological systems came to be so complex, you must understand the concept of a self-organizing system like evolution. The coupling of the chaos theory and natural selection perfectly explains it, but first, you must change your perspective to a very impersonal, time's eye view. The chaos theory states that in a given dynamical system (on the micro level, this would be the interaction of elements), while individual reactions are predictable, chains of reactions become exponentially more random. For instance, I was playing pool last night and I could accurately predict the angle of any ball bouncing off my cue-ball. I could not, however, guess what would happen to any particular ball on a break. With so many reactions happening that depend upon each other, the fate of any particular ball is completely up in the air.
Now that we understand the randomness that is provided by chaos, we must understand the behavior of the elements subjected to it. Elements, as we know, come in various flavors, each with different behaviors and tendencies to combine. Some, like helium, are not very reactive, but others, like carbon, are complex and eager to create many different compounds. Not only that, every compound has its own shape. We understand this through the formations of crystals. This is all to say that elements themselves are self-organizing.
Now that we have self-organizing elements in a chaotic system, let's add another ingredient: time. 4.6 billion years, to be exact (or, 14 billion years if you want to take it one step further). To most, this much time is almost impossible to comprehend, so let me put it this way: in this much time, if something is remotely possible, it is almost sure to happen at least once. This goes for abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life), with the right conditions. Then, once we have life, we start the evolution engine! Now we're talking about self-organizing elements lively participating in a self-organizing system of natural selection.
Here's where "irreducible complexity" likes to sink its slimy fingers in. From our perspective, as intelligent humans with culture and ego, and from the present looking into the past, we see a string of events that all chained together to create our "perfect" bodies and the amazingly coincidentally harmonious dance of nature. The problem with this perspective is that it completely neglects all of the paths that evolution went down, only to reach a dead end. There have been quite a lot. Like history told through the eyes of a 11pm news cast, we see just the facts that are important to the story. We see our past as a narrative; one thing leading to another, which leads to another, until we arrive at the present. It is easy to be deceived by this view because it plays right into our self-centered tendencies.
The universe doesn't work like that, though. At any given time, there is an innumerable amount of activity and we only see the result of a very small fraction of it. This is where probability comes into play. With enough time, we are given a nigh infinite number of chances to become what we are now. Evolution through natural selection is nothing but a massive trial and error scheme that trends toward improvement. What works survives and reproduces and what doesn't work dies off. We would surely have a greater appreciation for the process if we could see it happening before our eyes, but, once again, the severe amount of time we are up against clouds our vision.
Taking all of this into consideration makes it very plausible to consider our current existence as both a lucky one and an inevitable one. However, to ignore the very systems that combine to create our wonderfully complex bodies and claim that we must have been designed is a cop-out. Even if you argue that a creator set all of this in motion, you still have to contend with all of the failed trials that gave way to the successful ones that eventually begot you. If you see it the way I do, you'll realize there is no design, only a framework. Within it: ataxia. Any complexity and order you see within that framework is a result of the intricacy of its building blocks and the sheer amount of time they have had to develop.
02 March 2010
Fallout Shelters of New York City
I have a rather weird side hobby; when I walk around New York City, I keep my eyes trained just above head level and I scan both sides of the street. I look for signs of a particular nature: fallout shelter signs. As you no doubt have noticed, the image in the header of this blog is of a fallout shelter sign. I even have a large mounted against the exposed brick wall in my apartment. Why the fascination? To understand my hobby, you should know that the signs were all created and mounted in the early 1960's, so they represent a very paranoid time in our history. They are anachronisms.
So far, I have collected pictures of 88 different signs. That number is sure to go up this summer when the weather is warm enough to walk more than a couple blocks for no good reason. Here is a gallery of the pictures I have taken. They are all done with my iPhone. I do take higher quality pictures with a digital camera (as you can see above), but I am saving those for more impressive applications.
My goal this year is to reach 200 and to actually visit the inside of a former fallout shelter. (Bonus assignment: parse the EXIF data from each of these photos and plot them all out on a map.)
EDIT: 3/20/2011 -- Added 51 new shelters!
Hi guys, I'm back a year later with more shelters. I did not meet my goal of 200 because I didn't go looking for them as much as I wanted. However, they have been trickling in as my adventures have taken me around the city. I also have not yet been granted access to explore a shelter, but I have been told by a few building staffers that they are now used as just extra storage.
So what else has happened in the last year? A number of students and journalists have found this blog post and have e-mailed me to ask permission to use my photos in their papers/articles. That's pretty exciting. Someone even took the time to map out the above 88 shelters using the EXIF data in each one.
What's in store for the next year? More shelter searching. I also have a number of photos taken with a slightly better camera. I will be combing through those pics to see if any can be made into an artistic presentation, like as in the header image of this blog. Stay tuned and keep writing to me about this stuff. I love hearing about it.
So far, I have collected pictures of 88 different signs. That number is sure to go up this summer when the weather is warm enough to walk more than a couple blocks for no good reason. Here is a gallery of the pictures I have taken. They are all done with my iPhone. I do take higher quality pictures with a digital camera (as you can see above), but I am saving those for more impressive applications.
My goal this year is to reach 200 and to actually visit the inside of a former fallout shelter. (Bonus assignment: parse the EXIF data from each of these photos and plot them all out on a map.)
EDIT: 3/20/2011 -- Added 51 new shelters!
Hi guys, I'm back a year later with more shelters. I did not meet my goal of 200 because I didn't go looking for them as much as I wanted. However, they have been trickling in as my adventures have taken me around the city. I also have not yet been granted access to explore a shelter, but I have been told by a few building staffers that they are now used as just extra storage.
So what else has happened in the last year? A number of students and journalists have found this blog post and have e-mailed me to ask permission to use my photos in their papers/articles. That's pretty exciting. Someone even took the time to map out the above 88 shelters using the EXIF data in each one.
What's in store for the next year? More shelter searching. I also have a number of photos taken with a slightly better camera. I will be combing through those pics to see if any can be made into an artistic presentation, like as in the header image of this blog. Stay tuned and keep writing to me about this stuff. I love hearing about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)