Moving into a warmer world

“Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control.

“Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial surge.”

(found via CommonDreams, article in The Independent: “Global warming spirals upwards,” by Geoffrey Lean [March 28, 2004])

Hello, Self? That was a really stupid thing you just did, probably.

http://www.futureme.org/:

here’s the story:
two fellas started this so that you could write yourself a letter to be delivered at a later date. we’ve all had to do them in high school and college. it’s sorta cool to receive a letter from yourself about where you thought you’d be a year (two years? more?) later. FutureMe.org is based on the principle that memories are less accurate than emails. we strive for accuracy.

Oh, and you can also read public entries—things people have written to their future selves. Most of it’s borderline-pathetic, maudlin crap. Mind you, interesting, borderline-pathetic, maudlin crap. And what can you expect with a “letter to your future self,” anyway? It’s kinda difficult, when you’re predicting the future (or whatever), to write something that’s deeply meaningful both to yourself and to other people.

Some people try, though.

You were wishing that your dad was dead today because Sandesh came over and he began to bitch like a fucking girl. He’s an asshole. And then today Mike’s mom called asking if we want their old Honda. It’s a piece of shit.

Chomsky Blogs

As of some very recent time, Noam Chomsky has a blog. It’s called Turning the Tide. What’s not to like?

(via some other blog, possibly diepunyhumans though possibly not; actual laudatory reference will appear here if I can dig it up)

The Future Is Dismal, and It Is Here

First came the chicken bombs, then the chicken guns. I fear chicken landmines and drones will soon rear their ugly heads.

Sometimes the things that seem most like jokes are what we need most fear.

Or not.

But you can never really know for sure.

(For an overview of the real-life use of chicken cannon [which as of yet have not been implemented in actual warfare] that’s surprisingly thorough, pay a visit to Snopes)

(As for the chicken bombs, okay, so the military claims to have never implemented them. But you show me a government that hasn’t implemented chicken bombs and I’ll show you a government that is weak and defenseless.)

What Makes Us Violent?

The Globe and Mail has a fantastic article on aggression, delving into deep philosophical and psychological issues of what exactly makes violent people violent.

Hint: It’s not TV.
(Or videogames.)

The article focuses mostly on the work of Dr. Richard Tremblay, who the article cites as “one of the world leaders in aggression studies.” It’s interesting stuff.

While the article itself doesn’t give you a particularly good sense of how controversial some of the ideas may be (it’s not entirely obvious, for instance, what portions of the theories are well-accepted and which parts, if any, are maybe a little questionable in mainstream academic circles), the ideas themselves are certainly enough to make you think, re-think, and then think again about our mad world.

First and foremost in the article is the idea that aggression is not learned, but is socialized away (unless it’s not, which is when we end up with problems):

“Aggressive behaviour, except in the rarest circumstances, is not acquired from life experience. It is a remnant of our evolutionary struggle to survive, a force we learn, with time and careful teaching, to master.

“[says Dr. Tremblay,] ‘Physical aggression is not an illness one catches… It is a natural behaviour that one learns to control. But the learning is not perfect. Socialization is a thin veneer.’

“Which explains why, he says, it is so often the quiet, agreeable types who storm into their office building toting a rifle — the veneer having cracked in a sudden explosion. But never, in all the studies, including those replicated in New Zealand and the United States, did he find a passive child who grew up to be an aggressive adult; the raging adults were the raging children who never leashed their anger.” (emphasis added)

The article also goes to cite other correlations—smoking during pregnancy and an increased propensity for violence in the child, frontal-lobe injuries and violence, etc.—which go to show some of the complexities researchers must deal with who are trying to sort out the causes of aggression and how to make people more peaceable.

To put the article’s title into question form, who are the most violent people on earth?

Apparently, two year olds.

“Researchers argue that society must stop excusing aggression in early childhood. Ignoring the problem could mean a child’s path is set irrevocably toward delinquency, dropping out of school, and crime. Intervention, it seems, needs to come sooner than ever. If aggressive children don’t learn to control their anger early, they might never learn at all.”

Says Dr. Tremblay, “If you put your four-month-old to bed one night, and went in in the morning and he was suddenly six feet tall and 200-plus pounds, you should just run away. Because he will really beat you up.”

It’s a fascinating article, with lots of seriously, desperately important ramifications. Read it.

(via Globe and Mail: “The Most Violent People On Earth,” by Erin Anderssen and Anne McIlroy [April 3, 2004]; cartoon is from P.S.Mueller’s home page, which you should definitely visit.)

Vultures in Peril

“Only a decade ago, millions of Asian vultures lived in Pakistan, India, and Nepal. These enormous raptors provided an effective method of removing dead livestock, preventing the spread of diseases. They played a similar role with human corpses, ritualized in the “sky burials” of the Parsi religion.

“Then huge numbers of these birds began dying mysteriously starting about a decade ago.”

Not necessarily unusual by itself, the case of the three Asian vultures (long-billed, oriental white-backed, and slender-billed) follows an unusual path, providing yet another case study for us to to file away under the heading of “unintended consequences.”

One prominent theory—now supplanted—cast the blame on some fearsome ‘mystery virus’:

“Vultures were almost as common as sparrows in India. But the arrival of a mystery virus a decade ago has wiped out 95% of the species, and some scientists believe the gawky birds are on the brink of extinction.” (Reuters)

Which was maybe reasonable-sounding, however wrong it was. Now we find out that the cause has to do with humans:

“[The vultures are] now teetering on the edge of extinction. No one knew why until last May, when a veterinarian with the Peregrine Fund discovered the culprit: a pain-relief medication routinely administered to cattle. Birds that ate dead cattle treated with the drug were dying in massive numbers. ” (CSMonitor)

What wonders, these cattle-drugs.

links:

further information:

Online Resources for YOU to use, abuse, and confuse

All About Stan

Stanley Kubrick’s house looks as if the Inland Revenue took it over long ago.

Tony takes me into a large room painted blue and filled with books. “This used to be the cinema,” he says.

“Is it the library now?” I ask.

“Look closer at the books,” says Tony.

I do. “Bloody hell,” I say. “Every book in this room is about Napoleon!”

“Look in the drawers,” says Tony.

I do.

“It’s all about Napoleon, too!” I say. “Everything in here is about Napoleon!”

A very worthwhile article at the Guardian that is most certainly not all about Napoleon, but about the late, great Stanley Kubrick.

(via the Guardian: “Citizen Kubrick” by Jon Ronson [March 27, 2004])

Horrorpictureshow

Gasps analyst Bill Dreher, reeling,

“Costco continues to be a company that is better at serving the club member and employee than the shareholder.”

Oh, the humanity!

What dread tactics.

(via Alas, a Blog [March 29, 2004])

Spy Game

(2001) Tony Scott – Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Catherine McCormack, etc.

Synopsis: The last day on his job at the CIA, Nathan Muir (Redford) finds out that an old protege of his (Bishop, played by Pitt) has stumbled into a whole world of trouble. And is, in fact, going to be executed in 24 hours. Flashbacks bring action to the movie, as Redford works within the building, using his wily skills to manipulate the system and save Bishop.

Review: If you can excuse the film’s sometimes dubious political flights of fancy and vast oversimplification (rendered as stylization), you will probably be able to enjoy this movie. It’s tightly woven, and while the “flashbacks” help liven up the picture, it’s really Nathan Muir’s machinations from within the CIA building that make everything interesting. Muir’s struggle isn’t glamorous or extremely complex, but there’s a subtle brilliance to how he approaches the problem. Okay, maybe not brilliance, but cleverness. It’s a case where you know what is going to happen (more or less) but you’re not quite sure how it’s going to happen. And, accepting the movie’s bizarre assumptions, it’s quite clever and relatively fast-paced.

Rating: [•••] out of [•••••]