Nature Vs Nurture - A Sociological Approach to Feral, Isolated, and Institutionalized Children

A common question related to sociology deals with the nature of the human being versus the way it is raised. Does one know if he is a boy or a girl upon birth, or does he make this distinction based on the actions and words of those around him? How does prison affect the functionality of a person once he is released to the world? These questions are strongly related to the nature versus nurture - does a human enter the world with basic human function, or does he develop these functions as a result of those around him.

One topic sociologists may study is feral children. These are children that were deserted at a very young age, with death usually the intention of the parents, but were rather raised and groomed by animals. Sociologists found that children raised by animals acquired the instincts and behaviors of the species that raised them. One example of this occurred in the 1700s, when a feral child known as "the wild boy of Aveyron" was discovered by scientists of the day. He was found in France in 1798, and it was observed that he walked on all fours, did not indicate pain related to cold temperatures, and pounced on small animals - devouring them raw in ravenous fashion. Although most sociologists will discard the significance of feral children because of the sparseness of cases, it still teaches us a lesson that children must learn how to act at a young age. This essential time of youth is when children develop many essential social behaviors.

A slightly more common study is on isolated children. These are children that were raised by one person or a small group of persons in an isolated area with minimal or no contact to a typical society. One girl, Isabelle, was raised by her deaf, mute mother in the attic of her grandfather. Upon being discovered at the age of 6, it was found that she could not talk, and rather relied on gestures to communicate with her mother. She also had a disease called rickets as a result of an inadequate diet and a lack of sunshine. This basically made her legs useless. Her behavior towards strangers, men especially, was like a wild animal. She treated them with fear and hostility - and could only make noise in the way of strange croaks. Initially she scored nearly zero on an IQ test - but because Isabelle was discovered at such a young age, she was able to reach the learning level expected from her age in two years. It is possible that results of isolation can be reversed if the child is younger than twelve. The primary problem, however, was a lack of a language, which is basic to all human interaction. All other interaction can be divided into sub categories to vocal communication.

These first two studies, isolated and feral children, can be viewed through one of Charles Horton Cooley's theories on human interaction. Cooley, who lived in the late 1800s, created a theory that summed up how human development occurs, capturing the theory in the concept of 'the looking glass self'. This theory had three primary elements: we imagine how we appear to those around us, we interpret others' reactions, and we develop a self concept. The basic gist of it is that we look at those around us, and base our appearance and social interactions on what they do and what they expect. If a feral child is raised by animals, he is going to acquire the attributes of those animals. Likewise, an isolated child will base his actions on other isolated individuals or no one, and will develop little or no basic interaction skill.

Still more common than isolated or feral children is institutionalized children. Two or three centuries ago, orphanages were much different than they are now. Children were raised with little or no care on a strict schedule. On top of this, children were often beaten, ragged, and denied food. As a result, children coming from orphanages tended to have difficulty establishing close bonds with others, and have lower IQs. In an account of a good Iowa orphanage in the 1930s, children were raised in the nursery until about six months. They were placed in cribs that had tall sides, effectively limiting vision to the world around them. No toys were hung from the cribs, not mother held them closely. The interaction they did get was limited to nurses who changed diapers, bedding, and provided them medication. Although everyone assumed that mental retardation was a "he was just born that way" issue, two sociologists investigated and followed the lives of the children who were raised in this Iowa orphanage. H. M. Skeels and H. B. Dye began to understand that a lack of mental stimulation was depriving these children of the basic human interaction skills they needed to be effective members of society. In a study, they took thirteen children who were obviously retarded and assigned them a retarded woman who would look after them. They also chose twelve children who would be raised in the orphanage the usual way, and tested both groups for IQ. The first group was noted to develop an intense relationship with their respective 'mothers', and received much more

attention than their counterparts. While all of the studied children were still retarded, it was noted that the first group's IQs spiked by a jaw-dropping average of 28 points. In an equally startling statistic, it was found that the other group's average dropped by an average of 30 IQ points. This study demonstrated the importance of human interaction at a young age.

A final lesson can be taken from deprived animals. These are animals that were stripped from their mother at a young age and raised in isolation. A famous study regarding this topic was conducted by Harry and Margaret Harlow, who raised a baby monkey in isolation. They constructed two 'mothers' for their monkey, one which was a wire frame with a nipple on it from which the monkey could nurse, and one that was covered in soft fabric. They found that even though the first mother provided nourishment, the baby would cling to the soft mother when frightened, showing that the monkey felt more comfortable through intimate physical contact - or cuddling.

When the monkey was introduced to a monkey community, he was rejected, and had no concept of how normal monkey civilization was structured. He knew neither how to play normally with the other monkeys, nor how to engage in sexual intercourse, despite several feeble attempts.

Upon conducting this study with female monkeys, they found that those that did become pregnant became vicious mothers - they struck their babies, kicked them, or crushed them against the floor. These were monkeys who were raised in this isolated environment for years, and had no chance of integration to society. Other monkeys were observed to overcome these disabilities with increasingly positive results: a corresponding relationship with the amount of time spent in isolation. Monkeys isolated for three to six months were relatively easily integrated, while monkeys isolated for years suffered irreversible effects. When applied to humans, we understand that social interaction is key to a socially efficient product.

In short, society makes us human. Babies do not naturally develop into adults, and social ideas are not transferred via DNA. Although the body may grow, isolation victimizes them to be little more than mere animals. In fact, a lack of language skill results in an inability to even grasp the relations between people - such as father, mother, teacher and friend. In order to develop into an adult, children must be surrounded by people who care for them. This process called "socialization" shows that we are crafted by those around us.

Read more »

A Look into Sociology

Sociology is an intricate study of humankind on many forms. This article will examine six significant factors and give a better look on sociology itself.

Sociology has its roots in the Enlightenment. With the want  for more information, more understanding of the world, man started to focus on the very  thing he created himself: society. This, in a way, is what sociology is. Sociology is the study of human behavior, from its origins to its evolutions. With the increase in human development, there became a higher variety of human-life. What makes sociology an unique science is its focus on humanity. This makes sociology important both to the present and the future, for it takes what has happened in the past and present and uses the information effectively in understanding groups, individuals, and society itself.

There are also observational studies and experiments. Sociological experiments can be like other scientific ones, with variables for scientific research, but lots of the times the answers aren't so simple. It takes a good eye and mind to analyze the data, making sociology a more delicate process in the long run.

The second item to focus on is culture. Culture is the grouping of specific mindsets that have developed over time in certain parts of the world, allowing any scientist or onlooker to realize general differences between groups and make general recognitions this way. Thus said, it is an important factor to take into account when dealing with sociological information. Culture can be broken down into many different aspects or parts. Language both creates barriers and brings worlds together. Different languages cause speed bumps in scientific or any form of study throughout the world. It brings insight further into the culture of the people being studying and allows the sociologist more key and individual information. A third important item to focus on is the social structure. The social structure is the creation of different levels in society throughout the world to better define and understand how society itself works. It is not man made in that people can decide how many layers there are to society or the different reactions between different levels. It is an evolution of society itself, changing from culture to culture or place to place.

Social structure can be broken down into looking at society as having different statuses and different roles. Status can be looked at as the person's worth through society's eyes. While status can be looked at as almost just a term or some physical measurement of humans in society, the role is a much deeper, more personal experience. A good part of culture, sociology, and society are groups. Not everything is on the individual level. The size of the group affects the effectiveness of productivity. The perfect size, this balance between small and large, between answerable and countable, is not clear. One might need a large group to make references about a whole city, province or even country. Societies are merely just humans grouped by distinguishable differences in culture, mind, history, relationship, and teachings. It appears to be a complicated system of organization, but it is no different in culture, religion, or role/status in its way of defining and dedicating answers to truth. Societies are very important groups of people, both to the real world and to sociology.

Socialization is the way of converting or forming into the very definitions of society. The complexity of our societies and groups is what. We go beyond the instinctive world and step into rationality. We are so heavily reliant on some form of socialization, that to think of world without it would mean thinking of a world without humans. The fifth major factor in sociology is race and ethnicity. Like culture and religion, race can play an important role to a society and its social structure. Even still, one race can experience both extremes throughout the world and even in the same proximity. Races, ethnicities and groups can be broken down into majority and minority.

This is like most social classing. It is important to note the difference between race and ethnicity here. Race refers to the grouping of people through biological similarities and histories while ethnicity is created from both racial and cultural ties, making it not necessarily inherit in that it's physically in a person's blood, but inherit in that it is so tightly woven to the history of the person and his/her people that it has been a kind of grouping. Humans in general assume or at least say there are many more, confusing both races and ethnicity with each other and other groups. By the common human's understanding of the word race, it is so misunderstood that it haso biological reference whatsoever. But on scientific terms, race would require an evolutionary viewpoint to accept it as been true.

The sixth item and factor is gender. Gender plays an important part in sociology like any of the humane sciences. While both imply the two different forms of sexual creatures, male and female, the word sex tends to just refer to this while gender also implies the identity created by this distinction in both society and cultures.

In truth, the structure of society, of mankind and all things it has created, is a complex and delicate one. Sociology can only understand the here and now.

Read more »

The Future of Intelligence

Recently, I've become aware that various authors and researchers are predicting an event in human history that will change everything we label "human."

Crossing this threshold will allow us to do two things-build machines that are billions of times smarter than we are, and radically increase the lifespan of the individual.

The first objective will be achieved by plunging ahead in the development of computers and artificial intelligence, so that these machines will, in turn, invent greater machines in a quickening arc.

The second objective will arrive as we utilize genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and "human parts" replacement.

Let me focus on the first objective in this article. And I'll start here: Smartness, intelligence, brilliance, mental capacity, etc. are all based on what?

They are based on the notion that solving problems can be vastly speeded up and made more effective-and the problems being referred to are those which "the whole human community" shares. War, hunger, pollution, tribal and national conflicts, diminishing supplies of natural resources, and so on.

Here is the central point, however. Regardless of the level of IQ and the speed of reasoning, a problem is a problem is a problem. In other words, any solution depends upon assumptions about what your (our) goals are. "Greatest good for the greatest number," for example, means nothing unless the machine solving a problem operates according to specified priorities that depict and define "greatest good." Without that, a machine is lost. It just sits there and does nothing.

We have to realize there is nothing inherently magical about a machine when it comes to solving problems. A machine isn't suddenly going to "breathe life into itself" so it becomes more capable of setting the most basic goals.

You might recall an old science-fiction movie, "Colossus: The Forbin Project." Two super-computers, one for the USSR and one for the US, are built to assure victory in a nuclear war. Each machine protects itself (by design), so it can't be unplugged. Suddenly, on the brink of war, the machines begin talking to each other and decide the human race is stupid and irretrievably self-destructive. The machines make a pact to protect planet Earth-and essentially recreate it as a world devoted to right-thinking machines, with humans operating as slaves

What's left out of the movie is this: Those computers would never have taken their radical actions "on behalf of the planet," unless humans had inserted relevant goals into their programmed guts.

We are not dealing with some mystical capacity that machines can suddenly attain because of their calculating power.

We are, in fact, dealing with a more sophisticated version of Central Planning. We have seen many societies try this, and we have seen them fail. To turn over all allocation of natural resources and survival decisions to machines could bring on a radically different Era for humans-but not because the machines are better INVENTORS of proper goals for the human race.

From the point of view of a machine, there are no better or worse goals. There are only those goals which have been programmed into the machines by humans.

As a crass illustration, suppose a machine is given the mandate to solve the climate crisis for the planet. The crisis is defined by scientists through the assumption that global warming is a real and advancing problem that threatens our very existence. Well, machines will then take many actions to solve warming-whether or not it actually exists. And if global warming does not exist at a significant threat level, the machines will perform the most stupid actions imaginable.

Some people object to this "simplistic" analysis. They say, "You have no idea what innovations machines with IQs of 5000 will produce." Actually, I believe I do. They will generate ideas and rules and other machines in line with whatever overall goals and first assumptions are programmed into them. And wherever such assumptions are missing, the machines will fall silent and sit on idle.

Let's try what some might call a best-case scenario. A gaggle of exceedingly capable computers devises a genetically engineered food crop that has astonishing nutritional value and no negative-health downside. The food crop imparts all nutritional needs to humans. It can be grown in a surprisingly small area, because just a few bites from the leaves or fruit are sufficient daily intake for every bodily need.

Next question: Do the machines calculate and put into effect, with the help of other machines, this agri-program for the whole human race or just a limited number of people? The answer to that depends on the basic assumptions about survival of the species that have been inserted into the machines' thinking apparatus. It could go either way. Some method for such a choice must already exist in the machine-not because the machine is "so smart" it can come to a conclusion on its own, but because it has been given prior direction.

Let us imagine the machine decides to feed half the world's population and force the other half to die, because the planet should only support three billion people. Where did that judgment come from? On what basis was it rendered?

I believe the answer is obvious. The machine contains certain prejudices that have been put there by human programmers.

There is nothing amazing about it. What is amazing is the willingness of technical people to assume that some version of machine IQ, rising to artificial heights, will thereafter produce VALUE-based choices intrinsically more brilliant than anything we poor humans can come up with.

The operative word here is "brilliant," and the fallacy comes about by asserting that the word has something to do with the choice of fundamental values that determine how we run our affairs. That's patently false.

The "rise of the machines" as an ultimate solution for the human race is much like the proposition that a ruling priesthood is much smarter than the "lower" population. For Europe, you could translate "priesthood" into "divine right of kings."

Put in gross terms, this great New Age allows a ruling elite and its machine surrogates to announce to the human race: "We know what you need and we're going to give it you, so shut up and keep walking down the road and obey the signs and focus your eyes straight ahead."

Read more »

The City Is Not for Everyone!

Have you ever felt alone even if you live in a metropolis with more than 7 million other people? I am sure some of you have, at least once! We all look for recognition, rewards, money, fame and so on, and most of us start their search in large cities or metropolis, where the fervent limelight's blinds us, where days are shorter and life runs faster than anywhere else on the planet, and also where you give a lot and others take away a lot more than what you can give.

When you get there for the first time you feel you've reached the promised land. Where everything is possible, well...almost everything. A place where you live your life like in a movie; surrounded by beautiful things, beautiful people, fantastic job opportunities that will make you earn lots of money and fulfill all your needs.

Cities are built to gather as many people as possible, let them grow individually, to educate them, to teach them to co-operate with others and to behave in accordance with the system's rules. So all we've done is built a human hierarchical chain of production in a big tin, and not in the sense that we produce better human beings in olive oil, but in the sense that we have made ourselves subordinates to someone or something else.

The city deceits you, it gives you the fake idea that you are one in a million, but the reality is that you are one among a million of other individuals that want the same things you want, does the same things you do and its systems work on a first arrives first served basis! It destroys the free-minded and turns them into machines, a bit like the one I am using to write this article. We are programmed, sometimes rebooted if we malfunction, than we are upgraded or downgraded, depending on regulations or on someone's moods and then discarded if "things don't go well financially for the economy". It destroys individualism, and I am not talking about the definition of "egoism or egocentrism", but I am talking about the social theory based "in favor of freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control" and not vice versa. It changes human natural habitat and behaviors. We now live in pretty boxes called flats, apartments or studio flats that are smaller than my mother's bathroom, surrounded by things we don't really need and go to the gym even if we don't want to go.

My answer to all this is thanks, but no thanks! I have done my bit and gained my experience of the city and this is why I say that "the city is not for everyone!"

Read more »

A Short History of Memorial Day

Memorial Day is held annually on the last Monday of May. It is America's favorite federal holiday as it is an official start of the summer season. Besides this, it is also an emotional holiday for many people because this day honors the fallen soldiers of the US Army. The history of this day dates back to the 19th century and is more complex than it appears.

No one is sure when and where the first Memorial-Day was held. It is documented but many towns throughout the country began celebrating their dead after the end of Civil War in 1865. Towns from North and South participated in this annual tradition. It was soon known as the 'Decoration Day.' It got its name from the custom of decorating soldier's graves.

Waterloo, New York was one town that became famous for its celebration of Decoration Day. Its residents started this tradition in 1866 holding it for a long time every year at the same date. On 1868, Decoration Day became a national event when Gen John Logan declared its value for the entire nation. The first official Decoration Day was held on 30 May 1868.

In 1967, Decoration Day officially became a Memorial Day despite its name was used since the end of 10th century and was popular after the Second World War. After a year, Memorial Day became a 'uniform' holiday and was declared to be held on the last Monday of May instead of May 30. The underlying principle was for three important federal holidays to provide America with a long weekend every year.

Like many holidays, time has somehow lessened the historical importance of Memorial Day in people's minds. The US government still holds a service every year to commemorate its fallen soldiers. The ceremony is traditionally held every year in Arlington Military Cemetery which is attended by thousands of people. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is particularly honored and the nation is addressed by the President.

At present, Americans observe Memorial Day not only to commemorate the fallen Civil War veterans but also to honor all American soldiers who laid their lives in war. On the same hand, Memorial Day still remains more than just a day off from work for Americans. This holiday is also a fun day for celebrating the arrival of warmer weather.

Read more »

Ohms Will Not Kill You

Amps Will Kill You

A few weeks ago my son and I got off on a digression that led to a nearly two hour debate about which was the killing factor in getting electrocuted. I honestly got so engrossed in the debate I really cannot even recall how the subject came up; but somehow I ended up making the comment, "... it's not the voltage that will kill you, it's the amps," to wit my teenage son was all too eager to correct, stating "... it's not the amps, it is the ohms that is the cause of death in electrocution." Okay, game afoot, please clarify.

Tyler decided that he had been convinced by a former teacher and science textbook that it was in fact the very fact that the human body had a natural resistance (ohms) that made would cause its death should electricity be introduced. Really?

So most assuredly, we "debated" the issue back and forth for some time, swapping analogies, examples and factoids to better make our respective cases... all to no avail; we simply could not agree. Ironically, we really seemed to be talking about the very same thing, but we were looking at it from different perspectives and understanding it from different points of view. But honestly, I really felt we were talking about the same thing and merely using and understanding the definitions on different levels. My position was that the "introduction" of electricity into the body was an unnatural offense to it and the fact that the body has a natural ohm was not the culprit, but the electricity that contained enough amps (0.5 amps by the way is all it takes to kill a human) to kill the individual, while Tyler maintained that the body's ohm resistance being present stopped the electricity from passing through the body and hence rendered it "dead". Hmm... let's think on that a moment; nope, back to arguing!

Communication Failure
After unsuccessful attempts and an hour later trying to prove my case, I did not give up, but I did offer a challenge and reward. I would allow Tyler access to my computer, books and any reference material he could find within an hour and if he could prove me wrong, by an authoritative source, I would give $10 for helping me see the light... sorry, the pun just slipped. However, as a former non-commissioned officer in the Army, I was taught to make use of available resources which I have tried with little success to impart to my children. As such, I felt it only fair to also offer up my phone for the research... "Call your grandfather who spent over 40 years of his life as an electrician, meaning that every single day of his career and the majority of his life, he's had to live or die by the very knowledge which you are seeking." With that, I handed him my phone and walked away to allow him optimal concentration and use of faculties for proving me wrong. Good luck.

Now, I knew the answer, not because of my own education, but from my father who survived life as an (electrical) lineman with the knowledge that a little amp goes a long way. After a few minutes, I re-entered the room to find my son busily typing at the computer researching the Internet looking for any source that would prove him right, and me wrong... and apparently grandpa too!

"What did Grandpa Gordon say?" I asked upon entry to the back of Tyler's slumped over body steadily pecking at the keyboard.

"Amps will kill ya!" and then he hung up, Tyler informed me.

Yep, sounds like grandpa - short, succinct and sure; case closed. Not so fast...

Communication Errors Kill
What started out as an intended correction of the old man to put me in my place, migrated over to a debate, and evolved into an exercise in communication. Again, in essence, we were really talking about the same thing: the amps are the "killing agent" in electrical shock and because of the body's natural resistance, it is almost always a deadly introduction when the two meet. However, we were so headstrong in our positions and being proven right, that we failed to see the common ground that we were standing in - we were talking about the same thing but failing to hear the commonality enabling us to reach an agreement and move forward...

You know, maybe ohms do kill you... if you're too resistant to communication?

Read more »

Population Distribution or Structure

 Sex, Occupational and Geographical Distributions

Sex distribution
The sex distribution refers to the classification of a given population according to sex or gender (male or female). Sex distribution can easily be obtained from a population census of a given country which shows the total number of males and the total number of females.

A knowledge of the total number of makes and females in a country will assist the government to make the necessary plans to cater for the population. If, for example, the population of the female is higher than that of the males, it means government will have to plan to provide goods and services for more people because such a country will give rise to high population. Nature has, however tried to balance the number of males with that of the female in such a way that the differences in number between the two is usually very small.

Occupational distributions
Occupational distribution of a population refers to the classification of the working population into different types of work they engage in. The occupational distribution in any population is influenced by a number of factors. These include:

1. The level of education
2. Availability of natural resources
3. The level of technology
4. The types of productive activities.

The major types of productive activities are primary (extractive), manufacturing, construction, commercial, direct and indirect services. In west Africa for instance, majority of the occupationally distributed population are found in farming, mining fishing and lumbering.

Geographical distribution
Geographical distribution of a given population refers to the spread of people into separate geographical areas within a country. The distribution may be due to occupational, presence of mineral resources, historical factors, seat of government, availability of social amenities etc. Reasons for high population density due to geographical distribution are: favorable climate, fertile soil, natural attachment/historical factors, administrative headquarters, employment opportunities, presence of minerals, presence of industries, presence of social amenities and infrastructure, commercial activities and migration.

Economic Implications or Effects of Increase in the Population of Dependants
The Dependants are the population that are between 0-17 years, which include the infants, pupils in nursery, primary, secondary and those in tertiary institutions, and the old age (over 60 years that are not working) but depend on the working population (18-60 years) to cater for all their needs or requirement. If the population of the dependents is higher than that of the working class it has the following economic implications: high taxation, increase in prices, increase in government expenditures, low savings, low investment, fall in standard of living, increase in demand for goods and services, increase in imports, decrease in exports and low supply of labor.

Read more »

Mythos - What It Means

Mythology has long been a favorite study for me. My doctoral dissertation was about the Greek myth, Prometheus. Everyone enjoys a good story. Humans are, by their very nature, story tellers. Yet, one has to wonder if that is all there is to mythology--stories of creation, of great deeds, and of the heroes who performed them?

Many believe there is much more to myth than mere phantasmagoria. I am one among those who hold the notion that myth is much more than mere story. Gods, goddesses and heroes have peopled the myths of all ethnic and cultural groups around the world from Africa to Asia, to Europe, to India, and to the North and South Americas.

The late Joseph Campbell did much to popularize and focus attention on myth and its implications for humankind and he looms large over other lights in mythology; the exception being Claude Levi- Straus.

But what is mythology? There are nearly as many definitions of mythology as there are of their meanings, and disagreements over their implications. Any overview of these definitions indicates a range from the simplistic to the complex. The etymology of the word "mythology" will be helpful.

The word comes from the Greek nouns mythos and logos, each originally having the same meaning. In its broadest sense, mythos meant anything uttered by mouth. Gradually it meant an account of something; a story that was understood.

In Attic Greek, mythos meant a prehistoric story of only the Greeks. Today, it applies to any civilization at any time, including our own. Logos meant the controlling principle of the universe and was manifested by speech.

Myth relates to a sequence of events whose importance lies not only in the events themselves, but in the implied meanings of those events. Mark Schorer author of "The Necessity of Myth" insists the term must also include such things as delusions and neurosis. Both of these psychological manifestations are easily found in the world's myths. I strongly suggest, and believe, there is much more than an exploration of delusion and neurosis.

Fifty years ago, Henry A. Murray in his Myth and Mythmaking claimed even a very loose definition of mythology would not include the current notion of a sense of falsehood or any other such pejoratives. The Murray statement holds true in this 21st Century.

Myth is much more than mere story, a world of make-believe. It is alive and well upon the land. Look around you. In your daily life, how many things are connected to mythology? What truths do the myths hold for contemporary mankind? What do they hold for you?

Read more »

Life In The Solar System

Introduction to Life in the Solar System: Humans and our associated kin on the third rock out from the Sun are lords of life forms in the solar system. Other abodes in the solar system, most probably Mars, Jupiter, Europa, and Saturn are anywhere from possible to probable habitable abodes to simple microbial life forms; perhaps something slightly above and beyond that. Bacteria survived on the surface of the Moon - on Surveyor Three. Astronauts from the Apollo 12 mission brought back to Earth parts of the unmanned Surveyor Three Lunar Lander. Terrestrial bacteria on those parts survived the lunar vacuum, solar radiations (UV, etc.), the massive temperature extremes, and lack of water and nutrients. Microbes are easy to transport. Translated, I firmly expect that the universe (including our solar system) is teaming with microbial life in all sorts of places. On Earth, microbes rule, OK? If fact, there are millions of microbes living inside you - most beneficial. Microbes have another decided advantage over more complex life forms, like plants. Solar energy (photosynthesis) isn't the only kind of energy available to organisms. No sun; no life. All life ultimately depended on photosynthetic plants which in turn couldn't exist without sunlight. From terrestrial environments to those of outer space and our solar system is but perhaps a small step for microbes. Mercury: The planet Mercury, closest planet to our Sun, unfortunately lacks any atmosphere to speak of, and broils on the side facing the Sun and freezes on the side facing away - much like our Moon, and is in fact is similarly heavily cratered. Venus: The planet Venus had long been thought of as Earth's twin sister. It also has an atmosphere. No life here!

In the upper atmosphere, the temperature and pressure of Venus drops to more terrestrial surface conditions. There can't be surface life-as-we-know-it on that planet, but what about simple, say microbial life existing in the upper atmosphere?

Earth (Terra): Home! The Moon (Luna): Like Mercury, our Moon is airless and subject to extremes in temperature depending on whether the Moon is facing towards or away from the Sun. While hardly indigenous Lunar life forms, they give credibility (as if any were needed) that microbes are composed of the right stuff to survive the rigours of outer space.

Mars (The Red Planet): Microbial life on the red planet Mars is just about a sure fire a thing as death and taxes, albeit it's probably spread very thinly.

The concept of there being not only life but intelligent life on the red planet Mars has been a part of the imagination of astronomers and the general public for the better part of a century. Even the two tiny Martian moons were seriously suspected of being artificial.

Several independent discoveries have all but proved that life, albeit simple life, probably exists, currently exists, on Mars.

There are those scientists involved with those Viking experiments who still maintain that microbial life was detected on Mars in 1976. Recall there was four separate and independent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the meteorite contained fossil microbial life forms from Mars. Thirdly, spacecraft orbiting Mars have detected methane in the Martian atmosphere. A major source of methane on Earth is from micro-organisms. Fourthly, there's no longer any question about Mars once having had extensive water. Where's there water, there's the probability of life.

Since microbial life exists on Earth, some of it would have been transported throughout geological history to Mars. It's quite possible that Mars seeded Earth as well, maybe even initially. The atmosphere is so thin that liquid water can't exist on the surface because the atmospheric pressure is so low. Jupiter (The Giant Planet): Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system, but composed mainly of gas. In fact, Jupiter has been insulted by being compared to our Sun, but a failed Sun. Important point number one: Jupiter has its own internal energy source.

Important point's number two, three and four: Secondly, Jupiter's atmosphere is composed of the right sorts of chemicals that one identifies with origin of life events - hydrogen, methane, ammonia, water vapour, etc. Fourthly, the atmospheric bands of Jupiter are highly coloured, an indication that there's lots of complex chemistry, including organic chemistry going on within.

The upshot of all of this is that it is not implausible that within the upper reaches of Jupiter's atmosphere, as per the case of Venus, simple life forms couldn't exist, survive and thrive. Europa (A Satellite of Jupiter): Europa is, apart from Mars, the current darling of the exobiology (astrobiology) set. There is evidence that Europa has a liquid water ocean underneath a thick ice cap that is kept from freezing solid by the flexing action imposed on the moon by its parent planet, Jupiter. If you have liquid water, an energy source, you therefore have possible life, or so goes the thinking. The ice cap is thick enough so that any energy source available for life won't be solar. That is however not a death blow as not all critters on Earth rely on solar energy. All chemicals that would sustain such life would have to be efficiently recycled. Saturn (The Ringed Planet): Saturn is a quasi twin of Jupiter. Although slightly smaller and farther away from the Sun than Jupiter, the same general arguments that apply to Jupiter apply to Saturn. Titan (A Satellite of Saturn): The satellite of Saturn, Titan, is one of the largest moons in the solar system, and in fact, if it existed all by its lonesome, could be considered a planet in its own right. Titan has, fairly unique among satellites, a dense atmosphere. Were Titan the same distance from the Sun that Earth is, well, you could have a real twin of Earth, unlike our false twin, Venus.

Unfortunately, Titan is way, way, way - far away - from the solar energy source that makes Earth such a relative paradise. Thus, Titan is Earth, but an Earth in slow motion because Titan is so cold compared to Earth. If you think of Earth as liquid water at the equator, Titan is molasses at the poles!

Uranus: Uranus is a poor cousin compared to the likes of Jupiter and Saturn. Although farther out, Neptune, like Jupiter and Saturn, radiates out excess energy. It's solar independent, at least as far as any life forms might describe their environment and energy supply.

It's cold. Again, Pluto is too cold to allow for the high temperature chemistry we associate with life-as-we-know-it. If you're looking for life in our solar system, Pluto wouldn't be your first port of call.

Comets, Asteroids/Planetoids, Meteors: These relative tiny bodies can't really qualify as habitable abodes to life, except, there's evidence that not only can some of the above be rich in the sorts of chemicals associated with life (water, carbon compounds and organic chemistry), they could indeed be environments that could house dormant life forms or fossil life forms of a unicellular kind. Too hot, complex organic molecules rapidly break down. My favourite solar system locations for (probably) tough-as-nails microbial life, Mars apart, are the upper atmospheres of the Jovian (gas giant) planets (Jupiter and Saturn; maybe Uranus and Neptune). Their atmospheres are rich in organics and no doubt water vapour. The gas giants, Uranus excepted, radiate more heat energy than they receive from the Sun. There will be regions in their upper atmospheres that have Earth-like temperatures; there will be a lot of atmospheric mixing (useful for bringing different chemicals together); and of course these planets will also have been seeded with organics and water from space via comets, meteors, cosmic dust, etc., if not in fact seeded directly with microbial life forms via panspermia.

Read more »

New Renaissance Technology and the Fate of Homo Entropicus

The problems facing human survival can be solved. The fossil record of the humanoid sphenoid bone, tells us that each time that bone changes its shape, a new humanoid species emerges. It has been clearly observed that it is now changing shape, and therefore the current human species is entering into a new phase of existence. The question arises, can technology provide a peaceful transition into the more advanced world of our children's children? The answer is a scientific yes, but it will require a new technological understanding of ethics, which at present is not part of our technological culture. This essay provides the solution to that problem, which has begun to be understood through an understanding of a new life-science chemistry.

A factual classification of the present human species, within the realms of modern technology is required. The term Homo Entropicus is the correct terminology. Modern science, technology, politics and economics are totally governed by the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of universal entropy, known also as the law of universal chaos. Einstein's understanding of that law, which he named the Premier law of all science, does indeed define an aspect of reality, but not all of it.

The new life-science chemistry has been well and truly discovered, and it clearly explains that the entropic energies of the universe are being balanced by the evolution of consciousness. This is precisely the reality that the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Szent Gyorgyi insisted upon. Nano-technology has confirmed that this evolutionary function is acting within the DNA, in defiance of our obsolete understanding of the decay energies of universal entropy.

The peaceful technological transition into the future is directly associated with the optical holographic engineering principles associated with the evolution of human consciousness. This can be demonstrated to be an ethical scientific process by comparing the new discoveries in chemistry with the original Platonic definitions of Western life-science logic, which also, in effect, denied that entropy must govern all technology.

Classical Greek life-science, represented by the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy, was about fusing ethics into the model of reality proposed by the philosopher Anagaxoras. His Nous was about the force of gravity pulling particles in space together to make worlds which rotated in harmonic spirals to evolve consciousness. Sir Isaac Newton, in his unpublished heresy papers, used the engineering principles of the Nous particle movement, to uphold his "more profound natural philosophy to balance the mechanical description of the universe", which today correctly challenges Einstein's unbalanced understanding of universal entropy.

Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, in which ethics and business practices are researched. Within her biography of Buckminster Fuller, is a mathematical treatise about Plato's ethical discovery, from which, she explains, Fuller derived his synergistic life-force concepts, now found to be functioning in defiance of the present unbalanced understanding of the science of death that governs the thoughts and actions of Homo Entropicus.

We know to treat the Platonic-Fullerene chemistry seriously, because of Fuller's urgent warning about developing the technologies of Utopia rather than Oblivion. Furthermore, in his famous 1959 Rede Lecture at Cambridge University, the Molecular Biologist, Sir C P Snow, referred to scientists, who were unwilling to balance their inadequate understanding of entropic law with the lost Greek science of life, as scientist who were endangering the survival of civilisation. The solution to this problem involves a new scientific understanding about the logic involved in relating reasoning about religion and human emotion issues within the emotional consciousness of Homo Entropicus.

In general, parents who relate ethical wisdom with religious teaching might decide to send their children to appropriate preschools, schools, and colleges that are associated with religious tuition. In adult life such students might select universities with religious traditions, while others might choose those universities that are referred to as secular universities. However, in general, graduated students must all eventually conform to the accepted laws of science, be it within physics, chemistry, medicine, politics or any other accepted vocation. Traditionally, a Doctorate becomes a measure of proficiency in any particular field, the letters Ph.D. denoting Doctor of Philosophy, but one without any factual association with the Classical life-science that those letters are thought to represent.

Educated religious academics might consider that they are able to employ logical debate with their fellow educated secular protagonists. It is of vital importance for both sides to realise that their logic base belongs to the same unbalanced understanding that is funsmental to the mindset of Homo Entropicus. Whatever line of reasoning that they undertake to discuss about their differences, it forms part of an endless emotional and scientific illogic. Some may argue that it is not possible to have a scientific understanding of emotion and spiritual reality. This is incorrect, as the new spiritual or holographic chemistry, most certainly does embraces both.

The NASA High Energy Astrophysics Division Library has published papers arguing that the Nous of Anaxagoras is upheld by a fractal life-science logic, which is an impossible concept within the the world-view of Homo Entropicus. Dr Candace Pert's Molecule of Emotion, discovered in 1972 appears to function within a universal holographic environment that employs Plato's spiritual engineering principles to evolve consciousness. In 1990 the the World's largest technological research institute IEEE, SPIE Milestone Series, reprinted the mathematical proof that seashells can communicate evolutionary design information through 20 million years of space-time. The physics laws involved were derived from what can be considered to be fractal life-science spiral clockspring forces reflecting aspects of the Nous torque force.

The electromagnetic language of the evolving sphenoid bone has been discovered to be the same as the lost Greek Music of the Spheres language, used for seashell evolution. Obviously, if we want to know were evolution is taking us, then we must ask the sphenoid. Having learned its electromagnetic language it then becomes feasible to generate futuristic survival simulations through space-time, in order to deduce the technology needed to be developed by our childens' children, and this will allow for our peaceful transition into the future.

If Homo Entropicus makes the simple relevant quantum biological jump now, then entropic disaster will be avoided, hence Fuller's use of the term Utopia. It is possible to compare the Platonic-Fullerene chemistry with our present obsolete chemistry to depict the drama of Fuller's choice between Utopia or Oblivion. The logic base that upholds entropic chemistry is derived from the periodic table of elements, synonymous with the universal destructive energies of entropic atomic decay. The Platonic definition of evil, was that it was a destructive property belonging to unformed matter within the atom. We might compare the scenario of Homo Entropicus going out with either a bang or a whimper. When it costs more that a barrel of oil to obtain a barrel of oil, civilisation, as we know it will no longer exist.

It is encouraging to learn that on the 24th of September 2010, Professors Paolo Manzelli and Massimo Pregnolato were awarded the Georgio Napolitano Medal by Dr Giovanna Ferri on behalf of the President of the Italian Republic for chemistry research conducted by their Florentine New Renaissance Project. Their work can be considered to be at the cutting edge of the human survival science based upon the balancing of the new life-science with the present entropic world-view.

Read more »

Racism and Mental Illnesses - The Absurdity of Hating Black People

Racism is the result of the invasion of the absurd content of the primitive side of the human conscience into the human conscience of those who hate black people. Whatever is absurd and cruel in the human behavior has its origin in the absurdity of the anti-conscience, which is our wild, violent, immoral and cruel conscience.

Black people are as intelligent as white people. Racism is pure craziness and must be treated like all mental illnesses. This can be done through dream therapy, since the unconscious mind that produces our dreams works like a psychotherapist. All dream images contain precious messages that cure the human mind from the absurdity imposed by the anti-conscience.

Human history is marked by cruelty. Various barbarous weapons, tortures, wars, and many destructions provoked by terrorism prove that the human race is basically irrational and violent.

We are dangerous primates with a tiny human conscience. This is why our depressed population cannot find peace and happiness. Hate is a terrible poison that destroys the human heart. It also destroys the entire world with its harmful actuation.

Racism is violence and cruelty against those who have a dark skin only because the racist becomes idiotic when the anti-conscience controls his behavior. Those who show hate against another human being only because of the color of his skin cannot but be considered absurd.

Hate against anyone is the result of the domination of the anti-conscience into the human conscience. There is nothing human in the anti-conscience's nature. It is a wild animal that can think, but has no sensitivity. Its rationalism is absurd, and it doesn't respect moral principles. The human being becomes a true monster when he is dominated by his primitive nature.

The barbarity against black people during the time of the Brazilian colonization by the Portuguese gives us the most shocking proves of the human insanity. The barbarity of racist organizations like the Ku-Klux-Klan in the United States is another shocking evidence of the depth of human evilness.

Even though racism is today condemned by many people and the black population managed to achieve better social positions, cruelty and sadism against black people is still a shocking truth. Africans live under poverty. The same happens to their descendants, living in various countries of the world.

Until today the prejudice against black people oblige them to face various humiliations. They don't have the same opportunities of the white population, and they are not treated with the same respect.

However, the truth is that black people are very talented, and their suffering for so many years is totally unfair. The racist attitude is barbarous and ridiculous. We must put a definitive end to racism on Earth.

This miracle will happen only when everyone will get rid of the poisonous influence of their anti-conscience, when craziness and despair will stop characterizing our civilization, and when everyone will be sensitive and humble. Only wisdom and compassion can completely eliminate cruelty and absurdity.

Read more »

The Future of Intelligence

Recently, I've become aware that various authors and researchers are predicting an event in human history that will change everything we label "human."

Crossing this threshold will allow us to do two things-build machines that are billions of times smarter than we are, and radically increase the lifespan of the individual.

The first objective will be achieved by plunging ahead in the development of computers and artificial intelligence, so that these machines will, in turn, invent greater machines in a quickening arc.

The second objective will arrive as we utilize genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and "human parts" replacement.

Let me focus on the first objective in this article. And I'll start here: Smartness, intelligence, brilliance, mental capacity, etc. are all based on what?

They are based on the notion that solving problems can be vastly speeded up and made more
effective-and the problems being referred to are those which "the whole human community" shares. War, hunger, pollution, tribal and national conflicts, diminishing supplies of natural resources, and so on.

Here is the central point, however. Regardless of the level of IQ and the speed of reasoning, a problem is a problem is a problem. In other words, any solution depends upon assumptions about what your (our) goals are. "Greatest good for the greatest number," for example, means nothing unless the machine solving a problem operates according to specified priorities that depict and define "greatest good." Without that, a machine is lost. It just sits there and does nothing.

We have to realize there is nothing inherently magical about a machine when it comes to solving problems. A machine isn't suddenly going to "breathe life into itself" so it becomes more capable of setting the most basic goals.

You might recall an old science-fiction movie, "Colossus: The Forbin Project." Two super-computers, one for the USSR and one for the US, are built to assure victory in a nuclear war. Each machine protects itself (by design), so it can't be unplugged. Suddenly, on the brink of war, the machines begin talking to each other and decide the human race is stupid and irretrievably self-destructive. The machines make a pact to protect planet Earth-and essentially recreate it as a world devoted to right-thinking machines, with humans operating as slaves

What's left out of the movie is this: Those computers would never have taken their radical actions "on behalf of the planet," unless humans had inserted relevant goals into their programmed guts.

We are not dealing with some mystical capacity that machines can suddenly attain because of their calculating power.

We are, in fact, dealing with a more sophisticated version of Central Planning. We have seen many societies try this, and we have seen them fail. To turn over all allocation of natural resources and survival decisions to machines could bring on a radically different Era for humans-but not because the machines are better INVENTORS of proper goals for the uman race.

From the point of view of a machine, there are no better or worse goals. There are only those goals which have been programmed into the machines by humans.

As a crass illustration, suppose a machine is given the mandate to solve the climate crisis for the planet. The crisis is defined by scientists through the assumption that global warming is a real and advancing problem that threatens our very existence. Well, machines will then take many actions to solve warming-whether or not it actually exists. And if global warming does not exist at a significant threat level, the machines will perform the most stupid actions imaginable.

Some people object to this "simplistic" analysis. They say, "You have no idea what innovations machines with IQs of 5000 will produce." Actually, I believe I do. They will generate ideas and rules and other machines in line with whatever overall goals and first assumptions are programmed into them. And wherever such assumptions are missing, the machines will fall silent and sit on idle.

Let's try what some might call a best-case scenario. A gaggle of exceedingly capable computers devises a genetically engineered food crop that has astonishing nutritional value and no negative-health downside. The food crop imparts all nutritional needs to humans. It can be grown in a surprisingly small area, because just a few bites from the leaves or fruit are sufficient daily intake for every bodily need.

Next question: Do the machines calculate and put into effect, with the help of other machines, this agri-program for the whole human race or just a limited number of people?

The answer to that depends on the basic assumptions about survival of the species that have been inserted into the machines' thinking apparatus. It could go either way. Some method for such a choice must already exist in the machine-not because the machine is "so smart" it can come to a conclusion on its own, but because it has been given prior direction.

Let us imagine the machine decides to feed half the world's population and force the other half to die, because the planet should only support three billion people. Where did that judgment come from? On what basis was it rendered?

I believe the answer is obvious. The machine contains certain prejudices that have been put there by human programmers.

There is nothing amazing about it. What is amazing is the willingness of technical people to assume that some version of machine IQ, rising to artificial heights, will thereafter produce VALUE-based choices intrinsically more brilliant than anything we poor humans can come up with.

The operative word here is "brilliant," and the fallacy comes about by asserting that the word has something to do with the choice of fundamental values that determine how we run our affairs. That's patently false.

The "rise of the machines" as an ultimate solution for the human race is much like the proposition that a ruling priesthood is much smarter than the "lower" population. For Europe, you could translate "priesthood" into "divine right of kings."

Put in gross terms, this great New Age allows a ruling elite and its machine surrogates to announce to the human race: "We know what you need and we're going to give it you, so shut up and keep walking down the road and obey the signs and focus your eyes straight ahead.

Read more »