The Year of Blue Shoe-Laces Comes To A Close

Well, I suppose it’s finally time to say goodbye to 2007. I like taking the opportunity, on New Year’s Eve, to reflect on the year, and how it has shaped me. Thinking back, I realize that’s it’s probably been the most eventful year of my life, and perhaps the hardest.

The year began, innocently enough, with me sitting on the hood of my Jeep with a couple friends from Mission. I guess this year has marked the end of that chapter of my life. While I am still able to see a few of my friends from the theater, my connection to that world is pretty much gone. 2007 was a year of big changes.

I’m absolutely sure that I will define this year by one thing: Brickhouse. From the very first sunday of 2007, right up until the last, I must have watched those guys play music around 60 times. I’ve had so many great experiences there, I can’t even begin to list them all. I think everybody I know has seen them at least once by now. From my point of view, it’s wonderful. All my family and friends have come together in once place throughout the year. It’s been a unique experience.

I also started Graduate School this year, which has proven to be challenging so far. I’ve met some cool people already, and the stuff I’m studying is endlessly fascinating. I got the pleasure of being a TA, which was actually a lot more fun than you’d think, though a lot of work was involved. I look forward to doing it all over again in 2008.

Oddly enough, another thing that stands out this year is the David Attenborough documentaries. They’ve done a lot to spark my interest in science and nature, and though it may sound silly, it’s been a life changing experience. It’s funny how an understanding of nature can change the way you experience the world and your place within it.

Another important change has been my living situation. I finally took the plunge and moved out. I feel lucky with this one: the apartment is great, the rent is cheap, the roommate is awesome, and the location is perfect. I do miss mom’s cooking, of course, and sometimes I long for Snowflake’s company.

One of the happier events of the year was Amelia and Sven’s wedding. It really couldn’t have gone any better. Everyone had fun, the bride looked lovely, and a few heartfelt speeches brought our families a little closer together. Our family also had the pleasure of having some of the extended family stay over, including my dad’s mom, who hadn’t been to Canada since I was 2 years old!

Of course, this year was marked by two extremely sad events. In february, my grandfather passed away due to heart complications. He’d been battling for years, and it’s a miracle he made it so far into his life. It’s also a miracle that my dad and I were able to see him shortly before he passed away. We even got to have a pint with the old man!

As most of you will also know, the other event was the tragic death of Tash. I’ve already written everything I can about her, and how it has affected me personally. All I can say is that is has profoundly changed my outlook on everything. My heart still aches everything I remember that she’s gone. But then again, every time I think of her, I chuckle a little bit, because she was just so ridiculous and awesome.

If you put all this stuff together, you might begin to understand how I feel at the end of this year. More than anything, this year has been about forging stronger and stronger relationships with family and friends. It’s all that matters, you know? I guess everybody knows that – I guess I’ve just been more active in making sure that I enjoy every moment I can. So, as per blog tradition, here is a little list of some memories that stand out from 2007:

- Playing blues harp on stage with Brickhouse

- Alice in Wonderland… several times

- Watching my dad and sis walk down the aisle

- Nanan reading in the backyard

- Pip and Snowflake getting to know each other

- Wings

- Boat Cruise #1

- Boat Cruise #2

- Early morning TOEFL with those annoying rascals

- Masquerading and Hookahs with Jenelle

- Three in the Bed, Misery, Consequences, Jockey, Fold Up Bike, Ruby, and all the other classics

- Robbie and Oz doing a conga-line around the Yale while playing

- Learning harmonica

- Facebook!

- Sneaking into the Fairview with Derek and James

- Hunt bowling himself

- “Down that rod…”

- “How logical is it to eat off of wood instead of your tummy?!”

- Oliver Twist with Shalane

- Mundy Park with Brown, and no flashlight… dammit Brown!

- Jamming

- YouTube vids

- I have no good memories of Gillan

- Getting destroyed at Street Fighter 2 (until next time Brodes)

- Last night

- Strolling the harbour with Erin

- Sly Coop!

I could go on, but it’s probably getting boring to read, so I’ll stop there. As for the colour of this year’s laces? I think I’m going with green. As for the resolution, I have 6 hours to think of a good one!

Happy New Year

~Andrew

Book Review: Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion”

There are children living all over North America and Europe who wear, around their necks, and instrument of torture and execution as symbol of their devotion to a group called The Christians. When they were very young they were taught that there was an invisible being called God who, in his omnipotence, created our planet a few thousand years ago. In a spectacular “poof!” all living things on Earth were created at once. As the story goes, the 4000 or so years that followed were full of genocide, murder, rape, and incest at the hand of this “God.” At some point, around 2000 years ago, his son was born on Earth, and was tortured and killed. It is mankind’s fault that this happened, so today we must live in constant guilt, and we cannot partake in natural human activities lest we be damned to an eternal hellfire, where there will be no escape from the everlasting sulfurous stench of rotten flesh and the deafening wails of despair.

But it’s okay, because this God is your personal friend, and he loves you.

There are dozens of such groups throughout the world, and as far as anthropologists can tell, they’ve existed for most, if not all, of human society. How did this happen? And why does it continue? This is what Dawkins discusses in his book, “The God Delusion.”

For those who may have never heard of this book, it’s basically an argument for atheism. Dawkins’ pulls no punches; there is absolutely no pussyfooting around the topic of religion in this book. Dawkins’ argues quite rigidly against any and all of the world religions, old and new. Naturally, the book has opened a lot of public debate. Ironically, people of all different religions tend to agree that Dawkins’ is going to their own personal version of hell.

I, however, agree with Dawkins’ thesis. The book is written with such elegant logic that it’s difficult not to be persuaded into agreement. He identifies the psychological reasons for wanting belief in gods, thoroughly reviews the impossible contradictions inherent to religious faith, and addresses the dangers of such mass irrationality. I suppose, it’s the same old argument against religion, but Dawkins argues it so solidly, that I cannot imagine how religious minds could cope with it. It must be frustrating.

Consider this statement: “Religious people have better morals, because they get their morals from god and the bible.” I’m familiar with this kind of thinking, as I’m sure you are if you’ve ever dealt with a religious person. Dawkins utterly dismisses this as being totally preposterous, and for good reason: the bible (First Testament) is filled with stories of murder, rape, incest, and genocide, many of which are at the hand of the Judeo-Christian god (incidentally, this god’s name is Yaweh). The morality of the first testament is, by modern standards, downright evil. Dawkins quite rightly points out that most Christians either don’t know about this fact, or chose to ignore it, or in some cases, embrace it.

Dawkins anticipates the obvious reaction: “But Christians get their morals from Jesus and the Second Testament.” He argues that the Second Testament is no better. It’s difficult to think of a religion as being peaceful and morally founded when its symbol is an instrument of torture and execution. Just think about that for a second!

 The next religious argument: “The church is full of good people who do good things.” While true, it doesn’t support the plausibility of a supernatural creator being. And why do people need God to be good? Shouldn’t people be good anyway? Don’t we have a responsibility to each other as members of the same community? If there WAS no church and no God, would religious people all be immoral bastards? If so… that’s pretty damn scary. The obvious point is that religion is clearly NOT a source of moral highground. PEOPLE are.

Of course, Dawkins does not just pick on Christianity. He identifies common factors throughout all religions, and addresses them as such: oppression of women, violence and warfare, promises of the afterlife, corrupt internal hierarchies, imperialistic conversion campaigns, and the worst of all, the brainwashing of youth.

Dawkins argues that one of the worst atrocities of religion is it’s tendency to make kids believe in it long before they have the faculties to know how to choose for themselves. When a person is raised to be religious, it is next to impossible for them to see beyond it. This impedes their ability to learn and be critical, and also encourages them to accept the world rather than try and change it (what’s the point of saving the environment if the rapture is imminent?)

The final chapter is one of the most intriguing pieces of writing I’ve ever come across. It’s all about how the human mind constructs our experience of the world based on certain evolutionary necessities. Humans, for example, only see a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas birds are capable of detecting ultraviolet, and many fish are capable of detecting infrared. Thus, our coneptualization of the world around us is fundamentally limited to a very narrow range of perceptions. That is why we must explain the world in “human” terms, and even go so far as to suggest that the Earth (and the infinite universe beyond) was created by a supernatural man! The sheer arrogance is astonishing! But Dawkins rightly points out that it is, perhaps, in our nature to construct the world as such.

There is a wonderful quote in there that I think is worth reqouting:

Ludwig Wittenstein: “Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?”

Other: “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the sun is going around the Earth.”

Ludwig Wittentstein: “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

 What a delightfully appropriate example of the fallacy of human assumption, and our inability to perceive the world as it is! Of course, our minds choose to construct the world to suit us, and that is why those who do not understand science and won’t listen to reason will insist that the Earth was created by a man.

I only have one problem with the book. Actually, it’s not a problem with the book, so much as it is a problem with the entire debate about religion: it’s utterly futile. The fact is that religious people will reject this book, just as they have fiercely rejected every reasonable assertion of science, every rational explanation of nature, and every attempt to logically explain what is around us. In their minds, the sun still revolves around the Earth, and that will never change, because their faith necessarily demands an irrational mind. How else could one deny evolution? How else could one believe that the Earth is 8000 years old? Their construction of the world is a huge web of interdependent impossibilities, each more ridiculous than the last, wherein there are so many internal inconsistencies and contradictions that, as a whole, their construction of the world is fundamentally impossible. And even they will tell you that it is “faith” (by definition, unjustifiable belief) that makes it possible.

I believe the difference between a religious mind and a non-religious mind is simple: religious minds are capable of accepting the idea that 1 + 1 = 3, if they are told enough times that it is true. Non-religious minds are incapable of doing so; they say “ONE PLUS ONE IS TWO YOU IDIOT! LOOK AT THE FACTS!!!”

So thank you for an excellent read Mr Dawkins, but all the evidence and reason in the world doesn’t count for shit to someone with faith, and that will probably never change.

Darwin and Human Sexuality: A Few Unspoken Truths

Darwinism is, as we know, an elegant and comprehensive model for the development of life. Lately I’ve started thinking about how this model can be applied to other things.

Technology, for example, seems to evolve much like species do. There are clear stages of development, and a particular device (species of technology) tends to ‘improve’ in its adaptation to our lifestyle. The analogy is clear; the consumer market is the environment in which any given technology must survive. As this environment changes, a given technology that has no purpose, such as the mini-disc player, does not survive, and thus obsolesces (goes extinct). A technology that successfully adapts to changes in the consumer market, such as the iPod, continues along its evolutionary path, and speciates further (branching off into iPhones and Nanos, for example). Survival of the fittest evidently applies to consumer products as well!

Logically then, the principles of Darwinism reach far beyond the world of biology; indeed, Darwinism is a universal process. After all, astronomers will describe the life-cycles of planets and solar systems as ‘evolutionary;’ everything from video games to architecture is understood through the analogy of evolution. It seems odd, then, that some people disagree that something as pervasive on Earth as LIFE would not be subject to the same pattern of contingency and change.

Darwinism is not only clear in the natural world around us, it is in our behaviour. The more I think of the behaviours and interactions of the people around me in a Darwinist light, the more it all makes sense to me. Allow me to explain through example:

Human sexuality can be difficult to make sense of. Think about the experience you had in high school, and the stories you’ve heard from your friends, and clear patterns will emerge. There are popular groups, and these groups are categorically the most sexually attractive individuals. A clear sexual hierarchy usually emerges in the mid-teenage years; this is because puberty tends to sort people into their respective sexual classes (often resulting in a variety of conflicts among friends). This great social reorganization will have lasting affects on individuals.

Out of high school and freshly adorned with badges of perceived sexual worth, we go out into the world and try to find mating partners among the chaos of post-secondary adolescence. Various rituals of courtship exist. Many people are incapable of engaging the opposite sex without being themselves intoxicated, or without intoxicating the other (can I buy you a drink?). Others follow more traditional courting rituals by establishing extended negotiations of power involving interactions between sex and other things (I’ll pay for dinner).

Whatever ritual you chose is irrelevant; they are all ultimately the same. At the end of the day, Darwinism explains every little action, for at the end of the night, we tend to be reminded that we are animals.

Once again, with no apologies to religiosity: humans are clearly primates. The similarities between humans and apes go far beyond the physical; our behaviours have clear correlations. Indeed, I think there are many examples in nature of courtship rituals that bear striking similarities to our own. It’s only natural that there should be overarching patterns of courtship among all living things on Earth. Of course, you won’t find chimpanzees going clubbing or going out on dates (maybe in Cancun); I’m talking about the impulses and instincts that underlie our behaviour, not the specific rituals themselves.

Humans are tribal creatures, and this is reflected in our social nature; we’re bewildered by the modern city, and yearn for the small tightly-knit community. We still rely on the family unit, and we maintain strategic friendships with individuals outside the family. The result of this new kind of social organization (namely, post-industrial social organization) is ‘network society.’ I, Andrew Muir, have a tribe of friends and family, but individuals in that tribe have THEIR OWN tribe of friends and family. It may overlap somewhat with mine, depending on our level of social intimacy and our situation within that network. I believe this is why community seems lost on us these days, and why we struggle to make sense of sexual impulses that don’t mesh with our social situations! I mean, cmon; haven’t you ever felt like society doesn’t quite accomodate all of your sexual desires?

For example, it is altogether normal for young men and women to be ‘friends.’ Of course, the defining law of friendship is that neither member is actively engaged in the courtship process with the other; in other words, there is no sexual intent between the two. However, from personal experience (drawing on my own, AND on the experience of everyone else I’ve ever known), there clearly IS implied sexual intent inter-gender friendship (but it must be kept under the radar). The same emotions and behaviours of sexual courtship exist, we simply conceptualize them differently, and try our best to exercise unnatural levels of restraint. The reason for this is simple, and it corroborates my above point: humans struggle to make sense of an artificial system of rules for social engagement that, for better or worse, have no real bearing on your ACTUAL instincts and impulses.

The more I think about the sexual nature of my relationships (friendships and otherwise), the more I begin to see the true intentions behind people’s actions. These intentions, to their defence, is likely subconscious. But it is there, and I sometimes find it profoundly disturbing.

Darwinism, and human social behaviour will teach you the following about our sexual nature: there are a few males within a given group who dominate the others. The females within the group – ALL the females within the group – are drawn to the dominant males. Those who are not dominant must compete and struggle to achieve dominance if they want to court a female. However, the dominant male, with his superior genes, mates with all the females in the group. In turn, all the other females tend to compete for his favour, often maliciously.

This concept of ‘dominance’ can be coded in a number of ways, the most obvious being physical strength and the various codes of physical health (the everyday attractions that we’re so familiar with: skin clarity, hair texture, muscularity, etc). Further social coding occurs in complex society, which is why money and intelligence (as a calculated investment in FUTURE money) tend to be considered as well.

So if I’m correct, in theory we would observe a society where:

- All the men try to be muscular, and rich, and have sex with as many women as possible.

Check

- All the women present themselves, through their best and most calculated sexual offerings, to the males who exhibit the most manageable combination of physical attraction and financial assets.

Check

- Males who are lower in the hierarchy of sexual dominance encounter deluded and unfulfilling relationships with the opposite gender, as the female persistently betrays him, uses him, and clambers over him in her struggle to present to the more dominant male, occasionally falling back on him should she encounter failure.

Check

- Females who are less able to present appealing sexual offerings are regarded by society as having less worth than those with more sexual capital.

Check

HOLY SHIT! WHADDYA KNOW?!?! MAYBE I’M ONTO SOMETHING HERE!!!

I guess I’ve painted quite a grim picture of the human animal. I think there’s only one lesson that can be taken away from this view of things:

Work out, and get rich.

It’s funny to think… how differently some people might think of me, even though I WOULD be the same person….

It’s tragic in a way. But them’s the facts; deny your animal nature all you like…. but the same carnal heart beats within you, and you know it.

Rationalization: The Bane of Humanity

I’ve officially finished my first semester of Graduate School. You may have noticed I haven’t updated this blog as regularly as I used to. This is because I’m a lot busier now than I was during the summer. I certainly haven’t lost interest in writing, and I would still be thrilled if people commented and left their thoughts. Having said that, I think I’ll take the opportunity to write about something that I’ve been thinking about throughout the semester.

Rationalization Vs. Humanity:

This semester I was only in one course called “The Social Construction of Technology.” Aside from that, I was the Teaching Assistant for “Introduction to Information Technology and New Media.” I’ve had a lot of time to reflect, and I feel like I’ve learned a lot about the special relationship between technology and society.

What I study is probably not what you think. I don’t study iPods and cell-phones, and I don’t write about the “effects of video game violence.” To be honest, it’s very difficult to appropriately explain what I study. But here it goes…

One of the most fascinating concepts I learned this semester is called “rationalization.” As the name implies, it’s the notion that society has tended to become more rational. I’m not talking about secularism or the move away from religion; that is a different kind of humanistic rationaliaty. Rationalization is all about the process of production.

In order to increase production and keep cost down, the factory owner must maintain efficiency in his workplace. Enter the harbingers of the mechanization of labour: the Jacquard Loom, the Steam Engine, the Assembly Line, etc. Technology has always been central to the scaling of the economy of labour. In a way, rationalization is the process whereby progress “speeds up,” and becomes more efficient; this is sometimes called Taylorism (particularly in the context of industrialism and work).

Today, the computer network brings the process of rationalization to the speed of light; bureaucracy is made frictionless by the flow of digital information. This bureaucratic apparatus has existed since the dawn of capitalist industrialism, and it has become the backbone of all that we do.

Today, you can get paid by your employer directly through the internet. Those funds can then be withdrawn directly from your account into the accounts of your creditors. You can even set it up so that the transaction occurs automatically. The process is all very seamless; your labour is commodified and digitized. We are all anchored to this enormous interconnected bureaucracy, and we are all cogs in its innerworkings. Progress is our product, rationalization is the process whereby this happens.

At what point does society become too rational? The human mind, after all, is not rational. It is profoundly animal. I believe that so much social dimentia is attributable to the kind of increased “organization” of society that is so counter-intuitive to the human beast. It ignores our organic nature, and tries to allot us into cubicles and apartment blocks. As individuals living in a post-industrial society, our struggle is retaining our humanity in the face of rationalization. That’s what I think anyway.

The answer is not always clear, but more and more I’m beginning to see it. We must all break the rules of “normal” social engagement. The rules of society say that you don’t go to the bar with your parents or your teachers, you don’t necessarily tell members of the opposite sex that you are interested, you don’t put faith in strangers, and you don’t talk to your neighbor. Sure, they’re not laws, but they’re pervasive social codes that seem to get worse and worse with each passing year. I think we must all fight this; we must defy social norms and reclaim the tribalism that is inborn in all of us.

There is a clear philosophy that emerges from this. Don’t be a social climber; man is not meant to keep making new friends, he is meant to be part of a consistent community, for example. And maintain the UTMOST respect for your friends and family, because they are the only REAL anchor you have. Don’t get hypnotized by the lustre of fame and riches; they are not real, and you will never have them. Never is a big word, but you have to face it; the myth of Hollywood is still just a myth, a cultural opiate meant to inspire false dreams and misplaced hope. The only dream worth attaining, is the only thing worth hoping for; a tribe to call your own – a little shred of the human spirit that has been lost in this misguided project of rationalization and progress.

The Pastime of Songwriting

I had the night off tonight. I didn’t have to work, I took a break from school, I didn’t cook dinner, my roommate was at work, and I had about 8 hours to kill by myself in my apartment.

I hooked a microphone up to my laptop, put the microphone in front of my guitar amp, hit record, and started playing whatever came to mind. After about 2 hours I had written and recorded a beautiful song. It doesn’t have words, or a name, but music does not require those things. You might think me arrogant for saying this, but it’s the truth: I think the music I write is the best music I’ve ever heard.

In a way, it sounds terrible. But allow me to explain: by “best” music, I don’t mean it’s the universal best, I mean it’s MY favourite. Still, the fact that my songs are my favourite still seems extremely narcissistic. But look at it my way: when I sit down and write a song, I’m making a series of decisions. Songwriting is a contingent process of decision making; you want to chose the right melody, chords, and notes in the right order. Logically, I choose whatever chords and notes I think sound the best. Thus, when the song is finished, I consider it to be perfect.

I imagine that this is an essential attitude for any artist. But that’s saying it wrong. I think artists just naturally think their shit is the best, and if they don’t, they’re not true artists. They have to. I mean, if DaVinci thought that part of the Mona Lisa wasn’t right, then he would damn well change it, right? It’s not enough to make an approximation, you have to make everything exactly as you want it. If I feel a particular chord change isn’t the best, I’ll change it to what I think is best. It’s simple, really. In fact, how is it possible NOT to think a song, that you created from scratch, is not perfect, when it’s finally done?

Where you go from there is up to you. I don’t feel the need to show many people my music; obviously people don’t think my music is perfect or “the best” in any regard. Although, I’ve gotten surprising reactions from people over the years. It’s bizarre, I think I write and record music just because I want new music to listen to; I’d rather listen to my own than somebody else’s. I also think it’s an incredible honour when somebody asks to hear my music; it’s a good way of knowing who’s truly interested in you, and who’s just interested in your surface.

That’s why I say I’ve never “improved” as a songwriter. Even when I was 12 years old bashing away on the piano, I still thought my shit was better than what I was learning, even if I was learning Beethoven. Maybe I just get a sick thrill out of the creative process in general. At the end of the two hours I listen to that song and I wonder “Where did this come from? Did I plan it subconsciously? Is it serendipity? Do I only think it’s good because it’s mine?” These are bizarre questions to face, and I have no answers, but I learn a lot about myself in the process of making a song. It’s fun, and it’s a hell of a lot better than swilling fucking alcohol and watching TV.

Now the ultimate goal is to collaborate with someone who has the same outlook. So much of life requires collaboration.

A Tale of Two Girls

It’s highschool. Girl #1 is pretty and popular. Girl #2 is ugly and unpopular.

Tale of Girl #1 

She’s, 20 years old, standing at a small boutique in the middle of some shitty small-town shopping center. Her make-up is plastered on. She spent so long applying it that she missed breakfast - again. There she stands for eight hours staring listlessly around the mall, occasionally hocking “Forever Young” beauty products to female passers-by.  When she gets home she’ll watch American Idol and marvel at how pretty and talented the girls are so that when she returns to her post at the mall the next day, painted up with shiney sparkles, she can daydream that she’s on stage.

The mall itself is old – built in the late 1970s. It’s falling apart, been through several owners, and has been so mismanaged that it is only barely keeping afloat. There might be a Gap or a Winners here and there, but that’s about as good as it gets. For the most part it’s Zellers and Wal-Mart customers - you know, the seething masses of wretchedly ordinary people going about their wretchedly ordinary lives. Nobody in this mall has the same zeal for fame and glory as she does; how could they? They’re not young. They’re not beautiful. They’re the masses of the working class, shackled to their mortgages and loan payments, scraping the underbelly for the table scraps of the American dream. Fucking pathetic.

She can’t wait til she gets out of this hell-hole.

She’s twenty-five years old now. She’s spent the last five years working so she could finally get her own place and get the fuck away from her shitty parents – her parents who kept giving her shit for not going to school, for partying too much, for hanging out with too many guys. What the fuck did they know anyway? All they did was sit around their shitty house in a loveless marriage watching sitcom reruns and heating up frozen dinners. All they did was work their shitty jobs and bitch about life. She was glad to be out of there. She was still working at the mall, but she got a better job at the Orange Julius – they gave raises, and she was an assistant manager now. She’d show them what she could be – she was gonna be rich and famous. All famous people had to struggle when they were young. This was just her story.

Now she’s thirty, and with a guy.

She doesn’t like him … really. But she doesn’t have much choice. It was move in with him or move back home with mom and dad, and she’d be damned if she’d ever live in that shit hole again, and after she’d lived independently. Living with him was the only way she could be independent. She wishes he wouldn’t be such an asshole sometimes, and not lose his temper, but she knows that his work is hard and he gets angry sometimes. She’s not gonna stay with him or anything. He’s just temporary while figures her shit out and gets on her feet.

Thirty five.

She wishes those fucking kids would shut the fuck up for once. “Pick that up off the floor!” They need a new goddam toaster oven. Looks like they have to make another trip to the mall. Wal-Mart has a good selection of cheap appliances. Course it’s all a bunch of cheap shit anyway. “What did I just fucking say?! Pick that up!” More fucking frozen dinners too. She catches a fleeting glimpse of herself in the window on the way out the door. Her looks are gone, her dreams have died, and the only thing that has stayed the same is the bargains at Wal-Mart.

How could this happen? She never had to work for anything before…

Tale of Girl #2

She’s twenty years old. She’s just barely scraping by, what with tuition costs on the rise. She lives in rez, but she doesn’t talk much with the other students. They all go drinking and stuff. She just studies. They don’t really invite her out anyway. But that’s okay. She’s used to it. Criminology may not be the most fun thing to do on a friday night, but monday’s test is very important.

It’s not until her twenty-fifth birthday, but she finally graduates with an advanced Law Degree. She’s worked hard at it, and finally finished. She’s grateful to her boyfriend. He’s stuck with her through thick and thin, and supported her the whole time. They’ve always had a strong connection. He got picked on in high-school too. He used to be a bit of a nerd, you see. Luckily he’s good with computers, so he got a great job as a programmer and he really loves it. She’s not sure if he’s thinking about proposing to her, but part of her thinks that he will. Haha, he knows he’s not gonna do much better anyway. After all, she can’t imagine life without him – he’s been her backbone for the last … well … since high school, really.

Five years later and she’s overseeing the legal affairs of an enormous transaction. A wealthy business-man is buying the deed to a local mall in the hopes of revamping it and making it profitable again. If the deal goes through, she’ll recieve an enormous stipend. Since her husband’s doing so well at his company, they can use this money to go finally go to Italy together. The kids will absolutely love it!

Thirty five now. She’s relaxing in her family room while her husband toys around on the computer. One of those “American Idol” shows is on in the background somewhere. She’s been getting better at knitting, and she’s focused on that. Maybe she’ll knit a pair of socks for her daughter. Maybe her daughter will keep them for the rest of her life. Sometimes she thinks back to high school and how silly she was for being jealous of that one pretty girl. What’s it all worth in the end? She never expected much from herself, but then again, she always worked hard because … to be honest … she thought she had to. In a way, she always knew she would have to fight for what she wanted. And fight she did. What ever happened to that girl, she thinks, as a silent and defeated looking woman rings her groceries through the till.

How Humans Create A Complex Range of Meaning From Absolute Chaos

There is no such thing as a “mountain.” There is no such thing as a “bird.” There is no such thing as a “machine.” There is no such thing as a “city.”

As humans, all we have for making sense of the universe around us is a collection of man-made concepts. You may say “Of course there is such a thing as a mountain; I have seen a mountain, I have climbed a mountain.” You may also say “Of course there is such thing as a bird; they are everywhere.” And in some sense, you are correct. However, in a totally objective sense, you are not.

Indeed, mountains, birds, machines, and cities are readily visible in our world. The problem arises when you begin to give absolute definition to those things. Let’s consider the example of “mountains:” what exactly constitutes a mountain? When does a perturbation of Earth cease to be called a “hill” and become a “mountain?” Is there a predesignated size it must reach before it can be labeled a mountain? Must it reach a certain altitude above sea-level before being assigned the rank of “mountain?”

Of course not! For all intents and purpose, there is no strict scientific measurement of “mountainness.” It is a man-made concept for what we observe as ’really big hills.’ Without humans here to make the distinction between a hill and a mountain, there is none. There is only a universal measurement of spatial distance, which when measured relative to Earth’s center, we call “height.”

The same goes for cities. When does a “town” sprawl enough to be called a “city?” Again, there is no clear conceptual boundary – it is inherently subjective. We may have bylaws which try to assign a population number, but again, these are superficial and man-made.

What about birds? Surely they must be easier to define. Well they are more definable than mountains, from a scientific perspective. For example, birds must meet certain biological criteria: bipedal movement, wings, feathers, eggs, vertebrae, a certain hip structure, etc. If an animal does not meet these specifications, it cannot be called a “bird.” The problem with this particular concept is that there are such a multitude of creatures on Earth that fit this description that that to conceptualize them all under one umbrella seems wrong. Thus the concept does not describe any one thing, it describes an idea. Consider the Kiwi, the famous flightless bird from New Zealand. It’s feathers are more like fur, and it’s wings are so small that they are invisible. It is a very different creature from the “birds” we are used to in North America such as crows and ducks. A Kiwi is about as similar to a duck as humans are to squirrels. Why don’t we subsume humans and squirrels into the same animal group?

Well actually, we do. We call ourselves mammals – a group with it’s own set of criteria. My point here is NOT that such concepts are not useful – indeed, they are our only way of making sense of the immense complexity of life around us - my point is that these concepts, while productive, do not describe actual things in the real world.  

Follow this logic through, and you come to a weird and scary conclusion. For all the man-made concepts that have evolved throughout the history of human language, what we are actually experience in the sensory universe is still not being described truthfully. According to the basic tenets of science, at the end of the day, all that we truly experience as human beings is a chaotic interaction of energy and elementary particles. They may take the form of a computer screen, keyboard and mouse, but they are all ultimately composed of the basic building blocks of the universe. But… you don’t see it that way.

This is where the necessity of conceptual labels becomes obvious; the human mind is not able to experience the world as a neutral observer of physical chaos. We instinctually organize the world around so that we can extract meaning from it. Even concepts fundamental to our being such as “self,” “universe” and “time” are man-made. Who’s to say whether they refer to any objective truth or not? It’s just impossible to know.

Working from birth, people build their conceptual universes, and they eventually become them. Your concept of “love” will never be the same as mine, and my concept of “God” will never be the same as yours. We may agree on what constitutes a bird, but this agreement is contrived;  the concept of  a “bird” itself is ultimately superficial. Herein lies ultimate human dilemma: to struggle to agree upon the workings of a universe, when each of us has constructed that universe with our own variations upon thousands of man-made concepts. We are each programmed to bo so drastically different, that it boggles the mind that we are able to meaningfully interact at all. 

Thus, to argue with others about the existence of God, or a belief in love, is silly. You’re not dealing with the same concepts, and you’re not talking about the same things. Thus, the conversation is pointless.

I suppose I’ve just dabbled in some branch of existential philosophy. Who knows. I don’t care for labels. I find it difficult to breakdown the concept of a concept without referring to… other concepts! Perhaps it’s a vain pursuit. Yet I think each of you knows what I mean… but in your own way, of course.

Musical Featurette: “Three In The Bed”

At last, the time has come. I’ve finally attained some decent footage of a Brickhouse performance. The sound quality is not great, and its split into two parts, but I think it gives a fairly good impresion of the experience. This is my favourite Brickhouse tune called “Three in the Bed.” Props to Greg for filming it, and Jenelle for converting/posting it.

He feels like ten pounds of shit in a FIVE POUND BAG!” … Love it!

Life and Death: Lessons From Nature

I suppose that human beings measure everything relative to themselves. It’s probably a natural tendency. After all, how else are we to make sense of the world? We can only make sense of the things around us by internalizing them, and knowing them in relation to ourselves. Everything around us is personified. We see through human eyes, and that will never change.

Yes, I am a human being, and will thus always be bound to a narrow anthropocentric understanding of the things around me. I accept that. But every so often I catch a fleeting glimpse of how transcendentally beautiful things could be, if percieved otherwise. Many people experience this through God; I experience it through nature. Whatever this experience is, I’m sure everyone goes through it at some point.

Life is tough sometimes, and there’s never an easy answer. Oddly enough, I take comfort in my own insignificance. Religion teaches the opposite; that the human being is the center of all things, the image of creation itself, separated from nature by divine right. But it doesn’t matter what you believe; one thing that cannot be denied is that every human being feels emotions. Whether these emotions are designed by God, or evolved instinctual responses; it makes no difference. We are all, for better or worse, pre-programmed to experience the world emotionally.

I wonder; would it be better to experience the world with an utterly rational mind, free of all emotion? What then do we make of death? Of course, death is a natural occurrence, even if unexpected. Rationally, one will conclude that the experience of death is exactly like the experience of not being born yet. It’s a nothingness so complete as to be impossible to understand while living, no matter how hard one tries to imagine it. Thus, it is impossible for a human being, rational though he or she may be, to understand death. For this reason, it is one of the only things in this world that we cannot measure relative to ourselves. Even God himself is understood by measurement to ourselves. After all, what is God if not Man? I suppose that is why death is so often explained through God.

We look at the entire natural world as being nothing more than a provision for our existence, and again, everything is measured up to us. Insects are small. Whales are big. Slugs are slow. Donkeys are stupid. Bacteria are invisible. The only thing we can know about these creatures is how they differ from us. Perhaps that is why we continue to insist that we are different from them. Rarely do we perceive nature for what she truly is. But every so often, we get a fleeting glimpse:

For all the life that will come and go on this Earth, there will be death. This should not detract from the beauty that we find while we are here; instead we should absorb what is around us and accept that we are all just small parts of one great living thing, and that thing can only live on because of death.

Dear Tasha,

I guess the realization never truly sinks in. I’ve tried to convince myself that I can somehow come to terms with what happened to you, but I realize now I will never be able to understand it. I can try to drown it out with noise, but that hollow silence still somehow cuts through. No matter how much fun I force myself to have, it’s all numbed by the persistent reminder that you’re gone.

It’s been three months, and as expected, it hasn’t gotten easier. You probably never realized how much I measured myself up to you, and strived to impress you. I’m eternally grateful for the effect you had on my life. You made me feel like I was smart, funny and talented at a time when I thought I was a go-nowhere loser. Before I met you I had low self-esteem, no ambition, and I was full of self-doubt. You told me I could do anything, you believed in me to the fullest, you pushed me to write music and do well in school and speak my mind. It scares me to think what kind of person I might have been without your positive influence. You have a way with people that I will never understand.

 The last time I saw you I showed you that I had started to learn the harmonica. I’ll always remember how genuinely proud you looked. Now that you’re not there to tell me I’m doing good, I don’t know why I should bother doing anything. We hadn’t seen each other much lately, but we didn’t have to; you and I both know that we watched each other from afar for as long as we knew each other, and we always would. I try to remember that; maybe you’re just farther than normal. I don’t know.

You were too good for this world. Your presence in my life shattered all my preconceptions about who I was. I want you to know that I will always remember the things you taught me. I want to have your kind of honesty and directness. I want to be able to bring out the kid in me more often. You’re right that we’re all just kids, Tash.

It’s hard not being able to hear you talk back. But then again, you and I never needed to say anything to each other, because we both just knew. Whatever that was, we’ll always have it.

~Andrew 

Muir & Jenelle’s Musical Showcase

Our first guest this evening is an aspiring young vocalist by the name of Jenelle Spicer, and she’ll be singing “Didn’t Leave Nobody But The Baby.”

Our second guest this evening (in full colour) is a drunk guy who likes to pretend he can play guitar and sing. He’ll be “performing” the Brickhouse tour-de-force that is “Misery (Tribal Version).”

Stay tuned for more.

Musical Featurette: Matthew Good Band Classics

Everybody remembers the smash hit Matthew Good Band singles from the summer of 1997: “Apparitions” and “Rico.” Of course, it was the music video for “Apparitions” that has long been credited for bringing Matthew Good Band into the mainstream of Canadian music. Many of you will have seen both of these videos many times before, but I want to present them to you in a different way: back to back.

This is because they are actually the same video. Both videos tell one story, and they are both thematically connected. Taking into account the lyrical content, it’s difficult to say exactly what Matthew Good had in mind in terms of his ‘message.’

So, if you’ll indulge me, I invite you to watch both videos and watch for the clues that link them together (Matt Good’s work uniform, the distraught hooker, the shot glass slamming onto the table, and so on. What does it all mean?) And if you’re not familiar with the songs, check ‘em out; they’re two Canadian classics.

Apparitions…

And rico…

The Concept of… (Part 1: “Life”)

Life.

What is life exactly? Humans are alive, and so are trees. What do trees and people have in common that allows them to be subsumed into the category of life? Trees don’t walk or think. They just stand there.

The reasons, of course, are internal. Trees are what we call “organic” – that is made of cells, and having the ability to grow. This is what fundamentally unifies all known life on Earth.

One of the interesting things about “life” is that most of it is very small. The smallest living thing ever discovered is called Nanoarchaeum, and it is only 400 nanometers (billionths of a meter) in diameter. Here is photograph of the creature:

In fact, scientists debate whether or not the thing can actually be called living. At this level of microscopy, the conceptual distinctions between living and non-living become too vague – a telling reminder of how poorly constructed our concept of “life” truly is. Indeed, no line has yet to be conclusively drawn between that which is alive and that which is not. It’s a bizarre fact of science, that a concept so fundamental to our nature as “life” is, as of yet, undefinable.

There is, however, one thing that distinguishes life, and this is it’s unusual relationship with energy.

All matter and movement in the universe is predicated by the laws of thermodynamics. The second of those laws states that matter in a closed system cannot increase in entropy without an outside energy source. In other words, the level of chaotic kinetic energy in a closed system will remain in equilibrium unless acted upon. Life is unique, in this respect, as it seems ostensibly to violate this, the second of Newton’s laws. Of course, this is because “living things” tend to increase in entropy, rather than remain stable, or indeed, decrease.

The reason for this is that Earth is not a closed system; it recieves it’s energy from the Sun. Thus, the whole notion of “life” is built around the complex relationships between matter and energy that is created by the Earth and Sun. Really, it’s not that far-out of an idea; after all, there is clearly fundamental correlation between solar activity and this phenomenon that we have called ”life.” Where does sunlight stop being cosmic rays and start being “nutrition” to some living thing? Living matter is no different than all other matter, except it needs to absorb energy, in order to increase it’s entropy. From photosynthesis to sunday dinner, you prove it every time you lift the fork to your mouth.

“Life” would be better defined as a universal cosmic tendency towards increased entropy (and thus, increased complexity of the physical organization of matter).

In light of this realization, one can conclude that the question of “life on other planets” is often addressed incorrectly: as if life on other planets would be anything like life on Earth. I doubt very much that we have the imaginative faculties necessary to fathom what strange patterns between matter and energy occur on other worlds – worlds whose particular solar circumstances are drastically different than our own. I believe that there are, floating out in the depths of space, depths of consciousness beyond the narrow constructions of the Earthbound Ape, and beyond our limited concept of “life.”

Music and New Media: The (Ironically) Quiet Revolution

What happened to music? It used to belong to us. It used to be about people being in rhythm together, not about iPods leeched to our ears pumping out the most popular brand of complete shit that is being sold through the mainstream media. Come on people!

All one need to is scrape the underbelly of one’s culture to find where the best music is hiding. You have to crawl into the unknown caverns in your city if you want to see where the real innovation is, where music is truly fresh and original. Not only that; lo and behold listening to music with people ends up really enhancing the experience!

Don’t get me wrong, I think the world needs records. I get an enormous thrill out of hearing “There is no darkside of the moon; as a matter of fact, it’s all dark” in the last few fading moments of Darkside. All I’m saying is that to limit one’s self to the recorded musical experience is to limit one’s self to an equally (if not more) awesome experience: live music.

The more ritualized the experience becomes, the more I realize what I’ve been missing out on.

On another related note: I think it’s amazing, the democratizing effect of new media… the fact that free-music sharing online is completely dismantling powerful corporate bureaucracies… that is fundamentally revolutionary. I feel no guilt, and I think the artists are only going to adapt to this new way of doing business. In many ways, I’ve often viewed the increased fragmentation of music audiences to be a negotiation of that new relationship.

Revelation: Celebration In Mass Society, And What We Can Learn From It

I went to the PNE last night. I got thinking about a few things while I was there.

I’ve always thought that it’s very unnatural for a human being to be completely surrounded by that many people at one time. The brain becomes overwhelmed with sensory input as it frantically scrambles to scan all immediate utterances, eye-movements and facial signals, as well as process all the flashing lights, whizzing contraptions and various smells. I believe it creates a permeating sense of tension that we all feel when we find ourselves in large crowds. But I also believe we can learn a lot about ourselves from such crowds.

From a humanist perspective, it’s quite a social achievement to have such large conglomerations of people, young and old alike together in celebration, with relatively few disruptions. Considering that the PNE provides their adult guests access to alcohol and gambling, it’s even more astonishing. I think our society’s ability to foster PNE-esque celebrations attests to our society’s relative peace, stability and, ironically, it’s calmness.

But that’s just one story the PNE has to tell. Spend enough time just observing what goes on around you at a place like the PNE, and one can learn a lot about the fundamental values of our society. For example, there was a children’s parade at about 10:30. Everything in the parade could have been somehow construed as a reflection on our society in a broader sense. All you have to do is think about what you are seeing, instead of just seeing it.

The first thing in the parade was two armed police officers on flashing motorcycles. They were wearing body armour and uniforms, and they were carrying various weapons for subduing anybody who might pose a threat to the crowd, and though you may not like having your children see weapons, and violence is ‘never the answer,’ the truth is that without a certain degree of fear, control and oppressive authority in our society, the ensuing parade would not have been possible.

The procession of floats were nearly all products of the mass media; that is, none of the cartoon characters depicted were part of any local folklore or mythology. Instead you get the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker and Ronald McDonald – the mythological characters of the industrial/consumer age – relics of the great American mass media. As each float rolls by, children are given yet another dose of acceptance - another reminder of the normalness of it all – and with each passing float they place a little more trust in the traditions of the consmer society.

Between inflatable cartoon floats there are dance troupes of young girls. The parade tends to go from youngest to oldest, beginning with the 8-10 year olds, in their frilly pink princess costumes, endearing themselves to the entire audience with their adorable innocence and nervous smiles. As the parade marches on, and as the age of the girls gets higher, one notices a change: the costumes are made of less fabric, the make-up is applied more heavily, the dances become more elaborate and the smiles appear more… forced. One gets the impressiont that these are the rites and rituals of womanhood in our society. You may think that I’m reading too much into this, but put yourself in the place of a 7 year old girl, for whom the parade is essentially part of an introduction to the traditions, celebrations and rituals of her world.

At the end of the day, we can conclude that we are celebrating nothing. But that’s fine, because we are humans, and we don’t need anything to celebrate. At the end of the day, we just like eating sugary foods, watching cars fight each other in a ring, subjecting our bodies to unnatural sensations of acceleration and gravity, entrancing our eyes with flashing colours, and submitting ourselves to the kind of reckless abandon that typifies our society. The only tough choices we make are whether we like pink cotton candy, or blue.

I guess the important thing is that we just think about how lucky we are to get to live in a place that is capable of hosting a PNE style celebration, because there are many places on Earth that certainly could not. Oddly enough, our society’s ability to party is probably only made possible by the fact that people in uniforms somewhere got trained how to fire a  gun, and I think it’s important we remember that too.

August 27th, 2006 – August 27th, 2007

T’was a year ago today that I climbed on a plane headed for London with a backpack over my shoulder, a map of Cornwall, and a brain-full of stress and uncertainties about the future. Freshly graduated, lacking fulfilling employment, and altogether bored, I decided to walk around the coast for a while in order to clear my thoughts.

While I was there, I tried to imagine where I wanted to be in a year, and to think through the steps that would be necessary to make sure that I got to that desired place.

And lo and behold, as I sit in my dimly lit apartment at the base of Burnaby Mountain, typing on my laptop, preparing for my MA program, and drinking a beer, I have the bizarre feeling that the last year has been a success. I suppose the only thing to do now is to imagine where I want to be a year from today, and to logically follow those steps through once more, rather than basking too long in the satisfaction of self-accomplishment.

A few quick notes:

1) The song in the previous previous entry was indeed “Chun Li’s Theme” from the game Street Fighter 2

2) Congratulations to my sister Amelia and her new husband Sven for having the perfect wedding. No uncomfortable speeches, bizarre traditions or cheesy symbolism – just two families getting to know each other and celebrating a young couple.

Wonders of Nature (Part III): The Variety Of Life; The Fundamentals Of Nature

I’ve decided to make a small collection of notable videos about life on Earth. I’ve chosen these videos specifically to compliment each other, in the hope that, together, they will convey a sense of the incredible variety and complexity of life on our planet.

The first is a very short video of an animal called the Supreme Bird of Paradise. It’s elaborate courtship rituals nicely demonstrate the incredible variety of social behaviors in the animal kingdom. Also, it’s hilarious.

This next video is actually about a network of subterranean fresh-water caves in Mexico, in what used to be the Mayan Empire. I chose this video not because it features incredible creatures, but because it demonstrates the incredible resilience of life; the fact that animals can thrive in places that never see sunlight is truly astounding. It makes one wonder how many hundreds of thousands of distinct ecosystems exist in the bizarre and remote places on this planet.

Most of you have probably seen this video before, but I’d like to include it anyway. It’s the Lyrebird; the animal with the most advanced vocal cords in the world. I think this video demonstrates the incredible intelligence of life on Earth. Though to us it seems like animals simply coast through their existence by haphazardly figuring out a means of basic survival, this video shows that such underestimations are grossly incorrect. Indeed, the social patterns of some animals often seems more mysterious and complex than our own.

This last video demonstrates many important things about the natural world. First: a plant that digests insects. In many ways, the plant’s digestive system is no different that our own. Chemicals are used to break down organic tissue and convert them into nutrients. The difference between us and plants, of course, is that we consciously put food in our mouths, while the plants have simply evolved trap-like entranceways for procuring it’s pray. Secondly, a spider that inhabits the plant. This demonstrates how life grows on top of life … the kind of bizarre relationships that develop between two organisms, be they symbiotic, or otherwise. A spider uses a certain type of plant to catch pray, just as we manipulate seeds to grow food, or use sharpened sticks to hunt game. Life, on this Earth, for all it’s varieties and apparent distinctions, is all derived from the same fundamentals – all built with the same building blocks.

Musical Feature: Mario Paint Masterpiece

I always loved Mario Paint. So much so, in fact, that I appropriated it from Gillan against his will at a very early age (mouse and mouse-pad included). I was usually pretty good at making little songs on the music emulator … but I never created anything like this. Whoever created this video is a true video-game virtuoso! Can you spot the tune? I’ll give you a hint: it’s from another classic SNES game. If you know the answer, please leave a comment, and I’ll buy you a moderately priced beer. (Don’t cheat by clicking the link… WordPress will tell me!)

And In The End…

There was once a band, whose members comprised four young lads from a relatively poor city called Liverpool. This band would eventually instill itself as the quintessential rock band, earning a place in history as the founders of an entire age of enterprise that is now called “popular music.” They wrote many songs that are deeply entrenched into the social and cultural conscience, and their ability to win legions of fans in every new generation attests to their staggering ability as musicians, artists and revolutionaries. The band, for all their incredible accomplishments and enormous acclaim, was humbly named: “The Beatles.”

Anyone who knows Andrew Muir knows that he has a deep fascination with The Beatles. Above all, this is for one reason: their message is the best message I’ve ever heard.

The Beatles never wrote an angry song. Every single piece of art they produced was about love. In the early days, it was more obvious … Love Me Do, P.S. I Love You, She Loves You, Can’t Buy Me Love, Words Of Love, And I Love Her, All My Loving … and even in the later days, the message was the same, though expressed less directly.

It’s hard for me, not only to think of another band that had this kind of message, but to think of ANYTHING else, throughout ALL of mankinds illustrious history, that has ever had such a great message. All you need is love.

There are so many ways of viewing the world, and many people end up espousing hatred in the hearts of other people, even if they don’t know it, or don’t mean it. I believe it’s extremely important, in life, to do all you can to make sure you are only a force for good in people’s lives, no matter who they are, or how well you know them. You don’t have to be a saint: if more people in the world just thought a little less about themselves, and a little more about other people, the world would be a much better place.

At the very end of their career, The Beatles produced one last album called “Abbey Road,” and the last song on the album is called “The End.” The very last line in the very last song of the very last Beatles album is this:

“And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.”

Clearly, this line was written as a concluding thought to their entire canon of lyrical content. And how beautiful and simplistic is their message … they’re even capable of pulling off their message with a certain kind of mathematical simplicity. It makes me realize what John Lennon was saying all along. Something like “No bibles, bosses or lawmakers will tell me I’m a bad person. I have love.” Well I hear that, John & Paul!

Muir’s Five-Question Evolution Test

Retardedly, one of the important issues of the upcoming American election will be evolution. A few months ago, several presidential candidates were asked if they believed in evolution, and several said “no.” One wonders if these politicians truly deny evolution, or if they are just doing it to add the evangelicals to their roster of potential votes. I believe the latter.

I’ve discussed evolution on this blog several times before, and I’m sure many people have become bored/frustrated with the topic. However, this entry will be slightly different. It is a list of questions to ask yourself; questions about your own observations regarding the natural world. There are many people who say that they do not believe in evolution, and to those people in particular, I invite you to answer the following questions, and remember to consider your answer to each question when contemplating the validity of evolutionary theory. As you will notice, the questions have aboslutely nothing to do with religion and spirituality, because I don’t see how they should be related. Indeed, the following questions are not about science either. They are very simple questions, about what you notice about the world around you.

1) Do you believe that there are many different kinds of animals?

In other words, do you recognize the existence of ’species?’ Of course, there isn’t a human being alive who would deny that there are many different kidns of animals on this Earth, and they vary greatly. One need only observe the world around them to determine the answer to this question.

2) Do you believe that certain kinds of animals are related in some sense?

Do you believe that a crow and a raven share certain similarities? Do you believe that, though there may be different kinds of ants in the world, they all fall into one category that we call ‘ants?’ In other words, do you believe that, despite variation, different kinds of animals seem to be somehow related to each other? For example, you can have two completely distinct species of frogs, but they are both still ‘frogs’ somehow. The very fact that you recognize ‘families’ within the animal kingdom means you would probably answer “yes” to this question. I don’t think I know anybody who could logically deny that some animals look a lot like other animals.

3) Do you believe that children inherit physical properties from their parents?

It seems like most families that I know share similar physical properties. Hair colour, height, eye colour, muscle mass, skin colour … we’ve all heard how it works; genetics and inheritance and so on. Do you believe that? In other words, is it a coincidence that offspring are like copies of their parents? Or is there some kind of biological process that makes this work systematically? Surely, anybody reading this would concede that, certainly, living things inherit the traits of their parents through biology. Right?

4) Does the Earth’s environment change?

Do glaciers eventually melt? Do forests get too dry sometimes? Do rivers flood? Do grasslands become deserts? Does sea level change? Does temperature vary? Well, I’ve never heard anybody answer “no” to these questions. It seems quite clear that the Earth is ever changing, and that these changes can be slow or fast. After all, even in recorded history, there have been a few major changes to the Earth’s environment. So, would you answer ‘yes’ to this simple question? I don’t think it’s too much to assume that your answer is “yes.”

5) Is it possible for one individual animal to be smarter/stronger than another individual animal?

Well, I think we see this everyday. Sure, there always has to be someone who is stronger and someone who is weaker. It’s inevitable, isn’t it?There will always be some animals that are faster, and some that are slower. Indeed, there will always be some animals that have no problem surviving in their environment, while others will have to struggle to survive. In the Savanna plains, for example, there are many Cheetahs, but there is always one that is the fastest, and one that is the slowest. In other words, is it common sense to say that some animals are advantaged, and others are disadvantaged? I doubt very much that anyone would answer “no” to this question.

*     *     *

So, what are your answers? Yes for all five? Probably!

There you have it: 5 simple questions. Now, let’s say you answered “yes” for all these questions, which I’m assuming you did. Let’s put your answers together into one belief about the natural world. You have basically agreed with the following:

1) The speciation of living organisms

2) Genetic relationship between living organisms

3) Genetic inheritance of physical properties

4) Environmental change

5) Natural selection

From these five things that you have agreed with, allow me to construct a hypothetical scenario which, according to your beliefs, would be entirely possible:

There is a large population of bunnies living in a grassland. Some are brown, some are black and some are white. Over the course of a few hundred years, it gets colder and colder in these grasslands, because of changes in the Earth’s climate, until eventually it begins to snow all the time there. The black and brown bunnies, now much more visible to their predators, get messily devoured and eventually die off completely. Meanwhile, the white bunnies are difficult to see, so they survive and multiply into yet more white bunnies, because of genetics. Sound reasonable? Well, you seem to think so, according to your answers. What part of this scenario would not work?

And yet, many people would come across a snowy plain filled with white bunnies and say “Behold! The bunnies and the snow are a perfect match, and were thus made for each other with intent from a benevolent creator! How else could thhe bunnies fur have turned white?”

I know my example is over simplistic, but it’s the fundamental principles that I think really show how non-scientific evolutionary theory can be. In fact, it’s highly intuitive! In fact, the word ’species’ itself demands an acceptance of evolution, because the word implies some kind of relationship reaching far back in time, doesn’t it!? As for the origins of life, well you really just need to apply the model on a smaller scale: instead of white bunnies surviving in grasslands, think about single-celled organisms surviving in psyto-plasmic goo. It’s fundamentally the same.

The most disturbing conclusion that I must come to is this: people who deny evolution only do so for two reasons.

1) People in authority have told them to deny it for their whole lives, because it contradicts their religious doctrines

… or …

2) they do not bother critically observing about the world around them.

So to the congressmen who deny evolution as part of their twisted political platform, I ask you … to which of these five questions would you have answered “no?”