swimming freestyle

In defense of idealism

Via The Daily Dish comes this clip from 1972 of psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl, speaking on man's search for meaning and purpose.

Synthetic life: 'Creaking open the most profound door'

It took 23 scientists more than ten years and $40M to create what one scientist called "a defining moment in biology".  Taking four bottles of chemicals and a computer, the scientists have synthesized DNA, incorporated into a bacteria cell, and turned "life" into a software process.

The groups research includes funding from Exxon-Mobile for the building of algae that would capture carbon dioxide and produce fuels, but other applications include lifeforms that could clean water and manufacture vaccines 99% faster than current methods.

The bacteria in the experiments reproduce naturally but behave exactly the way their newly constructed genes direct, said noted human genome biologist J. Craig Venter, who has led a team of 23 scientists on the project for more than a decade. (Link)

The development is not without controversy.  What the scientists have done is, in essence, created new species. 

Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally." (Link)

"This kind of biology makes it possible, in the wrong hands, to create deadly pathogens, and in the future it will call for strong regulations," said Magnus, who was a member of a panel that Venter created more than 10 years ago to oversee his artificial gene work and advise him on any ethical issues that might arise. (Link)

J. Craig Venter is most famous for racing the government sponsored Human Genone Project and patenting more than 300 genes.  It's not clear, at this point, what Mr. Venter intends to do with those patents.

Scientists identify link between pesticides and ADHD

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, links pesticide exposure to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the U.S. and Canada. 

Led by Maryse Bouchard in Montreal, researchers based at the University of Montreal and Harvard University examined the potential relationship between ADHD and exposure to certain toxic pesticides called organophosphates. The team analyzed the levels of pesticide residue in the urine of more than 1,100 children ages 8 to 15 and found that those with the highest levels of dialkyl phosphates, which are the breakdown products of organophosphate pesticides, had the highest incidence of ADHD. Overall, they found a 35% increase in the odds of developing ADHD with every tenfold increase in urinary concentration of the pesticide residue. The effect was seen even at the low end of exposure: kids who had any detectable, above-average level of the most common pesticide metabolite in their urine were twice as likely as those with undetectable levels to record symptoms of the learning disorder. (Link)

Some statistics on ADHD from the Center for Disease Control:

-  4.5 million children 5-17 years of age have ever been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2006.
-  3%-7% of school-aged children suffer from ADHD. Some studies have estimated higher rates in community samples.
-  7.8% of school-aged children were reported to have an ADHD diagnosis by their parent in 2003.
-  Diagnosis of ADHD increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006.

It's thought that exposure to the pesticides most likely comes from eating sprayed fruit and vegetables.  The study proposes that limits be placed on the amount of organophosphates used.

'God of the Gaps'

I doubt anyone reading this needs much convincing that "intelligent design" is really nothing more than a backdoor ploy, on fundamental Christians part, to have creationism taught in public schools.  In a post at Huffington Post, Michael Zimmerman outlines the most recent rebuttal to intelligent design, that the concept of irreducible complexity has now been proven flawed.

But there was something at the end of Zimmerman's article that I found really interesting:

For religion to accept the concept of intelligent design would mean embracing the concept of the "God of the Gaps," a religiously vacuous idea in which adherents turn to God for an explanation for that which science cannot explain. As science advances, the "gaps" become smaller and smaller and God is relegated to a progressively less interesting role.

That's obviously not the intended consequence for fundamental Christians.  Taking Zimmerman's point one step farther - fundamental Christian's distrust of science allows for underestimation and, inevitably, a need to make concessions.   It becomes an endless game of redefining positions - the sun is the center of the universe after all, bacteria mutate, carbon dating, etc. all the way to humans evolve.

Again, I doubt readers of this post believe in either creationism or intelligent design.  But, sadly, I also doubt that the creationism and intelligent design believers will be reading Zimmerman's warning. 

'Impossible motion'

Koukichi Sugihara's cleverly designed optical illusion; balls appear to roll up the four ramps.  The structure won top honors at the Meiji Institute of Advanced Study of Mathematics Sciences Best Visual Illusion of the Year Contest 2010.

(h/t Boing Boing)

Walking on water

You just have to believe.

(h/t Today's Big Thing)

Wine production and global warming

There's an awful lot of people that don't seem to care whether polar bears end up extinct or whether Alpine glaciers disappear.  Perhaps if they find Kistler chardonnay or MacPhail pinots unavailable, they'll take notice of global warming. 

If current trends continue, the “premium-wine-grape production area [in the United States] … could decline by up to 81 percent by the late 21st century,” a team of scientists wrote in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2006.  (Link)

Just in case you're wondering "what difference does a couple degrees warmer make?"

All crops need favorable climates, but few are as vulnerable to temperature and other extremes as wine grapes. “There is a 15-fold difference in the price of cabernet sauvignon grapes that are grown in Napa Valley and cabernet sauvignon grapes grown in Fresno” in California’s hot Central Valley, says Kim Cahill, a consultant to the Napa Valley Vintners’ Association. “Cab grapes grown in Napa sold [in 2006] for $4,100 a ton. In Fresno the price was $260 a ton. The difference in average temperature between Napa and Fresno was 5 degrees Fahrenheit.”(Link)

It's likely that wine growing will end up in locales that are currently considered unsuitable.  There are concerns that France's Champagne region is already becoming too warm and sparkling wines are beginning to be grown in England.  Who knows, English sparkling wines could end up being nice wines, but they'll never be Pol Rogers or Millesimes.

Those jeans come at a big price

Guangzhou, China is the blue jean capital of the world.  And the surrounding Pearl River Delta is taking a devastating hit as a result.

Keep in mind that's one factory among many that line the banks of the river. 

We're stuck with the brain we have

This is a bummer:

Brain training games do not improve overall brain power, a scientific study launched by the BBC suggests. The largest ever investigation followed 11,430 people over six weeks to see what effect, if any, playing brain training computer games would have. 

While players got progressively better at the games, the gains were not transferable, Nature journal reports.

I'm a puzzle playing fool, hoping that the mental exercise will ward off cognitive loss later.  Perhaps not:

Clive Ballard of the Alzheimer's Society said: "This evidence could change the way we look at brain training games and shows staying active by taking a walk for example is a better use of our time."

Rebecca Wood of the Alzheimer's Research Trust said: "This suggests that 'brain training' does not improve people's cognitive ability.

"More research will tell us if these games have any effect on cognition as we age."

An innate God

In the map above, black designates regions where there is either no dominant religion or the area is non-religious.  That leaves most of the world in color, 84% of the world's population in fact, that belongs to one of 10,000 distinct, organized religions.  

According to a very interesting essay by Michael Shermer, even 21% of those identifying themselves as atheists and 55% of those calling themselves as agnostics claim a belief in a God or universal spirit.

And if a belief in "God" is so widespread, so pervasive - does that suggest that belief may be innate rather than learned?  Shermer makes the case for the former based on four points.

  -  The evolutionary argument.  Charles Darwin's claim that a society's belief system, be it political, religious or societal, binds the members and betters the group's ability to compete with other groups.

  -  The genetic argument.  Shermer notes studies of identical twins finding religiosity correlations double that of fraternal twins. 

Of course, genes do not determine whether one chooses Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, or any other religion. Rather, belief in supernatural agents (God, angels, and demons) and commitment to certain religious practices (church attendance, prayer, rituals) appears to reflect genetically based cognitive processes (inferring the existence of invisible agents) and personality traits (respect for authority, traditionalism).

  -  The cognitive psychology argument.  This argument is that people evolved to perceive patterns, and natural selection favored those that recognized those patterns.  As Shermer notes "This is the basis for the belief not only in God, but in souls, spirits, ghosts, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, and all manner of invisible agents intending to harm us or help us."

  -  The neuroscience argument.  Man sees a mind/body duality in his being and is unable to fully separate the natural from the supernatural.

We create gods because we are natural-born supernaturalists, driven by our tendency to find meaningful patterns and impart to them intentional agency.  

I'm not sold.  I admit I would like to be sold, but I'm not.  I find Shermer's neuroscience argument lacking and think the evolutionary arguments aren't really sufficient to explain the widespread, nearly universal, belief in a supernatural force or forces as innate.  A unified, collective belief would obviously make a society function with less stress, but I just don't think one can draw a straight line between a consensus of faith and a hardwired God.

I suspect, in thinking about the subject, it's important to make the distinction between religion and belief.  Religions satisfy a need to catalog and enforce dogma and allow people to engage in a social structure of like minded individuals - which does seem an innately human behavior.  Belief, it strikes me, is a personal combination of tradition and self awareness. 

I'm not at all willing to rule out the possibility - there's been belief for ten thousand years at the farthest reaches of the earth - but I'm not quite convinced by Shermer's arguments.  But it's sure fun to think about.