Chaos Theory and Free Will

I go through theses cycles where I can't sleep. It's sort of a new thing for me and one that I find pretty annoying. But anyway, last night while I was laying in bed, half awake I got to thinking about free will again. Remember how Stephen Hawking likened our brains to weather? And remember when I was learning about chaos theory and how weather was used by Ed Lorenze as an example of a chaos, and how when graphed it plotted onto that funny butterfly shaped strange attractor? Well, I got to wondering if there was some way to quantify free will? And if that was possible, then would we see that it plots, just like weather does, onto an attractor? And how would that change our views on life? Or would it?
I guess you, like my BF, may be wondering what's the point of all of these questions. Like he said, if it doen't keep him young or make him rich, why bother? But I think it would be a pretty big deal if it could be proved that free will isn't "free". If it obeys the same rules and behaves exactly how other known chaotic systems work and behave, and can be predicted using chaos theory then I'd argue that it's not as free as we all think. If free will can be demonstrated (mathematically and experimentally) to function in essentially the same way as every other complex system, then I think that would be of great interest to us all....more philosophically than practically probably. After all, we can only understand our lives through our own personal understanding. We can only know our minds using our minds. So it practice whether or not there is actually free will is almost...irrelevant. (That's good news to me, since just like everyone else I like feeling like I have choices;)) And  I don't think I'd feel any different about what we call our "free will" in a practical sense if it turned out not to be as "free" as I think. I mean, I'd still feel like I am doing whatever I want so beyond that why would I really care?
But in a philosophical sense, I think it would really be quite profound...and to me personally it would be...comforting I think. I mean, I already know my body is a machine and I think that's pretty sweet, but to understand my choices as an "system" that obeys the laws of nature and exists in accordance with everything else I understand about the universe (instead of something unexplained and seperate) would be kind of a cool....I think. To see my lifetime of choices plot neatly onto one of chaos theory's "strange attractors" would be pretty spectacular...I think. If it turns out to be the truth I suppose I'll have to accept it no matter how I feel about it. But it's fun to ponder. I''m curious to know what other people might think about this.
Any thoughts? How would you feel if free will turned out not to be as free as you thought?

Stephen Hawking's Grand Design

I stumbled across a 4 part TV series hosted by Steven Hawking last weekend and recorded it. I watched the first one a couple days ago, and it was wonderful! Really interesting and thought provoking. The first episode was titled "The Meaning of Life". I have been wondering about that on and off over the past....fifteen years, and so I was really interested in what Hawking had to say about it. And I will get to that in a later post, but I wanted to write about something else.
One of the things I found especially interesting was his discussion of free will. It is a contentious point for a lot of people when discussing evolution, specifically when arguing against it. The argument goes, if evolution/natural selection really happen, then how do you explain free will which often appears to contradict what natural selection would "choose"? First of all, natural selection doesn't choose anything. It is simply the result of a process that occurs within systems where not every organism survives equally. And therefor free will cannot contradict it. But then what is it?
Hawking likens the billions and trillions of possible neural connections in the brain to another complex system: weather. He says
"Our brains create and sustain our conscious minds through an extraordinary network of interactive neurons."
He goes on to say
"The mind is like weather inside our heads. Free will is simply what we call the process that happens (just like natural selection just happens)  when this vastly complex system faces a choice." (Parentheses inside quote are mine)
Now maybe at first blush you find this definition...less than romantic, and unflattering, but the more I think about it, the more incredible of an idea it becomes to me. To think of our minds like weather, with the same sort of complexity, and unpredictability, and ability to surprise the hell out of us on a daily basis is a truly awesome thought to me. To think of free will as a process resulting directly from the complexity of my mind is....mind blowing, because it means that not only does it exist, but it always will. To know that nature endowed me (but not on purpose!) with the capacity to forever be able to bewilder myself, and be astonished by others no matter what I think I know, is exciting and wonderful, and fills me with a curiosity about the future that I can barely express!
If Hawking is right,and free will is just a side effect of the complex system housed in our skulls, how incredibly lucky for us hu? It didn't have to happen, but it did. WOW! So awesome! This will definitely be added to my list of things I love about my life!

Why So Sad?

I went to the San Francisco Zoo this past weekend with my BF. It was a really fun day, but I've decided that I don't think zoo's are ethical. Especially in this day and age when we know so much about other animals, it seems pretty ignorant to think they could ever be happy in the little enclosures zoo's are able to provide.
Especially for primates (and in marine parks I would include dolphins). I think that while certainly not exactly the same as humans, both primates (apes in particular) and dolphins have all the necessary faculties to experience boredom, sadness, hopelessness and probably something similar to depression. And for those reasons I think essentially having a gorilla enclosure, or a chimp enclosure is just as inhumane as capturing a bunch of people and forcing them to live in a trailer together.
Case in point, the silver back gorilla at the zoo the other day. At first he just sat there watching all the people taking pictures of him (myself included). But the longer we stood there the more apparent it was that he was actually watching us. He looked at each person, observed their expression, scowled when a baby started crying. It was weird, but I could tell he was thinking, AND I could read his facial expressions almost as well as I can read a humans. He was sad. And bored....and feeling trapped and helpless. I could actually see the frustration in his eyes! It was so awful, because I know that his situation wont be getting any better. His life is pretty much set, and the rest of it will be spent in that little fenced in patch of land.
After a while he went and sat in the doorway of his shelter, away from the people and the prying eyes. He just sat there, frowning, and sighing, shaking his head and rubbing his eyes and brow in exactly the same way I do when I am stuck at work and itching to get out of there. He was so unhappy. Even the little kids noticed and inquired of their parents why he was so sad.Ironically most of the parents couldn't see it. They said things like "He's not sad. That's just what gorillas look like."
The chimps were in no better situation. If anything their enclosure was worse. Not that the zoo people aren't trying, but what I mean is that compared to their natural habitat even the best enclosures fall woefully short. And this was not the best. The chimps seemed a little...crazy. I've read a great deal about them, and at least have a marginal grasp on their habits, and the chimps there were...off. Like they were patients in a mental hospital. One was zoned out, another grooming himself to the point of rubbing bald spots into his hair. They had a sedated/ bang-your-head-against-a-wall kind of vibe going on.
But the enclosures for many of the other animals were just as inadequate. The bears, lions, tigers, all had such small areas. They couldn't even get up to a full speed run in the space available to them. Again, I don't think zoo keepers are out to emotionally scar the animals, but...For as much as I enjoyed seeing them in real life it just felt...wrong.
To take a polar bear away from it's home on thousands of miles of moving ice, and put him in a 3,000 square foot enclosure just seems...terrible. To take a hippo who's natural habitat is the whole of the Nile River and put him in a corral with a tiny 10x15' pool of water (that he can barely turn around in) doesn't seem quite right.
For certain animals, like fish, insects, reptiles, most birds, rodents, and domesticated animals I think zoo's are a fine idea. A friend of mine mentioned a particularly content and jolly raccoon at a zoo he visited recently. And the goats at the SF zoo seemed pretty happy to be fed and brushed by patrons. Cool. But to take large animals, or smart ones and force them into tiny spaces for the rest of their lives is not humane. And I think the whole idea of "captivity" creates a division between us and them that really isn't there. We'd never put people in zoo's (although we do lock them in cells as punishment!) because it would be wrong, on so many levels that are obvious to everyone. So how is OK to put a chimp or gorilla in one? I think the answer is because most people don't see us and "them" as part of a continuum, but as two completely un-relateable things. And that is a mistake. We should know better than that.
And the truth is we don't need zoo's anymore to connect with the animal world. With all the beautiful documentaries out there, and 3d capabilities, we can virtually explore other animals and their awesomeness in their own world, where they belong. And they are more interesting to watch when they are in their native environments, doing what evolution has honed them to do.
I'm not sure what I'd suggest we do moving forward since all the animals currently in captivity probably don't have the skills to survive on their own. Maybe, as sad and unfair as it may be, the only thing to do is let them finish out their lives in the zoo, but stop replacing them with new animals once they are gone.
What do you think? Do you have any thoughts about this issue?

An Interesting Question

What do you think is the most astounding fact about the universe? I can think of all kinds of cool facts, but the "most" astounding one? That's tough. But not for everybody. Neil deGrasse Tyson was recently asked and, at least in my opinion, his answer lived up to it's alpha status among astounding truths. I especially like the part where he says that "...Many people feel small, because they are small and the universe is big, but I feel big." That is exactly how I feel when I think about myself in the cosmos. If you have three minutes, I highly recommend you take a look at the video (click on the image above for the link). It might just improve your day. No need to thank me;)

Afterward (if you want) take a minute to think about what the most astounding thing in the universe is to you, and after that maybe take an extra minute or two to really enjoy it;)

A Boat Ride Down Memory Lane

I was reminded of a childhood memory as I was looking out the window a while ago. It must be the rain that brought it on. I  quite suddenly remembered that when I was little, and it was pouring outside, I would pretend that my room (or our house) was a boat. I can't remember the last time I "pretended" anything, and it was weird to remember the feeling of doing it so vividly. Maybe it's like riding a bike, once you learn you never really forget?
Being raised in a Christian house, I would imagine the rain as the beginning of a flood, and my room as my own little ark. Similar to the one Noah had, but you know....smaller. I'd designate one corner of my room as the galley and stock up on dry cereal, or whatever else I could get my hands on, another spot would be my sleeping quarters, and another area for my animals (mostly stuffed I believe, although there may have been a real cat (unhappily) involved at times). I would corral the animals in with pillows if they were stuffed, and flipped over laundry baskets if they were real. I'd make sure everything was organized, survey my handiwork with a great amount of satisfaction, and then stare out the window and feel totally safe and happy in my ark as I imagined the rain water rising up past the windows and launching our house off it's foundation and floating away on the crest of huge waves.
( Side note: I guess I always imagined the whole house as the ark. My reasoning was otherwise Mom would drown while she was cooking dinner, or Dad would be washed away while making phone calls in his office, and even though I didn't care for him much, I supposed I'd feel pretty horrible if my little brother were somehow to be lost in the deluge. But since I wasn't allowed to make a mess everywhere, I usually kept my game, and my imaginings in my room.)
This all must have been when I was pretty young, before I had developed any real sense of reason, before I had a fully developed ability to think things through. Because when I was reminiscing about it earlier I concluded that now I'd probably choose drowning over being stuck in a boat with two of every living thing on the earth, especially the ones that fall under the "creeping" category. Just thinking about being in the same space with wolf spiders and cockroaches (under overturned laundry basket or no) totally creeps me out.
But back then, every living thing didn't (as far as I was concerned) involve insects of any kind, or bears, or wolverines, or alligators, or bunnies with red eyes, or anything else scary. There were only kittys, and giraffes, so it was cool. But at the same time the fact that  my make believe had to contain provisions for my family, shows the beginning of my ability to think critically. How my general lack of reason could coexist so peacefully with the few rational thoughts I had and make total sense to me, will alas, forever remain a mystery. But it made sense then.
Anyway, this is sort of a random trip down memory lane, but one I enjoyed embarking upon this afternoon. I think I miss the fact that I don't pretend anymore. I had sort of forgotten about it, but in the same way certain smells, or special songs, bring the past screaming into the present, I can suddenly recall with such clarity how much FUN it was. Now days I am pretty stoked to stay home and do laundry when it's raining, but when I was little I had real adventures. In fact, now that I think about it, they were probably the greatest adventures of my life.
Hmmm....OK, here's what I'm gonna do. I am going to spend the rest of the afternoon pretending that I am folding laundry on my houseboat....NO! wait....my yacht. Yesss...My sweet yacht that has a fireplace! And I am going to imagine the rain turning into a flood and my little apartment floating away on some adventure, maybe to the Amazon, with me safe and warm inside. It can't be that hard to do, after all I did it when I was 7 right?
Well, I've got to go. It's time to raise the planks (whatever that means) and cast off. Wish me luck!

Mean Chinese Moms...A Good Idea?

I read an article on the Wall Street Journal Online this morning by a Chinese American woman Amy Chua, entitled Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior. She asks why it is that Chinese children are generally smarter and more skilled than "Western" raised children. And then she goes on to say she knows the answer, because she has personally done it.
Chua is of the opinion that Western (American) parents place to much emphasis on their children's self esteem, feelings, desires and emotional state. Chinese mothers, she claims do not. For example she never let her two daughters attend a sleep over, watch TV or play computer games, have a play date, choose their own extracurricular activities, receive any grade less than an A, not be number 1 in their class, or not play the violin or piano. For the latter two if the girls failed she would drill them for hours and when the finally revolted against her she would revert to tactics of name calling and humiliation, and threaten them with anything she could think of to keep them to keep working. She admits to calling her daughter "trash." She admits she makes them practice for up to three hours a day!
This seems cruel to me at first glance, and I would wager that most of us reading the article would feel the same way. What kind of emotional damage would a kid suffer as an adult after a childhood of incessant pushing and degrading name calling? How would a child develop if he thought his parents didn't love him? Those poor kids could wind up being the next psycho bomber or something.
But Chua argues quite the opposite. She claims her actions show real love for her daughters while Western parents coddle their children right into a disadvantaged life.
She says she pushes her girls because she knows they are smart enough to accomplish anything, and through her pushing they are able to learn that about themselves. She says the fact that Western parents don't push their children or force them to excel, subliminally translates to their kids that mom and dad don't really think they are smart enough to accomplish anything.
She also says things become fun once you are good at them. And to become good you need to practice...a lot. I think her basic argument is that math homework isn't fun, but getting 100% on your algebra exam is. Or learning a foreign language isn't fun, but speaking it fluently is. She says she pushes her daughters through the tough part until whatever they are doing becomes fun and easy for them. And then they enjoy it.
That got me thinking. Not that I would revert to name calling, but maybe she has a point. Kids never want to do anything "good for them". But how many of us as adults would have benefited from being number one in our class, or accomplishing everything we'd ever set before ourselves? I don't mean to criticize my or anyone else's upbringing, but a lot of what she claims to be teaching her daughters (not how) actually seems like good stuff to have as an adult.
So if the result is good, but the method is bad, the question then becomes, how do you get a kid to practice the violin for 3 hour a day, or get straight A's without threatening them? Because that's what it takes to be the best. How many 5 year old's would rather do homework than go to a sleep over? How many teenage boys or girls would rather practice the violin for 3 hours instead of go to the mall and hang out with friends? Not many. And what do kids know anyway? They are kids!
I don't know what to think. I can see both sides. You want your offspring to like you and think you're a "cool" parent, and you want them to be happy, but you also want to do whatever you can to make sure they have every advantage when they reach adulthood. And you know the skills that could make all the difference to them later are not the things they want to do as children.
So here is the question:

(Putting the humiliation tactics aside) Is it better for your child if you are a strict parent or a more compassionate one?

What do you think?

A High 5 For Sagan

I recently read Brocca's Brain by Carl Sagan. I have also been watching (on the internet) the 1980's series Cosmos that featured Sagan as narrator. What can I say? It's been a bit of a Sagan-fest for me lately. And its AWESOME! Not only was he an ambassador of scientific and critical thinking, but he also wore the most incredible outfits! After two episodes of Cosmos I guarantee you will be asking yourself why you don't wear more turtle neck shirts, and why you don't own a tan sports coat! It's epic. I literally love every ensemble he donned for the entire series. I was joking with my little brother that if I dress up for Halloween this coming year I am torn between whether I want to be Carl or Aaron Rodgers. Anyway....
The thing I have come to realize about Sagan, the thing that sets him apart to me (besides his maroon turtle neck and white shoe combo) is his ability to express himself, not only aptly, but poetically, and I'd argue exquisitely. He is able to not only convey facts and reality, but also a well placed sense of incredulity and awe at our own existence. Through his choice of words, Carl Sagan makes this world, the regular one you and I currently reside in, seem as magical as the factitious (and totally rad) one in Lord of the Rings.  Much of what he says I've read  about elsewhere but when he voices it, the information undergoes a metamorphosis inside my brain, and my body reacts to the chemical stimuli and I get goosebumps. If I really believed I had a "soul" I'd say he was speaking to it directly.
It seems to me (from my experience) that sometimes scientists (i.e. myself) get so caught up in the "nuts and bolts" of their given study they loose a bit of the amazing-ness of whatever their chosen field is. I think Sagan had the unique (and envious) ability to understand the small things without ever loosing sight of the bigger picture. And more importantly for you and I, he had the ability to express it to those of us who either aren't scientifically inclined, or are too analytical to remember that we are still human beings.
Many people believe in a deity, and I tried to as well way back when. I didn't get very far with that personally, but in a way I understand why so many people have been drawn to it. It's hard to turn away from the incredible notion that you were created specifically by God (or whomever). But you read/ listen to Sagan and holy sh*t! He reminds you that while it's unlikely that God exists, your life is still pretty freaking awesome because every atom in your body used to reside in a star, a sun, another world a maybe a billion, trillion miles away from where you are sitting right now. Maybe there is no God, but the elements that make up you, your brain, or your eyeballs reading this right now were at one time particles exploding off the surface of suns, in all corners of the universe, and finally (and randomly) they settled here on Earth. All the parts of you ( before they were you) were expelled to interstellar space and floated slowly through the void of space for millions, of years. And then through the myriad of evolutionary experiments and much biological recycling here on earth, here we are. Can this story, one of stellar birth, really be any less awe inspiring than one that begins in the mind of God? I don't think so. And that's why I love Carl Sagan and his blazer.

Consile This

I just started reading Consilience by Edward O. Wilson, And when I say "just started" I mean I am 10 pages in. The basic idea, from what I've gathered in the pages I have read so far, is that the author believes eventually science will merge with social science and everything will be explained and made clear through a singular set of laws. Philosophy will cease to exist, because every aspect of human endeavor will play by the universal rules, and so become understandable, testable, and predictable. At the moment I haven't the slightest idea of how this might happen, but it appears by the length of his book that Wilson has come up with a solution. I was going to read more, but I suddenly felt more like writing and thinking. (Not that reading doesn't require thinking, but I mean pondering/thinking not analysing/thinking.)

I have been toying around with a similar idea (or maybe the same one?), although I never gave it a name, whereby every human action and decision no matter how ridiculous or surprising might be understood in a fundamental way if viewed through the active mechanism of evolutionary progress. It is the idea that no matter what we do, no matter how badly we want to be in control of who we are, at the heart of every action that we are capable of performing we will always find that we are doing what 3.5 million years of evolution is telling us to do. From that point of view, psychology would not be the study of why humans act and feel the way we do. We would already know that. The study would focus rather on figuring out how our actions and feelings are satisfying our (to borrow a phrase from Star Trek) prime directive of evolving.
Even the actions of the insane and mentally ill could be "understood" because if there is some physical ailment that interferes with their ability to function then it stands to reason that their judgement and decisions would be faulty because of it (and not a their own fault). But what would that do to our legal/justice system?

The question becomes if everyone always does what nature intended, then is everything hopeless? If everyone since the dawn of consciousness (and before it for that matter) is doing what evolution wants them to do, then you could argue that the reason we have not achieved things like world peace is because we were never meant to. That's as good an example as any. At first glance killing each other appears counter-evolutionary, but maybe there is a reason we have been fighting each other for centuries. One might argue that it has been our primary means of population control. Our instinct to take over what others have instead of live peacefully side by side could be interpreted to be a result of the fact that evolution has shown that in the long run it is more beneficial to have your neighbor dead than living next door with his 50 offspring and a dwindling supply of land and food.
A dog can learn to open a car door, but it can't speak English. A dog is limited by what it is. Maybe we are limited in the same way? We might learn some cool tricks and have some nifty ideas, but maybe we lack the ability to change the world we live in literally because we are human. I don't know, does that sound depressing? Who cares if it's depressing, what if it's true? Science and philosophy, thought and instinct all rolled into one smooth reality.

Like I said, I haven't read the book yet, so hopefully whatever Wilson has to say on the subject is encouraging and not defeatist. I am already confused! Any thoughts?

A Cowboy America

I know I just wrote about the rodeo, but there was one other point I wanted to make about my experience but I didn't want it to interfere or compete with what I was trying to say in my previous post. And a comment left by my cousin actually hit upon it. She mentioned that the pro-rodeo people say the rodeo promotes "American" values and I encountered similar claims on the websites I visited, and at the rodeo itself.

However, besides the calf roping the thing that actually offended me the most was the (pardon my language) douchbag (is that one word or 2?) rodeo announcer. If he is what is meant by "American" values then I am moving to Canada. He was the most ignorant, sexist, nonsensical man and I could barely believe he was allowed to speak, much less into a microphone over a loud speaker. And boy could that man talk. It's like they say "he who has the least to say always ends up talking the longest". I can't even list all of the stupid things that man said because there are too many.

But he covered all the basic points: religion, politics, sex and culture. He made a point of proclaiming that "his" Savior was Jesus Christ and told us if we don't get saved we are going to hell which brought him to his next point, his support of the war and our troops over seas (he then led a prayer for our brothers among the those that God abandoned). A while later he informed us of a woman's "proper" place (Oh yes, and I am being totally serious!). Somewhere in there he spoke of getting back to our "roots", and a simpler, American way of life, and how technology, development and industry is "ruining our great country". He made ridiculous claims like cattle ranching  is crucial to preserving the natural California environment, but criticized environmental groups that were apparently doing studies on waterborne illness from ranches and the effects on indigenous life. He spoke about family values and giving our children opportunity for a good life and in the next breath made racist comments about the Mexicans who come here and work for almost nothing to support their families. He had very strong words to say about dishonest "people" (which I can only assume includes all foreigners) trying to come into our country and take away "honest" American jobs.
I was like WTF? Is this guy for real? And no one else seemed to notice (except my boyfriend because he knows how pissed off I get about all that kind of stuff). They were all cheering and whistling and hollering. (Most of you probably have not seen the movie Borat, but there is a scene in it where he goes to the rodeo, and at the time I thought it was kind of staged, but I don't think that any more.)
It's outrageous to me that people really think a homogeneous culture, religious intolerance and going back to the days of outhouses and wiping our asses with leaves is what constitutes American values! Are we even talking about the same country? Because that's not the American I know and love. Seriously! I felt like I has stepped back in time.It was absolutely shocking.
I get why some people love the idea of a "cowboy" lifestyle; simple, hard working, lots of dirt and horse apples, and sleeping out under the stars. Except for the poop, that idea appeals to me too sometimes. But that doesn't mean that I believe my place is in the kitchen, or at the mall or "at a husbands side". Or that I am OK to give up the internet, or check the weather on my phone, or get medical attention at a state-of-the-art hospital when I need it.  And it certainly does not mean I think anyone who believes different than me or speaks another language should be banished from the country. In fact I consider that last idea specifically anti-American.
I don't want to lump all cow-people together and say that they all think like that announcer did because that would be stereotyping, and very unscientific of me. But if I was asked to form a hypothesis I will say that based on the fact that no one else at the rodeo seemed outraged by the man's idiotic comments there is a good chance that the majority of rodeo-folk agree with his...arcane philosophy. And that, to me, is an incredible thing to consider.

A Question of Ethics II : Rodeos

A couple weeks ago I heard the rodeo was coming to town. For those of you who know me, bull riding (and I can say this from personal experience) is not really my thing. But my Significant Other grew up with livestock and roping and whatnot so I thought it would be a fun "date". Friday night we headed up to the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

When we got to the entrance of the arena there were tons of people wearing sandwich boards plastered with horrible and graphic pictures of cows and horses being strangled and contorted into positions nature never intended, all at the hands of competing cowboys. They were animal activists obviously, and that got me thinking as we walked in, bought our tickets and found our seats.

Are rodeos really a form of animal abuse?

At first it seems like maybe the activists are right. The "bucking" horses and cows...I mean bulls have a belt strapped around their..hips. And that's what makes them jump. And the calf roping has got to be my least favorite thing I saw with the cowboys lasso-ing and dragging the poor little guys to the ground and tying their feet up. I was like WTF? Why would anyone want to watch cowboys half strangle and tie up an innocent baby cow?
So I went to a bunch of people-against-the-rodeo sites (yes! right when I was there because I have an iPhone and I can do things like that) where they talked about the bucking belts pinching the genitals of the animals causing excruciating pain, and calves having their necks snapped during the roping competitions. I read about horses being stabbed by knife sharp spurs, and lots of other horrible things.

 Since I was still at the arena I tried to pay closer attention to what was going on. The first thing I noticed was the the referee-cowboys immediately unhooked the bucking belts from the horses and bulls after the rider fell off. They didn't leave them on the animals longer than was absolutely necessary for the competition. I had the chance to observe the belts close up (well, about 10 feet away) and noted that they didn't have any sharp parts on them (some sites claimed they were like the spiky choke collars for dogs) and that they were lined with what looked like wool, and that at least on the animals I saw, when in place came nowhere near their private parts. That was inconsistent with what I had just read online. Also I witnessed the cowboys kicking (or whatever you call it when they push the back of their boots into either side of the animal) and the spurs just bounced off the sides of the animals, never once cutting into their skin. That was also inconsistent with what the rodeo-as-animal-abuse people had said.
We had a chance to walk around and see a lot of the animals in their stalls during half-time (or intermission or whatever it's called). They looked pretty content to be honest. Most of the horses had on jackets and were brushed and had lots of food and water. The cows we saw looked healthy, no lacerations or raw spots of skin. They were sometimes kept in narrower stalls, but that was because in the close quarters of the arena apparently they get into fights with each other, and it was safer for them to be separated. The owners of the animals were mostly on hand and were very friendly. They let us pet them, but were also very concerned for their horse/cows comfort and asked people not speak to loudly, feed them random things or otherwise frighten them. I thought it was kind of odd to think that they would hurt their animal to get it to jump in the arena, but then ask that I not use a flash on my camera because it might scare them. From what I saw they all looked like responsible "pet" owners who cared for their animals.
We went back in to the arena and I looked up some pro-rodeo websites to see what they had to say. They claimed that the animals don't really mind the roping/riding. They said that rodeo animals actually live longer than most livestock (especially the cows who usually end up as hamburger in about 2-3 years). They said that the skin of horses and cows is much thicker than ours (duh) and that they don't feel the pain of spurs or belts the way we imagine they would. They said the animals are treated humanely and that the animal abuse people don't know what they are talking about. I thought about that, and I have to say I was kind of leaning that way...and then the (I have no idea what it's really called) little bull wrestling and calf roping started. And it was awful. I don't know why but ever fiber in my body was shouting what they were doing was wrong. The wrestling was accomplished by a little bull running out between two cowboys on horseback, one of which jumps off his horse, grabs the bull by the horns and then whips him around and tries to pin him on the ground. I thought for sure the cowboys would snap the bulls neck with how fast and hard they were twisting. It was gross. And let me tell you the little bulls did not want to lay down. I could be anthropomorphising (um I might have spelled that wrong) but they looked pretty terrified sandwiched in between to giant horses and ran like hell out of the chute.
Calf roping is similar in that the cowboy (on horseback) and calf run out together. Then the cowboy lassos the calf around the neck, shoves him/her to the ground and then ties up their feet. The calf's didn't like it one bit, and they made the saddest little noise, not a moo, but more like the baaa of a sheep as they were pinned down and tied up. Just thinking about it upsets me.
So who is right the activists or the cowboys/girls? I'll tell you I saw a little bit of both sides and I can't decide what I think. Some of the animals didn't seem too put out by the whole thing, and in fact they looked pretty pampered. But then some were obviously not pleased with being pummelled and tied. What do you think?

A Question of Ethics

I have been a little apprehensive about writing this blog because I feel like I might be taken the wrong way. But at the same time I think it's an interesting enough question to throw out there and see what people think. So here I go.

Would it be ethically wrong to throw all our trash and nuclear waste into space?

I think it would solve a lot of problems such as pollution of water sources, the lack of space for landfills in urban areas, and the question of what to do with radioactive material. When I see photos of rivers in India and China choked with plastic bags and Styrofoam and little kids bathing in it it's just horrible. I feel bad for the people (even though it's their own fault) and for the flora and fauna that are obviously being devastated. Launching it out into the cosmos seems like a fine method to get it out of the way. But I have a hard time evaluating the impact all the trash on the planet would have on our solar system, or even if it would. I mean space is HUGE! The probability of us (or anyone else for that matter) accidentally running into a previously tossed bundle of trash has got to be really small. And the odds of finding again previously discarded interplanetary trash (without the use of GPS or calculations) seems like it would be impossible. I t just doesn't seem like the maximum amount of refuse we could produce here on earth for the next 500 or 1,000 years would "put a dent in space" so to speak. But maybe it would? And who knows maybe in the distant future some alien race would find one of our trash heaps floating past Proxima Centauri and come looking for us. Our bundles of plastic bottles and uranium could be like calling cards floating through the universe saying "Hey! We're here! And we're slobs!" It seems like such a good idea except for the fact it just sounds wrong doesn't it?

I get a nagging feeling that there is something wrong with the idea, like I'm saying "lets dump it in the ocean. No one will notice." (Except that space is MUCH bigger). I start thinking tossing our garbage into the cosmos is an "easy" way out of our problems, and that it's unethical somehow. Why bring re-usable bags to the store when plastic ones are easier and you can just send them off to Jupiter when you are done with them? It seems cruel. I mean what did space ever do to us? We made a mess of the earth, and now instead of taking responsibility for our mistakes we decide to make a mess of the entire solar system? (Again, if that's even possible.) Would it be less bad if we launched everything into the sun instead of just into empty space? Maybe it would give the sun extra fuel to burn longer. (OK I realize that was completely ridiculous, all of the garbage on the planet wouldn't do a darn thing to the Sun, but that's kind of my point...)

On top of that I wonder is throwing garbage into interstellar space more wrong than burying it beneath the ground? And if so, why? Every year the population is growing, and every year so is our waste production. Recycling and reusing are great, but the largest increases in populations occur where these methods are impractical and too expensive. You could argue that transporting all our trash into space would be equally as costly, and you may be right. I have no idea. But if it wasn't too expensive, do you think ethically, it would be OK to do it?
Tell me what you think!!!

Questions Concerning Life

Do you ever find yourself stuck on a question you keep asking yourself, but can't ever find an answer to? That happens to me a lot. One that has been bugging me on and off for years is the idea of "living each day like it is your last". This has always made sense to me. I feel strongly that not a moment of our lives should be wasted, and if we want to do something we should just do it. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't work. It only works if it actually is your last day to live. If you have another several thousand days ahead of you, the idea falls apart. If I had one day to live, I would sure as hell not spend it sitting here at work writing this blog. But if I up and leave and do what I really want to without worrying about tomorrow then I might find myself next month or next year living in a cardboard box. So should I stay and work (when I'd rather be taking my trip to New England), or do I go, and loose my job? I think about what is important to me. And you know what? Work, and paying bills are not on the top of that list. But I still have to do them right?
Is it possible to live a normal length life the way you would if you knew you were about to die? I don't think so, but I just feel like it should be possible. I want every moment and every thought, and everything to matter, because (at least I believe) this is my one shot at it all. But I find that when I think that way, my life becomes very frustrating to me. The saying is "carpe diem, seize the day!" But can you really do that if you have to worry about tomorrow too?