An Open Letter To PETA

Dear PETA,
You people are monsters and you need to stop. You talk about the ethical treatment of animals, something that I believe should be something that people actually talk about, but then you kill 88.3% of the animals you take in. 88.3%! You could have left the animals on the street and they would have had a better chance to survive. You are monsters just on that point alone, especially after you protest against shelters for committing euthanasia. What makes you even worse? You hired a lobbyist to stop Virginia state from restricting euthanasia of animals. This is something I thought you guys would appreciate: something that would stop people from killing animals. But noooooo, you hire one of the most notorious lobbyists in history to make sure you can still kill animals at your whim.

The Virgina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services filed a report in 2010 that investigated their shelters and found that 90% of the euthanized animals were killed within 24 hours of their arrival at the shelter. You didn't even try to adopt out those animals, did you?

As I said in the first paragraph, I am a believer that treating animals in a humane way is important. I disagree about a few of your other policies and beliefs (specifically about why being vegan is better) but the main view you have, I share.

Most of our meat industry is bad for animals in terms of living conditions. We are in a time in which technological advancement is moving so quickly, you would be vastly better served to help fund technology that replaces animal products or reduces the cruelty of conditions. You are a huge organization, spend some of that money you spend making video games that shame imaginary violence against animals on researching how to make technology not hurt animals. I think that animal testing is kinda fucked up, but its also how we create vaccines and treatments for stuff like AIDS so instead of just protesting, help develop technology for testing without using live subjects. And on the side of animal adoptions, I think that there should be someplace that treats animals well and actually tries to adopt them.

Oh wait, there totally is. The Humane Society doesn't kill any animals, and their rates of adoption are amazing, at least here in Seattle, you have to check individual sites for numbers of adoptions and I didn't feel like looking through all of them. The humane society trumps you completely. You claim on your website that no kill shelters don't accept animals with diseases and massive injuries, but I couldn't find anything like that on the Humane societies website, even though they are a no kill shelter.

So here is my idea for you PETA. Stop killing animals. Start creating new technology. You want to cause change? Create an alternative. Don't just say there should be one and then moralize about how the things you do aren't fucking evil because its you doing them. Instead of making Billboards that show Pink naked, use the money you would have given her to do actual good for the beautiful plethora of life on this planet.

Sincerely,
Brian

Carl Sagan Is My Spirit Animal

I don't believe in a specific god or a specific pantheon of gods/goddesses/spirits or whatever. I have made this clear in the past. But I am also definitely not an atheist in the more modern sense of the term. I call myself an atheist when people ask what I believe only when I don't feel like describing what I am.

Apathetic agnostic would be the least offensive term to describe me. I don't know if any form of divinity definitely exists, but I am not opposed to the idea. I don't think that anyone has gotten it right yet, and really, I don't care. We don't have a way of proving the subject either way, so I propose we table the subject in any discussion of broad spectrum legislation/debate and instead focus on what we can do. Explore the world.

Every time I call myself an agnostic people will have basically one or both of these responses: contempt because I can't/won't pick a side and/or they will try to convert me to their cause. This pisses me off, because it makes the assumption that I have not thought about it. "If you had thought about it, you would come to a decision" I hear some of them say. This is bullshit. There is no definitive proof in support of either side so picking one seems irresponsible at best to me.

To that end, as I mentioned above, instead of wasting our time trying to arguing about it/legislate it/eliminate religion, lets just explore the universe as is. Its amazing, and the more we explore it the more we understand about it and the more questions pop up.


"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

Carl Sagan

SPAAAAAAAAACEEEEEE! I'mma Go To Space.

Brian and I have expressed our general approval of scientific progress on several occasions around these parts. One of our biggest interests along those lines is space travel. The exploration of planets outside our own, the possible revelations waiting for us in the Deep Black, its the stuff nerd boners are made of. I think most people are probably on board with us on this, space is exciting, I mean seriously, kids wanting to grow up to be astronauts is cliche` common. So why aren't we out there? Why has the biggest intellectual resource for space exploration been whittled down to a bunch of politicians grumbling at each other?

The most common excuse I've seen sited in regards to why we shouldn't bother, you know, exploring the universe, is that it isn't a worthwhile expense. There are no words to express how absolutely, fundamentally fucking wrong that is, nor am I possessed of the patience to describe how many levels this argument fucks up on. Of course, that's never stopped me from trying before and its certainly not going to stop me here.

Point 1: Ugh, Fuck You. We live in a world where economic worth is entirely the product of (usually enforced) scarcity and perceived advantage. If the powers that be wanted the money made available it would be.

Point 2: You know what? Fuck you some more. Even if we're buying into the "market factors" bullshit as a stumbling block to scientific progress, that progress is its own reward. There is no such thing as a "worthless" scientific discovery. Even the weird penis ratio studies that we keep throwing money at (but exploring the infinite bounty of space is just not worth it) tell us things about the human body, psychology, how hormones do and don't effect development. These studies are functionally one step below naval gazing but they still inform us of new things, confirm or deny old things, and lead us to further inquiry. Failure to recognize the value of scientific progress to the level that denies space exploration represents a complete failure as a modern human.

Point 3: Na uh! Lets talk about the fact of extra terrestrial life. Its out there. See the period? There is no room for argument on that subject. I'm not saying that little grey men abduct red necks for sodomy experiments. I am saying that the universe is unimaginably vast, assuming that we are unique in that universe represents a degree of hubris that ought to be terminal. Absolutely any contact with extraterrestrial life would explode the limits of modern science, open up entire new fields of inquiry on every front, and give us opportunities we can't even fully conceive of. Even if that life develops exactly as we have, that says so very much about how reality works its staggering.

Point 4: Bite Me. Let's give the nay sayers as much charity as I can bare. If the questions to be answered mean nothing. If the progress to be made is meaningless. If science for science sake is of no value to their tiny, malformed brains. Even if all of that is true, space is just fucking full of resources. There are compounds found in asteroids that can't be found anywhere on earth. There are exoplanets that rain fucking diamond, carbon arrangements that can't occur naturally on our planet. Asteroids litter our solar system just fucking lousy with raw material begging to be mined. From an economic perspective even the colossal expenditures involved in space flight can just be passed onto consumers as our fears of finite resources fade ever farther away. sure it means we can't be gutted as badly for the resources themselves, but the cost of acquisition would more than cover it if they're really insistent about being an avaricious cuntbag about it.

So next time you read a newsfeed about some senator or wrong-heaed media mouthpiece bitching about how much NASA is costing us and how worthless space programs are, take a minute to write them. Tell them what an ignorant, shortsighted shit-licker they are. I suppose you could be more politic about it than that, but I don't see the point in mincing words with the enemy.

Its Not Stupid, Its Advanced.

I talked about transhumanism a while back with regard to some of the common issues/misconceptions about the community. One of these issues involves the fact that some people will not want to be synthetically (or biologically) improved, resulting in a class system where the unmodified are the natural second class citizens. I touched on this issue in my last post and intentionally limited myself to discussing the lack of malice towards the unmodified. This is not that post.

I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.

Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.

When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.

YKWFA: The Least Violent Way to a Man's Heart.

Not long enough ago and not far enough away my wife and I lived with her mother. Now I love my wife spectacularly. Seriously, its crazy. But she and I agree that her mother is a vile, shit-souled, solipsistic, thunder-cunt. I know, I know, this is supposed to be about something fucking awesome, not the subhuman bilge waste that spawned my lovely wife; but it follows, I promise. When she wasn't manipulating my wife or insulting me she was a terrible food snob, not in that she was overly fussy about what she ate (though she did insist that her cats ate organic gourmet lobster cat food), but in that she was bad at being a food snob. So bad in fact that it inspired me.

I once heard this woman utter the phrase "Oh, I don't really care, food is really just fuel." on the 45 minute drive to the organic farmer she bought milk and eggs from. That stopped me pretty much dead. Her hypocrisy boggled my mind, but more than that I was inspired by how wrong she was. I'm a tubby fucker, so I've always had a complex relationship to food (that link rambles a bit and is a bit nsfw but I love Ed Byrne and he makes my point well... eventually). She pushed me over the edge. After that point I loved food, no question, no hesitation. Food is fucking awesome. See, I told you we'd get there.

First, let me say, "food is fuel" is an accurate statement; "food is just fuel" is super fucking not. Food is a massively complex amalgamation of social/cultural/ethnic/religious standards and compromises layered over geological/climatic/biological limitations wrapped in what is both one of the most complex, and the most accessible, sciences and sprinkled liberally with the ecstatic neuro-biological phenomenon of flavor.

Anthropologically, food is almost frighteningly important. The production of food stuffs, the security of food resources, the social systems that arise surrounding going from seed to stomach are all fascinating, interdependent structures that are incredibly enlightening. Not to mention the wondrous cultural gestalt that happens when people from different food-cultures share food with each other. Food can tell us about people, describe ancient environments and technologies, and lubricate peace between cultures. It also has an anthropological "dark side". If you don't believe me go to Philadelphia and mention cheesesteak, hell just saying the word "baklava" in certain company can start fights.

Beyond anthropology there are advanced and novel chemical processes involved in cooking at every juncture. The process of turning light and dirt into energy and passing that energy up the food chain, the way different additions and catalysts (some in terribly minute quantities) can change the flavor, content and structure of a dish, down to the way the body processes different nutrients in different preparations.  Have no desire to hunt links for every other word in this post, though I could, so here's a starter link, study up. Also, food is mighty tasty.

I could go on about this for days, the science and culture of food is one of the most beautiful, nuanced aspects of day to day life. Whether or not people think about it, what and how we eat plays a massive role in our lives top to bottom. If you take anything away from this post, let it be this; my mother-in-law is a cunt, and food is fucking amazing.

Same as it Ever Was

For the past couple of years 3D printing has been getting a lot of attention in the media so naturally there's a lot of false information being propagated. I don't want to talk about that today, but I do think that its important to know about so here are a couple of links. Now, while a lot of those burst the bubble as to what 3D printing is currently, do not be discouraged. The best minds of our generation are working on making it even better, but for now I want to talk about one consequence of 3D printing that has come up often in forums talking about 3D printing that I have seen.

I was perusing Kotaku the other day and they had a post on a person who was 3D printing weapons from a video game. This was cool, if slightly unimpressive to me when compared to people like the Man At Arms crew who make functional, full size, versions of all kinds of replica weapons instead of small plastic replicas. After I was finished ogling the pretties I decided to read the comments. There was a poster who talked about 3D printing as being the bane of all creative people. After all, its just printed out rather than hand made. To the poster, and a few of the the people who agreed with them, it meant that people will be devaluing their work by producing something cheaper with less work, instead of figuring out how to do something yourself. This argument is something I kind of hate, because people have been making it for centuries. There are two main problems that I have with it.

One, just because something is made easier doesn't make it better. Sure, more people will buy the cheaper version, but that's mainly because they don't care about quality, just something cheap and easy. You shouldn't want these people to buy your product, because they will not respect it. Let me give you an example. Ikea. They sell cheap, easy to assemble, furniture. You buy it because you don't care if it only lasts for 2-3 years, its cheap. Lets say a table is $100. Now, you go to a carpenter and order a table, or even an antique store and buy a nice old mahogany table. The ordered table or antique table are going to be way more expensive, but the quality is vastly superior, resulting in not just a more pleasing furnishing but a more durable one as well. This is why there are still tables around from 100 years ago. No Ikea table today will be around that long ever. If people care about quality they won't buy the mass produced shit, and if I was the carpenter who made the table, I sure as hell wouldn't want my table to go to anyone who didn't respect the work that went into it. The same goes for food. I doubt that major chains like McDonald's have any lasting impact on quality restaurants. They might have had to increase prices to make up for lost sales, but people tend to be willing to pay more for quality.

The second problem I have with this complaint is that it has been made about nearly every advancement in production ever. Someone shows up with a more efficient ways to do things and people say that it will kill jobs. Companies pick it up anyway because its cheaper for them (after all, making money is a company's only real concern), and people may lose jobs, which sucks. It's worth noting, however, that the result of this process (often referred to as "progress") is a net improvement in overall quality of life. I hate this because I can't really think of a solution to that problem other than retraining for something else, which some people won't want to do, but that's another post.

People panic when they face change. Sure it will have some negative effects in manufacturing, but think of the benefits it produces (or will be able to in the near future). Artificial organic prosthetics, more engineering jobs, and tea, earl grey, hot. Its a cost benefit analysis, and very rarely is progress ever on the negative side alone.

People are worried that things will change for them, and it will, but that is not always a bad thing. I have talked a lot about change in my past posts and its the same thing here. People who resist change will either be swept along while change happens anyway or just accept it and adapt. The further technology advances the need for "standard" jobs falls apart, and by being afraid of that and calling for a halt on progress instead of just adapting as we go along, you just drag everyone down and that's fucking cowardly.

Psychic convention cancled due to unforseen circumstances

I hate charlatans. Specifically the ones who claim to have some sort of supernatural power, talking to the dead or reading minds. These people are the worst. At best they bilk people out of a few dollars at a carnival, at worst they defraud bereaved people in the most ham fisted way possible.

They make shit tons of money doing it too. Ed and Lorraine Warren, famous for the parts the played in the supposed real life events depicted in the movies "Amittyville Horror" and "The Conjuring". "The Conjuring" made $318 million from a $20 million budget, making it one of the highest grossing horror films of all time. This couple was also accused by two of the children from the Amittyvile Horror case of telling the Amittyvile family that they would become millionaires when the film rights sold if they helped play up the demon possession angle (also investigators found multiple holes in the case).

John Edward charges $150 a ticket for the cheap seats and up to $850 for a private reading. When I checked his website most of his shows for the next few months are sold out. He was caught using "hot reading", which uses knowledge gained prior to the official reading and passes it off as gained from another method, during a dateline NBC interview. Basically he defrauds grieving people looking for closure for personal gain, which has earned him the title the biggest douche in the universe.

Uri Geller was a psychic in the 70s that used spoon bending as "proof" of his power. He has published several books most of which have sold a decent amount of copies. This became a wildly popular phenomenon that is considered by many to be proof of psychic powers. The problem is that his spoon bending has been recreated by stage magicians, and thus might just be a fraud. When he went on the British TV show "Noel's House Party" he was seen to have bent the spoon with his hands at two times. But then again, he never said he didn't use his hands.

These charlatans prey upon the weaknesses of others to make a quick buck but also cause another problem. What if there are actually psychics out there? I don't think that there are, but what if. These frauds make that person less likely to "come out" as it where because they might be called crazy or a fraud just on the face of it. This is especially true when it comes to how we test for ESP or other poorly understood/ "paranormal" phenomena. A recent study at Harvard showed that there is no evidence of anything out of the ordinary when using neuroimaging on subjects taking tests to see if they have any ESP ability. This test seems good but it bases itself on the assumption that ESP is a brain based effect, but to be fair that is a very logical assumption. What if we don't have the tools yet to test this thoroughly enough to discount ESP as a possibility? What if ESP has nothing to do with the brain? What if the subjects have no ESP ability?

I am not saying that ESP exists. I don't tend to believe in paranormal stuff, but I think not investigating it fully (or at all because "they are all frauds" ) might be a misstep. I bring up the charlatan thing because while they are causing plenty of harm just on the surface they are also creating tons of evidence for people to just disregard the abnormal wholesale, and I think that this is short sighted. I don't think we have adequate tools yet to test the theory (I believe that the Harvard study takes us in the right direction on that front by the way despite my poking at it earlier). Basically, keep an open mind, just don't open your mind to much or your brain will fall out.

They See Me Trollin'

I understand that stupid people and assholes can be amusing to watch. The commentary on their behavior can provide us with hours of laughs when filtered through the right comedic source. But we need to stop it. I know, its a hell of a sacrifice but it's important.

One of the prime examples of why this is so critical is Donald Trump. I can't speak to his intelligence, but Trump is an epic level asshole. Not just an asshole, a Troll; even if he 100% believes all the horrid shit he says, part of why he says it is to get attention. And of course we give it to him, because its horrid, so everyone feels better. Either from denouncing him and taking a moral high ground or parroting him and enjoying the second hand attention and participation in a group. I am admittedly simplifying the social dynamics here but regardless of depth, nothing good comes from encouraging these people.

This is, however, another instance where if we want to do it right we need to clarify our language. A Troll is someone who starts unnecessary shit to get attention, they are reductive, insulting and actively incendiary. They are not people who disagree with the prevailing beliefs in a discussion. Its an important distinction to make, and its very fucking difficult to make it. People like to be right, more than almost anything else, so the urge to label people who disagree with you as trolls is pretty damn strong, but I believe in you or whatever. Be a grown up, further the discussion. If the people you're talking to aren't furthering the discussion either call them on it and try to move on or go talk to someone else. Either way, we need to stop validating shitty people.