Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, current affairs, personal

Non, Papa Francesco!

A few weeks ago, Pope Francis stated as his opinion that couples who choose not to have children were selfish.

A society with a greedy generation, that doesn’t want to surround itself with children, that considers them above all worrisome, a weight, a risk, is a depressed society. The choice to not have children is selfish. Life rejuvenates and acquires energy when it multiplies: It is enriched, not impoverished.
[Guardian; 11 February 2015]

No. Absolutely not. I cannot agree. In fact the opposite is true: couples who have children are the selfish ones.
Even leaving aside the cost of raising children, they are an environmental disaster. Right from the off parents have to provide nappies, where the choice is between two very un-green options: washable cotton terry towelling or disposables. Noreen looked at this from a professional standpoint and came to the conclusion there was little to choose, environmentally, between the options.
And from then on there is an ever increasing requirement for clothing, food, warmth, entertainment, schooling and all manner of other plastic toot. Very little of which is at all environmentally friendly.
Children are really not very green.
Which, I’m sorry to say, seems to mean that couples who have children do so essentially for their own gratification. What is that if it isn’t selfish? Especially on a planet which is already over-populated.
Noreen and I made a deliberate decision, some 30 years ago, not to have children. We were neither of us sure we wanted children and we both had (some approximation to) a career: me earning money and Noreen in a relatively poorly paid public service job giving back to the community.
In making the decision we committed to be there for our friends; their children; their grand-children; and even their parents. Why? Because at some time everyone is going to need some support.
However good a parent — and most parents do a fantastic job — they can never provide everything a child needs. There will always come a time when there will be something a child will not wish to discuss with their parents, but for which they might value unbiased support: boy/girl-friend problems; job worries; study concerns; money worries; having done something stupid and needing bailing out of the police station; or just needing a bed for the night. And adults can need these things too, of course.
Over the years we have been rung at 3AM by a friend wanting support because they’re in court the following day. We’ve helped friends through divorce. We’ve provided a contact point for the teenage daughters of American friends travelling alone through London. We’ve talked to teenagers about study options and going to university. We’ve connected parts of both our families back together. And so on …
How is this selfish?
OK, so from a biological point of view we aren’t propagating our genes. So what? Does it matter? If it doesn’t matter to us, then it matters not at all. And it is no-one else’s concern. But yes, we are lucky to have had the choice.
We’ve given up the option of passing on our genes and increasing the population in favour of helping other people who are already here, and most of whom are completely unrelated.
None of that sounds selfish to me — precisely the opposite.
So, no, Papa Francesco, on this you aren’t even wrong.

beliefs, nudism, ramblings

Social Nudity is a State of Mind

Social nudity (often called nudism or naturism) is poorly accepted by a large percentage of the people; something I explore on the On Nudity and Naturism page on my main website, as I have from time to time here.
This poor acceptance of social nudity seems to be because people do not understand social nudity, and curiously that seems to be a philosophical question; one that revolves around one’s mental imagery and state of mind. An interesting, but quite lengthy, article over at Naturist Philosopher looks at this question in detail.


It turns out that the problem is that most people do not have the right schema (mental context/image) to understand because they have no experience of social nudity on which to build this understanding. Their only experience of nudity is generally in a sexual context so this is the image they use to (mis)understand social nudity. And because social sex is (mostly) taboo everyone runs scared of social nudity — and indeed often private nudity within a contained, safe, family setting — thinking it can be nothing but sexual, and therefore “not nice”.
But social nudity isn’t sexual. Or at least no more (actually probably less) sexual than socialising clothed is. And we don’t generally worry about that!
However we aren’t going to change the popular misconceptions without giving people an alternative on which they can build a new schema. So we need some new paradigms and metaphors to explain social nudity to the uninitiated.
One such metaphor might be that clothes are like body armour: providing a barrier to protect me from the environment, the supposed ill-intentions of others and removing any vulnerability I might feel.
All social nudity is doing is removing the barrier — the packaging, if you like — between me and the environment, allowing me to feel the sun and the breeze on my skin and have the freedom I don’t have wearing clothes. And that’s actually fine because in general others don’t stare or make unwanted physical contact, and vulnerability is but a construct of my mind. This surely has to be goodness.
Social nudity is distinct from private nudity (as many of us indulge in at home) in that it emphasises the non-necessity or non-desirability of clothing in normal, everyday, non-sexual human relations. What the naturist movement has to do is to find ways of explaining this paradigm to people. And explaining it in such a way that it starts to give them some semblance of the experience they need to change their mental schema and become more accepting of social nudity.
Maybe, Naturist Philosopher suggests, the key is freedom. After all food free from pesticides is seen as goodness. So why shouldn’t a lifestyle incorporating freedom from clothes be equally desirable?

beliefs, ramblings, science

On Eating Animals

2 Comments

A week or two ago Virginia Hughes wrote a series of blog posts on personhood for National Geographic. One of them was about our relationship with our pets. In it she says:

When it comes to animals, my choices are full of contradictions and hypocrisies. I eat meat, wear leather, and endorse the use of animal models in medical research. On the other hand, I’m totally taken with the growing body of research demonstrating that non-human animals have cognitive skills once thought to be uniquely human. I believe animal cruelty is wrong and, as regular readers know all too well, I consider my dog part of the family.

Yes, in general I agree with this, although I’m not so happy about the use of animals in medical research. I can see that it is necessary to do some initial drug testing using animals and that behavioural studies could be useful, but these have to be well controlled and strictly necessary. Which is why research institutions have Ethics Committees. That doesn’t necessarily mean I like it. But we must not be using animals for testing things like cosmetics, household cleaners etc.
I fully admit that it is hypocritical of me to eat meat and wear leather when I expect others to rear, slaughter and butcher the animals for me. This is not a comfortable position.
I know that were I to have to procure my own meat then I would never eat beef, pork, lamb etc. again. I could despatch a fish. I could probably smack a bunny on the head, or top a chicken, but couldn’t deal with anything bigger. And I would have to be driven to even this by real, real hunger.
There are few, if any, things I can kill with a clear conscience. Even things I detest, like maggots, I still dislike killing. We gaily believe that these “lower animals” are not sentient. But are they? We have no way of knowing. And if some are, where is the line to be drawn between those that are and those that aren’t. As Virginia Hughes says, the more we learn about animals the more we realise is going on in their heads.
It is a perennial moral and philosophical dilemma.
While I wouldn’t go as far as some Hindu sects who won’t eat meat or eggs because they may be the reincarnation of an ancestor, I do feel that all living creatures deserve respect and have as much right to life as humans. If this is so, who can blame a tiger for killing and eating a man, when we will kill and eat a sheep, cow or pig?
Where I do draw the line is the gratuitous killing of animals, for example hunting or angling as a fun pastime. Hunting animals for food, done as humanely as possible, is one thing. Killing for the sake of it is, in my book, well out of order.
If we are going to eat meat then the least we can do is to try our best to ensure the animals have our respect in life (eg. good farming etc.) and a humane end. There is much to be said for the traditions in some ancient cultures of honouring the meat one is eating. Something which has been perpetuated in Christian circles as the saying of grace before meals. To this end we usually, at least at main meals, drink a toast to whatever noble beast we are eating.
Honour your enemies, for they too are humans beings. And similarly honour the animals you eat for they have given their lives to give you life.
Basically, respect all life. Indeed respect the whole of Nature.

beliefs, books

Book Review: There is No God …

Brad Warner
There is No God and He is Always with You: A Search for God in Odd Places
New World Library, 2013
Brad Warner is an American Sōtō** Zen master, and monk, who lives in the world. He has been practising and studying Zen since 1983 in America and Japan. This is his fifth book looking at various aspects of Zen, what it is and how it works for him in the world rather than in an enclosed monastery.
Zen does not require belief in a god, or gods, or an afterlife, or any of the trappings of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), Hinduism or many of the other Buddhist traditions. Warner’s assertion is that Buddhism, as a philosophy and way of life rather than a religion requiring faith, has no need of god(s); those “mainstream Buddhism” has have been bolted on over the centuries. In this sense the Zen schools are truer to the original way taught by Gautama Buddha.
And yet Warner says there is a god. Not the Santa Claus figure sitting on a white cloud of the Abrahamic religions; nor the pantheon of Hinduism. God is much more nebulous, not really there at all, certainly not an identifiable figure, and yet is everything and always. To me this seems an essentially pantheistic view, but one emanating from much deeper: from Warner’s enlightenment.
This book looks at a variety of aspects of this god; at what some of the Zen teachings say; and where Warner says they have hitherto been poorly interpreted. The book also looks at the ways and times Warner has encountered this god in the world. He also touches on the philosophical concepts of the meaning of life and the afterlife. Unsurprisingly there is a lot of Brad Warner in the book as he develops nearly all the 22 short chapters from a real worldly experience.
Warner has a light, readable style, which means you can read this book quickly and at a superficial level, as I admit I have mostly done. While the book is an easy read I didn’t find it as captivating as his previous books. That’s not to say it doesn’t make one stop and think from time to time, and I feel sure it would repay another, deeper, reading as Warner packs a lot into just under 200 pages.
If you’re interested in Buddhism, Zen or comparative religion this is worth a read. Who knows, it may even lead you to enlightenment.
Overall Rating: ★★★☆☆
** Forget about the tricks of Zen koans; these are the teaching methods of the Rinzai school of Zen. Sōtō Zen (founded by Dōgen in the 13th century) is more about using pure meditation to discover things for oneself.

beliefs, nudism

Thoughts on Nudity

I recently came across a couple of pieces by writer Nick Alimonos on his blog The Writer’s Disease. And given a number of things which have been happening recently they make some sense (although I don’t agree with everything he says).
These first two quotes are from the article Nudity is the Future from April 2013.
I recently had the fortune to read an article in Cracked, “The Five Craziest Ways Men Have Censored Female Sexuality” … what really stood out for me was how Islamist countries like Iran fight to repress human nature. Censors paste cartoon shirts on all of the female characters on the show Lost, because tank-tops are just too arousing. Even things we would never consider sexual, like a man and a woman sitting on a couch or the bulge of a woman’s blouse, is deemed unacceptable. Iranian censors will even blur a closeup of a woman’s face.  No matter how many things the Iranian government tries to omit from TV and movies, boys will find something to be aroused by, because sexual desire comes from within … Trying to repress this instinct is a lost cause. It’s plugging up a pressure cooker bound to explode. The irony is that, by making everything taboo, everything becomes a forbidden fruit. Essentially, Iranian censors are creating the sex crazed society they are trying so desperately to prevent … The battle against free information cannot be won, as history has proven again and again. The only recourse is acceptance, and acceptance is a good thing, because human nature is in the right. Honest, open, free information results in the good of any society. As nudists, we find nothing inherently sexual … so that the act of sex develops naturally, by getting to know a person as a person.
The Internet is changing more than Islamic society, however; it’s changing ours as well. The last irrational, moralistic taboo in America is that of public nudity. There is no difference between an Iranian woman being arrested for going out in the streets without her hair covered and an American woman being arrested for stepping out her front door without a top on. Nobody can give a rational explanation for anti-nudity laws. The government uses, instead, abstract terminology like “disturbing the peace” or “public indecency”. Without realizing it, we criminalize nudity on strictly moral grounds, based on ancient and outdated religious biases that have no place in a modern society.


And these three are from a piece on Alimonos’s philosophy of Naturism.
As Americans, we live in an insane world, where you can legally carry and conceal a gun, but risk imprisonment should anyone see your genitals.
I reject the notion that men and women cannot live in sight of one another without clothes. I reject the belief that bodies are inherently sexual and must be hidden from view. And I know, with certainty, that nudity is not harmful to children — in fact, quite the opposite is true — shaming our kids, making them believe that their bodies are sinful, harms their self-esteem and their sense of identity.
For tens of thousands, if not more than a hundred thousand years, mankind was oblivious to nakedness. After the Ice Age, we adopted textiles to retain heat, but at some point in our history, an invention of necessity became a global neurosis, a hatred for our own bodies.
It seems to me that there is a large amount of common sense there even if some of Alimonos’s views (not really represented here) do support the patriarchy more than one might like.

beliefs, links, medical, natural history, nudism, science

Your Interesting Links

More interesting items you may have missed. Lots of science and medicine curiosities in this edition, but its should all be accessible to the non-scientist.
Who thinks mathematics is boring? You won’t when you see the beauty of mathematics in pictures! I’m definitely worried about image four.


Chemicals have a bad name. Wrongly! Manmade or natural, tasty or toxic, they’re all chemicals.
Shifting to the zoo-world, here’s a piece on the curious and improbable tale of flatfish evolution.
Beaver! No not that sort! Honestly your minds! I’m talking about the beavers that have been reintroduced to Scotland, and which are doing well.
Concrete jungle. Yes, it certainly is a jungle out there. Our cities, yes even the most urban and built-up parts of them, can be important wildlife habitat.
Bananas are in trouble and we don’t have a solution to save our favourite fruit. Oh and they’re quite an interesting plant too.
All our food is toxic, innit. Actually, no. But here’s why the fear, uncertainty and doubt are far too easy to believe, and how to counteract it.
On the continuing saga of why chocolate is good for us, but just not in the form you like it.
Five-a-day doesn’t add up. It’s not all marketing hype, except when the arithmetic is wrong.
Turnips. The humble vegetable that terrorised the Romans and helped industrialise Britain.
What do you mean you thought apples grew on trees? Well, OK, they do but originally not the trees you thought. An interesting piece on saving the wild ancestor of modern apples.

Farting well? It could mean you have a good healthy collection of gut microbes.
Just don’t read this next story over dinner. It seems we eat parasites more than we realise.
And another that’s definitely not safe for mealtime reading … A long read on some of the work going on behind faecal transplants, and how they’re being so successful in treating stubborn illnesses.
Lads, here are three cardinal rules from a urologist about care of your plumbing.
Phew! So now let’s leave the scientific and medical behind us and more on.
Naturism is the practice of going without clothes — and it’s not shameful, embarrassing or ridiculous.
Still on naturism, here’s one young lady’s experience of being clothes free at home.
image6

And here are some more views on the way the new Nordic sex laws are making prostitutes feel less, not more, safe.
From
Vagina in the workplace — a story. The closing ideal has to be a good way forward, surely.
Changing tack (yes, OK, about time!) here’s part five of the ongoing series from a black cab driver about Waterloo Station. OK, hands up, how many of you knew it was a war memorial?
And finally, the BBC have unearthed a box of forgotten letters sent from occupied France during WWII. See you never know what’s in that dusty box in the attic!

beliefs, freedom of speech, links, nudism, sexuality

Your Interesting Links

Interesting items seem to be coming thick and fast at the moment, so here’s another instalment of links to items you may have missed. And not so much boring science stuff this time!
Apocalypse? So what would happen if all our satellites fell from the sky? Yep, apocalypse may not be far off the mark!
Do you wear glasses? Or lenses? Ever wondered whether you could see without them? You can. Here’s how. And it really does work!
The strange story of a tetragametic woman — that’s someone made from four gametes (two eggs, two sperm) rather than the usual two. This is a form of chimerism and as chimeras are normally detected only because of external abnormalities (for example differently coloured eyes) we don’t really know how common it is.
We know the phases of the moon influence the behaviour of many creatures from big cats to owls, but how much does the moon affect human behaviour?


An interesting short read on saffron, that brightly coloured spice from crocus flowers.
While on plants, this stunning piece of sculpture was carved into an olive stone in 1737.
And so to religion … here’s an interesting evolutionary tree of religion.
Allegedly the human mind is primed to believe in god. If so, how is it that atheism is on the rise?
Meanwhile archaeologists have been staring into the mists of time and come to the conclusion that Britain’s oldest settlement is Amesbury, near Stonehenge, in Wiltshire. Doesn’t seem too surprising to me.
An American mother takes a very sensible look at nudity and how it does not cause any problems for kids.
And to finish on our usual theme of sexuality, here’s a considered response to the Nordic conception of controlling prostitution from a Canadian sex worker.
These final two items may not be safe for those of a pathetically puritanical mind; they are included here in the interests of normalising our attitudes to sex and sexuality.
Girl on the Net asks whether blowjobs are anti-feminist. Spoiler: No, because feminism is a state of mind not an attribute of “things”.
And really finally, with the spotlight on Girl on the Net, here’s an interview with her in the University of York student newspaper, York Vision (it was called Nouse in my day!).

beliefs, nudism, personal

On Nudity and Naturism

I’ve just added two new pages to my Zen Mischief website.
On Nudity and Naturism — in which I explain my views and why I believe we need to normalise nudity (and sexuality) rather than marginalising and criminalising it.


Nudity and Naturism Quotes — from a wide variety of people; some great and/or good; some ordinary; some unknown.
I’ve been meaning to write these pages for a long while, and today was the day.

beliefs, books, science

Book Review

John Conway, CM Kosemen, Darren Naish
Cryptozoologicon, The Biology, Evolution and Mythology of Hidden Animals, Volume I
(Irregular Books, 2013)

This is strange book. It is one I wanted to read and I was given a copy for Christmas. It sounded as if it would be interesting.
What the authors set out to do, and they are up front about stating this, is to look at some of the myths of strange animals unrecorded by science and then to look at how plausible the myths are and what the animal might be. They write a couple of pages about each of the 28 creatures they choose. All of which is fine, if eccentric.
What they then go on to do is to speculate wildly about history, evolution and taxonomy of each creature as if it were real. They do say repeatedly that what they are indulging in is speculation, but they acknowledge that it will be misinterpreted by the wilfully minded.
As they say on the cover blurb:

Cryptozoologicon is a celebration of the myths, legends, evolution and biology of hidden animals. Always sceptical, but always willing to indulge in speculative fun, Cryptozoologicon aims to provide a new way to approach cryptozoology: as fictional biology.

And in their Introduction:

For each cryptid, our entries consist of three sections. We consider it important that people understand exactly what we have done. In the first section of text, we briefly review what people have said beforehand about the given cryptid. We refer to the key accounts and describe what the creature is supposed to look like.
In the second section, we present an evaluation of the reports, make a conclusion about the identity of the given cryptid, and decide whether the accounts refer to a real creature or not. Given that we have included quite a range of mystery animals in our book — some of which are fairly ridiculous and others of which have essentially been debunked — our conclusions range from the open-ended to the “case closed” type.
Finally, we include a third section of text in which we deliberately jump onto the bandwagon of speculation, and wax lyrical about the identity, evolution and biology of the cryptid concerned, tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Yeah, “fictional biology” is about the size of it. I had hoped that it might present some interesting new evidence for something. It doesn’t.
And I had hoped that even if it didn’t the book might be amusing. It isn’t that either.
I found it tedious beyond belief. There is nothing here except a regurgitation of the already known myths and their debunking with some wildly speculative and very tedious fiction. The text is extremely dull; not especially poorly written just unimaginative and not sparkling. On top of that I dislike the large colour illustrations; that’s down to their style rather than content; for me they didn’t add a great deal.
The book could, indeed should, have been interesting; and this could have been done with very little extra effort.
For me this book just didn’t work. I found it incredibly tedious and in fact gave up reading attentively no more than half way through and skipped through the remainder.
Unless you have to read this book for some reason, frankly I’d give it a miss.
Overall Rating: ★☆☆☆☆