Category Archives: ramblings

amusements, memes, personal, ramblings

I've Never Seen Star Wars

Tim over at Bringing up Charlie has started something new. It may even turn into a meme.

As a result of some new-fangled programme on the wireless, which seems to be called I’ve Never Seen Star Wars, Tim has come to realise that there are a collection of things he’s never done or which have somehow passed him by, but which everyone assumes everyone else actually has done. And guess what? The summit of his list is never having seen Star Wars.

Tim then goes on to challenge the rest of us to document the things we’ve never done but which might surprise our friends. Being as I like memes, and I’m insatiably curious about other people, it would be churlish of me not to join in. So here’s my list of a dozen (apparently common) things I’ve never done.

  1. Seen Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Clockwork Orange or any of those other iconic films. (See, Tim, you aren’t the only one!)
  2. Eaten oysters or tripe
  3. Worn a dinner jacket or a cocktail dress
  4. Been skinny dipping

  5. Played strip poker or strip pool
  6. Taken recreational drugs
  7. Driven a car or ridden motorbike
  8. Watched Eastenders or (again like Tim) Friends or Downton Abbey
  9. Lusted after Jennifer Aniston or Pamela Anderson
  10. Been to the races (horses or dogs)
  11. Been on a package holiday
  12. Broken a bone

Interestingly only one thing on that list bothers me not to have done. Anyone care to guess which one?

So now I dare everyone else to tell, their darkest, secret, “I’ve never dones” — either in the comments here or on your own blog (with a link in the comments), so we can all have a good snigger. 🙂

personal, ramblings, science

On Hairiness

Now here is a mystery. Well at least it’s a mystery to me, and I can’t quickly find anything about it on the intertubes.

I’m one of those hairy males; I always have been. Fortunately I’m naturally mid-brown-ish of hair for if I were black haired I’d have to shave twice a day or spend more of my life looking like a villain.

As a child my hair was light brown; it got thicker and darker and wavy as I got to puberty. I ended up with something akin to a coconut mop on my head. Now I’m past three score years it is almost completely grey (the front is actually white), much finer, less wavy and thinning — though I’m nowhere near approaching going bald or even really receding.

But it isn’t head hair or beard that is my immediate interest, but body hair.

(No, no, I’m NOT going THERE!)

We know that as men get older their patterns of hairiness change. As I’ve said, head hair greys and gets thinner even to the extent of baldness; and apparently leg hair also decreases. Annoyingly though eyebrows, ears and noses sprout extraneous tufts of fur, which may also go grey.

(As an aside it’s also interesting that ears and noses continue to grow throughout life, with ears apparently growing at a rate of around a couple of millimetres every decade. Noses also appear to grow with age, hence the caricature of the old man with a large warty nose.)

But in the last few years I’ve noticed something else strange. I’m sure that the hair on my forearms and chest, maybe also my back, is getting longer as I get older. Not thicker, coarser or darker, but longer.

Now it does seem that men do go on growing body hair well past puberty, even into their 30s, and apparently most men over 35 are a lot hairier than they were in their 20s. But I’m talking about something I’ve only become aware of in the last few years, say from about age 55.

Now I can’t prove that my impression is right. I didn’t start measuring the length of my body hair at the age of 18 and don’t have a series of regular measurements throughout my life. (Just see what joys I’ve passed by!) Several searches using “a well known search engine” haven’t turned up any tufty hints.

Not, you understand, that I’m complaining. Inasmuch as I think about it at all I quite like being hairy; it’s part of me and it doesn’t bother me; I certainly wouldn’t shave or wax it. Ouchy!

Am I imagining things? Am I going mad? Do I have hairs on the palms of my hands? (No, not yet!) Does anyone know? If not, why not? — this is a vitally important research topic!

PS. No, no picture of my chest hair; you really didn’t want that much information, did you!?

ramblings, science

Fukushima Follow-up

The follow-up to the Fukushima accident, in the wake for the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, continues.

In the last week there has been a thoughtful essay in the Wall Street Journal by physicist Richard Muller looking at the likely additional rates of cancer in Japan as a result of the nuclear problems.


What he says, and I have to assume his numbers are correct, is quite revealing. First a bit of background, which is in the article:

  • The average American gets an annual dose of 0.62 rem of radiation.
    (“A rem is the unit of measure used to gauge radiation damage to human tissue”.)
  • Anyone living in Denver gets 0.3 rem on top of that due to Radon gas from the local granite.
  • Yet Denver has a lower cancer rate the the US as a whole, despite its high radiation figures.
  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuating an area if the excess dose of radiation is just 0.1 rem. Yet people still live in Denver.
  • Following the accident the Fukushima evacuation zone showed radiation at the level of 0.1 rem.

So what does this mean? Well here is Muller’s explanation:

If you are exposed to a dose of 100 rem or more, you will get sick right away from radiation illness. You know what that’s like from people who have had radiation therapy: nausea, loss of hair, a general feeling of weakness. In the Fukushima accident, nobody got a dose this big; workers were restricted in their hours of exposure to try to make sure that none received a dose greater than 25 rem … At a larger dose — 250 to 350 rem — the symptoms become life-threatening … and your chance of dying (if untreated) is 50%.

Nevertheless, even a small number of rem can trigger an eventual cancer. A dose of 25 rem causes no radiation illness, but it gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer — in addition to the 20% chance you already have from “natural” causes. For larger doses, the danger is proportional to the dose, so a 50 rem dose gives you a 2% chance of getting cancer; 75 rem ups that to 3%. The cancer effects of these doses, from 25 to 75 rem, are well established by studies of the excess cancers caused by the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 …

Here’s another way to calculate the danger of radiation: If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance). We can call this a cancer dose. A dose that high would kill you from radiation illness, but if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average, the 2,500 rem would still induce just one extra cancer … Rem measures radiation damage, and if there is one cancer’s worth of damage, it doesn’t matter how many people share that risk.

In short, if you want to know how many excess cancers there will be, multiply the population by the average dose per person and then divide by 2,500 (the cancer dose described above).

In Fukushima, the area exposed to the greatest radiation … had an estimated first-year dose of more than 2 rem. Some locations recorded doses as high as 22 rem …

How many cancers will such a dose trigger? … assume that the entire population of that 2-rem-plus region, about 22,000 people, received the highest dose: 22 rem. (This obviously overestimates the danger.) The number of excess cancers expected is the dose (22 rem) multiplied by the population (22,000), divided by 2,500. This equals 194 excess cancers.

Let’s compare that to the number of normal cancers in the same group. Even without the accident, the cancer rate is about 20% of the population, or 4,400 cancers. Can the additional 194 be detected? Yes, because many of them will be thyroid cancer, which is normally rare (but treatable). Other kinds of cancer will probably not be observable, because of the natural statistical variation of cancers.

Sadly, many of those 4,400 who die from “normal” cancer will die believing that their illness was caused by the nuclear reactor.

Sure these numbers are regrettable, and tragic for those affected. But by and large they will be indistinguishable from the variation in the normal background cancer rate, especially if the 194 excess cancers is (as Muller suggests) an over-estimate. It is the psychological effect on the people which is potentially the greater danger.

Let’s put this in a different context. One nuclear accident in 20 years is likely, over time, to result in somewhere around 200 deaths in Japan.

Compare that with coal mining where in China alone in 2004 there were over 6000 deaths of miners due to accident — plus any resulting from later pneumoconiosis. In fact it is estimated there are annually 4000 new cases pneumoconiosis just in the US. (Data from Wikipedia.)

Another comparison. We all take air travel for granted. Yet in the 12 years since 2000 plane crashes have caused on average 1183 death a year worldwide. (Data from the Air Crashes Record Office.)

(OK, a real comparison would cover far more data and causes, but you get the picture.)

Now there are other approaches to calculating the excess cancers caused. Another approach cited in Muller’s article suggests that Fukushima will cause 1500 excess cancers over a 70 year period. But I suggest that over such a long time period that number too is going to be pretty indistinguishable from the background. And anyway it is still a factor of at least 10 less than the number of people killed directly by the tsunami.

All of which leads Muller to conclude:

The reactor at Fukushima wasn’t designed to withstand a 9.0 earthquake or a 50-foot tsunami. Surrounding land was contaminated, and it will take years to recover. But it is remarkable how small the nuclear damage is compared with that of the earthquake and tsunami. The backup systems of the nuclear reactors … should be bolstered … We should always learn from tragedy. But should the Fukushima accident be used as a reason for putting an end to nuclear power?

Nothing can be made absolutely safe. Must we design nuclear reactors to withstand everything imaginable? What about an asteroid or comet impact? Or a nuclear war? No, of course not …

It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis …

Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer … but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.

The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves.

Indeed. And hence I still believe — nuclear waste disposal problems not withstanding; I acknowledge that as an unsolved challenge — nuclear is our best and friendliest hope of managing our power requirements for the foreseeable future.

history, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

If Scotchmen can wear kilts …

Well indeed! If Scotsmen (and Irishmen) can wear kilts, and females of all ages can wear trousers, why in blazes can’t boys wear frocks?

It makes no sense. Except as a means of perpetuating the male dominant status quo.

There was an interesting, and rather worrying, article a few weeks back in the New York Times about the angst that parents go through when their son wants to wear what they think of as “girl clothes”. Of course, being America, whole families are in analysis rather than just getting on with life.

And do you know what? Most of these kids are no more than four or six years old. But they’re still seen as deviant, or worse. The article even acknowledges that few of them continue to want to dress as girls beyond the age of about 10.

And so what if they do? Why on earth does it matter?


Read this for another scary example of sexist reaction
to a 15-year-old boy in a dress.
Doesn’t the lad look rather good?
It is really only in the western world that we’ve become wedded to the idea than men have to wear trousers, and to do anything else is either deviant or at best a huge joke. See most people’s reaction to the aforesaid Scotsmen in kilts, or actors in drag.

Until about 100 years ago effectively all small boys, regardless of class, would have been routinely dressed in frocks until they were at least five years old. In Arabia and northern Africa men and women still wear loose robes. In Japan men traditionally wore kimono the same as women. Not to mention the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians … or monks.

OK, it’s easy for me. I’m not a parent and I haven’t had to cope with it. But I would hope that if I had I might have been a bit more level-headed. And yes, I do concede that it must be hard — especially for the young kids — when most of society doesn’t understand and people are so spiteful. So they need strong and sympathetic parents, not analysis!

But FFS why do parents have to worry when the kids are only six, or in one case in the article as young as three!? Kids of both genders, especially young kids, like to dress up. Whether that’s in mum’s high heels, as Davey Crocket, or Spiderman, or My Little Pony. And some kids are more comfortable in some clothes than others; some (heaven help us!) are most comfortable in no clothes. Where’s the problem?

When I was young we didn’t have much choice in clothes. There were no t-shirts, sweatshirts, football strip, trainers, batman outfits, jeans, … Today kids can have a whole range of choice, so no wonder a few will pick something a section of “society at large” thinks unsuitable. Most of them grow out of it, just as they grow out of collecting Pokemon, plastic pigs or used tea bags.

Even if they don’t grow out of wanting to wear dresses, WTF does it matter?

Society is able to accept many things that were formerly seen as deviant or unacceptable — men with earrings, homosexuality, bikinis, tattoos … So why can’t we be more comfortable with boys wearing dresses?

ramblings, science

A Special Day

Today is special. It is a red letter day. Well … no … actually it’s a blue moon! So anything could happen — allegedly.

The mostly used definition of a blue moon is where there are two full moons in a calendar month. But that it appears is a more modern definition, the older one being applied where there were four full moons in a season. Various older belief systems give each of the three normal full moons in a season a name. Where there are four full moons the third of the four is called a blue moon so that the last may keep it’s “correct” name and rightful place in the season.

Which might suggest to you that blue moons aren’t that rare. And you’d be right. They occur every 2-3 years (actually 7 times in the moon’s 19-year Metonic cycle), because of the mismatch between the 28 day lunar cycle and months of 30 or 31 days in our solar calendar.


Curiously it seems no-one really knows why it is called a blue moon, but it almost certainly isn’t because the moon suddenly becomes Smurf-coloured for the day. Smurf-coloured moons can happen but only as a result of significant atmospheric pollution, like the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

One theory for the name is that “blue” in this context is derived from the Old English word belewe meaning “betray” which was used to describe “false” moons entering the calendar. Well I suppose that’s possible, but given that the earliest known English reference dates from only 1524 it is perhaps unlikely.

Well, anyway, enjoy the last day of summer. In London it is bright and sunny but Autumnally cool, which is actually rather nice in what in the UK has been the wettest summer for 100 years. And if the sky is clear this evening go and bathe in the light of the blue moon! Sadly you’ll have to provide your own Blue Moon Cocktail.

You can find more on Blue Moons at:
Wikipedia : Blue Moon
Wikipedia : Full Moon Names
Wikipedia : Metonic Cycle
Jodrell Bank : Night Sky in August
And in various news stories, eg. here

current affairs, nudism, ramblings

Nudity Stupidity

So we have two, rather different, men in the news this week for appearing nude. Prince Harry for playing strip pool at a party and Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, incarcerated again in Scotland for walking nude down the street. Neither has done anything overtly illegal (Gough is convicted of breach of the peace, although frankly from what I’ve read I don’t see how) but both are being punished. Both might reasonably stand accused of stupidity, given what they know; but stupidity alone isn’t illegal.


Uneasy bedfellows?!
Heresy Corner has a scathing summation of the issues. On Prince Harry:

And if a 28 year old man takes his clothes off in the company of other consenting adults, who cares?

It’s only a naked body. We’ve all got one of those. If you’re a distinguished actor you may well have displayed it to all the world in the name of art. This is the 21st century.

And, more tellingly, on Stephen Gough:

Gough has spent most of the past six years in prison since making the mistake of bringing his naked frame north of the border, where a Presbyterian horror of the body lingers despite repeated SNP claims that Scotland is a mature, progressive democracy ready for full independence.
[…]
Gough’s case is simple: “there is nothing about me as a human being that is indecent or alarming or offensive.” He poses no danger to society. He has never physically attacked anyone or interfered with property, nor has he used insulting language: his “crime” is to upset the sensibilities of prudes, of whom there are obviously a large number in Scotland.
[…]
Is nudity “indecent”? Only if you assume, as Anglo-Saxon prudes tend to do, that nudity implies sex. There are other reasons for being naked that have little to do with sex — taking part in a game of strip-billiards, for example.
[…]
It’s hard to escape the view that Gough’s real crime is not so much outraging public decency as refusing to conform. Keeping him upholds the majesty of the law which Gough’s defiance challenges, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[I would also take issue with the assertion that sex is indecent. Like nudity, sex and sexuality have to be normalised not criminalised and/or marginalised. But let’s leave that aside for now.]

At least there appears to be a tiny amount of common sense appearing in all this. Prince Harry is apparently likely to be punished only by being given a dressing down (pun intended) by his commanding officer (though GOK what it has to do with his CO) and made to donate some of his salary to charity. Meanwhile the Kirkcaldy Sheriff has ordered Gough to undergo psychiatric tests, which might give him a way out of the corner he and Scottish “justice” have painted him into.

Nevertheless, frankly, both cases are ridiculous. We need to come to terms with the fact that nudity is a normal part of the human condition. Get over it! Our princling has done nothing most of us wouldn’t have done; his only crime is his parentage. Gouch is agreed by all to be harmless but eccentric. The former should just be ignored. The latter allowed to go on his way and also ignored.

What is perhaps more important is to ask why people appear so outraged by these cases. I suspect it goes back to what I was writing about yesterday: most people need some outside influence to give them their moral code because they are unable (or unwilling) to think it through for themselves. Once that happens these people are prey to ridiculous, even dangerous, influences: anything from the abhorrence of nudity, through male dominance, to terrorism.

But it isn’t just the traditional religions that are now occupying this morality defining territory. The tabloid media (papers, TV, radio) have become the new religion — the definers of morals — and thus the definers of what people think. Too many people still adhere to the “if it’s in the paper, it must be true” and pause to think no further.

Well it’s time to grow up and start thinking. Time to rise up against the Mrs Grundys of this world.

If it harm none, do as you will.

ramblings, science, thoughts

On Atheism and Science

Yesterday I came across two blog posts about atheism, both of which deal with science in different ways. And they got me thinking — or at least starting to think — about the relationship between religion (or lack of it) and science.

Before I go into my thoughts let’s have a look at what, for me, were some of the salient points from the two articles, both of which are worth reading in their entirety.

The first is a post is Atheism Evolves by Maggie Mayhem (yes, the sex positive activist and sex educator):

[I]t’s ridiculous to believe that all life on earth exists to serve humans. I am appalled when I hear this by both the religious and the irreligious.
[…]
The bible does not teach me how my hand works. It doesn’t teach me about how the human hand came to be. It doesn’t teach me why a human hand is physically advantageous for certain tasks nor does it tell me anything about how a human hand was selected for over time.
[…]
Many preachers have been great philosophers, social revolutionaries, and leaders. However … activism and education does not have to include a literal belief in the supernatural to be effective and empowering.
[…]
There is no one to save us from ourselves but ourselves … No one has the divine right to exploit their fellow humans.
[…]
However, atheism and skepticism are movements that have been primarily driven by people with immense privilege because it has taken that much privilege not to be destroyed by others for saying something so counter to what we’ve been taught for as long as we’ve been humans.
[…]
A silly belief does not displace my own. Laws, exclusionary practices, and violent retaliation does displace people.
[…]
Tokenism only serves the privileged, it does not broaden the viewpoints and perspectives. It does not help us better understand ourselves and our world when white men get to decide which marginalized people get to speak. Nothing is accomplished with tokenism.
[…]
Ideas are not physical spaces: you cannot run out of room. One of the greatest things about them is the way they intermingle and breed and create unimaginable combinations.

(Emphasis in the original)

Before we go on, just think for a moment about those comments on privilege and on ideas.

… … …

Powerful aren’t they?!

OK, so now for the second article, Why Science Can’t Replace Religion by Keith Kloor on the scientific Discover Blogs.

[O]ur brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring … you can’t simply dismiss the psychological and cultural importance of religion. For much of our history, religion has deeply influenced all aspects of life, from how we cope with death and random disaster to what moral codes we abide by. That science should (or could) eliminate all this with a rationalist cleansing of civilization, as a vocal group of orthodox atheists have suggested, is highly improbable.
[…]
[S]ome people, no matter their background, are prone to experience a more spiritual, as opposed to rational, connection to the universe … certain needs unique to the human condition cannot be satisfied by science alone. Scientists who prefer a strictly rationalist lens have a hard time accepting this.
[…]
Absolutism is one of the uglier traits of religion that still pervades too many corners of the Earth today, breeding intolerance and normalizing abhorrent actions. But a response that indicts all religion as a stain on humanity is equally absolutist.

More rather powerful arguments, which strident atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would do well to heed.

And it was reading this second article hot on the heels of the first which got me thinking. Actually thinking about this muddled interface between science and religion and the way the two so often seem to be unable to coexist.

What I realised was that there seem to be two strands to all religious belief, and these do seem to be to encompass all religions, not just Christianity. The two strands of belief are:
(a) how and why the world (universe) came into being, and
(b) the importance and imposition of a moral code.
Some believers seem to me to need to embrace one or other strand; some, although I surmise down at the deepest level a minority, clearly need both.

And it is in these two strands that the conflict with science arises because in fact these two strands have different roots, viz.
(a) has a root in science (of some form), whereas
(b) has its root in thought and intellect (philosophy, if you prefer).

Now I need religion for neither strand: science does indeed satisfy (to the extent satisfaction is possible by any means) the first and I have the intellect to be able to handle the latter myself.

The problem is that many people conflate and muddle the two strands and hence become completely, though unknowingly, confused. For science — whatever it’s underlying belief: creationist or evolutionist — cannot ipso facto produce morals; it is merely explanatory. And equally philosophy alone cannot produce technical explanations; observation and experiment (ie. science) are also required.

Consequently it is not unreasonable that some scientists need a spiritual dimension/belief to give them a moral/cultural grounding. Equally it is reasonable that (some) theologians and philosophers need science to help them make sense of the universe.

Lucky is the man who can derive both strands from a single belief system, whether that is a religion or science. OK, I happen to believe that the religious viewpoint is erroneous, but then I am lucky enough to be able to derive both strands without religion. Not everyone is so lucky, and perhaps we should be more sympathetic to that. Is it moral of us to deny a “crippled man” a crutch, whether physical or mental?

Now I’m conscious that this is likely not a fully enough developed train of thought, being as it was scribbled down in five minutes at 11pm last night. But the fact that there are these two, seemingly unrecognised, strands does (at least for me) explain some of the confusion about how some scientists can need religion (spirituality if you prefer) and how the religious/spiritual may need science.

Anyone want to expand on this?

personal, ramblings

Five Questions #5

OK, so here is my answer to the last of the five questions I posed some weeks back.

For me there is nothing difficult about this one.

Question 5. Do you ask enough questions? Or do you settle for what you know?

No, I don’t ask enough questions. In my view you can never ask enough questions and anyone who genuinely seeks after knowledge of any form will always have another question to ask. But there are times when you have to settle for what you already know.

It is only by asking questions, looking for something new and pushing the boundaries that we ever make progress. That was as true for stone age man banging his rocks together to make fire as it is now. It is the fundamental of the scientific method: ask questions and don’t believe anything until you can reliably demonstrate it; be forever skeptical.

We learn and generate our views by asking the age-old question: Why? Yes children keep asking “Why?” for a reason — to gain more knowledge of how the world works. (So maybe “Because” isn’t actually a good answer, however tempting it is!)

Society’s morals, ethics and beliefs are essentially the consensus view of the majority (or at least of those in whom we invest the power to decide, eg. politicians, clergy, etc.). Progress is made by philosophers and people like me questioning this consensus view; asking why we have these beliefs; suggesting that there are other, better, ways. Sometimes our views prevail. Most times we are ridiculed. In neither case is it certain if we are right or wrong — indeed in many instances there are no right or wrong answers, just answers which currently work. When our views prevail the consensus moves, society’s beliefs change and progress is made.

Science works in the same way. There is a sum total of knowledge; think of it as a boundary. Essentially there are two types of researcher who attack this boundary, trying to move it forward, as an army moves it’s battle-front forward foot by foot, mile by mile.

There are the pioneers who forge way ahead with off-the-wall thinking: “Oh look! A happens, and so does B. I wonder if that means X97C also happens?” Sometimes it does and suddenly there is a breakthrough at the battle front.

Then there are the supporters, the completer-finishers (in Belbin terms), who come along saying: “We know A, and B, and X97C, and Z23XM. But is this also true for C, D, E … Z …?” And they fill in the gaps behind the pioneers.

Both are moving the battlefront forward in their own way. But they can do so only by repeatedly asking questions. Questions are how we learn and how we make progress. So unless you want to stagnate you cannot ask enough questions.

But there is a corollary. You can never have all the information you need to make a decision. If you did it would not be a decision but a fait accompli. Indeed you can never have enough (let alone all) information to make a decision.

But decisions have to be made; there often (especially in business) isn’t time to acquire more information, let alone all the information one would like. Management, in fact life in general, is all about making the best decision one can with the information available at the time**. The best managers get these decisions right (or at least not wrong) more often than the less good managers. Those who have successes in life make averagely better decisions for them than those who who are always stumbling from crisis to crisis in life’s basement.

[** This is also why it is pointless, and destructive, to regret something you’ve done. You made the best decision you could at the time; we all do; it would take an alien mind not to. You did your best; you cannot do more. Yes, by all means learn something from the experience, but regret serves no purpose.]

But even then there may be no right and wrong answers, because part of the available information is one’s outlook on life, and who is to say my cautious approach to investments is better or worse for me than your more risky approach is for you?

So to sum up. Keep asking those questions. But in life know when to stop, consolidate and make that decision. In searching for knowledge, just keep right on.

— ooOoo —

So there we are, five answers to five deceptively simple, but actually quite challenging, questions. Questions which have made me ask more questions, and in answering them pose yet further questions. Questions whose answers have turned into little philosophical essays. Hopefully you’ve enjoyed, maybe even been challenged by, this mini-series. I hope to do another sometime soon, when I have more questions, ideas or challenges. Meanwhile suggestions are always welcome!

personal, ramblings

Antidotes to Anti-Fat

Overweight? Under tall? P’ed off with being abused for it? Then read on.

Oh and if you’re someone who abuses the overweight (or indeed any other minority), you’d better read on too!

A few days ago I came across a blog post from last September at Crazy Beautiful by Dianne Sylvan, titled Ten Rules for Fat Girls. In it she admits to being obese, but she is not ashamed of it and is seriously annoyed by all those who give her abuse because of it. And she goes on to give other overweight girls some thoughts and ideas on how to be more comfortable with the way they are. Between these thoughts Dianne Sylvan is typically hard hitting:

I’m fat … There’s no concealing this fact. My fat is out there. It speaks. And it says “I am lovable and worthy just like I am, and fuck you if you disagree.” I’ve … gotten comfortable with the idea that people can look like anything and it’s all good.
…
You have sovereignty over your body and that means it is no one’s responsibility but your own.
…
How is discrimination and making people loathe themselves going to make them healthier? Obviously this doesn’t work or the number of overweight people would be rapidly declining, wouldn’t it … Has hate ever made anyone a better person?
…
That claptrap about obese people being a strain on the economy is nonsense; cancer costs millions of dollars to research and treat but nobody’s suggesting we let cancer patients die to save money. (Well actually in the UK we do — Ed)
…
Statistics show that weight loss fails over the long-term 95% of the time. How many conditions can doctors get away with prescribing something with only a 5% success rate? Yet dieting is considered a panacea. You know what else has a 5% success rate in treating disease? Bleeding someone to let the evil humours out.
…
It’s also assumed … that everyone knows what’s best for you but you.
…
I’ve heard quite a few thin women say things like … “getting fat would be the worst thing.” … Oh? Worse than child abuse, genocide, homophobia, or being allergic to chocolate? Worse than being an asshole? Worse than treating people like crap because of how they look? Is being fat worse than being an ignorant bigot? Worse than being a murderer? Worse than drowning kittens? Amebic dysentery? Losing a loved one? Losing a limb?

Well that’s enough. I’m sure you get the picture.

But do you know what’s interesting about this? It is just as relevant to men as to women. Men get abuse too, although maybe not as much as women. Men get bullied by doctors. I’ve even been bullied by a consultant neurologist FFS, who is an acquaintance — and I’m not even a patient of his! To this day I don’t know how I remained polite to him.

Yes, I’m obese. I know I am obese and I admit it. It doesn’t make me any less me. Or any less intelligent. Or any less able to know what works/is good for me. Or any less able to punch you in the throat.

OK, I don’t like being overweight or as horribly unfit as I am; I’m all too well aware of the consequences of my diabetes to be happy about it. And being “too big” can be horribly inconvenient. But it is also horrendously difficult to do much about it. In my case it is all tied up with my depression. It appears the whole caboodle goes back into my childhood, and despite hypnotherapy I’ve not yet been able to unbundle everything.

Yes, I have lost some weight but very slowly. At my heaviest I was 155kg and, after some ups and downs, I’m now down to about 138Kg. That’s still too much for my liking. But even if I lose a lot more I will never be a small bloke. I’m big boned and well built, naturally. It runs in my father’s family. We aren’t small people. And despite all the sport I played when younger, I’m not naturally athletic. So even if I’m not obese I’ll always be heavy and I’ll never be more than just about averagely fit.

But do you know what? The more people go on about my weight, the more resistant I become to doing anything about it. Having my weight thrust forever into the front of my brain is just so destructive. You end up thinking about nothing else. You cease to be you. It puts you under some huge stresses. If you allow it to, it takes over your life. And that makes the depression worse. And so we start the cycle all over again.

So I try not to dwell on it. I try not to let it take over. I try, in my quiet way (quiet? me?) to be sensible about food. But it seems to me the whole cycle isn’t well enough under control for anything to be quickly and easily alleviated. Which is why I’m trying hypnotherapy. But it is all slow going.

Meanwhile anyone who wants to abuse me about my weight had just better not. They don’t know — they cannot know — what is happening within me (FFS even I don’t know a lot of the time), nor how actually destructive their comments are. Besides it is really none of their business. It’s my concern, and mine alone.

At the end of the day, I’m me. All the way through. For better, for worse; until death do us part. And do you know something else? Nature probably made me that way for a reason. Whether you like it or not, do me the respect of not trying to change me.

personal, ramblings

Five Questions #4

OK, so here is my answer to the fourth of the five questions I promised I would answer.

This one is tricky. Not because I find it hard to answer but because it produces an inner conflict in all of us.

Question 4. When is it time to stop calculating risk and rewards and just do what you know is right?

Answer: Now.

Why?

Well to start with see the answer to question two above.

Secondly because in my view it is more ethical. Risk and reward imply a conscious choice to do something which is not optimal and not what your inner morality says should be. And shouldn’t we all be following our inner ethics?

My belief is that we all have that inner morality, even underlying all our religious, political and sociological superstructure of beliefs; and underlying our selfish desires. It is nothing to do with man-made constructs of belief; it’s to do with an inner respect of life.

That doesn’t mean it’s easy. And it certainly doesn’t mean I always get it right — much as I would like to. We all end up making greater or lesser compromises for a whole variety of reasons. But if we’re true to our underlying ethics we likely shouldn’t except perhaps in the pursuance of purely staying alive (and maybe sometimes not even then).

Do murderers (think, say, the Krays) really deep, deep down not know what they’re doing is wrong? Do bankers who make vast profits on the back of screwing peoples’ mortgage rates and businesses not understand, deep down, the lack of ethics in what they’re doing? I feel sure they do know these things. They may be brainwashed so they can’t allow that knowledge out, but I think it is there somewhere. Had they listened to that inner ethics early on maybe they wouldn’t have ended up where they did. And maybe the world would be a better place. Who knows.

Ultimately I think there is good, ethical, behaviour in all of us if we can but recognise it. But yes, that can be hard because in other ways we are wired to be selfish — because being selfish is a good personal survival strategy and at the first level evolution and “survival of the fittest” mean that we have to strive to survive and produce offspring. And remembering Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that is deeper rooted than our sense of ethics.

So yes, it’s hard and can be uncomfortable, but in a society where we don’t have to literally fight for food and shelter surely we should strive to rise above our “animal instincts” and listen to our inner morality and ethics.

Perhaps it is best summed up in the words of my late friend Jim Duggan: Let your conscience be your guide. Not your ego or your bank balance.

And I fail just as much as the next person!