Category Archives: science

natural history, photography, science

Yeuch of the Day

1 Comment

Noreen was off early(ish) today on a work outing. On her way she phoned me to say she had found an embryo lying on our front garden path and had moved it into the shrubbery nearby so no-one trod on it. (Handily we keep a trowel by the front door for burying the cats’ prey.)

Of course being interested in natural history I had to go and look. And yes, there was a roughly 4 inch long fresh foetus, complete with placenta still attached. Nice! And of course I just had to photograph it.

But what is it? Well it isn’t human as it clearly has a tail. Phew! It is too big for domestic cat – it is bigger than a new-born kitten. Being London this immediately says it is going to be either fox or dog. I would guess it’s too late in the year for fox, and maybe a little large.

Hmm. Interesting, if slightly yeuchy – but not as yeuchy as I’d expected.

If anyone really wants to see the photo you can find it here. I bet you all say “yeeuuuwwww”, but still go and look anyway!

science, sexuality, thoughts

We're Unique!

What makes humans special and unique?

Well according to a recent Scientific American article it is very simple …

We masturbate.  A lot.

(Oh, come on, it’s not that shocking!)

But the uniqueness is that no other animal, including our close primate relatives, does.  The theory seems to be, at least in part, that it’s all to do with the ability of our well developed brains to create entirely novel and imaginary picture shows and videos.

I’ll leave it to you to follow the link and read the article.  It’s long, but it’s interesting, especially if you’re a science geek.

freedom of speech, medical, people, science, sexuality, thoughts

Obscene …

3 Comments

… and obscene is not a word I use often or lightly, but I am horrified at the story which is circulating of a New York doctor who is reducing the clitorises of young girls in the belief that they are abnormally large. In deference to my blood pressure I shall say no more here but refer you to the story over on The F-Word. If this is even half true the man (yes, a man, of course) is in my view a paedophile and child abuser.

Hat-tip: jillysheep.

beliefs, medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Religion and Sex

“Religion** is bad for your sex life”, at least according to Dr Emily Nagoski.  And she should know as she’s a college health (and sex) educator in Massachusetts, with a doctorate in Health Behaviour and Human Sexuality and other degrees in counselling and psychology.  What I like is that she holds very firm and forthright views and isn’t afraid to air them.  In what she calls “my most offensive post yet” she says why she believes religion is bad for your sex life and how it is that she cannot choose to believe and have any faith.  Here are a few snippets:

Religion** is bad for your sex life. I don’t mean it doesn’t help, I mean it’s actively destructive […]

[…] religion is bad both at the individual level and at the cultural level. Individually, it results in inhibitions, shame, fear, guilt, bias against others, and acceptance of gender-based stereotypes. Culturally it results in the oppression of women and sexual minorities […] and the obstruction of the scientific study of sexuality.

But the worst thing about religion is that it makes it okay to just believe shit because you want to. No religion, no matter how liberal, escapes that.

[…] I think faith/religiosity is an innate part of human psychology. I think human belief in an invisible family in the sky is either product or byproduct of evolution. However, it is, for no apparent reason, NOT an innate part of MY psychology […]

I know that the experience of faith is both real and important for lots of people, and I know it offends them when I discuss faith as a form of self-delusion, but I genuinely don’t understand, plain old don’t understand […] how a person can CHOOSE to believe in something.

They choose to believe it because it makes them feel good. And I think this characterizes MOST people. I think MOST people are able to believe more or less anything they like the sound of. Indeed we’ve made a virtue of it. Just BELIEVE. It’s The Secret, ya know. […]

[…] most of the work I do related to religion involves trying to untangle the knots religion has knit into a person’s sexuality. In my experience, in 90% or more cases religion has caused some form of damage to a person’s sexuality […]

Which is sort of interesting in that it says what I have wondered for many years.  Mind I wouldn’t go so far as Emily, I think — at least not a stridently.  And just because I don’t believe any any form of overarching deity(s) (I just don’t need them, or anyone, to decide my morals for me) doesn’t mean I would deny such a crutch to anyone else.

No, what was interesting for me was that someone who should know, and should be in a position to see, has the courage to say that religion has an adverse effect on sexuality and thus by implication on other taboo areas of health.

But do go and read the original post in full for yourselves.  It’s interesting even if you don’t/can’t agree with it.  And there is a (surprising good natured) discussion in the comments too.

** By religion Emily means ANY and ALL religions.

amusements, science, thoughts

Adams Complexity Threshold

The eponymous author of the Scott Adams Blog (yes, that Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert) a couple of days ago wrote a prescient piece about complexity.  It’s worth reading the piece, including the comments, in their entirity. But here’s a taster:

The Adams Complexity Threshold is the point at which something is so complicated it no longer works.

The Gulf oil spill is probably a case of complexity reaching the threshold. It was literally impossible for anyone to know if the oil rig was safe or not. The engineering was too complex. I’m sure management thought it was safe, or hoped it was safe, or hallucinated that it was safe. It wasn’t possible to know for sure …

It’s our nature to blame a specific person for a specific screw-up, but complexity is what guarantees mistakes will happen and won’t be caught …

Complexity is often a natural outgrowth of success. Man-made complexity is simply a combination of things that we figured out how to do right, one layered on top of the other, until failure is achieved.

And from the comments:

I think government has a lot to do with adding complexity. Some failure happens and those in charge feel they have to earn their constituents votes by “doing something.” This usually results in regulations that work as well as the Maginot Line stopped Hitler …

Humans just can’t leave well enough alone. When (insert anything here) works perfectly the human race will re-refine it into incompetence. Why? Because eventually, no matter how incredibly efficient something is there’s always some Wag out there insisting it could be better. Even though there’s no rational reason to tinker with it, eventually people buy into the need for “continuous improvement” until the entire thing collapses …

“In simplicity is power.”

Why is it that so few can see this? Oh, sorry, Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome.

arts, history, photography, science, topographical

Queen's Beasts at Kew


Queen’s Beasts at Kew, originally uploaded by kcm76.

You’ll probably want to look at this in a larger size.

We went to Kew Gardens last week, with an American friend who was staying and had a free afternoon to do something different. While there I fulfilled by wish to photograph the ten Queen’s Beasts in front of the Palm House. The beasts represent the genealogy of Queen Elizabeth II. They are (from L to R):
• White Greyhound of Richmond
• Yale of Beaufort
• Red Dragon of Wales
• White Horse of Hanover
• Lion of England
• White Lion of Mortimer
• Unicorn of Scotland
• Griffin of Edward III
• Black Bull of Clarence
• Falcon of the Plantagenet

These aren’t great photos, so I’ll probably redo them next I go to Kew.

And there’s a bit more about the Queen’s Beasts on Wikipedia.

books, current affairs, people, science, thoughts

Martin Gardner, RIP

Martin Gardner, scientific skeptic and maths puzzler has died at the age of 95.  Although maybe best known, at least in scientific circles, for his “Mathematical Games” column in Scientific American, for me he will be remembered for his The Annotated Alice which has gone through several editions and numerous reprints; it remains one of my all-time favourite books.

There are short obits here and here.

And you can find all his books available on Amazon.

amusements, science

Picture Imps

Another zany moment from the “Feedback” column of this week’s issue of New Scientist:

[Feedback reader X] tells us that her mother says her new camera works much better “because it has many more pixies than her old one”. Meanwhile, X’s daughter is apparently excited at the discovery that “there are millions of haemogoblins capering round the circulatory system, delivering parcels of oxygen”.

As for X herself, she says she gets along fine in life so long as she’s got her elf (try saying that with a cockney accent). She wonders if other Feedback readers have noticed the presence of similar “differently real” companions in their lives.