Proportional Representation

Well, on May 2nd a minority of Canadians spoke and decided to subject the majority to an arrogant, untrustworthy government that will do everything in their power to act against the very people they are meant to serve. Never before have I felt to ashamed of being Canadian, or felt so betrayed by the nation I love.

I ask you, how is it that 40% of voters can elect a majority government? Is this really a democracy? Sure we go through the song and dance to make it look all democratic, but the voices of 60% of Canadians were not heard (at least not in any meaningful way since a majority government has the power to do whatever they want). Our political system may follow the principles of democracy, but certainly not the spirit of democracy. There is clearly a fundamental flaw that must be addressed.

The solution: Proportional Representation. 

In this system, seats in parliament are based on the popular vote and not ridings. This way every voter is heard, and is represented accordingly. Essentially, the political system would then mirror the ideological differences found within the nation.

Here is a breakdown of votes and corresponding seats for the 5 parties (YAY Green Party!!!) now represented in parliament.

As you can see, the Conservatives and NDP are overrepresented, and the remaining three parties are greatly underrepresented. Under proportional representation, we would again be under a minority Conservative government, but at least we wouldn't feel so bad about it.

There are 83 nations around the world practice some form of proportional representation at the national level.

And sure, these nations have problems of their own (some more than others), but you have to admit at least their citizens have fewer grounds to be discontent with the structure of their government.

And other nations are presently dealing with this very question.

Well said Mr. Fry

A major problem with proportional representations (or party-proportional systems) is that they tend to split the left and right into smaller parties that can not work together. This may not be such a problem in Canada since we're used to having more than 2 parties. Also, this system often leave the balance of power in the hands of smaller parties with idiosyncratic beliefs... like the Green Party. 

Know what? I think Canada is up to the challenge. But if we never give it a try, we'll never know. This system would also require a fundamental change in our politicians. Instead of being blinded by partisan politics (which can be painfully laughable... just look at the republican response to Obama's intervention in Libya), they need to start actually acting on their parties' ideologies, and not just toting the party line. If another party proposes an idea that is in congruence with your own beliefs or those of your party... support it! Don't just oppose it because it wasn't your idea.

Again, we can take a hint from nature. Nature rewards cooperation, and so should we.

Salute to PZ Myers

Today we salute 'the magnificent' PZ Myers (to quote Richard Dawkins) for his contributions to science and logic. Paul Zachary Myers is a biology professor at University of Minnesota Morris who studies evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) neuroscience, and has a particular fondness for cephalopods (but come on, who doesn't?). In addition to teaching and research, Dr. Myers also maintains the wonderful science blog Pharyngula, which was named as the top blog written by a scientist by the journal Nature in 2006. He is a vocal figure in the ongoing 'creation-evolution controversy', and as a man after my own heart, is something of a shit disturber. He uses frank, honest, and relatable language, and at times he can be a little insulting, which makes him all the more appealing. And if that wasn't awesome enough, he has a freaking asteroid named after him! Do you?

Myers appeared in Ben Stein's travesty "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a documentary about 'censorship' of Intelligent Design in the scientific community. Along with many respected scientists, by all accounts Myers was misled regarding the content of the film. They were told the film was going to be about science and religion, and instead the film did everything it could to avoid discussing science and religion... well, science anyway. Myers said regarding the discrepancy,

"I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."

Had Myers actually been allowed to speak his piece (or rather, had his spoken piece been conveyed properly... or something), it probably would have sounded something like this:

Myers gave this lecture, entitled "Science and Atheism: Natural Allies", at the Humanist Canada 2010 Convention in held in Montreal. This video is part of the BIG Ideas video podcast series, and can be downloaded for free (along with nearly 200 other lectures). I'm not about to summarize the entire lecture, but here are a few of the highlights.

First, he defines the new atheism (the 'gnu-atheists' *tee hee*) as people who value the truth of a claim foremost (even if the truth hurts), and that science is our best tool of assessing the truth. CNN defined the new atheists as people who believe "...that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises", but that is more of a side-effect, rather than a philosophy. The point is, there is considerably more to the philosophy of atheism than just not believing in god.

He goes on to provide three positive human values that form the foundation of this new atheistic philosophy, and also happen to be scientific values:

1) The importance of bad brains: We know our brains are imperfect. Our brains initially evolved for a smaller skill set: eat, don't get eaten, use tools, social interaction, and reproduce. But we do a lot of things that our brains didn't evolve to do... like building a space shuttle. So our brains are inefficient tools for many (if not most) of the things we do. And our brains are easily tricked or confused (e.g., matrixing), and we must recognize this. This fundamental uncertainty is exactly why scientific graphs have error bars. We must doubt and question ourselves, and adapt to new information.

2) The importance of evidence: We just don't accept the word of somebody, we need to see it for ourselves. So we adhere to a rigorous, standard method that forces us to support our claims with evidence. If someone said that they can throw a rock over 1 km, you'd ask them to prove it. Simply asserting something or claiming to know something from revelation is not enough, nor are old books written by people who knew nothing of contemporary science.

On a personal note, I once threw a rock at Mexico (standing at the Belize/Mexico border)... and I missed.

 

3) The importance of asking questions: "The difference between a mediocre scientist and a great scientist are the questions they ask". Science is all about asking questions, especially "How do you know?" We use many tools to help us refine our questions, because if they are too broad we are unable to address them. This is the main reason for the reductionist approach in the sciences, which granted has its faults. But big questions require far too much background information before you just dive in. Instead, for the most part we work on specific, focused questions that we are actually able to address.

So according to Myers, science and gnu-atheism are in congruence and compliment each other, and I agree. But this is not to say that theists adopting a 'watchmaker' perspective of the Universe (where god created the Universe and all its complex mechanisms, and simply set things in motion) can't make substantial contributions to science. I think they can, because they still accept and trust the patterns they observe. To them, the Universe is as science describes it, and a little something extra special. And I am completely willing to accept this perspective as a positive one, although I may not share it. It is fundamentalism, or the denial of observation to preserve belief, that is harmful.

Here is Myers' complementary lecture "Science Education: Caught in the Middle in the War Between Science and Religion".

As he describes it, this lecture is a 'traditional cranky rant against creationism', and good on him! (Around the 49 minute mark, Myers discusses his experience in "Expelled: No Intelligence Required.")

(again, just a few highlights)

Cranky though this talk may be, the story he lays down is altogether terrifying. Young Earth creationists have positioned themselves in key influential positions, with the sole objective of discrediting evolution. From the people who approve text books, to the head of school boards, to well-funded think-tanks, to a Vice Presidential hopeful (phew... glad we dodged that bullet). And possibly most appalling, 16% of high school biology teachers in the US believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and that god created humans in their present form.

(Image taken from Pharyngula)

This blatant conflict of interest guarantees that American youth (at least 16% of them) will not be properly educated in basic evolutionary theory, and therefore will be ill-prepared for University/College, or worse still, will have already closed their minds to evolutionary thought (which is the very foundation to our understanding of life).

And if that wasn't enough to make your blood boil, Myers also lists some dishonest academics who knowingly lied their way through grad school just so they could gain the credentials. They then stand behind these credentials, that they obviously have no respect for, while they propagate further lies about the nature of life... as if their credentials make their arguments for creationism any stronger (... they don't). These people include Marcus Ross, Nathanial Abraham, and Jonathan Wells (the anti-Myers). Frankly, this astonishes me because I know first hand how hard grad school is, as well as how rewarding it can be. I can't even imagine investing all the time and energy and tears into something, just to turn around and shit on it.

This is true dedication, and it is repulsive. But... as it happens, credentials alone aren't enough to structure good arguments. Just in case 140 minutes of video wasn't enough for you, here is a 40-minute debate between PZ Myers and Geoff Simmons (author of "What Darwin Didn't Know" and "Billions of Missing Links", and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute) originally aired on KKMS, 980 AM in Minneapolis.

 (I hope you enjoy the christian adds in the breaks)

  Geoff Simmons is a medical doctor, and from his observations in medicine he has concluded that it would have been impossible for various complex systems to evolve through 'trial and error', relying heavily on arguments of 'irreducible complexity' (which can easily be explained in an evolutionary framework) and the logical fallacy of personal incredulity (which does nothing but illustrate the lack of imagination of the speaker. LISTEN FOR IT! He actually says the words, "I can not imagine how..."). But fear not, Myers steps up to the plate despite having had a last minute topic change imposed on him. By the final 20 minutes it becomes clear that Simmons does not have an accurate grasp of evolutionary theory or the current state of the fossil record, and Myers (in typical fashion) called him on it.     PZ Myers, I salute you for fighting the good fight. I aspire to be as lippy, outspoken, daring, and entirely brilliant as you. With people of your outstanding character and charisma on the front lines defending the integrity of science and education, there will always be hope that someday logic and reason will prevail. Thank you.    Now... let the hate mail roll in.

HIV POV

Just a short post today. I give you, for the first time in medical history, a detailed inside look at Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

I have to admit, I had never thought to wonder how a virus might be structured... I always thought of them as a protein sheath with an attitude. But an ambitious team at Visual Science, led by Ivan Konstantinov, has created the most detailed 3D model of the virus to date by compiling information from over 100 studies in virology, as well as using X-ray analysis and NMR microscopy. 

You might be wondering what the colors represent (if not simply for contrast). The orange colored sections represent material that are coded for by the virus’ own genome, while the gray is material assimilated into the virus from the host cells; these images illustrate the spatial configuration of 17 different proteins. 

There are in fact 2 different ‘species’ of HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. I put species in quotations because although I personally consider viruses as a form of life (to which the term species would apply), there are those who do not... although I suppose in the most generic sense (not biological), you could refer to different types of particles as ‘species’. The HIV viron is between 100 and 180 nm in diameter, and is encased in a cell-derived lipid membrane composed of nearly 160,000 lipid molecules of 8 types in different proportions. Deep within, there is a cone-shaped capsid that contains two copies of positive single-stranded viral RNA. The HIV genome is approximately 10,000 nucleotides long, and contains 9 genes that code for 15 proteins.

If you were interested in the names of a few viroid structures, watch this short video (no sound).

Now, as incredible as I find the detail in these images, I can't help but be a little creeped out. I mean, I understood how viruses reproduced, but I still had this mental image of a virus as an autonomous, discrete entity completely separate from the host. But now that simplistic view has been shattered now having seen exactly what the virus uses from the host cells, and frankly I’m the better for it. HIV AIDS (as I’m sure you're all aware) is a terrible disease with no known cure, and although we have access to medical treatments and support in developed nations, the developing world (most notable Africa) is just being devastated. But there is hope, in the form of an organized, strategic plan released in 2010 for the development of an HIV vaccine. We're not there yet, and we have a long way to go... but it’s not hopeless.

Inspired By Life

“When you approach a problem that you have been hired to solve, first think: is there anything in the biosphere that already does this? And if so, how? You know that it’s being done sustainably there. So remember, trial-and-error evolution through natural selection is not smarter than top-down design by an engineer, but it has had a 3.8 billion year head start on you to find the methods of operation that are, by necessity, sustainable in the larger context of the immediate and global environment.” – Christian Shorey

This quote captures the essence of today’s subject. Biomimicry (or bio-inspiration) is a relatively new scientific discipline, but it will become increasingly important if we have any hope of moving towards living in balance with the Earth. Janine Benyus popularized the term in her book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. According to Janine, biomimicry has 3 facets:

1) Nature as model: Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems.

Like the solar cell inspired by a leaf… or human-powered flapping flight inspired by a bird!

(DAVINCI WAS RIGHT!!!! *man-tears*)

2) Nature as measure: Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the rightness of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned what works, what is appropriate, and what lasts.

3) Nature as mentor: Biomimicry is a new way of reviewing and valuing nature. It introduced and era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.

Noble goals indeed. She continues to list nature’s strongest attributes to which we should aspire. They are that, “Nature runs on sunlight, uses only the energy it needs, fits form to function, recycles everything, rewards cooperation, banks on diversity, demands local expertise, curbs excess from within, and taps the power of limits.”

It’s certainly not an easy approach to technology, and it requires complex engineering to synthetically recreate (in life-friendly ways) functions and forms that nature creates organically. But we KNOW it is possible because nature already does it, and it does it every day. And that is really where inspiration comes in.

So for this post I’m going to give you a few examples of potential technologies. Think of this as food for thought.

Spider Silk

This is a pretty obvious one. Spider silk is very strong, with a tensile strength comparable to high-grade steel (and roughly that of Kevlar) but at a fifth of steel’s density, capable of stretching 1.4x without breaking, and holds it strength below temperatures of -40 °C. Of course silk properties differ among species, but the strongest known spider’s silk (and indeed one of the toughest biological materials) is from Darwin’s bark spider (Caerostris darwini), whose silk is roughly 10 times the strength of Kevlar. Also, some species produce up to 5 different types of silk, each with different properties, so there is already a precedent of modification for specific function.

Mussels

Mussels actually produce a number of substances that could be incredibly useful. First, they secrete a strong adhesive that works both when exposed to air and underwater, and requires no primer. Second, they attach themselves to firm substrates using incredibly strong and flexible fibrous threads called byssi. They also produce a biodegradable sealant. It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with potential uses for these products. Although we have already created equivalents, just imagine the benefit of cheap, completely non-toxic, biodegradable adhesives and sealants. We know it’s possible, because it already exists.

_____________________________________

Ok… now for some fun ones!

Antifreeze

Some fish are capable of produce non-toxic antifreeze that permits them to super-cool and remain active. Some frog species also possess freeze tolerance, which allows them to freeze almost completely solid and thaw, unharmed, in the spring. There are clear medical applications for this sort of technology. With it, you could preserve organs for transplant longer, and under conditions that bacteria could not grow. Again, we know it’s possible.

Sustainable Agriculture

As the evolutionary celebrity Richard Dawkins explained, there exists a complex symbiotic interaction involving leafcutter ants, their fungal gardens, and a bacterium (that grows on the garden-tender ants) that releases anti-microbial chemicals (which are used to weed the garden). This particular interaction was, I believe, the first documented example of a tripartite symbiotic mutualism. Not only is this system a beautiful model for sustainable agriculture, but it also makes use of targeted biocontrol. It’s no wonder brilliant people like E.O. Wilson spent so much time studying these magnificent social insects.

Self-healing and limb regeneration

Rhinoceros horn is incredibly strong (made entirely of keratin), and self-repairing.  Some lizard species can detach and regenerate their tails. And salamanders can completely regenerate limbs. I have actually had the opportunity to watch a tiger salamander regenerate one of its forelimbs over the span of a couple months. Now, you wouldn’t even known it. Sure, this is the stuff of comic book super villains, but hey… we know it’s possible.

Predicting Earthquakes

As it stands, we can’t. We just can’t. In the light of the recent disaster in Japan, I think we can all appreciate just how useful accurately predict earthquakes would be. Stories of animals reacting moments before an earthquake strikes are fairly common, but that only gives you a few extra seconds warning at best. However, other organisms may be able to react to earthquakes days in advance.

In April 2009, a grad student was studying a breeding population of common toads (Bufo bufo) in central Italy like she had for three years prior. The toads use lunar cues to coordinate their migrations to breeding sites. But that year, something was different. In a matter of days, a breeding congregation of ~100 toads disappeared inexplicably, despite the rapidly approaching peak breeding conditions. But five days later, Italy was rocked by a 6.3-magnitude quake that killed roughly 300 people. Although a few toads did return to the breeding pond for the full moon three days later, they did not return en masse until 2 days after the final major aftershock (a full 10 days after the quake). It is still unknown what exactly the toads were reacting to, and some people have dismissed these observations as purely coincidence (but it’s impossible to know for certain with a sample size of 1). Nevertheless, there is clearly potential to learn from nature here.

Mind Control

Oh yes… we’re going there. Mind control!

There are countless examples in nature where parasites, for their own benefit, alter the behavior of their hosts. These behavioral changes are almost always related to the completion of the parasite life cycle. The phenomenon of these ‘enslaver’ parasites is discussed at length in The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene, Richard Dawkins’ follow up to The Selfish Gene. Here are a few crazy examples.

A fungal parasite infects yellow dungflies and grows within their bodies. Once the fungus is (quite literally) ready to burst from the seams, the flies are compelled to climb high and perch is an abnormal manner (specific body posture and orientation) intended to maximize spore dispersal. There is another fungal fly parasite that indirectly manipulates the mating behavior of uninfected individuals to enhance transmission. Also, there are at least 4 different species of enslaver fungi that infect our friends, the leafcutter ants. Similar to the yellow dungflies, the infected ants are compelled to climb, fix themselves in exposed positions and then die, after which the fungi disperse their spores.

There are hairworms that infect grasshoppers, but require water to complete their lifecycle. So when it’s time, the host drowns itself and the parasite comes wriggling out. There are also many parasitic worms (e.g., trematodes) in fish that alter the host behavior (and sometimes coloration) to increase their likelihood of being predated upon. These parasites often (if not always) require multiple hosts for the completion of their life cycles.

Now, I’m not advocating mind control… but true to form, nature did it first.

Spooky, no?

Simply Spectacular Sea Slugs

Three posts ago—while discussing the newly discovered symbiosis between green algae and spotted salamander embryos—I referenced an article about my favorite group of invertebrates, nudibranchs (sea slugs), which inspired today’s installment.

Nudibranchs are simply spectacular. The incredible diversity of shapes and color is almost intoxicating. 

They are breathtaking!

I find myself mesmerized and end up contemplating how such exquisite organisms could have ever evolved. The safest way to go through life is to be unseen, which is why there are so many cryptic species. But if you have something to back it up, sometimes your best bet is to make a statement, be seen, and advertise to potential predators in no uncertain terms that you are dangerous (i.e., toxic). This is called aposematic coloration, and one of the best examples are the ‘poison dart frogs’ (Dendrobatidae).

Note: It is actually more appropriate to call the group ‘poison frogs’, since only one species (Phyllobates terribilis) was actually used for poison darts. But I digress…

There are two schools of thought on how aposematism could have evolved: either the toxicity came first and the coloration second, or the coloration first and the toxicity second. Either way you are faced with the conundrum that aposematism only works when the predators have learned to avoid the brightly colored individuals, but up until that point the predators would preferentially target the brightest individuals and disproportionately removing them from the gene pool. However it works, it works. So what defenses do nudibrachs bring to bear? More on this later…

As amazed as I am by the physical splendor of these little mollusks, it pales by comparison to the complex interactions they share with other organism.

In the previous post I referenced an article about a species (Elysia chlorotica) that has a symbiotic relationship with algae. Well I have to admit, that is not entirely true. This nudibranch doesn't actually play host to algae, but rather assimilates the chloroplasts from algae it ingests. This relationship is call subcellular endosymbiosis (subcellular, because the relationship only involves organelles rather than entire organisms). The chloroplasts can survive within the slug's body for up to 10 months, and all the while they are actively photosynthesizing. In a very real sense this nudibranch is solar-powered and can complete its entire life cycle (including reproduction) on photosynthesis alone, although they continue to graze to collect new chloroplasts. But photosynthesis is a complex biochemical reaction that requires many specialized enzymes to complete, so simply possessing chloroplasts isn’t enough. Somewhere in its evolutionary history Elysia chlorotica actually assimilated algal genes (15 have been described so far), and there are likely more that have yet to be discovered. Gene transfer between species is common among single-celled organisms, but this represents the first time it has been described in multi-cellular life.

Many species (at least those belonging to the aeolid infraorder) possess an astounding defense mechanism that is strikingly similar. These nudibranchs defend themselves via nematocysts (or cnidocytes) located in the dorsal body wall (protrusions called cerata). But nematocysts are the hair-trigger ‘ballistic’ defensive (or offensive) organelles containing toxins found within specialized cells (cnidoblasts), unique to cnidarians (phylum Cnidaria; e.g., jellyfish, sea anemones, hydroids, corals, and ctenophores).

So how the heck did a cnidarian organelle end up on the back of a sea slug?

Well it’s a complex process, but it goes a little something like this… Nudibranchs graze on sea anemones, and are protected by their mucus that prevents the anemones’ nematocysts from firing. Once ingested, intacellular discs called ‘spindles’ form a physical barrier preventing nematocyst discharge in their bodies. The encapsulated organelles are then transported to the cerata, where they are deposited in the outermost layer of tissue. When this process is complete, the stolen nematocysts are then referred to as (quite appropriately) kleptocnidae (heh heh… science words are fun). This too is an example of subcellular endosymbiosis.

In my undergrad invertebrate zoology course I was shown a series of cross-section photos illustrating the actual progression of nematocysts through the nudibranch body wall. It was incredible and I’m sorry I was unable to find similar images for this post. I’ll keep digging for a sequential series and put them up if/when I come across them.

So there you have another beautiful example of the intricate complexity of life. Nature will always find interesting and creative ways to deal with life’s many challenges.

More pretty pictures here and here.

The Future is Now

Today’s post is intended to scare the living crap out of you. Welcome to present day warfare… because we don’t already have enough way to be shitty to each other. Taken straight out of science fiction, here are some contemporary state of the art weapon systems that will give you a chilling glimpse into the future.

Auto-turrets

Introducing the Super aEgis II, a South Korean (DoDAAM) fully automated turret system, sporting a variety of weapons, designed to engage targets at a range of ~3 km, and can be monitored and operated remotely by technicians safely located miles away. Automated turrets, or sentry guns, aren’t that common outside of movies or videogames, but they are a reality. The intended use of the Super aEgis II is to (unsurprisingly) maintain the standoff between North and South Korea, freeing up manpower and resources, and reducing the number of casualties… well, on one side. But in light of the global economy and nations tightening their borders, I fear it won’t be too long before we see these things pop up on the borders of some, shall we say more paranoid countries… you know, like the ones that would even contemplate constructing fences along their borders. 

In stores soon. Look for these bad boys at a border near you!

Direct-energy Weapons

Uh huh, that’s right folks… we’re talking about laser, radio, microwave, and sonic weapons. (Holy shit!) There is also particle beam weapon technology, but I’m just going to focus on the others because they are actually in use today.

Laser weapons range from high-yield cannons for missile defense or destroying targets, to lower-yield non-lethal weapons such as dazzlers that are used to temporarily blind and disorient people, and overload electronics. Obviously there are some major limitations to laser technology (especially for the high-yield weapons) like the incredible power requirements and a phenomenon referred to as ‘blooming’ wherein the beam begins to cause plasma break down in the air, causing the laser to disperse energy. However, electrolaser technology uses the blooming phenomenon, and sends a powerful electric current down the ionized track of plasma to deliver a high energy, long-distance jolt (and I have to admit that from a purely scientific perspective, that is so freaking cool).

There are defense system that uses microwaves to disrupt the surface-to-air missile guidance systems, and high power microwave systems that can be used to destroy targets at a distance (I wish I was making this up). But most microwave, high-energy radio-frequency, and sonic weapons typically fall into the category of ‘Active Denial Systems (ADS)’, which is a very euphemistic way of saying ‘incredibly painful, non-lethal crowd control’.

Sonic or ultrasonic weapons emit sound waves to disrupt or rupture the eardrums, cause extreme pain or disorientation, and it’s even possible tune the frequency to cause vibration in the eyeballs that will (obviously) distorts vision.

High-energy radio weapons can cause intense pain by increasing skin temperature to ~50 °C at a range of almost half a kilometer... with radio waves... Now, as surprising as this might sound, it is also possible to split the chemical bonds in saltwater using only radio waves, producing a 'clean burning fuel' (which I don't entirely agree with, but I'll leave that for another post regarding greenhouse gasses). Anyway, my point is there is a lot of potential power in radio waves.

Microwave weapons (like the microwave in your kitchen) excite the water and fat molecules in tissue, causing intense pain almost instantaneously. And the longer a person is subjected to the beam, the hotter it gets. But luckily we are assured that microwave ADS have no effect on male fertility, do not cause birth defects, physical damage does not exceed pea-sized blisters, and developing cancer as a result of exposure is very unlikely.

Suffice to say I hope I am NEVER in a position to experience the horror feeling the water in my tissue boil.

Combat Drones

I’m sure by now everyone has at least heard of combat drones (a.k.a. unmanned combat air vehicles). In the past year alone they have been featured in episodes of 24, Burn Notice and American Dad!. The idea is to bombard the bejesus out of your enemy from well behind enemy lines using a multi-million dollar remote-controlled aircraft with live munitions.

(Toys (1992) anybody?)

To be fair, these vehicles are intended for precision strikes. But amazingly it can be a little difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and to limit collateral damage when you’re miles away looking at everything through a video monitor. Heck, it would be difficult enough to do that when you’re hunkered down behind a wall with people shooting at you (I imagine… never having been in an active war-zone). Long story short, the use of drones for ‘targeted killings’ could be considered a breach of international law unless there is clear accountability (which is difficult with a mix of military and civilians necessary to operate these death-wings) and some means of controlling the carnage.

_____________________________________

So I’m looking at these absolute marvels of technology, and I can’t help but be impressed. I mean… laser canons, microwave crowd control, robotized stationary defense… well done! They’re incredible and cool as crap… and entirely terrifying. But I just can’t help but think about all the money that has been invested in these tools of pain and death, and all the other application we might have found for that money.

I’m not going to hit you with clichés or get too preachy. But I think we could do so much better.

We really need to reevaluate our priorities.

Oh, and just to round things out... here are some examples of comical yet tragic failed weapon system. These include bat and rat bombs, military dolphins, anti-tank dog, and pigeon-guided missiles... no kidding.

Pedagogic Podcasts

One of the reasons I wanted to start this blog was to share some amazing free online resources I have come across, and there are many to chose from. In the past year or so I’ve been really digging the whole Podcast scene. Also, Apple now has the iTunesU section in the iTunes store, specifically for educational resources. So here is the first installment of my favorite podcasts.

The Earth and Environmental System Science Podcast
By Dr. Christian Shorey at the Colorado School of Mines

I can’t say enough good things about this podcast series… I just can’t do it justice. In a word, it is incredible. It is a series of 66 1-hour lectures covering just about every scientific discipline you can imagine. The first 44 lectures work up from atoms and minerals, through geology,  absolute dating, weather, climate (including paleoclimate and climate change), life, ecology, evolution and intelligent design (wherein he illustrates in no uncertain terms the ID can not be considered scientific), biodiversity, conservation, biomimicry, the evolution of consciousness, mass extinction, environmental economics… well, you get the picture.

And these lectures simply set the stage for the 2nd portion of the series where Dr. Shorey tells the greatest story ever told: The entire history of the Universe in chronological order using a ‘geo-year’ metaphore, where the age of the Universe (13.7 billion years) is equivalent to 3 geo-years, and the age of the Earth (4.56 billion years) is equal to 1 geo-year. Starting with a discussion of space-time, he moves through the cosmic evolution following the big bang, solar system formation, abiogenesis (the origin of life), biological evolution, and ends with social and technological evolution bringing us to present day Earth. When humanity hits the scene, Dr. Shorey brilliantly incorporates comparative mythology into his lectures, and provides a truly objective view of how we came to be where and what we currently are. He ends the lecture series with a discussion on science and religion, and how the two interact.

I’ll admit I haven’t managed to listen through the entire series yet… I end up listening to the same lectures over and over again. He just bombards you with information in his skillfully crafted lectures. I would have loved to have Christian Shorey as a professor for my undergrad, and I’m a little jealous of those fortunate students.

This podcast is available for free through the ‘Podcast’ and ‘iTunesU’ sections. I recommend avoiding the iTunesU section for the podcast lectures proper, because for some reason the lectures are scattered randomly in multiple folders, and his final lecture is missing. All of the lectures are available in an organized fashion from the ‘Podcast’ section.

BUT… some extra resources (videos and notes corresponding to certain lectures) are also available only through iTunesU.

Do yourself a favor and download it today.


Evolution, Ecology and Behavior Podcast
By Dr. Stephen C. Stearns at Yale University

This is an impressive series of 36 50-minute lectures on various aspects of (as the name might suggest) evolutionary theory, ecology, and animal behavior. These are considerably more detailed than the few lectures Dr. Shorey included in his incredible podcast series, which really reflects the relative range of topics more than anything. Among the more interesting lectures here are: the evolution of sex, the impact of evolutionary thought on the social sciences, key events in evolution, coevolution, evolutionary medicine, the distribution of life on Earth, island biogeography, game theory, mating systems, and altruism. Although I don’t necessarily find Dr. Stearns as engaging as Dr. Shorey, these lectures are well constructed and worthwhile. If you’re interested in boning up on your evolutionary theory, this is the podcast for you.

Available through iTunesU


Biodiversity and the Future
By Dr. E.O. Wilson speaking at the University of Alabama

(sorry no web-link, but you should have no trouble searching for it in the iTunes Store)

A single 1-hour video lecture by the great E.O. Wilson. For those of you who may not know, Dr. Wilson was the creator of the biological discipline ‘sociobiology’ through his study of social insects. He has published countless books on the subjects of evolution, behavior, and philosophy. One of his later brilliant contributions is the book ‘Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge’ where he calls for a reintegration of all disciplines of knowledge: the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities alike. Download this lecture if for no other reason than to listen to one of the great minds of biology share his vision for the future.

Available through iTunesU

Enjoy

Holy Symbiotic Salamanders!

Just some cool popular science today. No rants, just inspiration.

Well the CBC news piece tells the story, but a team of researchers (Kerney et al. 2011) at University of California (Berkeley) has recently discovered a symbiotic association between spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) embryos and Oophila amblystomatis (literally translates to 'salamander egg lover') green algae. Green algae have long been known to colonize spotted salamander eggs, but here they have actually observed the algal cells within the embryonic tissue (endosymbiosis).

(Oophila sp.)

Oh, and before I go any further I’d just like to address a little sticky point (spurred on by one of the comments on the CBC news page)… algae are not plants (kingdom Plantae), they are protists (kingdom Protista). Yes, both groups are eukaryotic, and some protists can photosynthesize, but they are not even remotely the same.

 

Similar associations have been documented in many invertebrates, like sea anemones, jellyfish, and nudibranchs. But this is something special because endosymbiosis is incredibly rare in vertebrates; so much so that this appears to be the first documented case.

Symbiosis is shockingly common in nature. Lichen, and fungal mycorrhizae associated with vascular plant roots are two well-known examples that are easy to observe. Even the mitochondria on our cells, or chloroplasts in plants (and other membrane-bound organelles) are the legacy of endosymbiosis past. The difference between the origins of mitochondria and the newly discovered association with spotted salamanders is that the ancestral symbiotic event involved single-celled organisms, and likely some error in phagocytosis (the act of a cell consuming another by enveloping it, like an amoeba) or some form of parasitism. It is even possible to track the evolution of chloroplasts through multiple endosymbiotic events by counting the number of plastid membranes in some groups or organisms, like dinoflagellates.

This new symbiosis involves a multi-cellular vertebrate being ‘invaded’ by a single-celled organism. But the nature of this symbiotic relationship remains unknown. How do both parties benefit? Kerney et al. (2011) speculate that the embryos gain some advantage during development from elevated oxygen levels in their tissue provided by the algae. But what does the algae gain? True symbiosis is a form of mutualism. They could very well, as Kerney suggests, gain carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the embryo. It could also be that the algae gain some measure of protection from being inside a larger organism, but amphibian eggs are preyed upon by many other species. And what happens to the algae once the embryo develops to the point where light can no longer penetrate the tissue? Obviously there are still unanswered questions, which makes this discovery all the more enticing.

Symbiosis was a key development right near the dawn of our tree of life that spawned the incredible diversity we enjoy today. Symbiosis is everywhere, which suggests that the secret of life might not be competition (‘Nature red in tooth and claw’), but rather how well organisms are able to get along.

I like that.

Fuck the Doomed!

An excerpt from ‘Where the Buffalo Roam’ (1980), depicting a chance encounter between Hunter S. Thompson (undercover as Harris from The Post) and Richard Nixon. I always liked this scene, the imagery of ‘the doomed’ and ‘the screw-heads’, and Nixon’s contempt. I thought the intent of Nixon’s statement of ‘fuck the doomed’ was pretty clear: to hell with the little man, I hold the power. An outrageous statement to say the least, and one I’d rail against with all my being. The power of a democracy is its people… right? But in light of the current Canadian political scene, now I’m not so sure.

Here is what’s bothering me.

For the first time in Canadian history, the Conservative minority government under the “leadership” of Stephen Harper has been found in contempt of parliament. I didn’t even know that was possible. But much like Al Capone, in mid-March the current administration was caught in their lies about money (damn that nasty paper trail). Well alright! They’ve been caught red hand. Surely Mr. Harper will respect the Canadian people, admit his error and step down in shame for having become the blackest spot in Canadian political history… surely.

OH DON’T WE?! Well I fucking do. How dare you tell me what I think… that’s FOX NEWS’ job, not yours (shout out to ‘opinion journalists’ everywhere: I hate you all. Come back when you have something of substance to say). And I’m not alone.

In an early poll, 63% of Canadian believed an honest government and leader was more important than electing a government that will ensure our economic recovery will continue. Well hey, that’s a start. But… but wait… what’s this?

“28 per cent of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if reelected, would do the best job of 'providing honest, open and trustworthy government.'

22 per cent believe the NDP would do the best job of this.

Just 15 per cent say the Liberals would be best at providing honest, open and trustworthy government.

29 per cent don't endorse any of the major parties as best to deliver this type of government.”

Are you fucking kidding me? The largest minority of Canadians supporting a party believe the current administration—you remember, the one that was just found in contempt of parliament—represents a trustworthy government? Seriously? Can we, as a nation, be this stupid? Nope... we're even dumber than that. (link updated daily)

The Conservatives are currently sitting at 40% approval. This is just insanity! Do we, as a people, have so little pride that we will accept being lied to by the people we pay to serve our best interest? Are we so embedded within, and blinded by partisan politics that we can’t even act in our own best interests? I’m not a political science major, and I won’t pretend to even pay that much attention to politics on the whole. But I have my pride, as a Canadian, and I believe this country has so much potential. I simply cannot tolerate being lied to and manipulated. It’s not ok. And if the Canadian people reelect the very same people who were found in contempt of parliament, well what message does that send?

I started off with a clip of Hunter and Nixon having it out in a public bathroom, and I gave you my little interpretation on the short, but poignant phrase “fuck the doomed”. See, I always identified with the image of ‘the doomed’, because it fits so well.

“The poor doomed… the young, and the silly, and the honest, and the weak… Italians… they’re doomed. They’re lost, they’re helpless, they’re somebody else’s meal… they’re like pigs in the wilderness.”

Hunter was right. We’re doomed. We’re our own worst enemy. If we can’t even be bothered to stand up for ourselves, we are truly doomed to be stomped on by anyone who feels like it. I’ll do my own little part on election day, but from the look of things, it just won’t matter. We’re doomed for another Conservative government that will lie and cheat and steal. See, Nixon’s words were spoken in contempt of the people… well it’s just as appropriate when spoken in resentment.

We’re doomed, and I’m not ok with it.

Fuck the Doomed.

And if you weren’t already enraged beyond all belief, if you still had faith in the honesty and integrity of the Harper administration, or if you honestly don’t care about the state of our nation…

A Perfect Storm - A New Chapter Begins

Hello and welcome fellow travelers of the Blog-verse. This is the first post of a blog I have decided to dedicate to logic and reason. Really, I was just looking for an appropriate venue to discuss science, religion, society, politics, and philosophy, and also to share neat scientific discoveries and interesting online resources… and well, this seems as appropriate a venue as any. I can’t promise regular updates, or even that I will be supplying any novel insight. All I hope is to be somewhat entertaining and give you food for thought. So stay tuned and enjoy the ride. Who knows, you might learn something. 

Also, I suppose I should start with a little disclaimer. I’m not looking to offend anyone, although it’s bound to happen given the subject matter I’m hoping to discuss. So if you disagree with or object to something I say, I’d like to hear from you. But let’s try to avoid the digital cock-waving matches. If you have a valid counterpoint, let’s hear it. And for my part, I promise to avoid being a pretentious prick as best as I can.

So without further ado, let’s start things off with a little levity. A friend (two, actually) passed along this video today, and it seemed most appropriate for this, the maiden post of my blog.

Tim Minchin’s “Storm: The Animated Movie”

Brilliant! As you might have guessed from the quote I included in my personal description, I have had a long running love for Tim Minchin and his comedy, and he continues to impress me. He has a rare combination of raw insightful wit and musical talent that makes for an amazing entertainer. In this case, Mr. Minchin hits on a number of arguments I have actually encountered before, and I enjoyed his counters.

“Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine.”

LOL! And despite the frustrating use of ‘proved’ rather than ‘proven’, the point is well made.

I especially love his description of the scientific perspective vs. that of a fundamentalist. He is spot on, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find any true proponent of ‘the enlightenment’—atheist, skeptic or neo-darwinian alike—who would not also “spin on a fucking dime” if irrefutable evidence were presented that ran contrary to their current world view (provided, of course, that the weight of the new evidence was greater than that of the existing evidence…). But right at the end he hit on something that I find so incredibly frustrating about just these sorts of debates.

“And if perchance I have offended, think but this and all is mended: We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time for all the chance you’ll change your mind.”

*sigh* There lies the rub… and ironically an apt definition of fundamentalism. Look… how can we ever hope to resolve anything with a system where only one side is even willing to consider the possibility of being wrong? And these are the people that are so often accused of being closed-minded…

It’s an exercise in futility. But here we are, trapped in a world with those who are willing to learn and adapt with new information—one might even be so brave as to say ‘evolve’—and those who are not (blatant self-censorship). Luckily I'm a glutton for punishment, and I'm not alone. I suppose all we can do is continue to refine our world-views, argue with hippies at dinner parties, and most importantly remember that “if you’re too open-minded, your brain will fall out”.