I gave this talk last Sunday in church, and thought I'd share it here.
In the scriptures there are two accounts of a group of people creating a Zion here on this Earth.
One story is in the Book of Moses, where we read about Enoch and his people, and the second is in the Book of Mormon account of the followers of Jesus in the first years after his visit to the Nephites. The account of the Nephites in 4th Nephi is somewhat more detailed than the account of the City of Enoch in the Book of Moses. I'd like to read a bit from 4th Nephi about Zion:
4 Nephi 1:2-3
2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.
3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.
Since the beginning of this church we as members have been striving toward the ideal of Zion.
From the scriptures we can identify some of the characteristics of a Zion society. Here are some of them:
1. There were no contentions or disputations
2. Every person did deal justly one with another
3. They had all things in common among them.
4. There were not rich and poor, bond and free
5. They were all partakers of the heavenly gift
Prophets have clearly and repeatedly taught that we should be working toward a Zion society. They have taught us what we need to do to create that society among us.
King Benjamin taught the Nephites:
Mosiah 4:15
But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.
Alma the Elder also taught:
Mosiah 18:21
… that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.
This is our baptismal covenant. These are the things that we study and teach every week in church. It’s so simple. Right?
So why do we get it wrong?
Why is it that I still get in fights with my wife, or get angry at my children, or hold a grudge against that guy from high school, or hate Pepper because is more handsome and can shoot a basketball? Why is it that I don’t want so and so as my home teacher, or I don’t want to go to the ward activity if we have teriyaki burgers? (Or whatever.)
We are biologically, physically, mentally incapable of being perfect. As King Benjamin said it, the natural man is an enemy to God. No matter how hard we try we are all imperfect, and will hurt other people, and be hurt by others.
I recognize that I'm imperfect. There are many times when I say to myself, "What was I thinking?" And this helps me understand that everyone else probably says the same thing sometimes. Just as I hope others understand that I am imperfect but trying to be better, I understand that others are imperfect but trying to be better.
There are a couple of guys from high school that I was physically hurt by. For a long time I hated both of these guys. After some years I have come to like one of them, or at least respect. Him I think I can say I’ve forgiven. The other, I still daydream about punching him in the face.
Forgiveness is hard, especially when we have been seriously hurt.
I try to practice forgiveness at home with my family. When my wife and I argue, I think I do well at forgiving her. Unfortunately, I usually forgive her in the same way I forgave the person from high school, which is by waiting long enough. I think that I'll forgive my wife -- tomorrow, after I've calmed down. Or, later, I just need to be alone for a while.
Forgiveness later is good, but not best. To truly be like Jesus we should forgive one another in the moment, when it matters most. I think of Jesus' example when he was on the cross, being killed by the Romans. Luke said,
Luke 23:33-34
33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 ¶Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Jesus provides the example to us of forgiving others, even as they hurt us.
There is one story of Jesus that for me teaches the importance of forgiveness.
Luke 5:20-24
20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?
24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.
For a being that can walk on water, turn water into wine, or feed the multitudes with a small number of loaves and fishes, saying, "Arise, and take up thy couch" is easy. What makes Him a God is His ability to forgive, and build up, and build a relationship with.
There will come a time when for us also it is easier to say, "Arise, and take up thy couch." Humanity's coarse medicine and methods of healing are slowly but surely becoming more refined and powerful. My children can talk with me from half a world away. In a few decades we may have a permanent settlement on another planet. But one of the most important measures of our divinity is how well we, like Jesus, can say, "I forgive you."
If we can forgive others as Jesus does, then we can have Zion here in this life.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Monday, July 29, 2013
The Parable Of The Man And The Immovable Rock
One day a man knelt in prayer to ask God what He would have him do. To the man's surprise God appeared to him and, pointing to a large boulder nearby, said, "I want you to push this rock."
Obedient to God's request, the man immediately began to push against the rock. But no matter how hard he pushed, the rock would not move. The next day he again pushed with all his strength to move the rock. He tried all he could think of, yet still he was unsuccessful.
Days passed, and the man continued to try unsuccessfully to move the rock. Each night the man returned home exhausted. Seeing his struggle, Satan came to tempt the man.
"Have you had any success moving this rock?"
"I have not."
"Of course you haven't. This rock is clearly too big to move. You have failed. You have wasted your time. Give up. To continue would be folly."
Troubled and discouraged, the man knelt in prayer to God. Once again, God appeared to him, and He asked the man what was wrong. The man cried, "You asked me to move this rock, and in spite of all my strength and all my intellect I have not moved it one millimeter."
Lovingly God replied, "My son, my friend. I never asked you to move the rock. I asked you to push it. You have done all that I have asked of you. For your faith and obedience you have been and shall be blessed.
Years later the man's daughter read through the journal which the man had kept as he tried to move the rock. She could see and understand all of what her father had tried to do, and how faithful her father had been. In a moment of divine inspiration she saw how close her father had been to moving the rock, and what her father had not yet understood.
She moved the rock.
And God saw that it was good.
Obedient to God's request, the man immediately began to push against the rock. But no matter how hard he pushed, the rock would not move. The next day he again pushed with all his strength to move the rock. He tried all he could think of, yet still he was unsuccessful.
Days passed, and the man continued to try unsuccessfully to move the rock. Each night the man returned home exhausted. Seeing his struggle, Satan came to tempt the man.
"Have you had any success moving this rock?"
"I have not."
"Of course you haven't. This rock is clearly too big to move. You have failed. You have wasted your time. Give up. To continue would be folly."
Troubled and discouraged, the man knelt in prayer to God. Once again, God appeared to him, and He asked the man what was wrong. The man cried, "You asked me to move this rock, and in spite of all my strength and all my intellect I have not moved it one millimeter."
Lovingly God replied, "My son, my friend. I never asked you to move the rock. I asked you to push it. You have done all that I have asked of you. For your faith and obedience you have been and shall be blessed.
Years later the man's daughter read through the journal which the man had kept as he tried to move the rock. She could see and understand all of what her father had tried to do, and how faithful her father had been. In a moment of divine inspiration she saw how close her father had been to moving the rock, and what her father had not yet understood.
She moved the rock.
And God saw that it was good.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Response to a Friend's Questions on Life Extension
In response to my previous post, "What Life Extension Actually Is", my friend posed several more questions. I responded to them on Facebook and I'll reproduce them here.
Here are his questions:
Here are my answers, with a few minor tweaks:
Good questions.
Your first: Will it be sustainable? Honestly I can't see that far into the future, though I can envision some possibilities and see some trends.
I think it's an important question to ask, but it is less important than eliminating the suffering of aging and dying. Essentially, letting people get sick or die when we have the capability of stopping it is a bigger sin than overpopulating the Earth, especially considering there are things that we can envision now to address overpopulation, and surely new ideas would come to us once we get to that point. We don't sit idly by as someone drowns, or dies of pneumonia, or infection from a simple scratch. I'm sure we all agree it is wrong to do so. Address the most important problem first.
Like I said, there are some trends that I think are working in our favor. The biggest of these is the strong negative correlation between education, most especially of women, and birth rate. The United States actually has a birth rate below the replacement rate, and would be declining in population were it not for immigration. Just a few days ago there was an interesting RadioWest interview about this. Our birth rate is around 1.9 births per woman, which is below the (current) replacement rate of around 2.1 births. Other countries are much lower, including Japan, as I'm sure you're aware, which is around 1.4.
So this has led social scientists to predict that the world population will peak at about 9 billion people around 2050, after which it will begin to decline. So we've already begun addressing the problem naturally.
Second, I don't think we're near the carrying capacity of the Earth. We have become much more productive and efficient in farming, energy usage (in spite of using more), resource usage, etc. I don't think we're near limits on any of these, though gains will grow harder to get to. But we can hold many more people than we currently do.
I strongly believe we will colonize other worlds throughout space. I think this will be very challenging, though, due to the vast distances and timescales involved, and the amount of energy required, and there are some disincentives to being the person leaving the Earth. Still, there are important reasons to become multi-planet, the most important of which is to make the human species more resilient to natural dangers. Besides, who wouldn't want to be the first missionaries to preach the gospel to other worlds. :-)
I am worried about economic disparity, especially considering descriptions of the Nephites at their best, or the city of Enoch, or the United Order. There is a pattern that has held pretty well, though, that at first new technologies work poorly, are expensive, and few have access, then they become mainstream, and eventually it becomes reliable and everybody has access to it cheaply. Think cell phones for a good example. I can see rich people monopolizing access to important technologies. Yet healthy, biologically young people are more productive and so make better workers, and contribute more to GDP, they get sick less, they are less of a burden on others such as children, they can buy more stuff. I wonder if it would even make sense to give free access to aging medicine for the economic benefits that would result from a productive, purchasing society.
Here are his questions:
I am curious though, ... do you think it would be sustainable to have everyone on the planet live indefinitely? I'm trying to imagine what would happen if no one died of age-related causes but the world continued to procreate. Do you see there being any economic and/or population challenges there?
Also, I would imagine that the technology needed to make this possible would be extremely expensive (e.g., you cited a Russian billionaire who is heavily invested in the project). Do you see this technology being made available to the common man?
Here are my answers, with a few minor tweaks:
Good questions.
Your first: Will it be sustainable? Honestly I can't see that far into the future, though I can envision some possibilities and see some trends.
I think it's an important question to ask, but it is less important than eliminating the suffering of aging and dying. Essentially, letting people get sick or die when we have the capability of stopping it is a bigger sin than overpopulating the Earth, especially considering there are things that we can envision now to address overpopulation, and surely new ideas would come to us once we get to that point. We don't sit idly by as someone drowns, or dies of pneumonia, or infection from a simple scratch. I'm sure we all agree it is wrong to do so. Address the most important problem first.
Like I said, there are some trends that I think are working in our favor. The biggest of these is the strong negative correlation between education, most especially of women, and birth rate. The United States actually has a birth rate below the replacement rate, and would be declining in population were it not for immigration. Just a few days ago there was an interesting RadioWest interview about this. Our birth rate is around 1.9 births per woman, which is below the (current) replacement rate of around 2.1 births. Other countries are much lower, including Japan, as I'm sure you're aware, which is around 1.4.
So this has led social scientists to predict that the world population will peak at about 9 billion people around 2050, after which it will begin to decline. So we've already begun addressing the problem naturally.
Second, I don't think we're near the carrying capacity of the Earth. We have become much more productive and efficient in farming, energy usage (in spite of using more), resource usage, etc. I don't think we're near limits on any of these, though gains will grow harder to get to. But we can hold many more people than we currently do.
I strongly believe we will colonize other worlds throughout space. I think this will be very challenging, though, due to the vast distances and timescales involved, and the amount of energy required, and there are some disincentives to being the person leaving the Earth. Still, there are important reasons to become multi-planet, the most important of which is to make the human species more resilient to natural dangers. Besides, who wouldn't want to be the first missionaries to preach the gospel to other worlds. :-)
I am worried about economic disparity, especially considering descriptions of the Nephites at their best, or the city of Enoch, or the United Order. There is a pattern that has held pretty well, though, that at first new technologies work poorly, are expensive, and few have access, then they become mainstream, and eventually it becomes reliable and everybody has access to it cheaply. Think cell phones for a good example. I can see rich people monopolizing access to important technologies. Yet healthy, biologically young people are more productive and so make better workers, and contribute more to GDP, they get sick less, they are less of a burden on others such as children, they can buy more stuff. I wonder if it would even make sense to give free access to aging medicine for the economic benefits that would result from a productive, purchasing society.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
What Life Extension Actually Is
I posted the picture below on Facebook, and I got a comment from a friend with questions about my thoughts on the subject. I got so excited, then spent the next bunch of time writing down my thoughts and getting burned out (it's bedtime -- actually after) that I figured I should post them here.
Here is the picture:
So-and-so (you know who you are), thanks for your question. As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I'm excited about, and anytime someone expresses interested in it I have to pounce.
There's actually a lot of thought going on now among different groups and public figures about living forever. Just a few days ago in the news there were a number of articles about a Russian multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov's quest, plan, and timeline, to live forever. Here is one, from a quick Google News search, that unfortunately doesn't seem to contain his timeline, but gives a lot of the story. And I know you've heard of Ray Kurzweil, who has been a champion of living indefinitely for quite a while, who now works for Google. Ray Kurzweil is a co-founder of the Singularity University. I bring these up to illustrate that there are smart people thinking about, as well as money going into, this subject.
Aubrey De Grey is another influential individual in this area, having helped start the Methuselah Foundation -- fitting because he famously sports a Methuselah-style beard -- and later the SENS Foundation, short for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. As far as I know he is not a theist, but he gave one of the keynote talks at the 2013 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and was quite friendly towards us Mormons, and seems generally respectful of religion in general. (Video)
(Bunch of links. I'm not necessarily endorsing any of them. Except the MTA. ;-) )
If you look in to what some of these various people envision as humanity's future you'll find that there are different, perhaps complimentary, visions. I think that Aubrey De Grey's approach may be more near-term in terms of both achieveability and, importantly, public acceptance, so I'll kind of focus on that. I really recommend looking up some of his videos -- a YouTube search gives plenty, and some of these are short and sweet. If you're interested in a longer video, I'll push you towards the MTA conference keynote video. It was a great talk; he gave a good overview of the subject, and tried to create a shared vision with religious people.
Aubrey De Grey's number one goal is to prevent the suffering that people experience from diseases of old age. And when we describe this as our goal it makes a lot of sense. As he describes in the MTA video, if we eliminate the causes of damage to our bodies experienced during aging, or repair the damage before it becomes pathogenic then we prevent the diseases of old age. This bring us back to the original graphic. If we can stop or repair the age-related damage done before someone gets Alzheimers, or wears out her knees, or (hopefully for me) loses his hair, then we haven't lengethed the older years of reduced capacity and suffering, but we have added years of capability and vigor.
As a side effect, De Grey would say, people stop dying from getting old. Of course this doesn't stop people from dying of accidents or germs, for example; but humanity has been addressing these problems, too, by things like self-driving cars, airbags, building codes, vaccines, and basic sanitation. I expect that as we continue to lengthen lifespan that human life will become more valuable to us, and we will continue to look for better ways to prevent these other causes of death. Or we'll all get so bored of living so long that we'll all commit suicide. But I also hope that life will get more interesting as we progress.
I know many people hold to the necessity of dying, even suffering. I admit there's something kind of romantic about holding one's head high as one enters the twilight of one's life and prepares to meet the inevitable. But I think we have to be honest -- aging sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. I've been lucky to not have seen much death in my life, but I watched both of my grandfathers in the last years of their lives. One, whom I lived close to before his death, I was able to see in just the last few days before his death. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
I've become old enough and aware enough to learn of friends' parents and others dying from things like cancer. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
So, back to Aubrey De Grey: If we can achieve what he and others are *right now* trying to achieve, then we will be able to prevent dying from old age. Which means that we would be able to live indefinitely, meaning we could have reasonable confidence we wouldn't die from old age, but we never could be sure the Sun won't blow up and kill us, or aliens won't try to colonize our planet, or a piano drops on our head, or our neighbor gives us an anthrax letter. We will just have confidence that nothing in particular *has* to kill us.
Probably he is too optimistic. Probably the causes and required fixes for aging are more complex than anybody realizes, and we won't cure aging anywhere near when people like Aubrey De Grey think we will. But I feel compelled by my Mormonness to believe that we will eventually get to this point, because of the principle of Eternal Progression, or what Ray Kurzweil might call the Law of Accelerating Returns.
If we never can repair damage to the human body then that must mean that there is some barrier or filter that prevents us from getting to that point, whether man-made or due to complexity (which I think is finite, though I'm no mathematician nor philosopher). The scriptures are full of stories of people who were damned at some point, due to their wickedness. And this is always a possibility. The natural man can prove to be the great filter that damns us. But we must always have faith that if we keep God's commandments and use the means that the Lord has provided for us that we can continue to progress beyond the level we are at, which tells me that no matter how complex the problem, it's just a matter of time and faith.
I have faith in a future resurrection. I really do. It takes a lot of the fear out of growing old and dying, because I believe that it's not the end of me, or the end of my family and friends. I hope I will not die. I think it's possible I will not die. But if I do, well, c'est la vie, and I hope my kids never die, and they will seek after their dead, and I will be resurrected to be with them, and my parents too, and my grandparents too.
OK. Whew. I think I addressed the first two lines of your question. Let me take a breather.
Do we have to die? Or, in other words, is it necessary for us to experience death?
My first thought is no, because I can envision myself living indefinitely, or if not me, at least someone. But I can still die in 100 years, or maybe 1000, or maybe a billion or something, but maybe eventually I'll die. I do wonder what a billion-year-old me would get out of the dying experience, and I'd hope by then I could make it painless.
Related to this I want to ask, is it necessary to suffer? I don't think so -- though I think that suffering is unavoidable. But I don't go around flagellating myself to increase my suffering, or wish that everybody could be born with genetic abnormalities or get hit by a car or something. I think it's wise to reduce suffering wherever and whenever we can, even though we learn by suffering and can have joy in painful situations. We Mormons believe in a God that weeps. God weeps because God cares, so as long as we care we have the potential to suffer. But God overcomes, and so should we.
Mormons believe that there are a number of people who never died. For example, "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death", or the Three Nephites who, "shall never taste of death" and "shall never endure the pains of death", or John the Beloved, who, "shalt tarry until I come in my glory". So it seems that maybe death isn't a necessary experience.
Well, actually it depends on your definition of death. When Jesus pulls back the veil of the covering of his temple, and all flesh sees him together, "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." Yet in the very next verse it says that, "An infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye...". And the death of an infant who has grown up is described quite differently than what most deaths today are.
It seems to me that these verses are describing a radical change, and not death. Or maybe we could say that death is necessary, but death only has to mean some kind of a change from our current state, not a ceasing to be alive.
I feel closer now to Mormonism and to the LDS church than I've felt for a long time. I've come to appreciate more the Book of Mormon's teachings about the natural man and its admonitions to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God, though I usually am more on the natural man side.
So I want to emphasize that trying to eliminate aging doesn't trump charity, or take the place of keeping the commandments; it is being charitable, it is keeping the commandments.
We must not build a tower, but an ark, not a Rameumptom, but a ship to cross these great waters. We have to overcome the natural man, which is an unnatural thing, but the pattern lies in John the Beloved, when he said, "Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." I'm mixing multiple stories here, but I hope I'm conveying my point.
Thanks for asking me questions, and getting me worked up enough to blog about something. I'll see you later.
So-and-so (you know who you are), thanks for your question. As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I'm excited about, and anytime someone expresses interested in it I have to pounce.
There's actually a lot of thought going on now among different groups and public figures about living forever. Just a few days ago in the news there were a number of articles about a Russian multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov's quest, plan, and timeline, to live forever. Here is one, from a quick Google News search, that unfortunately doesn't seem to contain his timeline, but gives a lot of the story. And I know you've heard of Ray Kurzweil, who has been a champion of living indefinitely for quite a while, who now works for Google. Ray Kurzweil is a co-founder of the Singularity University. I bring these up to illustrate that there are smart people thinking about, as well as money going into, this subject.
Aubrey De Grey is another influential individual in this area, having helped start the Methuselah Foundation -- fitting because he famously sports a Methuselah-style beard -- and later the SENS Foundation, short for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. As far as I know he is not a theist, but he gave one of the keynote talks at the 2013 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and was quite friendly towards us Mormons, and seems generally respectful of religion in general. (Video)
(Bunch of links. I'm not necessarily endorsing any of them. Except the MTA. ;-) )
If you look in to what some of these various people envision as humanity's future you'll find that there are different, perhaps complimentary, visions. I think that Aubrey De Grey's approach may be more near-term in terms of both achieveability and, importantly, public acceptance, so I'll kind of focus on that. I really recommend looking up some of his videos -- a YouTube search gives plenty, and some of these are short and sweet. If you're interested in a longer video, I'll push you towards the MTA conference keynote video. It was a great talk; he gave a good overview of the subject, and tried to create a shared vision with religious people.
Aubrey De Grey's number one goal is to prevent the suffering that people experience from diseases of old age. And when we describe this as our goal it makes a lot of sense. As he describes in the MTA video, if we eliminate the causes of damage to our bodies experienced during aging, or repair the damage before it becomes pathogenic then we prevent the diseases of old age. This bring us back to the original graphic. If we can stop or repair the age-related damage done before someone gets Alzheimers, or wears out her knees, or (hopefully for me) loses his hair, then we haven't lengethed the older years of reduced capacity and suffering, but we have added years of capability and vigor.
As a side effect, De Grey would say, people stop dying from getting old. Of course this doesn't stop people from dying of accidents or germs, for example; but humanity has been addressing these problems, too, by things like self-driving cars, airbags, building codes, vaccines, and basic sanitation. I expect that as we continue to lengthen lifespan that human life will become more valuable to us, and we will continue to look for better ways to prevent these other causes of death. Or we'll all get so bored of living so long that we'll all commit suicide. But I also hope that life will get more interesting as we progress.
I know many people hold to the necessity of dying, even suffering. I admit there's something kind of romantic about holding one's head high as one enters the twilight of one's life and prepares to meet the inevitable. But I think we have to be honest -- aging sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. I've been lucky to not have seen much death in my life, but I watched both of my grandfathers in the last years of their lives. One, whom I lived close to before his death, I was able to see in just the last few days before his death. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
I've become old enough and aware enough to learn of friends' parents and others dying from things like cancer. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
So, back to Aubrey De Grey: If we can achieve what he and others are *right now* trying to achieve, then we will be able to prevent dying from old age. Which means that we would be able to live indefinitely, meaning we could have reasonable confidence we wouldn't die from old age, but we never could be sure the Sun won't blow up and kill us, or aliens won't try to colonize our planet, or a piano drops on our head, or our neighbor gives us an anthrax letter. We will just have confidence that nothing in particular *has* to kill us.
Probably he is too optimistic. Probably the causes and required fixes for aging are more complex than anybody realizes, and we won't cure aging anywhere near when people like Aubrey De Grey think we will. But I feel compelled by my Mormonness to believe that we will eventually get to this point, because of the principle of Eternal Progression, or what Ray Kurzweil might call the Law of Accelerating Returns.
If we never can repair damage to the human body then that must mean that there is some barrier or filter that prevents us from getting to that point, whether man-made or due to complexity (which I think is finite, though I'm no mathematician nor philosopher). The scriptures are full of stories of people who were damned at some point, due to their wickedness. And this is always a possibility. The natural man can prove to be the great filter that damns us. But we must always have faith that if we keep God's commandments and use the means that the Lord has provided for us that we can continue to progress beyond the level we are at, which tells me that no matter how complex the problem, it's just a matter of time and faith.
I have faith in a future resurrection. I really do. It takes a lot of the fear out of growing old and dying, because I believe that it's not the end of me, or the end of my family and friends. I hope I will not die. I think it's possible I will not die. But if I do, well, c'est la vie, and I hope my kids never die, and they will seek after their dead, and I will be resurrected to be with them, and my parents too, and my grandparents too.
OK. Whew. I think I addressed the first two lines of your question. Let me take a breather.
Do we have to die? Or, in other words, is it necessary for us to experience death?
My first thought is no, because I can envision myself living indefinitely, or if not me, at least someone. But I can still die in 100 years, or maybe 1000, or maybe a billion or something, but maybe eventually I'll die. I do wonder what a billion-year-old me would get out of the dying experience, and I'd hope by then I could make it painless.
Related to this I want to ask, is it necessary to suffer? I don't think so -- though I think that suffering is unavoidable. But I don't go around flagellating myself to increase my suffering, or wish that everybody could be born with genetic abnormalities or get hit by a car or something. I think it's wise to reduce suffering wherever and whenever we can, even though we learn by suffering and can have joy in painful situations. We Mormons believe in a God that weeps. God weeps because God cares, so as long as we care we have the potential to suffer. But God overcomes, and so should we.
Mormons believe that there are a number of people who never died. For example, "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death", or the Three Nephites who, "shall never taste of death" and "shall never endure the pains of death", or John the Beloved, who, "shalt tarry until I come in my glory". So it seems that maybe death isn't a necessary experience.
Well, actually it depends on your definition of death. When Jesus pulls back the veil of the covering of his temple, and all flesh sees him together, "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." Yet in the very next verse it says that, "An infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye...". And the death of an infant who has grown up is described quite differently than what most deaths today are.
It seems to me that these verses are describing a radical change, and not death. Or maybe we could say that death is necessary, but death only has to mean some kind of a change from our current state, not a ceasing to be alive.
I feel closer now to Mormonism and to the LDS church than I've felt for a long time. I've come to appreciate more the Book of Mormon's teachings about the natural man and its admonitions to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God, though I usually am more on the natural man side.
So I want to emphasize that trying to eliminate aging doesn't trump charity, or take the place of keeping the commandments; it is being charitable, it is keeping the commandments.
We must not build a tower, but an ark, not a Rameumptom, but a ship to cross these great waters. We have to overcome the natural man, which is an unnatural thing, but the pattern lies in John the Beloved, when he said, "Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." I'm mixing multiple stories here, but I hope I'm conveying my point.
Thanks for asking me questions, and getting me worked up enough to blog about something. I'll see you later.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
How To Give A (Bad) Sacrament Meeting Talk
Some years ago while I was in college I began struggling with attending church. I never wanted to stop going to church -- years of habit and the socialization ensured that -- but I often didn't enjoy my time there on Sundays.
To be truthful, the struggles I had with church enjoyment were really just one aspect of a larger whole. The bishop we had was wonderful, and I had a lot of respect and admiration for him. I had good friends with whom I attended church. Still, church was an easy focus for an outlet of stress.
Talks given in church were especially unenjoyable. Often enough things that people said, or the way they presented themselves, or how they structured their talks, would grate on me. I found little things here and there to keep myself busy, such as counting to 1023 on my fingers in binary.
One day I got the idea to write down the things people did in their talks that I didn't like, in the form of a sarcastic how-to outline for giving talks. I named it the Speaker's Bible. I enjoyed the activity so much that I folded the paper and kept it in my suit pocket for next week. Then, for the next weeks or months, as things would grate on me, I would add another line to my outline.
Eventually I moved on. Church is much more tolerable now. Enjoyable, actually. For a few years, though, I kept that paper in my suit pocket, and brought it out for the personal chuckle. It disappeared for years, though.
Recently I found it in a box or something around the house. It is kind of special to me, not because I want to refer to it to be a better speaker, but because of the period of my life that it represents. On the whole I make no statement whether I now agree or disagree with anything in particular in it. I feel like posting it, anyway, just for fun.
I've reproduced it pretty much exactly, except for a few capitalizations, and one misused apostrophe, which I just noticed. Apostrophes are not used for pluralization.
To be truthful, the struggles I had with church enjoyment were really just one aspect of a larger whole. The bishop we had was wonderful, and I had a lot of respect and admiration for him. I had good friends with whom I attended church. Still, church was an easy focus for an outlet of stress.
Talks given in church were especially unenjoyable. Often enough things that people said, or the way they presented themselves, or how they structured their talks, would grate on me. I found little things here and there to keep myself busy, such as counting to 1023 on my fingers in binary.
One day I got the idea to write down the things people did in their talks that I didn't like, in the form of a sarcastic how-to outline for giving talks. I named it the Speaker's Bible. I enjoyed the activity so much that I folded the paper and kept it in my suit pocket for next week. Then, for the next weeks or months, as things would grate on me, I would add another line to my outline.
Eventually I moved on. Church is much more tolerable now. Enjoyable, actually. For a few years, though, I kept that paper in my suit pocket, and brought it out for the personal chuckle. It disappeared for years, though.
Recently I found it in a box or something around the house. It is kind of special to me, not because I want to refer to it to be a better speaker, but because of the period of my life that it represents. On the whole I make no statement whether I now agree or disagree with anything in particular in it. I feel like posting it, anyway, just for fun.
I've reproduced it pretty much exactly, except for a few capitalizations, and one misused apostrophe, which I just noticed. Apostrophes are not used for pluralization.
SPEAKER'S BIBLE
- Introduction
- "For those of you who don't know me..."
- Describe how you had a hard time preparing your talk
- "Bro X asked me to speak on..."
- Express your feelings of inadequacy
- "This topic is hard because..." / "This topic is broad..."
- Recite talk preparation story
- Give the Webster's definition for your talk
- Give Talk
- Ask people to follow along
- Tell stories
- "I think this story is good because...."
- Make stories very long. Long stories keep the audience's attention marvelously and mean you have less to prepare and mess up on.
- Intersperse periodically that you feel inadequate
- Do NOT take consideration for other people's positions and dispositions in life. If they think differently or have different struggles that is their problem... Deal with it.
- Do NOT let people recognize their potential. If they do, they may not think you are so far above them.
- Make sure you must turn many pages to find a quote in a book. This uses up time you are forced to speak.
- Use the word "just" ubiquitously.
- "I just want to...", "I just think..."
- Use the word "um" like it's going out of style.
- Play on people's emotions
- For girls - put our hand on your chest to emphasize how emotionally messed up you are.
- For guys - give long pauses for the same effect.
- This makes the audience think that they need to be emotional too. That's what we want.
- Make up dumb, long analogies.
- The ward members don't understand the Gospel without monopoly or football analogies.
- Conclusion
- Thank your friends for coming to hear you speak.
- Go Overtime!! (Important)
- Bear testimony about something totally unrelated.
- Make sure Christ isn't explicitly mentioned.
- If the ward members can't make the connection, they are too dumb.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Facial Hair
I have a beard.
I don't like having a beard.
Every once in a while I get the idea that I want to grow out my facial hair into a beard. Currently it's just a straight beard, nothing fancy, though I have grown goatees in the past. I never grow them very long, though, because I always pull at and play with the hair, and it is irritating. Invariably I shave before too long.
I like facial hair on other guys. Not all the time. Plenty of guys look great without hair. Some facial hair just doesn't look good. But there are a lot of guys with a lot of beards and other that look great.
Last week in church we had a high councilor come to speak. He came in sporting a nice looking beard, and as I've been letting mine grow out I felt some kinship with him. We were the only two with facial hair in the room. Just a short way into his talk he stopped and said he should apologize for his beard, that the stake presidency was not in the habit of sending high councilors on speaking assignments with facial hair, and that he only had it to get in the spirit of a planned pioneer reenactment trek he was going to participate in soon.
What?
Why did he feel he needed to apologize for his beard? What's wrong with having a beard? It was neatly trimmed, and looked just fine on him. And what did the stake presidency have to do with his beard?
I've heard from several people that people in some callings, such as bishop, or temple worker, are asked to be clean shaven. I don't understand the policy. I don't even know if it's a policy, or just some guy's opinion. And I'm saddened by it.
Some people like to say, "Well, Jesus had long hair.", or, "Brother Brigham had a beard." It's a fun argument, but I think this misses the point. The point is not that so-and-so looked a certain way and so I can too. The real point is that I am the one who can choose how I want to groom my body. When I groom myself in a modest way, in a clean way, in a neat way, and in a non-prideful way, why should anyone think there is a problem with that? And why should that person tell me to change -- or revoke privileges if I don't?
Today at church the bishop (who is a great guy and a great bishop!) came up to me to say hi, and asked about my beard. I like the attention of people asking about my beard. But now I'm starting to wonder what people really think. They smile, but I wonder. Two years ago when I grew a beard someone asked my wife if I was OK.
(Could have asked me, by the way. Beards don't make people bite.)
I was going to shave last week. My beard is long enough that I've been annoying myself by pulling and stroking the hair. Now I don't want to shave it. I think I want to grow it a while longer to let my kids know that it's OK to have a beard.
I don't like having a beard.
Every once in a while I get the idea that I want to grow out my facial hair into a beard. Currently it's just a straight beard, nothing fancy, though I have grown goatees in the past. I never grow them very long, though, because I always pull at and play with the hair, and it is irritating. Invariably I shave before too long.
I like facial hair on other guys. Not all the time. Plenty of guys look great without hair. Some facial hair just doesn't look good. But there are a lot of guys with a lot of beards and other that look great.
Last week in church we had a high councilor come to speak. He came in sporting a nice looking beard, and as I've been letting mine grow out I felt some kinship with him. We were the only two with facial hair in the room. Just a short way into his talk he stopped and said he should apologize for his beard, that the stake presidency was not in the habit of sending high councilors on speaking assignments with facial hair, and that he only had it to get in the spirit of a planned pioneer reenactment trek he was going to participate in soon.
What?
Why did he feel he needed to apologize for his beard? What's wrong with having a beard? It was neatly trimmed, and looked just fine on him. And what did the stake presidency have to do with his beard?
I've heard from several people that people in some callings, such as bishop, or temple worker, are asked to be clean shaven. I don't understand the policy. I don't even know if it's a policy, or just some guy's opinion. And I'm saddened by it.
Some people like to say, "Well, Jesus had long hair.", or, "Brother Brigham had a beard." It's a fun argument, but I think this misses the point. The point is not that so-and-so looked a certain way and so I can too. The real point is that I am the one who can choose how I want to groom my body. When I groom myself in a modest way, in a clean way, in a neat way, and in a non-prideful way, why should anyone think there is a problem with that? And why should that person tell me to change -- or revoke privileges if I don't?
Today at church the bishop (who is a great guy and a great bishop!) came up to me to say hi, and asked about my beard. I like the attention of people asking about my beard. But now I'm starting to wonder what people really think. They smile, but I wonder. Two years ago when I grew a beard someone asked my wife if I was OK.
(Could have asked me, by the way. Beards don't make people bite.)
I was going to shave last week. My beard is long enough that I've been annoying myself by pulling and stroking the hair. Now I don't want to shave it. I think I want to grow it a while longer to let my kids know that it's OK to have a beard.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thank You, LibreOffice!
Thank you, LibreOffice -- to all the developers, infrastructure maintainers, et al. who have given us your office suite.
I hope you continue to find success and enjoyment in your work.
I hope you continue to find success and enjoyment in your work.
Monday, November 22, 2010
And the Terrorists have Won
They not only can fly planes into buildings, but now they've got us scurrying around like ants fighting each other.
here
In what world is this appropriate?
And it doesn't end there. Taking a child's shirt off, grabbing, then examining a breast cancer survivor's prosthetic breast, breaking a man's bag of urine after he warned of the likelihood of breakage. Seriously?
And this gem, from the head of the TSA:
You mean, after they're all done assaulting us we can complain?
Nice.
here
An ABC News employee said she was subject to a "demeaning" search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."
In what world is this appropriate?
And it doesn't end there. Taking a child's shirt off, grabbing, then examining a breast cancer survivor's prosthetic breast, breaking a man's bag of urine after he warned of the likelihood of breakage. Seriously?
And this gem, from the head of the TSA:
Pistole said he is "very aware" of the concerns raised by passengers and said if anyone feels their privacy was violated, they can file a complaint on the TSA's website or ask for a supervisor at the airport.
You mean, after they're all done assaulting us we can complain?
Nice.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Sugar Prohibited by the Word of Wisdom?
Yesterday I read an article at the New Scientist website that looked into studies that has found that sugar and junk food can have some effects on the brain similar to morphine, suggesting that the subjects may become addicted to sugar. Of one study of rats it said:
Of a separate study done by a different group it said:
Interesting.
Yesterday afternoon, after reading the New Scientist article, I attended a regional conference held by the LDS church, in which President Packer was one of the speakers. At one point during his talk he said something like, "We don't use harmful or addictive substances." I'm not sure of the exact wording, but using the words "harmful" and "addictive" is pretty common among leaders of the LDS church, and the subject is related to what is termed the "Word of Wisdom".
[The Word of Wisdom refers specifically to Section 89 of the Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants, in which certain dietary prescriptions and proscriptions are made, and also to the set of requirements for full church membership made by the church organization today. The two aren't exactly the same. For example, nowhere in the text of Section 89 does it mention "harmful drugs" or something similar, yet the use of drugs is explicitly considered to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom and of the requirements for full church membership. A third Word of Wisdom definition might be a more abstract and nebulous injunction to "do things that cause you to be healthy".]
Anyway, when President Packer stated that we don't use addictive substances the first though that came to my mind was sugar, since I'd just read the article about junk food addiction.
Should excessive consumption of sugar be considered to be against the Word of Wisdom? Well, it's not against the text of Doctrine and Covenants Section 89. It's not now a violation of the specific requirements for LDS church membership. It would be against the abstract injunction to be healthy, though being healthy isn't particularly novel or insightful, except perhaps the idea that God is asking us explicitly to take steps toward being healthy. It is, though, a violation of the command to avoid harmful and addictive substances.
I still eat sugar. And I did use the weasel word "excessive". Take it as food for thought. Or thought for food.
Sugar is a key ingredient in most junk food, so they offered rats sugar syrup, similar to the sugar concentration in a typical soda beverage, for about 12 hours each day, alongside regular rat feed and water. After just a month on this diet, the rats developed behaviour and brain changes that Avena and Hoebel claimed were chemically identical to morphine-addicted rats. They binged on the syrup and showed anxious behaviour when it was removed - a sign of withdrawal. There were also changes in the neurotransmitters in the nucleus accumbens, a region associated with reward.
Of a separate study done by a different group it said:
Kenny wondered whether rats that eat junk food would have a similar response to the cocaine-addicted rats he had already studied. He used three groups of rats. The first was a control group that only had access to standard rat feed. The second group could eat junk food - bacon, sausage, icing and chocolate - for only 1 hour each day with regular rat feed and water available for the rest of the time. The third group had an all-you-can-eat, around-the-clock buffet that included junk food and rat feed. After 40 days, Kenny stopped access to the junk food in both experimental groups. The rats with unlimited access to junk food essentially went on a hunger strike. "It was as if they had become averse to the healthy food," says Kenny. It took two weeks before the animals began eating as much as those in the control group.
...
The obese, unlimited junk food rats had dulled reward systems and were compulsive eaters. They would even tolerate electric shocks to their feet designed to deter them from eating junk food when the rat feed was still available shock-free. Cocaine-addicted rats behave the same way towards their drug.
Interesting.
Yesterday afternoon, after reading the New Scientist article, I attended a regional conference held by the LDS church, in which President Packer was one of the speakers. At one point during his talk he said something like, "We don't use harmful or addictive substances." I'm not sure of the exact wording, but using the words "harmful" and "addictive" is pretty common among leaders of the LDS church, and the subject is related to what is termed the "Word of Wisdom".
[The Word of Wisdom refers specifically to Section 89 of the Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants, in which certain dietary prescriptions and proscriptions are made, and also to the set of requirements for full church membership made by the church organization today. The two aren't exactly the same. For example, nowhere in the text of Section 89 does it mention "harmful drugs" or something similar, yet the use of drugs is explicitly considered to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom and of the requirements for full church membership. A third Word of Wisdom definition might be a more abstract and nebulous injunction to "do things that cause you to be healthy".]
Anyway, when President Packer stated that we don't use addictive substances the first though that came to my mind was sugar, since I'd just read the article about junk food addiction.
Should excessive consumption of sugar be considered to be against the Word of Wisdom? Well, it's not against the text of Doctrine and Covenants Section 89. It's not now a violation of the specific requirements for LDS church membership. It would be against the abstract injunction to be healthy, though being healthy isn't particularly novel or insightful, except perhaps the idea that God is asking us explicitly to take steps toward being healthy. It is, though, a violation of the command to avoid harmful and addictive substances.
I still eat sugar. And I did use the weasel word "excessive". Take it as food for thought. Or thought for food.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
First of a new series of discussions on topics related to Mormonism and Transhumanism
The following invitation is from the Mormon Transhumanist Association:
Please join us for this month's discussion on the topic of Social Change in the advent of Radical Life Extension OR How things will be when we live the as long as Methuselah.
Date: Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 9:00 pm Mountain Daylight time.
Location: SecondLife, an online environment, http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Los%20Pinos/123/7/29
The Mormon Transhumanist Association is hosting a series of open discussions on various topics relating to the intersection of Mormonism and Transhumanism. The first of these discussions will address the topic of Social change in the advent of Radical life extension. Everyone interested is eagerly invited to attend. Bring your ideas or questions to discuss, or just bring yourself and listen. After a brief introduction of the topic we will have a discussion where everyone is free to participate, share their perspectives and ask questions.
The discussion will be hosted in the online environment Second Life. An internet-connected computer with speakers and a microphone -- as either a headset or with echo cancellation -- are prerequisites, while the SecondLife software may be freely downloaded from the internet. If you do not yet have the software, download it from www.secondlife.com.
The two following TED talks may be of interest on the subject:
Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+ - Dan Buettner (2009)
Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging (2005)
Friday, January 22, 2010
LDS Church makes a call for Haiti Relief Donations
The LDS Church has made a statement asking for its members to help aid the suffering in Haiti. They have specifically asked for monetary donations to the Church Humanitarian Services, and for prayers to God asking for peace and calm to come to Haiti.
A few days ago I made a donation to the Church for Haiti, and was surprised at how easy it is. Donations may be made using a credit card at the Church's philanthropic website, and it took maybe 2 minutes to type in my name, address and credit card number. It is similarly easy at the Red Cross web site, as they both use basically the same process to accept donations. I believe that the Red Cross had the ability to select Haiti Relief specifically. Both websites were easily found using a web search.
It is sometimes a difficult thing to become involved in helping the victims of disaster when the world is so big and we are usually so far away from tragedy. I am amazed and grateful that through modern technology we are able to help those who are able and willing to give help at the site of the crisis. I am also grateful that modern technology, and the rapid and large organization it enables, allows medical supplies, food, water and help to be delivered so quickly. I wish it could be even faster and better for such a devastated place as Haiti, but I am glad it is as good as it is.
Link to the LDS Newsroom
A few days ago I made a donation to the Church for Haiti, and was surprised at how easy it is. Donations may be made using a credit card at the Church's philanthropic website, and it took maybe 2 minutes to type in my name, address and credit card number. It is similarly easy at the Red Cross web site, as they both use basically the same process to accept donations. I believe that the Red Cross had the ability to select Haiti Relief specifically. Both websites were easily found using a web search.
It is sometimes a difficult thing to become involved in helping the victims of disaster when the world is so big and we are usually so far away from tragedy. I am amazed and grateful that through modern technology we are able to help those who are able and willing to give help at the site of the crisis. I am also grateful that modern technology, and the rapid and large organization it enables, allows medical supplies, food, water and help to be delivered so quickly. I wish it could be even faster and better for such a devastated place as Haiti, but I am glad it is as good as it is.
Link to the LDS Newsroom
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
A Truly Christ-like Art
I currently practice karate. No, you needn't worry. I'm only a white belt, the lowest rank in karate, so I'm not dangerous.
After becoming involved with our club I was struck by the incongruity between the image I had of traditional "martial arts" with what I was experiencing in practice. I expected that the martial arts was a peaceful pursuit. The reason to study martial arts, such as karate, is to learn how to not fight, to learn to have peace, etc. Yet in our karate club, like other karate or martial arts schools, we learn how to hurt people. We learn techniques to use that are oftentimes meant to hurt, possibly used to kill, and we learn places on our opponents' bodies to use these techniques. We spar with each other, after which I often have bruises on my shins. (Nothing worse than that, thank goodness. My club is made of great people who care for each other and try to prevent any serious injuries.)
I don't fault karate for this incongruity. It's the nature of self defense, just as it is the nature of our communal defense (e.g. military), that you learn to hurt the other person. With most styles of self defense, anyway. As long as defending one's self is a part of achieving and maintaining peace training for and practicing conflict will be a part of it.
I find that because of my karate training I think about getting in fights more now. I think about what I carry on my person that I can use as a weapon if I find myself in a fight situation. Where should I hit, how should I hit, what's the best way to "end the fight"? These are all good questions when one is studying how to defend one's self. At the same time I think there are drawbacks to having these thoughts. I feel more aggressive (though I haven't gotten and don't plan on getting into any fights). I start seeing people as opponents, even though it is just in a "sparring" way rather than a "fight in a dark alley" way. These are not peaceful thoughts.
The way I see it, there are trade-offs in the study of karate and other martial arts.
Not all martial arts have the same approach toward self defense. Aikido seems to more closely match my previous expectations of martial arts with respect to learning how to not fight and encouraging peace with others. I understand there are different schools of thought within aikido, but in general the goal is to (quoting Wikipedia) "defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury". The founder, Morihei Ueshiba, seems to have greatly cared for the people in our world and desired peace among us.
I recently read a blog post that pointed to a story told by Terry Dobson, a well-known American aikido practitioner who was able to study under Morihei Ueshiba. His story is profound, and tells of what I consider to be a truly Christ-like art.
THE TRAIN CLANKED and rattled through the suburbs of Tokyo on a drowsy spring afternoon. Our car was comparatively empty - a few housewives with their kids in tow, some old folks going shopping. I gazed absently at the drab houses and dusty hedgerows.
At one station the doors opened, and suddenly the afternoon quiet was shattered by a man bellowing violent, incomprehensible curses. The man staggered into our car. He wore laborer’s clothing, and he was big, drunk, and dirty. Screaming, he swung at a woman holding a baby. The blow sent her spinning into the laps of an elderly couple. It was a miracle that she was unharmed.
Terrified, the couple jumped up and scrambled toward the other end of the car. The laborer aimed a kick at the retreating back of the old woman but missed as she scuttled to safety. This so enraged the drunk that he grabbed the metal pole in the center of the car and tried to wrench it out of its stanchion. I could see that one of his hands was cut and bleeding. The train lurched ahead, the passengers frozen with fear. I stood up.
The Rest of the Story
After becoming involved with our club I was struck by the incongruity between the image I had of traditional "martial arts" with what I was experiencing in practice. I expected that the martial arts was a peaceful pursuit. The reason to study martial arts, such as karate, is to learn how to not fight, to learn to have peace, etc. Yet in our karate club, like other karate or martial arts schools, we learn how to hurt people. We learn techniques to use that are oftentimes meant to hurt, possibly used to kill, and we learn places on our opponents' bodies to use these techniques. We spar with each other, after which I often have bruises on my shins. (Nothing worse than that, thank goodness. My club is made of great people who care for each other and try to prevent any serious injuries.)
I don't fault karate for this incongruity. It's the nature of self defense, just as it is the nature of our communal defense (e.g. military), that you learn to hurt the other person. With most styles of self defense, anyway. As long as defending one's self is a part of achieving and maintaining peace training for and practicing conflict will be a part of it.
I find that because of my karate training I think about getting in fights more now. I think about what I carry on my person that I can use as a weapon if I find myself in a fight situation. Where should I hit, how should I hit, what's the best way to "end the fight"? These are all good questions when one is studying how to defend one's self. At the same time I think there are drawbacks to having these thoughts. I feel more aggressive (though I haven't gotten and don't plan on getting into any fights). I start seeing people as opponents, even though it is just in a "sparring" way rather than a "fight in a dark alley" way. These are not peaceful thoughts.
The way I see it, there are trade-offs in the study of karate and other martial arts.
Not all martial arts have the same approach toward self defense. Aikido seems to more closely match my previous expectations of martial arts with respect to learning how to not fight and encouraging peace with others. I understand there are different schools of thought within aikido, but in general the goal is to (quoting Wikipedia) "defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury". The founder, Morihei Ueshiba, seems to have greatly cared for the people in our world and desired peace among us.
I recently read a blog post that pointed to a story told by Terry Dobson, a well-known American aikido practitioner who was able to study under Morihei Ueshiba. His story is profound, and tells of what I consider to be a truly Christ-like art.
THE TRAIN CLANKED and rattled through the suburbs of Tokyo on a drowsy spring afternoon. Our car was comparatively empty - a few housewives with their kids in tow, some old folks going shopping. I gazed absently at the drab houses and dusty hedgerows.
At one station the doors opened, and suddenly the afternoon quiet was shattered by a man bellowing violent, incomprehensible curses. The man staggered into our car. He wore laborer’s clothing, and he was big, drunk, and dirty. Screaming, he swung at a woman holding a baby. The blow sent her spinning into the laps of an elderly couple. It was a miracle that she was unharmed.
Terrified, the couple jumped up and scrambled toward the other end of the car. The laborer aimed a kick at the retreating back of the old woman but missed as she scuttled to safety. This so enraged the drunk that he grabbed the metal pole in the center of the car and tried to wrench it out of its stanchion. I could see that one of his hands was cut and bleeding. The train lurched ahead, the passengers frozen with fear. I stood up.
The Rest of the Story
Monday, January 11, 2010
Funny Comic
I was pointed to a comic that is, at the same time, both funny and insightful.
http://www.freethunk.net/russells-teapot/comics-russells-teapot-strip-10.php
http://www.freethunk.net/russells-teapot/comics-russells-teapot-strip-10.php
Friday, January 1, 2010
Some thoughts this New Year
Happy New Year, everyone!
New Years Day is a day where we look both backward and forward in time. Maybe we only do it one year back and one year forward. I can't help but go farther out and back then just one year, though.
I don't have a particularly good memory. I think everyone believes that, except for maybe those rare people with photographic memories, but my wife can verify that I do, indeed, have a bad memory. Because of this, sometimes looking backward is a saddening thing for me to do. I feel like with every day forward I take I lose more of my past to the ravages of time. Even more than what we know we've forgotten. (There are things we remember, things we know we forgot, and things we don't know we forgot. Thanks go to Donald Rumsfeld.)
I wish there was some way of reconstructing my past. Sometimes I wish there was some way I could relive my past -- not to go back and change things, just to have and understand the feelings and experiences I had before. Then maybe somehow I could save all those feelings and experiences and sensations as Memories(tm), the total package. And this time around they would not get lost.
As far as I know this is not possible. As far as I understand physics it isn't possible, anyway. (But then, damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a theoretical physicist!) And even if it were possible I don't see how it could ever be the same as the original memory without being the original person -- meaning without all of the knowledge and additional memories and changes we've had since that point in time. Can the me of now really completely understand the me of 10, 20, 30 years ago?
And then, my past is inextricably tied into the lives of so many other people, most especially my parents and siblings. Would I need to reconstruct their experiences to be able to reconstruct mine?
Will there ever be any way of recovering our past? If so, what can I do toward the goal?
I guess I really should have been keeping a journal all these years.
What will the future be like? It's an interesting question. I really don't know.
I am looking forward to Space Ship Two and White Knight Two! Even though I don't have $200,000, and the flights only spend a short time in weightlessness I think the idea of having private flight to space is awesome, and hopefully it portends even more involvement in space in our future.
I'm looking forward to better computer user interfaces that can read our thoughts. No more typing, or talking, or mousing, or carpal tunnel or shoulder problems or whatever. Just think it and your computer does it. Almost unbelievable, yet scientists are in the middle of our first clumsy steps and mind reading. Just two weeks ago I saw this Star Wars toy that senses one's brainwaves as input for raising a ball in a tube. Force Trainer or something. I wanted to buy it but my cheap self held back.
I follow the headlines of some techy websites, and it is amazing to me the number of blurbs there are about progress humanity is making in technology. Most of them are in the 3-5 year- and 5-10 year-out ranges, and thus haven't "arrived". Maybe these articles are giving an impression that we are progressing faster than we really are. Still, if even half of these modern miracles materialize it will be amazing. Over the past few years I've seen progress being made on retinal implants to help certain blind people see. The last time we could even imagine this was 2000 years ago when Jesus was annointing eyes with clay.
Many people much smarter than I fear our future. Death by asteroid, robot attack, engineered (or natural) supervirus, environmental disaster, World War III and so on certainly are plausible futures. I understand and share a fear of the future. The future demands a great amount of caution and foresight from us, I think.
Yet if we have an expectation of annihilation, where does that take us? I worry that the result is us fulfilling the prophecy. It is important that we take an optimistic view of the future, and work toward that future, as the first step toward a future where we (humans) are still living.
The future will be amazing. Our future will be to us even more amazing than today is to a caveman.
New Years Day is a day where we look both backward and forward in time. Maybe we only do it one year back and one year forward. I can't help but go farther out and back then just one year, though.
I don't have a particularly good memory. I think everyone believes that, except for maybe those rare people with photographic memories, but my wife can verify that I do, indeed, have a bad memory. Because of this, sometimes looking backward is a saddening thing for me to do. I feel like with every day forward I take I lose more of my past to the ravages of time. Even more than what we know we've forgotten. (There are things we remember, things we know we forgot, and things we don't know we forgot. Thanks go to Donald Rumsfeld.)
I wish there was some way of reconstructing my past. Sometimes I wish there was some way I could relive my past -- not to go back and change things, just to have and understand the feelings and experiences I had before. Then maybe somehow I could save all those feelings and experiences and sensations as Memories(tm), the total package. And this time around they would not get lost.
As far as I know this is not possible. As far as I understand physics it isn't possible, anyway. (But then, damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a theoretical physicist!) And even if it were possible I don't see how it could ever be the same as the original memory without being the original person -- meaning without all of the knowledge and additional memories and changes we've had since that point in time. Can the me of now really completely understand the me of 10, 20, 30 years ago?
And then, my past is inextricably tied into the lives of so many other people, most especially my parents and siblings. Would I need to reconstruct their experiences to be able to reconstruct mine?
Will there ever be any way of recovering our past? If so, what can I do toward the goal?
I guess I really should have been keeping a journal all these years.
What will the future be like? It's an interesting question. I really don't know.
I am looking forward to Space Ship Two and White Knight Two! Even though I don't have $200,000, and the flights only spend a short time in weightlessness I think the idea of having private flight to space is awesome, and hopefully it portends even more involvement in space in our future.
I'm looking forward to better computer user interfaces that can read our thoughts. No more typing, or talking, or mousing, or carpal tunnel or shoulder problems or whatever. Just think it and your computer does it. Almost unbelievable, yet scientists are in the middle of our first clumsy steps and mind reading. Just two weeks ago I saw this Star Wars toy that senses one's brainwaves as input for raising a ball in a tube. Force Trainer or something. I wanted to buy it but my cheap self held back.
I follow the headlines of some techy websites, and it is amazing to me the number of blurbs there are about progress humanity is making in technology. Most of them are in the 3-5 year- and 5-10 year-out ranges, and thus haven't "arrived". Maybe these articles are giving an impression that we are progressing faster than we really are. Still, if even half of these modern miracles materialize it will be amazing. Over the past few years I've seen progress being made on retinal implants to help certain blind people see. The last time we could even imagine this was 2000 years ago when Jesus was annointing eyes with clay.
Many people much smarter than I fear our future. Death by asteroid, robot attack, engineered (or natural) supervirus, environmental disaster, World War III and so on certainly are plausible futures. I understand and share a fear of the future. The future demands a great amount of caution and foresight from us, I think.
Yet if we have an expectation of annihilation, where does that take us? I worry that the result is us fulfilling the prophecy. It is important that we take an optimistic view of the future, and work toward that future, as the first step toward a future where we (humans) are still living.
The future will be amazing. Our future will be to us even more amazing than today is to a caveman.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Delivering Words
Words, like tsuki, are best delivered from a relaxed state.
And, like tsuki, words require practice.
And, like tsuki, words require practice.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Fighting Nearsightedness
There's an interesting article on New Scientist about studies that have been undertaken to determine the cause of nearsightedness. One recommendation is to be outside. Apparently the bright light that people encounter somehow causes the eyeball to grow less long, which is the problem in nearsightedness. Myopia is growing rapidly in many areas of the world, and this is explained by people being inside much more than before.
Article here.
Article here.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Evolution: The Grand Experiment
And what a grand experiment it is.
A week or two ago I saw on one of the local channels a show entitled "Evolution: The Grand Experiment". At first I thought it was going to be a nice, dry documentary about evolution, but after only a bit of watching it became clear that it was a disguised anti-evolution video. So I decided to record it in its entirety and watch it later to see what they had to say.
It's disappointing. I don't think the creators really understand either biology or how it gives rise to evolution very well. It's like they only know half of the story. They point at that half and say, "See, it just doesn't match up." Well, if you only allow half the bridge to be used of course you can't get to the other side.
I took the entry-level biology class in college. Well, I took two entry level biology classes -- one for the non-biology people and one for the biology people. (I was entertaining thoughts of changing my major at the time.) I occasionally watch Nova on our local PBS station. But that's about it. I'm no biologist. Still, even I can see some of their misunderstandings or omissions, and that's sad.
There is a cool Nova show on epigenetics that came to mind at one point. Epigenetics. That stuff is cool. It multiplies the complexity of DNA, allowing some measure of adaptability even within an individual, and that adaptation can be inherited. While epigenetics is not involved in evolution it was interesting that they interviewed some biologist who said something like individuals can change in response to their environment and this change can be passed on to the individual's offspring, and then the narrator said something like this is obviously not true because of DNA. I think the biologist had epigenetics in mind, so it can happen, and it doesn't contradict our understanding of DNA. And of course there can be environmental influences on DNA mutation that can be passed on to the offspring, as well.
Sorry, just wanted to show off some trivia.
On a different note I remember the first day I was in that biology class for the non-biology majors. Well, it may have been the first day of talking about evolution, not the first day of class. It's been too long for the ol' brain to remember. The teacher was, if I remember correctly, a pretty popular and had a fun, dynamic way of teaching, which made the class of many hundreds of people still fun to be in. He knew that a significant enough portion of our class had or would have a problem with either believing in evolution or trying to reconcile a belief in evolution with religious belief. So he had a handout prepared with various quotations from religious leaders on evolution, to help us reconcile it with religion. I do remember the butterflies I had in the pit of my stomach.
That was one of the first times in my life that I'd really been confronted with the issue of "science vs religion" to any real extent. Oh, I'm sure it had come up before. I can't remember it ever being this potent, though. Prior to that point I had fairly successfully kept science and religion separate. Never keep them them in RAM simultaneously, just swapped one out to disk when I wanted to swap the other in to RAM. If ever they were both swapped in, well one of them was on it's way out, and religion would just trump in that case. At least until it was swapped out again.
I wish I could say that my biology class was the turning point for me in my reconciliation of science and religion. It wasn't "the" turning point. But it was an important course correction. I understand the importance of that moment when that teacher handed out this paper more now in retrospect than I did at the time, I think. I say Hallelujah for people who recognize the truths in both scientifically- and religiously-inspired ideas.
And hallelujah for people who don't see them as separate.
I expect our scientific understandings of things will evolve. Scientists don't always get things right, nor complete. Partly this is because we humans just aren't capable of understanding everything yet. (I sincerely hope that to be true.) Of course, sometimes we just get things wrong, anyway. So we must hope for evolution in our scientific understandings.
I expect our religious understandings of things will evolve. This is a part of my faith, and is a central tenet of my religion, as well. Just like science, this is partly because we humans just aren't capable of understanding everything yet. Sometimes we just get things wrong, too. So we must hope for evolution in our religious understandings.
All things denote there is a God, said someone once. Yep. Including evolution.
A week or two ago I saw on one of the local channels a show entitled "Evolution: The Grand Experiment". At first I thought it was going to be a nice, dry documentary about evolution, but after only a bit of watching it became clear that it was a disguised anti-evolution video. So I decided to record it in its entirety and watch it later to see what they had to say.
It's disappointing. I don't think the creators really understand either biology or how it gives rise to evolution very well. It's like they only know half of the story. They point at that half and say, "See, it just doesn't match up." Well, if you only allow half the bridge to be used of course you can't get to the other side.
I took the entry-level biology class in college. Well, I took two entry level biology classes -- one for the non-biology people and one for the biology people. (I was entertaining thoughts of changing my major at the time.) I occasionally watch Nova on our local PBS station. But that's about it. I'm no biologist. Still, even I can see some of their misunderstandings or omissions, and that's sad.
There is a cool Nova show on epigenetics that came to mind at one point. Epigenetics. That stuff is cool. It multiplies the complexity of DNA, allowing some measure of adaptability even within an individual, and that adaptation can be inherited. While epigenetics is not involved in evolution it was interesting that they interviewed some biologist who said something like individuals can change in response to their environment and this change can be passed on to the individual's offspring, and then the narrator said something like this is obviously not true because of DNA. I think the biologist had epigenetics in mind, so it can happen, and it doesn't contradict our understanding of DNA. And of course there can be environmental influences on DNA mutation that can be passed on to the offspring, as well.
Sorry, just wanted to show off some trivia.
On a different note I remember the first day I was in that biology class for the non-biology majors. Well, it may have been the first day of talking about evolution, not the first day of class. It's been too long for the ol' brain to remember. The teacher was, if I remember correctly, a pretty popular and had a fun, dynamic way of teaching, which made the class of many hundreds of people still fun to be in. He knew that a significant enough portion of our class had or would have a problem with either believing in evolution or trying to reconcile a belief in evolution with religious belief. So he had a handout prepared with various quotations from religious leaders on evolution, to help us reconcile it with religion. I do remember the butterflies I had in the pit of my stomach.
That was one of the first times in my life that I'd really been confronted with the issue of "science vs religion" to any real extent. Oh, I'm sure it had come up before. I can't remember it ever being this potent, though. Prior to that point I had fairly successfully kept science and religion separate. Never keep them them in RAM simultaneously, just swapped one out to disk when I wanted to swap the other in to RAM. If ever they were both swapped in, well one of them was on it's way out, and religion would just trump in that case. At least until it was swapped out again.
I wish I could say that my biology class was the turning point for me in my reconciliation of science and religion. It wasn't "the" turning point. But it was an important course correction. I understand the importance of that moment when that teacher handed out this paper more now in retrospect than I did at the time, I think. I say Hallelujah for people who recognize the truths in both scientifically- and religiously-inspired ideas.
And hallelujah for people who don't see them as separate.
I expect our scientific understandings of things will evolve. Scientists don't always get things right, nor complete. Partly this is because we humans just aren't capable of understanding everything yet. (I sincerely hope that to be true.) Of course, sometimes we just get things wrong, anyway. So we must hope for evolution in our scientific understandings.
I expect our religious understandings of things will evolve. This is a part of my faith, and is a central tenet of my religion, as well. Just like science, this is partly because we humans just aren't capable of understanding everything yet. Sometimes we just get things wrong, too. So we must hope for evolution in our religious understandings.
All things denote there is a God, said someone once. Yep. Including evolution.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Some words from the Buddha
I was poking around the 'Net last night reading about karate when I came across this quote attributed to the Buddha. My initial reaction was to think, "Oh yeah!". My second reaction was to think, "But it's more complicated than that." and to start thinking about it more deeply. I expect the Buddha, and God, would encourage that. Because of reaction number two I decided it was worth presenting here for your thoughts.
Do you agree or disagree with it?
Can you think of any scriptures that are in harmony or conflict with the idea presented?
Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honour for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sages of old times; do not believe that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation believe that which you have yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.
Do you agree or disagree with it?
Can you think of any scriptures that are in harmony or conflict with the idea presented?
Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honour for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sages of old times; do not believe that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests. After investigation believe that which you have yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Calling E.T.
Tonight as I was out walking I shined my flashlight at Jupiter. It's a really nice flashlight -- very bright -- and a cool planet -- also quite bright in our sky. So I started wondering how long it will take for my meager photons to get to Jupiter. At this website I discovered that Jupiter is currently 4.545 AU from us, or 679,922,910 kilometers. That means, if my Google-math is correct that my light will get to Jupiter in about 38 minutes. Well, will have gotten, then. I've been home about an hour.
PS. Google-math is doing multiplication, addition, units conversion and the like by typing them into the search box on Google. For those of us who are too lazy to click the start menu and launch the calculator program.
PPS. My flashlight is da bomb.
PS. Google-math is doing multiplication, addition, units conversion and the like by typing them into the search box on Google. For those of us who are too lazy to click the start menu and launch the calculator program.
PPS. My flashlight is da bomb.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Taking Care of our Bodies
Something I've heard before:
"One of the purposes of this life is to learn how to take care of our bodies."
Think of your conception of what heaven will be like. Do you eat or not eat? (Can you?) Can you get hurt or not get hurt? Does your hair grow or not grow? Do you need to sleep or not? Poop? Etc.
Now, tell me if the above sentence makes sense together with your conception of heaven. Why or why not?
"One of the purposes of this life is to learn how to take care of our bodies."
Think of your conception of what heaven will be like. Do you eat or not eat? (Can you?) Can you get hurt or not get hurt? Does your hair grow or not grow? Do you need to sleep or not? Poop? Etc.
Now, tell me if the above sentence makes sense together with your conception of heaven. Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)