Monday, August 14, 2023

Celebrating Slaughter

 


Photo by https://www.flickr.com/photos/docmonstereyes/
Photo originally posted at https://www.flickr.com/photos/72538882@N00/5507547759
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AR-15_Build_IMG_9439_(5507547759).jpg

Facebook, Twitter (!?) and social media in general, do not offer a forum for robust debate on contentious subjects, making it necessary to keep discussions focused narrowly on select topics. Nowhere is that more evident than in arguments over “Gun Rights” vs. “Gun Control.” In those discussions, pro-gun advocates (and gun control people) have learned to derail arguments with questions and statements unrelated to the opening argument or comment. In a recent example, a statement saying that states with strict gun laws experience more gun violence was met with acounterclaim: immediately, a response claimed that the counterclaim did not explain Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit.

Notice that the response did not affirm nor deny the accuracy of the comment that a correlation exists between looser gun laws and higher gun violence, but instead chose to change and expand the subject by bringing in an exception to the rule, by raising questions of gun trafficking and gang violence, and thereby increasing the complexity of the discussion and veering it away from a debunked comment while simultaneously forcing that complexity into the narrow confines of social media.

We see the same tactics used by Congress, such as the July 2022 response to the Uvalde, Texas massacre: Missouri Representative Billy Long blamed the mass murders of school children on Roe v. Wade- a non-sequitur. Abortion and the slaughter of children in schoolrooms are two entirely different topics, necessarily addressed by different laws and social standards. One addresses bodily autonomy and religion, the other concerns the protection of viable life.

Again, in June 2022 a Fox News host Jesse Waters blamed the Buffalo NY slaughter at a supermarket on the wearing of medical face masks. Really, Jesse? Ten blacks murdered by a white supremacist and you want me to believe he did it because he wore a mask? How do these circus performers and carnival barkers get voted into high office and well-paid roles as journalists?

Remember when the title, “World’s Dumbest Congressperson” passed from Louie Gohmert to conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene when, in May 2028 and prior to her election a Georgia’s representative, she claimed the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was actually a “false flag” planned event?

And then there is the propaganda device known as The Big Lie. Texas Senator John Cornyn got educated by California Governor Gavin Newsom when Cornyn claimed that California gun laws do not stop gun crimes, Newsom offered statistics showing that Cornyn’s Texas had a higher rate of gun offences than California. Why don’t our government officials check the facts before they make their fallacious claims? Could it be because we are led by dim-witted anti-intellectualists?

Gun control advocates sometimes use the same tactic, but from my experience, generally when they show a lack of firm grasp of the facts.

In early February 2023, members of Congress began celebrating mass shootings by wearing AR-15 pins, further encouraging strident militia types and wannabees to engage in Gish galloping non-sequiturs against those who seek a solution to the slaughter.

Could it be that those who seek to distract and derail a debate are those that know they have lost the debate, but rather than withdraw, try to force the thread into an endless pursuit of ever-changing topics?

Give up? The answer is “Yes.”

Welcome to ‘Murika, y’all.”

#

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Injustice Served

 


"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire. If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain — do something to make more money yourself.”

“They say that if you give your children too much, they don’t get the joy out of work. They just want the unearned things to keep falling from the sky.” Gina Rinehart (BrainyQuotes.com)

(That, from a woman for whom $18 billion fell from the sky.) [1]

The world’s richest woman and the universe’s worst poet [2], Australian mining heiress Gina Rinehart, in 2012 told the Sydney Mining Club that Australian miners were “too expensive.” She thinks they should work for two dollars a day, like African workers. Notice that she wants to bring everyone’s wages down to those of African miners, and not to help elevate those African miners to the realm of her Australian workers. You might remember Ms. Rinehart from an earlier statement, in which she wrote, “If you’re jealous of those with more money… spend less time drinking or smoking and socializing and more time working.” Similar to her reluctance to assist in a more equal economy, she wants workers to spend more hours at their labors, thus increasing the profits of the parasitic Plunderbund.

She claims superpowers by pointing to her 24/7 work hours as an example for all of us. She calls upon us common folk to work hard, invest and reinvest our meager wages, to find our own way to pleonexia — the greed that knows no limits. The lady does not, however, explain how we are to save funds for that investment on the wages she would like the rich to pay. Neither does she enlighten us as to what we are to do about the loss of retirement and investment funds, by those of us who did work 24/7, to pay executive bonuses to people who drove their companies into near-bankruptcy and caused a worldwide recession.

I’ve seen a pattern in the attitudes among the uber-rich toward the working class: the more money they inherit, the more they claim to have made their fortunes through hard work. Isn’t it interesting that most of those who actually — you know — worked for their money share an empathy for the plight of the working class?

Of course, there exist parasites at both ends of the economic spectrum. I once provided an acquaintance with a key to my apartment and the use of my computer and printer to aid him in his job search. His unemployment compensation neared an end and he had fallen on his savings to survive. Food stamps and the kindness of friends and associates saved him from homelessness. He spent his time while I worked to print out Drudge Reports, listen to Rush Limbaugh rants, and write letters to the editor in which he lambasted liberals for their welfare mentality. The only evidence I saw of a job search lay in a stream of letters to his former employer, in which he pleaded for his old job. The very wealthy are not alone in their willingness to leech from those who provide them. But the very wealthy possess the resources to persuade millions of workers to invest in the fallacy of trickle-down economics with their labors and their votes.

A Facebook friend and fellow blogger writes that we should refrain from name-calling when we discuss the crimes of right-wing extremists and their effective propaganda machine, but I disagree. I only regret that the legions of lawyers available to the right-wing rich render me unable to call the greediest of them and the sheer stupidity of their ditto heads by appropriate names. That, and the fact that the English language does not provide words worthy of their lack of common morality.

Ethan Couch, a Tarrant County, Texas teen got drunk, killed four people in an auto accident and was sentenced to ten years of probation after the teen’s lawyers pleaded that his father’s wealth instilled in him a lack of personal responsibility and a psychological condition called “Affluenza.” [1] The boy will spend time in a $450,000 per year luxury rehabilitation center in Southern California. [2]

Shaun Goodman also got drunk and led police in a high-speed chase through the streets of Olympia, Washington. He wrecked his $70,000 Ferrari by smashing it into two cars and a house. Yes, a house. While he waited for the trial for his seventh DUI arrest, a judge signed an order permitting Goodman to attend the 2013 Super Bowl game in New York. He is now serving a one-year work-release sentence, leaving behind a simple and unanswered question: has justice been served? [3]

Those two cases might lead one to wonder whether we have a two-tiered justice system, or if an exchange of money in plain, brown envelopes might have aided the decisions. I am working hard to quiet the cynical voice that urges me to opine the latter.

While the American inheritance-class wealthy deny they are engaged in class warfare, Ms. Rinehart and her fellow plunderers encourage it [6]. They have the the power, but the working class the numbers. The Story is in how that balance affects the future

Citations:

[1] https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/18b-cash-pile-lets-rinehart-play-both-sides-of-energy-transition-20221205-p5c3tq
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/everyone-is-laughing-at-australias-richest-persons-ode-to-mining-2012-2
[3] https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/ethan-couch-affluenza-10-years-since-deadly-drunk-driving-crash/287-a8ea72a1-592e-49dd-a097-fd1bb80e237e
[4] https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-teen-drunk-driving-probation-affluenza-20131212-story.html
[5] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-eighth-dui-after-seattle-hit-and-run/
[6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/rinehart-says-aussie-workers-overpaid-unproductive/4243866

Suggested Reading:

Shipley, David K. The Working Poor: Invisible in America, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
Bregman, Rutger. Utopia for Realists. Back Bay Books, 2016.
Correspondents of the New York Times, Class Matters. Times Books, 2005.
Desmond, Matthew, Poverty By America. Crown, 2023

#

 


Friday, July 28, 2023

The Great American Dumb-Down

 



“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes.” — Francis Bacon

“Because it takes nothing on faith, science is inherently antiauthoritarian, and a great equalizer of political power. That is why it is under attack.” -Shawn Otto, The War on Science, p. 41, Minneapolis (2016 )

So-called “pro-lifers” view the “ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings.” Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, New York (2005), p.2

The Florida Board of Education Chair said in 2019 that he “won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.” https://churchandstate.org.uk/2019/08/new-florida-board-of-education-chair-i-wont-support-any-evolution-being-taught-as-fact-at-all-in-any-of-our-schools/

The March 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision by the Supreme Court ruled that three kinds of pills are abortifacients that are not, in fact, abortifacients. The scientific definition of pregnancy that was adopted by the federal government states that pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall. Religions define pregnancy as occurring when an egg is fertilized. Many eggs are flushed naturally. Is nature (or “God”) performing abortions? The court sided with Hobby Lobby even though the ruling was contraindicated by federal regulations and the scientific definition. — Shawn Otto, The War on Science, Minneapolis (2016)

More than a third of Florida’s New College teachers will not return for the 2023 Fall semester due to the governor’s “Dumb-Down” policies affecting the school. https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2023/07/18/new-college-florida-ridiculously-high-number-faculty-are-gone/

“15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”
“Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don’t hold up.
By John Rennie on July 1, 2002
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

That is a tiny sample of a large list of stories about the anti-intellectualist movement in the United States about efforts to restrict knowledge in the American population. As the U.S. continues to embrace policies that refute science, reason, and logical analysis, we can expect another nation or other nations to pick up the slack. In that event, America will become just another second- or third-world country fighting for survival in a world that finds it irrelevant.

My interest in the dumbing down of my country began sometime prior to 1957 when I was a pre-teen. In that year the Red Scare created in large part by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Unamerican Activities Committee fizzled to an end. but long before that, the curiosity of a child led me to a pursuit of knowledge not based on magic, superstition, or opinion. I wanted to know.

#

A man in a red suit stood on a roof, Standing next to the chimney and waving to the crowd of holiday spectators below. My parents had driven my brother and me across town to see the Christmas lights and Santa and his magic reindeer. Santa didn’t go down the chimney, he only waved and ho-ho-hoed at the crowd below. It was the reindeer that held my attention, though. They didn’t move. And they glowed by a light within. I realized that the deer were plastic, and that Santa was never going to go down the chimney because he was too big and his red suit was too clean. It’s all fake, I told myself.

I continued to feign belief in Santa for the goodies it got me on Christmas morning, but I had become convinced that Santa was a story made up by adults to entertain kids. Disbelief in Santa soon led to skepticism about elves and fairies and unicorns. By the time I entered high school, I was aware that magic men did not walk on water, donkeys didn’t talk, kangaroos didn’t migrate from Australia to Israel to hop a boat, and stories of zombies and walking dead were…well, stories. Those tales led to a love of literature and reading the Bible resulted in a love of poetry. But even a child can be skeptical of extravagant claims, even those made in so-called “holy” books.

An adult told me that God punishes non-believers by torturing them an eternity. An authority figure who I respected attempted to indoctrinate me into religion with some Christian dogma so obviously fallacious that even a post-toddler saw through it. Then, a third-grade teacher refuted the school’s science book by telling the class that condensation and evaporation did not exist; God made the rain, she said. Later, a senior warrant officer demanded that I formally deny my atheism or receive a court-martial and a dishonorable discharge. I believed him. I learned later that his threat was illegal. I had grounds for a lawsuit against the US Navy.

A thread of anti-intelligence weaved through those experiences, and others. Each demanded that I suspend reason and accept their demands for belief or face certain punishment. Each demanded that I suspend intellect to accept the speaker’s version of reality on faith- that is, on opinion and indoctrination. The lessons I learned in my science books made sense; I could grasp the concepts and the reasoning behind the claims. I struggled to believe the stories about a magic man who lived in the sky, who created humans by speaking them into existence, and who would consign me to a burning pit of fire forever if I questioned that story. Now, in the age of a resurgence of 1930s-style of fascism, anti-intelligence legislation rolls out of Washington, D.C., and American state capitals with metronymic frequency.

The leap into the denial of the existence of supernatural beings was automatic. It lay in waiting from the moment that I realized those plastic reindeer weren’t real.

I turn first to the Wikipedia web site and its citations first when seeking definitions. The opening segment of the “Intellectualism” page reads: “Intellectualism is the mental perspective that emphasizes the use, the development, and the exercise of the intellect; and also identifies the life of the mind of the intellectual person. In the field of philosophy, the term intellectualism is synonymous with rationalism, knowledge derived from reason.

My concern is not with those “who scorn intellectuals, but those who hold in contempt formal education, critical thinking, and intelligence in favor of magical thinking. It is magical thinking above all in my experience that has pushed the United States down to such levels of anti-intellect that our leaders (and I use the term loosely) are too often represented by the likes of James Inhofe, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, and Antonin Scalia, where they could use their fundamentalist (and therefore, unthinking) religion to force American laws into line with their unscientific, irrational and uninformed opinions. We are told we must teach children a creationist view of science disguised as “Intelligent Design,” and that our religion requires us to enact laws that dictate the control the bodily autonomy of women. Christianity forces itself on Americans with totalitarian authority in its passage and enforcement of anti-abortion laws by citing the Bible as a source of the “abortion is murder” meme. That, of course, raises the question: why do we give a flying frog what the Bible says?

Religion IS anti-intellectualism. But we all hold beliefs and opinions that run counter to the rules of reason and logic. So, is the belief in a supreme being so bad?

Well, yes, it is when you work to force those beliefs and opinions on others through the power of legislation and the courts. The separation of church and state does more to keep society sane and in search of truth than any magic man in the clouds could do.

Fundamentalist religion is not alone in its drive to dumb down Americans. The current batch of legislation from around the country reveals a white supremacy strain in the teaching of American history. Educators are told that they cannot teach the role of blacks in America’s past through the contents of Critical Race Theory and books like Nikole Hannah-Jones’ The 1619 Project. The anti-intelligence faction believes (that is, of the opinion) that truth is what consensus believes. Are so concerned with the feelings of a few delicate sensibilities that we will deny our own history?

We can only engage in the uncharitable and un-Christian hope that the rest of the world is engaged in the same Dumbing Down process as America has embraced. Otherwise, we might well see third world nations outpace us in scientific advances. Is that the fate the holders of power in Washington wish for us? It certainly seems so, doesn’t it?

#

Suggested Reading:

Forrest, Barbara & Gross, Paul R. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford, 2004.

Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason. Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

Hofstadter, Richard. Intellectualism in American Life. Vintage, 1963.

Jacoby, Susan. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Metropolitan, 2004.

Jacoby, Susan. The Age of American Unreason. Pantheon, 2008.

Levitin, Daniel J. Weaponized Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-Truth Era. Dutton, 2017

Mooney, Chris & Kirshenbaum, Sheril. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic, 2009.

Otto, Shawn. The War on Science: Who’s Waging it and Why it Matters. Milkweed Productions, 2016.

Specter, Michael. Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin, 2009.

#

Saturday, June 24, 2023

God's Graffiti

 

Photo by author

I’ve almost finished reading Revolutionary Characters, by historian Gordon S. Wood, and have recently read biographies on George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. I intend to squeeze in Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton as soon as I can acquire the books, and I’ll look up the others on the internet. I look especially for information on their religious views and, so far, I have found nothing to indicate that the founding fathers were the devout men that Christian apologists and evangelicals would have us believe. Most of the Founders were deists, the prevailing sentiment held by the educated upper classes of the time, and they held in varying degrees of indifference and contempt the evangelical Christianity of the masses.

The religious right in this modern age like to point to references to God in the founders’ letters and documents as proof of the religiosity of the framers of the Constitution, but the God of the deists bore no resemblance to the angry meddling God whose words contemporary evangelist would have inscribed on every surface of every federal facility on the planet and taught as science in the classrooms of our public schools. Appeals to God in those letters and documents were appeals to Providence, not to some denominational creator who heaps beneficence on the faithful and severe judgment on those not obedient to His authority as expressed by one or another interpretive branch of His dictates.

George Washington, ever aware of his public image, attended church to display his affinity with his constituency in much the same way modern politicians, steeped in corruption and self-interest, cater to a religious constituency to appear as one of the people. Alexander Hamilton used Christianity to achieve political ends and did not express adherence to the faith until the early nineteenth century, decades after his prominence in Revolutionary politics. John Adams openly expressed in belief in deism but thought church attendance essential to man’s morality. Thomas Paine’s masterpiece, The Age of Reason, promoted deism and criticized Christian doctrine. Benjamin Franklin considered himself a deeply religious man, but in his writings, he often refers to “the deity” and “providence,” without mention of Christianity. He endeavored to virtue, but of course, virtue does not rely on religion for its practice or existence. James Madison rigorously defended and promoted religious freedom. Of the founding fathers, only John Jay and Patrick Henry attested to orthodox Christianity. They did not belong to the class of educated men who adhered to the prevailing theology of deism among the landed elite in the northern colonies. Evangelical Christianity was, to those who aspired to a republican aristocracy in the Age of Enlightenment, the religion of the unenlightened masses.

The furor over the place of religion in patriotism began with Francis Scott Key’s words in the Star-Spangled Banner: “And this be our motto: In God is our trust.” We can assume without further research that the god referred to is the Judeo-Christian deity.

Proselytizers and enforcers of religious have only the motto “In God We Trust” as a wedge and as justification for their attempts to force fundamentalist Christianity on an entire nation, but that graffiti did not appear on American currency until the Civil War's religious revival period, at a time of religious revival in the United States and was not adopted as the national motto until the Eisenhower administration in 1956, when the aristocratic values inherent in the Age of Enlightenment ceased to have relevance. Its acceptance as the national motto was accelerated when positioned as a response to “Godless Communism”.

The most militant atheist quarrels with inscriptions of the national motto on currency and the Ten Commandments on the face of federal buildings, but most Americans view those allusions to religion with ambivalence. The motto refers only to “God” and does not promote the god of a favored group, and the Decalogue represents a historical event and is not the sole province of any particular philosophy. The exact wording belongs to the Judeo-Muslim-Christian heritage, but identical admonitions come from multiple cultures and religions ranging from the code of Hammurabi to definitions of proper behavior in Scientology. It does not require religious thought to know that rules set forward in the Commandments represent common-sense applications for an individual to live by if he is to live at peace in a society. The problem many deists have with religious graffiti on taxpayer-funded property lies in the rigid enforcement by brown-shirt religious leaders to limit those inscriptions to their particular faith. Why not include Buddhism’s Eightfold Path, and the Sutras of Patanjali? Buddhism and Hinduism, are, after all, well represented in American society, as are Wicca, Paganism, Scientology, and any number of groups and doctrines that have sprung up to challenge the rigid and chauvinist dogma of Christianity and its history of torture, mass murder, and denial of reason and free thought to enforce its adherence.






#



Monday, June 19, 2023

Cross Dressing on the Elizabethan Stage

 

Photo by Hulki Okan Tabak on Unsplash

In William Shakespeare’s time, the depiction on stage of a young, respectable, unmarried woman ran counter to social conventions. When playwrights presented contemporary works or modernized Greek Drama, they changed the character from female to male, or—where the character’s gender gave the play its form and plot—a young male dressed in feminine attire played the part. With the presentation of Twelfth Night, Shakespeare turned social convention on its head with an ironic twist: he had a young woman, played by a male actor, disguise himself (herself?) as a man. The humor in the man-turned-woman-turned-man-turned-woman romp would have delighted an Elizabethan Age audience, with the exception of domineering social prudes. Their representation in the play by Malvolio would have doubled the fun and had the spectators gasp at Shakespeare’s genius in his subtle use of irony in poking fun at society through story. Even the title had meaning to the crowds at the Globe Theater: the Twelfth Night refers to the twelfth night after Christmas, or the Feast of Epiphany, when custom had men dress as women and women as men. Disguise and confused identity are common themes in Shakespeare’s works.

Students of history can easily see how he found favor with Elizabeth, the popular queen and only the second woman to rule the country.

The law of primogeniture that dictated a male line of succession to the English monarchy had collapsed with the fall of Salic Law in France under the threat of English claims to the French crown. By the time Mary Tudor ascended to the throne, the only restraint on a female monarch was the concern of Henry VIII, her father, that a woman could not hold together the Tudor line and a country that seemed destined for civil war. With the death of Henry’s only son Edward, the line of succession fell to Mary, whose reign of terror and her cozy relations with Spain infuriated the English people.

On Mary’s death, Elizabeth I resumed the Tudor monarchy. Her reign marked the beginning of the Renaissance in England. The arts and sciences flourished, the English navy ruled the seas, and explorations of Asia, Africa, and the New World reached a fever pitch. Knowledge founded on reason surged forth and a revolution in societal standards and mores swept away the old values of the Medieval Age. In the new age of learning and relaxed attitudes, William Shakespeare found fertile ground for his wit.

The opening lines of Twelfth Night set the tone for the remainder of the play. The idea of romantic love existed in medieval Europe, but it was tightly bound in cultural proscriptions. Arranged marriages and marriages of convenience represented the cultural norm. Orsino’s both praises the joys of love and laments it in the opening lines of the play (Act 1, scene 1: 1-15). We know immediately that this is a play about love.

Much of Shakespeare’s language is lost to the modern reader. Metaphor anchors language, and metaphors change in time until they lose meaning. One must be a Shakespearean scholar to fully understand and appreciate much of his writing, but some metaphorical meaning has survived the nearly five hundred years since they had found life under Shakespeare’s pen. His subversive and bawdy humor doubtless drew chuckles with lines like those spoken by Sir Toby Belch to Sir Andrew at Maria’s farewell: “And thou let part so, Sir Andrew, would thou mightst never draw sword again” (Act 1, scene 3: 56-57). William Shakespeare’s use of wit and humor to both transgress and reveal his society’s attitudes under a thin veil of metaphor makes worthwhile the time required to fully grasp the meaning of a five-hundred-year-old language.


Monday, June 12, 2023

Jingo Gods

 

Eden, Janine and Jim from New York City, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

While cleaning out some ancient files on random flash drives, I came across some old email promoting wing nut propaganda from a day in the early days of war in the Middle East. The predominant message that day featured a photograph of a wounded soldier giving an over-the-shoulder finger to invisible insurgents. Below the photo, an account of the soldier’s heroism and a brief history of past bravery, ending with a reminder that God was on our side. Eat it, insurgents!

I paused over the image for a moment. “I am impotent in the face of you’re your rage,” it said. The maudlin sentimentality of the caption did not show through the electronic photograph. I saw an image of a wounded warrior fighting back with the last act of the defeated- an obscene gesture. This is not the stuff of the flag raising at Iwo Jima, the charge up San Juan Hill, or the storming of the beaches at Normandy. The image conveyed instead anger, frustration, failure.

The soldier’s wounds had been pixilated out of the photo. I saw only bare skin under the torn clothing. He does not even face the enemy he insults, but tosses the gesture over his shoulder. The caption might just have well read, “Retreating troops offer last act of defiance.”

Today, the two sides continue call upon their regional and national gods to support the goodness of their respective causes, I think of a line from Father Thomas Merton: “The love of a disinterested god.” The universal God had been forgotten by both sides to favor the jingo gods of nationalist fervor. “God bless our troops. Allahu Akbar.” If we win, we lose. The minor gods of our smallest minds will prevail. If we lose, we lose. The minor god of the enemy will have invaded our thoughts. In either event, the Omniscient God will be eclipsed by the angry god of righteous retribution and revenge.

We have stopped, for now, the disgusting practice of using the military to promote our political and religious ideologies. I can only hope it is a continuing non-practice.

Whether we embrace the Universal consciousness, or the regional deity; hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin*, we must win. We can sort out the conflicting concepts of our gods some other time.

* From the National Lampoon song, “Deteriorata,” by Tony Hendra. See https://web.archive.org/web/20150511234144/http://www.joke-archives.com/poetry/deteriorata.html

#

Sunday, June 4, 2023

Darwin and Wallace

 Alfred Russel Wallace

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Variations in traits among a species lie behind Charles Darwin’s concept of natural selection. Those traits that lead to differential reproduction success [1] will cause some of a given species to reproduce at a faster rate than others. For example: a brightly colored insect increases its chance of being eaten by birds, leading to a lowered reproduction rate compared to their dull-colored counterparts. As more brown and gray beetles survive, they pass on the brown or gray gene, resulting in more beetles of that color.

Variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection. Natural selection is the driving force behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, detailed in his book, Origin of Species, written on his return from the five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle. He joined the voyage in December 1831 as a geologist and naturalist, but biology began to consume him early in the five-year trek around the point of South America, to the Galapagos Islands, he noticed differences in animals seen in Chile and those seen on the Galapagos Islands, and in differences from island to island. From there, he began formulating his theory of natural selection.

Alfred Russell Wallace, inspired in part by Darwin’s 1839 Journal of Researches [2] (known to modern readers as The Voyage of the Beagle) an account of his Beagle research, and Alexander von Humboldt’s’ Personal Narrative [3]. Wallace joined the Mischief in 1848 for a similar journey. He and entomologist Henry Bates spen more than four years collecting specimens of animals, plants, and insects inhabiting the Americas. He suffered setbacks, including a fire aboard the Helen, the ship that was to return him to England. He was able to save little of his specimens and samples. A brig sailing from Cuba picked him up after days adrift in a small craft and arrived in London in 1852. He departed England again in 1854, destined for the Malay Archipelago, where he devised his own theory of natural selection.

In early 1858, Wallace contacted Darwin regarding the similarity of their work. Darwin offered to send Wallace’s paper to a scientific journal. It was published the same year with a description of Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s Origin of Species published the following year, preceded Wallace’ The Mandalay Archipelago by ten years, likely a major reason for Darwin’s continued fame. Charles Darwin was already well known in academic and scientific circles when Wallace began his own voyage of discovery. Several websites outlining the accomplishments of the two men indicate that, had not the respected Darwin published his work first, the theory promoted by Wallace are likely to be as varied and complex as the differences in their life experiences. In any even the world has accepted “Darwinism” in its lexicography, while Wallace remains a footnote.

 #

Notes:

[1] Differential reproductive success: A situation in which some individuals leave more offspring in the next generation than do others, often due to traits that confer advantages in survival and/or reproduction.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/glossary/differential-reproductive-success/#:~:text=A%20situation%20in%20which%20some,in%20survival%20and%2For%20reproduction.

 

[2] Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries, 1859

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6951

 

[3] Alexander von Humboldt, 1822 Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, During the Year 1799-1804

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6322

#