Monday, January 25, 2016

Libraries Are Irrelevant

Libraries must reinvent themselves to remain relevant, I recommend they become interactive museums of literature. This will maintain their purpose while avoiding the inevitable loss of funds because most people are no longer interested in paper books.

The reasons for the lack of interest reading a book in paper format are actually really good for book sellers. Books are considered a collectable format, and no one wants to ruin them because of that.

I have a small collection of books that I purchased solely for collecting, and I am not alone in this. For this reason I let almost no one handle them, oils from the skin cause them to break down faster as make the ink run.

Much like trading cards, books are now valued based on more than just their content. Even a badly written book can become very valuable if it is obscure and undamaged.

As for readers, they are more interested in digital formats because they can transport them easier, a million books can fit on a modern device. So libraries and book stores can no longer target the literary fan, they must adapt.

Many bookstores now focus on the collector, which is profitable and keeps paper books in circulation. But how libraries remain relevant will require a new innovation from them.

We have museums of art, science, and nature but we lack any museums for literature. In the USA we lack museums in general, a sad state of affairs.

So turning the libraries into interactive literary museums would solve many of our biggest problems. The problem with encouraging reading has not helped people become more literate.

Also, by encouraging reading we have seen a huge decline in writers, not the number of writers but the quality. Most people who blog often rely on bland current event stories, rarely offering the reader much more that dry facts and figures.

Most blogs are actually plagiarized, something which bothers me. The lack of original works is hurting everyone, as people no longer read articles or stories in depth.

Even I have taken to the simple blog format because it is the only one which people are willing to read, short simple stories. Grammar is also severely lacking now for the same reasons.

So consider this for the libraries: offer a showcases of great works brought to life in exhibits that allow the fans to interact with the characters and writers. Artificial intelligence is not yet perfect, but it could create simulated people for this purpose offering real people to experience the worlds created by authors in a whole new dimension.

This will encourage them to download copies of the books to actually read them, as well as encourage modern writers to offer fans more to read. It will make the libraries relevant again and encourage more funding for them.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Don't Ask Transgender

So I encountered a bigot who tried to mask his ignorance in what he perceived as an innocent question. It was far from innocent nor was it appropriate.

The question was "were you one of those guys who became a woman?" Now this is really a sign of bigotry, and it's obvious to anyone with a brain.

The first problem is that it is based on the lie that being transgender is a choice, which ultimately makes gender itself a choice ironically. This is far from the facts, we know there is a genetic difference in transgender people.

The difference in genders is not binary, as we once thought. So this means multiple genders are actually possible in our genes.

Thus it is an outright lie to say that transgender is a choice of any sort. The second problem is the wording, using informal and unscientific terminology betrays a lack of intelligence and compassion.

The man obviously did not care about hurting anyone's feelings on the matter, he was actively attempting to illicit a specific reaction. The outcome was, luckily, a reaction which caused him harm from a third party instead.

There is only one instance in which such a thing is even considered a valid inquiry. It must be approached with respect and tact or the questioning party can expect negative repercussions.

That instance is when sexual activity may be imminent and one cares which genitalia is currently present. Beyond that reason, there is no excuse for anyone with any empathy or compassion to ever ask such a question, even if worded politely.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

The Double Standard of Old

Growing older appears to cause us to develop a double standard. When we're young we appreciate music of our generation, we consider that to be the best music of all time.

This applies to everything about the era we grow up in, which forms a confirmation bias as we try to resist the changes of the future. But these changes are inevitable, and a very good thing which we must learn to embrace.

This anecdote should illustrate the double standard we develop as we get older, many people in my generation complain about how "fake" music is today. Often they are complaining about the fact that it's now mostly digital, which allows for musicians to play entire orchestras without having to recruit a hundred instrumentalists.

In some genres, the older instruments are preferable, due to the fact that it's not the music that's on display but how well the music is played. However, most music is about one thing, lyrics.

Without the instruments, a song must appeal to the modern youth, and thus the lyrics should be relevant to them. This is how we define each generation, by their experiences and accomplishments.

When I was young, everyone said that Nirvana was a horrible band, and to be fair Kurt couldn't actually sing. But my generation still thinks Nirvana was impressive because of the lyrics.

They hold meaning to my generation as they describe what life was like back then. But today, most people think Nirvana is not a great band again. Yet my generation insists that music today is horrible in spite of the fact that we idolized a lot of bands which had no actual singers.

A closer look at a band which almost everyone in my era claims were masters of music reveals something quite disturbing. Nothing Pink Floyd, regaled as one of the best bands ever, is their own work.

Pink Floyd's lyrics were all taken from other sources, often from older bands. The music itself was the typical Fruityloops mixture of pieces composed by much older musicians long since dead.

But this does not discredit them, they took things that were relevant at that time and marketed them to a generation which needed it. That is the true art of music, bringing relevance to the generation which it represents.

Today many of the instruments have been replaced with digital duplicates, or even synthesized sounds, and many sets of lyrics have become repetitive. This is the world we created for this generation, and they are crying out in their music.

Life today is very repetitive, kids today have less to struggle with so they grow bored. The response should be to offer them better educational opportunities, instead we just gripe about the music.

Kids in this age are bombarded with terabytes of useless information, and they are not taught how to test it. This shows up in their music again, as many lyrics seem aimless, badly written poetry, displaying a lack of discernment.

So the next time you decide to cry out "music today sucks," try thinking of how to make their lives better so they can become more creative, and have more reason for it.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Authority in Science

The notion of authority differs depending on the situation, for example religious authority just means people agree with you. In science, authority is earned, through hard work and demonstrable results.

In other words, to be a scientific authority you don't even need a formal education or title, you just have to demonstrate knowledge in your particular field. To demonstrate this knowledge, your findings must be submitted for scrutiny, or you have to illustrate a thorough understanding of the subject matter.

Once you have demonstrated that you know what you're talking about, you then have to provide demonstrable results. This means you either develop a new tool, or improve our understanding of the topic with empirical evidence.

No matter the path you take, you have to show your work, this is the key to empiricism. You must illustrate your claims in a way that everyone else can verify them.

If they cannot be verified then your claims are meaningless, no matter how popular they are. So when we cite an authority in science, we are talking about someone who has consistently presented empirical evidence.

The use of authority is fallacious if the citation is from someone who has never demonstrated any comprehension of the subject, or if the citation actually opposes the claim it was used to support. But here's the catch, in science no amount of authority can ever replace empirical evidence.

So the reason creationism fails in all scientific arenas is because it lacks any empirical evidence and no one seems willing to present any.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

The Doctrine of Atheist

I often see christians attempt to paint atheist people as some dark, evil, monster. They do this to convince the foolish folks to avoid listening to us, as well as to keep most atheist people in the closet.

The fact is, atheist is a compound word from an old language, the parts mean only one simple thing: lack of belief in a god. First the prefix of "a-" means without, or lacking, it in no way means opponent or antagonist.

This is easy to confuse naive people with because of the prefix "anti-", which actually means opponent or antagonist. They are not synonyms anymore than red is a synonym of orange.

The root word of "theist" only implies the belief in a god, and nothing more. Though religion is inherent in such beliefs, they are not intrinsically bound.

There are many atheist religions in the world, they are still all crazy, but they have no beliefs in a god of any type. But let's pretend that atheist is a religion, or even just a doctrine.

Based on what every atheist I know has said, these would be our tenets, our doctrine:

* Question everything.
* Accept facts and reality even when it's not pleasant.
* Don't believe in a god just because someone threatens you with eternal torture.
* Don't abuse anyone, there is no excuse for it.
* Don't rape, murder, or steal because there is no reason to do that.
* Society is a necessary tool for survival, so everyone has to live by the same rules.
* Nothing is sacred, as long as you don't harm someone else.
* Life is precious, so kill only when there is no other option.
* Do not worry about your past, learn from your mistakes then move on into the future.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Body Image Genetics

Body image is often thought to be social, but when you look at the genetic components of sexual reproduction you find that much of it becomes genetic. While society plays a direct role in deciding what body images are considered attractive, the desire to fit this is completely genetic.

We must first understand that the drive to breed is a genetic trait common in almost all organisms. This drive is one of the few unquestionable instinctual behaviors of biology, meaning everyone is genetically driven to want to breed.

This pressure is the primary driver for one's body image, but there is another element often missed by psychologists and society as a whole. Attraction is driven by genetics, what we are attracted to is part of the same genes that ensure we are sexually attracted to our own species.

We can see the obvious flaw in this when you consider how popular beastiality is in many cultures. Their genetic contributors to attraction are skewed to cause attraction to another species or they possess no attractions at all.

A drive to reproduce without the attraction to a specific species would naturally cause someone to want to have sexual relations with everything alive. In nature this probably caused a lot of cross breeding responsible for the variations in life, however for humans it has no beneficial effects.

Humans are now so removed from the other animals, through crossbreeding with nearby species ironically, that we have no compatible species available. We see a few other species of animals which have the same type of isolation.

Since attraction is a genetic trait we all have the image of sexual attraction in our genes, the image considered perfect by society. We see this ij other species, commonly they are attracted to specific colors or markings, things which we would consider cosmetic.

Yes, this does mean that our desires to appear a certain way are actually driven by our desire to find a mate. Essentially, we want to be the one the other people desire.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Religion Opposes Science

Our greatest achievements as a species are always labeled as negative or destructive by religion, and for good reason. Religion preys on people when they are feeling their most helpless, this is the hook they use for those who are not indoctrinated.

It also helps to keep the indoctrinated from asking the difficult questions. This prevents them from seeing through the very fragile lies told by religious leaders, and it is also why the internet poses the largest threat to religion.

Religion cannot survive the competition of facts, tested by science, which benefit humanity. When humans are not in need, when we are not suffering, we do not look for easy answers.

Humanity is only prone to scams when we lack any real answers, and religion religion is full of platitudes and non-answers to placate anyone when they are at the lowest. This is not a healthy response to problems, as religion makes you complacent and accepting of your horrible predicaments.

Religion convinces you to never seek to truly improve your life, it also discourages helping others for the same reason, to keep humanity as helpless as possible. By doing this, they have managed to convince the masses of horrible things, things which should make us cringe.

Such as slavery, rape, mass murders, war, racism, xenophobia, and general lawlessness in the name of a mythical being they claim to be the supreme ruler of the universe. They make the believers addicts by promising them great rewards for their suffering.

That promise of reward, and threat of punishment, for simply doubting what the leaders say is terrorism. All religion teaches terrorism, it demands it, by calling on the believers to convert others by any means necessary.

So to keep people in the dark, they must paint all accomplishments by humanity as dangerous, evil, and frighten people away from the very things which can make their lives better. This is why religion must oppose all our greatest accomplishments.

Monday, January 4, 2016

Bundy Terrorists Committing Treason

Power is the thing which the weak fear, the strong respect, and the corrupt desire. This is extremely evident in gun culture, as we see people excusing the misuse of power in very dishonest ways.

Guns, to many people, represent power. To them they think that possessing a gun grants them some kind of superhuman ability save the world.

You will see these people recite the nonsense that "good people with guns save lives." This we know to be false, and that by removing the dangerous devices from the general populace has always reduced the number of power mad individuals capable of killing others in large numbers.

To illustrate my point, consider the number of shooting instances in which all parties involved are really just attempting to control the situation in which none of them are on the right side. These situations almost always result in fatalities.

Now we see the ultimate grab at power by those who refuse to abide by the laws of society, the Bundy thugs. A group of terrorists now holding Oregon public land hostage, simply because they don't like who we put in charge.

In the USA we grant power to those we trust to wield it to benefit the majority of the country, while protecting the rights of the individuals. While the method of how this is done is too complex for a simple blog, it results in some people having to decide if they want to abide by the law, or be removed from society.

The Bundy terrorists have chosen the latter, they became criminals opposing the society we call the United States of America. This is treason of the highest order, they are not opposing the federal government, they are opposing the people that our government represents.

They are in the minority, and if they had chosen to abide our laws then they would have been protected, but they refused to. Many try to compare them to the rioters who invaded protests, but these are two very different instances.

Yes, the rioters were criminals who should have been prosecuted as such, but they never were because the local authorities decided to allow them to continue to disrupt the peaceful protests in those areas. This is exactly the opposite of what Bundy terrorists are doing.

So how does the USA handle terrorists? We do NOT negotiate with them. They must stop their criminal behavior, or disarm and become a legal protest.

Even if the federal government refuses to act, the northwest states possess most of the military in the USA, in terms of manpower and technology. So here's the deal, the military troops could disobey the federal government in this case without breaking any laws.

We have a clear terrorist threat on our lands, since they are domestic terrorists they are committing treason of the highest order. It is not in our character to negotiate with terrorists.