Restricting Methionine might add years to life?

Article edited, my highlights in bold.

Can Ageing be stopped?
Gerontologists consider the maximum lifespan for humans to be about 120 years. But with rising evidence for a genetic "death programme," which in principle could be amended, some researchers are starting to believe the limit could be extended

Philip Hunter, The author is a science writer, specialising in biology and medicine

---

Old age hardly exists in wild animals. Accident, illness or predation usually kill long before the potential lifespan has been reached. Humans, though, especially in the developed world, are pushing in ever larger numbers towards the maximum lifespan, thought by most gerontologists to be around 120. (The world longevity record is held by the Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 aged 122 years and 164 days.)

In Britain in 1901, life expectancy at birth was 49 for women and 45 for men. By 2002, this had risen to 81 and 76 respectively. This rapid increase in longevity has created hopes among gerontologists not just of an extended "quality of lifespan" well into the nineties, but of lifting the 120-year limit.

Recent experiments have extended the life expectancy of mice from around two years to three, with some reports of up to five. Such progress is unlikely in humans, for whom evolution has already boosted maximum lifespan well beyond comparably sized mammals—including great apes—but the work sheds valuable light on some of the mechanisms involved. The recent progress in mice was made by the application of the discovery, dating back to the 1930s, that lifespan could be increased dramatically in almost all animals by a diet low in calories but comprising all vital nutrients. This remains the one proven strategy for boosting life expectancy and slowing down ageing across a wide range of species.

Ageing is also closely linked to growth. Small members of mammalian species tend to live longer, as has been observed in dogs, mice and horses. It seems that retarded growth is associated with an overall slowdown in the processes that lead to ageing. It should certainly delay the process of cellular senescence, or apoptosis, the point at which cells stop dividing. Each time a cell divides, the DNA of the daughter cells is usually slightly shorter than the DNA of the parent, as a result of deficiencies in the copying process. Evolution has added disposable buffers called telomeres to the DNA to allow for some shortening. However, after a certain number of divisions, these buffers are spent, after which further copying eats into the active DNA sequence. Put simply, some cells can only divide a certain number of times before they die, and so if the time intervals between divisions are increased by slower growth, this aspect of ageing will be delayed.

It turns out that a low-calorie diet is not the only way to extend the lifespan of a mouse. The same effect can be obtained on a diet with normal calories but reduced protein. Moreover, it seems that it is not the protein that matters, but one specific component: the amino acid methionine. The finding is surprising because methionine is one of the nine essential amino acids. A diet totally deficient in methionine would kill a mouse in a few weeks. Yet the optimum level for longevity seems to be lower than is taken in a normal diet.

It is not known exactly how methionine restriction extends lifespan, but the answer could be linked to the oxidative or free radical theory of ageing. This states that the primary cause of ageing lies in the toxic by-products of energy metabolism within our mitochondria (the sub-units of the cell that produce energy). These by-products—chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide—oxidise parts of nearby cellular components, in particular proteins and DNA. The process is akin to the rusting of metals upon exposure to air. Many of these toxic, oxidising substances are called free radicals because they are electrically neutral and therefore stable, but also highly reactive because they have an unpaired electron seeking a mate from any neighbouring molecule.

Methionine is the amino acid most prone to losing electrons through oxidation, and so perhaps in some way restricting it within the diet persuades the organism to use another amino acid where possible, thus reducing its overall susceptibility to oxidation. Whether this is true or not, a recent Spanish study found that methionine restriction decreases oxidative damage to crucial mitochondrial DNA and proteins.

Is there a death programme?

But even this may not be the final answer to the methionine riddle, for some researchers argue that free radicals are merely mediators of ageing rather than the underlying cause, with their role ultimately controlled by genes orchestrating a "death programme."

There is some evidence that free radicals are manipulated by death programmes in those animals where ageing kicks in suddenly. One of the best studied examples is the salmon, many varieties of which appear to age suddenly and die aged about three, after one glorious orgy of reproduction. Free radicals increase rapidly during this period, but the fact that they seem to be held at bay until the salmon has done its reproducing suggests that there is an underlying programme at work. Perhaps the effect of methionine restriction might be to "edit" such an ageing programme in mammals, postponing its instructions.

Not all gerontologists agree with the death programme theory. Tom Kirkwood, one of the leading figures in the field, argues that the sudden post-reproductive death of the Atlantic salmon is not evidence of programmed ageing but the natural consequence of an extreme evolutionary phenomenon called "semelparity," meaning having all your offspring at once. The argument is that semelparous organisms invest all their life energy in a single reproductive event, after which there is no point being able to resist ageing.

But a finding in 2005 appears to have swung the argument decisively in favour of an ageing programme. A study at the Russian Academy of Sciences found that salmon can live much longer and continue reproducing when infected by pearl mussel larvae. In some cases, infection by this parasite extends life fourfold, to 13 years. It seems that the parasite has evolved a mechanism to avert the salmon's abrupt death so it can continue providing shelter and food for the parasite's development and reproduction. For a parasite dependent on the survival of its host, this is a sensible strategy. While the mechanism for this effect is not yet fully understood, it seems that the larvae produce a small protein that helps to mop up free radicals.

The study more or less confirms the existence of some form of death programme. If there were no programme, the salmon's abrupt death after reproduction could only be the inevitable result of wear and tear, in which case there would be limited scope for the mussel larvae to intervene. The fact that the larvae can increase the salmon's lifespan by such a huge factor by release of particular compounds indicates that there must normally be some mechanism hastening the ageing process.

This raises the question of why the salmon has evolved this type of ageing programme. One explanation is that it reproduces in rivers where food is scarce, and that therefore it is in the interests of the species for individuals to die and cease competing for resources once their reproductive energies are spent. The dead parents may even provide food for the fish upon which their young feed.

Immortal animals

But other questions remain. Although ageing is kept slow in the salmon until reproduction occurs, it still takes place. As in many animals, including humans, the ageing process starts at birth, but is kept in check until reproductive life is over. So can ageing ever be stopped altogether? At first sight this might seem unlikely, but all animals have immortal germlines—sequences of sex cells, like the sperm or ova—and we do not pass on the artefacts of ageing to our offspring. Evolution brought this about because any animal whose offspring were born old would soon become extinct. Immortal reproductive cells are kept separate from the body's somatic cells, which only need to survive one reproductive generation.

So the question arises: has any animal exploited the immortality of its germline to resist ageing indefinitely? The answer is yes. A few examples have been found among simpler organisms, one of the best studied being the hydra, a small freshwater animal up to 20mm long. Hydra appear to be able to regenerate endlessly with none of the recognised signs of ageing. This is possible because their bodies are permeated by germ cells whose primary purpose is to form buds that break off to yield offspring. These germ cells also create new tissue within the body, which in effect is the offspring of itself, constantly forming new cells to replace old ones. The line between reproduction and regeneration is blurred.

Although higher animals lack such regenerative powers, there are plenty of examples of individual organs being replaced in this way. Some sharks replace their teeth several times over their lifespan in order to continue feeding and to prolong their reproductive lives.

So why has evolution not used regeneration more ambitiously to extend reproductive lifespan? The answer lies in the high risk of death by accident or predation. In an animal such as the mouse, death by misadventure becomes almost inevitable after a few years, so there is little selective pressure in favour of long-lived individuals. Instead, evolution selects those organisms that are highly reproductive during their short lives.

But the equation changes abruptly for animals that have evolved the power of flight. When predators can be left on the ground, it becomes reproductively advantageous to live significantly longer. This is almost certainly why flying birds and bats live between four and ten times longer than non-flying mammals and birds of the same size. Flight itself, with its huge energy demands, may also have led to the development of efficient respiration and metabolism that, as a side-effect, reduces the production of damaging free radicals.

Research on birds and bats is shedding light on the genes involved in extending maximum lifespan as well as the biochemical mechanisms that bring it about. Along with research in non-flying mammals such as mice, this is helping to identify candidates for intervening in the ageing process. In particular, there is growing hope that aspects of ageing can be tackled by targeting specific metabolic pathways with therapies that mediate hormonal or other factors known to be involved. Work in mice over the last three years has also shown that lifespan can be extended by directing antioxidants specifically at mitochondria.

It has also been shown, in some animals, that the effects of calorie or protein restriction can be obtained via drugs without actually dieting. The effects of diet on ageing appear to operate particularly through the production of insulin and related enzymes with their role in growth and maintenance of correct blood glucose levels. The primary metabolic pathway involved, IGF-1, is known to be involved in ageing, and decreasing the activity of the protein receptor involved in IGF-1 has been shown to extend lifespan in mice. The case is still unproven for humans, but a number of studies are assessing whether there is reduced insulin signalling in long-lived people.

Human ageing has a separate dimension that becomes ever more relevant as people live longer. In animals, the various ageing processes seem to progress in tandem. For humans, there is evidence that ageing of the brain is partly uncoupled from the other organs. The evidence for this comes from observations of people suffering from premature ageing conditions, such as Werner's syndrome.

The implication is that if it becomes possible to extend human lifespan, it cannot be assumed that mental deterioration will automatically be postponed. So it is important to continue the distinct study of brain ageing, including factors such as accumulation of tangled protein, or plaques, associated with some forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's.

Extending lifespan and quality of life

Ageing in humans, as in other mammals, appears to be a co-ordinated process orchestrated by a relatively small number of genes. If this is the case, then it makes sense to tackle many age-related diseases through this genetic core rather than treating each one as a separate case—with the possible exception of some brain conditions.

There is potential for humans to mimic the biologically immortal hydra, by exploiting our stem cells in the regeneration of organs damaged by age-related diseases. The ability of adult stem cells, which remain in the body throughout life, to regenerate heart muscle cells has already been demonstrated in mice. Organs regenerated this way would in effect be brand new, and "younger" than all the other tissues and organs. Such regeneration might not immediately boost life's span, but should greatly improve its quality in old age.

Indeed, for humans the principal target should be quality of lifespan rather than absolute longevity. For now at least, few of us want to live beyond 120, but we would like to continue enjoying the good life for as long as possible within that ultimate span.

Can masturbating each day reduce prostrate cancer?

An apple a day can make you obese. So can masturbating each day keep the doctor away? Apparently it can reduce prostrate cancer by upto a third!

• 19 July 2003
• NewScientist.com news service
• Douglas Fox

Masturbation wILL make you go blind. It will make your palms grow hairy. Thankfully, such myths about masturbation are largely a thing of the past. But the latest research has even better news for young men: frequent self-pleasuring could protect against the most common kind of cancer.

A team in Australia led by Graham Giles of The Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne asked 1079 men with prostate cancer to fill in a questionnaire detailing their sexual habits, and compared their responses with those of 1259 healthy men of the same age. The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer.

The protective effect is greatest while men are in their twenties: those who had ejaculated more than five times per week in their twenties, for instance, were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer later in life (BJU International, vol 92, p 211).

The results contradict those of previous studies, which have suggested that having had many sexual partners, or a high frequency of sexual activity, increases the risk of prostate cancer by up to 40 per cent. The key difference is that these earlier studies defined sexual activity as sexual intercourse, whereas the latest study focused on the number of ejaculations, whether or not intercourse was involved.

The team speculates that infections caused by intercourse may increase the risk of prostate cancer. "Had we been able to remove ejaculations associated with sexual intercourse, there should have been an even stronger protective effect of other ejaculations," they suggest. "Men have many ways of using their prostate which don't involve women or other men," Giles adds.

Giles accepts the possibility that the men who completed the questionnaires could have lied about their habits. But he doubts this skewed the results, since questions about masturbation are unlikely to evoke the same macho exaggeration as questions about, say, number of sexual partners.

But why should ejaculating more often cut the risk of prostate cancer? The team speculates that ejaculation prevents carcinogens building up in the gland. The prostate, together with the seminal vesicles, secretes the bulk of the fluid in semen, which is rich in substances such as potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid. Generating the fluid involves concentrating these components from the bloodstream up to 600-fold - and this could be where the trouble starts. Studies in dogs show that carcinogens such as 3-methylcholanthrene, found in cigarette smoke, are also concentrated in prostate fluid. "It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis," says Giles. "The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."

His findings suggest an intriguing parallel between prostate cancer and breast cancer, as recent studies indicate that lactating reduces a woman's risk of breast cancer, perhaps because this also flushes out carcinogens. Alternatively, ejaculation might induce prostate cells to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens. "All these mechanisms are totally speculative," cautions breast cancer expert Loren Lipworth of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Maryland.

But if the finding is confirmed, future health advice from doctors may no longer be restricted to diet and exercise. "Masturbation is part of people's sexual repertoire," says Anthony Smith, deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne. "If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate."

From issue 2404 of New Scientist magazine, 19 July 2003, page 15

Britain is not a religious country - BHA comments on Guardian / ICM poll

I covered this poll here.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed the results of an ICM poll published today by the Guardian which demonstrates that Britain is not a religious country.

Andrew Copson, responsible for education and public affairs at the BHA, said:

‘This is the evidence for what most people are increasingly accepting as common sense. Britain is far from being a Christian country and the churches, in spite of their continuing privileges and increasingly shrill insistences to the contrary, have lost the right to speak for Britain . Nor is it possible to claim that Britain can be defined instead as “multi-faith”, when such clear majorities disown religion. The fact that the Government does not accept this fact, but continue to define the communities of Britain in faith terms, continue to promote faith schools, and to pay unjustified attention to unrepresentative religious “leaders” must be a source of increasing frustration for many.

‘Time and again religious groups get their way against overwhelmingly public opinion. They killed off the Assisted Dying Bill, which 4 out of 5 people supported; they have won wide exemptions from equality legislation so they can continue to discriminate against gay people and those who do not share their beliefs; and they will be doing their utmost to defend their 26 unelected members of Parliament when the Government tackles Lords reform this session. Instead of promoting a false image of modern Britain, Government should instead accept the real nature of contemporary society and we should move towards a secular state in this country – a state neutral on matters of religion and belief where there are no special privileges for any belief system, and public debate can be genuinely shared by citizens of whatever religion or belief.’

Religion does more harm than good - poll

Bold emphasis is mine, otherwise unedited.

82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious

Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian


Girls from St Marylebone school in London attend a multi-faith assembly in church. Photograph: Linda Nylind/Guardian

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.

The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.

Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men.

The findings come at the end of a year in which multiculturalism and the role of different faiths in society has been at the heart of a divisive political debate.

But a spokesman for the Church of England denied yesterday that mainstream religion was the source of tension. He also insisted that the "impression of secularism in this country is overrated".

"You also have to bear in mind how society has changed. It is more difficult to go to church now than it was. Communities are displaced, people work longer hours - it's harder to fit it in. It doesn't alter the fact that the Church of England will get 1 million people in church every Sunday, which is larger than any other gathering in the country."

The Right Rev Bishop Dunn, Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, added: "The perception that faith is a cause of division can often be because faith is misused for other uses and other agendas."

The poll suggests, however, that in modern Britain religious observance has become a habit reserved for special occasions. Only 13% of those questioned claimed to visit a place of worship at least once a week, with 43% saying they never attended religious services.

Non-Christians are the most regular attenders - 29% say they attend a religious service at least weekly. Yet Christmas remains a religious festival for many people, with 54% of Christians questioned saying they intended to go to a religious service over the holiday period.

Well-off people are more likely to plan to visit a church at Christmas: 64% of those in the highest economic categories expect to attend, compared with 43% of those in the bottom group.

Britain's generally tolerant attitude to religion is underlined by the small proportion who say the country is best described as a Christian one. Only 17% think this. The clear majority, 62%, agree Britain is better described as "a religious country of many faiths".

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

Special report
Religion in the UK

Related articles
Guide to British religions
Full coverage - Muslim Britain

Useful links
Archbishop of Canterbury
Archbishop of Westminster
Board of Deputies of British Jews
British Humanist Association
National Secular Society
Islamic Human Rights Commission
Muslim Council of Britain
The Vatican
Hindu Forum of Britain
The RE directory

How many calories usage to burn 1 pound fat?

food component	energy density
	kcal/g	kJ/g
fat	9	37
ethanol (alcohol)	7	29
proteins	4	17
carbohydrates	4	17
organic acids	3	13
polyols (sugar-free sweeteners)	2.4	10

Human fat tissue contains about 87% lipids, so that 1 kg of body-fat tissue has roughly the caloric energy of 870 g of pure fat, or 7800 kcal (9kcal/g x1000 x 0.87). Therefore one has to create a −7800 kcal deficit between energy intake and use to lose 1 kg of body-fat. In U.S. customary units, that is about 3500 kcal per pound. [2]

An Apple a Day for 10 years could add 3.5 stone weight

An apple a day keeps the doctor away, so the rhyme goes. But it could make you put on 3.5 stone over 10 years!

I worked out the maths today:-

• A small 100g eating apple has 47 calories.
• One pound of body weight is equivalent to 3500 calories.
  
• So if you eat 74 apples (3500/47) you could add a pound weight.
  
• An apple a day for a year could add 4.9 pounds (365/74) weight.
  
• In 10 years thats 49 pounds or 3st 7 pounds!

Twenty years ago I was 9st 13 pounds. In August 2006 I was 13st 7 pounds. So since 1986 I've eaten the equivalent of an apple every OTHER day - too much!

Isn't it amazing that everyone is not overweight!!

Genetics of eye colour unlocked

By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News

Eye colour has always intrigued geneticists

Scientists have made a breakthrough in their understanding of the genetics behind human eye colour. (wiki)

They found that just a few "letters" out of the six billion that make up the genetic code are responsible for most of the variation in human eye colour.

The research, by a team of scientists from Queensland, Australia, appear in an issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

The findings are based on a genetic study of nearly 4,000 individuals.

One of the changes is like switching the light on and off, while the other is like changing the light bulb from brown to green Richard Sturm, University of Queensland

Differences in eye colour are largely down to "single nucleotide polymorphisms" (SNPs - pronounced "snips"); variations in the sequence of letters that make up a single strand of human DNA.

SNPs represent a change of just one letter in the genetic sequence. These changes, or mutations, in our DNA can have important consequences for how the gene gets physically expressed.

All the SNPs are located near a gene called OCA2. This gene produces a protein that helps give hair, skin and eyes their colour. And mutations in OCA2 cause the most common type of albinism.

Brown and blue

The study, which focused on twins, their siblings and parents, shows - conclusively - that there is no "gene" for eye colour.

THE DNA MOLECULE The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by chemical components called bases Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine(C) bonds with guanine (G) Groupings of these "letters" form "code of life"; there are about 2.9 billion base-pairs in the human genome wound into 24 distinct bundles, or chromosomes Written in the DNA are about 20-25,000 genes which human cells use as starting templates to make proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain our bodies

Everyone has two copies of a SNP. So there are several possible combinations, some of which are more heavily associated with, for example, blue eyes, than with brown eyes.

In short, these combinations strongly influence the colour of a person's eyes, but they are not the final word.

Dr Richard Sturm and his colleagues found three SNPs near the start of the OCA2 gene that were linked to blue eye colour.

"The SNPs we've identified in themselves are not functionally causing the eye colour change, but they are linked very, very closely to something that is," Dr Sturm, from the University of Queensland, told BBC News.

"When OCA2 is knocked out, there is a loss of pigmentation. The position of these SNPs right at the start of the gene means it is possible we're looking at a change in the regulation of the gene in people with blue eye colour."

Functional change

So these SNPs, at the start of OCA2, probably regulate how much of the pigmentation protein is produced by the gene. People with brown eyes might have a lot of this protein, while people with blue eyes have less.

However, the single letter changes involved in green eyes may actually produce functional changes in the pigmentation protein.

The researchers found SNPs at another position in the OCA2 region - linked to green eyes - that resulted in changes to amino acids (the building blocks of a protein).

"To use an analogy, one of the changes is like switching the light on and off, while the other is like changing the light bulb from brown to green," said Dr Sturm.

Altogether, the single letter changes identified in the study accounted for 74% of total variation in eye colour, the researchers said.

The study was a collaboration between researchers at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the University of Queensland, both in Brisbane.

Overweight? Change you gut bacteria!

Your gut reaction influences your weight

• 18:00 20 December 2006
• NewScientist.com news service
• Roxanne Khamsi

The amount of weight an animal gains from eating depends partly on the types of microbes found in its gut, a new mouse study reveals.

Mice with microbes that are better at extracting energy from food end up fatter, researchers say. And when obese people diet, they lose some of these fattening microbes from their guts, according to a related report.

The new findings could help nutritionists develop new ways of preventing and treating weight problems.

People, like mice, are born without any bacteria in their gut. But within the first few years of life a wide range of microbes colonise their intestine and help them to breakdown and digest food.

To explore the influence of these bacteria, Jeffrey Gordon at the University of Washington in St Louis, Missouri, US, and colleagues turned to a special “germ-free” breed of laboratory mice that lack the trillions of microbes that normally reside in the rodent gut.

Previous studies have shown that these mice stay slim if kept inside a sterile, microbe-free environment (see Slimming for slackers).

Grossly obese

The team inoculated these animals with a sample of gut microbes from either normal mice or mice that have a mutation in the “obese” gene. This gene controls the expression of an appetite-regulating hormone – animals that carry a mutated copy are grossly obese because they overeat excessively.

The germ-free mice that received bacteria from normal mice subsequently experienced a 25% increase in body fat. Those that received microbes from obese mice, on the other hand, experienced a 45% increase in body fat.

To explain why injections from obese mice caused a greater weight gain, scientists compared the microbial makeup of these mice with their normal counterparts. They found that, compared with normal mice, the obese rodents had more microbes from the bacterial group known as Firmicutes and fewer of those belonging to the group Bacteroidetes.

Compared with Bacteroidetes bacteria, Firmicutes bacteria might have a wider range of enzymes for breaking down complex carbohydrates, the researchers say. This could make them more efficient at extracting energy from food, which our bodies ultimately convert into fat.

"Striking result"

In a related study, Gordon’s team determined the microbial makeup of 12 obese people by conducting a genetic analysis of their faeces. This revealed that these individuals had a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes bugs than lean people involved in the study. For example, Bacteroidetes microbes constituted 5% of the obese people’s gut flora, but 20% of the lean subjects’.

After a year of either a carbohydrate- or fat-restricted diet, the obese individuals lost weight and the ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes bugs shifted towards that of their lean counterparts. In the end, Bacteroidetes made up about 15% of their gut flora.

“It’s a striking result and it’s constant across all of these different people,” comments David Relman at Stanford University in California, US, who did an earlier, landmark genetic analysis of human gut bugs (Science, vol 308, p 1635). “It’s not just having microbes, it’s the particular makeup that might matter,” he adds.

Journal: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature4441022a) and (DOI: 10.1038/nature05414)

Giving up on giving

Desperate shoppers are searching frantically for the perfect Christmas present, but for many of us it no longer exists.
Joanna Moorhead

December 18, 2006 06:35 PM | Printable version

Desperate shoppers are everywhere. The stores are teeming with them. They search around wildly, saucer-eyed, clutching at every item in view, hoping against hope they'll find the present that's eluded them all December long.

But here's betting they won't. Because, for more and more of us, the perfect gift no longer exists. It doesn't exist because most of the people in your life - your mum, your dad, your partner, your kid, even your dog - has everything, she or he could possibly need. And more.

After all, what do we do when we want something? Do we write it down in our palm pilot on a page marked "My Christmas list"? No, we don't: instead, we go to the shops or we log onto a website, we get out a credit card, and we jolly well buy our desired item. Today! OK, so maybe your dog hasn't quite mastered the habit of keying his credit card number into your PC; and maybe your kid has to pester you for a week or two before he finally gets what he really, really wants. But certainly for most of us, the world is about instant gratification. We see; we like; we buy. We don't wait for Christmas.

Which, come December, is a problem. And it's a problem that makes you wonder: it is worth carrying on with this present-buying lark at all?

Retailers, of course, tell us we must. After all, people buy themselves what they want, when they want it; and then at Christmas we all race out to buy any old tat, just so there's something under the tree. Whole shops have sprung up to cater for people who really don't need another stick or sausage in their life, but who must be bought a gift. The buy-a-goat-for-Africa phenomenon, though partly motivated by genuine concern for people in other parts of the world, was another symptom of the same phenomenon (and according to aid worker friends of mine, there are even some African villages that now have too many goats).

What's the answer? This is controversial, but I'm going to be brave. We have to take a long, hard look at why we think we need to go on buying all these presents. We have to think about cutting back, or even stopping doing it altogether. We have to be honest about our wants, honest about our needs, and honest about our ability to meet our own desires. After all, is Christmas in 2006 really about giving? This year, to me, it feels more like it's about swamping; and I just don't want to be swamped any more.

The Trouble with Atheism by Rod Liddle

My Quote snippets:

• " We will be able to explain everything through Science" Prof. Peter Atkins, Univ. Oxford, Physical Chemist
  
• Give me your views on the existence or otherwise for god? Their is no god, no evidence for a god, no reason to believe in a god, so dont believe in a god and i think it is rather foolish to believe in a god. Arrogance? What is wrong with arrogance if you are right! Peter Atkins (12mins)
• "I dont think that God is scientifically knowable or the non existence of god would be scientifically knowable. I think that the character of the world is supportive of the idea of a divine mind or purpose behind it, but i dont think it amounts to a proof that that is so. I dont think anyone has knockdown proofs of that character whether or not we are theists or atheists. Sir John Polkinghorne, retired Physicist & lay preacher (17mins)
  
• "Soviet Unions atheist regime killed 20 million people" Rod Liddle
  

In the past atheists were often persecuted in God-fearing societies. Today they pose an open challenge to religious philosophies. Is a society without God a society without a moral code? Or do human beings create their own system of ethics?

Atheism is a disbelief in a god or gods. The word 'atheism' first appeared in Europe in the 1500s, although scepticism about the existence of gods can be traced back to the early Greek philosopher Epicurus who lived 2,300 years ago.

In the past atheists often suffered persecution and death in God-fearing societies. Today they are largely tolerated and can pose an open challenge to religious philosophies.

The issues

• Believers say that without God and religion there are no ethical or moral codes.
• Atheists say that even though killing is outlawed by religious moral codes, wars continue to be fought in the name of religion. And if you believe you have God on your side you can justify any acts of war.
• Believers accuse godless societies such as Stalin's Russia of carrying out murderous crimes but atheists say his crimes were committed without reference to his beliefs about religion.
• Atheists accuse religion of being divisive because each religion is intolerant of other beliefs.
• Religious leaders proclaim that, despite their differences, they share many similar beliefs and more unites them than divides them.
• Religious leaders say that God created people. Atheists say people created God to explain what they could not understand.
• Believers claim that atheists cannot disprove the existence of God.
• Atheists say there is no evidence for God's existence.
• Atheists base their beliefs on what they can see and know. They claim that scientific advances have explained 'natural disasters' that were once attributed to the 'hand of God'.
• Some scientists are religious and some scientists have become priests.
• Some religious scientists believe that the complex and intricate structure of the natural world proves that it was created by 'intelligent design' and is not the result of evolution.
• Atheist scientists say that natural disasters, for example, those caused by tectonic imperfections, disprove the idea of 'intelligent design'.
• Atheists hold to scientific theories regarding the creation of the Earth, such as the Big Bang theory.
• Some religious believers ask what preceded the big bang.
• Advocates of religion admit that their beliefs are based on faith in what they cannot see and unquestioning belief in sacred texts. They claim that atheists, too, are basing their ideas on faith – in the powers of science – and won't question texts such as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.
• Atheists say that the scientific evidence points to evolution.

Trouble with Atheism Part 1/5


Trouble with Atheism Part 2/5


Trouble with Atheism Part 3/5


Trouble with Atheism Part 4/5


Trouble with Atheism Part 5/5

A simple test of the relative merits of science and religion is to compare lighting your house at night by prayer or electricity - by AC Grayling

On truth and betrayals

A simple test of the relative merits of science and religion is to compare lighting your house at night by prayer or electricity.

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

April 7, 2006 03:07 PM | Printable version

E M Forster's motto was "only connect". Responding to this injunction by putting together three items of the week's news is an instructive exercise.

The first is the description in the journal Science of the process by which evolution produces new molecular machinery in biological systems by incrementally adapting existing structures to new purposes.

The second is a report in the science journal Nature of several well-preserved 375 million year old fossils of a species intermediate between water and land-dwelling creatures.

The third is the announcement of a parchment found in the Egyptian desert containing part of a second century Gnostic document, described as "the Gospel of Judas", in which the legendary betrayer is exonerated and indeed placed in a theologically privileged position because - so the document says - he was asked by Jesus to deliver him to the authorities in completion of his mission.

Which of these three items of news is the odd one out? If you think this is a no-brainer, remember the respondent in the quiz show who said that the synonym for "blessed" occurring before the words "thy name" in the Lord's Prayer is "Howard". Perhaps this might count as news too, to all those wishing to know the name of God.

There is a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in the United States called Michael J Behe, darling of the creationists, who says that biological structures are "irreducibly complex" and their existence can therefore only be explained by invoking a divine designer. This absurd argument, which alleges a mystery (the existence of complex biological structures) and claims to solve it by introducing an arbitrary and even greater mystery (the existence of a deity), has exactly the logical force of saying that the shapes of clouds are designed by Fred. Who or what is Fred? Pick a legend to explain.

As Karl Popper pointed out, a theory which explains everything (and all the religions, otherwise in fierce competition with one another over the Truth, do that) explains nothing. Unless a theory specifies what counter-evidence would refute it, it is worthless. Good science invites rigorous questioning and testing; almost all religions, at least at some time in their history, have killed those who have questioned them. No wars have been fought over theories in botany or meteorology; most wars and conflicts in the world's history owe themselves directly or indirectly to religion. By their fruits, we are told, we shall know them.

A simple test of the relative merits of science and religion is to compare lighting your house at night by prayer or electricity.

The molecular evolution research focuses on hormone receptors. Hormones and their receptors are protein molecules that fit one another like keys in locks. By comparing specific hormone receptors in lampreys and hagfish, primitive species of jawless fish, with more evolved versions in skate, Professor Joseph Thornton and his laboratory co-workers at the University of Oregon have been able to reconstruct the genetic evolution of the molecules in question, tracing it (the evolution) to a common ancestral gene 456 million years ago. They found a receptor molecule that predated the existence of the hormone for which it now serves. This offers evidence of how changes in a system exploit existing structures for new purposes, and therefore how greater biological complexity arises incrementally from less complexity.

Professor Behe, believer in supernatural agencies - a class that includes fairies, demons, unicorns, cthonic gods, angels and ghosts - whose alleged existence is inexplicable and untestable, and credence in which rests on ancient writings embodying the superstitions of mankind's early ignorances, calls Professor Thornton's work "piddling". That is not an expression, presumably, that he would use to describe the - earth-shattering? - discovery of the Gospel of Judas in Egypt's desert sands - but then he is that sort of person.

Language, truth and logic section

In some London buses there is a sign instructing passengers as follows: "Do not speak to or obstruct the driver's vision." This interesting injunction is reminiscent of the notice - really, a sign of its times - that once told bus passengers, "Smokers are requested to occupy only seats in the rear half of the bus." That meant you could not sit on the floor, or stand, if you were smoking at the back of the bus.

The likes of Professor Behe doubtless understand what it means to "speak to someone's vision". Which church is running London's buses? (Would it be surprising, in the Reverend Blair's Britain where churches are running ever more of our schools, to find that this is not a rhetorical
question?)

This entry was tagged with the following keywords: judas science religion christianity god

Comments

Comments have now been closed on this entry.

Comment No. 9316

April 7 16:22

As long as we don't live in a nation where religious belief is stuffed down our throats and used to decide policy, then I couldn't care less if people want to believe in God, Creationism, Unicorns or whatever else.
Each to their own and I believe there is room enough in the world for the measurable and immeasurable to co-exist easily enough.
To be honest, the science fundies are beginning to worry me as much as US Born Again Evangelists and Islamic Fundies with their obsessed, narrow and vehement attacks on anyone who simply believes in God or disagrees with them.
Extremists with all the answers of any sort are far more dangerous than the majority who believe (But don't get their knickers in a twist) in a higher being or science and just want a quiet life.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

bessaroth

Comment No. 9377

April 7 17:15

London/gbr

Comment No. 9383

April 7 17:21

Religion destroys anything it comes in contact with whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jew. Once the radicals take control reason goes to the wind and persecution begins as we have seen over the last few years, religion like the monachy is a thing of the past.

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Madeleined

Comment No. 9416

April 7 17:54

Warwick/gbr

In the days before science, people wondered about and feared the elements and pretty much every act of nature, large or small. They, naturally, wondered how it all came to be, how the crops they planted came to grow etc.

So they (feeling somewhat inferior given that they could not cause floods, make storms and what have you) attributed everything to a superior being (or beings, depending on location).

As we evolved, our brains did develop, our societies did grow, and science began to supply valid explanations for a lot of natural occurrences and still continues to do so, to still gaze in wonder at the earth and call it the work of "God" is not only primitive - it's ludicrous!

Still, a world that questions not the "authority and work of God" is a rather malleable populace, no?

run2white

Comment No. 109714

July 1 19:14

Nanjing/chn

Belief based on personal experience,rather than blind faith, does not need the blessing of science for its validation. "Science" quite arbitrarily states that only objective, repeatable,measurable experiences are "real", and rejects subjective, personal experiences out-of-hand.

I do not take drugs or alcohol, nor am I a member of any religious organization or cult! My own personal experiences undeniably testify to the existence of the "non-physical." It seems to me that "Science" quite arbitrarily assumes that the brain and its chemicals are the source of our conciousness rather than the vehicle through which conciousness might manifest.
Have you ever wondered why we say " I love you with all my heart". After all , the
heart is just a pump isn't it? Then,why don't we say, " I love you with all my liver" or "..all my kidneys". Haha it sounds SO weird doesn't it!

What if I was to say to you that love,not physical/emotional ordinary love, but a different love, can be experienced and feels like an energy, a force, pick a label, that manifests itself in the location of the physical heart, and pours into you with the power of a billion orgasms of bliss.

What if I say that many people,including myself, have experienced this? I cannot connect myself to a machine and measure it for you. I cannot repeat the experience at will while you measure whatever you like measuring, but it WAS a real, very real experience - it is REAL FOR ME. It is part of the reality of my life. So, is my reality different from your reality? Is my personal experience LESS valid than those blessed by science?

Ponder this. Maybe......In the same way that the Earth is not just made of soil and water, but extends in ever more subtle layers of atmosphere and radiation belts - the totality being the Earth, so is our physical body more than just flesh and blood; extending outward in subtle layers of energy.

Can I "prove it" by "scientific method"? Of course not! Does that make my experiences invalid , my reality unreal, because science can't measure it? Can an eye see itself? haha. Scientific Method owns a little slice of reality and declares anything beyond the limits of its own self-made boundaries as heresy.

30% UK University Students believe in Creationism by AC Grayling

Reason lost

The revelation that almost a third of students believe in creationism shows how the resurgence of superstitious belief is endangering the world.

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

August 15, 2006 12:57 PM | Printable version

An Opinionpanel Research survey conducted in July this year found that more than 30% of UK university students believe in creationism or intelligent design. This raw detail is gasp-inducing enough in its own right, as indication of the effect of the propagandised resurgence of the fairy-tales that once served mankind's intellectual infancy and are now reasserting a grip on too many. But it is even more troubling as a symptom of a wider corrosion, the spread of a more virulent cancer of unreason, which is affecting not just the mental culture of our own country but the fate of the world itself. If that last phrase seems hyperbolic, read on.

Take the local concern first, and ask what is signified by the 30% statistic at issue. From the day that the government of John Major allowed polytechnics to redescribe themselves as universities, and his and successive governments set a target of getting 50% of school leavers into higher education, but without the huge investment of resources at all levels that would make this viable, it was inevitable that standards required for entrance to degree level courses would fall. And so it has dramatically proved. At the same time standards in public examinations at the high school level have also fallen, by some measures a long way. The official line, of course, is that the latter at least is not true: but such is the way with official lines.

The combined result is that a significant proportion of university entrants today are noticeably different creatures from their average forerunners of a generation ago: quite measurably less literate, less numerate, less broadly knowledgeable, and less reflective. At the same time education has been infected by post-modern relativism and the less desirable effects of "political correctness", whose combined effect is to encourage teachers to accept, and even promote as valid alternatives, the various superstitions and antique belief-systems constituting the multiplicity of different and generally competing religions represented in our multicultural society. This has gone so far that our tax dollars are now arrogated to supporting "faith based schooling", which means the ghettoisation of intellectually defenceless children into a variety of competing superstitions, despite the stark evidence, all the way from Northern Ireland to the madrassahs of Pakistan, of what this does for the welfare of mankind.

The key to the weakening of intellectual rigour that all this represents is that enquiry is no longer premised on the requirement that belief must be proportional to carefully gathered and assessed evidence. The fact that "faith" is enough to legitimate anything from superstition to mass murder is not one whit troubling to "people of faith" themselves, most of whom disagree with the faith of most other "people of faith" (thus: a Christian does not accept Islam, and vice versa; so a Christian's claim to be certain, by faith, that his is the only true religion is rejected, on grounds of faith, by the Muslim; and so on, to the point of mutual assassination); which shows that the non-rational mindset underlying religious belief, an essentially infantile attitude of acceptance of fairy-stories, has not been affected by the best that education can offer in the way of challenging and maturing minds to think for themselves.

Example: ask a Christian why the ancient story of a deity impregnating a mortal woman who then gives birth to a heroic figure whose deeds earn him a place in heaven, is false as applied to Zeus and his many paramours (the mothers of such as Hercules, the Heavenly Twins, etc.), but true as applied to God, Mary and Jesus. Indeed ask him what is the significance of the fact that this tale is older even than Greek mythology, and commonplace in Middle Eastern mythologies generally. Why are they myths, whereas what is related in the New Testament (a set of texts carefully chosen from a larger number of competing versions some centuries after they events they allege) is not? Do not expect a rational reply; an appeal to faith will be enough, because with faith anything goes.

"With faith anything goes": here is why the claim that the resurgence of non-rational superstitious belief is a danger to the world. Fundamentalism in all the major religions (and some are fundamentalist by nature) can be and too often is politically infantilising, and in its typical radicalised forms provides utter certainty of being in the right, immunises against tolerance and pluralism, justifies the most atrocious behaviour to the apostate and the infidel, is blind to the appeals of justice let alone mercy or reason, and is intrinsically fascistic and monolithic. One does not have to look very far to find shining examples of this pretty picture in today's world, whether in the Middle East or the Bible belt of the United States. The rest of the world is caught between these two appalling instances of basically the same phenomenon, so it is perhaps no surprise, though no less regrettable, that the infection should spread from both directions.

More regrettable still, though, is the fact that the civilised quarters of the world are not taking seriously the connection between the world's current problems and failure to uphold intellectual rigour in education, and not demanding that religious belief be a private and personal matter for indulgence only in the home, accepting it in the public sphere only on an equal footing with other interest groups such as trades unions and voluntary organisations such as the Rotary Club. This is the most that a religion merits being treated as, as the following proves: if I and a few others claim to constitute a religious group based on belief in the divinity of garden gnomes, should I be entitled to public money for a school in which children can be brought up in this faith, together with a bishop's seat in parliament perhaps? Why would this be laughed out of court when belief of essentially the same intellectual value, say, Christianity, is accorded all such amenities and more?

I remind those who seek to counter with the tired old canard that Stalinism and Nazism are proof that secular arrangements are worse than religious ones, that fundamentalist religion is the same in its operation and effects as Stalinism and Nazism for the reason that they are at base the same thing, viz. monolithic ideologies. Religion is a man-made device, not least of oppression and control (the secret policeman who sees what you do even in the dark on your own), whose techniques and structures were adopted by Stalinism and Nazism, the monolithic salvation faiths of modernity, as the best teachers they could wish for. When any of these imprisoning ideologies are on the back foot and/or in the minority, they present sweet faces to those they wish to seduce: the kiss of friendship in the parish church, the summer camp for young communists in the 1930s. But give them the levers of power and they are the Taliban, the Inquisition, the Stasi.

Give them AK47s and Semtex, and some of the fanatics among them become airline bombers, mass murderers of ordinary men, women and children, and for the most contemptible of reasons.

How far are the 30% of students who believe in creationism from airline bombers? A very long way, of course; the latter are a sick and psychopathic minority only; but the point to register and take seriously is that there is nevertheless a connecting thread, which is belief in antique superstitions and the non-rational basis of the putative values they represent, values which can lead in the extreme to mass murder, as the chilling jingle reminds us: "faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for."

As part of the strategy for countering the pernicious effects that faith and dogma can produce, we need to return religious commitment to the private sphere, stop the folly of promoting superstitions and religious segregation in education, demand that standards of intellectual rigour be upheld at all educational levels, and find major ways of reversing the current trend of falling enrolment in science courses. The alternative is a return to the Dark Ages, the tips of whose shadows are coldly falling upon us even now.

Why do I read popular science books?

I'm interested in the truth.

For several years I have read many books on Evolution, Cosmology etc (my library). They satisfy my thirst for truth and knowledge. I annotate my books with vertical lines indicating the most interesting or significant points. Then I go on to read other related books. But a month or a year later how much do I remember of what I have read? I feel I should do more with these books to extend my understanding. And somehow communicate my understanding to others.

A couple of months ago i summarised The Periodic Table. I felt happy, even strangely elated for a few weeks even though i never got around to adding by review to Amazon.co.uk. The process of summarising gave me a deeper understanding of the subject.

1. Why not review the significant books i've read and publish my reviews on Amazon or this blog?
2. Why not read the bibliographies in these book and read the original scripts?
3. Why not choose a sub topic and summarise the book and its bibliographies?

Maybe someday, even write and publish a book of my own!

I want to think more about the books i read. The process of summarising and reviewing should help. Otherwise sometimes I feel the books I read pass me by like ships passing each other in the night.

How can I communicate to others what I have read? Katie Geary, a work colleague asked me yesterday - what is "The Selfish Gene" book about? I mumbled something about evolution and genes and dont think of "selfish" in its normal meaning.

With the knowledge & understanding I have at the time I read these wonderful popular science books, how can I contribute, in even a miniscule way, to advancing science or knowledge? That seems a very grand and lofty aim. But reading the Preface to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene by (my all time favourite author) Richard Dawkins, gives me some hope. Richard Dawkins talks about (page ix) the Necker Cube and says:

"Rather than propose a new theory or unearth a new fact, often the most
important original contribution a scientist can make is to discover a new way of
seeing old theories or facts."

"That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty" by AC Grayling

The Taepodong effect

What did North Korea invoke to justify its missile tests? That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty.

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

July 5, 2006 03:35 PM | Printable version

North Korea defends its seven missile tests, one of them involving the Taepodong-2 long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska, by saying that its "national sovereignty" entitles it to conduct them in its national self-interest. North Korea's critics, by contrast, argue that in the arena of weapons systems with extra-territorial reach there is no right of unilateral action; international agreements, controls, treaties and responsibilities oblige countries to respect the security interests of neighbours and indeed the international community at large. Disregard of these constraints, they point out, is risky and destabilising.

The critics in question include Japan and the US. The criticism is of course correct; North Korea's behaviour is an example of immature grandstanding and nose-thumbing, wincingly obvious from the choice of date (July 4) for the tests. Japan has a valid point in objecting to North Korea's tests, not least because of North Korea's irresponsible track record in the field: in 1998 it fired a Taepodong-1 over the north of Japan, a highly provocative if not downright stupid act.

But the United States' stance is, at the least, hypocritical. What it rightly censures others for doing it wrongly does itself, and with almost total impunity. The attitude of the Bush administration to a whole raft of international institutions and measures, from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto environment initiatives, from the United Nations to the non-proliferation treaties on nuclear weapons, is consistently negative and unilateralist. It pleads national interest and national sovereignty just as North Korea does, despite the fact that the hollowness of North Korea's appeal to the concept is proof positive that claims of national immunity from international obligations are unacceptable.

If North Korea cannot get away with the "national sovereignty" scam, and if logical consistency requires that neither can the United States, then of course nor can anyone else. It also requires that the point be taken to its more general set of conclusions, a lesson that (for example) Eurosceptics might do well to learn, and with them petty nationalists of all stamps everywhere. There are many additional reasons why nationalism is the wrong direction for human beings to go in; here the overriding point is that no nation (if, by the way, such a thing actually exists), like no individual, is an island, and promises itself nothing but trouble by trying to be one.

As always, history teaches rich lessons here. When the Eleanor Roosevelt committee was drafting the UN declaration of human rights in 1948, the Soviet representatives were emphatically concerned that nothing in the declaration should allow "interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states", which in effect meant freedom for governments to torture and murder their own citizens without anyone from outside raising complaints on human rights grounds. As it happens, the other post-war major powers (the UK, US, China and France) were not especially happy about the human rights idea either, which was then most eagerly welcomed by third-world countries and colonised peoples, who understood the opportunity it offered. As events have shown, adoption of the UN declaration in Paris in 1948 proved to be the first really major breach of the national sovereignty idea since its origin in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, with all its subsequent catastrophic horrors.

In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history.

***********************

Comments

HeiGou

Comment No. 115295

July 5 15:48

Oxford/gbr

ACGrayling:"In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history."

Actually that shows something else - Communism is dead and in a desparate last-ditch effort to stay afloat the North Korean Communists will even try to appeal to Nationalism. It is not Nationalism that is the problem. South Korea is at least as nationalistic. It is the Communism. Alas that cluster of toxic ideas has not yet gone to the rubbish heap of history, but the good news is that it only survives in North Korea, Cuba, academia and on CiF.

Besides which nationalism has been a hugely successul ideology and whatever the downsides of nationalism, the only thing worse is a lack of nationalism. It works. The "nations" without nationalism are being swept into the rubbish heap of history. If only the Palestinians were more nationalistic in 1947! If only the Native Americans had a sense of their own national identity!

aleph

Comment No. 115644

July 5 17:41

I used the phrase "bent twig" as Isaiah Berlin used it - as a metaphor for nationalism. I think nationalism was obviously effective in Europe as a legitimiser of governments, though not much any more. Has it a place in the 21st century? I stick by the description of it as being used by useless and illegitimate governments an outward and specious appearance of a mandate. As soon as the illusion is torn, they have nothing to fall back on. They compensate for internal failure with external aggression, putting nationalistic symbols such territory on a pedestal.

This is used as much by the left as the right. I agree that Maoism hasn't got much juice left in it now. Confucianism was discredited over a hundred years ago and seems unlikely to make a reappearance. Nationalism would fil the gap nicely in China. It is the only thing that fills it in N. Korea.

As for those poor buggers who lack real nationalism being screwed by history, I sadly agree. Look at the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th century - the only way to protect yourself, in law and fact, is through having a State of your own.

RobSterling

Comment No. 115813

July 5 18:58

Your criticisms of sovereignty and nationhood would be more credible if you had a viable, proven alternative. Since you do not, you come off like a crank.

Secondly, it is not hypocrisy for a free state to attempt to prevent dictatorships from arming. It's common sense and legitimate self-defense. The U.S. hasn't used a nuclear weapon in 60 years and does not threaten to do so - North Korea fumes that it will nuke another country about every other week. Maybe you should take them at their word.

Also, how far does a Korean missile have to be capable of penetrating U.S. territory before we are permitted to be concerned? And how do you know it can only reach Alaska, and not Seattle or Chicago?

nimn2003

Comment No. 115830

July 5 19:11

Skopje/mkd

RobSterling: I think Bush has actually raised use of nukes as a serious option in the last few weeks. Or is that just 'sabre rattling' and OK.

bobdoney

Comment No. 116191

July 6 1:37

Cambridge/gbr

The usual half-baked drivel from the Prof. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how we can have "international obligations" without nations. It's like trying to have "interpersonal relations" without people.

And my Eurosceptic instincts suggest to me that we'll find the EU on the rubbish heap of history long before nations and national identity.

travlinman

Comment No. 116221

July 6 2:18

Kim is a psychopath, but he's holding the entire population of Seoul hostage, no?

I'm still unclear as to why we and you and Kazakhstan and India have the "right" to nukes but not, say, Slovenia or Northern Fredonia. Once more, Kim is a psychopath and the world should make sure all sharp objects are kept out of his reach. But all this blather about nonproliferation -per se- makes no sense coming from all of us who proliferate.

Why Ice Floats on water

Liquid News

Water has some unusual properties. It's less dense at zero degrees celsius than it is at four degrees celsius. This is because when water freezes the molecules become fixed in a crystalline lattice, and each molecule is pushed away from its neighbours. If this wasn't the case, ice would sink instead of float and seas and lakes would freeze solid.

Characteristics

An unusual feature of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Water is also one of the few substances to expand when it freezes.

Ice has a density of 0.917 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is most dense, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals of ice as the temperature drops to 0 °C. (the word "crystal" derives from Greek word for frost.) This is due to hydrogen bonds forming between the water molecules, which line up molecules less efficiently (in terms of volume) when water is frozen. The result of this is that ice floats on liquid water, an important factor in Earth's climate. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature (density of ice at −180 °C (93 K) is 0.9340 g/cm³).

When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C.