When Steyn starts to talk about his hypothesis of "Islamification" of the West, extreme muslim population growth and western population decline, it makes you wonder about the issue of population growth in general. Though yes, western populations seem to be in decline, the general world population has been growing throughout the years at an apparently exponential rate. Take a look at graphs of human population and you can see for yourself. Does this pose a problem for Americans? For the environment? For the entirety of the world? Steyn believes that it is not a major problem, and rather, the major problem is that the West is not creating enough babies. He writes, "The 'experts' of the Western world are slower to turn around than an ocean liner, and in Europe they were still yakking about the 'population explosion' even as their 1970s schoolhouses, built in anticipation of traditional Catholic birth rates, were emptying through the nineties and oughts" (13). He then cites a "blithely snobbish account...in Dehli" in Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (1968), a book about the exponential growth of the world population: "People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, people arguing and screaming. People thrust their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people" (Ehrlich). In response to this passage, Steyn retorts, "But in the twenty-first century, even Dehli's running out of people. Even Paul Ehrlich's hellhole of a choice doesn't have a high enough birth rate to maintain its population in the long term. Yet the complaceniks cling to the long-held Euro-Canadian policy of using the Third World as a farm team and denuding the developing societies of their best and brightest" (13). Steyn denies the existence of a "population bomb." "There is no 'population bomb,' Steyn says. "There never was. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called "population explosion" was really a massive population adjustment. The world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less 'Western'" (15).
This statement is a strong one, and for the most part, I agree with what Steyn says here. I think the reason that western countries' populations are in decline is because of people like Paul Ehrlich that publish scary books about population growth. Most western countries are developed enough to know that the world population is rapidly growing. World population growth is a fact. Heck, China has a one-child policy to prevent overpopulation. Thus, perhaps these more developed countries are dissuaded from having too many children, when they should be having as many as possible right now. On the other hand, people in third world countries have vastly different cultures, are not as educated and may not understand population dynamics, so they may be naturally inclined to have lots of children. Western population decline and Islamic population growth is a problem, but I will go more in depth about Islam in a future post. However, does the importance of Western population growth supersede the importance of controlling the world population? I say yes. At this rate, the world population is uncontrollable, so there's really no purpose in trying to not have children. Besides, we will eventually run out of space, which probably will naturally control the population. So why not encourage population growth? Western population is declining, but the population of Muslim extremists is growing by the day. There's power in numbers. It doesn't look good to me.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Theories on the Origins of Humans
Almost every senior in my school is required to do a senior project at the end of the school year in which they research a topic that they're interested in. I decided to research theories on the origins of humans, because it's something that's been on my mind for several years. It's also a topic that is still hotly debated by scientists, religious advocates, spirituals, and others. How did humans come to being? Why are we so much more intelligent than all other organisms on Earth? There are countless theories, some more valid than others. The three theories I plan to focus on are the creationist theory, the Darwinist evolutionary theory, and the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
The creationist theory is my tentative classification of a collection of religions, primarily Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to focus on one of the three; I'll decide in time. The creationist theory is the general notion that God created man in His own form some 4000 years ago (and holistically, God created the universe). This theory is present in ancient texts such as the Bible and Koran, and is advocated in religious buildings today. Creationism was a commonly accepted theory until around the mid-nineteenth century when people like Darwin began to question it.
Darwin postulated that every organism on Earth evolved from a common ancestor, and the reason that certain organisms exist and most are extinct is due to reproductive success. This is the evolutionary theory of natural selection, also sometimes called differential reproduction or "survival of the fittest." Organisms that are the most successful in their niche will have more time to pass their selfish genes down to their progeny via sexual/asexual reproduction. Thus, the most efficient (though nowhere near perfect) organisms are the ones that last. Humans, then, evolved from primates for specific reasons, as indicated by current fossil records. There's a lot more to it; I'm just summarizing. A great book that goes into detail about this evolutionary theory is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
The final theory, the Ancient Astronaut Theory, is the one that is commonly thought to be the most farfetched theory of human origins. Yet for some reason, I seem to believe in it, though that might change after I finish this project. The Ancient Astronaut theory postulates that extraterrestrials came to Earth a very long time ago and as an experiment, mixed their DNA with primates to produce intelligent humans. The evidence that suggests this lies in the ruins of ancient civilizations. Incredible structures such as the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge are examples; some people believe that there was no way that humans could single-handedly build these structures. If you read up on the architecture of these structures, it makes sense why people would think this.
So which theory is right? Who knows.
The creationist theory is my tentative classification of a collection of religions, primarily Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to focus on one of the three; I'll decide in time. The creationist theory is the general notion that God created man in His own form some 4000 years ago (and holistically, God created the universe). This theory is present in ancient texts such as the Bible and Koran, and is advocated in religious buildings today. Creationism was a commonly accepted theory until around the mid-nineteenth century when people like Darwin began to question it.
Darwin postulated that every organism on Earth evolved from a common ancestor, and the reason that certain organisms exist and most are extinct is due to reproductive success. This is the evolutionary theory of natural selection, also sometimes called differential reproduction or "survival of the fittest." Organisms that are the most successful in their niche will have more time to pass their selfish genes down to their progeny via sexual/asexual reproduction. Thus, the most efficient (though nowhere near perfect) organisms are the ones that last. Humans, then, evolved from primates for specific reasons, as indicated by current fossil records. There's a lot more to it; I'm just summarizing. A great book that goes into detail about this evolutionary theory is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
The final theory, the Ancient Astronaut Theory, is the one that is commonly thought to be the most farfetched theory of human origins. Yet for some reason, I seem to believe in it, though that might change after I finish this project. The Ancient Astronaut theory postulates that extraterrestrials came to Earth a very long time ago and as an experiment, mixed their DNA with primates to produce intelligent humans. The evidence that suggests this lies in the ruins of ancient civilizations. Incredible structures such as the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge are examples; some people believe that there was no way that humans could single-handedly build these structures. If you read up on the architecture of these structures, it makes sense why people would think this.
So which theory is right? Who knows.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
"America Alone" - 1
America Alone is a novel published in 2006 and written by Mark Steyn that asserts "The End of the World As We Know It." Yeah, there are the 2012 Mayan prophecies and other seemingly supernatural stuff, but Steyn actually gives political, socioeconomic, and demographic reasons to why he thinks that the United States will collapse in the next few decades. In part I of the novel, Steyn begins with the main essence of his argument: demography will screw over the Europeans, eventually Americans, and muslims will take over. When I say demography, I mean population growth/decay. You would think that I am talking about population growth with Europeans and Americans, but I'm actually talking about population decay. Believe it or not, almost all native European country birth rates are below 2, which means that every two parents is producing less than two children, resulting in population decay. "Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.11 births per woman," Steyn says. "New Zealand's just below; Ireland's at 1.9; Australia, 1.7. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain, 1.1- about half replacement rate" (10). This is pretty surprising, but what's even more intriguing is the former paragraph, where Steyn states, "Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Niger, is 7.46; Mali, 7.42; Somalia, 6.76; Afghanistan, 6.69; Yemen, 6.58. Notice what those nations have in common? Starts with an I, ends with a slam. As in: slam dunk" (10). These fertility rates of predominantly Muslim countries are tremendously higher than those of Europeans and Americans. It makes you wonder: does this really pose a problem for us in the future?
Steyn says it will cause a huge problem in the future. He claims, "By 2050, Muslim fertility rates will be in decline, as they already are in some of the more developed Islamic countries. But they'll be beginning their decline much later than Europe's, or Canada's, or Vermont's, and so they will have a huge demographic advantage. And given that that's the sole advantage they'll have - the Middle East's only other resource, oil, will be a fast-evaporating pool by mid-century - this is Islam's demographic moment and they have to make the most of it" (19). In other words, these Muslim countries will have a huge population advantage, and by sheer number will be able to overpower us; there's power in numbers. Steyn makes a valid argument here and I agree with most of it. However, I don't think things will get as bad as he says they will. Like he said, these countries are funded by oil; once oil runs out or we find an alternative energy source, we will no longer fund them and their booming population. The extremists' regime would grow in size in accordance to the growing population. But with no money, these countries' already dwindling economies will collapse and what then? The extremists may have the numbers and the will, but they don't have the firepower and the technology. I may be totally wrong here though; I mean, underfunded terrorists still continue to blow themselves up successfully and take others with them. It does seem to be the opposite for America: we have the firepower and technology, but we don't have the will. It is an issue worth pondering about; I still am, as you could probably tell.
Steyn says it will cause a huge problem in the future. He claims, "By 2050, Muslim fertility rates will be in decline, as they already are in some of the more developed Islamic countries. But they'll be beginning their decline much later than Europe's, or Canada's, or Vermont's, and so they will have a huge demographic advantage. And given that that's the sole advantage they'll have - the Middle East's only other resource, oil, will be a fast-evaporating pool by mid-century - this is Islam's demographic moment and they have to make the most of it" (19). In other words, these Muslim countries will have a huge population advantage, and by sheer number will be able to overpower us; there's power in numbers. Steyn makes a valid argument here and I agree with most of it. However, I don't think things will get as bad as he says they will. Like he said, these countries are funded by oil; once oil runs out or we find an alternative energy source, we will no longer fund them and their booming population. The extremists' regime would grow in size in accordance to the growing population. But with no money, these countries' already dwindling economies will collapse and what then? The extremists may have the numbers and the will, but they don't have the firepower and the technology. I may be totally wrong here though; I mean, underfunded terrorists still continue to blow themselves up successfully and take others with them. It does seem to be the opposite for America: we have the firepower and technology, but we don't have the will. It is an issue worth pondering about; I still am, as you could probably tell.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Why My Blog is Boring
Most people who somehow end up on this blog will probably think, "Well this is boring," and then just X out of it. The truth is, it is a fairly boring and monotonous blog, not necessarily in content but in appearance. The background is uniform, the fonts are ordinary, and there are no pictures besides the one of Atlas holding the desperate world on his frail shoulders. I do this intentionally, yet I don't know why. Perhaps it is a statement of my own monotony. I am an incredibly schedule-oriented guy, and I'm convinced I have OCD. Anything asymmetrical bothers me. As aforementioned, any pitch that is flat or sharp also bothers me (but I've become more used to it with time). So maybe I have no pictures, around two paragraphs per post, and a normal font to maintain some uniformity, which is comfort in my language.
Perhaps I made my blog boring because my sub-conscious means for it to represent something. The title of this blog is "The Search for John Galt," and this search takes place among a sea of clueless, ignorant Americans. I and many others call these people "sheeple" or "bell curves." They go through life assuming that their government will keep taking care of them. They have very little responsibility for themselves, and they often don't make their own choices. Thus, they are like sheep, going about aimlessly with the farmer, the government, controlling and herding them. The farmer has most of the (political) power, and it's addicting. So, while America is searching for John Galt (which they have been for a long, long time), we have sheeple, robots, bell curves that are there for the ride. It is a long stretch, yes, but perhaps my subconsciousness made the blog boring to represent these sheeple. They just fill up space and maintain symmetry.
Perhaps I made my blog boring because my sub-conscious means for it to represent something. The title of this blog is "The Search for John Galt," and this search takes place among a sea of clueless, ignorant Americans. I and many others call these people "sheeple" or "bell curves." They go through life assuming that their government will keep taking care of them. They have very little responsibility for themselves, and they often don't make their own choices. Thus, they are like sheep, going about aimlessly with the farmer, the government, controlling and herding them. The farmer has most of the (political) power, and it's addicting. So, while America is searching for John Galt (which they have been for a long, long time), we have sheeple, robots, bell curves that are there for the ride. It is a long stretch, yes, but perhaps my subconsciousness made the blog boring to represent these sheeple. They just fill up space and maintain symmetry.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sexual Harassment and Date Rape
In class, our main topic of discussion is the issue of sexual harassment, particularly of females. Over the past few decades, this issue has become more and more prevalent with the raised awareness of women's rights. There are more questionable accounts of date rape in the news, and more questionable accounts of rape in general. In the article "At colleges plagued with date rape, why 'no' still means 'yes'," a statistic states that up to thirty percent of college women have been victims of date rape. So why is there so much date rape or rape in general and why has it been on the rise? I don't think there's really a direct answer to that question. Perhaps it is that males feel dominance and power when they rape. Perhaps males feel more pleasure when they rape. Perhaps males these days can get away with it more easily. Perhaps it is different for all rapists. But I think a prominent and interesting reason why date rape and such is on the rise is because of the evolution of our language.
I'm a teen, so I've obviously been exposed to the informal language of our time. It's strange how informal english has changed over the years. In my area, everything is a hyperbole. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I try to avoid this way of speaking as much as possible. If someone likes a movie, it's not a "good" movie, but rather "OMG! THE BEST MOVIE EVER!" If someone has a friend, it is not their "friend," but rather their "Biffel, best friendz for life!" If someone receives a B on a test, they say "I totally failed that test." Also, fececiousness is commonly incorporated in our sentences. My fellow students like to kid a lot, and sometimes it can be quite confusing. Sometimes, I hear of two people dating but they're really not and they're just saying they are. So, I can understand why some guys would think that when girls say "no," they think they mean "yes." By the way, I am in no way vouching for rapists. It's just that over the years, words that were originally very powerful have lost that power due to their use. An example is hate. Hate is an incredibly strong word, but so many people use it willy nilly: "I hate this class," "I hate that kid," etc. Perhaps the simple word "no" has lost its power as well, and when someone looks another in the eye and firmly says "no," they think it's just a joke. It's a seemingly outlandish hypothesis, but think about it. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe it's only in my area. But maybe other people can sympathize.
I'm a teen, so I've obviously been exposed to the informal language of our time. It's strange how informal english has changed over the years. In my area, everything is a hyperbole. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I try to avoid this way of speaking as much as possible. If someone likes a movie, it's not a "good" movie, but rather "OMG! THE BEST MOVIE EVER!" If someone has a friend, it is not their "friend," but rather their "Biffel, best friendz for life!" If someone receives a B on a test, they say "I totally failed that test." Also, fececiousness is commonly incorporated in our sentences. My fellow students like to kid a lot, and sometimes it can be quite confusing. Sometimes, I hear of two people dating but they're really not and they're just saying they are. So, I can understand why some guys would think that when girls say "no," they think they mean "yes." By the way, I am in no way vouching for rapists. It's just that over the years, words that were originally very powerful have lost that power due to their use. An example is hate. Hate is an incredibly strong word, but so many people use it willy nilly: "I hate this class," "I hate that kid," etc. Perhaps the simple word "no" has lost its power as well, and when someone looks another in the eye and firmly says "no," they think it's just a joke. It's a seemingly outlandish hypothesis, but think about it. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe it's only in my area. But maybe other people can sympathize.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Telekinesis
Telekinesis is the ability to physically move an object without actually touching it. It is quite the phenomenon. But how is it even possible? Every time I think about it, it doesn't click in my head. Work is the product of force and distance; the object moves, but what provides the force? Mind power, apparently. I've been looking around the Internet lately at sites on telekinesis, and each one suggests that the power from the mind can provide enough force to move an object on the physical plane. It requires a lot of focus, though. Most sites recommend meditation before performing any type of telekinesis to clear to the mind so you can provide a full focus on the object you're trying to move.
Videos on the Internet of people performing telekinesis are...iffy. Some of them look fake. Some people even think that telekinesis does not exist, that all of the videos and claims of telekinetic powers are fraudulent. Personally, I believe in it. The sites I've visited say that with enough practice, anyone can acquire telekinesis. I've tried several times before to move light or weightless objects such as a sheet of paper or a flame, with no luck. I'm not going to give up, though. One day, I am determined to acquire the skill and prove of its existence.
Telekinesis is a weird topic, and most people reading this probably think I'm a weirdo by now. Heck, what is even the point of telekinesis? To me, it's a skill unlike any other. I find it to be so absurdly cool. In some ways, it could even be useful. How many times have you dropped a pencil on the ground and have to bend down to pick it up again? With telekinesis, you can just send it back up to your hand. Or how about when you're in bed, the lights are on, and you want to turn them off but the switch is out of your reach? Just use telekinesis to turn off the switch. The convenience and mysticism of telekinesis are enticing to me.
Videos on the Internet of people performing telekinesis are...iffy. Some of them look fake. Some people even think that telekinesis does not exist, that all of the videos and claims of telekinetic powers are fraudulent. Personally, I believe in it. The sites I've visited say that with enough practice, anyone can acquire telekinesis. I've tried several times before to move light or weightless objects such as a sheet of paper or a flame, with no luck. I'm not going to give up, though. One day, I am determined to acquire the skill and prove of its existence.
Telekinesis is a weird topic, and most people reading this probably think I'm a weirdo by now. Heck, what is even the point of telekinesis? To me, it's a skill unlike any other. I find it to be so absurdly cool. In some ways, it could even be useful. How many times have you dropped a pencil on the ground and have to bend down to pick it up again? With telekinesis, you can just send it back up to your hand. Or how about when you're in bed, the lights are on, and you want to turn them off but the switch is out of your reach? Just use telekinesis to turn off the switch. The convenience and mysticism of telekinesis are enticing to me.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Xocai, the Healthy Chocolate
That's what I thought the first time I heard that phrase: What? Healthy chocolate? How is that possible? In fact, raw cocoa beans can be considered a superfood, full of nutrients and antioxidants. However, the typical chocolate maker cooks these cocoa beans, burning off most of the nutrients, and adds lots and lots of sugar. If you've ever tasted raw cocoa beans, you would understand why sugar is a necessity. So most chocolate is considered candy because it is composed of cooked cocoa beans, lots of sugar, and sometimes milk. Personally, I have no problem with chocolate candy. It's delicious, and I eat it pretty much every day. How awesome would it be though if you can enjoy that taste of chocolate, but it is good for you too?
MXI Corp, makers of Xocai chocolate, has a specific manufacturing process that differs from all other chocolate companies. Instead of cooking the cocoa beans, they leave them raw, and instead of adding just plain sugar, they sweeten the chocolate with acai berries and other superfruits. Believe it or not, the chocolate tastes like any other dark chocolate, except it's also filled with antioxidants. MXI corp also sells other products that contain this chocolate (or the nutrients/flavonoids from it) such as a grape energy drink, which I drink a can of every day. It's great stuff. It seems too good to be true, but after consuming these products for more than a year now, I notice a difference in my overall energy level. If you have your doubts, check out their website http://www.thehealthychocolate.com/ and see for yourself.
MXI Corp, makers of Xocai chocolate, has a specific manufacturing process that differs from all other chocolate companies. Instead of cooking the cocoa beans, they leave them raw, and instead of adding just plain sugar, they sweeten the chocolate with acai berries and other superfruits. Believe it or not, the chocolate tastes like any other dark chocolate, except it's also filled with antioxidants. MXI corp also sells other products that contain this chocolate (or the nutrients/flavonoids from it) such as a grape energy drink, which I drink a can of every day. It's great stuff. It seems too good to be true, but after consuming these products for more than a year now, I notice a difference in my overall energy level. If you have your doubts, check out their website http://www.thehealthychocolate.com/ and see for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)