As a species, Homo Sapiens is not strictly monogamous (see scientific literature for proof). Our society, well, at least the “western culture” society, is strongly based on a “family” construct that implies monogamy – a committed relationship between a man and a woman. Any relationship that contradicts this structure is aggressively attacked, denigrated and declared immoral. And there may be plenty of reasons for it, like the one to ensure a prosperous, organized and peaceful society for us to live in and progress as a country.
But, reasons apart, we are still not monogamous as a species. Lawmakers recognize that and that is why adultery, for example, is not a crime. Yes, it may serve as a basis for divorce, but it is not a legal crime. It’s the “moral codex” that is used to suppress this kind of behaviors, to keep a constant pressure to force people behave along the monogamy lines.
The question is – can it keep us under control?
We may look into medieval Europe at the alternating periods of sexual liberties and complete sexual repressions. Or even in US – the 60’s sexual revolution that followed the extremely strict period before it. Even without going deeper into numbers, dates and cultures, an easily recognizable pattern is visible – there is a cycle of sexual repressions followed by a sexual revolution, or rather an explosion letting the accumulated pressure out.
One may argue that if the “strict sexual morale” is not our nature, does it mean that we should dwell in some sort of sexual orgies without any moral limits? Of course not! The sexual revolutions are just the opposite extreme of the sexual repressions. Our normal “natural” behavior style would probably fit somewhere in-between strict monogamy and frivolous sexual orgies. Is it the “socially accepted mistress” relations, or maybe a little more relaxed sexual conduct rules? May be something else that is not that extreme in either direction?
If you look at what’s happening around us, you’ll see that the strict “puritan” US society is probably headed to another sexual revolution. For example, do you recall that army sexual harassment incident on the news about a year ago? You can find plenty of that kind of news, se at least http://www.feminist.org/911/sexharnews_military.html or http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec97/harassment_9-11.html or any other thousands links.
Do you see a trend as well, or is it just me? In all these cases the reaction is to tighten the rules, make harsher punishments and enforce even stricter the already strict environment. It’s like if a pan on the stove starts to surge steam we’d tighten the lid and increase the heat. It’s only a matter of time before it blows up.
Now, don’t get me wrong, sexual harassment and abuse is not what I’m advocating for. Any relationship, including sexual, has to be mutually acceptable. Any form of aggression should be punished. But when there are signs that the pressure is too high, instead of tightening the system we should be thinking of restructuring it in a way that would relieve the pressure. And it is not about the army only, this is true about the whole society in general. I mean, come on! Many of those “sexual harassment” lawsuits are just as bogus as that case of a woman that sued McDonnald’s for hot coffee in her cup. We’ve gone into an extreme “puritan” nonsense, in my opinion. In this context Janet’s breast exposure is not only a personal “cheap advertising” move, it’s a rebellion against tight rules. It’s the streaks of steam that’s escaping the tightly closed pot, that otherwise would be just some inoffensive mild vapor. Why would Janet have to expose her breast during prime time if topless beaches would be an accepted norm like in Europe, for example?
As of the myth that seeing topless women will make males go crazier and more aggressive – it’s just a total misunderstanding of the human nature. We get used to bare breasts as we are to bare faces. And that doesn’t lead to more aggressive male behavior. It does only in those cases when males where deprived of this sexual freedom for a long time and then are instantly exposed to it. It’s like unscrewing a tightly closed lid keeping high pressure in. Otherwise, it’s just as normal as usual.
And the same is true about other unjustifiably restricted freedoms. If you keep it unreasonably tight – it blows up and creates lots of problems for a long period of time.
I’d support a movement towards gradual increasing of sexual liberties, for society to accept and be more open to the human nature. It just doesn’t make much sense to wait for a revolution. I don’t like revolutions. I don’t like destroying everything and going to an opposite extreme. It’s just plain stupid, in my opinion.
Are you open to some natural sexual liberties? Or would you prefer an unmanageable and destructive revolution skidding into extremes? There is no third choice here.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Cascade detergent - brain poison?
I have noticed that using the Cascade brand of dishwasher detergent causes our family to have nightmares on almost a daily basis. Well, if not nightmares then at least really weird dreams.
I noticed it by accident, as it is nearly impossible to link the two (detergent and your dreams) in normal circumstances. It just so happens that we shop at Costco for our big-family needs and they carry just two brands - Cascade and Kirkland. We used to buy Cascade as it seems a "bigger" brand and we assumed it would be better than Kirkland - the cheaper, Costco-owned brand.
At one point we decided to try the cheaper Kirkland brand of dishwasher detergent. You know, Costco sells everything in big packs (or packs of several) and just one purchase of the new detergent has set us using it for a straight couple months. Well, the kirkland brand didn't perform quite as well as Cascade (comparable, though) and we decided to return back to Cascade.
This is when it stroke me that my nightmares returned! It took me switching to a different brand and back to realise it. And, interestingly enough, the nightmares begin not instantly but just about a week into using the Cascade detergent. Well, that was my good reason to start using the cheaper (and the not-so-bad in the new light of events) Kirkland detergent. And we used for a while, more than a year, or maybe even two.
And then, Costco stopped carrying the Kirkland detergent brand. At least, that's my assumption, as the only brand sold now is Cascade. And I thought that my idea of detergents being linked to your dreams may be somewhat unfounded. So we decided to try again Cascade. About a week later - there they are! - the weired nightmares for the whole family were back. I tried to switch between powder and gel and the results were the same - wierd dreams and nightmares continued.
Next I went through a series of brands - Palmolive, Electrasol and others. The nightmares were gone. Well, maybe not completely, as weird dreams still happen occasionaly and especially when you are under stress, or when you drink cofee after 4pm, or when you have a heavy meal rigth before going to sleep you are going to have "entertaining" nights. Except these fall into somewhat "normal" cases and frequency of happening.
Last week we ran out of dishwasher detergent, we didn't have time to go shopping and I opened an older leftover bottle of Cascade. Last night my 9years old daughter came to me complaining about nighmares. Two days ago my 5 years old daughter was having nightmares. And I and my wife both started having these really weird dreams again.
And by the way, have you read the label on the dishwasher detergent? Have you seen that big WARNING sign? Did you read that is says "POISON" there? And that you have to seek IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN CASE OF INGESTING?
How well do you think the dishwashers rinse the detergent off the dishes and glasses? I'd assume some ammount of detergent still remains on the surfaces and later is consumed with food. So you do ingest the detergent you use. Should we seek immediate medical assistance as the label sugests?
Here is an interesting link with an excerpt from the North American Diet book - http://www.healthrecipes.com/dishwashing_detergent.htm
For now, I'm looking into replacing my 5-years old dishwasher with a top-of-the-line new one (with extra rinse cycles) and not using Cascade brand ever again (or at least until thay'll claim a new "healthier" detergent).
I noticed it by accident, as it is nearly impossible to link the two (detergent and your dreams) in normal circumstances. It just so happens that we shop at Costco for our big-family needs and they carry just two brands - Cascade and Kirkland. We used to buy Cascade as it seems a "bigger" brand and we assumed it would be better than Kirkland - the cheaper, Costco-owned brand.
At one point we decided to try the cheaper Kirkland brand of dishwasher detergent. You know, Costco sells everything in big packs (or packs of several) and just one purchase of the new detergent has set us using it for a straight couple months. Well, the kirkland brand didn't perform quite as well as Cascade (comparable, though) and we decided to return back to Cascade.
This is when it stroke me that my nightmares returned! It took me switching to a different brand and back to realise it. And, interestingly enough, the nightmares begin not instantly but just about a week into using the Cascade detergent. Well, that was my good reason to start using the cheaper (and the not-so-bad in the new light of events) Kirkland detergent. And we used for a while, more than a year, or maybe even two.
And then, Costco stopped carrying the Kirkland detergent brand. At least, that's my assumption, as the only brand sold now is Cascade. And I thought that my idea of detergents being linked to your dreams may be somewhat unfounded. So we decided to try again Cascade. About a week later - there they are! - the weired nightmares for the whole family were back. I tried to switch between powder and gel and the results were the same - wierd dreams and nightmares continued.
Next I went through a series of brands - Palmolive, Electrasol and others. The nightmares were gone. Well, maybe not completely, as weird dreams still happen occasionaly and especially when you are under stress, or when you drink cofee after 4pm, or when you have a heavy meal rigth before going to sleep you are going to have "entertaining" nights. Except these fall into somewhat "normal" cases and frequency of happening.
Last week we ran out of dishwasher detergent, we didn't have time to go shopping and I opened an older leftover bottle of Cascade. Last night my 9years old daughter came to me complaining about nighmares. Two days ago my 5 years old daughter was having nightmares. And I and my wife both started having these really weird dreams again.
And by the way, have you read the label on the dishwasher detergent? Have you seen that big WARNING sign? Did you read that is says "POISON" there? And that you have to seek IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN CASE OF INGESTING?
How well do you think the dishwashers rinse the detergent off the dishes and glasses? I'd assume some ammount of detergent still remains on the surfaces and later is consumed with food. So you do ingest the detergent you use. Should we seek immediate medical assistance as the label sugests?
Here is an interesting link with an excerpt from the North American Diet book - http://www.healthrecipes.com/dishwashing_detergent.htm
The Center of Science in Public Interest revealed that dishwashingSounds scarry, doesn't it? There should be more info on the net on this topic, I just didn't have enough time to look for it.
detergents have caused more household poisonings than any other cleaning product in the home. Nearly all dishwashing detergents contain naphtha, a fuel used in camping stoves. Naphtha is a central nervous system depressant. Other high-tech cleaning agents included are diethanolsamine which is a liver poison, and chlorophenylphenol which is a toxic metabolic stimulant. Chlorine is a poison
present in nearly all dishwashing detergents.
For now, I'm looking into replacing my 5-years old dishwasher with a top-of-the-line new one (with extra rinse cycles) and not using Cascade brand ever again (or at least until thay'll claim a new "healthier" detergent).
Friday, May 21, 2004
Top of the evolutionary ladder?
Why do we think that humans are at the top of the evolutionary line on Earth? It's simply because the opposite was not found, more advanced life forms, for example). So, in the absence of other facts, the default is assumed true.
Well, by scientific standards this can't hold true. Just because you can't find evidence for the opposite, it doesn't mean your hypothesis becomes a fact. Still, somehow this is bypassed and our "common sense" takes over and we just quietly assume it. It's just "way too obvious", isn't it?
Aside from this un-scientific approach of the "humans are the most advanced species on Earth" statement, I realized that it can be proven that an evidence of the opposite is not obtainable by the mere essence of evolution.
Let's analyze in very broad strokes the difference between a couple major evolutionary stages. For example, take vegetal life forms and compare it to the animals, say - grass compared to sheep.
Grass is unable (due to its evolution-based capabilities) to comprehend a sheep. From a grass's perspective, a sheep is just either some part of the environment, or just another vegetal organism that can interact with it (like move it or destroy/eat it). It (the grass) can't tell the difference between another plant (or environment) interacting with it and a sheep and it's reaction (based on bio-chemical processes) is pretty much the same for all of them. Obviously it doesn't have any kind of nervous system to be able to "comprehend" any difference.
Ok, that's the grass, pretty primitive, of course. Now the sheep, on other hand, is pretty smart to tell apart grass from other sheep or even other animals. Sheep has the evolutionary capability to differentiate animals from vegetable life forms and even to discriminate further among these groups (like recognizing that a wolf is not one of the mate sheep, for example).
Obviously, definitely, animals are more advanced than plants and can comprehend both the lower life forms and the about-the-same evolutionary situated life forms like themselves.
What about higher forms? When it comes to humans, animals can't comprehend us. For them we appear just like another animal, a strange and dangerous one (definitely not a plant). Can they say that we are so smart as to build cities, learn in schools, have a complex society and culture, invent technology and fly into space among other things? No way! They are just not able to comprehend these notions. Their brains are too primitive for such a task. This, of course, doesn’t preclude them from interacting with us (some may even hunt and eat humans!) but, in essence, we are just another animal for them.
From the two evolutionary stages described above, we can conclude that a lower life form comprehends a higher one (in the best-case scenario) as an about-the-same level one. Because, by definition (or by the essence of it), any evolutionary stage lacks the comprehension power of a higher stage being.
We can extrapolate our deduction (in science that’s called “induction”) and state that humans, by the essence of the evolution mechanism, are unable to comprehend a higher life form. Plants can’t comprehend animals; animals can’t comprehend humans; and humans in their turn aren’t capable of comprehending the life forms of the next evolution stage. Just like plants vs. animals, or animals vs. humans – we should be able to recognize these higher forms as some sort of our-level creatures, a sort-of “somewhat different” humans. We can interact with them, we may be able to even kill them (not unpunished probably) but, with all of that, we can’t comprehend their level of superiority. Just like in the cases above, we lack the evolutionary power to understand their level.
Of course, life forms don’t fit neatly and strictly into some human-labeled evolutionary categories. Dogs and monkeys are bordering with humans in their evolution level (i.e. abilities to comprehend) and therefore are somewhat capable of understanding that humans are superior. They can’t tell how or by what means exactly; they just sense it, it’s at their limits of comprehension. To them we probably appear as Gods.
So, it may be that we would perceive some not-that-far evolved (relative to us) creatures as Gods. A little further away – we won’t get it, we won’t be able to realize who are they, other than they are “sort-of similar” to us.
Can it be the “high society”? Can it be the masons? Can it be “noble blood”? Any of them look like us, we perceive them similar to us, well except they are “somewhat different” – have more power over us, we don’t understand them as well as any other sibling of ours, and they are most of the time are out of reach of our direct impact. Although they don’t sound “superior enough” to me, they do have all the attributes we would be able to comprehend from a contact with potential “next evolution stage species”.
Does all of the above make sense? You decide.
Well, by scientific standards this can't hold true. Just because you can't find evidence for the opposite, it doesn't mean your hypothesis becomes a fact. Still, somehow this is bypassed and our "common sense" takes over and we just quietly assume it. It's just "way too obvious", isn't it?
Aside from this un-scientific approach of the "humans are the most advanced species on Earth" statement, I realized that it can be proven that an evidence of the opposite is not obtainable by the mere essence of evolution.
Let's analyze in very broad strokes the difference between a couple major evolutionary stages. For example, take vegetal life forms and compare it to the animals, say - grass compared to sheep.
Grass is unable (due to its evolution-based capabilities) to comprehend a sheep. From a grass's perspective, a sheep is just either some part of the environment, or just another vegetal organism that can interact with it (like move it or destroy/eat it). It (the grass) can't tell the difference between another plant (or environment) interacting with it and a sheep and it's reaction (based on bio-chemical processes) is pretty much the same for all of them. Obviously it doesn't have any kind of nervous system to be able to "comprehend" any difference.
Ok, that's the grass, pretty primitive, of course. Now the sheep, on other hand, is pretty smart to tell apart grass from other sheep or even other animals. Sheep has the evolutionary capability to differentiate animals from vegetable life forms and even to discriminate further among these groups (like recognizing that a wolf is not one of the mate sheep, for example).
Obviously, definitely, animals are more advanced than plants and can comprehend both the lower life forms and the about-the-same evolutionary situated life forms like themselves.
What about higher forms? When it comes to humans, animals can't comprehend us. For them we appear just like another animal, a strange and dangerous one (definitely not a plant). Can they say that we are so smart as to build cities, learn in schools, have a complex society and culture, invent technology and fly into space among other things? No way! They are just not able to comprehend these notions. Their brains are too primitive for such a task. This, of course, doesn’t preclude them from interacting with us (some may even hunt and eat humans!) but, in essence, we are just another animal for them.
From the two evolutionary stages described above, we can conclude that a lower life form comprehends a higher one (in the best-case scenario) as an about-the-same level one. Because, by definition (or by the essence of it), any evolutionary stage lacks the comprehension power of a higher stage being.
We can extrapolate our deduction (in science that’s called “induction”) and state that humans, by the essence of the evolution mechanism, are unable to comprehend a higher life form. Plants can’t comprehend animals; animals can’t comprehend humans; and humans in their turn aren’t capable of comprehending the life forms of the next evolution stage. Just like plants vs. animals, or animals vs. humans – we should be able to recognize these higher forms as some sort of our-level creatures, a sort-of “somewhat different” humans. We can interact with them, we may be able to even kill them (not unpunished probably) but, with all of that, we can’t comprehend their level of superiority. Just like in the cases above, we lack the evolutionary power to understand their level.
Of course, life forms don’t fit neatly and strictly into some human-labeled evolutionary categories. Dogs and monkeys are bordering with humans in their evolution level (i.e. abilities to comprehend) and therefore are somewhat capable of understanding that humans are superior. They can’t tell how or by what means exactly; they just sense it, it’s at their limits of comprehension. To them we probably appear as Gods.
So, it may be that we would perceive some not-that-far evolved (relative to us) creatures as Gods. A little further away – we won’t get it, we won’t be able to realize who are they, other than they are “sort-of similar” to us.
Can it be the “high society”? Can it be the masons? Can it be “noble blood”? Any of them look like us, we perceive them similar to us, well except they are “somewhat different” – have more power over us, we don’t understand them as well as any other sibling of ours, and they are most of the time are out of reach of our direct impact. Although they don’t sound “superior enough” to me, they do have all the attributes we would be able to comprehend from a contact with potential “next evolution stage species”.
Does all of the above make sense? You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)