Last month, I posted a blog on the theory that, based on both common sense and historical precedent, the way to bring about the end of Islamic Fundamentalism (and its associated terrorist tendencies) is to teach people to read.
Interesting developments have been transpiring in Islamic North Africa, where a grass-roots civil rebellion (with organization and publicity being managed primarily through Twitter, Facebook, etc.) brought about the resignation of an autocratic sovereign. While Tunisia is not an Islamic fundamentalist state (although it is 98% Muslim), it does share a great many tendencies of such states: weak economy, high unemployment, brazen corruption (to the point that the former government was often referred to as a 'kelptocracy'), widespread poverty, and extensive stratification of society, with the usual associated marginalization and "civil rights violations."
The people of Tunisia recently decided that they'd had enough, and protested (read: rioted) at levels sufficient to compel the President (who had been in place for decades, through the instrument of sham elections where his was often the only name on the ballot) to not only yield his seat, but also to flee the country. While it seems unquestionable that the protesters got a boost from extraterritorial interests, this change of power is remarkable in that it was CIVIL, and involved no overt action from anybody's military. Almost always, such sweeping changes in nations' political structure are based on military muscle, either from a foreign conquerer, or (much more often) through an internal coup d'etat. Ousted Tunisian President Ben-Ali himself came to power following a military coup in 1987. It is in fact exceedingly rare for PEOPLE to successfully take on their own government.
But it has happened.
Events in Tunisia show signs of shaking things up throughout the nearby world. Similar riots have happened in Algeria, and there has been widespread civil unrest in Jordan and Egypt as well. In Egypt, protests have included people setting themselves on fire, hypothetically emulating Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisia merchant who tacitly started the riots with a similar act, after Tunisian police confiscated his produce cart. Safe to say that the Muslim world as a whole is paying attention to what's been happening in Tunisia, and leaders are wondering how avidly their own populace is watching events.
Here's the part that I find interesting: like many Arab states, literacy in Tunisia has historically been very low, including the period (up until 1950) where it was a French protectorate. But since Tunisia gained sovereignty in 1950, every generation has seen marked increase in literacy. Among the youngest generation for which census information is available - those born in 1980-1984 - over 96% percent are literate in Arabic, and about three-quarters can read French as well. Even among women - almost always marginalized in Muslim states - over 90% are literate in Arabic, and 70% are additionally literate in French. (Ken Walters, International Journal of the Society of Language 163 (2003), pp. 85-87.) These numbers are superb for a tacit third-world country, and this is the demographic - the middle segment of the populace, currently in their 20s and 30s - who are the driving force behind this rebellion against an autocratic regime. Educated people in Tunisia decided that their government really DOESN'T know better, and did something about it.
So, as I was saying before. If the United States (and/or the world as a whole) wants to cut down the power of monolithic, autocratic, fundamentalist states, we should make every possible effort to teach people living under those states to read. It takes generations, but it works.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Astrological Drama
Every few years or so, people in the media get around to noticing things that are new news to them, but which essentially amount to the ideas that water is wet and that the sky is blue. This week, there's apparently some big to-do about how the dates for the Zodiac have changed. About how, for example, someone who has always considered themselves to be a Virgo might now be a Leo, or any of the 11 other retrograde changes in someone's sign (Leo to Cancer, Cancer to Gemini, Gemini to Taurus, Taurus to Aries, etc.).
This is not really a big deal or cosmic event, and any astronomer and/or astrologer - be they amateur or professional - will just roll their eyes and sigh when the concept is mentioned. But journalists looking for readers tend to not know or care about actual facts, so they find a way to make it into a big deal when they can't find anything else to write about. Gotta love human nature, eh?
In any rate, the tacit "change" in the dates of astrological signs is the result of something call the Procession of the Equinoxes, which has been going on since the formation of our solar system. Over the course of a year, the sun moves through the entire 12 constellations of the zodiac in the sky, and traditionally your "sign" would be the constellation in which the sun stood on the day of your birth. Historical consensus is that the zodiac was developed by the Babylonians, about 3000 years ago. At that time, the start of Aries (which was the first day of the astrological year, and also the first day of spring) was measured by two astronomical events that essentially coincided. First, the sun - in its progression through the constellations that it makes (roughly) every year - passed from the area of stars that marked the constellation Pisces into the area of starts that marked Aries. Second, on about the same day, the sun crossed the ecliptic from south to north, which it does once every year, at the spring equinox. In ancient times, that day was called the "First point of Aries," and marked both the start of spring, and the start of the period where the sun was in the constellation Aries. Because the position of the sun and earth and stars in their eternal dance all lined up in that way at that time (3000 years ago), it was deemed important, and was set as the starting point of the Zodiac.
The problem is that we measure years based on the position of the earth relative to the SUN, rather than relative to the STARS. As we measure calendar years, the defining points are not the location of the sun in any given constellation, but instead are the equinoxes and solstices; the changing of the seasons. Because of the physics of planetary movement, there is a slight discrepancy between one calendar year (the time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit of the sun) and one "sidereal" year (the time is takes for the sun to make one complete circuit through the sky's constellations).
What this means is that there is a slight change in the position of the sun relative the the stars from year to year, called the procession of the equinoxes. For example - and as above - 3,000 years ago, the sun (when viewed from earth) passed from the area of the constellation Pisces into the area of the constellation Aries on about March 20, the vernal equinox. But if you happen to be paying attention to the sky this year (2011), the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until around April 18, weeks after the equinox (which is still on March 20). This is because in the last 3,000 years, the procession of the equinoxes means the stars behind the sun have slowly changed position, by about one degree every 72 years.
So the question is what day does someone's "sign" begin or end? Way back at the creation of the zodiac, that was an easy answer: the first day of Aries was BOTH the spring equinox, and the day that the sun passed from the constellation Pisces into the constellation Aries. But with the procession of the equinoxes, those two events no longer coincide: the spring equinox is now on March 20, but the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until April 18.
Most western astrology is (and has always been) based on the position that the start of the zodiac year (and the first day of Aries) is the spring equinox, rather than the date that the sun actually passes from Pisces into Aries. Since the equinox essentially always happens on March 20, and since the passage of seasons are much more noticeable here on earth than the movement of distant stars, we generally measure the zodiac the same way we measure years: by the SUN, not by the STARS.
So, the sun probably will not be in your "sign" on your birthday this year. But the sun was probably not in your "sign" on the actual day of your birth either. Since the calendar year and the zodiac year differ by less than one day every 70 years, the location of the sun relative to the stars on any given day is about the same today as it has been for decades. It's only when you measure time in centuries or millennium that the procession of equinoxes results in changes that the human eye can discern.
Periodic articles about signs "changing" reflect this difference in dates of the two central astronomical events: the equinox and the passage of the sun into the constellation Aries. All of the posts you see about the "new" dates for various signs are simply the dates that the sun is present in the various constellations. Use of those dates to define astrological signs ignores a central point of tropical astrology, which is that the first day of Aries is BY DEFINITION the spring equinox, with the other signs following in their various turns. Eventually, the procession of the equinoxes means that we will get back to square one, where the sun moves into the constellation Aries from the constellation Pisces on the same day as the spring equinox. But it is going to take a while, since the procession of the equinoxes makes one cycle every 26,000 years. We still have about 23,000 to go before we're back to that point.
In the meantime, your "sign" is still the same, so long as you apply the same definition of "sign" as you've been using your whole life, which is almost certainly based on the equinoxes. Regardless of the position of the stars bearing the same name as the "sign," Aries - by definition - starts at the spring equinox. If you want to calculate your sign based on the position of the stars rather than by the position of the sun (which is called the sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the tropical zodiac), then you can change your "sign." But even then, you've been that sign for your entire life, and the only thing you're actually changing is the definition you apply.
Hopefully I'm making this clear. But if not, the overwhelming point to take away from all this is that a slow news day will cause bored writers and columnists to try and make a big deal about pretty much anything, including astronomical/astrological points that have been in place since before any of us were born.
This is not really a big deal or cosmic event, and any astronomer and/or astrologer - be they amateur or professional - will just roll their eyes and sigh when the concept is mentioned. But journalists looking for readers tend to not know or care about actual facts, so they find a way to make it into a big deal when they can't find anything else to write about. Gotta love human nature, eh?
In any rate, the tacit "change" in the dates of astrological signs is the result of something call the Procession of the Equinoxes, which has been going on since the formation of our solar system. Over the course of a year, the sun moves through the entire 12 constellations of the zodiac in the sky, and traditionally your "sign" would be the constellation in which the sun stood on the day of your birth. Historical consensus is that the zodiac was developed by the Babylonians, about 3000 years ago. At that time, the start of Aries (which was the first day of the astrological year, and also the first day of spring) was measured by two astronomical events that essentially coincided. First, the sun - in its progression through the constellations that it makes (roughly) every year - passed from the area of stars that marked the constellation Pisces into the area of starts that marked Aries. Second, on about the same day, the sun crossed the ecliptic from south to north, which it does once every year, at the spring equinox. In ancient times, that day was called the "First point of Aries," and marked both the start of spring, and the start of the period where the sun was in the constellation Aries. Because the position of the sun and earth and stars in their eternal dance all lined up in that way at that time (3000 years ago), it was deemed important, and was set as the starting point of the Zodiac.
The problem is that we measure years based on the position of the earth relative to the SUN, rather than relative to the STARS. As we measure calendar years, the defining points are not the location of the sun in any given constellation, but instead are the equinoxes and solstices; the changing of the seasons. Because of the physics of planetary movement, there is a slight discrepancy between one calendar year (the time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit of the sun) and one "sidereal" year (the time is takes for the sun to make one complete circuit through the sky's constellations).
What this means is that there is a slight change in the position of the sun relative the the stars from year to year, called the procession of the equinoxes. For example - and as above - 3,000 years ago, the sun (when viewed from earth) passed from the area of the constellation Pisces into the area of the constellation Aries on about March 20, the vernal equinox. But if you happen to be paying attention to the sky this year (2011), the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until around April 18, weeks after the equinox (which is still on March 20). This is because in the last 3,000 years, the procession of the equinoxes means the stars behind the sun have slowly changed position, by about one degree every 72 years.
So the question is what day does someone's "sign" begin or end? Way back at the creation of the zodiac, that was an easy answer: the first day of Aries was BOTH the spring equinox, and the day that the sun passed from the constellation Pisces into the constellation Aries. But with the procession of the equinoxes, those two events no longer coincide: the spring equinox is now on March 20, but the sun doesn't pass from Pisces into Aries until April 18.
Most western astrology is (and has always been) based on the position that the start of the zodiac year (and the first day of Aries) is the spring equinox, rather than the date that the sun actually passes from Pisces into Aries. Since the equinox essentially always happens on March 20, and since the passage of seasons are much more noticeable here on earth than the movement of distant stars, we generally measure the zodiac the same way we measure years: by the SUN, not by the STARS.
So, the sun probably will not be in your "sign" on your birthday this year. But the sun was probably not in your "sign" on the actual day of your birth either. Since the calendar year and the zodiac year differ by less than one day every 70 years, the location of the sun relative to the stars on any given day is about the same today as it has been for decades. It's only when you measure time in centuries or millennium that the procession of equinoxes results in changes that the human eye can discern.
Periodic articles about signs "changing" reflect this difference in dates of the two central astronomical events: the equinox and the passage of the sun into the constellation Aries. All of the posts you see about the "new" dates for various signs are simply the dates that the sun is present in the various constellations. Use of those dates to define astrological signs ignores a central point of tropical astrology, which is that the first day of Aries is BY DEFINITION the spring equinox, with the other signs following in their various turns. Eventually, the procession of the equinoxes means that we will get back to square one, where the sun moves into the constellation Aries from the constellation Pisces on the same day as the spring equinox. But it is going to take a while, since the procession of the equinoxes makes one cycle every 26,000 years. We still have about 23,000 to go before we're back to that point.
In the meantime, your "sign" is still the same, so long as you apply the same definition of "sign" as you've been using your whole life, which is almost certainly based on the equinoxes. Regardless of the position of the stars bearing the same name as the "sign," Aries - by definition - starts at the spring equinox. If you want to calculate your sign based on the position of the stars rather than by the position of the sun (which is called the sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the tropical zodiac), then you can change your "sign." But even then, you've been that sign for your entire life, and the only thing you're actually changing is the definition you apply.
Hopefully I'm making this clear. But if not, the overwhelming point to take away from all this is that a slow news day will cause bored writers and columnists to try and make a big deal about pretty much anything, including astronomical/astrological points that have been in place since before any of us were born.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Threat of Manbearpig, and the Gore Effect
There are a great many things that threaten ongoing large-scale human life on this planet. Really, there are. All you have to do is spend some time watching the Discovery Channel or any of its progeny, all of which seem to base their marketing strategy on propagation and exploitation of paranoia. What with American's ongoing fascination with morbidity, they seem to be doing okay. After all, why would people tune in to something as boring as a CNN report on dozens killed and a hundred thousands homeless from flooding in Brisbane? What people really want to watch is an analysis about how a planet-killing asteroid could be hurtling towards the earth this very moment at 9 billion miles an hour, poised to snuff out all higher life on this planet. Who cares about economic calamity in Europe or rioting in Tunisia when there's programming available about possible ways that the Mayan end-of-time prediction might come to pass next year. Never mind mudslides killing hundreds in Brazil, don't you know that the entire Yellowstone caldera is poised to blow, plunging the world into a century of darkness? And lets not forget about bird flu. And swine flu.
Of course, the prospect of cosmic, geologic, or viral calamity notwithstanding, it's safe to say that the greatest threat to ongoing human life on this planet is probably humanity itself. This brings us to my my personal favorite extinction myth: global warming. My favorite because it manages to do the absolute most with the absolute least of any secular disaster theory in human history, and because - given that it's based on human activities - it can actually be parleyed into a tool to control peoples' minds and/or activities. I'm sure you've heard the sales pitch: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM!!!" This expression is almost always followed closely by: "DO WHAT I SAY, OR ELSE OUR CHILDREN ARE DOOMED!!!" In fact, the latter usually follows the former so closely that no verifiable or quantifiable scientific support is ever offered proving that the problem exists at any more than a hypothetical level. But we can't dwell on that now, we don't have time! To stave off the calamity looming in the next century, we need to get people toeing the line we set RIGHT NOW!
Ahhh, human nature at its finest.
Regardless of what pundits say, the only scientifically verifiable point about the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is that they have kept Al Gore socially relevant well past his use-by date, by offering the masses nothing more substantial than fear-mongering and portents of dread. Good on him for avoiding actual work by recycling the same tactics of just about every fire-and-brimstone religion/personality cult in human history. And he does score points for coming through with some fuzzy-science reason, rather than the traditional tidings of the Second Coming, pending race war, or opposing the New World Order. That some scientists are willing to say that his tidings of woe are scientifically possible sets him apart from Charles Manson or Jim Jones, even if it doesn't set him any higher than Charles Manson or Jim Jones.
Unfortunately, all signs point towards Al actually believing the bullshit he's spewing, and - equally unfortunately - the nature of Al's bullshit means that he's unlikely to do us the favor of trying to hitch a ride on the tail of Hale-Bopp (google it). Alas, and in the true spirit of his Democratic Party roots, Al is going to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not. All that we have to do is pony up billions to support his programs, change our entire lives and economy to match his green utopia ideas/ideals, and acknowledge that he's right and everyone else is wrong. And how could he be wrong? He was the one that took the initiative in inventing the Internet, for Gods sake!
What a fucking douche bag.
As recently as 25 years ago, the scientific community was abuzz with the possibility of a coming ice age. Whoops. But trust them, they've got it right this time! After all, a newly completed study has found that even if all industrial emissions of greenhouse gases cease by 2100, earth's sea-level will rise by 13 feet by the year 3000! Never mind that the best we can manage is an educated guess as to whether we'll get rain or sunshine next week. Never mind that we have no means whatsoever to even estimate locations, magnitudes, or paths of hurricanes or tornadoes that might happen next year. Trust us when we tell you that we're going to be totally fucked in 1,000 years, UNLESS WE ACT NOW.
If you want some hilarious reading, google "Gore Effect." It turns out that there is a statistical correlation between Al Gore appearing at an area to address global warming, and that area immediately or concurrently suffering unseasonably cold weather. I'm not asserting that there is a causal link between the two. That would imply the work of a Higher Power with a truly divine sense of humor, a point I'll not trumpet, even though I happen to believe it.
So I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship between Al speaking and local cold weather following. I'm just observing that there is a statistically demonstrable relationship between the two. This is significant, since it's exactly those sort of statistical relationships that Al's minions rely on in creating their models and projections of future meteorologic trends and events. Nobody really knows how or why global weather works the way it does. Scientists just have documentation and equations which show that weather tends to follow certain trends, and that certain events tend to work (or at least portend) demonstrable changes on or in such trends. But if general statistical relationships can be relied on in forming weather projections, the Gore Effect (as such a relationship) indicates that we already have a solution for global warming. We just have to schedule more speaking engagements for Al, to enjoy the cold weather that tends to follow him. Reliance on the Gore Effect as a solution for global warming is about as scientifically supportable as asserting global warming as a realistic threat to humanity.
Science is a good thing, and can demonstrate all sorts of verifiable explanations for all sorts of observable events. But the fact of the matter is that when the goal is to assess actions and interactions of ANYTHING too large to be studied in the confines of a controlled lab environment, the greatest controlling force in most studies is the belief and expectations of whatever scientist (or other figure) is conducting the analysis. This is important to keep in mind whenever you hear hear analysis of weather, economics, politics, or relationships. In all of those areas, the interaction of the various forces drastically exceed our ability to comprehend the equation, much less interpret definitively the effects of changes in any single factor. While studies of weather, economic, politics, and relationships does enjoy status as sciences, there's a reason those fields are differentiable from fields like chemistry, physics, or any "hard" science where tests can be performed under controlled conditions. Absent the ability to test theories under controlled conditions, "sciences" are largely just educated conjecture based on statistical trends, rather than on demonstrable relationships.
Keep this in mind when reading the results of soft-science research studies. (Especially ones where the scientists proclaim that they found evidence to support their own pet theories, since such "studies" are almost always fudged to reach the conclusions the "scientist" wants to find.) Until human consciousness and intelligence grows large enough to encompass the equations as a whole, all those studies are just a step above astrology.
No denying the entertainment value, though.
Of course, the prospect of cosmic, geologic, or viral calamity notwithstanding, it's safe to say that the greatest threat to ongoing human life on this planet is probably humanity itself. This brings us to my my personal favorite extinction myth: global warming. My favorite because it manages to do the absolute most with the absolute least of any secular disaster theory in human history, and because - given that it's based on human activities - it can actually be parleyed into a tool to control peoples' minds and/or activities. I'm sure you've heard the sales pitch: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM!!!" This expression is almost always followed closely by: "DO WHAT I SAY, OR ELSE OUR CHILDREN ARE DOOMED!!!" In fact, the latter usually follows the former so closely that no verifiable or quantifiable scientific support is ever offered proving that the problem exists at any more than a hypothetical level. But we can't dwell on that now, we don't have time! To stave off the calamity looming in the next century, we need to get people toeing the line we set RIGHT NOW!
Ahhh, human nature at its finest.
Regardless of what pundits say, the only scientifically verifiable point about the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is that they have kept Al Gore socially relevant well past his use-by date, by offering the masses nothing more substantial than fear-mongering and portents of dread. Good on him for avoiding actual work by recycling the same tactics of just about every fire-and-brimstone religion/personality cult in human history. And he does score points for coming through with some fuzzy-science reason, rather than the traditional tidings of the Second Coming, pending race war, or opposing the New World Order. That some scientists are willing to say that his tidings of woe are scientifically possible sets him apart from Charles Manson or Jim Jones, even if it doesn't set him any higher than Charles Manson or Jim Jones.
Unfortunately, all signs point towards Al actually believing the bullshit he's spewing, and - equally unfortunately - the nature of Al's bullshit means that he's unlikely to do us the favor of trying to hitch a ride on the tail of Hale-Bopp (google it). Alas, and in the true spirit of his Democratic Party roots, Al is going to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not. All that we have to do is pony up billions to support his programs, change our entire lives and economy to match his green utopia ideas/ideals, and acknowledge that he's right and everyone else is wrong. And how could he be wrong? He was the one that took the initiative in inventing the Internet, for Gods sake!
What a fucking douche bag.
As recently as 25 years ago, the scientific community was abuzz with the possibility of a coming ice age. Whoops. But trust them, they've got it right this time! After all, a newly completed study has found that even if all industrial emissions of greenhouse gases cease by 2100, earth's sea-level will rise by 13 feet by the year 3000! Never mind that the best we can manage is an educated guess as to whether we'll get rain or sunshine next week. Never mind that we have no means whatsoever to even estimate locations, magnitudes, or paths of hurricanes or tornadoes that might happen next year. Trust us when we tell you that we're going to be totally fucked in 1,000 years, UNLESS WE ACT NOW.
If you want some hilarious reading, google "Gore Effect." It turns out that there is a statistical correlation between Al Gore appearing at an area to address global warming, and that area immediately or concurrently suffering unseasonably cold weather. I'm not asserting that there is a causal link between the two. That would imply the work of a Higher Power with a truly divine sense of humor, a point I'll not trumpet, even though I happen to believe it.
So I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship between Al speaking and local cold weather following. I'm just observing that there is a statistically demonstrable relationship between the two. This is significant, since it's exactly those sort of statistical relationships that Al's minions rely on in creating their models and projections of future meteorologic trends and events. Nobody really knows how or why global weather works the way it does. Scientists just have documentation and equations which show that weather tends to follow certain trends, and that certain events tend to work (or at least portend) demonstrable changes on or in such trends. But if general statistical relationships can be relied on in forming weather projections, the Gore Effect (as such a relationship) indicates that we already have a solution for global warming. We just have to schedule more speaking engagements for Al, to enjoy the cold weather that tends to follow him. Reliance on the Gore Effect as a solution for global warming is about as scientifically supportable as asserting global warming as a realistic threat to humanity.
Science is a good thing, and can demonstrate all sorts of verifiable explanations for all sorts of observable events. But the fact of the matter is that when the goal is to assess actions and interactions of ANYTHING too large to be studied in the confines of a controlled lab environment, the greatest controlling force in most studies is the belief and expectations of whatever scientist (or other figure) is conducting the analysis. This is important to keep in mind whenever you hear hear analysis of weather, economics, politics, or relationships. In all of those areas, the interaction of the various forces drastically exceed our ability to comprehend the equation, much less interpret definitively the effects of changes in any single factor. While studies of weather, economic, politics, and relationships does enjoy status as sciences, there's a reason those fields are differentiable from fields like chemistry, physics, or any "hard" science where tests can be performed under controlled conditions. Absent the ability to test theories under controlled conditions, "sciences" are largely just educated conjecture based on statistical trends, rather than on demonstrable relationships.
Keep this in mind when reading the results of soft-science research studies. (Especially ones where the scientists proclaim that they found evidence to support their own pet theories, since such "studies" are almost always fudged to reach the conclusions the "scientist" wants to find.) Until human consciousness and intelligence grows large enough to encompass the equations as a whole, all those studies are just a step above astrology.
No denying the entertainment value, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)