I have moved my blog to my own domain. You may go there now...
Things that are True*
stevencavins.com/blog
Monday, March 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
who is watching who
I got plenty of flack for my admiration for Eli Roth's "Hostel", which was probably a good thing--but nonetheless, I couldn't help but think that the criticism was more about not wanting to like a film like that, than being surprised that you might like a film like that.
Sex and violence--probably the two most cinematic events in film. They translate very well on film, practically jumping off the screen. Sex is almost always voyeuristic on screen, which is part of the thrill. It seems only natural that violence could lend so well in this regard, notably in Hostel, and most certainly criticized in Michael Haneke's "Funny Games," a film that through its violence reminds us of our voyeurism throughout--which could be much like being caught with pornography. It's not bad until you get caught with it.
Rob Zombie's "Halloween," which I did not see, had great success that reminded us that the public really likes dead teenagers...the prettier, the better. I suppose it's a sadistic geek fantasy that everyone finds so endearing. It's only when we admit it that it becomes a problem.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Explicit Content
My television binge has led me to HBO's new show, "Tell Me You Love Me," a melodrama about couples with various couple issues--primarily sex, in this case. From the first episode, I can say I find it rather compelling, to say nothing of its controversial nature that even made a Drudge Report headline some months ago.
What spurred it, of course, was its willingness to show the male genitalia, the organ which is so often missing from television and film, and what will at once nominate you for a safe NC-17 rating. For once, a television show balances the sexes and revels in the fact that it takes two to tango. It also seems so obvious now that our concepts of decency is incredibly sexist--that the total display of the female body is somehow less erogenous or profane than the naked male body.
I recommend the documentary film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" if you'd like to see not only how nonsensical the MPAA really is, but how dangerous it is to the very art of cinema. One scene claims that a rater on the MPAA board seems to believe that their censorship "made the film better," instead of simply just censoring it.
You might also find "Inside Deep Throat" a fascinating film about the first lucrative film that made pornography mainstream, and created a straw man for the religious right for years to come.
NC-17 seems to brand films as sinful, and therefore many studios will not release a film that earns this rating, despite the inherit quality of the film. One recent notable exception is Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" which has the NC-17 rating, and is winning awards just the same. This is a great first step towards free artistic expression.
I modestly propose a choice: that I might be able to choose between the NC-17 cut, or the R rating. If only theatres had the imagination to offer this choice. The public already prefers their DVDs in unrated forms over MPAA cut fests, so why not offer the same choice in theatrical release? There's plenty of reasons why they won't, and almost all of them involve the mighty dollars of the soft drink industry.
Obscenity is relative; every day you witness content that, if filmed, would be considered profane. Showering for one, sex another. If we do not consider our daily rituals obscene, then why should we in an artistic context?
Maybe it's time we treated each other like adults.
What spurred it, of course, was its willingness to show the male genitalia, the organ which is so often missing from television and film, and what will at once nominate you for a safe NC-17 rating. For once, a television show balances the sexes and revels in the fact that it takes two to tango. It also seems so obvious now that our concepts of decency is incredibly sexist--that the total display of the female body is somehow less erogenous or profane than the naked male body.
I recommend the documentary film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" if you'd like to see not only how nonsensical the MPAA really is, but how dangerous it is to the very art of cinema. One scene claims that a rater on the MPAA board seems to believe that their censorship "made the film better," instead of simply just censoring it.
You might also find "Inside Deep Throat" a fascinating film about the first lucrative film that made pornography mainstream, and created a straw man for the religious right for years to come.
NC-17 seems to brand films as sinful, and therefore many studios will not release a film that earns this rating, despite the inherit quality of the film. One recent notable exception is Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" which has the NC-17 rating, and is winning awards just the same. This is a great first step towards free artistic expression.
I modestly propose a choice: that I might be able to choose between the NC-17 cut, or the R rating. If only theatres had the imagination to offer this choice. The public already prefers their DVDs in unrated forms over MPAA cut fests, so why not offer the same choice in theatrical release? There's plenty of reasons why they won't, and almost all of them involve the mighty dollars of the soft drink industry.
Obscenity is relative; every day you witness content that, if filmed, would be considered profane. Showering for one, sex another. If we do not consider our daily rituals obscene, then why should we in an artistic context?
Maybe it's time we treated each other like adults.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
netflix
i just noticed that netflix has a shipping location in toledo now, which explains why my dvds were coming in so fast... cool.
nice day for an exorcism.
"I would say that it was vulgar and shocking, but I don't know if I would actually call it 'scary'. I wonder if it's been built up so much as being so horrifying that nothing could live up to that hype?"
This is a common criticism of "The Exorcist" that I hear a lot, and a truly acceptable one. There was certainly a time when "The Wolf Man" could scare the pants off of anyone back in 1941. Watch it now, and you're asking yourself why a wolf man's only weapon of attack seems to be pushing people over.
When I was very young, I remember when my parents took me to see "The Never Ending Story" at the drive-in. I remember spending most of the time on the floor under the glove box, terrified to look at the screen. It was the giant turtle in the swamp, who referred to itself in the royal sense, having isolated itself for thousands of years, to merely proclaim to one lone visitor, "We don't even care whether or not we care."
I suppose when I was young, a giant turtle in itself might have been quite frightening. But I suppose these days, any fear I have to spare for it would be more or less a cerebral one.
That is more or less my feelings of "The Exorcist," a film I saw in a theatre-setting but once, a few years ago. Much to my surprise, most of the audience was laughing through it. Go a few decades back, and the experience would have been quite different.
"The Exorcist" derives its scare-tactics not from what's actually on screen, but from how you process what you see. The film, itself, never shows its cards as to whether what's happening is really supernatural or not. So what we have then, is simply a story of good and evil. It matters not whether you subscribe such ethical assertions from religion or simply humanistic philosophy.
We read of, hear of, and occasionally see real evil in our world, and we can come to grips with it in our own way. But there seems to be a strong consensus that the evil should be left among the adults, and never subjected towards children. News television always runs stories on "protecting our children from x, y, or z", and we have a general sense of dismay when innocence is subjected to evil, as opposed to a comprehensive adult.
So when evil occurs upon a child, almost randomly, and causes the child to become a vile, unspeakable creature, it not only shakes our notion of a social blasphemy, but causes a ripple effect amongst the rest of the characters and their own notions of good, evil, life and death. The mother, an unbeliever, seeks to protect her child. A priest, battling with his loss of faith in the face of imminent death (his mother), seeks to regain his faith, and becomes a martyr.
Even more importantly, the themes of religion and technology come to light. We see a tortured girl surrounded by metal machines performing x-rays and cat scans. When the mother asks for an exorcism, the priest simply replies, "You'd have to take a time machine back to the middle ages." Science has come to show what once appears as demonic possession can be explained through mental health. Most, believers or not, would not automatically presume insanity to be the result of a demonic host, in the face of enlightenment and technological advancement.
If you've watched a family member deteriorate to Alzheimer's Disease as I have, you probably can relate to experiencing what once was considered to be demonic possession. But science is continually chipping away at it, and it may be a thing of the past in time.
But demons exist in religions. The New Testament tells of Lazarus, possessed by a demon which is cast out and embedded among pigs who jump to their death (not a good deal for the pigs.) Islamic religion tells of Djinns, demons from the desert who perform evil at their whim. Satan, himself, a central character for Christianity, though our understanding of Satan derives more from culture than from the Holy Scriptures themselves. A believer must constantly translate and subscribe good and evil towards themselves, or god, or from Satan, certainly a mental activity I would never wish upon anyone.
How we answer the questions posed by "The Exorcist" is where the true terror comes from. Is evil an idea, or a material object? What it the meaning of life, and death? Am I subjected to celestial discretion, whether for good, or for evil? And if I believe in god, who is the creator of all things, I must believe that evil is created and willingly volunteered upon us by him. Where can I draw the line, then, between god and satan?
If I am a non-believer, I must face my own death. I must also face the fact that the universe doesn't care what I eat, or drink, who I sleep with or what I do in my spare time. If there is any evil in the world, it is from humanity, and not a horned beast underground. But if there is good, it is also from us, and our own minds must create the distinction between the two.
Whether you're a believer or not, you have to answer those questions, and live accordingly, in the face of a world that seems to do as it pleases anyway: war, famine, murder, and terror. And we must deal with the consequences.
This is a common criticism of "The Exorcist" that I hear a lot, and a truly acceptable one. There was certainly a time when "The Wolf Man" could scare the pants off of anyone back in 1941. Watch it now, and you're asking yourself why a wolf man's only weapon of attack seems to be pushing people over.
When I was very young, I remember when my parents took me to see "The Never Ending Story" at the drive-in. I remember spending most of the time on the floor under the glove box, terrified to look at the screen. It was the giant turtle in the swamp, who referred to itself in the royal sense, having isolated itself for thousands of years, to merely proclaim to one lone visitor, "We don't even care whether or not we care."
I suppose when I was young, a giant turtle in itself might have been quite frightening. But I suppose these days, any fear I have to spare for it would be more or less a cerebral one.
That is more or less my feelings of "The Exorcist," a film I saw in a theatre-setting but once, a few years ago. Much to my surprise, most of the audience was laughing through it. Go a few decades back, and the experience would have been quite different.
"The Exorcist" derives its scare-tactics not from what's actually on screen, but from how you process what you see. The film, itself, never shows its cards as to whether what's happening is really supernatural or not. So what we have then, is simply a story of good and evil. It matters not whether you subscribe such ethical assertions from religion or simply humanistic philosophy.
We read of, hear of, and occasionally see real evil in our world, and we can come to grips with it in our own way. But there seems to be a strong consensus that the evil should be left among the adults, and never subjected towards children. News television always runs stories on "protecting our children from x, y, or z", and we have a general sense of dismay when innocence is subjected to evil, as opposed to a comprehensive adult.
So when evil occurs upon a child, almost randomly, and causes the child to become a vile, unspeakable creature, it not only shakes our notion of a social blasphemy, but causes a ripple effect amongst the rest of the characters and their own notions of good, evil, life and death. The mother, an unbeliever, seeks to protect her child. A priest, battling with his loss of faith in the face of imminent death (his mother), seeks to regain his faith, and becomes a martyr.
Even more importantly, the themes of religion and technology come to light. We see a tortured girl surrounded by metal machines performing x-rays and cat scans. When the mother asks for an exorcism, the priest simply replies, "You'd have to take a time machine back to the middle ages." Science has come to show what once appears as demonic possession can be explained through mental health. Most, believers or not, would not automatically presume insanity to be the result of a demonic host, in the face of enlightenment and technological advancement.
If you've watched a family member deteriorate to Alzheimer's Disease as I have, you probably can relate to experiencing what once was considered to be demonic possession. But science is continually chipping away at it, and it may be a thing of the past in time.
But demons exist in religions. The New Testament tells of Lazarus, possessed by a demon which is cast out and embedded among pigs who jump to their death (not a good deal for the pigs.) Islamic religion tells of Djinns, demons from the desert who perform evil at their whim. Satan, himself, a central character for Christianity, though our understanding of Satan derives more from culture than from the Holy Scriptures themselves. A believer must constantly translate and subscribe good and evil towards themselves, or god, or from Satan, certainly a mental activity I would never wish upon anyone.
How we answer the questions posed by "The Exorcist" is where the true terror comes from. Is evil an idea, or a material object? What it the meaning of life, and death? Am I subjected to celestial discretion, whether for good, or for evil? And if I believe in god, who is the creator of all things, I must believe that evil is created and willingly volunteered upon us by him. Where can I draw the line, then, between god and satan?
If I am a non-believer, I must face my own death. I must also face the fact that the universe doesn't care what I eat, or drink, who I sleep with or what I do in my spare time. If there is any evil in the world, it is from humanity, and not a horned beast underground. But if there is good, it is also from us, and our own minds must create the distinction between the two.
Whether you're a believer or not, you have to answer those questions, and live accordingly, in the face of a world that seems to do as it pleases anyway: war, famine, murder, and terror. And we must deal with the consequences.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Lorem Ipsum
But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?
On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.
On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.
Friday, August 3, 2007
i've argued that religion does not enhance the user-experience of life, but merely pollute it with nonsensical gibberish that has no supporting evidence--and they've had, according to them, some 6,000 years to come up with some. on the other hand, the scientific method in comparison has brought us mounds of evidence that has brought us great progress, but no light has yet been shed on immaculate conceptions.
but can you separate science from religion? is science, as some has commented, merely a tool of humanity, while spirituality another? not bloody likely. everything is science. if you can consider it, question it, examine it, it is worthy of scientific study.
the most common, and least practical, theological argument for god goes something like this: "god is beyond science, and therefore cannot be tested by it. since there is an effect (matter) there must be a cause, which cannot be matter, and therefore, only god can fill that role."
of course, with this logic, you can believe anything you want. and it doesn't answer for the type of god: a deism view, or that of a personal god, or that of a trinity, perhaps a god that really likes ice cream. that leap is made by means of our historical and geographical placement in social history.
there are currently dozens of popular perspectives on what god is, and guess what--they're not compatible. so either one perspective is correct, or none of them are.
in light of these great odds and great enlightenment through science and reason, what types of compelling evidence do believers have to offer when it comes to their affirmations?
"well, i believe...[sic]"
can reason stand a chance in the face of belief?
in my own experience, believers and non-believers pan out at about 50/50. i could dissect each side and probably find that about 25/50 believers are probably bullshitting themselves and everyone else. the other 25 probably don't think much about it--it's more or less cultural convenience than dogma in such cases.
i still wait for some compelling evidence, but i won't hold my breath. and so i am.
but can you separate science from religion? is science, as some has commented, merely a tool of humanity, while spirituality another? not bloody likely. everything is science. if you can consider it, question it, examine it, it is worthy of scientific study.
the most common, and least practical, theological argument for god goes something like this: "god is beyond science, and therefore cannot be tested by it. since there is an effect (matter) there must be a cause, which cannot be matter, and therefore, only god can fill that role."
of course, with this logic, you can believe anything you want. and it doesn't answer for the type of god: a deism view, or that of a personal god, or that of a trinity, perhaps a god that really likes ice cream. that leap is made by means of our historical and geographical placement in social history.
there are currently dozens of popular perspectives on what god is, and guess what--they're not compatible. so either one perspective is correct, or none of them are.
in light of these great odds and great enlightenment through science and reason, what types of compelling evidence do believers have to offer when it comes to their affirmations?
"well, i believe...[sic]"
can reason stand a chance in the face of belief?
in my own experience, believers and non-believers pan out at about 50/50. i could dissect each side and probably find that about 25/50 believers are probably bullshitting themselves and everyone else. the other 25 probably don't think much about it--it's more or less cultural convenience than dogma in such cases.
i still wait for some compelling evidence, but i won't hold my breath. and so i am.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Obama Rama
this story popped up on "the raw story"
"Obama defends his stance on Christian right 'hijacking faith'"
Highlights:
i would at least concede that obama is reaching out to a demographic of unbelievers in a way that was previously demonized by previous presidencies. the political nature of religion is nothing new; there are literally hundreds of books on bush's political use of christianity that you can pick up.
faith, again, that magic word--it always comes up, nonetheless, as something to be applauded--a virtuous, spiritual act. just what is so special about having faith, and in what other context would it be applauded to blindly accept something to which has no evidence?
obama's convenient conversion to christianity from a secular background seems a little phoney...and i'd speculate it's all for show, but nonetheless we don't need another decade of blind faith.
"Obama defends his stance on Christian right 'hijacking faith'"
Highlights:
"When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends," the freshman Illinois Senator said at The Brody File.
"[S]omewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together...Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked," the New York Times reported.
He went on, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."
i would at least concede that obama is reaching out to a demographic of unbelievers in a way that was previously demonized by previous presidencies. the political nature of religion is nothing new; there are literally hundreds of books on bush's political use of christianity that you can pick up.
faith, again, that magic word--it always comes up, nonetheless, as something to be applauded--a virtuous, spiritual act. just what is so special about having faith, and in what other context would it be applauded to blindly accept something to which has no evidence?
obama's convenient conversion to christianity from a secular background seems a little phoney...and i'd speculate it's all for show, but nonetheless we don't need another decade of blind faith.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pope defends Evolution; What else is new...
Full Article
Some highlights...
Though not necessarily a revelation for some religious figureheads to proclaim so-called respect towards evolution, it is not such a impressive concession considering that the religious probably know as much about their own faiths as they do about real science.
You can't have it both ways.
It is one thing to say that science does not answer our origins. It possibly cannot. But still, to just glaze over it and say, "well, it must be God," is such an incredible gap of logic that science simply is not prepared to make, and thus, earning my respect.
Of course, no practicing theologists will be able to explain where god comes from, thus making their "origins" point mute. This is to say nothing of the incredible intricacies of religious belief and the church itself, the sheer egoism of believing in the correct deity and knowing what that deity wants and doesn't want.
It is a silly admission, in the end, because the religious will never give science the credit it deserves, or really seem to provide signs of a real understanding of how science utterly demolishes theism over and over again. Their faith is a comfort blanket that they cannot rid of, no matter how unnecessary.
(And may I speculate that the real reason for all this talk of fusing religion with science is merely a conversion strategy for the more reason-minded individuals.)
Some highlights...
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Though not necessarily a revelation for some religious figureheads to proclaim so-called respect towards evolution, it is not such a impressive concession considering that the religious probably know as much about their own faiths as they do about real science.
You can't have it both ways.
It is one thing to say that science does not answer our origins. It possibly cannot. But still, to just glaze over it and say, "well, it must be God," is such an incredible gap of logic that science simply is not prepared to make, and thus, earning my respect.
Of course, no practicing theologists will be able to explain where god comes from, thus making their "origins" point mute. This is to say nothing of the incredible intricacies of religious belief and the church itself, the sheer egoism of believing in the correct deity and knowing what that deity wants and doesn't want.
It is a silly admission, in the end, because the religious will never give science the credit it deserves, or really seem to provide signs of a real understanding of how science utterly demolishes theism over and over again. Their faith is a comfort blanket that they cannot rid of, no matter how unnecessary.
(And may I speculate that the real reason for all this talk of fusing religion with science is merely a conversion strategy for the more reason-minded individuals.)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Circumcision is Mutilation.
A post title you probably weren't expecting, but nonetheless, onward with conscience-raising! A question I pose to others when I'm feeling saucy, particularly those yet childless, is the following: Will you circumcise your children?
It's almost as off-putting as asking someone if you are a registered organ donor. There probably is not a single good reason why wouldn't donate organs, and yet, some won't do it. I've heard rather interesting explanations for this, none that made a lick of sense, and most involve some sort of zombie after-life I cannot comprehend.
And so it goes for circumcision, which is, in effect, legalized, involuntary mutilation which provides not a speck of scientific or otherwise social relevance. It's not something we talk about in casual conversation, and yet the vast majority of us American males have had the privilege of entering this world of ours to a steel blade, to have a piece of our otherwise "perfectly" designed body removed--for what reasoning?
The science is in: there is no justifiable health benefit. Simply google "Doctors Against Circumcision" and read away if you aren't convinced. I won't comment further on this point, other than say that the "inconveniences" of a foreskin, as some claim, are no more off-putting than the need to wash your underarm. And it's certainly true that we might avoid a lot of maintenance if we simply removed the hair from our bodies. Fortunately for us, our hair can grow back if we've had enough.
What other reason, perhaps? It may come as a surprise that a good deal of our sacred texts (Galatians, etc.) are devoted to the principle and execution of circumcision in accordance with our celestial dictator who would like nothing more than to create your foreskin, and then symbolically (and physically) command it removed in order to create a psychological state of submission and perverted perspective of sexuality. I can't say this is something that might be useful to a god who considered your body his creation and wanted his creation to be fruitful. It might, however, be very useful to the men who really made it up. (...but why these men, and some Jews today, wish to take their newly circumcised sons into their mouth, I will never have a good answer.)
And some, including the great faith of Islam, have pondered, why leave the fun for just men? Let's just slice off all of the female genitalia we can get to, tie it up with string and call it a day.
Perhaps George Carlin is correct in saying that "symbols" are for the "simple" minded. But a circumcised penis is in fact, a symbol. But not for great scientific advancements or social enlightenment. It is, in fact, a physical casualty of the total ignorance of a culture riddled with obscene faith-based philosophy.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ape Aid: Chimps share altruistic capacity with people
Bruce Bower
Science News
Week of June 30, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 26
Many researchers have asserted that only people will assist strangers without receiving anything in return, sometimes at great personal cost. However, a new study suggests that chimpanzees also belong to the Good Samaritan club, as do children as young as 18 months of age.Without any prospect of immediate benefit, chimps helped both people and other chimps that they didn't know, and the 18-month-olds spontaneously assisted adults they'd never seen before, say psychologist Felix Warneken of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues.
The roots of human altruism reach back roughly 6 million years to a common ancestor of people and chimps, the researchers propose in the July PLoS Biology.
"Learning and experience are involved in altruistic helping, but our claim is that there is a predisposition [in chimps and people] to develop such behavior without explicit training," Warneken says.
His team conducted three experiments with adult chimps living on an island sanctuary in Uganda and two experiments with 18-month-old German children. In the chimp version of the first experiment, 36 animals watched one at a time from a barred enclosure as an experimenter in an adjacent room—who had had virtually no prior contacts with the animals—reached through the bars for a stick on the other side. The stick was within reach of only the observing chimp.
Most chimps snatched the stick and gave it to the experimenter, whether or not the experimenter offered a piece of banana as a reward. No assistance came if the experimenter didn't first reach in vain for the stick.
A similar trial with 36 youngsters yielded comparable altruistic behavior, regardless of whether the experimenter offered toys as a reward.
The second round of experiments included 18 chimps and 22 infants who had helped at least once in the first experiment.
The chimps still retrieved a stick for an experimenter, although they now had to climb a 2.5-meter-high platform to reach the item. The children navigated barriers and hurdles to get a pencil for an experimenter. No reward was offered in either case.
The third experiment tested nine chimps' willingness to aid other chimps that they neither knew nor were related to. One chimp watched another in a separate room try to enter an adjacent space through a chained door in order to obtain food. Only the observing chimp could remove a peg in its enclosure to release the chain, allowing the other chimp to nab a snack.
All but one observing chimp did just that in numerous trials.
"These are wonderful experiments and present a real challenge to previous findings," remarks anthropologist Joan B. Silk of the University of California, Los Angeles. Silk and other investigators have reported that chimps don't give food rewards to their comrades, even at no cost to the potential donor.
Chimps may help others who fail to achieve observable goals, as in the new experiments, Warneken suggests. Further studies need to compare individuals' reactions to different types of cooperative tasks, Silk says.
The results "come as no surprise to any field worker who has spent lots of time close to wild chimpanzees," comments anthropologist William C. McGrew of the University of Cambridge in England.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women.
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 1:11 PM ET
Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously. More...
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I was a fanatic
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. More...yes, we will blame their politics, their economics, and our globalization. but we will never blame their faith. we won't do that because it would cast light on our own, and show the hypocrisy and utter evil that is produced when one group of people decides that their god is better than your god. it's not so much that horror has been produced from myth, but rather that such myth has been allowed to persist as truth.
even while the masses revel in their religious mediocrity, barely shuffling in and out of church and afraid to read a verse outside of what their pastors have to offer in passive comfort, your altruism and tolerance for faith cultivates this mythic evil.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
This I Believe
Penn Gillette
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire? Listen or Read
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)