Where are you on the social scale of life?

When I was young it occurred to me time and again that I did not fit the common behaviour of such things as going to the movies, hanging out at the mall with friends, talking on the phone, and dressing in the latest brand-name clothing. I used to wonder why I had a different attitude about these things and others compared to my friends and would test myself to determine if I was being limited to do such things. I realized that sometimes it was limits and other times it was just me.

The most limiting factors for me were the cost to do and wear certain things and discipline from my parents. I could not wear brand-name clothing all the time because it was too expensive compared to the alternatives and could not hang out at the mall with friends because my parents thought that it was low-class and distracting me from being productive and spending time with the family. I used to feel like I was missing out because everyone else was doing it and that I didn't get enough attention from others for material reasons. "All my friends are doing it, why can't I?" I would exclaim to my parents. And their immediate response would be that I was being unreasonable and that it should not matter to me what others do and that they certainly do not care.

It took me a few years to realize why I was being unreasonable and that I ultimately live in a society which dictates the social norms of life. I also realized that it was beneficial for my parents to set limits for me in my adolescent years so that I could better identify myself and my habits apart from others and notice the differences among people. These limits helped me to understand my upbringing and my roots as well as feel a sense of pride that I could do what I wanted without feeling a need to follow. Limiting myself also helped me to understand that if I do choose to embrace a social norm that I should do so with discipline and restraint. It was a good step for me but I needed to build on that when I entered the real world on my own.

When you are on your own in your early twenties it is very easy to get sucked into what the 'in crowd' is doing and the new trends of the present. Social norms are not always ideal for a balanced lifestyle but they are based more or less on the commonality of people's behaviours and actions in society. We can choose to live on the boundaries or to follow certain social norms but it's up to us to decide what is ideal for our own lives depending on our situations.

I don't believe that it is smart however to disregard social norms completely. Social norms have been governed over a long history of social existence so it is not in one's best interest to act against these norms because they have been established for historical reasons. In the last century social norms have evolved to include materialism and convenience so in this modern day it is even harder to follow such social norms which have progressed backwards. Hopefully new discoveries and ideas such as the human genome project and the environmental movement can place us on a better life path.

Today, social norms help me to understand other people better-- their intentions, attitudes and opinions, stage in life, maturity, and their background. I feel that it is necessary to have this social template to help us mature and grow our knowledge of society and life as well as have our own opinions which we can further build on. We don't have to remain the same person we were in highschool-- social norms do not pressure us to do so. We need to embrace social norms because as we grow and age over time we can realize that social norms can help us to overcome our immaturity. We as humans are supposed to change just like our bodies do as we grow and we all need to embrace the cameleon in us in order to face an unpredictable and dynamic future.

Ego: Is that all life has to offer?

Everyone has an ego. It is nothing more than a combination of many different emotions such as confidence, aggressiveness, selfishness, happiness, and greed. It is emotions that we discover as we grow and socialize. It can make up a large part of our personality and can frame our identity. But, it can also be a negative character trait because it can interrupt logical and rational thought and is driven by strong emotions. Although it can give us a sense of who we are, our ego can also hinder us from learning new things and making new social connections. It can give us a false sense of what life really has to offer.

How do we develop an ego? Humans are conscious beings because we have an understanding of ourselves and of our minds. We think of ourselves in the first person and use the 'self' label to identify ourselves in a group of many individuals. The ego is a natural quality in human beings and also exists to a lesser extent in other animals. We have egos because we have emotions that are stimulated from our outside environment through our senses. However, it is not a simple task to understand the extent of our own egos because much of our own emotional reactions are a product of heredity, about 40-50%. This is why we are sometimes unaware of how strong our emotional reactions are in certain situations. We are not always under the impression that our egos are stimulating our behaviour and attitudes within different environments.

There is no concrete way to illustrate the ego. It is designed by our own brains depending on our genetics, environment, and social interactions. We frame our egos from a young age, although we do not yet know it, by our strengths and weaknesses as well as by our interactions with not only our families but our peers. We are brought up in a society so we are encouraged to be socialized and we do this through interactions. As children we are exposed to different groups of people such as the jocks, nerds, rebels, goths, etc. and naturally we find a place or a niche that we are drawn to by our emotions or groups where we are accepted. There are also niches within a certain group so part of how we interact in a certain peer group also is a matter of chance. How we differentiate ourselves within the group is in large part left up to what niches are available. Some children become leaders, others foot soldiers or jesters, and still others peacemakers depending on what niche is available, how suited a child is to filling it, and chance. Once a child fills a role they adapt to it and are influenced by their peers to maintain their 'personality' within the group. We begin to shape our personalities and attitudes by our socialized roles at an early age.

We start to become aware of our egos throughout adolescence and early adulthood. We begin to reminisce about things that we experienced in our past through chance and timing and through our decisions that helped us to get to where we are today. This brings satisfaction to our emotional desires in our minds that we have endured so much to frame our personalities and to build an identity that is unique to the self or individual. We realize that our past actions are valuable to us because it gives us a sense of who we are. Without our own story, we would be... a nobody. This sense, this story, this worth is our ego.

Our ego is so important to us. It defines who we are and helps us to be a someone that has a past, that has opinions, and that has a unique personality. These things help a person feel like they have a stance in society and it gives them a basis for social interactions. It is a part of our biological nature because we like many organisms are socialized. But, we need to have a sense of our own individual in order to satisfy our emotional desires and represent ourselves in a large group. We do not all have the same likes and dislikes so we need to have a way to identify what is suitable for us. But, as we see in society, there are many people who believe that what they think and feel should be the way that others think and feel and this leads to the clash of egos.

We all need to understand that our egos are shaped by our own strengths and weaknesses, by our social interactions, and by our past experiences. Although we are genetically and evolutionarily similar we are unalike in our attitudes, cultures, and behaviour because we all have had different past experiences, social roles, and vulnerabilities. We simply cannot impose our egos on others and expect them to accept your ideas and attitudes without argument. Argumentation is good. It allows people to reason with each other and come to resolutions in circumstances where one party is right and the other wrong or when decision-making. However, it is important to always build our knowledge of everything around us even when we think that we know everything. What we think we know is actually our own emotions inflating our egos. Just because we feel like we already have a sense of ourselves does not mean we cannot build on that. Life is a continuous growth process. It does not stop when we have reached the realization of our egos and our personality. There is little satisfaction in believing that there is nothing else out there for us because we think we have found who we are. Life is not solely about finding who we are. Life is about the awareness of knowing more. Knowing ourselves is just one small step in the awareness of life.

Nature vs. Nurture

The debate between nature and nurture has been a common argument in society for the last few decades. There are many proponents of the idea that parenting and the environment are the most important influences of how a child will grow and mature. Without the proper parenting and home environment children will not grow to their full potential. There is this notion that when we are born we need the proper direction and upbringing to mature normally because we are blank slates. This notion contrasts the other side of the argument, nature, which emphasizes the idea that our heredity determines in large part how we grow and mature with an insignificant influence of our home environment. There is, however, a significant influence on childhood development by unique experiences such as neglect and abuse, injury, illness, death in the family, etc. The argument of nature is by far stronger and coherent then the idea that proper nurturing is the most significant factor of proper childhood development.

Many psychologists and sociologists are on the side of the nurture argument. They believe that parenting is the single most important factor in a child's life and without it a child will grow up being helpless, rebellious, dependent, and make bad decisions throughout their life. Proponents of the nurture argument base their argument on statistics that show that children that are adopted and raised by parents that have their own children develop similarly to their unrelated siblings. In addition, they purport that in other findings identical twins that are separated at birth and raised by different middle-class parents will develop differently. They also suggest that spending extra time reading to their children and buying educational toys for their babies will extremely influence the development process. However, in most cases this is not just not true because their heritable traits to a significant extent (40%-50%) govern how children will develop. We cannot forget that our biology and physiology are governed solely by our genes.

In a scientific sense it is easy to understand why the nature argument is far superior to the nurture argument. There are many scientific studies that have determined that identical twins that are raised separately by different parents will develop similarly regardless of how they are raised. Based on their genetics they will both have a larger or smaller affinity for things like cigarettes, alcohol, sports, foods, etc. because their intelligence and habits are in large part governed by their genetic traits which in this case are identical. Under certain circumstances such as a unique experience like illness or injury, the development of one twin may change due to a long-term lifestyle change. In this case, the environment would have an increased effect on development. But, under normal circumstances the former is always the case.

In actuality, we are not much different from our parents. If a parent is aggressive, which is in large part due to our genetics, their children will develop similarly. Our actions and behaviours are not simply influenced by our environment or governed by a long week of stress and worry. They are governed by our genes and by our parents' genes and by their parents' genes, etc. We are not blank slates to be molded into something that is socially acceptable. Rather, we are biological entities that already have strengths and weaknesses that are governed by our genes. If we are to live up to our potential, parents and society need to set expectations that are realistic and that are in line with the needs of individuals, not of a group of individuals. I am not supporting the idea that parenting is obsolete but rather saying that children can learn a lot from their parents because they are genetically similar and a lot of how we develop is governed by our own genetics. However, with the changing times, it is also important to accept new facts and pieces of knowledge which can further expand the minds of our children and that cannot be easily taught by the older generations.

We must break free from the nurture argument and accept that there is such a thing as human nature in the context of heredity and not the environment.

Gender: What does this mean?

Earlier I wrote about the battle of the sexes due to differences between men and women. Although there are differences there are far more similarities between us biologically and socially. However, our cultural attitudes pressure us to believe that we are similar and different regardless of our biology.

There are those that believe that we are similar, such as feminists, and that we are capable of developing the same way depending on how we are raised and our interactions within and between groups. The only difference is that we have different genitalia which makes us look physically different from each other. Others believe that we are so different because of our roles in society and because of our physical nature, a notion that has been formed by the men for the purpose of oppressing women for their own personal gain.

The problem with these notions is that they do not include a biological perspective which really weakens these arguments. Also, although humans live in groups and societies this does not mean that particular groups reflect how individuals develop biologically. The environment does have an influence on the development of human beings, both female and male, but so does our evolutionary history and we cannot disregard this fact when we are discussing gender and equality. We are human beings whether female or male and we do have physical, developmental and chemical differences but that does not mean that our capabilities are so different.

The Y chromosome is in fact not quite different from what it was for tens of millenia. Because males are quite competitive in their behaviour when females or resources or revenge is a concern many of them were not able to prolong their genetic line (Y chromosome) compared to others that were more successful such as Genghis Khan from the Mongolian region. Some men had many descendants and others had none leaving us with a small number of distinct Y chromosomes. On the other hand, a larger number of women had a more evenly distributed number of descendants, since there was less competition and instead chose the best-quality males, leaving us with a larger number of distinct mitochondrial genomes (Pinker, The Blank Slate, pg. 347). This evidence illustrates one of many biological differences between men and women.

The real underlying issue though is that the minds of men and women are thought of to be so different that both sexes are incapable of being successful at the same things. Some people believe that men think more about justice and rights while females are more compassionate, nurturing, and empathetic to others. I beg to differ. Men are not from Mars nor are women from Venus. They are from Africa where they evolved together as one species. Men and women have all the same genes except for a small number on the Y chromosome and their brains are so similar. They have the same general levels of intelligence which help them to experience the physical and living world in the same way and they both experience similar basic emotions.

But of course there are differences which can be noticed by the opposite sex but are also manipulated into being major differences by society which make people think that we are much different than we actually are. Men have a stronger preference for having multiple partners and they are more likely to compete aggressively over stakes great or small. Men are taller than women on average and men are better at mentally rotating maps and objects. Men also have a greater tolerance for pain and a willingness to risk life for status and attention. In contrast, women are better at remembering landmarks and the positions of objects. They are more dexterous and have better depth perception. They are better at reading facial expressions and body language and have a better memory for verbal material. They also experience basic emotions more intensely, except anger, have more intimate social relationships, and are more empathetic toward their friends, though not towards strangers (Pinker, The Blank Slate).

Putting aside these differences it is important to understand that men and women are very much alike in our genetic make-up and it is our biology which governs how we develop as men and women. We do not have to put ourselves in different categories to identify our strengths and weaknesses and our differences. Instead, we need to embrace these minor differences in order to accept and compromise with one another. We should not let our differences overpower what we truly want in our lives which is the satisfaction of our emotions and desires. Rather than hinder each others strengths, we should help each other harness them because that is how we have evolved. Men do not only need to be the hunters and women gatherers but rather we are both capable of achieving these tasks, especially in Western culture. We are not so different and we should not let anyone lead us to believe otherwise.

Self-Deception: To Believe What We Are Not

It is true that people live in a world of self-deception. They remain aware that it is possible to be deceived by another person-- a family member, a coworker, or a friend-- so they try to ensure that they are not taken advantage of or fooled. They know that if they are deceived that they will have to reap the costs of their error in judgment. It is sort of like a part of the human radar in order to avoid people that are dishonest and greedy--- a social behaviour that was used long ago by our ancestors to do the same for the protection of their families, tribes, territory, and resources.

Deception is prevalent in society among relatives and non-relatives. It takes effort and energy to maintain a straight face and charm in order to deceive others. Whether the deception has to do with telling a lie to get away with something or take advantage of someone the individual has to almost believe their own deception to outwardly give an impression of honesty and genuineness. Not only do they deceive others but they subconsciously deceive themselves. It becomes increasingly difficult for the person to distinguish between what is real and what is superficial and where to draw the line.

It is not easy to understand self-deception from the point of view of a human being. We constantly judge ourselves while judging others and adopt or develop stereotypes in order to understand other people. None of this seems to be based upon our biological nature but rather shaped by our culture. We feel that we are more or less right about our judgments about ourselves and others but we are simply not. We tend to hold biases about different things (i.e. politics, race, gender, age, beauty, wealth, happiness, etc.) that make up part of our moral sense. These biases do not necessarily make up who a person is but instead reflects what society as a whole believes. These beliefs are emphasized in the media in order to get the attention of individuals and mold their opinions--- it is a form of deception. We pick and choose what to believe based on societal 'norms' and in turn deceive ourselves by accepting different biases without really understanding the ideas.

There is truly a cycle of deception which exists in society and it causes human beings to continuously deceive ourselves. Although it is important to detect when someone is being deceptive it is also important to understand that deception exists in all parts of society whether it is in government, business, media, social interactions, religion, education, it is everywhere.

We cannot simply believe something without knowing the basis of the idea or belief. There needs to be a means to understand society. One credible method is to look to science and evolutionary psychology for an understanding of human nature and why our thoughts operate in such a way. We are no more than a biological species with feelings and thoughts but we cannot believe that the basis of our moral sense comes from something beyond our biological limits. In that case, we are simply deceiving and confusing ourselves and driving us further from reality-- from what is true in the realm of our nature. We are only hurting ourselves when we believe what we are not.

Reciprocity in Society: Returning the Favour

It's quite interesting to see how individuals behave and socialize within a group of other individuals of no relation to each other. It is quite a different story when individuals interact within a family or circle of close friends and relatives. The major difference is that in a group of non-relatives individuals have expectations of the others that requires reciprocity and equality.

It's no surprise that when someone asks for a favour that they are expected by the other party to return the favour so there are no hard feelings between the two. When a favour is not returned it is easy to understand what happens. The other party feels like they have been taken advantage of which leads to feelings of anger, resentment, and disprespect. It is hard for them to forget what happened to them and it becomes harder for them to give out favours if they feel that they will not get one in return. The person who has not returned the favour most likely has a record of this kind and feels that regardless of hurting feelings they have gained something without giving something. However, within a group, a person with such motives cannot last long without being punished for their actions. Their behaviour can spread throughout the group as they continue to do this to others. They gain a reputation for being stingy and dishonest and eventually cannot gain favours from anyone in the group. The individuals in the group that continue to return favours are the ones to gain more in the end because more people are willing to help due to their reciprocity. This is why most people realize the importance of reciprocity within a group or society because it is a way for them to gain trust and loyalty from non-relatives and maintain good standing.

Perhaps the idea 'be good to thy neighbour' has lasted for so long among societies for the very reason of reciprocity. It really has nothing to do with the mythical belief of karma but instead has to do with fostering bonds between non-relatives in order for there to be reciprocity, especially in times of need. It is not always certain that an individual will be near their family and friends who will help them in any case more or less so it is imperative to have an alliance with others. But good will only come for those who are willing to return the favour or they may end up in the court of law.

Laws are important to have in a society of non-relatives that give and receive favours. In a large society an individual can never be certain if their favour will be returned when they are not familiar with the backgroud and behaviour of the other party. They may pay for a service or make a large purchase on something and never be given what they expected. They may provide a service for someone and never receive payment. There are so many ways in which individuals can be taken advantage of and never see reciprocity in society which is one of the main reasons why there is a justice system. Laws help to maintain reciprocity among socieites of individuals who have no relation to each other. They help to maintain a balance of giving and receiving favours among and between individuals in order for there to be peace and altruisim.

Altruism is an emotion that is innate in human beings and that is why there is recirpocity. An individual may want to help someone in need but would like to know if the other person would do the same for them. It is simple. Or is it? People may want to show altruism to others even if the other party is helpless but they would require some sort of guarantee that there is some sort of benefit for them.

But what happens if the other person cannot return the favour because they are poor or sick or helpless? Does this mean that they are not altruistic or choose to not be altruistic? Where do we draw the line here? In a democratic system of laws and rights how do we help people that cannot return the favour? Some societies around the world are controlled in a dictatorial manner where there are a few individuals who run the show. They take the profits of a working society and divide the funds disproportionately so they get the bulk of the earnings. The rest of society has to settle for their share without question and without fair reciprocity. In other societies people who are in higher income brackets pay more to the government through a tax system. People in the lower income bracket pay less but they also may be entitled to more social services funded solely by the tax system. Although it seems like the higher income earners do not see many direct benefits comapred to the lower income earners but it may be indirectly benefical in that there is added stability in society (i.e. less crime, poverty, and sickness). It is almost always necessary to have some form of a people's government to enforce laws within a judicial system in order to foster reciprocity in a society. In many cases it is the government that becomes the party to only receive favours and brainwash society into believing otherwise. But that is a another story.

Reciprocity is important within a group because it allows non-relatives to be altruistic and respectful to one another. It is hard to know who to trust to return a favour in a society of strangers. But if people who are altruistic teach their children about reciprocity and what it is to be respectful and honest then more people can begin to share this common and innate quality with one another and maintain a 'good' society without all the mythical jargon.

Human Nature and Evolution

Human nature is still misunderstood by many people today, especially by people who choose to believe that there is and always was something beyond human nature. Human nature is a complex idea that cannot be simply interpreted as what makes us human. Human nature is more about our biological make up and how humans have evolved biologically. To understand human nature one must have an accurate understanding of human biology which includes understanding Darwinian evolution.

Human beings are made up of billions of cells that work in concert in order to function as a unit. Humans evolved from a single-celled organism that functioned more efficiently for survival by joining with other single-celled organisms to form a larger unit. For example, single-celled blue-green algae that existed billions of years ago on planet Earth and that still exist today formed large groups in the water in order to work more efficiently at utilizing the sun's light in order to survive and grow as a colony more quickly. The grouping enabled them to expand their surface area in order to capture more photons from the sun. Just as atomic particles in space bond together in order to form more stable molecules so do cells. The template for human evolution can be seen in the nature of the universe.

From blue-green algae, to fish, to reptiles, to mammals, came human beings through natural selection, the driving force of evolution. In this process characteristics that are favourable for the survival of an organism in a particular environment in one generation will be inherited by or passed on to the next generation of offspring in the form of genetic DNA which stores this information. This process continues from generation to generation and still continues today. Of course, there is criticism of this idea even today but the fact will always remain that humans are evolving.

Human nature is a product of evolution. Our heritable DNA governs our development and functioning. It expresses genetic and physical traits or characteristics that were passed down from previous generations. In a sense, we are all brothers and sisters. We are all similar. There is genetic variation, however, from one society to the next due to differences, for example, in culture and climate, so humans have adapted to different environments in order to live and thrive. Our behaviours differ in different societies but that does not mean we are essentially different.

The human brain is a vast network of neurons in operation that controls much of the body and our brain functions. There is no ghost in the machine or soul that runs this complex system. We are also not a Blank Slate. For if we were.... I cannot even fathom this concept since it counteracts evolution which is defined as the passing of genetic and heritable information from generation to generation evolving from a single-cell to a human being. We could not have even developed as a functioning organism if we were all Blank Slates. Since all organisms carry genetic information from the simplest to the most complex, the concept of the Blank Slate is wrong. We are living organisms with innate qualities. Humans can learn how to read and recognize objects at a very young age just as a bird can learn to fly only after a few weeks of being born. These are instincive qualities that cannot simply come from nowhere. These qualities have been passed down from our ancestors in order for us to imitate their functions and behaviours because it helped them to survive.

Humans are complex organisms. We are not simple and we are not blank slates. We are beautiful because we have innate qualities that have evolved over time among living organisms. We carry with us the knowledge of our history so that we may use it to build something greater. We are all brothers and sisters regardless of how we look on the outside or how we think. It is our duty to understand and accept our own nature so that we can understand and accept universal nature. We must let go of preconceived notions that go beyond human and universal nature. If we cannot properly understand our own nature how is it that we can adhere to a belief about something that created us and this universe. It is nonsensical and illogical to do so. If it was not for people like Charles Darwin, we would all still be tricked into believing something that does not exist and that never existed. We must all ensure that our children learn the truth about human existence--- Evolution!

Happy 200th Charles Darwin!

Love: A Complex Emotion

What is love? Love is a wonderful and complicated emotion. It doesn't simply come from the ghost in the machine or the soul in our bodies. Nor does it come from a spiritual power or energy. It comes from within humans and higher order organisms from our brains.

You might wonder how it is possible to develop such a strong sense such as love from merely a network of cells. But our cellular network is vast and interconnected and the interaction of this internal network with our external environment makes it possible to experience the emotion of love. It is our five senses that stimulate this beautiful emotion. It is also our innate desire to feel love. Emotions of empathy and sympathy help to facilitate this emotion of love as well as our innate sexual desires. These emotions were all necessary for the development of pair bonds, the parent-child bond, and alliances outside of the family not only in the human species but also in other mammalian species like whales and chimpanzees.

Every human experiences this emotion. It is very real. But in our culture today love is difficult to understand. For thousands of years love has been bound to different belief systems that set rules and ideals for how love came about and how it should be utilized. For so long our ancestors have believed that love is everything but an emotion. That it comes about through practice of certain rituals and traditions. That it is not something that naturally happens but that one must behave in a certain way, such as praying to a sacred higher power, in order to be blessed by such a feeling. What this has done throughout human culture around the world is misinterpreted the true nature of love.

Love does not have to be a difficult emotion. A person can feel love for many things but there are different types of love. Our innate desires facilitate our love for our family members because we are related to them by blood and they care for us and interact with us while we grow. We also feel love for our friends who are not related to us because we build trust and loyalty with them. We can feel love for things we are good at doing such as sports, writing, traveling, and designing. But the most difficult love of all is the pair bond because there is much at stake for each person in the bond. Although there are benefits, the costs are heavy when a pair bond breaks because the bond cannot be repaired the same way a friendship or family relation can.

The pair bond is complex because it is a fairly new development in human history-- it is only 10,000 years old. It was formed in the beginning in order to care for their offspring and to ensure that the offspring were theirs. It was a way to protect a family unit in a human tribe or society and to maintain unity. But today humans are protected by their governments and family units have less responsibility to care for their whole family. It is no longer necessary for parents to wholly focus on the unity of their family because they are aware that a system exists to care for them through taxes and social programs.

The pair bond has lost its significance in this civilized society. Although pairs still desire to have children their focus is not on the unity of their family but on the pair relationship. In a time when careers are important to both men and women because of their education and desire to do what they are good at it seems that the end goal has become skewed. The pair bond has been changed to simply two people coming together for sexual desires and companionship. The meaning of the pair bond has changed but the type of love has not.

If this new pair bond relationship is to work, love needs to be rediscovered as an emotion that can protect this bond. The primitive and ancient meaning of love as a blessing through prayer has disappeared and the desire to form a pair bond simply to build a family unit has faded. People who care less about family unity and more about satisfying their desires need to understand love in a new light and both partners need to understand their love for one another. The way to do this is to express through communication what love means to each other continuously. In this new pair bond love is satisfaction of the desires of sexual pleasure, beauty, friendship (trust and loyalty), romance, work and play.

Family unity is no more. Satisfaction is everything and two people must learn to satisfy each other in order for this type of love to last. Love may be a complex emotion but we must learn to understand and convey what it means to each of us without boundaries and limits.

Obama's Victory and the American Media

Well it was clear who won last night... no ballots had to be re-counted nor was the media still trying to say that it was a close race. Frankly, it was never a close race. It was always clear that Barack Obama was an ideal presidential candidate compared to John MaCain or even the existing president for that matter and that he was farther ahead in the standings throughout the race.

Why does the media have to be so nasty all the time, especially to ask if America is ready for a black president? America has always been ready. It is not the 18th Century anymore. Our ancestors have paved the way for a more free world where all human beings are considered equal and we all have the same rights and freedoms. Race is simply simply a difference in appearance and expresses where each of us has come from in our history.

Americans have always stood for liberty and I believe that it is irresponsible of the media to ask such questions to Americans when there are so many other questions to be asked such as how will we fix the economy? or how will we assist the less fortunate? It is the media that puts rogue ideas into the minds of Americans and it is they who make it harder for an honest person to get by. They start rumours and spread them. They intentionally misinterpret you and put words in your mouth so it sounds more 'juicy' in their egocentric little minds. They find it their job to uninform the public rather than inform them of the truth. I guess it is more fun for them to lie outright to the public then to care about educating the public on what really is going on.

My message to the media is this: Please realize that by spreading lies to the public you are directly damaging society and negatively effecting how people think and live. You are not for the best interest of the public but against it. This is no different than what you call terrorism and you are all terrorists.

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover

We've all heard the common phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover' but aren't we all a little guilty of this judgment? Maybe not just a little... How did this phrase or 'meme' become common? It was the result of a novel that was published in the 20th Century and was used thereafter in other pieces of literature. But, the idea or meme of not basing one's judgment on the front or appearance has been thought of for centuries.

It was most likely the result of needing to judge a person not just on their appearance and outward nature in order to determine if they have intentions of honesty and loyalty. These attributes were necessary in order to build strength and friendship between tribes or individuals. And alliances were important long ago in order to grow in power and strength for protection and well-being. It was also important for peace and cooperation. Even today, it is important to form trust alliances between and among countries in order to protect citizens and spread peace and cooperation across the planet.

But, what has happened to this careful method of accurately judging a person based on their honesty and loyalty? It doesn't seem as persistent in society as it used to be. Religion was established long ago in order to gain cooperation and loyalty in a growing society. There seemed to be no other efficient means of getting people to submit to orders and maintaining their loyalty and cooperation to the group simultaneously. It was not helpful to simply judge a person on their outward appearance because that would not help to determine that person's intentions and emotions. Today, business, economics, government, and culture are more complex and deeply (historically) established in world society. But even though more people have a basic education they have difficulty grasping the complex nature of society that has evolved. What they can still grasp, however, is their religious belief in God which has been passed down over generations through culture. For them, it is a a way to have an identity in society and be a part of a community, which is why religion has prevailed for so long.

Culture is built on social mechanisms such as behavioural trends, belief systems, and rituals that are passed down from generation to generation. As changes occur in society like changes in government and business practices culture also changes to adapt to the changing environment. But a part of our culture that has not changed or adapted to the changing environment is ancient religious belief. Although it is not a necessary belief to have today, it still strongly exists.

But how can religious people adapt to the changing environment around them if they strongly base their identity and knowledge about nature solely on a culture of ancient religious belief? It becomes more detrimental over time to believe in an old religion because there are many other people that have chosen to adopt a new culture based on the changing social climate. However, in a time that is saturated with knowledge about human evolution, the fabric of our universe, and information technology, religion still seems to control culture all over the world. Religious individuals and groups are encouraged to adhere to this belief system and block out anything that may conflict with or discredit it. And because of this, there has evolved a growing divide between religious people and intellectuals who believe in evolution--- two streams of culture.

When individuals or groups of people do not follow the changing culture, which is reflective of the advancement of humanity, they become less able to accurately judge another person or, in the case of a group, a person or group outside of their own group. They simply believe that this other person or group believes the same morals and traditions or that they should believe this way. If they do not, then this other person or group do not have good intentions. They believe that we all must believe in the existence of God in order to have good intentions. However, all this does is maintain an old and out-dated belief system and block out the new ones which is detrimental to the advancement of society towards world health and peace.

Due to a divide in cultural belief and practice, educated individuals are discredited by the religious community for adapting their belief systems to better fit the facts about life and the universe like Darwinian evolution. This is due to the ongoing religious belief in God, a supernatural creator of all things, that the majority of the people on this planet strongly hold today. This meme was ingrained so strongly in the minds of our ancestors that it still exists today, even after the discovery of DNA. This meme leaves intellectuals feeling like they are misunderstood about what they truly know about the nature of life and the universe.

It has become ever more difficult to judge a particular person based on their background and achievements because we still live in a world filled with religious believers who maintain the notion that belief in God is more important than anything else, even academic experience! Nowadays people tend to judge others on their fashion, looks and possessions because they are so out of tune with what is going on in their changing environment. As long as they have religion, they don't need to learn more from others or from their environment. Their mission is to maintain a culture of religious belief--- how ridiculous!

We all need to start judging ourselves based on our level of knowledge about the nature of life and the universe, and less on our outward appearances and our belief in God. This will not help us to grow together as a society to promote positive change. It will only keep us behind in our evolution and will be stuck in a dumbified bubble of ancient myths and rituals. Our children will never forgive us for being so superficial and materialistic and they too will have to suffer an existence of slow-going change due to mythical beliefs.

Back in Beautiful Curacao

Here I am sitting in my island house for the first time in a long time and I can finally sense the beauty and complexity of nature once again. It has been raining here during the nights for the last few months and everything on the island has overgrown, including my yard. Bushes and trees that I had left so perfectly trim are now 5 times the size of me and completely out of control. I don't love the fact that I will have to have professional landscaping done but I love that the atmosphere of our planet Earth can provide such amenities for the growth and health of life. Living in Canada, it was evident to me that the similar type of atmosphere does not exist. Instead, mammals with their full stomachs go into hibernation for the cold winter months, birds fly south to a warmer place, and trees shed their leaves and prepare for a long and harsh season.

It is just not natural for me to close myself to the outside environment for so many months in order to maintain my health and well-being. The beautiful colours of blue, green, pink, and yellow become a figment of my imagination as I ponder about how nature around me could be. Instead, as I look out my living room window during the winter months I see no life, not even the sun.

Living in a tropical place is a completely different experience. There is no need to prepare for the long harsh months ahead and there is no need to worry about my safety on the road. Instead, I can walk around wearing light clothing and go for a swim at my own leisure. I can leave my windows open all year round and have only one wardrobe all my life. I never have to heat my water or my house and I can go for a jog every day of the year. What luxury!

For me after moving to the Caribbean, materialism is a thing of the past. I have more to look forward to than ever before. I have warmth, water, sun, trees, and a constant breeze-- all the things that nature can provide for a prosperous life. My ancestors would be proud!

The Singularity: Transcending Our Biology

What is it to be a human being today? Well we know that our biology is governed by hereditary units called genes that are located on chromosomes that are coded by our DNA, a molecular structure. Ultimately, we are biological systems or machines that hold and protect our genetic information so that we may survive over thousands of generations through our offspring. In a sense, our genes can survive forever but at the expense of biological survival machines like human beings. In order for our genes to survive we must pass them on to our offspring since we survival machines can only survive for a limited period of time. Survival was very important thousands of years ago when the human life span was shorter due to environmental and biological limitations. Today humans have been able to lengthen our lives by learning more about our biological strengths and weaknesses. We have overcome our biological nature by simply utilizing our thoughts from our senses.

Since we know so much about human biology today is there something more we can do to live even longer and healthier lives? Can we discover ways to transcend our biological nature so that we can live forever, like genes? Humans today are heavily focused on anti-aging methods to look and feel young and ways to live longer within the realm of human biology. We do on-going research about how to prevent and fight against fatal diseases and how to protect ourselves from contracting bacterial and viral infections that can harm our health. We ultimately strive to end pain and suffering of humans so that we may live long and healthy lives. But, one thing that we cannot combat so easily is aging.

Aging is a part of being a survival machine. Human evolution is interconnected with time, the spacial dimension that human beings cannot control. As time passes, living things grow and age. Our complex bodies undergo wear and tear over time from continuously operating at the biological level and communicating with the outside environment. The result is aging of the survival machine both physically and mentally.

Humans have come so far as to being capable of living for almost 100 years. Many other living organisms have not attained such a giant feat in biological evolution. Does this have to be the end for humans? Do we have to subject ourselves to mechanically and medically changing our physical and biological appearance in order to counteract aging? Are there alternatives to this method? Our research over time has given rise to many discoveries that may help us to live forever but there is one catch: Humans must accept that in order to live forever we cannot survive as solely survival machines housing our 'precious genes', but we must transcend our biological nature in order to overcome our limitations of aging and disease.

To transcend our biology is to go beyond evolution and space and utilize our technological creations in order to do so. Technology today is based on our biological nature, specifically the human brain, but what is different is that the technological dimension is ever-lasting. The hardware, like biological survival machines, is at risk of failing but the difference is that it can be repaired or replaced without damaging the software. Although software can be infected, preventative measures can be developed in order to counteract the virus without permanently damaging the software. Hardware and software can be repaired at a small cost but a sick biological machine can be permanently damaged even after being treated by medical or natural methods.

In our near future, human beings will have to make the choice of either living as a survival machine or transcending their biology by becoming one with the new and innovative technological dimension or virtual reality. Our genes have come so far by exploiting biological systems in order to survive but it is our turn now. We do not need our genes any longer nor do we need future generations of biological machines carrying our genes. Instead we have new and better information that can help us to understand the complexities of the universe. Genes have helped human beings to evolve through natural selection but at a large cost, our lives. But now we can exploit our own genes by utilizing our bodies, that have been governed by our genes, to create a means to live forever without our genes. Human evolution has driven us in this direction-- we cannot sit idly by when there is a means of harnessing our own technological creations so that we may live virtually forever. Now it is our turn to outwit, outplay, and outlast our genetic driver. Human beings are the new drivers and technology is our vehicle!

A Sea of Lonely Creatures

So my last blog post was about monogamous relationships and the battle individuals sometimes face when committing to each other.

We live in a society today where it is ideal to find a partner of the opposite sex to commit to and eventually start a family. It is also ideal for us to learn to be independent as we reach adulthood. When we are young and grow up going to school everyday, being social, and living in some sort of family unit we are constantly exposed to ideas about finding love, being independent, understanding our sexuality, and belonging to a group. We experience different emotions that help to mold our personalities and build our knowledge and understanding about things. We ultimately grow up in an environment that encourages us to be free about our thoughts within the realm of laws, rights, and freedoms.

We learn that general education of math, science, and language (arts) are necessary for us to understand the world and that we must be able to take care of ourselves when we reach adulthood. What comes next? For most of us, we leave our families and our home and we enter into the real world which feels like a sea of lonely creatures. Someone who was raised in a small town may feel disoriented and need more time to gain a strong foothold in society. Although it may take longer for some, most individuals will gain independence by being on their own and learning to take care of themselves. Finding a flexible routine in personal and work life can help a person become more independent and organized.

Where can family and love fit into the picture? It is true that once a person leaves home they do not detach themselves from their family, but focus on maintaining a relationship with them within their personal life. This is because we feel a strong sense of altruism towards our family members, something that we learned when we grew up around them. In other words, we maintain an emotional connection to them even though we are independent. This can help an independent person to find new love towards another person of no genetic relation in order to build a new family unit for them. This is a big part of independence in our society, loneliness is not. We desire close emotional connections with other people because human beings as well as many other species live in groups.

In today's society it is not always easy to find love and build a partnership within a new family unit. We are encouraged to leave home and further our careers in order to prosper and be independent. But, we are not always certain about how to build a new emotional connection with another person whom we do not know. People do not want to live alone forever, but want to share their love and altruistic nature with someone else. It is useful to channel these feelings to a group of people such as friends, colleagues, mentors, etc. but the end desire for most individuals is to find one person who can channel their similar feelings back onto them. This way both individuals can discover an emotional connection to one another and build a committed partnership from that. Unfortunately, many people today have trouble finding this type of connection. They live independently for years, alone or with roommates, and decide that the best option for them is to focus on their careers and on their own livelihood.

What happens to their emotional connections? Of course, many people maintain their connections with their families, but feel that they could never go back to living with their loved ones. It would hinder their lifestyle of privacy and independence. They would much rather be alone to do as they please instead of having to cater to someone's feelings, even if that someone is a mother or brother. They begin to like to live alone and regard loneliness as just another part of life. In a sense it is a good strategy to combat the lack of an emotional connection, but it may not be a good long-term strategy. A person who has lived alone for a long time eventually may feel that finding love for someone else is a waste of time or that it is alien to them. They, in turn, change their own social nature in order to accept loneliness. They overcome their lack of emotional connections by pampering themselves and spending time with friends of the same sex. This way they can always feel stimulated by material things or a good conversation without having to be in a emotional relationship.

But, what about love? Love is transformed into something else. It becomes a desire that is very hard to reach because it has not been achieved for so long. Many people do not bother with it because it has caused them physical and emotional trauma in the past. People place it on the sidelines or on a pedestal and choose not to bother with it because it is too high of an aspiration to reach. In the end loneliness wins and so there is no need for an emotional connection. The monogamous relationship does not seem so great when we can live on our own terms and stimulate ourselves in other ways. In a fast growing society of people the best option may not be to have more children, but instead it can be to learn more about ourselves and find other means to create happiness in our lives. However, there are limits to this and it is evident in our society today that people have taken this route at the cost of their mental and physical health and financial well-being. A good tip today can be that for those who are alone it can be worthwhile to channel their love to those who need it most, the poor.

Battle of the Sexes

I just read the chapter called Battle of the Sexes in Richard Dawkin's book Selfish Gene and again I feel that I have come to some realizations about human beings.

There exists a battle of the sexes among different species in nature and it occurs during mating season. A male may have to put in quite a bit of effort to court a female so that she may choose him and a female may want to shop wisely for a strong and committed male so that the investment in the offspring is proportionately shared. In the wild among lower order organisms it is common for the female to invest more of her energy and time into her offspring since she bears them. The males normally choose the option of leaving the female so that he can reproduce with other females and create even more offspring. These males invest very little time into preparing and caring for their offspring. It is easy for them considering that they are capable of producing such small sex cells, sperm, in such large numbers. Their investment per child is very small. However, the sex cells of females or eggs are much smaller in number and much larger for the purpose of providing food to her growing fetus(es). It is very clear to see why there is a battle of the sexes among many different species including human beings.

Since the onset of settlement of human beings 10,000 years ago, humans developed a pair relationship between a male and female in order to care and protect their young. The males worked as the hunters and the females as gatherers in a cooperative manner. This was important because children were more likely to live longer if they were cared for by both parents. In addition, by staying with the female a male could know with certainty that the children that he is investing so much in are in fact his. Although a monogamous relationship would mean less offspring for the male, it would also mean that he could keep track of his offspring and teach them to care properly for their children, a strategy that would help his grandchildren survive.

In today's modern society a monogamous marriage is very common and democratic laws protect this type of relationship between a man and woman when children are concerned. Even when an unmarried man and woman have a child similar laws will still apply. It is the responsibility of the parents to care and protect their own children until a certain age for their well-being according to the governing laws. If the proper care is not met, family laws dictate how the children will be cared for. Children can suffer emotionally from problems in their parents' marriage so in many divorce cases custody of the children is shared between the parents even when the parents have gone their separate ways. There are other cases in which if one parent leaves the family and all of his/her responsibility on the other parent, family laws will dictate that he/she must contribute financially to the children. In this way, the rights and freedoms of the children are seriously considered by the government no matter who the parents are. A simple monogamous relationship no longer protects the children like it did in the wild. Instead, it is the governing democratic laws that take over the responsibility of enforcing security of the children when a monogamous marriage breaks down.

Why then do individuals enter into monogamous marriages under the law and have children when they are unsure about undertaking such a responsibility? One reason may be that they have already invested time and effort into committing to a relationship that they are ready to have children. Most couples will enter into a legal marriage contract before they have children in order to solidify their commitment to each other to stay together and have children. Another reason may be that the families of the couple hold religious values that pressure the couple to wed before they live together and have sex. The couple then may have an unplanned child which they must take responsibility for even though they were not ready. This in particular is a common reason why people get married and why they get divorced. Marriage for religious reasons is extreme and unnatural and is not in the best interest of the man or woman.

Today, divorce is very common among couples with children. Although there are pros and cons about divorce, it is not in the best interest of the couple or their children. Democratic laws are such that upon divorce the man and woman split their finances in half, unless a prenuptual agreement was signed, and custody is awarded to either both parents or one parent depending on their financial and emotional situation. In addition, both parents are entitled to support their children financially based on their flow of income. The advantage is that the couple and the children are not subjected to emotional instability within one household. Further, the mother and father can be free to mate with other people and produce more children thereby creating a new family unit. But, the disadvantages are that a parent will be financially responsible even though the children are not living with them and the family unit will be divided causing long-term emotional instability especially for the children.

Such a governing system is necessary for the well-being of individuals in a society but it is clear that men and women do not understand the reasoning of the monogamous relationship. Human beings developed this type of relationship in order for their to be a shared responsibility to care for their children. However, today it has become a bond that is fragile and that can easily break down due to financial and emotional instability even when children are involved. Although there are a number of factors that can effect a marriage such as both parents working, infidelity, debt, sickness, conflicting belief systems, etc. the children's best interest is not always considered. A monogamous relationship should be a strength in a couple's lives. It should be a desired route to take for the purpose of security, love, growth, and family. But, it does not have to be a means of fulfilling a religious tradition or family dream. A battle is not necessary if both sexes can share a mutual commitment towards each other.

Selfishness vs. Altruism

If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism , for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature (Dawkins, R., Selfish Gene, p. 139)

This quote by Richard Dawkins from the book 'The Selfish Gene' really makes me think. I think about the idea that our brothers, sisters, and parents are 50% related to us and that we are 100% related to ourselves due to our individual genetic constitution. Our selfish genes help us to survive and benefit from our close relatives without always considering their well-being. We do, however, take into account that our parents and siblings are 50% related to us and that it matters how they are affected by our actions. Their survival matters because they share 50% of their genes with us, but it only matters up to a point.

In the wild, if the life of an animal such as a baby bird is put at risk by a predator or sibling it will be in its best interest to deter that risk onto another species or another sibling. It would not be in its best interest to put its parents at risk since they are the primary caregivers that provide food, shelter, and safety to their offspring since that is in their best interest. In contrast, a sibling could incur that risk because its survival has no benefit to the baby bird besides the 50% genetic relation. It is even so that if a sibling bird thinks that it is not getting enough food from its parents, it may steal food from its other siblings or cheat for more food from its parents by loudly calling out to attract predators. This can be seen in many different species of organisms such as insects and humans.

When this notion is applied to human behavior many similarities can be seen. In nature there are many selfish human beings that interact daily. In society, humans regard selfishness as an emotion or a personality trait that many different individuals convey, even themselves at times. Selfishness also exists within the family just as it does within other species in nature and brothers and sisters compete for love, care, and money from their parents. If a child feels like he/she is not being treated fairly, they may act selfishly such as tell a lie or pretend to be sick in order to gain favour from their parents. If parents do not moderate these acts of selfishness through discipline and practicing altruism the other siblings may begin to feel emotions of jealousy and greed which can cause conflict in a family unit. The parents themselves may also feel emotions of guilt and worry which could effect the well-being of all of their children.

Altruism, the act of helping others or doing good without reward, is a behaviour among different species of organisms including humans that helps to counteract selfishness within a family, group or society. Although in the wild selfishness can be regarded as being beneficial for survival, so can altruism in a civilized society. Today it has become ever more important to be altruistic to people in order to gain trust and cooperation in a society where selfishness exists at many levels of government, economy, and business.

How is it then that humans can learn to be altruistic to non-relatives? In the wild it is uncommon to see an organism showing altruism to a fellow group member of the same species which has no relation to it. However, it is natural to see a parent showing altruism to its children or an older group leader showing altruism to its pack of relatives and non-relatives. Mutual symbioses or cooperation does also exist between different species in order to benefit both species. So altruism does exist in nature but it more commonly occurs between a parent and their offspring which is a genetic relation.

Altruism is favoured in a democratic society of related and unrelated human beings because people understand that they all carry the same rights and freedoms as one another and that it is effective to work in concert in order to grow as a functional and stable society. When people show altruism towards each other they are trying to set a standard of respect and loyalty. In this type of environment different people can trust one another and information can be transparent. Selfish acts can be distinguished from acts of altruism and selfish individuals are encouraged to learn from their mistakes. However, in a multi-government and interconnected society where powerful players such as pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and governing bodies are operating, many selfish acts are overlooked. These parties take advantage of the end-users of society in order to profit and grow in power. They also show little or no care for the environment which is home to billions and billions of living organisms. Due to a lack of organization and accountability at the government level there is much bureaucracy which creates opportunities for powerful players to take advantage of the system. Altruism can combat these selfish acts but it takes a large cooperative group of people and an honest and transparent government.

Although selfishness works quite well among different species of organisms in the wild, it is not wholly accepted by human beings in a civilized society. In such a society, altruism, equality and being a good citizen are social ideals that teach human beings to be good to one another. It is also reasonable to act in one's best interest but to consider the well-being of others whether or not they are family. This is so because human beings are capable of understanding another person's suffering and emotional state which is not practiced among animals in the wild. This capability, through our own selfish nature, stems from understanding our own emotional state and how it effects us. And democracy and justice have enabled humans to act on this understanding in a positive way in order to reduce suffering of others through the emotions of empathy and sympathy.