Socially Unacceptable

My today's socially unacceptable business idea: Ask Ricky Martin to do a "I kissed a boy, and I liked it" cover version of Katy Perry's "I kissed a girl", and sell it to gay clubs.

Catch me if you will

That’s the catch 22 of our species. The very same human features that made us dominate the world will prevent us from doing so in a sustainable way. Without them, we wouldn’t be where we are today, but because of them, we will not be able to remain here for much longer.
I guess I just should stop listening to the news.

The Better Choice

I wonder what would have happened if Jesus had dictated his New Testament, word after word, to his disciples, rather than letting a bunch of people compile it according to their own ideas, long time after his death. A bit like the Qur'an. But in a way that would not allow abusing his teachings to support acts of violence. Probably impossible - we are a bunch of clever people. And Jesus wasn't lawyer, but a poor carpenter. Yep, a clever lawyer would have been better. Given all the atrocities that were carried out in his name, over the centuries, did God chose the wrong guy? But then, wouldn't this mean he probably wasn't God. Maybe just the milkman?

Tickle That Rat

Truly seen on TV: There was this grey-bearded serious scientist, who spent two years tickling rats on their bellies - and found out they liked it. And there was this biologist, who recorded elephant sounds in Africa, and played them to elephants in a European zoo - and found out they were intrigued.
No, this was not a poorly known Monty Python sketch, this was a serious TV report on animal's feelings...
It's been 150 years that the Origin of the Species has been published, and still experts in the field are surprised to see that other mammals behave and feel in a way very similar to us...
Poor Darwin.

Quo Vadis Homo Sapiens?

Ironically, even among us, the only intelligent being on earth, according to our own standards, aggressiveness and competitive behaviour hold the key for success, not intelligence. A strong dumb people can always crush a weaker but more intelligent one. And does it. It’s a pity. We would know enough now to guarantee a happy life for every being on this planet. But humans are selected for aggressiveness, and we can’t jump over our own genetic shadow. Evolution can’t restart an organism from scratch. We can’t change human nature. And if we don’t change we won’t make it for much longer. Another ten thousand years? Highly improbable, considering the damage we have caused in only the last one hundred years. It’s obvious, it’s silly, we all know what humanity would need to do; but we don’t. We know it and we don’t. And there will always be war, and there will always be someone cutting the last tree and fishing the last fish. That’s the hard limit of our type of intelligence. That’s where the primate grins. And so be it; Homo sapiens sapiens, creation’s self-nominated crowing glory, and the last representative of the genus Homo, will not even have delved on earth for half a million years. An extremely short-lived evolutionary flop. After all, it really wasn’t a good idea to make this brain just that little bit bigger. Just a little bigger.
(Taken from BLT: 'This Monkey's Gone To Heaven')

Geopolitical Minimiser

As I write these lines, many die and suffer in Gaza (and elsewhere in our happy world), to satisfy the political and personal interests of a few. Again, without surprise, the UN did not come to a conclusion about concrete actions. Facing human incapability for intelligent and 'humane' decision making, I wonder if one couldn't just program a 'Geopolitical Minimiser'. Feed it all data concerning a particular conflictual region, and let it find a solution that minimises all constraints (available surface area, access to resources, ethnical compatibility, necessary displacements of persons, etc...). And accept the solution!
However, I fear that the intelligent objectivity will be smashed in pieces by human stupidity and drive for power and money. Quo vadis Homo sapiens?

Scientific Stream of Conscience II

In an initial RNA world, Protein would have tended to gather around RNA. Nucleic acid binding as one of the oldest traits of proteins. Going over to more protein-based function, did evolution proceed by create proteins that substituted for central RNA/DNA. Scaffolding proteins as replacement? Protein signalling complexes evolved from protein-Nuc. acid complexes? Look for similarities in Nuc. acid binding features and protein-protein interactions. Maybe it's not directly linear in evolution, but more as a derived feature, using already existing traits. Signallosomes as loose ribyzymes?

Scientific Stream of Conscience I

Cellular networks share characteristics with social networks. Use social simulation program to test hypothesis on cellular networks. Use character traits (Sticks moderatly to many, sticks specifically to one, attracts many non-specifically, inhibits actions (fatigue), stimulates actions (alcohol)). Use floating, gaussian distribution of strengths of traits. Allow mutations, and combination of traits (or combining single characters). Allow for parallel, overlapping actions. Is there any computer game that could be used? Auto-Sims? For deterministic History, could removal of persons be compared with removal of nodes in protein interaction network? Hitler as a GPCR? Einstein as p53?