Humane actions to save the Devil

The native Tasmanian human population has been exterminated by us, without the blink of an eye. But now the international community produces immense financial and human efforts to save the Tasmanian Devil. Is the Tasmanian Devil closer to us than the Tasmanian Human?

The Fête de l'Humanité ended yesterday.

Why work-life balance is bound to make you unhappy and unbalanced. And what we can do instead.

What is Work-Life Balance?

According to wikipedia:

 “Work-Life Balance is a broad concept including proper prioritizing between ‘work’ (career and ambition) on one hand and ‘life’ (pleasure, leisure, family and spiritual development) on the other.” 

However in real life, Work-Life Balance means both of two things:

1) to pay my bills, I spend most of my awake life-time with something that is neither pleasure nor leisure, that hurts my family, and transforms me into an ungodly villain.

2) if I'm stressed and overworked, than it's my own fault, because I'm too dumb to get the work-life balance right.

This is depressing. Therefore I came up with a new concept: the Balanced Worklife. 

Yes, it’s all in the word order and the absence of the hyphen. It’s a fine concept; the problem is I am not yet quite sure what it actually means.

Maybe: Rather than trying to stop the wicked ‘Work’ just seconds before it definitely crushes the jolly ‘Life’, we should attempt to have a well-balanced ‘Worklife’. An entangled harmonious Oneness. Fine – and how do we do that? Honestly, I don’t know. I guess it’s much in the intention. If I am frustrated and angry because I need to stop work to find a birthday present for my wife, and then am even more upset because this obliges me to spend the following Sunday finishing a manuscript, than that’s reasonable Work-Life balance, but an unbalanced Worklife. If I accept to work on a Sunday as a result of having made my wife happy the other day, well, then that’s much better, even though the facts are just the same.

But intention is also that: If I work hard to be recognized or rewarded (at work or at home), then this will leave me frustrated or bitter, even if I succeed. However if I am totally dedicated to what I am doing, I do not need a reward to be happy – even though I am likely to get one as a result. In a nutshell: Be dedicated, and be aware of it, at any moment, and, on occasion, do all those things wise people in baggy cloths have told us for millennia. I mean, what are the chances they were all wrong?

Sales Managers: What would humanity be without them?

Sales Managers for scientific instruments are incredible. They have absolutely no idea about the products they sell, and don't even hide it. Here is an excerpt from my (ME) last weeks encounter with one (SM):

ME: So what brought you to our institute today.

SM: I am trying to meet a few people and see if I can sell some things. - What do you do?

ME: Molecular Biophysics.

SM: I don't know this method. What do you need? [starts dropping random catalogues on my table]

ME: So what is the measuring volume of this instrument?

SM: I don't know. It's in the catalogue.

ME: We already have an instrument of the other company in our core facilities.

SM: Apparently there is a problem with this instruments. They don't like it.

ME: What is the problem?

SM: I don't know.

SM: The other company does not have customer support here. We have customer support.

ME: Where is he based?

SM: In Belgium.

ME: That is more than 5000 miles away, on a different continent.

SM: Yes, but he comes here regularly. And I only live 1 hour away. I can come too, and help.

MS: But you don't know the instrument.

SM: No sir.

ME: I thought this SPR method was patented. How did your company deal with it?

SM: I don't know.

ME: I don't think SPR is a useful method. I never had any good results with Biacore. What is the difference between your company and biacore?

SM: It's better.

ME: why is it better?

SM: I don't know. My company says so. 

ME: ...?

SM: I can put you in contact with our application specialist. He will call you.

ME: No, please just give me his contact details, and I will contact him if I need to.

SM: He will call you in the next few days.

ME: I do not need to be called. I will call if I need to.

Two days later I received a stream of email messages, including:

Dear Dr. Massimo:

Day before yesterday I met Prof Bernhard and we had a discussion about NanO ITC and, he wants to have a comparison statement on our Nano ITC with Microcal.

Secondly he has to clarify some more points with Application and so we recommend that you will call him as a courtesy.

Is it possible to call him? He is ready for a Skype Call also. Below is his contact info.

[...]

and:

Dear Dr. Bernhard:

Our Senior Application Specialist sent a mail as below.

She wants to talk to you.

Please let me know by return mail , whether this time is OK for a call?

Please let me know your convenient time

Regards

Reasons for Violence

It is astonishing what reasons one Homo sapiens puts forward to use violence against another Homo sapiens. There is how one calls god (Christian vs Muslim vs Hindu vs Jews vs ...), but also down to the very details of how one interprets the same religious text (sunni vs shiites; protestant vs catholic..). There are colour of skin, or of hair, language, if someone earns a living with livestock or with agriculture (Darfur), what kind of human one is attracted to (hetero vs homosexuality), geographic origin (especially in neighbouring regions), what kind of sports team one favours, gender (male vs female), ... and some of the worst conflicts are based on differences between people that are so similar, that even modern science struggles to find out what these differences actually are, apart from the name of the group (Hutu vs Tutsi).
Differences between humans are simple pretexts, rather than true reasons, for violence.

Images of God #2

There is this wise and spiritual man, who has several followers. He spreads a message of peace and tolerance. He gets killed by another man, with a hatchet. The disciples of the killed decide to use an image of a hatched as symbol for the wise man and his message. How much will this choice of symbol affect the way future generations of disciples will spread, interpret and adapt the teachings - and interact with ‘non-believers’, especially those of the same group as the killer?

Who chose the cross? Why not a heart? How would our history have changed had early Christians chosen a different image? How would the focus and evolution of Christianity have changed?

Recycling the religious police

In Saudi Arabia and a few other places, members of the mutaween (religious police) circulate to enforce proper attire and behaviour among the population. However, it seems to me that their actions are mostly insignificant. People choose their dress code according to their own, their family's or the country's standards, and not because of the mutaween. In fact, if criticised for not covering their hair in public, a woman will simply put on the veil just for a few steps, until she passed the mutaween, and then take it off immediately.
So the actions of the mutaween appear to be mostly a waste of energy and time.
Yet, at the same time, plastic waste is accumulating all over Saudi Arabia. It's a threat to the environment, and disfigures the country.
My wife had therefore a great idea: she suggests to transform the religious police into an environmental police. This new cohort of mutaween should simply encourage citizens not to litter, and make sure that the population adopts good practices with respect to the environment. A pure spirit in a pure country - recycling the religious police!

Images of God #1

There is this wise and spiritual man, who has several followers. He spreads a message of peace and tolerance. He gets killed by another man, with a hatchet. The disciples of the killed decide to use an image of a hatched as symbol for the wise man and his message. How much will this choice of symbol affect the way future generations of disciples will spread, interpret and adapt the teachings, and interact with ‘non-believers’?

Who chose the cross? Why not a heart? How would our history have changed had early Christians chosen a different image? How would the focus and evolution of Christianity have changed?

Talking about Temptation

It is interesting how different cultures deal with temptation - such as sex or non-recommended food or drinks. In places like Saudi Arabia or other conservative Muslim strongholds, temptation is dealt with by removing the tempting object as much as possible. For example women are covered from head to toe, including the face, not allowed in certain places or separated from men, and contacts between unmarried men and women are highly restricted (in public). Pork, alcohol and places of cults for other religions are not allowed. During Ramadan, restaurants, cafes and other shops are closed at day time, and eating and drinking in public is not allowed during the fasting hours.
In capitalistic countries, temptation is exalted to sell any type of product. Temptation is highly perfected, with top level science and technology allowing to maximise temptation for each individual. Also for persons, to be a temptation to others is considered positive, as long as within certain limits. Hence in these countries, omnipresent and targeted temptation has to be faced with ones own financial and personal limits.
In which system are people globally happier, and less frustrated? Should we eradicate temptation, use it to sell products, or is there another way?

You know you are living the American Dream...

...when the end of your weekend feels like your weak end.

Are we wasting our time and money?

In most social species, the perception that one animal has about the other is simply linked to clear physical traits (size, age, body features) and character (aggressive, fearful, etc). Homo sapiens however spends an awful amount of time, effort and money to manipulate the perception that others have of him or her. This includes altering physical traits by putting colour on face and hair, covering the body with particular types of cloth, lifting weights and taking all sorts of chemicals, some of which by mouth, skin, or through injections; using fake hair, nails or eye lashes, implanting silicon, or purchasing special items. Also included are time-consuming efforts for addressing one or several other Homo sapiens in a particular manner, by speech or writing. However, just as much as Homo sapiens has become expert in manipulating physical and character traits, Homo sapiens has become expert in detecting these manipulations. Homo sapiens therefore needs to spend more and more time in manipulative actions to have at least a slim chance for a short-term illusion.

As an alternative to this escalation: Should we just all accept who we are and stop wasting our time and money?

A lapidary inquest into the meaning of the word 'humane'

[...]

>Lapland sounds nice! - are you going to the Swedish or Finish Lapland?

- It's Finish Lapland. Is this more lapidary?

>Nope, they are about 'equal' in status. Anyway, they are occupied territories where the natives (the 'lap'-people) have been displaced and abused by the governments in Helsinki and Stockholm... Not to make you feel bad about your holiday destination :-).

- As a German, it is somehow mildly reassuring that other nations did also do a bit of unnecessary intra-species violence.

As a scientist, I'd say this proves once more the point that the selection within the human race is not done by intelligence, but by violence. Which explains a lot about our planet's current state.

As a human, I'd say that's one more proof for the fact that the current meaning of the word 'humane' is wrong and should be replaced by 'unnecessary intra-species violence with medium to extreme brutality'.

the right kiss : does kissing make our love last longer?

In our body, we have about 10 times more microorganism cells than human cells. Especially our skin, mouth and digestive system are full of them. The body’s microorganisms have been shown to determine partner choice in some species, where one individual prefers a partner who has a similar microbiome in its body. Could it be that we kiss and touch our partners so to exchange and homogenise our microbes? If so, then this behaviour may improve our relationship. Or, more intriguingly, is our kissing and touching behaviour influenced by our microbes, to allow them to inhabit other individuals of our species? Unlikely? Well, a number of behaviour-altering effects of microorganims on humans have been reported...

Intraspecies vs Interspecies communications. In fact we are alone.

If you get the chance, dive around a coral reef. The complexity of interactions between species is amazing. Of course, much more of the interactions are not visible, for example the symbiosis between corals and dinoflagellates. Of course, all other wild animals are constantly in exchange and relation with other wild species. In comparison, we modern humans, with how many other species do we interact on a daily basis? Mostly none, except for those who have a pet. However pets are adjusted to humans, and depend on us. So in fact, we're the only species who does not interact with all others. We're pretty alone - but so complex in our head that we are so much occupied with ourselves that we don't really notice how alone we are.

Re: Darwinian selection of religions

Following up on my question of why world religions are so malleable in their interpretations (see my post 'Darwinian selection of religions'), I asked a Muslim why the Qur'an has not been written more clearly and explicitly. She said that the ambiguity in the Qur'an is a test for followers. The way you interpret the text--with love or hate, with a spirit of openness or of exclusion--is a mirror of your soul. The first word of the Qur'an, 'iqra', can be interpreted as 'read!' (with meanings such as 'follow closely [the prescriptions]), or 'instruct yourself!' (which could mean to learn, gather knowledge), or 'search!' (which could mean to search in yourself, or in the scriptures, to understand).

Seek - and you will find... yourself?

Comedy Relief

I wonder how the world would change if everyone watched or listened to a 5-min hilarious comedy show or transmission three times a day.

The American Dream #7: total freedom to rest

On Friday at 2 pm, you notice  that you have utterly, completely and satisfactorily finished all your things on all your to-do lists.

The American Dream #6:

total security

Religious racism - Relicism?

A good friend has slowly drifted into a ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam. As the second wife of an ulema, a Muslim scholar, completely covered in public, and reading only the Qur'an at home, she says she was never happier. Is this a good thing as long as she does not harm anyone? Can educating her children in the same fundamentalist way be considered 'harm' or 'doing the best for her children to the best of her knowledge'?

Would my reaction have been different if she had joined a fundamentalist current of Buddhism instead, an interpretation which does not allow music, encourages daily studying of the holy texts, provides a strict daily schedule and obliges her to wear a particular garment in a particular colour?

How much of my 'common sense' reactions are due to 'relicism' - some sort of religious racism?

Darwinian selection of religions

Every human group appears to have forged their spiritual experiences into some sort of religious framework. Why do we nonetheless only have a handful of world religions, rather than a patchwork of local beliefs, as diverse as human ethnic groups and their geographic situations? Why have almost all of these world religions been used as a pretext to commit the most horrible acts of violence, although all preach non-violent behaviour as a core value? And why are all these religions based on holy texts that are so ambiguous that followers fight over right and wrong interpretations, and use the same text to justify one thing and its opposite? Is it simply the result of the features a religion needs to have to survive and dominate others?  

Imagine for example a religion that is based on a half page of text that states simply and clearly that as a follower, you have to (for example) pray/meditate with good intentions, not harm anyone in any way, treat everybody like you want to be treated and help those in need. Full-stop. Either you do this, or you’re out. Would this religion have millions of followers and thrive for centuries? Or imagine a religion that is founded by a wise old woman who lives alone on a remote island and has no intentions to travel. Would this religion stand any chance of survival against a religion that is malleable, permissive, adaptive, and aggressively promoted worldwide by a powerful people? Even the most ingenious virus that infected only the Dodo has died out. Or, on the other hand, how peaceful can a religion be that is spread through violence?

Are our current dominating religions simply the result of a Darwinian (and hence human) struggle for survival? 

Your own, personal Jesus - part II: Copyright on Jesus - DENIED

In my previous post I wrote how I prepared a short personal version of Jesus' teachings based on selecting and rewriting passages from the Complete Gospels.
Since I thought that this particular selection I made highlighted unusual aspects of Jesus' teachings, I thought I may just self-online publish the text in case anyone is interested.
I therefore contacted the editor of the Complete Gospels just to make sure there is no problem with it.
Here is the short answer I received:

Polebridge Press, the copyright holder,  denies you the right to use any part, or a substantial similarity, of The Complete Gospels edited by Robert J. Miller, in all media now known or later developed. This matter is now closed and not open to any further negotiation.

I was quite puzzled by this reply. One the one hand, of course, the Complete Gospels were written based on new translations of all available texts, which took a tremendous amount of time, effort and expertise. From this point of view the text deserves the copyright. On the other hand, it seems wired that one can be forbidden to publish a text of 'substantial similarity' to the Complete Gospels... after 2000 years during which substantially similar versions of Jesus' gospels were taught all over the world.

Of course, it is extremely unlikely that reading my little text would have stopped anyone from buying the Complete Gospels (which I strongly recommend reading!).