This is going to be Michael Crichton week here on the blog. Before it really gets rolling, I’d like to point out that Michael Crichton has given us some interesting books on cutting-edge science issues.
The Andromeda Strain is one that also became a movie (and a really good movie, at that). It anticipated a coming science issue that I really wish people would pay more attention to.
One extraterrestrial bug can ruin your whole civilization.
Yesterday I mentioned a theory that excessive modern hygiene–which is a form of risk reduction–leads to the under- and overdevelopment of different aspects of our immune system. If parents don’t let kids go out and play in the dirt, their developing immune systems don’t get the workout they need to develop properly.
That’s the theory anyway.
Unfortunatley, this is not the only area in which parents are inclined to be overprotective of their children today. In the last few decades, parents have been driven absolutely wild with worry about their children (and the media is in significant measure to blame) and this has led them to take an extraordinarily risk-averse approach to parenting that would have struck prior generations (and which does strike other cultures today) as obsessive.
This is true among devout Catholic and Evangelical parents, as well, including homeschoolers (and I count myself as a BIG fan of homeschooling; should I ever be so fortunate as to marry and have kids, I am determined to do what is necessary for them to have a solid homeschooled education).
Recognizing the horriffic culture rot going on around them, Christians have frequently tried to shield children excessively from the challenges of modern culture (e.g. not letting them see scary movies, violent movies, movies with cuss words in them, etc., etc., etc.).
At times, it seems that modern parents (both religious and non-religious alike) are driven by the assumption that they must protect their children from every possible danger or they are being bad parents.
No.
Quite the contrary.
Their job as parents is to raise children who are able to function successfully as adults in the culture as it is, not to forever shield them from any and all dangers.
Since our culture today poses many risks (to adults as well as children!) that means children must be prepared to deal with these risks. The only way for that to happen is to allow children to be progressively exposed to more and more risk–and feel both the rewards of responsible behavior and the pain of irresponsible behavior–so that they learn how to manage it.
Sure, when kids are first born they are completely helpless and have to be shielded and taken care of in virtually everything, but as they grow they have to be allowed to face risks and dangers, in a very limited way at first but with progressively more self-reliance as they age. (Some things, of course, being things to which parents must never willingly let them be exposed, like porn).
If children are shielded from danger and never allowed to make their own decisions (even foolish ones) as they age then bad consequences will follow.
Certain aspects of their psyche will underdevelop and others will overdevelop.
How many parents have had their kids go off to college and, for the first time suddenly free of direct parental control, go completely nuts? How many other parents have kids who can’t seem to cut the cord of dependence on parents, well into physical adulthood? How many have both happenb? These are consequences of not letting children face risk and assume responsibility as they grow.
Even secularists are noting the phenomenon.
[SOURCE.]
Starting caption:
1) Brightly-Colored Comforter Eats Woman!
2) Something You Can Do When You’re In Bed And Someone Comes To The Door.
3) LATEST SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY: Russian Fashions Even Worse Than Italian Fashions
HERE’S A STORY QUOTING YUSHCHENKO’S CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING THAT ELEMENTS OF THE KGB MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DIOXIN POISONING.
I would assume that the KGB (a) has access to all kinds of poisons that are far less detectable than dioxin and (b) knows how to actually use such poisons so as to guarantee the death of the victim.
Dioxin appears to be highly detectable (as indicated by the fact they were able to confirm it by testing a living, metabolizing subject long after the poisoning occurred). It also normally builds up over time before it becomes fatal. Nobody has really known till now, it seems, what it does in high, sudden doses. Thus it would be an unreliable way of killing someone and one that would make the fact that a poisoning occurred abundantly clear (leading to an investigation and public outrage).
This sounds more to me like it was the work of amateurs–local Ukranian politicos who had access to dioxin and decided to use it on Yushchenko without really having expertise in a wide range of poisons or how to use them.
The oscillating airflow droid that I keep in my bedroom finally conked out, so I went out and bought a new one this weekend (yes, we may still need droids of this type at this time of year here in a semi-desert environment).
Put it together myself, though the box it came in looked like it had been previously opened and taped shut, so the K-Mart Jawas who sold it to me might have been trying to pull a fast one.
Will be sleeping with one eye open for a few nights.
Not sure if I can trust it yet.
If I can’t, I’ll have to take it down to Anchorhead and have its memory flushed.
HERE’S A STORY QUOTING YUSHCHENKO’S CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING THAT ELEMENTS OF THE KGB MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DIOXIN POISONING.
I would assume that the KGB (a) has access to all kinds of poisons that are far less detectable than dioxin and (b) knows how to actually use such poisons so as to guarantee the death of the victim.
Dioxin appears to be highly detectable (as indicated by the fact they were able to confirm it by testing a living, metabolizing subject long after the poisoning occurred). It also normally builds up over time before it becomes fatal. Nobody has really known till now, it seems, what it does in high, sudden doses. Thus it would be an unreliable way of killing someone and one that would make the fact that a poisoning occurred abundantly clear (leading to an investigation and public outrage).
This sounds more to me like it was the work of amateurs–local Ukranian politicos who had access to dioxin and decided to use it on Yushchenko without really having expertise in a wide range of poisons or how to use them.
A reader writes:
I was listening to Ave Maria Radio approx. 2 – 3 weeks ago, and you answered a question from a listener regarding the kinds of souls. For example, you had mentioned that plants have a vegetated soul….what do humans and animals have???
According to this division of souls:
These distinctions go back to Aristotle’s discussion of the powers of the soul but were picked up by the Medievals (e.g., Aquinas). An important point that was stressed by them is that each entity only has one soul, which is the substantial form of the body. Therefore, it’s not that animals have two souls and humans have three. Each soul type includes the functions of lower types.
Whoa!
According to Rationalist International, Antony Flew has issued a statement affirming atheism and appearing to suggest that, although he notes the advance of science-oriented arguments for the existence of God, he has not been convinced by them.
Something is rotten in Denmark (and, well, most of the rest of Europe, anyway).
Given the claims made in the ABC news story (which quoted a telephone interview with Flew) and the interview with Flew that Philosophia Chrisi is publishing (which quotes Flew responding to questions about his "theism" and describing his own views as "deistic"), I see four possibilities:
Time will tell what is the case.
UPDATE!: It appears that option #1 may well be the case. Despite the fact that the R.I. bulletin is headlined in a way that conveys the impression the statement it reports was generated recently (it is headlined Bulletin #137 [12 December 2004]), a careful reading of the text accompanying Flew’s statement indicating that it is an old statement, not one issued in response to the present reports. Rationalist International seems to have republished the statement in an attempt to create confusion regarding Flew’s present position.
Be warned, as you may well encounter people passing off the Rationalist International statement as a recent one.
The bulletin also reports a quote dated October 2004 from Flew in which he appears to refuse to affirm the proposition "Probably God exists." There are two problems with this, however: (1) The quotation only includes Flew’s response to a proposition put to him and does not include the proposition itself; we have to rely on R.I. for that. (2) Many philosophers for technical reasons might assert the impossibility of assessing the "probablity" (construed in a mathematical sense) of God’s existence but still feel justified in believing in him for other reasons. Flew may fall into that category.
What is ultimately needed to settle the matter is a new statement from Flew, but it appears at this point that Rationalist International has acted in bad faith by republishing previous statements instead of contacting Flew directly and obtaining a new one.
Whoa!
According to Rationalist International, Antony Flew has issued a statement affirming atheism and appearing to suggest that, although he notes the advance of science-oriented arguments for the existence of God, he has not been convinced by them.
Something is rotten in Denmark (and, well, most of the rest of Europe, anyway).
Given the claims made in the ABC news story (which quoted a telephone interview with Flew) and the interview with Flew that Philosophia Chrisi is publishing (which quotes Flew responding to questions about his "theism" and describing his own views as "deistic"), I see four possibilities:
Time will tell what is the case.
UPDATE!: It appears that option #1 may well be the case. Despite the fact that the R.I. bulletin is headlined in a way that conveys the impression the statement it reports was generated recently (it is headlined Bulletin #137 [12 December 2004]), a careful reading of the text accompanying Flew’s statement indicating that it is an old statement, not one issued in response to the present reports. Rationalist International seems to have republished the statement in an attempt to create confusion regarding Flew’s present position.
Be warned, as you may well encounter people passing off the Rationalist International statement as a recent one.
The bulletin also reports a quote dated October 2004 from Flew in which he appears to refuse to affirm the proposition "Probably God exists." There are two problems with this, however: (1) The quotation only includes Flew’s response to a proposition put to him and does not include the proposition itself; we have to rely on R.I. for that. (2) Many philosophers for technical reasons might assert the impossibility of assessing the "probablity" (construed in a mathematical sense) of God’s existence but still feel justified in believing in him for other reasons. Flew may fall into that category.
What is ultimately needed to settle the matter is a new statement from Flew, but it appears at this point that Rationalist International has acted in bad faith by republishing previous statements instead of contacting Flew directly and obtaining a new one.
TiVo is sending news organizations cease-and-desist letters to keep them from using TiVo as a verb… Developing…
Guess the folks at TiVo aren’t as good a sports as the good folks at Hormel.
Just can’t stop languages from developing, guys.