If that title doesn't attract attention I don't know what will!
Why would I want to blog about such a subject? Well, for one thing, it's about one of my favourite topics! :) For another it might prompt more responses than my usual posts! I like stirring things up and hopefully making people think. I also like to argue :) Additionally, it is quite an important issue that causes heated debate over womens rights, exploitation, objectification, public breast-feeding and so on.
What prompted me to write this? Over the last couple of days I accidentally stumbled across a couple of on-line discussions around this topic. One was actually a discussion between Muslims debating the size of the breasts of the virgins they would be rewarded with in paradise!! Some women were commenting that breasts are for babies and so God and Muhammed wouldn't comment on breasts or breast size in the Koran, as it has nothing to do with men. In the other conversation concerning breast-feeding, some women were blaming the media, men and society for sexualising breasts which were created\developed for the feeding of babies.
These women were wrong. Breasts are not for feeding babies, although the milk producing tissue they contain obviously is. Organs that were developed for one purpose have expanded, literally and figuratively, to include a new function: to attract a mate. A little thought can show this to be the case:
If I see a woman walking away from me down the road I could, from her height, give you a very good estimate as to the size of her eyes, her heart, lungs, liver and so on. Not so breasts. Further more, even an assessment of her body fat percentage is no reliable indicator of breast size. Some skinny women have large breasts, some larger women have small breasts. Most other organs of the body are roughly in a fixed proportion in the average person - an exception is the penis (see below). Yes, there are extremes but these are unusual. Breast size varies enormously and unpredictably as the norm. If every other organ has a relatively fixed size commensurate with its function, why not breasts?
If breasts themselves are required for feeding babies, how do flat-chested women feed their off-spring? Many women do worry about that but it isn't a problem. Ask any mid-wife or check on-line. Breast size is irrelevant to the ability to feed a baby. Flat-chested women are perfectly able to feed their children and, unfortunately, the opposite is also true: many well endowed women have problems, through no fault of their own, in feeding their children.
Other animals don't have large breasts. Elephant babies need huge amounts of milk but elephants don't have huge udders. Those animals that do have large udders tend to be domesticated. We have made them that way to give us unnatural amounts of milk for our breakfast cereal!
One argument, put forward by a female researcher Gillian Bentley - who blamed sexist male academics for the 'myth' of breasts being primarily a sexual organ - was that the large, round breast shape evolved to avoid suffocation of human babies since, unlike our ape cousins, we have flat faces. Quite how potentially smothering a babies face with a big, squashy balloon avoids suffocating them, I don't know. But the argument is obviously flawed anyway: in addition to being perfectly able to feed their babies, flat-chested mothers don't have any problems at all in not suffocating their child!
I am fascinated by primates, having many books and wall posters full of our closest relatives. On my wall is a picture of a mother macaque feeding her baby. Scaled up to human size, her nipple would be about a foot long. Wouldn't that make more sense to avoid suffocation? A sort of external umbilical cord. Why the need for a large, costly body structure which is totally unnecessary?
Another of Bentleys arguments was that only in Western culture do we 'eroticise' breasts, whereas other cultures don't. Such as Japan, where they focus on feet, so she said. She obviously hasn't seen much Japanese porn... ummm,,, Don't ask..!!! A misspent youth....!
Henry Mackow PH.D argues again - in somewhat deranged fashion: he seems to actually hate breasts (describing them as ugly), the poor man - that again, only Western society sexualises breasts and that in other cultures, such as in Africa, women regularly expose their breasts without attracting constant unwanted male attention.... I like Tiramisu, but I don't lose control of myself in the chilled dessert aisle of the local supermarket, nor am I constantly hungry...! Similarly, just because some African women may have their breasts exposed doesn't mean the associated African men are going to be jumping on them all the time. Yes, exposure reduces stimulation but that applies to anything. I would tune out even my favourite music, if it was played too frequently in too short a period of time. Human needs wax and wane with availability and satiation. I find food appealing when I'm hungry not when I've just enjoyed a heavy meal.
Another counter argument is that, when we look at art, what is considered attractive in terms of breast size, changes over time, even in our own culture. But that ignores the very fact that the sexual nature of breasts means that they get... how can I say this without sounding perverted.. 'bound up' with other concepts. For example, religion. It isn't difficult to see how, during the Puritan period, breasts would be hidden and given less emphasis in art, but in the more liberal Restoration, breasts, as well as many other sensual, more earthly aspects of life would again become more obvious. Again: in times of shortage, those flaunting a fuller figure show wealth and access to resources which can attract jealousy and antipathy. Whatever, large or small, all the evidence points to men finding prominent breasts more attractive than no breasts.
What is one of the defining traits of humans that differentiates us from all other animals? Amongst the obvious others, a major one is: we walk upright. The fronts of our bodies are exposed for all to see to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon clothing. In the immortal words of Buck, the weasel, from Ice Age 3: "Why say 'I've got your back'? I'd prefer them to watch my front, that's where all the interesting stuff is!" Being hairless, upright, visually biased creatures, the fronts of our bodies are excellent for signalling. One of the things they signal is sexual status. In women, breasts signal age - indicating whether a woman is able to breed - and food reserve status. Being made of fat, breasts indicate a woman has food reserves available to feed a baby. This is both biologically available, in her body, and by implication, the means to obtain more.
Numerous studies have shown that on average, men prefer larger breasts:
"Womens bust size and men's courtship solicitation" Gueguen 2007
Beck, Ward-Hull, and McLear (1976)
Wildman and Wildman (1976)
Gitter, Lomranz, Saxe, and Bar-Tal (1983)
Although the world over, the largest percentage of women in most countries fall into the B bra cup size, those who take a C or D, in most western countries, equal or exceed that percentage. This is with the notable exception of Italy where 68% of women are cup size B!, and surprisingly, considering the incidence of obesity America where C and D cup combined percentages of 38% are less than B cup 44%. An interesting statistic to note is that the more well endowed women appear to come from Britain! Despite having a lower obesity rate than America, only 19% wear a B cup, 18% a C cup while a whopping 57% wear a D cup. Either there is something special in the water here or a lot of bras are being stuffed with socks! Statistics are from: Triumph Bra manufacturer survey 2007. An alternative explanation is, of course, that for some unknown reason, different nations have different preferences for different sizes of Triumph bra. Perhaps D cup sized women prefer a different brand in Italy, for example.
In one interesting experiment, a young woman who normally wore an A cup bra was used as a lure for men in a nightclub. For three, three hour sessions she wore exactly the same clothes and sat in exactly the same spot in the club. The exception was that with each subsequent session her bra size was increased a cup size, with appropriate padding. An observer counted how many times the woman was approached by a man in each session. The results were:
Cup size A 13 approaches.
Cup size B 19 approaches.
Cup size C 44 approaches.
It seems then, that because of the signals they convey, prominent breasts have been selected for by male choice. Surveys (including the Triumph survey above) have shown that less than 10% of women wear a cup size A. So, why don't all women have huge breasts? For one thing, they are costly to maintain in terms of energy and their physical presence would be a detriment to physical activity during most of our evolution. No use having an obvious but heavy fertility signal, carrying a large amount of fat, when trying to escape a hungry leopard... For another: mate choice. Assuming he isn't gay, Mr Mackow is an example that shows that although the average man prefers relatively (compared to our ape cousins) larger breasts, some are not bothered or are actively turned off by large breasts. Then there is the question of availability. Fact and nature aren't interested in what is nice or not. It is simply a fact that a flat chested mate is better than no mate. That is not 'nice' but then neither is the consideration of the fact that, despite numerous studies showing that women find intelligence highly attractive, many dim men are perfectly able to find a partner. Sometimes you settle for what you can get. Genes for smaller breast size are maintained within the human gene-pool, albeit at a low percentage.
The fact that larger breast sizes occur in Westernised, developed societies doesn't show that other societies have different preferences. Take Japan again. Traditionally, they are a people short of stature. As their diets have westernised, so their height - along with their ill-health - has increased. The same applies to breasts. Whatever your genes code for can only be expressed if the environment provides the resources required.
Failure to act on the sexual signal at all times doesn't negate the fact that breasts have a primarily sexual purpose. I would argue that, in western society, the natural sexual signal of breasts attracts more attention than in, say, some areas of Africa or the Amazonian Rain forest, precisely because breasts are less obvious. So we are less attenuated to the signal. When we do get the signal, i.e. seeing breasts or part thereof, we respond more strongly.
There are consequences to these facts: men are going to be fascinated with breasts. They are going to peek and, if rude, stare. A woman has the absolute right to wear whatever she wishes, but if she exposes flesh then she is going to get attention. It is the most natural thing in the world for a woman to breast-feed a baby but again, it is equally natural for nearby men to feel 'uncomfortable'. However, we are not animals. We do not have the right to touch or worse. We know what is right and wrong and we have no right to violate a woman's rights. But women also have to acknowledge that men are biologically programmed to check them out. It isn't society sexualising baby-feeding 'machinery' or men being perverts. It is nature and part of the reason we have existed, as one related species or another, for millions of years. It's instinct and we all do it automatically. It's only when it become staring or when we are consciously aware of it that it is unacceptable.
In case anyone thinks all this shows that men are shallow compared to women: Compared to other primates the human penis is proportionally far larger than it needs to be. The male gorilla, at about 510 pounds weight, in the natural environment, has a penis of two inches. The average human male (excluding obesity) weighs around 180 pounds and has a penis of six inches. Methinks there has been some preferential selection going on there too: by women! Those signals again. As Buck said: "... the front. That's where all the interesting stuff is!"
Studies have also shown that the average woman is initially interested in what material goods a man can provide for her and her off-spring:
Borgerhoff Mulder, 1988, 1990
Buss, 1996;
Irons,1983
Symons, 1979
Betzig, 1989
Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996
Campbell, 2002
Sensible from an evolutionary point of view but not exactly how we like to think of ourselves. So shallow.
But other studies have shown that this shallowness fades as we age and other, non physical, non materialistic attributes become more important.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Judging or forgiving
Why do so many Christians have difficulty in understanding that Jesus told us not to judge each other but rather to love one another and forgive those who do wrong?
I won't go into details but suffice it to say that I know of someone who has probably done wrong and the attitudes of some members, of more than one church have been completely un-Christian in response.
By all means Christians, like any other, should take steps to ensure that the temptation and ability to do wrong again is removed or limited, but Jesus taught us to do no harm, to show love and forgiveness instead.
How do we reconcile Jesus's exhortations and statements with making someones transgressions public, calling for their livelihood to be threatened, ruining their reputation?
Jesus said (Matthew 18:15) that there is a process to be followed if you are wronged. A process that involves trying to resolve differences peacefully and discretely, without causing further harm. So, if someone wrongs you, discuss it with them first. If they will still not make things right, take just a couple of friends or fellow members of the church to try to persuade them. If that fails then take it to the church. Only then, if they refuse to cease wronging you, do you go to the law and make the matter public. That only applies to on-going, serious matters. Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who sinned against him. Seven times? he asked. Jesus replied "No, not seven times, seventy-seven times!". If someone has stopped doing you harm, you forgive them.
Jesus told the parable of the unmerciful servant who owed money to his master. He begged his master for release from his debt. That master took pity on the servant and did release him from the debt. However, that ungrateful man went to his fellows and assaulted him, demanding the money he himself was owed. This servant also begged for release from his debt but instead was thrown into jail! When the master heard of this he was angry that the first servant had begged for and received release from his own debts but been harsh with his fellow. So the unmerciful one was also thrown in jail and tortured. Jesus was most explicit: If you do not forgive the sins of your fellow men and women here on earth, God will treat you just as harshly as the master did the unmerciful servant.
We ask it every time we say the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us". We have no right to hope for forgiveness if we can not forgive those who do harm to us or our communities.
Some have argued that Jesus did not speak against judging others, that the well known "Judge not, lest ye also be judged" is actually just a call to be consistent i.e. to only judge by the rules that you too are willing to be judged by. But the context of Jesus's quote indicates that shows clearly that he was saying don't judge at all. He goes on to ask how you can comment on the sawdust speck in your brothers eye and ignore the plank in your own? In other words, we are all sinful in some way - ALL of us - it is wrong to judge the faults of others and not forgive them, when we too carry faults, many of which may be far worse.
Then there is the most famous of all of these exhortations not to judge and do harm to others simply because you think they are at fault: "Let he amongst you, who is without sin, cast the first stone". Again there are those who wriggle and say that Jesus didn't actually mean that we should forgive adulterers, he simply wanted to point out the hypocrisy of those accusing the woman, or he thought it was unfair that she was to be stoned when the man she must have been with, was not. But this does not fit with every other case in which Jesus says "Do not judge", "Forgive!". Jesus was quite able and perfectly willing to directly tell the Pharisees that they were hypocrites or the reason for his disagreement with their actions. Instead he told them that they should not judge and condemn, because they too are sinners.
Repeatedly, Jesus says that he wants mercy and forgiveness above sacrifice and punishment. Even if that means the breaking of the written Law, as in the adulteress case. He is the law, he came to clarify the true Law and free it from the restrictions imposed by the supposedly righteous Pharisees. He is the one we, as Christians, follow. His message of love, compassion and forgiveness transcend all. He himself indicated that the condemnation and punishment of the Old Testament were wrong - "You have heard that it was written 'eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth' but I tell you it is better not to resist the evil person". The greatest Law is Love, love for God and then Love for each other.
Incidentally, does this mean we should have no trials or jails? I do not believe so. We can not function as a society without the rule of law. However, we are duty bound, as Christians, to act with love. Both toward the accused and guilty, and to society. We should just forgive where we can and only impose those restrictions that are of absolute necessity if we can not just let someone's behaviour go unregarded. We should limit harm, even to the guilty, and treat all with love and compassion.
I won't go into details but suffice it to say that I know of someone who has probably done wrong and the attitudes of some members, of more than one church have been completely un-Christian in response.
By all means Christians, like any other, should take steps to ensure that the temptation and ability to do wrong again is removed or limited, but Jesus taught us to do no harm, to show love and forgiveness instead.
How do we reconcile Jesus's exhortations and statements with making someones transgressions public, calling for their livelihood to be threatened, ruining their reputation?
Jesus said (Matthew 18:15) that there is a process to be followed if you are wronged. A process that involves trying to resolve differences peacefully and discretely, without causing further harm. So, if someone wrongs you, discuss it with them first. If they will still not make things right, take just a couple of friends or fellow members of the church to try to persuade them. If that fails then take it to the church. Only then, if they refuse to cease wronging you, do you go to the law and make the matter public. That only applies to on-going, serious matters. Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who sinned against him. Seven times? he asked. Jesus replied "No, not seven times, seventy-seven times!". If someone has stopped doing you harm, you forgive them.
Jesus told the parable of the unmerciful servant who owed money to his master. He begged his master for release from his debt. That master took pity on the servant and did release him from the debt. However, that ungrateful man went to his fellows and assaulted him, demanding the money he himself was owed. This servant also begged for release from his debt but instead was thrown into jail! When the master heard of this he was angry that the first servant had begged for and received release from his own debts but been harsh with his fellow. So the unmerciful one was also thrown in jail and tortured. Jesus was most explicit: If you do not forgive the sins of your fellow men and women here on earth, God will treat you just as harshly as the master did the unmerciful servant.
We ask it every time we say the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us". We have no right to hope for forgiveness if we can not forgive those who do harm to us or our communities.
Some have argued that Jesus did not speak against judging others, that the well known "Judge not, lest ye also be judged" is actually just a call to be consistent i.e. to only judge by the rules that you too are willing to be judged by. But the context of Jesus's quote indicates that shows clearly that he was saying don't judge at all. He goes on to ask how you can comment on the sawdust speck in your brothers eye and ignore the plank in your own? In other words, we are all sinful in some way - ALL of us - it is wrong to judge the faults of others and not forgive them, when we too carry faults, many of which may be far worse.
Then there is the most famous of all of these exhortations not to judge and do harm to others simply because you think they are at fault: "Let he amongst you, who is without sin, cast the first stone". Again there are those who wriggle and say that Jesus didn't actually mean that we should forgive adulterers, he simply wanted to point out the hypocrisy of those accusing the woman, or he thought it was unfair that she was to be stoned when the man she must have been with, was not. But this does not fit with every other case in which Jesus says "Do not judge", "Forgive!". Jesus was quite able and perfectly willing to directly tell the Pharisees that they were hypocrites or the reason for his disagreement with their actions. Instead he told them that they should not judge and condemn, because they too are sinners.
Repeatedly, Jesus says that he wants mercy and forgiveness above sacrifice and punishment. Even if that means the breaking of the written Law, as in the adulteress case. He is the law, he came to clarify the true Law and free it from the restrictions imposed by the supposedly righteous Pharisees. He is the one we, as Christians, follow. His message of love, compassion and forgiveness transcend all. He himself indicated that the condemnation and punishment of the Old Testament were wrong - "You have heard that it was written 'eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth' but I tell you it is better not to resist the evil person". The greatest Law is Love, love for God and then Love for each other.
Incidentally, does this mean we should have no trials or jails? I do not believe so. We can not function as a society without the rule of law. However, we are duty bound, as Christians, to act with love. Both toward the accused and guilty, and to society. We should just forgive where we can and only impose those restrictions that are of absolute necessity if we can not just let someone's behaviour go unregarded. We should limit harm, even to the guilty, and treat all with love and compassion.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Does society owe anyone a living?
I would argue that yes, society does owe everyone a living. By that I mean the means to support themselves and keep themselves alive, not access to luxury.
Why do I feel this way? There are a number of reasons:
Firstly, natural justice: the natural order of things is that a creature is born and consumes what it requires from it's environment. Society prevents us from doing that. The simple presence of a society is an obstacle to a human being being self sufficient - or as near as it is possible for humans to be. In earlier times and in simpler societies today, small numbers of humans worked together to take what they needed from the environment in order to survive. Enclosing the land and allowing members of society to own it prevents this. Laws, created by societies, prevent us from simply taking the resources we require from another person. In return, I believe it only right and just, that society is required to provide at least the basics of survival.
Morality. It is completely wrong for an individual to consume a surfeit of resources, to have everything, while others may have nothing through no fault of their own. There is a creeping return to the attitude of Victorian times in which the poor are seen as poor due to their own faults, their laziness or lack of willingness to work. There are indeed those that will exploit any system and live off the hard work of others but, I believe, they are in a minority. Most people want the satisfaction, material things and opportunities that go with the acquisition of wealth through hard work. But not everyone can work. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Whatever effort they may make. I'm sure most people would accept that the disabled in mind or body should be supported by society. But what is ability and disability? A person may appear perfectly average but still be literally unable to provide for themselves. Ability is a continuum. We are all created equal in rights but are NOT created equal in ability. To argue otherwise is illogical and ignores genetics. Just because one person overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to succeed does not mean that everyone can. It is a myth that if you work hard enough, you can have everything and achieve anything. For every success story, there are ten others who failed, even though they may have worked as hard, expended just as much, or more, effort. Chance and circumstance play a far greater part in our lives than people are willing to accept. Those who say that we make our own luck are either incredibly lucky or incredibly stupid.
Then there is circumstance: A single parent with no family does not have the same opportunity to support herself and her child that a single person, with skills and a support network does. All very well saying that too many young girls get pregnant and then live off the state as many do, indeed, do in Britain. But what of the loyal wife abandoned by an errant husband or a husband whose wife has died? Everyone has a sob story? Some do make too many excuses but just as the majority of people are good and honest, so the majority of people would work to support themselves if their circumstances would allow it. It is simply unfortunately true that many people are hit by hardship that they have no control over.
My Christian faith: Obviously this doesn't apply to some people. Many do not believe. But I do. The basis of Christianity is love. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was to love God, the second to love each other as family. Allowing someone to suffer through want, is the opposite of love. A Christian must always take the view that society owes every human being the necessities of life.
The least important reason for providing every person with a living is self interest. Britain is said to currently have it's lowest crime rate for more than 30 years. Have prisons been deterring more people?, have penalties been higher? No, the economy has been booming and state protection of the vulnerable has been high. What happens when we start seeing people as lazy and undeserving when they don't have a job and reduce their state assistance as is starting to happen now? Crime rates rise. So what do we do? We employ more police to protect us, we have expensive trials and even more expensive custodial sentences. I have lived through those governments that try to blame the unemployed for their situation, that try to reduce their assistance and force them into jobs that simply don't exist. I remember the riots, the high crime rates as the desperate did anything they could to survive. And so we make victims, not only of those that we do not help but of those they harm. And it costs us more to do so than it would have done to simply give the people the basic resources they need to survive! It's all very well saying that "I had a tough time and didn't turn to crime". Perhaps not, perhaps you were lucky enough to have a support network, perhaps you were able to scrape by, but it is a simple fact that during tough times, crime surges and so it is simple self interest to ensure that everyone has the right to life, food and shelter.
Yes, all who are able to should support themselves, should contribute all they can to society. But take a persons ability to support themselves, in whatever circumstances, and you have a duty to support them.
Why do I feel this way? There are a number of reasons:
Firstly, natural justice: the natural order of things is that a creature is born and consumes what it requires from it's environment. Society prevents us from doing that. The simple presence of a society is an obstacle to a human being being self sufficient - or as near as it is possible for humans to be. In earlier times and in simpler societies today, small numbers of humans worked together to take what they needed from the environment in order to survive. Enclosing the land and allowing members of society to own it prevents this. Laws, created by societies, prevent us from simply taking the resources we require from another person. In return, I believe it only right and just, that society is required to provide at least the basics of survival.
Morality. It is completely wrong for an individual to consume a surfeit of resources, to have everything, while others may have nothing through no fault of their own. There is a creeping return to the attitude of Victorian times in which the poor are seen as poor due to their own faults, their laziness or lack of willingness to work. There are indeed those that will exploit any system and live off the hard work of others but, I believe, they are in a minority. Most people want the satisfaction, material things and opportunities that go with the acquisition of wealth through hard work. But not everyone can work. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Whatever effort they may make. I'm sure most people would accept that the disabled in mind or body should be supported by society. But what is ability and disability? A person may appear perfectly average but still be literally unable to provide for themselves. Ability is a continuum. We are all created equal in rights but are NOT created equal in ability. To argue otherwise is illogical and ignores genetics. Just because one person overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to succeed does not mean that everyone can. It is a myth that if you work hard enough, you can have everything and achieve anything. For every success story, there are ten others who failed, even though they may have worked as hard, expended just as much, or more, effort. Chance and circumstance play a far greater part in our lives than people are willing to accept. Those who say that we make our own luck are either incredibly lucky or incredibly stupid.
Then there is circumstance: A single parent with no family does not have the same opportunity to support herself and her child that a single person, with skills and a support network does. All very well saying that too many young girls get pregnant and then live off the state as many do, indeed, do in Britain. But what of the loyal wife abandoned by an errant husband or a husband whose wife has died? Everyone has a sob story? Some do make too many excuses but just as the majority of people are good and honest, so the majority of people would work to support themselves if their circumstances would allow it. It is simply unfortunately true that many people are hit by hardship that they have no control over.
My Christian faith: Obviously this doesn't apply to some people. Many do not believe. But I do. The basis of Christianity is love. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was to love God, the second to love each other as family. Allowing someone to suffer through want, is the opposite of love. A Christian must always take the view that society owes every human being the necessities of life.
The least important reason for providing every person with a living is self interest. Britain is said to currently have it's lowest crime rate for more than 30 years. Have prisons been deterring more people?, have penalties been higher? No, the economy has been booming and state protection of the vulnerable has been high. What happens when we start seeing people as lazy and undeserving when they don't have a job and reduce their state assistance as is starting to happen now? Crime rates rise. So what do we do? We employ more police to protect us, we have expensive trials and even more expensive custodial sentences. I have lived through those governments that try to blame the unemployed for their situation, that try to reduce their assistance and force them into jobs that simply don't exist. I remember the riots, the high crime rates as the desperate did anything they could to survive. And so we make victims, not only of those that we do not help but of those they harm. And it costs us more to do so than it would have done to simply give the people the basic resources they need to survive! It's all very well saying that "I had a tough time and didn't turn to crime". Perhaps not, perhaps you were lucky enough to have a support network, perhaps you were able to scrape by, but it is a simple fact that during tough times, crime surges and so it is simple self interest to ensure that everyone has the right to life, food and shelter.
Yes, all who are able to should support themselves, should contribute all they can to society. But take a persons ability to support themselves, in whatever circumstances, and you have a duty to support them.
Global Warming
Introduction.
There is great debate, upon internet fora, about the issue of global warming. There are those who, despite the evidence, claim there is no warming at all, and also those that accept the world is warming but state that it is natural. There are also those that state it is a great conspiracy between governments and international scientists.
I will try to show why I believe these naysayers have it wrong. I believe we humans are responsible for the current warming of the planet and must change our ways soon or face the consequences.
Is the world actually warming?
The period January 2010 to June 2010 has the warmest average since records began:
There is no major controversy over this fact - despite what naysayers might state. Our Earth is warming and only a few fringe scientists disagree. But then there are 'outliers' in all professions.
All over the world, glaciers are in retreat. Here is the 2010 UN report on the state of the worlds glaciers: (Warning large file 25mb): http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/glaciers.pdf
Many people judge the issue on what they see out of their window, or what happened last year. This is a narrow human outlook. It is the global trend over years that matters. Those that say that the winter of 09/10 proves global warming is false are just as bad as those misguided individuals that support the idea of global warming but state that one hot summer proves their point.
All the evidence points to a trend of rising temperatures all over the world.
What do those who argue against global warming, and the fact that it is caused by human action, say?
Q. If the planet is warming, why do we get bad winters like the one just gone?
This is simple to answer: There are so many factors that influence the weather that the average temperature of each individual year varies from one year to the other. It is the trend that matters, not the last couple of years or the current one.
Q. Isn't global warming just a big con by the government and scientists?
This would require a global conspiracy on a scale never seen before and involve the co-operation of countries that have been traditional enemies for generations. If one scientist could come up with evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming was some sort of hoax, then they would be awarded Nobel prizes.
This is a galling accusation to those of us who were activists in the 1980s when Governments had no interest in global warming. Students, other environmental activists and other non-government agencies worked extremely hard to get any action taken at all.
Such a conspiracy would also require the complicity of those incredibly rich, extremely powerful producers of carbon rich fuels, the oil, gas and coal companies, in actions that work against their own interests. Governments would hardly be likely to work against the very companies that conspiracy theorists believe rule governments, unless there was truly compelling evidence to support the idea that global warming is real, will have a major impact and is, as our fault, something that we can actually do something about. Such an argument is illogical. In fact governments actually resist the forces of environmentalists to impose increased carbon taxes, reduce tax on alternatives to fossil fuels and reduce subsidies on fossil-fuel producers.
Q. Why was this years winter so bad?
The temperature of the earth, whilst still rising, has in the last few years not leapt year on year as it has previously, and temperatures in specific locations have not broken records or have actually fallen. This is stated as indicating that the warming trend is not real. However, there is one very good reason that temperature rises have slowed: the output of the sun. We are discussing a period of only a couple of hundred years for which records of temperature have been reliably available for specific years. Output from the sun, along with sunspot activity has also been scientifically recorded for a few hundred years. In the last five years the sun has had it's lowest output of energy, lowest level of solar wind and lowest level of sun spots for over a hundred years! Is it any wonder that the temperatures are not leaping up? It is surprising and, indeed, worrying that given the suns output, the temperatures have risen at all. Although the heat store of the oceans is one possible source of energy release.
See here for NASA data on solar activity:
Q. But hasn't ice at the poles increased? (or the variant:Ice has got deeper in some places)
As with the temperature, ice extent varies year to year. The trend is still downward for average ice extent and depth.
It is actually a direct consequence of global warming that the ice in some places WILL get thicker! If they are very cold. How does that work? Well, if the temperature warms a degree then that increases the amount of water vapour in the air. A one degree rise is a rise yes, but if the temperature in a location is minus 20 then that increase makes it minus 19. That is still not exactly warm! And so that extra water vapour in the air condenses to form more ice in the coldest regions.
Q. How can they predict the world will get warmer when they can't even get the weather forecast right?
This confuses two separate issues and compares apples and pears. Weather and climate are two linked, of course!, but separate things. We can see from global temperatures that the progression of temperatures for each year is not one hotter year following another, but rather a zig-zagging pattern of graphed increases and decreases. There is no way to predict these changes with any certainty, i.e. to predict the weather of a specific year. However, if we look at a long sequence, we can see the trend. And that trend is ever upward.
Q. Why is this period any different? The earth has always had a varied climate. A major, important point and one deserving its own section.
Yes, it's true that the Earth has experienced periods of greater cooling and warming in the past. However there have been known reasons for that. These include:
The sun - the provider of all relevant heat to the Earth (the heat from the inner earth itself is negligible in comparison) The suns activity varies greatly over time. During periods of low sunspot activity, it's output in the form of heat is also low - the Maunder minimum of the late 17th/early 18th centuries was such a period. At other times it's radiation has increased and in fact, increased solar output in the early to mid 20th century is considered part of the reason for the warming seen. But it doesn't explain most of it.
The continents. The continents of earth are not static and instead wander it's surface. When the land masses are distributed more closely to the poles the earth cools as those land masses get covered in snow and ice and the albedo (percentage of light reflected back into space) increases. When situated nearer the equator, the continents warm the planet as ice melts and the land absorbs more heat. Without land at the poles, ice caps cannot form as they are broken up by the sea. As they wander, the continents also disrupt ocean currents that distribute heat around the globe.
The planets orbit. Earth does not progress around the sun at the same distance each year, every year. Period eccentricities in the orbit - termed Milankovitch Cycles - cause the planet to move closer and further away from the sun at various times. This will also affect the amount of heat the earth receives.
CO2 levels. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been both higher and lower than they are at the moment. Actually they have far more often been higher than now, often markedly so. Life has sucked carbon dioxide out of the air and locked it away in the ground, in the form of oil and coal. Yes, eventually that carbon will be returned to the air in the carbon cycle, but there is more locked away than at most other times in history - until now.
Geology - carbonaceous rocks lock away carbon, keeping it from the atmosphere and its role as greenhouse gas. When carbonaceous rocks are exposed by tectonic forces they are weathered to release the carbon and so increase the warming potential of the atmosphere.
Catastrophic events. sudden release of methane clathrates from the deep ocean can have a potent effect on the warming of the atmosphere. Such events might be tectonic or external as in an extra-terrestrial body impacting a sensitive deep sea area. Methane is a far more potent green-house gas than even Carbon dioxide.
Volcanoes - volcanoes release huge quantities of gas into the atmosphere. These both cool and warm the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the immediate cooling of sulphide gases and ash, is mitigated by the longer term effects of carbon dioxide that remain in the atmosphere for longer.
It can be seen then that climate is highly complex and untangling the threads of cause and effect a difficult task.
It is not possible to state that because this parameter is x then that explains the warming of today or at any other period in history. What we can do is look at the evidence and decide what the most likely explanation is.
Conclusions and comments.
There is no evidence for any of the explanations outlined above, to be used as a reason for the current period of accelerated warming. We are no closer to the sun than average at the moment, the sun is not bombarding us with higher levels of energy (in fact quite the opposite, and yet the temperature still rises, although more slowly), the land masses of the earth have not suddenly relocated to the equator, rather there is a large proportion at the poles, covered by highly reflective ice that helps to cool the planet, there are no major climate changing volcanoes or impacts from space, no uplifts of the land to expose carbonaceous rock to weathering.
So what has changed? CO2 levels. CO2 and other green house gases are the very reason that we enjoy life on Earth as we do. Green-house gases increase the global temperature by an average of 50 degrees fahrenheit. If the atmosphere didn't contain gases such as CO2 then the Earth would be a snowball and humanity would not exist.
Life changes the atmosphere. It is only because early photosynthetic organisms produced oxygen that we are here today. As they produce oxygen, so they lock away carbon.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has decreased steadily during the period that life has existed on the earth. As mentioned above: life locks the gas away from the atmosphere, leading to cooler temperatures and harsher conditions for life. Oil, gas, coal and carbonaceous rocks (formed from the deposit of billions of calcium based shells of sea creatures) hold on tight to the carbon.
CO2 has been as high as 4000ppm in the deep past. Before the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the levels were some 250ppm. Currently, 2010, the atmospheric level is 392, which is 2 points above the level of 2009, which was itself, two points above that for 2008. Where is this CO2 coming from? All the evidence points to our activities:
There is no evidence of any natural process that is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We are undoing life's process of locking away CO2, by burning fossil fuels. We are extracting carbon-based substances at a rate far faster than nature can keep up. Additionally, we are actively reducing the ability of life to remove carbon from the atmosphere by clearing forests, dredging estuaries and poisoning the oceans.
The future:
Life will not end. Earth has seen far higher temperatures, far higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't the end of life on Earth or the destruction of our world. But it is obvious that along with our other activities that destroy habitats, our warming of the planet will be a global catastrophe on a par with other major extinction events that have occurred during Earths history. The pace of change is so fast that other life forms do not have the chance to adapt. Those that can move are doing so, but our presence on virtually every part of the planet prevents other species from moving and recolonising other suitable areas. Those that can not move will become extinct and this will be most of the species we recognise.
In the long run, we are perhaps helping life on the planet. It will warm and become more humid and eventually life will evolve to inhabit the new world. But, in addition to the effects on the existing species of plants and animals, the effects on humanity will be devastating.
Our numbers, political systems and thirst for resources do not allow us to wander at will across the planet searching for new environments to exploit as warming makes them available. Populations are already finding that changes resulting from global warming are making water scarcer, plants less likely to grow, weather events more extreme.
Sea levels will rise. This is disastrous for places like Bangladesh, which are not very high above sea level. It is probable that, contrary to some scientists expectations, sea level rise will not be an immediate linear advance that progresses with temperature increase, they forget that while there are still very cold places on Earth, increased humidity will cause those areas to accumulate more ice and snow. However, as the temperature continues to rise, those areas too, will give up their water. Many of the worlds major cities and other population centres are near the sea. Flooding and loss to the oceans will increase.
Fortunes will change, current exporters of food may become importers as grain belts move toward the poles.
As the ice melts and earths albedo goes down the temperature change will accelerate. As the air warms, it melts the permafrost, pumping yet more carbon, from the frozen vegetation, into the air. As the seas warm, areas that can support the frozen methane clathrates shrink, and more methane is added to the air. And so it goes on, more and more and more green-house gas entering the atmosphere.
Earth will go on, life will go on. The frozen poles will support lush forests and herds of large herbivores as it did when the world was younger, CO2 levels were higher and the world much warmer.
But will we be here to see it? The temperature has changed so much in just the last one hundred years or so. What will it be like in two or three times that period? We will not see it, that's true, but don't we owe it to our great grand kids to try to prevent it?
Our sun goes through regular cycles of varying output, approximately every 11 years. Occasionally the levels are unusually low as they are now - as stated above the lowest for at least in the region of a hundred years. The sun has given us a reprieve from the pace of rapid warming that occurred in the late 1990s to mid 2000s but our source of heat and life is waking again. It might take a few more years for it to wake fully but wake it will. And then God help us. The global temperature has continued to climb - unlike the Maunder Minimum - albeit at a much slower pace and with less extreme peaks. When the sun wakes again I dread to think what the effects will be on us here below.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Christianity and Socialism
It confuses me sometimes when people claim to be Christian and then speak so strongly against Socialism. Although it is certainly possible to be a socialist and not be Christian, it isn't possible to be a Christian and not be a socialist.
What is socialism? Socialism is about living communally, sharing, taking care of each other. Like social insects living in their huge extended families. Like ideal human families in which each gives to the other. Of course the ideal is not always the reality for human families, but in our Christian family - with God as the head - it is what we should strive for. Exactly as we teach our children they should be, but then, as we get older, we forget this in our persuit of material treasure in this world. True socialism is love. Love for each other, caring for each other. Doing all we can to recognise the good in virtually every one.
Jesus was the ultimate socialist. He taught that we should love each other. No conditions, no judgements. We are told to love, even those that harm us. Many see socialism as a threat, in that it takes from them and gives to someone else that they might not consider deserving. Aside from the fact that we should not judge anyone and don't know the reasons they may be down on their luck, it isn't our place to decide. If we are Christian then we do as our Lord tells us. Many people try to make Jesus what they want him to be but what he said, and the way he lived, is there in the bible perfectly easy for us to see. They try to make Jesus someone who supports their way of living rather than trying to be Christ-like themselves. Now, I don't claim to be perfect, like our Lord, but I do recognise that it isn't possible to be rich and capitalistic and reconcile that with Jesus or his message. "I tell you that it is far easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".
It is a sad fact that, if Jesus turned up on the steps of our churches, many would turn him away as a beggar or 'bum'. Undeserving of our consideration and help. He gave up all possessions and wandered the land telling the people to give all they had to help those less well off. He didn't say, judge people and give to those only who are good to you, whom you think are deserving. He was the antithesis of the modern capitalist most of us have become.
The bible clearly tells us that capitalism is wrong but, yes, capitalism has wrought many wonders in the world. However Jesus said not to build up treasures in this world. He also said that we shouldn't worry about food and other material things, that God would provide. If he were around today, most would consider Jesus a hippie: anti establishment, anti-wealth, anti-materialism. It isn't easy at all to follow Christ, many would consider his teachings as unfair, but if we say that we believe and that we follow then we must do what we can.
Our societies are moving away from Jesus at an ever faster pace. In Britain, the Conservative party are - as ever - rolling back the elements of social welfare that took generations to build. There is much that is great about America but there the journey away from true Christianity is even more advanced. How can a society even consider itself to be Christian when so many have virtually nothing while others have what, to most of Earths population, are riches beyond compare? When they can't feed their families, keep a roof over their heads or get even the basics of healthcare? Who do we think Jesus would most associate with? Those who crave for the latest gadget or gawdy bauble or those that most of society disregard?
Why do some people hate and fear the term:socialism? Why is "socialist" used as an insult? An angry (justifiably) American, on a Facebook page dedicated to boycotting the BP oil company, told British visitors to the page to "clear off back to your socialist country". The American president, Mr Obama, is termed a socialist as an insult for trying to make American society fairer. I find it difficult to believe that people protest his actions and vilify a man who has worked hard to extend the basic necessity of healthcare to the poor and disadvantaged. Whether you are Christian or not, is it right that you should have so much when another has nothing, often through no fault of their own? One reason for fearing socialism is greed. If I give to someone who has not, then I don't have as much for myself. How can a person sleep at night knowing that a child not far from them might be hungry, or might be in pain but unable to afford medical care? To the Christian, this is the total opposite of love. Love is about doing all you can to alleviate the suffering of one you love. And according to Jesus, and therefore our God, that is everyone. Every single human being is a member of our family. We are to love them all.
I suppose the other reason to hate the word socialism is the fear of the supposedly socialist states that largely disappeared in the 20th century. But who can argue with Marx's maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Of course there has never been a real socialist society. Those soviet states that claimed socialism were corrupted and destroyed by greed and fear. Greed is responsible for most of the ills in the world today.
A truly socialist society would be one in which every person had all they needed to survive. One in which everyone loved everyone else and took care of them. Those who do not think that Jesus was a socialist, that we should not care for each other, no matter what the circumstances, should read Matthew 25: 31-46:
"31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Love one another, not just in church or in your charitable donations but in everyday life, your job and your politics.
What is socialism? Socialism is about living communally, sharing, taking care of each other. Like social insects living in their huge extended families. Like ideal human families in which each gives to the other. Of course the ideal is not always the reality for human families, but in our Christian family - with God as the head - it is what we should strive for. Exactly as we teach our children they should be, but then, as we get older, we forget this in our persuit of material treasure in this world. True socialism is love. Love for each other, caring for each other. Doing all we can to recognise the good in virtually every one.
Jesus was the ultimate socialist. He taught that we should love each other. No conditions, no judgements. We are told to love, even those that harm us. Many see socialism as a threat, in that it takes from them and gives to someone else that they might not consider deserving. Aside from the fact that we should not judge anyone and don't know the reasons they may be down on their luck, it isn't our place to decide. If we are Christian then we do as our Lord tells us. Many people try to make Jesus what they want him to be but what he said, and the way he lived, is there in the bible perfectly easy for us to see. They try to make Jesus someone who supports their way of living rather than trying to be Christ-like themselves. Now, I don't claim to be perfect, like our Lord, but I do recognise that it isn't possible to be rich and capitalistic and reconcile that with Jesus or his message. "I tell you that it is far easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".
It is a sad fact that, if Jesus turned up on the steps of our churches, many would turn him away as a beggar or 'bum'. Undeserving of our consideration and help. He gave up all possessions and wandered the land telling the people to give all they had to help those less well off. He didn't say, judge people and give to those only who are good to you, whom you think are deserving. He was the antithesis of the modern capitalist most of us have become.
The bible clearly tells us that capitalism is wrong but, yes, capitalism has wrought many wonders in the world. However Jesus said not to build up treasures in this world. He also said that we shouldn't worry about food and other material things, that God would provide. If he were around today, most would consider Jesus a hippie: anti establishment, anti-wealth, anti-materialism. It isn't easy at all to follow Christ, many would consider his teachings as unfair, but if we say that we believe and that we follow then we must do what we can.
Our societies are moving away from Jesus at an ever faster pace. In Britain, the Conservative party are - as ever - rolling back the elements of social welfare that took generations to build. There is much that is great about America but there the journey away from true Christianity is even more advanced. How can a society even consider itself to be Christian when so many have virtually nothing while others have what, to most of Earths population, are riches beyond compare? When they can't feed their families, keep a roof over their heads or get even the basics of healthcare? Who do we think Jesus would most associate with? Those who crave for the latest gadget or gawdy bauble or those that most of society disregard?
Why do some people hate and fear the term:socialism? Why is "socialist" used as an insult? An angry (justifiably) American, on a Facebook page dedicated to boycotting the BP oil company, told British visitors to the page to "clear off back to your socialist country". The American president, Mr Obama, is termed a socialist as an insult for trying to make American society fairer. I find it difficult to believe that people protest his actions and vilify a man who has worked hard to extend the basic necessity of healthcare to the poor and disadvantaged. Whether you are Christian or not, is it right that you should have so much when another has nothing, often through no fault of their own? One reason for fearing socialism is greed. If I give to someone who has not, then I don't have as much for myself. How can a person sleep at night knowing that a child not far from them might be hungry, or might be in pain but unable to afford medical care? To the Christian, this is the total opposite of love. Love is about doing all you can to alleviate the suffering of one you love. And according to Jesus, and therefore our God, that is everyone. Every single human being is a member of our family. We are to love them all.
I suppose the other reason to hate the word socialism is the fear of the supposedly socialist states that largely disappeared in the 20th century. But who can argue with Marx's maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Of course there has never been a real socialist society. Those soviet states that claimed socialism were corrupted and destroyed by greed and fear. Greed is responsible for most of the ills in the world today.
A truly socialist society would be one in which every person had all they needed to survive. One in which everyone loved everyone else and took care of them. Those who do not think that Jesus was a socialist, that we should not care for each other, no matter what the circumstances, should read Matthew 25: 31-46:
"31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Love one another, not just in church or in your charitable donations but in everyday life, your job and your politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
