150 years ago, Charles Darwin put forth the theory of evolution based on natural selection. Layers and layers of scientific evidence have since proven many of his theories to have merit and evolution is mostly accepted as fact by the scientific community. But what about the general public?

The last major public survey I could find was a Gallup Poll from 2005. In this poll of 34 (mostly western) countries, the United States ranks second to last in public acceptance, right before Turkey ( a mostly Muslim nation.)

So in the U.S., only about 40% think that evolution is true, while nearly 60% say it is either false or they aren’t sure if it is true. Interesting…especially when we consider ourselves to be an educated, first world country.

For comparison, here are some Muslim opinions.

So…was Darwin right? Or is the Earth just a few thousand years old, with all species being independently created by a master planner?

In 2008, Gallup did a national poll to find out where the most religious areas of America are. The northwest corner of the country (where I hail from) is among the least religious part of the country. Can you guess which camp I sit in? Let’s just say I’m not waiting for the rapture….

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

When it comes to being a world leader in the sciences, America is losing ground.

Speaking at a science summit that opens this week’s first World Science Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for science. They cited U.S. officials and others questioning scientific evidence of climate change, the reluctance to federally fund stem cell research, and some U.S. officials casting doubt on evolution as examples that have damaged America’s international standing.

In an era where scientific knowledge is vital to halting many problems facing the planet and future generations, America’s torrid love affair with right-wing politics couldn’t be ending too soon. For the last 7+ years, our government has been headed by an uninquisitive dunderhead who has mocked science in favor of personal ideological dogma and “gut feelings.”

And while science alone can’t solve all our troubles, a concerted lack of science is a prescription for decline. Starting with No Child Left Behind, the policies of the Bush administration has been to relegate science and scientific learning to the sidelines. By forcing the focus on math and reading skills over all other curriculae, schools have been federally mandated to achieve high test scores in those subjects or risk losing federal funding. But the result hasn’t been more knowledgable students with better math and reading skills. Instead, we still have “failing” schools in those subjects AND a lack of a rounded education that could interest today’s youth towards science.

But the “example” of leadership doesn’t end there. The ban on stem cell research, the insistance on continued fossil fuel energy over other possible avenues of exploration, the great “Intelligent Design” debate and the rush to insist that lawmakers know better than doctors what “brain dead” really implies all reveal a disheartening attitude towards politicized scientific inquiry and non-advancement. And the rest of the world is laughing behind our backs. Well, a lot of them anyhow.

But our loss is their gain, and they are sprinting ahead as we choke on their dust.

Our recent trip to Mars notwithstanding, American scientific advancement has seemed to focus itself on leisure activities for Americans instead of on things that could make our world a better place. Computer graphics and applications designed to make things more realistic only serve to disguise the fact that the real world is getting uglier all the time. One would think that the brain power used to develop “TV on Your Cel Phone” might have been better employed trying to create cleaner forms of energy.

And where our scientific knowledge and advances could actually help make the world a better place, like the use of genetically modified food crops in areas where food production is difficult, our politics (now and over the past) have made would be recipients wary of our motives and leery of offers of help. As with so many things, the use of science to further political ambitions has backfired, creating more doubt and mistrust than is really necessary.

Thanks to Bush and his cohorts in the religious right, science in America is in decline. We’re blinded to the science, and unless we open our eyes again, our status as a world leader in scientific innovation, and indeed in many areas, will continue to slip.

 (cross posted at Bring It On!)

From our first footsteps as modern humans, our species has moved forward, stretching our potential as we improved our mortal condition, each new step taking thousands of years before its imprint could be seen. It took humanity about 190,000 years to move from the Stone Age to the first human civilizations. The modern era begans about 12,000 years ago and includes the present time. In those 12,000 years though, it is in the last few hundred, and especially in the last half century, that human kind has shown that it might be ready to make the next step forward. At least, I hope we are.

Consider for a minute the advances of humanity during the Stone Age, so called because of the technological breakthrough and refinement of making tools out of stone. These early folks also had crude language and social skills, but were largely hunter-gatherer, subsistance types. But their mastery of fire, and eventual knowledge about natural pharmacology and animal behavior, in addition to their other skills, proved that they had mastered most of what any creature needs to endure: they knew the “how” of living. By the end of the Stone Age, the advent of agriculture was the icing on the cake, and the launchpad from which human beings leaped towards the next big move forward, they “why” of living.

Enter the rise of civilization, both ancient and modern, for aside from the technology, the mechanics haven’t changed all that much. For about the last 12,000 years, population centers in Asia and India, today’s Middle East and Egypt, the Mediterranean, and the lower Americas spawned people of thought and enterprise. Some formed the political structures, other the religious teachings, while still others turned towards the arts or the natural sciences.
For the first six or seven thousand years, civilization was tribal in nature, for lack of a better term. But about six thousand years ago the first “states” arose in Egypt, the Middle East and Indus Valley. These early pre-nations developed complex religions and infused them into the political structure and general culture of their societies, and eventually gave rise to the geopolitical map we know today. Through religious teachings and political-social mandates, humanity had provided himself with an answer to the “why” of living, and has spent the last 2000 years fervently fighting about which version is the truth. But to our credit, we have also managed to increase our knowledge about the world and the universe and the subatomic universe that makes up all matter. We have gained insights into the depths of our world and the folds in our brains. On the whole however, humanity has not been able to reconcile the faith of religion with the precision of science. Especially when the tenets of the religion can’t stand up to the empirical evidence or the modern times. Still, our technological prowess continues to expand at exponential rates, outstripping the mores of traditional religion with it’s sheer speed and marvel and engendering an expectation of self-satisfaction or greed that drives change. That, and religion continue to be the prime drive for billions of people, but that very individual drive, or rather the manipulation of it, may be the thing keeping humanity from taking the next step in our species’ evolution- the “what” of living.

Some will say we already have the “what” of living, that our religious faiths tell us what we should do. From an individual perspective, I may say, “Great. Glad that works for you.” But that’s not really the “what” I mean. Consider the change that took place when homo sapiens transitioned from Stone Age to The Age of Civilization. If ever there was an apt use of the night and day metaphore this would be it. And the leap from a human species dominated by religion and greed to one committed to bettering the entire species as a whole would be as dramatic.

Mankind has some serious challenges in the not-so-distant future and how (or whether) we work together to solve these issues will define the future of our species- the “what” if you will. It took our species 190,000 years to move out of the caves and into the light. It was a slow move, but we had the time and we had a common goal- to move forward. We’ve spent the last 12,000 years moving away from each other and our natural world. We’ve still moved forward, but hardly in concert. And increasingly, it seems that our only common goal is to destroy each other while asserting a particular religious philosophy or exploiting a particular resource. It would be a shame to spend another 188,000 years doing that. And quite frankly, I doubt we have that much time left on the clock if we keep going like this.

It is time to put religious differences down. It is time to put cultural differences down. It is time to put national greed aside. It is time to end provocations of war and acts of terror, both physical and economic. It is time to take the next step. And the funny thing is, you don’t have to give up your beliefs or selfish desires. After all, we didn’t stop using fire did we? You only have to be willing to refuse to allow those things to stop human progress, whether that comes from spacial colonization or ecological rejuvenation.

I think humanity can take the next step. I think there is a minority out there who are ready to put that foot forward. I just wonder when the rest of the pack is going to jump on board.

KNOCK, KNOCK…TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!

For those of you who missed the news last week, an international body of scientists issued a report that determined for the first time that global warming is no longer a question, but a certainty and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. That’s pretty damn clear to just about everyone who isn’t heavily vested in the fossil fuel business, heavy logging industry, mining industry, or corporate ranching. (Hell, these folks know it too, they just fall into the ‘don’t give a damn category.) The question isn’t now what is happening, but rather what to do about it. And their answers aren’t easy or pretty. Or cheap.

One would think that if presented with an equation such as this- change nothing and risk certain environmental breakdown and possibly species extinction or change as much as possible to ensure a hospitable planet for your progeny- the answer would be a no brainer. But the people who actually have the power to move our societies in the right direction, the direction that moves towards mitigating and reversing the damage we’ve done, are also the people who are most resistant to doing so. They are the people controlling billions upon billions of dollars that could be thrown at this problem but they hold tight the purse strings, because they are too invested in the status quo, too content to bring in every last dime from their obsolete technologies while they ignore the consequences of them. They are the people whispering into the ears of lawmakers and filling their campaign chests to assure that nothing too drastic takes place too quickly. They are putting their own personal wealth and comfort above that of the entire human population. (I bet these same bastards get real pissy about second hand smoke though.)

Sadly, if the projections regarding our degrading climate are even partially right, the changes in just the next 40 years will be significant, including everything from severe droughts to excessive flooding. Polar ice melts and higher sea levels. But there’s more to the picture than just having to duke it out with Mother Nature. The cataclysmic changes brought on by severe, but localized and faily short weather problems will be traumatic to say the least, but it is the endemic, longer-term climate changes that will wreak the most havoc on humanity.

Humans are creatures of habit, but also a creature of our environment. For tens of thousands of years, our species has evolved under fairly static environmental conditions. We have adapted to a variety of climes, to be sure, and even adapted to multi-year weather shifts. But by and large, our climate has not varied significantly. Our social systems, our governmental systems, even our religious systems to a degree, have been created around particular geographic and environmental locations. To some extent, who we are is based on where we are. So what happens when where you are changes so dramatically that who you are is no longer applicable?
Consider the drought in Indonesia in the late 1990’s. Lasting over a decade, this drought did more than just starve people and animals of drinking water. It led to social unrest, famine, and strife that toppled an entire government. I wonder how those folks at the top of that social food chain ended up? I wonder how their money helped them? Did they flee and set up shop somewhere else? The Indonesian drought is just one example of how an entire social system can fall due to harsh environmental conditions in one place.

Now imagine that kind of drought spanning half the globe, or more specifically, the great ‘bread basket’ regions of the globe. Think our country would stay afloat and intact very long if we not only couldn’t feed half the world, but couldn’t feed ourselves either?

Sure, we’re not Indonesia…we’re more civilized here in the Western World, right? Try living for a few days without water and see how civilized you feel.

At the other end of the spectrum will be the flooding. Half of the population of this country is clustered along the coastlines. What will rising ocean levels do to the economy if those places are lost? Think our country will stay civil if that occurs? Think we’ll still be a ‘super-power’ then?
The science says that we are at a point where it will get worse than it is now regardless of what we do. For some, that is enough to throw up their hands and say, “Screw it. I won’t be here anyway when the shit really gets bad.” It’s amazing how little regard these people have for their children and grandchildren. Real bastards, right?

The science also says that we can take steps to lessen the damage and hasten a reversal. We can’t fix it for ourselves maybe, but likely we can fix it for the next generation or the one after that. But only if we begin now.

This goes beyond filling our recycle bins at the curbside. It goes beyond carpooling to work. These are individual efforts, and they do help. But the will not be enough. We need to pressure government and business to quit dicking around now. The future is here, and quite frankly, their money will be useless in a lawless world filled with brutish humans fighting for a drop of water or a raft to stay afloat.

I’m not worried so much about the ability of mankind to adapt to climate change. Humans are very adaptable creatures. But I am worried about society being able to adapt. And the longer we wait to start changing, the worse we will be for it.

Along with bringing out new technologies rapidly, we need to plan for contingencies like flooding metropolises or waterless regions. We need a plan on all fronts, and we need it yesterday. It seems that the average person gets all this. It’s the ‘leadership’ that is in denial.

Conservatives and corporatists have only one choice if they want to cling to their mighty empires of wealth and power (or even imagined wealth and power)- join the fight today. For as society dies due to climate change, so does your power and money. Think of it as an investment in your own future, and as a gamble you can’t afford not to take.

(Oh- and for the naysayers still afloat-yes, global climate has shifted over the Earth’s 4 billion years. It is natural too. But not like this, not this fast. Could the sun play a part? Maybe, but again, not this drastic, not this fast. What about when the dino’s died? That was a weather shift too, right? So climate is out of man’s control! Sure, super-volcano or asteroid or too many farting dino’s. So what? That was then, this is now. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.)

So there it is- what is the future of mankind in light of this new scientific report? Will we slowly fade ourselves away or will we vigorously fight to fix our fuck-ups?

Or maybe Bush will just declare War on Iran, spark WWIII, light up the nukes, and we’ll be extinct before any of this nasty weather stuff comes up.

(originally posted at Bring It On! )

Enter the newly revised Bush administration policy on space. Released this month, the Bush policy has claimed its (America’s) right to weaponize the solar system with US arms while stopping all other countries from launching their own weapons systems into orbit. I guess wars on Earth just aren’t enough for this guy.

And what are others saying about this idea?

“America wants it all — life, the universe and everything,” proclaimed The Times of London. “Space: no longer the final frontier but the 51st state of the United States.”

“U.S. turns space into its colony,” echoed a headline in the Asia Times, which concluded that “the United States intends to monopolize its longstanding space presence by militarizing it.”

Of course, space is already weaponized to a small degree if you consider the spy satellites and guidance system satellites that the military uses. But these are not weapons in and of themselves, but merely tools for earthbound weapons systems. Bush seems to want to change that limitation.

Yet where the Clinton administration issues a space policy that emphasized the right of all countries to use space as they saw fit (read- no one has ownership of space), the Bush policy claims the US right to deny space to others:

“Arms control … must not impair the rights of the United States,” the policy reads. “The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space … and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to the United States.”

Bush already withdrew the US from the ABM treaty so we could continue to chase after the elusive missle defense system started by Reagan so long ago. And despite the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that explicitly bans WMD’s from space and any heavenly body, like the moon, Bush seems adamant on developing space weapons under the guise of we need ’em to stop others from putting them up there. In other words, we have to break the treaty to protect the world from rogue nations.

Sounds an awful lot like ‘fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here’ to me. I wonder how many Space Divisions Halliburton has.

(originally posted at Bring It On!)

As many know, the infant (no pun intended) science of using stem cells to create human tissue shows promise for medicine because stem cells can be stimulated to grow into new human tissue, giving doctors the ability to treat organ disease with greater chances of success. One of the earliest researchers of stem cell development, James Thompson, showed a line of stem cells that had been transformed into human heart cells. The belief is that these cells could replace damaged heart tissue in patients, offering better chances for recovery, lower the chance of tissue rejection, and reduce overall chances of death due to heart injuries. This example is just one of many possible futures for medicine through stem cell research. And embryonic stem cells offer the best opportunity to tailor tissue for a specific purpose. Such scientific advances would seem to promote life for already living humans, or cure humans who are hanging to life in precarious medical situations, something that Bush and his party seemed eager to advance during the whole Terry Schiavo grandstanding last year. So, according to their actions in the Schiavo case, it would seem logical to assume that Bush would support this research.

But as with many things from the Bush administration, logic is not at the forefront of their decision-making processes. Despite the president’s desire to see things as either black or white, right or wrong, the fact is that the world is seldom that accommodating. Because in this case, in order to support the measures that would promote life for the living (or in the case of Schiavo and others like her, the lingering), advancing the research of embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the embryos themselves. The question then, is whether these embryos are really life, in the sense that we know it.

According to Robert George, a member of the Council on Bioethics, the president’s position is that an embryo is human life, with all the same rights and dignity of a fully developed, fully formed human being. And to destroy one for stem cell research is the same killing a person walking down the street.

George says, “The principle that the president laid down and which I support is one that says all human beings, irrespective of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency, possess the same human dignity, because human dignity is inherent.”

Yet, instinctively we know that Bush does not believe this, or else he would not have signed a law while governor of Texas that allows family members to decide when to pull the plug on life support measures for patients who can’t make the call themselves. We know this because recent congressional investigations into the Hurricane Katrina response by the government shows a lack of effort to save as many lives as possible. We know this because of the signing statements Bush made regarding the use of torture. And with regards to frozen embryos, we know that this “inherent dignity” is little more than talking points to drum up support from his religious base because laws allow the destruction of thousands of frozen embryos each year when couples decide they are no longer needed.

The news story went on to report that there are over 400,000 frozen embryos currently in storage in the U.S. Many will never be used for pregnancy, and in fact will slowly deteriorate if kept in their cryogenic condition indefinitely. Many others will simply be discarded. Some will make their way into privately funded research programs, but none will be eligible for federally funded research that could ultimately increase the quality and ‘dignity’ of life for the living because of Bush’s ban on such studies.

To insist that frozen embryos are indeed human beings at all is a stretch. Most scientists and medical professionals do not consider an embryo to be viable until it passes 22 weeks of gestation, and even then could hardly be expected to grow into a successfully functioning human being if brought out of the womb. The Catholic website, www.newadvent.org says that viability is not safely presumed until the 8th month. Clearly, there is some contention about when a fetus becomes a human being with the inherent rights of a born person, but few disagree that a frozen embryo is about as close to being human as a cup of freeze dried coffee would be. Sure the potential is there, but unrealized potential is just that- unrealized.

In his 2006 State of the Union speech, Bush proclaimed that, “Human life is a gift from our Creator — and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.” Yet when it comes to frozen embryos, this is hardly true. In fact, such embryos are created in a petri dish in a laboratory by human scientists. And they are discarded with regularity. And the president knows it. Why then can they not be used to advance the science of medicine that would better the condition of human life? For a man willing to sacrifice the living in poorly thought out wars, why the hesitation to use that which will never be life to help heal the sick or cure the diseases that plague humanity?

There is no rhyme or reason to this president’s policies, no logical strain to follow. Instead, what we get are inconsistent ideas that make good sound bites but fall apart when examined as a whole. When it comes to stem cell research and frozen embryos headed to the scrap heap, the only sane choice-the only humane choice- is to use what we have to make life better. After all, isn’t that what pro-life is all about?

In the 21st century, space travel and exploration is old hat. From space shuttle missions to long-range probes, our knowledge of our solar system and the universe in general has expanded exponentially. So what then is the next great challenge for us? What pressing need could benefit most from the concentration of our scientific and industrial prowess? The answer, my friends, is energy. Our modern world requires an increasing amount of energy to fuel our cars, to warm our homes, to light our nights. As we grow more and more technologically oriented, our need for reliable energy grows too. And with more developing nations striving to join the industrialized world community, the need for energy will become even more acute.

The bad news is that most of the world’s energy is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are called non-renewable for a good reason- once they are gone they can’t be replenished, and if we are still dependent upon these resources for our energy when that day comes, you can plan on going back to the days of candlelight reading, walking to the store, and huddling around the fireplace for warmth. I’m not naturally an alarmist, and I can’t say with any certainty when that day will come, but common sense dictates that it will come eventually. Isn’t it better to be prepared before then?

There are other negative aspects to our use of fossil fuels like pollution or the environmental damage caused by the extraction of these resources from the Earth. Our national security and economy are tied to our need for these resources, leading us into areas of the world that are filled with strife and draining our taxes. And our need to compete with other nations for access to those resources is costing ordinary citizens more money to meet the needs of daily life. Yet there are other ways for us to obtain the energy we need in this modern world, if only our government and business interests would challenge themselves to develop them. Unfortunately, business looks primarily at profit, and the amount of money they have tied up in the current energy production and delivery cycle keeps them from leading the charge towards better energy options. Their financial entanglement blinds them, and they ensure the status quo by keeping pressure on the politicians, keeping our country tied to fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

I say that the time has come to issue another challenge. Much as President Kennedy did in 1962, American leaders should issue a call for new energy development that precludes the use of fossil fuels in favor of cleaner, renewable energy sources. We should do this not only because it will one day be necessary, but because of the benefits to our air, our water, our land, and our people. Kennedy’s speech recognized that to achieve his goal, things that did not yet exist would have to be created and failures along the way would occur. He told the public that the task would be expensive, but it would be worth it. The drive for new energy has these same problems, but it too is worth it.

We already have alternate sources for energy that come from renewable resources. Hydroelectric energy, solar energy, biomass energy, wind energy, and nuclear energy all exist at some level of development, but the problem with their proliferation lies in the profit margin for business. True or not, the claim that these energy sources are too expensive to develop en masse or not sufficient to meet our needs goes unchallenged. I say that the business interests that control our fossil fuel dependency don’t want to lose their hold on our wallets. To them energy is not a public necessity, it is a cash cow. From development to distribution, their greed not only creates false energy scarcity, it hampers modernization and innovation. It is time for business to either join in the search for new energy sources or to be left behind altogether.

I see a future where energy is no longer considered a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The fact of the matter is that reliable and cheap energy has become a necessity of daily life. When something becomes a necessity, it should not be out of reach for people, it should become available to everyone. I see a future where every home has its own energy production plant, supplied by clean, renewable sources of power. I see a future where transportation is powered not by fossil fuels, but by clean, non-polluting energy. I see a future where our cities are not rimmed with power lines and smokestacks. I see a future where countries don’t go to war over oil or make deals with treacherous regimes just to gain access to fuel.

The space race was paid for with public funds and the knowledge gained from the space missions belongs to us all. The advancements in technology derived from space exploration was paid for with public funds, and the proliferation of that technology now touches every aspect of our lives. In this vein, the development of new energy should be paid for with public funds, and the benefits of our research and development should be returned to the public through cheap, reliable energy. And our reliance on foreign nations for our energy could be reduced or eliminated entirely, saving us even more money by avoiding conflicts and expensive security measures.

We must move to elevate the types of renewable energy we now have from second-class status and begin to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. At the same time we must turn our scientists and industries towards developing new energy or increasing the viability of the renewable sources we do have like wind and solar and biomass. We should look towards the future of energy not from the prospective of profits for businesses, but from the prospective of prosperity for all. Energy supplies should not be fought over or suppressed. They should be clean, and plentiful, and cheap.

In 1962, America decided that going to the moon was worth the cost and the sacrifice and we met the challenge. Meeting this goal saved no lives, fed no hungry, cured no ills, but we did it just the same. Finding new and better energy sources is more important than going to the moon ever was. It’s time to meet this new challenge too.