Field and particle theories
Quantum field theory considers the vacuum ground state not to be completely empty, but to consist of a seething mass of virtual particles and fields. Since these fields do not have a permanent existence, they are called vacuum fluctuations. In the Casimir effect, two metal plates can cause a change in the vacuum energy density between them which generates a measurable force.
Some believe that vacuum energy might be the "dark energy" (also called quintessence) associated with the cosmological constant in General relativity, thought to be similar to a negative force of gravity. Observations that the expanding Universe appears to be accelerating seem to support the Cosmic inflation theory —first proposed by Alan Guth (1981) — in which the nascent Universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion driven by a negative vacuum energy density (positive vacuum pressure).
Implications
Vacuum energy has a number of consequences. Vacuum fluctuations are always created as particle/antiparticle pairs. The creation of these "virtual particles" near the event horizon of a black hole has been hypothesized by physicist Stephen Hawking to be a mechanism for the eventual "evaporation" of black holes. The net energy of the universe remains zero so long as the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time. If one of the pair is pulled into the black hole before this, then the other particle becomes "real" and energy/mass is essentially radiated into space from the black hole. This loss is cumulative and could result in the black hole's disappearance over time. The time required is dependent on the mass of the black hole, but could be on the order of 10^100 years for large solar-mass black holes.
The Grand unification theory predicts a non-zero cosmological constant from the energy of vacuum fluctuations. Examining normal physical processes with knowledge of these field phenomena can lead to an interesting insight in electrodynamics. During discussions of perpetual motion, the topic of vacuum energy usually encourages serious inquiries.
History
In 1934, Georges Lemaître used an unusual perfect-fluid equation of state to interpret the cosmological constant as due to vacuum energy. In 1973, Edward Tryon proposed that the Universe may be a large scale quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. During the 1980s, there were many attempts to relate the fields that generate the vacuum energy to specific fields that were predicted by the Grand unification theory, and to use observations of the Universe to confirm that theory. These efforts had failed so far, and the exact nature of the particles or fields that generate vacuum energy, with a density such as that required by the Inflation theory, remains a mystery
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Why is Quantum Mechanics SO difficult
Strangely enough, QM's formalism isn't any more difficult than other areas of physics. The mathematics of the "standard" QM isn't any worse than, let's say, electromagnetism. Yet, to many people, especially non-physicists, QM presents a very daunting effort to understand.
I strongly believe that it all comes down to how we understand things and how we expand our knowledge. Tyically, when we teach students new things, what we do is build upon their existing understanding. We hope that a student already has a foundation of knowledge in certain areas, such as basic mathematics, etc., so that we can use that to teach them about forces, motion, energy, and other fun stuff in intro physics. Then, after they understand the basic ideas, we show them the same thing, but with more complications added to it.
The same thing occurs when we try to help a student doing a homework problem. We always try to ask what the student know already, such as the basic principle being tested in that question. Does the student know where to start? What about the most general form of the equation that is relevant to the problem? Once we know a starting point, we then build on that to tackle that problem.
The common thread in both cases is that there exists a STARTING point as a reference foundation on which, other "new" stuff are built upon. We learn new and unknown subject based upon what we have already understood. This is something crucial to keep in mind because in the study of QM, this part is missing! I am certain that for most non-physicists, this is the most common reason why QM is puzzling, and why quacks and other people who are trying to use QM into other areas such as "metaphysics" or mysticism, are using it in a completely hilarious fashion.
There is a complete disconnect between our "existing" understanding of the universe based on classical understanding, and QM. There is nothing about our understanding of classical mechanics that we can build on to understand QM. We use the identical words such as particle, wave, spin, energy, position, momentum, etc... but in QM, they attain a very different nature. You can't explain these using existing classical concepts. The line between these two is not continuous, at least, not as of now. How does one use classical idea of a "spin" to explain a spin 1/2 particle in which one only regains the identical symmetry only upon two complete revolutions? We simply have to accept that we use the same word, but to ONLY mean that it produces a magnetic moment. It has nothing to do with anything that's spinning classically. We can't build the understanding of the QM spin using existing classical spin that we have already understood.
Now interestingly enough, the MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION of QM is quite familiar! The time-dependent Schrodinger equation has the same structure as a standard wave equation. We call the energy operator as the Hamiltonian not for nothing since it looks very familiar with the hamiltonian approach to classical mechanics. The matrix formulation also isn't anything new. What this means is that while the conceptual foundation of QM is completely disconnected with our traditional conceptual understanding, the mathematical formulation of QM completely follows from our existing understanding! Mathematically, there is no discontinuity. We build the formalism of QM based on our existing understanding!
This is why, in a previous thread in PF, that I disagree that we should teach students the concepts of QM FIRST, rather than the mathematical formulation straightaway. There is nothing to "build on" in terms of conceptual understanding. We end up telling the students what they are out of thin air. The postulates of QM did not come out of our classical understanding of our world. Instead, the mathematical formalism is the only thing that saves us from dangling in mid air. It is the only thing in which our existing understanding can be built on.
What this implies clearly is that, if one lacks the understanding of the mathematical formalism of QM, one really hasn't understood QM at all! One ends up with all these weird, unexplained, unfamiliar, and frankly, rather strange ideas on how the world works. These conceptual description QM may even appear "mystical". It is not surprising that such connections are being made between QM and various forms of mysticism. One lacks any connection with the existing reality that one has understood. So somehow, since QM can do this, it seems as if it's a licence to simply invent stuff weely neely.
The mathematical formalism of QM is what defines the QM description. The "conceptual description" is secondary, and is only present because we desire some physical description based on what we already have classically. It is why people can disagree on the interpretation of QM, yet they all agree on the source, the mathematical formalism of QM.
This, however, does not mean that QM is nothing more than "just mathematics". This is no more true than saying the musical notes on a sheet of paper are just scribbles. The notes are not the important object. Rather, it is the sound that it represents that's the main point. The musical notes are simply a means to convey that point clearly and unambiguously. Similarly, the mathematics that is inherent in QM and in all of physics, is a means to convey an idea or principle. It is a form of communication, and so far it is the ONLY form of communication accurate and unambiguous enough to describe our universe. It reflects completely our understanding of a phenomena. So a mathematical formulation isn't "just math".
You cannot use your existing understanding of the universe to try to understand the various concepts of QM. There is a discontinuity between the two. It is only via the mathematical continuity of the description can there be a smooth transition to build upon. Without this, QM will not make "sense".
I strongly believe that it all comes down to how we understand things and how we expand our knowledge. Tyically, when we teach students new things, what we do is build upon their existing understanding. We hope that a student already has a foundation of knowledge in certain areas, such as basic mathematics, etc., so that we can use that to teach them about forces, motion, energy, and other fun stuff in intro physics. Then, after they understand the basic ideas, we show them the same thing, but with more complications added to it.
The same thing occurs when we try to help a student doing a homework problem. We always try to ask what the student know already, such as the basic principle being tested in that question. Does the student know where to start? What about the most general form of the equation that is relevant to the problem? Once we know a starting point, we then build on that to tackle that problem.
The common thread in both cases is that there exists a STARTING point as a reference foundation on which, other "new" stuff are built upon. We learn new and unknown subject based upon what we have already understood. This is something crucial to keep in mind because in the study of QM, this part is missing! I am certain that for most non-physicists, this is the most common reason why QM is puzzling, and why quacks and other people who are trying to use QM into other areas such as "metaphysics" or mysticism, are using it in a completely hilarious fashion.
There is a complete disconnect between our "existing" understanding of the universe based on classical understanding, and QM. There is nothing about our understanding of classical mechanics that we can build on to understand QM. We use the identical words such as particle, wave, spin, energy, position, momentum, etc... but in QM, they attain a very different nature. You can't explain these using existing classical concepts. The line between these two is not continuous, at least, not as of now. How does one use classical idea of a "spin" to explain a spin 1/2 particle in which one only regains the identical symmetry only upon two complete revolutions? We simply have to accept that we use the same word, but to ONLY mean that it produces a magnetic moment. It has nothing to do with anything that's spinning classically. We can't build the understanding of the QM spin using existing classical spin that we have already understood.
Now interestingly enough, the MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION of QM is quite familiar! The time-dependent Schrodinger equation has the same structure as a standard wave equation. We call the energy operator as the Hamiltonian not for nothing since it looks very familiar with the hamiltonian approach to classical mechanics. The matrix formulation also isn't anything new. What this means is that while the conceptual foundation of QM is completely disconnected with our traditional conceptual understanding, the mathematical formulation of QM completely follows from our existing understanding! Mathematically, there is no discontinuity. We build the formalism of QM based on our existing understanding!
This is why, in a previous thread in PF, that I disagree that we should teach students the concepts of QM FIRST, rather than the mathematical formulation straightaway. There is nothing to "build on" in terms of conceptual understanding. We end up telling the students what they are out of thin air. The postulates of QM did not come out of our classical understanding of our world. Instead, the mathematical formalism is the only thing that saves us from dangling in mid air. It is the only thing in which our existing understanding can be built on.
What this implies clearly is that, if one lacks the understanding of the mathematical formalism of QM, one really hasn't understood QM at all! One ends up with all these weird, unexplained, unfamiliar, and frankly, rather strange ideas on how the world works. These conceptual description QM may even appear "mystical". It is not surprising that such connections are being made between QM and various forms of mysticism. One lacks any connection with the existing reality that one has understood. So somehow, since QM can do this, it seems as if it's a licence to simply invent stuff weely neely.
The mathematical formalism of QM is what defines the QM description. The "conceptual description" is secondary, and is only present because we desire some physical description based on what we already have classically. It is why people can disagree on the interpretation of QM, yet they all agree on the source, the mathematical formalism of QM.
This, however, does not mean that QM is nothing more than "just mathematics". This is no more true than saying the musical notes on a sheet of paper are just scribbles. The notes are not the important object. Rather, it is the sound that it represents that's the main point. The musical notes are simply a means to convey that point clearly and unambiguously. Similarly, the mathematics that is inherent in QM and in all of physics, is a means to convey an idea or principle. It is a form of communication, and so far it is the ONLY form of communication accurate and unambiguous enough to describe our universe. It reflects completely our understanding of a phenomena. So a mathematical formulation isn't "just math".
You cannot use your existing understanding of the universe to try to understand the various concepts of QM. There is a discontinuity between the two. It is only via the mathematical continuity of the description can there be a smooth transition to build upon. Without this, QM will not make "sense".
Does spooky action at a distance allow faster than light communication
It is often said that scientists do their best work while young. With Albert Einstein this certainly seems to have been the case. Before the age of 40 he developed special relativity, laid the groundwork for quantum theory by explaining the photoelectric effect and in his greatest achievement, developed his elegant theory of gravity, general relativity. However, it was a paper he wrote with two colleagues in 1935-when Einstein was nearly 56 years old-which stands out as his most cited scientific paper. In fact, it may well turn out to be one of the most significant scientific papers of all time.
This is of course the “EPR” paper, written with his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Following a decade of vehement arguments with the great Neils Bohr about the meaning of quantum theory, this paper stands out as Einstein’s “parting shot” in the debate-his last ditch effort to prove that quantum mechanics could not be a fundamental theory. The paper-titled “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”-uses quantum mechanics to demonstrate that particles which interact in someway become entangled, in a loose sense meaning that their properties become correlated. As we’ll see in a moment, this is not an ordinary correlation in any sense of the word. It implies that there exists a strange connection between the particles that persists even when they are separated by great distances. In some sense, this connection is instantaneous, putting it in direct conflict with the special theory of relativity. It was this strange connection that led Einstein to the phrase “spooky action at a distance”.
Quantum Entanglement
The EPR paper is based on the following thought experiment. Two particles interact and then separate. Furthermore, we imagine that they separate such that they are a great distance apart at a time when measurements on the particles can be made. EPR focused on two properties in particular-the position and momentum of each particle.
These properties or variables were chosen because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle tells us that the position and momentum of a particle are complimentary, meaning that the more you know about one variable, the less you know about the other. If you have complete knowledge of a particles position, then the particles momentum is completely uncertain. Or if instead you have complete knowledge of the particles momentum, then its position becomes completely uncertain. Intermediate ranges of accuracy are possible, the lesson to take home is that you cannot measure one variable without introducing some uncertainty into the value of the corresponding complimentary variable. The amount of uncertainty is quantified precisely by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty of quantum mechanics never sat well with Einstein, he felt the theory, which is statistical in nature, is statistical because there exist some unknown or “hidden” variables in the microscopic world we are not yet aware of.
We now imagine that two particles interact and then move off in different directions. Because they have interacted, they become entangled. When two particles are entangled, the state of each particle alone has no real meaning-the state of the system can only be described in terms of the whole. In terms of elementary quantum mechanics, there is a wavefunction which describes the two particles together as a single unit. The wavefunction, being a superposition of different possibilities, exists in a ghostly combination of possible states. The Copenhagen interpretation tells us that the properties of the particle, position or momentum, don’t exist in definite values until a measurement is made.
When a measurement is made, and we can choose to make a measurement on one particle or the other, the wavefunction “collapses” and each particle is found to be in a definite state. The measurement results obtained for entangled particles are correlated. So if we make a measurement result on particle A and find its momentum to be a certain value, we know-without making a measurement on particle B-what its momentum is with absolute certainty. As EPR put it, by making a measurement of momentum on particle A, using momentum conservation tells us that pA + pB is an element of physical reality. In other words the wavefunction has collapsed and the variables have definite values-the ghostly superposition of possibilities is gone. The crucial point is that even though no measurement has been made on the distant particle B, the observer at the location of particle A has learned the value of B’s momentum. Somehow the wavefunction has collapsed instantaneously across a spatial distance-presumably in violation of the speed of light limit set by relativity.
The situation can be made even more interesting by noting that we can choose instead to measure the position of particle A. Again, using conservation principles, we will learn the value of the position of particle B, and the quantity qA - qB assumes physical reality.
Notice that the observer at position A can choose, by making different measurements that he or she desires, which properties of particle B assume definite values-or assume physical reality in the terminology of EPR. They can make this choice at a later time without any prior agreement with an observer in possession of particle B. This is another aspect of spooky action at a distance. The observer at A makes a measurement choice-presumably chosen using the free will of the mind-and forces particle B into a definite value instantaneously.
The interpretation of these results is still in debate, some believe that the wavefunction only represents our state of knowledge about the system. However it seems that it would be difficult for anyone who believes this to examine diffraction images from electron scattering and deny that the wavefunction is a real physical entity.
In summary, it appears that the position or momentum of each member of the EPR pair is determined by measurements performed on the other, distant member of the EPR pair. The effect seems to be instantaneous, leading Einstein and his colleagues to refer to the phenomenon as “spooky action at a distance”. The effect is non-local and appears to be instantaneous, but can anything useful come out of it? Can we exploit this to communicate faster than the speed of light? It turns out that as things are currently understood, the answer is no.
This is of course the “EPR” paper, written with his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Following a decade of vehement arguments with the great Neils Bohr about the meaning of quantum theory, this paper stands out as Einstein’s “parting shot” in the debate-his last ditch effort to prove that quantum mechanics could not be a fundamental theory. The paper-titled “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”-uses quantum mechanics to demonstrate that particles which interact in someway become entangled, in a loose sense meaning that their properties become correlated. As we’ll see in a moment, this is not an ordinary correlation in any sense of the word. It implies that there exists a strange connection between the particles that persists even when they are separated by great distances. In some sense, this connection is instantaneous, putting it in direct conflict with the special theory of relativity. It was this strange connection that led Einstein to the phrase “spooky action at a distance”.
Quantum Entanglement
The EPR paper is based on the following thought experiment. Two particles interact and then separate. Furthermore, we imagine that they separate such that they are a great distance apart at a time when measurements on the particles can be made. EPR focused on two properties in particular-the position and momentum of each particle.
These properties or variables were chosen because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle tells us that the position and momentum of a particle are complimentary, meaning that the more you know about one variable, the less you know about the other. If you have complete knowledge of a particles position, then the particles momentum is completely uncertain. Or if instead you have complete knowledge of the particles momentum, then its position becomes completely uncertain. Intermediate ranges of accuracy are possible, the lesson to take home is that you cannot measure one variable without introducing some uncertainty into the value of the corresponding complimentary variable. The amount of uncertainty is quantified precisely by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty of quantum mechanics never sat well with Einstein, he felt the theory, which is statistical in nature, is statistical because there exist some unknown or “hidden” variables in the microscopic world we are not yet aware of.
We now imagine that two particles interact and then move off in different directions. Because they have interacted, they become entangled. When two particles are entangled, the state of each particle alone has no real meaning-the state of the system can only be described in terms of the whole. In terms of elementary quantum mechanics, there is a wavefunction which describes the two particles together as a single unit. The wavefunction, being a superposition of different possibilities, exists in a ghostly combination of possible states. The Copenhagen interpretation tells us that the properties of the particle, position or momentum, don’t exist in definite values until a measurement is made.
When a measurement is made, and we can choose to make a measurement on one particle or the other, the wavefunction “collapses” and each particle is found to be in a definite state. The measurement results obtained for entangled particles are correlated. So if we make a measurement result on particle A and find its momentum to be a certain value, we know-without making a measurement on particle B-what its momentum is with absolute certainty. As EPR put it, by making a measurement of momentum on particle A, using momentum conservation tells us that pA + pB is an element of physical reality. In other words the wavefunction has collapsed and the variables have definite values-the ghostly superposition of possibilities is gone. The crucial point is that even though no measurement has been made on the distant particle B, the observer at the location of particle A has learned the value of B’s momentum. Somehow the wavefunction has collapsed instantaneously across a spatial distance-presumably in violation of the speed of light limit set by relativity.
The situation can be made even more interesting by noting that we can choose instead to measure the position of particle A. Again, using conservation principles, we will learn the value of the position of particle B, and the quantity qA - qB assumes physical reality.
Notice that the observer at position A can choose, by making different measurements that he or she desires, which properties of particle B assume definite values-or assume physical reality in the terminology of EPR. They can make this choice at a later time without any prior agreement with an observer in possession of particle B. This is another aspect of spooky action at a distance. The observer at A makes a measurement choice-presumably chosen using the free will of the mind-and forces particle B into a definite value instantaneously.
The interpretation of these results is still in debate, some believe that the wavefunction only represents our state of knowledge about the system. However it seems that it would be difficult for anyone who believes this to examine diffraction images from electron scattering and deny that the wavefunction is a real physical entity.
In summary, it appears that the position or momentum of each member of the EPR pair is determined by measurements performed on the other, distant member of the EPR pair. The effect seems to be instantaneous, leading Einstein and his colleagues to refer to the phenomenon as “spooky action at a distance”. The effect is non-local and appears to be instantaneous, but can anything useful come out of it? Can we exploit this to communicate faster than the speed of light? It turns out that as things are currently understood, the answer is no.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Movin' On: Taking Transhumanism in Stride
Back in the seventies, we watched "The Six Million Dollar Man", a popular television show about a trained agent who was critically injured and given the gift of technology--bionic legs and super vision.
Lee Majors portrayed a man capable of leaping tall buildings and scanning the landscape at night. We marveled at the possibility of creating a human with superior qualities. In the opening sequence of each episode, we heard the phrase, "We have the technology." The implication was that we could--and should--use it to transform a high market value man into a formidable man/machine mix.
My definition of an excellent human is someone who is mindful of maximizing his or her own potential for creativity and compassion. That seems like plenty to tackle, but there is an emerging school of thought that suggests we ought to become excellent superhumans.
Transhumanists believe that the continual evolution of humans requires the--key word here-- ethical use of technology to help us live better, longer lives. For them, a life span of 80 years may be what "nature intended" for this decade, but our role as 21st century humans is to use what we've learned to improve upon nature.
These aren't doom and gloom types who live in a fantasy world or anticipate a future run by robots. Transhumanists are passionately optimistic about the role of humans. They're excited about the possibilities for people to truly maximize their potential. They believe that human development is limited only by our current technology.
We're seeing evidence of this every day. Fertility clinics offer a range of effective treatments unthinkable a few decades ago. We're captivated by the extreme makeover shows featuring dramatic physical transformations of those willing to endure multiple surgeries and painful recovery periods. We know people who have benefited from pacemakers, cochlear implants, laser vision surgery, prosthetic devices, and cosmetic dentistry.
Transhumanists embrace these techniques and many more as a desirable progression toward utilizing technology as a tool for human improvement. They envision a time when we can eliminate disease, enhance memory, develop superior senses, and create physical bodies resistant to aging.
This build-a-better-human view isn't universally accepted, but it's important to look at how our ideas of "improvement" have changed over the years. Eyeglasses were once viewed as an unnecessary and unwelcome manipulation of our God-given eyesight. The current hot topics such as stem- cell research will one day elicit the same yawns with which we greet news of eyebrow lifts or fertility drug-induced twins.
What does it mean to go beyond human? As long as humans are in charge, is it possible to do anything that might be considered beyond the realm of human potential? Is there a need for ethical controls or legal restrictions if advances in science are seen as the desired result of natural human achievement? Is all fair in love and war--and science?
We love ethical debates about the nature of nature. Instead of focusing on a particular new-fangled technique, we'd do well to frame our rejection or acceptance of transhumanism in terms of the bigger picture--is technology a natural part of human evolution? Do we have a responsibility to use science as a tool to improve the human experience- including the human body?
I'm always open to improving, and that goes for my definition of excellence. If we can develop superhuman brains and bodies, can we also look forward to tremendous gains in creativity and compassion? Transhumanists get us thinking about the potential for humanity over the long haul.
Now that's excellent.
Global Dumbing
I am beginning to wonder if scientists have been getting it all wrong. All this time, people have been worried about the Ozone, or a giant asteroid, or some breakout of a bio-hazardous agent by a terrorist organization being the doom of mankind. We have spent all this time looking outward instead of inward towards ourselves.
The latest studies have identified two startling facts: 1 - that the whole in the Ozone layer is getter smaller, and 2 – that the brightness levels on the earth our getting dimmer. Does this all mean that Global Warming is all just a sham? Does it mean that the corporations who continue to abuse our earth with reckless abandon have been right all along? That tree-hugging hippies have had their brains melted from too much LSD?
Scientists seem to be getting dumber in direct proportion to the grants given to them by governments, which are lobbied. of course, by corporate interests. They have looked at the new Global Dimming phenomenon and said, “It can’t be getting warming with less sunlight!” And no doubt that as this new story makes it rounds about the Ozone getting smaller, they will point to the great job done by their benefactors at reducing Green House emissions and say that the Ozone must be replenishing itself.
Statements like those should be judged as criminal, just as tobacco companies should be held accountable for the deaths of all their consumers. The population must be made aware of the truth behind their corporate agenda. We, the working class, are the ones that can control our future, and dictate to those Ozone depleting companies our new terms. We demand clean air. We demand that pollutants stop being poured into our waters. We demand our forests not be cut down faster than we can replant. We demand alternate, safer energy sources to heat our homes, and power our vehicles. We demand all this because our Earth is dying before our own eyes.
The whole in the Ozone layer has gotten smaller, but at the cost of thinner protection worldwide. We are not just talking about a gap over Antarctica. We are talking about more harmful radiation being let in on a yearly, monthly, daily basis. We used to be able to send out our children to play outside all day. No one needed any sunscreen with special UV protection. Now, one has to only go outside for 20 minutes before feeling the sting of the sun, while sunscreen industry has become big business. No one will react until research tells us 15 to 30 years from now that cancer has reach epidemic proportions. The warning signs are there already, we are just choosing not to listen.
Global Dimming is the best example yet. Scientists have started to look at how it has become increasing dimmer on the planet. Sunlight is not getting through as it once used to. It is only normal to think that whatever is keeping the sunlight out, must be keeping the heat in. And whatever is keeping the sunlight out is not necessarily providing us with a layer of protection. More likely, it is beginning to coat our planet with more harmful cancer causing radiation.
While I do not profess to hold a degree in science, I do profess to hold common sense. All science has done is identify several situations, but has done nothing to confirm how we got there, and what we need to do to get back to where we were. My belief is that there may be too much corporate interference for any decisive action to be taken. And for the companies who will continue to pollute our environment, that is equal to victory. The worst thing that we can do as a population, is to add Global Dumbing to the list. Get smart, take action. You may not be able to make a difference individually, but together, you can effect change. We may always live in a world that separates the rich from the poor, but that does not mean that we have to accept how those in power secure their wealth.
- Take public transit
- Buy hybrid cars. Create the market and force companies to move away from their alliances with Oil Companies, and forge new ones with alternate energy sources.
- Get more active, in physically, with your family, and in your community
- Read labels and ask questions
- Write to your representative
We have the power as consumers to change our purchasing habits. Force companies to hear our plea by talking the only language they understand: net profit. If we take away their profits, they will hear us in volume!
51 Easy, Eco-Friendly Ways You Can Help Sustain Planet Earth
1. Air dry your laundry.
2. Ask your utility companies for an energy audit.
3. Avoid clothing produced in sweat shops around the world. Women and children deserve fair labor practices.
4. Avoid down and feather products, if allergies are a problem. Replace with organic cotton batting or organic wool.
5. Avoid electric bug zappers.
6. Avoid laundry detergent with phosphates.
7. Avoid plastics in your home.
8. Avoid poultry and meats from animals raised on hormones and steroids.
9. Avoid products from farms that practice inhumane treatment of people and animals.
10. Avoid products tested on animals.
11. Buy locally grown or organic food.
12. Buy organic bedding.
13. Buy organic coffees and teas with the Fair Trade label.
14. Buy organic cotton underwear.
15. Buy organic grains, pastas, herbs, and essential products, in bulk.
16. Buy recycled and biodegradable toiler paper.
17. Buy recycled gift wrap.
18. Compost yard debris and food scraps.
19. Consider giving homemade gifts.
20. Decline drinking straws in the restaurant.
21. Diaper Baby in soft organic cottons.
22. Don't buy a larger home than you need.
23. Don't buy a second home.
24. Don't buy big cars.
25. Don't buy everyone in the family a car. Teach sharing.
26. Donate to your favorite environmental organization.
27. Donate unused clothing and furniture.
28. Eat meatless at least twice a week.
29. Eat more farm stand or organic vegetables and fruits every day.
30. Garden without chemicals and pesticides.
31. Grow your own organic herbs.
32. Hand-wash clothing instead of dry cleaning.
33. Install and use ceiling fans.
34. Lower thermostat in your home to 68 degrees, and 55 degrees when away from home.
35. Lower thermostat on your water heater to 120 degrees.
36. Recycle, recycle, recycle.
37. Reduce disposable products in your home.
38. Reduce watering of your yard and garden.
39. Repair faucet leaks.
40. Replace incandescent bulbs with energy efficient lighting.
41. Sew with organic cotton and natural fabrics.
42. Shorten shower time by 25%.
43. Support environmental legislation. Nag your congressman.
44. Support Fair Trade practices to reduce global poverty and hunger.
45. Support your local farmers market or co-op.
46. Use cloth napkins, or recycled paper napkins.
47. Use organic and herbal soaps, shampoos, and natural cleaning products.
48. Use public transport, or carpool to work, at least once per week.
49. Use recycled paper for writing and printing.
50. Use washable coffee mugs.
51. Walk or bicycle. Leave the car in the garage for awhile.
TSUNAMI The Next Big Wave:The Grandaddy of Them All
A few days ago on Melbourne's 60 Minutes, renowned scientist Dr Kerry Sieh predicted the guaranteed next big wave or giant Tsunami will definitely happen, and it will be the Grandaddy of them all.
Indonesia gets the full force this time around ... When?... whether it be in a few months, or in a decade is all Dr Sieh cannot accurately predict at this present moment.
Kerry Sieh, a Geology professor at the California Institute of Technology, knows Indonesia's earthquake zone like the back of his hand ... and he did in fact predict the first earthquake that hit parts of Indonesia on Boxing Day. Now he predicts another Tsunami will hit, and this will be the grandaddy of them all!
From Melbourne MSN Channel 9's Sixty Minutes Richard Carleton explains why the earthquakes and ensuing Tsunami's occur:
RICHARD CARLETON: Dr Sieh's focus is on the faultline, 5000km long, where moving plates of the earth's crust grind against each other. The plate under the Indian Ocean slides beneath Indonesia, much like the disappearing stairs on an escalator. But some sections get stuck and then later snap upwards, releasing gargantuan force.
DR KERRY SIEH: The plates get hung up and they can't slip past each other, so the upper plate gets dragged down as this plate sinks and with it, the islands get dragged down, slowly but surely, and when the earthquake happens, they pop back up and out.
RICHARD CARLETON: And that's what happened last Boxing Day. The quake jolted the mainland so violently that people were thrown to the ground.
What a pointless waste of life! ... Dr Sieh warned the governments concerned ahead of time, he even went down personally and alerted inhabitants of the affected villages in Indonesia to protect themselves against the Tsunami he just knew would happen ... but nobody paid any attention to him ... now when he walks into these same villages, he is welcomed and treated as a hero !
From his 14 satellite research station, high in the mountain tops of the humid Indonesian jungle, Dr Sieh now predicts the next Tsunami will hit:
.. and the precise location .... right opposite the city of Padang in Indonesia ... inhabitants: 1 million people!
Repeat: All he cannot pinpoint is when ... this disaster could be in months, the next decade or in a hundred years!
The city of Padang is base for Australian surfers who go there to surf the waves of the Menwawais ... where some of the best surfing breaks in the world may be found .. as an Australian citizen this is startling news.
Geographically, the city of Padang would have difficulty dealing with a high tide, the devastation caused by the grandaddy of Tsunamis is incomprehensible.
Imagine a mere 15 minute warning before the earthquake ..
... and then the waters of the giant Tsunami gushing down the streets of Padang, just like it did in Banda Acheh washing everything away in its stride ..
... a moving torrent of cars, oil, broken trees and precious human life!
My call to all my fellow Marketers, the Search Engine Optimization community, Retail colleagues and anyone who reads this post: do everything in your power to reach your readers in Indonesia, particularly the city of Padang, they need to take heed and make adequate provision, to stop the pointless human slaughter this time around.
Whether this be in the form of lobbying your local Government bodies, or through local press release, we must help this time, before the devastation of this giant wave; the grandaddy of Tsunami's takes away more precious human life.
But above all do this in a responsible manner .. causing wide spread panic amongst unworldly village inhabitants or your worldwide audience will not help at all.
Melbourne's 60 Minutes at MSN Channel 9 has the whole story including a video of the interview available at their site . The video version is half-way down the page. Due to the ever changing nature of News, I cannot guarantee how long this link will be up.
Whilst this news is hardly topical for an internet marketing and search engine optimization Blog, as a parent the irreversible damage to our environment has me greatly concerned ... please do whatever you can to stop this alarming trend.
Indonesia gets the full force this time around ... When?... whether it be in a few months, or in a decade is all Dr Sieh cannot accurately predict at this present moment.
Kerry Sieh, a Geology professor at the California Institute of Technology, knows Indonesia's earthquake zone like the back of his hand ... and he did in fact predict the first earthquake that hit parts of Indonesia on Boxing Day. Now he predicts another Tsunami will hit, and this will be the grandaddy of them all!
From Melbourne MSN Channel 9's Sixty Minutes Richard Carleton explains why the earthquakes and ensuing Tsunami's occur:
RICHARD CARLETON: Dr Sieh's focus is on the faultline, 5000km long, where moving plates of the earth's crust grind against each other. The plate under the Indian Ocean slides beneath Indonesia, much like the disappearing stairs on an escalator. But some sections get stuck and then later snap upwards, releasing gargantuan force.
DR KERRY SIEH: The plates get hung up and they can't slip past each other, so the upper plate gets dragged down as this plate sinks and with it, the islands get dragged down, slowly but surely, and when the earthquake happens, they pop back up and out.
RICHARD CARLETON: And that's what happened last Boxing Day. The quake jolted the mainland so violently that people were thrown to the ground.
What a pointless waste of life! ... Dr Sieh warned the governments concerned ahead of time, he even went down personally and alerted inhabitants of the affected villages in Indonesia to protect themselves against the Tsunami he just knew would happen ... but nobody paid any attention to him ... now when he walks into these same villages, he is welcomed and treated as a hero !
From his 14 satellite research station, high in the mountain tops of the humid Indonesian jungle, Dr Sieh now predicts the next Tsunami will hit:
.. and the precise location .... right opposite the city of Padang in Indonesia ... inhabitants: 1 million people!
Repeat: All he cannot pinpoint is when ... this disaster could be in months, the next decade or in a hundred years!
The city of Padang is base for Australian surfers who go there to surf the waves of the Menwawais ... where some of the best surfing breaks in the world may be found .. as an Australian citizen this is startling news.
Geographically, the city of Padang would have difficulty dealing with a high tide, the devastation caused by the grandaddy of Tsunamis is incomprehensible.
Imagine a mere 15 minute warning before the earthquake ..
... and then the waters of the giant Tsunami gushing down the streets of Padang, just like it did in Banda Acheh washing everything away in its stride ..
... a moving torrent of cars, oil, broken trees and precious human life!
My call to all my fellow Marketers, the Search Engine Optimization community, Retail colleagues and anyone who reads this post: do everything in your power to reach your readers in Indonesia, particularly the city of Padang, they need to take heed and make adequate provision, to stop the pointless human slaughter this time around.
Whether this be in the form of lobbying your local Government bodies, or through local press release, we must help this time, before the devastation of this giant wave; the grandaddy of Tsunami's takes away more precious human life.
But above all do this in a responsible manner .. causing wide spread panic amongst unworldly village inhabitants or your worldwide audience will not help at all.
Melbourne's 60 Minutes at MSN Channel 9 has the whole story including a video of the interview available at their site . The video version is half-way down the page. Due to the ever changing nature of News, I cannot guarantee how long this link will be up.
Whilst this news is hardly topical for an internet marketing and search engine optimization Blog, as a parent the irreversible damage to our environment has me greatly concerned ... please do whatever you can to stop this alarming trend.
How I Became Interested In Looking At The Moon
Like a lot of kids, my folks gave me a 60mm telescope for Christmas one year. The scope was a typical department-store brand - not very good - but to a 12-year old kid it opened up the universe.
Through it I got to see the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus and the rings of Saturn. But above all these eye-openers, there was the moon. There in the eyepiece stood craggy mountains - spires casting long shadows across crater lowlands, dark maria and (painfully) bright highlands, a surface pockmarked with craters of all sizes, some with bright ejecta rays and some funny squiggle type features. I soon learned that the greatest amount of detail was seen along the terminator, that line splitting light from dark, where shadows played across features showing them in stark contrast. And to cap it all, each night different features could be seen in detail.
They say that as you get older, your memory plays tricks on you - you remember good things more than the bad. I remember lots of clear, frosty winter nights when I could point my 'scope at the moon and scan its disk for some feature I had not seen in relief before. These days, the skies seem to be cloudy much more frequently and the frosty winter nights are few and far between. I guess that's global warming for you!
Time moved on and I moved in and out of committee positions in astronomy societies, editing some magazines along the way (I now put my own ezine, called Photon, together every couple of months). Astronomy became more about the bureaucracy of running clubs than about looking through a telescope. Then, in the late 90s, wanting to get back to my astronomical "roots", I bought a 'real' telescope, an 8" reflector which I readily turned towards the moon. Stunning views once again assailed my eyes (prompting memories of halcyon nights as a 12 year old looking through my old 60mm scope).
I'm a software writer (or should that be "engineer"?) by profession, so I wrote a bit of software which would help me in planning my moon observations. It told me when the moon would rise and set, what phase it was and other stuff. When people who'd seen it said they wanted a copy, I polished it up and released it as Shareware under the title LunarPhase. It's now evolved into a more comprehensive application called LunarPhase Pro. I'm pleased that's it's been receiving very good reviews - I feel like I've done something to make other people more aware of my old friend in the sky.
With the encroachment of light pollution across the globe, the pristine skies of my youth have been gradually fading behind the yellow-orange glow of ever more street lamps. Where stars once twinkled on a velvet background, only a few hardy garnets of light now poke through the misty haze and background neon glow. But the Moon is always there, outshining any murk and pollution we cough up into the sky.
It's a shame we don't treat the sky with the same respect we give our national parks. After all, the sky belongs to all of us. How many of us really appreciate people throwing garbage into our back yards. Why should we allow others to pollute our natural resource?
These days, I'm getting into lunar photography with digital cameras and more sophisticated CCD cameras. I've posted a few of my images on my website if you'd like to see them. I still find a night under the stars with a partially lit Moon high in the sky a relaxing and humbling pursuit. The Moon is the only object in the solar system where we can see real surface detail. I'm so passionate about it that I also wrote an ebook called Observing the Moon.
Growing up during the Apollo era, I have to say that those missions played a great part in spurring on my interest in the moon. My interest is alive and well and extending in other directions (more on that another time). I hope yours is too.
Onward and upward, as they say!
Through it I got to see the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus and the rings of Saturn. But above all these eye-openers, there was the moon. There in the eyepiece stood craggy mountains - spires casting long shadows across crater lowlands, dark maria and (painfully) bright highlands, a surface pockmarked with craters of all sizes, some with bright ejecta rays and some funny squiggle type features. I soon learned that the greatest amount of detail was seen along the terminator, that line splitting light from dark, where shadows played across features showing them in stark contrast. And to cap it all, each night different features could be seen in detail.
They say that as you get older, your memory plays tricks on you - you remember good things more than the bad. I remember lots of clear, frosty winter nights when I could point my 'scope at the moon and scan its disk for some feature I had not seen in relief before. These days, the skies seem to be cloudy much more frequently and the frosty winter nights are few and far between. I guess that's global warming for you!
Time moved on and I moved in and out of committee positions in astronomy societies, editing some magazines along the way (I now put my own ezine, called Photon, together every couple of months). Astronomy became more about the bureaucracy of running clubs than about looking through a telescope. Then, in the late 90s, wanting to get back to my astronomical "roots", I bought a 'real' telescope, an 8" reflector which I readily turned towards the moon. Stunning views once again assailed my eyes (prompting memories of halcyon nights as a 12 year old looking through my old 60mm scope).
I'm a software writer (or should that be "engineer"?) by profession, so I wrote a bit of software which would help me in planning my moon observations. It told me when the moon would rise and set, what phase it was and other stuff. When people who'd seen it said they wanted a copy, I polished it up and released it as Shareware under the title LunarPhase. It's now evolved into a more comprehensive application called LunarPhase Pro. I'm pleased that's it's been receiving very good reviews - I feel like I've done something to make other people more aware of my old friend in the sky.
With the encroachment of light pollution across the globe, the pristine skies of my youth have been gradually fading behind the yellow-orange glow of ever more street lamps. Where stars once twinkled on a velvet background, only a few hardy garnets of light now poke through the misty haze and background neon glow. But the Moon is always there, outshining any murk and pollution we cough up into the sky.
It's a shame we don't treat the sky with the same respect we give our national parks. After all, the sky belongs to all of us. How many of us really appreciate people throwing garbage into our back yards. Why should we allow others to pollute our natural resource?
These days, I'm getting into lunar photography with digital cameras and more sophisticated CCD cameras. I've posted a few of my images on my website if you'd like to see them. I still find a night under the stars with a partially lit Moon high in the sky a relaxing and humbling pursuit. The Moon is the only object in the solar system where we can see real surface detail. I'm so passionate about it that I also wrote an ebook called Observing the Moon.
Growing up during the Apollo era, I have to say that those missions played a great part in spurring on my interest in the moon. My interest is alive and well and extending in other directions (more on that another time). I hope yours is too.
Onward and upward, as they say!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Wages of Science
In the United States, Congress approved, last month, increases in the 2003 budgets of both the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. America is not alone in - vainly - trying to compensate for imploding capital markets and risk-averse financiers.
In 1999, chancellor Gordon Brown inaugurated a $1.6 billion program of "upgrading British science" and commercializing its products. This was on top of $1 billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council were quadrupled overnight.
The University Challenge Fund was set to provide $100 million in seed money to cover costs related to the hiring of managerial skills, securing intellectual property, constructing a prototype or preparing a business plan. Another $30 million went to start-up funding of high-tech, high-risk companies in the UK.
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nations invest in R&D more than $600 billion a year. The bulk of this capital is provided by the private sector. In the United Kingdom, for instance, government funds are dwarfed by private financing, according to the British Venture Capital Association. More than $80 billion have been ploughed into 23,000 companies since 1983, about half of them in the hi-tech sector. Three million people are employed in these firms. Investments surged by 36 percent in 2001 to $18 billion.
But this British exuberance is a global exception.
Even the - white hot - life sciences field suffered an 11 percent drop in venture capital investments last year, reports the MoneyTree Survey. According to the Ernst & Young 2002 Alberta Technology Report released on Wednesday, the Canadian hi-tech sector is languishing with less than $3 billion invested in 2002 in seed capital - this despite generous matching funds and tax credits proffered by many of the provinces as well as the federal government.
In Israel, venture capital plunged to $600 million last year - one fifth its level in 2000. Aware of this cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, the Israeli government set up 24 hi-tech incubators. But these are able merely to partly cater to the pecuniary needs of less than 20 percent of the projects submitted.
As governments pick up the monumental slack created by the withdrawal of private funding, they attempt to rationalize and economize.
The New Jersey Commission of Health Science Education and Training recently proposed to merge the state's three public research universities. Soaring federal and state budget deficits are likely to exert added pressure on the already strained relationship between academe and state - especially with regards to research priorities and the allocation of ever-scarcer resources.
This friction is inevitable because the interaction between technology and science is complex and ill-understood. Some technological advances spawn new scientific fields - the steel industry gave birth to metallurgy, computers to computer science and the transistor to solid state physics. The discoveries of science also lead, though usually circuitously, to technological breakthroughs - consider the examples of semiconductors and biotechnology.
Thus, it is safe to generalize and say that the technology sector is only the more visible and alluring tip of the drabber iceberg of research and development. The military, universities, institutes and industry all over the world plough hundreds of billions annually into both basic and applied studies. But governments are the most important sponsors of pure scientific pursuits by a long shot.
Science is widely perceived as a public good - its benefits are shared. Rational individuals would do well to sit back and copy the outcomes of research - rather than produce widely replicated discoveries themselves. The government has to step in to provide them with incentives to innovate.
Thus, in the minds of most laymen and many economists, science is associated exclusively with publicly-funded universities and the defense establishment. Inventions such as the jet aircraft and the Internet are often touted as examples of the civilian benefits of publicly funded military research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical, information technology and space industries, for instance - though largely private - rely heavily on the fruits of nonrivalrous (i.e. public domain) science sponsored by the state.
The majority of 501 corporations surveyed by the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada in 1995-6 reported that government funding improved their internal cash flow - an important consideration in the decision to undertake research and development. Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives for seven years and recorded employment growth.
In the absence of efficient capital markets and adventuresome capitalists, some developing countries have taken this propensity to extremes. In the Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&D is government-financed. The meltdown of foreign direct investment flows - they declined by nearly three fifths since 2000 - only rendered state involvement more indispensable.
But this is not a universal trend. South Korea, for instance, effected a successful transition to private venture capital which now - even after the Asian turmoil of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 - amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.
Thus, supporting ubiquitous government entanglement in science is overdoing it. Most applied R&D is still conducted by privately owned industrial outfits. Even "pure" science - unadulterated by greed and commerce - is sometimes bankrolled by private endowments and foundations.
Moreover, the conduits of government involvement in research, the universities, are only weakly correlated with growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, professor of education at the University of London elucidates in her seminal tome "Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth", published last year, extra years of schooling and wider access to university do not necessarily translate to enhanced growth (though technological innovation clearly does).
Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in England and author of "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research", is one of a growing band of scholars who dispute the intuitive linkage between state-propped science and economic progress. In an interview published last week by Scientific American, he recounted how he discovered that:
"Of all the lead industrial countries, Japan - the country investing least in science - was growing fastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under laissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that of the U.K. or the U.S. The countries with the next least investment were France and Germany, and were growing next fastest. And the countries with the maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and U.K., all of which were doing very badly at the time."
The Economist concurs: "it is hard for governments to pick winners in technology." Innovation and science sprout in - or migrate to - locations with tough laws regarding intellectual property rights, a functioning financial system, a culture of "thinking outside the box" and a tradition of excellence.
Government can only remove obstacles - especially red tape and trade tariffs - and nudge things in the right direction by investing in infrastructure and institutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if the authorities meddle, they are bound to ruin science and be rued by scientists.
Still, all forms of science funding - both public and private - are lacking.
State largesse is ideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient and erratic. In the United States, mega projects, such as the Superconducting Super Collider, with billions already sunk in, have been abruptly discontinued as were numerous other defense-related schemes. Additionally, some knowledge gleaned in government-funded research is barred from the public domain.
But industrial money can be worse. It comes with strings attached. The commercially detrimental results of drug studies have been suppressed by corporate donors on more than one occasion, for instance. Commercial entities are unlikely to support basic research as a public good, ultimately made available to their competitors as a "spillover benefit". This understandable reluctance stifles innovation.
There is no lack of suggestions on how to square this circle.
Quoted in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of the Princeton biotech company Medarex, proposed last month to encourage pharmaceutical companies to shed technologies they have chosen to shelve: "Just like you see little companies coming out of the research being conducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and Stanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out of Johnson & Johnson and Merck."
This would be the corporate equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The statute made both academic institutions and researchers the owners of inventions or discoveries financed by government agencies. This unleashed a wave of unprecedented self-financing entrepreneurship.
In the two decades that followed, the number of patents registered to universities increased tenfold and they spun off more than 2200 firms to commercialize the fruits of research. In the process, they generated $40 billion in gross national product and created 260,000 jobs.
None of this was government financed - though, according to The Economist's Technology Quarterly, $1 in research usually requires up to $10,000 in capital to get to market. This suggests a clear and mutually profitable division of labor - governments should picks up the tab for basic research, private capital should do the rest, stimulated by the transfer of intellectual property from state to entrepreneurs.
But this raises a host of contentious issues.
Such a scheme may condition industry to depend on the state for advances in pure science, as a kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound to be politicized and lead to massive misallocation of scarce economic resources through pork barrel politics and the imposition of "national goals". NASA, with its "let's put a man on the moon (before the Soviets do)" and the inane International Space Station is a sad manifestation of such dangers.
Science is the only public good that is produced by individuals rather than collectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve. On the one hand, why should the public purse enrich entrepreneurs? On the other hand, profit-driven investors seek temporary monopolies in the form of intellectual property rights. Why would they share this cornucopia with others, as pure scientists are compelled to do?
The partnership between basic research and applied science has always been an uneasy one. It has grown more so as monetary returns on scientific insight have soared and as capital available for commercialization multiplied. The future of science itself is at stake.
Were governments to exit the field, basic research would likely crumble. Were they to micromanage it - applied science and entrepreneurship would suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by the state of both universities and startups, a precarious one as well.
Paper - More than Meets the Eye
We are surrounded by so much paper and card that it is easy to forget just how complex it is. There are many varieties and grades of paper materials, and whilst it is fairly easy to spot the varieties, it is far more difficult to spot the grades.
It needs to be understood that most paper and card is manufactured for a specific purpose, so that whilst the corn-flake packet may look smart it is clearly not something destined for the archives. It is made to look good, but only needs a limited life span. It is also much cheaper to manufacture than high grade card.
Paper can be made from an almost endless variety of cellulose based material which will include many woods, cottons and grasses or which papyrus is an example and from where we get the word ‘paper’. Many of these are very specialized, but the preponderance of paper making has been from soft wood and cotton or rags, with the bulk being wood based.
Paper from Wood.
In order to make wood into paper it needs to be broken down into fine strands. Firstly by powerful machinery and then boiled with strong alkalies such as caustic soda, until a fine pulp of cellulose fibres is produced. It is from this pulp that the final product is made, relying on the bonding together of the cellulose into layers. That, in a very small nutshell, is the essence of paper making from wood. However, the reality is rather more complicated. In order to give us our white paper and card the makers will add bleach and other materials such as china clay and additional chemicals.
An further problem with wood is that it contains a material that is not cellulose. Something called Lignin. This is essential for the tree since it holds the cellulose fibres together, but if it is incorporated into the manufactured paper it presents archivists with a problem. Lignin eventually breaks down and releases acid products into the paper. This will weaken the bond between the cellulose fibres and the paper will become brittle and look rather brown and careworn. We have all seen this in old newspapers and cheap paperback books. It has been estimated that most paper back books will have a life of not greater than fifty years. Not what we need for our archives.
Since the lignin can be removed from the paper pulp during manufacture the obvious question is ‘why is it left in the paper?’ The answer lies in the fact that lignin makes up a considerable part of the tree. By leaving the lignin in the pulp a papermaker can increase his paper yield from a tree to some 95%. Removing it means a yield of only 35%. It is clearly uneconomic to remove the lignin for many paper and card applications.
It also means, of course, that lignin free paper is going to be more expensive, but that is nevertheless what the archivist must look for in his supplies. There is no point whatsoever in carefully placing our valuable artifacts in paper or card that is going to hasten their demise. Acid is particularly harmful to photographic materials, causing them to fade and is some cases simply vanish!
So, how do we tell a piece of suitable paper or card from one that is unsuitable? You cannot do it by simply looking, and rather disappointingly, you cannot always rely on the label. ‘Acid free’ might be true inasmuch as a test on the paper may indicate that it is a neutral material at this time. But lignin can take years before it starts the inevitable process of breaking down, and in the right conditions it will speed up enormously.
Added to this, as I have indicated earlier, paper may also contain other materials added during manufacture such as bleach, china clay, chemical whiteners and size. This looks like a bleak picture, and it would be but for the fact that there are suppliers who will guarantee the material that they sell. If you want to be absolutely sure that you are storing in, or printing on, the correct material then this is probably the only way.
Incidentally, acids can migrate from material to material. Lining old shoe boxes with good quality acid free paper will do little to guard the contents. The acid will get there in the end.
Paper from Rag.
Paper is also commonly made from cotton and rag waste. This has the advantage of being lignin free, but because there is much less cotton and rag than trees, it also tends to be much more expensive than wood pulp paper. You will still need to purchase from a reliable source though, since even rag paper and card can contain undesirable additives.
A reliable source for quality rag papers is a recognised art stockist. Many water colour artists insist on using only fine quality rag paper and board.
The main lesson to learn from this information is that you cannot rely on purchasing archival materials from the high street. The only safe solution is to purchase from specialist suppliers. It may cost rather more, but in the end you will know that your important and valuable data and images have the best home possible
It needs to be understood that most paper and card is manufactured for a specific purpose, so that whilst the corn-flake packet may look smart it is clearly not something destined for the archives. It is made to look good, but only needs a limited life span. It is also much cheaper to manufacture than high grade card.
Paper can be made from an almost endless variety of cellulose based material which will include many woods, cottons and grasses or which papyrus is an example and from where we get the word ‘paper’. Many of these are very specialized, but the preponderance of paper making has been from soft wood and cotton or rags, with the bulk being wood based.
Paper from Wood.
In order to make wood into paper it needs to be broken down into fine strands. Firstly by powerful machinery and then boiled with strong alkalies such as caustic soda, until a fine pulp of cellulose fibres is produced. It is from this pulp that the final product is made, relying on the bonding together of the cellulose into layers. That, in a very small nutshell, is the essence of paper making from wood. However, the reality is rather more complicated. In order to give us our white paper and card the makers will add bleach and other materials such as china clay and additional chemicals.
An further problem with wood is that it contains a material that is not cellulose. Something called Lignin. This is essential for the tree since it holds the cellulose fibres together, but if it is incorporated into the manufactured paper it presents archivists with a problem. Lignin eventually breaks down and releases acid products into the paper. This will weaken the bond between the cellulose fibres and the paper will become brittle and look rather brown and careworn. We have all seen this in old newspapers and cheap paperback books. It has been estimated that most paper back books will have a life of not greater than fifty years. Not what we need for our archives.
Since the lignin can be removed from the paper pulp during manufacture the obvious question is ‘why is it left in the paper?’ The answer lies in the fact that lignin makes up a considerable part of the tree. By leaving the lignin in the pulp a papermaker can increase his paper yield from a tree to some 95%. Removing it means a yield of only 35%. It is clearly uneconomic to remove the lignin for many paper and card applications.
It also means, of course, that lignin free paper is going to be more expensive, but that is nevertheless what the archivist must look for in his supplies. There is no point whatsoever in carefully placing our valuable artifacts in paper or card that is going to hasten their demise. Acid is particularly harmful to photographic materials, causing them to fade and is some cases simply vanish!
So, how do we tell a piece of suitable paper or card from one that is unsuitable? You cannot do it by simply looking, and rather disappointingly, you cannot always rely on the label. ‘Acid free’ might be true inasmuch as a test on the paper may indicate that it is a neutral material at this time. But lignin can take years before it starts the inevitable process of breaking down, and in the right conditions it will speed up enormously.
Added to this, as I have indicated earlier, paper may also contain other materials added during manufacture such as bleach, china clay, chemical whiteners and size. This looks like a bleak picture, and it would be but for the fact that there are suppliers who will guarantee the material that they sell. If you want to be absolutely sure that you are storing in, or printing on, the correct material then this is probably the only way.
Incidentally, acids can migrate from material to material. Lining old shoe boxes with good quality acid free paper will do little to guard the contents. The acid will get there in the end.
Paper from Rag.
Paper is also commonly made from cotton and rag waste. This has the advantage of being lignin free, but because there is much less cotton and rag than trees, it also tends to be much more expensive than wood pulp paper. You will still need to purchase from a reliable source though, since even rag paper and card can contain undesirable additives.
A reliable source for quality rag papers is a recognised art stockist. Many water colour artists insist on using only fine quality rag paper and board.
The main lesson to learn from this information is that you cannot rely on purchasing archival materials from the high street. The only safe solution is to purchase from specialist suppliers. It may cost rather more, but in the end you will know that your important and valuable data and images have the best home possible
How Albert Einstein Saw Things A Little Differently
Albert Einstein had just administered an examination to an advanced class of Physics students.
As he left the building, he was followed out by one of his teaching assistants.
“Excuse me, sir,” said the shy assistant, not quite sure how to tell the great man about his blunder.
“Yes?” said Einstein.
“Um, eh, it's about the test you just handed out.”
Einstein waited patiently.
“I'm not sure that you realize it, but this is the same test you gave out last year. In fact, it's identical.”
Einstein paused to think for a moment, then said, “Hmm, yes, it is the same test.”
The teaching assistant was now very agitated. “What should we do, sir?”
A slow smile spread over Einstein's face. “I don't think we need do anything. The answers have changed.”
And just as the answers in Physics change, so, too, do the answers to your problems change.
While to all appearances you may have the same tests given to you by life, the same recurring problem, consider the possibility that the person contemplating the problem has changed.
Time has passed; you've learned many things along the way.
Rather than keep on trying to force the same old solutions which didn't work before, it might be time to try something else, something that emerges from the new person that you've become.
The tests may be the same, but the answers have changed
As he left the building, he was followed out by one of his teaching assistants.
“Excuse me, sir,” said the shy assistant, not quite sure how to tell the great man about his blunder.
“Yes?” said Einstein.
“Um, eh, it's about the test you just handed out.”
Einstein waited patiently.
“I'm not sure that you realize it, but this is the same test you gave out last year. In fact, it's identical.”
Einstein paused to think for a moment, then said, “Hmm, yes, it is the same test.”
The teaching assistant was now very agitated. “What should we do, sir?”
A slow smile spread over Einstein's face. “I don't think we need do anything. The answers have changed.”
And just as the answers in Physics change, so, too, do the answers to your problems change.
While to all appearances you may have the same tests given to you by life, the same recurring problem, consider the possibility that the person contemplating the problem has changed.
Time has passed; you've learned many things along the way.
Rather than keep on trying to force the same old solutions which didn't work before, it might be time to try something else, something that emerges from the new person that you've become.
The tests may be the same, but the answers have changed
Let's Get Dirty
There is no right way of saying this, so I’ll say it the wrong way: in order to stay healthy we must stay dirty. Now, that didn’t sound right, did it? Put it this way: if we all lived in sealed apartments where only the purest air was pumped in and every trace of bacteria were eliminated from our food we probably wouldn’t last long when we stepped outside.
We all need a few germs and a bit of dirt to give us the resistance we need to fight off more serious germs when they come along. This is an irony of life, isn’t it? We need some of the “bad” in order to have the “good”.
And so it is with germs. Washing regularly is surely a good thing, but washing 5 times a day may be going too far. However, washing your hands 5 times a day (or more) is very important when preparing food, especially when preparing it for others. Although it is surely ok to have a few germs lying around in order to keep up our immunity it is not acceptable to knowingly pass germs on to others, especially if you work in a food factory of public kitchen. In these places it is not just desirable to keep out germs, it is a duty.
When an environmental health inspector visits these places they will expect to see hand-washing facilities and proper measures to control pests – especially flies. Now, if you knew what flies got up to and some of the vile places they visit you surely would not be happy if one was found in the factory that produces your favourite pizza.
Most food production facilities and public kitchens will have a fly killer machine. There are two types: those that are cheap and nasty and are put there in a futile attempt to comply with health regulations and the solidly built machines that are designed to eliminate flies safely and effectively. Insect-o-Cutor is the most respected name in the industry and health inspectors are aware of this.
So, perhaps it’s just a case of getting the balance right – a few germs are OK, but food factories and public kitchens without Insectocutors – no way!
Divining Your Soul Number
Your Soul Number, which defines your very essence or heart's desire, is calculated using the vowels in the name that appeared on your birth certificate. This reading describes what you or another person value or want most in life.
First of all, eliminate all the consonants from your birth name by adding together the numerical equivalents displayed on the chart below.
A 1
E 5
I 9
0 6
U 3
For instance, let's take Pamela Anderson, born Pamela Denise Anderson.
First we would eliminate all the consonants from her name. The result is
aea eie aeo
We would then add the number equivalents of all these letters together and reduce them to a single digit as in: 1+5+1+5+9+5+2+5+6 = 39
3+9 = 11
1+1 = 2
Pamela Anderson's is a master number 11 as well as a 2 so she would read the interpretations for booth as described below.
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SOUL NUMBER
Soul Number 1
More than anything else people with this number desire to be number one in all areas of their life. These often-flamboyant individuals crave being in the spotlight. They delight in experimentation and are the first to exploit a trend or new philosophy that will allow them to stand out from the crowd. More than anything the almost childish Soul Number 1 secretly desires unconditional approval from others.
Soul Number 2
Individuals with this number have a deep desire to always be right. They are black and white thinkers who often tell others "it's my way or the high way." As they often lead difficult lives that are fraught with criticism from others, especially in child hood, it is their desire for respect that leads them to be so difficult sometimes. Soul number 2's greatly benefit from developing an accepting rather than autocratic approach when dealing with other people.
Soul Number 3
Soul number 3's have a great desire to be beautiful. In childhood they are usually the ugly ducklings and even though many of them do grow into swans, they still often feel that there is something wrong with their appearance. Soul Number 3's do not believe in aging gracefully and many of them resort to plastic surgery in later years to defy the ravages of time. Some Number 3's also become artists or photographers so that they can convey the importance of beauty to others.
Soul Number 4
More than anything, Soul Number 4's crave emotional and financial security. As a result they can be clingy, possessive and controlling of their loved ones. Their fear of taking risks can also cause them to be "stuck", especially when it comes to academics and career. Number 4's tend to stick to what they know works and react with hostility to any suggestion about change. Developing the confidence to handle anything that comes their way is the best way for number 4's to overcome their insecurity.
Soul Number 5
Soul Number 5's desire freedom more than anything else in their lives. They are somewhat claustrophobic and feel very confined by office jobs and routines. To avoid apathy and depression, number 5's should seek out careers that involve a great deal of travel or a flexible time schedule. They function best as the owners of their own business or as entrepreneurs. Developing a regimen of spiritual study also greatly assists 5's as that helps them quell their restlessness and develop a sense of inner peace.
Soul Number 6
Soul Number 6's desire justice at all costs. These proactive individuals consider themselves to be agents of karma and often work behind the scenes to punish the undeserving and reward those who they consider to be underdogs. They are also perfectionists on many levels and often make unrealistic demands on themselves and others in their never-ending quest to balance the score. To mitigate a tendency to resent all authority or judge a book by its cover, 6's need to learn a tolerance and acceptance of others who do not share their opinions or moral standards.
Soul Number 7
Soul Number 7's desire unconditional love. Many of them come from abusive or addicted families, so often they succumb to addiction or codependences with toxic partners. 7's are often motivated by the urge to love others without conditions, as they have always desired the same for themselves. Unfortunately their kindness is not always rewarded, as they tend to choose emotionally unavailable, mentally ill or otherwise difficult partners. Individuals following this difficult soul path often learn several hard lessons about "letting go" of bad relationships before the end of their life.
Soul Number 8
Soul Number 8's are practical creatures that value success above all else. Even as children many of them demonstrate an incredible ability to relate to other people as well as make the right decisions regarding academics and career. Although they can appear selfish and materialistic to others, their actual desire (at least in the beginning) is to create a more prosperous future for their family, friends and community. 8's are usually generous and philanthropic individuals who don't feel that they deserve love unless they offer others a gift. Often they need to learn that aside from acquiring great wealth, there are simpler routes to happiness.
Soul Number 9
Those born with a Soul Number 9 have a great desire to transcend all karma by using humor. Many are witty writers, public speakers and filmmakers. They are also great teachers as they have a way of transforming spiritual messages and philosophies into entertainment for the masses. Most of them are gentle souls who have made it their life mission to make the world into a kinder place. Many of them are also liberal thinkers who support the right of each individual to make their own mistakes. Their motto is "Remember to take time out to smell the flowers."
Soul Number 11
Number 11 is a master soul number. The prime directive of these individuals is to transform the world through the use of spiritual knowledge, talents or tools. More than anything these individuals often desire to be as close to God or enlightenment as is possible in this world. They often accomplish this by deliberately choosing to be born into bad situations that punish them for incorrect actions in other lives. This eventually leads them to an incarnation as a "wounded healer" later in life that enables them to enlighten others.
Soul Number 22
Number 22's are the master manifesters of the numerology divination system. These individuals rarely make a move in life without first making sure that their decisions are aligned with the guidance of Divine Will. These souls are sent to us to transform the world for the better. They accomplish this by combining practicality and genius with inspiration, intuition and a heart-felt desire to do what is best for all. Most 22’s believe that it is possible to build a Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Soul Number 33
Soul number 33's value a state of grace above all else. Many of them appear as enigmas as it is next to impossible to determine the logic behind their motivations or actions. A master soul number of 33 is very, very rare. They often spend the majority of their lifetime being misunderstood or persecuted for their beliefs. However as many are enlightened and completely detached from emotions or events, the actions of ordinary mortals have little effect on their directive to spiritually transform the world.
First of all, eliminate all the consonants from your birth name by adding together the numerical equivalents displayed on the chart below.
A 1
E 5
I 9
0 6
U 3
For instance, let's take Pamela Anderson, born Pamela Denise Anderson.
First we would eliminate all the consonants from her name. The result is
aea eie aeo
We would then add the number equivalents of all these letters together and reduce them to a single digit as in: 1+5+1+5+9+5+2+5+6 = 39
3+9 = 11
1+1 = 2
Pamela Anderson's is a master number 11 as well as a 2 so she would read the interpretations for booth as described below.
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SOUL NUMBER
Soul Number 1
More than anything else people with this number desire to be number one in all areas of their life. These often-flamboyant individuals crave being in the spotlight. They delight in experimentation and are the first to exploit a trend or new philosophy that will allow them to stand out from the crowd. More than anything the almost childish Soul Number 1 secretly desires unconditional approval from others.
Soul Number 2
Individuals with this number have a deep desire to always be right. They are black and white thinkers who often tell others "it's my way or the high way." As they often lead difficult lives that are fraught with criticism from others, especially in child hood, it is their desire for respect that leads them to be so difficult sometimes. Soul number 2's greatly benefit from developing an accepting rather than autocratic approach when dealing with other people.
Soul Number 3
Soul number 3's have a great desire to be beautiful. In childhood they are usually the ugly ducklings and even though many of them do grow into swans, they still often feel that there is something wrong with their appearance. Soul Number 3's do not believe in aging gracefully and many of them resort to plastic surgery in later years to defy the ravages of time. Some Number 3's also become artists or photographers so that they can convey the importance of beauty to others.
Soul Number 4
More than anything, Soul Number 4's crave emotional and financial security. As a result they can be clingy, possessive and controlling of their loved ones. Their fear of taking risks can also cause them to be "stuck", especially when it comes to academics and career. Number 4's tend to stick to what they know works and react with hostility to any suggestion about change. Developing the confidence to handle anything that comes their way is the best way for number 4's to overcome their insecurity.
Soul Number 5
Soul Number 5's desire freedom more than anything else in their lives. They are somewhat claustrophobic and feel very confined by office jobs and routines. To avoid apathy and depression, number 5's should seek out careers that involve a great deal of travel or a flexible time schedule. They function best as the owners of their own business or as entrepreneurs. Developing a regimen of spiritual study also greatly assists 5's as that helps them quell their restlessness and develop a sense of inner peace.
Soul Number 6
Soul Number 6's desire justice at all costs. These proactive individuals consider themselves to be agents of karma and often work behind the scenes to punish the undeserving and reward those who they consider to be underdogs. They are also perfectionists on many levels and often make unrealistic demands on themselves and others in their never-ending quest to balance the score. To mitigate a tendency to resent all authority or judge a book by its cover, 6's need to learn a tolerance and acceptance of others who do not share their opinions or moral standards.
Soul Number 7
Soul Number 7's desire unconditional love. Many of them come from abusive or addicted families, so often they succumb to addiction or codependences with toxic partners. 7's are often motivated by the urge to love others without conditions, as they have always desired the same for themselves. Unfortunately their kindness is not always rewarded, as they tend to choose emotionally unavailable, mentally ill or otherwise difficult partners. Individuals following this difficult soul path often learn several hard lessons about "letting go" of bad relationships before the end of their life.
Soul Number 8
Soul Number 8's are practical creatures that value success above all else. Even as children many of them demonstrate an incredible ability to relate to other people as well as make the right decisions regarding academics and career. Although they can appear selfish and materialistic to others, their actual desire (at least in the beginning) is to create a more prosperous future for their family, friends and community. 8's are usually generous and philanthropic individuals who don't feel that they deserve love unless they offer others a gift. Often they need to learn that aside from acquiring great wealth, there are simpler routes to happiness.
Soul Number 9
Those born with a Soul Number 9 have a great desire to transcend all karma by using humor. Many are witty writers, public speakers and filmmakers. They are also great teachers as they have a way of transforming spiritual messages and philosophies into entertainment for the masses. Most of them are gentle souls who have made it their life mission to make the world into a kinder place. Many of them are also liberal thinkers who support the right of each individual to make their own mistakes. Their motto is "Remember to take time out to smell the flowers."
Soul Number 11
Number 11 is a master soul number. The prime directive of these individuals is to transform the world through the use of spiritual knowledge, talents or tools. More than anything these individuals often desire to be as close to God or enlightenment as is possible in this world. They often accomplish this by deliberately choosing to be born into bad situations that punish them for incorrect actions in other lives. This eventually leads them to an incarnation as a "wounded healer" later in life that enables them to enlighten others.
Soul Number 22
Number 22's are the master manifesters of the numerology divination system. These individuals rarely make a move in life without first making sure that their decisions are aligned with the guidance of Divine Will. These souls are sent to us to transform the world for the better. They accomplish this by combining practicality and genius with inspiration, intuition and a heart-felt desire to do what is best for all. Most 22’s believe that it is possible to build a Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Soul Number 33
Soul number 33's value a state of grace above all else. Many of them appear as enigmas as it is next to impossible to determine the logic behind their motivations or actions. A master soul number of 33 is very, very rare. They often spend the majority of their lifetime being misunderstood or persecuted for their beliefs. However as many are enlightened and completely detached from emotions or events, the actions of ordinary mortals have little effect on their directive to spiritually transform the world.
Aliens
I am being allowed time out to raise a subject that is dear to my heart (I normally market web sites!).
Is there life out there? Are we alone? How did we get here?
These are the big questions. For what it is worth, I believe there are big bangs happening all the time. The virtually random result from each big bang would produce many universes (I know, a contradiction in terms). The only common factor would be that each started from a burst of energy. In our case, some of that energy was converted to matter, and we are the result. Surely there is no reason why the energy could not have been converted into another phenomenon that our language and our vision cannot comprehend. This may perhaps be a form that is way off the scale of our electromagnetic spectrum, or using a different spectrum altogether.
Should such universes exist we could not observe them as our senses and instruments are tuned to our own universe and not to an alien one. An example of the problem of recording the existence of these aliens is this: what if the aliens did not have the dimension of space in their tool kit? In other words they didn’t exist as physical entities at all? You may speculate therefore that perhaps they are made up of protons, or electrical waves? No, even these phenomena would take up some space, and my aliens have no space in which to accommodate anything. Of course it is impossible to describe how they would exist, but perhaps an analogy would be the best thing. Just think about thought and, for a minute, please forget that thought waves themselves take up space. Perhaps our aliens are simply made up of thoughts or notions that whisk around us but have no physical form or a physical home. These thoughts will simply exist around us. The problem is that I have already run into trouble with language. The word “around” suggests space and as I said earlier, a thought in our universe takes up some space. You see, aliens probably do exist, but we cannot record them nor, with the limitations of our language, we cannot describe them. A good example of falling into the trap of our own language is the term “Aliens from outer space”. The example I offered would not work, as the words “from”, “outer” and “space” would not apply! As we are limited by language, all we have is our imagination.
So, back to the day job. If you are wondering why we are so obsessed about aliens but still can’t keep house flies out of our kitchens, help is at hand, below, with our fly killer buy on line web site.
Is there life out there? Are we alone? How did we get here?
These are the big questions. For what it is worth, I believe there are big bangs happening all the time. The virtually random result from each big bang would produce many universes (I know, a contradiction in terms). The only common factor would be that each started from a burst of energy. In our case, some of that energy was converted to matter, and we are the result. Surely there is no reason why the energy could not have been converted into another phenomenon that our language and our vision cannot comprehend. This may perhaps be a form that is way off the scale of our electromagnetic spectrum, or using a different spectrum altogether.
Should such universes exist we could not observe them as our senses and instruments are tuned to our own universe and not to an alien one. An example of the problem of recording the existence of these aliens is this: what if the aliens did not have the dimension of space in their tool kit? In other words they didn’t exist as physical entities at all? You may speculate therefore that perhaps they are made up of protons, or electrical waves? No, even these phenomena would take up some space, and my aliens have no space in which to accommodate anything. Of course it is impossible to describe how they would exist, but perhaps an analogy would be the best thing. Just think about thought and, for a minute, please forget that thought waves themselves take up space. Perhaps our aliens are simply made up of thoughts or notions that whisk around us but have no physical form or a physical home. These thoughts will simply exist around us. The problem is that I have already run into trouble with language. The word “around” suggests space and as I said earlier, a thought in our universe takes up some space. You see, aliens probably do exist, but we cannot record them nor, with the limitations of our language, we cannot describe them. A good example of falling into the trap of our own language is the term “Aliens from outer space”. The example I offered would not work, as the words “from”, “outer” and “space” would not apply! As we are limited by language, all we have is our imagination.
So, back to the day job. If you are wondering why we are so obsessed about aliens but still can’t keep house flies out of our kitchens, help is at hand, below, with our fly killer buy on line web site.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Mesothelioma
What is mesothelioma?
Mesothelioma (cancer of the mesothelium) is a disease in which cells of the mesothelium become abnormal and divide without control or order. They can invade and damage nearby tissues and organs. Cancer cells can also metastasize (spread) from their original site to other parts of the body. Most cases of mesothelioma begin in the pleura or peritoneum.
How common is mesothelioma?
Although reported incidence rates have increased in the past 20 years, mesothelioma is still a relatively rare cancer. About 2,000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in the United States each year. Mesothelioma occurs more often in men than in women and risk increases with age, but this disease can appear in either men or women at any age.
What are the risk factors for mesothelioma?
Working with asbestos is the major risk factor for mesothelioma. A history of asbestos exposure at work is reported in about 70 percent to 80 percent of all cases. However, mesothelioma has been reported in some individuals without any known exposure to asbestos.
Asbestos is the name of a group of minerals that occur naturally as masses of strong, flexible fibers that can be separated into thin threads and woven. Asbestos has been widely used in many industrial products, including cement, brake linings, roof shingles, flooring products, textiles, and insulation. If tiny asbestos particles float in the air, especially during the manufacturing process, they may be inhaled or swallowed, and can cause serious health problems. In addition to mesothelioma, exposure to asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer, asbestosis (a noncancerous, chronic lung ailment), and other cancers, such as those of the larynx and kidney.
Smoking does not appear to increase the risk of mesothelioma. However, the combination of smoking and asbestos exposure significantly increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the air passageways in the lung.
Who is at increased risk for developing mesothelioma?
Asbestos has been mined and used commercially since the late 1800s. Its use greatly increased during World War II. Since the early 1940s, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos dust. Initially, the risks associated with asbestos exposure were not known. However, an increased risk of developing mesothelioma was later found among shipyard workers, people who work in asbestos mines and mills, producers of asbestos products, workers in the heating and construction industries, and other tradespeople. Today, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets limits for acceptable levels of asbestos exposure in the workplace. People who work with asbestos wear personal protective equipment to lower their risk of exposure.
The risk of asbestos-related disease increases with heavier exposure to asbestos and longer exposure time. However, some individuals with only brief exposures have developed mesothelioma. On the other hand, not all workers who are heavily exposed develop asbestos-related diseases.
There is some evidence that family members and others living with asbestos workers have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma, and possibly other asbestos-related diseases. This risk may be the result of exposure to asbestos dust brought home on the clothing and hair of asbestos workers. To reduce the chance of exposing family members to asbestos fibers, asbestos workers are usually required to shower and change their clothing before leaving the workplace.
What are the symptoms of mesothelioma?
Symptoms of mesothelioma may not appear until 30 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos. Shortness of breath and pain in the chest due to an accumulation of fluid in the pleura are often symptoms of pleural mesothelioma. Symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma include weight loss and abdominal pain and swelling due to a buildup of fluid in the abdomen. Other symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma may include bowel obstruction, blood clotting abnormalities, anemia, and fever. If the cancer has spread beyond the mesothelium to other parts of the body, symptoms may include pain, trouble swallowing, or swelling of the neck or face.
These symptoms may be caused by mesothelioma or by other, less serious conditions. It is important to see a doctor about any of these symptoms. Only a doctor can make a diagnosis.
How is mesothelioma diagnosed?
Diagnosing mesothelioma is often difficult, because the symptoms are similar to those of a number of other conditions. Diagnosis begins with a review of the patient's medical history, including any history of asbestos exposure. A complete physical examination may be performed, including x-rays of the chest or abdomen and lung function tests. A CT (or CAT) scan or an MRI may also be useful. A CT scan is a series of detailed pictures of areas inside the body created by a computer linked to an x-ray machine. In an MRI, a powerful magnet linked to a computer is used to make detailed pictures of areas inside the body. These pictures are viewed on a monitor and can also be printed.
A biopsy is needed to confirm a diagnosis of mesothelioma. In a biopsy, a surgeon or a medical oncologist (a doctor who specializes in diagnosing and treating cancer) removes a sample of tissue for examination under a microscope by a pathologist. A biopsy may be done in different ways, depending on where the abnormal area is located. If the cancer is in the chest, the doctor may perform a thoracoscopy. In this procedure, the doctor makes a small cut through the chest wall and puts a thin, lighted tube called a thoracoscope into the chest between two ribs. Thoracoscopy allows the doctor to look inside the chest and obtain tissue samples. If the cancer is in the abdomen, the doctor may perform a peritoneoscopy. To obtain tissue for examination, the doctor makes a small opening in the abdomen and inserts a special instrument called a peritoneoscope into the abdominal cavity. If these procedures do not yield enough tissue, more extensive diagnostic surgery may be necessary.
If the diagnosis is mesothelioma, the doctor will want to learn the stage (or extent) of the disease. Staging involves more tests in a careful attempt to find out whether the cancer has spread and, if so, to which parts of the body. Knowing the stage of the disease helps the doctor plan treatment.
Mesothelioma is described as localized if the cancer is found only on the membrane surface where it originated. It is classified as advanced if it has spread beyond the original membrane surface to other parts of the body, such as the lymph nodes, lungs, chest wall, or abdominal organs.
How is mesothelioma treated?
Treatment for mesothelioma depends on the location of the cancer, the stage of the disease, and the patient's age and general health. Standard treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Sometimes, these treatments are combined.
* Surgery is a common treatment for mesothelioma. The doctor may remove part of the lining of the chest or abdomen and some of the tissue around it. For cancer of the pleura (pleural mesothelioma), a lung may be removed in an operation called a pneumonectomy. Sometimes part of the diaphragm, the muscle below the lungs that helps with breathing, is also removed.
* Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy, involves the use of high-energy rays to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Radiation therapy affects the cancer cells only in the treated area. The radiation may come from a machine (external radiation) or from putting materials that produce radiation through thin plastic tubes into the area where the cancer cells are found (internal radiation therapy).
* Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Most drugs used to treat mesothelioma are given by injection into a vein (intravenous, or IV). Doctors are also studying the effectiveness of putting chemotherapy directly into the chest or abdomen (intracavitary chemotherapy).
To relieve symptoms and control pain, the doctor may use a needle or a thin tube to drain fluid that has built up in the chest or abdomen. The procedure for removing fluid from the chest is called thoracentesis. Removal of fluid from the abdomen is called paracentesis. Drugs may be given through a tube in the chest to prevent more fluid from accumulating. Radiation therapy and surgery may also be helpful in relieving symptoms.
Are new treatments for mesothelioma being studied?
Yes. Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials (research studies with people) that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in mesothelioma trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma (cancer of the mesothelium) is a disease in which cells of the mesothelium become abnormal and divide without control or order. They can invade and damage nearby tissues and organs. Cancer cells can also metastasize (spread) from their original site to other parts of the body. Most cases of mesothelioma begin in the pleura or peritoneum.
How common is mesothelioma?
Although reported incidence rates have increased in the past 20 years, mesothelioma is still a relatively rare cancer. About 2,000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in the United States each year. Mesothelioma occurs more often in men than in women and risk increases with age, but this disease can appear in either men or women at any age.
What are the risk factors for mesothelioma?
Working with asbestos is the major risk factor for mesothelioma. A history of asbestos exposure at work is reported in about 70 percent to 80 percent of all cases. However, mesothelioma has been reported in some individuals without any known exposure to asbestos.
Asbestos is the name of a group of minerals that occur naturally as masses of strong, flexible fibers that can be separated into thin threads and woven. Asbestos has been widely used in many industrial products, including cement, brake linings, roof shingles, flooring products, textiles, and insulation. If tiny asbestos particles float in the air, especially during the manufacturing process, they may be inhaled or swallowed, and can cause serious health problems. In addition to mesothelioma, exposure to asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer, asbestosis (a noncancerous, chronic lung ailment), and other cancers, such as those of the larynx and kidney.
Smoking does not appear to increase the risk of mesothelioma. However, the combination of smoking and asbestos exposure significantly increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the air passageways in the lung.
Who is at increased risk for developing mesothelioma?
Asbestos has been mined and used commercially since the late 1800s. Its use greatly increased during World War II. Since the early 1940s, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos dust. Initially, the risks associated with asbestos exposure were not known. However, an increased risk of developing mesothelioma was later found among shipyard workers, people who work in asbestos mines and mills, producers of asbestos products, workers in the heating and construction industries, and other tradespeople. Today, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets limits for acceptable levels of asbestos exposure in the workplace. People who work with asbestos wear personal protective equipment to lower their risk of exposure.
The risk of asbestos-related disease increases with heavier exposure to asbestos and longer exposure time. However, some individuals with only brief exposures have developed mesothelioma. On the other hand, not all workers who are heavily exposed develop asbestos-related diseases.
There is some evidence that family members and others living with asbestos workers have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma, and possibly other asbestos-related diseases. This risk may be the result of exposure to asbestos dust brought home on the clothing and hair of asbestos workers. To reduce the chance of exposing family members to asbestos fibers, asbestos workers are usually required to shower and change their clothing before leaving the workplace.
What are the symptoms of mesothelioma?
Symptoms of mesothelioma may not appear until 30 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos. Shortness of breath and pain in the chest due to an accumulation of fluid in the pleura are often symptoms of pleural mesothelioma. Symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma include weight loss and abdominal pain and swelling due to a buildup of fluid in the abdomen. Other symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma may include bowel obstruction, blood clotting abnormalities, anemia, and fever. If the cancer has spread beyond the mesothelium to other parts of the body, symptoms may include pain, trouble swallowing, or swelling of the neck or face.
These symptoms may be caused by mesothelioma or by other, less serious conditions. It is important to see a doctor about any of these symptoms. Only a doctor can make a diagnosis.
How is mesothelioma diagnosed?
Diagnosing mesothelioma is often difficult, because the symptoms are similar to those of a number of other conditions. Diagnosis begins with a review of the patient's medical history, including any history of asbestos exposure. A complete physical examination may be performed, including x-rays of the chest or abdomen and lung function tests. A CT (or CAT) scan or an MRI may also be useful. A CT scan is a series of detailed pictures of areas inside the body created by a computer linked to an x-ray machine. In an MRI, a powerful magnet linked to a computer is used to make detailed pictures of areas inside the body. These pictures are viewed on a monitor and can also be printed.
A biopsy is needed to confirm a diagnosis of mesothelioma. In a biopsy, a surgeon or a medical oncologist (a doctor who specializes in diagnosing and treating cancer) removes a sample of tissue for examination under a microscope by a pathologist. A biopsy may be done in different ways, depending on where the abnormal area is located. If the cancer is in the chest, the doctor may perform a thoracoscopy. In this procedure, the doctor makes a small cut through the chest wall and puts a thin, lighted tube called a thoracoscope into the chest between two ribs. Thoracoscopy allows the doctor to look inside the chest and obtain tissue samples. If the cancer is in the abdomen, the doctor may perform a peritoneoscopy. To obtain tissue for examination, the doctor makes a small opening in the abdomen and inserts a special instrument called a peritoneoscope into the abdominal cavity. If these procedures do not yield enough tissue, more extensive diagnostic surgery may be necessary.
If the diagnosis is mesothelioma, the doctor will want to learn the stage (or extent) of the disease. Staging involves more tests in a careful attempt to find out whether the cancer has spread and, if so, to which parts of the body. Knowing the stage of the disease helps the doctor plan treatment.
Mesothelioma is described as localized if the cancer is found only on the membrane surface where it originated. It is classified as advanced if it has spread beyond the original membrane surface to other parts of the body, such as the lymph nodes, lungs, chest wall, or abdominal organs.
How is mesothelioma treated?
Treatment for mesothelioma depends on the location of the cancer, the stage of the disease, and the patient's age and general health. Standard treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Sometimes, these treatments are combined.
* Surgery is a common treatment for mesothelioma. The doctor may remove part of the lining of the chest or abdomen and some of the tissue around it. For cancer of the pleura (pleural mesothelioma), a lung may be removed in an operation called a pneumonectomy. Sometimes part of the diaphragm, the muscle below the lungs that helps with breathing, is also removed.
* Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy, involves the use of high-energy rays to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Radiation therapy affects the cancer cells only in the treated area. The radiation may come from a machine (external radiation) or from putting materials that produce radiation through thin plastic tubes into the area where the cancer cells are found (internal radiation therapy).
* Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Most drugs used to treat mesothelioma are given by injection into a vein (intravenous, or IV). Doctors are also studying the effectiveness of putting chemotherapy directly into the chest or abdomen (intracavitary chemotherapy).
To relieve symptoms and control pain, the doctor may use a needle or a thin tube to drain fluid that has built up in the chest or abdomen. The procedure for removing fluid from the chest is called thoracentesis. Removal of fluid from the abdomen is called paracentesis. Drugs may be given through a tube in the chest to prevent more fluid from accumulating. Radiation therapy and surgery may also be helpful in relieving symptoms.
Are new treatments for mesothelioma being studied?
Yes. Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials (research studies with people) that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in mesothelioma trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma.
Your Environment Can Affect Your Health
There are many factors that can cause your physiology to move away from that state of balance in which you enjoy perfect, complete health. One big factor is environment. Climate—temperatures outside, amount of humidity or number of sunny days, for example, the altitude of the place where you live, the levels and types of environmental pollution, the type of vibrational energy in the environment and the presence or absence of stress in the environment are all factors that can affect your health and well-being. For many of us, the place where we live may not always be in our control, but there is much we can all do to create microclimates and mini-environments in our homes and workspaces to suit our constitutions and needs for balance. Here are some suggestions to start you off; tune in to your mind and body to create even more individualized healthful spaces.
1. Set indoor temperatures to comfortable levels. If you are trying to keep Vata dosha in balance, you’ll want warm temperatures and no drafts. Get extra humidity in the home or room by using a humidifier or setting pots of water on the radiator to counter the drying effect of Vata. To balance the heat of Pitta dosha, keep indoor temperatures relatively cooler. For Kapha, choose warm temperatures and a dry environment to counteract the dampness of Kapha. Dress in layers if you are trying to stay warmer than other folks at home.
2. Living 24/7 in climate-controlled environments can gradually weaken natural immunity, and resistance to weather fluctuations, allergens, pollutants and the like can diminish over time. If possible, let in fresh air into your living areas once in a while when it’s comfortable outside, and let in natural early morning sunlight as well.
3. Green plants in living spaces are soothing to the eyes and the mind as well as suppliers of oxygen. According to ayurveda, the Holy Basil plant helps purify the environment of garavisha, environmental toxins. Holy Basil can be grown from seed in a pot on a sunny windowsill. Grow culinary herbs such as cilantro on your kitchen windowsill and snip them fresh when needed for garnish. Fragrant indoor flowering plants offer aromatic healing value. A quiet indoor water feature offers serenity if you are trying to balance Vata or Pitta.
1. Set indoor temperatures to comfortable levels. If you are trying to keep Vata dosha in balance, you’ll want warm temperatures and no drafts. Get extra humidity in the home or room by using a humidifier or setting pots of water on the radiator to counter the drying effect of Vata. To balance the heat of Pitta dosha, keep indoor temperatures relatively cooler. For Kapha, choose warm temperatures and a dry environment to counteract the dampness of Kapha. Dress in layers if you are trying to stay warmer than other folks at home.
2. Living 24/7 in climate-controlled environments can gradually weaken natural immunity, and resistance to weather fluctuations, allergens, pollutants and the like can diminish over time. If possible, let in fresh air into your living areas once in a while when it’s comfortable outside, and let in natural early morning sunlight as well.
3. Green plants in living spaces are soothing to the eyes and the mind as well as suppliers of oxygen. According to ayurveda, the Holy Basil plant helps purify the environment of garavisha, environmental toxins. Holy Basil can be grown from seed in a pot on a sunny windowsill. Grow culinary herbs such as cilantro on your kitchen windowsill and snip them fresh when needed for garnish. Fragrant indoor flowering plants offer aromatic healing value. A quiet indoor water feature offers serenity if you are trying to balance Vata or Pitta.
Impact of the natural universal phylogenetic classification on the evolution of cells theory
1) Introduction
Taxonomy is often seen as a trivial and boring part of biology but a system of classification is desired due to the tremendous diversity of living organisms [1]. Taxonomy allows the classification of huge amount of knowledge into an easily accessible system. It also helps in developing and supporting hypothesis regarding evolution and comparative studies. Moreover, it allows biologist to work and communicate efficiently with precise information [1]. For many decades, classification of organisms was based on morphology, behaviour and distribution in the environment. For microbiologists, this system could not be used easily and it often could be misleading due to the simplicity or uninterpretable data of microbial morphology and characteristics [2]. With the advance of molecular biology and the sequencing era, a modern classification tool arose; the small-subunit of ribosomal ribonucleic acid (16S rRNA for bacteria and archea, and 18S rRNA for eucarya). Sequencing of 16/18S RNA revealed interesting data and gave rise to the natural universal phylogenetic tree (see fig.1 and reference 2). The 16/18S rRNA-based tree changed the perspective of evolution of the cell.
2) The Universal Phylogenetic Classification
2.1) Restructuring the Systematic Systems
The old systematic system started with the creation of two kingdoms, the plants and the animals. Many years after the invention of the microscope, a third kingdom was added by Haeckel in 1866, the protist. Later on, Copeland added a forth branch, the Monera (i.e. bacteria and later the archea), and Whittaker created a fifth group, the fungi. The five kingdoms scheme (Whittaker’s model) was and still is one of the most widely accepted model for the organization of life [2]. As the sequencing era advanced, Woese and co-workers [2] felt that the five kingdoms model was not phylogenetically correct and natural. For many, kingdom Prostista and Fungi were artificial and were probably paraphyletic (share a common ancestor but do not include all the descendants) at best to the plant and animals [2]. The Monera kingdom was also viewed by Woese et al. [2] as a primary division whereas plants and animals were viewed as secondary division.
According to Woese and co-workers [2], the famous eukaryote-prokaryote concept could be misinterpreted by many. Eukaryotes are defined as a cell possessing a nucleus and organelles and it is a meaningful phylogenetic unit. In the other hands, prokaryotes are defined as lacking a nucleus and complex cellular organization (i.e. not eukaryotes). The definition of prokaryotes is meaningless scientifically and as a phylogenetic unit because the group is based on lack of characteristics rather than on possession of specific characteristics. This problem became more apparent when archea(bacteria) and (eu)bacteria were compared. Archea(bacteria) were indeed prokaryotes (they possess none of the eukaryotic characteristics) but shared little resemblance with (eu)bacteria. Therefore, Monera could not be view as a valid taxon.
Based on these arguments and recent sequencing of 16/18S rRNA of numerous species, Woese and co-workers [2] proposed a new model for the organization of life. For practical reasons, they introduced a new taxon level higher than kingdom, the domains. The taxa kingdom was retained for dividing major secondary group among the domains. Three domains were created namely Bacteria, Archea and Eucarya. A new universal phylogenetic tree was born (see fig 1 on page 2 and ref. 2).
2.2) Interpreting the Universal Phylogenetic Tree
The universal phylogenetic tree was misinterpreted as soon after it came out and the supporters of older models defended their ideas. Many assume that the organisms represented at the root of the tree and the early branching were equivalent to the modern cell organization. According to Woese, these organisms were primitive cellular entities, which were simpler and had a modular design (compartmental cell organization and each compartment is independent). The tree also does not possess a root in the classic sense. Bifurcations in classic phylogeny represent a common ancestor with sister lineage. In the universal phylogentic tree, the root and early branching does not imply such a thing. It implies that one side has passed a Darwinian threshold. Darwinian threshold is defined by the moment when a cellular entity, which is simple, highly modular and loosely connected, becomes complex and idiosyntracratically connected. The Darwinian threshold represents a drastic event in term of cellular evolution. Prior to the Darwinian threshold, species as we know them cannot exit. The threshold represents the true origin of the species, in other word speciation. The first cell type to pass the Darwinian threshold was the bacteria. Archaeal type cell probably pass the threshold before eukaryotes at second branching because the archaeal system for translation, transcription and genome replication are simpler in structure than the eukaryotic version . Therefore, three different cellular organizations have evolved independently.
Analysis of other conserved genes also demonstrated that different phylogenetic tree could be obtained. The problem with these analysis is that the genes are more associated with the evolutionary history rather than with the organism genealogy and they also give dissimilar phylogenetic tree (a horizontal gene transfer (HGT) hallmark). HGT is defined as transfer of genetic information between species and individuals rather than from parent to progeny (vertical transfer). HGT occurs at higher frequency prior to the Darwinian threshold and cellular entity cannot leave a stable record of their existence. Speciation brings stringency and allows genealogical information to be recorded within genes. In the other hand, analyses using several orthologous (having a similar function) protein support the 16/18S RNA phylogenetic tree .
The universal phylogenetic tree is a valid representation of the organism genealogy because it is not influence by HGT and the evolutionary history of the organism. The model also assumed that the primitive cell entities at the root and early branching were greatly different from the modern cell. This assumption takes us into the uncharted territory of the evolution.
Taxonomy is often seen as a trivial and boring part of biology but a system of classification is desired due to the tremendous diversity of living organisms [1]. Taxonomy allows the classification of huge amount of knowledge into an easily accessible system. It also helps in developing and supporting hypothesis regarding evolution and comparative studies. Moreover, it allows biologist to work and communicate efficiently with precise information [1]. For many decades, classification of organisms was based on morphology, behaviour and distribution in the environment. For microbiologists, this system could not be used easily and it often could be misleading due to the simplicity or uninterpretable data of microbial morphology and characteristics [2]. With the advance of molecular biology and the sequencing era, a modern classification tool arose; the small-subunit of ribosomal ribonucleic acid (16S rRNA for bacteria and archea, and 18S rRNA for eucarya). Sequencing of 16/18S RNA revealed interesting data and gave rise to the natural universal phylogenetic tree (see fig.1 and reference 2). The 16/18S rRNA-based tree changed the perspective of evolution of the cell.
2) The Universal Phylogenetic Classification
2.1) Restructuring the Systematic Systems
The old systematic system started with the creation of two kingdoms, the plants and the animals. Many years after the invention of the microscope, a third kingdom was added by Haeckel in 1866, the protist. Later on, Copeland added a forth branch, the Monera (i.e. bacteria and later the archea), and Whittaker created a fifth group, the fungi. The five kingdoms scheme (Whittaker’s model) was and still is one of the most widely accepted model for the organization of life [2]. As the sequencing era advanced, Woese and co-workers [2] felt that the five kingdoms model was not phylogenetically correct and natural. For many, kingdom Prostista and Fungi were artificial and were probably paraphyletic (share a common ancestor but do not include all the descendants) at best to the plant and animals [2]. The Monera kingdom was also viewed by Woese et al. [2] as a primary division whereas plants and animals were viewed as secondary division.
According to Woese and co-workers [2], the famous eukaryote-prokaryote concept could be misinterpreted by many. Eukaryotes are defined as a cell possessing a nucleus and organelles and it is a meaningful phylogenetic unit. In the other hands, prokaryotes are defined as lacking a nucleus and complex cellular organization (i.e. not eukaryotes). The definition of prokaryotes is meaningless scientifically and as a phylogenetic unit because the group is based on lack of characteristics rather than on possession of specific characteristics. This problem became more apparent when archea(bacteria) and (eu)bacteria were compared. Archea(bacteria) were indeed prokaryotes (they possess none of the eukaryotic characteristics) but shared little resemblance with (eu)bacteria. Therefore, Monera could not be view as a valid taxon.
Based on these arguments and recent sequencing of 16/18S rRNA of numerous species, Woese and co-workers [2] proposed a new model for the organization of life. For practical reasons, they introduced a new taxon level higher than kingdom, the domains. The taxa kingdom was retained for dividing major secondary group among the domains. Three domains were created namely Bacteria, Archea and Eucarya. A new universal phylogenetic tree was born (see fig 1 on page 2 and ref. 2).
2.2) Interpreting the Universal Phylogenetic Tree
The universal phylogenetic tree was misinterpreted as soon after it came out and the supporters of older models defended their ideas. Many assume that the organisms represented at the root of the tree and the early branching were equivalent to the modern cell organization. According to Woese, these organisms were primitive cellular entities, which were simpler and had a modular design (compartmental cell organization and each compartment is independent). The tree also does not possess a root in the classic sense. Bifurcations in classic phylogeny represent a common ancestor with sister lineage. In the universal phylogentic tree, the root and early branching does not imply such a thing. It implies that one side has passed a Darwinian threshold. Darwinian threshold is defined by the moment when a cellular entity, which is simple, highly modular and loosely connected, becomes complex and idiosyntracratically connected. The Darwinian threshold represents a drastic event in term of cellular evolution. Prior to the Darwinian threshold, species as we know them cannot exit. The threshold represents the true origin of the species, in other word speciation. The first cell type to pass the Darwinian threshold was the bacteria. Archaeal type cell probably pass the threshold before eukaryotes at second branching because the archaeal system for translation, transcription and genome replication are simpler in structure than the eukaryotic version . Therefore, three different cellular organizations have evolved independently.
Analysis of other conserved genes also demonstrated that different phylogenetic tree could be obtained. The problem with these analysis is that the genes are more associated with the evolutionary history rather than with the organism genealogy and they also give dissimilar phylogenetic tree (a horizontal gene transfer (HGT) hallmark). HGT is defined as transfer of genetic information between species and individuals rather than from parent to progeny (vertical transfer). HGT occurs at higher frequency prior to the Darwinian threshold and cellular entity cannot leave a stable record of their existence. Speciation brings stringency and allows genealogical information to be recorded within genes. In the other hand, analyses using several orthologous (having a similar function) protein support the 16/18S RNA phylogenetic tree .
The universal phylogenetic tree is a valid representation of the organism genealogy because it is not influence by HGT and the evolutionary history of the organism. The model also assumed that the primitive cell entities at the root and early branching were greatly different from the modern cell. This assumption takes us into the uncharted territory of the evolution.
Are Humans Still Evolving
Are Humans Still Evolving?
Evolution may be defined with or with out the requirements of selective pressure, but in terms of discussing the possibility of current human evolution it is only sensible to accept a definition that is selection inclusive. Accepting this, fact based arguments which suggest the absence of current human evolution may seems valid, but can be easily refuted on the basis of 4 common misperceptions of evolution that lie as hidden assumptions behind such claims. These four classes of error will be outlined below and the relevance to the types of arguments raised that claim humans are no longer evolving will be made apparent.
Originally, evolution meant ‘unfolding’ [1] and was most often used to refer to the process of development - the unfolding of a series of specific events leading to a final product. For instance, an acorn would evolve into an oak tree, a fetus into a baby. As the world view gradually changed during the enlightenment period of the 18th century - from that of a stationary world created by God into a world which gradually shaped by geological change over a considerable period of time - it was natural that this term should be applied to the ‘evolution’ of the world. The association to biology quickly followed as the idea that species may not be immutable gained favour and several possible theories emerged, including Lamarck’s and eventually Darwin’s. Since this time Evolution came to be particularly strongly associated with biology and the ‘unfolding’ of species over time. Although Ernst Haeckel’s famous claim that ‘Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ may no longer be accepted, the word once used to describe ontogeny was quickly adapted so that phylogeny could be described in exactly the same way: Evolution. From our modern standpoint though evolution is much more explicit than just the unfolding of species - it has come into a much more meaningful and exact description, commonly defined as ‘the change in the gene pool of a population over time.’ [2]
Using this definition, the possibility of questioning whether humans are still evolving is not even worth asking. The simple fact is that change in the gene pool over time in any species is completely unavoidable. Eyre-Walker and Keightley claimed in 1999 that humans have had on average 4.2 amino acid altering mutations every generation since humans separated from chimpanzees [3]. This measurement ignores the synonymous substitution of base pairs, and all of the mutations which occur in the non-translated regions of Genome DNA. Since only about 1.5% of the human genome is translated [4], this number is quite incredible. With this introduction of change every generation, the ‘change in the gene pool over time’ is assured. Genetic drift is another mechanism through which gene frequencies are changed overtime, and its occurrence is an undeniable phenomenon. Chance events lead to the increase or decrease of numbers of a particular gene in a population, occasionally leading to fixation of a gene (no other variants exist) or extinction of that gene.
These two prime examples of random changes in the genetic makeup of populations are accepted biological phenomena which apply to humans as much as any other species. To say that these two phenomena are classified as evolution means to say that Humans evolve. Of this there can simply be no question.
It is therefore clear that another more specific definition of evolution must be used in order for any sort of productive inquiry into this subject to take place. To account for the affect of random changes alone being considered evolutionary a definition that requires a selective pressure can be used. By defining evolution as ‘the change in a gene pool over time due to a selective pressure’ we no longer have the random changes problem, and the people claiming that humans are no longer evolving actually have something that they can use: The possible lack of selective pressures. From now on this will be the meaning of evolution for the rest of this paper.
Evolution may be directed by a number of selective pressures, one being sexual selection, and most of the others falling under the general title of natural selection. Natural selection affects the evolution of species in every aspect of their life, from their developmental rate, to their ability to survive to reproductive maturity, their ability to find and copulate with a mate, the viability of those offspring, and how much longer after sexual maturity/copulation that organism may continue living. Natural Selection is the true driving force behind any sort of adaptive evolution.
With selection included we can now describe evolution according to a theory described by Dennett in 1995 based on the earlier work of Lewontin and Brandon [5]. In this definition evolution is said to occur whenever there is variation, heredity and a differential ‘fitness’ (i.e.: allowing a point of action for a selection pressure). In the case of all biological creatures heredity is an absolute standard which goes without saying. The fact that there is replication of the genetic makeup from one organism into the next generation is the backbone of the process of evolution. It is upon this backbone of heredity that variation may build up, brought about by mutations, and that differential fitnesses may arise and in turn be selected. So the question now becomes, “Do humans have variety in their gene pool, and is there a differential fitness to these variants?”
Those who believe that humans are no longer evolving accept that we have variety. As pointed out above with the previous definition of evolution, we have 4.2 Amino Acid altering mutations every generation, and then we have genetic drift; it is entirely unreasonable to claim that we do not have variety between humans. What they do doubt though, is that there is any selective pressure left. They claim that due to the advent of modern medicine, technology, farming techniques, food distribution, heating and cooling systems etc, there are no longer any selective pressures in our lives to separate the fit from the unfit. The fitness differential is irrelevant in the environment that we have made for ourselves because we do everything we can to make sure ‘everyone’ survives. Additionally, even if some people die to unforseen virus or bacterial outbreaks etc, then although they may die, the reaction of medical intervention will be infinitely quicker than that of the evolutionary adaptation to the new selective pressure, and so no net evolution will actually occur. The capabilities within our modern society and the speed with which our culture adapts to change has completely overruled the process of natural selection and so stopped evolution.
There are several problems with these claims. These problems can be placed into several classes of error including;
1. Misunderstanding the nature and power of Natural Selection,
2. Forgetting other forms of selection, such as sexual selection,
3. Assumptions about the entire world from the specific first world lifestyles of the very people claiming this, and
4. Mistakenly taking the term ‘current evolution’ to mean that evolution must happen before our eyes.
Class 1
The first class of error may actually be the most subtle. It comes from the assumption that selection only works on the more obvious phenotypic traits and little else. In its worst form this error is manifest in the claims that humans are de-evolving (an oxymoron in itself) because we are creating easier lives for ourselves, resulting in future generations who have evolved weak skeletons, fat bodies and slow reactions etc. While an easier life may allow for these phenotypic changes to exist, to say that we would evolve in that direction is to either revert to the previous definition of evolution, or misunderstand how evolution due to natural selection works. Evolution due to natural selection occurs only in such a way that better adapted creatures become more prevalent than less adapted creatures. If bodies with weaker skeletons (for example birds), more fat (for example seals), and slower reactions (for example sloths) were advantageous to humans, then that is how we would evolve. If that happened to be the case, then the irony would then be that these phenotypes would be advantageous (direct inference from how evolution works), and the claims of ‘de-evolutionists’ would be shown for exactly what they are, oxymoronic.
The more subtle side of this can be made clear though, in realising that this altering of what is and what is not advantageous from era to era is entirely unpredictable to us. We perceive certain things as ‘good’ attributes (commonly: Sharp teeth, strong muscles, fast runner, intelligence) and other things as ‘bad’ attributes (commonly: obesity, skin prone to sunburn, unco-ordination) and we decide that anything which departs from the good and/or acquires more bad attributes is losing its selective advantage. While this may often be true, the fact of the matter is that our own judgement has been crafted by evolution and we are biased in our judgements towards the things which were adaptive in the past. We have no idea what is going to happen next and so we can’t be sure that our crafted judgements are any longer valid. As well as that we have no way of knowing what hidden benefits may lay under some superficial phenotype. Combine these two consideration and you are faced with a situation in which you may have superficially ‘bad’ (according to our current judgement) phenotypes with underlying attributes which may in the next few hundred generations come to be so advantageous that they create a selective pressure in themselves. Darwin himself observed that “the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera,” [6] and so it is with humans already, and probably will continue to become more and more as we reach the limits of our extended niche. What variation it is that holds the key to the adaptive advantage is surely unknown to us, but it seems incredibly unlikely that the advantage will be with those able to outrun or successfully hunt a lion.
On a less subtle level though there is one more element within this class of error that is ignored by people who claim that humans are no longer evolving. Natural Selection is thorough. Amongst all of the variation which we can and cannot discriminate superficially, Natural Selection screens everything. Natural Selection, unlike our ability to pass judgement, is an unrelenting eternal force sifting through every single probabilistic relation within an organism, between members of a community, between organisms in a species, and between an organism and its environment; all at once. To say that modern humans are no longer under a selective pressure is to claim two things: It is claiming that we know what Natural Selection works on; and it claims that we have used this knowledge to control every single instance of potential selective pressure. We certainly do not know this, and we most certainly have not controlled it. Humans are just as subject to selective pressures as every other organism, even if we can’t see them.
Class 2
The second category of error is simply a case of forgetting that there is more to selective pressures than mere survival. The need to procreate is just as important in evolution, and to procreate humans need to find mates. Sexual selection is present throughout nature and is undoubtedly present in Homo sapiens too. One theory even claims that our enlarged brains, our paedomorphic ape appearance, the size difference between males and females, and various other factors are all consequences of sexual selection [7]. Medicines, technology and abundant shelter will never affect the role sexual selection plays in the evolution process, but culture itself may. It is almost impossible to guarantee that our sexual desires, choices and behaviours are guided by our own and our potential mate’s genetic make up, rather than being guided by the culture we live in. To make it a little more complicated, its not even easy to figure out whether our culture is largely guided by our genetic make up, and therefore only an intermediate between our genes telling us what we want and what we actually choose. Whatever the case one fact remains: Sexual selection - on whatever level – occurs. As long as it continues to occur there will be a selective pressure present, and evolution will occur.
Class 3
The third category of error is the belief that the entire world is like the society we are lucky enough to live in. A society where medicine is provided for everyone, where housing is plentiful, where there is available electricity, running water etc. The fact of the matter is that this isn’t the case at all, but instead around 80% of the world’s population lives in developing countries [6]. If we are to talk about the evolution of Humans and we want to focus on one lifestyle, it would in fact make much more sense to focus on developing countries and talk about their way of life. Of course though, if we were to do this, then most of the points raised about medicines, technology, distribution of food, and general ease/comfort of life would no longer apply, and there would be no case. Obviously when the claim ‘Humans are no longer evolving’ is made, the claim is actually meant to be ‘Humans in developed countries are no longer evolving.’
Class 4
The fourth class of error actually intermingles with every other class on some level. Evolution takes many thousands of years to occur and must be discussed accordingly. To talk only about the way things are now and then to try to infer facts about evolution from that flash of existence, is to fall into this error.
This particular error is all encompassing in its nature and is the sort of error that humans are very prone to make. Being organisms that deal with time in units like seconds, minutes, hours, years, and even up to decades, the concept of hundreds of years or several hundred years turns into ‘A long time’ and nothing else. To think of a hundred years, is to think of something only just graspable. To think of a thousand years though, is really something beyond our grasp and we tend to resort to ‘a really long time’ and that is as far as our imagination goes. We may be able to grasp some sort of awe over the length of it, but we do not comprehend it. Tens of thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years all meld into this one conception of ‘a really long time’ and nothing else. There is little meaning in any of it. To then speak of evolution, something which takes thousands of years for any real changes to start being apparent, is to talk of something which we can’t grasp the timeframe of. Falling into this class of error when talking about Evolution is almost inevitable for anyone not consciously aware of this problem.
Understanding now that evolution only works over the course of many thousands of years means that the claim that ‘humans are no longer evolving’ translates into ‘humans will not evolve at all over the next few thousand years’. Realising this, to maintain the claim that humans are no longer evolving is to claim that our control over our environment is so all encompassing and so certain that nothing that happens will break our control. It is a claim that we will never run out of food, that our population growth will never reach maximum capacity, that rising waters will never cause massive loss of farmland or living space, and that no virus or bacterial pathogens will ever break out into a pandemic. It is to claim that humankind has already completely conquered nature in all of its forms.
Whether we accept evolution as something that occurs with or without a selective pressure, the arguments presented to show that humans are no longer evolving tend to become meaningless in light of how evolution actually works. The points may seem valid in some regard, but they all miss a vital point somewhere and so can be easily shown as the empty claim they are. Humans are varied, humans are being selected, and a time will come not so far off in the future when massive selection may be applied as a consequence of our own actions. Humans are still evolving
Evolution may be defined with or with out the requirements of selective pressure, but in terms of discussing the possibility of current human evolution it is only sensible to accept a definition that is selection inclusive. Accepting this, fact based arguments which suggest the absence of current human evolution may seems valid, but can be easily refuted on the basis of 4 common misperceptions of evolution that lie as hidden assumptions behind such claims. These four classes of error will be outlined below and the relevance to the types of arguments raised that claim humans are no longer evolving will be made apparent.
Originally, evolution meant ‘unfolding’ [1] and was most often used to refer to the process of development - the unfolding of a series of specific events leading to a final product. For instance, an acorn would evolve into an oak tree, a fetus into a baby. As the world view gradually changed during the enlightenment period of the 18th century - from that of a stationary world created by God into a world which gradually shaped by geological change over a considerable period of time - it was natural that this term should be applied to the ‘evolution’ of the world. The association to biology quickly followed as the idea that species may not be immutable gained favour and several possible theories emerged, including Lamarck’s and eventually Darwin’s. Since this time Evolution came to be particularly strongly associated with biology and the ‘unfolding’ of species over time. Although Ernst Haeckel’s famous claim that ‘Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ may no longer be accepted, the word once used to describe ontogeny was quickly adapted so that phylogeny could be described in exactly the same way: Evolution. From our modern standpoint though evolution is much more explicit than just the unfolding of species - it has come into a much more meaningful and exact description, commonly defined as ‘the change in the gene pool of a population over time.’ [2]
Using this definition, the possibility of questioning whether humans are still evolving is not even worth asking. The simple fact is that change in the gene pool over time in any species is completely unavoidable. Eyre-Walker and Keightley claimed in 1999 that humans have had on average 4.2 amino acid altering mutations every generation since humans separated from chimpanzees [3]. This measurement ignores the synonymous substitution of base pairs, and all of the mutations which occur in the non-translated regions of Genome DNA. Since only about 1.5% of the human genome is translated [4], this number is quite incredible. With this introduction of change every generation, the ‘change in the gene pool over time’ is assured. Genetic drift is another mechanism through which gene frequencies are changed overtime, and its occurrence is an undeniable phenomenon. Chance events lead to the increase or decrease of numbers of a particular gene in a population, occasionally leading to fixation of a gene (no other variants exist) or extinction of that gene.
These two prime examples of random changes in the genetic makeup of populations are accepted biological phenomena which apply to humans as much as any other species. To say that these two phenomena are classified as evolution means to say that Humans evolve. Of this there can simply be no question.
It is therefore clear that another more specific definition of evolution must be used in order for any sort of productive inquiry into this subject to take place. To account for the affect of random changes alone being considered evolutionary a definition that requires a selective pressure can be used. By defining evolution as ‘the change in a gene pool over time due to a selective pressure’ we no longer have the random changes problem, and the people claiming that humans are no longer evolving actually have something that they can use: The possible lack of selective pressures. From now on this will be the meaning of evolution for the rest of this paper.
Evolution may be directed by a number of selective pressures, one being sexual selection, and most of the others falling under the general title of natural selection. Natural selection affects the evolution of species in every aspect of their life, from their developmental rate, to their ability to survive to reproductive maturity, their ability to find and copulate with a mate, the viability of those offspring, and how much longer after sexual maturity/copulation that organism may continue living. Natural Selection is the true driving force behind any sort of adaptive evolution.
With selection included we can now describe evolution according to a theory described by Dennett in 1995 based on the earlier work of Lewontin and Brandon [5]. In this definition evolution is said to occur whenever there is variation, heredity and a differential ‘fitness’ (i.e.: allowing a point of action for a selection pressure). In the case of all biological creatures heredity is an absolute standard which goes without saying. The fact that there is replication of the genetic makeup from one organism into the next generation is the backbone of the process of evolution. It is upon this backbone of heredity that variation may build up, brought about by mutations, and that differential fitnesses may arise and in turn be selected. So the question now becomes, “Do humans have variety in their gene pool, and is there a differential fitness to these variants?”
Those who believe that humans are no longer evolving accept that we have variety. As pointed out above with the previous definition of evolution, we have 4.2 Amino Acid altering mutations every generation, and then we have genetic drift; it is entirely unreasonable to claim that we do not have variety between humans. What they do doubt though, is that there is any selective pressure left. They claim that due to the advent of modern medicine, technology, farming techniques, food distribution, heating and cooling systems etc, there are no longer any selective pressures in our lives to separate the fit from the unfit. The fitness differential is irrelevant in the environment that we have made for ourselves because we do everything we can to make sure ‘everyone’ survives. Additionally, even if some people die to unforseen virus or bacterial outbreaks etc, then although they may die, the reaction of medical intervention will be infinitely quicker than that of the evolutionary adaptation to the new selective pressure, and so no net evolution will actually occur. The capabilities within our modern society and the speed with which our culture adapts to change has completely overruled the process of natural selection and so stopped evolution.
There are several problems with these claims. These problems can be placed into several classes of error including;
1. Misunderstanding the nature and power of Natural Selection,
2. Forgetting other forms of selection, such as sexual selection,
3. Assumptions about the entire world from the specific first world lifestyles of the very people claiming this, and
4. Mistakenly taking the term ‘current evolution’ to mean that evolution must happen before our eyes.
Class 1
The first class of error may actually be the most subtle. It comes from the assumption that selection only works on the more obvious phenotypic traits and little else. In its worst form this error is manifest in the claims that humans are de-evolving (an oxymoron in itself) because we are creating easier lives for ourselves, resulting in future generations who have evolved weak skeletons, fat bodies and slow reactions etc. While an easier life may allow for these phenotypic changes to exist, to say that we would evolve in that direction is to either revert to the previous definition of evolution, or misunderstand how evolution due to natural selection works. Evolution due to natural selection occurs only in such a way that better adapted creatures become more prevalent than less adapted creatures. If bodies with weaker skeletons (for example birds), more fat (for example seals), and slower reactions (for example sloths) were advantageous to humans, then that is how we would evolve. If that happened to be the case, then the irony would then be that these phenotypes would be advantageous (direct inference from how evolution works), and the claims of ‘de-evolutionists’ would be shown for exactly what they are, oxymoronic.
The more subtle side of this can be made clear though, in realising that this altering of what is and what is not advantageous from era to era is entirely unpredictable to us. We perceive certain things as ‘good’ attributes (commonly: Sharp teeth, strong muscles, fast runner, intelligence) and other things as ‘bad’ attributes (commonly: obesity, skin prone to sunburn, unco-ordination) and we decide that anything which departs from the good and/or acquires more bad attributes is losing its selective advantage. While this may often be true, the fact of the matter is that our own judgement has been crafted by evolution and we are biased in our judgements towards the things which were adaptive in the past. We have no idea what is going to happen next and so we can’t be sure that our crafted judgements are any longer valid. As well as that we have no way of knowing what hidden benefits may lay under some superficial phenotype. Combine these two consideration and you are faced with a situation in which you may have superficially ‘bad’ (according to our current judgement) phenotypes with underlying attributes which may in the next few hundred generations come to be so advantageous that they create a selective pressure in themselves. Darwin himself observed that “the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera,” [6] and so it is with humans already, and probably will continue to become more and more as we reach the limits of our extended niche. What variation it is that holds the key to the adaptive advantage is surely unknown to us, but it seems incredibly unlikely that the advantage will be with those able to outrun or successfully hunt a lion.
On a less subtle level though there is one more element within this class of error that is ignored by people who claim that humans are no longer evolving. Natural Selection is thorough. Amongst all of the variation which we can and cannot discriminate superficially, Natural Selection screens everything. Natural Selection, unlike our ability to pass judgement, is an unrelenting eternal force sifting through every single probabilistic relation within an organism, between members of a community, between organisms in a species, and between an organism and its environment; all at once. To say that modern humans are no longer under a selective pressure is to claim two things: It is claiming that we know what Natural Selection works on; and it claims that we have used this knowledge to control every single instance of potential selective pressure. We certainly do not know this, and we most certainly have not controlled it. Humans are just as subject to selective pressures as every other organism, even if we can’t see them.
Class 2
The second category of error is simply a case of forgetting that there is more to selective pressures than mere survival. The need to procreate is just as important in evolution, and to procreate humans need to find mates. Sexual selection is present throughout nature and is undoubtedly present in Homo sapiens too. One theory even claims that our enlarged brains, our paedomorphic ape appearance, the size difference between males and females, and various other factors are all consequences of sexual selection [7]. Medicines, technology and abundant shelter will never affect the role sexual selection plays in the evolution process, but culture itself may. It is almost impossible to guarantee that our sexual desires, choices and behaviours are guided by our own and our potential mate’s genetic make up, rather than being guided by the culture we live in. To make it a little more complicated, its not even easy to figure out whether our culture is largely guided by our genetic make up, and therefore only an intermediate between our genes telling us what we want and what we actually choose. Whatever the case one fact remains: Sexual selection - on whatever level – occurs. As long as it continues to occur there will be a selective pressure present, and evolution will occur.
Class 3
The third category of error is the belief that the entire world is like the society we are lucky enough to live in. A society where medicine is provided for everyone, where housing is plentiful, where there is available electricity, running water etc. The fact of the matter is that this isn’t the case at all, but instead around 80% of the world’s population lives in developing countries [6]. If we are to talk about the evolution of Humans and we want to focus on one lifestyle, it would in fact make much more sense to focus on developing countries and talk about their way of life. Of course though, if we were to do this, then most of the points raised about medicines, technology, distribution of food, and general ease/comfort of life would no longer apply, and there would be no case. Obviously when the claim ‘Humans are no longer evolving’ is made, the claim is actually meant to be ‘Humans in developed countries are no longer evolving.’
Class 4
The fourth class of error actually intermingles with every other class on some level. Evolution takes many thousands of years to occur and must be discussed accordingly. To talk only about the way things are now and then to try to infer facts about evolution from that flash of existence, is to fall into this error.
This particular error is all encompassing in its nature and is the sort of error that humans are very prone to make. Being organisms that deal with time in units like seconds, minutes, hours, years, and even up to decades, the concept of hundreds of years or several hundred years turns into ‘A long time’ and nothing else. To think of a hundred years, is to think of something only just graspable. To think of a thousand years though, is really something beyond our grasp and we tend to resort to ‘a really long time’ and that is as far as our imagination goes. We may be able to grasp some sort of awe over the length of it, but we do not comprehend it. Tens of thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years all meld into this one conception of ‘a really long time’ and nothing else. There is little meaning in any of it. To then speak of evolution, something which takes thousands of years for any real changes to start being apparent, is to talk of something which we can’t grasp the timeframe of. Falling into this class of error when talking about Evolution is almost inevitable for anyone not consciously aware of this problem.
Understanding now that evolution only works over the course of many thousands of years means that the claim that ‘humans are no longer evolving’ translates into ‘humans will not evolve at all over the next few thousand years’. Realising this, to maintain the claim that humans are no longer evolving is to claim that our control over our environment is so all encompassing and so certain that nothing that happens will break our control. It is a claim that we will never run out of food, that our population growth will never reach maximum capacity, that rising waters will never cause massive loss of farmland or living space, and that no virus or bacterial pathogens will ever break out into a pandemic. It is to claim that humankind has already completely conquered nature in all of its forms.
Whether we accept evolution as something that occurs with or without a selective pressure, the arguments presented to show that humans are no longer evolving tend to become meaningless in light of how evolution actually works. The points may seem valid in some regard, but they all miss a vital point somewhere and so can be easily shown as the empty claim they are. Humans are varied, humans are being selected, and a time will come not so far off in the future when massive selection may be applied as a consequence of our own actions. Humans are still evolving
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)