LET'S DO AWAY WITH GUNS ALTOGETHER

GUN OWNERSHIP AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE COMMON GOOD.

No other icon of the American identity simultaneously carries with it such unabated reverence, pride, fear and disgust as guns.  Guns are as much a part of the American self-image as apple pie, Monday Night Football and beer pong.  The latest numbers indicate 100 to 200 million people in the US are gun owners, with anywhere from 300 to 700 million total guns in the country, to be used in myriad reasons, to include protection, hunting, sport shooting and such.  Guns are, in fact, so ingrained in our national identity that, for many, the thought of giving them up is tantamount to asking a man to share his wife or sell his children.  For others, they just wish the damned things were gone.

While the gun advocates chant “Don’t tread on me” as they consider their interpretations of the 2^nd Amendment to be satisfactory justification of their right to accumulate as many firearms as possible,  a staggeringly high 75% of polled Americans expressed support for further gun control.  Why is it, then, that a minority can impose so much influence on a stark majority? Or is it that a significant portion of the nation is ambivalent to the debate, except in the immediate aftermath of a crisis that hits a little too home?

The anti-gun community has expressed its viewpoints on this matter, stating that Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and the Aurora movie theater all have two things in common – psychopaths and guns.  It is true that no matter how you spin it, these crimes were indeed committed by a mentally-unstable individual wielding a firearm.  I doubt anyone could disagree with this.  Where people start to disagree, however, is when discussion arises about upon whom the blame should fall as well as potential methods of preventing yet another sorrowful chapter in what seems to be our endless tome of firearm-based carnage in the US with a frequency that is suffered by no other stable developed democracy.

Pro- and con- arguments flood the internet, TV and talk radio.  It is arguable no other social issue exists, outside of abortion, that can fan the flames of discontent better than the mere discussion of guns.  The anti-gun movement protests that guns should be more tightly regulated or even abolished.  Likewise, an often-heard remark from the pro-gun community is that if we were to ban guns because they kill people, should we likewise ban cars, baseball bats, rocks or virtually anything that could be used as a weapon?  Obviously, the major difference is that these other objects have alternative uses in society, while guns are made with one single purpose in mind – the bullet fires and something is destroyed or dies, but we get the point; you do have to place blame on the operator of the gun as well. 

Yes, a great number of sharp, blunt or heavy objects can kill people when wielded by a person with intent.  Guns are just objects that are much more efficient at it.  Arguments posed by either side, however, rarely have any impact on the opposing debating parties.  As with any hot-button social issue, the guise of “open and honest debate” is frequently a facade for “I’m going to scream my opinions louder than you.” After even a few minutes watching news TV or listening to talk radio, it is evident to see that nobody really wants to have open and honest debate about anything.  They just want to make their point in a louder means than the other guy.

THE LOCAL ARMS RACE

The American education system ranks 25^th in the world, behind many third world countries.  Another recent poll indicates that 50% of Americans cannot understand an 8^th grade-level book, with the national reading comprehension level averaging out around 7^th grade.  Given this, it is hard to argue the statement that America is rife with idiots; many of which are also irresponsible. The problem, then, with allowing everybody to have a gun, is that the sea of irresponsible idiots can quite easily turn into irresponsible gun owners, or arguably it is their right to.

Department of Justice statistics show that, on average, nearly 500,000 guns are reported stolen in the US every year, arguably because irresponsible people would not store their firearms in a safe and secure area.  That makes 500,000 new guns in the hands of criminals every year, who otherwise would have had a much more difficult time procuring a firearm.  It is expected, then, that the rest of the law-abiding people will develop the mentality that they should buy more guns to protect themselves from the bad guys.  In an endless cycle, the more criminals that acquire guns, the more the public begins to stockpile arms to ward off criminals, which are then stolen, putting more guns into the hands of criminals, and so on.  From the criminal viewpoint, it is easy to understand that if law-abiding citizens take part in an arms race to protect themselves, then criminals virtually have to do the same in order to effectively commit crime, as it makes little sense to try to rob someone with a baseball bat when your victim might have a gun.

So why is there a never-ending need for criminals to acquire firearms?  Why do they need this constant inflow of weapons? Simply put, criminal possession of a gun is usually short-term.  If a gun is used to harm someone, the gun will likely soon be ditched.   Therefore, said criminal will somehow need to restock his arsenal.  Criminals also lose guns by the guns becoming inoperable due to substandard care and storage, as well as those found by police which are seized and destroyed.  It is easy to see the correlation here - without a significant source of legal guns, the supply dries up at some point.

Criminals are only part of the American gun violence problem though.  While a significant amount of US gun deaths are indeed committed by predisposed criminals, most of these crimes are criminal-on-criminal.  Therefore, it is arguable that the true threat to law-abiding public safety is mass shootings, which almost always are facilitated with legally-purchased firearms.  Because of this, many have called for more rigorous mental testing for would-be gun owners.  While it is a significant step in the right direction, the actual implementation of this is nearly impossible as any politician who dares impede the NRA’s agenda is targeted with large sums of donated dollars to run smear campaign ads.  Not to mention, clinical psychology is more or less a science based on the interpretation and opinion of whoever is administering the testing, so arguably all conclusions have the potential to be incorrect or appealed.

The reality is that since we can’t easily determine who is likely to be the next Sandy Hook murderer we need to focus on the weapons used in murders.  According to the FBI, nearly 70% of all murders are committed using a gun.  Therefore, it makes sense to specifically focus our attention on banning guns outright.  There, I said it.

Of course, the logistics of implementing such a ban can make one’s head spin, but level of difficulty should not be a reason to completely abandon the idea.  Other countries have implemented these types of bans, and they have been wildly successful.  Since its implementation, Great Britain averages around 30 handgun deaths per year and has had only one mass shooting in decades.  Australia implemented a weapons-for-cash exchange in 1996 and has not had a mass shooting since.  If the rest of the world’s citizenry chooses compliance over being a stubborn outlaw, why is it so hard to believe we couldn’t do the same?  Has American exceptionalism gone so far to our heads that we think we are somehow better than the rest of the civilized world?

THE SWISS MODEL

Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate in the civilized world and one of the lowest gun violence rates.  Pro-gunners love to reference the Swiss when it comes to the debate about gun proliferation.  High rates of ownership and low rates of use must indicate that the gun is not at fault, right?

While it is indeed true that Switzerland issues a rifle to every able-bodied man, it is done so that the man may defend the homeland in the event of an invasion.  Another stark difference is that all of these men are part of a professionally trained militia, not just your average citizen.  They also receive significant amounts of training in firearms operation and safety.  Additionally, these men are not allowed to use the weapons to defend themselves, only to defend the country.  While every militia member is issued a rifle, none are allowed to keep ammunition at home.   The ammunition is instead stored at a secured facility, only to be accessed when needed.  Hence, the number of functioning weapons in private hands is small, and the number of gun deaths is understandably very low.

The Swiss model simply does not apply.

WHAT ABOUT CANADA?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy the #3 ranking on the most gun-saturated list of civilized nations.  Their gun violence rate, however, is also staggeringly lower in percentage than compared to the US, likely due to a difference in national mindset as well as harsher controls on the sale of firearms.

Canadians have different reasons for firearms ownership than many Americans; they mostly possess guns for hunting, not personal protection.  In addition, many Canadians keep their rifles at a sporting or gun club instead of at home.  The belief that guns are necessary to protect yourself and your possessions from other humans is simply not something that enters into the psyche of most Canadians.  Furthermore, while you can theoretically own any kind of gun you want in Canada, licensing becomes more stringent for the more dangerous guns.  Gun merchants are also more cautious about who they sell guns to, for fear of prosecution should a violent crime be committed as a result of the purchase.

THE AMERICAN PROBLEM

So what is it about the US that makes us so protective and obsessive about our guns?  Arguably there are an infinite amount of reasons and variables that constitute each person’s love affair with, or hatred of, firearms.  However, when backed into a corner, the gun advocate will always drop the “2^nd Amendment bomb” claiming that it is his right, deemed by the Founding Fathers, for him to own firearms to protect against oppressive governments and those who would threaten his life or land.  This viewpoint begins to touch on what many believe to be the root cause for such defiance at the aspect of mass disarmament; that is the belief that Americans are somehow above the influence of the international community and are entitled to most rights so long as they can convolute an ancient writing to support their personal viewpoint. 

It should be noted, however, that ambiguity between federal and state guidelines lend their fair share of confusion to the argument, as nobody can seem to come to a consensus on which is the best way to regulate gun ownership.  Every state has passed legislation as to how they believe gun ownership should be regulated, if at all.  The stark differences in gun legislation from state to state can provide for some rather easy work-arounds for people wanting to obtain weapons that otherwise cannot in certain states.

Because of this, the implementation of a national gun law should be considered.  Revoke the rights of the states and place responsibility with the federal government to regulate gun commerce under one unified law.  This will likely sour the faces of advocates who claim the power to legislate should lie within state legislatures and not Washington DC.  All I can say to that is; we had this same argument in the 1800s.  The South lost.  Get over it.

A more radical possibility to consider, yet the one possibility that will guarantee an end to gun violence, is the outright repeal of the 2^nd Amendment.  Of course, many citizens would be up in arms at the mere mention of this idea, but given the almost annual shift and transformation in federal gun policy, is it any worse to frankly discuss the revocation of a piece of 240 year old legislation to fit the values of modern society than it is to slowly wear away at the Bill of Rights while simultaneously pretending they are our nation’s founding values?  At least an outright repeal would be an honest approach.

What makes the use of the 2^nd Amendment as a defense laughable is that it has been willfully misinterpreted for decades.  Admittedly, at its adoption, it clearly allowed for the right to carry arms within the context of “organized militias”.  However, it nowhere within the body of the text does it allow for unfettered access to firearms by individuals.  This is likely due to the Founding Fathers not being complete idiots.  Not to mention, the Bill of Rights was written during the days of flintlock rifles which would fire a single shot and would take up to a minute to reload.  The Founding Fathers could never dream of an era of extremely high-powered semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting thousands of rounds per minute and a market that would make them available to nearly everybody.

The true purpose 2^nd Amendment was to allow the militia to keep a foreign invasion at bay.  The “militia”, of which the Founding Fathers spoke, was supposed to prevent the need for a standing army and its members were to receive the best weapons and equipment available to the military.  Therefore, the mere presence of organized standing armed forces negates the Constitutional need for a militia.  In addition, the handgun; America’s favorite 2^nd amendment weapon, has no place in the 2^nd Amendment argument as it is worthless in armed conflict.  It is a backup weapon to be used in close-quarters combat, not to stave off an enemy invasion.

Some may argue it is therefore the answer to recognize the current US Constitution for what it is – a relic from history which needs to be updated to reflect the fact that a militia is no longer needed to stave off an enemy invasion.  In the eyes of the anti-gun movement, banning the ownership of all guns would be a significant step, not only in making the country safer but also so our Constitution reflects the ideals and values of modern civilized society.

CONFRONTING THE “ME” SOCIETY

As one pays attention to the world around them, it is easy to observe that American society has taken a significantly selfish hyper-individualistic turn for the worse in the past few decades, so much so that the new American mantra should be changed from “Liberty and Justice for all” to “I’ll do what’s best for me and f*** the rest of you.”   Unfortunately, for how selfish and immature this seems, the viewpoint by most gun advocates is glaringly similar.  Frankly, those who believe that gun ownership is necessary to protect themselves are viewing the issue at an individual level, rather than a national level for the collective good.  To the gun advocate, the issue isn’t how many people are killed each year by guns, it is that his/her odds of surviving life-threatening conflict are improved by having the gun.  The annual 30,000 US deaths by guns mean nothing to the individual who chooses personal safety over collective safety, even in face of the fact that more Americans have been killed in America by guns since 1970 than have died in wars, since the Civil War, combined.  These numbers certainly seem to suggest that pro-gun sentiment is proof that Americans just don’t give a s*** about each other, and that keeping our toys and playing cowboy is far more important.  Facts and figures simply do not matter anymore.

Excuses for why guns are necessary abound from every corner of the country, ranging from the need to self-protect from criminals to rural residents claiming they need to protect their families from dangerous animals.  It seems to be an ineradicable part of the American psyche that the answer to any problem is to shoot something.  When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.  Perhaps gun advocates would view the outside world differently if they weren’t racked with paranoia that their house was up next on the burglary list or that Obama was coming to take everything from them.  In the spirit of debate, I pose a challenge to the gun community: give up your guns for two months.  Give them to a friend or lock them up at a gun club.  See how your perception of the world changes when you stop thinking of everyone as a potential assailant.  If you still feel just as threatened after those two months, by all means write me back.  Please prove me wrong.  For the love of the future of this country, I hope I am.

WEIRD NATURE: The Hummingbird Moth

Like Hummingbirds, The Hummingbird Moth feeds on the nectar of flowers, as it hovers stationary over the flower; its wings beating so fast they are practically invisible.  The flared tail and long proboscis as well as the soft buzzing sound it makes while in flight can momentarily fool even the most experienced enthusiast.

A hummingbird moth starts out as a plump, yellowish green caterpillar, with darker green lines along the back, reddish brown spots on the abdomen, and a yellow tail horn. It feeds on the leaves of plants until the time comes for it to spin a cocoon around itself in leaf litter on the ground, and pupate over the winter.

Unlike the typical moth, the adult prefers flying in full daylight.  They can be found in meadows, forests and gardens. It takes a certain amount of luck to see a hummingbird moth, but when the nectar of its preferred flowers is at its prime,you just may stumble across one.

Please enjoy this video:

THE PIONEER ANOMALY - Casting Doubt on Newton's Theory

Launched in the 1970's, the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes were launched to probe the deeper parts of our solar system.  For all intents and purposes, science has no interest in these probes anymore.  In fact, the last signal we received was from Pioneer 10 in 2003.  These crafts are now nearly 8 million miles away, past Pluto's orbit, and have run out of power to send signals back to Earth.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that every year, these probes veer nearly 8000 miles farther away from their intended trajectory and nobody seems to know why.  Keep in mind, before these probes were launched, NASA painstakingly mapped out the predicted courses of the Pioneers, because that's what they do.  They're astrophysicists and rocket scientists.  Every bit of potential gravitational forces the probes might encounter was taken into account when mapping out the path of the probes.

So what is making them veer so significantly off course?

Theories abound ranging from fuel leaks to heat escaping from the plutonium-powered generators.  Some scientists, however, postulate that perhaps this divergence in trajectory is proof that Newton's laws of gravity may not be as universal as we think.  Especially in the void of deep space.

The Glass Harmonica (with video)

The automated glass harmonica was developed by none other than the brilliant American Renaissance Man; Benjamin Franklin.  It functions in the same way that we have all seen people run their wetted fingers around the rims of glasses that are filled to various capacities.  Though the concept of playing glass rims originated in Ireland, what Franklin did years later was assemble the glasses stacked inside each other and place them on a revolving axis, which was powered by foot pedals, to get a more consistent sound.

During its peak popularity in the late 18th century, many famous composers including Mozart, Handel and Strauss Sr. wrote music for the odd instrument.  The glass harmonica soon, however, fell out of public favor after several European doctors claimed that the sound it produced overstimulated the nerves of the player, which in turn drove many of them mad.

The glass harmonica, however, saw a resurgence in the late 20th century and can be heard on famous contemporary recordings to include: the intro of Pink Floyd's Shine on You Crazy Diamond, throughout Korn's Falling Away From Me and during the intro of Aerosmith's Janie's Got a Gun.

Please enjoy this video of Mozart's Adagio for Glass Harmonica in C, played by Christa Schonfeldinger..

WEIRD NATURE: The Pistol Shrimp

By now, you've all likely seen the illustrations and videos circulating around the internet boasting the amazing attributes of the Mantis Shrimp.  You've seen videos of these seemingly otherworldly creatures beating the life out of helpless crustaceans with club-like appendages that travel at speeds comparable to a .22 caliber bullet, not to mention, marveled at their beautiful color patterns - especially the peacock. 

By no means do I intend on diminishing the awesomeness of the Mantis Shrimp.  In fact, I have a pet Mantis Shrimp named punchy who, over the recent weeks, has developed an insatiable taste for turbo snails.  The Mantis is indeed an amazing animal.  However, a distant cousin is being far overlooked.

Enter, the Pistol Shrimp.

The Pistol Shrimp looks significantly more like a typical shrimp, but it carries in its predatory arsenal a weapon of such unbelievably badassery that few predators even bother with it.  In fact, in the few instances where a Pistol has been put in the same tank as a Mantis , the Pistol has conquered with ease, thanks to its massive claw.

The singular gigantic claw which the Pistol Shrimp sports like a Long Island clubber wearing nothing but tank tops after a serious lifting session, is much more than a typical claw.  In fact, it operates far more like a firearm than a claw.

When potential prey approaches the Pistol Shrimp's vicinity, the wily shrimp cocks back the mobile part of its claw like the hammer of a pistol, hence the name.  When the prey gets close enough, the claw is released with such force and ferocity that the collision emits a bang of close to 220 decibels.  For reference, a shotgun produces 170 db. 

Due to the impressive speed and force produced by the snap of the claw, a cavitation bubble is formed.  Now, the Mantis Shrimp also produces a cavitation bubble when it attacks its prey, but it pales in comparison to that produced by the Pistol Shrimp, which collapses upon itself at near sun-like temperatures in excess of 4,700 degrees C.  The sun burns at approximately 5,500.  This cavitation bubble sends shock-waves through the water, stunning its prey.  After that, it's lights out for fishy.

Given that as of just a few years ago, we had explored only about 5% of the ocean's floor, as expeditions continue we will likely find far more interesting and obscenely-weaponized creatures which, if anything, will reinforce our gratitude to the forces of evolution that we ended up as land-dwellers.

HOW TO BUILD A RAILGUN

BRING IT ON, TERMINATORS!

I've been meaning to get to writing this post for some time as it is something near and dear to my heart.. or maybe my brain.  No, it is not some save-the-Earth cause or suggestions on a way to feed the homeless.  This is an article that gives you, the reader, a concise overview of the many ways to build the world's most awesome cutting-edge explosive-free weapon; the rail gun.

For those of you not familiar with this particular form of badassery, A railgun is "an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher based on similar principles to the homopolar motor."  Essentially, in its many forms, it is a pair of parallel conducting rails, along which a sliding projectile is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the projectile and then back along the other rail.

Railguns first burst into public view in theSchwarzenegger flop; Eraser, but have since become a weapon with a cult following comprised of physicists, engineers and plain old weapons geeks and science buffs.  Even the U.S. Navy has an affinity for this technology.  

For example, in the late 2000s, the U.S. Navy tested a railgun that was able to launch a 7 lb. projectile to hypersonic velocities of approximately 5,400 mph (about Mach 7).  In comparison, the fastest gunpowder-filled bullets travel around 3,300 mph.  Most rounds fired from conventional hunting and assault rifles travel between 1500-2200 mph.

Remember, when you are marveling at the above photo, that all the flames you see are not from an explosion in the normal sense of the word.  In this case it is merely the air crapping its pants and catching on fire. In more scientific terms "The flames are from pieces of the projectile disintegrating; the 7-pound slug is jammed so firmly between the rails that when it’s fired, pieces shear off and ignite in the air."  

But I won't bore you to death with the details.  Ladies and gents, I give you the DIY railgun guide:

**PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHEN ATTEMPTING ANY SCIENCE PROJECT OF THIS NATURE.  WEAR GOGGLES AND PROTECTIVE GEAR AND ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF WHAT IS DOWNRANGE FROM YOU**

 

Basic explanation of the science behind the railgun.  Gives some interesting ideas as to how to design your launch system and also gives important safety precautions to be taken.

A more in-depth, higher-tech version that shoots a needle-like projectile between two powerful magnets using a daisy chain of disposable camera capacitors.

All the way up to 'Merica-sized.  This is Navy prototype with a test-fire.  Remember, no explosives are used in these guns.  It is all magnets.

Here is a close-up of the projectile leaving the barrel using a high-speed camera.  That fireball is amazing, but is also a reminder to be very careful when experimenting with this technology.  If a projectile can ignite the oxygen in our breathing air like this, imagine what could happen if you had some gasoline fumes lingering around in your garage.

So now that you're familiar, you may be considering toying around with one in your home or garage.  If you're like me and are too curious to let any unknown knowledge go unexplored, here are some blueprints of past successful railgun builders:

Princeton, Physics Dept project

Powerlabs

If you are intimately familiar with how to read electronic schematics, I would recommend the book More Electronic Gadgets for the Evil Genius, Iannini, 2006.  Apart from other cool projects like "Vaccum Coil Tesla Project" and "Ultrasonic Phaser-Pain Field Generator", Chapter 16 "Magnetic High-Impact Cannon"(p 133) may be just what the overachiever in you is looking for. 

I encourage anyone who may attempt to build one of these to post a video on this blog.  It will be very educational for all of us.  Also, while the construction of a railgun is not illegal, full transparency with your neighbors and law enforcement, should the occasion arise, is fully recommended.

Good luck!

ULTRA HD TV PRANK - Technology fools the human eye

Having fun with cutting edge technology.  This is one of the best I've seen.  Not a bad TV either!

NASA’S ION PROPULSION PROJECT: Deep-space exploration is becoming a reality

PAVING THE ROAD TO THE STARS

Hidden deep within the dark and unreadable recesses of NASA’s 2014, $17.7 billion dollar spending plan lurks something made of science fiction. It will allow mankind to travel the solar system at unprecedented speeds to origins, until now, only probed by high-powered telescopes.

Over the next decade, NASA is planning to design and build an unmanned craft, powered by an “ion propulsion engine,” to travel millions of miles into space, with its first set of instructions: to “lasso” an asteroid and tow it back for study.

At first glance, the project sounds ridiculous, but it arrives on the coattails of a recent study by Caltech’s Keck Institute for Space Studies that reviewed the feasibility of “robotically capturing a 500-ton asteroid about 23 feet wide and placing it in orbit near the moon by 2025” so that once the technology develops for scientists to be able to physically land on the asteroid and study it, well, we’d already have one nearby. If this concept doesn’t get your sci-fi glands pumping fast enough, let’s now discuss the ion propulsion engine.

NASA scientists expect the engine to operate by “combining high-energy, negatively charged electrons together with neutral propellant atoms (xenon) in a contained environment” in hopes that the electrons and atoms will furiously collide into each other, which will theoretically result in the yield of a second electron, which will then result in thrust. To add aesthetic legitimacy, the reaction gives off a faint blue glow, just like in the movies.

Apart from it being far more technologically advanced than any current propulsion method, the ion propulsion engine will not only travel at speeds far greater than current engines (the Space Shuttle travelled at roughly 18,000 mph. It is anticipated that the new generation of engines will reach speeds in excess of 200,000 mph) but it will also be incredibly fuel-efficient so that spacecraft may travel further, faster and less expensively.

As if this new technology wasn’t enough to make us salivate, NASA researchers have also alluded to the idea that they are already exploring other, more advanced methods beyond ion propulsion. The word “antimatter” has been thrown around. Your eyes just got bigger didn’t they? Don’t hold your breath. The anticipated timeline for antimatter engine development is roughly 40 years. Still, the notion that we may see these technologies in action within our lifetime is astounding.

Pretty cool, eh?

OVERPOPULATION: Are we running out of room?

“Inadequate sources of freshwater for drinking or effective sewage treatment, depletion of natural resources to include fossil fuels, increases in air, water and soil contamination, deforestation, loss of ecosystems, global warming, loss of workable land, mass desertification of the Earth, mass species extinction, slashing and burning of rainforests, high infant and child mortality, malnutrition, increase in epidemics and pandemics, starvation, malnutrition, global poverty, low life expectancy, elevated crime rates, conflict over scarce resources, less personal freedoms and an exponential rise in global consumption.”

“What is ‘our future’, Alex?”

Yes, indeed.  This is the ugly future face of an overpopulated planet; a scenario we are rapidly headed toward without a clear blueprint of how to divert the current course.  Our population has been gradually growing since the Black Death in 1400, but, due to the development of advanced medical practices and increased agricultural productivity, the planet’s population has skyrocketed in the last 50 years.  According to U.S. Census Bureau information, the global population has grown from 2.3 billion in 1940 to over 7 billion last year.  Furthermore, continued advancements in food production and medical technology will likely increase birth rates and life span even further to where we could conceivably eclipse 10 billion by 2040.

A significant problem with how to attack this problem is that no experts seem to be able to come to a consensus as to how many people are “too many”, as far as planetary sustainability is concerned.  Some estimate that we are already overpopulated while a few others set the bar at a whopping 16 billion – almost 2 ½ times our current population.  Can you imagine that?  Look anywhere you go; the supermarket, driving, restaurants, and imagine 2.5 times as many people everywhere.  The world would be astoundingly crowded.

Interestingly enough, the problem of overpopulation is no recently-concocted concern.  In fact, it was a major talking point amongst ancient Romans and Greeks including Socrates and Plato.  A citizen of Carthage in the second century CE opined about the then global population of about 190 million; “What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population.  Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us… In very deed, pestilence and famine and wars and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”  Obviously, this isn’t a groundbreaking issue of which we are just now becoming aware, although, 190 million people sounds like paradise.

Regardless of what we eventually find to be the agreed-upon population ceiling, most everyone agrees that there are just too many people on this planet, in one way or another.  The question is; what do we, or can we, do about it?  How do we stave off an impending global population crisis?

Some experts believe an increase in global wealth distribution and industrialization of the third world will eradicate poverty and disease enough that birth rates will taper off.  Areas with greater burden of disease and warfare have far higher birth rates than the global average simply because their calamitous conditions cause in the citizenry a sort of PTSD about losing family members, so to compensate they simply have extra babies.  Lose the war and disease, no need for a dozen kids. This is of course a double-edged sword as with increased industrialization come more noxious greenhouse gases being blasted into our already-beaten down atmosphere, but for now, let us temporarily forget about that pesky little speed bump and focus on the task at hand:  How do we convince people to stop making too many kids?

Other experts, however, argue that population increase is not the issue on which to focus, but rather, that we should be paying attention to rampant over-consumption, particularly in the West.  More particularly, we should pay attention to it in the United States, where 40% of the world’s goods are consumed.  Simply put, the Western world is consuming substantially more than the rest of the world.  In fact, it is estimated that the average American has the same carbon footprint of 250 Ethiopians.  So we must, therefore, ask the question; are we just participating in that oh-so-human activity of destroying ourselves by any means possible, just on a grander scale?

Perhaps the answer lies in Mother Nature herself.  Historically, biological records show that as populations increase, fertility rates decrease.  Taking into account other means of population control like disease and famine, Mother Nature seems to be self-regulating, or at least she used to be.  Enter modern medicine and agricultural development.  Thanks to our philanthropic pharmaceutical companies anyone can now procreate, even if they weren’t intended to.  It is a shameful characteristic of a populous that has put its own personal reproductive agenda ahead of global stability.

Pardon me while I climb down off this soap box.

Seriously though, we must be more self-aware and begin to question if we are intentionally bypassing Mother Nature’s ability to keep her planet healthy by having babies when we aren’t supposed to and consuming more goods than we need to so we can ultimately be kept alive for decades longer than we would have (or should have) naturally.  One has to imagine that at some point the levees of nature will break and our overseer will unleash hell in the form of a super bug or similar blight to wipe out half the world’s population “Black Death”-style.  Or, perhaps, the escalating conflict over scarce resources will lead to another planetary-scale war.  Either way, the score will be Planet : 1, Humans: 0.

It is difficult to postulate which of these wonderful outcomes is most likely. Regardless, if we don’t begin taking measures to stabilize the population in one way or another, it is likely that Mother Nature will unleash her own punishment upon us and not a single one of us would be undeserving of it.

Product review: EMPCO Bioluminescent algae

GLOW BABY, GLOW! 

Tired of giving boring and obligatory gifts for Christmas? Looking for that unique, off-the-wall gift for your special someone?  Did you get into the movie Avatar a little more than expected?  If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, EMPCO's bio-luminescent algae cultures may be just what you're looking for to WOW gift recipients this holiday season.

As a fellow pursuer of the curious, I made a somewhat rash decision one night after downing a few too many shots of tequila to purchase a beaker of this in an effort to make my 800 sq ft apartment glow blue without the use of electricity.  Don't judge me.  I was playing Skyrim and thought those glowing mushrooms would be pretty cool to have.  Hindsight is 20/20, friends.  Nevertheless, it was still a very cool purchase.

EMPCO provides reasonably-priced beakers full of procystis fusiformis, procystis nociluta and procystis lunula for around $25.00 each.  They also offer more comprehensive packages for around $100.00 which includes other equipment and solutions intended on keeping your cultures alive longer.  It is up to you to decide which package is right for you.  For what it's worth, I opted for the less expensive package and my culture kept chugging along for about two months.

So here's how it works:

Contrary to what the photo attached to this article (which was taken from the EMPCO website) would have you believe, you should not expect that brilliant blue glow, at least not to that magnitude.  Granted, I'm no phycologist, so I may have just cultured them incorrectly, but the intensity of glowing blue light my algae gave off was about 1/10 of what you see in the photo.  The algae also operate on a circadian rhythm, meaning that they'll only glow blue during the dead of night.  Don't bother trying this during the day in a dark room.  It won't work.  Furthermore, don't expect to wake up to the beaker glowing by itself in the middle of the night as the light is only given off if the beaker is disturbed.  Instructions recommend you lightly shake the bottle.  Surely enough, though, when all conditions are met, you'll be witness to a very satisfying (yet very temporary) iridescent blue glow.

The verdict:

Regardless of how much the algae makes you work for it, I still recommend this as a purchase for any curious soul.  It is very cool to have a beaker of bioluminescent algae on your counter-top at home, either as a conversation piece or just to satisfy your own curiosity as a science dork.  If you really want to understand the science behind what's going on in that little beaker, I would also recommend checking out one of the following books as well: The Optics of Life; Johnsen, 2012 or Bioluminescence - Living Lights, Lights for Living, Wilson & Hastings, 2013; the latter of the two being easier to understand to the lay man (also has nicer photos).

Cultures are available at EMPCO.org.

Bill Nye: Still working to save the world

BILL NYE:  GOOD WORK IS NEVER DONE

Bill Nye explains the motivation for creating his popular show and how he plans on continuing to educate the children of the world.  Interesting anecdotes regarding those who have tried to challenge the science in his claims. 

Science continues to be attacked by the religious community, climate change deniers, "Young Earth" advocates and the like; even in the face of insurmountable evidence in support of science.

On Hunting: The underlying reasons why we either hunt or hate hunting

The leaves are starting to change. As autumn falls upon us, we will become witness to the beauty of nature’s transformation from lush green to yellows, oranges and reds in preparation for winter slumber. Families will begin to gather around the TV on Saturdays and Sundays to cheer on their alma maters and favorite professional football teams, kids will scramble into SUVs for weekend trips to the apple orchards for some fresh doughnuts and, of course, the army of fluorescent orange-clad “sportsmen” will once again grace our nation’s forests and fields. It’s hunting season again and Mother Nature is in the crosshairs.

Growing up in a “hunting family” in the northern Midwest, I was always around, and even participated in, the killing of animals in their native habitats. From Bambi to Chip & Dale, no furry creature was beyond the power of my mighty bow and arrow or .410 gauge break-action shotgun. My tenure as “Conqueror of Nature”, however, was abbreviated as I only bagged a handful of squirrels and one rabbit. Turns out I wasn’t very good at it and it sort of just slipped away from my mind for a few decades.

Only until I reached my mid-30s and noticed the surprisingly large numbers of my adult friends that still hunted, did I start to ponder the ethics of hunting. Why were these grown men, who had hopefully evolved past the mindless brutish thinking of adolescence, still going out of their way to kill animals? Was such an activity a necessary means of population control as the hunting community loves to boast? Or, was there something deeper to it? In my research I have read what seems to be a never ending point-counterpoint on the killing of wild animals every fall and I’d be lying if I said the issue was any clearer. It is to be noted that in my more recent years I have leaned rather significantly in the direction of the anti-hunters but I will openly admit that the hunting community brought up some interesting points, which I will discuss:

WHY PEOPLE HUNT

For seemingly an eternity, psychologists and other mind-docs have claimed that hunting is an activity that only caters to the perverted and inadequate. Arguably, most of the anti-hunting activists would agree. It is easy to climb onto this bandwagon as it makes the most sense to anyone with even a semester of psychology under their belt. The answer as to whether or not this viewpoint is accurate, however, is a little more elusive.

I figured the best place to start asking question about hunting would naturally be with hunters. Predictably, when I would question them and challenge their activities, accusing them of merely looking for an excuse to kill something, they would reply, most often, with one of the three following counterpoints:

1. Hunting for meat: This reasoning drives me absolutely mad. While there are surely some seasoned hunters out there that can identify a prime eating animal as it walks by their tree stand, the vast majority of hunters shoot the first (and every single following) animal that may come across their path until their bag limits have been filled. Not to mention, a cost benefit analysis of hunting (license fees, weapons, and other equipment) vs. buying grocery meat also voids this argument.

When taking into account the array of both good and bad cuts of meat, even in times of inflated food prices, beef costs on average $3.80/lb., according to CNNmoney.com. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, it would be preposterous to even consider small game hunting as being more affordable that buying meat in a supermarket, so for the sake of argument, we will look at how much it costs a hunter to get a deer from the woods into his stomach. The average slain deer will produce 50 lbs. of meat (according to several Departments of Natural Resources). Therefore, the cost of hunting must be under $200 in order to make this argument sound. A decent shotgun or compound bow costs anywhere from $500-$1000. Not including licenses and other assorted gear, and cost of processing the deer. This argument obviously holds little water. Next.

2. Control overpopulation: Admittedly, there is solid scientific evidence that suggests hunting is a very effective means of controlling animal overpopulation in certain areas where the animals would otherwise starve or contract disease. This reason, however, is kind of a “dickish” response to Mother Nature. Humans are the ONLY cause for deforestation, urban sprawl and diminishing wildlife habitiat. Therefore, humans using population control as an excuse to hunt the weak and diseased (as a result of the aforementioned actions of humans) is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler’s Lebensraum in which the domination of neighboring nations was necessary for the healthy expansion of the Nazi empire. Killing of those conquered citizens was merely a formality, of course.

3. Controlling pests that pose a risk to you, your family or your property: I get this. I really do. In fact, I support it. If a coyote is a threat to your livestock, by all means kill it. If a bear takes a run at you as you get out of the car, I fully support disposing of the bear. This is no different than killing a rat that has invaded your kitchen or an opossum in your garage. The difference in this act from the others, however, is that this is based in the defense of yourself, your loved ones and your possessions. Most acts committed in the defense of oneself are wholly acceptable, perhaps not by the law, but nevertheless by the mindset of most Westerners. Basically, you do what you gotta do to protect your stuff.

Back on track…

After considering the invalidity of the aforementioned replies (of course, omitting the last), an anti-hunter could only be led to believe that hunters likely kill animals just for the sake of killing something without the fear that the about-to-be-killed may respond in kind if you miss. To take it a step further, walking into a home and see multiple heads of various animals stuffed and hanging on walls is the ultimate “in your face” to mother nature and sends the blood boiling through most animal lovers. As if it wasn’t enough to kill our Earthly companions en masse, now we need to make an exhibitionist spectacle of it? The author, Aldo Leopold once observed in his 1953 publication Round River that “Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason—the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason—to reduce that beauty to possession.” On its surface, this act seems barbarous and borderline sociopathic. However, the hunting community has interesting points of defense.

In a 2007 issue of Montana Outdoors, author John Madson explains the brotherhood and sense of community and bonding that hunting may bring; “Ten thousand years ago the hunter might have stood by a fire and recounted the great deed to his clan brothers, while the old men nodded their approval and stripling boys back in the shadows listened in wonder. It hasn’t changed much. The trophy hunter, the ethical killer of the great stag, or bear, or ram, still commands attention by the fire as he recites his deeds. His peers still salute him, the old men still nod and remember, and boys still dream of tomorrow’s hunts.”

Madson continues; “Companionship can be a strong element in hunting. For as long as men have hunted, they have banded into special hunting packs with their own taboos, traditions, and rituals. And sometimes the companionship and the rituals become more important than the hunt itself, and sometimes the greatest pleasure is in anticipation and recollection, with the hunt only serving to bond the two.”

Ultimately, until the exact reason for why people hunt are mapped out via brain scan, much like recent research shows how video games turn kids into killers (Sorry advocates, it’s true. See ANYTHING written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman), this back and forth will go on ad nauseam. Hunters will always postulate that they kill for a variety of reasons ranging from “working the dogs” to “being one with nature”. In response, the anti-hunting community will continue to scream “sociopath”, “murderer” and “hypocrite”. Hopefully someday both sides will understand the other. Then again, perhaps, we are just not equipped to understand.

Scientific community: Relaxation can prevent genetic degradation

Has the scientific community discovered a breakthrough in slowing genetic degradation? Or, has it merely caught up with the long-held (and often refuted) mantra of the metaphysical "New Age" community that 'all healing starts in the mind?'

Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital recently discovered that the evocation of "relaxation reponses", via methods such as meditation, yoga and repetitive prayer do, in fact, keep genes healthier than normal. The experiment showed that sujects who practiced "relaxation response"-inducing activites "enhanced expression of genes associated with energy metabolism, mitochondrial function, insulin secretion and telomere maintenance, and reduced expression of genes linked to inflammatory response and stress-related pathways." Furthermore, the experiment showed that subjects who maintained these practices for a longer period of time had significantly better results than the short-timers. The study concludes that the research results "for the first time indicate that relaxation response elicitation, particularly after long-term practice, may evoke its downstream health benefits by improving mitochondrial energy production and utilization and thus promoting mitochondrial resiliency."

Source: Bhasin, Dusek, et al

Photo credit: ddpavumba