Hearing voices

This link is to a long and interesting Washington Post Magazine article about people who hear voices in their head. Many such folk now network via the internet and encourage each other in the (very common) belief that they are the victims of secret government mind control technology. This belief is also encouraged by some credible reports of government research into beaming auditory words into heads via microwaves. However, there seems little reason to believe that the success was much more than the equivalent of a party trick.

It's a bit too sad to get too much fun from some of the delusions mentioned, but it is worth noting that there is a company that sells undergarments designed to protect the wearer from electro magnetic radiation, and their range includes aluminium lined boxer shorts.

Auditory hallucinations are a pretty fascinating part of mental illness. Why, for example, are the voices usually harassing and nasty? Helpful voices are not completely unknown, as in the case of science fiction author Philip K Dick, but they seem the exception. (I seem to remember reading that the specific advice PKD got from the helpful voice included such mundane things as changing the margin settings on his typewriter.)

The other thing that interests me is why some people are able to reach a point where they do realise that the voices are delusions, and have enough insight to know they need additional medicine if they are heard again. Other people, like those detailed in the article, spend their entire life in obsessional rationalisation of the reality of the voices. As the article notes, some people for whom anti-psychotic medication works still rationalise this by thinking that the medicine simply protects their brain from the secret technology.

Anyway, go read the article if the topic is of interest to you.

Gruesome

The most detailed explanation I have found of what happened in the botched Iraqi hanging is by John Burns in the NYT. Curiously, he explains how journalists found on the internet an old US army manual on how to conduct a hanging. It would seem the latest version deals only with lethal injection, which is somewhat of an improvement if you allow for capital punishment at all.

Readers can Google up the manuals themselves, if so inclined. I am not entirely sure that it is a good idea for anyone to be publicising drop tables, though.

Too much of a good thing

The Times reports on a new suggestion about what's good for a healthy prostate:

Eating tomatoes and broccoli in the same meal could help men to fight prostate cancer.

A study suggests that when they are both present in a regular diet, the two foods — known for their cancer-fighting qualities — help to reduce tumours more effectively than when they are eaten separately.

Fine, I happen to like both. But how often should it be eaten?:

They suggest that men should regularly consume servings of up to three quarters of a head of raw broccoli and two to three tomatoes to help fight the disease.

John Erdman, Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the university, said that men should consider consuming three to five such servings a week.

Who on earth likes broccoli that much? I guess it does say "up to", so maybe it is not as much as it sounds.

A bungy too far

I don't like fast rides, so just watching this video actually made me feel queasy. I can't believe someone would do this for fun. The other things that come to mind are the phrases "detached retina" and "law suit".

A brief history of autism

Interesting article in Slate about the history of autism as a diagnosis (suggesting there is not a current "epidemic".)

Is this correct?

Phillip Adams in his column today writes of President Bush, in the context of last week's "surge" speech,:

Then there was the President's one and only tear, snail-trailing down his left cheek. Haven't seen such a sad, solitary tear since Malcolm Fraser's famous sniffle on the night of his defeat to Bob Hawke in 1983. Two famous tears, equally expressive of self-pity.

As it happens, I only saw very brief excerpts from the speech. However, if there was a Presidential tear on the cheek, I would not have expected to read about it first in a Phillip Adams column days later.

Did this really happen?

The kidnapping

Neo Neocon has an interesting post on that bizarre kidnapping case from the USA, showing the similarities with a previous famous case.

The recent story must have been noted by the parents of missing boy Daniel Morecombe too, and perhaps given them some vague hope of finding him alive again. The uncertainty of not knowing the fate of your child must be awful.

Borders

An interesting short article in The Economist about the Hamas attitude to recognition of Israel:

Many members of Hamas say that they will not recognise Israel's right to exist and may not do so even if Israel were to withdraw right back to the pre-1967 “green line”. The official ideology of Hamas is clear enough. It refuses in principle the idea of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine at all. Israel's position, on the other hand, is that it accepts the right of the Palestinians to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but says that the final border should be set by negotiation. (Although Israel also says it wants to keep some of the West Bank’s land for existing settlements and security purposes.) There may be another reason for Hamas's intransigence that has nothing to do with Israel's stance: recognising Israel could lose it the support of its biggest foreign ally, Iran

In practice, if Hamas really were ready to strike a deal, and if the two sides ever were to sit down to talk about peace, they could probably work out a land-swap formula that compensates the Palestinians for the bits that Israel wants to keep. But to guarantee this, the Palestinians want the 1967 lines recognised in principle as a way to guarantee a fair swap.

The whole of the article is worth reading.

Natural death and mayhem in Australia

From today's news:

* A teenager bitten by one of the world's most venomous snakes in Sydney has died in hospital with his family at his bedside.

* More than 700 people have been stung by bluebottle jellyfish on Gold Coast beaches, including eight children rushed to hospital, lifesavers say.

* The bodies of two men missing for up to two weeks have been found in a remote desert area in Western Australia.

It's a wonder tourists come here at all.

On the subject of bluebottle stings, I was at a beach close to Brisbane yesterday and saw a distraught girl, aged about 10, who had been stung. When we arrived, there were lots of kids in the water, but I had noticed bluebottles every 1 to 2 meters at the water's edge, and moved my kids to a part of the beach protected from the on shore winds (and where there were no bluebottles to be seen on the sand.) We saw the stung girl as we were leaving.

I have only had one sting in my life, as a young adult, but that's enough to know how extremely painful they can be. It always puzzles me why people still go in the water, and let their kids go in, when it doesn't take too much to notice if they are about.

I also am curious as to whether these nasty creatures are as common a problem in other countries' beaches as they are here.

Update: from this morning's paper, a story about a type of tropical ulcer that, strangely enough, can be caught from the distinctly un-tropical waters off southern New South Wales and Victoria. The story explains:

THE flesh-eating Daintree Ulcer has struck again, this time in NSW where a sea kayaker developed a gaping wound on his ankle.

Also known as the Bairnsdale or Buruli Ulcer, the ulcer destroys skin, fat, blood vessels and sometimes bone.

In this case, the 42-year-old man's ankle became infected while sea kayaking off the town of Eden in southern NSW.

A scab on his ankle developed into a large, open wound that continued to grow over five months before the ulcer was excised by Melbourne surgeons early last year.

Common in Africa, the ulcer is caused by the Mycobacterium ulcerans infection, first identified in coastal Victoria in 1948.

Infection rates have doubled in Victoria in the past three years with 61 people diagnosed last year.

61 people a year get tropical ulcers in Victoria?

Well, at least they understand its cause? Not really:

The reasons for outbreaks and transmission remain a mystery.

But Professor Johnson said direct exposure to mosquitoes was a factor.

"Wearing protective clothing and insect repellent appears protective," he said.

It's a dangerous world, hey.

More worrying demography

A litany of bad news about the demographic future in China is in an article re-printed in The Age this weekend:

Despite almost three decades of the one-child policy, the total population will reach 1.5 billion by 2033, well in advance of previous estimates of 2050...

Between now and 2016, the growth in the number of people of working age will increase by 10 million a year, meaning that much of China's remarkable economic growth will be taken up simply with finding them jobs rather than making them richer.

And then, in an extraordinary reversal as the effects of the one-child policy play through the generations, the population will age rapidly, so that by the 2040s the country will have 430 million people over the age of 60, compared with just 143 million now, relying on ever fewer workers to provide them with their livelihood....


...despite a ban on selective abortions, the discrepancy is getting worse. The national statistics show that 118 boys were registered for every 100 girls in 2005, up from 110 in 2000. In two southern provinces, Guangdong and Hainan, the figure had reached 130.

It's a little hard to be optimistic about how this is all going to work out for China. Maybe an excess of cheap labour continues to be good for a while for the West, until civil unrest kicks in.

Who's calling who amoral?

Emily Maguire complains in the SMH today:

In his much quoted and discussed essay in last October's The Monthly, Kevin Rudd wrote that "a Christian perspective should not be rejected contemptuously", and this is fair enough. We live in a pluralistic society and should respectfully listen to and debate all ideas regardless of their religious or philosophical origins.

Often, however, Christians like Rudd demonstrate a double standard by treating non-religious viewpoints with disrespect, if not outright contempt. Even as they call for tolerance when it comes to their own beliefs, they accuse the rest of us of being amoral.

Oh yes, and I see no contempt and oodles of respect all the time from secular politicians for the religiously informed morality of others.

I would have thought that the correct picture is that, in certain fields, both sides think they have the superior view, and the other side can see the claim of supremcy as "contempt" for their own view. It's just silly to suggest that the flow of "contempt" is all one way.

Comet reminder

Comet McNaught promises to be a great sight if you can see the western evening sky over the next few days. There are some gorgeous photos of it here and here.

Unfortunately, the cloudy Brisbane sky this morning looks very unpromising.

Also, a quick search of blogs has not turned up any blogger in Australia who has seen it yet.

Thanks, Dad

From the Times:

A duck that was feared to be extinct has been found alive and well in the wild after zoologists spent 18 years looking for it in the wrong sort of habitat. ...

Glyn Young, of the Durrell trust, has been searching for the duck, Aythya innotata, since 1989. He said: “The finding is extremely exciting. It was incredible. Some of the chicks could only just have hatched.”

Dr Young, who named his eldest daughter, Aythya, after the duck, added:...

It could've been worse; her father might have been a fan of the harlequin duck, otherwise known as histrionicus histrionicus. (Father to crying child: "Calm down, Histrionicus, calm down.")

(For all your common and taxonomic duck name needs, go here, type in "duck" and search for "common names")

Boy troubles

Found via Bryan Appleyard's blog is this fascinating article from Financial Times, explaining one theory about why socieities become violent:

In Mr Heinsohn's view, when 15 to 29-year-olds make up more than 30 per cent of the population, violence tends to happen; when large percentages are under 15, violence is often imminent. The "causes" in the name of which that violence is committed can be immaterial. There are 67 countries in the world with such "youth bulges" now and 60 of them are undergoing some kind of civil war or mass killing.

Between 1988 and 2002, 900m sons were born to mothers in the developing world and a careful demographer could almost predict the trouble spots. In the decade leading up to 1993, on the eve of the Taliban takeover, the population of Afghanistan grew from 14m to 22m. By the end of this generation, Afghanistan will have as many people under 20 as France and Germany combined. Iraq had 5m people in 1950 but has 25m now, in spite of a quarter-century of wars. Since 1967, the population of the West Bank and Gaza has grown from 450,000 to 3.3m, 47 per cent of which is under 15. If Mr Heinsohn is right, then Palestinian violence of recent months and years is not explained by Israeli occupation (which, after all, existed 30 years ago) or poverty (the most violent parts of the Muslim world are not the poorest) or humiliation. It is just violence.

More explanation as to why this should be:

The problem...is that in a youth-bulge society there are not enough positions to provide all these young men with prestige and standing. Envy against older, inheriting brothers is unleashed. So is ambition. Military heroism presents itself as a time-honoured way for a second or third son to wrest a position of respectability from an otherwise indifferent society. Societies with a glut of young men become temperamentally different from "singleton societies" such as Europe's, where the prospect of sending an only child to war is almost unthinkable. Europe's pacifism since 1945, in Mr Heinsohn's view, reflects an inability to wage war, not a disinclination.

Go read it all. As Appleyard indicates, as a general rule it's wise to be sceptical about simple explanations about human behaviour, but this one smells right.

Having too many nightmares?

Depression and sleep problems I have heard about, but a connection between having many nightmares and suicide attempts is new:

After factoring in other variables that may influence degree of suicidality, including other mental diagnoses, the investigators found that patients with frequent nightmares were almost four times as likely to be highly suicidal compared with patients who didn't report having nightmares.

Growth and prosperity

An interesting article from Spiked discusses the "paradox of prosperity", and argues it is not really something to worry about:

Contemporary critics of consumerism and popular prosperity are obsessed with what they see as a paradox. A central theme of their arguments is that economic growth does not make people happier. In their view, the pursuit of mass affluence is at best futile and is probably responsible for making humanity miserable. Often the growth sceptics argue that the pursuit of material goods is akin to a disease: they say the developed world is suffering from ‘affluenza’ or ‘luxury fever. Typically they conclude we should not attempt to become richer and often they argue for the pursuit of alternative social goals such as mental well-being.

Ben-Ami argues that:

The rise of mass affluence is an incredibly positive development. It has bolstered the quality of people’s lives enormously. But there never was any guarantee that such progress would bring happiness. One of the most positive qualities of human beings is that they often want more than they have got. They typically want the lives of their children and grandchildren to be better than their own. The growth sceptics would have us stay where we are or even retreat to living a life of lower living standards.

This is the section strikes me as particularly true:

What the growth sceptics identify as a lack of happiness can, at least in part, be more accurately described as social pessimism. There is no longer a sense that the future can be better than the present. On the contrary, potentially positive developments, such as technological or scientific advance, are routinely viewed with foreboding. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that survey data sometimes appears to indicate that people feel miserable. The happiness pundits themselves have taken on the idea that, at least in material terms, the future cannot be better than the present.

Good reading.

Blame 9/11, I guess

Pamela Bone in The Australian today writes about the current wave of anti-religious publishing, and notes that there new titles are headed our way:

Atheist Manifesto by French philosopher Michel Onfray; Against Religion by Melbourne philosopher Tamas Pataki; Have a Nice Doomsday by American writer Nick Guyatt. The one I am most looking forward to is Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Oh great.

Being an atheist or agnostic herself, her article welcomes the new wave, and she makes some valid points (that the faithful are often their own worst advertisement for their religion being the main one.)

This paragraph deserves some comment:

Non-religious people are fed up with all the talk about the emptiness, the barrenness and lack of meaning in "secular society". It may surprise religious people to learn that our lives are not empty. Some people might need to believe in an afterlife in order to find meaning in this one; others don't. Some might need to believe in a creator in order to be awed by the majesty of nature; others don't. Some might believe in something higher than themselves and call it God; others believe in something higher than themselves and call it humanity or nature. It makes no difference to how morally they behave. Everything good in religion can be had without religion.

As I noted when talking about Dawkins before, I reckon that there is bit of hidden elitism in this, in that a good education and opportunity to indulge an interest in science or philosophy makes it easy to think you are being deep and meaningful, but such opportunity is not available or inherent in much of the world.

The problem is not that the irreligious have no "meaning" in their lives, as you could argue that anyone who more or less happily gets on with living would be able to say something gives their life meaning. The issue is more with whether what they say gives meaning is really just a diversionary interest from facing the real existential questions of life.

Such diversionary interests become more widely available the richer a society becomes, which is a counter-influence to the other idea that increased riches gives more free time to be "deep". The way that better health has made death less of an obvious reality helps hide the existential issues too, of course.

Of course I don't want people to suffer so as force them to think philosophically; I'll leave that position to the quasi-religion of the Greens.

[In my first version of this post I mentioned "low brow" diversions, which made me sound too much like David Williamson. I should have been more even handed and noted that the rich have their empty diversions too. As do the ostensibly religious. I think that the romantic versions of environmentalism, which has a strong foothold across all classes in the West, mostly avoids the issue of the deeper meaning of humanity too, by concentrating on the rest of nature.]

Anyway, as it happens I agree with Bone that it would be ideal if moral values and ethics could always be agreed upon by arguments which do not rely on revelation. (This is why I like Kant, and John Rawls also made a decent effort. But then again, Kant thought masturbation was worse than suicide.)

But these philosophical exercises are all arguments made by creatures with no complete knowledge of their own true nature (there is, for example, presently a rash of articles arguing again about whether free will even exists) or that of the universe overall. Largely for this reason, purely rational philosophical exercises are never going to reach positions on morals that are self-evident and compulsively universal, as it were. Pure rationality is always going to have a problem with ultimate motivation for being 'good' too.

I therefore think it is better to stick with the not always easy task of trying to piece together faith in revelation and reason, and that the world would be a safer place if this attitude was widespread.

[I think what I have just done is more or less a summary of the Pope's recent controversial address that mentioned Islam. I wasn't really thinking about it when I started, though.]

That UFO...

Everyone who has the vaguest interest in UFO's would have heard about the O'Hare airport case by now. For some links about it that readers may not have seen yet: the NPR audio report with the journalist involved gives a little bit more background about the story, and notes that an FOI request for radar and the control tower recordings hasn't been answered yet. (It is an odd feature that an FOI request was needed to get confirmation of the event.)

Paul Kimball is being very appropriately cautious about the case, and links to a few good sites with many rather unusual "hole in the clouds" photos.

My take: it sounds too good to be true. Still, it's great to have a bit of aerial mystery around.

About China

Early last year I linked to an article sceptical of long term prospects for China's economy, at least without political reform.

Here's another article along the same lines which is an interesting read.

Serendipity

A couple of years ago, I unsuccessfully tried to track down an article from a science magazine I had read about how you could easily build huge solar cell farms with a system of self replicating (but quite dumb) robots. I could not remember which magazine I had found it in.

[I have kept most of my old popular science magazines (starting with Omni in the late 70's and 80's, New Scientists and Discover magazine, and the occasional Scientific American.) My wife does not appreciate the hoarding of magazines that, admittedly, I rarely have cause to look at again, but there is a spare room at my office that can hold the boxes.]

Anyway, by pure chance, tonight I found someone in comments at Futurepundit has linked to the story, from 1995. (It was in Discover and is still on line.)

I love the WWW.