THERE IS THE STORY of the old Cornish couple, sitting comfortably before a warming fire in the grate. One says, "The whole world is a little queer (aka 'strange')"
"Except me and thee."
"Come to think of it, Thee are a little odd!"
This came to mind the other day, down at Soulful Cup coffee shop, around a table with the ageing regulars. One has just said to me, 'Robert, as an Aussie, do you not think at times that America is somewhat bizarre.'
Not always prudent in utterance, I carefully replied,
'Every country I have visited is a little bizarre in it own way.'
I am writing this on Easter Sunday evening. Consider that Australia, possibly the least religious country in the world, is careful to observe Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Monday as public holidays (used to be called 'holy days'). Now consider the United States, likely 100 times more religious, where none of these three are holidays!
And how about politics? In Oz (aka 'Australia'), everyone must vote and they do it on a Saturday. In the US, everyone has a choice whether to vote or not, but they can only do so on a Tuesday. In Oz, just now, the Prime Minister (the Leader of the Party that won the last election and thus controls at least the Lower House) is threatening to call a 'Double Dissolution'. The reason for this is that it looks like the Upper House (the Senate), under the control of the Loyal Opposition and a few Independent Members, may refuse to pass two important Bills. If they do this, the PM can ask the Governor General (representing the Queen), to dissolve both Houses and all Members and Senators will then have to stand for election. He hopes that he will win control of both Houses and then pass these vital Bills. It does not happen very often and usually when the Senate twice returns the annual Supply Bill back to the Lower House, not approved.
This may seem very odd to Americans but it could be that the President of the United States might like to have this kind of card up his sleeve. Just get rid of those pesky opponents who persistently refuse to 'play the game' by sending them back to the hustings!
Sometimes I feel a little like I imagine Bill Bryson (one of my favorite authors) did when, having returned to the US after living in the UK for quite a while, and finding himself in a small New England town writing a weekly column for a local newspaper about odd things that came up. Eventually these became a book, 'I'm a stranger here myself.' You know the situation...you are walking down a street in some town you have never been in before. A car pulls up and a passenger lowers the window to ask, 'Can you tell how to get to...?'.
Oddest of all was the article I read just this morning in the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC, very like the BBC) online news. It seems that the National Capital, Canberra, has become the coffee capital of the world! A local barista had taken out, for the second time, the world title in, of all places, Seattle WA. I thought Seattle is the coffee capital of the Universe. So there you go, a 'little Aussie battler' from Down Under has come out On Top!
Seriously, Canberrans are true coffee cognoscenti and I can attest the excellence of local coffee. I have to say this as my younger daughter lives in Canberra and we do drink coffee together a lot when I visit.
Yes, this world can be a little bizarre!
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
HUMAN DESTINY: or Learn to Think BIG!
IT COULD BE that human kind may be the sole avenue the Universe has to consciousness.
According to two scientists at the Australian National University, Aditya Chopra and Charles H. Lineweaver, we should consider the fragility of life throughout the Universe.
In this article, they address Fermi's Paradox, which draws attention to the increasing number of planets that astronomers are discovering where one might expect life to arise. Paradoxically, there appears to be virtually no evidence that life has thrived anywhere else but here on Earth. This article has attracted a lot of attention in this past week.
At such great distances, truly astronomical, how is it possible to determine whether life is present on planet? One way is to use spectroscopy to analyze the planet's atmosphere. Where humans now live, over billions of years, early life transformed the atmosphere, increasing levels of oxygen and nitrogen while decreasing the proportion of carbon dioxide. If these constituent proportions show up as more like what we believe the original atmosphere of Earth to have been, we might conclude that life as we know it is not present. Chopra and Lineweaver suggest that life might very well have begun on many planets but was not able to get sufficient hold to be able to 'terraform' the surface. Thus conditions may have been adverse to life after only a brief appearance.
While we still do not understand exactly how life began, most cosmologists and astro-biologists believe that early planetary conditions, such as after the cessation of sustained bombardment by meteorites about 4 billion years ago (4Bya), cooling and constant rain produced conditions favorable to life processes appearing. Increasing complexity of life forms over the next 3.8 By finally led to intelligent life forms, of which humans are the superior example. We have a long way to go to become sufficiently intelligent, in my view.
Though still mysterious to us, consciousness at some level seems to be shared by vertebrates with sufficiently complex nervous systems. To get to this point has required a lot of time and considerable 'luck'. If Chopra and Lineweaver are almost right, then it is likely that humans, with our ever-increasing knowledge of how the Universe works, as far as the proverbial eye can see, may be the only consciousness the Universe has of itself.
In their book, The View From the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos, Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams make the point that we humans a currently nicely placed to think about this role.
I suppose that, by obdurate striving or out of just plain ignorance, we might ignore this invitation. Far easier to keep on with our tragic and silly wars, disregard of human worth, or whatever else might be proposed should occupy our interest. How could anyone suggest seriously that this might be our destiny, to lead the Universe into an understanding of Itself?
My reading of cosmology leads me to consider that, if not struck out by a vast natural disaster like the collision with a very large meteor some 65 Mya, or by devising our own destruction, or by determination to think as small as possible, we could arrive at a sustainable occupation of this planet, our Earth, our Mother, for at least a billion years more. What might become of us should our prowess and sagacity continue to grow over such an expanse of time?
According to two scientists at the Australian National University, Aditya Chopra and Charles H. Lineweaver, we should consider the fragility of life throughout the Universe.
In this article, they address Fermi's Paradox, which draws attention to the increasing number of planets that astronomers are discovering where one might expect life to arise. Paradoxically, there appears to be virtually no evidence that life has thrived anywhere else but here on Earth. This article has attracted a lot of attention in this past week.
At such great distances, truly astronomical, how is it possible to determine whether life is present on planet? One way is to use spectroscopy to analyze the planet's atmosphere. Where humans now live, over billions of years, early life transformed the atmosphere, increasing levels of oxygen and nitrogen while decreasing the proportion of carbon dioxide. If these constituent proportions show up as more like what we believe the original atmosphere of Earth to have been, we might conclude that life as we know it is not present. Chopra and Lineweaver suggest that life might very well have begun on many planets but was not able to get sufficient hold to be able to 'terraform' the surface. Thus conditions may have been adverse to life after only a brief appearance.
While we still do not understand exactly how life began, most cosmologists and astro-biologists believe that early planetary conditions, such as after the cessation of sustained bombardment by meteorites about 4 billion years ago (4Bya), cooling and constant rain produced conditions favorable to life processes appearing. Increasing complexity of life forms over the next 3.8 By finally led to intelligent life forms, of which humans are the superior example. We have a long way to go to become sufficiently intelligent, in my view.
Though still mysterious to us, consciousness at some level seems to be shared by vertebrates with sufficiently complex nervous systems. To get to this point has required a lot of time and considerable 'luck'. If Chopra and Lineweaver are almost right, then it is likely that humans, with our ever-increasing knowledge of how the Universe works, as far as the proverbial eye can see, may be the only consciousness the Universe has of itself.
In their book, The View From the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos, Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams make the point that we humans a currently nicely placed to think about this role.
I suppose that, by obdurate striving or out of just plain ignorance, we might ignore this invitation. Far easier to keep on with our tragic and silly wars, disregard of human worth, or whatever else might be proposed should occupy our interest. How could anyone suggest seriously that this might be our destiny, to lead the Universe into an understanding of Itself?
My reading of cosmology leads me to consider that, if not struck out by a vast natural disaster like the collision with a very large meteor some 65 Mya, or by devising our own destruction, or by determination to think as small as possible, we could arrive at a sustainable occupation of this planet, our Earth, our Mother, for at least a billion years more. What might become of us should our prowess and sagacity continue to grow over such an expanse of time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
