Higgs Bozos

Caveman Car Smashers and A Brief History of Abject Failure

Predictions are dicey…at best. Therefore, I tend to eschew predictions in favor of simply focusing on what is directly observable. Not only is it less risky, but it is generally also more interesting. However, there is a glaring area with some might interesting observable data that almost screams out for someone to make the next logical leap and predict the near inevitable. And that area is particle physics.

Particle physics is a branch of physics that studies the elementary subatomic constituents of matter and radiation and the interactive relationship between them. That means “the study of atoms” to you and I. And the latest great mystery to be solved in particle physics is “Why do things have mass?” Or, in other words, “Why do things exist at all?”.

For particle physicists, the overwhelmingly accepted answer to these questions is that there is this mysterious, as yet unseen particle dubbed the “Higgs Boson” that gives neutrons, protons, electrons and every other elementary particle mass, which in turn gives everything in the entire universe mass and hence what makes it possible for anything to “exist” at all. The search for this Higgs Boson is so important to particle physicists that they spent about 14 years and $10 billion dollars building and subsequently repairing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to smash proton beams together in search of the elusive Higgs Boson.

Unfortunately, it is highly likely; if not a near certainty, that the Higgs Boson does not exist at all or at the very least isn’t going to turn out to be what the particle physicists expect. I say this with the utmost confidence. Why do I say this and how can I be so confident? Well, you see, the problem is that particle physicists as a whole are not very bright. I realize that this may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, seeing as how particle physicists would appear to the casual observer to have “unlocked the secrets of the atom” and so on and so forth. But, if one takes a closer look at the historical evidence, one can immediately come to the conclusion that the history of particle physics is not a series of grand successes, but really a series of spectacular failures.

The abject failures of particle physicists start with its inception. In the 19th century, John Dalton, through his work on stoichiometry, concluded that each element of nature was composed of a single, unique type of particle. Dalton and his contemporaries believed these were the fundamental particles of nature and thus named them atoms, after the Greek word atomos, meaning “indivisible”. Not only was Mr. Dalton wrong, he was way, way off the mark. Subsequent experimentation proved that each element was NOT composed of a single, unique type of particle, but that all elements were composed of the same kind of particles. Notice that “s” on the end of particle? Oh yeah, near the end of the century, physicists discovered that atoms were not, in fact, the fundamental particles of nature, but conglomerates of even smaller particles and hence the term “atom” is a complete misnomer since they are, in point of fact, divisible. Don’t believe me? Just ask the Japanese, they will tell it to you straight. So, in the end, John Dalton = FAIL!

The next great particle physicist “genius” to come along was one Ernest Rutherford. This guy had his two lackeys, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, fire alpha particles through a sheet of very thin gold foil. Rutherford, and the rest of his colleagues, expected all of the alpha particles to pass straight through the gold foil, thereby proving the “plum pudding model” of the oops, it’s divisible, atom. The plum pudding model of the atom, first put forth by J. J. Thomson, proposed that the atom was composed of negatively charged electrons contained within an immaterial sphere of uniform positive charge. However, what Rutherford found was that a certain, small percentage of the alpha particles did not pass through the gold foil but instead actually bounced back at angles much larger than 90 degrees. Hence, the plum pudding model of the atom was disproved as the actual physical evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the fact that atoms contained a dense, positively charged center or nucleus. Therefore, J. J. Thomson = FAIL! Ernest Rutherford = FAIL!

Not content with simply splitting the atom, particle physicists decided instead to simply bash them together and this led to a series of particle colliders being built in the 60’s followed by 50-60 years of trying to interpret the results. By way of explanation, a particle collider spins proton beams in opposite directions and then crosses the beams in order to bash protons together. The LHC is simply the biggest and baddest version of this. However, when physicists bashed subatomic particles together, it didn’t exactly turn out as planned. Instead of finding a nice, neat orderly universe of sub-subatomic particles, what they found instead was a bewildering “particle zoo” of hundreds of particles. The next half-decade finally seemed to make some sense of this, producing the “Standard Model”, which breaks the hundreds of particles down into Fermions (Quarks and Leptons) and Bosons.

The “Standard Model” is essentially a theory that explains the fundamental building blocks of nature and the fundamental forces of nature, the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear interactions. Unfortunately, the Standard Model cannot explain gravity, dark matter or dark energy. It fails to correctly account for neutrino oscillations and the fact that they have non-zero masses. In fact, in the Standard Model, neutrinos HAVE to be mass-less, but they aren’t. And finally, the Standard Model gives rise to the strong CP problem (why there is matter in the universe versus equal amounts of matter and antimatter) and the hierarchy problem (otherwise known as “where did all the mass go?”). The bottom line? Standard Model = FAIL! Modern particle physicists = FAIL!

So, taken as a whole, the history of particle physics is really the story of abject and utter failure in predicting, well, pretty much anything. Now, to be fair, the history of particle physics does include some relatively minor predictive successes, most notably Paul Dirac’s prediction of antimatter by way of the electron antiparticle, the positron. But, when it comes to the “big” predictions, the predictions that will explain the fundamental nature of matter, there is only failure after failure after absolute and complete failure. Therefore, if past behavior is in any way a prediction of future behavior, then the odds of the particle physicists being correct about the Higg’s boson is slim to none.

But, I can already sense the vague hint of skepticism still ingrained in the cynic (read the theoretical particle physicist that is reading this right now). I can hear it now, “Well, history isn’t necessarily a good predictor of the future.” “Well, none of this proves that particle physicists aren’t very bright, scientists expect failure.” Or even “Well, the true genius of scientists is not the predictions they make but rather the experiments they envision to prove or disprove those predictions.” So…let’s wrap this up and put the final nail in the coffin of the Higg’s boson.

Think about the “brilliance” of particle physicists. Sure, they are constantly wrong but think about how smart they are in terms of the experiments they have invented to test their hypotheses. Think about it, for the last 100 years or so, starting with Ernest Rutherford, the “genius” particle physics experiments have consisted of smashing particles into things or each other. To put this in context, this would be like a couple cavemen trying to figure out how a car operates by smashing two automobiles into one another at high speed. Think about that. Think about how likely those cavemen are to be able to figure out how a car works by analyzing broken and fused chunks of metal from the cars’ engines. The phrase “when hell freezes over” comes to mind.

Let’s face it, the odds of cavemen being able to figure out how a car works by smashing them together is effectively nonexistent. And that is exactly what today’s particle physicists are, cavemen smashing cars together. I don’t mean this solely metaphorically either, I mean this pejoratively as well, in the most pejorative manner possible. Just how smart can you be if when trying to figure out how something works the best “experiment” you can come up with is…“Heck, let’s just smash it and see what’s inside?” This is Neanderthal-level intellect. And yet this is the best that the “brilliant” minds in particle physics can come up with, the intellectual reasoning of a caveman or 3-year old trying to figure out how a toy works? Sad. Truly sad beyond belief. All hail the most “brilliant” minds in science.

Just thank your lucky stars that not all scientists have the intellectual reasoning capacity of small furry rodents like particle physicists. I can just imagine if other scientific disciplines had similarly intellectually ungifted individuals. “We need to figure out why the Earth is warming…let’s smash it into Mars and find out.” “Gee, look at this incredibly huge, fossilized bone…let’s smash it.” Morons.

And THAT boys and girls is why there is no “magical” particle that physicists will find to explain everything. Because even if they do find the Higgs Boson, it will almost undoubtedly lead to more questions than answers or not quite be what they expected to find. It’s because particle physicists aren’t very bright. In fact, the only brilliant people involved in the whole thing are the engineers that figured out how to build their $10 billion dollar caveman car smasher.

Oh, and one other small, teensy weensy detail. Particle physicists have already admitted defeat with their LHC in finding the Higgs boson. They’ve already admitted that their search will likely require the construction of a new $10 billion machine to conduct “an entirely new sort of experiment”. What is this evolutionary machine and experiment that will once again prove the brilliance of particle physicists? It is the “International Linear Collider” or ILC. With the ILC, particle physics takes a quantum leap forward. Pun intended. You see, instead of spinning protons around in circles and then bashing them together, this “ingenious” device will simply bash them directly into one another. You can’t make this stuff up folks.

Originally published November 2011

Who Wants to Live Forever?

The Threat of Longevity

Immortality for humans is just around the corner. You may not believe this, but regardless; the threat that longevity poses to personal freedoms is real. New research into fruit flies is extending the life of these organisms by 2-3 times their normal average life span and the research indicates that we may be able to allow these flies to live indefinitely, remaining mature and vigorous effectively forever.

Scientists have found that aging can be manipulated within a species through genetic manipulation, through manipulation at a cellular level of DNA strings called telomeres and through the manipulation of diet. To scientists, aging is simply a “disease” and like a disease, cures can be found that slow or even completely stop the disease.

But what implications will this have for society as a whole? To answer that question, we simply need to apply logic and reason to deduce what a world of immortals will look like and despite what you might first believe, the picture is not as rosy as it might first appear.

To really understand the intricacies of the effects this will have on society, you have to understand that when I say “immortal” what I am really talking about is a stop to the aging process. I am not talking about bringing people back from the dead or anything like that, people will still be susceptible to death long after “immortality” is available. This point is absolutely crucial to understanding the effects immortality will have on our society.

First, we must understand that the instant that human immortality is available, or at least if longevity is extended to a few hundred years, everyone in the developed world will quickly become immortal. It will be fast, as in it will happen within just a few years. Why? Simple economics.

Think about it, people today can get a 30 year home loan of $100,000 for a monthly payment of about $800/month. Now, let’s say that when the procedure for immortality is first introduced that it is expensive, as in $1,000,000. Now, if you are going to live forever, then you could take out a $1,000,000 loan over 300 years at an interest rate of say 1% and you would effectively have a house payment to contend with in order to become immortal. A pretty small price to pay! Every bank in America would give out a loan for this amount because you effectively have forever to pay it off!

As a majority of individuals within a developed nation become immortal, or a minority of individuals organized into an effective lobbying group, there will be swift social changes made to protect that immortality. The primary result of this will be an effort to eradicate other, preventable causes of death. The primary driver for these changes will come from the immortals themselves but also from the insurance companies. The reason the insurance companies will get involved is due to the loans that individuals will need to take out to secure the treatment in order to become immortal. Similar to how car loans work today, banks will require a life insurance policy that will effectively pay off the loan in the event of one’s death. Hence, it is a no-lose proposition for the banks, if you live forever, then you will continue to pay on the loan until the loan is repaid. If you die, your insurance policy will pay off the loan.

This inevitable series of cause and effect will result in the systemic elimination of things that can cause pre-mature death. Chief among these will be cars. Car accidents account for a staggering number of deaths each year, deaths that the insurance companies will want to prevent. Thus, cars will be outlawed, as will other things that can cause premature death such as smoking, alcohol, obesity, motorcycles, airplanes, guns, etc. Anything and everything that could possibly cause premature death will be outlawed or at the very least become heavily regulated.

The reason these things will be outlawed follows exactly the thinking of today’s social reformers in the institution of seat belt laws, helmet laws, child seat laws, etc. The thinking is that there should be absolutely no choice involved in whether or not to wear a seat belt or a helmet because if you do not use such a protective device, then everyone’s insurance and health care premiums go up as a result. People not wearing seat belts or helmets and the like cost the insurance companies more money and thus the insurance companies lobby to pass these kinds of laws “for the children”.

Furthermore, procreation will become heavily regulated. If everyone is living forever, then if the current, nearly non-existent procreation regulations are not amended, the world will quickly become overpopulated. Therefore, it will be inevitable that the government will need to regulate all aspects of procreation including provisions regarding how many children, what types of children and when children are born.

Thus, what you will end up with is a society in which individuals may very well live forever, but it will be a society where you cannot do anything except walk around and be safe. By becoming immortal, you will effectively agree to submit to the will and control of the banks and insurance companies. And even if the price of immortality shrinks to the point that it is cost effective to have the procedure without mortgaging one’s life, those that submit to the procedure will have a vested interest in protecting their lives, which again leads to the elimination of all preventable causes of death.

Which begs the question, “Who wants to live forever?”. In the near future, you will need to make that choice. Do you live forever in a world in which nearly all of your personal freedoms are sacrificed, or do you live for a short time in a society ruled primarily by personal freedom?

Immortality will bring with it a schism within society between those that value longevity versus those that value personal freedom. These two ideologies are fundamentally at odds with one another and will drive a rift between the two segments of society such that there will be two societies within developed nations. I believe that the schism will be so fundamental to one’s individual beliefs that it will drive the creation of new nation states. In America, there will be a nation of immortals and a nation of non-immortals, each nation state populated by those individuals that either believe in the mantra of immortality or the in the mantra of personal freedom.

I think that this fundamental argument has application to today’s society. The added safety of a society has always and will always result in reduced personal freedoms. At what point does this cause a revolt among those that value personal freedoms above the safety or cost-effectiveness of society as a whole? That point may be even nearer than human immortality, which I believe is at most 100 years away. You and I will need to make that decision within the next 25-50 years and in fact are making those same, fundamental decisions today. So…who wants to live forever?

Originally published May 2003

The Price of Gas

How Al Gore is Robbing You Blind

Al Gore is playing pocket pool with gas and oil prices. I’m not just using that metaphor solely for its shock value and gross factor…well, ok, I admit it, that is exactly why I am using that particular metaphor. Sorry, it is something about Al Gore playing pocket pool that I just find absolutely hysterical and squeamishly offensive at the same time. Probably because the poor guy is actually forced to do so; I mean, have you seen the fat bastard lately? I doubt his wife is giving him any, that’s all I’m saying.

But, it’s not just solely about shock and, well, disgusting grossness, it is also to make sure you still remember the difference between a metaphor and an analogy. Don’t remember? That’s OK, go look it up on the Internet, I’ll wait. Ho dee hum, hum, hum, hummmmmm. OK, you’re back? Great. So what I am saying is that Al Gore is manipulating, I know, eww, gross!, but I am talking about gas prices now, not his shriveled testicles tucked way up under his prodigious stomach. See, there’s the metaphor.

How you say? Well, that’s the easy part. You see, you simply put your hand in your pocket and then you have easy access to your…oh, wait, you’re asking about the “manipulation” of the gas prices. Sorry, you’re confusing me. I kind of thought the pocket pool one was rather obvious and didn’t need explaining as long as you are not an idiot or over 70 and use some other term for “pocket pool” like “23 skeedoo”. Good to know. If you are, I’ll save you the trouble of Googling “pocket pool” and finding that unfortunately named PlayStation game. Pocket pool = masturbation. Got it?

OK, so gas prices, finally. How is he manipulating, eww, still gross using that word, gas prices? Well, that one is a little more difficult to explain. Allow me to simplify the issue by introducing the concept of…eggs.

No, I’m NOT being metaphorical again, get your mind out of the gutter God damn it. We’re leaving that gross ass metaphor behind, I’m talking about actual eggs now, you know, with a yolk and cytoplasm. That’s the white of the egg for those of you that got less than a C in Biology.

Now, I realize that the traditional wisdom concerning gas prices is that the collapse of the real estate bubble and corresponding home mortgage industry left investment bankers in a bind because they lost their “sure bet” and thus they went looking for their next sure bet, ending up on oil futures which consequently resulted in the current, otherwise inexplicable stratospheric swelling of gas prices. But, as obvious and true as that explanation might be, the corollary, that the price of oil is thus “the mother of all bubbles” that will surely burst in a gooey, sticky mess…well…not so fast.

One word, eggs. No, I am not talking about that stupid, hokey idea floating around out there that if we all bought only two eggs at a time rather than by the dozen that somehow egg prices would be reduced and thus gas prices would work the same way if we all just filled up half-a-tank at a time. News flash, regardless of how many you buy at a time, if you don’t reduce demand you might as well piss into the wind. Dumb. No, what I am talking about is something entirely different.

Suppose Al Gore invented a replacement for eggs, a substance that tasted like eggs, could be used like eggs, digested like eggs and had the same nutritional properties as eggs. This new substance is more expensive than eggs but because it does not involve the exploitation of animals, Al Gore, PETA and the animal rights lobby convince enough US Senators and Congressmen to provide subsidies to Al Gore’s companies and the resulting industry around “Chemical Replacements for Edible, Ingested via Throat Substances”, or CREDITS, as they come to be known. Now, these “Egg CREDITS” slowly start to gain in popularity and soon corporations are being demonized by animal rights activists if they are not serving Egg CREDITS in their cafeterias. Suddenly, it is good corporate business and policy to start using Egg CREDITS and other types of animal friendly CREDITS. Almost overnight, nearly all businesses enact a “No Harm” policy towards animals. This culture finds its way into people’s personal choices as well and everyone is encouraged to “Go Blue”, the color of non-oxygenated blood in the veins to symbolize not spilling the blood of animals.

So, what would the effect of this be upon OPEC, the Ovum Producing and Exporting Corporations cartel in Al Gore’s fictitious egg CREDITS world that controls roughly 50-80% of all egg production and exporting? The corporations of this cartel have invested hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in massive steel structures to house millions of chickens for laying eggs and many more millions and billions in the chickens themselves and the resources required to coax eggs from their buttocks.

These corporations might take a look at the current market and realize that they have perhaps 10 years before the largest egg consuming nations achieve “egg independence”. Now, those same corporations were betting on having at least 30 years of solid profits from these massive egg farms. So, they are faced with the very real prospect of being saddled with huge metal structures that are of no value and will thus go derelict, creating a potential environmental issue that will require millions of dollars to clean up; not to mention the millions of chickens and billions of gallons of chicken crap.

As a final straw, even the smaller egg farms that operate outside of the direct control of the egg cartel and normally keep egg prices low by flooding the market with eggs every time the cartel tries to raise the prices too high also realize that their way of life and “easy” money is coming to an end and they too will be stuck with their suddenly unwise investment in egg production technology.

Faced with such a scenario, it would be insane for the corporations involved to not immediately begin raising their prices by any and all means possible. The laws of supply and demand would not necessarily apply in such a circumstance because the corporations are facing obsolescence of their business model and thus would begin attempting to raise prices artificially in order to recoup their investments and cover any environmental cleanup issues. To put this in The Dukes of Hazzard terminology, because why not, those “Dukes” had better “Get while the gettin’s good”.

So, if you want to lay blame at anyone’s doorstep for the high gas prices you are paying at the pump, it is idiotic to blame the oil and gas companies, gas stations or current administration. The real culprit here is Al Gore and the environmental movement and the near hysteria they have purposefully created regarding Global Warming. Remember, Al Gore is a multi-millionaire that flies around in his own personal jet, consumes more electricity in his multiple mansions each day than most people do in a year and profits heavily from his investment in “green” companies that sell carbon credits. He has set himself up as the prophet of his new “scientific like” religion and thus profits so heavily from this enterprise that he can afford the gas prices that are driving everyone else into the poor house and recession.

The last guy that was this successful at establishing and profiting from a new religion based upon pseudo-science was L. Ron Hubbard and at least in his case he only exploited the gullible, versus screwing over everyone, the entire country and world economy. Thanks a million Al Gore. Jackass.

Originally published May 2008

Earth to Hollywood!

You ARE a Joke

OK, I have to confess, last night I watched the “Earth to America!” special held in Las Vegas. I know, I know, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s like a bug light to a mosquito. Irresistible…even when you know it’s ultimately bad for you. zzzzZAP!!

But, thanks to the wonderful technology of digital video recorders, a.k.a. Tivo, I didn’t actually have to sit through the whole stinkin’ thing, and I DO mean P friggidity U!! Basically, I gave people 30 seconds to say something funny and then skipped through them and the commercials. And I just completely skipped right past that insufferable Leonardo DiCapprio…snore. It’s not like he has any HOPE of saying anything clever or funny…or even mildly interesting or intelligent.

All I can say is thank goodness for Steve Martin and his banjo playing with Eric Idol and Tom Hanks as backup, otherwise it would have been a complete and utter waste of 2 hours of television. But Tom, what is up with your hair? Dude. You are completing your devolution as an actor. You used to make good, classic, high-brow entertainment movies like Bachelor Party, Big and Turner and Hooch. Then, you regressed to failed Apollo missions and falling in love with volleyballs. Now, you look like you are turning into a freaky hippy activist with a bad haircut and poor shave. Pull yourself together man! Ray Romano wasn’t bad either. And Ben Stiller was OK. Cripe! When did Ben Stiller go grey? I hope it is not because he is worried about Global Warming! Mr. Stiller, save your hair color by buying some Grecian Formula and reading the rest of this article.

So, in actuality, the only truly funny part about the entire show was Steve Martin’s and Eric Idol’s inside joke on the Hollywood elite and clueless audience. Oh and maybe Wanda Sikes’ grandmother “tickle your balls” joke. And when Wanda Sike’s is part of your laugh highlight reel, there’s major trouble folks. Not sure if Tom was in on the joke, I couldn’t get past the hair. Hell, I’m not even sure that there was an inside joke, but I’m pretty certain. First, Mr. Martin and Mr. Idol are simply too intelligent to really get suckered into this whole Global Warming idiocy. Again, I would have put Mr. Hanks into this category as well, but I am questioning his intelligence now after the hair… Second, Mr. Martin has a long history of poking good-natured fun at the Hollywood establishment. Third, the general tone of the skit tended to demonstrate a complete lack of taking the topic and even the show seriously. But the kicker, or “topper”, was Eric Idol’s song. Something tells me that the “bugger all” lack of intelligent life on Earth comment was directed squarely at the show’s producers and the audience. And to top it all off, during his intro, they pretty much deservingly insulted the completely unfunny nobody Larry David who set the whole show up.

So, first things first, let’s get one thing straight. Human beings have no more influence or control over Global Warming than we have over plate tectonics or the tides or the sun rising and setting. To believe otherwise is completely irrational and unadulterated hubris. Not to mention requiring the reasoning capacity of a small, furry rodent. No big surprise then that squirreled-brained morons like Mr. DiCapprio are on board. You see, the warmness or coolness of planet Earth is not controlled by humans, it is controlled by grand processes and cycles beyond the scope of most people, especially Hollywood types, to even comprehend in any meaningful way.

Think about it, the Earth, during its 4.6 BILLION year history, has been up to 60% warmer than it is right now and has also been in the midst of ice ages. There is even reasonable scientific evidence that indicates that the Earth may have once been a giant “snowball”. All of this warming and cooling occurred without any contribution by humans BECAUSE WE DIDN’T EXIST YET YOU PRETENTIOUS, SELF-IMPORTANT, IGNORANT BASTARDS.

In fact, let’s HOPE that the Earth is warming and continues to warm at least a little because we just came out of an ice age that started over 2 million years ago and just ended about 10,000 years ago. For all you Hollywood actors who never finished high school, that’s 2 MILLION years of ice age compared to only 10,000 years of non-ice age. 10,000 years, that’s barely even a blip of a blip in geologic time. I live in Ohio (because all Americans live in Ohio) and if we go back to another ice age, my house is going to be under a couple miles of ice. I’d much rather lose the coastal areas to some slightly higher ocean levels, but that’s just me.

The basic problem is that human beings are short lived as individuals as well as a species. People only live about 75-100 years at most and the human species has only existed for about 30,000 years. Recorded history is much, much shorter than that, try about 5,000 years. Modern, scientific climate measuring is only about 30 years old. Incidentally, since modern climate record keeping has been kept, while SURFACE temperatures of increased slightly, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no increase in temperature. Even more telling, the same environmental wackos that are now bringing you global warming are the same ones that advocated “global cooling” back in the seventies and “acid rain” and “the population bomb” and an endless litany of other ignorant claims and hoaxes that have ALL turned out to be overblown or just flat out WRONG.

The Earth, solar system, galaxy and universe just do not really care about us puny ass little humans and our pathetically weak and doomed attempts to exert control and domination over the Earth. They simply do not really operate on that small of a scale. Hell, Danny Hillis’ “Clock of the Long Now”; which is designed to keep perfect time for 10,000 years and is perhaps the longest unit of time humans have thought in terms since the Mayans, is still like half-a-millionth of a second in Earth geologic time. Most people don’t think beyond next week, let alone 10,000 or 4 billion YEARS.

The things that affect the Earth’s temperature are things like plate tectonics, or, as Eric Idol pointed out, the fact that our solar system orbits the milky way’s galactic core once every 200 million years or so. Many warming and cooling cycles and their reasons are well known in the scientific world and they have nothing to do with humans. There are 11 and 206 year cycles of solar sunspots. There are also the “Milankovitch cycles” which are things like the 21,000 year cycle of the precession of the equinoxes – the Earth’s axial orientation, the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle and the 100,000 year “cycle of eccentricity”, cycle. The Earth is 4.6 BILLION years old people, the universe, over 14 BILLION. Humans have been alive .0006% of the entire HISTORY of the planet, .0002% of the entire HISTORY of the UNIVERSE. I THINK that maybe, just maybe, the Earth and the Universe MIGHT be able to take care of themselves. Just sayin’.

All of these things are well known and yet we point to a scant 30 years of collected data and claim catastrophe? Idiotic. I…di…otic!! But, is this to say that we shouldn’t care about conservation and the Earth? Absolutely not. But to couch it in terms of “global warming” disaster and catastrophe is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. If these Hollywood types REALLY cared about the Earth, they would actually DO something about it. And, being the nice guy that I am, I am going to tell them how they truly CAN save the Earth and all its inhabitants from excessive energy consumption, which they believe leads to global warming. Are you ready? Here it comes.

First, stop making movies. Second, stop making unfunny, intellectually dishonest, hair-brained specials such as “Earth to America!” or academy awards shows with god awful, and I DO mean GOD AWWWFULLL opening skits and dance numbers. Think about it. Think of all the energy that is consumed in making movies. All the driving for the actors and stage hands and directors from their homes to the set and then back again. Also, there is all of the energy consumed making props and sets for things that are NEVER used again. What a complete and utter WASTE of energy!! And what about all the energy in actually SHOWING the movies, the electricity that is consumed by the movie theatres as well as all of the moviegoers driving from their homes to the movies and then back again? There is also all of the energy consumed by the popcorn poppers and the making of candy for the movie theatres, not to mention the manufacturing of DVD’s, DVD players, TV’s and home entertainment systems in addition to all of the energy consumed by these devices.

All of that energy consumption is COMPLETELY superfluous. It doesn’t actually accomplish ANYTHING and the world could go on perfectly fine WITHOUT it. Thus, more than any person driving an SUV to work or the manufacture of USEFUL products, making movies is the ULTIMATE WASTE OF ENERGY. Think about how much less energy would be consumed and how much better the world would be if instead of everyone spending their time making and consuming movies, everyone spent time doing something good for the Earth. Not to mention the fact that none of you intellectually worthless pieces of human flesh would be living in two or three million homes or driving 20 different cars or wearing $5,000 suits and dresses or throwing lavish birthday parties. Think of the energy conservation!! Even better, the rest of America wouldn’t have to be pelted by your images in the movies, MTV and in magazines and think that THEY need to own all of those things and consume all that energy just to be happy.

So, Hollywood, ultimately, I applaud you. Keep on talking about global warming and how despicable frivolous energy consumption is. Eventually, the people will come around to your way of thinking and start to eliminate all non-essential expenditures of energy. First up, canning all of your sorry, non-essential, frivolous energy consuming asses. Keep on talkin’ and keep on keep on talkin’ yourselves out of a job.

Originally published November 2005

A Cure for the Flu

The Case for Extinction

So everyone’s all scared to death over this whole “avian flu” thing. President Bush even rolled out a $7.1 b, as in BILLION, plan to combat it. Scientists estimate that it could wipe out 50% or more of the world’s human population. Ouch. Well, lucky for you, The Objective Observer is here to save the day. I can tell you how to pretty much cure this whole annoying flu thing once and for all and for much, much less than $7.1 billion. Want to know how? Listen up!

First, you have to understand that the term “avian flu” is kind of a misnomer in so far as this actually refers to a general class of flu, influenza A viruses, not a PARTICULAR, individual flu strain. You see, there are three general influenza genera, A, B and C. B and C only infect humans. Influenza A infects other mammals and birds as well as humans and is otherwise known as avian influenza. Epidemics and pandemics are far more likely to be caused by influenza A because it can undergo something called antigenic shift where two flu strains combine to form a new strain that can be problematic for our immune systems to combat. Influenza B and C only undergo antigenic drift, which is the natural mutation over time. Now, the second thing you have to understand is that wild birds are widely held to be the source of influenza A in all other mammals and humans.

So, obviously, all you have to do is wipe out all the birds on Earth and POOF! no more influenza A, no more flu epidemics, no more flu pandemics and no $7.1 billion dollars. I mean, hell if these damn birds are really the descendants of dinosaurs, then they should have gone extinct 65 million years ago right? We already thought they were all dead so now we’d just be making sure of it. Now, sure, at $.40 per shotgun shell and even with 100% accuracy, wiping out 250 billion birds would run you $100 billion but poison is WAY cheaper than shotgun shells. Besides, you could factor in the sporting aspect of it and maybe some meat sales and you could maybe even come out ahead financially.

Now, I am sure that there are some mamby pamby environmentalists out there whose eyes are just about bleeding right now. They’ve got the veins bulging out of their temples and nearly sucked their computer keyboards down their throats gasping in horror. And I am sure that even some of you reasonable people out there are having second thoughts. I mean no more fried chicken, no more Thanksgiving turkey, say it ain’t so!! Sure that would suck, but would it suck more than an avian influenza pandemic wiping out 3 billion people? Not likely.

But, what about the children you say? Meaning; of course, all of the little chicks and chicklettes. Isn’t wiping out almost 10,000 species of birds a little inhumane you say? Not at all. You see, you aren’t being rational and OBJECTIVE about the matter. You are getting all gooshy and sentimental about things. Or worse, you have bought into all this environmentalist nonsense about the “unnaturalness” of “human-caused” extinctions. Pish-posh. You see there is nothing unnatural about extinctions. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. What’s more natural than THAT?!? The only thing unnatural about extinction would be to NOT go extinct. THAT, would be unnatural.

But, you are going to say that while extinctions may be a perfectly natural part of the life cycle, humans causing extinctions is “unnatural”. That is, without a doubt, one of the most IGNORANT ideas ever conceived. No small surprise that environmentalists dreamed up that WHOPPER of an idiotic notion. How in the world they have been able to pull this one off for so long, the world may never know, but it ends today.

Think about it. Do you REALLY think that if, oh; say, a land shark were to evolve and start eating people that it would worry one whit about whether or not human beings went extinct? KNOCK! KNOCK! “Candygram.” NOOO!!! In fact, that is the way it works in “nature”. Basically, everything competes for ecological niches, eat or be eaten. If certain species become vulnerable to a particular adaptation and do not adapt quickly enough to overcome that vulnerability, guess what? That’s right, they go extinct. And NATURE does not give any quarter or exhibit one iota of regret or sentimentality. Nature is a harsh ass world. You show even the slightest weakness and BAM!! You’re history. Thanks for tryin’ out, have fun becoming a fossil.

You people need to understand, everything may LOOK nice and pleasant sitting here at the top of the food chain, but this is just intermission. Evolution and nature are still out there and they will eventually come back for another round, with a VENGEANCE! Whether you know it or not, we are in a war for survival every day of our lives. Lizards, birds, insects and all the rest haven’t just given up on their quest to be the biggest and the baddest. Mammals, we have just temporarily achieved the upper hand. Hell, we humans aren’t even safe within our own Class or even our own Genus. Cripes, we just took Neanderthal out less than 30,000 years ago! And you better believe a mountain lion, given the chance, is going to eat your sorry ass, fancy jogging jumpsuit or not! All it would take would be one little stumble and BAM!! Nature would be on us faster than the cancellation of a Chevy Chase late night talk show. Oh yeah, THAT fast.

We are fools, FOOLS, I tell you for not IMMEDIATELY wiping out any and all animals that pose a significant threat to our existence, or even might POSSIBLY pose a significant threat. We need to wipe them out before they wipe us out.

Some may say that I am a cold-hearted bastard. I say, the passenger pigeon and the dodo were a good start.

Originally published November 2005

The Rebirth of Environmentalism

Death to “The Death of Environmentalism”

OK, so there’s been a bunch of hooha over this whole “The Death of Environmentalism” paper, so I went out and read the thing…well, most of it anyway. And, I must say; ugh, what a load of bunk that thing is. And dry. As in three thousand year old parchment baking in the sun of the Gobi desert dry. I need to drink a gallon of water just thinking about it. Glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, glug…ahhh!!

So, as you might have guessed, I have a lot of problems with that piece. For starters, you can definitely tell it was penned by an environmentalist. It starts in the third paragraph with the “conventional wisdom…is that we mustn’t frighten the public…” What?!? Huh??!? Are we talking about the same environmentalists here? The phrase “Population Bomb” ring a bell here? Or “DDT is going to destroy the world”? Or, “we are going to kill the ‘keystone’ species and every living thing will go extinct”? Or “acid rain will burn everyone to death and melt everyone’s houses”? Or “global warming will destroy the ozone layer and kill everyone”? That’s ALL environmentalists DO is try to scare the hell out of people with half-baked prophecies of global doom.

And then there are the unfounded claims of “significant advances over a relatively short period of time”. Says who? You guys have been anemic and weak. And “we are winning on the issues but losing politically”. Typical environmentalist rhetoric. Making unfounded claims and then just going about your business as if your claims are true simply because you uttered them. Um, this may come as a shock to some of the environmentalists out there, but we live in a republic and if you were winning on the issues, then you would be winning politically. That is the entire concept of how representative government works. You convince a majority of the population or their political representatives that your perspective on an issue is correct and they enact legislation to implement your vision. Thus, it is oxymoronic to blather on about “winning on the issues” and “losing politically”. If you are losing politically, then you are not winning on the issues. And besides that fact, you offer no proof other than your own statement that you ARE, in fact, winning on the issues. Like I said, obviously written by an environmentalist.

The rest of it is pretty much just pointless blathering. But the most heinous aspect of the piece, and the one that cements the fact that a deeply disturbed, old school environmentalist wrote it is how it ends…with a whimper. The entire piece sets up this “crises”, this impending doom, this “death” within the environmentalist movement and then simply ends with no vision, no plan, no answer, just a helpless metaphor about a “shore” and a “path”.

But, there is good news for all you environmentalists out there. This piece epitomizes EXACTLY what is WRONG with the environmentalist movement. Namely, that you guys CONSTANTLY set up these “global crises” with little or no foundation in fact and then offer no solutions, just anger and ranting. Concept, the “population bomb” DIDN’T happen. Life STILL exists on the Earth despite your gloom and doom. Acid rain HASN’T killed and melted everything. There is even scientific evidence out there indicating that global warming might be the only thing that has saved us from a global ice age.

Yes, what you stand for is fine, but stop and think about what you are doing. Then again…don’t. You’ve already tried that and failed miserably, over and over and over again. So, I’m going to help you out and spell it out for you. Let’s pick your current hot button, gloom and doom global environmental crises…global warming. And, for the sake of argument, I will concede; for this time only, that you are correct about global warming and its potential negative effects and that we humans are causing it all. Mind you, I don’t actually agree with much, if any, of this but just for the sake of argument I will blindly believe that we humans actually have THAT much control over the entire universe.

So think of things this way. Nobody set out with a global vision to destroy the world through global warming. Global warming was caused by hundreds and thousands of LOCALIZED environmental impacts. Thus, to combat global warming, you don’t preach global gloom and doom or vault to the top and pass worldwide Kyoto treaties and the like. To win, you focus on the LOCAL level and win the hearts and minds of the people in individual communities. You solve small-scale environmental problems such as a problematic factory, or an irresponsible quarry whose strip mining causes erosion to clog up a river, or that one guy’s muffler-less and catalytic converter-less car spewing forth toxins into the air. Solving hundreds of thousands of small-scale environmental issues will do local communities a world of good and will add up to changing the world.

Thinking and acting locally results in global action. But then you guys couldn’t get your millions and billions of dollars for that could you? Of course not, only crying “the sky is falling” will get you the cash you crave. And that is why I have significant disdain for environmentalists, because you don’t ACTUALLY care about the environment, only your own pocket books and egos.

Originally published March 2005

Good Riddance Bob Barker

Protecting Animal Reproductive Rights

Finally, after 50 oppressive years in television that insufferable, anti-animal rights activist and quintessential blowhard, Bob Barker, finally retired from that ancient, lame ass television show, ‘The Price is Right’. No other TV or movie personality has done so much damage to the rights of animals as that ignorant, self-important womanizer, who ended each show for over 20 years with that despicable phrase ‘Help control the pet population; have your pet spayed or neutered’. To intentionally inflict pain and suffering on defenseless animals via unnecessary surgery and deny them their fundamental rights to reproduce and pass on their genes is bad enough, but to actively PROMOTE such heinous acts is unconscionable and evil. Good riddance to you Bob Barker and we hope that no other organization ever again provides you with a platform from which to spew your ignorant, hate-filled bile.

Now, the above paragraph is what I would have EXPECTED to see on the PETA website a year ago when Bob Barker retired from the venerable TV celebration of capitalism, “The Price is Right”. Instead, I find this drivel:

From all of us at PETA, cheers to you Bob Barker. Thank you for everything you’ve done throughout your career to help animals, and we can’t wait to see what’s next.

What, who, huh? I have to admit, I was dumbfounded by PETA’s stance on Bob Barker. I mean, this WAS the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals website, right? I was not at some spoof site, right? I must have sextuple checked the domain. Nope, it was the official website of PETA. Un…be…lievable. I HAD to be in the twilight zone, I mean, this is America, the country where a woman’s reproductive right is prized so highly that feticide is legal and vigorously defended. And this is PETA, the people who are so fanatical about animal rights they eschew the human suffering in the world and tacitly endorse the destruction of private property in support of animal rights. And sterilization, the ol’ tally whacker, I mean, that is some permanent, hard core mutilation of the genitalia. It also ends any chance for that poor animal to ever pass its genes on to the next generation. That’s personal extinction. How horrific!

To the logical, objective mind, PETA’s stance on animal sterilization does not make any sense at all. If there is one intrinsic right that all living beings should have, it is the right of self-propagation. Beings should never willfully be forced into not passing on their genes. It is a basic right even plants are afforded. You do not see people going around advocating the mass sterilization of grass, trees or begonias for cryin’ out loud. And you also do not see people running around advocating mass human sterilization without those people being branded a “monster” or “tyrant” or “inhuman”. How then can an organization that is supposedly DEDICATED to animal rights somehow also be an advocate for mass sterilization of animals?

I can see three possible explanations for this apparent paradox. One possible explanation is that there is some rationale or justification at work here that somehow resolves this illogical state of affairs to where it is in the best interests of animals to be mass sterilized. The second possible explanation is that the organization is not REALLY about projecting the human concept of intrinsic rights onto animals but is instead a clever ruse to disguise its true intent, destroying all animals through mass sterilization until they are extinct. The third possible explanation is that PETA’s view of mass sterilization is really a reflection of their view of human rights and thus they advocate the mass sterilization of humans as well as animals.

As stated, the first possible explanation is that there is some sort of rationale or logic that resolves the apparent paradox where an organization that claims to treasure animal rights can at the same time advocate the mass sterilization of those very same animals. For a little perspective, this would be like charities that help starving Ethiopians advocating mass sterilization as the ultimate solution to the problem. A little research turns up a link on PETA’s website regarding why people should spay or neuter their pets. This link ends up pointing to helpinganimals.com. The basic reasoning seems to be that if left to breed as nature intended that the animals would supposedly quickly become strays and feral (wild) and would, as a result, suffer, starve and freeze to death. Thus, it appears that an attempt is being made to make a utilitarian argument where greater suffering is purportedly avoided by inflicting lesser suffering.

Odd that the PETA.org website links off to a .com address, which typically signifies a for profit enterprise. Could it be that a fourth possibility exists in that PETA.org is simply a genius capitalistic marketing tool for cornering the market on the for profit sterilization of animals? Sounds a little conspiracy theory for my tastes, but you never know. Would be amazingly brilliant, I must admit.

Conspiracy theories aside, can this view be rationalized with PETA’s other stances on animal rights that do not involve intentionally inflicting pain and suffering on animals? Looking at their FAQ page and ignoring the excessively long diatribe in response to being compared with Hitler. Can you spell i n s e c u r e? Seriously, it is the longest response to any of the FAQ’s, even longer than justifying criminal actions in support of animal rights or how they can justify spending time helping animals when human suffering is completely ignored. It is even longer than explaining the preponderously tedious difference between “animal welfare” advocates and “animal rights” activists. Snore.

In any event, under the topic of “factory farms” it states that animals on factory farms are much worse off than in the wild because “…the wild isn’t ‘wild’ to the animals that live there – it’s their home. There they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity”. So, one can conclude that by advocating mass sterilization it appears that PETA is not only inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals and denying their intrinsic rights to reproduction but are ALSO denying the freedom to live in the wild to thousands, if not millions, of animals. In addition, it is also illogical that the “wild” could at the same time be an intensely bad thing and an intensely good thing and thus this entire notion of mass sterilization can only be viewed as utterly nonsensical.

This conclusion seems to be reinforced by PETA’s rejection of utilitarianism arguments regarding the benefits humans, who are also animals, get from using animals as food and clothing. In PETA’s own words, “…animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away to benefit others.” Thus, it does not logically follow that an animal’s interest in gene propagation can be traded away for the benefit of their progeny not living in the wild, which PETA says is a good thing anyway.

Obviously then, we are left with the explanations that PETA is either a clever façade for an organization dedicated to the destruction of animals or that it is an organization that believes in human sterilization. The simpler explanation, and therefore the probable correct answer, is the latter. But, in either case, PETA is obviously not a good organization because I happen to like cats and dogs and I also happen to really, really like sex; but…you know…with humans…because…you know…sex with cats and dogs would be, well, gross.

Hey, you don’t think that PETA is advocating mass sterilization because they are into bestiality and want to try to prevent some kind of weird cat/dog-human hybrid do you? Man, those are some sick, twisted individuals.

Originally published March 2008

Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory

A New Unified Model of the Universe

For decades, the world’s leading physicists have toiled in the shadow of Albert Einstein in a seemingly vain attempt to unify the fundamental forces of nature. All have failed…until now. I, The Objective Observer, have solved this great mystery and will now share this knowledge freely with you, the reader. Screw Scientific American.

To be clear, the fundamental forces of nature that physicists have sought to unify are gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity, we are all intimately familiar with, at least those of us that have imbibed one too many fermented beverages and ended up tripping over an apple that some idiot just left lying around after having it bounce off his head. Stupid fig lover. Anyway, simply stated, gravity is an exceedingly weak attractive force between bodies of mass.

Electromagnetism is a much stronger force that holds individual atoms together, forming bodies of mass. Electromagnetism was originally two independent forces, electricity and magnetism, that were eventually unified by one James Clerk Maxwell. Albert Einstein greatly respected Maxwell for this feat and dreamed of unifying the forces of electromagnetism and gravity into one grand “Theory Of Everything”.

Unfortunately for Einstein, his task was made two or three times more difficult with the discovery of the strong and weak nuclear forces. Now, I’m not going to get into much detail about strong and weak nuclear forces because it gets into things like bosons, mesons, baryons, gluons and a bunch of other things that you would just think I made up. Suffice to say that physicists understand and care deeply about them while the rest of the world mainly just worries about paying bills, physical relationships, food, outsourcing and illegal immigration.

Einstein began his quest for a single, grand unified “Theory of Everything”, or at least electromagnetism and gravity, shortly after he completed his work on general relativity in the 1920’s. This work culminated in his “Unified Field Theory” in 1950 and continued until his death in 1955 at the age of 76. Other physicists to take up the charge have included Schrödinger, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam who unified electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, and most recently by Kaku, Greene, Penrose, Rindler, Connes, Madore, Smolin, Gambini and Pullin…not to mention Higgs. Oops, I just did. Damn.

So then, here’s the kicker. Despite all of these brains, despite all of this history and despite the fact that the general effects and properties of all of these forces are well known and understood, physicists STILL don’t actually know WHAT a force really is. No, really, I’m serious. Now, think about this for a minute. This is like coming home to your 12-year-old son standing in the front yard with a baseball bat, a broken window and a baseball inside your house and not being able to explain what happened. What passes for an explanation is that “fermions” exchange “virtual particles” which mediate the “interaction”. I seriously and truly do NOT make this stuff up folks. Somebody else does. “It’s not my fault dad, the fermions did it!”. Damn you fermions, you’ll pay for my window. I mean, at least they could have come up with a term that doesn’t sound like an alien race from Babylon 5.

So then, back to the unified Theory Of Everything. The grand hope is that the Theory of Everything will simultaneously explain WHAT a force truly is while also providing a single, elegant, mathematical equation that can function as a model of the entire universe. Enter…>drum roll< …string theory. String theory, or, if you prefer M-Theory, was invented to fill the void of good, solid unified models of the universe. In short, string theory states that tiny, undetectable “strings” actually make up all matter, energy and forces in the entire universe. The different ways in which these tiny, and…did I mention undetectable?…strings vibrate and wiggle ultimately determine what force or energy or bit of mass each string becomes. Even better, these tiny, and; of course, undetectable, strings can vibrate in no less than 13 dimensions…THIRTEEN! That’s right folks, forget X, Y and Z; string theory has a dimension for half the alphabet!

Alrighty then, so…there’s just one itsy witsy little problem with string theory. It’s just that it happens to be totally and completely wrong. Well, OK, not totally and completely wrong, just mostly wrong. OK, OK, not even mostly wrong…it’s just one little thing that’s wrong really; one tiny; almost undetectable, thing. They are not actually strings you see, they are REALLY tiny, undetectable flying spaghetti monsters and the different forms of energy and matter are formed by how many and in what manner they wave their noodley appendages. Plus, there are 15, not 13 dimensions and if the math doesn’t come out right, just keep adding dimensions until it does.

So, problem solved, I can now put “Theory of Everything” in the “problem solved” column. I think I’ll move on to more important things like putting cheetahs in prison and catching the episodes of Meerkat Manor that I missed. And now you are like 100 billion times smarter than even Albert Einstein and all without having to read a single dry ass issue of Scientific American.

Originally published September 2006

The Case for Colonizing Mars

Homo Sapiens Are as Good as Dead

Homo sapiens, human beings, have to be one of the least intelligent species on the planet. I realize that this statement flies in the face of most scientific evidence given the large brain capacity of homo sapiens, the use of tools by homo sapiens and the fact that homo sapiens can engage in abstract thought. However, all of these traits make it that much more unlikely and fantastic that homo sapiens as a species continue to largely ignore the colonization of Mars.

One simple fact screams out for human beings to colonize Mars with all due haste. That fact makes it crystal clear that the Earth has a deplorable track record when it comes to its ability to support life. Consider that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on planet Earth are extinct.

Now, when you look at that fact, please also consider that this does not mean that .1% of species have survived since the dawn of time. The .1% figure simply represents species that have yet to go extinct. In other words, we happen to have some species alive and thriving on the Earth today. Those species by and large evolved relatively recently. Thus, the .1% figure is not really a survival rate but rather a percentage of all species that have ever existed on the Earth that currently happen to be alive.

Another way of viewing this is in terms of survival rate as a function of time instead of as a function of species. If we were to look at all species that have existed during the last 10 years, the survival rate would be close to or at 100%. In other words, of all the species that have existed on planet Earth for the last 10 years, no extinctions have occurred. If we were to look at species that have existed for the last 1,000 years that 100% figure would drop slightly due to extinctions such as the dodo and the passenger pigeon. Looking at the survival rate species that have existed for the last 10,000 years, that 100% figure would be even less and as we go further and further back in time, the survival rate would approach or become zero. Therefore, we can state as a certainty that the longer a species exists on the Earth, the more likely it becomes that that species will become extinct and this continues until that species’ extinction is a certainty.

What causes these extinctions? Irrelevant. I am not here to debate the cause of animal extinctions. There are many theories regarding why extinctions occur. The most popular today being that asteroids and/or comets randomly strike the Earth every millennia or so and serve as a first strike that initiates extinction. Asteroids and comets are currently blamed for many of Earth’s mass extinctions throughout its history. However, regardless of whether extinctions occur by asteroid, by comet or by some other as yet unknown device, the fact that 99.9% of species that have ever existed on the Earth are extinct remains the same.

Consider also that human beings are on the top of the food chain, quite similar to dinosaurs in their day. Why is this relevant? Well, for one simple fact. Land extinctions tend to kill off the large, dominate animals at the top of the food chain while some of the smaller animals near the bottom of the food chain survive. Oddly enough, mass extinctions seem to happen in reverse in the ocean, the smaller animals at the bottom of food chain become extinct and the ones at the top of food chain tend to survive. This may actually explain why intelligence evolved first on land instead of in the oceans, but that is the subject of a different essay.

Of course, one might argue that there has never been a species of animal on the Earth that was so intelligent, so diverse and so well adapted to its environment as are homo sapiens. Thus, the argument is that if there is going to be a species that survives a mass extinction, homo sapiens have the best chance. However, this argument is rather full of logical errors in reasoning. First, in terms of diversity and adaptation, homo sapiens rather pale in comparison to other successful organisms such as all of the species of dinosaurs. Second, there is absolutely no evidence that intelligence has anything to do with surviving a mass extinction.

Thus, we have a few simple scientific facts that human beings have been quite aware of for several decades that make it perfectly clear to any reasonable mind that human beings WILL become extinct if they remain solely on planet Earth. And yet, human beings by and large are doing very little to colonize Mars. And by very little, I do not mean to denigrate those individuals that have written on this subject or those at NASA and other agencies around the world that are working right now on all of the problems associated with colonizing Mars. However, what I am proposing is to make the colonization of Mars a priority of the United States and world governments second only to national defense.

This last argument is sure to spark protests and outrage from many different sectors I am sure. I can hear the arguments now. “We have enough problems to solve here on Earth first before we start trying to colonize other planets.” “Why not put resources into deflecting or destroying asteroids and comets instead of colonizing Mars?” “We do not have the technology to colonize Mars.” “Why not colonize the oceans?” Why not colonize the Moon?” “We have no evidence that colonizing Mars will avoid human extinction.” I will address each of the arguments in turn.

“We have enough problems to solve here on Earth first before we start trying to colonize other planets.” This statement is very true, human society is fraught with all kinds of problems. However, all other problems pale in comparison to the extinction of the species. The reason is simple. If homo sapiens as a species becomes extinct, all other problems are irrelevant.

“Why not put resources into deflecting or destroying asteroids and comets instead of colonizing Mars?” This one is quite simple. First, one should know that we probably only know of about 5% of the asteroids and/or comets that pose a severe threat to the Earth. If one of those asteroids within that 5% was going to hit the Earth, we would have some warning; maybe enough to come up with and successfully execute a plan to deflect it. However, for the other 95%, we would have little or no warning. Second, we do not know for a certainty that asteroids or comets cause mass extinctions. We have some pretty good evidence that points to this, but nothing certain. Mass extinctions might be caused by viruses or some as yet unknown device. The only certainty in preserving the human species is to expand beyond the bounds of planet Earth.

“We do not have the technology to colonize Mars”. Yes we do. We are 100 or perhaps a 1,000 times more prepared today to tackle the problem of Mars colonization than we were to tackle the problem of landing on the moon. Our society is perhaps the best prepared it has ever been throughout its entire history to tackle such an exploration and colonization. Quite simply, we have the technology today to begin terraforming and permanently colonizing Mars. In addition, it has already been proven that when nations make certain well-defined goals and objectives top priority, the problem is solved with surprising rapidity. This can be seen with the development of the atomic bomb as well as the Apollo program to land on the moon.

“Why not colonize the oceans?” This argument stems from the fact that ocean extinctions tend to occur in reverse of land extinctions. That is, the big, dominant animals at the top of the food chain tend to survive ocean mass extinctions. First, human beings are not native to the oceans and therefore, the normal “rules” would not apply. Second, big, dominant animals do go extinct in the oceans. Third, 99.9% of all species that have ever inhabited the earth, on land and on water have gone extinct. Expanding to an ocean environment does not change that fact.

“Why not colonize the Moon?” Indeed, this seems reasonable. It gets our species off of planet Earth and the Moon is a lot closer than Mars. However, the Moon lacks the ability to support a self-sustaining human colony. A Moon colony would be much too dependent on Earth for its very existence. This does not mean that we should not pursue a permanent Moon colony. Indeed, a permanent Moon colony may be a crucial step in colonizing Mars. However, a Moon colony cannot serve as a replacement for Mars colonization.

“We have no evidence that colonizing Mars will avoid human extinction.” This is absolutely true. However, we know for a fact that it is a certainty that if we remain solely on planet Earth we will go extinct. We also know that creating a self-sustaining colony on another planet is the best and perhaps only way to avoid extinction. And Mars is the most likely candidate within our solar system for colonization.

So on to what is sure to be the most insistent argument, why rank Mars colonization so high a priority? Simple, nothing else matters if the species goes extinct. Nothing. If the human species does not survive, it will never have an opportunity to address all of the other problems and ills facing human society. It will take hundreds or thousands of years to fully colonize Mars and make a Mars colony self-sustaining. Every year, every day and every minute that we delay in making Mars colonization a top priority increases the chances that the human race will go extinct.

Despite the fact that everything in this essay has been known for decades, our species continues to do little or nothing to colonize Mars. Despite the fact that homo sapiens have been gifted with such a magnificent organ as is the human brain that we are the first and only species within the entire history of the Earth that has been able to identify a pattern of mass extinctions, our species continues to do little or nothing to colonize Mars. Despite the fact that we know for a certainty that we will go extinct if we do not colonize Mars, our species continues to do little or nothing to colonize Mars. And that is why homo sapiens are one of the least intelligent species on Earth.

Originally published July 2003

Why Vegetarians are Still Stupid

Putting Cheetahs in Prison

Alright, enough is enough. Of all the articles I have written; of all the material that might potentially offend such vocal special interests as homosexuals, blacks, environmentalists and Bryant Gumbel fans…oh yes, make no mistake about the absolute fanaticism of Bryant Gumbel fans. Out of all that material and out of all those vociferous groups, guess which group has emerged as THE most vociferous, militant, anal and humorless. Go ahead, take a wild guess. Well, if you read the title of this article, you probably figured it out already. That’s right, I am now firmly convinced that by FAR the most vociferous, militant, anal and humorless individuals in the entire world are, in fact, vegetarians. I know, I know, I know what you’re thinking. “You mean the people who are too spineless and narrow urethra’d to stuff a burger down their neck or ravish a, >GASP!<, BLT?“. Yes, dear reader, the very same.

That’s right, in email, after email, after email I find that I can achieve natural male enhancement through the use of a pill. And in between those, email, after email after bile strewn email about my article “Why Vegetarians are Stupid“. >sigh< I mean, are you kidding me? What is wrong with you people? Can you actually take an article with such a title so seriously?!? So anyway, you deserve what is coming to you in this article. There, I feel justified.

The arguments seem to fall mainly along three lines of thought. First, there is the most reasonable claim; that today’s vegetarian fare is not the same as Australopithecus’ vegetarian fare and thus the effect of a modern vegetarian diet that includes tofu and vitamin supplements would not lead to the evolution of a large gut and a devolution of brain capacity. OK, fair enough, but tofu? Ugh! Talk about taking all the joy out of being omnivorous. Replacing a charred on the outside, juicy on the inside; tang in the back of your molars, steak with a white, slimy cube of tofu is like replacing procreation via sex with test tube babies. You may get the same result, but the joy is in the journey my friend. The joy is the journey. And, yes, to be absolutely clear, I have tasted the highly vaunted tofu burger. And no, it does not even compare to sex.

The second line of contrary thinking is that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a carnivorous diet. Honestly, I’m not really going to get into that one. Obviously, a diet of french-fries and lettuce, while vegetarian, is hardly healthy. You can’t just make blanket statements like that. Humans are quite obviously designed to be omnivorous so there is a pretty good argument to be made that we ought to consume a diet in harmony with our general construction.

You can make your own judgments about the merits of those two arguments. There is good science in support of a change in diet having a huge impact on the intellect of hominids. Also, there is nothing intrinsically healthier about a vegetarian diet. But those two arguments are really just the bearded lady and lobster boy in the circus that is vegetarian outrage. The star of the show, the trapeze act if you will, is this one. “Why do omnivores feel it necessary to call vegetarians names and defend eating meat? They must really feel insecure or guilty. Omnivores are mean and stupid. Waa!“.

Here at last we get to the heart of the vegetarian versus omnivore controversy, which is where most of the vitriol emanates. And thus, like a pack of clowns racing to center stage in a mini fire truck, enter…the vegans. But not just any vegans. Oh no. We are talking about the militaristic, PETA brand of vegans. You see, this is where it all started to go south between vegetarians and omnivores. Before these yahoos got involved, it was nobody’s business but your own if your diet was vegetarian or omnivorous. But, these clowns decided to make it their business because eating meat meant that you were not treating animals “ethically” and thus you had to be condemned. The backlash was inevitable and non-PETA vegans and your average run-of-the-mill vegetarians got sucked into the fray and were eventually broadly classified with the fringe militaristic, PETA vegans. And if you can’t follow the parallels between this and politics, then you must be a vegetarian.

So, it is not that omnivores suddenly felt it necessary to bash vegetarians, it was that omnivores felt threatened by a group of individuals trying to take away their freedoms and dictate their diet. When a group of people tries to infringe upon the rights of another group of people, it tends to get ugly. Thus, true vegetarians are technically simply caught in the middle of a militaristic, PETA vegan jihad against omnivores, who would simply rather shoot first and determine your true vegetarian/vegan/militaristic vegan status later. Trust me, omnivores just want to be left alone to grill, fry and broil their animal flesh. But, it is religion for the PETA vegans.

The argument for the militaristic, PETA vegan is that they do not eat meat because eating animals or animal products is evil since animals are alive and can feel pain and thus it is not right to kill or exploit them. The term slippery slope was invented for just this kind of flawed, unreasonable thinking. Let’s take this argument to its logical conclusion, cheetahs in prison. I know, what? Let me explain. Wildebeests are alive, killing a wildebeest is murder according to the PETA vegan perspective, cheetahs kill wildebeests, cheetahs get charged with murder, cheetahs get convicted because the forensic evidence of the holes in the wildebeest matches said cheetah’s fangs, cheetahs go to jail. Cheetahs in prison. “But, but, but it’s not the same thing,” you say? “Cheetahs are part of the natural world and people are not,” you say? Oh really. Well I thought that Homo sapiens are simply bipedal apes belonging to family Hominidae (the great apes). If we evolved from apes and are as natural as the universe, the Earth and all other plants and animals, then there is zero difference between us killing and eating a wildebeest for dinner and a cheetah killing and eating a wildebeest for dinner. Zero, zilch, nada. Thus, if we make killing and exploiting animals a crime or otherwise look down upon it because it is “cruel” and “unjust”; then it is just as unjust for any other animal. If we apply some human principles and laws to certain aspects of the animal kingdom, then we have to apply ALL principles and laws to ALL aspects of the animal kingdom. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

But the best part, the absolute best part and BY FAR the most hysterical part is that those same militaristic, PETA vegans ALSO view vegetarians as completely and utterly stupid; even more stupid than omnivores and even more stupid than how omnivores view vegetarians. Here’s why. To the PETA vegan, vegetarians are hypocrites that are too stupid to understand their own hypocrisy. Vegetarians advocate not eating meat, but cheat and still consume animal products like eggs, milk, cheese and sometimes actual meat like fish and chicken. To the militaristic, PETA vegan, you would have to be an idiot not to understand your own hypocrisy. So, vegetarians, it is not just omnivores that find you stupid, it is your own brethren as well. And if you don’t believe me, just do a little web browsing or actual research and you will come across vegans bashing vegetarians as stupid and idiotic for this EXACT reason.

Look, I realize that it must suck being grouped in with a bunch of people that would save an animal from drowning over their own baby. Kid Rock knows who I am talking about; the crazy, nut job people that have forgotten that the animal kingdom includes Homo sapiens. But face facts here people; that is the group of individuals who started this whole nonsense of feuding between omnivores and vegetarians and perhaps you vegetarians ought to take a closer look at who you have on your side. It’s not like there is a carnivore-only fringe group on the omnivore side trying to take away your right to slice up vegetables and fruit.

The problem is that vegetarians have yet to take an actual stand. Vegetarians are automatically thrown in with the militaristic, PETA vegans because they fall on the primarily vegetable side of the vegetable/meat divide. Since vegetarians have not actively condemned the militaristic, PETA vegan point of view, it is their own fault that they are treated as the worst of their lot. And that is why vegetarians are really stupid, because they whine and complain instead of doing what is obvious to fix the issue.