Soundtrack to My Life

One of the pleasures of visiting the cinema, after the movie itself and (often) spending time with friends, is the music that accompanies the whole experience – be it incidental music composed specifically for the film or existing songs from various artists. A significant percentage of the music I have bought by new artists (or at least new to me) has been the result of hearing them first in a movie. So being the person I am I have accumulated quite a collection of movie soundtracks and here they are (in no particular order). I suspect that some of them will surprise you.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – Tan Dun

Cyber City Oedo 808 – Rory McFarlane

Akira – Geinoh Yamashirogumi

Streets of Fire – Various

Cruel Intentions – Various

Pump up the Volume – Various

2001: A Space Odyssey – Various

Strange Days – Various

Braveheart – James Horner

The Matrix – Various

XXX – Various

Ghost Dog – Various

Cradle 2 Grave – Various

Lilio and Stitch – Various (mainly Elvis)

Shrek 2 – Various

Kill Bill Vol 1 – Various

Queen of the Damned – Various

Underworld – Various

Man on Fire – Harry Gregson-Williams

Quadrophenia – Various (mainly The Who)

Kingdom of Heaven – Harry Gregson-Williams

Pride and Prejudice – Dario Marianelli

Happy Feet – Various

Shoot ‘em Up – Paul Haslinger

300 – Tyler Bates

Across the Universe – Various (The Cast)

Donnie Darko – Various

Wanted – Danny Elfman

The Crow – Various

Inception – Hans Zimmer

Alice in Wonderland – Danny Elfman

Sucker Punch - Various

Cartoon Time.

 Why haven't we found aliens yet?

By Alex Hudson for BBC News

14 December 2010

The question of whether or not we are alone in the galaxy is one that has fascinated everyone from mathematicians to conspiracy theorists. But, if extra-terrestrial life forms are abundant in the Universe - as some people believe - why have they not been in contact? From Doctor Who to Superman, ET to Marvin the Martian, fiction has regularly brought aliens to Earth as friends or enemies but, as yet, no-one has proved

they have ever seen an alien apart from on film or TV. In 1960, a radio telescope was pointed out into space to listen for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence, trying to add scientific fact to the question "is anybody out there?" But 50 years on, nobody knows the answer to it. "It's probably the most important question there is," says Dr Frank Drake, who was a pioneer of radio astronomy and is considered the father of Seti - the

Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. "What does it mean to be a human being? What is our future? Are there other creatures like us? What have they become? What can evolution produce? How far can it go? It will all come out of learning of extra-terrestrials and this will certainly enrich our lives like nothing else could."

Back in 1961, Drake created a formula to work out how likely it was that we are alone in the galaxy, a formula which still underpins how experts view the question today. The Drake Equation is a formula designed to find the number of intelligent civilisations in the galaxy, using:

 

The number of stars formed every year

Multiplied by the fraction of those stars with planets

Times the number of those planets in the solar system that could support life

Multiplied by the fraction of those planets on which life appears

Multiplied by the fraction of those life-bearing planets on which intelligence arises

Times the fraction of those that would become technologically advanced with a desire to communicate

Multiplied by the length of time that they continue to transmit detectable signals into space

The so-called "Drake equation" estimates the amount of civilisations able to communicate with Earth. And the figure Drake and his colleagues estimated in 1961 was 10,000. Many argue over the exact figures, as the equation is based on unknowns. But if that number is anywhere near correct then the more pressing question is why haven't we got any firm evidence of their existence? This was a question posed by the physicist Enrico Fermi as far back as 1950, saying "where is everybody?" to his colleagues over lunch. It formed the basis of the Fermi paradox which juxtaposes the high estimates of intelligent life and the lack of evidence put forward. This "great silence" - as it is often referred to - draws attention to the size of the universe and how alone we appear to be. It is a paradox which has yet to be satisfactorily solved. Astronomers have estimated there to be around 70 sextillion - or seven followed by 22 zeroes - stars in the visible Universe. A recent census of planets said that there could be an Earth-like planet circling 23% of the stars in the night sky.The maths alone is an almost inconceivable headache of scope, size and scale.

"We should be prepared" for aliens, says professor of space science John Zarnecki, from the Open University. Stephen Hawking says aliens almost certainly exist and senior Seti astronomer Seth Shostak has said that the hunt for alien life should take into account alien "sentient machines", almost disregarding the possibility that there's nothing to search for. Recent research suggested that there could be up to 50bn Earth-like planets in our galaxy, the Milky Way But many scientists argue that because humans have been using wave technology for little over a century - compared to the Earth's age of over four billion years - even if anyone is out there, the window of opportunity to have similar technology is incredibly small. Indeed, the radio wave as we know it for our communication purposes, is already changing from an analogue wave into a digital pulse, a much more complex signal to detect. And similarly, the waves scientists are looking for may not be the right ones. While a larger amount of the wave spectrum is being examined, it is still a small fraction. The theory goes that no other inhabited planet is likely to be using the same technology at the same time, or at least within distance of making contact. The actual practicalities of ET phoning home would be, they would argue, basically impossible.

Another theory is that with intelligence comes destruction. The time between being able to make contact and the self destruction of the species is short. Purveyors of this theory cite nuclear warfare or the creation of a man-made virus only possible with technological advances as examples of why it is likely. And many disagree about whether this is anything to look for at all. Indeed, the simplest answer to Fermi's Paradox is that there is no intelligent life to search for so none has been found. The human race is either an accidental blip in the Universe or we are special and the conditions we evolved in were unique. The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that because of the intricate design and infrastructure of our planet, the amount of coincidences and circumstances that must occur together make life almost impossible. Philosophy Professor Nick Bostrom, of Oxford University, has even posed the question whether humans are living in a computer simulation created by beings with a superior intellect. In this model, other beings would not be created within that programme. But Dr Drake has a more simple answer to why life hasn't been found: "We just haven't tried enough," he says. "We've looked carefully at only a few thousand stars and very few channels that are possible on the electromagnetic spectrum and that's hardly even a start. If you take reasonable or optimistic values for the [Drake] equation, it suggests that right now, there may be around 10,000 civilisations we can detect in the galaxy. That's one in 10,000,000 stars. Before we have a good chance of succeeding, we still have a long way to go."

[Personally I give the Drake Equation little credence. It has just too many unknowns and rests on too much speculation. But he is right to say that life elsewhere in the Galaxy cannot simply be dismissed because, in the 50 or so years we’ve been searching, we haven’t found anything yet. 50 years is nothing when you consider the scale of the territory we’re searching on a low priority, low budget methodology. It’s only recently we’ve begun to discover planets and even more recently that we’ve been able to detect planets that might be considered to be habitable (even that is quite simply mind-blowing). I’m confident that life exists out there. Where there is life there will be evolution and intelligence is a heck of an evolutionary advantage. Given time intelligent species such as ourselves will evolve and probably begin to explore their local region of space. Probably tied to sub-light exploration the only way we’ll detect them is via radio signals or gross changes in their surroundings – like blanketing their suns in energy absorbing materials. There could be advanced civilisations signalling us right now from hundreds of light wears away waiting eagerly for their signals to reach us. It’s probably only a matter of time one way or another. I for one have certainly not given up on the possibility of ET phoning us….]

Just Finished Reading: Persuasion by Jane Austen

Now in her late 20’s Anne Elliot is beginning to think that she will remain unmarried. Persuaded at 19 to end her engagement to a man considered to be unsuitable by her family she has little hope for her future prospects. But when her Baronet father falls on hard times and is forced to rent out the family home things begin to change. The new tenant is an Admiral Croft recently returned from the war with France. As her family relocates to Bath, Anne stays behind to care for her sickly married sister and is surprised to hear that the Crofts have a visitor. The man she was to marry all those years ago is back in England, now a famous and wealthy Captain. Anne’s emotions are thrown into turmoil. Will Captain Wentworth remember her? Has he married? If not is there any opportunity to renew their relationship? Will her family consent to such a renewal even if such a thing was possible? Anne must discover what is in Wentworth’s heart before she answer any of these burning questions but how will she do so in polite society without offending her families sensibilities?

Most people I know are surprised that I read and enjoy Jane Austen. As you can tell from the usual books I review here it’s not exactly my normal reading fare. I’ve actually been a huge fan for probably 25 years or more, ever since watching the BBC versions of Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion back in the 80’s. Although it was actually only after we saw the Keira Knightley version of P&P that I picked up and read the copy of the book that had been sitting on my shelf for 30 years (I kid you not). After that I promised myself that I would read all of her books. After all there are only six of them! After the supernova that is P&P – and after basically being in love with Lizzie Bennet all of these years – I’m afraid that I found Persuasion to be not anywhere near as good. No real surprises there I guess. I still loved the language though. Austen does write beautifully crafted books – again not a great surprise after the amount of time and effort she lavished on them.  Inevitably I couldn’t help comparing Anne Elliot and Elizabeth Bennet. Of course Anne came off worse but at the same time she was obviously a strong independently minded woman making her own way through difficult circumstances. I can see that, at the time, she would have been viewed as a rather bold heroine who had decided on a course of action – despite her knowledge of her family’s misgivings – and who plotted that course as best she could given the circumstances she found herself in. She managed to avoid what would have been an unfortunate marriage with a very unsuitable man and, after 8-9 years delay, finally found true love. Although not as feisty, intelligent or as passionate as Miss Bennet, the character of Anne Elliot certainly stands out in this book. She is kinder, less class or position conscious, more open and modern and less hind bound by convention than the majority of people around her. So, whilst I didn’t enjoy this as much as I enjoyed P&P (which is my present benchmark for such things) I did find it eminently readable and not just for the strange looks I got from people who normally see me reading SF. If you are thinking of venturing into classic literature in general or Austen in particular you could be a lot worse than start here.              

Happy Birthday to me! 51 Today.......

Cartoon Time.

Got Milk?

Just Finished Reading: Culture of Fear Revisited by Frank Furedi

I always find it difficult writing a synopsis of a Furedi book. My experience of three of his books so far seems to point that way. His writing style just doesn’t lead itself to snappy one-liners or quick précis. I will, however, try to give you something even if it’s my own impressions of what I think he’s getting at.

I think that we can all agree that our present age is characterised by fear – fear of the other, fear of the future and fear of our neighbours. Furedi attempts, successfully I think, to see where this fear comes from and asks what we can do about it. Unlike some other commentators he quickly dismisses the idea that our fear is the result of manipulative governments manufacturing threats in order to control their populations. Although there is something (or quite a lot) in that Furedi sees this as another symptom rather than the cause itself. As far as I can see he points the finger clearly at post-modernity and the rise of the autonomous individual – in other words at the fracturing, the atomisation, of society. The questioning of authority has resulted in the collapse of authority. Now all we have is opinion. We no longer have faith in our leaders, our elders or our great thinkers. We do not trust anyone to provide us with answers and we do not trust ourselves to know the answers if they are presented to us. Because we cannot trust anyone, including ourselves, we are paradoxically prey to agencies, organisations and individuals who offer us safe havens, who will take the burden of thought and action from our shoulders – until we realise that they too cannot be trusted.

In this climate the only reasonable sensible response is fear. We fear the side-effects of the drugs we take, we fear our next door neighbour because we do not know them, we fear for our children so keep them close, we fear the stranger on the bus or sitting next to us on the plane, we fear the dark and we fear for the future. We are encouraged in our fears by those in whose interests it is to have us in a constant state of uncertainty. Yet they themselves fear many of the things they teach us to fear. They even fear us. The language of risk has permeated everything we do. We often do a quick risk analysis when crossing the road, eating a chocolate bar or speaking to a stranger. The idea that life is inherently risky is not far behind. Yet the odd thing is, whenever we actually investigate the risks we usually find that they have changed very little from decades ago. Child murder statistics (to take a particularly emotive topic) have remained static for the last 50 years – yet the reality of the situation has little effect on parents fear for children even momentarily out of their sight. Every child, they are told repeatedly, is at risk of attack.

We live in an age of counselling. Whenever people are exposed to trauma, or even exposed to the news of trauma they are inevitably offered counselling to help them cope with the experience. People damaged in this way are it seems damaged for the rest of their lives. Self-help or self-reliance is seen as self-delusional and resistance to counselling is seen as a sign of deep unresolved trauma. Oddly 60 years ago at the height of the London Blitz no counselling was offered or asked for. People got on with their lives despite the death and destruction all around them. Few it would seem remained traumatised for the rest of their lives. Such an attitude, often satirised as the ‘stiff upper lip’, was seen as the natural and reasonable reaction to tragedy. You pick yourself up, dust yourself off and carry on. Such an attitude today would be seen as clearly inadequate at best and probably dangerous to the survivors and everyone around them. Today it is assumed that people will not be able to cope – with anything. This treatment of adults as if they were infants removes any kind of power that could be used to transform lives after tragedy. The counselled many are seen as helpless victims inherently unable to cope.

The only way out of this vicious cycle of fear and dependency according to Furedi is a renewal of trust and a moderation of the pervasive cynicism all too readily used as a default position. As you might expect this is far from easy. When we swim in an ocean of fear it is difficult not to swallow mouthfuls of anxiety with every breath we take. The building block we must use to build the foundations of a new way – or indeed an old way – is to start to trust ourselves. We need to trust our ability to make decisions knowing, in an adult fashion, that sometimes we’ll make bad ones. We need to recognise that knowledge is power and that we can actually have valid knowledge to work with. We need to take control of our lives by asking why we are expected to be so fearful so much of the time. When we are told to fear something or someone ask yourself why we are being told this, who is telling us and what advantage they will take from us buying into that fear. Those in ages past built global empires, faced war, plague and all manners of difficulties without giving up or rushing into the arms of a counsellor. They were no different from you and me. It is just that they had faith in each other and faith in their collective future – something it seems we have lost. It is something we need to find again if we are not to drift into an unknown future drenched in the stink of fear.  

Cartoon Time.

Two-thirds of Britons not religious, suggests survey

John McManus for BBC News

21 March 2011

Nearly two-thirds of people do not regard themselves as "religious", a new survey carried out to coincide with the 2011 Census suggests. The British Humanist Association (BHA), which commissioned the poll, said people often identified themselves as religious for cultural reasons. The online poll asked 1,900 adults in England and Wales a question which is on this month's census form.

While 61% of the poll's respondents said they did belong to a religion, 65% of those surveyed answered "no" to the further question: "Are you religious?" Two surveys were commissioned, one covering England and Wales, and the other for Scotland. The Scottish survey was commissioned by the Humanist Society of Scotland. South of the border, 61% of respondents said they did have a religion. But only 29% also said they were religious, while 65% said they were not. Among respondents who identified themselves as Christian, fewer than half said they believed Jesus Christ was a real person who died, came back to life and was the son of God. Another 27% said they did not believe that at all, while 25% were unsure. In Scotland, 42% of respondents said they did not belong to a religion, yet in a further question "Are you religious?" 56% answered "no". The BHA has complained the wording of the optional census question about religion encourages people to wrongly identify themselves as believers. In the last census in 2001, 72% of people were classed as Christians - a figure which is much higher than other surveys. The BHA believes people might tick "yes" to the census question on religion for reasons of cultural identity.

The chief executive of the BHA, Andrew Copson, is running a national campaign encouraging non-religious people to state their unbelief clearly on their census forms.He said: "This poll is further evidence for a key message of the Census Campaign - that the data produced by the census, used by local and national government as if it indicates religious belief and belonging, is in fact highly misleading. The humanists say data which might indicate a greater amount of religious belief than actually exists, is being used to justify faith schools, and the continuing presence of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords. The Office for National Statistics has defended the wording of the religion question. A spokesman told the BBC: "The religion question measures the number of people who self-identify an affiliation with a religion, irrespective of the extent of their religious belief or practice." The think tank Theos, which undertakes research into religious matters, says attempting to measure cultural affiliation to religion - rather than actual, regular practice - is a good idea, as it shows the broad values society shares. It also disputes the BHA's assertion that the collected data is used for political purposes.

[I never really trust statistics – at least not from various surveys attempting to discover the religious make-up of the country. They all come back with different figures which makes me believe that none of them are representative. From personal experience I know very few people who would come out and declare their faith in any of the major religions. Of course this might be very much a self-selecting group and religion is never a common topic for discussion. Faith, of any kind, is usually seen as a personal issue and is hardly discussed even amongst friends. Pushing a religious position is considered to be rude and maybe even the height of rudeness. What the true level of faith is in England is anyone’s guess. Personally I find it difficult to believe that 72% of the population believe in God. I find it almost as difficult to believe that 65% do not. I do think that non-belief is on the rise though. Generation by generation less people throughout Europe attend church, get baptised, join religious orders, and just about any other way of measuring religious observance. All of the indicators are, apparently irresistibly, on a downward trend. Long may it continue.]