Thinking About: Why I Read (so much)

I have been asked more than once why I read so much. Occasionally I’m even asked why I read at all. That question used to really perplex me. I mean, how can you not read? Reading to me is akin to breathing. It’s something I have to do, something that comes naturally to me, something that I hardly need to think about but can scarcely conceive of not doing.

In a way I am driven to read. In my late teens I felt a burning desire to understand the world. To be honest life and living confused me. There was so much about life I simply did not understand. My education at the time was singularly failing to fill the gaps in my knowledge. I guess that state educational isn’t really cut out to answer the heart felt questions of teenage boys. So, already reading fiction voraciously, I plunged headfirst into the world of non-fiction too, reading anything and everything looking for answers that continued (and largely continue) to elude me. Oddly, looking back 30 or more years, I’m surprised that I didn’t read much more philosophy back then. Maybe it’s just that my local library didn’t have much of a philosophy section – it could be that simple. After a (long) while I gave up the direct seeking of some kind of universal truth and followed my nose looking for books that interested me at that time. By nature I have an annoyingly butterfly type mind. I find myself fascinated by a subject for a short period of time, read everything I can on it, then move on to a new fascination. About the only subject I keep returning to, year after year and decade after decade, is Science Fiction. Everything else is ephemeral. My seeking these days is both more focused and more casual. I’m not driven in the same way as I was 30 years ago. I guess I’ve developed perspective along with my grey hair. I no longer expect to find the secrets of the universe or the secrets of life in a single book. I accept that such a book does not exist and probably never will – no matter what some people would have you believe.

After reading thousands of books in the last 35 or so years that I have been an avid book consumer I am beginning to wonder if the answers to my questions exist at all. Maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places. After all, the scope of human knowledge is vast. I stand in awe at the amount of things I do not know and never will know. I am sure that there are whole areas of knowledge I am totally unaware of. Even when I am aware of such things my knowledge of those areas is often scant. It would take a hundred life times to understand a goodly proportion of what we have learnt to date about the universe we inhabit. I am, in consequence, full of doubt and ignorance. I actually can’t help but laugh at those who profess any great certainty about things and I’m astonished by those who honestly believe that they have the answers to life, the universe and everything – often encapsulated in a single ancient text. Such an attitude to me is quite simply incomprehensible. To profess such knowledge is a sure sign of staggering ignorance.

So why do I read (so much)? These days I read mainly for entertainment. One of my recent tutors couldn’t believe that during a fairly intense course load I still had time to read fiction. He was amazed that I had the time. But it is a truth universally acknowledged that all work and no play would make Cyberkitten a very dull boy indeed. The second driver is, of course, enlightenment. I’m still hoping that I’ll discover something truly profound in the books I read. I’m seen hints and followed them as best I can. When I have something substantial to report you’ll read it here first.

Well, it’s Official. I had an e-mail from my University a few days ago. I am now the (very) proud owner of a shiny new Masters Degree in The History of Philosophy. I think it’s about time I cracked open a bottle of deeply chilled champagne…….

Cartoon Time.

Immaculate creation: birth of the first synthetic cell

by Ewen Callaway for New Scientist

20 May 2010

For the first time, scientists have created life from scratch – well, sort of. Craig Venter's team at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, and San Diego, California, has made a bacterial genome from smaller DNA subunits and then transplanted the whole thing into another cell. So what exactly is the science behind the first synthetic cell, and what is its broader significance?

What did Venter's team do?

The cell was created by stitching together the genome of a goat pathogen called Mycoplasma mycoides from smaller stretches of DNA synthesised in the lab, and inserting the genome into the empty cytoplasm of a related bacterium. The transplanted genome booted up in its host cell, and then divided over and over to make billions of M. mycoides cells. Venter and his team have previously accomplished both feats – creating a synthetic genome and transplanting a genome from one bacterium into another – but this time they have combined the two. "It's the first self-replicating cell on the planet that's parent is a computer," says Venter, referring to the fact that his team converted a cell's genome that existed as data on a computer into a living organism. How can they be sure that the new bacteria are what they intended? Venter and his team introduced several distinctive markers into their synthesised genome. All of them were found in the synthetic cell when it was sequenced. These markers do not make any proteins, but they contain the names of 46 scientists on the project and several quotations written out in a secret code. The markers also contain the key to the code. Crack the code and you can read the messages, but as a hint, Venter revealed the quotations: "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life," from James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; "See things not as they are but as they might be," which comes from American Prometheus, a biography of nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer; and Richard Feynman's famous words: "What I cannot build I cannot understand."

Does this mean they created life?

It depends on how you define "created" and "life". Venter's team made the new genome out of DNA sequences that had initially been made by a machine, but bacteria and yeast cells were used to stitch together and duplicate the million base pairs that it contains. The cell into which the synthetic genome was then transplanted contained its own proteins, lipids and other molecules. Venter himself maintains that he has not created life. "We've created the first synthetic cell," he says. "We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome." Whether you agree or not is a philosophical question, not a scientific one as there is no biological difference between synthetic bacteria and the real thing, says Andy Ellington, a synthetic biologist at the University of Texas in Austin. "The bacteria didn't have a soul, and there wasn't some animistic property of the bacteria that changed," he says.

What can you do with a synthetic cell?

Venter's work was a proof of principle, but future synthetic cells could be used to create drugs, biofuels and other useful products. He is collaborating with Exxon Mobil to produce biofuels from algae and with Novartis to create vaccines. "As soon as next year, the flu vaccine you get could be made synthetically," Venter says. Ellington also sees synthetic bacteria as having potential as a scientific tool. It would be interesting, he says, to create bacteria that produce a new amino acid – the chemical units that make up proteins – and see how these bacteria evolve, compared with bacteria that produce the usual suite of amino acids. "We can ask these questions about cyborg cells in ways we never could before."

What was the cost of creating life?

About $40 million. Cheap for a deity, expensive if you are a lab scientist looking to create your own synthetic bacterium. "This does not look like the sort of thing that's going to be doable by your average lab in the near future," Ellington says.

This reminds me of Frankenstein's monster! Are synthetic cells safe?

Yes. Venter's team took out the genes that allow M. mycoides to cause disease in goats. The bacterium has also been crippled so it is unlikely to grow outside of the lab. However, some scientists are concerned that synthetic organisms could potentially escape into the environment or be used by bioterrorists. Ellington brushes aside those concerns, noting that the difficulty of engineering cells is beyond the scope of all would-be bioterrorists. "It's not a real threat," he says. "Unless you are Craig Venter with a crew of 20 postdocs you're not going to do this." However, George Church, a synthetic biologist at Harvard Medical School, is calling for increased surveillance, licensing and added measures to prevent the accidental release of synthetic life. "Everybody in the synthetic biology ecosystem should be licensed like everybody in the aviation system is licensed."

[So, not exactly creating life – but almost. It’s certainly a step towards the ability of creating life……. from scratch. I didn’t honestly think we were quite that close but it looks like we are. It appears that we’ll be able to design completely new life-forms that have never existed before in years if not decades. That is totally amazing. We are truly in the Age of Biology.]

Just Finished Reading: A Pelican in the Wilderness – Hermits, Solitaries and Recluses by Isabel Colegate

I bought this book completely ‘on spec’ a year or so ago because it was so different from anything I can remember reading before. It probably helped that it was in the 3 for 2 section at my local mass market bookshop. Otherwise I may never have stumbled across this little gem.

The author weaves the history of hermits and recluses intricately with her own experiences of finding a hermitage on her land and travelling across the world to seek out other famous places where hermits have (and in some cases still do) live out their lives in practical solitude. Her interviews with modern hermits and her observations of the conditions they live in bring the subject alive in the way that discussion of the purely historical examples never could. Clearly hermits and reclusive men (and women) are not a thing of the past. In some ways this is hardly surprising. The urge to separate oneself from society must have been growing in those susceptible to such things as what we call modern civilisation encroached more and more into people’s everyday lives. Before the Industrial Revolution it must have been comparatively easy to disappear into the countryside for almost as long as you wanted. Yet it seemed that as far back as Medieval times there are those who needed to retreat from society often, at least back then, to be closer to God. After all, most of the hermits famous to history have been religious men (and women) who sought God in the wilderness and in the silence, away from the constant noise and chatter generated by towns and cities.

I did, rather inevitably, have a few niggles with this book. For one thing it seems a little too unstructured for my liking. The book, interesting enough though it was, suffered as the story jumped all over the place dragging interesting snippet after interesting foible into the mix. A little less eagerness and a little more pause for reflection, deliberation and depth would have improved this work quite a bit. Naturally the result of this butterfly approach was lack of focus. The author tried to cover too much ground and because of that spent too little time with her most interesting subjects. She would have done better to discuss fewer better documented cases in greater depth that hopping all over the world for half page stories and anecdotes – interesting though they were. Saying this, I still found this book to be a fascinating page-turner which basically introduced me to a whole area of world history that previously I had hardly given any thought to. It even, as I read of hermits ancient and modern, made me think of seeking out a retreat or monastery where I could spend a few days in quiet contemplation. I’m sure that there must be places like that not too far away. Inevitably the romance, or at least the suspected romance, of the monastic cell has faded a little after I finished the book but reading it was like a breath of fresh clean country air in my lungs. The author, despite the failings caused by her obvious enthusiasm for the subject, has produced a delightful, fascinating and often intriguing book on a subject that appears to be little examined. For opening my eyes on this aspect of human history I am thankful. Recommended for anyone seeking solitude in an increasingly maddening world.

Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: The Island

This was a film that, at its heart, contained an interesting idea – actually several interesting ideas. It was a real shame, therefore, that Hollywood turned it into a chase movie, albeit a good one (chase that is).

This was in essence a movie of two halves. In the first we are presented with an apparently futuristic society made up of survivors of a global catastrophe called ‘The Contamination’. In reality, as we discover through the experiences of Lincoln Six Echo (played by Ewan McGregor), the so-called survivors are in fact copies – clones – of their super-rich sponsors and are being used as repositories for spare parts and as pain free baby factories. When his best friend, Jordan Two Delta (played by Scarlett Johansson) is chosen to go to ‘The Island’, the supposed last refuge for mankind but in fact a euphemism for organ harvesting, Lincoln investigates and discovers the truth about everything. The second half consists of Lincoln escaping with Jordan which triggers a dramatic (OK overly melodramatic) chase across America as the two clones try to make their existence public and the corporation who owns them does everything to stop them.

There were several interesting questions raised in the first half of the movie before it honestly got rather silly (don’t get me started on the flying motorbikes!). Questions regarding the nature of identity, ownership of ‘property’ that happens to be living human beings and the powerful desire for longevity (or even immortality) by any means necessary. In line with the overall philosophy of the film the cast were by and large disposable or at least interchangeable. They were certainly able enough the carry the film forward but, for me at least, the only character who stood out – probably because he was just about the only character in the film - was Djimon Hounsou who played the leader of the team assigned to bring back the clones for orderly disposal. After being hired to do a job – return or destroy defective product – he quickly finds himself conflicted between his orders and his personal history of having a father executed for being involved in a failed rebellion against an oppressive regime.

It may seem strange on the face of it that, taking into account all of the above, I’m still picking this movie as one of my favourites. In all honesty this is not a great film. Although adequately scripted it is full of plot holes and plain lazy directing. Watch when Jordan is returned to the facility near the end of the movie. Now just try to work out where that gun came from! There is a great chase sequence on a freeway that’s almost ruined by the previously mentioned flying motorcycles but at least both of the leads are very engaging to watch. I’m a fan of McGregor and, as you know, deeply in lust with Johansson so quite happily watched her run all over the West coast often filmed from behind…… The ‘bottom’ line is that despite everything wrong with this film it’s still lots of fun especially if, unlike me, you don’t pick holes in the plot – at least too much. For a brain in neutral two hour bit of fun you could do a lot worse. Believe me, I have.

Cartoon Time.

Britain’s PM Wants Relationship with US Re-Evaluated

by Eric Margolis for The Toronto Sun

Sunday, May 16, 2010

PARIS - "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," Britain's Lord Palmerston famously said in the 19th century. Contradicting Palmerston, Winston Churchill later proclaimed a "special relationship" between Britain and the United States, an undying bond of brotherhood, loyalty in war and friendship transcending politics. This transatlantic myth has gripped both nations ever since. But Britain's new 43-year-old leader, Conservative David Cameron, has stated he wants U.S.-British relations re-evaluated and made more pragmatic. In a sharply pointed reference to the era of Britain's former PM Tony Blair, the newly appointed Conservative foreign secretary, William Hague, called for Anglo-American relations that were "solid, not slavish." Last month, a special multi-party parliamentary group suggested an end to the use of the term "special relationship" and a review of "unbalanced" (read: Onesided) U.S.-U.K. relations. Britain's new deputy prime minister, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg, said the time for "unthinking subservience to U.S. interests" was over. Clegg has long opposed Britain's involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Washington's one-sided Mideast policies.

U.S. President Barack Obama, who is interested in issues rather than personalities, has also been steering away from the Churchillian mythology of eternal Anglo-American brotherhood and has also urged more pragmatism in Atlantic relations. After Obama took office, he ordered a bust of Churchill in the president's Oval Office removed. PM Gordon Brown got something of a cold shoulder in Washington. It was not a slight, as Britain's media howled. Obama's attention was focused elsewhere, namely Afghanistan, the Mideast, India and China. Britain is falling out of Washington's favour because it is no longer as useful as in the past. Cameron's new government must quickly slash $240 billion in spending or risk a Greek-style financial crisis. There will be deep cuts in military spending, including aircraft carriers, submarines, nuclear forces, transport aircraft and money to wage war in Afghanistan. The small but hard-fighting British Army has become the elite auxiliary to U.S. imperial forces abroad, the same role as Nepal's fierce Gurkhas played in the colonial armies of the British Raj. But those days are over.

Many Britons, including Conservatives, were appalled by Tony Blair's servility and sycophancy towards President Bush and his arrant lies. Proud Brits were rankled to hear Blair called "Bush's poodle," mocked as bootlickers by French and Germans and branded an American protectorate. Many Europeans shared DeGaulle's view of Britain as an American Trojan Horse whose mission was to sabotage European unity. Britain has indeed been a quasi U.S. protectorate since the Second World War. The U.S. maintains key airbases in Britain with stockpiled nuclear weapons and long-ranged radar installations. Britain's nuclear arsenal, developed with secret U.S. assistance, is said to require Washington's permission before it can be used. Britain's military relies on U.S. intelligence, material, and technical support. Britain would probably have lost the Falklands War without Washington's secret supply of advanced Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The world has changed. In 1904, Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II presciently predicted that 50 years hence, the mighty British Empire would be crushed between the weight of emerging America and Russia.

In 1914, the British Empire controlled a quarter of the globe. Two world wars championed by arch imperialist Winston Churchill, and the rise of American and Soviet power, put paid to the British Empire, upon which the sun never set. The end of Britain's imperial era came in 1956 when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower ordered Britain (and allies France and Israel) to end their invasion of Egypt or face American-induced bankruptcy. Britain remains an important mid-level power. According to geopolitician Zbig Brzezinski, Britain provides American power a stepping stone onto the European continent, as does Japan in Asia. The new Cameron-Clegg coalition will continue to favour the U.S. rather than the European Union, of which the U.K. is a half-hearted member. But the days of seeing Anglo-U.S. relations through the rose-tinted glasses of emotions and patriotic propaganda are past. Lord Palmerston was quite right.

[I honestly thought I’d never say this, but I actually approve of, indeed applaud, something that the new Conservative-Liberal government has done. It is way past the time when we should be reassessing our clearly unbalanced (to be diplomatic for a moment) relationship with the US. If anything broke this for good it was the joined at the hip double act of Bush and Blair. Bush for taking our compliance for granted – and being disdainful and dismissive of it – and Blair for dragging us into an endless war that was none of our business. We may well have similar interests and I’m sure that our common interest will coincide in the future but we are not now, nor have we ever been the 51st State of the USA and I am not alone in finding that belief deeply offensive. So, well done Mr Cameron! Please surprise me again. Maybe I’ll even vote for you next time……..]

Poster Time.

Just Finished Reading: Schopenhauer – A Very Short Introduction

As with most of the philosophers I read about in this excellent VSI series I’d heard of Schopenhauer before and knew a little about his ideas. This book certainly filled in a lot of the blanks in my knowledge, though still only really managed to scratch the surface of his work.

Like other German philosophers of the 19th Century, Schopenhauer thought long and very hard about the difference between appearance and reality. To be honest the whole idea kind of leaves me cold and I ploughed my way through the first few chapters on this subject – well told that they were – with slightly gritted teeth. I did find his idea of embodiment and the Will as somewhat more interesting, especially as it seemed to foreshadow much of Nietzsche’s work. It is also interesting, especially taking the times into account, that Schopenhauer wrote on sex and sexuality appearing to ‘discover’ the unconscious some years before Freud brought it to prominence. What interested me most, as it has long been a particular focus of my philosophical readings, were his ideas on Ethics which seemed to me rather Stoical. It is something that I will try to follow up at some point.

While this small volume didn’t exactly set my world on fire, it did pique my interest in Schopenhauer enough to want to know more about his ideas. In that sense this book did its job. Some of the arguments I did find a little too dense for my brain to get around but, it would seem, that’s the German philosophers for you. To be honest, from what I’ve read I still far prefer the French way of things – with the possible exception of Nietzsche who I’m still struggling with. I can kind of recommend this book if you want to bend your mind more than a little. If I read anything better on him I’ll be sure to let you know.

Cartoon Time.

Thinking About: Vitamins

I’ve been taking a multi-vitamin tablet practically every day for the last 20 years or more. It started out as a test and as part of a legitimate concern that I wasn’t eating as healthily as I should or could be. It wasn’t long before I started taking more pills. I introduced what I called a ‘guest’ vitamin – basically whatever was on ‘special offer’ at my local health food store. Not being one to turn down a bargain I inevitably started to accumulate bottles of pills to use later. I think they call this sort of thing function creep.

Being the person I am – you should know where this is leading – I started reading about vitamins and other supplements. What I discovered – once you get past the hype and the scare mongering – was that I could improve my health and (maybe, just maybe) increase my longevity by adding a cocktail of vitamins, minerals and other more exotic substances to my diet. This I proceeded to do as an experiment on myself. I have yet to regret my decision. It appears that I am ill less often and for shorter periods than previously. I also remain healthy despite my age, questionable diet (and not just because I’m a vegetarian) and my less than active lifestyle. Various medical tests over the years appear to confirm my feelings on the subject. My blood pressure has been remarked on as ‘text book’ and I have been asked what sport I play – to which (when I stopped laughing) I remarked that I don’t even watch sport! Recently my optician told me that she was very surprised that my distance vision had not deteriorated in the seven years since my last eye-test and this was ‘very unusual’. It appears that I am doing something right. Of course I can’t help but wonder what I’d be like if I ate healthily and exercised a bit too!

Needless to say I have been laughed at and criticised for taking the vitamins that I do. But then again I have been laughed at and criticised about many things over the years. I am however a rather stubborn person and the more you tell me not to do something that I want to do the more I will continue doing it. I certainly have no intention of stopping taking the ten or so pills I take each day. All of the data I have on their efficacy is subjective I know but I believe that they are doing me more good than harm. I have read enough on the dangers of mega-dosing and I am aware that some vitamins are more dangerous than others in the quantities I take. I may be, in some ways, odd or even a little mad, but I am rarely stupid. I do not overdose on fat soluble vitamins such as E which can cause real harm but I’m quite happy to piss out pure Vitamin C if my intake exceeds what my body can use on a daily basis. As with most things, only time will tell. I don’t expect to live much beyond the average life expectancy – despite the fact that I’ve never smoked and hardly drink – but I do hope that I will remain in fairly good health up to the moment of my death. At least that’s the plan. If I’m still writing this Blog in 50 years time you’ll know that I was right all along. Here’s to the next 50 years…..