So much for Alaska...

Due to some strange coincidences and my insane need to pack all of my things in suitcases and move every few months, I'm going to be working in Shanghai this summer. Next year is still up in the air: I may be in graduate school, working as a researcher, finding a job in government, or taking a year off from school while applying for a Masters program. I mention this because - while I know travel is difficult for impoverished ex-Mansfielders (like myself, otherwise I certainly would have visited England this year) - I would love to have guests. If any of you are in the area (Asia), let me know, and I will be happy to give you free food and lodging, making it a cheap way to see China. During mid-August (when my work is finished), I intend to travel a bit around the country. Feel free to join me.



Today's post is an exercise in procrastination; I'm in the midst of a thesis project that needs to make serious progress before Friday, the day Matt makes his annual visit. Sadly, no matter how many times I win Civilization 4, I'm still left without a perfect understanding of my topic. You'd think it would help.

Our common link...

...Mansfield. As the last of us to leave this cocoon of safety, this last bastion of eccentricity before people in the real world start asking us pressing questions like "You what?" and "Why are you wearing that stupid hat, it makes you look like a student", I feel obliged to appreciate it while I am here. As a friend once said, "You moan about it the whole time you're there, but you'll miss it like air once you're gone".

Sure, it may be poor. It may be small. It might be portrayed in the papers as being populated entirely by homophobic six year olds¹. But when you see something like the KFC Megabucket Challenge, it warms the heart, it really does. Six men, men of Mansfield, racing to finish a KFC megabucket meal including four large fries and 1.5l of carbonated beverage of choice.

Is there a nobler sport than competitive eating?

---

1. Like after open mic night, when the JCR was allegedly filled with crowds of angry students singing "Paul Lodge loves it up the arse".

I am not a hippy

I have been an Environmental Engineer for almost six months. This might lead you to assume three things.

1. I own sandals and/or a poncho
2. I have facial hair
3. I listen to the Polyphonic Spree.

In this, you would be correct. However, beards and 6-minute tracks about sunshine do not a hippy make¹.

Allow me to quote from the "Overview" page of Module Seven in my taught Masters course notes.

"Nature runs on sunlight. Humankind runs on fossil fuels"
I see what you're saying, but industrial society runs on fossil fuels. Humankind runs on sweet potatoes and diet coke and pankeggs².

"Nature uses only the energy it needs. Humankind waste massive amounts of energy"
Firstly, "humankind" is singular in my book. Also, I'm not sure what you consider "nature". Or, for that matter, "waste". Does sunlight reflected into space count as a neccesary expense? Plus, nature increases its needs to match availability. Bear this in mind as we continue.

"Nature fits form to function. Humankind forces Nature's form to fit it's own function"
I agree that form matches function in most cases, but that's because useless forms tend to be mowed down and eaten. Actually, this isn't always the case. Plus, we're not the only species that does this whole form-to-function thing. In fact, aren't those two statements the same? How else did form fit function if not by being made to?

"Nature recycles everything. Humankind recycles next to nothing"
I should have guessed when you capitalised the word "Nature" in the last bullet point, but I think our worldviews are quite different. I'd define Nature as being the biosphere, that is, the closed system formed by the earth. As such, it has to recycle everything by definition: if it didn't, it wouldn't be nature. Moreover, Humanity is a subset of nature³. Humanity, like all species, is a waterwheel. We extract our existence from a flow of energy and material. Any subset of nature must have imperfect recycling, so that some matter is flowing to and from the rest of the system.
Also, if you mean that life recycles everything, why are there billions of tonnes of organic carbon buried in the crust? Is Humankind doing its part in recycling it back into the atmosphere?

"Nature rewards cooperation. Humankind idolises competition"
OK, now I know for sure that we have different theories of the world. I always thought that it was people who liked cooperation, and nature that said, metaphorically, "Compete. If co-operating is the best way to keep the other bastards down, do that."

"Nature banks on diversity. Humankind opts for monculture, destroys diversity"
Well, it's true that agriculture has a tendency to make this mistake. You know what, I'll concede this point.

"Nature curbs excesses from within. Humankind celebrates excess; greed is good"
Actually, the way that nature curbs excesses is the same way we generally do. Anything that can desire, desires more. It's only humans who can think about that and consciously decided they need less. Case in point: we are the only species to practice contraception. Also, I'm fairly sure most dictionaries put "bad" somewhere in the definition of "greed". I think it might even have made the Top Ten Sins or whatever.

"Nature taps the power of limits. There are no limits, says mankind"
Um... the power of limits, you say? Well, all I will say is that Toucan Broadband know all about limits, even on their "Unlimited service". If they didn't, I'd be in a better mood right now.

Reading this module has given me an insight into how Conservatives must feel all the time.

Maybe I ought to return my tie-dye kit.

---

1. Does anyone know the origin of this construction? I figure it's either Yoda, Winston Churchill, or Germany.
2. The food of kings and the king of foods.
3. Maybe you disagree. It's OK, lots of people do.

Revelations

I had a bit of a surprise today. I realized that The Shins' album, 'Oh, inverted world' actually has more than one track on it. And some of them are good! Check it out, kids!

This fits in rather nicely with my idea of the day¹, which is actually less of an idea and more of a question. Where do I fit in?

If you believe everything you read, there are two types of people at Oxford. There are people from extremely privileged backgrounds who aren't very bright, but got in because their daddy used to play silly buggers with the tutor². The other kind are the studious, hard working and extremely bright diamonds-in-the-rough, 'doesn't know how to use cutlery but you should see what he's got to say about T.S. Eliot' who studies by candle light wearing fingerless gloves and scrapes and saves to afford a can of baked beans a week. Actually, that's communists.

When one of the former gets rejected, nobody but Daddy cares. When one of the latter gets rejected, people get angry.

What about us? I went to a private school, which should put me firmly in the toff category. But wait - I had my fees paid by the government from 11 onwards because my dad was a full time student. And in school I outperformed a lot of girls paying full fees. So it's ok, guys, I'm back in the poor and deserving category.

But let's examine results. Because I'm such a charity case, I have to do better than all my other private school friends. This is frankly not happening. I'm working hard this year to pull up to a 2:1 not because I am driven by the plight of my situation, but because I am vain and my grandad will get angry if I don't get one. Maybe if I ask my parents to suddenly lose all their disposable income, my results will pick back up?

My point really is that I don't fit in anywhere in the above scenario. Most of my friends are the same. Partly I think it's disillusionment from coming up to a college with an excellent college spirit but very little in the way of facilities. Or maybe it's because this fictional Oxford just doesn't exist any more.

Either way, I've succeeded in confusing myself. And now it's time for dinner.

---

1. Because the album is all about confusion and conflicting bittersweet emotions all wrapped up in the pain of reaching adulthood realizing you're meant to be somehow 'grown up'. At least, that's how I hear it.
2. "His father and I used to break wind for our college" - General Melchett, Blackadder goes forth.

Hush. Daddy's here.

"The Bible never says anything about dinosaurs. You can't say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them. Someone actually saw Adam and Eve. No one ever saw a Tyrannosaurus rex."

Fossils = Satan's bag o trickz

Note: this post exists because I - being a n00b bl0gg3rz - can't make links, and the comment section cut off my link.
Alyssa, your entire argument is refuted by the beliefs of the new prophet: Carl Everett.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/07/19/everett_flashback/
Picture of the New Lord:
http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAGP113~Carl-Everett-2005-Studio-Plus-Posters.jpg

Freedom of Hurricanes

I was thinking, in between my bouts of obsessive hurricane viewing and trawling conservapedia for gems of 'wisdom'¹, about freedom.

Now we all know that America loves freedom. And we know that nasty people with beards don't love freedom. Neither do people who blow up aeroplanes, or say that global warming is happening, or suggest that science alone be taught in science lessons. Richard Dawkins almost definitely hates freedom, and so does Gillian McKeith².

The problem is this. And don't go expecting me to come up with any kind of argument or conclusion here because I'm just spouting crap to avoid having to go and write my hurricane essay.

Throughout time, there have been a lot of people who were not very intelligent, or easily misguided. The saving grace of the situation was the few such people (village idiots, that kind of thing) whos views were actually dangerous³ tended not to be born very often, and rarely get together to have a big think about the meaning of things. The views of the public and the views of the media moderated each other, with a good help of Government policy, finished with a hint of Patriotic bias. Then along came the internet.

It is a great thing, I believe, that through the internet information has become more readily available. The problem being that it is entirely unmoderated, and anyone can use it as a platform for their views. The climate of misinformation is merely a product of the climate of information freedom, and I for one do not believe it to be something that can be stopped.

I just wish they'd come up with something better than the Hurricane Katrina entry in Conservapedia.

---

1. And in one extreme case, typing in "hurricane" to conservapedia to see what came up. Unfortunately, all I got was Katrina. Conservapedia has a little way to go before people actually start to use it as a source for reference in my opinion.
2. Freedom hates Gillian McKeith.
3. Of course, this is entirely subjective. I think someone who thinks relativity has 'nothing to do with physics' is a hopeless, dribbling moron of epic proportions, but they are of little danger to me because if they ever come near me, I'll hit them with an SR textbook. However, if I told them that I do not believe that fossils are put there to fool unbelievers, to them I am the antichrist.