A day in the week of October

Guess what people, i'm not dead.. and ive got posts to prove it.


It may be autumn here, but elsewhere in the solar system..
Theres a little robot on Mars travelling across the meridiani plain to reach the endeavor crater (not the one pictured). Didya know that? huh? huh? It's now been travelling over a year, taking pictures and sending back data from its journey along the way. It's unbearably cute and wondrous, but im surprised nasa didnt just let it land at the crater, poor thing. That said, i'm a great believer in what can be learnt and enjoyed from the journey rather than from the ending, so really, i understand.

[i like this guy]

As webcomics go, my interest is below average. The warcraft webcomic world is another universe of itself, and there seems to be quite a lot of variety. But i still take a bit of convincing.
It is interesting though that the range of styles mirrors the range of players you get. Ultimately, it reflects the two main categories. You've got the creative, imaginative types that play to explore the world, get mixed up in the story for a month, and go away making up their own little story arcs (as if we weren't having trouble keeping up with blizzard's already). It tends to vary from in-character sketches to long, winding sagas. It's become such a scene blizzard have started taking entries and publishing their favourite fan stories which are sold alongside the official manga.

[i like this guy too]

Then there are the self absorbed groupie types who digitally hang out together to go raiding with their "guildies" *twitch* and who approach the game as simply something to fill the social void in their lives.. No offence to these people. Their comics are mostly players making 'witty' observations about 'noobs' (which seems to mean people with anything less than 5 epic-geared lvl 80s... so about 95% of WoW players) and, you know, in jokes. Ok to be fair, they occasionally get it right.. but still.. I can't help my disgust at those with the pissy 'Oh you need at least X of stat Y to play' attitudes and the embarrassingly struggling grip on reality. Um, so you can probably guess which category i relate to.
Lastly, it's also nice to see the number that are produced by girl players. Because despite what people may have you believe, girls do play. Incidentally, i didnt find all these myself, im not that sad. I cheated.


The other day some stuff happened that made charlie brooker, derren brown and stephen fry all feel very important, more so than usual, and they all still are by the sounds. If somehow you missed it because, i don't know, you were on holiday in a the middle of the sahara desert and the batteries had gone flat on all your internet compatible devices- in which case i'm very sorry to hear that and i cant imagine how you survived- this should sum it up for you.
But the original article is really very boring. If you'd like a better translation of it, this one translates perfectly.


Um, For now, thats all i've got..

Mass debate all over the world

WARNING. This is a VERY long and possibly boring post. It has been a long time coming, though please don't take that as an indication of the quality you should expect. This is really just the sum of something i've been interested in for some time.

Being a citizen of the internet, i cannot help but observe a lot of talk referring to some kind of upcoming 'end is nigh' that is due pretty soon. Various end-of-days prophecies include the 'end' of the Mayan calender, global warming, the manifestation of the new world order, and the second coming of jesus.
I'm not so much interested in the prophecies- i've heard them so many times. What interests me is everyones thoughts on the destiny and purpose of mankind.

In britain, we have a compact and rich enough culture that we have a relatively consistant vision of society. On the whole, we all seem to share core beliefs: Science is real, education is good, music is important, no one has to be christian if they don't want to be and there is nothing wrong with a good fantasy about elves and wizards.

Certain larger, younger cultures are a little more schizophrenic and polarised about the topic. Different groups tug at society to bring them round to their way of thought before it's too late. At first it seems there are two teams, the filthy, peace-loving liberals vs the hateful, fundamentalist republicans. But the more i expose myself to american media the more it seems apparent there are in fact several, seperate areas of tension, not necessarily all running parallel with each other: Not all scientists are atheists, some christians respect nature, and not all satanists actually adopt individualism.

The following is simply an analysis of some of the moral conflicts i see coming out of america right now, in my view, so far. I've included links so you cant accuse me of making it up. Make what you will of it.. debate is very welcome.

CHRISTIANITY VS PAGANISM
-Humanity vs Nature-

This is about those that see humanity as the centre of everything; and those that see humanity as a tiny part of a bigger, deeper world. 'Christian' and 'Pagan' are old terms- but many modern day values and ideas derive from their ancient schools of thought.

Team 1: Take a look at abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.. The deities are human like, the baddies are beast-like. It presents humans as above animals. God is only interested in human affairs and for them it is debatable if animals even have souls. At its heart is a god justifying anything man does as long as it keeps up the worship. The existence of nature is a mere footnote in mankind's story.

Team 2: On the other hand, Pagans- and this really applies to native religions globally- personify all aspects of the earth, life, and celestial bodies. Hills, springs, rocks, trees.. all of these maybe haunted or personified by other worldly spirits. These spirits are not always humanlike, and aren't always around for human benefit. They just exist because that's what the world is like. In scandinavia especially, entire valleys and mountains were left untouched out of respect for the sprits there. This view sees mankind in a humble place as piece of nature, not an authority above it.

The clash:
We know about the environmentalist movement. Global warming, concern for animal welfare and the recent interest in organic and sustainable farming. But not everyone is ok with this.
If i may quote a christian describing pagan values: "Neo-Pagan-Borderline-Satanic-the-Environment-is-more-important-than-human-life beliefs."

Another, more blunt article explains:

"The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever, and we know this is not God's plan". "So we see that rather than trying to preserve the earth for thousands or even millions of years to come, we are to be good stewards of it for as long as it lasts"

..Interesting. The latter author points out the bible says 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it'. Apparently judgment day will come before our resources run out, so we should go ahead, reproduce as much as possible and use them up. You can see how this isn't going to work with environmentalism, can't you.

The Georgia Guidestones. One rule dictates the human population should not exceed 500,000,000 and stay in balance with nature. So the pagans say we should control our numbers, the christians say we should mulitply as much as possible and god will sort it all out when he gets back. I see an ethical shit storm brewing.
This almost 'fuck nature, we're humans!' view seems to reflect a subtle sentiment weaved into all kinds of christian messages, political decisions, and, frequent troll attacks on science websites..

..Back in the day science and Christianity were good buddies. But the day science claimed we were not the centre of the universe- and we orbited the sun- was the day science fell out of favour with Christianity. And everyday since then, as science continues to map mankind's tiny place in the universe, his evolution from the animals, and the huge physical systems beyond his control, the wider that gap grows. And science is reminded every single day of it.

FAITH VS SCIENCE
-Ignorance vs Enlightenment-

At first this looks like an extension of the last paragraph but actually, the conflict between science and religion involves a little more. Over the last 2,000 years alone, humanity has apparently fluctuated between times of 'enlightenment' (when criticism and logic have been favoured) and times of 'faith' (when 'gods word' dictated everything, and the bible was to be read literally).

Team 1: Those who like scientific thought, see technology and education as something that can help humanity achieve great things, and see faith merely holding humanity back in a state of blind ignorance, or 'darkness', as in the 'dark ages'.

Team 2: Then there are those who condemn modern technology in the name of faith- the catholic church being an excellent example. They see radical thought and change as unstable and the work of the devil, destined to bring war, unrest and 'unsaved souls' upon the world.

The clash:
To put this conflict in very literal terms, let me explain the Luciferians. That's right- people that follow lucifer. Make what you will of most of this article, i'd like to quote him to sum up this "Luciferian" view:

'God of the material world is seen as a stubborn and sadistic figure who seeks to keep mankind into perpetual darkness, while Lucifer is the savior of humanity by giving it the gift of knowledge. If we reinterpret the Adam and Eve story through Luciferian glasses, the serpent is actually the “undercover savior” who defied God and gave humans the opportunity to become gods themselves. He is credited to have unleashed man’s awesome potential.'

In short, Luciferians don't see Lucifer- the "light bringer"(hence the terms 'illuminati' and 'enlightened')- as a destroyer of humanity, but a creator of humanity.. reverse engineering the world and teaching it to mankind, breaking them away from the animals and closer to godliness. By gaining knowledge and questioning god's world, we are denying the fear and power god holds over us- the pope's worst nightmare. Science, in a religious leaders' view, is an anti-god revolution led by Satan.

Of course this isn't exclusive to religion, we see it in society everywhere because it reflects more fundamental politics: People choose to educate others. Perhaps this isn't as much faith vs reason, as a battle between those who see benefit in distributing knowledge, and those who see benefit in restricting it. And then there is the problem of how much and what knowledge is distributed or withheld. And then, the extra problem of what to replace the void left by ignorance.. something charming like superstition, or something more.. manipulative, like fear?

A cute example of the transition from ignorant peasantry to enlightened living in the modern world is here. Note the other villagers even refer to the windmills as 'witchcraft' when the crops fail..

RELIGION VS ATHEISM
-Order vs Chaos-

It is the general popular belief that order is good and chaos is evil. This is the general popular belief. There is no reason to assume, of course, that authorities and law abiders cannot do evil (think: holocaust) and the rebels and lawless cannot do good (think: robin hood). But because of the very nature of maintaining 'Order', it is important that the former is the general popular belief of the masses.

According to a recent poll, the most distrusted minority group in america are atheists. They are more distrusted than gays, muslims, and afro-americans. This is a country resident to godhatesfags.com and the KKK.
Richard Dawkins, an atheist who preaches with as much passion as even the most religious preacher, did an interview on american tv, demonstrating how american feathers are ruffled by atheism. Yes, Bill is an utter dickface, but he raises some common arguments. Hitler was an athiest! is the cry. Translation: Atheism makes people evil. Evil dictators, revolutionists, terrorists.. No wait, scratch that last one.. Even following the religion of an enemy is apparently better than not following one at all.

I get the feeling the issue here is not really as simple as religion vs non religion, It's:

Team 1: people that are trusted by a community- or heavily religious culture- because they share common values with it,
vs
Team 2: those that do not follow any traditional religious moral code, and thus seem weird or untrustworthy to team 1.

People are scared by what is not obvious to them and warm quickly to those who think and act alike. It's easy for people who've been brought up in a tight community to be brainwashed into assuming the worst of a stranger; Which, in turn, reinforces their need to demonstrate their loyalty to the communal values.. regardless of how hard they are to defend or how obvious it is their daughter is a lesbian or should really have an abortion.

The clash
So on the surface, religions appear to have 'order' pretty well pegged. They collect everyone under a single code or deity, preaching that unity brings peace. A single set of values, a single philosophy, a single vision of justice. They can decide on any rule and the masses will follow, regardless of how many steps back it takes them or how it threatens their environment.
But.. as christianity has shown, even for global mass-brainwashing religions this isnt quite so straight forward. The reality is, everyone's got their own 'vision' of justice, and in many cases, they would rather change the religion to resemble their vision than change the vision resemble the religion. And its not hard to have an excuse.. hell, divorcing your wife so you can get another is as good a reason as any.
As religion spreads, more humans take it on and go their own place with it. If religion actually brought order, history would be different. Truth is, we are adaptable creatures and as we spread, we have to adapt, and our values adapt too. Order has to be abandoned and rebuilt, or just partially abandoned altogether. Atheism is not a big leap. Maybe between chaos and order, neither extreme is possible to realistically sustain, due to the inherently unavoidable 'context sensitive' nature of human behaviour.