I consider myself quite knowledgeable for my years, and over the past decade or so—it is probably even longer than that—there is a question which has puzzled me immensely, and no matter how much I ponder it, or in which way I attempt to see it, I simply cannot seem to figure it out: Why is being female the greatest of shames?

For my own part I have never wished to be anything else than female, and fact is that even if I were given one million dollars for being genetically altered to become male, I would pass the opportunity up, for I have never desired to be anything else than what I am. The reason for this is that I have always been female, I was made one; ever since the moment of conception, when I came into being for the first time, my twenty-third chromosomes have been homologous. Why this is a fate worth regretting a lifetime, I shall never understand.

Once upon a time—and in some places still—women were sacred creatures because they were the ones who gave birth to new life; they were the ones who illustrated the purpose of all human existence, both biologically as well as symbolically: the smiling sun upon the heavens is a goddess in many religions and Westerners still refer to their world as “Mother Earth”. For millennia the fertile female form has been celebrated, and its essence has been captured by skilled artists of ages past, some of their creations spared from the teeth of time for us to see.

Venus de Milo

Venus de Milo

But those figurines—whose beauty is easily appreciated—stem from ages now long lost. As man left his hunter-gatherer days to cultivate the land his life changed forever, the greatest change of them all however yet to come. But eventually, it did arrive, and the man of today is now the resident of an increasingly post-industrial world, a world in which being female is the greatest of shames.

All ages have their Venuses. The hunter-gatherers had their figurines, such as the Venus of Willendorf, whose true purpose still is disputed—was she a depiction of a goddess, a charm of fertility, or was she simply a piece of art celebrating the beauty of the feminine? The agriculturalists had the true Venuses—the ones who gave their name to the morning star—and the Venus de Milo is still admired by millions every year. The industrialists too have ideal female beauties, but they are no longer celebrated in the same way.

No, the Venuses of industrialisation are raised to feel ashamed over having been cursed already at conception, they are taught that having homologous twenty-third chromosomes is being of lesser worth; the woman of today knows that she is inferior to any man. At least, this is the sole explanation I have come up with in regards to the question I mentioned before: Why is being female the greatest of shames?

In the industrial world the ideal woman is the one who pursues a career; for some reason she has ceased to value herself and instead elevated men to the skies. A modern woman shall not be content until she is identical to a man, and I am terribly sorry for being the one who brings her the news; but this, her ultimate goal, shall never be. She will never grow a beard and speak with a low tone of voice by natural means, for she is a woman—she should take pride in that!

Why Should They Do It?

Why Should They Do It?

Were women an obsolete a part of humanity they would all have been male, but considering how I am no man, there must be a reason for why there are women and why there are men. Fact is that they have different roles to fill, both equally important, despite not being the same. To say such a thing, as I just said, is however forbidden—and very strangely so. Again, I say, this can stem from no reason other than women refusing to acknowledge that they are equal to men.

The world is not fair, if it was, there would be neither males nor females, they would all be the same; both would be equipped with ovaries as well as testes—but such an egalitarian society I highly doubt I will ever see! To make up for this unfair a truth, nature is however most compassionate and makes sure that a foetus during gestation is exposed to hormones that eventually shall make it content with its lot. At least, this has worked in the case of me—I am a delighted female, I desire nothing more, but as far as the rest of humanity is concerned, I simply do not know.

Somewhere, deep inside, even the most female-despising of women must realise that she is seeking revenge for her fate in the wrong way, however so convinced of her own inferiority that she disregards from this and presses on in the pursuit of a goal she believes herself desiring to attain. And, when confronted with something that makes her uncomfortable, she charges and goes to attack instead of pondering its contents. To all such women I have one thing to say: An empty cart makes much noise, a full cart less so.

However, even broken clocks are right twice a day, and the situation of women has indeed improved. No longer need any woman die from complications in childbirth, and she is allowed to vote and to make her voice heard. No longer is a woman kept from making a career, she is allowed to seek the intellectual challenges which all human beings crave. This, I cannot critique—I have no reason to. What I do critique is that women believe themselves being of lesser worth. They are not, why do they even believe so?

There is no need for me to state facts—no-one will listen—but I tell you this—and you may consider it and draw your own conclusions—but ever since women started to doubt their value the world has started to shake. When the people who mattered most to the future of man have abandoned the most glorious of tasks, the consequences can be nothing but severe. All it takes is an open mind and a pair of eyes—look around!—is this world of ours a society that thrives? Something has gone wrong in this most modern age of man, and it is only because some people doubt themselves. I hate to point the finger—so I shall not do so—for those who are responsible know deep within who they are.

The celebrated modern woman is no longer a feminine beauty, she is an aspiring male. How has this come to be? What is it that makes women believe that they are worthless do they not live the life of a man? Shall the world ever come to acknowledge the simple fact that life is not fair, but that one’s lot still is better than none? It is with the greatest of regrets that I say that this I do not know; I know many things but the answer to these questions are still shrouded in mystery to me. One day, however, I intend to change this; one day, I shall know and make sure to tell you, for I believe that being female is just as fine a fate as being male.

Be proud of who you are, do not attempt to change! Take pride in being yourself, for people who know their worth and value have nothing to prove.

Finally, I shall say that man is a creature who learns from his own mistakes; a fact which delights me as the more educated man becomes the more ignorant shall he realise himself to be. And when his ignorance has been realised, there will no longer be any need for the goddesses to be ashamed.

Science is nothing but a neverending quest for the ultimate truth. Science’s holy grail is the theory which is universally applicable to a subject area and which persistently endures and answers even the most challenging of questions. The theory which remains after all others have been eliminated can be seen as speaking with the most truthful of voices. However, while the world awaits the emergence of such a theory, there are many which compete in the battle of the memes of which has the greatest potential to survive for a “theoretical” generation longer.

Many of these theories are obvious, as often is the case in science where the simple explains the most complex. Finding great joy in reading all kinds of theories I come across several which I do not like because they seem ignorant, and yet more which I do like because their content is obvious when spoken of. What all such theories have in common is that they offer explainations for phenomenon which otherwise would be too abstract to visualise. They are the candles of science which illuminate the darkness of the world’s countless mysteries.

I often find myself nodding in agreement to the theories I read, I consider those memes valuable and as having the potential to succeed and eventually inspire the ultimate theory. Though I also come across theories whose memes I consider near stillborn, I never react in the way I have noticed some people do. Though I disagree, I try to understand, and though they at times conflict with my own beliefs, I trust that such theories and memes will be obliterated from the intellectual stage by the natural selection of truth and potential that all successful theories have to endure.

Many a wise scientist knows that the truth at times hurts and offends. I believe this to be a sign of health, as far as theories are concerned, for it proves that they consider nothing but the science and the facts; that they are objective. Objectivity means that the theories are unclouded by belief and personal conviction, and that they thus possess the potential to be applied to any related matter (and in many cases even unrelated ones as well!).

Not everyone understands that the truth is objective, however. It is hard to remain calm when insulted, of course, but if there is truth to the critique, then I am of the belief that one should consider its contents and incorporate the valid points into one’s own person and allow oneself to grow. Although I consider this belief a healthy one, is not everyone’s and some take the truth as attacks on their own person, reacting with rage when questioned instead of relying upon their objectivity to guide them.

When nodding in agreement to one particular theory I soon came to realise that I was nea alone when browsing the comments of the relevant blog post. Instead of being encouraging, intrigued and questioning as the comments of any potentially successful theory should be, the comments were aggressive and coloured by resent. This made me wonder, what is it that makes some people so easily offended? What is it that makes them defend themselves when they clearly are not personally attacked?

I have contemplated the question for a few hours now, and I have come to the conclusion that the reacions of such people is to be attributed to their genes. Though it may be the person that considers themself insulted, it is in reality the genes that fear for their future.

Genes are most fascinating collections of molecules. They may appear insignificant, but their influence is the greatest in the biological realm as they despite their size and to-humans-abstract nature they are the puppeteers which pull the strings that animate everything from behaviours to emotions and to actions.

The genes are selfish – I see Dawkins’s theory as an excellent meme as it yet has to be disproven by the over 30 years of challenges it has endured with great strength – and their ultimate goal is the attainment of the elusive but immensely appealing concept of eternal life. This is because the promise of the prospect is the final reassurement of their potential, as the ones who have travelled the farthest upon the paths of such a quest also are those which are the most valuable and prone to succeed in the future.

As people are biological beings created by selfish genes, their evolutionary goal is reproductive success. It may seem narrow-minded, but it is indeed true. People are little more than temporary vehicles in a race for the attainment of eternal life. It is only the best genes which survive the passing of the generations and they are constantly culled as their surroundings change, rendering each evolutionary generation more fit than the last.

So, what does all this have to do with people fearing and being offended by the truth?

The answer to this is – according to my own theory – that the truth may appear uncomfortable because it questions the value of the selfish genes. As some people find themselves critiqued (though indirectly) by the words of the theories, their genes’ potential for attaining their ultimate goal is questioned in turn, and for all who have come across truly self-centered people it is easy to see why this also offends the genes.

As the genes influence the human being’s way of behaving and reasoning – as the brain is the result of the best genes having come this far in the attainment of their quest – it is this effect which I have observed. The genes do not like to described as unfit and withut potential, and spoiled as they are because of their own achievements, they do not respond well to critique, believing themselves superior.

So, when a theory, for example, advocates that beautiful people are the most attractive because beauty is the visible effect of a healthy genome, there are those who can not remain objective and nod in agreement, because they become offended and claim that the truth is distasteful at best.

Their resentful reactions are the result of their genes having been insulted, the genes have been accused of having failed to build the ultimate vehicle contructed this far, that their creation’s potential reproductive success and the genes’ prospect of ever attaining eternal life is slim. Of course the genes are proud over their achievements, and as the person is the greatest advocate for their own genes, they will not allow anyone to question them, especially not as selfishness and the denial of critique is what has taken them this far.

The theories are therefore critiqued in an attempt for the offended person to protect their genes as they will not accept that a simple meme proclaims them inferior and questions their future success; the reactions are to be seen as an attempt to reinstitute lost value, a statement claiming that the person and their genes indeed are the very best.

In conclusion it may be theorised that genes easily offended by memes are impeding the progress of the memes which hold the key to explaining the nature of the reasons which motivate the genes.

While browsing the Encyclopaedia Dramatica – a site of questionable (but at times all too entertaining) content – for reasons which need not be elaborated for the sake of this argument, I came across an article upon the topic of Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is, as most are aware of, a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist as well as the author of several successful books on popular science. I have read three of his works – The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.

They were all most enjoyable books, though I at times thought them a bit tiresome because some of the arguments presented are obvious to all gifted with a bit a lot of common sense. In other aspects the books were also labouring points already made clear. Dawkins’s reasons for this may of course be to ensure that all readers understand the key points fully, which is admireable, but for those of greater wits it may at times be a bit irksome.

However, the ideas presented by Dawkins in his works are most though-provoking, and I especially enjoyed The Selfish Gene because of the inspiration for understanding other abstract concepts it provided one with. Through that book I gained greater insight of a subject I myself would like to refer to as being closley associated with the ideas presented by the theories of evolutionary psychology; only that Dawkins’s writing explaines how it has come to be so, what evolutionary psychology elaborates further and explains why it indeed is so.

To again refer to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica – which I get the impression of it being authored by people of admireable satirical talent with all too much time on their hands – it failed to get its point across: to prove Dawkins a fraud. It is mostly because they employed little evidence when debunking his character.

What I was told by the satirically pompous article, whose language made me titter on more occassions that one, were facts about Dawkins’s person which are easily explained by anyone who has only the slightest knowledge of human behaviour, and especially so if one knows a little about evolutionary psychology. This, I may point out, is even when a person like myself who have only studied introductory works within that field is concerned.

The rest of the article painted Dawkins’s accomplishments with the most entertaining of words. However, inbetween those words of intended sarcasm, I found truths impossible to deny. – It is indeed so that here are no perfect people upon this earth. Though Dawkins’s has undertaken an admireable task of exposing the true face of religion, he may at times go a bit too far.

A quote taken from the article:

90% of militant atheists on the net are raving Dwakins fanboys. … To troll them, try politely suggesting Dwakins is maybe a little too forceful in his ideological crusade – instant rants and butthurts will follow.

Indeed, I do agree to above statement that Dawkins may be a bit too forceful on his quest, something I myself noticed while reading his books, and especially so The God Delusion. Dawkins does at times have obvious problems to maintain his objectivity. It is a human trait to react that way when under the influence of great passion and dedication to a mission and goal, but when one has the opportunity to speak through writing, such passion should be muted – no doubt – as the strongest of conviction’s voices are those which retain their calm.

Is is also so that atheists – and people in general – tend to become overly passionate and blind when elaborating topics of their convictions. It is so that athesists often find joy in pointing out the hilarious strength of religious’ convictions, but the truth is that such strength is more of a human trait than one related to religion as even the atheists are under its influence. I have many times been struck to the irony of this, and especially so upon the boards of Dawkins’s official web site.

Dawkins’s forum is supposed to be a “free-thinking oasis” and it was the allure of such a quote which inspired me to become a member of the site. I however soon realised that the waters of the oasis had been poisoned by the convictions explained above, and that the debated ideas were not coloured by the freedom I had hoped for, but by the passionate hatred I have learnt atheists and religious share alike. Thus, I have left the forum in the belief that there is no such thing as oasises whenever people are involved, no matter the nature of their convictions.

Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, something I theorise is an effect of the religious gene(s).

Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, something I theorise is an effect of the "religious gene(s)".

This, the above elaborated, was however the only thing I agreed to as the rest of the article, as previously mentioned, only consisted of sarcastic comments describing Dawkins’s achievements.

The following quote explains to me with obvious strength that (probably a majority of) the article has been written by people of religious beliefs, and especially so the last sentence:

Richard Dwakins plans to be the next L. Ron Hubbard of the atheist movement. The word ‘belief’ will be outlawed and the only things that people can think about without being emotionally abused or physically attacked are that things Ayn Rand says are the ultimate truth, and cannot be questioned. Ever. This is called ‘Free Thought’. He does not plan on being gang banged by demon niggers while burning in Hell, which is ironic because thats exactly what is going to happen.

The point which the author(s) have failed to understand, is that belief is more hurtful than science. I shall not question that some people find comfort in believing that there is a supreme being who watches over them, but I personally find it to be little more than a simple explaination of the world’s most extraordinary phenomenon and which serves as a candle in the dark for those of weak minds.

Science, on the other hand, does not hurt people. It is not somehting one believes in, it simply is. And that is because it has been proven. It is true that science never may defeat God, as such a being’s existance will be hard to disprove. Equally so are however extraterrestial beings’ existance – impossible to believe in, but very possible to suspect being real – to mention just one example, and that is the exact reason why people should not believe. Blind faith is nothing but blind as it based upon no evidence. In order for the human mind to remain unclouded, it must also remain objective. To believe is not to be objective, if I am allowed to point out the obvious.

What the above quote described as an infringement of the right of freedom is actually an act of liberation. Although an attempt destined to fail, it is done with humanity’s best in mind. For, a civilisation such as our own can not ever be expected to progress when people blinded by belief constantly pull the brakes and lower the rate at which new discoveries are made. The examples describing this are many, but I see stem-cell research as one, and creationism being taught in schools instead of evolution, as another.

I say that Dawkins’s mission is destined to fail because I do not believe that all people are disillusioned atheists. I read an article in a science magazine a few years go which theorised that there may be something such as a gene for belief, that a part of the human genome renders its possessors able to believe in what contradicts even the most obvious of truths corroborated by science. In the past this was of course an excellent trait, to believe and not to question. The human being has not evolved since then, but his societies have, and in the current age of man, belief is highly overrated.

Yet another section of the Dramatic Encyclopaedia states:

Dwakins invented a new way of looking at culture. His genius could pave the way for a new understanding of social phenomena! Trip on this bitches: have you ever thought of different cultural trends as being sort of like viruses? Like how if someone gets excited about a movie and then everyone is sort of ‘infected’ by the ‘craze’? You have? Oh.

Anyway, Dwakins’s amazing new theory is based on his idea of ‘just take a biological framework and slap it onto whatever the fuck you want’. He calls it memetics. He also invented the word meme, which no one on the internet uses.

What the satirically gifted writer of those above words has failed to understand is that humans indeed are biological beings and that all their actions thus may be contributed to their biological nature. The “biological framework” mentioned is what dictates the rules of all human actions and behaviours. For those in doubt, I would like to refer to a most enlightening book of great value in my eyes: “Why beautiful People Have More Daughters: Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We Do” by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa.

Man is in no way a creature positioned above the biological realm. He is a part of its intricate structure, as is any equine or any insect. Though people like to believe themselves sentient and more than simple animals, they are still nothing but sophisticated primates. It does not matter the subject – jealousy, culture, love – the actions are all described and motivated by the human being’s biological brain. Thus, Dawkins is right in his claims and the author of the sarcastic words has misunderstood their own situation in the world.

Fact is that the article writer’s dislike for Dawkins’s person may be explained by a biological framework as well as the evolutionary psychology which is its derivative as Dawkins questions the writer’s convictions and thus, the writer feels threatened. It is a most natural response and one which we all have experienced at one time or another.

So, to elaborate:

Dawkins’s memes are threatening the success of the writer’s genes. Their convictions are opposing and Dawkins is a dominant character in this play set upon the biological stage. If the writer’s convictions are not defended, his genes will lose out to Dawkins’s – the rival will be the victorious one. The writer’s only defence is to explain to the world that Dawkins is nothing but a – I quote – “tea-drinking Brit and ‘bitchy whiner'”, with hopes of that potential mates will see the writer as the possessor of the most successful genes.

This argument of mine may of course appear abstract, but what must be kept in mind is that there was no such thing as the Internet, online dramatic encyclopaedias or sarcastic articles in the ancestral environment. The purpose of such defamation – whether digital or not – is however always the same: to allow the defamer’s genes to appear as being the most superior ones. Ironically, this is what The Selfish Gene hints at – that a person is under the influence of their genes’ desire for survival as a person is nothing but a vehicle created by genes for genes.

Finally, the question is of course at libery to be asked why I have based this piece of writing upon an article seasoned with obvious lack of seriousness. I will try to explain my late-night act by simply telling you that the article amused me greatly as its intended purpose of proclaiming Dawkins a hoax ironically was carried out by actions determined by the biological units Dawkins has explained to the world through his written works.

I fear for the future of humanity.

Despite the utopian dreams which I hold for our species’ future, I have started to doubt. The crystal-clear images which I previously have beheld in the imaginative parts of my mind – of people accomplishing the most wonderful of things, of achieving what previously was thought of as impossible – have faded and their outlines have been blurred.

I have realised that the future of humanity is far more distant now, than ever before. The reason for this being so is simple, and for those who have understood, it is more obvious than anything else.

Over the course of just a few decades humanity has quite successfully undermined the accomplishments of centuries and millenia, all in the belief of a vain opinion, being held as true.

To tell you of what this belief’s nature is, I fear, as it has become taboo to claim that it is false. I have however realised the importance of it being told, and so I will strive against the opinion of others, and speak up regarding my own. For too long have my views dwelled in the depths of suppression, and now the day has come to mention them for the first time.

Before you condemn this opinion of mine, which now is to follow, please read it all through and then speak ill of it. For I believe that once the argument has been finished, the truth is clear.

For years – I believe since the second world war – people have told each other that all are special and truly valuable. Children have grown up to know themselves special and unmeasureable in worth. This opinion is delightful in its nature, and admireable in its aims and ambitions – to urge the young to grow up and do good. Somewhere along the way, however, this idea ceased to be inspirational and instead grown darker than the darkness of night. Today, the belief of that everyone is special has poisoned the world and disillusioned its inhabitants.

Belief in oneself is no longer a – in my eyes – desireable trait. For, it does nothing else but to blind the person who believes. Everyone is said to deserve equal benefits, and though admireable, such a notion has done nothing but harm. Further, when all deserve, then it really is so that the logical conclusion is that none deserves in the end.

Allow me to elaborate. The belief which has poisoned the young mind of today is this: “I am – therefore am I special“. It is indeed so that humanity has travelled far since the original quote was coined, but little have we evolved since. Rather, we have de-volved; grown to become less valuable than we once were. For truly, the words: “I think – therefore I am“, are much more noble and prone to inspire than previously mentioned ones.

The problem with the modern world is thateveryone is special, and since they all are, then no one is so in the end. The belief in one’s supremacy is as dangerous as is the indivdual’s submission to the allure of that a society, a race, a species is of greater worth than the rest of the world and its inhabitants.

There is no longer such a thing as manners, the polite person is dead – shot through the heart by the arrows supremacy has created. For today, each and every one is his own master and the opinions of others matter little, or even less. To tell someone that they are wrong, that their belief is in vain, is the modern world’s greatest of sins. To follow one’s convictions has become the most priced of personal traits, but to what cost? Truly, it is at the expense of the rest of the world.

For when an argument no longer can be carries out in peace, because on, or both, of the arguing parties are blind to all beliefs but their own, then the peak of sophistication and evolution has truly been left in the past.

The world, society, and the human mind have ceased to evolve. The fire of man’s passions and desire to advance, has faded and turned to ashes, become debris easily carried away upon the powerful wings of conviction’s strength. No longer is man striving to attain the unreachable, no longer is he interested in becoming more than the sum of his parts.

No, for the man of today, and his species alongside with him, they know themselves to be special, a belief untouchable by others. Man knows himself to be more than anyone else, and as he beliefs his value is greater than the rest of the world’s, then, does he really have prove his worth? The answer is no – of course – for he already knows himself to be special, a belief which does not have to be explained.

Truly, advancements have been left in the past. For long gone are the ages when man doubted himself and his nature, and spent more time pondering than being convinced. Man is an ambiguous creature, and the more he doubts himself, the more does he go one to accomplish.

When man knows himself to be wrong, and while seeking the approval of others, he creates. He thinks, therefore he is. This – this – is the belief, the belief in that one is not special, that inspires the realisation of dreams. For, as man is not perfect, he is not special, if he strives, then maybe, he can become more.

This is what has helped man evolve this far, but now, in the age of convictiona and belief, man has ceased to grow, he has stagnated and now he is little more than simply himself. The desire to become more has been suffocated, it has been looked down upon, been claimed to be nothing but a dangerous belief.

I am glad that I belong to one of the few who are in doubt. For, while I try to become more than the sum of my parts, I can accomplish the greatest of things.

I fear the future of humanity because man has ceased to doubt and instead grown convinced and I equally fear for the future of humanity because modern man believes himself unable to ever falter or be wrong.

This argument of mine is however not new, but I fear it has grown to be little known, and that the world may benefit greatly to once again see it before its eyes. Though some damage never can be undone, perhaps a few can re-think their supremacy and join the ranks of those accomplished people, those whose strength lies in doubt.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
– William Shakespeare, “As You Like It”, Act 5 scene 1

Indeed, UFOs do exist, though they never are of extraterrestial origin. No matter how much one wishes for them to be proof of that life is not an exlusive trait featured by only one of countless planets in this universe, such sightings are often easily identifieable as naturally occurring phenomenon.

Though I lack the training to with ease classify such sightings for what they really are, I do not doubt the truth of the claim. If life on other planets have attained such an impressive level of technology as is required for inter-stellar space travel, most surely, life on Earth can not ineterest them much. Their sense of reason must long ago had alienated such ideas as visiting Sol’s third planet. The inhabitants of that rocky body are all too ignorant and primitive to ever appeal to them.

Further, I doubt that technologically advanced beings are ill-natured, for if they were, would they then not have focused their efforts on terminating their own species, instead of co-operating to attain the elusive goal of speeds near that of light?

No matter the nature of alien beings, they are of no importance to the point of this posts’ publication, as my words are typed down and shown to you with the simple aim of bringing an unidentified object to your attention.

The object in question is truly unidentified, as I do not know what has caused this intriguing phenomenon. What I do know, however, is that the picture which features such an enigma, is one of the most peculiar photos any member of my family has ever taken.

Unidentified Flying Object Over Drammen, Norway © Henrietta

Unidentified Flying Object Over Drammen, Norway © Henrietta

All credit for its creation is to be given my younger sister [Miss] Henrietta, though the honorary has been assigned to her by me. I beg you, do not tell her of such an act of mine, as she will condemn it.

Tongue-in-cheek, it is my favourite extraterrestial being, for though I know it is nothing but a mere UFO, and not a vessel of alien origin, it appeals to my imagination, and the “what if”-part of my meditations.

To me, the picture serves as a reminder to us all of that all human beliefs and convictions that she truly is the one sole intelligence to ever have arisen in the universe are as false as they are naïve and vain–a manifestation of the juvenile nature of mankind which is the main reason I theorise we never will encounter beings more intelligent than our own.

Overthrowing Darkness

June 17, 2008

This evening I set out on a midnight walk. In the midst of the shift between dusk and dawn I realized something. My realization was not concerning the nature of the night-less summer nights of my country as much as it concerned the lack of darkness that all city- or suburban-dwelling people have grown accostumed to.

In our modern world, the 21st century, the world of today, tomorrow’s yesterday; there is no such thing as darkness of night. Half of a 24-hour day hay has been stripped of its characteristics, the day’s nemesis has been robbed of its suffocating cloak. Through the assassination of the daylight’s opposite even the most natural of cycles has grown uniform.

There is no longer such a thing as darkness of night. Electric fires have chased it away forever. The lone night’s unlit hours have been abolished from the civilised world, but at which cost?

Nature is an equilibrium and it will always be. If the darkness of night has been chased away, then it must take its refuge elsewhere. Somewhere in this world there must be a safe haven for the darkness. And indeed there is. As people chased darkness off the surface of the globe it ceazed to be visible. Instead it moved into our cities, and it lurks in the narrow alleys between tall buildings. Too deep for the electric fires to illuminate them.

It is however not the shadows that have become the new home of darkness’. No, it is more gruesome than that. Darkness has found its way into the human heart. There, it bides it time ’till the night arrives when its black nature will reign once more.

Through the abolishment of darkness the celestial guardians are no longer needed. The deities that people have turned to for millenia have been brushed off as unnecessary and too ancient for modern civilisation. The modern human believes she is fit enough to care for herself. How vain is she in this conviction? She is too confident and she will one night have to face the darkness from within her own kind. Then she will be far from the helpful reach of the guardians of the skies. It is ironic, how man only can be saved by the protectors whom he has chased away.

Throughout the ages the starry skies have protected the earth. They have been diamonds of the skies. Though unable for us to reach they have been equally valuable to us during history as diamonds are today. They are the miniature lanterns of worlds far away. They are holes in the heavens’ black velvet draperies, small beams of light that see us from afar.

The unimaginably large is for us to very small. The stars of diamond heavens have been our parents, the ones to whom we owe our lives. We are the children of stars, far more magnificent, yet not. They are hard for us to imagine, yet without them, we would never have been born.

Throughout our childhood they have protected us, illuminated the shadows and chased off the dark creatures of our own imaginations. They have been the candles in the dark that chased the mosters under our beds away.

In modern times the celestial guardians are no longer present and the electrical fires which man has created are burning with more strength than ever before. Man has grown, left his infancy. He is now the unruly teenager who rejects the words of parents who only mean well.

Our electric gadgets and artificial lights will not offer us any protection as darkness is planning its coupe. It will soon strike, its dark tasks aided by traitors from within our own lines – the children who follow the path of darkness, all because they were never blessed by the stars.

The Living Fossil

June 13, 2008

When browsing the Pharyngula blog author PZ Myers’ most recent posts I came across one featuring a picture of a Nautilus pompilius. The picture was reposted by the blog from an online article in Nature magazine. (The picture has been re-reposted by me, below.)

Natilus pompilius

What I enjoyed about the picture was its striking resemblance to a picture which I created back in 2006, and subsequently gave the creative name of “Nautilus pompilius.” The picture has been inserted below:

Nautilus pompilius © Miss Josephine

Comparing the two images, one can easily see that I employed some artistic freedom when it comes to the tentacles. A bit of trivia is that the above pictured Nautilus’ shell actually is a photograph and not part of the digital painting. The shell belongs to me and has done so for a while (at least since 2006). One day it struck me that my shell needed a resident, and hence, this picture was born.