I hav to admit, based off the title I wasn't very ecited to read this book, I thought it would be quite boring. Fortunately it wasn't quite as bad as I had originally suspected, even if it wasn't the most exciting book I've ever read.
I wonder if the author of this book grew up poor, or if she is just a very imaginative person. The amount of detail and description of just how bad things were for the poor in that time period is astounding.
When I think about it more, I don't think it's possible to just imagine all the little things that make up this book, the family relationships and how they were strained by poverty, the events to show the bad neighborhood, and the fact that the main character is also a writer make me believe that this is more of a autobiography rather than a fictional story.
It was interesting to see how hard it was for parents to send children to high-school in the book, when education is supposed to be free you would think that it would be easy to send children to school even if the parents are poor. Apparently this is not the case, poor people can't afford to lose the income from their children working and can't afford to send the children to school.
It's a sad thought that people have it this bad, it;s sadder that it's these people politicians today want to start taxing. When people go for days without food, lack basic comforts, and are in so much financial trouble that they can't afford free education, how can you justify taxing them? After reading this book I m forced to despise Republicans, anyone who would think that this is fair, or even humane, doesn't deserve my support. What's worse is the reason they propose taxing the poor is so that they can keep money in their own pockets and stop the tax rate from being returned to the level it was a couple years ago. I find it quite infuriating that people like this have power in our government, and I find it more infuriating that there isn't anything that can be done about it unless you're part of the upper class, and then most people wouldn't want to do anything about it.
Unfortunately now I have to eat lunch and then get ready for my college class, so I'll have to stop here for now, I may edit this post and add to it in the future if I can figure out how this blog site works.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Long Walk-31
The story told in this book was rather unbelievable, but it is supposed to be true.
The book tells the story of how the author was arrested, tortured, deported to a Russian labor camp, and of how he escaped the Russian labor camp he was imprisoned in. The whole ordeal seems unbelievable, it is hard to imagine how anybody could suffer through it and survive. Personally I think I would have died at the torture part, the things the author suffered through were brutal. I'm not so sure how badly the isolation part of the torture would affect me, I usually prefer to be alone, but the beatings and other methods of torture would likely drive me insane before too long.
Assuming I survived the months of torture and the mockery of a trial, next up would be the deporting to the labor camp. I think that if I had made it past the torture then that part probably wouldn't finish me off. According to the author the young and healthy men were taken care off during the journey, at least more so than the other prisoners. I'm young and healthy, so I would most likely survive that. It is still amazing that the author survived though, the conditions were only slightly better than the conditions that a Jew being deported in Germany had to put up with.
Unlike the concentration camps in Germany, the labor camp the author was sent to in Russia was actually not akin to hell on Earth. It was by no means a pleasant place, but if you were willing to work hard you could take care of yourself fairly well. So again I think I could bear it, though with the lack of ways to entertain myself I'd probably be pretty miserable.
The most incredible part of the journey was the escape, the only reason it was feasible to attempt escape was because of the author befreinding the wife of the camp's commander. Even with her help, it wasn't easy to gather a group of people to escape with, and it wasn't easy to gather supplies. Seeing as I'm not so great with people I don't think my journey would progress past this point.
The author did progrees past this point, he escaped, and then he survived the journey back to freindly landss and freedom. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say that the author being able to do what he did is incredible. I won't go into the details of all the trials he and his group suffered through, but there were many, and most of them seem like things that would be insurmountable to the average person.
After reading this, I am forced to wonder what exactly drove these men to survive the thigns they did. None of them were anything out of the ordinary, but they did things that ordinary people would be to terrified to even try. Whatever it was that drove them I don't know, but it is certainly interesting.
The last thing I'll say on this post is something that both the author and myself found to be ironic. In the labor camp prisoners could earn larger rations by performing different jobs. At the same time the officials in the camp were trying to convert all the prisoners to communism, the system that is supposed to eliminate barriers between people and make it so that everyone gets the same treatment. The contridiction was quite amusing in my opinion.
Time for me to wrap it up now, so until next time, farewell!
The book tells the story of how the author was arrested, tortured, deported to a Russian labor camp, and of how he escaped the Russian labor camp he was imprisoned in. The whole ordeal seems unbelievable, it is hard to imagine how anybody could suffer through it and survive. Personally I think I would have died at the torture part, the things the author suffered through were brutal. I'm not so sure how badly the isolation part of the torture would affect me, I usually prefer to be alone, but the beatings and other methods of torture would likely drive me insane before too long.
Assuming I survived the months of torture and the mockery of a trial, next up would be the deporting to the labor camp. I think that if I had made it past the torture then that part probably wouldn't finish me off. According to the author the young and healthy men were taken care off during the journey, at least more so than the other prisoners. I'm young and healthy, so I would most likely survive that. It is still amazing that the author survived though, the conditions were only slightly better than the conditions that a Jew being deported in Germany had to put up with.
Unlike the concentration camps in Germany, the labor camp the author was sent to in Russia was actually not akin to hell on Earth. It was by no means a pleasant place, but if you were willing to work hard you could take care of yourself fairly well. So again I think I could bear it, though with the lack of ways to entertain myself I'd probably be pretty miserable.
The most incredible part of the journey was the escape, the only reason it was feasible to attempt escape was because of the author befreinding the wife of the camp's commander. Even with her help, it wasn't easy to gather a group of people to escape with, and it wasn't easy to gather supplies. Seeing as I'm not so great with people I don't think my journey would progress past this point.
The author did progrees past this point, he escaped, and then he survived the journey back to freindly landss and freedom. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say that the author being able to do what he did is incredible. I won't go into the details of all the trials he and his group suffered through, but there were many, and most of them seem like things that would be insurmountable to the average person.
After reading this, I am forced to wonder what exactly drove these men to survive the thigns they did. None of them were anything out of the ordinary, but they did things that ordinary people would be to terrified to even try. Whatever it was that drove them I don't know, but it is certainly interesting.
The last thing I'll say on this post is something that both the author and myself found to be ironic. In the labor camp prisoners could earn larger rations by performing different jobs. At the same time the officials in the camp were trying to convert all the prisoners to communism, the system that is supposed to eliminate barriers between people and make it so that everyone gets the same treatment. The contridiction was quite amusing in my opinion.
Time for me to wrap it up now, so until next time, farewell!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
10 cent plague-32
This was another book that I'm skeptical of it's worthyness to be on the list, a history of the rise and fall of comic books hardly seems like must-read material.
Comic books used to be a popular form of entertainment among kids, but they were incredibly violent and bloody. As a result religious groups denounced comics and said they were corrupting the minds of children. They backed this up with the rising juvenile delinquency rate, which incidentally was rising during wars where the father figure was away and a lot of stress was placed on kids. A connection between those two things can easily be drawn, but the conncetion between delinquency and comics was drawn instead.
The whole history of comics revolves around the religious conservative types and their crusade against the comic book industry.
The story itself doesn't give much food for thought, but certain things struck me as worth delving deeper into.
Firstly, when delinquency rates rise, the first instinct of parents across the country seems to be find something to blame, not try to fix the problem. The idea that perhaps the delinquent children aren't getting enough attention or that the parents may be somewhat responsible for their behaivor is completely thrown out the window. Instead of considering that possibility (which is far mroe likely) parents across the country pinned the blame on comics.
The second thing that struck me as interesting was the way the opinons of the kids in question were completely ignored unless the kids were instructed by adults to voice "their" (a.k.a. the adult's) opinions
Even when a 14-year old boy named David Wigransky wrote an intelligent and well written letter to a newspaper on the topic of comics and children's capacity for independent thought he was immediately disregarded. Some took the stance that, as a very intelligent boy, David could not possibly be representing the comic book industry. Everyone else took the stance that, as a reader of comic books, David cold not be a intelligent boy. Nobody took the stance that what David said had merit, because that would entail admitting that children are human beings capable of independent thought.
I don't really think that view has changed all that much, we may have come a long way from the time where children were used as expendable cheap labor, but we're a long way off from the time where children are treated like human beings.
If you think about it, how often do you talk about a group of children and refer to them, in any way as "people?" Probably not all that often, you make a point of calling them "kids" or "children," because somewhere deep down in your adult mind, you don't recognize them as human beigns like yourself. Adults consider themselves superior to children on quite and astonishing level. Think about all the legislature that gets passed that directly affects children, do they ever get a voice in that decision? They don't, because "children" can't possibly have an opinion on things that nvolve them, they're too young to seriously think about such things.
So maybe this viewpoint has it's base in reality, children are much easier to persuade or mislead, the younger the easier. In fact at the very young ages they might actually be incapable of independant thought, either that or they stubornly refute any reality their than their own.
However this view has spiralled out of porportion, I'd say that by ages 10-12 (possibly younger) children are more than able to think for themselves. Will they make bad decisions? They probably will sometimes, they will still be selfish and somewhat impulsive. However, at this point they are capable of having opinions, and if they were to present a well thought out and intelligent opinion on something then it should be acknowledged as such.
It seems that the fact that children are just young versions of adults gets lost a lot of the time. The adults see the antics of children and get swelled heads, then they start to condescend and act superior to the children that are so far beneath them. If a child disagrees with an adult enough to argue about it they are brushed off with a "you're too young to understand" type line, even if they are actually correct.
I think this contrast between adult and child is the centerpiece of the anti-comic movement. The goal was to "protect our children from corruption by these insidious comics" or some other emotion packed slogan along those lines. As if children need "protection" of that kind. Saying that children need to be protected from comics is implying that children are nothing more than blank slates that will automatically imitate everything they see without any independent though on the matter.
I think my point has been made, so I'll end this post here, see you next time.
Comic books used to be a popular form of entertainment among kids, but they were incredibly violent and bloody. As a result religious groups denounced comics and said they were corrupting the minds of children. They backed this up with the rising juvenile delinquency rate, which incidentally was rising during wars where the father figure was away and a lot of stress was placed on kids. A connection between those two things can easily be drawn, but the conncetion between delinquency and comics was drawn instead.
The whole history of comics revolves around the religious conservative types and their crusade against the comic book industry.
The story itself doesn't give much food for thought, but certain things struck me as worth delving deeper into.
Firstly, when delinquency rates rise, the first instinct of parents across the country seems to be find something to blame, not try to fix the problem. The idea that perhaps the delinquent children aren't getting enough attention or that the parents may be somewhat responsible for their behaivor is completely thrown out the window. Instead of considering that possibility (which is far mroe likely) parents across the country pinned the blame on comics.
The second thing that struck me as interesting was the way the opinons of the kids in question were completely ignored unless the kids were instructed by adults to voice "their" (a.k.a. the adult's) opinions
Even when a 14-year old boy named David Wigransky wrote an intelligent and well written letter to a newspaper on the topic of comics and children's capacity for independent thought he was immediately disregarded. Some took the stance that, as a very intelligent boy, David could not possibly be representing the comic book industry. Everyone else took the stance that, as a reader of comic books, David cold not be a intelligent boy. Nobody took the stance that what David said had merit, because that would entail admitting that children are human beings capable of independent thought.
I don't really think that view has changed all that much, we may have come a long way from the time where children were used as expendable cheap labor, but we're a long way off from the time where children are treated like human beings.
If you think about it, how often do you talk about a group of children and refer to them, in any way as "people?" Probably not all that often, you make a point of calling them "kids" or "children," because somewhere deep down in your adult mind, you don't recognize them as human beigns like yourself. Adults consider themselves superior to children on quite and astonishing level. Think about all the legislature that gets passed that directly affects children, do they ever get a voice in that decision? They don't, because "children" can't possibly have an opinion on things that nvolve them, they're too young to seriously think about such things.
So maybe this viewpoint has it's base in reality, children are much easier to persuade or mislead, the younger the easier. In fact at the very young ages they might actually be incapable of independant thought, either that or they stubornly refute any reality their than their own.
However this view has spiralled out of porportion, I'd say that by ages 10-12 (possibly younger) children are more than able to think for themselves. Will they make bad decisions? They probably will sometimes, they will still be selfish and somewhat impulsive. However, at this point they are capable of having opinions, and if they were to present a well thought out and intelligent opinion on something then it should be acknowledged as such.
It seems that the fact that children are just young versions of adults gets lost a lot of the time. The adults see the antics of children and get swelled heads, then they start to condescend and act superior to the children that are so far beneath them. If a child disagrees with an adult enough to argue about it they are brushed off with a "you're too young to understand" type line, even if they are actually correct.
I think this contrast between adult and child is the centerpiece of the anti-comic movement. The goal was to "protect our children from corruption by these insidious comics" or some other emotion packed slogan along those lines. As if children need "protection" of that kind. Saying that children need to be protected from comics is implying that children are nothing more than blank slates that will automatically imitate everything they see without any independent though on the matter.
I think my point has been made, so I'll end this post here, see you next time.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Always Looking Up33
Written by the same author as Lucky Man, and still an autobiography, I have to say I was kind of worried that it was just a rewrite of an old book. Luckily this one covers the things in the 10 years after Lucky Man leaves off.
The things in this book are slightly different than the last one, "Lucky Man" was about Michael Fox learning to accept and cope with his condition, this book was more focused on his new outlook on life now that he has accepted it, optimism. Strangely enough, nowhere in the book (except on the cover) did I see Michael Fox refer to himself as an optimist. He simply details the things he did and how he refuses to give up on Parkinson's disease research.
It is agreed in the medical field that a cure for Parkinson's diesease is not a question of "if" it's a matter of "when." The key factor in the answer is government assitance, or at least the government getting out of the way. The best hope for a cure lies in stem-cell research, but there is a lot of contrversy about that research among religious conservatives.
I've already expressed my distaste for people who use religion as an excuse to hinder the acquisition of knowledge, and that same distaste carries over here, even more so now because of the complete idiocy of the arguements.
The religious arguement, in order to get the stem cells used for research scientists destroy embryos, which they argue is the same as murdering babies. Nothing more, no facts, no logic, just connecting two dots that don't really match up that well.
Now the evidence making that arguement rather invalid, scientists are not taking the embryoes from the stomachs of pregnant women, these embryoes are not born, they're made, and that is done in a test tube.
In addition to the fact that the fertilized eggs are in a sense artificial, whatever purpose they're made for never requires every created embryo to be used. There are thousands of embryoes that serve no purpose, they aren't allowed to become human beings, so they are marked for destruction.
So the "people" we "kill" are going to "die" anyway, whether or not we use their cells to further our research.
It's like when a pet is dying and we give it a lethal injection to end it's suffering, are we "murdering" the dog by doing so? Of course not, we're doing it a kindness and ending it's pain because it's going to die anyway. News flash: the embryoes are going to die anyway, by using them for research we're doing a kindness by working to end the suffering of millions of humans who are not doomed to die.
Apart from Parkinson's disease, stem cell research could lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's, ALS, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of people would find their lives much easier if these diseases were cured, and many would actually have their lives saved by these cures. ALS is a horrible disease just to think about, it's a condition in which your body's muscle tissue slowly degenerates, it's a slow death, but a certain one. Depending on which muscles die first, the disease could drag on for years, but eventually the disease kills you. Remember that the heart, lungs, brain, and all your other vital organs are all muscles. They degrade as well.
Imagine how horrible it would be to sit there helpless as you felt your heart slowly degrade away, or to starve to death because you no longer have a stomach. Meanwhile you have no way of telling which organ will go first, your life is on a ticking clock, and there isn't much time left before you die an unpleasant death.
Stem cell research might be able to cure that disease. Yet religious conservatives still say that it's wrong to use the cells of the embryoes that are already doomed to die in order to try and find this cure. They call this stance "pro-life"
The fact that they call it pro-"life" makes me seethe with rage, if they were ignorant about these diseases then calling it that might be justified, but knowing about them and still having the nerve to call opposition to researching the cures "pro-life..." I can't describe those people in words apropriate for any academic writing, let it suffice to say that I think that stance is the most despicable thing I can imagine.
I'm not saying that the view is entirely wrong, I don't think we should extract embryoes from pregnant women and use them in tests, those ones can be argueable called human beings, but artificial ones would not exist but for the scientists who created them, those scientists should be able to use their creations to help milions of people around the world.
calling the stance "pro-life" also implies that any other stance would be "anti-life," the negative connotations with that name are sickening. Therefore, Micheal Fox wisely dubs the pro-stem cell research stance "pro- LIVING," a name that I think is quite appropriate.
Another quote that popped into my head that fits here is "The needs of the many exceed the needs of the few." How can you say that the lives of a few hundred thousand unborn humans are more valuable than the lives of the millions of people with uncurable diseases? If you can somehow justify that statement I'd be very impressed, because I don't think it's possible to justify it well enough to stop me from slugging you in the face to beat some sense into you. Is that harsh? Perhaps, but if you try to justify that statement and fail it means that you're wrong, you know you're wrong and that your stance is one that causes suffering for millions of humans, and you simply don't care. Those people can suffer and die, just so long as you make sure that these unborn humans who are doomed to die one way or another die without purpose. If that's the stance you take you can think my reaction is as harsh as you like, and you can complain to my fist as it slugs you.
Alright so I wouldn't actually punch you, the legal issue that would cause would probably not be worth the satisfaction it granted. Still, I wouldn't push my luck with that, even if I don't lash out physically you'll probably feel the sharp side of my tounge, and if my anger is half as unpleasant as that of a certain parent whose blood runs in my veins then it's an experience worth avoiding. Insert a sweet, innocent, and unnerving smile along with that previous statement.
Well I really went off on a rant there, back to business, Michael Fox is heavily involved in the politics concerning the stem-cell debate, and towards the end I believe he said he won that battle, which means stem-cells are no longer banned, which is good, yippie!
Michaeo Fox also talks about his family life, and does so in a much more joking matter than the politics, though he inserts his fair share of jokes there as well.
A particular favorite of mine occured when he was talking about his kids and the cannon they were using.
"now, if you're a father reading this, you're probably asking "why didn't Mike help Sam fire the cannon? (too shaky) If you're a kid and you're reading this, which is okay, I guess you're probably asking "where do I get a cannon?" (from a pirate.) If you're a mother, you're probably screaming "You let them play with a freaking cannon?!" (... What cannon?)"
He's a funny one for sure. In all seriousness though the book is overall about his determination to not give up on his battle for a cure, to support his family, and to live life as best he can, which is admirable. Most people would despair if they had an incurable disease, but not him.
I'd continue writing about the determination thing, but I've been writing for about two hours, it's almost 8:30 P.M, and I have yet to eat dinner, so I hope you'll forgive my premature ending of this post. Farewell
The things in this book are slightly different than the last one, "Lucky Man" was about Michael Fox learning to accept and cope with his condition, this book was more focused on his new outlook on life now that he has accepted it, optimism. Strangely enough, nowhere in the book (except on the cover) did I see Michael Fox refer to himself as an optimist. He simply details the things he did and how he refuses to give up on Parkinson's disease research.
It is agreed in the medical field that a cure for Parkinson's diesease is not a question of "if" it's a matter of "when." The key factor in the answer is government assitance, or at least the government getting out of the way. The best hope for a cure lies in stem-cell research, but there is a lot of contrversy about that research among religious conservatives.
I've already expressed my distaste for people who use religion as an excuse to hinder the acquisition of knowledge, and that same distaste carries over here, even more so now because of the complete idiocy of the arguements.
The religious arguement, in order to get the stem cells used for research scientists destroy embryos, which they argue is the same as murdering babies. Nothing more, no facts, no logic, just connecting two dots that don't really match up that well.
Now the evidence making that arguement rather invalid, scientists are not taking the embryoes from the stomachs of pregnant women, these embryoes are not born, they're made, and that is done in a test tube.
In addition to the fact that the fertilized eggs are in a sense artificial, whatever purpose they're made for never requires every created embryo to be used. There are thousands of embryoes that serve no purpose, they aren't allowed to become human beings, so they are marked for destruction.
So the "people" we "kill" are going to "die" anyway, whether or not we use their cells to further our research.
It's like when a pet is dying and we give it a lethal injection to end it's suffering, are we "murdering" the dog by doing so? Of course not, we're doing it a kindness and ending it's pain because it's going to die anyway. News flash: the embryoes are going to die anyway, by using them for research we're doing a kindness by working to end the suffering of millions of humans who are not doomed to die.
Apart from Parkinson's disease, stem cell research could lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's, ALS, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of people would find their lives much easier if these diseases were cured, and many would actually have their lives saved by these cures. ALS is a horrible disease just to think about, it's a condition in which your body's muscle tissue slowly degenerates, it's a slow death, but a certain one. Depending on which muscles die first, the disease could drag on for years, but eventually the disease kills you. Remember that the heart, lungs, brain, and all your other vital organs are all muscles. They degrade as well.
Imagine how horrible it would be to sit there helpless as you felt your heart slowly degrade away, or to starve to death because you no longer have a stomach. Meanwhile you have no way of telling which organ will go first, your life is on a ticking clock, and there isn't much time left before you die an unpleasant death.
Stem cell research might be able to cure that disease. Yet religious conservatives still say that it's wrong to use the cells of the embryoes that are already doomed to die in order to try and find this cure. They call this stance "pro-life"
The fact that they call it pro-"life" makes me seethe with rage, if they were ignorant about these diseases then calling it that might be justified, but knowing about them and still having the nerve to call opposition to researching the cures "pro-life..." I can't describe those people in words apropriate for any academic writing, let it suffice to say that I think that stance is the most despicable thing I can imagine.
I'm not saying that the view is entirely wrong, I don't think we should extract embryoes from pregnant women and use them in tests, those ones can be argueable called human beings, but artificial ones would not exist but for the scientists who created them, those scientists should be able to use their creations to help milions of people around the world.
calling the stance "pro-life" also implies that any other stance would be "anti-life," the negative connotations with that name are sickening. Therefore, Micheal Fox wisely dubs the pro-stem cell research stance "pro- LIVING," a name that I think is quite appropriate.
Another quote that popped into my head that fits here is "The needs of the many exceed the needs of the few." How can you say that the lives of a few hundred thousand unborn humans are more valuable than the lives of the millions of people with uncurable diseases? If you can somehow justify that statement I'd be very impressed, because I don't think it's possible to justify it well enough to stop me from slugging you in the face to beat some sense into you. Is that harsh? Perhaps, but if you try to justify that statement and fail it means that you're wrong, you know you're wrong and that your stance is one that causes suffering for millions of humans, and you simply don't care. Those people can suffer and die, just so long as you make sure that these unborn humans who are doomed to die one way or another die without purpose. If that's the stance you take you can think my reaction is as harsh as you like, and you can complain to my fist as it slugs you.
Alright so I wouldn't actually punch you, the legal issue that would cause would probably not be worth the satisfaction it granted. Still, I wouldn't push my luck with that, even if I don't lash out physically you'll probably feel the sharp side of my tounge, and if my anger is half as unpleasant as that of a certain parent whose blood runs in my veins then it's an experience worth avoiding. Insert a sweet, innocent, and unnerving smile along with that previous statement.
Well I really went off on a rant there, back to business, Michael Fox is heavily involved in the politics concerning the stem-cell debate, and towards the end I believe he said he won that battle, which means stem-cells are no longer banned, which is good, yippie!
Michaeo Fox also talks about his family life, and does so in a much more joking matter than the politics, though he inserts his fair share of jokes there as well.
A particular favorite of mine occured when he was talking about his kids and the cannon they were using.
"now, if you're a father reading this, you're probably asking "why didn't Mike help Sam fire the cannon? (too shaky) If you're a kid and you're reading this, which is okay, I guess you're probably asking "where do I get a cannon?" (from a pirate.) If you're a mother, you're probably screaming "You let them play with a freaking cannon?!" (... What cannon?)"
He's a funny one for sure. In all seriousness though the book is overall about his determination to not give up on his battle for a cure, to support his family, and to live life as best he can, which is admirable. Most people would despair if they had an incurable disease, but not him.
I'd continue writing about the determination thing, but I've been writing for about two hours, it's almost 8:30 P.M, and I have yet to eat dinner, so I hope you'll forgive my premature ending of this post. Farewell
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"34
The book title wasn't kidding, this book covers a lot of scientific topics.
I found the reason Bill Bryson wrote this book interesting. He wrote it because all the science books already written don't do anything to make science as interesting and fun as it should be. They have colorful pictures that would grab his attention and get him excited to learn about science, but when he began to read "It wasn't exciting at all. It wasn't actually altogether comprehensible. Above all, it didn't answer any of the questions that the illustration stirred up in a normal inquiring mind... " (pg5)
Bill Bryson had simillar experiences with future books, "There seemed to be a mystifying universal conspiracy among textbook authors to make certain the material they dealt with never strayed too near the realm of mildly interesting and was always at least a long-distance phone call from the frankly interesting" he joked
He went on to say that there are a bunch of science writers who write clear and interesting books, but none of them ever wrote any textbooks that he ever used. All of his were "written by men (it was always men) who held the interesting notion that everything became clear when expressed as a formula and the amusingly deluded belief that the children of America would appreciate having chapters end with a section of questions they could mull over in their own time."
All those quotes are written in a joking manner, but they're true, textbooks are nightmares to read when being forced to, and are at the bottom of the to read lists of...well pretty much everyone, I don't know anybody who actually enjoys reading textbooks. I know people who can tolerate it more than others, but nobody who would, given a choice, read a textbook in preferance to a different book on the same subject. Science is one of the worst subjects in this regard, as Bill Bryson has noted.
So in short, Bill Bryson wrote this book to present scientific knowledge in an understandable and interesting manner so that the common people can understand at least a little science. Kudos to you Bill
As for the content itself, well it's quite disturbing. There must have been at least 5 things that could wipe humanity off the planet, at least two of which would do so before we even knew we were about to go extinct. The good news is that one of those is going away, or at least evidence makes us hopeful that it is going away. Yellowstone park is a supervolcano that, if it were to erupt, would probably bring about another ice age and wipe out most, if not all, of the human race. Based on the patterns of it's eruptions, Yellowstone is due for another explosion. However, the amount of volcanic activity in the park actually puts scientists at ease. They say that since all the geysers and vents and the like are spewing out so much stuff it means pressure in the volcano itself is not increasing. In order for Yellowstone to erupt the pressure would have to build to extraordinary levels, it tkes a lot of pressure to blow up a few miles of solid rock. Evidence also shows that the lava chamber of the supervolcano seems to be cooling and crystalizing. If that happens then the volcano would become extinct, or at least dormant for a very long time.
One apocalypse scenario down, who knows how many others to go. Catastrophic meteors, evolving diseases, global warming, the list goes on. Cheery thoughts aren't they?
Other topics are covered as well, and something that caught my eye was a quote from someone that all scientific discoveries, when put through the scientific community, go through three stages. First people deny it is true, then they deny that it is important, and then they credit the wrong person.
Judging by historical evidence, I'd say that pretty much sums it up, if you want to win a Nobel Prize in a science field you should consider proving that what someone said before you is true and/or that it is important. If you make discoveries of your own somebody else will likely get the credit. It sounds wrong, but based on history that's the truth, take it or leave it. As for me, I think I'll leave it, someone else can go through the ordeal of getting their research accepted.
One last thing before I wrap up today, here's a subject we know incredibly little about. If you ever wondered what the coding of your DNA looks like, well in a sense it looks like this
dhfksdhjdhdflkadsjflkasdjflkasdjflakdjflkdjgljiwriovnxcnvheroiq
Does that make sense to you? If you can see how a jumble of random amino acids (or in this case letters) somehow makes a coherant blueprnt for a human being you should call a scientific institution immediately, they could use your help. With the amount fo research done on DNA you would think we would have begun to crack the code of the stuff that makes us tick, but no, we're still just about as clueless about it.
Well This blog post has been going on forever, and I have other work that is in need of doing, so I'm afraid it's time to end this post. Goodbye!
I found the reason Bill Bryson wrote this book interesting. He wrote it because all the science books already written don't do anything to make science as interesting and fun as it should be. They have colorful pictures that would grab his attention and get him excited to learn about science, but when he began to read "It wasn't exciting at all. It wasn't actually altogether comprehensible. Above all, it didn't answer any of the questions that the illustration stirred up in a normal inquiring mind... " (pg5)
Bill Bryson had simillar experiences with future books, "There seemed to be a mystifying universal conspiracy among textbook authors to make certain the material they dealt with never strayed too near the realm of mildly interesting and was always at least a long-distance phone call from the frankly interesting" he joked
He went on to say that there are a bunch of science writers who write clear and interesting books, but none of them ever wrote any textbooks that he ever used. All of his were "written by men (it was always men) who held the interesting notion that everything became clear when expressed as a formula and the amusingly deluded belief that the children of America would appreciate having chapters end with a section of questions they could mull over in their own time."
All those quotes are written in a joking manner, but they're true, textbooks are nightmares to read when being forced to, and are at the bottom of the to read lists of...well pretty much everyone, I don't know anybody who actually enjoys reading textbooks. I know people who can tolerate it more than others, but nobody who would, given a choice, read a textbook in preferance to a different book on the same subject. Science is one of the worst subjects in this regard, as Bill Bryson has noted.
So in short, Bill Bryson wrote this book to present scientific knowledge in an understandable and interesting manner so that the common people can understand at least a little science. Kudos to you Bill
As for the content itself, well it's quite disturbing. There must have been at least 5 things that could wipe humanity off the planet, at least two of which would do so before we even knew we were about to go extinct. The good news is that one of those is going away, or at least evidence makes us hopeful that it is going away. Yellowstone park is a supervolcano that, if it were to erupt, would probably bring about another ice age and wipe out most, if not all, of the human race. Based on the patterns of it's eruptions, Yellowstone is due for another explosion. However, the amount of volcanic activity in the park actually puts scientists at ease. They say that since all the geysers and vents and the like are spewing out so much stuff it means pressure in the volcano itself is not increasing. In order for Yellowstone to erupt the pressure would have to build to extraordinary levels, it tkes a lot of pressure to blow up a few miles of solid rock. Evidence also shows that the lava chamber of the supervolcano seems to be cooling and crystalizing. If that happens then the volcano would become extinct, or at least dormant for a very long time.
One apocalypse scenario down, who knows how many others to go. Catastrophic meteors, evolving diseases, global warming, the list goes on. Cheery thoughts aren't they?
Other topics are covered as well, and something that caught my eye was a quote from someone that all scientific discoveries, when put through the scientific community, go through three stages. First people deny it is true, then they deny that it is important, and then they credit the wrong person.
Judging by historical evidence, I'd say that pretty much sums it up, if you want to win a Nobel Prize in a science field you should consider proving that what someone said before you is true and/or that it is important. If you make discoveries of your own somebody else will likely get the credit. It sounds wrong, but based on history that's the truth, take it or leave it. As for me, I think I'll leave it, someone else can go through the ordeal of getting their research accepted.
One last thing before I wrap up today, here's a subject we know incredibly little about. If you ever wondered what the coding of your DNA looks like, well in a sense it looks like this
dhfksdhjdhdflkadsjflkasdjflkasdjflakdjflkdjgljiwriovnxcnvheroiq
Does that make sense to you? If you can see how a jumble of random amino acids (or in this case letters) somehow makes a coherant blueprnt for a human being you should call a scientific institution immediately, they could use your help. With the amount fo research done on DNA you would think we would have begun to crack the code of the stuff that makes us tick, but no, we're still just about as clueless about it.
Well This blog post has been going on forever, and I have other work that is in need of doing, so I'm afraid it's time to end this post. Goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)