ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Christian Broadcasters Cite Problems in Net Neutrality

Amplify’d from www.christianpost.com

Christian Broadcasters Cite Problems in Net Neutrality

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

The nation's largest group of Christian broadcasters anticipate that FCC's passage of "net neutrality" rules will pose problems for communicating the Gospel on the internet and new media technologies.

In a 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday passed rules that would allow the agency to regulate how internet service providers manage their networks.

Under net neutrality, internet service providers must provide equal access to all legal Web content on their networks.

That's not such a good idea, Dr. Frank Wright, president and CEO of National Religious Broadcasters, told The Christian Post.

The rules would prevent "tier-pricing," resulting in higher rates for bandwidth used by websites that have more digital-dense content like videos.

"This essentially says that no matter how much data that someone puts into the internet pipeline it can't be favored over somebody else who is putting less data," said Wright. "The industry should have the privilege of pricing the more digitally dense content differently."

Overregulation could also slow capital investment in the internet and prevent breakthrough innovations such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter that aid NRB member organizations in their mission to spread the Christian message, he added.

"Half of the NRB association are content producers," said Wright. "The radio and television stations are increasingly using the internet as a way of a means of augmenting their terrestrial broadcast platform."

"These questions of whether our content is going be hindered because of lack of capital investment is a real concern to us."

The NRB is also worried that the new regulations will stifle free speech rights.

Although the FCC has yet to release the full text of the rules, key excerpts from the order leaves open the possibility of broadband providers blocking internet access on the basis of "reasonable network management."

Craig Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel of NRB, said Christian content could be at risk for discrimination since there is no explanation of what is considered "reasonable."

"Instead of creating a neutral platform for all comers, a neutral marketplace of all viewpoints, they've actually empowered internet service providers to censor out viewpoints they don't like as long it's 'reasonable network management,'" Parshall told The Christian Post.

He cited recent examples of censorship, including Apple's decision to block the Manhattan Declaration, a document affirming Christian values like traditional marriage. Facebook has also agreed with a gay rights lobby to remove or block anything that opposes homosexuality in certain kinds of ways.

Wright questioned whether the FCC has "legitimate statutory authority" in setting rules over the internet without Congress.

In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the federal communications agency had no legal authority to sanction Comcast for blocking traffic on a file sharing application.

"You can be sure that this regulation will be challenged in court," said Wright.

He said that once the FCC gets started on regulating Web traffic, it will eventually eject itself to control other aspects of the internet like controlling content.

In response to threats of anti-Christian censorship, the NRB recently launched the John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech. The effort will monitor the threats of anti-Christian censorship on new media platforms in both the public and private sectors.

Parshall said he and his team will be making formal reports and recommendations in the coming months on the dangers of these new media platforms and in regards to overregulation of the internet.

He said the only benefit from the FCC's decision is that it is making the public aware of net neutrality.

"It wasn't on the front burner and now it is," said Parshall. "Now the American public will have a dialogue on this issue."

Read more at www.christianpost.com
 

Government Yes, the gov‘t really does have a taskforce called ’WTF’

Amplify’d from www.theblaze.com

Government Yes, the gov‘t really does have a taskforce called ’WTF’

Since our government wasn’t competent enough to stop Wikileaks from ever happening, at least they have a sense of humor about it:

The CIA has launched a task force to assess the impact of the exposure of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables and military files by WikiLeaks.

Officially, the panel is called the WikiLeaks Task Force. But at CIA headquarters, it’s mainly known by its all-too-apt acronym: W.T.F.

The irreverence is perhaps understandable for an agency that has been relatively unscathed by WikiLeaks. Only a handful of CIA files have surfaced on the WikiLeaks Web site, and records from other agencies posted online reveal remarkably little about CIA employees or operations.

For those unfamiliar with the term, WTF is a colloquial term for “what the fu**?”

Read more at www.theblaze.com
 

The Grand Design

Amplify’d from www.spectrummagazine.org

The Grand Design

GrandDesign.jpg

Despite learning a great deal from Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow in their recent book The Grand Design, in the end I was disappointed.

It’s not that their book lacked clarity. In the introduction they do say that their explicit purpose is to explore “Not only how the universe behaves but why.” They posit three framing questions for their rather short book (188 pages from Bantam books for around $14.00 on Amazon): “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? and Why this particular set of laws and not some other?” (p. 9-10)

Perhaps I was simply put off by their rather glib dismissal of philosophy. On the very first page of their book they write, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.”

And yet in the final chapters they end up doing a fair bit of philosophy. Not really philosophy but, if my count is correct, in the final two chapters the words, “luck,” “coincidence,” and “serendipity,” occur at least thirteen times in ways essential to their overall argument. For authors who are, according to their own assertion, completely dedicated to “scientific determinism,” this seems a rather odd way to finish up an argument.

Once the authors set out their framing questions, they introduce the reader to their methods. One essential element is called “model-dependent realism” which sounds to me a lot like post-modernism for physics.

We develop models of the world, say the authors, by interpreting “the input from our sensory organs.” We have the tendency to attribute to these models “the quality of reality or absolute truth.” But “there may be different ways in which one could model the same physical situation.” (p. 7) Thus, there may be multiple, credible, models that serve us well in our day to day lives. But not just any model will do. As it turns out there are “good” models for which the authors offer some criteria. (p. 51) Of course, by implication, there are also bad models.

The challenging new model for physicists is quantum physics. Quantum physics and classical physics are “based on very different conceptions of physical reality.” (p. 6) The push of quantum physics against our well established model of classical physics is, among other things, focused on the idea that there is a single history upon which we can gaze and ponder correct interpretation. According to quantum physics, “no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history….We will see that, like a particle, the universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability; and our observations of its current state affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe.” (p. 82-83)

While classical physics sought to find the single theory that would serve to unify everything we know about physics, the emerging model-dependent realism that embraces both classical and quantum physics will demand we alter our goals: “We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle….That may not satisfy our human desire to be special or to discover a neat package to contain all the laws of physics, but it does seem to be the way of nature.” (p 143-4).

Despite this re-imagination of our goals, the authors go on to posit the “M-theory,” as “the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have.” As it turns out, M-theory is a “whole family of different theories.” (p. 8) Although, “no one seems to know what ‘M’ stands for,” the laws of M-theory allow “for 10^500 different universes, each with its own laws.” (p. 118) And as so many media sources have noted in their hype of this book, none of these universes stands in need of a God to “light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” (p. 180)

In somewhat of an aside, I was interested in what the authors had to say about the idea of free will in humankind. They uphold their commitment to scientific determinism in declaring that free will is an “illusion” since it is our physical brain, “following the known laws of science that determines our actions.” (p. 32) But the authors introduce a rather useful tool in their bag of physics tools at this point. As it turns out something the y call “effective theory” serves to, in a sense, re-establish our free will.

Effective theory is “a framework created to model certain observed phenomena without describing in detail all of the underlying processes.” They hold that the determined nature of our behavior is so complex that we do not have the capability to actually chart it out. “We would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will — not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory.” (p. 178)

I am struck by the role this book plays in the so-called “culture wars” in our society. In this supposed war, there are believers and unbelievers who are at odds with each other about the essence of our culture and society. According to the believers’ side of the culture wars, these physicists are the bad guys trying to wrest individual and societal allegiance away from God and religious devotion to him. If one is drawn into these culture wars, which I am not, then the most pressing question to answer in the review of this book is whether or not the authors are atheists. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if they are believers or atheists. I’m interested in finding out how others answer the grand questions of life and this book was very illustrative in that regard.

I am not interested in engaging in the culture wars; not on a national basis and not on a denominational basis. It seems to me our church has observed the world and adopted its incessant need to fight. Rather than showing the world how to engage in decency and civility toward each other while focusing on important questions, we’ve apparently given up on that ideal and sunk to the level of our surrounding society; something the Apostle Paul might not be too pleased about (Romans 12). We’ve brought the culture wars from the world right into our church.

I think it is important to establish exactly what we are doing and how we want to go about it as we learn from each other. We ought to be engaged in dialogue rather than in apologetics or polemics. If the culture wars insist on using polemical attacks, I’ve no interest. For instance, why would I engage in a polemical attack on the science of physics or its practitioners in the culture wars? Why would I feel the need to offer an apologetic response to their work? I know who I am and the strengths and weaknesses of my models of reality. So I choose to engage in dialogue, seeking to truly understand the other and their model of reality.

Why would I expect anyone to be willing to listen to what I have to say if I refuse to truly engage in understanding them? Furthermore, why would I target physicists to fight with? Or geologists or biologists? As if their science is somehow more challenging to the credibility and viability of my faith?

Indeed, it seems to me that the science of psychology or sociology or even economics is as much if not more challenging than the sciences that we target in our church and national culture wars. Over the holiday season 2010 American consumers will likely spend over $440 billion dollars. This is elective, consumer spending and it is obscene! Do we not see the horrendous and corrosive effect of our consumer culture? Do we not see that our faith is taking a beating from the science of business that demands we be good consumers in order to be considered good citizens? If we are going to fight about something why don’t we fight about this?

How I go about this process of dialogue is, for me as an ethicist, even more important that what we’re doing. I posit four things that should serve to help guide how we engage the other, whether we are fighting within the confines of the church or on a national scale. We must hold respect for the other. It seems to me that the Gospel demands this (see 1 Peter 3.15-16). The people on the other side of any given issue are neither idiots nor devils. As I said above, reciprocity is essential in order to have a truly mutual dialogue. Finally, assurance (Phil. 1.2, 6) and humility (Mt. 11.29; 18.4; 23.12) are essential in how we engage in the culture wars within the church and nation. If Jesus really is our moral exemplar, if we really are supposed to model our lives after his example then these two character traits must take on more relevance than they have thus far.

And dare I say that these character traits ought to hold sway here within the Spectrum website?

Although body and soul he is an Alaskan, Mark Carr teaches at the Loma Linda University School of Religion in southern California where he led the Center for Christian Bioethics for a decade. In addition to ethics, he is interested in Islam and religion and science. After a year in France on a sabbatical, he taught LLU this past Fall in Saudi Arabia, Hawaii and Guam. Along with LLU professors Siroj Sorajjakool and Julius Nam, he is the editor of World Religions for Health Professionals (Routledge, 2009).

You may purchase this book and many other things in a way that benefits the Adventist Forum without increasing your Internet prices by using the Amazon box at this web site’s home page.

Read more at www.spectrummagazine.org
 

FCC Ends Net Neutrality Debate (for Now) by Passing Its Open Internet Order

FCC Ends Net Neutrality Debate (for Now) by Passing Its Open Internet Order

The controversial measure will let broadband providers prioritize Internet content, but detractors say the government is fixing something that is not broken

fcc, internet
NEUTRALIZED: The FCC voted Tuesday to approve the Open Internet Order, essentially giving the green light to its controversial "net neutrality" policy
Image: COURTESY OF BUBAONE, VIA ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agreed on one thing at Tuesday's meeting: the Internet does not need to be fixed. Despite this shared sentiment, the FCC's commissioners are divided on whether the government should act in anticipation of potential problems as the Internet matures. The panel voted 3–2 in favor of the Open Internet Order, designed to ensure what has commonly been referred to as "net neutrality".



Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn joined FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in passing the order, whereas commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker strongly dissented, disagreeing with the government's involvement in enforcing conduct on the Internet.



Genachowski acknowledged that the Internet and the World Wide Web have blossomed despite minimal federal regulation, but he also expressed concern over a lack of enforceable rules to protect consumers from any emerging Internet-related practices that might divide users into haves and have-nots. "I believe our actions today foster an ongoing cycle of massive investment, innovation and consumer demand both at the edge and in the core of broadband networks," he said during the meeting in Washington, D.C.



The order addresses several key principles: Users have a right to information about the performance of their broadband connections as well as the way in which their broadband providers manage the network itself (in particular, how they prioritize different types of traffic). The order, which applies to both fixed and wireless broadband services, prohibits the unlawful blocking of content, apps, services and the connection of devices to the network.



The Open Internet Order's goal is to create a level playing field where the commercial market, rather than the government or some other central authority, picks winners or losers, according to Genachowski, who added, "That's the role of the commercial market and the marketplace of ideas." As such, the order does not permit pay-for-priority arrangements between broadband providers and businesses operating on the Internet that would produce so-called fast lanes for some companies' content but not for others. Such arrangements "would allow broadband providers to skew the marketplace by favoring one idea, application or service over another by selectively prioritizing Internet traffic," he said.



This does not, however, prohibit broadband providers from developing tiered-pricing models to help them manage the expansion of and help with the investment in high-speed networks. The key distinction here is that it would be up to broadband providers, not their customers, to decide which content is prioritized.



"The crux of the order we're adopting, which is based on a strong and sound legal framework rooted in the [Tele]communications Act, is straightforward," Genachowski said. The order establishes an Open Internet Advisory Committee to ensure that these rules are adopted and enforced.



Genachowski also indicated that his support for the order was influenced in no small way by the position of Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. The chairman cited a Berners-Lee article in the December issue of Scientific American at Tuesday's meeting, saying, "Although the Internet and Web generally thrive on lack of regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserved."



The commissioners opposed to the FCC's new broadband rules indicated that industry groups had been successful in monitoring Internet fairness and questioned whether the federal government had the legal right to intervene. McDowell said the order suffered from "regulatory hubris" and added, "Fortunately, the cures for this malady are obtainable in court." In a Wall Street Journal editorial on Sunday, McDowell wrote, "Nothing is broken that needs fixing."



Baker concurred. In a Washington Post editorial on Tuesday, she wrote, "Discouragingly, the FCC is intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to."
Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

Bering in Mind: God's little rabbits: Religious people out-reproduce secular ones by a landslide

The Bible tells us to be fruitful and multiply!



By Jesse Bering



What’s that famous quote, by Edna St. Vincent Millay? Oh, yes: "I love humanity but I hate people." It’s a sentiment that captures my normal misanthropically tinged type of humanitarianism well, but it roars apropos on some particular occasions. For example, making conversation at the pizza shop in my small village in Northern Ireland one recent evening, the topic turned to what I do for a living. Now, this simple query is usually a hard question for me to answer; when I say I’m a professor, inevitably I’m asked what I teach. When I say psychology, they giggle uncomfortably about their problems or say—as if it’s the most original line—that I’m in the right town for that. When I correct them and say I’m not a clinical psychologist, but a researcher, I have to explain what exactly I research. "Evolutionary psychology" tends to conjure up some bizarre ideas in the non-academic. And so it did on this occasion, as I struggled to articulate the nature of my profession in a cramped pizza parlor with about a half dozen locals eavesdropping on as I did so. Somehow or another, as conversations with me so often do, homosexuality came up as an example of a complex human behavior which evolutionary psychologists try to understand.



I wish I’d had a notebook in hand to scribble down the young employee’s comments word-for-word, so as to provide you with a proper ethnographic account. But here, in a nutshell, is what he very confidently said to me, flavored with the peculiar vernacular flourish found in this part of the world: "Aye. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothin’ against gay people. But what I don’t get is why they’d choose to be selfish and not ‘ave a family and kids-like which is what we’re here for, how’s you’s go against evolution by not continuin’ the line cause you’s can’t help the species without having kids. Just seems selfish-like to me." I replied that, as a gay man myself, it’s not quite as simple as ‘choosing’ not to breed; since women are as arousing to me as that half-eaten pepperoni pizza sitting on that table over there, I said, I couldn’t get an erection to inseminate a woman for the life of me. I do, however, I continued, get a mighty erection by seeing other men’s erections, so therein—I pointed my finger to the heavens for emphasis—lies the true Darwinian mystery! I then took my pizza and left. In haste. And now I’m writing this from Ohio.



But in any event, the exchange reminded me of my German colleague Michael Blume’s research on reproduction and religiosity. And it occurred to me that religiously motivated homophobia may be at least partially rooted in this assumption that gay people are shirking their human reproductive obligations. I detected a strong whiff of religious residue in the employee’s comments about homosexuality, which given the churchliness of Northern Ireland probably wasn’t my imagination.



In evolutionary biological terms, where natural selection occurs at the level of the gene, not at the species level, there are serious flaws in his conjecture about lineal reproduction. Modern technological methods helping gays to be parents aside, there are many ways that childless individuals can still be genetically successful, in some cases more so than simply being a biological parent, such as investing heavily in biological kin who share their genes. (In scientific parlance, this is known as kin selection or inclusive genetic fitness.) Having said that, he was not entirely wrong about the prime evolutionary significance of reproduction either. People really do need to reproduce, either directly or indirectly, for nature to continue operating on their genes. This is not the "reason" or "purpose" we’re here, as that would insinuate some form of intelligent design for human existence, rather it’s just a mechanical fact.



But where all of this gets really interesting, says Blume, an evolutionary theorist and religion researcher at the University of Heidelberg, is where the illusion of intelligent design intersects with a reproductive imperative—essentially the commonplace idea that God "wants" or "intends" or "demands" us, as faithful members of our communities, to have a litter of similarly believing children. You’ve been blessed with your pleasure-giving loins for a reason, so the unspoken logic goes, and that’s to get married to the opposite sex and to breed. By God, just look at the Old Testament. "Be fruitful and multiply" is the very first of 661 direct commandments. God doesn’t seem to be merely making a suggestion here but instead issuing a no-nonsense order.



Blume has found that those religions that actually put this issue front and center in their teachings are—for rather obvious reasons—at a selective group advantage over those that fail to endorse this stern commandment. He reviews several religions that are either already extinct or presently disappearing because they strayed too far from this reproductive principle. The Shakers, for example, hindered and even forbade reproduction among their own followers, instead placing their emphasis on missionary work, proselytizing and the conversion of outsiders. But this turned out to be a foolish strategy, evolutionarily speaking. "In the long run," Blume points out, "mass conversions happen to be the historic exception, not the rule. Most of the time, only fractions of populations tend to convert from the religious mythology handed to them vertically by their parents and they convert into different directions. [C]ommunities who start to lack young members also tend to lose their missionary appeal to other young people. Therefore, the Shakers overaged and deteriorated."



Some religious splinter groups have also tinkered a bit too much with God’s reproductive imperative, even exploring eugenics by attempting to "perfect" communal offspring. Such a calculated, deliberate scheme of human breeding may backfire, however, if it also means preventing couples from reproducing at their own personal discretion. This was part of the downfall of the Oneida Community of upstate New York, a 19th-century Christian commune that had a very practical—almost too practical—view of human sexuality. Reproduction was tightly regulated by a eugenics system known as stirpiculture. Over several generations, Oneida community physicians mated men and women that were carefully selected for their genetic health (I saw some of the handwritten medical records while going through the archives at the Kinsey Institute this past summer, and I can assure you that the breeding system was real and meticulous). Children born through this process of artificial selection were raised communally and maternal bonding was discouraged.



To prevent unplanned, non-engineered children, the Oneida members implemented a variety of controls, including encouraging teenage boys to have sex with postmenopausal women. This simultaneously stemmed both parties’ libidos and also, in forging personal alliances between the two, provided important ecumenical tutelage to the youth by the very devout older women. Adult men practiced male continence, a sexual "technique" in which males do not ejaculate during intercourse; given that Oneida also had polyamorous relationships, this was key for stirpiculture purposes. All of this may sound logical in theory, even unusually rational as far as religions go, but the tight regulations meant a quick death for the Oneida Community. After only about 30 years and peaking at just a couple of hundred members, the religious commune officially dissolved in 1881. Its members, presumably of good genetic stock but scanty in ranks, went into the silverware trade instead; today the Oneida Community is known as the hugely successful company Oneida Limited.



By contrast, similarly insulated, non-proselytizing religions that encourage their members to proliferate alleles the old-fashioned way—such as Orthodox Jews, Mormons, the Hutterites and Amish—and also emphasize "home-grown" faith in which members are born into the group and indoctrinated, are thriving. The story of the Amish is particularly impressive, having seen an exponential explosion in their numbers over a very short span of time. Emerging as a branch of the Anabaptist movement in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation in Europe, about 4000 Amish fled Germany to avoid persecution and found refuge in the US and Canada during the 18th- and early 19th-centuries. Most people know that the Amish are extremely insular, shunning almost all contact with the non-Amish world—except during the brief "Rumschipringa" (transl. "jumping around") period, in which not-yet-baptized Amish youth flirt with the devilish goods outside before deciding whether or not to return to their family and faith. For boys, one incentive for retuning to the community is that if you want to have sex with (i.e., marry) a local Amish girl, you have to first be baptized, which is only for those who come home. Eighty percent do.



What you may not know is that the Amish population has been swelling since its New World inception. With growth rates hovering between 4 to 6 percent per year, their numbers double every 20 years or so. In 2008 they numbered 231,000; the year before, it was 218,000. Having children is a heavenly blessing but it’s also an official duty. With an average of 6 to 8 children born to each Amish woman, and with 80 percent of those returning to the group after Rumschipringa, this extraordinary growth rate—which continues to soar—is easy to understand. What’s especially ironic, points out Blume, is that like many increasingly secularized countries, the original Amish countenance of Germany has been succumbing to sharp population declines for decades. "The closing of churches has been followed by that of playgrounds, kindergartens, schools and whole settlements." At least in sheer numbers, then, it seems that the Amish—long-ridiculed by their European countrymen as the "dumb Germans" who wouldn’t give up their silly archaic beliefs—are getting the last laugh.



In fact, Blume’s research also shows quite vividly that secular, nonreligious people are being dramatically out-reproduced by religious people of any faith. Across a broad swath of demographic data relating to religiosity, the godly are gaining traction in offspring produced. For example, there’s a global-level positive correlation between frequency of parental worship attendance and number of offspring. Those who "never" attend religious services bear, on a worldwide average, 1.67 children per lifetime; "once per month," and the average goes up to 2.01 children; "more than once a week," 2.5 children. Those numbers add up—and quickly. Some of the strongest data from Blume’s analyses, however, come from a Swiss Statistic Office poll conducted in the year 2000. These data are especially valuable because nearly the entire Swiss population answered this questionnaire—6,972,244 individuals, amounting to 95.67% of the population—which included a question about religious denomination. "The results are highly significant," writes Blume:







… women among all denominational categories give birth to far more children than the non-affiliated. And this remains true even among those (Jewish and Christian) communities who combine nearly double as much births with higher percentages of academics and higher income classes as their non-affiliated Swiss contemporaries.



In other words, it’s not just that "educated" or "upper class" people have fewer children and tend also to be less religious, but even when you control for such things statistically, religiosity independently predicts number of offspring born to mothers. Even flailing religious denominations placing their emphasis on converting outsiders, such as Yehova’s witnesses, are out-reproducing nonreligious mothers. Hindus (2.79 births per woman), Muslims (2.44), and Jews (2.06), meanwhile, are prolific producers of human beings. Nonreligious Swiss mothers bear a measly 1.11 children.



Blume recognizes, of course, that these are correlational data. It’s not entirely clear whether being religious literally causes people to have more children, or whether—somewhat less plausibly but also possible—the link is being driven in the opposite direction (with people who have more children becoming more religious). Most likely it’s both. Nevertheless, Blume speculates on some intriguing evolutionary factors that could have resulted—and are still occurring through selection today—from the fact that religious people have more children. Since religiosity is to some degree a heritable trait, offspring born to religious parents are not only dyed in the wool of their faith through their culture, but Blume believes that they may also be genetically more susceptible to indoctrination than children born to nonreligious parents.



The whole situation doesn’t bode well for the "New Atheism" movement, in any event. Evolutionary biology works by a law of numbers, not moralistic sentiments. Blume, who doesn’t try to hide his own religious beliefs, sees the cruel irony in this as well:







Some naturalists are trying to get rid of our evolved abilities of religiosity by quoting biology. But from an evolutionary as well as philosophic perspective, it may seem rather odd to try to defeat nature with naturalistic arguments.



As a childless gay atheistic soul born to a limply interfaith couple, I suspect, perhaps for the better, that my own genes have a very mortal future ahead. As for the rest of you godless hetero-couples reading this, toss your contraceptives and get busy in the bedroom. Either that or, perish the thought, God isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.


Casting a Wide Net

Casting a Wide Net

Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina introduces the January 2011 issue of Scientific American

The English language offers some entertaining euphemisms, and one I’ve always found amusing is used by parents like me, who will say they need to talk to the kids about the “birds and the bees.” Science, as usual, adds a new perspective: fishes were around a long time before the birds and bees got busy. Now recently discovered fossils show that internal fertilization arrived millions of years before previously thought and in a more primitive species of fish than expected.

In what is today an Australian cattle ranch, biologist John A. Long and his team examined fossils of sea creatures from the Devonian era. They discovered the earliest evidence of an animal that had sex and gave birth the way we do: a 375-million-year-old embryo inside an ancient fish called Materpiscis. The fossils give us new clues about how our own reproductive system arose and how different parts of anatomy evolved over time. As Long writes in his feature article and this issue’s cover story, “Dawn of the Deed”: “Sex, it seems, really did change everything.” That’s no fish tale.

Long and his colleagues had to go to Australia to make their finds, but the Internet lets us share the joy of science discovery and learning globally. A new program that provides this capability is the Google Online Science Fair, which will be formally announced in mid-January. The fair will accept submissions from students around the world in three age categories, covering kids from middle through high school. I will be among the judges of the fair projects and will travel to the event to meet the winners in July 2011. Scientific American is partnering on the project as part of our ongoing educational efforts.

Perhaps you will view the information about the online science fair by using your smart phone or an electronic tablet. And if you do, you might also look for Scientific American on the iPhone, iPad and other devices soon. The magazine and its editors are also on Facebook and Twitter. In addition, we’re taking science to the people in person. In the past few months we have held Scientific American events at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, at the 92nd Street Y TriBeCa in New York City—and most recently at the New York Academy of Sciences.

The heart of what we do at Scientific American will always be the expert-informed, authoritative editorial that we provide, and we hope that exploring these new venues and formats will help bring science to the lay public more broadly. The world at large could certainly use more science.

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

Dawn of the Deed: the Origin of Sex [Video]

Dawn of the Deed: the Origin of Sex [Video]

Evidence of reproduction by internal fertilization has been discovered in a large group of ancient jawed fish. Embryos discovered within fossils of these animals confirm that live birth in prehistoric times was much more widespread than previously thought. Watch the researchers talk about the fossils and techniques used to find them.

Scientists used to think that, among backboned animals, internal fertilization and carrying the young inside the mother's body originated in sharks and their kin some 350 million years ago. Before then, sexual reproduction in fish consisted of spawning, wherein females deposit eggs in the water, the males fertilize them, and the embryos then develop out in the open. Or so the story went.



As the cover story of the January 2011 Scientific American explains, recent analyses of fossils found in a remote locale in northwestern Australia and elsewhere have shown that intercourse and live birth actually arose millions of years earlier than previously believed—and in a more primitive group of fish than the one to which sharks belong. These fish—called placoderms—reside on the long line of animals leading us, and their sexual equipment gave rise to our own reproductive system and other parts of our anatomy.



In this video paleontologist John A. Long of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, author of the cover story, discusses a fossil central to this new view of the origin of copulation and live birth: a 375-million-year-old expectant mother fish dubbed Materpiscis attenboroughi.
See more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

Pimp My Virus: Ocean Edition

Pimp My Virus: Ocean Edition

Image: The starfish-shaped EZ-open structure of mimivirus, above, and the gray DNA-containing nucleocapsid inside, below. The nucleocapsid has plenty of room to breathe and a concave depression, not unlike the dimple on the Death Star, that always faces the "starfish". From PLoS Biology.

In 1992, scientists sampled the water from a cooling tower in Bradford, England, where an outbreak of pneumonia had just occurred. They were looking for respiratory disease-causing bacteria of the sort that cause Legionnaires' Disease, and they found several, including a new one they named Bradfordcoccus. Except Bradfordcoccus was not a bacterium. Bradfordcoccus, once outed more than 10 years later, would become on its discovery the world's largest known virus, an entire order of magnitude larger than any known before.

And what a virus it is. Its genome is over 1.1 million base pairs long, which is bigger than that of about two dozen cellular clades, and it codes for over 900 genes, which includes most of the proteins the virus needs to survive. That also means that, according to some scientists, it may be the descendant of some of the earliest life on earth – or sort-of life, anyway.

Its overall shape is one of the few standard things about it: a familiar viral icosahedron – which was the way it was finally identified – encased in a shaggy coat of fibers, which some other viruses do have.But unlike economy viruses whose contents are packed in about as tightly as they can go, the roomy interior houses ample space for a membrane-bound bag containing the organism's DNA (the nucleocapsid). And it possesses an unique starfish-shaped seal on one of its icosahedral vertices, likely the viral equivalent of the pop top.

They are as big as common bacteria like Rickettsia (one species of which causes Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever), and bigger than Mycoplasma genitalium, the smallest-known free living bacterium (whose own genome is only half as long as mimivirus's at about 600kb) an organism scientists recently synthesized in the lab in their pursuit of synthetic life. You could almost see one of these things under a light microscope – they're about 750 nm wide when you include their furry coat. When I took microbiology in college, I could easily see bacteria 1-2 micrometers big under oil-immersion light microscopy.

Image: Mimivirus. Credit: Creative Commons Xanthine

As may be imagined, these viruses are mind-benders for your basic definition of "What Is Alive", to which viruses have traditionally been considered "Most Definitely Not". Though they reproduce, viruses cannot do so without their host cells. And most known viruses are tremendously smaller than their host and depend on them for nearly all of the machinery they need to reproduce. The DNA of giant viruses contain instructions for many of the genes needed to make DNA, RNA, proteins, and sugars that are typically only found in living cells – just about everything they need to reproduce.

French scientists dubbed the entity "mimivirus", for "mimicking microbe". Others called them "giant viruses." And now that scientists have started looking for them, they are finding them all over the planet. It turns out the ocean is full of them.

In October, scientists announced the discovery of a mimi-like virus pulled out of the waters off Texas (you know what they say: "Everything's Bigger in the Waters Off Texas") parasitizing not freshwater amoebae, but an oceanic predatory protist. This particular new virus (delightfully) attacks a marine microbe called Cafeteria roenbergensis (Proposed new viral targets: Coffeeshopia starbucksii and Buffet allyoucaneatensis) that is a major player in marine food webs, ocean carbon cycling, and the works. The big implication, of course, is that since Cafeteria roenbergensis is, as may be inferred from its name, a robust planktonic predator which may even be the most numerically abundant predator on the planet (PDF), a virus that affects its population dynamics could have a big influence on the whole ocean system. And we didn't even know it was there.

Image: Cafeteria roenbergensis: Credit: Creative Commons Dennis Barthel/zapyon.

Though the C. roenbergensis virus (which researchers have dubbed CroV) is clearly related to the Acanthamoeba mimivirus (it's in the nucleocytoplasmic large DNA virus (NCLDV) group, whose other celebrities include the pox viruses and phycodnaviruses of algae), this new virus is substantially different. Less than one-third of its genes clearly share an evolutionary origin with mimivirus genes.

With a genome of 730,000 bp, CroV is the largest known marine virus (probably because it's the only known marine giant virus). Unlike some of the smallest viruses, which get by on ten or so genes sometimes written over each other on the opposite sides of the same piece of genetic material*, CroV is bursting with goodies, including 544 predicted genes, of which 22 code for transfer RNAs. Transfer RNA (tRNA) shuttles amino acids to messenger RNA – the code for making proteins – in ribosomes during protein synthesis. Considering there are only about 20-22 amino acids needed to make proteins by most organisms, it could theoretically make them all (on the other hand, humans have genes for several hundred kinds of tRNAs. Efficiency, as it has been well documented, is not our genome's strong suit).

Also unlike many smaller viruses, who actually exploit their genetic sloppiness for evolutionary advantage, CroV, like most cellular organisms, cares about and takes care of its DNA. It encodes its own DNA repair enzymes, among which are two photolyases, which repair damage to DNA from ultraviolet light. There's also a 38-kilobase region that seems to have come from bacteria, and includes an entire pathway for making a key component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. What's that doing there? It gets weirder: Acanthamoeba mimivirus even contains eukaryotic genes, that is, genes from multicellular or more complex organisms with nuclei like protists. Likely, the viruses picked up their genetic bounty by accident when self-assembling inside a cell and the remains of one of their host's latest meals or other parasites happened to float by, a process scientists like to call considerably less excitingly "horizontal gene transfer".

Why are these viruses so big? Mimivirus's large size, it turns out, may be its way of saying "Eat Me" to amoebae. Experiments with precisely sized plastic beads have shown that if mimivirus were any smaller, the amoeba could not engulf them as quickly or effeciently. That may also be true of the predatory Cafeteria. And it may be that by being big, that allowed their genomes to expand further. Of course, being big comes with some costs, too. A mimivirus relative that proved to be even bigger – the "mamavirus", discovered in a water cooling tower in Paris -- is the first known virus to have attracted its own parasite: Sputnik virus. Other viruses have been known to have "satellite viruses" that cannot replicate except in their presence. But they incur no fitness cost to their "host" virus. Sputnik (literally, "satellite" in Russian), on the other hand, actively taxes the mamavirus's ability to replicate, causing it to churn out deformed virions with abnormal capsids, or shells. That is a first. When, as a virus, you have spawned your own viral parasite, you know you have made it, er, big.

For me, the magic of this finding is that we were literally surrounded by these things, and no one knew they were there. Undoubtedly, scientists say, CroV is but the tip of the iceberg for giant viruses in the ocean. Here is the forehead-smacking realization: filters we were using to sift "bacteria"-sized particles from our "viral" samples caught these viruses too, of course. When researchers sampled the "bacterial" fraction of seawater filtrates for NCLDV DNA, 86% tested positive for mimivirus. Untold weirdness awaits.

*That is, reading the same piece of DNA or RNA one way you get one protein, and reading part of the same exact piece in the opposite direction yields another. Crazy, but I seem to recall this is true from college virology but can't find confirmation online. Readers?

References:

Online:

A Giant Among Giants. Small Things Considered, July 26, 2010. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

A virus's virus. The Scientist, Aug. 6, 2008. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Mimivirus: Discovery of a Giant Virus. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Unintelligent Design. Discover Magazine, March 15, 2006. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

'Virophage' suggests viruses are alive. Nature 454, 677 (7 August 2008) | :10.1038/454677a; Published online 6 August 2008

Viral Missing Link Caught on Film. Wired Science, May 5, 2009. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

World's Largest, Most Complex Marine Virus Is Major Player in Ocean Ecosystems Science Daily, Oct. 31, 2010. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Journal:

Baldauf, S.L. (2008)."An overview of the phylogeny and diversity of eukaryotes". Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46 (3): 263–273. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1002.2008.08060 .

Fischer, M. G.; Allen, M. J.; Wilson, W. H.; Suttle, C. A. (2010). "Giant virus with a remarkable complement of genes infects marine zooplankton". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007615107

Matthias G. Fischer, Michael J. Allen, William H. Wilson, Curtis A. Suttle. Giant virus with a remarkable complement of genes infects marine zooplankton. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1007615107

Xiao C, Kuznetsov YG, Sun S, Hafenstein SL, Kostyuchenko VA, et al. (2009) 1000092Structural Studies of the Giant Mimivirus. PLoS Biol 7(4): e1000092. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.

For Further Info:

Cafeteria roenbergensis. Wikipedia – With possible interesting story on the origin of the name "Cafeteria". Could not verify because journal wanted to charge me $20 to read the article.

Dare RK, Chittaganpitch M, Erdman DD. Screening pneumonia patients for mimivirus. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2008 Mar. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Mimivirus. MicrobiologyBytes, Sept. 11, 2007. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Mycoplasma genitalium. Wikipedia. Accessed, Dec. 20, 2010.

Mimivirus. Wikipedia. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

First Virophage Could Take the Fight to Viruses. New Scientist, Aug. 6, 2008. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

Even Viruses Get the Blues. Wired Science, Aug. 6, 2008. Accessed Dec. 20, 2010.

About The Author: Jennifer Frazer is a biodiversity blogger and AAAS Science Journalism Award-winning science writer who has written for the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, The Boston Globe, The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, High Country News, and Fungi Magazine. She holds two biology degrees from Cornell University and a Master's Degree in science writing from MIT. She writes about the spectrum of life on Earth at her blog, The Artful Amoeba, and tweets (occasionally) at @JenniferFrazer. Like David St. Hubbins, she is concerned about the potential world domination plans of slime molds.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com
 

Science of TRON: Getting Up to Speed with Teleportation and Quantum Computing

Science of TRON: Getting Up to Speed with Teleportation and Quantum Computing

Physicists give TRON filmmakers the lowdown on how to digitize a person and transport him into a computer game

LOS ANGELES—When Steven Lisberger made the original 1982 cult film TRON, he was ineligible for an Academy Award for visual effects, because he'd used computers—and believe it or not, that was considered a form of cheating at that time.



Fast forward 28 years to the sequel, TRON: Legacy, and not only have computers become a celebrated part of its filmmaking, but the movie's story and design address the significant advances made in the fields of quantum computing and artificial intelligence since then.



"We weren't interested in making a movie about technology—we'd talk about the technology through the relationships between characters," says director Joe Kosinski. "You won't hear about gigabytes and Twitter and Google, because any technical jargon would be dated five years from now. Once you got into the world of TRON, we thought of it more as a Western with another set of rules."



But those rules had to be plausible. Long before TRON: Legacy began filming, Kosinski and producer Sean Bailey spent hours picking the brains of physicists, neuroscientists and roboticists for ideas on how to ground high-concept plot points and scene design in actual scientific principals.



In fact, science and technology have been woven directly into the film's promotional campaign, with the latest event occurring Monday night when Kosinski and Bailey reconvened with two of the film's consulting scientists—California Institute of Technology physicist Sean Carroll and retired Jet Propulsion Laboratory physicist John Dick—on the stage of Disney's El Capitan Theater in Hollywood for a screening and panel discussion.



"We wanted a strong science foundation at key moments throughout the film, so we invited some of the smartest people we could find to provide answers we could incorporate,"  Kosinski said. "The discussion improved parts of the story and served as a springboard to better things in the movie."



TRON: Legacy, which picks up 20 years after TRON, chronicles a son's (Garrett Hedlund) search for his father (Jeff Bridges), who is trapped in a computer game that continues to evolve on its own. The panelists summarized some of the topics covered during their initial meetings: what artificial intelligence might look like in human form; how humans might fit into a computerized world; genetic algorithms (computations that improve on themselves based on past performance); and quantum teleportation (instantaneously moving objects over great distances by deconstructing and reconstructing them).



"What has changed in science since the first TRON came out is the creation of quantum computing and teleportation," Dick said. "We brought these ideas to the filmmakers. It is now conceivable that you could one day take a particle in the real world and teleport it into a quantum computer. The process for teleportation would likely involve sending the particle information into the computer, while the hydrogen and oxygen stays in the real world. The idea of emergence is also new. It says that in complex systems, or systems that behave in complex ways, behaviors emerge in ways you could not have predicted. An example of that in the film is the ISO characters [a race of self-created programs]."



That kind of input helped guide Kosinski's aesthetic in overt ways, such as manipulating the laws of physics (aka "heightened physics") to further distinguish the TRON world, as well as in unexplained design subtleties, like having canisters alongside the teleportation electronics—ostensibly to contain the chemicals and gases necessary for reintegrating digitized humans into the physical world.



" The input from the scientists helped tell a more consistent story," Carroll said. "We looked at what happens when computer programs become increasingly intelligent, and genetic algorithms become a big part of programs writing themselves, learning and changing, and going beyond what programmers initially wanted them to do. Would a computer program with a personality and aspirations have the same sense of consciousness as a person? Would you be the same person if you were uploaded into a computer?"



Meanwhile, Kosinski, who holds a degree in mechanical engineering from Stanford University, brought his own technical savvy to the table, explaining where he pushed the envelope in filmmaking. He employed the latest generation of the 3D fusion camera system developed by James Cameron that used adjoining digital cameras representing each eye, with lenses that drew in considerable light. The actors' costumes were specially designed illuminated flexible suits. And his rendering team advanced the backwards-aging process they developed for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to depict Clu, a rogue computer program that looked like a younger Bridges. They used motion-capture sensors on Bridges' face to map a digital head, which was digitally composited on to a younger body double. "It's the first time an actor played against himself at a younger age," Kosinski notes.



Both the panel and meetings between scientists and TRON: Legacy creatives were organized by The National Academy of Sciences' Science and Entertainment Exchange, which pairs scientists and filmmakers for more accurate depictions of scientific principals in films and television. Since forming two years ago, the organization has picked up steam as both audiences and rising filmmakers, many of whom grew up in the digital age, have become more technologically sophisticated.



"Most Hollywood people don't ever talk to or think about scientists—there's a cultural barrier," Carroll said. "But science benefits when movies are more faithful to how scientists work, and movies benefit if they take science more seriously."
Read more at www.scientificamerican.com