damien stolarz blog

I’ve been thinking recently (anthropologically) about human concerns about the future. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the global warming / climate change topic.

For those who have studied comparative religion, there’s a term ‘apocalyptic’, which means, religions or denominations which focus on a postulated or predicted ‘end of days’. In early Christianity, for instance, there were many followers focused on the imminent return of Christ. Similarly, in the era of American new religious movements and Christian variants for the last two hundred years, many have focused on an upcoming ‘big event’, day of reckoning, cataclysm, or other major transformation.

Perhaps one of the fastest growing belief systems of the 21st century is skepticism. The 2008 ARIS survey provides a statistical breakdown of the group of people who identify themselves as having ‘no’ religion. Generally the survey shows that they are agnostic or deists (god exists but doesn’t interfere with life) rather than atheists (no god) or theists (an interfering god).

The net result of this is that you have a large population in the US and perhaps more around the world that do not concern themselves with religious endgames, but rather, ecological endgames. Whether these ‘ecoists’ strongly believe, somewhat believe, or challenge global warming, the fact is that the secular apocalypse is climate change.

I fly a lot and so I find myself trying to ignore a lot of CNN in airport terminals. When they aren’t revealing the latest poor life choice of a celebrity, they spend a good time fanning the flames of debate over climate science, at least recently.

I believe that the awareness that things could all change suddenly is a rational awareness. I believe that the human urge to predict a future – even a catastrophic one – is reasonable. When it gets caught up with religious belief, fervor and individual divination, the predictions can be far off.

There’s also an interactive aspect, in that the human race does have a tremendous influence on our endgame. While we could be wiped out by an asteroid by no fault of our own, we theoretically could take responsibility for a threat even that large. And we certainly can take responsibility, as a race, for the continued health and energy of our own planet.

I think the parallels between human secular “realities” and religious “beliefs” are too close to ignore, and I believe worry about the outcome of our race is a very, very traditional concern, even if filtered through a new belief system.

Quote marks are still under assault by overenthusiastic punctuators. While they are often used incorrectly as emphasis, sometimes they mean absolutely nothing in context.

I recently went on a diet and lost 20 pounds in about 5 weeks (4I /22 to 5/29). I didn’t do a fad diet; I simply ate less. It turns out that it’s incredibly easy – and cheap – to lose weight. The trick is to eat a lot less than your currently eating, and a lot less than you are served by pretty much every restaurant in the US.

Continue reading ›

Ok maybe Harry Potter will match it. But OMG that was a good movie.

here’s the deal – I am not a trekkie. I am a star wars fan, but I have only seen some of the star trek movies (the 80’s ones); I watched some Next Gen but not the later two series. So I want to get my not-a-trekkie credentials clear.

I’m born in 74, so I grew up on old star trek reruns, and I probably watched them when they first aired in a past life. So I was quite familiar with Roddenberry’s original episodes.

In short, J.J. Abrams has my undying admiration; the writers, Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci, should earn Pulitzers.

I feel SO STRONGLY about this movie? Why? It’s done perfectly. Even if you only vaguely know the Star Trek story from the original episodes, you should be delighted by this version.

If you know nothing about Star Trek, you should still see the movie

The opening sequence had me in tears; a few sequences later had me in tears.

This kind of film making makes me feel sorry for other movies. Seriously, all I could talk about after the movie is “why aren’t other movies this good? Why do directors have to work with bad scripts? Why do good scripts have to work with bad directors?”

Thank you, JJ. Damn.

Is disbelief in evolution a survival trait?

In conversation with dozens of Darwin advocates, I have noticed a strange correlation: People who have a strong affinity for Darwinism – such that they bring it up in conversations and discuss the folly of religionists who challenge it – also tend to have strong views about overpopulation and about minimizing their own offspring.

And aside from Darwinist apologists, I’ve found another strange correlation: The socioeconomically educated science people I know – mid-to-upper middle class – who are strongly scientific – tend to have small numbers of children.

It’s not absolute – I know a number of scientifically minded people who do not beat the drum for evolution but certainly agree with it, and they have a couple kids.

And I for the record have no issue with evolution as a workable scientific theory.

But doesn’t this contradict survival of the fittest (an expression not coined by Darwin by the way)?