Saturday, August 22, 2009



    Abortion is when a human is killed before he/she is born. This is due, almost entirely, to impulsive behavior and poor planning (which are about the same thing). I have trouble understanding why some people become so emotionally charged and often, violent, about this issue. I have read reports of people killing abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics. I will attempt to unravel this mysterious behavior of humans.
    When it comes to abortion, only 2 people should have ire directed at them - the mother and father. It's their fault for not thinking clearly and having sex without considering the outcome. The abortion doctor is doing his job. The abortion clinic exists to make money. One must consider the point of view of the abortion clinic, which is guilty of nothing. If those people that choose to bomb abortion clinics, kill abortion doctors, and walk around with signs against abortion would only start to think, they would realize they are attacking the wrong people.


    If those that opposed abortion were capable of thinking clearly and truly vehement about the survival of fellow humans, then they would do the logical thing. If a woman wants to get an abortion, the opponents would take the woman in, care for her, and see to the birth of the child. They would then take care of the child for the woman. This is because they feel so strongly that abortion is wrong. If the opponents would not be willing to take care of the child, then their feelings are false and dangerous behavior unwarranted. NOTE: this solution was inspired by a quote from a science fiction novel:

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."


    If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then the child is not the product of poor planning. The woman should not be responsible for the life of that human because she was raped. Also, the "father", having demonstrated dangerous impulsive behavior, should not be allowed to raise the child. So, if a raped woman does not want the child, she can choose whether to abort the child or let it live.


    The reality of abortion is that it does not hurt my life, nor yours. In fact, I would argue that it's beneficial, since it cuts down on the number of humans, which will become more important as medical technology improves. Until we leave the planet, we will have to control the population by some means. In case you were unaware, the space available on Earth is finite. The space available in the universe is also finite, but the harshness of space would slow our growth. The issue of crowding is far more serious than abortion, because it will hurt you.

     Now, I'm going to justify why abortion could be beneficial. Very few people understand that the resources on our planet are limited. Our planet can literally be thought of as a spaceship, since we have a limited amount of air, water, food and space. It would be very easy for the population of humans to be so great that we would die in our own waste. This is pretty much already happening and explains why China allows couples to have only one child.
     When medical technology improves greatly, people are not going to die easily, if at all. Where will all those people go that aren't dying? Where will the food come from? How can we support a population that does not die? I would guess that future governments will make abortion mandatory or sterilize large amounts of people, so they can't reproduce.
     Right now, we can't really see this problem. Our population hasn't gotten to the point where we're all starting to starve. Once we realize we can't eat 3 meals a day, then we'll be forced to control the population by some means.


     Another way to solve the abortion problem is to starve the abortion clinics. This can be done through education. If people stop needing abortions, then the abortion clinics will cease to function. In my mind, there is no reason to directly attack in order to solve problems. I much prefer indirection, that is, identify the elusive source of the problem and attack from that angle. The reason why abortions happen is because the parents are uneducated. If they were educated, then they would've considered the outcome of sexual activity before tumbling. It makes no sense to educate parents in the teenage years. Rather, such education should start in grade school. All the costs and responsibilities associated with raising children should be well understood before one is allowed to graduate from 4th or 5th grade.


     As an alternative to the alternative, biologically enhanced humans, via biotechnology, could have sex without producing offspring. Using nanotechnology, I imagine it would be possible to annihilate each sperm cell. So there would be no need for pills or condoms. Well, maybe condoms, if diseases are still prevalent when biotechnology starts to radically change us.

Freedom Of Inspiration

     It may seem on the surface level that I'm referring to a freedom associated with stimulating the mind to a high level of mental activity. In fact, the title of this page has an unwanted psychological effect. Inspiration, among other meanings, means the act of drawing in air, or simply - breathing. Those of you that have taken some Latin already know this simple fact. Those of you that don't believe me can refer to a standard English language dictionary.
     The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens freedom of speech. It may appear that freedom of inspiration and freedom of speech are not related, but they are almost precisely the same thing. All people, everywhere, are allowed to breathe freely. There are no restrictions on the amount and type of breathing that one may engage in. If, for instance, one wishes to breathe underwater (without any type of SCUBA - self contained underwater breathing apparatus), one may do so. However, there is a penalty for breathing in certain places, such as underwater. Just like one may breathe anywhere, one may talk anywhere.
     Freedom of speech is precisely that. We all have complete freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Just like there is a penalty for breathing in certain places, there is a penalty for talking in certain places and times, and saying certain things. The freedom cannot be violated and anyone that thinks otherwise needs to remember their place in things. Freedom of speech not only applies to YOU, but to everyone else. If someone decides they don't like what you are saying on TV and cuts you off, your freedom of speech has not been violated. Remember - we all have freedom of speech. Even the censors. If someone censors your words, they are merely exercising their freedom of speech.
     So, there are 2 main types of freedom of speech...
  1. Freedom, but with penalty.
  2. Freedom - with no penalty.
     The first type of freedom is the one that we, along with the rest of life, experience. It is the same in every country. Whether one lives in North Korea, Cambodia, Russia, or the United States, the freedom of speech is precisely the same - the kind that has a penalty. To explicitly state that Americans have freedom of speech is no different than stating that we have freedom of breathing. This type of freedom is not an illusion, as one may suspect, although it is deceptively contradictive. The second type of freedom, actually, is the illusion.
In order to realize the second type of freedom, humans would need to form a single mind or live in isolation, singly. Neither situation is palatable nor allows life to flourish; thus, freedom must carry
a penalty.
     The seemingly contradictory nature of freedom is so problematic that the definition ought to be heavily modified. But this is reality, not an illusion.


This post was originally written sometime in 2007.

Horror Movies Defined

     I have not seen every horror movie ever made, so there are going to be some exclusions that I must apologize for. I do not know what those exclusions are, since I can only tell you about those horror movies I have actually watched. There are thousands of different horror movies and due to the large amount, it is too broad a category to signify with one list. Thus, it is necessary to subcategorize the genre known as horror. These subcategories are my opinions, based on what I have seen. Someone else would likely make different subcategories, or make none at all.

    These are my subcategories of horror movies, along with my top picks:

          A realistic horror movie is based on events that happened sometime in the past or could happen right now. It does not invoke any monsters, aliens, ghosts, dinosaurs, or zombies for scaring crowds. However, it can use viruses - because viruses are real.
Top Pick: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Other significant releases : Silence of the Lambs, The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Hostel, Hostel II, Devil's Rejects, Audition, Blue Sunshine

          A supernatural horror movie uses ghosts, demons, bogeymen, trolls, gods, etc. This type of movie can also rely heavily upon possession. Vampires seem to be a main theme in this category, however. And Asian horror heavily invokes the supernatural.
          Top Pick: Hellraiser (1987)
          Other Significant Releases: The Exorcist, The Shining, Amityville Horror II, Hellraiser II, A Tale of Two Sisters, The Ring, Mirrors, Whispering Corridors, The Eye, Uzumaki (Spiral), Demon Knight, Phantasm II, An American Werewolf in London, Scarecrows

          I would guess there are more than 100 different zombie movies, so this is complicated enough to deserve its own subcategory. A zombie is not a cannibal nor a virus infected person. If zombies were cannibals then they would eat each other and if they were infected with a virus, then they would be alive. A zombie is a dead human that eats living humans.
          Top Pick: Dawn of the Dead (1978)
          Other Significant Releases: Return of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead (2004), Bangkok Zombie Crisis, Shaun of the Dead

          This type of horror movie involves something that did not originate on the Earth or takes place on an environment that is not the Earth. Supernatural environments do not qualify as extraterrestrial, although they are technically so.
           Top Pick: Alien (1979)
           Other Significant Releases: The Thing, Aliens, Predator, Predator 2, Sunshine, Event Horizon, Alien 3, Alien 4, Alien vs. Predator 2

          A horror movie based on zoology, or the study of animals, is one that exaggerates or offers variations on, the reality of animals. Dinosaurs are a main theme in this category. Bear in mind that humans are also animals, and so variations on humans qualify.
          Top Pick: The Descent (2005)
Other Significant Releases: Jurassic Park, Jaws, The Host, Kingdom of the Spiders

          This type of movie shows a lot of people being killed in various ways, by some sort of stalking human or supernatural human. These are not realistic because the antagonist often displays superhuman strength or healing abilities.
          Top Pick: Halloween (2007)
Other Significant Releases: Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th

          I'm not sure how to classify some movies, so they are just 'other'.
          Top Pick: The Stuff (1985)
Other Significant Releases: Can't think of any.
Some notes about what I have typed:
  • 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are often erroneously labeled as "zombie" movies. I must point out that the people are infected with a virus, which is similar to rabies. Also, they are not dead. Those movies are realistic.
  • The creatures in The Descent were possible variations on humans, so I could technically move that to the Realistic subcategory. Their existence could come about by species cleavage, which is explained by phylogenetic systematics.
  • A vampire is not a possible variation on a human, so all vampire movies are supernatural.
  • The Host used a fish, heavily mutated, by chemicals. 

Speculative Fiction Books

     Speculative fiction is the genre that includes both science fiction and fantasy. I think Robert Heinlein originally came up with the term and I find it rather palatable, since both concern potentialities. There's not much difference between fantasy, such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction, such as Blade Runner. Both are not real, but could happen via sufficiently advanced technology, thus, they are speculative.
     For example, all of the creatures seen in the Lord of the Rings movies could be made real through biological engineering. In that sense, all fantasy falls under science fiction. This is because the right technology could make anything a reality.
     I have been a reader of speculative fiction since age 14. My first introduction to the genre occurred at age 5, when my mom read aloud A Wrinkle in Time, in the hallway at my old house on Howdershell. I clearly remember being shocked and inundated with a sense of otherworldliness, as if there is more than just what I experience, much more. I didn't start reading speculative fiction on my own until age 14, when I was given the Chronicles of Prydain books, written by Lloyd Alexander. I shortly thereafter read The Hobbit and The Shining. By my early twenties I had discovered Robert Heinlein, Clifford Simak and Isaac Asimov. The bulk of my reading in my teenage years was spent with Stephen King novels, such as It and The Stand, which do almost require years to ingest.
     One might wonder why there was a large gap in my reading; why did it take me until age 14 to finally start on my own? I think video games are partly to blame. I got a video game system, the NES, when I was 11. It magnificently occupied my free time, which, at age 11, was abundant. My mom became frustrated at my lack of reading and even paid me to read at one point. It didn't help. I just didn't care. But now, I don't touch video games and have stacks of books that I want to read.
     Reading science fiction has proven to be immensely educational, since it has prompted me to investigate real science. I have read many books about particle physics and relativity, which is mentioned often in science fiction. Relativity is something that should be taught to grade school children, because of how simple it is. It just seems particularly daunting.
     By now, at age 33, I estimate I've read around 350 speculative fiction books. Less than 20 can be categoried as fantasy, so my primary concern is that type of speculation which is reminiscent of science, although do bear in mind that sufficiently advanced technology could turn any fantasy into reality.
     For a long time my favorite science fiction writer was Robert Heinlein. My cousin Ben mentioned some guy named 'Philip K. Dick' and I eventually read one of his novels, titled Ubik. As a result, I read more of his work and he became my favorite writer. My mom used to talk about some place called 'Riverworld', which was written by Philip Jose Farmer (who admittedly had paruresis, like myself) and I checked out one of his books, titled Time's Last Gift. I read more of Farmer and he became my favorite author.
     These days I don't have a favorite writer. It's too impossible because there are so many good writers. However, I do have favorite writers. Lots of them. More than 30.
     If I had to recommend a starting point for someone in speculative fiction, I would recommend what hooked me. A Wrinkle in Time and The Prydain Chronicles.