Walking Uses More Carbon Than Driving.

A new story floating around the internet is the news story about "How Walking to the Shop is Worse For the Environment Than Driving"

To save you the time of going to the link, here are some pieces of the story.

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading
environmentalist has calculated.
Food production is now so energy-intensive
that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to
the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could
benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes.
Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it
on standby.
The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How
to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive
beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg
[2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the
Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would
use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories,
resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

This is one of the more crazy theories I've heard about this. It is sad to think that I have heard about this now, as much as the cat story popped up. Before you use this as justification to stop excercising, or driving a couple blocks when you could just as well walk, there are definitely some obvious logical fallacies in this report.

The first one is right in the first line, an "Arguement of Authority." He claims to be an expert but that doesn't automatically mean just agree.

The next major problem is the data he looked at and how it was interpretted. I have no reason to believe his calculations are wrong. But, he just figures your drive to the store for your car. Not the truck that brought it to your gas station, not the carbon released in the refinary, not the oil used on the ship ride from the middle east, the drive to the truck, and the energy to get it out of the ground.

Third, whether you walk to the store or drive, you are still going to have to eat. I don't know about most people, but if I walk somewhere, I normally don't eat a bigger meal to regenerate myself.

If it is three miles, go ahead and drive, but if it is only a few blocks or a mile, go ahead and walk, you won't add to global warming. It is still better to walk or bike than drive your car. And it's always better to think for yourself than just accept what you are told.

Top Twenty Logical Fallacies

Here is a list of the top twenty logic fallacies made, as according to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcasts. Go subscribe to via iTunes.

1. Ad hominem-- An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

2. Ad ignorantiam-- The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

3. Argument-- from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

4. Argument from final Consequences-- Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

5. Argument from Personal Incredulity-- I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

6. Confusing association with causation--This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.

7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable-- Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gapsâ" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

8. False Continuum-- The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.

9. False Dichotomy-- Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

10. Inconsistency-- Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.

11. The Moving Goalpost-- A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

12. Non-Sequitur-- In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

13. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc-- This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this").

14. Reductio ad absurdum-- In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO's does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.

15. Slippery Slope-- This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.

16. Straw Man Arguing-- against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

17. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning-- This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.

18. Tautology-- A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.

19. Tu quoque-- Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

20. Unstated Major Premise-- This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.

Critical Thinking and Logic #1

Instead of writing something new about about the news, I thought I would try to do more to help people think skeptically. It seems like a lot of people don't know how to evaluate evidence, or don't even ask for any. Below is an example of a recent news story that has been thought about critically, and then a critical think activity.

A lot of the podcasts I listened to were excited to a cat that can predict death. All the articles said that whenever the cat would go and lay next to someone, they had less than four hours to live. This was in a nursing home in New England(correct me if that's not right). The staff went so far as to call the family as soon as the cat would choose the next to die.

This is a good example to show how skepticism works. Instead of just believing the article's claims. You stop and think logically about them. Here are a few things you may notice in an article like this.

1. Magic - That should make you question instantly. Anytime something involves Magic, be it wizardry, miracles, or in this case psychic ability, raise the red flag.

2. Stats - If the article doesn't say how many times this death cat has successfully predicted death, or how many times it has messed up, it probably means it is a small number. Definitely small enough to be a coincidence, or they overlooked when the cat slept with someone and they didn't die. People love to believe extraordinary things and forget whatever goes against there point.

So this is something where there clearly isn't enough evidence to believe what we are being told. If they come back with a full study with enough, WELL-ANALYZED evidence, that COULDN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE skeptics and scientists will have no problem accepting this as fact, IF the evidence actually is strong and can support it. Science would love to research a Psychic Cat if it were real. I would. There simply isn't any evidence to make us believe psychic cats are real.

Now here is a game they play on the podcast Skeptics Guide to The Universe, it's called name that logically fallacy. Don't worry, if you don't know the fallacies, I'll explain the answer. Just try to figure out the reasons that some people just consider it as true.

"You go to school one day, and your English teacher starts telling you a story about a cat that can predict death. So without question you believe here."

What was the logical fallacy?

Argument from authority:
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

Satire: A Child's Guide To United States Foreign Policy

Here's a satirical look at the United States' foreign policy.Sample:Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?A: To use them in a war, silly.Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

read more | digg story

I'm Not in a Group That Loves Jesus

REPOST:

So lately I have been talking to a lot of people about why I've become an atheist. Most of the time I just try to avoid the question all together. Some people though will never just let you be. Anyone who has more logic and reasoning than blind faith has been through this. You instantly feel like a minority hated worse than gays. Only most religious people hate gays, almost all hate atheists.

But that's not why I'm writing this. Its to let everyone know why I think the way that I do, and why 1 out of every 5 of the people you know probably do to. For us it is that we can look at what science has figured out, everything from the big bang, to how the earth formed, and evolution (and yes I mean macroevolution). If all of these are the known and proven facts, that takes away the three big things you would need a God to do. You don't need him to create the universe, create the Earth, or create life.

I realize that all these are theories, but most people don't know the meaning of a theory. It's not just a guess that a scientist comes up with. That's a hypothesis. a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

I think this is where the big difference comes in between theists and atheists, theists pride themselves on faith, or believing something with absolutely no reason other than being told to, and a atheists uses logic and reason. There are definitely other reason why people still have faith, even the smartest and most reasonable of people.

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever." -- Sam Harris

Many people see that quote a swear they are not like that. I have in fact talked the Christians that say they do not believe that believing in Jesus is enough to get them into heaven, and that he probably isn't actually God, just a great guy. This is understandable because it's confusing to think that God sent himself down to Earth in a human, but still god form as his son, (who is still him mind you) to be born of a virgin (young woman if you read the "first edition Hebrew version"), so he could die for everyones sins instead of just forgiving them while in the comfort of heaven. As if this wasn't confusing enough he will come three days after he dies, to destroy his first group of followers religion, which he promised them, as a third version of himself. I lost myself somewhere there. But Christians say it is so he could know the hardships of being human. He's God though, shouldn't he have known that, he's always here. I digress. What I was starting to say to Christians that don't believe the whole Jesus bit, you're not a Christian, that's what a Christian is. You are more of a Hybrid of a Jew and Muslim. It's okay though, you all argue about the same God.

If you have enough logic to be able to decide that the New Testament probably isn't right, why not enough to see that the old testament is just as bad, or vise versa.

I think so many people start to question there religion, then back away and become part of Pascal's Wager, If I believe in God and he doesn't exist, oh well. If I don't believe and he does, oh shit. Do you think you can really believe something that your head doesn't belive. I put it to you that believing in unicorns is enough to get you into heaven. You can't just start believing in unicorns, you have enough reasonability to know that they don't exist. It's the same I think with most people and God, they don't really believe, what they do believe is they can fool God, or more likely, the people who will ask them constant questions about not believing in God.

If you've made it this far you probably think I may be on to something, or you are really looking hard for something I have wrong. I would ask though, if you have questioned religion, it's not wrong or "sinful" to think. Why would a God give us a brain and logic if we weren't supposed to use it.

I'm going to misquote my friend Kellan here,
"There is no way free will can be possible if God has a plan for us. That's like saying he knew we were going to deny him, and therefore go to hell. So it was his plan all along to send me to hell?"
My response to this is that God is like Sony, and Kellan is a lot like the PS3. Or God is Microsoft, and I Vista.

20% of Americans 18-25 have come to the realization there is no God. Don't pretend to believe because you think you will be alone in your beliefs. Out of the 6 billion people on Earth, more than 3 billion people will be with you.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -- Richard Dawkins

Captain Mosey and the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

Captain Mosey and the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

While brooding atop Mount Salsa because he cannot find a Pirate ship, Mosey the Pirate captain receives some advice from the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of ten stone tablets. These were called the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" by the FSM, the "Commandments" by Mosey, and the "Condiments" by his Pirate gang. While there were originally ten "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", two were dropped on the way back down the mountain, with eight remaining. This event "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards". The FSM's commandments address the treatment of people of other faiths, worship of the FSM, sexual conduct, and nutrition.

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey - Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.

4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/S

hrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

1. Ending Poverty
2. Curing Diseases
3. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.


7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

Bible Being Taught In Schools

REPOSTED

Today during my lunch I was channel surfing and I saw on Fox News had a headline asking if Americans knew enough about the Bible. The spark notes of the conversation they were having was that America was going downhill because our parents and grandparents didn't teach us enough about the Bible. There was no argument from anyone on the show about this fact. They were also saying that a class about the Bible should be REQUIRED in schools. They say that Generation Y mostly views Jesus as a good teacher, and not the actual son of God. They said many people don't believe in most of the supernatural. "We must teach the young generation that these supernatural events really did happen."

Most of the people reading this already know that I'm not a big fan of religion. I think even most religious people of Generation Y would agree with me that Fox News has maybe come up with the worst idea ever. There is definitely more important things to worry about in education.

I was under the impression that if parents wanted there kids to learn about the Bible they could already go somewhere. Maybe a church, Sunday school, or Bible study. I spent a lot of time in the church before college, and there is always someone to tell you about the Bible. Kids already hate Sunday School, don't make it everyday.

The worst part of this idea is only showing kids one religion. If you are going to be religious you should at least be able to choose which group you are going to follow. Let schools lay out all the options.

Christianity:
Just convince yourself that you aren't accountable for your actions, Jesus already took care of those for you. Do this and go to heaven (no perks in heaven), fail and go to hell.

Islam:
Convince yourself Muhammad actually talked to God. Just kill yourself and as many infidels as you can and go to heaven (with 72 virgins).

Judaism:
Just behave yourself with no worries of a heaven our hell. Only 300 or so rules to remember. No ham. Cut off foreskin.

Agnostic:
American schools won't allow this, choose a side.

I think if we did this, most guys would choose Islam, come on 72 virgins, how do I sign up. Pretty sure most girls would choose.. I don't know what girls think. But the number of Christians would drop greatly.

Think what would happen if no parents or anyone told their children about religion, do you think the children would just know because God is with them already, no. They would grow up with morals, they wouldn't all be savages, murderers, or rapists. I would imagine the rate would be about the same. The idea of this makes me think of a person in prison with his cross tattoo, and necklace.

Anyway, I know it was only Fox News and they are basically idiots about everything, but I wanted to know what the people that responded to my last note thought about it. I realize I got a bit off topic, and this is horribly written, but I wanted to write something about it before I forgot.

We already do enough to confuse kids with the complete contradiction of scientific fact and religion. Whether it be evolution vs. creationism, the age of the Earth whatever. When you have kids, make sure you tell them logic science as much as faith religion, give them all the facts, and let them choose for themselves. Don't pressure them. A human mind has too much potential that is held back because of the confusion. It reminds me of a story about a graduate student from Harvard. Brilliant. But very religious and thought he had to choose between faith or science. Chose religion and said everything that logically made sense to him was wrong, only because the bible said so.

If the Bible can confuse Harvard doctors, it will confuse school children.

I thought it was 2007, Maybe I was wrong

Also pretty old


I didn't go out to any parties on New Year's Eve, so I'm pretty sure I noticed when the clock hit midnight, the year went to 2007. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong though. I read a couple of news articles that really make you wonder.

The first article was about a 14 year old black girl in Paris, Texas. She has been sentenced to 7 years in prison for pushing a teacher's aide that refused to let her get to the school to take some medicine. The 58 year old man, was not injured, and was the first person to start pushing. I'd like to encourage Texas and the parts of the South that are still filled with racists to jump ahead fifty years and join the rest of us.

The second article was about some Muslim secondary school pupils, attacked their teacher and and beat her to death for desecrating the Koran. This isn't the only time it's happened. It happens a lot, but it's still sad that it's still going on. I for one would hope that the world could come further than killing in the name of a blind faith in over 1000 years, maybe not.

There are too many good people in the world, or at least people who should know better that could easily take a stand against this kind of needless, out of date bullshit. We are all guilty of letting stuff that we see or hear slide, but we need to start doing something about it. Know the difference between jokes and racisms, and realize that books written 2000 years ago are filled with reasons to kill, but we know better. Don't let people get away with killing in the name of.

P.S. Sex slaves still sold at Gatwick.

REPOST FROM FACEBOOK

I wanted all my post on one site some I'm moving this so it will show up on facebook again unfortunately

Nick Volf
Future of Life Review
April 20, 2007
Dr. Hammer

The history, importance, and destruction of biodiversity are easily seen in The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson. The book starts with a letter from the 1800’s talking about how long people have been using nature, using its resources, and changing the environment. The apparent clash of the environment and the economy is nothing new to people. Today though the problem is more apparent and solutions can start to be thought up. Wilson writes about the economy and the value of the environment throughout The Future of Life.
In the second chapter, “The Bottleneck”, he gives the typical view of the economist and the environmentalist. The economist view has to do with human prosperity, thinking that problems can be solved after we cause them or while we still do. But there is nothing to worry about because the global economic picture is favorable. The gross national products of industrialized countries are growing. For more than a half a century the per-capita income of the world has gone up. Even though the population of the world is growing at a pace never before seen, we are keeping up with crop production. Forests are regenerating as fast as they are being cleared thanks to agriforestry. The advancement of people may hurt the environment but technology is keeping up and keeping the environment safe for other animals.
The argument Wilson gives from the environmentalist points out the brittleness of the environment of the planet, and the gross national product is no way to measure the world’s economic future. They admit that the life for people has been steadily getting better, but they also realize that it cannot continue to grow, because eventually we will run out or resources. The technology to harvest resources will always be a step ahead of the technology needed to save it. We have already left to large of an ecological footprint for the world to be able to sustain, and it shows no sign of turning around. The only way to fix the planets is to reduce global consumption.
This argument really interested me throughout the book because my two majors are business and biology. I’ve argued with myself several times about which point of view is the right view. Both the views given by Wilson are on the extreme side, and I agree that most people are somewhere in the middle of the two arguments. I think that the economy can still continue to grow without destroying the environment. With alternate energy sources, like wind water and solar power being used more we can eventually move away from oil and other fossil fuels. More than likely these will run out someday, but if other sources are perfected before then, the production of the world won’t drop much at all.
According to the article “Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels” ethanol yields 25 percent more energy than it takes to produce. It also releases 12 percent less green houses gases than gasoline. Biodiesels would produce 41percent less. But even if all the corn in the country was turned into biofuels, it would only be enough to fuel 12 percent of gasoline powered cars, or 6 percent of diesel automobiles. (2006 David) This not only fails to provide enough fuel, but if all the corn is in fuels, what will we eat, or what would livestock eat? Electric cars are really a better solution, but until electric cars either show more power, or we run out of gas, people won’t want them. The problem also would arise that if we stop with oil products, the economy would take a big hit, so convincing most people would be tough.
Being able to genetically engineer crops and livestock to be able to produce more in the same amount of land we already use. Of course they would have to be shown to be safe to eat, but with out it, the food shortage will continue to grow. Wilson mentions that at the rate China is growing, even though it is in the top five countries of producing grains, it won’t be able to even support itself. Being able to run your factory with cleaner cheaper energy, or being able to produce more food in the same amount of space is obviously good for the environment. It is also good for the bottom line on the income statement.
In Chapter 5 “How much is the Biosphere Worth?” Wilson explains the benefits of having a diverse biosphere. A team of economist and environmental scientists came up with an estimate of the services we get from nature. They estimated that the contribution is nearly 33 trillion dollars, which is almost double that of gross world product, $18 trillion.
There are instances where the GNP will decrease because of reduction of the environment. The limited biosphere has already shown it’s affect on the worldwide fishing industry. It is already leveled off and will not be able to grow any more, only decline. Another example is the forest watersheds in New York. They capture and purify water before it is returned to lakes, rivers, and the sea, again at no cost to us. As the population grew, the watersheds were replaced with farms and houses, but the water became polluted. I guess the question there is what was more needed, more homes and farms for people or clean water. Both of course have their advantages.
The aesthetics of nature is something else we get from the environment. I don’t think anyone would argue about the beauty of nature. Dads taking their sons to national parks to just to relax in a place that makes you feel like you aren’t in the same world you are at home. Nature is used all the time to escape, even if it is just a vegetable or flower garden in the back yard. Though just because something may look pleasing to the eye may not seem like any help economically, tourism can be a major industry that would encourage the protection of environment. In many developing countries the profit margin from tourism is greater than the profit margin from logging or farming the land after it has been cleared. But stopping the production of new farms again leads to coming up with crops with a higher yield.
Maybe the most important thing that we can get from nature is the different medical advancements that we just haven’t discovered yet. If there is a plant or animal with the ability to help cure disease like cancer or HIV, and it goes extinct before we have a chance to really study it, we may lose the chance to ever coming up with the answer to those questions. According to an article from Planta Medical the plant Callaphllum lanigerum has a chemical called calanolide A That prohibits the RT found in HIV. (1999, Konig) According to Wilson though, at the time the book was written, 2001, no one could find the plant.
Even with all these examples, there is still a lot to think about the ethics and morals about clearing the environment for personal gain. It may seem to a lot of people that a farmer in the Amazon or other developing countries may seem selfish because of their actions, they don’t do it because they hate trees, they need the money from the farming, or lumber to feed themselves and their families. Not all countries can be as well off economically as the United Sates and other industrial countries. On being able to find another way to get work or earn money is much easier for us. The best way to help stop a lot of the clearing of the earth is to help develop the third world countries. Wilson gives many example of this in his solution to the problem. He shows that in many third world countries, conservation organizations are buying land around forests, and making money from the tourism. He suggests that this will be a good long term solution, but I’m not sure if tourism alone would be enough to keep the country’s economy good. If they still are not farming, they are importing most of their goods, nearly all of there goods as more of the country is owned by the conservation organizations. This will keep these countries’ gross national product from increasing, and they will be stuck where they already are economically. It is easier in a larger country like the United States and China, because there is so much land that isn’t a biodiversity hotspot.


König, G M; Matthée, G; Wright, A D. 1999. HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors of natural origin. Planta medica. 65(6):493-506

Tilman, David; Hill, Jason; Nelson, Erik; Polasky, Stephen; Tiffany, Douglas. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 103, no. 30, pp. 11206-11210.

Evolution Survey

Here is the Gallup Poll For the number of American adults who believe in evolution.

41% believe "creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" is true and "evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" is false,

28% believe evolution is true and creationism is false, and

24% believe both creationism and evolution are "probably" or "definitely" true.


Seems a little off that so many people go against the evidence. It's even what is taught to you in school. Imagine how bad it could get if we were teaching Creationism as fact.
This seems like a good place to tell why somethings are found in your text books and not others.
The most obvious argument is evolution. As opposed to popular belief there is plenty of evidence to support it. Fossil records show the subtle change over time of certain species. Some species just go extinct and do continue to evolve, Dinosaurs for instance. But small mammals that survived do have fossil records that show the slow, very slow, millions of years, changes that lead to all the mammal life we see today. We won't find every fossil of every species ever to have walked the planet. Over 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and there are many many species we still haven't discovered that we still share the planet with.
Another big discovery in evolution is genetics. The way you get some traits from your mom, and some from your dad. If some of the traits made you more likely to be able to survive better than someone else, then eventually the better equipped will survive to breed and then pass on the better traits. That flowed nicely into evolution, it really is that simple. Sometimes there will be a mutation in the DNA that may give you a whole new trait.

Hypothetical Scenario: Lets pretend you are an early fish in the ocean, completely senseless, no sight, smell, hearing, touch, nothing. If there was a mutation in your DNA that gave you an eye, you would have an advantage over the rest of your own species. You mate and some of your kids have the eye, too. They mate with more fish with no eyes, so their genes are passed. Your other kids were eaten because they didn't see a bigger fish coming, so they don't pass the "No-Eye" gene. Soon the fish with eyes dominate and the Eyeless fish die out.
I know the eye didn't just come to be as complex as an eye now, it evolved over time. And the terminology isn't completely accurate, I just thought I'd make it simplified. That shows how one species evolved. Evolution within one species is called Micro Evolution, and most people accept this. (We can see this in different breeds of dogs.)

How do to species come from one. A very common misconception is that new species evolve from to different species mating, like an owl and a dog to form the new species owl dog. As neat as that would be, that's not quite how it works. The arrival of a new species isn't instantaneous.
Go back to the fish scenario.back to no senses. They live in a pond, and say some are swimming on one side, and some the other, and a big something falls in the middle and completely blocks them off from one another, or the lake lowers and there was a tall land bridge in the middle. Either way, the fish are separated, both with no senses. The fish on the left side of the mutation were they eventually evolve into "eye fish". Halfway there...
MEANWHILE ON THE OTHER SIDE. First you should know that the mutations are completely random. Saying that, let's say that the fish in the second side of the pools are never introduced to the Eye Gene, they will never have eyes. Maybe theses fish developed ears, the same way as the eyes in the other fish. So the second side went from the first "nothing fish", to the"ear fish."
After so long the fish will lose the ability to breed with fish on the other side, even if they are reunited. So now you have fish with ears, and fish with eyes, two species of fish. There are other ways it happens, and my example was very simple, but when this happens over million and millions of years, you get a lot of variety. Mutations aren't the only way for genetic variation, but anything more would be to complicated to get into, unless someone wants to hear it.

That is the very tip of the iceberg for the evidence of Evolution, Micro and Macro. In order to be put into a text book it has to have plenty of evidence, so let's look at the evidence for creationism.

It's in the bible.

Wow. Uhh...touche creationist. The problem with using that as evidence is it was just written by men in the first century and earlier. They say they heard God, but they could have just thought that. There is no evidence showing the bible is accurate, so using a question to answer a question, or to highly unlikely, "if"s.

That is why evolution makes it into the books and not Creationism. All the textbooks still question origin of the first life, whether it was molecules that had energy added to them to become "alive." The likely idea is the build blocks of like, Carbs, Proteins, Lipids, Nucleic Acids, happened to come in contact. Maybe instructions on the Nucleic acids lead to a single cell organism. Maybe it happened on Earth, maybe somewhere in space. Maybe it was a higher power.

I don't care if you think it is God, many scientist are looking for that answer. I don't know which one is right, I pick the one that sounds the most logical based on what I know. But if you believe in God, please acknowledge evolution. It is a theory, like gravity, like the Theory of Relativity. Theory in science doesn't mean "Guess", That's hypothesis. Theory, have no evidence against them or they can't be theories.

41% is way too many people to be flat out wrong.

Atheist Books

I was reading the Freakonomics post about the string of atheist books coming out lately. Here's the Link. Normally it is a very good blog to read. There are many books coming out about atheism. The article asks why so many people are buying the books. I looked though the comments on the blog, but all that is there is an unorganized argument with nothing more than name calling.

I have read only a few of the books out, Dawkins, Harris, Mehta, and Harris again. They were all really good. I read my first couple, Letter to a Christian Nation(Harris) and the God Delusion(Dawkins) while I was still "sitting on the fence" you could say. So I got to read them and question them from both sides.

I think the reason the books are such good sellers because it gives you a chance to hear other people's point's of views without feeling like you are in an argument with someone. Hearing the authors say it is okay, and that you don't have to believe on faith and no evidence, is something that is great to hear. It's really not easy coming out for an atheist. Two of my best friends, who happen to be atheist too, are just a terrified as I am to tell their family. Reading these books are just a great way to feel like there is someone who has your back. Chicken Noodle Soap.

So if you are an Atheist, it's great to hear other's views, and some answers you didn't have to the questions you'll be hit with.
If you are on the fence, maybe they can help you decide. They pulled me to both sides of the fence.
Religious people, if you want answers to how faith isn't enough, or to know how some other people think, great books. And definitely read "Letter to A Christian Nation." You are the Christian Nation aren't you. You should read your mail.