Monthly Archives: March 2017

It is the year 12,017

On creating a non-Christian based original year anchor point.

What year is it? 2017? Why? Because some guy supposedly was born *maybe* around this time ~2000 years ago? That sure seems pretty damn arbitrary to me. And it is. And not only that it’s shifted around over the centuries so who knows really what year it is. But maybe it doesn’t really matter WHAT year it is. Time marches on. And we each have our own “zero” year — the year we were born.

But, let’s say we care about the year. What annual anchor point would make more sense, apply to everyone, not just Christians? Yes, there are countless alternative dating schemes that have been proposed. And even many that continue from antiquity, such as the Hindu, Chinese, Persian, Egyptian and so on dating systems.

But again, they’re all rather arbitrary. And not really applicable to everyone. So, what anchor point (and that’s the crux here — when do we start year “zero”) would make a non-arbitrary, all encompassing base for counting time?

Dating the Anthropocene

When did the Anthropocene start? Well, after the last glaciation at least. When was that? Well, when did the Holocene start? Somewhere between 11,000 and 15,000 years ago (although the Holocene supposedly is pinned to 11,700 years before today.)

But back to the Anthropocene; when did it start? If we say that about 12,000 years ago, Man discovered agriculture, and began actively altering the landscape (that is, geology) to suit itself, then if we could pin a specific date, around 12,000 years ago, that would be an excellent candidate for our agnostic dating anchor point.

So, how do you pick a date 12,000 years ago? One way is to use a celestial phenomena, one that can be accurately calculated and firmly established in the past. What if we calculated the exact date that a complete solar eclipse occurred, at the Rose Line, GMT-0, at noon, roughly 12,000 years ago. (GMT because we don’t really want to break the concept of time, just adjust the concept of years starting from zero.)

Now the question is: can we actually extract such a precise date from celestial calculations and records?

In the spirit of this project I sent the following email to Mr Eclipse…

Dear Fred Espenak,
I’m researching a possible reorganization of the concept of year dating.
Today we’re in the year 2017. Which is loosely based on the birth of a man two thousand years ago who may or may not mean something to many of us.
What would be a more appropriate, agnostic date anchoring point?
I’m suggesting, and now researching, using the start of the Anthropocene ~12,000 years ago.
But I need an exact date, all that time ago, to provide the true “zero” day.
I estimate that if a full solar eclipse, that occurred around that time, which darkened the skies above Greenwich England (GMT), at approximately noon, then that would serve as an absolute anchor point for starting the years Humanity as existed in its current form.
So, is there a way to extrapolate such a date?
Have you done this? And could you share such a date?

 

We’ll see what he has to say. If you know of a way to calculate such a number… care to share it?


Fake Meat – a collection nexus

This is a collection nexus for fake meat, lab meat, Heme meat, engineer meat etc.

The comments will contain various references as I find them.


Memento homo

Memento homo

Remember the man, for he is mortal.
Remember the man, for he shall pass.
Remember the man, for he tries valiantly.
Remember the man, for naught will last.


The Ultimate Bite

Humans are driven, in part, by their appetites.

And by that I mean their actual, “damn I’m hungry!” appetites.

The eating of food, driven by myriad biological, social and situational factors, is “supposed” to fulfill that single requirement of nutritional satisfaction. But, as we all know, it rarely does. Satisfy that is. Why is that?

We’re not, hungry, per se. But we’re not quenched, or complete, still a bit hollow. We, somehow, after countless bites of pasta, pizza, steak, seafood, cheese, fruits and veggies, and countless culinary offerings, are still unsatisfied. Unfulfilled.

Again, why is that?

Perhaps it’s because we’ve just not experienced, during our spate of hunger satiation, the ultimate bite.

What is the ultimate bite? Imagine a mouthful of a little sweet, a little sour, a drop of bitter, a dusting of salty, a shimmer of savory, a layer of unctuousness, all wrapped up in a instantly dissolving film of umami. Mix in a bit of chewy, a dripping of slippery, a crack of crunchy and skurr of silky smoothness.

That is the ultimate bite. The complete and total appeasement of our culinary desires. All of our food wants — bundled into a single life-affirming bite. True manna from the heavens.

Gulp!

Now, what if such a thing existed? What if we could create, or find or evolve such a all-satisfying sundry? How many would you eat? My thinking is that, although such a creation would fail to provide you that ghrelin suppressing sensation, with just a single bite, if you finalized your meal, ANY meal with a single ultimate bite, your hungers would be calmed, placated, your hunger would finally be satiated.

So often our desires drawn from the world twist themselves morphing into accessible solutions; food as a solution, not to dietary needs but to any lack in our lives.

But what if the ultimate bite could provide that perfect flourish, the last scrumptious morsel that would seal off our desires? In food it might be possible. In drink? What about in life?


Wag the Dog

The election of The Drumpf may prove to be an excellent lesson for everyone in the manipulation of attention and persuasion of an audience.

There’s no doubt that that The Drumpf personifies the intentional overt molding of the media. He knows how to play the media against itself. He knows how to divert focus from sensitive areas that might expose his nefarious activities to sensationalized, fabricated scandals that tear at our sense of decorum and virtue, that incite our moral outrage.

We would do well to analyze and master this man’s capabilities.

Wag the Dog is a 1997 film which illustrates how misdirection of the media can sway and cajole the populace into ignoring true scandal within an administration and instead adopt a false but compelling alter-narrative.

The Drumpf is master at this. It is odd however, that he — the dog — would be wagging himself. That is, the phrase “wag the dog” implies that it is the tail of the dog that is in control, and not the dog itself. On second thought, The Drumpf may indeed NOT be in control but is being directed by his minions. Rasputin whispering in the Tsar’s ear.

The lesson here is to both learn the craft of intentional misdirection, AND, to learn when to recognize it and to stay the course of investigation of the dog itself.


YODO

I was thinking about that acronym YOLO (you only live once) and wondering if it actually embodied what most people who claim it as their war cry think it embodies. Sure, ultimately, we (theoretically) have just one life to live, but is that really what the emotion is when such people raise it up to drive them forward into adventure or adversity? I rather think that living is done in bursts.

“We really lived it up last night didn’t we!”

“That camping trip was really livin’ it!”

“Surfing those big waves I felt so alive, I truly lived that day.”

It seems to me that YOLO is rather misleading — at least in the way it is used — that is, like a charge into battle, a statement of resolve and commitment (or capricious surrender?). And so, I thought a more accurate acronym would be…
YODO: You Only Die Once.
Now THAT is accurate (as far as we know).

Hmm, then again, the Hindus might argue with me questioning who the ‘you’ was in YODO; is it you this single instance, or is it you the spiritual ‘soul’ or mystical entity that will cycle through this and then an infinite number of universes?

And so my mind began to wander, as it does, and I stepped back from the finality of YODO and considered the concept of Love.

What? Yeah, I know, cynical Anonymole, you think about Love?

Yes, off and on throughout the ages I have pontificated this aspect of humanity. From it, if I open up my mind to its widest possible extent, I can envision a threadbare theory where Love, that nearly inexplicable emotion or state of mind, supersedes the  Universe itself. Yeah, deep I know.

If the powers of the Universe, the four binding interactions of physics: gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear, are the framework, the fabric on which matter and energy and life are sewn, Love seems, at times, to transcend these forces. Now, I’m generally of a mind that we’re just bags of chemistry bobbing and bumbling along with inverted chaos somehow coalescing some semblance of rational order out of the mix-up that is the Universe, but, for a moment I wonder what might extend beyond this wholly rational view. And the only nuance of existence that comes to mind is Love.

Love, it feels, can reverse entropy; can last for ages; can blast through all lost hope; can elevate us beyond existence. If anything in the universe might be a candidate for transcending the Universe I would have to pick Love as the one.

So, yeah, YODO. I’m 99.999% sure. But there’s that .001% that I just can’t seem to quit. I don’t know why. I guess I’m just a romantic at heart (at least a .001% of one.)