Friday, July 30, 2004
Meet a new child prodigy
A genuine child prodigy is a rare and precious thing. Some produce works of genius that survive the test of centuries (think Mozart); some can become victims of the enormous pressures they can be subject to (think Bobby Fisher).
Akiane Kramarik is a 10-year-old girl of Lithuanian parentage who lives in Idaho, USA. She began painting at the age of 4, and is totally self-taught. Despite that, she is producing portraits that would not disgrace a master - they exhibit the maturity and technique of a person way beyond her years. They are not slapdash abstracts - Akiane can put 75-100 hours into one portrait (she happily gets up at 5.30 am to start work), and they are already fetching prices of $30,000.
That is amazing enough, but even more startling is that despite having parents who were athiestic or agnostic, Akiane says she met God at the age of 3, and before starting any painting she asks Him what to paint. Each painting is accompanied by one of her own poems, which also show a depth of emotion and understanding no ordinary 10-year-old would have.
In every other respect, Akiane appears to be a delightfully normal girl. Let's hope she can be shielded from exploiters and other pressures so she does not become a casualty of the system.
Another review of Akiane's work is here.
A genuine child prodigy is a rare and precious thing. Some produce works of genius that survive the test of centuries (think Mozart); some can become victims of the enormous pressures they can be subject to (think Bobby Fisher).
Akiane Kramarik is a 10-year-old girl of Lithuanian parentage who lives in Idaho, USA. She began painting at the age of 4, and is totally self-taught. Despite that, she is producing portraits that would not disgrace a master - they exhibit the maturity and technique of a person way beyond her years. They are not slapdash abstracts - Akiane can put 75-100 hours into one portrait (she happily gets up at 5.30 am to start work), and they are already fetching prices of $30,000.
That is amazing enough, but even more startling is that despite having parents who were athiestic or agnostic, Akiane says she met God at the age of 3, and before starting any painting she asks Him what to paint. Each painting is accompanied by one of her own poems, which also show a depth of emotion and understanding no ordinary 10-year-old would have.
In every other respect, Akiane appears to be a delightfully normal girl. Let's hope she can be shielded from exploiters and other pressures so she does not become a casualty of the system.
Another review of Akiane's work is here.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
What they are not saying about fertility and population
A new report into Australia's population future by the Business Council of Australia is as notable for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
If fertility rates keep falling as they are doing in most western countries, Australia's population is headed for decline within a few decades. The only major country where fertility is holding up is the USA. Deaths are expected to start exceeding births in New Zealand around 2035-2040. Falling fertility equals a declining economy.
The almost universal answer - including in this BCA paper - is to boost immigration. Australia's current immigration target is around 100,000, but the paper believes this should be increased to 150,000. The NZ target is 45-50,000, but the government's flip-flops on policy have spooked applicants and there has been a major shortfall so far this year.
To be more precise, the paper says Australia should focus on skilled immigration, but it totally fails to provide any discussion on the implications which follow. Unanswered questions include:
a) Where are these skilled migrants going to come from? There is already huge competition between western countries for skilled workers (everybody is poaching each other's teachers, nurses, police, etc). There are just not enough to go round.
b) The unstated answer is presumably "non-western countries". So, which countries, and do they have enough to supply the world's insatiable demand without completely draining their own stocks? No-one knows, if they do know, they are not saying. What will be the consequence of these countries losing their best people?
c) What will be the consequence of 150,000 people from non-western cultures arriving every year in Australia? Again, the discussion paper simply does not ask the question.
d) The paper has nothing to say about ways in which the decline in fertility might be addressed. It simply accepts that it will probably continue, or at best hopefully stabilise.
Fertility is falling for three major reasons (plus a host of smaller ones): 1. Lifestyle choice; 2. The need/desire to postpone births (eg, through the necessity to have two incomes in a family); 3. The ballooning abortion rate. Last year, I asked the chief demographer at Statistics NZ what our fertility rate would be if all the abortions had been live births. His answer: 2.5, which is way above replacement level.
These three factors are killing our culture - in a nutshell, it is rotten at the core. Attempting to boost immigration without addressing the root problems is like fixing a home with dryrot in the foundations by tacking on more weatherboards.
A new report into Australia's population future by the Business Council of Australia is as notable for what it leaves out as for what it includes.
If fertility rates keep falling as they are doing in most western countries, Australia's population is headed for decline within a few decades. The only major country where fertility is holding up is the USA. Deaths are expected to start exceeding births in New Zealand around 2035-2040. Falling fertility equals a declining economy.
The almost universal answer - including in this BCA paper - is to boost immigration. Australia's current immigration target is around 100,000, but the paper believes this should be increased to 150,000. The NZ target is 45-50,000, but the government's flip-flops on policy have spooked applicants and there has been a major shortfall so far this year.
To be more precise, the paper says Australia should focus on skilled immigration, but it totally fails to provide any discussion on the implications which follow. Unanswered questions include:
a) Where are these skilled migrants going to come from? There is already huge competition between western countries for skilled workers (everybody is poaching each other's teachers, nurses, police, etc). There are just not enough to go round.
b) The unstated answer is presumably "non-western countries". So, which countries, and do they have enough to supply the world's insatiable demand without completely draining their own stocks? No-one knows, if they do know, they are not saying. What will be the consequence of these countries losing their best people?
c) What will be the consequence of 150,000 people from non-western cultures arriving every year in Australia? Again, the discussion paper simply does not ask the question.
d) The paper has nothing to say about ways in which the decline in fertility might be addressed. It simply accepts that it will probably continue, or at best hopefully stabilise.
Fertility is falling for three major reasons (plus a host of smaller ones): 1. Lifestyle choice; 2. The need/desire to postpone births (eg, through the necessity to have two incomes in a family); 3. The ballooning abortion rate. Last year, I asked the chief demographer at Statistics NZ what our fertility rate would be if all the abortions had been live births. His answer: 2.5, which is way above replacement level.
These three factors are killing our culture - in a nutshell, it is rotten at the core. Attempting to boost immigration without addressing the root problems is like fixing a home with dryrot in the foundations by tacking on more weatherboards.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Judge orders God broken up into smaller deities
WASHINGTON, DC—Calling the theological giant's stranglehold on the religion industry "blatantly anti-competitive," a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.
"The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation," wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. "In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly."
The suit, brought against God by the Justice Department on behalf of a coalition of "lesser deities" and polytheistic mortals, alleged that He violated antitrust laws by claiming in the Holy Bible that He was the sole creator of the universe, and by strictly prohibiting the worship of what He termed "false idols."
"God clearly commands that there shall be no other gods before Him, and He frequently employs the phrase 'I AM the Lord' to intimidate potential deserters," prosecuting attorney Geoffrey Albert said. "God uses other questionable strongarm tactics to secure and maintain humanity's devotion, demanding, among other things, that people sanctify their firstborn to Him and obtain circumcisions as a show of faith. There have also been documented examples of Him smiting those caught worshipping graven images."
Attorneys for God did not deny such charges. They did, however, note that God offers followers "unbeatable incentives" in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and "fruitfulness."
"God was the first to approach the Jewish people with a 'covenant' contract that guaranteed they would be the most favored in His eyes, and He handed down standards of morality, cleanliness, and personal conduct that exceeded anything else practiced at the time," lead defense attorney Patrick Childers said. "He readily admits to being a 'jealous' God, not because He is threatened by the prospect of competition from other gods, but because He is utterly convinced of the righteousness of His cause and that He is the best choice for mortals. Many of these so-called gods could care less if somebody bears false witness or covets thy neighbor's wife. Our client, on the other hand, is truly a 'People's God.'"
In the end, however, God was unable to convince Schofield that He did not deliberately create a marketplace hostile to rival deities. God's attorneys attempted to convince the judge of His openness to rivals, pointing to His longtime participation in the "Holy Trinity," but the effort failed when Schofield determined that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are "more God subsidiaries than competitors."
To comply with federal antitrust statutes, God will be required to divide Himself into a pantheon of specialized gods, each representing a force of nature or a specific human custom, occupation, or state of mind.
"There will most likely be a sun god, a moon god, sea god, and rain god," said religion-industry watcher Catherine Bailey. "Then there will be some second-tier deities, like a god of wine, a goddess of the harvest, and perhaps a few who symbolize human love and/or blacksmithing."
Leading theologians are applauding the God breakup, saying that it will usher in a new era of greater worshipping options, increased efficiency, and more personalized service.
"God's prayer-response system has been plagued by massive, chronic backlogs, and many prayers have gone unanswered in the process," said Gene Suozzi, a Phoenix-area Wiccan. "With polytheism, you pray to the deity specifically devoted to your concern. If you wish to have children, you pray to the fertility goddess. If you want to do well on an exam, you pray to the god of wisdom, and so on. This decentralization will result in more individualized service and swifter response times."
Other religious experts are not so confident that the breakup is for the best, pointing to the chaotic nature of polytheistic worship and noting that multiple gods demand an elaborate regimen of devotion that today's average worshipper may find arduous and inconvenient.
"If people want a world in which they must lay burnt offerings before an earthenware household god to ensure that their car will start on a cold winter morning, I suppose they can have it," said Father Thomas Reinholdt, theology professor at Chicago's Loyola University. "What's more, lesser deities are infamous for their mercurial nature. They often meddle directly in diplomatic affairs, abduct comely young mortal women for their concubines, and are not above demanding an infant or two for sacrifice. Monotheism, for all its faults, at least means convenience, stability, and a consistent moral code."
One deity who is welcoming the verdict is the ancient Greek god Zeus, who described himself as "jubilant" and "absolutely vindicated."
"For thousands of years, I've been screaming that this third-rate sky deity ripped me off wholesale," said Zeus, speaking from his Mt. Olympus residence. "Every good idea He ever had He took from me: Who first created men in his own image? Who punished mankind for its sins? Who lived eternally up in the clouds? And the whole fearsome, patriarchal, white-beard, thunderbolt thing? I was doing that eons before this two-bit hustler started horning in on the action."
Lawyers for God say they plan to appeal Schofield's ruling and are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
"This decision is a crushing blow to God worshippers everywhere, and we refuse to submit to a breakup until every possible avenue of argument is pursued," Childers said. "I have every confidence that God will ultimately win, as He and His lawyers are all-powerful."
(Note: This item appears to have originated at a satirical web site called The Onion, but is no longer available online there.)
WASHINGTON, DC—Calling the theological giant's stranglehold on the religion industry "blatantly anti-competitive," a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.
"The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation," wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. "In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly."
The suit, brought against God by the Justice Department on behalf of a coalition of "lesser deities" and polytheistic mortals, alleged that He violated antitrust laws by claiming in the Holy Bible that He was the sole creator of the universe, and by strictly prohibiting the worship of what He termed "false idols."
"God clearly commands that there shall be no other gods before Him, and He frequently employs the phrase 'I AM the Lord' to intimidate potential deserters," prosecuting attorney Geoffrey Albert said. "God uses other questionable strongarm tactics to secure and maintain humanity's devotion, demanding, among other things, that people sanctify their firstborn to Him and obtain circumcisions as a show of faith. There have also been documented examples of Him smiting those caught worshipping graven images."
Attorneys for God did not deny such charges. They did, however, note that God offers followers "unbeatable incentives" in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and "fruitfulness."
"God was the first to approach the Jewish people with a 'covenant' contract that guaranteed they would be the most favored in His eyes, and He handed down standards of morality, cleanliness, and personal conduct that exceeded anything else practiced at the time," lead defense attorney Patrick Childers said. "He readily admits to being a 'jealous' God, not because He is threatened by the prospect of competition from other gods, but because He is utterly convinced of the righteousness of His cause and that He is the best choice for mortals. Many of these so-called gods could care less if somebody bears false witness or covets thy neighbor's wife. Our client, on the other hand, is truly a 'People's God.'"
In the end, however, God was unable to convince Schofield that He did not deliberately create a marketplace hostile to rival deities. God's attorneys attempted to convince the judge of His openness to rivals, pointing to His longtime participation in the "Holy Trinity," but the effort failed when Schofield determined that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are "more God subsidiaries than competitors."
To comply with federal antitrust statutes, God will be required to divide Himself into a pantheon of specialized gods, each representing a force of nature or a specific human custom, occupation, or state of mind.
"There will most likely be a sun god, a moon god, sea god, and rain god," said religion-industry watcher Catherine Bailey. "Then there will be some second-tier deities, like a god of wine, a goddess of the harvest, and perhaps a few who symbolize human love and/or blacksmithing."
Leading theologians are applauding the God breakup, saying that it will usher in a new era of greater worshipping options, increased efficiency, and more personalized service.
"God's prayer-response system has been plagued by massive, chronic backlogs, and many prayers have gone unanswered in the process," said Gene Suozzi, a Phoenix-area Wiccan. "With polytheism, you pray to the deity specifically devoted to your concern. If you wish to have children, you pray to the fertility goddess. If you want to do well on an exam, you pray to the god of wisdom, and so on. This decentralization will result in more individualized service and swifter response times."
Other religious experts are not so confident that the breakup is for the best, pointing to the chaotic nature of polytheistic worship and noting that multiple gods demand an elaborate regimen of devotion that today's average worshipper may find arduous and inconvenient.
"If people want a world in which they must lay burnt offerings before an earthenware household god to ensure that their car will start on a cold winter morning, I suppose they can have it," said Father Thomas Reinholdt, theology professor at Chicago's Loyola University. "What's more, lesser deities are infamous for their mercurial nature. They often meddle directly in diplomatic affairs, abduct comely young mortal women for their concubines, and are not above demanding an infant or two for sacrifice. Monotheism, for all its faults, at least means convenience, stability, and a consistent moral code."
One deity who is welcoming the verdict is the ancient Greek god Zeus, who described himself as "jubilant" and "absolutely vindicated."
"For thousands of years, I've been screaming that this third-rate sky deity ripped me off wholesale," said Zeus, speaking from his Mt. Olympus residence. "Every good idea He ever had He took from me: Who first created men in his own image? Who punished mankind for its sins? Who lived eternally up in the clouds? And the whole fearsome, patriarchal, white-beard, thunderbolt thing? I was doing that eons before this two-bit hustler started horning in on the action."
Lawyers for God say they plan to appeal Schofield's ruling and are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
"This decision is a crushing blow to God worshippers everywhere, and we refuse to submit to a breakup until every possible avenue of argument is pursued," Childers said. "I have every confidence that God will ultimately win, as He and His lawyers are all-powerful."
(Note: This item appears to have originated at a satirical web site called The Onion, but is no longer available online there.)
Reality TV plummets to new low
In what its critics have termed the "sickest ever reality show", a British production company is planning a sperm race in which a human egg is fertilised live on television. In "Make Me a Mum", a woman will take fertility drugs to produce eggs and 1,000 men will compete for the privilege of having their sperm selected. The sperm of two finalists - a man selected by the mum-to-be on the basis of sex appeal, wealth, fitness and personality and a man selected by scientific experts - will race to create a baby.The production company, Brighter Pictures, is owned by the company which produces Big Brother. Its creative director, Remy Blumenfeld, defended his concept. "There's a tremendous amount of science to this show. It's fascinating. It's much more about the rules of the science than the rules of attraction."
In what its critics have termed the "sickest ever reality show", a British production company is planning a sperm race in which a human egg is fertilised live on television. In "Make Me a Mum", a woman will take fertility drugs to produce eggs and 1,000 men will compete for the privilege of having their sperm selected. The sperm of two finalists - a man selected by the mum-to-be on the basis of sex appeal, wealth, fitness and personality and a man selected by scientific experts - will race to create a baby.The production company, Brighter Pictures, is owned by the company which produces Big Brother. Its creative director, Remy Blumenfeld, defended his concept. "There's a tremendous amount of science to this show. It's fascinating. It's much more about the rules of the science than the rules of attraction."
Japan approves human cloning for research
The Japanese Government's top science council has approved limited cloning of human embryos for scientific research. The clones cannot be used for treating human patients. A cabinet council on science and technology policy headed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will now ask ministries to propose specific guidelines.
The Japanese Government's top science council has approved limited cloning of human embryos for scientific research. The clones cannot be used for treating human patients. A cabinet council on science and technology policy headed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will now ask ministries to propose specific guidelines.
Monday, July 26, 2004
What do we want out of modern medicine?
One in every 10 people entering hospital for a surgical procedure these days will probably acquire a hospital-based infection.
That's one of the startling figures quoted by Professor Peter Curson, director of the health studies programme at Macquarie University, New South Wales, in an article in today's NZ Herald.
Professor Curson asks, what do we want out of modern medicine? What role should the medical profession assume in modern society? Is it to provide relief from suffering? Is it to keep us alive longer, regardless of the quality of life we may be forced to endure? Is it to make us lead healthier lives? Or, in this high-tech environment, is it simply to act as a service provider catering for the whims and wishes of people wanting cosmetic enhancements?
"Why is it, in a society committed to social equality and welfare, that certain groups of people - the young, the old and the disadvantaged - continue to bear a disproportionate burden of injury and disease? Why is it that our high-technology and high-quality hospitals belie their true purpose and cause ill-health? Probably one in every 10 people entering hospital for a surgical procedure these days will acquire a hospital-based infection. Why is it that so many people die as a result of injuries or diseases sustained in the course of their employment?
"In New Zealand there are now more deaths from this source than there are on the roads. In addition, about one in every seven New Zealanders suffer a non-fatal injury or illness (for example, broken bones, hearing loss, asthma, headaches, stress, or RSI) in the workplace.
Some serious debate is needed. Trouble is, the media focus on high-profile "compassionate" cases (like, how can we be so cruel as to deny that treatment to this deserving person), which makes it impossible to provide answers that do not seem callous. No-one is facing up to the fact that it is simply not possible to provide every expensive treatment to every deserving case. In the meantime, basic treatments - for cataracts, to name just one - are being denied to thousands.
One in every 10 people entering hospital for a surgical procedure these days will probably acquire a hospital-based infection.
That's one of the startling figures quoted by Professor Peter Curson, director of the health studies programme at Macquarie University, New South Wales, in an article in today's NZ Herald.
Professor Curson asks, what do we want out of modern medicine? What role should the medical profession assume in modern society? Is it to provide relief from suffering? Is it to keep us alive longer, regardless of the quality of life we may be forced to endure? Is it to make us lead healthier lives? Or, in this high-tech environment, is it simply to act as a service provider catering for the whims and wishes of people wanting cosmetic enhancements?
"Why is it, in a society committed to social equality and welfare, that certain groups of people - the young, the old and the disadvantaged - continue to bear a disproportionate burden of injury and disease? Why is it that our high-technology and high-quality hospitals belie their true purpose and cause ill-health? Probably one in every 10 people entering hospital for a surgical procedure these days will acquire a hospital-based infection. Why is it that so many people die as a result of injuries or diseases sustained in the course of their employment?
"In New Zealand there are now more deaths from this source than there are on the roads. In addition, about one in every seven New Zealanders suffer a non-fatal injury or illness (for example, broken bones, hearing loss, asthma, headaches, stress, or RSI) in the workplace.
Some serious debate is needed. Trouble is, the media focus on high-profile "compassionate" cases (like, how can we be so cruel as to deny that treatment to this deserving person), which makes it impossible to provide answers that do not seem callous. No-one is facing up to the fact that it is simply not possible to provide every expensive treatment to every deserving case. In the meantime, basic treatments - for cataracts, to name just one - are being denied to thousands.
