TSA invasion

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has installed 315 body scanners - X-ray and radio-wave booths to perform virtual strip searches - at over 65 airports throughout the United States as of December 2010. Now the TSA has not only invaded the airports with these naked body scanners, it now has plans to expand to train stations, bus terminals, and road/highway checkpoints.

Under the pretext of fighting terrorism to protect lives, the TSA exerts more harm to society by controlling the traffic flow with the installation of digital body scanners on a mass scale - causing long lines and traffic delays, imposing psychological stress on travelers, endangering human lives with unnecessary radiation exposure, violating individual privacy, and assaulting human rights

How could the TSA with its abominable body scanners have gotten so far with such blatant violations, abuses, and assaults on ordinary citizens?

It's time to ask the RIGHT QUESTIONS.

1. What started the U.S. government's plan of mass implementation of body scanners on law-abiding citizens?

The so-called Christmas "underwear bomber" incident in 2009 is given as justification for the federal government to spend billions of dollars on the new full-body imaging devices and push them to go viral at airports.

Notice the timeline of events:

- October 2009, the TSA announced plans to expand the passenger digital strip search program.
- November 2009, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed its first lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to present public details about its Whole Body Imaging program.
- December 10, 2009, supposedly Christmas bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab failed the attempt to blow up Flight 253.
- December 17, 2009, EPIC filed its second lawsuit against the Department of Justice in regards to the use of the body screening machines.

2. How could any radiation screening be considered safe for people?

Claiming body scanners are safe, the TSA imposes airports to use the backscatter and millimeter devices to screen passengers for weapons and explosives. The backscatter machine uses x-ray radiation while the millimeter device uses radio frequency wave to create images of passengers.

Contrary to the TSA claims, four medical faculty members at the University of California, San Francisco, sent a letter to the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy pointing out potentially serious health risks to children, senior citizens and pregnant women. Even two pilots unions, representing 16,000 pilots or so, told their members to avoid full-body scanning.

The backscatter devices fire ionizing radiation that penetrates a few centimeters into human flesh and reflects off the skin to produce a naked body image. The small risk associated with the low dose of radiation actually increases by the number of exposures. Why? Because X-ray radiation accumulates in the body, according to Dr. Max Gerson, a cancer specialist. Worse still, ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures has been proven to cause gene mutation.

Citing the IAEA's 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement that protects people from radiation, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the body scanners. David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, voices his concern of unnecessary radiation exposure: "There is no good reason why [TSA] scans the head and neck, especially since you can't hide explosives there."

Moreover, CT scans ionizing radiation, similar to backscatter devises, may have contributed to 14,500 deaths and 29,000 new cancers each year, according to two studies published in Archives of Internal Medicine in 2009.

3. What is the full capability of a body scanner?

As the disclosure of the true capabilities of body scanners trickles in, the lies and deceptions of TSA are revealed.

Trying to downplay the intrusion of privacy, the TSA has routinely claimed that the body scanner produces a "ghostly" or "skeletal" electronic image as TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee puts it: "resembles a fuzzy negative."

However, readily available prints of the body scanning images clearly show high quality detail of naked male and female bodies. In fact, backscatter machines produce images on the TSA's website that make genitals distinctly visible.
In addition, TSA spokesperson Sari Koshetz said, "The equipment sent by the manufacturer to airports CANNOT store, transmit, or print, and operators at airports do not have the capability to activate any such function."

But, CNET reported that a full body millimeter device in a Florida federal courthouse did store more than thirty thousands of images for the U.S. Marshal Service - a division of the Department of Justice.

In fact, Department of Homeland Security’s 70-page document (PDF) , obtained by the EPIC in a lawsuit against the U.S. Marshals Service, reveals that the TSA body scanners are not only able to record, send, and store naked body images, but that they must be made to do so.

In defense, Koshetz declares, "TSA has not, will not, and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports."

Considering that the TSA being so reluctant in revealing the full capabilities of body scanners to the public and that lurking around the body scanners are military men and intelligence operatives, can anyone really TRUST what the TSA say and do?

4. What laws has TSA's body scanner program violated?

The TSA's body scanner program violates fundamental privacy laws, not to mention backscatter device threatens a large human population with health risks of cancer or death and endangers the human race with genetic mutation.

The TSA's body scanner program assaults all individuals - young and old, male and female - and strips personal freedom protected by the Privacy Act, the Fourth Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act.

The Privacy Act protects the privacy of individuals. The constitutional Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches that the body scanners perform as "virtual strip" searches. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects individuals or groups against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices, such as Muslims have the right to refuse body scanning. The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act prohibits the intentional "capture [of] an image of a private area of an individual without their consent".

5. Who profits from the Naked Full-Body Scanner Boom?

Of course, the military industrial complex defense contractors are the ones making huge profits from the sale of thousands of the naked imaging scanners.

Michael Chertoff, who is the former DHS secretary under President George W. Bush and co-author of the USA Patriot Act (stripping individual rights), now heads the Chertoff Group that represents the defense contractor, Rapiscan Systems. In fact, Chertoff ordered the government’s first batch of the backscatter devices from Rapiscan in 2005.

Not surprisingly, Chertoff, one of Bush’s point men responsible for bringing America down to its present police state, pushes for body scanners that violate human rights and human decency. Days after the failed Christmas bombing attempt in 2009, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, 

Another manufacturer, American Science & Engineering, Inc., which specializes in X-ray technology, has developed numerous security products that includes scanners used in military and weapons applications, vehicle and cargo container inspection, as well as the widespread body scanners.

The other profiteers are none other than the former government officials. The Washington Examiner  gives a list of former Washington politicians and staff members that are in the "full-body scanner lobby".

6. What is the government's HIDDEN purpose for using body scanners?

Some governments in conspiracy with the United States are promoting the use of body scanners around the world. The very body scanners used in airports have already been extensively tested in railway stations in major cities.

One can suspect the government's secret agenda for using body scanners:

- to continue the lies about the phantom terrorists to justify its control over the masses
- to justify the stripping of individual rights and freedom for the sake of national security
- to identify who comes and leaves the country as well as tracking individual movements
- to build a grand database of all individuals living or staying in the country.

In conclusion, the mass distribution of the harmful body scanners throughout the land is turning America into a war zone. The fact that the U.S. is surrounded by two friendly nations (Canada and Mexico) and two vast oceans (the Pacific and the Atlantic) doesn't seem to deter the military industrial complex to fight an imaginary war against the invisible terrorists.

It's obvious that America is no longer the land of the free. And as the body scanners continue to spread to other parts of the globe, no place will be free in the future.


(First published on UniOrb.com, February 7, 2011)

Obama Administration Lies and Spins on the Killing of Osama bin Laden

There's not one iota of proof that the U.S. Navy SEALs has killed the REAL CIA-made-world-terrorist, Osama bin Laden. There's plenty of proof that CIA's tactic is an attempt to fool the public with disinformation, inconsistencies, and confusion for its multiple ulterior motives.

The mainstream media lapped up the spoon-fed storyline by the U.S. administration, heaping praises on President Obama and the CIA for a job well done until their story starts to unravel under the scrutiny of the skeptic public.

First, the fake photo of the bloody Osama bin Laden appeared in mainstream media and went viral over the Internet for a day or so.

To show how inconsistent the news stories on the "kill bin Laden" 40-minute operation has been, three versions have appeared in different parts of the world: AFP (Pakistan Hits Back Over Bin Laden Furore), Xinhua (Pakistani armed forces not involved in operation killing bin Laden), and The Tribune, Pakistan (The Operation: What exactly happened in Abbottabad).

According to a Pakistani witness account on youtube (Osama bin Laden killing witness account), firing of shots and several large explosions occurred during the US Special Forces midnight raid.

On Sunday, President Obama along with top officials, including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were in the Situation Room watching real time-footage of two Navy SEAL teams storming the hideout of the suspect, Osama bin Laden. If they could watch the commandos entering the compound, then the whole operation, step by step, including the shootings of Osama bin Laden and his companions, was captured on cameras mounted on SEALs' helmets.

Today the White House changed its story as more discrepancies started to surface.

The discrepancies in reports and witness accounts raise key issues that the Obama administration needs to address:

whether the U.S. Blackhawk helicopter was shot down or crashed due to mechanical failure

   What could have caused the helicopter's sudden mechanical failure?

whether the CIA operation was an assassination mission against the suspect, Osama bin Laden, who was unarmed 

    Why kill an unarmed man? Why shoot him more than once?

whether the commandos took prisoners back with them

    Why killed ALL the men (four) and a woman when two elite SEAL teams consisting of 25 members could easily overpower  them?

whether the "extrajudicial execution" of bin Laden committed by the U.S. in Pakistan has violated international  human rights law

   Why does the U.S. think it's above international law to conduct extrajudicial killings with impunity on foreign soil?

whether the CIA tried to conceal the true identity of the man that they claimed was Osama bin Laden 

    Why shoot bin Laden in the face and rushed to bury him in the sea (contrary to Muslim custom for a leader), unless the man they shot was  NOT Osama bin Laden.

When the world is calling Obama to show proof of the dead Osama bin Laden, an account that counters the U.S. version of events has appeared: Bin Laden's daughter confirms her father shot dead by US Special Forces in Pakistan

Key points that contradict the U.S. version:

Pakistan version: Osama bin Laden's 12-year old daughter said that her father who was staying on the ground floor was captured alive but shot dead in front of family members.
U.S. version: Bin Laden was found with his wife on the 3^rd floor of the building and was shot dead.

Pakistan version: Bin Laden was not armed and none of the occupants fired at the U.S. helicopters or commandos. No arms or explosives found on the compound.
U.S. version: There was hostile firing on the ground floor and second floor of the building in the compound.

Pakistan version:  Navy SEAL took TWO bodies with them -- one was bin Laden's and the other his son's in a separate helicopter. They claimed that 4 bullet-riddled bodies, including the slain woman,  were recovered from the compound.
U.S. version: They claimed that only five people were killed and  "…the only person, dead or alive, taken away by U.S. raiders from the scene was the body of Osama bin Laden".

As a typical CIA maneuver,  the planted article's main point, despite the contradictions, is to establish the identity of the dead man whisked away by the U.S. helicopter as Osama bin Laden.  However, upon scrutiny, there are a few questionable points about this story. 

Why were there no names of  any Pakistani security officials given throughout the story?  Usually in a high-profile case like this, the Head of Security would usually be quoted.

Why didn't the U.S. take Osama's wife for questioning in one of their Chinook helicopters that came to pick up the computer equipment and documents AFTER the crash of the Blackhawk helicopter?

What we have as proof so far is UNSEEN EVIDENCE. No photos of Osama bin Laden's wife after the arrest.  

Where's the proof ?

The U.S. officials claimed that they have ample proof that the most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was indeed the man shot dead by US Special Forces in Abbottabad. Two of the ways for identifying the body were used - DNA tests and facial recognition.

If the U.S. officials are so sure that they have the right man - not one of his half-brothers or relatives - why don't they release the video of the deceased body after it was cleaned up for the sea burial? Why don't they release other data on bin Laden, like his fingerprints on the confiscated computer equipment and documents?  Or why don't they just release the images captured on cameras during the U.S. raid that was viewed in the Situation Room?

Sure enough, today Obama announced that he can't deliver the proof as he promised. Why? Because Osama bin Laden has died many years ago. Nevertheless, the CIA will try to fabricate proof out of thin air.

The world is waiting with bated breath....


(First published on UniOrb.com, May 4, 2010)

GLOBAL WARMING CALLS FOR ACTION

We don't need to ask experts to know that our planet is slipping into a deep crisis. We see daily news of people dying from increasing natural disasters all over the world - floods, hurricanes, storms, droughts, heat waves, and earthquakes. We feel the weather in each approaching season getting extreme - hotter, colder, dryer, or wetter. We hear reports of an alarming rate of animal, insect, and plant  species on the brink of extinction. And we fear the spread of deadly viruses that have surfaced among animals as well as humans. It's irrefutable that global warming has already set in motion the detrimental effects around the globe. How many more lives and billions of dollars in damages will it take for businesses and political leaders to take full responsibility in carrying out drastic measures to save our planet?

 

Global warming is caused by the excessive amount of trapped greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Human activities have been blamed for 95% of global warming - 75% of annual CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) and 20% from cutting and burning of forests (trees trap and store carbon). The scientists claimed in just 10 years' time the Earth's temperature will rise by 2°C above the average Earth's temperature, a tipping point-of-no-return. The consequences of such an increase could lead to widespread water shortages and major droughts, agricultural failures, loss of forests, epidemic diseases, and rising sea level. The ultimate climax would be the melting of the polar caps, triggering the cooling effect throughout the globe to advance the onslaught of another ice age. After earlier warnings have turned into realities, why would anyone doubt the scientific conclusions now?

 

The urgency in dealing with the global warming phenomenon no longer allows world leaders and corporations to continue their lackadaisical attitude in tackling severe environmental problems. Many governments have already been bombarded with numerous social and health problems caused by natural disasters, and some businesses have already suffered immense losses directly and indirectly related to these natural catastrophes. The wailing cries of Mother Nature will only worsen as the Earth's temperature edges upward in the coming years. How much more proof do they need to understand that dire actions are the only options left to alleviate the escalating global warming effects?

 

Since the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s, humans have been so preoccupied with improving their living conditions that they have been callously plundering the natural resources of this planet without a single thought of the consequences for the natural environment, diverse co-inhabitants, or the whole fragile ecosystem of the Earth. As civilizations become more complex, sophisticated, and technologically advanced, science has enabled humanity to understand that their precious surroundings are based on the equilibrium of interconnected ecosystems. If one ecosystem falters, it would instantaneously prompt the collapses of other ecosystems.

 

Common sense tells us as the human population grows and the use of fossil fuels soars around the world - we must plant more trees to absorb superfluous carbon dioxide in the air. Instead, deforestation has been the routine of some companies that aggressively pursue profits at all cost. Evidently, some self-serving political leaders, supported by profit-driven corporations, seem indifferent or reluctant to implement effective measures against the ongoing destruction of our environment.    

 

In the Earth's teeming biosphere, forests play a pertinent role in regulating the balance of nature - preventing soil erosion, moderating world climate, and maintaining natural habitats for biodiversity. The loss of trees, which anchor the soil with their roots, leads to widespread erosion as riverbeds rise, increasing the severity of floods. When a heavy load of sediment dumps into the ocean, it not only badly damages mangrove forests but also destroys coral reefs, indirectly affecting coastal fisheries. In addition, denuding the forests strikes a heavy blow to human welfare, for plants - some of which are located only in forests - serve as the primary source of medicine for three-quarters of the world's population.

 

To keep the Earth's atmospheric carbon in check, trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through the process of photosynthesis. Within just two centuries, billion tons of greenhouse gases have been spewing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, subsequently destabilizing the global weather system. As a result, the physical evidence of global warming is seen everywhere - the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, sea-level rising, and shrinking glaciers at the poles, including the melting snowcap of Mount Everest.

 

Rainforests, covering only 6 percent of the planet's surface, perform two important roles - function as a climate monitor by regulating rainfall to cool the tropical regions and prevent desertification; and provide the breeding grounds for biodiversity. Clearing and burning rainforest not only adds vast amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere but also causes the luscious paradise to desiccate, as observed in arid Madagascar after years of severe deforestation. A widespread deforestation could end up with a significant decline of precipitation, which in turn could hasten the expansion of desiccation throughout the globe. As statistics slowly trickled in, the deforested areas of West African countries have shown declining annual rainfalls in the last decade.

 

The biological wealth of Earth lies in the fate of the tropical forests as the single colossal reservoir of biodiversity on this planet. The rainforests sustain about 50% of all species on Earth. Without the presence of variety and abundance of species, the ecological imbalance of nature would result in devastating consequences for all life forms. Because of the drastically climatic changes and the dramatic loss of natural habitats, extinctions of species are occurring not only on a massive scale but also at an unprecedented accelerating pace. According to the World Resources Institute, 100 species become extinct every day due to tropical deforestation.

 

Without a doubt, industrial logging is the primary cause of global deforestation, converting trees into pulp, wood and paper products at an alarming rate within the last three decades. As the wealthy nations continue to exploit the underdeveloped countries for their natural resources, 78% of the world's ancient forests have already been destroyed or degraded, according to the World Resources Institute. Although logging techniques have improved and a growing international awareness of the plight of rainforests, unsustainable logging of tropical rainforests persists without any concrete policies of replanting trees for future harvests, preventing forest fires, losing biodiversity, tackling poaching, or banning farmers from clearing wooded areas for plantations. After having depleted their own countries' tropical forests, some Asian multinational logging corporations are encroaching the last remaining forest wilderness in South America while stepping up their logging of the Congo Basin, the South Pacific, and Central America.

 

Worse still, illegal logging is rampant - surreptitiously supported by corrupt officers or poorly managed by government officials of developing nations. Environmental groups claimed that illegal logging has been expanding worldwide, naming some of the countries - Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Cambodia, Russia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Cameroon, and Brazil. One well-known example of deforestation, as much as 90% of the timber cut in Indonesia is illegally harvested. Two indigenous species - orangutan and Sumatran tiger (found only in Borneo and Sumatra, respectively) - are now threatened with extinction. Many of these countries finally realized that the scale of illegal logging often exceeded legal logging and that they suffered major losses of revenues as the price of timber dropped due to the flooding of illegal timber in the global market.

 

The blame of destroying the natural forests doesn't just fall on the obvious parties - avaricious timber companies, political leaders with poor governance, and corrupt officers - but on the consumers. After all, the trees are cut to use for mass consumption. It is for our needs that drive these timber companies to exploit the sacred forests. Being ignorant or uncaring is no longer an excuse for buying wood products without knowing where the wood originated. Purchasing cheaper wood products (most likely illegal) would only bring doom to the precious forests. Despite the overpopulation of the Third World countries, the growing populations in wealthy industrialized nations are actually responsible for much of the exploitation of the Earth. In fact, the bottom 20% poorest countries consume only 1.3% compared to the top 20% richest nations that consume 86% of world resources.

 

Common sense tells us limited natural resources will eventually be depleted if nothing is done to replenish them. Instead, we seek out the last pristine frontiers, such as Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil or South America to log timber. Although the world leaders recently have feebly agreed to curb about 3-5% emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide at the Kyoto Protocol, the scientists declared that it was significantly not enough - 60% cut is needed in every nation to prevent the onslaught of global warming. The United States under the Bush administration, the biggest polluter (25% of world's emissions) not only shunned the Kyoto Protocol but also snubbed the call to halt illegal logging for 'economic reasons' at the G8 world meeting. With this kind of national protectionism against the world's concerns, perhaps Bush with several allies invaded Iraq for the same 'economic reasons' - to control the oil reserves in the Middle East. If the Iraq War is any indication of a few nations fighting over oil reserves in the world, one could imagine what would happen when the Earth is down to its last bit of oil or timber.

 

As technology becomes more sophisticated and advanced, man has the means more than ever to stop the detrimental collapse of the Earth's ecosystem. The most sensible solution is to seek renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel, such as solar, wind, and biomass. Renewable energy sources have already proven to be clean and effective, such as homes powered by solar panels or wind turbines. In addition, to produce recyclable products is essential, not a choice, in order to preserve the remaining natural resources. If man could send a robot powered by solar cells to roam Mars, why can't he build a solar car to run on Earth?

 

We have reached a turning point where the future of the world depends on our generation to correct the havoc humans created on this planet. Drastic times call for drastic measures: 1) ban all timber industries - substitute wood for houses with other building materials, and recycle all paper products; 2) join Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, in her crusade of planting trees in every part of the world; 3) governments must immediately enforce companies to manufacture recyclable products, and invest heavily in research on renewable energy sources for practical purposes; and 4) consumers must conserve and use only recyclable products.

 

If we want to halt the global warming trend, every nation must join forces now to preserve the Earth by protecting our precious atmosphere, natural trees and living species. Otherwise, we will perish just like the dinosaurs did 65 million years ago.

(First published on UniOrb.com, April 2005)

OUR UNIVERSE – A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

Since the dawn of civilization, man has asked the quintessential question: Why do we exist? It’s a fair question — for we neither asked to be born nor to be withered away toward death, both of which are far beyond our control. As soon as man takes his first breath, he is thrust into life to learn the bittersweet lessons of living. When he finally matures after wandering through life’s long journey, he meets death as his destiny. The ancient prophets, sages, and philosophers of world civilizations have attempted to answer this enigma, offering a wide range of explanations based on intuition, rational conjectures, and even religion. Nowadays, in the age of computers, advanced technology, and breakthrough scientific discoveries, scholars and scientists can sift through ample evidence and data to shed some light to the purpose of human existence on Earth. With the extraordinary power of intelligence, human possesses the ability to understand man’s role in the complex adaptive system of our universe.

COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM

The best model of the real expanding universe is based on the theory — complex adaptive system. The universe contains interacting independent nonlinear systems that simultaneously evolve and adapt to their changing environments while maintaining stable global patterns. The complex adaptive system consists of several distinctive features: the system contains many independent and self-organized subsystems but intrinsically connected; subsystems interact with each other guided by basic rules that exert stability for the whole system; a subsystem hosts a vast number of interactive microstates striving for survival, which leads to small quantitative adaptations to the overall pattern but to large qualitative changes of the microstates; and adaptive changes could be predictable for a general pattern but not for individual cases.

With each discovery of unknown astronomical phenomenon in space and new strained virus or novel species on our planet, the ongoing process of rewriting rules strongly suggest that our universe not only supports the theory of complex adaptive system, but it is also a thriving entity in itself.

EVOLUTION – PROCESS OF ADAPTIVE CHANGES

All constituents in the universe from birth of stars to black holes, quarks to molecules, and single-celled organisms to humans, have been driven by one dynamic process — evolution. The essence of evolution requires adaptive changes over time. To fuel the ongoing changes, the cycle of life and death plays an essential role in contributing new ingredients to the soup of creation. Life generates creative energy and death recycles what was formed in life. In the perpetual cycle of life and death, entities are constantly reconstituted, giving rise to novelty, individuality, and complexity. On our planet, plethora evidence of morphological changes of various species retained in fossil records and the presence of old and new species coexist speak as stark proof for evolution. For years, the Hubble Space Telescope has captured the unfolding history of the cosmos in spectacular images showing traces of stellar and galactic evolution.

UNIVERSE ORIGIN

We can now envision the inception of the universe with the information gathered from many telescopes and satellites traveling into deep space. The universe came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago, and it is now composed of 4% atoms, 23% cold dark matter, and 73% dark energy. The functions of the dark matter and the dark energy have yet to be defined because of their obscure nature. In our four dimensional universe (3 space and 1 time), four natural forces believed to be created by the Big Bang — gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic — have been at work in mutual interaction at different levels to maintain coherence, efficiency, and continuity in the cosmos. The inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, proposed that the universe underwent an explosive, rapidly accelerating expansion at extremely early times. Then, the universe widely distributed dark matter and light elements of hydrogen and helium. The ripples as tiny fluctuations in the temperature of the primordial universe echoed from the Big Bang as cosmic microwave background radiation. The first stars burst into scene when the universe turned 200,000 years old. Soon after 500 million years, ultraviolet radiation produced by stars started to travel freely throughout the cosmos.

EVOLUTION IN UNIVERSE

In the stellar evolution, the exchange of energy and materials occurs between stars and diffuse clouds. The birth of a star arises from a cloud of whirling gas and dust pulled toward a gravitational center. The cooling gas and dust with heavy elements forms the planets encircling a young star. As the star ages, the energy in its core burns up and the exterior cools, causing a collapse toward the center while spewing energy and chemical elements into space. The higher the temperature rises, the heavier the chemical elements become in fusion reaction. Depending on its mass, the star ends as either a black hole or a white dwarf. In some cases, massive stars violently explode as supernovas, creating heavier chemical elements in nucleosynthesis before collapsing into black holes. In other cases, lower mass stars transform into cool red giants, releasing their contents into space before dwindling into white dwarfs. The ejected heavy elements solidify to form floating dust in space. The stellar winds then carry the dust into a stellar nursery where stars are born. Each successive generation of stars consisted of higher amounts of the heavier chemical elements formed by the previous generation. The unceasing cycle of star regeneration has been occurring in billions of galaxies throughout history.

Although the research on galaxies has just started to gain momentum, recent data offered some speculations: galaxies come in various sizes (dwarf to massive) and in assorted shapes (elliptical, lenticular, spiral, barred spiral, irregular); most galaxies travel in local groups; a galactic black hole exists in the central bulge of every galaxy; and galaxies are moving away from one another, indicating the expansion of the universe.

Astronomers have noticed signs supporting galactic evolution, even though they haven’t reached a conclusion on the formation and destruction of a galaxy. It is believed that the galactic boom took place between 300,000 and one billion years after the Big Bang. In 1992, NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer satellite detected lumps in the fabric of the cosmos that might have led to the first galaxies. Stars were born massive and died young as black holes in the early universe. The birth of a galaxy probably evolved from a growing rotating black hole devouring numerous surrounding star clusters constantly produced by gas and material expelled from supernovas. Abundant luminous quasars emitting vast quantities of radiation are found in early galaxies. The different galactic shapes and their stellar contents indicate the progressive development of galaxies over time. Elliptical comprises of mainly old yellow stars, spiral embraces both new and old stars, and irregular lacking any organized structure is dotted with new blue stars. Some shapes of galaxies have been left alone undisturbed and others dramatically altered by galactic collisions — merging one with another or the big engulfing the small. Most galaxies are considered ancient, however odd-shaped galaxies (barred spirals or linear chains) might be of the younger generation because they were missing in the early universe. Although the demise of a galaxy has never been observed, the fact that a feeding galactic black hole lurks in the center of each galaxy suggests that it might face the same fate as the death of a star.

As for biological systems, the cycle of life and death affects every living thing on Earth — microscopic organisms in their transparent cellular environment, luscious vegetation and blooming vibrant flowers, marine creatures and fish in the ocean, and a slew of animals inhabiting air, sea and land. A thriving planet necessarily depends on a wealth of variety in species, resources, and habitats to maintain a flourishing biosphere. The cycle of life and death regulates the balance of nature in ecosystems. More importantly, it provides evolution the essential genetic supply to create higher life forms.

COMPLEX NONLINEAR SYSTEMS

Another significant process purporting evolution lies in the complex nonlinear systems. Ilya Prigogine and Isabell Stengers in their book, Order out of Chaos, Man’s Dialogue with Nature explained the complexity phenomenon in nonlinear (open) systems. Complexity arises from a system (dissipative structure) that has made a qualitative leap (bifurcation) to a new level of order after reaching the edge of equilibrium ready to deteriorate, triggered by an effectual disturbance (fluctuation) in the fluid state. According to Prigogine and Stengers, a dissipative structure, which is an open system in a constant flux of exchanging energy and matter with its environment, requires more energy to sustain it than the simpler structure it replaced. The probability of possible outcomes from bifurcation is unpredictable due to its countless possibilities. However, the selected possibility most likely gravitated toward one of the more suitable choices of settlement (attractor) at the time to advance a new level of direction. Since subsystems constantly interact with one another, the average complexity of the whole system will also increase. Thus, complexity heads in one direction — along the same forward movement as time.

Apparently, bifurcation instigates adaptive changes, identifiable as punctuated equilibrium in evolution — long stable periods interrupted by a series of sporadic durations of rapid radical changes. Occasional minor perturbation succeeded in shunting the system into another different new attractor. For the system to be stabilized, the adapted change prompts the reorganization of the whole structure to restore equilibrium. The fact that the transition between two opposing states — from stability to instability and vice versa — indicates a turbulent switch rather than a gradual process. Therefore, some changes are far from minor but of major consequences. Perhaps, the degree of intensity in transition and the imposing external factors could affect the overall outcome of the change. For example, a minor change could be seen as a slight modification between finch species and a major shift could be seen as a significant jump from ape to hominid.

All systems contain subsystems. While a subsystem is a part of the whole, it is also a whole in its own right. In striving for stability, the system requires self-organization to maintain self-sufficient components becoming coherent new patterns, structures and behaviors. It is the process of interaction between individual components, which brings forth new patterns at a global level. Each hierarchical level establishes a set of rules for order or form to govern behavior of parts. The collective dynamics of parts at each level is seen as an emergent property.

EMERGENCE RELATIVE TO TIME

Many theories have inadequately tried to bridge the behavior gap between the macro and micro worlds in explaining the emergent property — how molecular particles could be seen as shape, density, structure, etc. The constituents of the micro world come from either cosmic origin (elements) or life origin (cells), whereas the constituents of the macro world consist of system levels built on these very basic elements and cells. Perhaps the answer lies not in the components themselves but in the dimension of time. The emergent property arises from the perception of our physical world captured in different facets of time. The dimension of time has never been fully understood because time doesn’t possess any physical property. However, we do know some characteristics of time: it measures a sequence of events; it moves in one irreversible direction; it is not absolute; and only spacetime has an absolute reality independent of the observer. The former two features are obvious but the latter two have been difficult to grasp.

In confirming Einstein’s special relativity theory, scientists have proven that time passes at different rates for observers moving relative to each other. In addition, time runs slower for objects further from gravity. However, physicists face many problems in explaining quantum mechanics using the natural physical laws based on special relativity theory. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that the existence of elementary particles relies on probability and observation, insinuating that location and quantity of motion cannot be measured simultaneously. It asserts that a fundamental particle has magical quality — blinking in and out of existence. But, the fact that the quantity of its motion can be traced or even measured implies its existence being tangible in the objective world. To assume the existence of such particle rests on observation suggests that the problem of the spatial-temporal connection lies only in human observation, not in the stability of the particle’s existence.

The concept of time is based on the movement of things. If time measures a series of events, then it’s conceivable that time runs faster in the micro world because elementary particles interact at a much quicker speed. In other words, when we observe a molecule, it’s like watching a fast forward film. The physical laws of the macro world would be inadequate to apply to the micro world, unless the concept of difference in time is taken into consideration. That is, the time difference between the micro and macros worlds forms a barrier from which the problem of uncertainty principle arises in quantum mechanics.

Although time plays an integral part of the universe, it is an inherent feature of complex systems. The emergent properties present the embodiment of self-sustaining systems in their cooperation with each other, their interactions with the environment, and their historical timeline. In a complex structure, from the highest to the lowest level of systems, the environmental factors (e.g., sun, rain, wind, etc.) were involved in molding the shape, density, form, etc., and the structure’s formation process was captured in step with time. In a sense, when we see a table, we can actually see the entire evolutionary process of it. For example, the clumps of molecules first formed wood, then later shaped into a table. The emergent properties are the results of interacting microstates in time lapse seen in one time frame of the macro world.

CREATIVITY FROM COMPLEXITY

The manifestation of evolution expands with complexity, which is unpredictable and at times, fantastical. Open systems are often forced to experiment and explore the range of possibilities, which inadvertently lead to creations of new patterns of relationships and various structures. Thus, creativity stems from complexity as a source for originality, individuality, and novelty. In our complicated world, diversity, sophistication, and beauty are well demonstrated in nature, fauna and flora, and music and art.

In the complex adaptive system of our planet, creativity was the vital source that sparked life. With the understanding of how qualitative leap can happen in such a system, life could be a natural consequence of atoms and molecules interacting in an energy-rich environment. At its volatile beginning, the Earth was a hot brewing environment mixing chemical elements originated from outer space and abundant elements of carbon — essential to all living things. Various chemical reactions began to take place, creating new elements and compounds, including the amino acids — the building blocks of life. As early as 3.5 billion years ago, the inception of life appeared in the sea as heterotrophs. As the first lifeforms, heterotrophs absorbed organic substrates to get carbon for their energy. To this day, archea bacteria, came into existence 3.5 billion years ago, have been recently rediscovered on hardened lava in undersea vents, hot sulfur springs, and Antarctica. Unlike the heterotrophs, the evolved autotrophs possessed the capability to synthesize energy from inorganic material via sunlight. They were able to use carbon dioxide as sole carbon source. Afterwards, life evolved into more complex organisms adapted to their environment and exploited the niches that they could inhabit throughout the planet.

MODERN SYNTHESIS

The theory of Modern Synthesis, an extension of Darwinism, expounded that evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations. It claimed that random genetic mutation and recombination provide populations with genetic variation. When geographic barriers isolate a population of species, they become different and can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Therefore, species gradually evolve through the accumulation of small genetic changes. The overpopulation of species eventually forces organisms to fight for survival over diminishing environmental resources. For an organism to survive, it needs a competitive edge over other organisms. Natural selection selects those genetic mutations that make the organism most suited to its environment and therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. In doing so, specialization leads to diversity of form and each new form uniquely adapts to their habitat for survival.

Although human beings are the most advanced species on the planet, they have only been in existence for 2 million years, hardly noticeable on the Earth’s time scale of 4.6 billion years. About 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs were at the brink of mass extinction, Didelphondon, a four-legged creature came into existence as the descendant of all mammals. The ancestral line of human, the hominid family, branched away from the apes around 6 to 8 million years ago. The first excavated evidence supporting this diversification is the skeleton “Lucy,” found in Ethiopia, dating her life back to 3 million years ago. Lucy australopithecines belonged to the early hominid that had subtle evolutionary changes in the skeletal structure, especially the skull, which resembles the one of modern man. The early hominids were the first of the evolutionary line to venture out of the jungle to the open lands. Many more types of hominids appeared before human (Homo Sapiens) finally evolved from Homo Erectus, who stood on two legs, about 2 million years ago. As human evolved, the brain almost doubled in size, raising the level of intelligence over other animals. Modern man has a large brain for its body size in the animal kingdom. In fact, intelligence of an organism is measured by its brain size in proportion to its body size.

BIOLOGICAL QUALITY -- CONSCIOUSNESS

All living things have instinctive awareness — a biological quality that makes them animate. It is argued that consciousness is a form of cognition characteristic of more complex self-governing organisms, especially those with complex nervous systems. The evolution of consciousness lies in the significant alterations of various qualities and dimensions of conscious experience — the contents of consciousness. As the physiological changes of an organism developed, adding complex body parts, the level of consciousness increased in processing and distributing data to the other parts of the organism. As the brain evolved, new additional features expanded the functions of consciousness. A cortex provided memory and recognition and an advanced version, a neo-cortex furnished the ability to perform simple reasoning and to use symbols for communication, as in language. Conscience, thought, planning and many other higher cognitive functions in man are determined by our brain's unique capacity for symbolic representation. Perhaps, the expansion of consciousness caused the brain to enlarge, which led to developing an intelligent mind.

CONCLUSION

With this intelligence, we have the rare opportunity to figure out how we fit into this evolutionary process of the universe. The purpose of man is to appreciate our very existence and to protect the world we live in. By learning about the past, we can reach an understanding of the cosmos and of ourselves, and perhaps advance humanity for a better future. As the universe expands and undergoes constant changes, the evolution will be continuous, unpredictable, and more complex.

To comprehend the human role in evolution, we need to vigorously pursue science to unlock the secrets of the universe. Science challenges us to broaden our knowledge, which in turn will affect our human evolution in this ever-changing cosmos. Even though we have religions to promote compassion and humility, voluntary groups to share the burdens of society, and medical research to improve human lives, we still face the threat of mass extinction someday. We might never be able to prevent our demise from climatic catastrophes (ice age or asteroid collision) or our own wrong doing (nuclear war or environmental destruction), but at least we’d be able to know why it could happen to us.

Of course, the only possible escape is to find other extrasolar planets with similar evolutionary makeup for lifeforms.

If we were to be so lucky.

References

1.  John Morgan Allman,  “Evolving Brains,” Scientific American Library Series, No. 68 January 1999  

2.  Kauffman S.A., The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Section in Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1993

3.  Kauffman, S. A., At Home In The Universe, Oxford University Press, 1995

4.  Illya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, Bantam Books, 1984

 

(First published on UniOrb.com, 2003)

What's Wrong With Intelligent Design as Science?

An intensifying battle over intelligent design (ID) to be taught in science classes has been emerging across the United States, alarming scientists and educators who consider ID as a political ploy to repackage religion under the guise of 'alternative science' to undermine the scientific theory of evolution. Policymakers in 24 states are weighing proposals to introduce ID in their public school curricula. Whether ID is a religious belief or a scientific theory is at the heart of the controversy waged in courtrooms and public forums.

Intelligent design holds that some complex developments observed in nature that cannot be explained by natural selection suggest design by an unspecified intelligent agent. Despite the absence of identifying the designer or creator, the theory of ID mimics the biblical account of creation - God created all matter, various forms of life, and the world out of nothing.

 

Intelligent Design (ID) fails as science 

 

To be considered as a scientific theory, intelligent design must satisfy three criteria: 1) explanatory power; 2) plausibility; and 3) falsifiability. The National Academy of Sciences has declared that ID is not science because its intelligent designer cannot be observed (plausibility) or verified by experiment (falsifiability), and proposes no new hypothesis (explanatory power) on how the world is designed. While the scientific theory of evolution is supported by plenty of observable facts and repeated physical evidence found in the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection. The failure to meet all three requirements is a compelling argument against ID being considered as science.

Arguments for ID 

 

The ID theory is largely purported by two arguments known as irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Michael Behe, a biochemical researcher and a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, forwarded the concept of irreducible complexity in his book, Darwin's Black Box (Simon and Schuster, 1996). He claims that the removal of any one of the interactive parts of a cellular system would destroy the function of the entire cell. Therefore, intelligent design is the blueprint for everything to be in its right place to work. In The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998), William Dembski, a mathematician and a professor of science and theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, argued for the inference of intelligent design based on William Paley's famous 'watchmaker' analogy in 1802 Natural Theology. Dembski asserts that patterns exhibited in nature being not only complex but also specified infer some form of intelligent guidance in their formation.

Complex Adaptive System (CAS) vs. ID Arguments 

 

The observations made by Behe and Dembski were inadequate and their conclusions faulty. The explanation for nature to be the way it is lies in the comprehensive theory of complex adaptive system (CAS). As a novel scientific theory, much of what is known about CAS involves a combination of mainly three accepted theories: evolution, chaos, and complexity. To put it simply, CAS is an open network system in which many independent, self-organized, yet interconnected agents (cells, species, individuals, societies, etc.) compete, evolve and adapt to a changing environment, resulting in an order of emergent system properties and a general pattern for the whole system.

 

As a response to Behe's assertion that a removal of a part would cause the whole system to fail; perhaps so in his example of a mousetrap (man-made contraption) but not so in a living cell that has the tendency to compensate the function of a missing part with another cellular part due to the cell's dynamic evolving system. According to CAS, a cell functions as a cellular system when all its interconnected parts spontaneously interact with one another. In addition, Behe dismisses an important aspect of a cell - organelles (protein, enzyme, gene, etc.) in fact, do evolve through natural selection to be of different types with specific functions.

 

Although Dembski uses the term 'complexity' in his argument on specified complexity, he seems to overlook a crucial point about complexity theory - that order arises from chaos due to complexity. The 'order of emergent system properties' appears to be Dembski's description of 'design'. And he assumes that a design implicates intelligence behind a complex pattern, which is not necessarily so, according to CAS. In the macroscopic world, one can see the natural hierarchy of emergent properties (e.g., from a grain of sand to a beach to a seacoast).

 

Furthermore, complexity theory could also explain the gaps in the fossil record that proponents of ID hold as evidence against evolution. Fossil record gaps are identified as punctuated equilibrium in evolution - long stable periods interrupted by a series of sporadic duration of rapid radical changes. The fact that the presence of old and new species coexist on our planet speaks as stark proof for evolution.

Moreover, the Miller-Urey experiment, which succeeded in producing basic molecules at the first stage for generating life from non-living matter, establishes the fact that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life from non-living matter. In reality, natural processes of nature can be explained without a divinity or an intelligence equation.

 

ID Supported by Discovery Institute 

 

Behind the big push for a national dialogue on ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank financed largely by conservative Christian donors. With a $4 million budget, Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media exposure supporting ID. It also uses about 85 percent of its budget to funding researchers at major universities, and the rest of the budget to publishing religious writings and launching political ID campaigns. Since 2003, it has promoted the DVD, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," which advocates ID shown on PBS stations in major markets and schools.

 

State vs. Religion

 

On the legal front, a courtroom drama over teaching ID in a public school had made headlines for weeks - a reversal of the famous 1925 Scopes 'monkey' trial in which a Tennessee man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching Darwin's evolution. As the first ID court case followed closely by the media, the Dover Area School District was put on trial for violating the constitutional separation of church and state by teaching ID in science class. The judge is still out on the verdict. Emboldened by the "free speech" approach bolstered by President Bush who had endorsed teaching ID in schools, ID advocates argued that banning ID from science class is a violation of the First Amendment - unconstitutional limit on free speech. However, national science organizations and university faculty groups disputed that claim to mute free speech by pointing out subjects like religion, alchemy and astrology have always been included in the school curricula as non-science courses.

 

In a recent poll by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 64 percent of Americans believed that teaching ID along side evolution is a simple matter of fairness. The bottom line of the legal issue is not about the First Amendment whether one has the freedom to express one's religious beliefs but rather one's religious beliefs should be imposed as science. Religion has no place in science class. And the voters in Pennsylvania in the November election understood that well to have ousted all the education board members who supported ID in the science curriculum.

 

Although proponents of ID have claimed that their theory is not tied to religion, Discovery Institute contradicted that declaration with its own 1999 fundraising document for strategy proposal - "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Even the Vatican's chief astronomer, Rev. George Coyne admitted, "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be." The conclusion is obviously clear - intelligent design is indeed related to religion and has been highly politicized as pseudo-science.


(First published on UniOrb.com, December 1, 2005)

Bearers of Human Clones

Human cloning has become a stark reality with few countries allowing doctors to race in producing human clones. In the most recent news, Stemagen claims that it has succeeded in creating the first cloned human embryo using the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique. It's only a matter of time for a cloned human embryo to enter the realm of human society.

Although it's difficult to prevent any rogue doctors from pursuing 'their dream', with the current state of the art, they still need to rely on women to bear cloned fetuses and bring them to term. These 'mothers' must now ask themselves whether they want to reduce their roles to that of 'marsupial pouch carriers' for cloned human beings, perhaps leading to gene pool deterioration and eventual weakening of the human race. 

Women have always played a vital, irreplaceable role in human reproduction. But since the beginning of the new millennium, the sophisticated and modern technology of human cloning has begun to encroach on this natural monopoly. One might argue that the 'clone bearer' is nothing more exotic than a surrogate mother, which is a condition accepted in many modern situations. But there are fundamental differences between natural mothers, surrogate mothers, and clone bearers, and women should be aware of them.

A natural mother has maternal feelings and concerns for her baby's welfare after birth. A surrogate mother faces the moral issue of aiding an infertile couple to bear a child, and on a larger scale, to perpetuate the human race. In the case of human cloning, a clone bearer must also shoulder the burden of psychological and emotional effects of a new familial order, the social impact of introducing an exponent to the human race, and the various ethical stances on cloning.

Procreation should not be mistaken as replication, for natural reproduction creates originality, whereas reproductive cloning duplicates the original. Even in-vitro fertilization, the medically assisted method in bringing forth newborns is still in line with the former. The survival of a species by natural reproduction is an evolutionary process that has been tested over hundred millions of years while cloning has just been a recent scientific laboratory experiment that manipulates cellular genetic structures under a microscope.

Generally, parents want to raise a mentally and physically healthy child to immerse in our society. While having a cloned child might satisfy the infertile couple's immediate longing, it could impose enormous long-term psychological and emotional effects on both the clone and the parents, resulting in identity confusion and relationship problems.

Technically speaking, if the clone's progenitor is a male, he would be looked upon not as the clone's father but as an older brother, and his wife not as the clone's mother but as a sister-in-law. As for the other parent, could he or she not help fall in love with the clone, a younger version of the spouse? This perplexing familiarity in relationship binding could possibly foster an intimate environment for incestuous practice. Furthermore, watching one's own clone mature over the years could bring back unsettling memories or even evoke damaging rivalries. 

Moreover, parents might mistreat their cloned children for not meeting their expectations, instead of loving them unconditionally. They might raise a clone just to be used as a commodity, like an organ donor for an ill family member or a replacement for a lost loved one.

Besides being psychologically confused, the clone could suffer depression due to mental and emotional stress. Although environment is conducive to the development of a person's character and abilities, the clone would lose autonomy and individuality because his traits and abilities would be known, constraining him in personal growth and self-expression. Unfortunately, the clone would live out his life in his progenitor's shadow, like an heir of a famous personality, who tries to step out of his parent's shoes to stand on his own two feet.

As the newest minority member, a clone entering our imperfect world where people are still striving for universal human rights could easily become the victim of social injustice, medical experiments, or even human abuse. As man has supplanted the role of God in fabricating a clone, the clone could be perceived as sub-human and could be treated worse than a second-class citizen. To protect and ensure that clones will survive the potential barrage of discrimination, maltreatment, and injustice, legal rights for clones have to be well established throughout the world. Are we really ready for that?

As scientific facts on experimental reproductive cloning have started to accumulate around the globe, the foreseeable consequences of human cloning mirror the wild imagination of science fiction. From a medical point of view, the genetic defects are inevitable, as experimental cloned animals have shown subtle abnormalities in gene expression. Cloned mammals have shorter lifespans due to telomeres shortened with each cell division. Moreover, the surviving clones have developed severe abnormalities such as obesity, malfunctioning organs, deficient immune systems, diseases, and hidden genetic defects. Even in the research for therapeutic cloning to treat human diseases, basic cellular functions of an embryonic stem cell often failed, resulting in tumor growths or deformed tissue due to the unstable state of its genome.

Before perfecting a lab product, many human clones will be sacrificed just as numerous embryos were destroyed to achieve the ideal specimen. Furthermore, the popularity of human cloning would lead to eugenics, cloning for specific human attributes, which dangerously challenges nature in the evolution process. Worse still, human clones would undergo human abuse if eugenicists produced an army of superior warriors or perfect servants to serve the human race.

And yet our greatest fear lies in that clones breeding with humans would taint the human gene pool, reducing human diversity itself, which is against the very principle of evolution - the survival of the fittest. With a weakened human gene pool, the human species would suffer unknown ailments and deficiencies, threatening the very survival of the human race. 
 

Considering all the perils of human cloning that could affect individuals as well as society, women must reject any scientist's genetic tempering with natural reproduction. If not, the price we pay is irreparable, for Nature won't be so forgiving.
  

(First published on UniOrb.com, January 19, 2008)

Androgyny Becoming Global?

What do international celebrities, Michael Jackson, David Beckham, and Angelina Jolie have in common?  Besides being superstars and multi-millionaires, they are the icons of androgyny in our modern culture. As borders blur, markets merge, and cultures blend, androgyny seems to have found its way to global mainstream.

There are two definitions for androgyny: physical (intersexual) - born with both male and female genitals; and psychological - combining both masculinity and femininity as traits of a unified gender that defies social roles and psychological attributes. The common usage of the term 'androgyny' in society refers to the latter description. As to the sexual orientation, an androgynous person can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

In fact, evidence of androgyny being embraced by society appears everywhere - institutionalized in entertainment and fashion cultures, more explicitly in expanding gay and lesbian communities. As trendsetters, entertainment and fashion industries have played an influential role in advancing a challenging perspective on human sexuality for modern times. In the 1980s, androgynous musicians - Boy George, David Bowie, and Prince - made headlines as they captured the world's fascination with sexual ambiguity. Perceived as a worldwide idol, Michael Jackson personifies androgyny with his falsetto voice and effeminate manners. Since the 1980s, Hollywood has produced movies depicting sensuous beauties - Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil: Apocalypse, and Uma Thurman in Kill Bill - as intelligent, tough, and strong adversaries in leading roles. Nowadays, female stars are expected to perform equally well in all the exciting moves and dangerous stunts as their male counterparts.

   

Capitalizing the growing social affinity to androgyny, the fashion industry promoted the meteoric rises of fashion designers - Helmut Lang, Giorgio Armani, Pierre Cardin, to name a few - for their unisex-styled clothes. To this day, glamorous male and female models sporting androgynous garments have often been found strutting down catwalks or posing for the covers of fashion magazines. Recently, the cosmetic companies have joined in to lure metrosexuals (aesthetically conscientious straight men) to the lucrative markets of beauty products which once were considered exclusively for women. As reports trickled in, cosmetic surgeries have surged for both women and men in North America, Europe and Asia. 

 

During the 'counter-culture' revolution in the 1960s, music and fashion industries inspired a trend towards self-exploration emphasizing individual freedom and self-realization. The women's liberation movement of the 1970s refuted the idea that women were 'naturally' passive, emotional, and weaker than men. The notion of androgyny wasn't accepted in society until Dr. Sandra Bem, who was honored the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award in 1976, introduced the concept of 'psychological androgyny' to describe those men and women who did not fit into traditionally defined gender roles. She also forwarded the view that a blending of masculine and feminine dispositions is more adaptive than stereotypic emphasis on either alone. At the heels of Bem's revelation, the gay liberation movement embraced the idea of androgyny, for it allowed lesbians and gay men to show their gender characteristics openly in society. Subsequently, the prevailing wind for social changes started to sweep across the globe, empowering women and softening the image of men, while altering the perception of human nature consisting of opposite sex roles to human nature unifying two complimentary sex roles as a legitimate gender. 

 

The spread of the androgyny movement could also be fueled by the economic transformation of the workforce in developed countries. As nations became more affluent, greater amount of energy was required for production, thus businesses demanded a larger number of workers (men and women) to the workforce. The economic situations of wealthy nations enabled women to work with men as 'equals' due to the current elevated women's status in male-oriented societies. 

 

As a result, many rich nations have observed similar findings: a lower childbirth rate because some working women tend not to marry or delay marriages past their prime for childbearing; a higher divorce rate due to many collapsed marriages when working parents didn't spend enough time together with their families; and an increase of unmarried people as more singles enjoy their financial independence and individual freedom. Perhaps, the metrosexuals have evolved from the economic circumstances in urban areas where those men have to compete not only with other men but also with women for jobs, as well as to appear attractive to the opposite sex. To deal seriously with the negative aspects of family unit erosion, the governments need to provide efficient childcare facilities to help working couples and incentives for women to bear children, so to be in step with social climate changes.

 

Evidently, the rise of singles and singled-parents in society has led to the emergence of individual autonomy. Regarded highly in democracy, individual autonomy upholds the pursuant of one's rights, happiness and freedom in personal choice of living. Individual freedom includes the right to express personal sexual orientation. It seems as lifestyles continue to change, society has accepted human sexual diversity as manifestations of humanity.

 

In reality, human sexual diversity had long existed in world civilizations. In fact, bisexuality was institutionalized in ancient Greece and Rome where men practiced homosexuality in the form of pederasty (male mentorship) while maintained heterosexual relations with their wives for procreation. Historically, pederastic relationships were found in writings and arts not only in western cultures but also in non-western cultures as in China, Japan, South Pacific, and Middle East. Even world religions have embraced numerous deities and demi-deities with androgynous qualities, such as Hapi (Egyptian), Dionysos (Greek), Shiva (Hindu), and Obatala (Voudoun religion in Africa, South America and the Caribbean).

 

What caused the obsolescence of androgyny was the prominent rise of Christianity which buried the culture of androgyny and drove same-sex relationships underground. In the traditional biblical point of view, God created human beings in His own image. They are not accidental, but essential part in the grand scheme of things. Homosexuality defies the purpose of God in humanity as male and female, and therefore is a perversion against God and Creation.

 

The argument for the revival of androgyny offers a contrary perspective in two-fold - human is by nature androgynous; and humanity is an accident of evolutionary process. First, androgyny in humanity is 'natural' since all humans are born with both sex hormones. Furthermore, men and women have the same emotions but their gender behaviors are conditioned by social norms varying from culture to culture. By discarding the imposed restrictions and inhibitions, one would discover the 'natural' androgynous self. Second, humanity is an accidental creation of Nature. Evolution underlies the 'natural' process of change in which accidents are created without any divine intervention. Thus, humanity is one of the accidents created in the evolutionary process of Nature.

 

Apparently, the increasing global attraction to androgyny indicates that the modern theory of evolution holds greater sway than the traditional doctrines of Christianity. Some may believe that androgyny is just a passing trend, and others may think that it's part of the evolution of humanity. Whichever it is, one thing seems inevitable - as the world becomes more integrated and complex, society will adapt pervading changes as social norms to move humanity forward in its social evolution.

(First published on UniOrb.com, March 2005)

Trust the Animal Instinct on GM Food

The skepticisms on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food have been overwhelming, voiced by a majority of scientists and humanity throughout the world. Nevertheless, a handful of governments led by the United States have allowed biotech corporations to push GM food onto the world's food market. As recent as June 24, 2005, EU Environment Ministers, against the wishes of the European Commission, voted to uphold the safety ban on genetically modified organism (GMO) maize after scrutinizing a report by the biotech giant, Monsanto, that demonstrated rats fed on GMO corn developed abnormalities - damage to the kidneys and changes to their blood. Undoubtedly, animal testing on the safety of GM food is inadequate due to the short period of monitoring and observation and flawed by applying the traditional testing methods to a novel science, which opens up a whole new field of unknowns. The compelling evidence of GM food being unsafe comes from the animals themselves - preferring natural food to GM food and suffering internal injuries or succumbing to death after eating GM food.

 

Ironically, peer-reviewed papers on animal testing on the safety of GM food are far and few between, considering the aggressive campaigning for GM foods and products by the biotech companies in the last ten years. Both the U. S. government's agency and U. K. government's advisory committee on novel foods and products based their decisions on safety mainly on animal data results provided by biotechnology companies. Obviously, biotech corporations with self-serving interests provided their versions of the animal test results. It appears that most research papers by biotech corporations couldn't meet the scientific standards - to have the experiments replicated and published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

Animals have a natural instinct to know what's good for them. Throughout the United States, farmers have been reporting animals rejecting GMO crops: cattle and hogs that wouldn't eat when the GMO crops were mixed in with the ration; cattle would rather trot a longer distance to munch on the non-GMO corn than consume the nearby Round-up Ready (herbicide resistant) corn; a herd of deer mowed down natural tofu beans, ignoring the Round-up Ready variety across the road; and the raccoons raided an organic corn field, leaving Bt (induced insecticide) corn untouched down the road. If wild and domestic animals would only eat natural food and avoid various GM foods, they're certainly sensitive enough to know the distinction between natural and unnatural - as some scientists had claimed that GM food is no different from natural food. 

The most highly publicized case against the safety of GM food was the experiment on rats fed on GM potatoes. In 1995, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a highly respected British scientist, embarked on the first government-funded research project to study the health effects of genetically modified crops on animals. The rats given GM potatoes (raw and cooked) after 10 days showed significant damages - impairment of the immune system, shrinkages of brain, liver and testicle, as well as pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines and stomach. Later, Pusztai's colleague, Dr. Stanley Ewen of Aberdeen University Medical School reconfirmed Pusztai's findings that were finally published in the prestigious journal, The Lancet, in 1999. 

In the "Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals" >published by The Scientists for Global Responsibility in May 2002, Eva Novotny contradicted the official conclusions on the chicken and rat experiments. She pointed out three abnormalities as a result from testing Chardon LL: 1) some animals consumed GM feed did not gain weight rapidly enough; 2) some animals given GM feed displayed erratic feeding habits; and 3) mortality rate of chickens fed on GM maize doubled of those fed on non-GM maize.

The unpublished research of Calgene's FLAVR SAVR tomato (first GM food on the U.S. market) noted some laboratory rats that were given the GM crop developed stomach lesions; and seven of the forty rats died within two weeks. In Germany, twelve cows died after digesting Syngenta's GM maize, prompting the Swiss biotech company to compensate the farmer. The recent disappearance of the once populous Monarch butterflies in North America might be related to GM crops. The Monarch butterfly larvae died from eating milkweed that had been contaminated with Bt corn pollen. 

A few more papers on animal feeding studies on GM food were published, but most of them are experiments not designed to identify health effects conducted by biotech industry scientists.

 

In animal experiments to ensure thorough safety of GM food, four main areas of concern should be addressed for evaluation - toxic effects, allergic reactions, nutritional impacts, and antibiotic-resistant genes that play a role in the GM process. Besides the unknown long-term effects of GM food on health and environment, the restructured genetically modified DNA itself becomes unstable which enhances horizontal gene transfer and recombination - the very process for spawning new diseases and spreading antibiotic resistance that can cross species barriers.

 

As the only human experiment on GM food, a study at Newcastle University in 2002 sponsored by Food Standard Agency, had volunteers consume a single meal of GM soya. The genetically modified DNA was not dissolved, as scientists had claimed it would be, instead it was transferred into the intestinal bacteria, confirming the process of horizontal gene transfer. Coincidentally, since 1994 when GM food was first introduced, food borne illnesses have been dramatically on the rise in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Although the causes of those diseases remain largely unknown, the possibility that they may be linked to GM food cannot be dismissed.

 

The world's unease about GM food for human consumption exists for a very good reason - GM food hasn't been proven safe. As a novel science, GM food technology is unlike other modern technologies - it directly affects the environment, human health, and the future of our humanity. Any mishap could decimate the human race with an unknown deadly virus created from GM food. Perhaps, our sense of GM food - being unnatural and unsafe - comes from our animal instinct after all.

(First published on UniOrb.com, July 4, 2005)

Can We Trust the Food and Drug Administration?

As the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) embroils in scandal after scandal, Americans need to re-examine the once revered and touted federal agency as the protector of public’s health. Although nearly 40% of Americans claimed that their confidence in the FDA has fallen due to the recent revelations, still 70% of Americans believed in the FDA’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs and foods for the consumer market. 

Does the FDA work for the interest of the American people, for the drug and food corporations, or for the political propaganda of the White House?

When medical professionals, scientists and analysts consistently doled out statistics showing more than half of Americans that have become obese, one might surmise that the FDA has not been protecting the people’s health. When the FDA approved numerous dangerous prescription drugs despite warnings from the experts and allowed various genetically modified (GM) products to be unlabeled on the food market, one might deduce that the FDA has been working in collaboration with the pharmaceutical and biotech companies. When questionable GM foods and certain drugs with harmful side-effects were banned in other parts of the world while these same GM foods and drugs were given a nod in the United States, one might conclude that the FDA has been functioning as a political propaganda of the Bush Administration favoring biotechnology and big business.   

Known as the "the strictest regulatory agency in the world," the FDA is now under scrutiny not only in the American arena but also on world stage. The reputable FDA, as the pillar of integrity run by the elite medical professionals and scientists, has finally been disgraced by its internal documents made public from lawsuits. In debunking the myths of the FDA, these damaging files revealed the corruption within the system, the discord among the staff members, and the influences of political power and of corporations.

Myth One:  New foods and drugs have been extensively tested for safety.

Contrary to scientific consensus on GM food, the FDA official policy declares that the process of genetic engineering is the same as traditional breeding; therefore, GM food does not require safety testing. U.S. biotech companies can voluntarily submit food safety testing data to federal regulators for review. According to the U.S. Center for Science in the Public Interest, when the FDA requested additional information, biotech companies complied only half the time, narrowing the scope of FDA's evaluation of data for food safety. Furthermore, a biotech manufacturer is allowed to introduce a genetically modified food without even informing the government or consumers. Worse still, the FDA ignored independent studies that showed severe harm to laboratory animals fed with GM food in order to boost biotech companies with their novel food creation.

A series of scandals involving dangerous drugs — COX-2 inhibitors, antidepressant drugs and statin drugs that are known to cause serious injuries and even deaths — have now put the FDA in the spotlight for gross negligence in giving them the green light. In November 2004, Dr. David Graham, a chief drug safety researcher, testified before the Senate — disclosing the dangers of these prescription drugs and the censorship of scientists who spoke against the agency’s drug safety review process. The fact that such harmful drugs have made it onto the market — Vioxx, Meridian, Bextra, Accutane, Crestor, Serevent — only attests to the dysfunction of the FDA’s procedure for testing drug safety.

Myth Two:  Approval of foods and drugs was based on sound science.

Despite the world banning GM foods, the United States stands alone in promoting GM foods as safe for human consumption. The FDA insists that GM foods are no different from natural foods — an unscientific claim. According to technical experts, the processes of genetic engineering and natural breeding are indeed different, and they lead to different risks. The procedure of introducing an unrelated gene to a cell in a lab is not the same as the process of natural genetic selection in Nature over the years. Scientists warned that GM foods might create a unique set of risks — unknown toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and diseases that could not be revealed in short-term testing. Due to the genetic nature of the altered food, long-term observation on each genetically modified variety is necessary in order to determine the safety of the food product.

After a decade of marketing GM foods in the U.S., evidence of detrimental effects has been piling — farmers now face setbacks with economic woes (unable to sell GM products on the world market) and new kinds of environmental problems (super weeds and natural crop fields contaminated with GM seeds blown in by the wind); diminishing number of common field insects; and human health problems related to food have dramatically soared (obesity, allergies, diabetes, and lymphatic cancers). Although no study has ever been made to connect these health problems with GM food, the fact that a growing number of Americans have become unhealthy since the infiltration of GM food on the market in 1994 should make any GM product a suspect.

As for scientific peer-review on drug approval, the recent testimony of Dr. David Graham clearly illustrated the culpability of the FDA — siding with a company’s manipulated drug safety testing results over its own scientists’ warning against a drug's ill effects. Obviously, if the drugs had been approved by the FDA based on sound science, there wouldn’t have been so many lawsuits and recalls of drugs that the White House (under George W. Bush) interceded, pushing for a “tort reform” to relieve the FDA of product liability.

Myth Three:  FDA serves and protects the public’s health.

Nowadays, the FDA serves and protects the corporate wealth. Everything the FDA has done in the last decade indicates that it values pharmaceutical and biotech industry profits over the health of the public. Furthermore, the FDA has become the instrument in carrying out the policies of the Bush family's dynasty. In 1992, the FDA Commissioner David Kessler confirmed the White House ’s influence  in shaping the FDA’s policy (under George Bush) by responding in his memo that the FDA would assure “the safe, speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry.”

The fact that GM foods are unmarked on the food market demonstrates the FDA’s collusion with biotech companies in a mass public deception — passing GM food as traditional food. It’s estimated that 75% of processed foods — boxed cereals, other grain products, frozen dinners, and corn products — contain some genetically modified ingredients. Around half of Americans don't even realize that GM foods are being sold in supermarkets — and they're wondering why their diet is getting worse.

The fact that 100,000 people being killed and at least 2 million injuries each year caused by legal prescription drugs, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, implicates the FDA's cozy relationship with pharmaceutical companies — approving toxic drugs at the expense of public’s health. After all, pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA for reviewing their drugs. It’s not surprising that the FDA approved 68% of new drugs today, compared to only 2% of new drugs approved a decade ago.

The fact that two-thirds of the FDA’s own scientists don't think the agency can adequately monitor the safety of drugs, according to a survey conducted by the Human and Health Services in 2002. The actual distrust of FDA's own staff in the agency ought to send a loud and clear message to the public. Furthermore, the FDA seems to go out of its way to protect the financial interests of drug companies — silencing its own scientists; burying negative evidence of dangerous drugs; discrediting nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, vitamins and other natural remedies for health benefits; and the latest, blocking the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.

To evaluate the FDA's competency and efficiency as a federal agency, statistics can speak louder than rhetoric:

• The Death by Medicine research showed more than 750,000 Americans died annually by conventional medicine;
• COX-2 inhibitors killed 60,000 Americans;
• Rezulin killed 10,000 people and damaged the livers of 100,000 before being pulled from the market;
• NSAIDs killed some 40,000 patients each year from intestinal bleeding;
• 76 million food-related illnesses occurred each year.

Unfortunately, there were far more unreported cases of injuries from prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs than the reported deaths of consumers. Without a doubt, Americans are having more health problems than a decade ago.   

Can we trust the FDA NOW?

(First published on UniOrb.com, June 1, 2005)