What He Meant to Me

A digitally signed photo of the man, "just for me", courtesy of BCCI.

For the past one month, and certainly the last one week, all of India and Indians everywhere have been abuzz with only one thing - Sachin Tendulkar's retirement.  Much has been said in infinite blogs and articles around the world about his cricketing accomplishments, and I have nothing to add to that.  I enjoy the statistics but do not care enough to have them memorized.  Honestly, if so much had not been made about his last test being his 200th, I would not have remembered it.  Neither can I confidently tell you if his 100 international centuries are made up of 51 or 49 Test centuries.  These things are important, and certainly point to Sachin's cricketing genius, but are immaterial to me.  If we have to rely on numbers, then we can find many ways to argue all sorts of things, including the idea that Sachin does not make it into the list of Top 25 batsman ever, as this article does.  So mere statistics are futile and do not capture what Sachin Tendulkar meant to me.

Though Sachin made his debut when I was too young to appreciate the game, his years on the field coincided with my years picking up the game.  I quickly became an Indian cricket fan because of the nation it represented, but as any sports fan, desired wins and accolades to validate that crazed support.  Alas, those were far and few.  India as an economy was struggling and Indians as athletes had virtually no one to point to.  Seeing the teams from Australia, West Indies, and even across the border in Pakistan, it was easy to say that Indians simply cannot play sports.  Amidst that backdrop stood Sachin, almost alone.  He was simply the best batsman playing the game.  You did not need numbers, you merely needed to watch him.  The fluidity, the ease, the confidence; these could not be captured with statistics, but sitting through just one innings of him making great bowlers look ordinary was enough to convince you that he was special.  While any lover of the game could appreciate the talent, only an Indian fan can appreciate the other thing he gave us - Hope.  

There were other good players in the team, but no one provided the confidence that India could win as Sachin could.  As long as he was there, we were fine.  Our scorecard would be in tatters, but if Sachin was n.o., there was hope.  We would end a day's play of Test cricket hundreds of runs behind, but if I saw that Sachin was still to bat, I knew we could win.  More than any one special innings or series, the child in me remembers that hope.  Single-handedly, to me Sachin represented the Hope - that India could win and in a larger sense, that India could emerge as a great nation once again.

In many ways, the end of his career marks the end of a childhood for many of us.  The outpouring of love for him tells me that I am not alone in feeling this.  He has been a hero to hundreds of millions of people, and that he has done so with grace and humility mark him as an even more special human being.  I cannot tell you that this much fame and support would not go to my head.  How he maintained his dignity and respect for the game is commendable.  No further proof of this is needed than his farewell speech.  If his career was proof that he was a great representative of the game, then his life (and that speech) were proof that he is a great representative of India.

All I can say, is Thank You.  With wet eyes that mark any ending, I can say no more than that.  I am blessed for having spent my childhood watching you, and it truly truly has been fun.

A Sense of Justice

Today brought a welcome bit of news to all those who have become all too familiar with the unfortunate slow pace of India's justice system.  I am of course referring to the conviction of four of the six accused in the Delhi gang rape.  It is no doubt that the massive public reaction to the heinous crime led in no small part to quick verdict.  Many, including myself, see the death penalty as the only suitable punishment for such a crime - and that is the point I wish to explore here.

Death penalty laws by nation.  View original here.  Blue = Abolished, Green = Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances, Orange = Legal but not used in past 10 years, Red = Legal

Capital punishment perhaps remains one of the most hotly debated topics alongside others such as abortion and euthanasia.  The common theme amongst these clearly is the termination of a life (unborn child, terminally ill, or criminal).  Human life is easily one of the most preciously guarded of treasures by every society and culture today, and for good reason, for clearly all of us can relate to it.  Unlike things like vegetarianism or climate change, the suffering is immediate and immensely relatable.  So, while any death is tragic, one caused purposely and sanctioned by a large group of people has to be especially so.  What does it say about a group of people who see no remorse in ending a life when they continue to live theirs?  By condoning the murder of a murderer, are we not all guilty of the same crime?  

The argument I make is that the original murderer put her/himself in that position.  They had a choice and they chose to commit a crime so vulgar and despicable that they effectively took away their right to continue in society.  In fact, can we not say the same about everyone who is in prison today?  Prisoners are purposely taken away from society for a pre-determined period of time.  For some, it might be a day, and for some a lifetime.  Capital punishment simply makes that lifetime permanent.  And it does so without the costs of supporting the individual for his/her lifetime.  It sounds extremely cruel (to put a price on a life), but it is a fair question for society to ask.  We have imposed gradations on crime and our shock of it, and we impose punishments on that basis.  I can easily see how a lifetime of solitary confinement or even one in a gang-ridden overcrowded prison would be a cruel punishment.  So if we are willing to bucket certain crimes as worthy of such a punishment, then certainly we can think of even worse crimes that deserve even worse punishments.  It is for those crimes that the death penalty should be reserved.  I completely disagree with the wanton implementation of this punishment that some countries (including the US) practice, but there are rarest of the rare cases where it is the only suitable punishment.  Where these people have CHOSEN to take away their right to continue to belong not only to society but humankind.  These by definition cannot and do not happen often, but they do, and for these cases I am supportive of reserving the ultimate punishment.

I also wish to explore another recent event that forces us to explore our views on such a topic.  I am referring again to the Delhi gang rape and an equally horrific crime committed recently in the US (the Ohio man who kidnapped, held captive, and raped three women for 11 years).  One of the six accused in the Delhi case, Ram Singh, was found dead in his cell as was Ariel Castro, the Ohio man.  There has been wide-spread condemnation of the fact that these men were allowed to commit suicide.  This despite the fact that perhaps the vast majority of people actually wanted these people to be killed for their crimes.  So why is it that even though we wanted them dead, we are angry that they were allowed to take their own lives?  To me, we did not simply wish them to die, but rather wanted some justice system to condemn them to it.  Perhaps barbarically we as a society wanted to have the collective pleasure of pushing the syringe or pulling the lever.  By them killing themselves, they took away that sadistic pleasure from us and the sense of justice that would have come with it.

Mankind: Made in the Image of God, (Not Pencils)

One of my closest friends - Zac Nagel - posted the following in response to my previous post, "The Point".  In keeping with the spirit of this blog as a discussion, I do not want his views to be lost in a comment thread.  I feel that a separate post, in the form of a "guest post", is needed to do his response justice.  

Yes, it is too bad that many Christians resort to trite similes to make a profound statement. It usually ends poorly, as in this case. However, just because the vehicle is ugly and broken-down doesn't render the truth it is carrying to be false.

In response to #1:
If God does exist and He did create mankind, why is it foolish to think that He has the best perspective on man's purpose? And I think your analogy is more supportive of the theistic position...if an engineer designs something, say a computer, and it is being used as a boat anchor, then the engineer's perspective on the device is meaningful...the device is not being used to its full potential and purpose.

In response to #2:
It doesn't look like you've posited a disagreement here...

In response to #3:
I disagree with the idea that God was "bored", he is and always has been self-sufficient. So creating mankind was not necessary to fill some divine void. Furthermore, I'm not seeing the logic in your alleged tautology. If we were created by God for a specific purpose, then we find meaning in life by fulfilling that purpose.

In response to #4:
There are many layers to this point, so I'm only going to focus on two of them. The wording you used for "how much we believed" makes it sound like a scale of graduations. In truth it is a digital outcome: Romans 10:9 tells us "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (ESV) So there is no concept of how much, but rather did you or did you not believe. This ties into your final assertion: "...they can convince God...". We can convince God of nothing. He has granted us a gift of eternal life, if we wish to accept. We cannot pay for it, leverage God into granting it, nor obligate Him into offering it. He has extended it of His own volition. There is no amount of goodness (real or contrived) that can convince God that he must do something on our behalf.

In response to #5:
Science and God are not enemies. In fact, the majority of science has arisen from societies with theistic world views. This has become muddled due to the institutional church losing its focus on its main purpose (to "celebrate the glory of God" as you say) and instead become involved in nationalism and other political power struggles. One response has been for naturalists to hijack the theory of evolution to provide an intellectually satisfying world view that doesn't involve God. So now there is a perceived implicit conflict between those who believe in God and science since science is explicitly invoked by naturalists to satisfy the 1st world view question of "how did we get here?"

In response to the final paragraph
The response I have to this thought is: what happens if you're unable to fulfill your self-made purpose? If you are infirm and cannot care for others or those around you or the planet? Or if you're blind and deaf and unable to admire beauty? Ultimately every self-fashioned purpose will fail, if nothing else it will in death. So what then, was/is your life meaningless and a waste? It is only in God who identifies himself to us as a Heavenly Father that we find a purpose that cannot fade or decay.

Is it Murder

Stages of development of a human fetus.  Source.

Amongst the most popular of debate topics of all time must be the topic of abortion.  While this topic elicits a wide range of responses and feelings from people around the world, it remains a hotly contested issue here in the US.  It is never far from any political debate and entire political careers have been made or broken on it.  People running for office at all levels from the local to national are often voted in or out on its basis and even Supreme Court justices are scrutinized on their position.  I even heard a prominent activist state that "(he) does not care about fiscal or foreign policy as long as the candidate is against abortion."  Of course, this debate gets completely muddled up because religion gets involved in it.  Fair enough, for religion purports to explain human life and what better place to start than the very beginning.  I through this medium would like to weigh in, and hopefully in some small way add to the debate.  Of course, those who know me (both personally and through previous posts on this blog) know that my views are not based in any way, shape, or form on any religious teaching.  If it confirms to one, then great.  If it does not, then too it does not matter.

We (this is a big collective 7 billion+ we) like to have our issues be black or white.  It does not matter what the issue is, for we want it simplified into a yes or no, it either is or isn't.  Perhaps our simple minds cannot handle nuance, or perhaps we have just learned from millennia of experience that it is simpler to make a decision when the matter falls neatly into one bucket.  So it is with abortion, where simple statements like the following attempt to put the issue cleanly into one camp or another:

All abortion is murder.

Only a woman should control her own body.

Life begins at conception.

You cannot take away a woman's right to choose.

Well, it's not that simple unfortunately - or at least I do not think it is.  Regardless of how binary we may wish to make it, the fact is that life is a gradual progression from conception to birth.  Trying to pin down exactly when a fetus becomes a human is an ad hoc and futile exercise.  One just has to see the image at the top or read about the stages of fetal development on the umpteen number of medical and parenting sites out there to know that a child goes through stages of development during the pregnancy.  After all, that is the whole point of spending nine months in the womb.  So I argue that if an embryo immediately after conception is Life = 0 and the birth of a child is Life = 1, then the period in between is Life = "some decimal number" < 1.  Whether the progression from 0 to 1 is linear or some curve with a change in slope at crucial stages (e.g. when the heart starts beating or the brain is developed) is immaterial.  The fact is the fetus is not a full life but neither is it just a collection of cells.  It is something in between.  And if we are to debate whether aborting the fetus is murder, then we must appreciate this nuance.  We can appreciate this concept by looking at a miscarriage.  Any miscarriage is a tragic and unfortunate event, but I think everyone would agree that an early term miscarriage is less tragic than a late term one which is less so than the death of a baby.  This is the painful truth and though we may not wish to assign a value to life, the fact is we implicitly do.  (As an aside, I would argue that we continue to do so throughout a person's life and therefore find the death of a 20 year old more tragic than that of an 80 year old)

In keeping with this nuance, we must deal with each situation on its merits, no matter how difficult it makes it to write laws or pass judgement.  To make my position clear, I am strongly opposed to abortion as a means of birth control.  Abortion cannot be a solution to a choice made on some random night.  For those who are completely Pro-Choice, I say this - "You had a choice, and you made the choice when you decided to have sex".  After the fact you may not be killing a child, but you are certainly taking some fraction of a life.  An abortion simply as a substitute for contraception or abstinence is immoral and wrong.  However, there are situations in which an abortion is justified, and these are situations where a full adult life is in question for 1 is greater than some decimal number.  Such situations (not a complete list) may be where the mother's life is in danger, rape, incest, or a baby's health condition where the child is unlikely to survive (admittedly this last one is tricky).  In such instances the act of abortion is not akin to killing a child, but it is not a benign act either.  It then becomes a woman's choice whose body it ultimately is.

Of course, there are many facets to this debate and I have only scratched the surface.  My point is this - we cannot clearly delineate a point where we go from No Life to Life.  It is a gradual process with shades of gray.  These shades of gray must be appropriately weighed against the clear black or white that exists on either end.  I recognize that this post does little to formulate an enforceable policy or legislation.  It also does little to help you pick a side on the ongoing debate on abortion.  But I suppose that is my point - there cannot be sides and I for one find myself sitting in the middle.

The Point

I saw the following written on a colleague's board today:

Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil.  It has no point.

So I got thinking about this quote, the analogy it is drawing, and what it means.  Of course, the analogy is just meant to be cute and the real purpose is to say that God is the point of living.  I find that rather sad, that someone would need the support of an unseen and unproven entity to justify or find meaning in life.  That all of the tangible, measurable, and identifiable beauty around this individual is not sufficient to make life worth living.  So what is it about God that all of a sudden gives life meaning?

The following is not by any means an exhaustive list, especially since I have not reviewed it with anyone with a sharp pencil like life, but it's a start.  God gives meaning to life because:

1. He (see note below) created us and therefore alone has the right to define our purpose.  This would be similar to say an architect deciding how a particular building he created would be used.
2. It is God's mercy and love alone that has provided us with all that we have, and without him, we would have nothing.  This is perhaps like a young child loving, honoring, and respecting his parents because they love him and provide him with everything.
3. Our ultimate purpose is to celebrate the glory of God.  In fact this is why God created us.  He was sitting around one day, bored, and said, "I need some people to sing my praises", so He created Man.  This is kind of like circular logic - God gives us meaning because we were created as something for God to give meaning to.
4. When we die, we will go to see God, and He will judge us by how much we believed in the idea that He alone gave life meaning.  This is somewhat cynical since it assumes the person believing this is doing for an ulterior motive.  Of course, the truly devout hopefully have really internalized it since an omnipotent God would know that they are just putting on a show.  They dont really mean it, but want to make sure they can convince God of it when they meet him in Heaven.
5. I cannot explain all that happens around me, so surely there must be a God that controls it and therefore provides meaning to not only my life but all of this Universe.

I am sure that other reasons exist, but believing in any of this does a great injustice to everything else that exists around us.  I do not claim to know the meaning of life, but do know that I find plenty of meaning in it without having a place for God.  I choose to believe that I am where I am with what I have due to a combination of my parents love and support, my friends and family, all of society, and ultimately my own abilities and efforts.  To say that God alone has given me all of this is shortchanging not only myself but everyone around me.  Imagine how you would feel if you just wrote Romeo and Juliet and audiences went around saying that this guy named Shakespeare wrote it.  

Allow me also to address #5 above directly.  Such a rationale is driven by ignorance and fear, not reason and evidence.  I do not think that humans will ever develop the science that explains everything, but just because we do not know does not prove the existence of a God.  It's a bit like saying that I do not know what is inside that locked house, but I can hear some nice music coming out of it, so surely Mozart must be in there playing the piano.  Mozart could be in there, but that is highly unlikely.  If we must believe it should be because we have a strong reason to, not because we cannot think of anything better.

Sticking with the original analogy, perhaps Life without God is indeed like an unsharpened pencil for it still can write and does NOT have a "weapon" at the end of it that is all too often used to poke others in the eye.  But, life without God has a point.  Its point is to care for ourselves, those around us, and the planet that sustains us.  It is to do this while remembering to admire the beauty and harmony in the universe that surrounds us.  By doing so we can very well make life incredibly meaningful, both for ourselves and others.  Hopefully we can live a life that would also make it meaningful to others whom we have never met.  Regardless of the magnitude of our individual impacts, a perceived entity in the sky is not needed to provide a fulfilling and purposeful life.  To suggest a pointless existence without God is frankly insulting to all of human endeavor, compassion, and accomplishment.

Note on Gender - I have no idea of the gender of God but since common lore refers to God as a male, I will continue that here.  Of course I could just as easily use She or It.  

Yet Another Note on Gender - I have, for purely convenience, used a male human as a subject in my examples.  Apologies to feminists everywhere, but if you wish you could replace him or he (lowercase ones only) with her or she and make no other change.  

Is it edible?

One of the most fascinating things about science and technology for me is that by its very nature, it will always challenge our preconceived notions and that which we for whatever reason hold to be absolute.  In fact, this is perhaps the single unique difference between religion and science.  While many can say that an adherence to science and scientific fact is a world-view like any religious world-view and therefore the same, this is the crucial difference.  Religion teaches many things to be completely outside the realm of debate, no matter what the new information may be.  Science on the other hand continues to challenge itself and always keeps itself open to changing what it may have just a short while back held to be a fundamental pillar.

So, science has allowed a debate on another one of my favorite topics - vegetarianism.  By now, you surely have read about the lab grown burger that was sampled recently (BBC).  While this specific burger did not follow the following completely, the basic idea is that one uses stem cells from a cow (without killing it importantly) and then gets those stem cells to grow into muscle and fat in a lab.  Voila, one gets a hunk of meat without killing the cow.  Though still a long way off, one can imagine this being done in the future for a full steak, chicken wings (with bone and all), and maybe complete organs (monkey brain anyone?).  So a question I posed myself is - would I eat one?

To me, there are four reasons why someone may be a vegetarian (there may be others).

1. To not unnecessarily terminate the life of an animal, especially to only obtain a momentary pleasure at best.
2. For health reasons (their own, not the animals necessarily).
3. For the environment since it is well known that livestock production imposes significant stress on it.
4. Because they object to factory farming and the animal cruelty that comes with it.  While this is similar to 1, this group is not against humane breeding or slaughter or perhaps even hunting for meat, just not the way it is done today.

For me the primary reason why I am a vegetarian is animal rights, so reasons 1 and 4 above.  I am glad that side effects of my chosen lifestyle are benefits to my health and the environment, but the single biggest reason by far is I cannot justify killing and ending the life of a creature simply because my tongue craves the taste.

With this therefore, since the lab grown meat does not violate either reasons 1 or 4, I should be completely fine with eating it.  Actually it also does a pretty good job with #3 and can probably be tailored to make a good dent into #2.  But getting back to the fact that this burger will not cause a cow to die, it will satisfy my general condition for what I can and will not eat.  In fact, this is the reason why I am not objected to eating eggs or dairy since these products of animals caused them to work, but not die.  Full respect to the vegans out there, but I am comfortable with my justification.  The lab grown meat therefore will be no different (arguably much more humane) than milk or cheese or eggs.  

The truth is though that for me there is a fifth reason for being vegetarian, and that is I find it positively disgusting.  The thought that what I would put in my mouth was at some point blood, guts, and slimy bodily fluids makes meat in no way, shape, or form appealing.  It reminds me of road kill, no matter how nicely it may be served up on a plate or grocery store.  So for me, I will likely pass on the lab burger as it will continue to gross me out.  I just wont be able to argue against it.

All of this said, I truly believe that lab grown meat is not something we as a race should pursue or encourage.  We have screwed around enough with our food to the point where we are beginning to see negative effects.  Think for example of the number of food allergies we see today which until recently were unheard of.  I do not have scientific proof of this, but cannot help think that Genetically Modified plants do not have some relation.  It is only natural to think that once the basics of growing meat in a lab are common, there will be a push for modifications to boost production.  That is clearly going to be the push of market forces and it is near impossible to predict what the impacts of those are going to be.  We have no idea what effects such "meat" would have on us and is a dangerous path to venture.  The better path without a doubt is to simply stop eating animals.  It will be better for you, better for the environment, better for humankind, and most certainly better for the animals.

Are we Trayvon or Zimmerman

Trayvon Martin in his now
famous hoodie photo (Source)

George Zimmerman (Source)

This post threatens to be perhaps the most politically incorrect one to date, but that is exactly what I promised to not shy from when I started this blog.  America loves a good trial and court-room drama, and one has gripped the country for at least the last month, if not longer.  As is well known now, back in February 2012, George Zimmerman was a security guard who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who happened to be in the area.  Since these two were the only people there, this is about all we know for certain.  Now there is a 911 call but there has been some debate about who is saying what in that.  Maybe there isn't a debate, but that is not the point of this post.  To be honest I have not even followed the case except for what I have stumbled upon on the radio/web after the verdict.

There are a number of elements to this case that have made it so intriguing, including "stand your ground" laws and guns, but almost certainly the main element is race.  The US has and continues to have a very complex relationship with race, as it should.  Race is so central to this case that it even provoked President Obama to speak (for the first time I think) as a black man in America.  The question is whether Zimmerman shot and killed Treyvon simply because he was a black kid in an affluent neighborhood.  Of course, if that is true, then there is no excuse and Zimmerman is guilty of both murder and a hate crime.  I would have no hesitation in supporting a very stringent punishment for the crime.  However, as the not guilty verdict has shown, he is guilty of neither.  Zimmerman fired his weapon because he was threatened and attacked by Trayvon.  We must now accept this, for if we had supported the judicial system in returning a guilty verdict, we must equally support the system in an acquittal.  One of our most prized rights is the right to be innocent until proven guilty, and as a society it is unfair for us to impose a verdict.  But back to race for now, and to the sensitive point of this post.

While we cannot hide from the fact that racism still exists in the US (though at a fraction of the level it was maybe 50 years ago), it is BOTH sides that require introspection.  The black population here cannot shy away from the fact that too many of its male youth have embraced violence and criminal activity as a way of life.  It can be argued that they have been pushed towards it, but strength of character comes from overcoming odds.  As many minorities have shown, there are very few to no systematic barriers to success in the US.  Arguably even, there is ample support (e.g. affirmative action).  The black population must therefore ask why their popular media continues to put on a pedestal those whose art and actions glamorize gangs, drugs, violence, and easy money.  Why is it that an extremely talented group which has produced some of the finest music in the form of jazz today is known for vulgarity ridden hip-hop.  Why instead of singing the blues for a lost love, the poetry is about multiple loose women.  No matter how un-racist we may think of ourselves, the fact remains that most of us would be concerned about a young black man in a hoodie approaching us on a quiet dark street.  I do not mean to generalize or support Zimmerman in any way if he shot Trayvon without reason.  I merely intend to use this case as an opportunity to propose that if the majority must reassess its perceptions of the minority, the minority too must take strides towards earning that trust.  It is my hope that the leaders in the black community are spreading the message that the path of success lies through education and hard work, and through that only.

I can already see my words here being twisted and taken completely out of context, so it is a good thing I am not a public figure.  My comments are also great generalizations and the painting any group of humans with a broad stroke is fraught with danger.  Nevertheless, in keeping with the spirit with which I started this blog, I think it is only fitting to challenge you to really think about how you today perceive the community.  I do not for a second excuse any discrimination on race alone, but trust is earned, and far too many black youth are doing too little towards that end.  Unfortunately it appears that their leaders in the arts, sports, and now the president, are shying away from speaking this difficult truth.

The Power of the Sun

I recently happened to hear a discussion the radio amongst a group of people arguing against hydraulic fracturing (fracking).  For those of you less familiar with this technology, it is essentially a method that uses high pressure water and chemicals to cause cracks in what is very hard rock (see a good graphic by a site otherwise opposed to fracking).  This hard rock, shale, also contains natural gas.  Without the benefit of the cracks opening up more pathways for the gas, the production (rate) from shale would be too low to justify the expense.  With fracking however, production from shale has virtually all of a sudden become viable.  Most importantly, enormous tracts of shale that have been known to exist for a very long time such as the Marcellus and Barnett shale formations have become major gas producing regions.  This has had two very important (and related) effects:

1. The price of natural gas has plummeted.  This is mostly driven by supply but a weak demand due to reduced industrial activity (something to do with the recession) and a warmer winter last year (something blamed on global warming) has not helped.
2. The US now has a very abundant source of domestic energy.  This has been a rallying cry for many groups and now natural gas offers that solution where the US should be able to sustain itself for a few decades.  At least when it comes to energy.

Back to that discussion on radio - this group was vociferously against fracking and pointing out the many supposed issues with it.  As I pointed out in my previous post, I am fine with the discussion, however I want to hear solutions and options.  If an intelligent group is going to take our time with their views then it should further society's discussion on this topic.  As listed above, fracking has produced some very tangible benefits; benefits that this country has needed.  So if we are going to stop fracking then the alternative should be able to similarly solve the problem.  Fortunately, the host towards the end asked the group what the alternative would be.  What are our options for providing the electricity to power our homes, manufacture our goods, perhaps fuel our cars, and host that very radio show?  There was some ho'ing and humming, after which one guest said, "...well there's solar.  For example a school in NYC has installed solar panels on its roof and now gets part of its electricity from those panels."

So there you have it.  We will produce our electricity needs from solar.  The US generated 416.5 million MWhrs (megawatt-hours) of electricity in Jul 2012 (Energy Information Agency).  With 744 hours in the month of July, that is equivalent to 560 GW of power generation capacity cranking out electricity 24/7.  Note: the US has over a 1000 GW of generation capacity.  If we are to reduce our requirement for natural gas (responsible for ~415 GW of that capacity), then solar power would have to produce at least a measurable percentage of this, preferably with the same reliability and at the same cost.  I agree that technology may or will improve so let us not focus on cost or reliability (as important as they are).  Let us instead look at the amount of solar energy available.  The map below is the "solar resource" or insolation in the US.  The northeast (including NY) is at about 4 kWhr/m2/day while the southwest is the highest with around 7 kWhr/m2/day.  

Source: National Renewable Energy Lab (www.nrel.gov) - US DOE

Let's do the math.  At the highest insolation - 7 kWhr/m2/day, we can generate 210 kWhr of electricity for every square meter of solar panel per month.  So if we wanted to generate the 416.5 billion kWhr of electricity that was consumed in July from solar panels, we would need nearly 2 BILLION square meters, or 200,000 square km of solar panels.   To put this number in perspective, the entire state of Nebraska is 200,000 square km.  Arizona, which has the highest solar insolation is a little bigger at 295,000 square km.  So if we wanted to power the US with solar power, we would have to virtually empty out Arizona and cover it with solar panels.  This number does not even take into account the area that would be required to store the solar power for use at night.  And this is idealized based on the the total amount of solar energy available without any consideration for the inefficiencies of the solar system.

I wish to be clear, solving our energy needs will require a solution that encompasses all options.  Renewables like solar and wind have a place and are great options for where it makes sense (small residential use, water heaters, light non-essential utilities, etc).  Where they do not make sense is grid level power generation on a massive scale.  They do not make sense on cost, land use, or reliability.  I am happy to continue investing a limited amount of my tax dollars funding the development of these technologies, but they cannot be touted as THE solution to our energy needs.  Until something else truly novel is discovered, the solution is offered by a mix of natural gas and nuclear.  Think about this the next time you power up the device you just read this on.

The Crown of India

Current map of Kashmir indicating the various regions under different administrations. The entire area within the thicker black border was the Kingdom of Kashmir under Hari Singh (Source: Indian Defense Review)

Few issues dominate Indian foreign policy like Kashmir.  For as long as modern India has existed, Kashmir has been a thorny issue and I suspect it is likely to be so for many decades to come.  It has been the cause of at least three wars and innumerable skirmishes.  It has been described as a tinderbox given its ability to initiate war between two nuclear powers.  It has been a practice ground for Islamic militants, most of them non-Kashmiri.  Most of all, it is the place where two groups with everything in common except religion come together.  Many blame the Kashmir issue on Pakistan and the creation of Pakistan in the first place.  This is a rather interesting point.  For while Pakistan is certainly the cause of most of the problems today, the problem cannot be blamed on its creation.  In fact, it is interesting to note that there was perhaps no way for Kashmir to have ever been a peaceful region, a Switzerland of sorts.  To understand this, perhaps a little recap of history is helpful.

As we all know of course, when the British left India, they gave the princely kingdoms the choice to either side with India, side with Pakistan, or become independent.  While the vast majority went one way or the other, Kashmir (or rather its king Hari Singh) chose independence.  So, if nothing further had happened, Kashmir today would have been an independent country nestled in the Himalayas between India, Pakistan, and China.  I imagine it to have been much like Bhutan, except Muslim.  Except for a few things of course.  First, India rejected the notion of breaking up the nation.  Our founders had dreamt of and fought for a united India as it had culturally existed for centuries.  The British were bringing up this issue of multiple nations at the last minute.  So a Balkanisation of India was completely contrary to the Independence movement.  Nevertheless, a Pakistan was being formed as a supposed home to the Muslims of the subcontinent, never mind that India would continue to have more Muslims.  Since Pakistan saw itself as the natural nation for all Muslims, it was only fitting that Muslim majority Kashmir should join it.  After all, what need is there for "one home" for Muslims if each Muslim majority region became its own country.  Most importantly, what was preventing other regions within Pakistan, often with little but religion in common, from forming their own little countries.  For example, why shouldn't there become countries such as Balochistan, Sind, West Punjab, and Pashtunistan?  So an independent Kashmir brought into question the very idea of Pakistan.  On the other hand, India's founding fathers envisioned a secular country for all people of the subcontinent.  For them India was not a country of Hindus and not defined by religion in any way.  It was the home for all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.  An independent Kashmir or a Kashmir as part of Pakistan threatened the very concept.  It would be admitting that people of different religions or different regions cannot be under one central India.  In other words, it brought into question the very idea of a unified India. 

Now imagine if Jinnah and the Muslim League had never existed to demand a Pakistan.  Such what-if scenarios are fascinating to me and in future posts I wish to explore this concept further.  You will be amazed at how different our world (and yes, not just the region) would have been today had one man not lived.  But sticking to Kashmir, I feel that had Pakistan not been formed, Kashmir would have become an independent country.  I am sure the Indian government would have tried to coax it into joining the union as it did with other princely kingdoms.  As much as I idol worship Sardar Patel, I think even a man of his abilities would have failed to bring Kashmir into the fold.

There are three possible scenarios I envision:

1. Kashmir would have remained independent but with great internal strife with three religions and being landlocked.  I imagine that such a Kashmir would have been roped into the Cold War with Communist Russia attempting to depose the king and Western countries attempting to bring democracy.  Having to virtually conduct all its trade through an India that resented its existence would not have helped.
2. China would have invaded it during its invasion of Tibet and at the very least taken the regions of Aksai Chin, Leh, and Ladakh, if not the entire country itself.  We would have then seen the kind of freedom struggle we are seeing today in Tibet.  Except it is likely to have been way more violent as it would have been fought not by otherwise peaceful Buddhist monks but militant Muslims supported by international jihadi groups and other groups covertly supported by India.
3. India would have invaded it to take it by force.  It would have then existed as a part of India but with a simmering separatist movement supported again by the Chinese government, international jihadi organizations, and perhaps local groups dreaming of a Switzerland of the East.

In all three scenarios, Kashmir would have been far from the gorgeous valley that I remember from my visit in 1989.  I have painted a rather grim picture of a region that is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of the world inhabited by a beautiful peaceful people.  This is however the fact of reality, that as humans we have found a way to make a fight for God, King, and Country paramount in our lives.  To be sure, I do not think the future need be this grim.  I hate to leave the post here, but will do so to not only maintain brevity but leave you with food for thought.  The fact is that none of the three scenarios presented above happened, and Kashmir finds itself pulled in different directions.  I remain hopeful and confident that Kashmir will soon become a proud region and once again take over the mantle it held for millenia - The Crown of India.

You Cannot Be Serious.

Perhaps nothing touches human emotion like the death of a child.  While any death is sad and tragic, it is hard to see a young life's passing as not being senseless and unnecessary.  I guess we can see rationale behind an adult's death at times: the person's own actions led them to it (think Darwin Awards), the person was evil and deserved it (think Hitler or Osama bin Laden), or perhaps death was best for an elderly who has been in pain for a long time.  For a young child however, it is hard to imagine these things.  This is why their deaths are so  emotional, and the biggest reason why the shootings at Newtown were do different from all the shootings that preceded it and that will undoubtedly follow.  

When the NRA kept silent for about a week after the Newtown shooting, I was hopeful that perhaps they were doing some serious soul searching and would finally come out with some meaningful options and compromises.  Their eventual suggestion, to arm teachers with guns, confirmed to me that the NRA has absolutely no interest in seeing things change.  They do not see the killings in Newton as any more of a rallying cry for gun control than the death of some gang member in an inner-city.  They care about one thing and one thing only, the ability of gun manufacturers to continue selling guns and for "macho" gun owners to continue adding to their collection.  

This week Congress is holding hearings on gun control.  There are a number of proposals on the table which should be common sense and frankly do not go far enough for many people, including me.  The proposals are to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity, and require background checks on ALL gun sales.  I cannot understand why these are so disagreeable.  Nobody needs an assault rifle.  I was recently reading a hunting magazine (that is mostly all that is available in East Texas) where the author was specifically mentioning how an assault rifle is not used for hunting.  It is not used for sport either and nor for self defense.  So what is it for besides war and killing as many people as possible in the least amount of time?  Ditto for high capacity magazines.  Even shotguns are restricted in how many shells can be loaded at one time for a hunt.  The reason: to give the game a fair chance.  What is incredible is we allow deers and ducks a fair chance but not innocent people in a theater or classroom!  Finally there is the question of background checks.  Everyone, including the NRA, agrees that it is a mentally deranged individual that goes on a shooting spree.  So why not try to implement a method that tries to prevent that individual from getting a gun in the first place?  

During these hearings on gun control, the NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre also provided testimony.  One of his core messages was that law-abiding gun owners should not be burdened due to the actions of bad people.  My question is why not Mr LaPierre?  Law abiding citizens are "burdened" in many things in our daily lives to prevent abuse and mis-use.  Here are some examples:

• Airport security - I intend no harm, so why do I have to stand in line and go through the x-ray?
• Prescription medicine - I am responsible to know what I need to take and how many, why do I need a doctor and pharmacist?
• Drinking at 21 - I was an adult at 18, so why can I not get a drink just because some 18-21 year olds binge drink?

In these cases and for that matter any instance where there is security or checks, honest, law-abiding, and honorable people are burdened to prevent abuse.  In cases such as airport security this is a good thing, because I am willing to wait 10 minutes and go through a hassle to ensure some crazy person does not kill me.  I would think gun owners would feel the same way.  And even if they do not, I think the public has a right to demand it to ensure their own safety.  Surely gun owners can take on a little burden to prevent another innocent child from dying.

These controls may not stop everyone nor prevent another shooting from taking place.  But if they prevent even one more Newtown from happening, it would all be worth it.

Dont Come Without a Solution

Before I begin with this post, a disclaimer is needed.  I work for a major oil and gas company, which means that my livelihood comes from the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons.  Furthermore, my graduate degree was in Combustion, meaning that I have spent a fair bit of time studying (and now benefiting from) the oxidation of hydrocarbons - a process that naturally produces CO2 and hopefully not too many other nasties.  I do not think any of this matters, but I am surely going to be accused of bias, so it's important I mention it.  

In the last few years or so, there has been a lot of talk of climate change and the effect that humans are having on the temperature.  It has certainly become a little bit of a fad to be in support of this cause, which is unfortunate because Hollywood celebrities are usually not the best scientists.  Now I am not anti-global warming or a climate change denier.  The truth is I do not know.  Quite honestly I do not think anybody knows for sure.  Are temperatures rising - well yes, we can measure it directly and we see they have risen.  Are humans impacting the Planet and its climate - of course, you cannot have 7 billion people going about their business without impacting the environment.  Are humans emitting more CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases - yes, we know that for sure too.  Does a greenhouse gas cause temperatures to rise - ah, tricky question: yes, but in what quantities?  Has Earth's temperature risen before, even before there were homo sapiens - yes, we see that from a number of sources that Earth's temperature has been cyclical.  What we know for sure is, humans are emitting a substance that has the potential to raise temperatures (which are rising) but the Earth has also gone through periods of cold and hot before.  Are we in a cycle, or are we shifting the path of the roller-coaster by our weight?  I do not think anyone knows for sure.

Okay, so the ardent "environmentalists" argue that we cannot afford to do nothing.  Worse, they blame industries like Oil & Gas for destroying Earth.  I have news for such people: We NEED Energy.  This is a fact of life, and especially a fact of modern life.  We need energy for virtually everything we do - from getting hot water in the morning, to lights, to the A/C or heat, to transportation, to plastics, to the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, and to basically everything we do.  In fact today we use energy even for things that are nowhere near being necessities for life or living comfortably.  What need does someone have for an iPad or a high power stereo or a giant TV.  None, but these things make life more enjoyable, and they require energy.  Contrary to popular belief, this energy does not come from the socket.  Chances are, something had to be burnt to produce that energy.  

So if you are going to make a big deal about climate change and how we are evil for burning oil, gas, or coal, propose a solution for meeting society's need for energy.  The solution cannot be for all of us to live in caves.  This general quality of life cannot be reduced and for that matter cannot be denied to people who do not currently have it.  They have every right to aspire to it.  So I say it again, bring forth an alternative to fossil fuels.  Often the very same environmentalists have already written off nuclear, so what remains?  Yes, I know, renewables.  In another post I will write more about renewables, but here is the reality. Renewables are great and offer a lot of promise.  But they are no where near sufficient for our needs and will never be.  There are too many fundamental problems to overcome and while I will continue to support having my tax dollars fund the research, the reality is renewables can never be the complete answer.  So think of something else, because currently every American consumes about 311 million BTU's of energy a year, or around the equivalent of 16,000 of the type of burner you see at the top.  If you truly care, come with a solution that provides this kind of energy, or dont bother.

Source of Morals, Part 2

My very good friend Zac Nagel, posted a comment on my previous post that merits a response.  I am still trying to determine the best way to maintain this blog as a discussion, but I am going to try replying in the form of a new post and see if it works.  I prefer this over replying to the comment in this case because I dont want what I have to say lost in a comment thread.  Before I get into all that though, this was Zac's comment to my previous post on the Source of Morals.

the presence of a moral compass within most people (e.g. the don't murder, don't steal) is more easily reasoned to be the remnant of divine programming of an absolute moral code as opposed to being developed by mankind in a vacuum.
If mankind developed this moral compass...then how does it seem logical that many people groups and civilizations (some without contact with another civilization) across all time have converged on a common set of morals (again, think no murder, stealing is bad, marriage should occur).
Conversely, why haven't we seen civilizations arise where stealing murder, etc. are prized as good things.
Doesn't it seem more likely that there is a common source that provides a template of moral direction which nearly all people (theists, deists, atheists, pantheists, etc.) hold in common?

First, let me clarify the main objection that I have and was trying to convey in my post.  It was that we do not necessarily need a God to provide us with morals.  Or at the very least, we do not need a divine messenger to tell us what is right or wrong.  It would appear that Zac may be in agreement with me there.  For if our morals are part of some "divine programming", then God has already put that into every human and so what need is there for Him to send his son as Jesus, or speak to Mohammed, or come down Himself as Krishna.  An all-powerful God should have put in the right code in the original release and not required later version upgrades.  So again, my original point was that the diversity of religions and faiths proves that man is capable of devising morals, or at the very least a divine messenger is not needed for that.

However, I will admit that I also alluded to the idea that not only is a messenger not needed, but God himself (or herself) is not needed for us to derive our morals.  And here of course is where here Zac disagrees with me.  The argument is that the fact that virtually all groups and civilizations today have essentially the same set of morals is proof that some central divine programming is involved.  First, I would disagree that all groups have the same set of morals, even though in general the overarching principles are there.  Take for example one of the most common elements, murder.  It is universally accepted by all groups across the world that murder of another human being is wrong.  Different religions though introduce different shades of grey to it.  Christianity teaches that all murder is sin (but a murderer may still make it to Heaven); Islam teaches that murder in some instances may be okay (especially if the victim is a non-believer); and Hinduism teaches that murder is wrong unless it is your duty (dharma) to kill another (e.g. a soldier in battle).  So while all three in general agree that murder is wrong, three of the largest groups in the world have different takes on it.  Surely God would have programmed in a little more detail.  But I digress.

My main argument is that God has not programmed in the morals, but rather that humans "have converged on a common set" through thousands of years of civilization.  They have all converged on the basic morals because these are what make a society fair and productive.  Over different times as groups began living together and becoming interdependent, they must have realized that it is in everyone's interest to frown upon things like murder and theft.  This was not an invention like paper or gunpowder that got invented in one place and then spread around the world.  It is more likely that different groups came up with the basic principles at different times much like different groups must have figured out things like fire and shelter independently.  It is on these basic ideas that groups then added the flavors we see today.  

The underlying concepts though are so obvious for a healthy society that it is not surprising at all that completely disconnected groups would have all "discovered" them.  As soon as groups started living together, it is easy to see a leadership structure emerge which would have devised a set of laws.  These man-made laws then became the morals of that group.  Blur your eyes, and all these different morals look pretty much the same, because even though we may be brown, black, or white, blur your eyes and we are all humans.

Critical Thinking: The Source of Morals

João Zeferino da Costa. (www.nobility.org)

ISKCON.  Original artist unknown.

I recently had a discussion with someone who made the following statement, "Everyone must get their morals from somewhere, and you need God for that".  We could not continue the discussion, but it is surprising to me that he was unable to see how oxymoronic the statement was.  This was a successful individual who got where he is today through his intellect and daily use of critical thinking.  However, in making this one statement, he failed to think through the logic of his statement and see the inherent contradiction in those few words.  

Now, he is deeply religious, presumably a Christian (but it does not matter), so I am assuming that he “takes his morals” from the Bible which he surely takes to be divine (or at least divinely inspired).  So for him, God through the Bible has provided us with what is moral and what is not.  But, the vast majority of the human population is not Christian.  In fact, no single religion is practiced by the majority of people.  Everyone, atheists and the religious, would agree with me that not all religions are divine or divinely inspired (I hope this is obvious for it may necessitate another posting).  Instead most would argue that only theirs is from God and that all others are man-made.  So, implicit in this argument is that while their flavor of morals may be from God, others have made up theirs.  That for example Islam is divine, but Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are all creations of the human mind.  Since all religions purport to have morals, they are essentially arguing that man has developed a set of morals in these cases.  But this negates the original claim, and hence the contradiction.  

The fact that every religion provides its followers with morals, and that at best only one can be correct, means that the vast majority of humans on Earth live with man-made morals that are neither god-given nor even divinely inspired.  And this includes atheists.  Morality is not the exclusive domain of theists. By and large, every group, culture, and society, has developed a set of values and morals that for the most part agree with each other.  Regardless of who does a better job of sticking to those, basic fundamentals like not stealing and not killing are shared across the human race.  Oddly enough, it is the religious that most often violate them, especially the "not killing" part.

I hate to break it to you, but the morals you may hold to be absolute, they were invented, by a fellow human.  What should be absolute is human dignity and respect for this Earth and all those that inhabit it.  We do not need a God to tell us that.

In Polite Company

We are all taught that one should not bring up religion or politics in polite company.  It is simply not done.  After all, you do not want to offend the other person.  I get it, but find it amusing none the less.  There are a few reasons for my amusement.

First, why does the other person get offended?  Has the individual not thought about their beliefs and values and is therefore shocked when someone suggests disagreement with them?  Second, when religion and political views are used so often to defend actions, policies, or decisions which impact everyone, why should these topics be outside the purview of any group discussion.  If everyone practiced their religion and politics inside their homes privately, then I would not have an issue if it was improper to discuss.  But it is not, and so I am challenging the very notion.  These things matter, and we do not help by making them taboo.

In the posts to come, I hope to put forth some of my thoughts and views on what I consider to be important topics.  As you can guess, religion and politics are two of the main ones.  Others are hinted at in the header image at the top: Energy (and Energy Policy), Science and Technology, Vegetarianism, and National Security.  

I started writing this blog some time back, but I am going to attempt writing more frequently this year, so this is a start of sorts.  To help with that of course, I am fortunate to have a very talented graphic designer by way of my wife help.  She has designed the header and I think you will agree that it is quite spectacular.  Hopefully the quality of this blog will be on par with the quality of her work.  

I sometimes feel a blog is a narcissistic pursuit.  Why should anyone care what you have to say through a medium that does not allow for a discussion?  I am hoping that is where your comments come in.  For me they are going to be one of the primary enjoyments of this blog.  I look forward to reading and responding to your comments and have that be the channel for a healthy discussion.  I also invite any of you to post on this blog if you wish.  Together, we can explore the most advance and perhaps odd species to walk this Earth - The Inscrutable Humans.