Thursday, April 7, 2016

On Dreaming and Nightmares

Not to be rude, but it pains me to see how uninformed some of these responses are. Hopefully I can remedy this. Although it is not entirely known why we even sleep and/or dream in the first place, there are a few rather well accepted theories. First, theories on why we even sleep:
  • The restorative theory: Being awake and active takes a lot of energy. Aside from eating, one of the ways that our bodies conserves and restores energy and rejuvenates our body is simply by sleeping.
  • The evolutionary theory: This is slightly linked to the restorative theory in that it revolves around survival and efficiency. When we sleep, we're not expending much energy, and we don't require much energy. Thus, by sleeping, we conserve resources to help reduce the amount of food we need to eat. Additionally, it is thought that early humans and our ancestors benefited by sleeping at night because it allowed them to rest while also remaining motionless so that predators couldn't find them.
  • Memory consolidation theory: In short, sleep functions as a way for us to take our memories from throughout the day and sort and consolidate them so that we can remember them better. This has a rather large degree of support because some studies show that napping after studying can help increase information retention.
Onto dreams now; first, the nature of dreams. Dreams tend to be (as many I'm sure can agree with) rather emotional, not very logical, and full of sensory stimuli. These seemingly intrinsic properties can be explained with a variety of other theories:
  1. The problem solving theory: Dreams are a way that our minds take unsolved problems from throughout the day and attempt to unconsciously sort through them and look for answers. One reason this has some support is because since dreams aren't very logical, the abstract approach dreaming can lend to problem solving can sometimes provide unexplored answers by letting you think about something in a way you would've never tried otherwise.
  2. Wish fulfillment: Our dreams manifest latent desires. (Good) Dreams are a place where you can do anything, be anything, and potentially be better (in your own eyes) than the real you is. A professor once told me that "everyone is great in their dreams". Dreams can be a way for your mind to reassure itself and fulfill unlikely or impossible desires (which explains why many people fly in their dreams.
  3. Activation-synthesis theory: This is the most scientific theory that attempts to explain dreams. Essentially, it states that while you sleep and as your brain recuperates, it does whatever work it needs to do along with a little "exercising" so that your mind stays active despite your being unconscious in the form of randomly stimulating neurons. As a side effect of the random neuron firing, your cortex receives random nonsensical "messages" (for lack of a better work), and tries to make sense of the nonsense and in the process produces what we experience as dreams.
Onto the real topic of nightmares. It's a fact that people have bad dreams, but there's (are you sensing a theme here) multiple explanations for why. The strongest explanation has to do with the parts of the brain that are most active during dreams, and partially links back to some of the theories mentioned earlier. Note that all of the brain is active while we sleep, some parts are simply more or less active than others. First, recall that it is the cortex that generates the content of our dreams (that is, the cortex is what interprets the signals it's getting and turns it into something it/we can make sense of).

Another part of the brain especially active while we sleep is the amygdala, which is (ding ding ding) the part of our brain most active when we are in a state of fear. This explains why nightmares are possible, because the part of our brain that responds to fear is essentially on overdrive for one reason or another. Lastly (though there is much more that can be said, I'm simply covering the most important parts of the brain in sleep), the least active portion of the brain during sleep is the frontal lobes, whose job it is to enable critical thinking - this explains why dreams are nonsensical and why we don't often realize it was a dream until we wake up because the frontal lobes aren't active and assessing the situation. All of these physiological processes combined are not only what allow dreams in general, but what give us a predisposition for bad dreams purely from the parts of the brain that contribute to dreaming in the first place. Another consideration to take is that, returning to the evolutionary theory and the problem solving theory, dreams can be considered a way for our brain to play out and determine how to react in crazy, dangerous situations without actually being in that crazy, dangerous situation, so that if it ever does occur, your brain knows how to react without thinking much. Additionally nightmares can simply be caused by stress, due to the stress temporarily wearing out the part of your brain that manages and regulates emotions, allowing your dreams (that are already emotional and nonsensical) to be a lot more spooky.

Lastly (for real this time), a brief note about why we are sometimes afraid of our thoughts, not only when looking back at a dream, but when conscious as well. All people have weird, scary thoughts sometimes. Not only about absurd dangerous hypothetical situations, our mortality, etc., but also things just like "If I did this this and this, I could rob this bank and get out totally safe and sound" for one example. It seems silly to say, but our brain essentially thinks things like this so that it has time to consider it and realize that it's what you SHOULDN'T do, and to prevent you from actually doing it.

Another example is that just because sometimes you think about hitting someone that's annoying you or really want to, that doesn't mean you have anger problems, it's just your brain acknowledging something that it knows it shouldn't do but would really like to do, and making you aware of how it would play out so you realize the absurdity of the action(s) so that you DON'T do it.

SOURCE

Monday, April 4, 2016

The Truth About Jurassic Park

It's not about the dinosaurs, it's about control.

There's the dialog between Satler and Hammond in the first movie where they pretty much spell it out. It's about control. Making a profit off of control, controlling nature for the ability to do so, controlling customers.

"And we can charge anything!! $1000 a day, $10,000 a day, and people will pay it!"

It's all about layers of control, and how control eventually backfires.

In the first movie Hammond is trying to control the employees working for him so that he can be a famous P.T. Barnum-like figure, known for entertaining the children/everyone with something unbeatable. He can't get what he wants from doing things in the small scale, so he hires professionals and experts... then looks for the underbidders believing that the economically strapped will be easier to motivate.

The investors are trying to control Hammond to secure the greatest amount of profit out of the place they can. They are there to provide Hammond the cash he needs to do his project, and they and Hammond, both know it. They don't want to be financiers, they want to control the project. It's their money, they want to be in charge.

Gennaro (the Lawyer) want to be in control of... well anything he can get his hands on, but he has nothing in life that really gives him that power. So when he's chosen by the investors he tries to dick-swing with the big dongs.

Woo is trying to control the nature of biology itself, and thinks he's done exactly that.

Muldoon thinks he can control animals because he's learned many of their behaviors as a hunter.

When the chips are down though, all of the control everyone is trying to achieve is not just an illusion, it's a self deluding lie.

Woo can't control biology, because biology is the result of nature. He can work with it, but nature can't be mastered, only understood. So dinosaurs that aren't supposed to be able to breed (because they're not entirely dinosaurs) can and do. Meaning that there are populations growing on the island that no one knows about, and can't control.

The investors can't control Hammond, he's too canny and business savvy. Not only do they not know what's on the island, they don't have a background to be able to understand that Hammond doesn't really have dinosaurs, he has something new, and very very dangerous on his hands, with no knowledge of what to properly do with it. They don't know that Site B exists. And they don't care what kind of man Gennaro is, they just want him to reestablish their dominance. They expect him to reassert their authority (Respect ma'authoritaa!!!) instead he jumps ship.

Hammond is good at manipulating people with a lot of money... but can't control his employees. When dealing with high-skilled, educated people, ripping them off is that last thing you want to do (this is true for everyone though, but it's what the business world has convinced itself works best, and not just in the movie). But that is exactly what the business community likes... and Hammond likes it too. Nedry isn't loyal to anything, and strapped for cash due to underbidding too low. ANYONE with an offer for enough cash to get his time will get his loyalty, and they do.

The ones that point it all out are the ones that study nature to understand it.

Grant/Satler/Malcolm/the kids, never try to control anything. They observe, determine, and report.

When shown what the park is, all of them are astounded, but none of them are on board. They are analyzing, not just the dinosaurs, but also the situation. The raptors they've made are bigger, stronger, smarter and faster than velociraptors actually would be. Grant gets to see this first hand, and respects the creatures for what they are. Satler points out that there are dangerous plants all over where people with little kids will be, that no one on staff seems to know are dangerous. Malcolm repeated warns about the fact that nature does what it wants to do, and that the way the entire project is set up is doomed to fail, they would have to do something radically different to get the desired outcomes.

But none of the businessmen want to hear what they have figured out because it doesn't play into the business illusions of control.

Nedry does what he can to try to get the cash he needs, and while he can control the tech, he can't control the park, the weather, and the animals. So he sabotages the park, only to die at the hands of the very dangerous creatures he didn't know anything about.

Gennaro can't control anything... and gets killed like the little bitch everyone who meets him knows he is.

Muldoon gets killed by the very creatures he thinks he knows so well.

Woo looses his job, because the park goes under (only to be rehired later in another movie).

Hammond looses the park and his dreams.

The investors loose piles and piles of money.

The Lost World, and Jurassic Park 3, and Jurassic World are the same. Just different aspects of control, in different situations.

It's all about greed, control and power. It's not actually about the dinosaurs.

Pesticides and Autism: a Potential Connection


For the MANY people asking what they can do: 
  1. Educate yourself and become involved politically. 
  2. Support groups like earthjustice.org and beyondpesticides.org
I suspect this type of activity is systemic across every major industry. Let's look at the pesticide industry, shall we? Most people don't understand just how problematic pesticides are not just for the environment and farm workers, but our entire society. Did you know that one of the most popular families of pesticides used in conventional agriculture, organophosphates, has been widely implicated in severe developmental neurotoxicity issues in children? As these studies showcase, these pesticides, found in normal amounts in children, not children with high exposure, are implicated in reduced IQ and cognitive abilities:
Take a few minutes to ponder the ramifications; the food we eat may literally be making us dumber. And yes, food is a major pesticide source despite what industry might claim:


Continuing on, the most important enzyme responsible for breaking down these pesticides in the human body is called serum paraoxanase. Some people have a lot of paraoxanase activity and are able to break down the pesticides really fast. Guess which subpopulation scientists are beginning to find has significantly reduced paraoxanase activity? People with autism:


and this year a large study found associations between organophosphates and autism:


More work needs to be done on this front, but the early findings are concerning to say the least.

The data against organophosphates continues to pile up and has resulted in the thousands of scientists represented by the Union of Concerned Scientists wanting organophosphates banned. Unfortunately, politics wins at the EPA:

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/epa-and-pesticides.html

I only spoke of the neurotoxicity issues above. Make no mistake, these pesticides cause harm across a variety of spectrums. Not just on children's nervous systems but everything from gestation duration and birthweight to reduced lung function and lower sperm count in humans to changing the behavior of bugs. Some example studies:
Please be sure to also look at the studies showcasing that these products are "safe". I'd suggest starting with Naled, an organophosphate. The 2006 EPA reregistration document is here:


and you'll find the list of utilized, "Studies" begins on page 105. You will also find that 98% of those studies are conducted by the chemical manufacturers themselves (in rats and rabbits) and, "Unpublished" meaning they never underwent peer review. Yet when independent scientists conduct studies, they are finding what I posted above, in children.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists stated in the link I posted above, "Another scientist said that the agency "often ignored independent scientific studies that contradicted the industry-subsidized study." Especially in cases where chemicals' effects on health are poorly understood and studies disagree, said the scientist, the EPA should not automatically side with the pesticide industry. "If there is disagreement, doesn't that cry out for further research?" A report of the EPA Office of the Inspector General also suggested that the EPA had not done enough to protect children from pesticide exposure."

The Naled reregistration document proves this as, of the 91 cited studies, all but one were conducted by industry and unpublished.

Despite countless scientists calling for change, greed and regulatory capture hold the winning hand. And it is the common man who suffers. Whether it be oil or pesticides, those in power have placed their chess pieces over the years in a masterful game and at this point, one has to wonder if we have to simple concede check mate.

edit As long as this post is getting the attention it is, allow me to elaborate on how bad it gets. Remember the pesticide Naled (an organophosphate) I spoke of above? It is also sprayed over millions of people in the name of mosquito control. When sprayed on agriculture fields, there is a 48 hour reentry interval where workers cannot reenter without protective gear 


When it is sprayed over residential areas for mosquito control, there are no such protections; kids are out running around the same day. The thing is, when sprayed in agriculture fields, they use large droplets so it contacts the bugs. When sprayed for mosquitoes, they aerosolize it so it hangs in the air. The problem there is, the US military figured out in a study that aerosolized Naled is 21x more toxic and causes lung and liver necrosis 


In other words, 155lb farm workers can't enter an area it is sprayed for 48 hours but 30lb kids are out the same day despite their form potentially being upwards of 21x more toxic than what the farm workers are suscepted to.