Richard Dawkins, in capitolul 5 din ultima sa carte, "Amagirea numita Dumnezeu" (The God Delusion), incearca sa explice din punct de vedere evolutionist, originile pornirilor religioase ale omului. Potrivit autorului, religia este un produs secundar al evolutie. In acest sens el face o paralela cu tendinta moliei de a fi atrasa de lumina becului, fenomen care, aparent, contravine instinctului de conservare al acesteia, avand in vedere ca atrage dupa sine moartea moliei. Ce legatura exista intre religie si tendinta moliei de a fi atrasa de lumina becului? Aparent, ambele ar fi niste produse secundare (by-products) ale unor adaptari anterioare. In cazul moliei, atractia spre lumina are un rol ancestral bine definit in conditii naturale, si anume in orientarea dupa lumina lunii si a stelelor pe timp de noapte. Aceeasi adaptare devine maladaptativa in conditiile oferite de civilizatia moderna.Molia nu face diferenta dintre lumina naturala a lunii sau a stelelor si lumina artificiala a becului, ceea ce-i aduce moartea. In ceea ce priveste religia, aceasta si-ar avea originile ancestrale in tendinta naturala a copiilor de a asimila tot ceea ce le spun parintii sau cei in varsta. In conditiile unei vieti in mijlocul naturii, aceasta adaptare este foarte utila, deoarece ii fereste de pericole. Insa aceasta adaptare a fost exploatata prin inocularea unor idei care nu au nici o legatura cu supravietuirea, cum ar fi conceptiile religioase.
*
Richard DAwkins, in the 5th chapter of his latest book, "The God Delusion", is trying to explain, from an evolutionary standpoint, the origins of human religiousness. According to the author, religion is a by-product of evolution. Hence, he speaks about the moth's tendency to be attracted by artificial light, which contradicts its survival instinct, because it ends in the moth's death. What is the relation between the moth's attraction for artificial light and religion? Apparently, both are by-products of previous adaptations. The moth's attraction for light has a very important adaptive function in nature, because it helps to navigate during the night using the moonlight or the light of the stars. The same adaptation turns maladaptive in the modern world, because the moth doesn’t differentiate between natural and artificial light, which brings it's death. The same with religion. The author states that it has it's ancestral origins in the natural tendency of children to assimilate everything from the parents or the elders. In the middle of nature this adaptation is very useful, because it defends against dangers. But the same adaptation was exploited to indoctrinate children with ideas which have no survival value at all, like religion.
Cancer re-creates within our own bodies the evolutionary process that enables animals to adapt to their environment. At the level of organisms, natural selection operates when genetic mutations cause some organisms to have more reproductive success than others; the mutations get “selected” in the sense that they persist and become more common in future generations. In cancer, cells play the role of organisms. Cancer- causing changes to DNA cause some cells to reproduce more effectively than ordinary ones. And even within a single tumor, more adapted cells may outcompete less successful ones. “It’s like Darwinian evolution, except that it happens within an organ.
*
Cancerul recreeaza in interiorul organismului procesul evolutiv care le permite animalelor sa se adapteze mediului de viata. La nivel individual, selectia naturala opereaza cand mutatiile genetice determina anumite organisme sa aiba un succes reproductiv mai mare decat altele. Mutatiile sunt selectate in sensul ca ele persista si devin mai raspandite in generatiile viitoare. In cancer, celulele joaca rolul indivizilor, al organismelor. Cancerul, cauzand modificari ale ADN-ului, determina anumite celule sa se divida mai eficient decat cele normale. Chiar si in interiorul aceleieasi tumori, celulele mai adaptate pot elimina celulele mai putin adaptate. Este o evolutie darwiniana, cu exceptia faptului ca se desfasoara in interiorul unui organ.
Teoria selectiei cumulative (sau “actiunea cumulativa a selectiei naturale”) este maniera prin care speciile evolueaza in timp. Evolutia este un proces de selectie cumulativa, nu un proces "pas cu pas". Putem exemplifica acest lucru prin experimentul Shakespeare-maimuta. In al sau eseu, "Ceasornicarul orb", Richard Dawkins se foloseste de acest experiment pentru a demonstra faptul ca teoria evolutiei a lui Charles Darwin este un proces cumulativ, si nu unul "pas cu pas". In acest experiment, o maimuta este asezata in fata unui calculator si lasata sa loveasca tastele la intamplare pana cand pe ecran rezulta textul (versul) din Shakespeare dorit, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". Deruland experimentul avand la dispozitie un numar infinit de maimute, procesul ar dura multe milioane de ani. Daca privim experimentul Shakespeare-maimuta ca pe un proces “pas cu pas”, realizam ca intervalul de timp si sansa necesare pentru a ajunge la rezultatul dorit (versul din Shakespeare) fac din acest proces o explicatie foarte implauzibila pentru evolutia speciilor. Cu toate acestea, daca modificam experimentul, astfel incat acesta sa imite conditiile naturale de mediu, rezultatul dorit este atins. Modificare consta intr-o selectie (pastrare) a acelei propozitii aleatorii introduse de catre maimuta care este cea mai apropiata de versul din Shakespeare dorit. Apoi maimuta incearca sa copieze respectiva propozitie (ereditate), dar nereusind in intregime, o schimba in mica masura (mutatie). Este selectat cel mai bun rezultat, iar procesul se repeta pana cand maimuta ajunge la versul din Shakespeare. Folosind acest proces de selectie cumulativa, sunt necesari doar 40-60 de pasi pana cand se ajunge la rezultatul dorit.
Generation1: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation2: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
The theory of cumulative selection is the manner by which species evolve over time. The process of evolution is a cumulative selection, not a single-step process. This can be exemplified by looking at The Shakespeare Monkey Experiment. In his essay The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins uses this experiment to prove that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cumulative process rather than a single-step process. This experiment involves placing monkeys in front of a computer, then letting them hit keys randomly until they come up text from Shakespeare ("METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"). With an infinite amount of monkeys this process would take million and millions of years. When looking at the Shakespeare Monkey Experiment as a single-step process one realizes that the amount of time and chance required make it an improbable explanation for the evolution of species up to this point. However, if one changes the process slightly to imitate environmental conditions that would preserve certain mutations and eradicate others, the desired end is achieved. This alteration involves looking at the sentences the monkeys produced, choosing the one that most resembles something from Shakespeare. The monkey then attempts to copy this sentence. It is unable to duplicate the sentence, however, and the sentences change. The best sentence is picked out and the process is repeated until the monkey comes up with a sentence from Shakespeare. Using this process of cumulative selection, the desired sentence only takes forty-sixty steps (as opposed to millions of years). This is a probable time frame to explain the evolution of plants and animals that exist today.
Generation1: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation2: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
Recent, potrivit unui articol publicat in "New Scientist", cercetatorii au descoperit ca cimpanzeii sunt mai "evoluati" decat oamenii. Se stie ca stramosul comun al cimpanzeului si omului a trait in urma cu aproximativ 6 milioane de ani, cand liniile evolutive ale celor doua specii au inceput sa se desparta. Comparand genomul celor doua specii, s-a ajuns la concluzia ca, fata de genomul stramosului comun, genomul cimpanzeului contine mai multe gene schimbate prin selectie naturala decat genomul uman, si anume 233 cimpanzeul, fata de 154 omul. Aceasta descoperire dovedeste inca o data in plus ca, in evolutie, nu cantitatea face diferenta, ci calitatea.
*
Recently, according to an article published in "New Scientist", researchers found that the chimps are more "evolved" than humans. It is well known that the common ancestor of the chimp and human lived approximately 6 million years ago, when the two lineages diverged. Comparing the genome of the two species, the scientist concluded that, since the two species diverged, 233 chimp genes have been changed by natural selection, compared with only 154 human genes. This proves once again that in evolution it is the quality that matters, not the quantity.
In legatura cu masacrul care a avut loc pe 16 aprilie la Universitatea americana Virginia Tech din Backsburg, in care un tanar student si-a ucis cu focuri de arma peste 30 de colegi:
"Cel care actioneaza social din inclinatie naturala face poate rareori apel la mecanismul compensator al responzabilitatii sale si dispune in vremuri grele de rezerve morale imense. Cel care este nevoit, chiar si in conditiile vietii cotidiene, sa-si arunce in foc intreaga forta de franare pe care i-o da responsabilitatea morala pentru a face fata cerintelor societatii culturale, bineinteles ca se va prabusi mai rapid la o solicitare mai mare. Aspectul energetic al comparatiei noastre cu defectul cardiac corespunde si aici foarte exact, fiindca suprasolicitarea care duce la “decompensarea” comportamentului social al omului poate fi de natura foarte diferita atata timp cat nu face decat sa ne consume ”puteri”. Nu este nicidecum tentatia uriasa si unica in fata careia morala omului capituleaza cel mai rapid, ci efectul istovitor al unei suprasolicitari nervoase, de orice fel ar fi ea. Grijile, saracia, foamea, teama, munca pana la epuizare, lipsa de sperante etc. toate au aceleasi urmari. Cine a avut ocazia sa vada vreodata, pe timp de razboi sau in captivitate, oameni chinuiti de probleme de acest fel, stie cat de imprevizibil si brusc apare decompensarea morala. Oameni ce pareau asemenea unor stanci se prabusesc dintr-o data, iar altii, de la care nu te-ai fi asteptat la nimic deosebit, se dovedesc a fi izvoare nesecate de forta, ajutandu-i si pe altii, prin simplul lor exemplu, sa nu-si piarda vointa morala. Cine a trecut prin asemenea momente stie insa la fel de bine ca forta vointei si rezistenta acesteia sunt doua variabile independente. Odata ce am inteles acest lucru, am invatat de asemenea sa nu ne simtim superiori celor care se prabusesc mai repede decat noi. Chiar si cel mai bun si mai nobil dintre noi ajunge in cele din urma la punctul de unde pur si simplu nu mai poate: Eli, Eli, lama sabactani?"
Konrad Lorenz "Asa-zisul rau-Despre istoria naturala a agresiunii"
In Jurnalul National din 30 martie apare un articol al Deliei Zahareanu intitulat "Campionatul genelor bune". Autoare isi pune intrebarea care este corelatia dintre sexualitate si diversitatea genetica. Insa autoarea face confuzie intre sex, adica reproducerea sexuata, si selectia sexuala, careeste cu totul altceva. "Citita in cheia teoriei evolutiei, asa cum a fost elaborata de Darwin, reproducerea sexuala, vizand obtinerea celor mai bune gene de la mascul, duce la o fixare a unui bagaj genetic superior si la micsorarea plajelor posibile in care apar mutatiile care produc diversitatea speciei umane. Cu alte cuvinte, sexul, in teorie, limiteaza diversitatea si conserva cele mai bune caracteristici ale ADN-ului parintilor transferat in cel al copiilor."
In timp ce selectia sexuala are intr-adevar ca rezultat micsorarea diversitatii genetice, reproducerea sexuata are in schimb ca efect marirea diversitatii genetice, prin recombinare genetica. Cele doua sunt fenomene antagonice. Selectia sexuala actioneaza asupra sursei de variabilitate genetica reprezentata de reproducerea sexuata.
*
In Jurnalul National from 30 March there is an article from Delia Zahareanu, called "The Championship of the good genes". The author writes about the correlation between sexual reproduction and genetic variability. But the author makes a confusion between sex (sexual reproduction) and sexual selection, which is a completely different thing.
"According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, sexual reproduction, aiming to obtain the best genes possible from the male, leads to the establishment of a superior gene stock and a smaller diversity for the human species. In other words, sex, in theory, limits the diversity and preserves the best characteristics of the parent DNA from parents to children."
Meanwhile sexual selection results in a smaller genetic diversity, sexual reproduction results in a bigger diversity, because of genetic recombination. The two phenomenon are antagonistic. Sexual selection acts upon the source of genetic variability, which is sexual reproduction.
Ce nu pot eu sa inteleg: este procesul de evolutie ceva finit? Adica - daca a evoluat maimuta in om... asta inseamna ca omul este cea mai superioara forma de evolutie a maimutei? Sau inseamna ca in viitor vor aparea si supra-oameni?
Enrico, evolutia nu se opreste niciodata, este un "perpetuum mobile", chiar daca uneori da impresia ca sta pe loc. In primul rand, permite-mi sa te corectez. Omul nu a evoluat din maimuta. Este o prejudecata foarte raspandita. Omul a evoluat dintr-un stramos comun cu maimuta. In momentul de fata evolutia culturala se desfasoara cu o rapiditate mult mai mare decat cea biologica. Din punctul de vedere al evolutiei culturale, evolutia biologica este statica, sau aproape statica. Dar asta nu inseamna ca evolutia biologica s-a oprit... din contra. In zilele noastre, in ceea ce priveste omul, motorul evolutiei biologice nu mai sunt mutatiile spontane care au loc in natura sau selectia naturala, ci omul, prin inginerie genetica si selectie artificiala mai mult sau mai putin constienta si mai mult sau mai putin empirica. Cu alte cuvinte, evolutia biologica s-a subordonat evolutiei culturale. _________________ Nimic in viata nu are sens, decat in lumina evolutiei...
Publicat pe forumul revistei "Stiinta si tehnica" www.stiintasitehnica.ro
“We are convinced that there are powers arising from within ourselves that are already at work overcoming the deficiency and dubious nature of our rational ego-consciousness via the new aperspectival awareness whose manifestations are surging forth everywhere. The aperspective consciousness structure is a consciousness of the whole, an integral consciousness encompassing all time and embracing both man's distant past and his approaching future as a living present. The new spiritual process can take root only through an insightful process of intensive awareness.... Our concern is to render transparent everything latent 'behind' and 'before' the world—to render transparent our own origin, our entire human past, as well as the present, which already contains the future. We are shaped and determined not only by today and yesterday, but by tomorrow as well.”
Jean Gebser
*
Suntem convinsi ca exista forte izvorate din noi insine care incearca sa corecteze deficientele si natura dubioasa a constiintei noastre ego-centriste prin intermediul constiintei aperspective, ale carei manifestari se ivesc de pretutindeni. Constiinta aperspectiva are structura intregului, o constiinta atotcuprinzatoare incluzand intreg cursul timpului si imbratisand atat trecutul indepartat al omului, cat si viitorul care traieste in prezent. Noul fenomen spiritual se poate produce doar printr-un intens proces de constientizare interioara. Preocuparea noastra este sa deslusim tot ce este latent "inainte" si "dupa" lume, sa deslusim propria noastra origine, intreg trecutul nostru uman, precum si prezentul, care contine in el viitorul. Suntem modelati si determinati nu numai de azi si de ieri, dar si de maine.
"Science can still be too narrow to explain everything, but we are working quite successfully on it. The problem with the Pope and his god is that they are too wide to explain anything at all."
PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."
NOT BY FAITH ALONE
Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close advisor, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the "intelligent design" view.
"Intelligent design" (ID) argues that some forms of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, as Charles Darwin proposed in his 1859 book "The Origin of Species." It says a higher intelligence must have done this but does not name it as God.
Scientists denounce this as a disguised form of creationism, the view that God created the world just as the Bible says. U.S. courts have ruled both creationism and ID are religious views that cannot be taught in public school science classes there.
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture," he remarked during the discussion held at the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
AGAINST ATHEISM
Schoenborn, who published his own book on evolution last month, has said he and the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin's theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.
That is a philosophical or ideological conclusion not supported by facts, they say, because science cannot prove who or what originally created the universe and life in it.
"Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that 'nature' or 'evolution' has done this or that," Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.
"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.
Despite the plethora of modern genetic tools, something that is little changed since Darwin's time is our reliance on evolutionary outcomes to unravel the process of evolution. The lack of evolutionary intermediates leaves the door ajar for the proponents of intelligent design. But a new technique could help fill the gaps. It involves the construction of evolutionary intermediates in the lab, and the search for viable paths between them. The resulting 'fitness landscapes' map viable routes between accessible evolutionary paths.
There are some bacteria that have a version of a particular enzyme that makes them 100,000 times more resistant to certain antibiotics (like penicillin). We know that there are five differences that separate this version of the enzyme from the basic version, and we know what those mutations are. In theory, if the mutations happened one at a time, there are 120 possible ways that the enzyme could go from the original form to the resistant form. (For example, mutation 1 could have happened first, mutation 2 second, mutation 3 third, mutation 4 fourth, and mutation 5 fifth, or mutation 2 could have happened first, mutation 1 second, mutation 3 third . . . or mutation three could have happened first . . . and so on until all the possibilities are exhausted. )
Scientists then were able to construct possible intermediate forms of the enzyme - varieties that contained some, but not all 5, of the mutations, and test their resistance to the antibiotic. What they found was that 12 of the 120 possible paths from the original form to the new form increased resistance with every additional mutation. That's pretty cool - it shows that not only could natural selection drive the changes in this enzyme, but also that there are 12 different ways it could have happened.
The current studies show mutation-by-mutation paths, with selective values for each step, in the development of some new traits. (Like it or not, a 100,000-fold improvement in antibiotic resistance is a new trait.) Some of the other studies cited in the paper look at even more things, like the possible effects of taking paths that are longer than the shortest possible paths investigated in the bacterial resisitance study, by looking at things like the effect of a muation that is gained then lost along the way.
*
In ciuda multitudinii de instrumente genetice avute la indemana, exista ceva ce nu s-a schimbat de pe vremea lui Darwin, si anume dependenta totala de rezultatele evolutiei, in demersul de a elucida mecanismele evolutiei. Lipsa stadiilor intermediare lasa usa deschisa adeptilor Intelligent Design. Insa o noua tehnica ar putea suplini lipsa. Aceasta implica construirea de stadii intermediare in laborator, precum si cautarea de legaturi viabile intre aceastea, permitand trasarea de traiectorii evolutive viabile.
Exista anumite bacterii care poseda o versiune a unei enzime care le confera o rezistanta de 100.000 de ori mai mare fata de anumite antibiotice (ca penicilina). Se stie ca exista 5 diferente care separa aceste varietati ale enzimei de enzima clasica, si se stie care sunt cele 5 mutatii care produc aceste modificari. Teoretic, daca mutatiile nu s-au produs simultan, atunci exista 120 de cai posibile prin care enzima originala se poate transforma in varianta rezistenta. (De exemplu, mutatia I s-a produs prima, apoi mutatia II a 2-a, apoi a III-a, apoi a IV-a si apoi a V-a; sau mutatia II putea fi prima, mutatia I a 2-a, apoi a III-a, si asa mai departe pana cand toate posibilitatile se vor fi epuizat.)
Astfel, oamenii de stiinta au reusit sa construiasca forme intermediare ale enzimei, forme care contineau numai cateva din cele 5 mutatii, iar apoi sa le verifice rezistenta fata de antibiotic. Au descoperit ca 12 din cele 120 de traiectorii evolutive posibile, de la varianta originala la cea rezistenta a enzimei, confereau rezistenta din ce in ce mai crescuta fata de antibiotic, odata cu fiecare mutatie succesiva. Acest lucru nu numai ca demonstreaza implicarea selectiei naturale in transformarea enzimei, ci si faptul ca sunt 12 traiectorii diferite prin care acest lucru se putea produce.
Studiile arata pas cu pas, mutatie cu mutatie traiectoriile urmate, mentionand valoarea selectiva a fiecarui pas. Alte studii privesc posibilele efecte ale luarii in calcul a unor traiectorii evolutive mai lungi decat cele mai scurte cai posibile, asa cum au fost ele cercetate in studiul initial. Acest lucru s-a facut luaind in considerare, printre altele, efectul datorat dobandirii unei mutatii, si pierderii ei ulterioare.
Umwelt is a century-old concept introduced to ethology, the study of animal behavior, by Jakob von Uexküll. It's the recognition that every animal exists in a unique perceptual universe that's closed to human beings other than through inference: Much of a bee's world is ultraviolet; a dog's nose does a lot of what we use our eyes to accomplish. Then there are the electric fish which perceive their world through a sense we lack entirely. If every entity has it's own umwelt, I ask myself what is the umwelt of an atom, let's say? It might be possible that the atom does not perceive the world we call physical at all. What about the umwelt of the Internet... What is it? Maybe us... our mind???...
*
Umwelt este un concept introdus in etologie acum un secol de catre Jakob von Uexcull. Este recunoasterea faptului ca fiecare animal exista intr-un univers perceptual specific care este inaccesibil omului: cea mai mare parte a lumii unei albine este ultravioleta; pentru un caine nasul indeplineste un rol la fel de important ca pentru noi ochii. Pestele electric percepe lumea printr-un simt care noua ne lipseste cu desavarsire. Daca orice entitate are umwelt-ul sau propriu, nu pot sa nu ma intreb oare care este Umwelt-ul unui atom, sa zicem? S-ar putea ca un atom sa nu perceapa deloc lumea pe care noi o numim fizica. Dar umwelt-ul Internetului (considerat ca o entitate) oare care este? Poate noi... mintea noastra???...
Nu vreau sa imputez cu orice pret nimanui nimic, insa am citit in ultimul numar al revistei “Stiinta si Tehnica” un lucru care m-a uimit: “…reala societate civila (caci nu alde Liiceanu sau Patapievici o reprezinta, ei nefiind decat o coloana a V-a politica, a cine stie carei miscari fundamentaliste occidentale!)”. Articolul cu pricina ii apartine d-lui Alexandru Mironov. Stau si ma intreb oare ce l-a determinat pe d-ul Mironov sa catalogheze astfel niste personalitati emblematice ale vietii noastre culturale si literare? Chiar daca d-ul Patapievici (pe care personal il apreciez foarte mult si care mentionez ca este de formatie si fizician) a fost numit de catre Traian Basescu in fruntea ICR, ma indoiesc ca ar fi afiliat la cine stie ce “miscare fundamentalista straina”, ca sa nu folosesc cuvantul de proasta notorietate “agenturi”. Trag nadejdea ca in paginile revistei"Stiinta si tehnica" nu-si au loc dispute politice.
60% din totalul defrisarilor care au loc la nivel mondial se datoreaza agriculturii de subzistenta. Sunt ca niste cicatrici care se vad chiar si din spatiu. Daca vrem sa ne pastram padurile, va trebui sa rezolvam problema saraciei care determina populatia din tarile sarace sa defriseze suprafete intinse de padure tropicala pentru a practica agricultura si a-si asigura subzistenta... sau pur si simplu pentru profit. Padurile tropicale constituie cea mai importanta sursa de biodiversitate. Distrugerea lor atrage dupa sine pierderi incomensurabile care pericliteaza evolutia vietii pe Terra si insasi supravietuirea speciei umane si expansiunea acesteia in spatiu. Cucerirea spatiului va constitui, in ultima instanta, nu numai meritul inteligentei umane, ci al intregii biosfere. * 60% of the world deforestation is due to subsistence agriculture. They are like scars which can be seen even from space. If we want to keep out forests, we would have to fix the problem of poverty first, which makes the population from poor countries to cut large areas of tropical forest for agriculture... or maybe only for profit. The tropical forests are the most important source of biodiversity. Their destruction will cause incommensurable losses which endangers the evolution of life on Earth, the survival of human specie itself and its expansion beyond Earth, in space. The conquest of space will be the merit not only of the human intelligence alone, but of the intelligence of the entire biosphere and Earth.
Numarul din martie al revistei STIINTA SI TEHNICA rezerva un spatiu larg problemelor legate de schimbarile climatice. In opinia mea, singurul lucru care va salva umanitatea de la dezastrul ecologic este fuziunea la rece (vezi mai jos). Insa pana va fi pusa la punct, va mai dura inca cateva zeci de ani. S-ar putea sa fie prea tarziu. Pana atunci singurul lucru care ar putea limita impactul gazelor cu efect de sera ar fi introducerea in pretul fiecarui produs a "cotei de carbon" aferenta procesului de fabricatie, adica cantitatea de carbon emisa in fabricarea produsului respectiv, transformata in bani. Aceasta cota ar trebui raportata la suma de 18 catralioane de dolari necesari tranzitiei la o economie care sa nu genereze gaze cu efect de sera. Paleontologia ne arata ca in momentele de cotitura, cand au loc schimbari profunde, si evolutia isi grabeste pasul. Oare sub ce forma se va adapta umanitatea la schimbarile care in mod sigur vor avea loc?
In 'Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, the War Against Cold Fusion,' viewers investigate the idea of cold fusion. If viable, cold fusion offers the possibility of limitless cheap energy. Some have suggested that the quashing of cold fusion projects in the late '80s was due to certain agencies not wishing to undermine the position of U.S. energy corporations. from http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:243931
Izvoare istorice si arheologice sigure atesta, cu multe secole i.H., obiceiul de a se face cadou oua colorate la unele sarbatori sezoniere, in primul rand la Anul Nou: in China, cu ocazia sarbatorii Tsing-ming, care cadea in aprilie, se obisnuia sa se ofere in dar oua colorate; la vechii persi, era obiceiul ca, la sarbatoarea primaverii, oamenii sa-si daruiasca unul altuia oua de diferite culori; la romani, tinerii vopseau ouale in rosu si, pe langa alte cadouri, si le trimiteau reciproc la sarbatoarea lui Ianus; la vechii slavi exista datina ca la sarbatoarea primaverii sa se ofere in dar oua rosii etc.
Oul este, alaturi de lut si aluat, arhetipuri ale genezei. Astfel, chinezii credeau ca cerul impreuna cu pamantul sunt ca un ou de pasare: cerul este invelisul pamantului, precum coaja oului este invelisul galbenusului. La randul lor, vechii persi credeau ca cerul, pamantul, apa si tot ce se gaseste sub cer sunt inchise ca intr-un ou: cerul este deasupra si dedesubtul pamantului, iar pamantul este inauntrul cerului, ca si galbenusul in ou. Ei credeau ca la inceputul lumii se afla numai Dumnezeu, iar peste intregul spatiu al haosului domnea intunericul. La un moment dat a aparut un ou care a fost acoperit cu aripile intunericului si fecundat de catre noapte. Din Oul fecundat au iesit Soarele si Luna care s-au inaltat pe cer. Pamantul fiind mai greu, s-a lasat in jos. Credinte cosmogonice asemanatoare intalnim si la alte popoare ale antichitatii: la fenicieni, din haosul primitiv apare un duh care se divide in cer si pamant, de unde rasar Soarele si Luna; la egipteni creatia lumii incepe cu formarea unui ou pe intinsul apelor. Taranul roman in prima jumatate a secolului XX credea ca "pamantul e in chipul unui ou; fundul oului este pamantul, iar varful e cerul; el sta pe ape".
Imaginea arhetipala care a stat la baza compararii universului cu oul isi are originea in faptul ca acest termen de comparatie este generator de viata. Din el au inmugurit Pamantul, Soarele, Luna, viata. Soarele insusi a fost comparat cu un pui. Lumina zilei si unii zei care simbolizeaza Soarele (la egipteni Ra, Amon-Ra) isi au originea, de asemenea, in ou. Astfel, oul ca simbol al creatiei, al fertilitatii si al Soarelui, astru de care depinde viata pe pamant, a ramas pana spre vremurile noastre simbolul reinvierii naturii, substitut al divinitatii sacrificate violent, prin spargere. Oul este un substitut al divinitatii primordiale, infrumusetat (gatit) prin vopsire si incondeiere in Saptamana Patimilor, jertfit si mancat sacramental in ziua de Paste.
Izvoare istorice si arheologice certe atesta, cu multe secole inainte de Hristos, obiceiul de a se face cadou oua colorate la marile sarbatori sezoniere, in special la Anul Nou: la sarbatorile de primavara, vechii persi isi daruiau oua de diferite culori; tinerii romani isi trimiteau oua vopsite in rosu, impreuna cu alte cadouri, la sarbatoarea zeului Ianus etc. Aparitia frecventa a oului, in special a oului colorat, in ceremoniile antice de innoire a timpului se bazeaza pe conceptiile lor cosmogonice care comparau universul cu oul generator de viata. De pilda, chinezii credeau ca Cerul si Pamantul formeaza un urias ou de pasare: Cerul ar fi invelisul Pamantului, asemanator cojii de ou care inveleste galbenusul.
Treptat, obiceiurile preistorice legate de acest arhetip al genezei, oul, au fost preluate si de crestinism: oul, colorat si impodobit, este simbolul Mantuitorului, care paraseste mormantul si se intoarce la viata, precum puiul de gaina iesit din gaoace. La inceput ouale se vopseau cu plante in galben - culoarea Soarelui pe bolta Cerului, si in rosu - culoarea discului solar la rasarit si apus. Ulterior, ouale au fost decorate cu chipul lui Hristos, cu figuri de ingeri, cu un miel, cu motive astrale, fitomorfe, zoomorfe, antropomorfe. Dupa milenii de evolutie a credintelor si ideilor religioase, romanii inrosesc si incondeiaza ouale primavara, la sarbatoarea centrala a calendarului festiv crestin, Pastele. Inrositul si incondeiatul oualor, mestesuguri populare de un rar rafinament artistic, se imbina cu numeroase credinte si obiceiuri precrestine. Pentru a juca rolul de substitut ritual al personajului sacru, oul este ales la Miezul Paresimilor, ziua de miercuri din mijlocul Postului Mare, este gatit (colorat si incondeiat) in Saptamana Patimilor, pentru a fi ucis, prin lovire violenta in cap (Ciocnitul oualor) si mancat sacramental in ziua de Paste. Prin acest scenariu ritual, cei vechi credeau ca timpul si spatiul inconjurator moare si renaste anual, impreuna cu divinitatea adorata. Bogata terminologie zonala a oualor incondeiate reflecta tehnica incondeiatului (oua inchistate, impistrite, picurate, pictate, impuiate) si instrumentele folosite (oua incondeiate).
Alte denumiri, precum oua necajite si oua muncite, se refera la chinul oualor in timpul complicatului proces de incondeiere: desenarea cu ceara incinsa, si introducerea lor de mai multe ori in apa fiarta. Obiceiurile si credintele legate de cojile acestora pot aduce frumusete si sanatate, belsug si rod bogat, pot sa lege sau sa indeparteze oamenii, sa grabeasca casatoria fetelor, sa inmulteasca vitele etc.
Obiceiurile calendaristice legate de colorarea si incondeierea oualor, folosirea lor in practicile magice menite sa aduca prosperitate turmelor si ogoarelor, fertilitate animalelor, vegetalelor si oamenilor, aruncarea cojilor de oua pe apa pentru a anunta Blajinii de sosirea Pastelui etc, etc. sunt practici precrestine implicate in renovarea timpului si transmise pana spre zilele noastre.
