So I'm 25 now...

It has now been a little over 5 years since I waged war against a religion and in some ways won gloriously, in other ways suffered defeat.

The casualties of the battle were the relationships I had with people.  Does time heal all wounds?  No... despite what you may have heard, some wounds cannot be healed regardless of the amount of time that passes... but perhaps 5 years isn't long enough?  Perhaps I'll have to wait 10 or 20...

I've received around 10 emails in the past 5 years from my mom, and more recently 2 from my sister 6 months ago.  As always, when one of these appears in my inbox, a wave of varying emotions hits me... everything from trepidation to excitement to fear to curiosity.  And as always, I am rewarded with an email that makes me want to yank my hair out due to the sheer stupidity of the people that I spent the first 20 years of my life with.

I am surrounded these days by people raised in a culture where family is everything.  Where no matter what happens, family comes first... where the children are in reality nothing more than a 401K plan for the previous generation... and the children openly accept this role, with the understanding that THEIR children will someday be their retirement plan.

Many of these people look down upon me when they ask about my family.  They believe that it is my fault, that I should extend myself and endure the suffering and pain and try to deal with people who will do nothing more than make every waking moment a suffocating death inducing experience, simply because I have inherited their genetic sequence.

To this I say, with absolutely no hesitation.  "NO"

No, I will not extend myself.  No I will not suffer any more pain or hardship for people who care for nothing more than insuring their belief system stays in tact.  And No, it is not because they have "wronged" me, or because I'm bitter.  It is because they offer absolutely no benefit to my existence.  Spending time with them would DECREASE my quality of life.  No, I will not support them.  No, I will not be there for them.  And believe it or not, no, I don't have any love for them.

To that end I've heard countless times, "but surely when your parents die you will mourn their death."

No.  I feel no positive emotions when I think of my family.  I do not want to see them, I do not care to see them, and upon their passing, I should only hope that like any human being, they died relatively happy and at peace, and only hope that their unhappiness ends with them and that someday my sisters can release themselves from the shackles of a religion (not unlike many) that does little more than paint this life, this world, to be a dark and hopeless existence.

I understand however that my particular view of family is very different from most people.  While I don't share the love and comfort, I can understand what it is that others feel when they think of their families... it seems for many that the reverse is not possible... that they simply cannot understand how I can walk away and not look back.

Going forward I am slowly beginning to form the framework that I would want to raise my children under.  First on my list is to never view my children as a personal investment.  No, my children are NOT going to be a substitute for government bonds or investing in the stock market.  Sure, once upon a time (and still true in some places), children were needed as labor, and having more of them increased your productivity.. This is not true for me, and as such, I will not raise them under such a methodology.

I will not pay for their food, clothing, and education with the *understanding* that they now "OWE" me for doing this for them... I will do it for them because it is MY duty as a parent.  I will do it because I CHOSE to have a child and bring it into the world with the understanding that I will raise them and equip them fully for survival in this world.  I refuse to view my child as a stable equity fund...  I will raise them, not with the expectation that they will pay me back, but with the hope that they enjoy spending time with me, and might even do so when I'm a little less than fully functional (and hopefully will be willing to pull the plug when the government and doctors try to prevent that).

I am far from ready to have children.  But slowly I continue to grow, learn, research, and form the ideals that I will raise my children under.

Unlike me... they will be free, won't have to worry about hiding anything from me, and will feel like they always have someone to lean on or talk to.

Word to the wise.

Do not leave your Xanga open such that others can write posts on it.

No, I'm not into boys as my previous post asserted.

... [Removed Due to Malicious Intent]

Random

This word is far more powerful then it looks at first glance.

What is random?

ran·dom
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

chance  
n.

• 1. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.

1. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.

1. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?
2. An accidental or unpredictable event.

"Look around you.  Do you really think this could all have come about by chance?"

"Machines cannot do true random, only humans can be random"

Entire religious belief systems hinge on the notion that the reason why god must exist is because the alternative... evolution... life arising from "chance" is simply unacceptable.

What is truly Random?  What determines the "trueness" of the randomness?

What random in reality is... is our inability to predict the outcome of an event.  If you increase the data that we have access to, randomness disappears.

Run a computer program that generates random numbers.  For the vast majority of people on the planet, those numbers would indeed appear to be random.  There would be no way for a person to determine what the next number the computer is going to spit out will be.

Talk to a compsci major, and he'll tell you that the numbers the computer is generating are far from random, and in fact can be predicted.  They might use a algorithm that bases the number it spits out on a combination of a mathematical equation and the internal computer clock.  Or vastly more difficult to predict ones might base it off of thermometers, or other real-world analog processes.  But at the end of the day... it can be predicted, and the fact that it can be predicted means that it ceases to be random.

Can humans truly be random?

Right now, humans appear to be fully capable of producing completely random outputs.  Is this really the case, or is this a matter of lack of ability to predict it at this point in time?

Much like a computer to a casual observer who cannot predict what the computer will spit out next, humans are to all of humanity.  We do not know how the brain operates, and since we do not know the algorithm that the brain uses to produce these seemingly random outputs, we do not have the capability to predict it.  But does that mean that it is random?

Take two balls on a pool table.  With some basic physics, geometry and trig one can accurately predict what will happen when a certain amount of force (in a given direction) is applied to one of the balls.  This can be accurately predicted to within millimeters in a controlled environment.  However, what DOES make things harder to predict are the numerous variables that we have difficulty controlling and observing.  Those balls are actually made of billions of atoms, each with their own energy states and bonds and "behavioral" guidelines.  Small imperfections in the balls, table, air, force applied add up and make our clean equations less accurate and less perfect.

This is why flipping a coin is considered a relatively random act.  How will the coin come up... Heads or Tails?  The position of the coin on a finger, the amount of energy applied to the coin and thousands of other variables make it nearly impossible to track.  If I roll a die, I have a 1 in 6 chance of getting any particular number.  It is nearly impossible to predict this number ONLY because of the sheer quantity of variables that we have no method of measuring or tracking.  The distribution of mass in the die, the energy and rotational speed of the toss, the surface that it impacts, the energy lost in the collisions... all of that, nearly impossible to track, making it a "random" event.  But is it really random?  What if we control just one of the variables, and expand its weight to the point where it overwhelms all the other variables?  Can we show that in the event that we trivialize the other variables, we destroy "randomness" because we now have the data we need to predict the result?  Enter the weighted die.  Indeed, we can manufacture dice that are designed to come up with a particular number.  This is considered cheating in gambling.  And how do we do this?  We expand one controllable variable.. in this case, the distribution of mass in the die, to be so large that it overwhelms all other variables and reduces their contribution to the overall equation to be relatively insignificant.

Card counting.  Once again, a method of reducing randomness.  The solution?  Expand the card set to be so large that it makes card counting unviable for a normal human being.

So is there anything that is truly random?  Something that we can never predict the outcome?

Quantum particles?  Right now, to the best of our knowledge, there is NO way of predicting the location/speed of a quantum particle.  But once again, this is merely a result of our lack of knowledge but does not mean that there exists this notion of "truly random."

So why does it matter if a human is capable of being random?  Enter the notion of "free will."

For most people and religious institutions, free will is the cornerstone of faith.  I have to DECIDE to follow a particular faith, and this decision is made because I have the "free will" to do so.

But in the event that a human in incapable of doing anything random, that means that a human's actions can be predicted.  If a human's actions can be predicted, then where is the freedom of choice?  If my next decision can be predicted, then that means it is based on some body of data that can be measured, if it can be predicted, then that means I have no choice but to do what I will ultimately do since there is no other possible alternative.  If I have no choice, how can "god" hold me accountable for not choosing correctly?  And even more so, for those faiths that believe that god is all knowing and knows exactly what you will do regardless of whether or not we can truly be random, they truly cannot believe that I have any say in the matter.

However, is it possible for another human to ever predict the actions of another?  This would be akin to predicting the weather.  In theory, yes, the weather can be predicted, but the staggering amount of data that is required to do it with any measure of accuracy is far beyond our ability.  We would not only need to be able to simulate the vast numbers of atomic reactions on our planet, but we'd have to include our entire solar system as our weather is very much affected by the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies and from the energy coming from the sun, and even beyond that, there will be effects from farther out in our galaxy as we are bombarded by particles from space.

In short, the butterfly that flaps its wings in china causing tornados here is not far off from this notion.  We simply do not have the means with which one would require to predict such a complex system, and since we've established that something is only random when we cannot predict it from our PERSPECTIVE, it is essentially "random."

The word "Random" is a human construct, and ultimately is a human idea that does not exist outside of our perception of reality.

As our body of knowledge increases, things become less magical, less shocking, and inevitably less random.

This does not mean that we will be able to ever predict the weather perfectly, or predict exactly what a human's next action/thought may be (or perhaps that it would simply not ever be cost effective to do so), but we may recognize the notion that we are no more or less random than a computer, that whatever we do/say/think is in fact predictable, even if we as humans have not yet built something that can actually predict it.

When we say "it happened by chance" what we are really saying is that "we don't really understand how it works" because in reality, if it happened, that is because it is the only possible outcome that could have happened given the situation.

If I toss a die, I can say I have a 1 in 6 chance of getting any particular number, but that's only because I don't have access to all of the variables involved.  Someone who does would not ever say this.  They would say "it is going to land on 3 because that is the only possible result given this particular situation."

The idea of universal free will only exists because we believe we can be "truly" random.

Regardless.

We don't live our lives from the perspective of the universe.  We live it from our perspective.  Even if some power/device greater than our own abilities can predict what we do, we can only experience life from our perspective.  And from my perspective, I can't predict what will happen when I toss this die, nor can I predict what you will think next.  So from my perspective, playing craps is actually fun, and talking with you is enjoyable.  Randomness, Time, Free Will... they all exist but only in our own minds... The same place that our perception of the world and universe exists.

Does Acceptance of Homosexually Lead To Its Extinction?

Men and Women share over 99.9% of DNA in common with each other.  There may be some significant differences in the final result of the entity, but the building blocks are very very similar, and in fact, many things that we may believe to be unique to one gender, may in fact just appear on the other gender in a different form...

Given the population density of humans, minor mutations from individual to individual will crop up all the time, but unique only to humans, we are capable of sustaining individuals such that if a similar mutation occurred in another species, it would have wiped that individual out or prevented it from ever reproducing.

Homosexuality for most species would be a fatal flaw in an individual.  If the individual did not desire to mate with the opposite sex, it would not produce offspring and its "flawed" genetic sequence would be eliminated from the gene pool.

Now, for some species, similar mutations have had beneficial effects, some frogs are capable of spontaneously switching genders on the fly, hyena females are the larger, stronger, more muscular gender, relegating the males to taking care of the children.

Homosexuality has in fact been seen in the wild, scientists playing with mice hormones have induced it as well.  It is relatively safe to say that homosexuality is strongly linked to biology, and less so to nurture.

However, what has been interesting to note, is that over the course of humanity, homosexuality has, by and large, in most cultures, been viewed as socially unacceptable.  Now whether or not the social evolution of such an idea is the result of an evolutionary necessity is up for debate.

However, the result is quite interesting.  Individuals have been forced to suppress their biological desires, often putting on the guise of a "normal" individual to be socially acceptable, taking up members of the opposite gender as partners, having children, raising families.

The fact that they were socially required to raise a family means that their genes were passed on to another generation.

As it stands, there is a direct correlation between wealth and progeny.  As countries get more affluent, the individuals do a cost/benefit analysis on children.  For poor countries each additional child is viewed as potential "income" in the form of physical labor that can be tapped.  For rich countries each additional child is viewed as an "expense" in the form of educating and feeding that child.  As a result, people in richer countries start having fewer and fewer children and having a child is not viewed nearly as important as poorer countries despite our biological imperative to raise children.

Now combine this trend with the acceptance of homosexuality and you have a interesting situation.

As the acceptance level of homosexuality increases, individuals are less likely to suppress their biological desires and instead engage openly in their desired activities.

This means that you will have fewer people marrying the opposite gender for the sake of remaining socially acceptable and instead coupling with members of the same sex.

Biologically, this is a problem for an individual.  A couple that is comprised of the same gender will be biologically incapable of creating offspring.

There are alternatives to this problem, in vitro-fertilization, or the individual might decide to copulate with a member of the opposite sex for the sole purpose of creating an offspring, but both of these add additional barriers to having children in a society that is already decreasing the rate of offspring creation due to the opportunity costs involved.

The end result would be that since society is no longer forcing these individuals to put up a guise and copulate with members of the opposite sex there would be a drop off in the number of children born to homosexual individuals, the only thing at that point that would continue to drive the creation of progeny would be the innate human biological drive for it, which given alternatives, turns out to be a weighted cost/benefit analysis.

If this is the case, then fewer homosexuals would be having children compared to the average household.  This means that their genetic sequences would not be passed on, and that we'd likely have a drop off in the number of homosexuals born during any given generation, and they would be "selected" out of the population.

Does this then mean that by suppressing homosexuality humanity has actually encouraged and allowed this particular genetic propensity to flourish?

The easiest way to try to figure out if this is a possibility would be to gauge the frequency that homosexual individuals in other species appear relative to the population.  If humans are significantly and statistically higher than all other animals, then we have, through some non-biological method, increased the survivability of this particular trait, or some non-biological stimulus has increased frequency of the trait appearing.

So in like manner then, does society becoming more accepting of homosexuality actually decrease the number of homosexuals?

I just found the thought of this possibility kinda interesting.