You write like a man

My friend Paul posted this cool test (uh, several years ago) that I always meant to take but I suppose didn’t have the writing to. Basically it counts the number of times certain male/female indicator words are used in a piece of writing and determines the gender of the author. I decided to run the test on ten recent posts that have enough words. Here are the results:

“Fun sucking technology”, what to me seems like a totally female rant, comes out male.
Female Score: 1035
Male Score: 1114

So does “More protests” please!
Female Score: 1208
Male Score: 1245

“Uncivilized” squeaks out as female because guess what? “Not” is a female word!
Female Score: 1654
Male Score: 1653

But one about being scared? Male!
Female Score: 1027
Male Score: 1180

“Landing on my feet” is female too, and “was” is a female word. What are they trying to say?! That women are negative and talk about the past?
Female Score: 701
Male Score: 690

“A post I started in December” turns out female thanks to the word “and.” I guess we’re inclusive also.
Female Score: 937
Male Score: 906

"How to be on camera", my “how to” post, is overwhelmingly male thanks to heavy use of the word “are.”
Female Score: 1367
Male Score: 1480

Even though I use the word “with” (another inclusive female word) more times than any other in “Addendums to earlier posts,” it comes out male due to a consistent use of the male words “more,” “the,” “is,” and “a.”
Female Score: 1341
Male Score: 1588

Finally, “Dying to get here,” comes out male. My use of the male word “what” gives “with” a serious run for her money but still doesn’t catch up.
Female Score: 2553
Male Score: 3378


6 of 10 tests think I’m a man. Maybe I’m just “balanced.” BTW, I'm on vacation until May 5 and will hopefully have a slew of new posts. See you then!

Fear of God

A couple of different articles I’ve read lately have referenced Bill Gates as a philanthropist. But even though his contributions far outweigh that of say, Mother Theresa, she is widely recognized as a saint and he is not. Public perception, the theory goes, is not determined by actual contribution, but by the nature of the giver and their giving. One is a billionaire who created a monopoly in business and donates a portion of the massive profits, the other is a nun who lived with lepers and helped anyone who needed it.

Another article said that most people only contribute to very personal causes, that we are motivated by emotion rather than actual need. After 9-11, The Red Cross issued a statement that they had received more donations than they could deal with and asked the public to donate elsewhere. Still, the money poured in. But there are some people with a far more scientific approach to philanthropy. Their brains are configured slightly differently, making them more rational than emotional so that when they think of doing good, they think of how they can do the most good with the money they have. Bill Gates asked what were the biggest problems that could be solved – hunger and disease – and set to solving them.

I bring this up because in my daily observations of people, we are fickle, inconsistent and highly personal in our choices. Scientists have said that stopping global warming and other environmental disasters – like the impending shortage of potable water, melting of the polar ice caps, and the destruction of the seas and rainforests – would require a collaborative effort the scale of which has never been achieved by humans. (Ants, yes. Humans, no.) In other words, we need a lot more people with Bill Gates type brains.

On the bus home the other day, I was looking out the window at a blanket of scattered clouds engulfing the sky as the sun went down, and thought about how inspiring nature is. The primitives were right to be awestruck by its beauty and fearful of its power. Nature could squash us like a bug. Our few hundred thousand years on this planet is no assurance of our future durability. Greater beasts than us have lived ten times longer and disappeared.

What if we are, in fact, a virus on this planet like The Matrix says? Then surely nature will eventually unleash storms, floods, droughts, disease and whatever else she can muster to cleanse herself of us. And history tells us that she will succeed. To quote another trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, “Are you frightened? Not nearly enough.” If we were living in a primitive society, the pagans would know that we've angered the gods and better get busy appeasing them.

A recent piece in Wired says that we humans don’t like science because it makes us look dumb. We’re happier with our myths and primitive beliefs when science challenges us to doubt everything we believe and diminish our significance in the universe. According to the article, half of all Americans don’t believe in evolution! So doesn't it seem strange that scientists are leading the discourse on global warming and not religious leaders? Why isn’t the church calling us all gluttonous and greedy and calling for humble restraint in our decadent lifestyles, citing the rise in natural disasters as evidence? Clearly, God is not happy with us. Have you seen the air in China?

Shouldn't the church be lambasting us for our wanton disregard of nature, God’s most gracious gift to us? What use is modern religion if not to motivate masses of people to become environmental stewards? Why is it that liberal science loving types are dropping everything to change their lifestyle to reduce their impact - hybrid vehicles, cloth diapers, non-toxic chemicals, recycled goods - and the Bush loving conservative types are all calling it a bunch of phooey? Clearly, the solution to our environmental woes is to get the church on board and put the fear of God in these people! It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the pursuit of wealth through constant rape and abuse of the planet and our fellow creatures isn't very Christian.

All you need is love

Another interesting report from NPR. In 1960, a scientist named Harry Harlow set out to prove on CBS that children need love from their parents. Using baby Rhesus monkeys, separated from their mothers, he studied their behavior in response to two types of surrogate mothers - one wire that delivers milk, and another soft cloth that does nothing. The babies preferred the soft embrace of the cloth mothers and huddled next to them for most of the day, returning to the wire mother only when they were hungry.



Prior to this experiment, it was widely believed by psychologists that kissing, hugging or otherwise showing affection to one's children was detrimental to their upbringing. Parents in the fifties were raising children to be good citizens, parents and employees. This attitude is reflected in the family shows of the 1950's like Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best, romanticized versions of the nuclear family where children are well-behaved and advised coolly by their always in-control parents.

Harlow's revelation of children's need (and therefore everyone's need) for love must have been what catapulted America into 1967's Summer of Love and into the epoch of the individual where a person's needs are as important, if not more important, than that of society. It reminded me, once again, how quickly our world changes. It's difficult to even imagine a world in which people doubted the importance of love, just as people once believed the world was flat. It renews my faith in our ability to change - to rapidly and sincerely strive to be better.

Do nothing or do anything - it's not real!

One of my regular readers asked if I was hoarding entries, planning to release them in another batch of five. I'm failing my readers! I have no time to write and because I know there are more important things going on in the world than my silly little life, I resist writing updates on my car (it's fixed), the job (starts next week) and the love life (I received a postcard from the long-distance friend).

In fact, I went to the New York Times just now to prove that there was something more exciting going on than my life I FOUND IT! It has been predicted that there is at least a 20% chance that we are living in a computer simulation of an advanced post-human race. There's even a guide on how best to survive in a simulated world.

The theory is a possible explanation as to why there are dictatorial figures in the world whose selfish and insane actions serve only their needs. They are obviously the creators of the simulation acting out their own fantasies on simulated people (us). The scientist who produced the study claims that we will have computers who can simulate life at this level by mid-century and wonders, can we create a simulation within a simulation?

Science, meet nature

I blogged a while back about an article in Wired detailing the new HD camera techniques used to capture the extraordinary footage in BBC's Planet Earth (watch clips here). I then noticed a curious trend. In every issue of Wired, there's an article on the same subject in the corresponding month's National Geographic.

In April, Wired published a column on disappearing fish reporting that 96% of all wild fish considered edible, are endangered. The amount of marine fish captured has remained virtually the same since 1995 despite increasingly aggressive tactics. To make up for the difference, and equal amount of fish is being raised on farms. The biggest change for the consumer is the kind of fish we're eating. Fish that are easier to grow like carp and tilapia (which can literally be raised in a bucket of water) are more prevalent. (Mmmm, me like bucket fish.)

That same month, National Geographic published a special report on the vanishing ocean dwellers. Sixty-six pages of photos and articles detailing the state of our oceans in an explosive mix of cruelty, hope and despair. 40 million sharks per year are killed, definned alive and then left to die to support the taste for sharkfin soup in Asia. Recently banned in some countries, heavy iron doors scrape the sea bed for trawling nets where 50-80% of the haul is discarded as "bycatch." Urchins, fish, rays, suffocate aboard the vessel before being thrown overboard. Longline fishing unintentionally traps loggerhead turtles, marine mammals and albatross which make up a 30% bycatch. Shrimp, cod and sole, the intended targets, are becoming harder and harder to find sending fishing boats further offshore for longer periods of time.

The majestic giant bluefin tuna, a fish that can live for 30 years, grow up to 12 feet in length and weigh 1,500 pounds, can dive a half mile to swim at a speed of 25 miles per hour. This large swimmer is easily tracked by sonar and helicopter. Spotters in the air call to boats to tell them where the tuna is traveling, they are captured and kept in offshore cages to be fattened for sushi markets before being shot and slaughtered. Five-million dollar boats are equipped with nets that can encircle 3,000 adult tuna. Caught while they are spawning, or before they can, the species is on the brink of collapse. International laws are weak and easily flouted, more than twice the legal limit of fish is being extracted from the sea.


While nearly two-thirds of the earth is ocean, only .01 percent is protected to 12% of the world's land and despite protection, recovery is slow if not impossible. A hundred years after a ban on hunting bowhead whales, among the largest and longest lived animals on earth, they are still endangered. Entire communities have been devastated by the sudden depletion of fish and in Africa fisherman sell what they catch to Europeans leaving locals to starve or purchase the remaining carcasses for food. Ironically, it was this article, rather than Wired's that illustrated how technology has almost single-handedly led to the ocean's exhaustion.

The next month, I read in National Geographic about factory cities in China that sprout up in a matter of months drawing thousands of workers from rural areas looking for work. Traveling performers come through town to entertain the amassing population and the government shows free outdoor movies in the streets. Within a year, middle-income families have moved into high-rise housing in the area built by razing hundreds of hilltops.

Yet it was Wired that reported on the world's first "green city" being built in China as an experimental response to the environmental devastation sustained by the country for the last sixty years. In a 1940 speech, Mao Tse-tung urged China to conquer nature in order to reach its industrial future. Since then 90% of the trees in some provinces have been razed. For decades, Chinese families smelted steel in their backyards until the untreated waste turned their rivers black. It wasn't until last year that the government calculated what the environmental damage was costing the country: 10% of their GDP or $200 billion a year. Unsafe drinking water, air pollution and vast deserts that have caused flooding and other damage, are the result.

The thrilling challenge of building the world's first eco-city belongs to the international engineering firm, Arup, and their newly recruited star designer who believes the proposed metropolis, Dongtan, "was a rare chance to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way." Elaborate calculations determine how high to build, how dense to populate and ultimately, how much land is green.

A rough outline of the city, a real eco-city, began to take shape: a reasonably dense urban middle, with smart breaks for green space, all surrounded by farms, parks, and unspoiled wetland. Instead of sprawling out, the city would grow in a line along a public transit corridor.

Next, the city needed green power. But the planning process grew complicated. A city is a huge mess of dependent variables. The right recycling facility can turn trash into kilowatts. The right power plant can convert waste energy into heat. The right city map will encourage people to walk to the store instead of drive. "These are things people don't normally plan together," Gutierrez says.

This month, both magazines feature articles on the Noah's Ark of seeds, the Svalbard seed vault. National Geographic reports that The Global Crop Diversity Trust is spearheading a project with funding from Norway to preserve up to three million different seeds from key plants. The mostly food seeds are being kept in an arctic vault for the day when humanity has wiped out the majority of life on this planet - a day fast approaching. While seed vaults already exist, they are incomplete, vulnerable to damage or mismanaged.

Wired details the technology used in this massive undertaking by laying them out like something from Ocean's 11. The vault is guarded by bight lights, motion sensors, cameras and guards in a control tower. At the end of a tunnel that bores 400 feet into a mountain, are two airlocked chambers and protected against fragmenting rock by a steel sheath. The shelves inside the vault are a third of a mile long and hold envelopes with unique serial numbers each containing 500 seeds protected by a five-layer composite material, housed in plastic boxes and chilled to 0 degrees Farenheit, preserving them for centuries. The "living institution" is meant to preserve the means to grow food. One study showed that of 8,000 crop varieties grown in the US in 1903 had dwindled to only 600 in 1983.

The collective consciousness has become so saturated in environmental issues that you can't do, think or say anything without wondering about its impact on the world. I was recently working on a little video timeline of the century for a friend and it occurred to me that things change very quickly. We can change them for the better but the concern is that without conscious effort to do so, we can also very quickly change them for the worse. In the words of Ferris Bueller: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it."

Building a better killing machine

Waiting for my haircut last week, I was reading an article in Rolling Stone called "Soldiers Lost." I think the point was just to humanize the American soldiers by featuring the stories of nine who have died in Iraq. Eight of the nine died by IED, an improvised explosive device, which is the #1 killer there. The massive gas-guzzling Humvees have provided inadequate protection against these devices that kill everyone from civilians to medics.

The other person featured in Rolling Stone was Jeffrey Lucey, a soldier from Massachusetts. He returned home safe but killed himself shortly after by hanging himself with the garden hose. His family had tried to remove everything from the house that he might use to harm himself but hadn't thought of the garden hose. He had spent weeks drinking and taking drugs and repeatedly yelled at his sister "don't you know your brother is a murderer?!" He was haunted by the memory of "the bumps in the road," bodies of children they often had to drive over. In this new war, even children are terrorists and his superiors told him that killing them is included in the new "rules of engagement."

Frankly, I'm surprised that only 1 in 8 soldiers returning are reporting PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Americans have essentially never gone to war to protect ourselves on our own soil. We fought for our freedom on our soil when we founded the country and fought each other later but our modern wars are fought elsewhere against people who have nothing to lose. Our soldiers have something to live for and can afford to question whether it's right to take a life.

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has spent 50 years innovating breakthrough technology like the Internet but have only recently ventured into human augmentation - the science of making the human body more powerful. Around the country, the government is funding projects to make soldiers smarter, stronger, need less sleep and food, and give them more energy in life-threatening conditions. One project regulates the body temperature with a special glove that can keep a body from freezing to death or keep a soldier active when his body would normally overheat.

I think this technology is cool, of course, but why aren't we addressing the real problem of war? None of this technology will help the soldier struggling to live with what s/he's done. None of it will help us deal with the fact that war includes killing children. None of it will keep us from going to war. I wonder when we will put our superior brains to work on finding a way not to kill each other instead of killing each other better.

I want my Spatial Orientation Enhancement System

My ex-boyfriend used to say of my appalling bad sense of direction, "Whichever way you think it is, go the other way." Sadly, he was right. You can spin me in a circle in my own neighborhood and I'll be lost. If I don't go exactly the same route to a location, chances are, I'll get lost. I have no sense of direction.

As it turns out, I'm not the only one! Humans don't have an innate sense of direction. We visualize streets and such (and men are better at spatial navigation than women) but we aren't actually navigating by cardinal direction.

According to an article in this month's Wired, we can't develop new senses but scientists have discovered that we can train the senses we have to do new things!

"Here's the solution: Figure out how to change the sensory data you want — the electromagnetic fields, the ultrasound, the infrared — into something that the human brain is already wired to accept, like touch or sight. The brain, it turns out, is dramatically more flexible than anyone previously thought, as if we had unused sensory ports just waiting for the right plug-ins. Now it's time to build them."

The Spatial Orientation Enhancement System was built and tested to see if humans could navigate blind, as pilots need to do when they lose visual control. 11% of Air Force crashes are the result of spatial disorientation.

The non-pilot author of the article tried it in a simulator and reported amazing reults:

Flight became intuitive. When the plane tilted to the right, my right wrist started to vibrate — then the elbow, and then the shoulder as the bank sharpened. It was like my arm was getting deeper and deeper into something. To level off, I just moved the joystick until the buzzing stopped. I closed my eyes so I could ignore the screen.

As soon as they can figure out how to make the feelSpace belt look less like something strapped to a suicide bomber, I'm getting one.