Dear Mr Prime Minister...

If Given the opportunity to speak with Herr Rudd about some serious problems we face today... this is what I, as a pro-cyclist/possibly hippy, would say:

I'll be blunt here. The world at large faces great potential problems in relation to a lack of concern for our environment and all the potential problems which will occur if global warming continues down its spiraling path. At the same time our country, among other developed countries, faces a growing problem in the form of the obesity epidemic. Obesity causes a range of problems from the distinctly physical such as diabetes, to the more psychological, such as hormonal imbalances leading to many problems such as depression. It’s been statistically proven that obese people are far less productive at work than their healthier counterparts and honestly is this such a surprise?

My proposal is simple, and helps to address both problems; the general health of our citizens as well as our environment. I feel strongly that we should further encourage cycling as a form of transport. Cycling will mean that there are less people in cars, resulting in less pollution. It will also lead to a healthier population who were less likely to be obese, depressed or suffer from common problems related to a lack of exercise.

Just think of the potential benefits that cycling can bring! People would be more productive and most likely more content. The environment would be all the better off and it would probably also lead to a change in how society thinks. Cycling promotes a more sustainable way of life in general, with the basic notion being that you yourself are creating the energy needed to get around. Cycling as a way of commuting allows individuals to feel that they are doing something positive for their bodies, their wallets and their environment, all while going from point A to point B.

I suppose the big question we have to ask is, so how do we encourage cycling? Well, despite Australia as a whole having desirable weather for cyclists we really do seem to lack cyclist friendly infrastructure. More bicycle lanes, more facilities for cyclists to use such as places to change in and more bicycle racks will all help to make a difference. Indeed I know that the government in countries like the UK are now paying people to lose weight. This is ridiculous. Think how much better that money could be employed by encouraging cycling and promoting awareness of it as a better alternative to driving.

Indeed instead of paying people to lose weight, maybe they should subsidise people who ride bikes. I believe the Chinese government does. Raising awareness about cycling and cyclists and the good they are doing for themselves and everyone else by helping the environment should also be stressed. The solutions I have proposed have been rather simple, but generally speaking I think that simple solutions often work more effectively than complex ones. By making cycling easier to do through creating more cyclist friendly infrastructure (most importantly cycle lanes) more people will be encouraged to take up cycling as a form of transport, which in turn will help spread the idea of cycling as a viable form of transport and make it more acceptable within our society.

I’ve given you a way to tackle serious environmental and health problems all while empowering the people of Australia and encouraging positive change. The question now is, will you take this idea and run with it?

What do we do now?

Its been a while, but I'm back. I haven't had much of an inclination to write so I simply haven't done so. But today I find myself wanting to write something again. Here I am tackling a big question, namely: "What do we do now?"

So...what the hell do I mean, now, and what exactly am I pulling you into by saying "we"? By "What do we do now?" I am asking what "we", as a society, as a race of sentient beings who have great power and hence great responsibility, should do next. By next I basically mean in what direction should we head, where should we take humanity now...or next as i just phrased it?

Personally, I feel that we as a society have made many mistakes over the years, but having said that I'm sure we've avoided quite a few too, so I shouldn't be too critical. There are however some problems which are of immediate concern which include problems with wealth inequality and poverty, problems with materialism and unhappiness, and problems with profit, greed and damage to our dear earth.

I feel that the capitalist system, despite its potential benefits, has been used to justify wealth in the form of monetary profit, over all other things, including our morals and values, hence including the very basis for our desire to live. The gap between rich and poor broadens, not just within countries but also between them. The poor struggle more, while the rich enjoy ever greater luxuries all the while living unhappy lives of hedonistic greed. Its been proven that doing things such as volunteering for local organisations that help those in need gives a great feeling of purpose and happiness. Why then is it that we don't all help each other to reach for higher and better things and at the same time improve not only our physical standard of life, but our emotional one?

Are you really proud to live in a world based on greed, exploitation, callousness and a moral imperative to make money over all other things? I thought not. Few of us are so fanatically inclined, yet that seems to be the system we live in. Unfortunately we, as tacit participants of the system, are, whether consciously or not, supporting such a system.

The problem need not necessarily lie in capitalism per say or forms of liberalism for that matter, but rather the ways in which they can be appropriated. I feel that a welfare liberal state could solve many of our problems. A state in which the individual has great freedom so long as he does not hurt those around him. Classical Libertarians argue this too, however their definition of "hurt" only includes physical harm and not economically crippling people by condemning them into debt cycles and so forth.

We need some degree of social welfare. We are after all, only human, and we will all have times in our lives in which the going may get tough. Its only far that if someone loses their job, or is seriously injured, or disabled or something of the sort, that there is a kind and supportive governmental system in place which can provide financial assistance to these people. The mere fact that such a system exists will also greatly reduce anxiety and worry within a society as people will no that if they should fall in life that they will still have a basic standard of living assured for them. Overall I think the benefits of such a societal structure will improve the happiness of the society. This will also be highly likely to improve not only the quality of life, but interesting the societies productivity and ability.

In contrast a complete free-market, akin to what is developing in America, creates a broader gap between the rich and the poor and creates a society based on fear and greed. The large majority of the people live lives of subservience and essential slavery, with moments of hedonism for escape. They live tough and unhappy lives, with consumerism being the favourite attempt to avoid the feelings of unhappines. In many ways I think that many of America's problems stem from its unhappiness, which stems from its inequality and harsh free-market, laissez fare system.

Don't read me wrong here, I have nothing wrong with some people being rich and some poor, difference is all well and good, however, i feel that the poor should at least be afforded the basic necessities of life while the rich should not necessarily have such a reckless excess of luxuries. I think everyone would be all the happier for this arrangement too.

With the development of technology and general advances in the world, everyone should be able to live easier lives, with more time to simply enjoy life. Yet we still seem to work so much? What for, why are we driven to work so much? A large part of our expenses are on consumerist shite which we probably don't need but feel good about buying because we typically feel so bad. So one solution is to simply be happier and hence need less stuff, and hence need to work less, in turn giving us more time to enjoy life. The cycle can however spin the other way too. It we work harder we end up having less freetime and often feel less happy and hence buy more crap we don't need and then need to work all the harder to afford the lifestyle we become accustomed too.

I suppose the big question here is what sort of society do we want to live in? I personally feel that a welfare liberal society will create a happier and more stable society, who will in turn be more positive and also, rather ironically, achieve more by doing less. Work smarter, not harder... thats something we should be remembering here. When i say achieve, i don't mean make lots of money, what kind of fucking goal is that? I believe that a welfare liberal society will support more environmental awareness, more equality, a closing of the gap between the rich and the poor, a reduction in exploitation and material greed. I believe it will allow morals and ethics to resurface, for our race to become all the more learned, and wise, with the knowledge that we live to support we believe in, and that those values should not be how many golden coins we can stuff into our pockets.

Many people yell angrily when leftists talk about government intervention and raise a whole bunch of valid points about how the money is often lost in beurocratic systems and so forth. This is true to some degree but there are two simple answers to it:
1) in a free-market economy the same ridiculous "loss" of money would occur, even on a much greater scale, except that it would be done by large corporate businesses that will come to dominate certain sectors in life.
2) I believe the welfare liberal government would eventually, over time and with the development of our values, become a much fairer and honest system than many governments such as those we have today.

As a further point I would much rather have the government held accountable for what goes on in the world that giant corporations who have no interest except profit. I want ethics to matter, I want humans to be treated like I feel humans should be. As I said in “Classical Liberalism vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?” "A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness."

This is all well and good Sam you argue, but what are we going to do about it? Well realistically it might be hard to completely change how the world is run in one day, but then again it took them a fair arse long time to build rome so... One step a time tiger. The beginning, like so many things, starts in the mind. It starts in us collectively wanting and craving a change, and hence demanding it, hence supporting it, hence living it. If you believe in a society where the environment counts buy recycled toilet paper. Yes it will cost you a buck more, but it will mean that you are craving, demanding, supporting and living the life you choose, on the smallest level perhaps, but just imagine the potential for mass change. Imagine if everyone took that mentality, imagine if everyone bought recycled toilet paper... i think you see where i'm getting at... Alone we are divided, but together we are strong.

God, I do sound like a communist. Anyway, theres so much more I could right, but i'll save that for another rant. I think I've gotten the broader picture across. Remember to live life as you want it to be, not as you feel forced to by society. What ever made social norms right? Just because everyone else is being a stingy capitalist and cutting down all our trees to save a buck on toilet paper doesn't mean you have to. Now go out there and do your bit by buying some recycled toiletry accessories...


PS: A special thank you to the all philosophical Dominic Jarkey, for giving me the courage to get off my arse and write something inspiring. Bless you matey, for firstly sneezing into recycled tissue paper, and secondly and perhaps more importantly for simply being there for a friend in need.

Nature vs. Nurture – An Intelligent Issue:

Often I have asked the question is Intelligence a genetically inherited trait or one endowed by the environment? Obviously it is a combination of the two, but we must wonder if one of these factors dominates the issue more than the other. Historically it was noted that intelligent people typically had intelligent children and that intelligence seemed to run in families. The early principles of eugenics confirmed this and there is a fair bit of evidence to prove that intelligence runs in families. However this hardly means it is all genetic. Granted there are genetic links here, but we must also accept that substantial evidence shows that environmental influences in life also play a huge role in matters of intellect.

If we take, for simplicities sake, IQ to be an accurate measurement of intelligence (which it isn’t really), then we can see that as per usual neither factor alone determines intelligence. It is interesting to see that “Various tests have shown that there is a socio-economic link to IQ as people who are better off financially score 17 point higher on IQ tests than those financially disadvantaged people who take the same exam.” (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) This certainly stands to prove that a good environment strongly allows one to develop to ones greatest potential. It is also important to note that 17 points on the IQ test is quite a considerable amount.

As I argued in “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” it has also been shown that learning a language and learning a musical instrument are the two best ways to increase the brains neuroplasticity (its ability to create and strengthen links). The previously mentioned website (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) also notes that “cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language.” So in many ways it would seem that environmental influences can greatly enhance ones ability to reach a higher IQ (or intelligence). Many of the activities that affect us seem to particularly potent if they are done at a younger age. If you learn a second language and an instrument at a young age it allows your brain to be all the more flexible than if you learnt these things at an older age. Similarly mothers who are pregnant and eat a bit of fish (or other foods containing omega-3) often have children who are ever so slightly smarter. See the “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, if you want to learn more about the amazing benefits of omega-3. I also noted in “The Many Benefits of Exercise – Part 3:”, that exercise has great benefits for the brain. There is also scientific evidence that has concluded that lab mice who had the ability to run and did were more intelligent than there counterparts who did not run.

However all of these environmental things seem to be allowing us to fuller realise our potential. I suppose it would thus seem to be the case that it is ultimately genetics which set our potential in the first placel. However this has not been conclusively provien. There was a rather controversial book released in 1994 known as THE BELL CURVE. Ultimately its research into twins who were raised apart or together seemed to suggest that genetics played the biggest role in intelligence. Unfortunately the book then goes on to make some rather racist associations between whites and blacks which are completely unfounded and very naïve. It has spawned a great deal of controversy and several books have been written in response to it, so it is hardly the holy grail of nature vs. nurture in regards to intelligence. None the less the studies within are interesting and do have some scientific validity in associating a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence.

Still, like all of the nature and nurture articles I have written the answer seems to be that ultimately it is a combination of nature and nurture which affects who and what we are. If genetically you are born with no brain obviously you’ll never be a genius. Equally, if you are born a genius and have a serious brain injury then you may well no longer be a genius. Neither category (nature of nurture) should be excluded, and it wasn’t my intent to do so. My research into the area is rather inconclusive and to be honest this doesn’t surprise me.

So what does all this research teach us? What can we learn from this? My advice would be that we must accept that, yes, genetics do play a role in many of our characteristics including how intelligent we are/could potentially be. However, this need not mean we can’t improve ourselves! To think that would be self-defeating. It is a fact of life that the person next to you might be smarter and hence be able to learn twice as fast as you, but is that any reason to give up learning all together? In the end being disciplined and studious seems to pay off more than pure intellect, as I know rather a few smart people who simply don’t care about their academic work and as a result do rather horribly.

Genetics are often viewed as a boundary. However this is often used as an excuse for inaction. Personally I’d rather see genetics as a realistic simple fact of life. If your dumb or short or uncoordinated it needn’t be the end of the world. Just because you are born brilliant doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t become it. Even if your genetics in a certain department aren’t good doesn’t mean you can’t at very least improve somewhat. Typically people can at very least reach an average level of ability in anything despite setbacks. Maybe you don’t have the brains of a natural born scientist, but who the hell says that doesn’t mean you can’t give it your best and try and become one anyway? Why let the fact that you have bellow average genetics for intelligence (which how do you even concretely know anyway, remember the IQ is hardly a good test of intelligence) get in the way of you trying to do your best?

I’ve recently been reading a book about small business (LINK TO BOOK?) in which there is a rather empowering section on not giving up. It essentially gives the outline of an unlucky man’s life, including how this fellow was rejected from parliament on several occasions. However he didn’t give up and in 1860 he eventual managed to become president. That man was Abraham Lincoln, a man who in hindsight people couldn’t imagine as anything but a president. Maybe he wasn’t a born politician, maybe he was but he got unlucky on the way, regardless the point is that he was determined to become something and he didn’t let setbacks or difficulties stop him from trying.

Another interesting fact I can throw in is that a national geographic program called “My brilliant brain” had an episode about Susan Polgar. Essentially her father, a psychologist, believed that the greatest factor to becoming very good at something was simply practice and not natural ability. Susan was then raised to become a champion chess player, and sure enough she did. Her family has no history of great chess players yet her and her two sisters who were brought up similarly, simply played lots of chess and became extremely good through discipline and devotion. It makes one question whats more important, what we start with, or how we use it? In many ways I am inclined to think that the later is more important, as no matter how good we start if we don’t use our talent it is wasted. The later view is also more empowering as it essentially argues that anyone can excel at anything with practice and devotion.

It’s true that genetics limit us, and its important that we take a realistic perspective on how they do. If you’re in your mid-thirties and only one metre tall chances are you’re not going to grow any more. That’s something you can’t change so the only real answer is to try and accept it and move on to change the things we can control. A realistic yet positive outlook would accept various limitations by genetics yet still be optimistic in encouraging positive change and trying to be the best we can. It is unfair to expect anything else and foolish to let genetics provide you with an excuse for never at least trying. All too often genetics become a scapegoat for mediocrity or even worse simply not attempting something. While the limitations placed upon us by gravity, genetics and other limiting things starting with the letter G (maybe guerrillas?), should be accepted and seen as a simple fact of life, we should not get dismayed by these facts. We should simply change our plan of attack to target something we can change, influence and do something about. So look out for killer guerrillas (Jesus, it rhymes!) and other than that enjoy life and live it to its fullest. Change isn’t easy, but its all the easier if you believe you can do it and do think things like “I’d like to do it by genetics won’t let me.” So make a realistic goal that your genetics will allow and shoot, shoot to win, (or slow down rampant guerrillas, the choice is yours)!

Virtual Reality – Step Into This Giant Hamster Wheel, the Future Awaits...

As a child I was rather fond of a good computer game. To be honest I really don’t see it as greatly disconnected from reading a book. Indeed in some ways I see it as potentially freer as plotlines can be more malleable. Having said that its important to realist that books leave more to the imagination and probably in that sense use creativity more than computer games. Even so I think in essence both are quite similar. Of course with the stress of my final years of school I sort of phased out of computer games and nowadays I don’t play them at all.

Thus as a child I was never particularly fit, such is to be expected of one who does little exercise. However I always liked the idea of virtual reality for computer games as it would allow one to experience another world and not just mentally imagine it or visually see it but also interact with it. Jump, climb, run and fight within a 3D environment, ohh what fun it would be, and how damn fit you’d get! Getting fit and doing regular exercise helps the body in a myriad of ways: “The Many Benefits of Exericse, Part 1:” Think about it, fitness would become integral to a games plot line. If you weren’t fit it would be that much harder to play the game, in turn encouraging you to get fitter as you played more. Getting better at a game would not only involve understanding how it works and having good finger reflexes but also a good level of fitness, all of which could be developed by running around in a giant hamster wheel, well, essentially anyway.

Yes, the giant hamster wheel is for real. I found it at good old Science Daily. Here is the link I’m primarily drawing off for those of you who enjoy further research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0409-the_new_virtual_reality.htm

Essentially what has been developed is like a mouse’s running wheel except much larger, big enough for humans that is, and instead of being circular being spherical. Of course the technology is still primitive in how it reacts with the computers I’m sure but, its still an impressive feat to invent this wheel which turns on the spot allowing you to run in any direction. It is also said that it allows you to jump, although I’m still not quite sure how. There are still flaws this is obvious, but it’s a damn good start and its happened far sooner than I would ever have anticipated.

Virtual reality has an absolutely huge amount of potential, just imagine the possibilities for a second. They mention education and training for emergency services such as firemen as well as of course computer games. Computer games could become a way of not only zoning out to have some fun (much like reading a book, watching a movie or playing a contemporary computer game) except with the added benefit of moving the body around and the extra sensation of actually being there.

I’ve certainly always been attracted to the idea of getting and staying fit and healthy through something I consider as engaging and fun as a good computer game. Admittedly certain games I’d enjoy such as many strategy games wouldn’t benefit from this technology, however there are still a large amount of games that could. In a sense I suppose the Wii is the precursor to movement based games, and there was even some guy on the internet who blogged about his weight loss adventure using the Wii as a form of exercise. (“Wii Sports: Lose Weight With Wii Sports”) Personally I don’t think the Wii really cuts much of a workout and I think that running around and jumping and slaying barbarians or whatever it is your doing in some adventure game would be far more physically beneficial than the Wii. Whats more it would be a very entertaining form of exercise, and could literally phase out most conventional exercise! Fitness would as I said before become integral to gameplay, just like how fitter people perform better at various sports (and obviously people who have trained more and developed other skills more) Most young people love computer games and I’m sure that if and when this technology becomes widely available (when I cannot say but I’d guess within say 10 years or less) that most young people will become far fitter than they would otherwise be.

Of course virtual reality isn’t really a substitute for real life and all the great things that we get from simply going outdoors. It would be imperative that people still got time outdoors for many benefits from vitamin D from the sun to simply psychologically connecting with our environment. Indeed the whole virtual reality idea while appealing in many ways is also rather scary, as the thought of a generation of people who have no need to leave home what so ever scares me. Although I suppose in many ways were half way there. But with virtual reality on such a level people could literally lose touch with the real reality. I can imagine people interacting socially through the internet with virtual reality, and conducting business virtually and maybe even going to work virtually… it would be like the matrix all over again!

Still as usual it’s not the technology that is at fault. The technology is simply knowledge neither good nor evil in itself. Rather, its how that knowledge is applied that will determine whether it is good or bad. Personally I’m inclined to think that it will bring many positive changes, and hopefully the negative changes can be kept to a minimum. So what are you waiting for (other than the technology of course)? Simply step into this giant hamster wheel, the future awaits...

Nature vs. Nurture – The Unending Debate Part 2:

Genetics definitely play a large role in how we turn out in life, this is quite obvious. If you’ve ever seen identical twins or even just similar brothers and sisters you can often see similar features such as face shape or eye and hair colour, this is largely genetically based. However the evident problem here is that these siblings share quite similar environments, which makes it hard to really say that its all genetically based. However it is certain that some traits are far more genetically based than others and some are more within our control than others.

Often people seem to use genetics as an excuse. For instance someone may believe they have genetics which make them rather slow at thinking, and therefore decide to avoid an academic life as they don’t think they could possibly compete. Maybe they’re right, but there is also a large chance that even if they are right they could still be an academic through determination and vigorous application to studying. What seems to happen here is that genetics determine how well someone reacts to a certain environment, but obviously that isn’t the whole picture, because then it comes down to how often the genetics get the chance to interact with the environment. Allow me to try and explain with an example. Person A may have a good ability to gain muscle, whereas person B may have a below average ability to build muscle. However, if person A were to not exercise regularly and lead a rather lazy life whereas Person B kept quite fit and exercised regularly as well as eating well then Person B would most likely be quite well muscled. Most people would in comparing them think “ahh Person B has a unique ability to gain muscle”, but in fact this is simply not so, Person B in fact has a disadvantage in our comparison yet he still comes out on top due to simple persistence and determination.

Similarly you may have a genetic tendency to get diabetes or high cholesterol, but that in itself does not doom you to either. Rather it means that it is easier for you to get these medical problems and that therefore you may have to try a little harder to avoid them then people who are not so genetically prone. A healthy balanced lifestyle should keep you from ever developing the problems as while the genetic potential is there it is never being realised (and in this case it is a good thing that the potential isn’t being realised)! At the same time it is important that we realise the genetic limitations that are unique to each person. You certainly can gain more muscle than another person with identical genes by training, but maybe you will never be a professional Olympic-lifter as you simply lack the muscle and joint strength. Its not to say you couldn’t do Olympic-lifting and have fun and keep fit all while improving your strength, it is however to say that you must realise that if you have certain genetics you may not be able to go pro. Realising these limits need not be pessimistic, it is simply trying to put a realistic perspective on life. As http://www.maxwellsfitnessprograms.com/pdf/GENETICS%20OF%20A%20TRIATHLETE.pdf states:
“Accepting your genetics is by no means negative or limiting. It is quite the opposite. It is taking control of all the things you can to be the best you can be.”

It is important not to think of Genes as dominating the environment in a causal way. As http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm argues: “Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.”
Genes are dependant on the environment to be expressed, and the environment is dependant on genes to have a basis for expression. The two work together, they are mutually inclusive and intertwined, in reality the nature vs. nurture debate is a little silly as the two categories should never really be split as they are. Another article (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2820222/Blinded-by-Science-Nature-via.html), put this nicely in saying:
“We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle.”

In my opinion some things are simply more determined by environment or as the case may be genetics. If you’re fat you may be predisposed to gaining fat but you can most likely lose it through exercising and eating healthy. In contrast changing your eye colour could be rather more difficult! What’s more there also needs to be a distinction made between simple genes (genotype) and genes which have then also been set to a certain degree by early environmental influences (phenotypes). That is to say that everyone has a fat storing gene (although if your unlucky you may have a few more), but there tendency to store fat can be greatly effected by the diet of the mother while the baby is still prenatal. I remember reading a study about it in identical (presumably cloned) mice. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find it again. All I remember was that these mice were genetically identical and while they were all in their genetically identical mothers they were split into two groups. The control group ate a typical western diet high in saturated fat and sugar while the other group ate a much more healthy diet. Once both groups had given birth to the technically genetically identical groups of babies they put them all on the control group diet (the crappy American style diet) and they noticed that the original control group gained far more weight and had a far greater likelihood of developing diabetes and other problems on the rather unhealthy diet. The irony is that the other group didn’t even though they were genetically identical. This shows that the initial interaction with the environment sets the genes at differing levels (phenotype), and this is ultimately nearly as important as the genes themselves.

Regardless of all this essentially what I wanted to get around to saying was that we can’t change our genes, or how they are set. At least not at this stage, and the prospect of changing them certainly brings up odd ethical questions. But, we can at very least control our environment to a degree and make it as best we can to help how our genes express themselves in the future. If you unfit then you can exercise regularly and eat well and improve your fitness, regardless of your genes. Maybe your neighbour can get fit quicker than you but who really cares? The point is you’re doing something good for yourself, and that’s all that matters in the end.

I think this whole article about genetics brings up a really important issue relating to competition which essentially argues that we should only really compete with ourselves. Its often far to unfair to compete with other people as they may often not be on a similar level whether it be genetically or from environmental exposure. Thus instead of racing against the Olympic marathon runners times simply race against your own best time. Who cares if its ten times as long, if you improve your time only a little bit you are still improving, and in the end that’s all that matters. I suppose a nice way to conclude on genetics is to say that not everyone can be a professional athlete within a certain field, otherwise there amazing performances wouldn’t be seen as nearly as amazing as they are. But even so that is not to say that every singly one of us can work with what we’ve got and improve.

Nature vs. Nurture – Part 1:

Obviously the nature vs. nurture debate is not clear-cut. It is going to be some sort of balance between the two, this is not really in question, rather were on the continuum between genes and environment does the end point lie? As I mentioned in,“Nature vs. Nurture – A Short Introduction:”, the prelude/introduction to this article historically there have been trends, first starting with a genetic emphasis in the 1800’s and then moving more to an environment based approach in the mid 1900’s. I like to think of it as rather like a pendulum swinging. Its gone from one extreme to the other and now gravity (which I suppose in our metaphor would be scientific research) is slowly doing its thing and bringing it closer to the middle. I’m sure most people would agree with me up to here, this all seems rather self-evident. However then you must realise that certain things about us seem to be more genetically determined, and other more environmentally determined. To keep with our previous allegory we must now imagine a pendulum for every characteristic, both physical and psychological for each human being. Suddenly we have a large amount of pendulums!

Take a characteristic like eye colour and you can see that genetics seem to play by far the larger role in this instance. Once you are born with a certain eye colour, seldom do they change. In contrast while some people may build muscle better than others it is possible for all individuals to increase their lean muscle weight with the correct training and decent nutrition. In fact many people with not so great muscle building genetics can still become much more muscular than their genetically superior counterparts who don’t exercise. Arnold Schwarzenegger provides yet another example of environmental influences. While Arnold was always quite ripped in his youth he is now a middle aged pudgy governor of California, who has no doubt gained the pounds as he is no longer dieting as he once was, nor exercising to the same extreme. This information should be seen as an empowering thing though. Think about it for a minute. This is Schwarzenegger! If he has genes which allow him to get fat like anyone else than it also shows than anyone else can lose fat and look to a degree (within reason and everything) like he did! It works both ways. You see Schwarzenegger probably does have good genetics for that sort of thing (and a large amount of steroids) but that doesn’t mean that he can just sit on his arse all day. By the same token you may have quite bad genetics for something like muscle building or fat loss, but that by NO means whatsoever condemns you to a life of being obese. Psychologically if you use the excuse that your genes are crap then you’ve given up before you’ve even started.

Feel empowered by the fact that ultimately it is that environmental influence which tweaks what genes we have. Your friend might lose fat twice as easily as you. But if he never exercises then he won’t be realising his potential, whereas you can. Genetics are a bit like getting good cards in a card game I guess. It helps, but it doesn’t guarantee success. Ultimately it comes down to how you play the game, and that is an environmental thing. Having said that this is only with regards to body fat and muscle and so forth. Many other characteristics like the aforementioned eye colour are far more set in stone. Height is similar in that each person has a potential maximum height which is largely genetically based. Certainly environmental factors like malnutrition can limit someone’s potential, but the fact is if all your relatives are really short, chances are you will be as well. Hence height should be seen as a predominantly genetic characteristic. Tweaking the pituitary gland to release more human growth hormone could I suppose theoretically lead to increased height, and perhaps drugs and so on could do this, but it would be incredibly hard to alter ones height once it was set short of taking very new drugs which alter our biochemistry, essentially altering our genes.

This brings me to a rather interesting point. At what point in time do genes and the environment mesh into one larger category? In my previous article “Exercising Efficiently – the Intensity Debate:” I compared two different groups of mice who had been genetically altered. One group known as “Marathon Mice” could run much further than their counterparts, had far more slow-twitch muscle and had a great ability to not gain weight. Interestingly scientists are now saying that if you are already born your genes might be set, but you can still take drugs to do the same tweaking. Hence scientists are in the process of inventing a pill which does exercise for us. Basically the pill tweaks a gene called PPAR-d (delta) by turning it on, so that the body wastes excess energy.
Here’s a link for anyone interested:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070429154936.htm

Essentially my question is what happens when environmental influences (crazy scientists) are able to tweak genetics, after our genes are set? Is this an environmental influence or a genetic influence? Surely it is both. Here the line between the two categories blurs all the further. Interestingly, in the case of the “marathon mice” those who were given a pill to alter PPAR-d, only gained the fat burning effects and not the increased endurance. This does indicate that perhaps there are limits to what can be changed after our genes have been set.

Another interesting issue could be to do with the ethics behind fiddling with genetics. Doesn’t changing our genetics effectively change who we are? After our DNA code is unique to us (with the exception of identical twins). The nature vs. nurture debate is certainly an interesting one. It is also one which may in the greater scheme of things be unanswerable in a simple this or that manner. The issues we are dealing with are complex, and hence the answer too will reflect this. My understanding is that different characteristics are determined to differing degrees by both the environment and ones genetics. What we must remember is that while we cannot change our genetics (at least not at this point in time) we should not dwell on that we cannot control, but rather be empowered by what is in our control. We must take responsibility for our environmental influences, and alter them as we see fit to create an environment we find hospitable for our general wellbeing.

Nature Vs. Nurture – A Short Introduction:

I have decided to take on the rather onerous task of investigating the Nature Vs. Nurture debate. For those of you not familiar with it, it debates whether various factors about how we are, are genetically influenced or influenced by the environment. Obviously we can already conclude that it is not going to be either extreme but rather somewhere nearer to the middle. However it may be that it does slant slightly to one side or another.

Historically speaking there was a period from the 1800’s to the 1900’s where everyone thought that things were largely genetically predetermined and hence racial policies of eugenics and so on thrived. However after World War I and even more so from the 1960’s onwards society began to see things as being more environmentally influenced. Nowadays it is seen to be an amalgamation of the two. However I have yet another theory which is that while it is certainly both genetics and environment that affect all things, different things are affected to a different degree by both nature and nurture. For instance your height will be most likely largely genetically pre-determined, it is not something that can be easily changed. How muscular you are however can be much more easily manipulated and by regularly training and eating protein and so forth even really skinny people can slowly over time put on a considerable amount of muscle. I shall certainly research into all of this more at a later date.

To be honest this post is going to be rather short as I have only done preliminary research and it is already late on a Friday night. But fear not for I will be posting following articles later on. There are many different areas within genetics which interest me. Some questions worth asking for are whether our genetics are totally responsible for us being fat, or intelligent or having fast reflexes, of blue eyes. There are so many questions that could be asked, it really is such a fascinating topic. For now I shall leave you with yet another problem which is not only what sort of genetics someone has, but how those genetics are then programmed. For instance two people can have the same gene, yet one person can have it switched on and another off, hence they can be completely opposite. How genes are set are not genetically done, but largely by very early environmental influences. Here we are talking about pre-natal conditions and once one is only just born. I believe this switching on of genes to a certain degree is called phenotypes. Essentially phenotypes are what genes cause with early environmental interaction. I suppose the question then becomes not whether our genes put us on a predetermined track, but whether our genes and earliest environmental exposure do. Does later environmental exposure count for far less? In many ways I would indeed say yes, but at the same time it still depends on what exactly we are talking about. You may have always been a fat kid, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t lose fat. Some characteristics just seem to be more predetermined than others. For all you nay-sayers out there I’d say body fat% is one which while obviously genetically influenced, is still largely within our control. This shouldn’t depress you, it should empower you. If only we could do that with everything, height, eye colour etc. Then again, maybe it’d make life to easy…

Nature Vs. Nurture, one of the great questions out there. Somehow I don’t think I’ll ever be coming up with a concrete answer. Still, the vague sketchings of a reasonable answer seem to be outlined above.

Kangaroo Meat – Good For You AND the Environment:

Kangaroo meat is one of natures many wonders. I know it sounds a bit bizarre, and if you don’t live in Australia probably very foreign, but the facts remains that Kangaroo meat is an excellent choice of meat. It is both nutritionally beneficial for humans as it as well as being far better for the environment than other livestock, specifically cattle, which is probably the most eaten meat and also happens to cause the most environmental damage. If you are an enlightened citizen and aware of the importance of both your own health and that of the environments then Kangaroo is certainly for you. Admittedly its flavour is rather gamey, but this need not be a barrier to eating it. While many find it a unique flavour at first but then quickly develop a a taste for it.

So why is kangaroo so nutritionally superior to other meats Sam? Well, Firstly kangaroo is an incredibly lean meat by nature (probably has something to do with the fact that kangaroos jump around a lot and eat grass and not grains, therefore not developing excess unneeded fat). However as I mentioned in “"Fats: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly as well as Potentially Life Threatening:” fats aren’t all bad. It’s the saturated and particularly trans fats that we have to avoid. Well almost all products which are in their natural form like fresh vegetables and fruit as well as meat will contain for all intensive purposes absolutely not trans fat. Fats found in natural produce tend to contain only limited amounts of saturated fat and more of the unsaturated fats (poly unsaturated and mono unsaturated), which makes them appropriate for a healthy diet. Many unprocessed animal products however have quite high amounts of saturated fat, and typically far less in the way of mono saturated fats. This also holds true for traditional dairy products.

Some meats such as chicken and turkey are very low in fat by nature. Certain cuts of beef can be lower in fat too, but generally speaking red meats as well as pork have higher amounts of fat than other meats. One great meat source is of course fish. Certain fish such as tuna, salmon and sardines not only contain very low amounts of saturated fat but also contain higher amounts of the healthier unsaturated fats including the now rather famous Omega-3. Omega-3 in itself has been proven to be an exceptionally amazing fatty acid and I have written a whole article entitled “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, due to its amazing health benefits.

Now Kangaroo is a particularly interesting meat in that it is both a red meat but also incredibly lean by nature. Not only that but the little fat it does have contains quite a substantial amount of the healthier unsaturated fats. Due to its overall low fat content however Kangaroo can be overcooked easily, and hence be tough. This will take some mastering but once you’ve got the hang of it a Kangaroo steak is treat to behold… or be-eat as the case may be. Obviously Kangaroo meat is an excellent source of protein and has particularly high levels of iron & zinc. It also has practically not cholesterol and contains a healthy fatty acid known as “Conjugated linoleic acid” (CLA). While essentially all of the things about Kangaroo meat are good for you the fact that it contains good amounts of CLA is particularly interesting. Don’t only take my word for it though take the CSIRO’s: http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr2004/kangaroofat.htm! The CSIRO site also notes that the interesting thing is not only that Kangaroo’s have high levels of CLA, but so do most grass fed animals.

CLA intake has been shown to help in reducing body-fat and do a host of other beneficial things, even reduce the risk of getting cancer. Allow me to quickly site some references. This site, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11725826?dopt=Abstract, explains how studies have linked CLA intake with lower bodyfat, yet similar bodyweight, hence not only helping humans to lower their body-fat but also increase their muscle mass. Of course the benefits would only be minor but it clearly indicates that Kangaroo is a very healthy choice of meat. Further more as http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf explains:
“Research studies with animal models suggest that CLA reduces the risk of cancers at several sites (mammary tissue, prostrate, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and skin), reduces body fat and enhances growth of lean body mass.”

The same website (http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf) also stresses that animals fed grain products produce less CLA. “Cows grazing on pasture had 500% more CLA content in milk compared with cows fed typical dairy cow diets containing conserved forage and grain in a 50:50 ratio.” It is indeed interesting to wonder whether feeding our primary meat sources (such as cattle) from grains instead of grass (which is what they would be naturally eating) has contributed to our obesity problem both through increasing the fat content in the cows and also through causing other changes such as the drastic drop in CLA found in grain feed cows.

Now if that’s not enough a reason to start eating Kangaroo maybe I should mention that Kangaroo’s cause far less damage to the environment than traditional meat sources such as cattle. See “Vegetarianism From a Different Perspective:” to see just how much a threat to global warming the meat industry alone causes to get an idea of what were comparing here. Firstly, realise that Kangaroos are farmed wild, which is also much more ethical. Secondly, realise that at the moment Australia has a heap of Kangaroos. While certain species are endangered most aren’t, indeed in some areas of Australia they are considered a pest. Hence Kangaroo farming began, more as a way to cull the kangaroo population than anything else. Unfortunately much of the meat has been used in pet foods as I don’t think the market for it is very big. However the market certainly should grow, especially given kangaroo’s wonderful nutritional properties.

Essentially as I argue in “Vegetarianism From a Different Perspective:” , cows create a butt load of methane (pun totally intended, even though I think a lot of it actually comes out their mouths). In contrast Kangaroos don’t, in fact their farts (or whatever you want to call them) are methane free. Hence eating kangaroos encourages fewer cattle to be eaten, which in turn makes for less cattle and reduces the output of deadly green house gasses (in the form of methane from cow farts. For those who don’t know Methane is in fact roughly 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to speeding up global warming). But wait, it gets even stranger! Kangaroo fart happens to be so methane free (due to bacteria in their gut) that scientists are in fact trying to transfer these bacteria to cow’s intestine, essentially to make them fart like kangaroos, i.e. causing less methane. Check out: http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/03/scientists-to-make-cows-fart-like-kangaroos/ if you wish to see where I got this information from and be mildly amused.

Kangaroo’s are also in large numbers and its believed that they are fair game (pun again intended) at the minute. Seriously, kangaroo is great stuff. I hope I have at least convinced you to go to the supermarkets and try some. If you need just a little more convincing then I have just one more thing to say. Ironically enough, Kangaroo meat is really rather cheap. In fact it’s typically much cheaper than most other meats! If I recall correctly a kilogram of kangaroo mince at Coles costs you around $7 Australian, while a kilogram of lamb costs you closer to $30.

While Kangaroo meat does have an acquired taste some certainly find it to their liking. Others adapt. It can also be cunningly used in dishes like bolognese where its distinct flavour is blunted by herbs and other ingredients. As I have stated above it is incredibly good for you, indeed it is no doubt the best of all the red meats. The only meat I would rank higher for your health would probably be fish, but given mercury poisoning problems due to ever rising pollution levels even fish can now be quite contaminated. Not only is it good for you however, it is also beneficial for the environment. Lastly its not overpriced either. So go on, have Kangaroo for dinner tonight, after writing all this to persuade you of how good it can be for you its worth at least trying!

Cycling and Your Wellbeing:

For about the last ten months I have used cycling as my primary form of transport. It’s a great thing to do for a whole heap of reasons. If I recall correctly I one day remembered that I’d been given a bicycle for my birthday and thought “I may as well use it!” At the time I only had a vague understanding of what I was really getting into. Now, after ten months, I have turned into a cycling advocate and feel the need to spread the word as everyone should know of the benefits of cycling. There are huge advantages, particularly when cycling is used as a form of transport. Allow me to clarify my claims…

We shall start with one of the most obvious benefits of cycling, exercise! Cycling is great for your health and fitness, both physically and mentally. If you commute by bike to work (or any regularly attended place) you in turn exercise on a regular basis. Exercise becomes easily intertwined with your day to day routine. Indeed for me personally cycling is more a form of transport than exercise. Many a day I have hoped onto my bike of a morning only to think: “Shit, I’m late for work, better pedal hard”. In comparison if I were to go for a run for the sole purpose of exercised I’d much more likely think: “Damn, I really don’t want to go for a run. Why can’t I do it later? It’s so hot… etc”. Clearly the commuting thought is much more productive as there is no direct quarrel in the mind with the act of cycling itself.

If exercise and transport are rolled into one you are much more likely to stick to your exercise routine, as it becomes so much more than just exercise, it becomes something with much more purpose behind it. Your motivation for cycling is to get to work, and with it you get the added bonus of staying fit! After you’ve gotten used to the initial changes of cycling to work it will seem far less an imposition. Indeed if anything you’ll most likely come to view it as a privilege, I know I do. By commuting to and from the city centre I now look forward to my cycling. I believe this may well be because of the added purpose given to the activity.

Essentially being fit and healthy is of immense importance to our overall wellbeing, so cycling helps this as a viable form of exercise. As the world is so preoccupied with weight and the obesity epidemic I should also note that if cycling becomes regular exercise and part of your routine (which will automatically happen if you become committed to commuting) it will also serve to manage your weight and keep your hormones and energy balance in check. I could go into mind numbingly complex detail as to why exercise is fantastic and has many benefits, but I’d get lost as there’s just so much to say. However feel free to have a look at “The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 1:” for a general introduction to some of the many benefits of exercise.

One of the reasons cycling is so attractive and that I call it a “viable” form of exercise, is that it can easily be implemented into a busy schedule if is used for commuting. Almost all of us could do with a bit more exercise, and those of us fortunate enough to live and work in a small proximity (say within 10 kilometres or so) could quite feasibly ride to work and back each day. Indeed cycling is often faster than taking public transport or using a car (within the city this is)! I have written another article entitled: “How to Gain an Extra Week This Year:” which illustrates the time I would save over the course of a year if I cycled to and from work and uni, when compared to taking a car. Economic matters also come into play concerning how much extra someone would have to work per year to pay off a car rather than a bike, so check it out if you’re interested.

On the old economic front, cycling is obviously much cheaper than other forms of transport; particularly in the long term and it could greatly reduce your financial expenses. In another article "Pedalling Money – How to Save Money by Cycling:” I have demonstrated exactly how much cheaper cycling is. You may be rather surprised to see the difference, especially if you take into account ever rising petrol costs!

If you catch public transport you may be familiar (particular if you live in Sydney like me, where our public transport is poorly invested in) with crowded, dirty buses and old jam-packed trains. This too can be avoided by cycling. What’s worst however is late and unreliable public transport. I used to regularly wait for up to nearly half an hour for a bus or train (this is when going into the city or back home from it). In that same amount of time I could have quite literally ridden home! But these days I wait no longer! I only waited during my naïve younger years when I hadn’t even considered the possibility of riding a bicycle for transport reasons… I am convinced I must have been terribly sick back then to not have realised the benefits I could have gained by cycling. :P

Do you have to walk along way from your bus stop to home? You wouldn’t if you cycled. If you live far away from your work place, but there are trains, you might even consider mixing them. Particularly if you’re a few kilometres from the train station that takes you to and from work. The great thing about trains is that you can take bikes on them.

Cycling as a form of transport is also what is now often referred to as “green”. And “green” is now in. What once was hippy and rather borderline is now mainstream…well sort of anyway. Cycling doesn’t cause pollution (other than maybe the pollution in the making of a bicycle, but realise that this same process exists for all things produced in factories). The bicycle is also “The Most Efficient Form of Transport in the World:”! So cycling is clearly a good way to reduce damaging carbon emissions and create a sustainable future. Cycling would also use fewer resources (such as coal and metals etc) than other forms of transport. If everyone cycled we could even do with less infrastructure (smaller roads etc), which would again save on resources.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, cycling will no doubt improve your general wellbeing. Yes, endorphins and feelings of wellbeing are a result of exercise, but it proves to be more than just this. Sydney University is providing a course in philosophy next year called “The philosophy of happiness” and in a sort of sneak preview my old philosophy lecturer told our class that for this course a large number of studies have been done. It’s explained further in "Cycling and the Philosophy of Happiness:” if you wish to know more, but for now you’ll have to be content to know that the studies suggested that commuting time is linked with long term happiness, and that as bike riding provides the double whammy of exercise with a typically short commuting time, it would seem to follow that it would promote long term happiness.

Let’s quickly summarise why cycling is the ultimate form of transport:
1) It will help to keep you healthy, keep your fitness levels up (and for those of us who are shallow, think about how it might help you manage your weight)
2) It is much cheaper than other forms of transport – It also allows you to avoid cramped, late, crappy and unreliable public transport (of course depending on where you are your public transport might be bearable so this wouldn’t count as much)
3) It is a time saver, in that you do your daily exercise (we’ll doctors keep saying we should be doing it daily, but most of us don’t!) at the same time as travelling, and overall end up gaining a bit more time each day than if you didn’t commute with a bike and still did the exercise. Sometimes (particularly in the city) it’s even quicker just to cycle than ride by car, regardless of exercise time even if the driver weren’t to compensate for the exercise the cyclist has done.
4) It is a sustainable form of transport that has little negative impact upon the world and is also a highly efficient form of transport.
5) Exercise has also been shown to be important for emotional wellbeing and happiness, and using your travel time more effectively could well also make you happier.

Some people will understandably voice concerns about the safety of commuting by bicycle. This is a valid argument, but one that is often blow out of proportion. The fact is that as cycling increases in popularity due to the move towards green transport and so on, and as numbers increase so too does bicycle infrastructure, bicycle safety equipment and awareness of cyclists by pedestrians and motor vehicles. The Sydney morning herald gives the example of a 50% increase in cyclists in Sydney over the last three years, with an almost non existent increase in injuries, which is pretty darned impressive. If you wish to see the link, clicky here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-riders-on-the-increase-but-road-deaths-stable/2007/10/07/1191695739443.html

Like everything in life, just be sure to use your common sense when riding a bike. Always be sure to indicate, wear a helmet, gloves, sunglasses, a reflective vest and use reflector lights. When its dark also be sure to have proper electric lights. If you do all these simple things you greatly reduce your chance of being involved in an accident, and as the number of cyclists continue to increase, the percentage of overall accidents should continue to drop with the developments that follow the increased demand for cyclist infrastructure, equipment and awareness. So hop on your bike!

How It All Ends:

More and more people are coming to realise that Global warming is a serious issue and not something to be taken lightly. I myself have done some mild research into the topic, but not enough to really warrant me lecturing you about it. However I did come across a fantastic video made by a science teacher (with a whole heap of add on videos with extra info called “The expansion pack”) which makes some excellent points. Therefore I thought I’d leave it to him to lecture you on the problems of global warming!

The video is entitled "How It All Ends" and while a bit slow to begin with its initial explanation of risk management, it then quickly develops and the science teacher who created it makes some very good and very persuasive points. While I haven’t watched many of the follow up videos they are there for all of those who might be interested in learning even more, I will no doubt watch them at a later date when I have enough time. So I strongly recommend that you all go watch "How It All Ends", right now! Even though it’s ten 10 minutes long, it’s a damn worthwhile ten minutes. After all nothing is more important than our environment and our place within it. We are after all dependent upon our environments wellbeing for our own health.

The video is very rational, concise and even humourous. It is probably one of the best brief explanations of why we need to take action that I’ve seen. The effort that has gone into the making of these videos must have been huge. Therefore I feel compelled to spread this video around to as many people as I can. The thing about global warming is that it is obviously a global problem. Hence, it doesn’t truly require great action from any individual but rather small changes from all individuals.

At Sydney University I am doing a course called “Global Studies”, and one of the first things we did at the beginning of our course was a global warming scenario where we played different countries. To cut a long story short I was Japan, the country with the second most ability to reduce carbon emissions (after the US), yet despite devoting all of my resources every turn to reducing global warming we did not stop the foreseen climate destabilisation. Why was this? It was because many smaller countries (in our hypothetical game this is, not real life) did not make the effort to change. They argued that they were small and couldn’t do much to stop global warming and therefore didn’t try simply because they did not have the same resources to devote as larger countries did.

Yet a global problem requires global action, that is to say that every one of us, no matter how insignificant we may seem in the grander picture still play a role. Indeed the scientist who created “How it all ends” even states himself:

“But what do I do I’m just one guy, with a stupid hat?

What you do is spread the word because the only way we really get into column A [that is to say taking action on climate change] is by policy changes and those only happen when enough people demand it. So we need nothing less than a change in the culture itself and you can help make that happen…”

So as you can see individuals do create change, its always been how it is, its just that they typically get nothing for their efforts. Well in this case we don’t get something, but at least we avoid disaster. And for those of you who are now feeling depressed at the whole difficulty of the situation fear not for as is stated in "How It All Ends":

“There’s a lot of reason to believe we can fix this, maybe even without reducing our standard of living, if were quick about it”

So chop chop, hop to it, go watch "How It All Ends", see for yourself what you think. If you find yourself generally agreeing with him then make sure you spread the video to all of your friends, family, co-workers and so on. At very least we will begin to get people educated on the severity of the problem faced. We little individuals can create change. Feel empowered by that fact. Start by watching the video and then take it from there. In the future I may well also post some more stuff on global warming and what we can do to play our part, but until then, watch the damned video!