A Very Special List of the Week

More like list of the month, but that doesn't sound as cool. Besides, it isn't a proper post at any rate.

Top 7 Nicknames:

7. A multitude of those called "The Great".

6. Barack Obama- "The Won".

5. Fabius Maximus- "The Delayer"

4. Hasdrubal- "The Bald".

-Note this is not the Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of the Metaurus. The Carthaginians have very few names and there are around 5 generals named Hardrubal over the enitre Punic Wars.

3. Edward of Woodstock- "The Black Prince"

2. Stephen II of Bosnia- "The Devil's Student".

1. Attila the Hun- :The Scourge of God."

Anyone you think is missing? Comment below, and let the debates begin.

The Morality of Immortality II

In the first few decades of "The Age of Immortality" we should be mindful that a plutocracy does not develop. In the beginning, not everyone would be immortal. Those who were would be smarter on account of there growing experience and depending on the form of immortality (Fanatic Avocados [1] [2]), they could be stronger; faster. If the proliferation of immortality is not fast enough or widespread, the governments of the world could dissolve into the 'elite' ruling the 'normal' kinda thing. If you have mastered mortality, you would have some pretty "sick" (pun) bio warfare equipment. In other words, resistance would be futile.
This flaw is one of the main reasons immortality research is so slow. Like any other form of medicine, it could no be distributed to everyone. As well, its price would only be affordable to a select few, further widening the gap between "us" and "them".

The Morality of Immortality

If part of the human civilization were ever to discover the secret to immortality, they would have to immediately stop breeding. Population growth is not an option for the immortal. On a planet where nobody dies, and new people are constantly being born, resources would be consumed at a frightening rate. A space-faring civilization, with the means to spread, could justify growth. However, as it follows an exponential curve, eventually there would be no room left.

The discovery of everlasting life would have every right to be celebrated. However, it means that the thread of the human life-cycle will have to be cut, permanently. Imagine everyone who is alive now would remain alive for the rest of time. There would be no more births; and because of that, no more einsteins, no more picassos, mozarts, gretzkys... The rest of us could practice and through pure elbow grease achieve a small measure of greatness. But that is no natural talent. Without new blood, art as we know it would wither. Perhaps die.

Life, which has for so long meant recycling and change, would become grey and erode into mere existence. Evolution, which is still at work today, would cease. The natural cycle of birth and death which has pulled us into shapes that let us fend off disease and predators would stop. Immunities would disappear. Epidemics would become, well, epidemic. of course, with advances in medicine etcetera, we could stave off the these threats. However, as our forms are left more and more in the evolutionary dust, our specie's existence would become fragile.

If you spend your life in a vat; if nanobots are the only thing keeping you from dying of the common flu; are you really living? You are certainly not thriving.

And finally, is immortality a medicinal epiphany or an evolutionary dead end?

Soppy Nonsense

In this article, I'm a gonna talk about 2 topics. One of which is highly scientific, and may in fact be all that science becomes: Genetics. The other is the least understood subject in the world. Love. (By the way, the show Scrubs inspired this article.)

Love isn't easy. Actually, it's a bitch. Human beings, as a rule, a fickle little so-and-so's. So much so, that even if there was nothing explicitly wrong with you, your chances of getting some love back is negligible, if existant. (Keep using words like those, and you'll be alone for a while.)

Take my rugged self for example. I'm not fat, I dress pretty well, (not the same goddamn pair of shorts e'rry day.) and I'm not overtly wierd on the outside. But am I single? You bet your ass. (By the way, this is not a plea to any of our readers. As far as I know, you're all guys, and we all know my views on homosexuality.)

Anyway, my gripes on life aside, the genetics thing. Imagine for a second that, for example, your grandfather was a zitty dork. (Again, I have nothing against your grandfather. I'm sure he's a great person.) He doesn't marry your grandmother, because she doesn't tolerate the sight of him, and you're mom/dad gets a whole different half of chromosomes. That means YOU get different DNA. In kind of the same fluke that humans are the dominant species, it's a real fluke that you look the way you do. For some (me) we luck out, but for some, perhaps not. Think about it. Some of the "golden" DNA out there is being squandered because they don't get to pass on the genes 'cuz the get passed on via some dumbass athlete with no real value to society.

Ahem. Thank you for listening to some fool's thoughts on love and science. I'm getting my narcissistic ass out of here. Be careful with those DNA's. You could be screwing some future Cassinova. No pressure though.

Don't take this the wrong way.

Human beings are inherently stupid. Don't take take this the wrong way.

Say you put a newborn baby, and left it in a wolf den next to a wolf-mom and her new born cubs. In 18 years of so, if the baby makes it, it will be fully grown. By this time it will think it is a wolf. It will not be, in our view of the term, human. It will be homo sapiens, but try shaking its hand and it will probably bite you.

Nurture 1, Nature 0.

Everything you know; etiquette, fire is hot, how to say ahhh, stars are faraway suns, your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), food goes in your mouth, etc; is NOT instinct.

This knowledge has slowly accumulated as humans have grown up through the ages. Without society to teach and remind us of these common facts, we would revert to a near-animal form.

People will believe anything if that is all there is to believe. Isolate a large group of people for enough generations, let knowledge of the outside world slowly fade and contrary to what you may hope, society's norms will not survive.

Don't believe me? Take the time where a married couple locked their kid in their house and made it so he couldn't see out through the windows. How did they stop him from just opening the door and walking out? They told him he was on a space ship in the vacuum of space. Not strange enough? Oh yah, they only talked to him in Klingon, the Vogon language from Star Trek. When the kid eventually got out (I think he was a teenager), he could only speak Klingon and had no clue what a date was (the word doesn't exist in Klingon). [1] [2]

You think we have inbuilt morals?
You think we have instincts?

Think again.

Box Cutters

What is Al Qaeda? A dangerous cult, well financed by oil and the spoils of war? Packing serious firepower in the form of ICBM's, nuclear warheads, and chemical bioterror agents? Does their inspired leader recruit new members everyday to add to the growing throng?

NO!

NO!

NO!!!

Please do not credit them with anything NEAR that. They are nothing more than a ragtag "group." They have few secret meetings, fewer new recruits, and a ZERO PERCENT chance of ever striking the US again in the likes of 9/11.

Always remember that their overall goal is to spread FEAR. Don't make it easy for them. Don't speculate their powers because they are few. Don't listen to the media hyped "terror alerts." Don't make the mistake of thinking that 9/11 was anything BUT a fluke. DON'T FEAR THEM.

Lets go over 9/11. 19 HIJACKERS, most of them younger than 30, entered several different planes armed with BOX CUTTERS. They then threatened the crew and passengers with said BOX CUTTERS and took control. The crew acted as they would to regular hijackers, not as they would act to SUICIDAL ONES. They went like sheep. Norad - Yes the thing that tracks santa on the internets - was occupied in a complex training exercise on Sept. 11th. As such, NO planes were SCRAMBLED to stop the hijackers from fulfilling their jihad-ish ends. The hijackers actually managed to HIT the TRADECENTERS, because I think the pilots would have no longer been flying the plane at that time. If you look closely to some of the video, you can see the plane swerving at the last second towards the building.

To sum it up:
19 HIJACKERS
BOX CUTTERS
SUICIDAL HIJACKERS
NO SCRAMBLED PLANES
HIT THE TARGET
They got darned lucky.
They were offered little-to-no resistance.
The only weapons they had were box cutters.
No one on the planes thought they were serious.
NORAD f***ed up.
And finally, some of them actually practiced long enough on Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Next thing you know the president blows his speechwriter's head off with THE WAR ON TERROR (deep voice) and goes on to invade several oily countries. More on that SMART MOVE later.

-torwch (blows a vein in his forehead)

The Art of Killing Nicely

When was the last time we had a war? A real war. You might think: "2001/2003 retard. Where have you been?"

But that's not a real war. After the U.S. Marines handed over control to the Iraqi forces, (which they did. Hell yeah! Mission Accomplished!) I assume that the next course of action is to pack up and leave Iraq. That's not how real war goes. If it was a real war, Pres. Obama would absorb Iraq as the 51st state. Then we would all love him for bringing peace to Iraq. But I am getting ahead of myself. Sorry Obama. Praise be with you.

Even World War 2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War ended in all parties pretty well ending up where they started. (I.E. France gets all her stuff back from Germany, and Germany loses all of its Czech and Polish territory.)

Think of the Roman style of war. They would march into an enemy's territory, fight a pitched battle on some dude's field, and then proceed to either seige the city into submission, or just have the city handed to them. After one side loses, they don't exist anymore. Think of Medieval warfare. You usually try to capture as many of the other side's knights and nobility as possible, then you ransom them back and impoverish the state that you then march on.

But enough of that nonsense. The point I'm trying to make here is: are we better off with our "civilized" warfare? Is absorbing nations really a good thing? Think of the conquests of Mohammad in 7th century Arabia. Quoting Dan Carlin here, these conquests brought a "flood" of solid DNA to the region. No one argues that this was a bad thing. If Mohammad had taken the area and said "ok. This is mine. As you were." Could you imagine the genetics of the region today? But on the flip side, the Conquistadors of the 15th century screwed up the Mayan and Aztec cultures pretty good when they took over. So which side do you pick? Have at it in the comments section, gents. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a beautiful beach just down the street calling to me. I love summer. Adios, muchachos.

Une Grande Quebec

For the last two weeks, me and my family have been driving through Quebec and the french-er parts of Ontario. For those who don't live in the best country in the world, Quebec and Ontario are the two largest provinces in Canada, the equivalent of the "states" in the US of A. Les francophones dans cet region represent the largest group of french speakers outside France. They even have their own version of the french language. The people I met told me it is very different from the original. These are some of the other things I learnt in and around les regions de français:

• In Quebec, it is legal to drive into an intersection and do a u-turn, going out in the opposite direction on the street you came in on.
• Close to 99% of those who spoke french as their first tongue could also speak english, even the kids... Not many of us could claim the reverse.
• Most of them can immediately tell if you are an anglophone (english as a 1st language). You walk up to a shopkeeper, greet them and tell them what you want to buy - all in perfectly pronounced french - and they will smile knowingly and say en anglais: "would you like a bag for that?" You CANNOT fool them, and goodness knows my mom tried.
• For some reason my french teacher thought it wise to teach us the type of french spoken in France, not the french spoken in our own damn country. Logic FAIL? This means a lot of my pronunciations and tenses are wrong. :/ ...
• When they celebrate Canada Day, they CELEBRATE it. I mean 2 hundred thousand people on the streets of Ottawa all dressed in red and white. That night, a concert that went to 11:00 pm and a fireworks show that lasted for what seemed like thirty minutes and had shells punching half-mile-wide light orbs in the air. That pretty much made my trip.
• Just like BC and Manitoba, Quebec is 100% hydroelectric.
• On les Îles de la Madeleine, a chain of beachy islands north of PEI that belong to Quebec, the sand is so fine, it SQUEAKS WHEN YOU WALK ON IT! It sorta sounds like air being let out of a balloon.
• Not all people who live in Quebec are raging separatists, the ones I talked to about it actually joked about DouCette never stepping down as leader of the Bloc de Quebecois. They are down-right friendlier that your average west-coaster.

This was your writer at large, torwch, about to dig into a delicious dinner of clams. Bon soir mes amis!

Overstepping Authority

What with Torwch being back, and our number of those who comment on the site now up 33%, I figured that this was a good time to unviel the little doodad on the right. After seeing a similar function on another blog, Fanatic Avacodos (Google it). I thought of how I could use it for my idea without sounding like a plagarist. (Lord knows y'all have enough of that). But, I failed. Sorry.

Here at Instant Martians, we are (I think) trying to extent human knowledge and intellectual, err.. stuff. So, using a techno-geeks best friend, the interwebbies, you can recommend to the rest of the world: great works of literature, interesting scientific breakthroughs, or pretty well anything that challenges the ol' noodle. Have at it, gents. (Or ladies, but I really doubt that.)

Fire?

Today we only see fire in the occasional campfire, inside our barbeque, or on our gas range. On the news we may see a rocket launch or the ruined walls of a building where some fire got out of control. These obvious forms of fire boast red-orange to white-blue flame. They billow with smoke and make the air shimmer through rising heat. These signs of fire are easy to see, they stand out and they are the achievements that we credit fire for: Heat in our shelters, warming food to kill bacteria and make it easier to digest, moving us around the world by propelling our planes and jets, and finally the ability to destroy.
Ah yes, to destroy. It seems all weapons can be boiled down to pointy sticks and fiery sticks. Ha! To think we have come so far when so little has been accomplished.
But I ramble.
Fire fulfills two important niches in our lives. This niches are as important now as they were to the first cave-ape-thing that burnt itself. Fire separates us from the rest of life on earth AND it lets us shape metal. All that other stuff about it giving us heat or light is minor. Fire keeps the dark ghosts out of our cave at night, and lets us make tools during the day. QED.
In closing, take a piece of cake, there is plenty for everyone. Now get out there and shout at me that I'm wrong.

-torwch

Death of Decency

Finally a proper post.

A friend of mine was telling me about an Iranian custom. It goes like this: if someone you know comes over to your table (this is at a restaurant or something), everybody at your table stands up and gives them a handshake or hug. First off: good on the Iranians for being so polite. And second why isn't that just what you do?

Let's use another example: say you are on a bus and you have the last seat. How many of us would give up the seat for someone else? As Calvin once said: "People are scum". Why? What happened?

In Medieval Europe, the knight class had chivalry. This was (for all you who failed Grd. 8 SS) basically a code that made them good to others. They were kind to the poor and protected the weak. Now we rip on someone mercilessly for owning the wrong game console. (Or right console in this case. Xbox ftw!) In 19th century england, the gentlemen would hold open doors for others and give up their spot on the proverbial bus.

What happened was the hippies. Yes. I mean it. Wait for the explaination, 'kay?

The hippies wanted more freedom. which is ok, unless you live in the most free place in the history of mankind. But eventually, they got everything they wanted. (I'm quoting someone for this next bit, I just can't remember who and where.) But then they wanted freedom from responsibility. They didn't want to have to do anything. And they got it. So now instead of working, we have welfare. Instead of free speech, we have the Human Rights Commission.

Skip forward to the present. Why would you be nice when you don't have to? You can look out for Number 1 all the time and it works out for you. In England (Medieval and 19th century) you didn't follow the rules, you weren't really upper class, and we all know how sick it was to be up there. Now if you don't follow the rules, you're a hero. General laziness has killed society.

So, it's up to you. do you carry the tor(w)ch of douchebaggery into the next generation? Or do you throw it in a puddle and go and be a better person. Comments welcome. Commies aren't.

Did I Not Call This One?

Sorry about only getting 2 posts out in about 9 days. Here's a factoid to keep you satisfied.

-Since "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006, the Earth has cooled about 0.75 degrees F. Okay, so that brings up to logical explainations.

1. Global Warming is a fraud, and the Earth is cooling as part of its normal cycle.

2. Global Warming is real, and we did our part to stop it.

Factoid Number 2. Pretty well every single signee of the Kyoto Protocol failed to meet their targets. Whaddaya think?

Curse You, General Wolfe!

As a general rule, I find, people don't like history classes (or social studies if you live in Canada). But why? I, and many others I know, love history (I think). But none of us are advocates for mandatory History 12. So, where's the discretion?

Short Answer? Social Studies, as a class, is about as dull as watching paint dry on growing grass. Think of it year by year.

K-6: Probably the worst of the lot. Who could like this subject when all you do is talk about Natives and pioneers for 7 damn years? There's only so many times you can read "Little House on the Prairie" before you want to gouge out your eyes with a bendy, plastic ruler. This is why people hate history, I think. It's been dull for the last 7 years, so why the hell will it be better now?

Grade 7: I remember this pretty well, and I can personally say that this was prolly the best time I ever had, or will have, in school. (Red King? Torwch?) You start to learn about the really interesting stuff. Early man, the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans. It was all there. This is the history that the everyman would love. (albiet, I remember I had to ask before I was allowed to write about the Greco-Persian wars. Damn political correctness.) And there's not a drop of "degraded natives" anywhere.

Grade 8: Carries on with the awesomeness. Medieval Europe, Feudal Japan, (Renaissance, shudder...) all sorts o' stuff. My teacher even got us to do a little Medieval get together. It was a poster here, a model castle there, and a whole evening of eating chicken wings and chile. (Hate to be the clean-up crew, mirite?) It was interesting stuff. Beheadings, crusades, knights. (Dragons all over the place!) It's all good.

9-12 Flush..... It all heads downhill again. Honestly, who gives a crap about the founding of Canada? Canada is dull and so is the fur trade, and the natives, and the War of 1812, I could go on. So, we leave the interesting and beeline for the filth. and, even with the fur trade, it's less of the trading and more of how the natives were short-changed and the women were abused. None of the voyageurs, no sir.And looking at he course outline booklet, it don't get any better. Cheer up lads. There's always Comparative Civilizations 12.

So, what do you think? Do you find natives and furs interesting/ Think every year should be grade 7? leave a comment. You don't have to take my word for it. (Not that you would anyway.)