?

Log in

No account? Create an account
[links] Link salad wonders about ornithopters - Lakeshore — LiveJournal
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2011-02-01 05:25
Subject: [links] Link salad wonders about ornithopters
Security: Public
Tags:books, cool, egypt, fiction, links, personal, photos, politics, polls, process, religion, steampunk, stories
My flash piece "In the Green Jungles of Envy" is live at 10Flash Quarterly — Go check it out.

The Thackery T. Lambshead Cabinet of Curiosities — A curious book, in which I have a curious piece of fiction, along with many literary and artistic luminaries.

Best Fantasy Magazine Story of 2010 — A poll, in which calendula_witch and I have a story for consideration.

From Stars to Steam — In which I am one of several guest bloggers at Borders Babel Clash, along with Tim Akers, Felix Gilman and Mark Hodder.

Hazards of early successcathshaffer on the perils of breaking out as an author.

Photos of Japanese aircraft captured at the end of WW II — These are fascinating. (Via x planes.)

The Mysterious "Anonymous" Behind Egypt's RevoltWho is El Shaheed, the person who has taken a dead man’s name to call for change?

Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society — Hmm. Statements like this always make me very suspicious. For one thing, if this were true, why hasn't the effect already been overwhelming? Religion isn't exactly a modern phenomenon.

Bill O’Reilly: tidal bore — Phil Plait discusses willful ignorance. I seriously and strongly feel that everyone has the right to believe what they want, and to find comfort in it if they need it. But you can’t let that belief narrow your view of the Universe to where it’s simply easier to avoid what you don’t understand. This is precisely the sort of pathetically flawed thinking that American society's practice of allowing conservatives to sabotage education leads to.

?otD: Are flying wings a canard?



2/1/2011
Writing time yesterday: 1.5 hours (2,500 new words on Sunspin book one, minor WRPA.)
Body movement: 30 minutes on stationary bike
Hours slept: 6.0 hours (interrupted)
Weight: 252.0
Currently reading: One of Our Thursdays Is Missing by Jasper Fforde

Post A Comment | 7 Comments | | Link






daveraines
User: daveraines
Date: 2011-02-01 15:57 (UTC)
Subject: Model predicts religiosity gene will dominate
I read your headline and wondered who the model was - Cheryl Tiegs, perhaps, or some other aging model who was beginning to contemplate mortality.

The 'religiosity gene,' if it exists, predisposes for conservatism and ritual. I see it expressed in many ways besides churchgoing: for instance, our number-one national holiday is Super Bowl Sunday. (Or maybe number two.) Let's see... we worship guns and war; we vote; we, um, we blog every day without fail...
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake: signs-commit_no-nuisance
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-02-01 15:58 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Model predicts religiosity gene will dominate
Keyword:signs-commit_no-nuisance
What, me, ritualistic?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Richard Parks
User: ogre_san
Date: 2011-02-01 16:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The rear engine prop plane was a Shinden, designed to be fitted with a turbojet engine as soon as they were available. Fortunately the war ended before the plane could be put in production. Only two were made, but it's a cool looking thing.

Reply | Thread | Link



ericjamesstone
User: ericjamesstone
Date: 2011-02-01 19:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
> For one thing, if this were true, why hasn't the effect
> already been overwhelming? Religion isn't exactly a modern
> phenomenon.

One possible explanation would be that up until the birth control era, men and women who were not predisposed toward religiosity still had a lot of offspring, due to engaging in offspring-producing behavior.

Another would be that up until concerns about overpopulation caused people to start limiting the number of children they had based on ideology, non-religious people may not have had any additional reason to limit the number of their offspring as compared to religious people. So while concerns about the expense of having children, etc., might affect religious and non-religious alike, concerns about limiting human impact on the environment might reduce the reproductive rate of the non-religious more than the religious.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-02-01 21:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Huh. Wow do I want to respond to this in detail because a) you're being very interesting and b) we're not actually disagreeing for a change.

Mind if I promote your comment to a blog post and respond to it, sometime in the next few days?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



ericjamesstone
User: ericjamesstone
Date: 2011-02-01 22:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Go ahead.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the model's predictions, although I think they are at least plausible. Also, although I suspect my explanations might have some validity, it's quite possible that actual research could disprove them.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-02-01 22:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Oh, understood. I took you as proposing an interpretation, not presenting either a firm opinion or a stated fact.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances