I've heard about the Terry Schiavo case, and am pretty disappointed with what I see. Apparently some 70% of the US are in favour of letting her die from dehydration. Some norwegian journalists mentioning the case (probably eager to align themselves with the usually more sympathetic american left) have called her "brain dead", but she's not brain dead (which is a medical term), she's just very severely mentally handicapped.
In Norway, she would have lived: doctors take the final decisions about continuing treatment, not relatives (although they have a say), and certainly not judges. In either case, nourishment is care, not treatment, so I don't think you can even refuse that if you're conscious. Even to those that support euthanasia, I suspect suicide by dehydration would be a bit on the macabre side. Sure, if she's essentially dead already, she doesn't feel it, I suppose, it's just that "essentialy dead" is clearly defined in most legislatures to be brain death.
We live in a state that takes good care of the handicapped, even those who can't speak, be useful, think or even respond very much. Isn't that as it should be? The state should have no religion, and thus don't assume anything like an afterlife. Considering that there may very well be no afterlife, shouldn't it prize every moment of its citizens as infinitely valuable, even if it is in a somewhat reduced state? I think Christians and atheists both should reflect on this. The best arguments for the value of life are often entirely faith-agnostic.
It's not so long ago since Terje died. He was an aquaintance of my father. I got along with his son, and I went to a fishing trip with them on one occasion. Now Terje was in a car accident, and was severely brain-damaged for the last years of his life. About fifteen years I think. He had almost only reflexive behaviour left, but isn't a little life better than no life at all?
Schiavo's husband claims that she wouldn't have wanted to live like that. That's the easy way out. The govermnent could also have argued like that, and refused the expensive care given to Terje. I don't see it as all that much of a difference whether a husband decides or the goverment. It would probably be all the same for Terje (or Terri).
The argument "they wouldn't want to live like that" also loses credence from that those severely handicapped groups that _can_ communicate, disagree.
Tim Lambert over at Deltoid did something pretty radical when he was banned from commenting on Tim Blair's posts regarding the Lancet study. Now, I freely admit, I don't cruise the net looking for people I disagree with. Of course, I can tolerate some disagreement, if people are polite and generally sympathetic. But not people who disgust me. It's just too depressing.*
One of the reasons I read Tim Lambert's blog, is that he doesn't seem to suffer from this. He seems always ready to engange people debate, in a calm and polite manner, but it seems that doesn't help. They just think he's offensive, and out to steal their mindshare. (He may be, of course, aren't all debaters? He seems to target the big conservative blogs such as instapundit and Tim Blair, but usually only when they talk about his favourite topics, like DDT/malaria or the Lancet study.)
Well, I've seen it a couple of times in textual communication, that what one person writes in one tone of voice, may be heard in quite another by the intended audience. Haven't we all? So I decided to register and write a post on his blog. I'd like to see if they are polite. This is what I wrote. I'm linking to it, but if they remove it, I'll drop the link. Although I have a blog ecosystem rating of zero, it's an important principle.
(I notice that Blair uses redirects when he links to Lambert, in order to not inflate his score. Lambert doesn't, but in fairness he doesn't have the same traffic)
"Hi, Tim. I followed a link from Tim Lambert’s site, to see things from your site.
I’m not a troll, I really am not, I just think that what Lambert writes on the Lancet study seems pretty solid.
...
(I wonder if the admins will delete this comment. Not that I mind, I’ve given my consent for my message to be edited or deleted for any reason)
...
Also, I’ve read Lambert’s account of going ons at this message board, and I can (sort of) understand why he would set up a public forum to discuss your posts, if what he writes is indeed true. And since the moderator called Andrea does indeed compare some posts to urine right above me in this thread, I wonder, why the vitriol? Can you give me some links to show your side of the story as to his banning?
Yours truly, Vintermann. "
* Apropos, another talented liberal blogger who apparently does read depressing posts in order to debate them is Daniel Davies of Crooked Timber. Unfortunately, he does get depressed. I don't blame him.
I have recently read "Idealister" by the danish author Hans Scherfig, at my wife's suggestion.
It's set in Denmark in the years before the second world war, and it's a brilliant satire on the politics, religions and ideologies of the time. The story centers around the owner of a printing press, Damaskus, who prints tracts, pamphlets and programs for a diverse crowd of more or less insane idealists. He rarely gets any pay, because he's very much an idealist himself (vegan, and believer in the health benefits of walking barefoot), and isn't very attentive to money. He and his surroundings are loosely linked to events in Scherfig's favourite little town, Frydenholm. There the old communist Rasmus has become a house owner and careful union leader, the new pastor starts up a youth group with clear parallels to hitlerjugend.
All groups, political, religious and generally idealistical, are portrayed sceptically. The communists betray their ideals, the conservatives become authoritarians, the church becomes national (for that reason alone every Dane should reread this book!) - but most of all, the pseudoscientists are criticized. There are two "wizards", the occultist Kados, who is an old fashioned gnostic, and Dr. Robert Riege, the sexual cosmologist. Riege has applied the dogmas of psychoanalysis to everything, concluding that "everything is suffused with sexuality, which one can also call energy or electricity or primal force". Their respective meetings with established science are hilarious. "Are we really in 1939?" asks one scientist after Kados has explained his Paracelsus-inspired attempts to create a salamander.
And that's what I ask myself too, but from a different angle: was it really that bad already then? Of course, they are caricatures, but the fact that Scherfig can portray them so pointedly shows that there has been something to take from. And how little the essence has changed from sexual-cosmologists to scientologists is interesting.
Scherfig links the diverse ideologies to nazism, which is constantly buzzing in the radios of the novel. The pseudoscientist supply grandiose anti-intellectualism, the consevatives and priests supply authoritarianism and discipline. What do the vegans and esperantists supply to the mixture? I don't know. Perhaps a cheerful resolve to ignore the realities of the world? Damaskus, who must be considered a representative of these innocent ideologies, has employed an ex-inmate called Jensen in his business. Although Jensen steals, Damaskus cannot mention the shrinking supply of lead types without hearing a long and pained speech from Jensen about the paranoid distrust and hostility a man recieves, even though he has paid his debt to society. Perhaps Scherfig believes naïveté is also a vital ingredient to totalitarianism, but I can't really see what's so bad about vegetarianism or esperanto.
Also, the communists are let off the hook to lightly. Perhaps not surprising, since Scherfig was a life-long member of the danish communist party, but disappointing none the less. Some of the excesses of Dr.Riege and his sexual-cosmologists could equally well be attributed to the communist variety of feminism, but that doesn't happen, of course, and there's no indication of crossover between crazy freudians and communists - on the contrary, it is the wife of the wealthy landowner Skjern-Svendsen who gets involved. Scherfig apparently believes this to be a bourgeouis phenomenon. He links anti-intellectualism to nazism, fair enough, but what about communism and pseudo-intellectualism?
I recommend the book, though. But it reminded me of Jens Bjørneboes "Under en hårdere himmel", which perhaps is a better book in many ways. Unfortunately, it seems that one is not translated. I found a presentation of it on Esther Murer's Bjørneboe site, but I can't say I agree with the conclusions (I think those two early books were his best. I suppose form matters less to me than to the reviewer)
Not long ago professor Dan Olweus of the university in Bergen was in the media about his latest article, on violence levels in kids participating in power sports (weights lifting etc) and fighting sports (boxing, tae kwon doe etc). It turned out that yes, kids who practice these sports have much higher levels of agressive, violent and antisocial behaviour than other kids at their age.
What was really interesting though, and scary, is that the researchers supposed there was an element of self-selection involved, with agressive kids being more attracted to agressive sports. However, when they started, the kids were no more agressive than average. Looks like all that talk about self-control and discipline may be just that - talk.
The boxing milieu in Norway have rejected the findings, of course. Just like Carl I. Hagen rejects alcohol research and climate science. And just like the Lancet study deniers that Tim Lambert catalogues.
However, all hope is not lost. While the boxing people reject the results, there are some hints of introspection at their site, and they (with Olweus' permission) have posted the whole research article, which according to Olweus is going to be published in a major medical journal in May.
Here's The article in scanned pdf format. In english. Enjoy.
We have been given our project assignment in graphics class. Haven't I written about graphics class? I'm taking a course (it's mandatory for computer engineering students, actually) called Grafisk databehandling, visualisering og simulering. Our teacher is Ove Bjørneseth, one of the people behind our school's excellent ship simulators.
The ship simulators are actually some of the things my school can be proud of, they are really world-class (too bad that's the only area where my school can be said to belong there). They are made with off-the-shelf hardware and software, and they are really impressive. Making these would make an interesting living, and since that is exactly what Ove Bjørneseth does, if anyone can teach us, it's him.
At present, things are pretty basic. We use a cheap but useful commercial game engine, 3d Game Studio. I would of course like something that would run on linux, but the only engine remotely comparable which runs linux is the nebula device, and even that would probably have an unnacceptably high learning curve for a one-year course :-( At least 3D Game Studio gives us a taste of scripting, modeling, bones animation etc. without a lot of hassle.
Now, our project. We are to make a game (with 3D game studio, and optionally other tools) which fulfills the following criteria:
* based on a story
* puzzles (at least 6)
* at least 2 levels
* water
* fog
* bones animations
* torches/fires
* doors
* physics(!)
I can't think of one puzzle based game that has all of these things. This will be a weird game.
But I have an idea that will give me some flexibility and at the same time could make a tolerably good game. I'm going to steal the general idea from an old amiga game, "Weird Dreams" by rainbird. (Remember that one, paranoidkoala?)
The main character has been in some sort of accident, and as the game begins he is lying on an operating table. Now he starts to dream. If the dream turns into a nightmare, his EEG goes flat... but it will start again three times, presumably from some intervention from the surgeons.
The nice thing with a story like that is that we can fit in almost anything we like. If we are good, we can make it quite surrealistic and creepy, like the original game. Hopefully it won't be as hopelessly hard and frustrating, though.
Now I need someone to work with. I'm bad at levels, models, bones, just about anything except coding. Then again, so are most of my classmates, and those of them who have artistic talents will find lots of prospective partners.
My friends know that I'm an active opponent of alcohol and drug culture. I am a member of DNT and Juvente, and would probably have been a member of Forbund mot rusgift if I hadn't been working in the library the day they visited :-) Now all of those sites have loads of links to alcohol-related resources on the net, but half of them are useless, and the other half is dead.
However, spurred on by a discussion in a weblog comment section, I searched out the website of everyone's favourite chief medical officer of the blue cross: Hans Olav Fekjær (warning: the good doctor likes cheesy midi music). To my delight, he has translated and published one of his books on the net, The psychology of getting "high". It's a really good book, where he makes a strong case for his position: that alcohol and drug (ab)use are mainly social phenomenons.
Highly recommended. The translation is OK, although his spell checker has played a trick on him in some places.