Piggy Panic?

What amuses me (in a possibly slightly twisted sort of way) is the way in which many people believe that the word ‘pandemic’ is synonymous with ‘apocalypse’. A pandemic is simply a rapid outbreak on a large geographical scale... and no, not necessarily impending doom or ‘Judgement Day’. As I recall it was not long ago since our last apocalypse. My experience of the fear around Swine Flu was best noted in China... as a white guy who let out a cough... I found it strangely amusing to see the face masks pulled up all around me as I was eyed with the air of suspicion.

What feeds this fear to the anxious famished masses waiting for their next meal of apprehension is the representation in the media. It might seem like I have a number of issues with the media as a system, which would not be a complete fallacy!

And now for the science part!

Let me try to explain something about influenza. This is a highly mutative virion, altering its protein surface relatively rapidly. This is why each year there is a new vaccine which is able to target the most prevalent strain as well as some previous stains.

Influenza’s mutations are a part of its cycle. As an RNA virus it, after binding, injects its RNA into the host cell nucleus as well as RNA transcriptase allowing it to ‘splice’ into the cell and replicate using the cell’s own mechanisms. However due to the fact that there are no enzymes present to proof read this, a number of the new virions produced that are genetically different to the ‘parent’ virion.

This mutative nature is often the cause of cross-species transmission and hence why a strain only apparent in pigs for example (a variant of Influenza A), may bridge the gap to humans.

So there you have a brief biological explanation of what flu is and why this year's flavour is that of pigs. In regards to this year’s impeding cataclysm what seemed to be of main concern to the medical professionals was the fact that this strain H1N1, is that of the same subtype of influenza as that of Spanish Flu – the influenza pandemic with the highest mortality rate recorded. This of course was rightly treated with caution. Nonetheless this particular strain seems different, rapid spread but relatively small mortality rate – especially when compared to annual mortality rates from ‘regular’ or ‘seasonal’ influenza.

Not (unsurprisingly) the image portrayed in the media.

A lesson we can learn from the media is that to ‘SELL! SELL! SELL!’ you should include words or phrases such as ‘QUARANTINE’, [insert huge number of ‘suspected’ cases], ‘FLU TOLL SOARS’, ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ and of course my favourite, ‘PANIC’.  Furthermore, with the recent news that a resistant strain of Swine Flu has been noticed, our headlines will probably soon be filled with our impending doom once again.

Swine flu, like other strains of influenza should of course not be ignored. They are serious illnesses of which we have admittedly limited knowledge due to the fact that various strains and subtypes affect our bodies differently (though symptoms tend to remain fairly similar).

There are aspects of this that ring with the sound of ‘the boy who cried wolf’ – shouting to the top of our lungs that a new pandemic is in town so lock your doors... while by doing so and seeing that it is not necessarily as dramatic as first seemed, lessens our trust in the media coverage of medical issues. So what happens when the foretold biological day of reckoning hits?

A compelling argument in favour of the media is that it is reporting a risk... and the issue with risk is that the outcome is unknown as expressed in an interview.

The sensationalisation of Swine Flu can easily be seen as unnecessary. The aim to bring awareness to a new unknown is not. The difference is in the representation.

Though has the media hype been good or bad? Like John Doe said, “[w]anting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention” (not to be taken literally of course). It has been argued that people are generally incapable of dealing with risk and therefore spoon feeding them fear is a way to accommodate for this and as a result act as a preventative measure in dealing with (in this case Swine Flu) potential risks.

The problem with the media that the Swine Flu story has exposed for me is that in using the media sledgehammer once again what will be the next step to take in order to get people to listen?

An evolution in 'art'?

I have a personal interest in the world of 'art'. I use inverted commas here as the definition of art will vary from person to person. Having browsed through various galleries across the globe one thing that became increasingly apparent was the number of 'modern' pieces which I questioned how they could be classified as art. Now obviously this is very subjective as is the nature of art... to create an impression upon the viewer which will vary between each person individually. The piece that made me question "what is art?" more than any was the famous piece by Duchamp called the Fountain.

This is a urinal.

That is it.

Placed at 90°.

At first this piece irritated me greatly... how can this possibly be a work of art, one which won the Turner prize no less? Is Duchamp ‘taking the piss’ out of the art world in a poetic manner – attacking and ridiculing the pompous critics? What constitutes as ‘art’ seems to be ‘originality’ rather than ‘merit’ or ‘commitment’. I believe that this may well be true in part but may disregard another potential point of the Fountain – deliberately challenging the concept of art and in doing so can itself be seen as a visual expression. I perceive it to be a deliberately provocative piece and a statement though not a piece to marvel at the technique, passion and devotion to its creation. I suppose this is in a similar way to any famous quote – statement to be considered in context to the subject but not necessarily a meriting piece of art on its own. This got me thinking how art has evolved.

Art has always been a means of communication whether you look at the cave drawings of prehistoric times as story telling vehicles – to pieces like the Fountain as a contradictory statement of the state of the ‘art world’.  In between you have the religious pieces to express the notion of God’s might, or the self portraits of powerful figures to express their wealth. This is obviously just looking at European art history... across the world art differs significantly but always remain a means of communication.

So why the change from images of beauty, or from pieces of incomprehensible skill... to a toilet? Aside from the changing times and therefore what people want to express through various mediums, I believe that technology has had a strong impact. While you might not get passionate brush strokes in a photograph you can still capture the emotion of the moment for example. Is this why many ‘artists’ have changed their tools? Perhaps this is in part why a portrait now is far more likely to be a photograph than a painting. With a wider breadth of mediums artists can use I believe art has evolved – no longer is it about ‘painting an image’ but instead ‘creating an image’. Surrealism embodies this perfectly. It is not so much now about the image but maybe of the emotion or to create works to make viewers interpret a piece on an individual level... to question the meaning.

As much as I enjoy classical works, their meaning and purpose seems clearer and more universal than contemporary art. European art used to be commission for a reason or a purpose... now it is created for the artist.

Perhaps gone is the era of classically beautifully crafted works, but possibly has progressed into something that can touch people at a personal level, or to make a personal statement from the artist (or simply that they created something for purely aesthetic reasons).

Art is still a means of communication, but instead of communicating to the masses, perhaps now it is a means of communicating with the individual... a message from the artist to each viewer.

Today is brought to you by the word... HYPOCRISY!

Today's complaint are the issues, as the title would suggest, of the hypocrisy of the media. It pains me to look at various articles which are either deeply self contradictory in terms of where they stand, or that swap from one side to the other of a debate as the weeks progress (depending of course on who is winning). What I have noticed is that hypocrisy appears to be more prevalent in moral matters - taking the moral high ground, often by pointing the finger at others, knocking them down to pull the accusers up. There are three news stories that I will point out despite the fact that there are many, many more.

Brass Eye. Many will have either seen it or heard of it. It was a satirical program designed specifically to point out the hypocrisy of the fickle media, but also to stir debate over serious issues (crime and drugs for example). Since its inception and various episodes aired... Morris, the creator of Brass Eye has not only pointed out the two-faced nature of the media in many respects, but also of those willing to jump on the 'bandwagon' in order to up their profile. Examples of this were shown when celebrities such as Noel Edmunds, Rolf Harris and Sir Bernard Ingham spoke of a made up drug called 'cake' and its effects on 'Shatner's Bassoon' (supposedly the part of the brain which deals with the perception of time!).

In 2001 the series was repeated with an addition regarding paedophilia. Here Brass Eye tried to tackle the hysteria surrounding another serious topic. Once again the hypocrisy of the celebrities was shown as they joined the bandwagon, appearing to take the moral high road but in actual fact showing themselves as fickle as they showed ignorance towards what they were supposedly standing up for - 'Dr.' Fox for example stating that paedophiles have genetically more in common with crabs than with people... and that it is scientific fact though "[t]here's no real evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact".
As rediculous as this clearly is, a number of celebrities or public figures partook in this episode of Brass Eye, talking about online 'HOECS' games (yes... hoax) trying to 'sincerely' inform (/terrify) the viewers into believing a number of preposterous  claims (penis shaped soundwaves for example). Again there is a serious issue of online activity but what was shown here is the sensationalisation of fear on the topic. The aim of the program went beyond humiliating two-faced celebrities but was trying to bring to the spotlight the way in which the media sensationalise topics such as paedophilia. This particular episode was aired possibly in part as a response to the News of The World's name and shame campaign which culminated in a paediatrician having 'PAEDO' painted on her wall.

Now even though Brass Eye itself is pointing out the falsehood or flexibility of the media's 'morality', the reaction from various media outlets and a proportion of the population who in a frenzy, 'cried out in protest' sadly epitomised the hypocrisy that Brass Eye was depicting. There are a number of the examples of national newspapers which are guilty of this such as the Daily Star and Daily Mail (which I call 'newspapers', quite loosely!). The Daily Star calling the show a 'perv spoof' and a 'sick show' whilst alongside showing a picture of Charlotte Church aged 15 saying that she is a "big girl now" referring to her "chest swell". As for the Daily Mail which 'sincerely' showed concern calling it "Unspeakably sick" - "the words of [Beverley Hughes] who hadn't watched it". The article here "was preceded by close-ups of Princesses Beatrice (13) and Eugenie (11) in their bikinis". These double standards are precisely one of the key points the program was making.

I am not just going to try to defend a satire, but with the series, the subsequent reactions embody exactly the hysteria, hypocrisy and fickleness of the media that the program was arguing.

My next example which may be seen as controversial is the story of Madeleine Mccann. Aside from the obvious tragedy of the story what I am once again trying to bring to attention is the two faced portrayal in the media and also of the public reaction. Firstly here, the media (again!). One minute the media takes the role of the grieving relative, and the following, pointing the finger at the parents. During the investigation there were questions raised (which is part of an investigation to look at all possible scenarios), though once the media got wind of this, like piranhas swarming around a bleeding and injured goat (I do know that goats are not usually in piranha supporting ecosystems but just using an analogy of a scapegoat!), they attacked in frenzy. Once the parents were out of the suspect spotlight the media returned to the relative's role of supporting a broken family. Obviously shock stories and insinuations like this sell much better. It is however a sad state that the news media must resort to this to turn profit - though this is the nature of the beast.

So there we have a brief look at the fickle media switching sides (and as a result the public) simply to turn profit. The thing that also grated me was the way in which the public (when sympathetic of course and not sharpening pitchforks) climbed the moral high horse by 'devoting' their time on campaigns to bring her back. Now I do not for one second think that it is a bad thing to bring attention to tragedies like this and try to help, far from it, but what of all the other kidnappings that occur? In 2007, the year of Madeleine's disappearance,  the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) released that 203,000 children are kidnapped each year by family members, 58,200 by non family members and 115 children kidnapped in a stereotypical sense (ransom demands and the such).

My question is where is the outcry and painstaking public campaigning to help these? This would be unfeasible in terms of time and resources should the public give the same apparent effort that they did for Madeleine. Let me reiterate that doing what you can to help is not the issue... but it is the moral high ground people take when joining, for example, a Facebook group stating that they are helping in that sense whilst doing very little. So yes, if you can, help in these cases... but by picking out the cute blonde little girl in the headlines and feeling morally superior for doing so shows utter fallacy. That said... if anyone in these groups is actually making an effort to help then fair enough... but just joining the groups or wearing a badge does not mean that this is helping and just shows an attempt at self-affirmation, self-indulgence and thereby depicting hypocrisy.

Finally the example of Jade Goody... one moment the newspaper favourite for a humorous look at someone's lack of knowledge (bringing her somehow to 'celebrity status')... the next she is Hitler reborn... and then the poor misunderstood soul who is dying. I do not mean to sound callous and in honesty did not follow her story closely... her racist remarks and so on flew by me as I have little interest in the 'celebrity' stories. What was easy to discern was the changing tack of the media, showing it once again to be fickle.

These are only three case examples but there are an innumerable others - another that comes to mind is the representation of Michael Jackson (musical genius... to "Whacko Jacko" and suspected paedophile, but now that he has died... mouring the loss of one of music's prodigies). It is of little surprise that people are becoming increasingly distrustful of the news media even if only in part due to the changing attitudes on subjects from one moment to the next showing outlets as capricious and hypocritical, often taking the 'high road' based on ignorance or in order to appear morally superior.

But as these stories sell so well (and that they really do) is this not a reflection on society in general?

"Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain" - Machiavelli

Lucidism... the simplist solution is often right!

Right then, after the pretty long entry the last couple of times I am going to endeavour to keep this one shorter!

Religion... where to begin?!

I'm not going to talk about the benefits and damages that religion has created throughout history... because that would take a very, very, very... long time. Nor am I going to try to convince whoever stumbles across this to turn away or towards religion. Of course there are uses for religion but already I feel that I'm about to go completely off on a tangent so will stop this part right here!

I got really thinking about this when I was approached by a number of individuals whilst travelling who all tried to convert me to Christianity. It was whenever we got into a meaty conversation about religions and deities that I really realised quite how close minded it all is. This I've already thought in regards to my generally more liberal outlook but here I worked out what was really getting to me... It's not that I prefer some logic and to see the evidence myself (yes I have been told that everything around us is the evidence but that is a little broad for my tastes!), but that someone of deep religious faith is often blinded by it... not daring to look at alternatives. I don't dislike people because they are religious... what I do have a problem with is close-mindedness of what is taught... that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Now from what I've been told by those who have tried in vain to convert me is that the miracles created in the past are proof that their deity exists... though when I asked them what someone else of another religion would think they disregarded whatever they may say as wrong due to the simple fact that the 'converters' in question are right. Not only that but they had very basic knowledge of anything other than what they were spoon fed. With supposedly 4200 different religions in existence (though a number of them are variants of one another (such as the different forms of Christianity)... if each of them is 100% right and everyone else is wrong... it does get a little confusing!

This brings me onto my next point... if each religious group believes that it is right and others are wrong (which is near enough the case as it is) then chances are that none of them are right. If they all acknowledge that a single event in time as a miracle but each state that it is actualised by their own god or gods, and therefore no other supernatural forces may have done so then is it not more likely that (if you were to believe in a creator) that no one is right and each religion is just praying to the same deity in a manner in which was constructed by their history, society and culture?

This would therefore mean that there is absolutely no meaning to religious groups fighting (I am fully aware that this is only a small minority before you hunt me down!) each other if they are in actuality fighting in the name of the same god/gods/goddess/goddesses. It's just really counter productive.

I appear to be a target for attempted conversions... on a night shift I was also told that unless I believed  whatever these people did I was doomed for hell. Like I said, if people want to believe whatever they want I've got no problem (not that I have a say either!), but the way I see it... as many religions mark their deity as omniscient and merciful, then that god would understand where I'm coming from when I say this, or the opinions of other people.

Therefore I lay out the foundation of Lucidism... don't be obnoxious to other people, don't litter and you'll be alright, whoever - if anyone - is right! (simplistic and not overly profound - but easy enough to follow)


Told you it would be shorter!

A darker edge to our culture and society

Many who know me know that I am somewhat of a film enthusiast. The script, direction, imagery, message and the subsequent provocation of debate over their meaning (of course Arnie films don't necessarily require the same level of analysis but are still quite simply awesome!). I could go on to talk at length about films in general, whether they are 'well constructed', the effectiveness of their casting or whether effectively communicating their vision, but instead I want to focus on a more sociological aspect. A friend of mine (who in part is a source of inspiration for this blog) has finished his MA in regards to the social implications of science-fiction and the way in which they often depict the trend of concern for the era in which they were created through the use of 'awe' (the entity or the event which is awe-inspiring or as a focus point). This could be mutations (often created in a time of fear regarding nuclear power) or our fear of technology (cue the Terminator amongst others). Now while I am not going into any lengths in regards to this aspect specifically, what I am keen to identify is a reflection of society within films. Film as a medium is potentially one of the  most quietly suggestive forms of communication and therefore has a great impact on society. As a result if it contains a message regarding society it can be disseminated into the populous with great effectiveness.

Two films here that I am going to look at are Se7en, and Fight Club. Countless analyses have been carried out regarding these two for their controversial or horrific outlook which is in part why my attention has been drawn to this. Obviously this blog is going to take a more sombre tone...

Let's start with Se7en. One on David Fincher's arguably finest works (along with Fight Club!) which is, aside from a successfully horrific thriller, a disturbing yet (to an extent) accurate portrayal of the faults within society which we have become complacent to address. The film addresses the 'seven deadly sins' from Dante's poem (Divine Comedy) - Lust, Envy, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Gluttony and Wrath - and uses them to be the focus of a brutal serial killer. The distorted view of this world does however illustrate a number of prevalent social issues which have been submerged, incorporated and assimilated into our contemporary view of a moral society. Now I am not saying that I am 'pure of soul' and have never committed one of these seven sins... if we are honest I believe that we all are guilty. This is not an attempt to convert you to become a member of the clergy (more on religion next time!) but just to point out a certain degree of hypocrisy on our parts. In regards to our own hypocrisy, most of us can identify that the seven sins are not particularly great traits to have but yet feel apathetic towards change... which is one of the key themes I believe to be illustrated by the film. The two characters who illustrate very different views on how to tackle the issue of a morally diminishing society are Morgan Freeman's detective and Kevin Spacey's John Doe. Firstly the more level headed of the two, Detective Somerset who after spending years as a detective has decided to retire in part as a result of the decadence prevalent in the world he inhabits - "I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was a virtue."

After years trying to do his part to combat this but seeing that despite his efforts society is content to continue in such a manner, he feels there is nothing more he can do and to leave... disillusioned by his realisation. Since 1995 (the year Se7en was released) crime and murder rates have remained fairly steady across the world. Nonetheless where there has been change, it has tended to be an increase rather than a decrease in rates. In terms of murders a number of them seem to be increasingly unprovoked or sadistic. For example, by sadistic, or even evil, I refer to the case last year of the two murdered French students. This increasing trend for brutality could however admittedly also be seen as the media needing bigger stories to sell... your standard murder story gets less press now as it is no longer something completely out of the ordinary. In 'Western' society obesity has continued to increase. Average spending on consumable 'beauty products' as well as cosmetic surgery has also been on the rise and despite a recession climate 55% of people asked in a study stated that they would continue spending more on these products (and I doubt that they are doing this to kick start the economy and benefit society!). Is this as the film suggests, society's (in a global sense) indifference and acceptance of the 7 sins or 'evil' meaning that we remain in this limbo? The reason why I used the term 'evil' is mostly due to the second of the two characters - John Doe. This in my opinion is an equally disillusioned man when compared to the detective tracking him, someone who has become so distraught with the state of the crumbling society that he has 'snapped'. While as he expresses it is easier to think of him as "insane"... the fact is that he, like Somerset has become overwhelmed by the decay of society and holds similar views in a way in which they are able to relate to each other. This is further expressed by Doe when he states that "we see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it." which is a mirror of Somerset's own views.

The way in which we can look at John Doe is as unequivocally evil. The way in which he tortures his victims with the sins he has labelled them as committing certainly can be attributed to that. This would compliment the sub-theme of our capacity for evil within us. The fact that "he is just a man", nothing attention grabbing or noticeable about him, that he identifies himself as nothing special and guilty of one of his sins - even his name marks him as an unknown, ties again into that theme that evil does not have horns on its head... can not be pointed out, but is a darker side of ourselves. Now let me clarify that I am not martyring this character, nor commending him on his heinous atrocities though it is quite possible that he was a 'decent' individual at one point and became twisted by the moral bankrupcy of society.

In a sociological context when looking at the message or identifying socially acceptable traits which have a detrimental effect to the individual and to society - we as the viewer can identify with yet often feel unable to do anything about, feeling that "[a]pathy is the solution".

The second of the two films, 'Fight Club' (adapted from the same titled book) also talks of the faults inherent in Western society but focusing more so in terms of consumerism - "The things you own end up owning you". Like Se7en there are numerous sub-themes and needs to be taken at more than the face value of your average 'bloke film' - fighting, sex, psychosis, terrorism and foul language.

Like in Se7en it takes a similar slant in terms of the message that someone tries to fight back against what they see to be wrong with the world in a twisted manner.

The story (without detracting further from the aim of this blog) revolves around an unnamed character (similar again to John Doe's anonymity - suggesting a part of our subconscious) who has become so drained by his view of having a completely inconsequential life that he seeks a way out through extreme means. It is not only that he feels he has no purpose, but is also trapped by the world he has constructed around himself as a result of the way society expects you to live and as a result, has lost himself. The films explores numerous themes but I will focus on our need to consume and to fall into a certain image -"I flipped through catalogs and wondered: What kind of dining set defines me as a person?". Image of course for example has given rise to a growing celebrity culture - admiring and aspiring to be like people who are famous often for their faults (is this not slightly peverse in itself?).

In the image dependent society in which we live in and the monotony of the '9-5' (another aspect mentioned in Se7en) the film suggests that we are drones, complacent and compliant with little thinking for ourselves about looking for meaning, bound by the webs which we have created. To one extent this is very true, "[a]dvertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." though once again those who feel they need to kick back from the faults and bring this to our attention feel the only way to do this is through extreme ways - echoed by John Doe - "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention".

So what am I trying to say in regards to these dark and disturbing outlooks on our society and consumerist culture. Firstly that yes, there are a number of issues but what I think these highlight more so than any other is  the way in which we disregard our faults, turning a blind eye and in doing so letting them thrive.

Is there an answer to this? Probably, but definitely not coming from me! I don't mean to sound preachy which I have undoubtably done but surely just a little self respect and respect to others could address a large number of these issues fairly quickly. Perhaps a little naive in terms of the facilitation of this as when  the faults are in the foundations it takes time and work to address them - I mean of course the foundations on which our consumerist society is built as well as ourselves - apathy is not the solution.

And finally a lighter take on the situation!

Medical prophesy or medically detainable?

I am going to forego the elocution here and instead try to communicate to you one of those theories that crop up in your imagination when you let your mind wander...

Like many of you out there I have a keen fascination regarding medical developments and one thing in particular - the development of organ transplants. I suppose in part it is the way like machines, or for this example cars, if we get a damaged part - say a faulty head gasket, - we simply go out and get a replacement. Now I know that this is a gross oversimplification in regards to the medical field - it is not as though we can just head down to our local scrap dealer and pick up parts such as organs or limbs as needs be (yet!) but is this not a distinct possibility in regards to the future?

Before you call the authorities to get me carted away please let me explain myself!

Whilst some may think that this may be an eccentric rambling (which it may well be!), an early sign of psychosis, or a vision of someone living in his own little universe - I do believe that this is not as absurd as it may seem at first appearance.

If you were to tell someone 100 years ago that one day you might be able to transplant essential organs, grow organs, or even clone... chances are you would be greeted with at best a certain degree of skepticism if not total contempt! If we look at the medical development over the years there have been profound advances in the entire field ranging from drugs, therapies and of course transplants.

In 1529 a French surgeon "discovered the use of ligation in which a thread-like or wire material is used to tie off, or constrict blood vessels" (Amputation-History). In 1902 blood vessels were successfully tied together. While admittedly these are set apart by quite some time difference, since this point, developments in the medical field - specifically the surgical area - have come about incredibly rapidly almost to the point of exponentially. (Transplant Milestones) That, truth be told, may be a slight exaggeration I concede but nonetheless growth in development here has been undeniably rapid. Presently, 107 years later, advancing from amputation, it is possible to reattach severed limbs or appendages - even going as far as using parts of donors as transplant material such as hands. In 2006 the first double hand transplant was completed and since then more of these prcedures have successfully taken place.

Now this is not going to be a history lesson but rather I'm just laying out the foundations, mostly so you don't read this and think I have lost the plot (entirely). What I am trying here to show is that despite present limitations, these will no doubt be overcome in due time - a number of medical events seemingly inconceivable at one point in time have nonetheless come to fruition.

Aside from the history of transplants, more importantly (arguably) are the current developments which are paving the way to the future of medical practice. We currently have a growing list of possible transplants from deceased or living donors due in a large part to our understanding of the genome, blood as well as protein coatings (allowing to find matches that will be accepted by the recipient - which if not can on occasions be countered by a cocktail of anti-rejection - immunosuppressant - drugs).

As a quick note, a simple explanation of the importance of protein coating is that our immune system reacts specifically to the protein chains detected - hence how it identifies foreign organisms potentially including transplant material. 

Recently there has been speculation that following a number of tests, that a womb transplant may not be far into the future. Even considering that this is still early stages before an actual procedure on a human would take place, our understanding of science is allowing doors to be opened that we never even saw were there. But where to next? An obvious answer would be allowing for a larger 'catalogue' of organs, limbs and appendages. What about organ synthesis?

There is of course the development of growing organs for their sole use of transplants. While this is already in existence to an extent - looking at the way in which medical technology is developing, it is not completely ludicrous to suggest that with further development of growth inducing hormones or other alternatives that promote cellular growth one day we could stock organs ready for transplant. Where this now seems to transcend into the realm of the fantastic. The world of artificial organs.

There have of course been countless examples of artificial limbs and prosthetics which are ever advancing, but regarding organs - despite the fact that they already exist (for example dialysis machines) - it seems like science fiction. We have already for sometime had artificial replacements for bones, joints or limbs which are in continuously development. As for dialysis machines, despite their general 'temporary' uses and concerns of immobility, they nonetheless essentially carry out the function of your kidneys. Other artificial organs exist in the examples of artificial lungs (ventilators) and life support machines though these are hardly practical for day to day use. What I mean to say when speaking of artificial organs is a replacement which has practical uses. One example of  such developments is the realisation of the artificial heart. As it happens there have been a number of prototypes for this and some 'success' with these models though at best they currently have limited life spans. Furthermore there have been experimental programs to create artificial sight to those blind from birth through direct implants into the outer surface of the brain. This is however still in early developmental stages and has currently yet to make its miracle breakthrough though has shown some progress (allowing the detection of light and dark). Nonetheless is this not a step towards the 'bionic' individual? What of the future of this? Is it not conceivable to eventually live in a world with practical artificial replacements for kidneys, for hearts, for lungs?

And here we move deeper into the abyss of the fantastic or simply perhaps profoundly absurd. Considering the above and focusing also on the rate of development, what does the future hold? Perhaps a movement away from 'traditional' organ transplant and focusing more on synthesised organs or artificial organs. In regards to synthesised organs and the potential to grow them fast enough to stock with the additional aim of creating them in different protein coatings to cater for different recipients... coupled with our increasing understanding of genes - could we not create organs such as hearts which are resistant to allowing cholesterol to accumulate therefore creating a heart-attack resistant heart? More efficient livers or lungs? Supposing this was one day possible, the next leap would be considering that why get a transplant for a failing organ instead of just getting a replacement as a preventative measure? Further leaving reality... would this not open up a new market for organs? Perhaps designer organs? Get yourself a new tailor made set of lungs or an artificial arm for better manual work or sports? How about an artificial eye that can work in the dark? Of course this seems surreal if not flat-out crazy. I am not suggesting that these musings could come about in the next week... but what about the next couple of centuries (considering the increasing speed of our biological and biotechnical developments)?

Nonetheless this is the question that this train of thought has led me onto (and if you have gotten this far I applaud you). Supposing these creations and procedures could come about... what of the ethical factors? The average human lifespan is still increasing... 47 years old 100 years ago and now roughly 77. What about the potential if taking into consideration the potential of medicine and transplant work? In this capitalist society would this not create further division between those who can afford the procedures and those who cannot? What about the theoretically inevitable continuing overpopulation and the subsequent drain of resources?

As much as I detest leaving questions unanswered I have however brought this on myself! Whilst writing this entry I was pleased to find a number of medical journals mirroring to an extent my stance on this subject so perhaps I have not quite lost it completely - though what I noted for these that they did not cover the social implications at all. The case here however is that there is no way to answer these questions... firstly because it would be entirely theoretical with no way of providing actual answers, and secondly because these concocted notions are simply that - the creations of a perhaps over active imagination!

A PR student walks into a socialist workers' party...

A woman approaches him and says "I know this is forwards but can I have your number?" handing him her phone...
The PR student waves her phone away and says "Type it in, it’s an easy one to remember... it's six, six... six." *

*(PR personnel are commonly perceived as the face or the spinning-tools of the diabolical corporations and therefore are fell creatures in their own right... especially in the eyes of this socialist workers' group!)

---

"With every joke is a half truth" but on this particular occasion I really did grace the socialist workers' party with my presence, and in defiance of the chants of exorcism and vials of holy water thrown my way I still stand (actually sitting) here today typing an admittedly weak punch line though I did devote a considerable amount of time into concocting this!

I had predicted a degree of animosity, and having been coerced into going, I was nonetheless surprised as to how little they knew of the discipline... aside from the horns and pitchforks of course! Neither am I pretentious enough to claim dominion over the knowledge and functioning of PR as... as the title would have you believe... I am still a student.

Two things that managed to make my unholy blood boil were firstly that near enough any example of trying to convince another party to turn to your way of thinking is a part of PR. I know that this is a gross oversimplification but nonetheless I will add that therefore even the socialists use PR... In fact PR has been around as long as politics have whether under another title or form - which ties into my profound abhorrence of ignorance. Ignorance, I'm considering here, not as a lack of knowledge but rather a disregard for it - but that would lead me down another rant which I will endeavour to avoid!

The second of these two sources of exasperation was the attitudes demonstrated similar to that of school cliques - but in particular the nonconformists for the sake of being nonconformists... full of disdain for various ideologies or practices but without any tangible solutions - and for that matter holding a very limited and one-sided outlook.

Before I get mercilessly cannibalised for this I will add that I don't have any particular disregard or disrespect towards socialists and the nonconformists (as long as they can provide some illumination in regards to their views and able to look at things from both sides)... just this particular group who were content to articulate their obtuse and superficial perspectives though providing no palpable reasoning other than regurgitation of propaganda (PR again - which of course amuses me... as despite their zeal they were constantly self contradictory).

This is not all to say I did not have a good time... perhaps not a great party but I did revel in this Venusian atmosphere. Nonetheless I am just posting this because I still find the situation and the subsequent locking of horns deeply amusing!

(image edited from http://loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-difference-between-lust-and.html)