Showing posts with label civilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civilization. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Trippy history of the world.

Tuesday, 19 January 2016

It boils down to this.

In the end you have to consider the rights of the individual.

Yes, it is possible to identify antisocial behavioural trends in different groups of people and cautiousness is a perfectly acceptable response - provided it does not come with crass generalizations.

Yes, decisive action must be taken to ensure that the perpetrators of heinous acts are swiftly apprehended and brought to justice. Failure to do so will only cause further damage to the victims and inevitably lead the gullible and fearful to the extremes of the political spectrum.


Yes, our borders need better monitoring; not through raising fences, but by ensuring that there is a system in place to identify the people who are most in need of asylum and guarantee that they are the first to get it - as required by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Safe passages need to be established.  More needs to be done by governments and local communities to facilitate the process of integration. This is what sowing the seeds of positive change involves.

All the while we witness a counter current of growing xenophobia and bigotry gradually paving the way for institutionalized group discrimination. Loud and vulgar voices evoke the spectre of oppressive regimes whose memories still linger in the scar tissue of our body politic.

Our modern secular societies are founded on the ideas of liberty and equality before the law. We must take heed and not fall into the trap of thinking it is okay to sacrifice some of our rights to gain some temporary safety; or we risk eroding the very fabric of our civilization.

And we must not forget that rights exist precisely to protect minorities from the whims of majorities; the smallest minority being the individual.

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Pericles' Funeral Oration

Thucidides: Pericles' Funeral Oration
 (Θουκιδίδης: Περικλέους Επιτάφιος λόγος)

From History of the Peloponnesian War  (Book 2. 34-46)




"Most of my predecessors in this place have commended him who made this speech part of the law, telling us that it is well that it should be delivered at the burial of those who fall in battle. For myself, I should have thought that the worth which had displayed itself in deeds would be sufficiently rewarded by honours also shown by deeds; such as you now see in this funeral prepared at the people's cost. And I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill. For it is hard to speak properly upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearers that you are speaking the truth. On the one hand, the friend who is familiar with every fact of the story may think that some point has not been set forth with that fullness which he wishes and knows it to deserve; on the other, he who is a stranger to the matter may be led by envy to suspect exaggeration if he hears anything above his own nature. For men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves of their own ability to equal the actions recounted: when this point is passed, envy comes in and with it incredulity. However, since our ancestors have stamped this custom with their approval, it becomes my duty to obey the law and to try to satisfy your several wishes and opinions as best I may.

"I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honour of the first mention on an occasion like the present. They dwelt in the country without break in the succession from generation to generation, and handed it down free to the present time by their valour. And if our more remote ancestors deserve praise, much more do our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess, and spared no pains to be able to leave their acquisitions to us of the present generation. Lastly, there are few parts of our dominions that have not been augmented by those of us here, who are still more or less in the vigour of life; while the mother country has been furnished by us with everything that can enable her to depend on her own resources whether for war or for peace. That part of our history which tells of the military achievements which gave us our several possessions, or of the ready valour with which either we or our fathers stemmed the tide of Hellenic or foreign aggression, is a theme too familiar to my hearers for me to dilate on, and I shall therefore pass it by. But what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my panegyric upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage.

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.
"Further, we provide plenty of means for the mind to refresh itself from business. We celebrate games and sacrifices all the year round, and the elegance of our private establishments forms a daily source of pleasure and helps to banish the spleen; while the magnitude of our city draws the produce of the world into our harbour, so that to the Athenian the fruits of other countries are as familiar a luxury as those of his own.

"If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from our antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. In proof of this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbour, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes. Our united force was never yet encountered by any enemy, because we have at once to attend to our marine and to dispatch our citizens by land upon a hundred different services; so that, wherever they engage with some such fraction of our strength, a success against a detachment is magnified into a victory over the nation, and a defeat into a reverse suffered at the hands of our entire people. And yet if with habits not of labour but of ease, and courage not of art but of nature, we are still willing to encounter danger, we have the double advantage of escaping the experience of hardships in anticipation and of facing them in the hour of need as fearlessly as those who are never free from them.

"Nor are these the only points in which our city is worthy of admiration. We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it. Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot originate, and, instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all. Again, in our enterprises we present the singular spectacle of daring and deliberation, each carried to its highest point, and both united in the same persons; although usually decision is the fruit of ignorance, hesitation of reflection. But the palm of courage will surely be adjudged most justly to those, who best know the difference between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger. In generosity we are equally singular, acquiring our friends by conferring, not by receiving, favours. Yet, of course, the doer of the favour is the firmer friend of the two, in order by continued kindness to keep the recipient in his debt; while the debtor feels less keenly from the very consciousness that the return he makes will be a payment, not a free gift. And it is only the Athenians, who, fearless of consequences, confer their benefits not from calculations of expediency, but in the confidence of liberality.

"In short, I say that as a city we are the school of Hellas, while I doubt if the world can produce a man who, where he has only himself to depend upon, is equal to so many emergencies, and graced by so happy a versatility, as the Athenian. And that this is no mere boast thrown out for the occasion, but plain matter of fact, the power of the state acquired by these habits proves. For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation, and alone gives no occasion to her assailants to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been worsted, or to her subjects to question her title by merit to rule. Rather, the admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs; and far from needing a Homer for our panegyrist, or other of his craft whose verses might charm for the moment only for the impression which they gave to melt at the touch of fact, we have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us. Such is the Athens for which these men, in the assertion of their resolve not to lose her, nobly fought and died; and well may every one of their survivors be ready to suffer in her cause.

"Indeed if I have dwelt at some length upon the character of our country, it has been to show that our stake in the struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such blessings to lose, and also that the panegyric of the men over whom I am now speaking might be by definite proofs established. That panegyric is now in a great measure complete; for the Athens that I have celebrated is only what the heroism of these and their like have made her, men whose fame, unlike that of most Hellenes, will be found to be only commensurate with their deserts. And if a test of worth be wanted, it is to be found in their closing scene, and this not only in cases in which it set the final seal upon their merit, but also in those in which it gave the first intimation of their having any. For there is justice in the claim that steadfastness in his country's battles should be as a cloak to cover a man's other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual. But none of these allowed either wealth with its prospect of future enjoyment to unnerve his spirit, or poverty with its hope of a day of freedom and riches to tempt him to shrink from danger. No, holding that vengeance upon their enemies was more to be desired than any personal blessings, and reckoning this to be the most glorious of hazards, they joyfully determined to accept the risk, to make sure of their vengeance, and to let their wishes wait; and while committing to hope the uncertainty of final success, in the business before them they thought fit to act boldly and trust in themselves. Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonour, but met danger face to face, and after one brief moment, while at the summit of their fortune, escaped, not from their fear, but from their glory.

"So died these men as became Athenians. You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue. And not contented with ideas derived only from words of the advantages which are bound up with the defence of your country, though these would furnish a valuable text to a speaker even before an audience so alive to them as the present, you must yourselves realize the power of Athens, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. These take as your model and, judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom and freedom of valour, never decline the dangers of war. For it is not the miserable that would most justly be unsparing of their lives; these have nothing to hope for: it is rather they to whom continued life may bring reverses as yet unknown, and to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences. And surely, to a man of spirit, the degradation of cowardice must be immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!

"Comfort, therefore, not condolence, is what I have to offer to the parents of the dead who may be here. Numberless are the chances to which, as they know, the life of man is subject; but fortunate indeed are they who draw for their lot a death so glorious as that which has caused your mourning, and to whom life has been so exactly measured as to terminate in the happiness in which it has been passed. Still I know that this is a hard saying, especially when those are in question of whom you will constantly be reminded by seeing in the homes of others blessings of which once you also boasted: for grief is felt not so much for the want of what we have never known, as for the loss of that to which we have been long accustomed. Yet you who are still of an age to beget children must bear up in the hope of having others in their stead; not only will they help you to forget those whom you have lost, but will be to the state at once a reinforcement and a security; for never can a fair or just policy be expected of the citizen who does not, like his fellows, bring to the decision the interests and apprehensions of a father. While those of you who have passed your prime must congratulate yourselves with the thought that the best part of your life was fortunate, and that the brief span that remains will be cheered by the fame of the departed. For it is only the love of honour that never grows old; and honour it is, not gain, as some would have it, that rejoices the heart of age and helplessness.

"Turning to the sons or brothers of the dead, I see an arduous struggle before you. When a man is gone, all are wont to praise him, and should your merit be ever so transcendent, you will still find it difficult not merely to overtake, but even to approach their renown. The living have envy to contend with, while those who are no longer in our path are honoured with a goodwill into which rivalry does not enter. On the other hand, if I must say anything on the subject of female excellence to those of you who will now be in widowhood, it will be all comprised in this brief exhortation. Great will be your glory in not falling short of your natural character; and greatest will be hers who is least talked of among the men, whether for good or for bad.

"My task is now finished. I have performed it to the best of my ability, and in word, at least, the requirements of the law are now satisfied. If deeds be in question, those who are here interred have received part of their honours already, and for the rest, their children will be brought up till manhood at the public expense: the state thus offers a valuable prize, as the garland of victory in this race of valour, for the reward both of those who have fallen and their survivors. And where the rewards for merit are greatest, there are found the best citizens.

"And now that you have brought to a close your lamentations for your relatives, you may depart."

Friday, 5 June 2009

Types of civilizations

Prof. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist and great populariser of science, talks about four types of civilizations.

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Why don't scientists fear Hell?

A nice little video on youtube treating the subject of science vs organised religion.

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

The industry of science research in Britain

Science research in Britain is now all about turning knowledge into business, rather than the beauty of exploration
George Monbiot - The Guardian


Why is the Medical Research Council run by an arms manufacturer? Why is the Natural Environment Research Council run by the head of a construction company? Why is the chairman of a real estate firm in charge of higher education funding for England?

Because our universities are being turned into corporate research departments. No longer may they pursue knowledge for its own sake: the highest ambition to which they must aspire is finding better ways to make money.

Last month, unremarked by the media, a quiet intellectual revolution took place. The research councils, which provide 90% of the funding for acad­em­ic research, introduced a requirement for those seeking grants: they must describe the economic impact of the work they want to conduct. The councils define impact as the "demonstrable contribution" research can make to society and the economy. But how do you demonstrate the impact of blue skies research before it has been conducted?

The idea, the government says, is to transfer knowledge from the universities to industry, boosting the economy and helping to lift us out of recession. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with commercialising scientific discoveries. But imposing this condition on the pursuit of all knowledge does not enrich us; it impoverishes us, reducing the wonders of the universe to figures in an accountant's ledger.

Picture Charles Darwin trying to fill out his application form before embarking on the Beagle. "Explain how the research has the potential to impact on the nation's health, wealth or culture. For example: fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom … What are the realistic time­scales for the benefits to be realised?" If Darwin had been dependent on a grant from a British research council, he would never have set sail.

The government insists that nothing fundamental has changed; that the Haldane principle, which states that the government should not interfere in research decisions, still holds. Only the research councils, ministers say, should decide what gets funded.

All the chairs of the five research councils funding science, and of the three higher education funding councils (which provide core funding for universities), are or were senior corporate executives. These men are overseen by the minister for science and innovation, Lord Drayson. Before he became a minister, Paul Drayson was chief executive of the pharmaceutical company PowderJect. He was involved in a controversy that many feel symbolises the absence of effective barriers between government and commerce.

Drayson doubtless rubs along well with the chairman of the Medical Research Council, Sir John Chisholm. He founded a military software company before becoming head of the government's Defence Research Agency (DRA). He was in charge of turning it into the commercial company QinetiQ, through a privatisation process that was completed while Drayson was minister for defence procurement. During this process, Chisholm paid £129,000 for a stake in the company. The stake's value rose to £26m when QinetiQ was floated. A former managing director of the DRA described this as "greed of the highest order". Lord Gilbert, a former minister of defence procurement, remarked that "frankly the money made by the leading civil servants was obscene … They did not contribute anything to the turnaround of the company, it was the work of the research staff that made the difference." Chisholm remains chairman of QinetiQ. Is there anyone outside government who believes that these people should be overseeing scientific research in this country?

In March Drayson told the Royal Society that "the science budget is safe … there will be no retreat from pure ­science". A month later this promise was broken, when the budget transferred £106m from the research councils "to support key areas of economic potential": which means exchanges of staff and research with industry.

Science policy in the UK is now governed by the Sainsbury review, which the government says it will implement in full. It was written by the Labour donor, former science minister and former supermarket chief executive, Lord Sainsbury. The research councils, the review says, should "be measured against firm knowledge transfer targets" to show that they are turning enough science into business. They have been told to fund £120m of research in collaboration with industry. This has been topped up with £180m from the regional development agencies. The government is also spending £150m "to change the culture in universities: boosting the work they do with a whole range of businesses and increasing commercial activity". All this is another covert bailout, relieving companies of the need to fund their own research.

The economic impact summaries they now write ensure that all researchers will be aware that the business of universities is business. As the white paper points out, universities are already "providing incentives (for example promotion assessment)" to persuade researchers to engage with business. If your research doesn't make someone money, you're not likely to get very far.

Even judged by its own objectives, this policy makes no sense. The long-term health of the knowledge economy depends on blue skies research that answers only to itself: when scientists are free to pursue their passions they are more likely to make those serendipitous discoveries whose impacts on society and the economy are both vast and impossible to predict. Forced to collaborate with industry, they are more likely to pursue applications of existing knowledge than to seek to extend the frontiers of the known world.

Knowledge is not just about impacts. It is about wonder and insight and beauty. Much might never have an application, but it makes the world a richer place, in ways that the likes of Lord Drayson would struggle to perceive.

Monday, 4 May 2009

Ken Wilber on Ray Kurzweil's Singularity

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". - Arthur C. Clarke.

As the gap between today and tomorrow is closing at a staggering rate, the future continues to become more and more surreal. A good example comes from the work of inventor/futurist Ray Kurzweil, who often talks about a point sometime in the next few decades when our rate of technological progress begins to approach the infinite—an event he calls "the Singularity." This essentially represents the event horizon of our own technological evolution, beyond which we simply cannot imagine. Is there actually something to the concept of the Singularity, or is it just a sort of mythical Rapture for tech geeks? What are the implications of such exponential advancement of technology to human consciousness?

Philosopher Ken Wilber shares his thoughts on the subject

Monday, 9 March 2009

The Four Horsemen - Hour 2



On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public’s reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. This is Part 2 of the discussion. Click here for Part 1.

Sunday, 15 February 2009

The Four Horsemen - Hour 1

"On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face the world today, and propose new strategies for going forward."

Sunday, 8 February 2009

Krishnamurti at the UN

I'm making a short intermission before I continue with the second part of the Astronomy lecture by Alexei Filippenko.

In this video Jiddu Krishnamurti addresses the UN one year before his death. The date is 11 April 1985 and he was invited to talk about world peace.

Friday, 6 February 2009

Bullshit detection kit

Baloney Detection Kit

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are:


Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

(excerpted from The Planetary Society Australian Volunteer Coordinators Prepared by Michael Paine )

Sunday, 1 February 2009

Review: Zeitgeist Addendum

There were too many mistakes and (il)logical jumps in the first movie that it deservedly was attacked by critical thinkers worldwide[1]. This one is not without it's flaws either, but it is comparatively less dogmatic, there are more interviews and the message you get out of it is a clearer one.

The movie is divided in four parts:

Part 1 deals with the current monetary system and it's flaws. In my opinion it presents things in an oversimplified manner and occasionally grossly misinterprets socio-economic principles. Still, it is interesting food for thought. 2/5

Part 2 continues from the first part with an interview with John Perkins, in which he reflects on his role as a self-described economic hit-man. Again, not so challenging. More scare-mongering than substance. 2/5

Part 3 introduces The Venus Project, a proposal created by Jacque Fresco for a sustainable future. This is a lot more interesting and thought-provoking although a lot of it's principles appear rather weak upon closer examination. Regardless of that, the issues that are raised are very real and the message is that they should be thought about and something should be done about them fast. 4/5

Part 4 examines the emergent and symbiotic aspects of natural law and what it means for humans. Again, quite an interesting treatment of an important subject. 5/5

For a more balanced review of the the different subjects treated in this movie and an expose of the films flaws check:
The Revolution that never was: An assessment of Keynsian Economics
Globalization and its discontents
Freedom from the known
The meaning of the 21st century


[1]

An article in the Irish Times said that

"These are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalisation - there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones. One really wishes Zeitgeist was a masterful pastiche of 21st-century paranoia, a hilarious mockumentary to rival Spinal Tap. But it's just deluded, disingenuous and manipulative nonsense. [...] If you pretend to know only truth, in truth you know only pretence."

Friday, 16 January 2009

2009-International Year of Astronomy

2009 marks 400 years since the invention of the telescope. IYA2009 is a global effort initiated by the International Astronomical Union and UNESCO to engage and inspire the people of the world by revealing some of the most recent discoveries and developments in astronomy.

You can watch the live video feed from the opening ceremony and opening talks by leading astrophysicists here.

Thursday, 15 January 2009

The Planet

The Planet is a Scandinavian production (2006) directed by Johan Söderberg which draws on the cinematographic techniques of nonverbal films such as Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, and Ron Fricke's Baraka. Unlike those films, which are purely visual, The Planet is riddled with a plethora of interviews from leading scientists and environmentalists offering their perspectives on the challenges humanity faces in the 21st century.

Wednesday, 14 January 2009

Understanding comics by Scott McCloud

Scott McCloud talks about his passion with comics.

Monday, 5 January 2009

New Eyes, New Skies

The next 40 years will see telescopes that far outstrip any ever seen before. Jeff Kanipe profiles two of them. (from Nature Vol 457 Jan 2009)


The armillary and astrolabe are now seldom seen outside museums and antique shops; but the telescope, which joined them in the observatories of early modern Europe 400 years ago, is still at the centre of the astronomical world. In optical precision, in the wavelengths that are used and in their sheer size, they have changed almost beyond recognition.

After two centuries in which they left no records other than the users’ sketches, and a century in which their visions were recordedon photographic plates, they have in the past decades become entirely electronic. And they are now stationed everywhere — oceans, deserts, mountain tops and all kinds of orbit. But the job is still the same: collecting and focusing whatever information the Universe sends our way.

Yet for all its glorious 400-year history, the astronomical telescope’s best days may still be to come. Telescopes currently in development show an unprecedented degree of technical ambition as they seek to provide near-definitive answers to questions that, a generation or two ago, it was hard to even imagine investigating.

To answer these questions, the telescopes profiled here will often work in complementary ways. The infrared capabilities of the James Webb Space Telescope and the radio acuity of the Square Kilometre Array will both be used to probe the Universe at the time of its own ‘first light’ — the birth of the first stars and galaxies. The radio array will map the large-scale structure of the Universe, elucidating the role in that structure of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’, as will studies of the faintest galaxies by the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope and European Extremely Large Telescope. That behemoth and the orbiting Webb will, in turn, complement each other in their attempts to characterize planets around other stars with unprecedented detail.

This quartet, for all its ambition and expense, does not exhaust the possibilities being explored and wished for. The Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array will soon revolutionize astronomy at its chosen wavelengths. Other projects are planned throughout the electromagnetic spectrum and beyond into the new realms of gravitational waves and neutrinos. These instruments are all being designed with specific scientific challenges in mind. But at the same time, all concerned hope devoutly to discover something as strange and unlooked for as Galileo’s mountains on the Moon — or spots on the face of the Sun.

The James Webb Space Telescope

Like the Hubble Space Telescope, to which it is in some ways the successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the orbital flagship of its generation. But whereas the Hubble sees mainly in the visible and ultraviolet, JWST is optimized for the infrared. That means it can see things hidden from the Hubble and ts like by dust, and peer into the high-redshift epoch just after the Big Bang at objects indiscernible at visible wavelengths — such as the first stars.

Astronomers at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, started their first plans for a follow-on instrument in 1989 — a year before the Hubble itself was launched. It should finally make it to the launch pad 24 years later. Although its design and cost have changed a few times over the past two decades (see Nature 440, 140–143; 2006), its main mission remains simple and visionary — to study unseen aspects of every phase of the history of the Universe. To do so, the telescope will make use of several innovative technologies, such as ultra-lightweight optical systems made from beryllium, extremely sensitive infrared detectors and a cryocooler that can maintain the mid-infrared detectors at a frosty 7 kelvin indefinitely.

The most striking of the new technologies, though, affects the very heart of the telescope.
JWST’s designers wanted a mirror that would have been too large to fit into the payload fairing of any rocket available. So they designed one in segments, a mirror that could be launched folded up and then deployed to its full 6.5-metre diameter once the telescope settles
into its final orbit, 1.5 million kilometres from Earth. That distance gives the telescope
much more sky to look at than the Hubble gets, and keeps it cooler, too. But it has its downside: as yet there is no way to get there to ix any problems so, unlike, the Hubble, JWST has to work perfectly from the start.

At the moment, says John Mather, Nobel laureate and senior project scientist for JWST, the telescope is designed to last for at least five years, but longer may be possible. It will carry ten years’ worth of fuel, and the presence of the cryocooler means that, unlike earlier infrared missions, its lifetime is not limited by a fixed supply of coolant. “If we are lucky and clever we hope to conserve fuel and perhaps run much longer,” says Mather. “But we can’t promise that.” What Mather thinks he can promise is discovery. “We do not know which came first, black holes or galaxies, and we do not know how it happens that there is a massive black hole at the centre of almost every massive galaxy. If there are any surprises about the early Universe, I am guessing that they will be in these areas.”

JWST is not just about deep space and distant epochs, though; it will also scrutinize the shrouded origins of objects closer to home — such as nascent solar systems, coalescing stars and star clusters amassing within dusty nebulae, says Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute. But where the telescope will really stand out will be its ability to probe the very early Universe. “JWST is so sensitive,” says Mountain, “that we can take actual spectra of the very earliest objects you can just barely detect with Hubble.”

The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

Sometimes telescopes see double not because of aberration, but because that is the way the Universe works. The bending of light by intervening masses — called gravitational lensing — means that some galaxies are seen by Earthly observers in more than one place. By adding together survey image after survey image, and so measuring things that no individual image would show, the designers of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) hope to find a significant fraction of the 10,000 or so such images in every square degree of sky. They also hope to open up a neglected dimension in astronomy: time. As well as adding together images of the same part of space taken again and again to reveal new depth, they will compare those images to spot any differences, turning up a wealth of supernovae, asteroids and Kuiper belt objects on the fringe of the Solar System that would otherwise be missed. The telescope’s proponents call it celestial cinematography.

The telescope will suck in celestial data by the terabyte every night, surveying almost
all of the sky visible from Cerro Pachón, Chile, every week. Such coverage is made possible by an 8.4-metre primary mirror, which will be ground so as to provide a field of view of 10 square degrees. That’s 49 times the size of the full Moon, and more than 300 times the field of view of the Gemini telescopes, which have mirrors of similar size optimized for staring in a single spot.

Over ten years, says Željko Ivezič, of the University of Washington in Seattle, the LSST system will look at everything in its field of view about 1,000 times. A massive amount of computing power will be used to correlate, compare and catalogue the torrent of data — and to make them all available on the Internet. Anyone with a computer — students, and amateur and professional astronomers — will be able to participate in the process of scientific discovery. Studies of objects that have been gravitationally lensed should reveal huge amounts about the structure of the Universe in general, and the distribution of dark matter and the effects of dark energy in particular. At the same time, though, LSST will mount a virtual space patrol, looking for potentially hazardous near-Earth asteroids. Astronomers already know where most of the big, killing-off-species-wholesale asteroids are.

LSST will be one of the tools that catalogues the vast majority of lesser asteroids still capable of smashing a city. But with a sensitivity to faint, transient events 1,000 times greater than ever previously achieved, the telescope will not restrict itself to the ‘vermin of the skies’ in Earth’s backyard. It will observe vast distant cataclysms, such as collisions between neutron stars, and is all but sure of discovering whole new categories of transient events.

The project is overseen by the LSST Corporation, comprising more than 100 scientists and two dozen laboratories, universities and institutes based mainly in the United States. Although the project’s design is still being worked out, the main mirror has already been cast. Astronomers with the corporation are hopeful that construction will begin as planned in 2011 and that first light will occur in 2015. In the subsequent ten-year survey, LSST will take stock of every object in the Universe, known, unknown and newly discovered. “For the first time in history,” says Ivezič, “we will catalogue and study more celestial objects than there are people on Earth.”


Sunday, 4 January 2009

The "Moon Landing Hoax" and are such questions important?

Hi,

Was it all faked? Was this just another Meg Ryan sex scene?


But seriously ... I wrote this in case anyone ever pops up the question. No, not THAT question...
I usually avoid discussions on these subjects like the plague, but there you have it.

Feel free to forward if anyone brings the issue up. Whether you want to bring it up gently or shove it in their faces is up to you :)

Some time ago a good friend asked me whether I believed the moon landings were real.

I must admit that I was flabbergasted that such an assertion can be made in this day and age but conspiracy theories have always seemed to hold a strange sway over people.

I will address this point later because I feel it is quite important.

To me, the moon landings represent one of the crowning achievements of our civilization (admittedly, some of our other achievements are rather more dispiriting). They have been a huge inspiration and unifying force for humanity. They have made us realize, much more than anything else, that we are one species and that our planet is an interconnected and fragile habitat. The moon landings were largely responsible for setting the foundations of the Environmental and Green movements in recent decades.The first photographs of the Earth from space are simply awe inspiring.

I cannot begin to describe what an amazing journey that was and what these astronauts had to go through to prepare themselves for it. But I can readily state that the hoax claim does disservice to the memory of the visionaries who died working to make these programs a reality and to those who managed to muster the strength of will to endure the harsh training, risking their lives and everything they held dear to achieve this amazing feat: to go where no human had been before.  It is hard to understand the sacrifices these people made. So it is with sadness that I read stories of harassment like these:

09/10/02 — A wire story released this week said police are investigating allegations that 72-year-old former astronaut Buzz Aldrin punched 37-year-old conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel in the face after Sibrel asked him to swear on a Bible that he really did land on the moon.

It was a whole generation's mystical experience of a lifetime, making us feel so grand and so small at the same time. It took the Apollo 11 crew about two days to travel the approximately 380,000 km that separate the Earth from the moon.


The whole experience has been chronicled in a multitude of media, books, interviews, TV programs and was reported with excitement all over the world in 1969. This was not the first mission that had tried. There were several others before it, both Russian and American – but this was the one that made history.

One of my personal favourites is a documentary made entirely from footage of the Apollo missions: "For All Mankind", you can get it on Amazon. (Brian Eno's score still gives me goosebumps after all these years).

You can also watch it here:

But what is worrying is that fake moon landing statements can still unashamedly be made when a simple 5-minute search on the internet yields a treasure trove
of evidence debunking every "moon landing hoax" claim ever made. So I did a quick Google search and, after a minute of sifting through the garbage, I hit gold:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

and

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

and

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

These are just three of the sites where people have done their research and spent hours to reveal the conspiracy theorist claims for what they are; A pile of trash. You see, it is extremely easy to make a batshit crazy claim seem appealing but it often takes a lot of effort to debunk it. For the moon landings, sometimes it requires two or three PhDs in various subjects (physics, engineering and perhaps biology) to even begin to be able to address each individual point, not to mention information about the operation itself. Those programs were a huge effort that involved hundreds of people working over many years to get to that point. It is virtually impossible to know every little detail about them.

Conspiracy theories still maintain a seductive grasp over many people. They have been used as political tools by authoritarian regimes in the past, as well as today, to push controversial political agendas, unify the masses under some dubious pretext and forge national consciousness by identifying an external enemy/conspiratorial entity - among other reasons. They are also typically used to spice up our sometimes mediocre and unexciting private lives, responding to the perennial human need to feel that we live in a infinitely mysterious and deeply intriguing unchartable Universe. Such theories often claim there are ominous forces trying to control our everyday lives and create the pleasant illusion of a cause worth fighting for. In short, believing in conspiracy theories often injects meaning into people's lives while taking away some personal responsibility. It is not our fault things are the way they are. It is the government, aliens, the illuminati, you name it. This is why people who believe in them often continue to do so even when incontrovertible evidence has been presented before them. They sometimes even use the evidence, in a perverse twisted logic, as further proof that their theory is correct!

The sad truth is that most people don't care enough to investigate the validity of such wild claims. Because it takes time. Because we all have better things to be doing. And they simply believe whatever tickles their fancy. Yet it still remains important that we spend time and effort disproving these theories whenever they crop up, even though it may seem stupid and pointless. Even though it may be beneath us. Because the harm they can cause is immense and at their worse they can lead to countless deaths of innocents. Take for example the lasting damage the "Protocols of the learned elders of Zion" hoax has made to Jewish people. Ultimately, it is a wave of barbarism we are resisting, a return to the Dark Ages before the values of the Enlightenment imbued our society, when people were ruled by fear of the unknown and charlatanism, superstition and prejudice were rife. The so-called Age of Reason that came with the Enlightenment was the opposing force rising up against this barbarism, when the appetite to learn more about the world and our part in it, a desire to understand better, pushed back the darkness of superstition and mystical beliefs. For, understanding something, equally means diminishing fear of the unknown. So that, in time, we may grow to accept it for what it truly is. And perhaps sometimes even love it.

Seeking this understanding takes away nothing from the grandeur and mystery of the Universe; Yet it adds a vital new perspective and several more layers of reality to marvel at!

Saturday, 3 January 2009

Journeys to the edge of madness

And here's the first article for 2009 for your pleasure. Not quite the Cuckoo's Nest but still intriguing.

To expose the insanity of mental health institutions, Norah Vincent had herself committed. Twice

I couldn't sleep because I was terrified. And because I was bedding down in a fold-out chair. All the trolleys in the hallway were taken, and the hallways were all that we had: women on one side, men on the other and the nurse's station in the middle.

Emergency triage was where you were kennelled until they had a bed for you on the ward upstairs. It was noisy and freezing, and all we had to cover us were sheets and paper-thin pyjamas. Seven hours earlier, all of my possessions had been taken at the door and put in a metal locker.

I hadn't been sure how to commit myself to Meriwether. In the event it was easy. As in all psych wards, when you say you are suicidally depressed, they take you at your word. But the things you say can also become a menu for drugs. I wanted to keep these to a minimum, so I reported the virtual truth of my own history. Depression, possibly bipolar - I was on 20mg of Prozac, and hoping to get away with nothing more than that.

In November 2004 I had checked myself into a locked psychiatric ward as a patient. I was in that zombie parlour for four days, and returned home a wreck, swearing that I would never willingly go into such a place again. And yet there was the lure of the spectacle, and what I saw as the outright wrongs of the insanitarium, wrongs I longed to write about and hold up to public scrutiny. Which was how I now came to find myself back in a big city public hospital - this time as a journalist.

The bright lights were kept on all night, so it was like trying to sleep in an interrogation room. The staff, too, went on all night, gabbing and laughing as if there weren't stranded sick people lying all around them trying to rest. We were invisible, discounted. We could tell no stories, the assumption being that we were all too drugged or nuts to notice or to lodge a complaint.

I sat up making notes. I had managed to smuggle in a pen, but had forgotten that I should not be seen with it, and so it was promptly taken by a nurse, officious and smug. "You can't have that," she sighed, flicking her fingers to her palm impatiently. "Give it here."

It was not a small loss to me, though a petty one on her part, and she knew it, took pleasure in it. Or was that the beginning of paranoia?

A man had crapped himself, a brown seep hanging low in his pyjama bottoms. He was shouting into the nurse's station, which was a fort of Plexiglas. Patients tended to loiter there and stare, ignored. If you needed something, you had to knock. Or shout. Or crap your pants, I guess.

Time had passed slowly after that. Sitting. Staring. I was already in despair of that place, which was itself collectively despairing. Even the people who worked there had given up. It was written all over them. The way they fell asleep in front of the TV during their shifts, the way they moved, slowly and sighing. The way they talked to us, with the tone people reserve for the retarded and the elderly. Contempt. That was it.

I looked for comfort in the trolley that I got, finally, only an hour or two before they came to take me upstairs to the ward. I lay on it, and then couldn't. It wasn't just that I didn't want to resemble the rest of them, lying, as they were, face to the wall. It was that I didn't want to become them.

Did the fact that these people were mostly poor, sometimes even homeless, turn the place into a zoo, or did the zoo turn the people into animals? I knew, even in just one night, that the latter was true. You become your environment, and you become what you are expected to be.

I met my treatment team first thing. I worried that they might see through me. But a night in emergency had lowered me to the right level. Fear? Desperation? Distrust? Those were real enough.

Dr Balkan, the staff psychiatrist, suggested Lamictal, a mood stabiliser. I was sceptical. I'd read a lot about the dangers and unpleasant side-effects of so many pills, and of how thoroughly corrupt the drug development and approval processes are in America. So I wasn't eager to take any more drugs. I told Dr Balkan that I thought it might be best to go the therapy route for now. She was insistent. In the end I agreed, because I thought that if I didn't, they might keep me in for longer.

The nurses at Meriwether watched you take your meds, but they weren't terribly vigilant. Besides, I'd requested a multivitamin, which they gave me at the same time, so I was able to make it look as if I was popping both pills into my mouth when, in fact, I was holding the Lamictal back. As soon as the nurses left, I went to the bathroom and flushed it.

When I walked on to the ward for the first time, a short, mustachioed woman looked me lewdly up and down, wolf whistled and walked away. It scared the living shit out of me, and it was meant to. Deborah thought she had sailed the Nile as a queen and was convinced that there was a bomb in the payphone at the end of the hall. She was like a lot of the other patients in that way. She had her pet obsessions, and she'd stop you in the hall and rant about them.

That was the getting-to-know-you phase. All the people on the ward spoke to me in riddles when I first met them. They didn't trust me. But without exception they spoke to me coherently by the time I left.

Looking back, it's hard to believe I was ever afraid of Deborah; when the antics fell away, she was perfectly harmless. "I just want to follow you around and look at you," she'd say. "You're the freshest face I've seen."

Like many others, she was on a cycle. She came in, got meds, meals and shelter, broke the choke-hold of the delusions, left with some prescriptions, hit the street, stopped the meds, lost control, got arrested, landed back here, and did it all over again.

She stopped taking the meds for the same reason everyone else did - the side-effects were too bad. The fog, the sluggishness, the tardive dyskinesia - involuntary, spasmodic movements, especially of the face, lips and tongue - and the overall shaking Parkinsonism induced by so many of the dopamine-blocking antipsychotic medications.

There is great debate within the scientific community about the safety and effectiveness of these drugs in controlling delusions. If they work at all, they work because heavily sedating and inducing Parkinson's in a person is a little like hitting them over the head with a frying pan. The blow will probably stop the agitation and devivify the psychotic experience, not because it's redressing a chemical imbalance, but because it's shutting down the system wholesale.

Often, inmates would get into tiffs, shouting, storming around agitatedly, crying or whining. If this went on for too long, they were "medicated". A group of five or six large men would appear wearing rubber gloves. They would usher the parties in question into their rooms, hold them down and give them the hypodermic. I have no idea what they gave them, but it worked so well that the person would usually pass out face down on her bed, one foot still on the floor.

There was so much you weren't allowed to do. There was little exercise - we were taken up to the roof for 15 minutes a day - no smoking and a no-touching rule between patients. A necessary rule, in some ways, in a world where people had few boundaries, but to deprive desperate human beings of the healing comfort of a hand on the shoulder or a kindly hug was, at times, just another reason the place made you feel less than human.

Given the rules, the restrictions, the unreasonable deprivations, you resorted to childish deceits just to meet your needs or show a bit of spunk. Periodically, the head nurse, Mrs Weston, strode into my room and searched the closet by my bed. It was more a powerplay than anything. She usually missed half of the contraband that was in there - that being a few pens, a plastic bag for dirty clothes (possible suffocation risk), and a pair of pyjama bottoms with a string tie (strangulation risk).

I called one of my roomies Tracy Chapman because of her comely face and short dreads. She was the only one of the three who didn't talk to herself most of the day and night. Ellen, a 65-year-old black woman, was my second roommate. When she wasn't sleeping, she was staring at the walls, or at me. When I still thought pleasantries applied, I'd smile nervously and say, "Hey." She didn't respond, which was awkward at first, but came to feel natural, even pleasant. It was actually a relief to stop making small talk: one of the privileges of being "disturbed".

At night, Ellen wrapped herself in a sheet and put it over her head, so that she looked like a dead body. My third roommate, Sweet Girl, did it, too, though she did it for much of the day as well. As I came to understand that privacy was one of the other major deprivations of that place, I realised they did it because it was the closest they would ever come to having a room of their own, to reclaiming their minds as separate places that belonged only to them. Of course people who are a danger to themselves or others can't be left unwatched, and yet watching is a form of torture.

They were all on cocktails of antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Depending on the time of day - we were given medication at 8am, 5pm and 9pm - the patients were more or less sluggish, zombified or dead to the world, drooling big lakes of syrup on to their bedsheets.

I suppose if you dealt with people doing this kind of repulsive crap all day, you'd be hard-pressed to see them as fully human, too. That's how it must have seemed to the staff, and that on top of the exasperation of having to shove someone like Sweet Girl into the shower because she smelled bad enough to make your eyes water. It wasn't likely to engender respect. And even though I felt defensive of my fellow patients, sometimes I could really see the other point of view.

Mr Clean was a 6ft 3in black psychotic. Watching him eat, listening to the slurping noises he made as he sucked the fat off a deep-fried chicken wing, I wanted to make creative use of my ballpoint pen in all the murderous ways that the staff had ever seen or imagined.

Then there was Street Kid, a lanky 20-year-old who wore his baseball cap sideways and punctuated his conversation with goofy dance breaks, chicken-winging his arms, or moonwalking with little hops of pleasure in between. He "got medicated" often and heavily, prone as he was to tantrums, so looked and sounded as if he was moving underwater. Clearly the kid had problems. But what might be causing those problems? Brain malfunction, recreational drug abuse, unstable home life, or just plain time-of-life maladjustment? It was anybody's guess. And that, of course, is exactly what his diagnosis was - a guess. So we take a kid whose signs of "mental illness" were classic youthful irritability, impatience, restlessness, rebelliousness, selfishness, rudeness, agitation and ebullience, and we turn him into a chemical waste dump.

Were his moods and outbursts more extreme than those of other young people his age? Sure. Was he unreachable? Not in my experience. He wasn't delusional or paranoid. The medication was the biggest thing standing between him and making sense. Was anyone even trying?

The old pros at Meriwether were simply going through the motions. Essentially harmless people who had often committed crimes no more serious than disturbing the peace were confined against their will, forcibly medicated with drugs of dubious, or at best limited, efficacy and usually unfathomed toxicity, and left to rot until the hospital needed the bed space, in which case they were turned back out into the world 20 to 80 pounds fatter, practically deployed for a relapse.

All the patients on the ward quickly figured out that I could be manipulated into getting my visitors to bring them just about anything they wanted, from candy to phone cards to cigarettes. And, for a while, I made myself the wish granter of Ward 20. But it was like filling a bottomless cup. I'd have given away 20 candy bars minutes before, but the smallest rustle of a wrapper and they'd be on me.

"Have some?"

I hated myself for begrudging them, and felt like a despicable closet pigger when I took to going into the bathroom to eat, coughing loudly to cover any suspicious sounds.

As soon as I extended my hand, they grabbed hold. They wanted to be my friend. But I just wanted to help them from a safe distance and be rid of them. Isn't that why we leave it to the professionals, who, in turn, leave it to the pharmaceutical path of least resistance? Nobody wants to do the personal work. It's disgusting. What's more, it scarecrows every humanitarian illusion you have about yourself. It makes you know that, at heart, you are a little bit of a fascist like everybody else, thinking in the back of your mind that wouldn't it really just be cheaper and better and, well, more utilitarian to be rid of these people?

I can denigrate the system, and I might actually be right. But I would be lying if I said I didn't see why that system fails the chronics, or did not admit that I abandoned them myself.

As expected, I learned a lot about madness at Meriwether. Portrayals of "psycho killers" in movies have conditioned most of us to believe that psychotic people are always violent, menacing and dangerous. But I never felt unsafe. Deborah, Sweet, Clean and the rest of those I lived among were more confused and disoriented than anything. They were as human as everyone else, of course. As selfish and petty and generous and witty and, most often, just as run-of-the-mill. They liked McDonald's, iPods, M&Ms and TV. They didn't like being told what was good for them. But when they fell, they wanted to be picked up. They wanted to be saved and provided for, but made the minimum effort on their own behalf. I'd say that made them pretty normal.

After Meriwether, I made the mistake of trying to come off my meds, and fell into a depression. I'd wake with a feeling of dread. The first conscious thought: something is terribly wrong with my life, with life in general. I looked for reasons, but they were irrelevant. That was the point. The dread came from nowhere. I crawled into an empty bathtub thinking about where I could buy a gun. I decided that trying to go without meds wasn't the greatest idea. I went back on Prozac, and began to get better, to think about the next stage of the project.

At Meriwether, I'd had the public, urban, indigent, mostly black and Hispanic psychotic experience. Now I was looking for a totally different clientele. I found Mobius on the web. Founded by a clinical psychologist, Dr Franklin, and committed to the practice of healing the whole person - mind, body, spirit - without the use of restraints or locked wards, its primary client base was addicts in recovery. Patients were housed in apartments in a large complex with a pool, Jacuzzi and gym. As well as various therapy sessions, they did yoga, went to the bookstore, the movies and a spa. I booked a two-week stay.

Every morning the day's activities began with den chi bon, which I can best describe as a cross between tai chi, tai-bo and a seance. It was the kind of too-earnest, misty-eyed exercise that I had trouble taking seriously. Early on, I hovered at the back of the room, embarrassed. By the second or third day, I was hooked. We all were, from the moment the starting music began: a tolling bell and an Indian man with a caramel voice talking about the dharmal door being open, transcending the path of sorrow and death.

Tuesdays were rebirthing days. Rebirthing sounds hokier than it was, though I admit it did have its moments. As it turned out, it was really just meditation. It was designed to access your subconscious, to function like a back door to your brain so you could sneak in while the rest of you wasn't looking and grab a few fresh clues as to what was really going on in there. It was a way around your defences. That's all. Not, as I had worried, some half-baked yankified shamanism all decked out in fake blood and feathers.

Mobius was all about learning to see your life differently. They called this "process therapy". On my first day, I filed into an activity room with five other clients. Carol, a staff therapist, was already standing up at a whiteboard writing the phrase: "I do not see things as they are. I see them as I am." Bobby, an alcoholic Xanax-head, was already asleep. But Carol kept right on, drawing three columns, the left-hand labelled Behaviour, the middle one Thought and on the right Perception.

The idea behind process therapy, a technique akin to traditional cognitive behavioural therapy, was that most of us act before we think. The problem is the behaviour. That's what sends people into rehab or the bin. In the addict's case, it's pill-popping, drinking, snorting. In the depressive's case, it might be self-abuse, cutting, burning, binging.

It isn't just a question of stopping the behaviour - that is, quitting drinking, cold turkey - it's a question of finding out what motivated the behaviour and addressing that source of distress so that the behaviour will no longer seem necessary or even appealing. That, anyway, was the theory.

Carol wanted to know what my problematic behaviour was.

I said the first thing that came into my head. "Affairs," I blurted.

"Affairs?"

"Yeah. I'd say sex, but I usually tend to convince myself that I'm in love."

"OK," Carol said, and wrote it in the left-hand column. Affairs. "Now, what's the thought that goes with that?"

"If I connect with someone, I won't be alone."

Carol wrote this in the column under Thought. "Now," she said, "what's the perception?"

"You mean how do I rationalise the behaviour?"

"Yes."

"I tell myself I'm growing emotionally."

"Now," said Carol, "what's the attachment? What's the thing you're holding on to that makes all of this come about?"

I screwed up my lips and sighed. Hmm. What was I really trying to get out of the lovefest/fuckfest? "Escape," I said, finally.

"OK. Escape from what?"

"Isolation, I guess."

"And...?" Carol added leadingly.

"Myself."

She wrote this down and underlined it, then drew a stick figure with a thought bubble above its head. Inside it she wrote, "I want to escape myself."

"That's your real thought. Right?"

"Right."

"Good. Now," she drew a heart over the stick figure's chest, "what's the feeling underneath?"

"Loneliness."

"What else?"

"Terror."

"What else?"

"Inadequacy. Hurt. Pain."

She wrote each of these words in the heart. I thought of myself curled in the bathtub.

Carol drew an arrow out from the stick figure. "Now," she said, "you feel hurt, lonely, afraid. That's what's driving you to act. But the affairs don't make this go away. At least not long-term. Short-term. And then it's just worse, right?"

"Right."

"So what can you do instead?"

I had all kinds of seemingly good answers for this. Go to the gym. Clean the house. Call a friend. But the real answer was to face it. Face yourself. Face the pain, the loneliness, the fear. Sit with it. Don't run.

"So what can you do instead of having an affair?" Carol repeated.

"Stay with the discomfort," I said. "Face it."

That, in a nutshell, was process therapy. Stop, map, redirect. We went around the room. Aside from Bobby, there was Cook, a 39-year-old former coke dealer, and Gary, another coke and pot aficionado, 40 years old. As you can imagine, escape was a big attachment for everyone in that room. Up, down, sideways. Didn't matter which drug. Just out.

Unlike the locked wards of Meriwether, however, physical escape wasn't an issue. At Mobius, staff would shuttle us from place to place, and inspect our bags at the grocery store, but they never made a big show of being our keepers. We came and went pretty much as we liked, at least on the grounds of the apartment complex. It would have been quite easy to slip away and get high or drunk if you wanted to, or break the rules in other ways, including romantic encounters with other clients, as I learned that Bobby and Cook were doing every night down at the Jacuzzi. The prevailing attitude seemed to be that it was your cure, take it or not, so why sweat stolen kisses or other small infractions.

At the weekends, we slept in and then they took us to the beach. If it rained, we went to a museum or watched garbage TV. It was like an ashram at a Motor Inn. Given the alternative, at Meriwether, it was paradise.

Most of all, Mobius implemented the belief that therapy and biochemistry are not either-or propositions. They did not inundate clients with pills, but rather they used meditation and talk. They understood that words and ideas have a physiological effect on the brain that's every bit as powerful as the serotonin and dopamine you manipulate when you take drugs.

It didn't, of course, work for everybody. Many people were there merely because they were court-mandated to be in some form of rehab, so weren't going to make much effort to get something out of the experience. And making an effort was the only way to get something out of it. That was the crux. You. Only you could work on you.

During my first private session with Carol, she drew another stick figure and said, "What's the thought?"

This time I wasn't going to varnish my answer. "Do I want to fuck you?" I said.

She turned and furrowed her brow. "Every time you meet someone, you consider whether or not you want to have sex with them?"

"Pretty much."

She let out a big breath. "OK." She wrote it down in the thought bubble. Again, she drew the heart. "What's the feeling?"

"The same as before - loneliness, isolation, emptiness."

She wrote this. Paused. "Anything else?"

I listened for what would come through, trying to go deeper. Then it came. I spat the word rudely, surprising myself. "Hate."

She wrote that word in capitals: HATE.

"You know the drill," Carol said, drawing arrows out from the heart.

The behaviour that comes from loneliness? That was easy enough. "Seduction," I said.

Then the behaviour that comes from emptiness? Again, easy enough. "Predation."

Pause. And the behaviour that comes from hate? That was not going to be easy at all. Could I admit this? It was coming, anyway. Hate's other shoe dropping. Wait for it. Yes, yes, there it was, bursting forward, barking into the room. "Rape."

There. Done. Criminal intent. On the board. In the open. Declared. I felt the need to clarify, so I added: "Men, not women." As if this made it somehow better. But it was true. I'd had violent fantasies about raping men - always people who royally deserved it, mind you: terrorists, rapists, child abusers, that sort of thing.

"Talk to me about this," Carol said. I wasn't going to get into it, so I said what I'd said to therapists many times before. "I was molested as a kid. I had a venereal disease before I was 10."

She knelt down next to my chair. I wasn't ready for this kind of sympathy. Didn't want it. The molestation bit hadn't been a confession. It was old material. I'd talked it to death in the past, or at least what little I could remember of it. The doctor's office. The medical facts pointing to events I couldn't recall except in comparatively innocent snippets. Yeah, yeah, I always thought, so somebody got to me in some way. So what? It happens all the time. Move on. I don't need you to hold my hand.

But she did. She took my hands in hers, looked me in the eyes, waiting for me to meet her gaze.

I couldn't. I looked at the potted fern behind her. When our eyes did meet, she gripped my hands tighter. "Stay here. Look at me," she said. Then she added, slowly and emphatically, "There is nothing wrong with you."

I guffawed. "Uh, clearly there is. A lot."

"No. All of this," she swiped her hand across the board: hate, rape, fuck. "All of this is typical. A normal response to a traumatic experience. Something very bad happened to you, and you reacted the way anyone would. That's all."

So many psychiatrists I had known had been eager to slap diagnoses and pathologies on to me. Depressive, manic depressive, post-traumatic stress. These were all the things that were wrong with me. But what if Carol was right? What if I was as healthy as the next person responding to an insult?

And that was when I broke. I started to cry. Silently, against my will. I wasn't crying about the "trauma". I didn't care about that. I could barely remember it. It was this that mattered. The stigma, the shame. Was there really nothing wrong with me, after all? Was I not broken? I cried harder.

What had started as a crass willingness to play along, and to take notes about the process of therapy, had penetrated into real memory, real emotion, coiled and waiting to spring. It had taken only the slightest touch to explode.

I saw the doorway to a new life: eventually free of, or at least less ruled by, drugs; a life where talk, laughter and compassion could counter both the habitual force of my negative experience and whatever might be chemically awry in my brain. Never again would I be passively diagnosed in an emergency waiting room or cower paralysed in the bathtub.

• All names have been changed. © Norah Vincent, 2009. This is an edited extract from Voluntary Madness: My Year Lost And Found In The Loony Bin, published on January 15 by Chatto & Windus at £12.99