The first issue in this argument is defining what actually is an alternative source of energy. In this article alternative energy sources will refer to renewable sources that will hope to replace fossil fuel burning methods that are not only harming the planet but have a very limited life cycle. The forerunners of the new renewable initiative are wind and solar power, which although not without their flaws are realistically the biggest prospects for a planet totally reliant on alternative energy sources. In the last few years the cost to produce and operate wind and solar farms can now compete with the burning of fossil fuels, and as a result many richer countries are investing more and more into what they think is a potentially subsidiary to unsustainable energy generation. Countries such as Norway have even managed to generate 98% of their energy from renewable sources, in contrast to counties such as the UK that generate just 12%; although that figure is set to increase in the near future. The fact is that in terms of generation alternative energy sources can evidently produce enough energy to supply a whole country, but for the world to run off of renewable energy there would still need to be a drastic change in the domestic and transportation uses. Cargo ships and aeroplanes are two imperative parts of modern life, yet are nowhere close to being ran off of renewable sources, and couple this with an increasing energy demand and in the near future the answer looks negative.
The global trend shows a world increasing in the reliance of fossil fuels.
At this current time alternative energy sources have some big disadvantages. The problems stem further than simply the immense cost to implement a system with even a hope of generating enough power, and rather ironically there is still the issue of renewables having a detrimental effect on the local environment. At this current time it's simply not true to claim that any energy generated is carbon neutral considering that the manufacturing of huge wind turbines is a process that requires a heavy emphasis on fossil fuels, and that's a rather minimal effect on the environment compared to say biomass, which would need approximately 10% of the world's total land area to generate enough energy on a global scale. To put that figure into perspective 10% of the world's land area is currently used for agriculture, and when you consider the environmental impacts of farming then you start to realise that alternative energy sources really aren't all that good. Other alternative methods don't get much better either. Hydroelectric power requires huge dams that destroy not only aquatic ecosystems but the whole surrounding area as well. Wind turbines are hugely expensive for their relative power output and murder anything that flies in the vicinity, generating a lot of noise in the process. Ethanol is a net energy loss that takes 70% more energy to produce than it can theoretically generate, and both tidal and geothermal are reliant on the local environment which doesn't make them a global solution.
Even after you go through the individual faults of each alternative method there is still the combined issue of reliability. Unlike fossil fuels alternative energy sources are not consistent, applying especially to wind and solar power that wouldn't be able to adapt to power influxes at times when wind and sunshine levels are at their lowest. It's no good saying we should simply store energy for these instances since we currently have no way of storing that amount of electricity, and you can't run on backup generators since they would be idle most of the time, and what business would want to operate a powerplant that's losing money the majority of the time? Even the richest governments on the planet would agree that financially that solution isn't sustainable in any way. In a world that relies on alternative energy sources there would be a high possibility of blackouts, and in modern society an event like that would be catastrophic.
You can't deny that despite their various downfalls, energy generated from fossil fuels have been very effective in the modern world, and getting nations to switch to alternative sources is a tall order.
An even bigger problem is trying to get the world to stop relying on the very effective and readily available fossil fuels. Sure the prices of fossil fuels will keep rising at a steady rate, but it's very hard to suddenly adopt a new energy strategy when you already have a system that's cheaper and more efficient. Why would a country such as Saudi Arabia want to switch to alternative energy sources when their economy practically runs off the oil industry? Abandoning the fossil fuel system would not only send various markets tumbling, but also lose national economies thousands of jobs. I'm not saying a gradual phasing of the global energy mix would necessarily be a bad thing, but to say the world can run solely on alternative sources is misguided. You try telling China, a country that burnt four billion tonnes of coal in 2012, that alternative energy sources would be a better solution for their ever expanding population, industry and economy. Telling British citizens that electric cars are better for the environment than their petrol powered equivalents did very little to increase sales, so why would the Chinese government think any differently? Electric cars out of interest are a very good way of showing the lethargic attitudes of the public towards alternative energy. Only 119,000 electric cars were sold in the US throughout the whole of 2014, by far the biggest global market for them, yet still dwarfed by the demand for cars powered on fossil fuels. Electric cars simply aren't ready to replace or even compete with conventional methods at this current time, and that's the same story with the majority of alternative energy schemes.
It's hard to imagine an overpopulated city in a poorer country reliant on alternative energy in the near future. The prospect simply isn't sustainable or appropriate technology for a developing country.
But the biggest problem by far is implementing alternative energy solutions into poorer countries. How a developing nation is supposed to switch to sustainable energy sources when they can barely manage with burning fossil fuels is something that needs to be addressed. The original question can quite simply be answered with a huge no if developing countries are taken into account, as alternative energy sources can only be funded by economically advanced countries with an already solid energy supply. Not only could poorer countries not afford huge fossil fuel saving schemes, but they don't have the ability to implement technology that is way too advanced and expensive to maintain. I'm not saying that it's impossible for less developed countries to make a contribution, and in fact countries such as Lesotho generate electricity solely through alternative methods, but unfortunately that's an anomaly caused by exceptional circumstances and only on a small scale. The reality is that fossil fuels are a necessity for developing nations, and governments in these areas have far bigger priorities than the threat of global warming.
Alternative energy sources are possible in developing countries, but nationwide programmes are very unlikely to be funded by governments that have other priorities with limited resources.
For alternative energy to become a global reality there would have to be a level of acceptance from both society and world powers. If there is no demand for initiatives such as electric cars or cleaner energy solutions then there is no hope of their even being widespread coverage. At this current time there are steps being taken so that more economically developed countries are creating a demand for this expanding industry, but the figures show that this method of generating power is still in the minority, and will continue to be until further research and refinement is undertaken. Even in the near future it's unlikely to see a shift towards alternative energy sources for personal transport, and despite the global trend increasing for these expensive product I have to conclude that in the near future there is no realistic chance that even the developed world could run on alternative energy sources alone. Statistics show that fossil fuel use was the same today as it was ten years ago. It seems that only when humanity does deplete the Earth of fossil fuels then a forcible change will be noticeable.
Musicals are an appeal that is lost on the likes of me. Prancing around in an unrealistic and pretentious fashion is anything but plausible, even if some of the films on this list manage to substitute this for some well executed scenes. To qualify for this list the film doesn't necessarily have to be a musical production, only that there are multiple songs performed by the cast that integrate themselves into the narrative. Don't expect 'The Beatles' or 'The Who' to make an appearance either, since I've deliberately excluded any concept albums that were adapted into films.
#10 West Side Story (1961) (5/10)
It took centuries, but finally somebody managed to make the story of 'Romeo and Juliet' actually interesting. The result was still far from being a perfect story, but where the acting and choreography let the film down there's always a masterful score to fall back on in all its gay and glorious form. It's hard to believe a heterosexual ever had a say on anything creative during the whole production thanks to cheesy love stories, outrageous clothing choices and the shittest gang rivalry ever conceived. Elton John could only dream of being this level of camp. There may be some serious themes being thrown around the place to try and make some of the story at least a little relatable, but in reality the whole film is just an excuse to have some of the most over-exaggerated dance sequences it's possible to imagine. It's an ethos that a person like myself just loves to hate, but all I can muster up is the thought that this production would have taken a lot of effort to pull off.
Audiences must have loved it though, as to this day this is one cool film to admit liking. Criticising the film in relation to musicals is almost a capital punishment in the more diverse areas of society, but it's easy to see why. The score is, as you would expect with a large budget musical, nothing short of excellent, and the choreography is mindblowingly complex. I guess that's why 'West Side Story' ended up winning ten Oscars for some reason. It's really not that good, and tends to get annoying quite fast, so what separates this musical from other musicals is still a big mystery to me. Still, at least it makes the work of William Shakespeare bearable in the modern age, and I would much rather watch this in an English lesson that those dreadful modern reenactments.
#9 My Fair Lady (1964) (6/10)
'My Fair Lady' will almost certainly be most notable to many for the now iconic performance of Audrey Hepburn, whose beautiful singing voice was actually dubbed rather disappointingly. Despite this manipulation there is no doubt that Hepburn's role as the innocent cockney girl whose life is beautifully transformed into a member of the upper classes is one for the ages. Rex Harrison also pulls his weight in the supporting role, and together these two create the atmosphere of a Victorian parlor game rather than the unsophisticated rabble that most musicals manage. 'My Fair Lady' is a film that would encourage you to gawp at the elaborate costumes rather than enjoying any of the songs, and although that's a brave thing to do in a musical, there is always an underlying love of musical theater that runs deep throughout the whole of this film.
The actual premise of the film is kept rather similar to the origins of a sophisticated George Bernard Shaw piece, which is an interesting reason to burst into song, but one that doesn't just shit on any literary heritage. In reality this serious formula shouldn't work, but as audiences discovered this is far more enthralling that what it might suggest on paper. At the time of release there may have been many who would of rather seen the much more talented Julie Andrews in the lead role, but Hepburn has a charm that can much more easily integrate into the well composed score and sweet narrative. A planned remake was thankfully shelved that would have seen Keira Knightly in the iconic role. A cancellation that would have pleased many in making sure that Hollywood decided against ruining an absolute classic.
#8 Fiddler on the Roof (1971) (6/10)
The film adaptation to the classic 1960's Broadway musical. 'Fiddler on the Roof ' is rather more serious than the conventional musical, clocking in at over three hours long and tackling social themes that other musicals would just show with a crappy dance instead. Surprisingly this musically derived film actually delivers as a decent serious drama, which although broken up with some tedious dancing and singing still creates a memorable narrative that rarely feels pretentious at all. The acting and directing are on par with many serious films of the same subject matter, which is a pleasant surprise from a musical that would usually translate itself into a ridiculous spectacle. For once a musical deserved its three Oscars. Not often do you get a film packed with fun and well written songs that only occasionally ends up becoming an absurdity. It's the least 'musically' musical on this list, and that's exactly why I like it so much.
#7 The Jungle Book (1967) (7/10)
A classic Disney film that manages to nicely combine some cheesy child friendly songs with some of that good old 'Disney magic'. 'The Jungle Book' is a childhood favorite of mine, and only seems to get better with age. As a musical based on a Rudyard Kipling novel this film should never contain any fun or excitement, but in traditional Disney style they forgot about the brutality of the original novel and took a more lighthearted approach to add a bit of cheer to a very dark concept. The result is a family favorite that features some of the most catchy and infectious songs Disney has ever come up with, sung by an eclectic mix of characters that are full of life and personality. Okay the songs aren't technical perfection, but for a big kid like myself they do an excellent job and never get in the way of the essential narrative. In reality I should hate Disney for butchering classic literature and for portraying an ecosystem were orangutans and tigers can coalesce, but for the last film that Walt Disney ever worked on the company managed to encapsulate what everyone loves best about Disney, plus a few little songs as a bonus.
#6 Singin' in the Rain (1952) (7/10)
'Singin' in the Rain' is a film that contains some of the most notable and iconic musical sequences in history. Gene Kelly literally singing in the rain has become a symbol for the energy and charisma required to pull off a successful musical, even if the song's originally lovely message has been tainted by the likes of Stanley Kubrick over the years. To this day 'Singin' in the Rain' is a classic that astounds viewers with its bubbly charm and well executed sequences. The effort that goes into each musical number is astounding, as is the choreography that even by today's standards looks totally polished and professional. This film is a charming romp through the world of classic Hollywood, at times feeling like a newborn puppy with bundles of energy and character that you can't hate despite numerous annoying downfalls. This classic is now regarded as one of the greatest American films of all time by many, and that's impressive for a musical that only found moderate success in its original run.
#5 The Lion King (1994) (9/10)
One of Disney's finest ever films that brought back the magic to a company that hadn't produced a properly good musical in decades. Admittedly the focus in this film is the drama, but the narrative is combined with multiple musical numbers to appeal to any human of any age. The score and musical composition were handled by the powerhouse duo of Elton John and Hans Zimmer, who by themselves are legends in film, yet alone when they worked together. The original plan was to have ABBA perform the music, but I'm glad they didn't. Would this film really have the same effect if the songs were just cheesy and camp pop songs recycled from the 1970's? Zimmer and John are phenomenal together and somehow manage to make the musical aspects of this epic just as memorable as the strong narrative, and despite many creative reshuffles before filming started the end products of both the music and animation are sublime by even Disney's high standards.
Some may argue that this film should be excluded from the list as there isn't an emphasis on musical numbers, but for me the narrative still revolves around the various memorable songs, even if they aren't present in every key scene. Elton John even claimed that the songs he wrote were widely accessible to all age ranges and were all inspired by 'The Jungle Book', and this similar style shows. At no point were any of the songs ever annoying, boring, meaningless, or in any way pretentious despite being pop songs aimed at appeasing children. This is an example of how an epic musical score can complement an epic film, so much so that the album has actually been certified diamond, which is an amazing achievement for an animated film. Disney is famed for including great songs within their classic films, but this was the one that really hit the mark.
#4 The Sound of Music (1965) (7/10)
Arguably the most famous musical on this list, thanks in part to a timeless performance from Julie Andrews who with this film cemented her role as the premier lead actress in any musical, especially if that musical revolves around the work of Rogers and Hammerstein. From the opening sequence, which may just be the most famous of any film ever, and through the variety of songs the cast and production team create an instant classic that borrows many aspects from older musicals and then takes them to the next level. The charming tale of the Von Trapp family, which in reality is actually really fucking dark, is brought to life with some innocent looking children and some orgasmically pretty shots of The Alps that take the focus of this musical away from the Nazis and more towards musical theater.
The thing is that upon first release this film wasn't at all popular with the critics, with some even claiming that the film was 'sentimental' and 'corny', which are actually fair points. Despite this backlash from critics the public loved it and it soon became the highest grossing film of all time, making 2.3 billion dollars at the box office when adjusted for inflation. Of course the film is now regarded as one of the most important films in cinema history, and that too was the reaction from the public at the time. This was the first American film to be completely dubbed in a foreign language, and the film was in such demand that the original release lasted for four and a half years. These astonishing statistics prove that this classic not only stood the test of time but became one of the all time greats in the process. Still, in my opinion there are far better musicals than this.
#3 Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) (8/10)
Okay I might be including a film that isn't really a musical at all on this list, but I thought the songs in this one were integrated brilliantly in what I consider an all time classic. Gene Wilder was a far better Willy Wonka than any Johnny Depp character, chiefly because Wilder has the ability to carry some epic numbers like the one featured above. Songs like that make Wonka seem like an eccentric genius, and the music helps the audience to enter this absurd fantasy land inhabited by lunacy around every corner. The score varies from morbidly dark to peculiar as does the content of the film, but this diversity adds to the intrigue around the whole premise. It's a film that's more mature than the traditional musical, one that substitutes cheap thrills for pure fantasy. It's a film that the child in me still remembers watching for the first time, and although it may have been disowned by original author Roald Dahl, it's still a film to make a song and dance over.
#2 The Wizard of Oz (1939) (8/10)
How could this delightful classic not make it into a high position on this list? 'The Wizard of Oz' has become an institute in Western popular culture over the last few decades despite originally being a disappointment at the box office. It didn't help that the film became the most expensive production at the time of release, but money it didn't make back during its original run has soon been made up for with its now immense popularity. Okay on paper it still looks a bit shit, but where the 1930's visuals don't impress the film makes up for with a bucketload of charm and colorful images. The lush landscapes are combined with some cheery and colourful songs that are almost timeless to the modern viewing public, even if they make you feel like an 80 year old in the process. I honestly don't care though. Huge orchestras make the film seem like a grand occasion upon every watch, which I suppose it very much is considering its lasting impact.
The film turned out to be so good that Pink Floyd decided to coincide their masterpiece 'Dark Side of the Moon' with the entirety of this film. Of course that's a hotly debated topic on a place called the internet, as is the common rumour that in the 'tin man sequence' there is a shot of a munchkin committing suicide in the background. Turns out the rumours surrounding this musical are actually just as mysterious as the magical landscape of 'Oz'. At the end of the day when you have a film with Judy Garland, a wicked witch, and enough LSD inspired bollocks to leave you scratching your head, it becomes a film that's impossible not to love, especially if you're a homosexual that idolises the story and musical theater in general. I wouldn't say this was the greatest example of cinematic perfection, but as musicals go they don't get much better than this all time classic.
#1 Oliver! (1968) (8/10)
I wasn't aware that a Charles Dickens novel could ever be converted into anything even slightly entertaining, but then that was before I saw what has to be one of the most entertaining films in history. But this is more than a film to put a smile on your face; it's also one that does it in bags of style. Somehow the quite brutal story of 'Oliver Twist' that centers on child labour in Victorian England is turned into a mesmerising concept set in a fantasy world that never at any stage feels unrealistic despite everyone breaking into song every now and then. The whole film is a con, filmed in middle class Surrey and containing some of the most lavish and extravagant scenes for even a musical, yet still manages to feel as realistic as a documentary. Unlike the monotonous work of Charles Dickens this film is packed with catchy numbers and interesting characters that vary from the frighteningly gripping Bill Sykes to the innocent charm of the protagonist.
For once a musical managed to ignore the memo about making every musical as cringey and absurd as possible, and instead leave some areas morbidly empty from any song and dance. The great narrative is coupled with musical masterpieces that instantly bring a smile to anyone's face, especially when you realise that the story is pretty top notch as well. Musicals in cinema never get this balance of a strong narrative and strong musical sequences, which although is certainly worthy of praise, is not worthy of a 'Best Picture Oscar'. That for me was going too far, but there's no doubting that this highly acclaimed musical is way ahead of its competitors on both scale and execution. The whole thing is like reading a Charles Dickens novel whilst on laughing gas, and that for me is what makes this production much better than iconic films such as 'The Wizard of Oz'.
This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have a student who believes he has the solution to why children are so unhappy. Unfortunately it turns out this becomes little more than a way to promote his own feelings that haven't even the slightest grip on reality.
___________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/opinion/2015/08/25/why-is-our-government-making-british-children-unhappy/
___________________________________________________________________________________
Oh no, it's instantly obvious that this article will be based on feelings instead of factual evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written by somebody who studies philosophy or some other similar subject that nobody has taken seriously since Ancient Greece, and now thinks that his knowledge will pass as factual evidence despite being total bollocks. Here we have an example of a student thinking that it's the government's moral obligation to eradicate bullying from schools to increase happiness, which although logical is simply not realistic. Bullying is always going to be present in not just schools, but society as well. Whether the reasons for doing so are personal gratification or just the human urge to feel better than others, there is always going to be tension and judgmental conflicts between two different individuals when one doesn't fit in like everyone else. It doesn't matter whether it's for being a homosexual, being a transgender child, or even for wearing glasses, the government should at no point start interfering in what kids are allowed to say and what they can't, especially when the result is branding adolescents with titles such as 'homophobe' and 'racist' that will stay with them for life.
And your source for all of this; why it's the famously reliable and not at all biased 'Daily Mail'. A journalistic source that sells copies by provoking reactions out of the public, so there is absolutely zero chance that any of your information cited has been fabricated in any way. It's also slightly worrying that your main source as to why British children are so unhappy is based on a 'global' study of just fifteen countries. Fifteen. That might indicate the primary data in your assumptions might not be reflective of the reality at all. I find this terrible use of statistics a poor reason to start blasting wild accusations at the government, especially when UNICEF, who let's face it are going to be more reliable than the 'Daily Mail', state that children's wellbeing is actually around average for Europe (https://www.unicef.org.uk/Images/Campaigns/ReportCard11_CYP.pdf). We have to ask is there any issue at all here?
Well this article was quick to pass judgment. Since when did bullying become exclusive to the homosexual community? I can assure you that many normal children also experience bullying, so why the parameters have suddenly become so specific is suspicious to say the least. These statistics might be relevant if you could prove that homophobia causes unhappiness in a significant portion of British children, but you can't. This suddenly looks like a poor excuse to shove your own biased agenda down my throat that doesn't in any way relate to the question. I'll agree that throwing money at something doesn't solve the issue, but that doesn't mean we should start dictating the lives of children in education, as that might end up creating a factory like environment, which you were so keen on highlighting in a previous paragraph. In my funny little world I thought refining the behaviour of children, or 'moulding individuals' as you put it, is exactly the same as a factory like system that you were criticising.
Then we arrive at another terrible use of statistics. 'Homophobic bullying has actually become the most severe'. I must have missed out on learning about the 'standard homophobia measurement system'. I've always stupidly assumed that you could only quantify objective measurements, but apparently it turns out homophobia is objective to philosophers. Maybe they should think a bit harder before using statistics as badly as that ever again, but then that level of thought might make them realise that philosophy is a huge waste of fucking time. Being as you're actually a philosopher I would also have expected you to have thought long and hard about the solution as well, but it turns out you think that highlighting homophobic behaviour and then telling children to stop doing it will work. I seem to recall that attitude of discouraging smoking and banning chewing gum did nothing to stop the problem in education, so I suggest painting a massive bullseye on the back of all homosexuals instead since they're all going to become bigger targets under your system.
Oh for fuck sake, here we go with this body positivity bollocks. Let me guess, you're one of those people who pose as leaders for diversity to try and make yourself look better, when in reality your false sense of sophistication is overshadowed by your blatant denial of how the world actually works. You actually believe that there isn't a link between image and personality. Bullshit: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7280161). And here comes that shitty source work again. This time it's a sitcom actor doing a documentary on BBC3, who are famous for spoonfeeding adolescents, but at least that's better than the fucking 'Daily Mail' again. These sources in no way explain how a so called 'perfect body' is in any way bad for children. What's wrong with having an aspiration that's healthy and looks attractive? It's ambitious for a reason, and a much better example than looking at some bed ridden bag of cholesterol that nobody will ever love because the fact is that people are judgmental. I admire you for trying to see through people's exterior, but a large part of me can't help but feel that in reality that's bollocks and you're just as judgmental in who you find attractive. That's how biology works, which must be a big step up for you considering that the discipline of biology relies on facts instead of subjective bollocks.
Again, this is just your feelings. You must be aware that in reality people are always going to be judgmental. Despite this, your solution to increase happiness with unhealthy people is censorship. Yes, without any causative evidence to back up this radical procedure, you think that showing children a well built human specimen as an example has an overall detrimental effect. Under your regime Calvin Klein will end up using repulsive models such as yourself to hopelessly try and advertise their products; and nobody wants to buy a product that's aimed at vile people like yourself. The study from the University of Kent that you cite says that average sized models 'could' have the same effect, and at no point suggests they're superior to their less realistic counterparts. Couple that with the evidence you have as to why we shouldn't have body standards is because it decreases happiness and your argument soon falls apart, not to mention that happiness can't be quantified. Other things that decrease happiness include losing a game of football, so shall we ban that as well while we get the chance. Yes, let's make all children's lives miserable to appease the minority who are currently unhappy, because in the spirit of your argument there is no better way to celebrate the individuality of students than by refining them even further.
Well that's an interesting conclusion considering that you still haven't provided any evidence that even links the government's obsession over grades to the wellbeing of students. Even more worrying is that your solutions towards curing the happiness of children are to implement the policing of language, censoring attractive bodies that don't reflect the average human, and allowing children to become unhealthy. No I'm sure those flawless procedures will have a dramatic effect on the happiness of children, even though you still haven't comprehended that happiness can't be measured. So no, don't listen to any of the bollocks in this article. More social elements in schools can fuck off. Keep teaching children actual facts that aren't some pretentious philosophy student's worthless feelings, especially when his solutions make Adolf Hitler look like the Virgin Mary. Why can't we just let children enjoy their childhoods without constantly interfering to dictate what's best for them?
This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we discover that feminism is evolving into new ways to try and demonise and oppress the average members in society. Admittedly this article was written last year, but I happened to stumble upon this pile of bollocks by chance, which turned out to be an unfortunate occurrence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/
__________________________________________________________________________________
Just when you thought you'd heard everything they come up with, 'cissexism' manages to be the new low. Have you honestly ever heard of such a stupid way to criticise the lives of ordinary people? Does it not occur to people that that the reason we might live in a society that assumes gender based on genitals is become the vast majority of people aren't transsexuals, and that actually genitals are a fucking accurate indicator? How much of a massive idiot do you have to be to think that genitals aren't a good indication on the gender of a person? As physical features go it's a pretty handy guide to what gender a person might be, so I don't know if the author wants everyone to have their hormones or chromosomes sampled, but if it's alright with me I'd rather live in a judgmental world. What hellish world would we live in if this 'cissexism' was taken seriously? The whole concept of biological sex would just be thrown out the window, which is a fucking dumb thing to try and remove.
But that wasn't enough for this author, who apparently believes that babies will have the ability to distinguish what gender they are even before they have any idea what the concept is. How dare doctors try and determine the gender of the baby just by looking at the genitals. No, the correct way to do it should be by asking the fucking baby who's yet to develop the ability to even speak. That's right doctors, forget all that biology stuff in your degree, it's the sociological aspects of childbirth that are most important. In my opinion there simply isn't a way to naturally change your gender since it's impossible to modify the set of chromosomes your parents gave you during development. I have nothing against people wanting to identify themselves as different genders, but their sex will always be the same, so these societal attitudes towards gender exist for a very valid reason; unlike anything in this article.
Yeah I wonder why society makes 'cissexist' assumptions? Is it because the majority of people identify themselves as the same gender they were conceived as? Surely you must be aware that transgender people do not represent any form of normality, and so it shouldn't be a surprise that 'cisgender' people are logically seen as normal or more natural than their apparently oppressed counterparts. You can't seriously be suggesting that being transsexual is in any way normal, since every bit of factual evidence shows that this section of society is anything but. The same goes with sex changes, which are in no way a natural construct. The desire to change gender is very much natural, but that's not enough reasoning to suggest that this leads to discrimination when you have absolutely no sources to back up society's apparently intrinsic hatred for this section of society.
So now parents aren't even allowed to have a say what gender their child is at birth. What fucking world do you want us to live in? Since when should making polite conversation over what gender the child is be seen as something to frown upon? I don't know if you would prefer if the parents were asked something less 'cissexist', like "has the child got any physical deformities?" But under this hellish system we shouldn't even be allowed to tell other people if our child has got a penis or not. If a woman is allowed to abort the damn thing, why the hell shouldn't she be allowed to determine it's gender? The argument then somehow gets worse by claiming that sonograms can't determine gender. I don't know if you wanted the damn things to predict the future as well, but what they are designed to do is give an indication of what gender your child will be born considering it's an infant coming out of the womb and not a fucking gender studies expert.
In your hellish future we would have to have politically correct sonograms that would have to censor the genitals to the parents because that would be making 'cissexist' assumptions. Not only does that make one of the most exciting parts of childbirth anticlimactic and confusing considering that the majority of names are gender specific, but it's also pretty stupid considering that it's over a baby who can't identify itself as different genders. Being as babies are essentially just shitting machines for the first year or so I think we can forgive the parents for assuming that their child with a knob is a boy. But I'm sure you can see reasoning behind this system of oppressing the majority for the sake of the minority. If you genuinely think that sheltering your child from the concept of gender is a good thing then I'm not sure your offspring will be able to function in the real world. Then again, I'm surprised you have.
Oh no, I hate those assumptions that are based on the truth; what is the world coming too? There may well be a chance that the child will turn out to be transgender, but there's also a chance that it will turn out to be a mass murderer, so should we just imprison it on the spot? What a stupid argument. Imagine the horrific life being this woman's child. She'd tell me as a boy that it was perfectly normal to walk into the ladies toilets and that the women's clothes that I unknowingly chose will not in any way get me bullied at any social gathering. This denial of reality might be justifiable to the author, but what about the others that this madness will unfairly effect? I would recommend that if parents do want to make themselves less 'cissexist' then sterilising yourselves would be my advice. But oh god not women, no saying women need to be sterilised in sexist and oppressive. The white heterosexual male that is myself needs to check his privilege.
That's right, criticise that fucking education system for stupidly trying to teach our kids about safe sex and avoiding STD's. I too don't understand why the curriculum just wouldn't cater for the minority. I have nothing against your ideas being brought up in a sociology class, as nothing in sociology classes is ever taken seriously, but to try and force this sort of nonsense into a factually based subject is a symbol of how stupid this argument is. Biology will factually inform children that men have penises and women have vaginas thanks to centuries of research and common fucking sense, and that will indeed rightfully conflate gender with genitals, because unlike your bullshit this side of the argument is based on facts alone.
With your less 'cissexist' education system children are just going to be alienated by learning from a young age that two reproductive systems exist for either gender, which will in turn lead to a lot of sexually confused adolescents. Not only does this defeat the whole purpose of sex education, but it will also detach children from how their own bodies work, all so you can cater for the possibility that an imaginary child might want to switch genders. Essentially this article is just a big middle finger to the factually based discipline of biology, replacing these facts with illogical feelings. But hey it's not as if life sciences are good for the transsexual community anyway. No, aside from making the process of gender reassignment possible they're all a bunch of 'cissexist' assholes.
'Teaching generalisations can be harmful' No, I can see absolutely nothing hypocritical about that statement. I can't recall one single generalisation in this whole article. Maybe that quote should be altered to 'teaching bollocks can be harmful'; that would be more appropriate for this article. Unfortunately in a scientific argument like this we have to talk about generalisations, and at no point in the article do you ever prove how they can be harmful. Call me blind but I've certainly seen no evidence that telling me I have a penis has been detrimental, nor how that fact is even related to the number of female presidents. Surely that's like comparing apples and oranges. Since when did teaching children about biological theories held for hundreds of years become the same as a current gender related issue about politics? But no apparently these generalisations are harmful, and so sheltering children from the reality is obviously the best method. If you want the instances of females becoming presidents to be higher I can assure you that labeling these generalisations as 'harmful' is not the way forward. I think your version of logic is different to everyone else's darling.
What brilliant factual reasoning we get to end the argument. "Many men can fall pregnant." That may be true if we were talking about pipefish, but unfortunately for you they don't understand gender constructs. The fact is that in a human male that's unfortunately biologically impossible. I don't care how you identify yourself, if you have the visceral organs of a human male then you cannot give birth, nor have you ever been able too. The only way a 'man' can fall pregnant is if they still contained female reproductive organs at the time of conception, but giving birth is still an impossibility, so why the fuck should men have birth rights? I like how this article concludes by trying to claim that sexism is present in the abortion debate, and then blatantly ignores that observation by trying to exclude men who identify themselves as men from the argument. Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical? How dare those selfish men have an opinion? This sort of attitude to the debate might reflect 19th century society, but how could I possibly know that? I'm a white heterosexual man and so therefore can't have an opinion on the matter. Especially as I would try and turn this argument towards a factual debate rather than focus on my feelings.
The issue of natural human diet is one that when researched on the internet leads to lots of articles about how humans are 'naturally' herbivores. This is a an interesting point considering the issues that intensive meat farming has over the natural world, and so I went onto the 'PETA' website to find out about what apparently is a 'natural' human diet and whether that should include the consumption of meat.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet
__________________________________________________________________________________
Ah PETA, let's see if we can actually construct a plausible argument for once instead of just blatantly lying. Apparently you couldn't keep away from the generalisations though, as for some reason one of your points assumes that humans who eat meat should therefore logically start salivating over a decomposing corpse at the side of the road. Yeah just foolproof, I guess that's why all vegetarians instantly salivate over every blade of grass they see. I don't suppose that vegetarians dream about picking and subsequently killing cabbages either, but for some reason PETA only think the inverse applies. Now I'm a biology student, and at no point have I ever heard that humans are not designed to eat meat despite taking a course on human physiology that heavily referenced the dietary aspects of the human body. I have been taught however that diet is dictated by evolution, which is a constant process, so to try and dictate the 'natural' diet of an organism is naive since every food source is a natural construct.
I don't know who was tasked with writing this piece for PETA, and nor do I really care, but they don't seem to have any awareness that an organism can be omnivorous. Is this line of thought ever explored? No, the whole thing is about trying to debunk the carnivorous tendencies of humans with some outrageous and inaccurate assumptions that show a true neglect for scientific integrity. A 'natural diet' is one that is derived from nature. I don't know in what universe eating meat isn't a natural construct, but in this one saying that eating meat is unnatural is a bit like saying homosexuality and polygamy are also unnatural. These three things may go against the principles of natural selection, but they are very much natural actions. The question should instead relate to whether humans have evolved to be herbivorous, and then explain why it would be impossible or unreasonable for humans to adapt to a carnivorous lifestyle.
Humans may well have different teeth from say a leopard, but then they looking nothing like a fucking elephant's either. Of course teeth are going to vary with each organism as they each evolved in different environments. Maybe we should instead compare the human anatomy to a closely related omnivore like a chimpanzee, and then surprisingly we'll find there are barely any differences. Of course there's always going to be differences if you compare drastically different animals separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Parrots for example have fucking talons, yet tarsiers have nails; guess which one is the carnivore and which is the herbivore? Let's stop classing carnivores as one huge group of animals because there are obviously going to be differences in claws between humans, who do not bring down their prey by striking at them, and a lion or a bear, which do strike down their prey using their claws that are obviously going to be bigger.
Short intestinal tracts? They're fucking 30 foot long, which is roughly the same length as most omnivores. This is another example of a dreadful use of animal biology. Since when does meat rot in the fucking intestines? That would make the consumption of just a little bit highly dangerous, and so I'm amazed that you can make sweeping statements like that without giving at least a single source. What evidence do you have to suggest that meat behaves much differently during digestion than fruit and vegetables? You don't, nor have you mentioned that you can also quite easily get diseases from eating products that don't come from animals; not everything is grown in a sterile environment. It's true that the intestines are one of the most significant barriers against disease in the human body, but then why is there a high concentration of white blood cells to act as an immune barrier if humans are evolved to eat the apparently harmless vegetation?
You haven't seemed to grasp the fact that the human body can adequately digest meat, which isn't just a coincidence and is something that has naturally arisen over time. If not then please explain to me why there is a presence of specific protease enzymes that have the sole function of breaking down amino acids in far greater quantities than you would find in beans or similar foods. The theory of enzyme induction proves that without this natural source of meat in the diet these enzymes just wouldn't be synthesised, so there is still absolutely nothing in this article that demonstrates why humans physiologically shouldn't eat meat.
Do we have the instincts to be herbivores as well? It's all very well stating some vague information when you can't prove the inverse. You also haven't provided any sources to claim that carnivores take pleasure in bringing down prey. To carnivores bringing down prey is a mechanism of survival, much like breathing or drinking water is to me, yet do I take pleasure in undertaking those vital tasks? No, but there are people that do take pleasure from bringing down prey; that's why the popular sport of hunting exists, which according to you is impossible to exist because humans don't enjoy 'the thrill of the chase'. Just because something is widely repulsive doesn't mean it's unnatural. The sight of somebody else having a shit is disgusting to me, but just like vomiting these disgusting processes are something entirely natural, and don't in any way indicate that vile things are not what humans are designed for.
If humans really aren't designed to be natural predators then would PETA like to explain to me why the eyes on humans face in a forward direction similar to most carnivores? Would they also like to explain how humans have a relatively high level of intelligence that's similar to the majority of omnivores? How about why humans have been selected to be bipedal, making them slower than predators that would have otherwise predated on our species? There's just so many physiological arguments that PETA fail to address, and that's because when you look at how humans are evolved it becomes apparent that we're most adapted to be omnivorous. But PETA don't understand that, so now we're going to go through why meat is such an evil creation.
Yeah it's an obvious scientific fact that tumors are a physical impossibility in animals. The reality is that cancer has roughly the same rate of fatalities in wild animals, which is thought to be around 10%. I don't understand how all of these conditions arise from just consuming meat. Admittedly there are well known health risks with overindulging in meat, but that's the same with everything. If health risks really are the issue then why not discourage cigarettes or alcohol for being unnatural, as these luxury items are far more dangerous to a person's health than a slice of meat. And anyway just because something is unhealthy doesn't mean that it's not part of the natural diet. Just look at the giant panda; that's a species that should naturally be a carnivore but has adapted its diet to bamboo. Admittedly that adaptation isn't particularly healthy, but evolution isn't a perfect process. Humans however have successfully adapted to their diet which you even decide to admit in the next paragraph.
No the process of eating meat didn't turn our ancestors into carnivores, rather omnivores, but they sure as hell weren't herbivorous even by your own admission. What you've done is fallen on your own sword there, as you've openly admitted that humans have evolved to become omnivores; why can't you just fucking admit that humans are omnivores? But no, you keep on throwing up bollocks such as how apparently humans were predominantly vegetarian throughout their existence. Bullshit. Studies suggest that the reality is almost certainly the inverse. A leading anthropologist at the University of California states that "I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal
food for early humans. I have come to believe
that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely
essential role in human evolution." (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html) Turns out that not only are humans perfectly adapted to eating meat as a natural food source, but it's been vital to our very survival. That one piece of evidence alone is enough to prove that this idea of a naturally herbivorous diet couldn't be further from the truth.
Farmers of course are unanimously famous for being millionaires. What a distorted view of history we have here. Just looking at those rural Inuit tribes in the barren arctic landscapes and you can instantly see that despite their diet high in protein, they actually have low incidences of cardiovascular diseases. I like how we've now had to revert to sociological arguments to try and justify what was originally an argument about the natural behaviour of humans. The natural world has nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions, so why PETA are hurling this bullshit at us all of a sudden is an indication that they're out of fabricated lies.
Overall I think it's pretty clear that humans are perfectly fine to eat a diet of meat thanks to thousands of years of evolution. To say that humans are naturally vegetarians completely undermines the mechanism of evolution, and bringing in ethical issues as evidence is irrelevant in a purely scientific debate. Humans are adequately evolved to be omnivorous, and so are perfectly capable to survive without eating meat. To then claim that eating meat is unnatural is a misguided viewpoint that relies on manipulating the truth to carry any weight. So yes, it's perfectly natural for a human to eat meat. It may be true that humans are more adapted to eat a diet consisting of predominantly vegetation, but to say we're not designed to eat meat at all would be a stupid thing to say in a species that can quite clearly flourish under an omnivorous diet. If you really are obsessed with what humans should be naturally doing then please feel free to sell your house and walk around with your bollocks hanging out, because our bodies aren't evolved for housing or clothing either.
It's no secret that I love the sci-fi genre, and over the years they've been a constant source for my top ten lists. I just find the concept of other worlds being inhabited by various life forms fascinating, even if the film industry likes to portray the inhabitants as bloodthirsty savages half the time. Here is a list of my ten most memorable aliens that created some great movie moments.
#10 The Blob (The Blob)
Not really an alien race exactly, more like a living blob thing that eats anything in its way, but over the years it's become the iconic centerpiece to a decent horror film. Whether there's any conscience activity in this alien species in unknown, but that doesn't really matter when your sole purpose in the film is to eat random people in suburban America. I honestly don't end up caring if it can feel pain as the film presents this creature as something bizarre and dangerous from outer space, and the mere thought of it even existing is terrifying enough for me to stop asking pointless existential questions. The original film from the 1950's was just a simple horror film, but the 1980's remake was one filled with political messages and themes to hide the fact that the antagonist was a simple blob that had now evolved to divide, rather than just expanding at a rapid yet predictable rate. It's a concept so simple yet still scary, using the unknown as an effective device that supersedes the poor visuals and basic acting. 'The Blob' is proof that when you have a strong concept the results make for an interesting film that portrays an alien race that's both terrifying and hilariously simple at the same time.
#9 E.T. (E.T. the Extra Terrestrial)
This one's slightly less intimidating than most of the aliens on this list, but there's no denying the impact this weird thing has had on the film industry. This Spielberg creation is not a bloodthirsty species, instead enjoying gardening, phoning home and having the ability to heal humans with a single touch. Yet despite all this 'E.T.' still has no place on planet Earth, which is a bit out of order considering he doesn't have the natural desire to murder everything. The original concept was designed by legendary alien creator Carlo Rambaldi, who decided to spend 1.5 million dollars to make the puppet, so it's a good job the guy knew what he was doing. Rambaldi created a unique alien species that for once the audience could actually empathise with. Admittedly 'E.T.' still looks pig ugly for 1.5 million, but the ugly charm of the thing certainly helped propel the film into the list that includes some of the all time greats. In fact 'E.T.' became the highest selling film in history at the time of release, so this brown skeleton must have done something to please global audiences.
#8 Zabrak (Star Wars)
'Darth Maul' is a Zabrak. 'Darth Maul' wields a double handed lightsaber. 'Darth Maul' has fucking awesome looking facepaint. What else do you need to know to justify including a species this brilliant on the list?
#7 Bugs (Starship Trooper)
Yeah I wouldn't want to get into a fight with one of these things. Whether they're called 'Bugs' or 'Arachnids' these bastards can easily take down an armored tank, or even a whole human invasion force for that matter. In fact these things are only susceptible to radiation, which when you think about it makes the thought of meeting one pretty damn frightening. However 'Arachnids' are not just content with murdering everything in their path as they will also fire spores into random planets in space to start a new population there. Not surprisingly this leads to a conflict with many humans on many different planets leading to many different deaths in many different places. I would say the film was about other things, but really it's a feeble excuse to show a lot of death.
The original novel on the other hand is one that doesn't just show these things mindlessly mowing down platoons of humans. Admittedly they do mow down a lot of humans, but this is overshadowed by a fascist undertone that never makes its way into the film. It's a shame really as the original book was one with a strong message, but only a relatively small amount of dark satire and political context ever crops up in the film. But hey, who doesn't love watching bugs as scary as these getting brutalised? Well not many critics actually, but that's not the fault of these social insects that remind me of a giant ant colony from hell. The thought of millions of these things charging at me is enough to make me soil myself, especially when the visual effects are properly good, allowing these simple bugs to become quite powerful antagonists.
#6 Prawns (District 9)
Not a sentient species that allows the film to explore different worlds, but actually a bunch of refugees on Earth who are used to showcase the failings of human society. These unnamed aliens are put into a shanty town by the bastards in South Africa after their ship lands on Earth. 'Prawns', as they are sometimes referred to, are named after a local species of cricket, and combine this with their ugly complexion and isolation from human society and they provide a perfect symbol for systematic human oppression. For once a film actually gave aliens with weird complexions a voice, and as a result 'District 9' became a cult hit with its strong messages on apartheid and poverty. The irony of the 'Prawns' is that they're the only race in the film to show any compassion, which is a drastically different attitude to most other aliens on this list, making them one of the more interesting constructs in the heavily populated world of sci-fi.
#5 Rancor (Star Wars)
If I could have anything in my house it would be a giant lever that connects to a trap door that would allow me to choose who gets to fight the 'Rancor' in my basement. It would be amazing how much less double glazing I would get sold on my doorstep if they had to face this beast each time. Let's face it, this alien is yet another awesome creation from the people at 'Star Wars'. The actual 'Rancor' in the films was a puppet, and that legendary and fearsome roar is just the recordings of an angry dog, yet despite these small shortcomings the 'Rancor' is the best pet a giant worm thing could ever have. Over they years it's become one of the most poignant characters of the mediocre sixth 'Star Wars' film, but then there's not much else about that film that gets me terribly excited.
#4 The Thing (The Thing)
Well there's absolutely zero chance that watching this alien appear for the first time didn't make me shit myself at all. Yes, okay I may have given myself brown pants on multiple occasions when seeing this classic horror creation, but I can't be the only one to have been given nightmares by this thing that can quite literally takeover bodies after brutally murdering them. The results are like the picture above, and if that isn't horrifying then you're a much braver person than I ever will be. It almost doesn't matter that the idea of this creation ever existing isn't plausible in any way, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't suspicious of any random organism being controlled by 'The Thing' for years after first watching the film. That's what makes the concept so terrifying, it just doesn't matter that the whole idea is ridiculous because when you have a garish beast inhabiting an Antarctic base mutilating everything it sees then the result is a horror classic. Fair play to director and makeup artists involved; they are the ones that made this monster look as nightmarish as possible. 'The Thing' is like watching 'Alien' with a lot more gore, but we'll get to that later on.
#3 Wookiee (Star Wars)
Of all the amazing races in 'Star Wars', and there's a lot to choose from, the 'Wookiee' was the one I just had to let win. George Lucas' now iconic creation helped lift the original 'Star Wars' film to such wide acclaim, breathing life into a now legendary universe with their central role in the narrative. The design may well just be a giant hairy carpet, but nobody cares about the simple design when you have a character as awesome as 'Chewbacca'. Nowadays 'Wookiees' can be found littered throughout the 'Star Wars' franchise, but it was that original representation as Han Solo's trusty sidekick that forced everyone to love this alien race. It was that on and off relationship with Han Solo that fueled not just tonnes of slash fiction for nerds everywhere, but also the start of one of the biggest selling franchises of all time.
#2 Predator (Predator)
A species so deadly that only someone as awesome as Arnold Schwarzenegger could ever have a chance at taking one down. Admittedly they do look a lot cooler with their masks on, as without them they look like a Rastafarian scrotum, but that weird look has certainly not hindered this thing's fearsome status in the sci-fi community. Originally the role of 'Predator' was supposed to be specifically designed for Jean Claude Van Damme, although that was later adapted for the seven foot 2 inch tall Peter Hall, who's size definitely makes this iconic role all the more intimidating. It also makes this monster even more terrifying when you realise something seven feet tall can swing through trees and outmuscle any human; even Arnold Schwarzenegger.
However that's not enough for these super-evolved killing machines as they also posses thermal imaging sensors, shoulder mounted laser guns, active camouflage and a fucking massive bomb that goes off when they die. What a pleasant creation these things are. They are at the pinnacle of evolution for mutilating humans and stripping down their corpses to collect their skulls. Just the thought of these monsters being trophy hunters is one of the most disturbing thoughts imaginable, but that's what made the original film so successful.
#1 Xenomorph (Alien)
It's no secret that I love the 'Alien' franchise, and central to this love is the awesome antagonists that terrified cinemagoers like myself in the first two installments. Just a single 'Xenomorph' was enough scares for a great horror film, so when you saw countless more in the sequel, including a fucking monstrous queen, then you have enough action to give me an orgasm. I don't know who the guy responsible for the design of these things was, which is a bit of a lie considering it was quite famously Swiss artist H.R. Giger, but fair play to you mate; you did a fucking great job. Every little detail from their massive foreheads to that carnivorous tongue and acidic blood is just designed to perfection. Nothing interesting ever comes out of Switzerland often, but these are one of the most interesting and menacing things to come out of anywhere. Just a shame we have to kill every single one of them when they look so fucking cool.
However this is just the adult stage of the complex 'Xenomorph' lifestyle. Not content with some fucking cool aliens, the creators behind the 'Alien' franchise decided that to make these things even more horrifying they needed to start out in life as parasites. The method; hugging people's faces. For me the thought of a 'Xenomorph' latching onto my face and laying eggs inside me whilst I'm still alive is the stuff of nightmares. It's not as if you can just peel them off either as they have a stranglehold so tight that it will rip your face off, and cutting it loose will just spill that highly acidic blood everywhere. Just the sight of their nests with all those eggs being laid was one of the biggest 'nope' moments I've ever experienced in cinema, yet alone when the fucking parasite decided to quite literally burst it's way out of the human's chest. If all that wasn't enough then James Cameron thought a fifteen foot queen was enough to steal the show in 'Aliens', quite rightfully giving these aliens a legendary status in film history. A deserved status when the inclusion of these things made the original such a disturbing and unforgettable experience.
