Why do we care?

It's a question I have asked myself many a time. Or more specifically, I sometimes look at certain people, who go through life never caring about others, with only themselves in mind; the stereotypical frat bro, jock, princess, what have you; and I wonder what it would be like. To never be burdened with the question of how your actions might affect someone else. To care only about your own well-being and pleasure. Because as cynical as I may be about humanity as a whole, I still have faith in my belief no one could do the things some people do, if only they understood the consequences. That is, I want to believe that, save for a very, very small minority, that no one makes the conscious choice to be evil, to be a horrible person.

This is why I could never be one of those people. Because whether I like it or not, I notice. I notice how an action might hurt someone. I notice that what I want may sometimes cause someone else misfortune. I notice, that while this life is most definitely not a zero-sum game, there are times where helping myself means holding someone else back.

Which brings us back to the real question behind these hypotheticals. Why do we care? Or perhaps the question is, why do we choose to do things that are not to our benefit, in order to help someone else out? After all, genetically speaking, shouldn't our main priority always be self-preservation?

This is something I've put a fair amount of thought into, and at least for myself, I think I have an answer. Other people may have their own reasons, but this is mine; pursuing my own happiness alone, with no consideration for others, will never be enough. In the end, it feels meaningless. It's not worth the trouble. Even if I could make myself happy, what would be the point? Why should I care?

This has nothing to do with a lack of self esteem. I don't want anyone to think that any of this means I have an issue with self worth. It is simply that, when one looks at the grander scheme of things, personal advancement alone becomes so minute. No, what I need is the ability to impact not just my own life, but the lives of others as well. Because life is not a zero-sum game. And so, it should be possible in the end to improve not just yourself, but those around you as well.

This is why I care. This is why I give a damn. And this is why I will never stop giving a damn. Because if at the end of my life, I can say that I have had a positive influence on even just one other soul, then I can die happy, knowing that there are now two people with marks in the win column, and not just one.

What you don't know about what you eat....and why it might not actually hurt you

So, who else has heard about the pink slime debacle? For those who haven't heard the term, it refers to beef trimmings (which would otherwise be discarded) which are mixed into ground beef. These trimmings consist mostly of beef fat, and is part of how the lean meat percentage is controlled in each package (typically from 80% up to 95%, with leaner beef being more expensive). What's got the public in an uproar is the way these trimmings are treated - with ammonium hydroxide - to kill bacteria, which has the side effect of producing a visible pinkish 'slime'. The pink slime is still beef, although mostly beef fat, and has been altered in no way other than the anti-microbial treatment.

When this information was published, many people went nuts, demanding that the product be taken from the shelves, decrying the use of the chemical, and questioning why companies didn't list it as an ingredient. Many supermarkets have been pressured into either pulling the product, or introducing labels to the packaging.

So the question is this. Is the pink slime actually detrimental to health, and if not, what's the big deal? Ammonium hydroxide is classified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). This puts it in the same category as many common preservatives, as well as many vitamin/nutritional supplements (a full list of GRAS substances can be found here). In other words, these are ingredients that are consumed on a daily basis, ingredients that have been confirmed by a panel of experts as being safe to consume.

Of course, no one is infallible, and the possibility remains that maybe, this method of treatment is detrimental to human health. If that is the case, however, it certainly hasn't made a noticeable impact, at least compared to other problems caused by bad nutrition. How long do you think pink slime has been around? A year? 2? 5? Try almost 20. If you've had a burger at any point in your life, you probably consumed pink slime. Estimates suggest that almost 70% of all ground beef sold in the US contains the pink slime. Pretty much all US fast food burger chains use meat with the stuff, with almost 20% content in some cases (which makes sense...compare fast food burger patties with grocery store patties, and you'll find that the taste/texture is most comparable to the 80% lean beef, aka 20% fat). Over the past 20 years, no link has been made between pink slime and any health problem, no cases of it causing any illness.

The usage of ammonium hydroxide started as a response to E. coli outbreaks. When it was introduced, tests showed that it effectively eliminated the bacteria. Without it, the trimmings that are included in ground beef would be discarded, a not insignificant amount of waste.

When it comes to our food, just about everything is treated in some way, unless it has an organic label (and even then, the laws regarding labeling leave a few loopholes). Flour is bleached with peroxides, chlorines, or other chemicals to achieve that pure white color, and also to help improve the texture of baked goods. Sorbic acid, sulfites, and others are used in many canned or boxed foods as an antimicrobial preservative. That soda you're drinking? It probably has caramel coloring, which often contains ammonium compounds or alkalis. And let's not even get into some of the stranger additives. Red 4 (aka Carmine)? It's made from crushed beetle shells. More commonly known, but still shocking to some, is that gelatin is made from animal hooves.

The point here is, we do a lot to our food. Sure, it may not be natural. But these practices developed for a reason. Here, it's all about preservation, and making food safe to eat. By banning pink slime, the trimmings that get treated and sold would have to be discarded, as they are typically more likely to be contaminated. The ammonium hydroxide treatment eliminates bacteria, making it safe to consume without having to worry about getting sick. While there is certainly something to be said for eating food that is as close to its natural state as possible, the concept of 'natural' is perhaps at the same time a bit overblown. Let's face it. Barely anything we do as humans today can be considered 'natural,' from technology we use daily, to modern longevity (life expectancy has consistently risen over time), to all medical practices, down to the basics like cooking our food or purifying water. We do these things, because although unnatural, they are beneficial. So perhaps, sometimes ignorance really is bliss. After all, people ate their burgers happily for years before news of pink slime scared them into action. Maybe sometimes, it really is better just not to know. And if you do want to know, make sure your reactions are informed, lest we fall prey to the witch hunt mindset, and start burning things simply because we don't understand them. We've all seen how that worked out for humanity.

Editorial: In Trayvon Martin's death, ugly echoes

That's the title of an editorial piece that was published in USA Today the other day. Click here to see the article.

I fully agree with the title. I think it's absolutely ugly how people are calling for Zimmerman's blood, how so many people are assuming he's a racist, because he shot a black youth, with no other evidence to go on. I think it's ugly, the way race is being used as a weapon, to shut down all rational discussion, to make it seem okay to place a $10,000 bounty on a man's head, and drive him into hiding, fearing for his life. I think it's ugly the way the media places a bad mugshot of Zimmerman next to a photo of a smiling Martin, clearly taking one side already. 

If you didn't read the editorial, the writer tries to compare this case to Emmet Till. How, exactly, is a 60 year old hate crime in any way relevant? Till was murdered by racists who didn't like that he whistled at a white woman. But here? Speculate all you like, but Zimmerman says he fired out of self-defense. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Why are people so quick to assume that he is lying? 

I think it's irresponsible how the media portrays only one side of the story. Go through the major newspaper outlets, and all you'll find is one article after another speculating on Zimmerman's racism. They headline quotes from Martin's family and friends, but offer no rebuttals from Zimmerman's relatives. And people buy into this. Thanks to the media, outrage over this case has been fueled to a fever pitch.

Here's the facts, as far as they are currently known. Zimmerman saw Martin, then followed him after calling 911. According to witnesses, the two got into a fight, during which calls for help were heard. While it is unclear from reports who did the shouting, close friends of Zimmerman say it is his voice calling for help in the 911 recordings. An anonymous witness stated that Martin was on top, beating on Zimmerman during the fight, and corroborates that the voice was Zimmerman's. In the end, Zimmerman fired 2 shots, one of which hit and killed Martin.

Yeah. Sounds like blatant racism to me. /sarcasm.

Did Zimmerman overreact when he fired his weapon? Maybe. Was Zimmerman guilty of profiling when he first decided to follow Martin, saying that Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something? Probably. But that is not racism. Would you feel more threatened by a labrador or a rottweiler? How about a middle aged man in a suit vs a teen wearing a hoodie with his pants dropped halfway to the ground? Are you more willing to trust someone who just stepped out of a brand new car, or a rusty van with blacked out windows? We profile everyone and everything in the world. Whether our expectations fit the reality or not, it's how we make sense of our surroundings. A famous example is the candidate quiz:

Candidate A consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. 

Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any illicit affairs.

Who didn't pick C, only to find out they chose Hitler, over Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt? But there is nothing wrong with that choice, because every moment of every day, we have to make choices based on whatever little knowledge we have. And most often, when encountering someone you don't know, that knowledge is limited to visual appearance. Zimmerman made a choice. And now, he's being punished for it.

I get it, okay? Black people have been discriminated against, have suffered terribly at the hands of whites in the past. And yes, racial inequity has not been completely eradicated. But don't you think it's about time to start letting go of this grudge? Maybe it's time to stop assuming every white-on-black incident is a case of racism. Those were the actions of dead men. Maybe, instead of dwelling on the past, it would be more productive to look to the future. Success, status, respect. Those are things that are not simply given. They are earned by those who work for it. Use race as a tool to get what you want, and people may offer you their sympathy, and their pity, but nothing more. Let's face it. The black community is not one that holds the highest of reputations in the minds of many people (again, this is not inherently racism). But if you make your own path forward, instead of asking for reparations for past wrongs? Then you earn the respect, and trust of the masses. It may be hard, and it may not be fair, but such is life. No one ever said it would be easy (and if they did, well, they lied. Sorry).

Oh, and a note to the media; I don't care how slow of a news day you have. Report on how nothing happened today, how the most interesting piece of news you could find is a picture of a cat sitting in a box, for all I care. Just don't try to create news when it's not there.

The editorial article ends with the question "If Zimmerman were black and had shot a white, unarmed 17-year-old, would police have let him go?"

To which I ask, "If Zimmerman were black and had shot a white, unarmed 17-year-old, would anyone have even heard his name?"

I Would Found an Institution....

Hey guys, I've got a great idea! Y'alls know how there's always all these special interest groups everywhere right? Well, you know who doesn't have one? White guys! Let's call it the Association for White Evangelist Sons Of Manly Men, or AWESOMM! It's even got a great acronym, it'll be sweet!

What's that? What do you mean I'm a racist, bigoted, sexist chauvinist pig? I'm just looking out for the average joes out there! Why do you hate me now? Where did that even come from?

See, here's the thing. I look around campus, and there's a group for just about everything. There's Black Students United (BSU), the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), the Central American United Students Association, Chinese Student Association (CSA), Korean American Student Association. It gets even more specific; there's a Jewish Russian Club, a Black Law Students Association, Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science, Women in Public Policy. You know what there isn't? A club for whites. Or a club for men (frats being excluded here, since for one thing, there's the female counterpart, sororities, and besides, frats aren't about male advancement, like the other clubs being talked about).

Why is that? Can you imagine the uproar, if someone actually tried, around here, to start a club that was for white men only? They'd be compared to the KKK in a heartbeat. And yet, we hold up activist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as paragons of diversity, herald them as champions of social progress. If I were to start an organization with the express purpose of helping only white men, I would be immediately blacklisted as a racist, a sexist, a bigot, and any number of other less than savory things. Yet this is exactly what these existing groups do; they work for the sole purpose of advancing their constituent groups, over the interests of other groups.

I think it's time to stop being so apologetic. We are so afraid of coming off as politically incorrect, that we happily buy into this idea that racism, or sexism, or any other -ism, only works one way. If I were to say that I choose to avoid a certain city district because of its high crime rate, I run the risk of getting called a racist, simply because that district is dominated by African American residents. Never mind the high homicide rates, or the storefronts with smashed windows, and the rampant vandalism everywhere. No, obviously I just hate black people. And the thing is, we let people get away with politically charged accusations like that. We back down from people who make such ridiculous assertions, because being called racist or sexist is political death. Those accusations stick, warranted or not, and forever tarnish your reputation, no matter what you do. And that is only made worse by the fact that we like to take the side of the "little guy," if only because it seems like the right thing to do, regardless of the situation.

When was the last time you questioned an accusation of sexism, or racism? I remember once, a speaker came to talk about women's rights and rape. Specifically, she talked about how if a man were to have sex with a woman who was drunk, that it constitutes rape, because she could not give proper consent while intoxicated (since you know, intoxication = impaired decision making). When asked, "What if the guy is drunk too?" she replied with a comment about how men don't try to have sex with a pencil sharpener (insert obligatory tiny penis joke), and are therefore clearly not too drunk to make a conscious choice. Everyone laughed, and she moved on with her spiel. Except.....does that logic really make sense? After all, I would posit the question: do women try to have sex with a knife when drunk? I think not, and therefore, unless the man forces himself on the woman (which is then actually rape), then clearly, she made the conscious choice too. So why is it then the man's fault, when she decides in the morning that hey, maybe that wasn't such a great idea? Why shouldn't the woman take equal responsibility in her actions, if she considers it a mistake? Because you know, the only other explanation would be to assert that women are incapable of making that decision, and oh wait, that's the exact opposite of equality.

I'm not saying that whatever -isms have been eradicated from society. Far from it. I don't believe it ever will be. However, I would say that, depending on how you define it, there's either a hell of a lot more or a hell of a lot less than people seem to think. As a general rule, only whites are ever accused of racism, only men singled out as sexists. But to define it so broadly as many people do, then it must be acknowledged that for every racist Caucasian out there, there is an equally racist Black, or Hispanic, or Asian; for every chauvinist man who thinks women belong in the kitchen, there is a female feminazi just as ready to denounce all men as useless wastes of space. I've heard Hispanics rant about how dirty and smelly blacks are, seen black kids bully a white kid for being white, read about women physically abusing their husbands. Racism and sexism exist universally; it is only a matter of which cases we choose to notice.

So you know what? Let's do it. I, an Asian American male, do hereby found this association for socio-political equality for white men, an association which will be open to free-thinkers of any and all races, genders, religions, orientations, etc. Let us accept no judgement on our morality, for we have nothing to fear, nothing to hide, and nothing to apologize for. Let's find out just how far the truly bigoted are willing to go to shut down our voices. And it will be AWESOMM.

When Opportunity Knocks....

So! No real post this week, but just wanted to share some exciting news. I recently applied to be on a new show on Discovery called Top Engineer. Apparently, they liked my app, and they asked me to submit an audition video! Just sent it in the other day, so here's hoping. With luck, y'alls will be able to see me on TV, competing for the title of Top Engineer! Funny thing is, shooting for the show (if I do get in) runs straight through all of my finals and graduation. So either I'll have to get some exceptions from my professors, or I'll get to say that I dropped out of Cornell [redacted] University to compete on Top Engineer. Seems legit to me.

Sparks of Inspiration

Inspiration is a fickle business. It can disappear and leave you for days, weeks, months, only to suddenly show up and sneak into your head like a Trojan horse of thoughts, until your mind is full to bursting. Recently, I've had such a massive string of ideas floating through my head, from story ideas for the webcomic I've been struggling with, to design concepts for various projects I've been working on for years, to the urge to pick up my violin once again and just play all the notes exploding out of my mind. Even this blog post is a little spontaneous; the idea popped into my head an hour earlier, and although I had intended to wait a few hours until after my classes to write this, I couldn't help it; I had to get it down right now, even though this wouldn't post until half a week later. I've always considered myself a bit on the artsy side, but I'd forgotten just how much was missing until recently.

I have no idea what triggered this. It's been many months since I've had this much creativity flowing through my person. I can only attribute it to the return of my spiritual muse. Do any of you have muses? An avatar of artistic creativity that speaks to you? I feel like I do. I've known her face (yes, it's a she), for years, and she has driven my spurts of artistic growth.

I'm not sure I really know how to explain it exactly; when I consider the various facets of who I am, certain personalities crystallize into distinct characters in my mind's eye. Some even have names.

There's others, but these are the ones that are the clearest. I'm sure I sound pretty crazy right about now, but hey, I don't deny it. Who says crazy should be a bad thing anyway?

I use the term "art" here loosely. It's not just drawings and music, but it also extends into my work as an engineer. If this were several centuries earlier, I might say that machines speak to me; I look at gears and springs, pistons and actuators, and somehow, it all makes sense intuitively. I can look at a mechanism and form a mental picture of it, and spin it about like a hologram to understand where everything is going. With the recent return of my muse, I've been able to see so much more clearly, some of the things I've wanted to build over the years, but never had the time to do. Case in point; one thing that I always wanted to build was an electric skateboard. Without going into details, a lot of the design problems I had been having trouble with practically solved themselves in my mind the other day; drive shafts connected themselves, joints and suspensions fell into place, and the whole thing became clear as day. I'm not sure if any of this makes sense as an explanation, but it's like I can see the entire blueprint in my mind, like a schematic out of some scifi movie. In my head, I can see the entire machine, zoom in on a specific mechanism, explode it to consider the individual parts. Maybe this is why I'm such a fan of steampunk; these sorts of things just make sense to me.

Granted, I probably won't find the time (or funding) to actually make the board, or any of the other ideas I have, a reality anytime soon. But damn if it doesn't feel good to have some artistic clarity again. It's like they say in Inception; an idea is like a virus, resilient and highly contagious, growing like a seed until it either defines or destroys you. And finally, I'm once again excited to see the directions that my ideas will take me, for better or worse. Watch your head people, and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times. It's gonna be an interesting ride. Probably with some fire and explosions mixed in for good measure.

Das Maschinengespenst

I talked a lot the last two weeks about, essentially, identity. In the supervillain post, there was the idea that the fates can play a major role in a person's development, while in the post on religion, there was the assertion that a person's true self is defined by his actions. However, these two interpretations seem to be at odds with each other. How is it that on the one hand, one's identity can be the sum of one's actions, implying free will, yet that same person can be shaped and forced down a path by fate, implying predetermination?

Let's take a look at free will for a moment. Abstracted a little further, it comes down to a question of choice, and why it is that we make the choices we do. We as humans are creatures of memory. We learn to make decisions based on a combination of trial and error and past experiences. So then, one might argue that no choice is ever entirely free; whatever a person chooses to do at any given point, any time and place is simply the result of the sum total of his experiences. Even if one makes a conscious choice to "do something different," is that not still determined by one's past? That is, the reason that one makes that choice to be different still stems from all the times one did not choose to be different, and the consequences of those choices. Now consider this: with computers becoming exponentially more powerful, it is not inconceivable that a fully realized AI construct could soon exist. Now, if the sum total of a person's life experiences could be extracted, and uploaded into a computer, would the two then come to the same conclusions, make the same decisions?

This leads into the title of this post, Das Maschinengespenst, or literally, the machine ghost. Where does one draw the line between the human consciousness and that of an AI? Is there, perhaps, something more to choice than just conditioning? Do we, as individual human beings, have the power to determine our own paths? Masamune Shirow delved into this idea with his manga Ghost in the Shell. It is set in a near future, where a significant percent of the population has been fully cyberized, with their brains implanted into cybernetic bodies. In GitS, he explored the concept of a ghost, or the brain's unique interpretation of one's self. While one could easily switch bodies, changing one's outward appearance, the ghost remained the same, at least until some event triggered a change in one's self-conscious. Therefore, each person could still retain their individuality, because no two people could ever have the exact same self image. In a matter of speaking, the ghost can be said to represent the soul; it is the one completely unique part of one's self that could never be duplicated, and sets each individual apart from the rest of the world.

To attribute all choice to conditioning then, is perhaps to oversimplify the question a little too much. After all, it is easy to see how different individuals can make completely different decisions in similar, if not identical situations. Few tropes are as prevalent as the idea of two siblings, both raised in less than ideal conditions, with one coming to the conclusion that the solution is to become a better person and break free of the chains of his situation, while the other gladly dives into the broken system, perpetuating the same problems that he had to endure. What is it that sets these two apart, and why do they come to such polar ideas?

I'd like to believe that ultimately, our fates are our own. Maybe that's just a human fallacy, wanting to believe that I have control over my life. However, the alternative is just a little too bleak. What's the point in well, anything at all, if every single action is predetermined by everything else in the world? While I do believe that we are all the sum total of our unique experiences and memories, I don't think that we are necessarily controlled by that. I think every person has the power to turn their destinies around, so long as they work hard at it. You may not go from being dirt poor to being a millionaire, but maybe you can make a life for yourself, and give your kids a better chance at a good life. Even the worst criminal has the power to make something of himself; it is simply a matter of will. The same is true of the opposite; even the greatest hero can fall from grace, in a moment of weakness. Your life is your own. Your choices are your own. It is not my place to judge those choices. In fact, I will respect whatever it is you do, so long as you make that decision yourself, and don't try to pass the blame to outside influences. Be a hero, be a villain. It doesn't matter to me. Just make up your own damn mind, and do it already. Now excuse me while I go work on my army of robot minions.

Gods, Angels, and Demons, oh my

I was once told by one of my good friends, that I was one of the most Christian people she knew. Which is ironic, since I have always denied any religious affiliation, while she is a regular church-goer, with no shortage of card-carrying Christians in her daily life.

Religion is an interesting thing. On the one hand, you can rationalize it as the human need to understand; that is, we need to know everything about the world around us, and when we don't know something because we are unable to experience it firsthand, we come up with theories and stories. For as far back as humanity has questioned the mysteries of life, people have tried to answer those questions. So when it comes to death, the absolute final frontier, all we can do is think up fantastic stories of deities and angels, demons and spirits. As conscious beings, it is impossible to fathom death; how do you imagine nothingness? The end of thought? How does one even comprehend such a thing? As creatures defined by our thoughts and memories, the very idea of all that coming to an end is utterly inconceivable. And so the concepts of afterlives, and souls, and reincarnation are born. We want to believe that there is more after death, that somehow, the essence that makes each of us who we are lives on. We take comfort in the idea that there is some soul that continues, whether it exists on a different plane of existence, or gets recycled into a new life. Given that knowledge, wouldn't you live life a little more peacefully? If you knew that no matter what, there was more after death, you would never have to worry about running out of time, never have to regret not doing the things you wanted. This is without even considering the idea of a deity. How much of a weight off one's shoulders must it be, to be able to say, "I believe that whatever happens in my life, it is the will of some higher power?" To always have a guardian watching over you? If nothing else, to always have a figure of strength to turn to, or even a little selfishly, a scapegoat to blame for our troubles? Who wouldn't want that, if the option was there?

But all that is maybe too simple an explanation. After all, I am not atheist; I do not deny the existence of a higher power. I may not be old and wizened, but it is something that I have put plenty of thought into, and I simply cannot believe that there is nothing out there, that all religion is the fevered imagination of men. People use evolution as an argument against theological schooling; on the other side, there are those who deny evolution because the scriptures make no mention of it. But why do the two have to be exclusive? Albert Einstein once famously stated, and I paraphrase it here, that science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind. I don't believe God created the world in seven (well, six) days. But I do believe that there is some greater power that shaped the creation of the world, and pushed it the direction that it went. Did the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the land, and the birds of the air all just suddenly get dropped on the earth in one day? Of course they didn't. But is it that much of a stretch to believe that something out there had a hand in designing the eye, or the hand, or the brain? Try as I might, I cannot believe that a complex organ, formed of millions of individual cells, could accidentally mutate into existence from some mass of other cells. The coordination between every part of your body is so intricate, with each part so perfectly designed to perform its unique job; can that all be due to simple coincidence? I don't see it. I look out at the world we live in, with its infinite beauties and mysteries, and I can't help but think it just a little bit arrogant to state that there is no god, simply because we as humanity have decoded so many things about how things work.

Perhaps one of the more compelling arguments for me comes to light when looking at the world's religions on a larger scale. Over the several thousand years of human existence, countless religions have sprung up, completely independent of each other. And yet, they somehow all have the same structure. This is true of practically no other facet of civilization. Social structures, cuisine, language, all are unique from region to region. There may be similarities, and etymological links across cultures, but in the end, they are entirely unique in their developments. And yet, when you look at their religious beliefs, there are so many parallels. For me, this has always begged the question; perhaps, there is no "correct" religion, no one true path; perhaps, there is some other power out there, and all these religions? Maybe they are all the same thing.

Now bear with me here. You're thinking, "Wait. The Greeks had like...500 gods, Christians have their one true god and that weird Trinity, and do the Chinese even have a religion besides that Confucius thing?" But hear me out on this. Christians have their God where Muslims have Allah. The Greeks believed Zeus was the king of all gods, just as the Romans had Jupiter. Chinese Daoists may have believed in gods inhabiting just about everything in sight, but there was still one god that ran the show. Now expand that even further. The Bible describes angels doing the holy work of God. Polytheistic religions tell of an entire hierarchy of gods, each in charge of some aspect of life, not unlike the way angels are split into tiers by what they do. Each religion, from the Aztec's to the Mayan's, from Norse mythology to Hindu, have their creation and destruction scenarios. I'm sure if you looked deeper into various religions, you would find more similarities than those I have given here. Could it be possible that all religion stems from the same powers, only given different names by the various cultures and peoples that witnessed them?

But even all this a little bit misses the point I want to get at here. I have never judged anyone for their beliefs, and am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to have their own worldviews. And it doesn't matter which god you choose to follow, when you strip it down to its core, each religion has the same basic tenets; they preach a way of life, a way of treating one's fellow person. Be it the Buddhist code, or the Ten Commandments, every religion teaches us a better way to live. Any person who takes a passage of a religious text as an excuse to spread hate and discord has missed the point entirely. It is what angers me about so many Bible carrying Christians; they make the motions, going to church, and reading the scriptures, and talking and singing about God's infinite love, then turn around and condemn someone for not sharing their identical belief system. These are people that do not deserve to call themselves Christians. Mind that I'm not singling out Christians for this failure; it exists anywhere there is religion. Religion should never be an excuse to harm another, let alone trying to pass off one's actions as God's will. God did not tell you to take another man's life. God said quite specifically, thou shalt not kill. Seriously, how much plainer can you make it?

I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference between religions. Perhaps that is part of my reluctance to subscribe to any particular faith. Of course, my own doubts play into this as well; it is why I have yet to convert to Christianity; I cannot call myself something when I am still unsure of so much of what it says to be true. I don't know if I believe Jesus turned water to wine, and I don't even know if I really buy the idea that he came back to life after three days. I don't disbelieve it, per se. I just don't know. What I do believe in, however, are the ideals that Christianity stands for. I believe in loving thy neighbor. I believe in forgiveness. I believe in the codes of morality and basic human decency taught in the Bible.

Perhaps this is what my friend was getting at. After all, a title is naught but a name; it tells nothing about who you are. It is, rather, our actions that define us. I would like to think that I live the Christian life, despite my lack of faith. And I would like to think that there is a little more to determining one's entrance into heaven (assuming it exists) than simply professing one's faith and converting. Because if doing the right thing in life, and treating my fellow man with respect and dignity still lands me in hell simply because I never pledged my loyalty to some god, then I call that god petty and gladly take up my place in the flames.

On origin stories

What makes a supervillain? Really think about it for a moment. I'm not talking about simple criminals trying to make a buck, or even nemeses, whose sole purpose is to destroy their superhero counterpart. I mean the Bond villains, with their nuclear winter scenarios or nation-burning laser satellites. I mean characters like Atrocitus and the Red Lanterns, and certain incarnations of the Joker or Penguin, who come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the world that deserves to live. Someone like Lelouch Lamperouge, spiraling into self-destruction as he attempts to reconstruct the society he sees as broken. Or even the bumbling, comedic Dr. Evil, holding the world at ransom with the threat of complete destruction. What could possibly drive a man to attempt destruction on a global scale, especially considering that it almost guarantees his own destruction? These are supervillains taken to the final, logical end, the ones who are willing to destroy the world for one reason or another, and are also, perhaps unintuitively, the ones we tend to identify the most with.

Many supervillains, especially in comic books, have origin stories revolving around insanity, some single injustice, or both. Otherwise, many are brought up in the system, trained as assassins from childhood or something similar. These stories, however, often do not feel as compelling, and the result is an antagonist who serves as little more than a punching bag for the hero. Insanity is too easily used as an excuse for anything, while the grand injustice angle either doesn't provide the scale or ends up being unreasonable without an insanity clause. Who in reality would seek world destruction, simply over being wronged by a single superhero? More often than not, this leads to the Nemesis; a villain whose sole purpose is the defeat of his counterpart hero, with varying degrees of collateral damage along the way. While we may sympathize with the villain, the scale is too small, the scope of his revenge too narrow. The audience has no beef with the hero, and therefore cannot feel the villain's pain, especially when so often, the supposed injustice is entirely trivial. Finally, we have the villains who were brought up as such; trained from birth to be evil. Again, we feel sorry for them in the sense that the choice was never theirs, and we hope for the redemption scene which may never come, even after their defeat. Yet even with these villains, we cannot truly identify; hardly anybody grows up in a criminal family after all. It is a world unknown to us, which can exist only in fantasy form.

No, in the end, it is the most extreme of supervillains that ring truest to the reader. Anybody can turn to petty crime, or overreact to a perceived wrong. Any man can pick up a weapon in wrath, and strike down another; it is simply a matter of principle that stops us. However, it takes a special type of personality to reach the level of supervillainy where complete, world destruction even reaches the table. It is a combination of strength held too long, tragedy too painful, and sorrow too deep, that produces such a character. A supervillain that dreams of ending the world is not the villain we traditionally think of; he is not inherently evil, should never have become evil. Whether we recognize it or not, we sense that such a supervillain could once have even been a hero, had the fates allowed it.

When considering these supervillains, they fall into two main groups. TVTropes labels them as "Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds," and "Put Them All Out of My Misery." Both are characterized by a lifetime of pain and suffering. The PTAOOMM type is perhaps the less sympathetic of the two, as he rationalizes his actions as punishment or retribution against the world that wronged him, and therefore, feels more distant precisely because he sets himself above and separate from humanity. He is motivated by his pain, and the destruction of the world is a guarantee of his escape. The Woobie, on the other hand, is significantly more identifiable, which makes it that much harder to dislike him. He starts off likable, sometimes even the quintessential nice guy, but the universe singles him out for hardship; misfortune after misfortune, tragedy after tragedy is heaped upon his head. Eventually he breaks, and becomes the Destroyer of Worlds, lashing out at the world that has done nothing but reward his actions with more misery. It is this that makes us feel so close to the newly created supervillain. We've seen what he's had to go through, and so many of his trials are the same ones we deal with on a daily basis, only exaggerated and made more difficult. His reason for destruction is purely reactionary, a visceral response to everything that is wrong with the universe, rather than the pre-meditated punishment meted out by the PTAOOMM. When the Woobie finally breaks, and goes full supervillain, we almost want him to win, because he IS us. And we're okay with him destroying the world, because any world that can treat a person so badly isn't a world we'd want to exist in either.

In the end, we're left crying for the devil. We know what the supervillain is doing is wrong, but it doesn't matter; we may not do the same ourselves, may not be capable of doing the same, but on some level, it is also something most of us have fantasized about at some point, if on a much smaller scale. Who among us hasn't had a bad boss, and imagined storming into the office after getting unfairly chewed out, and slamming down a resignation, bad cop style? Who hasn't been the target of, or seen a bully at work, and dreamed of hulking out, and giving them the beatdown of their lives? We cry for, and sympathize with, the supervillain, because oftentimes, we have gone through many of the same trials. We feel a connection to these characters, on a deep emotional level, because any of us, faced with the same provocations, could very easily come to the same conclusions. And yet, we know that he is wrong, and we know that he must fail in the end, and that is  perhaps the most painful realization of all.