Alex's Livejournal

Vast amounts of money should be spent on gigantic space telescopes to get a good look at the planets in nearby solar systems. Here's why:

What's actually *on* those planets is completely unknown. Bold statements have been given to what's in the rest of the universe given our (laughably incomplete) knowledge of the macro-scale; however, the contents of planets in the goldilocks zone remains a total mystery. There is *no* sound reason to think we won't find life (or something similarly weird) on them, they're full of interesting chemistry, and we've never seen one where life like ours hasn't evolved. It's a "no probability calculation possible" situation, we know almost nothing about them, and have no data set to work with.

So far we're one-for-one for goldilocks planets and life, but the sample size, and the anthropic principle make that a poor basis of judgement. The Drake life equations are similarly awful, as they tend to result in life being either certain, or staggeringly unlikely[1], and are based on one sample. 

Another reason given for absence, is that if life was there it'd be obvious, but it's not. As a Victorian might muse, if there is life, where are its airships? Surely we'd see the space telegraph wires! Looking up at the lots of odd and inexplicable stuff we're seeing and saying, "Well, we don't know what that is, but it clearly *isn't* an example of something we have no comprehension of what it might look like" seems previous to say the least.

I grant, that there's a fair chance we might find little on them, but even then, we'll probably find lots of curious new facts. The other possibility is fascinating though, just the discovery of other life would be profoundly inspiring, and potentially open a vast new range of ideas. Then there's the even more tantalising possibility of discovering a planet which had/has intelligent life on it, the knowledge from which would be beyond value, and possibly change everything. (It could be grim, we could discover: "Intelligent life kills itself", but even there, there might be valuable lessons, which could keep us alive longer).

[1]If they're *too* unlikely, even the anthropic principle has problems. There being a 1 in 10^12 chance of any life starting *anywhere* in the universe asks very serious questions as to the nature of the universe given the fact that we're here. There doesn't have to be a planet with life on it, they could all be dead, so in this example, there's something fishy about the universe. Maybe there are 10^13 universes, but without evidence of this it isn't a good answer to the apparently extremely unlikely event.

Feel I should something about sexuality etc for #comingoutweek. Well, I don't want to say it on Facebook, a bit too personal, but I'll say it on LJ.

Okay, I'm bisexual. I like being bisexual, because it helps with the love and excitement I feel about toward some people of either gender.

I'm normally, but not exclusively attracted to people who are somewhere towards the "centre" in terms of gender presentation. This is probably because I've got some issues with my own gender. Internally, I'm quite a bit less clearly male than I appear (do I behave that male? I'm not sure). This isn't too much of a problem for me, the mild gender-queerness was terrifying as a teenager, but these days it's something of a source of happiness. I'm not sure I'll ever be wanting to dress as female, but being able to act as something in-between sometimes, well, that can be very nice.

I'm also demisexual. I hate being demisexual. I think I'd find the uncomplicated nature of romantic asexuality very lovely, and just being normally sexed would make things a whole lot easier. As it is, as a demisexual man, when I get close enough to to be intimate with people, they assume that as a (presumably highly sexed) man, my lack of interest represents my not fancying them, and thus it's time to move on. Also, the lack of initial basic desire means the impetus to just get intimate with a new person anyway and see if it turns into something good later doesn't really happen either.

A combination of these two factors means it makes it much harder to find someone to be loving with, and that's pretty much the worst thing in the world for me. For all that I'm less than excellent with other people, there have been quite a few who I've liked a very great deal over the years, and a couple of them have liked me back. I often wonder whether without the demisexuality, things could be very different now.

I've found chinks and cracks in the armour, and those gaps have let me love a handful of people over time, sometimes it has felt a little stolen, but it's been good anyway, and I'm very grateful for those things. Still, I'd love a way round it.

I'm feeling that I should probably make myself clear on this one, as I'm feeling that perhaps my point of view on these things isn't clearly understood. In general, I'm pro-feminist, but for reasons which I'll explain, I'm currently unsure as to whether I'd call myself one, anyway:

Patriarchy:
I  think the Patriarchy is a real thing, a kind of set of ancient mega-memes that are embedded in our, and many other societies. It comes from a long line of male rulership by force, and it tries hard to re-inforce ideas of gender, and generally makes lots of excuses for pretty awful behaviours. My personal experience of it is getting considered a weirdo by both men and women because I don't behave in certain prescribed ways. I've also seen countless much worse examples in friends, and in media, of it making men feel entitled to behave in utterly shit ways towards women. This is a big complex one, and I don't have time to go into everything which it is, but I think these memes are a an almost universal cause of suffering, feelings of inadequacy, bullying, rape and violence. I would love to see it dismantled, and am willing to actively support anyone trying to.

Privilege:
I have Privelege, in many ways. It's hard to see how things are hard for others when they're not for you, but once again, I've seen countless examples. Because I'm male, and middle class, and well educated all sorts of doors are open to me, which are hard to open for others. I think pushing this point on people is extremely valuable, and that cultural change is necessary to eliminate this.
  However, I don't agree with the idea that privileged people are simply incapable of any sort of sympathy with or comprehension of people who don't have it. Saying "you don't get an opinion here", or "you'll never understand, so you just have to agree with us blindly" is a good way of ending an argument on the losing side, and I think it's important that this argument is won (assuming winning involves persuading people of your point of view). I also think this idea is incorrect, as incomplete understanding doesn't equate to a complete lack of understanding.

Rape Culture:
I'm troubled by the term itself, as it seems to consider our current culture in isolation rather than in relation to all other cultures. I think, largely due to the work done by previous feminists, our culture is considerably less accepting and enabling of rape and and man-woman violence than it used to be, and probably ever has been. However, I entirely agree that this is a battle which is far from won, so if the term means, this is a culture which sometimes accepts, enables and ignores rape, well, okay. There are still tons of men finding ways to make themselves feel entitled to sex, and encouraging others to do the same (it's part of Patriarchy thinking). Several organisations, some of them governmental (once again, led by feminist campaigners) are working to try to combat this problem by changing the culture. It's a thing which I'm 100% behind, and I think could do with being stepped up.

This is far from a complete analysis of even the major points of feminism, but my point is, although I've got some niggles with terminology, I'm at least broadly onside. So why don't I call myself a feminist? I suppose it's because I perceive an attitude that to be a feminist, I have to agree with everything which is said or done by any even remotely reasonable feminist. Indeed, I feel that if I disagree with anything such a feminist says, some will judge me just as bad as someone who is completely on the other side. I'm willing to be persuaded further in, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to blindly agree to anything to call myself part of the movement, indeed, my perception of that attitude has the opposite effect.

One of the problematic things with trying to debate this in a public forum like facebook is the other side. As a friend said to me the other day, one of the problems with disagreeing with feminist points, is that many people (mainly men) are uncomfortable with the ideas as a whole, and will take any crack in an argument to try to derail the whole cause. I think this is pretty evident, and I dislike the other side a lot more than I dislike feminism. Should I be quiet then? I don't see much traffic from the other side in the friends and family I keep in contact with, so there's not much to strike out at there. I dunno, I'm definitely more moderate than the hard lines of feminism, and it's a difficult place to be. I'm also uneasy about remaining silent if a large number of people are cheering on something which I feel might actually be wrong.