Throw back Thursday to 2010 when me and my girls SupaSista came 2nd in the DragIdol final! Can see us at our monthly residency at the Way Out Club in London on Sat 23rd of April for the clubs 23rd Birthday and the following week the 30th for our Musical mayhem show.
As always with my Blogs just a question and possibly thinking outside of the box. Your mind is yours to make up but another view might change your perspective.
In recent months in the UK there has been a lot of talk about the family unit and how it might not be as strong as it once was. With the summer riots the breakdown in family has come under fire as to where it all changed. The government and many other groups have theories as to why it is happening, so I have a theory that I havent heard from anyone else yet.
Its just a theory, and a theory is just that until it is proved wrong or right, but as always is just a jumping off point for either discussion or further investigation.
Many people have blamed television and the internet for the breakdown of moral values and the loss of family ties. There were lots of crys of “where are the parents in all of this?”.
So I want to take you back for a moment to a time when people have a rose tinted view of the family. The time that they felt the family was a strong unit was at the end of the second world war. This is probably a very true statement as at this time everyone had been affected by loss of loved ones, either those that had fought away or those that had died in Blitz bombing raids. The value of life at this point was treasured and understood. Your freedom was cherished and you understood that the cost of your freedom was the loss of those around you. Rationing was still in effect and the family not only grew their own food in their gardens as a necessity but had to share their food with each other and a treat of a sweet really was a treat as you simply were not allowed them. With rationing you couldn't simply just go to the shops and get more you could only have what your ration books gave you and if you had more today then that meant less tomorrow.
At this time there were probably 2 rooms in the house that had heating, the kitchen and the living room. In the evening you would probably have your dinner at a table in the kitchen and the only reason that room would be warm is because the cooker had been on to cook the food. At the end of the war waste was not an option so dinner was cooked for a certain time, so the whole family sat down to eat together. There was no microwave to reheat the food and you certainly couldn't afford to leave the gas running to keep a meal warm. After dinner was cleared away and washed the heat would have begun to disappear out of that room as the oven was cooling down the whole family would move in to the living room. To be near the only other heat source in the house. The fire. Mother and Father had prime position in their chairs on either side of the fire leaving an area on the floor for their children between them. So the family would spend the evening together possibly listening to the wireless. Whilst this was going on a hot water bottle or other heating implement would be placed in the bed to take out the chill as none of the bedrooms were heated. When it was bed time probably all of the children would be in the same bed, snuggled under blankets with each other to keep warm, as frost would grow on the inside of the windows as the night drew to morning. Being in such close proximity forced the family to create bonds and communicate with each other.
Eventually television came along but in many cases it came before central heating and there would have only have been one in the house in the living room still forcing the family to be together. Television initially had a very limited broadcasting time not the 24/7 broadcasting we have now, and to watch television was a treat not a right.
Eventually rationing faded in to a memory and people became more affluent as success came from a stable world situation. New opportunities arose as technology moved forward and the children of the war grew into adults and started to have families of their own vowing that their children would have more than they did. Central heating became the norm in house holds opening the the rest of the house to be inhabited. Families became smaller allowing for children to have a room of their own in the house rather than sharing with their siblings. After dinner the family no longer had to sit together in the living room for warmth as central heating has made the whole house warm, this allowed each individual in the family to become a satellite to the main family and move out into their own orbit.
Could this have been the first step in dissolution of the family?
Following on from this came the television in the bedroom for children, where children were free to watch what they wanted, unburdened from censorship from their parents. Viewing programmes that maybe unsuitable and past the watershed because its just a click of a remote in the dead of night.
From this it was a small step to a laptop in the bedroom connected to wifi. A child no longer needs to interact physically with people when they come home from school. A microwave meal taken to the bedroom and all interaction is then performed digitally. For a family, all the children in each room this may seem bliss, no arguing amongst the kids, Mum and Dad get some peace to chill out after a hard day at work, But all the time each satellite is drifting further and further away from the orbit of the family. Not to mention without supervision how do you know what your children are viewing on the net or who they are talking to.
None of this would have been possible with out central heating so the question i leave you with is this.
Is central heating to blame for the dissolution of the family unit?
So Today was a sad day for humanity and this planet!
Today the last wild Rhino was killed in Vietnam. This was the last wild Rhino left on Asia mainland.
Let me just write this again it was the LAST wild Rhino in Asia!
I know as humans we see ourselves a higher creatures on this planet and more intelligent than any other animal, but surely you have to prove that you are more intelligent than the other beasts that walk on this earth. Just because we have managed to leave the confines of this globe, or even can create on demand something as primitive as we see it as fire, does that make us intelligent? Surely a mark of intelligence is not destroying the environment around you that supports you, especially when you have no idea how removal of just one part of that environment will effect it as a whole whole. How could removing one link in a chain reduce the strength of it or make it fail. What if the removal of just one link means it now doesn't stretch all the way to you?
What part of this animal is so important that someone actually had to kill the very last wild one? Where did their minds not compute that there has to be a sustainable breeding population to be able to make money by killing them for what ever parts are so valuable. Its when I see stories like this that I fail to understand the intelligence of man. Even if you looked at this as an economic tragedy, there are people out there that seem happy to destroy their own income.
So when they are looking for a new job they have to explain that they used to be a Rhino hunter but the were stupid to kill the last one this killing their livelihood and now unable to feed their families they have had to find alternative employment. Is that the type of person you would employ? One that manages to destroy any future for themselves let alone your company.
But this also raises another question. Who in this day and age has the money to be having the last Rhino killed for what ever part of it the deemed necessary to ingest or put on their mantle piece? Surly if they have made enough money to pay for such a valuable commodity they must have had some intelligence to get to where they are? So where did the intelligence waiver so much that they needed that part of a poor animal.
I saw an interesting fact the other day If the entire 7 billion people that live on this planet were to live in one super city it would be the size of france. To me that seems to leave a rather large area for all the other creatures that roam this earth.
So far as we are aware this is the only planet in the universe that has life.
How is it that someone is as shorted sighted as to kill the very last of anything? Yet science estimates that we as humans destroy one species a day. that is 365 species wiped of this planet every year.
What if this planet provides everything we need? What if only this planet provides it? With all the endless possibilities in the universe, even if there was life else where, the only solutions to problems created on this planet had been provided through evolution here. We have found so many cures to so many diseases here, no rock from any other planet ever cured an ailment but bacteria helped us create antibiotics.
What if the very thing that could have cured cancer was held in that Rhinos genetic make up, or any of the the other 365 species that have been exterminated in the last year. We could be wiping out our very own chances of survival in the long term. But then if a super virus came along and wiped out this single species it would save 365 others a year and would have done nothing different to what we as a spices have done countless times.
Remember the Dodo?
I suppose that we can but hope that one thing will die out in time and thats the poachers and people that believe that these animals need to be killed to fu fill what ever need they have. And then maybe, just maybe, one day they can be reintroduced in to the wild from the few precious remaining members of a dwindling species that we have managed to save in zoo's. And maybe by then we may have figured out that we can all share this marbled rock.
I have so much respect for people that stand up and shout for this planet, people like Philippe Cousteau. People who manage to do it the right way, they are passionate about what they do and can see the failings of this species we sometimes call human. they beg and implore the people with power to have some humanity to save our neighbours that we share the earth with. One day they might save us. Their voices are quiet in the din of big business, and we know that money talks.
But at what point do those of us with common sense stand up and say wake up before its too late? Act now before we lose all of them.
My sister and I were discussing a friends Facebook status which announced that eating pineapple would make your semen taste better. We have all heard that before and many other things like too much alcohol makes it taste bad.
But this is quite a statement to make as apparently it has no scientific backing. So we got to discussing what it would be like to be standing in front of the board of people that give out grants for scientific research. What you would have to say to argue your case for funding? How could this knowledge benefit mankind more than smashing two particles at the speed of light in the hadron collider in Cern? (the thing I love about the Hadron collider is when someone writing about it makes a spelling mistake in its name which has happened in a few articles and it becomes the hardon collider, Yeah I know I got a dirty mind).
so there would have to be some preset parameters like what tastes bad and what tastes good where the points of sour and sweet come in. I guess you would have to have a base level parameter. Then you would be looking at how long it takes for a food or drink to make it taste different one way or the other and how long it would last for before returning to the base level.
But the implication of what this research could reveal could be immense on world peace and health. Really? I hear you say.
So lets start with the obvious stuff. If it was discovered that a combination of food could make it taste sweet and palatable then this could reduce the divorce rate. Guys would get what they want more often as it wouldn't be such a chore or a distaste for their partners.
With this in mind and as most men lets be honest are somewhat driven by sex. Apparently men think about it every so many seconds. If the y found out there were things that they could do to increase their chances of getting a blow job most men would do it. What ever this study revealed could have a massive impact on mens health.
Imagine if the results favoured men eating more fruit and veg, say 5 portions a day. This would be the fastest way to get the majority of men doing something that we already know is heathy for them. Then if the study showed that you could optimise it even more with regular exercise and having a fat percentage of under 20%. Now factor into the equation that not smoking and drinking could have a great result too. Imagine the impact that a study like this would have on the long term costs of the NHS (if your reading this outside the UK the NHS is the National Health Service). The reduction in treating alcohol related liver and kidney problems. The money saved from smoking related illnesses and cardiovascular problems would be immense. Not to mention the money saved on medication from the number of people having type 2 diabetes being reduced. From this point of view if these were the findings then the small amount of money that would be spent on the research would be well spent.
But what if they weren't the findings. What if they had the reverse effect. Say the findings said that things like fish made you unpalatable? would men stop eating fish. Would they then lack all the omega oils that they need. With some scientists believing that by our evolutionary ancestors adding fish to their diet had a direct correlation to brain size and cognitive function, does that mean if men cut it out it could send the IQ of the human race in a downward spiral?
And to think all of that came out of my brain just over a piece of pineapple, what did it do to yours?