The signature

As much as I love the movie Contact, trying to find extraterrestrial life isn't just a matter of tuning in to the right radio frequency.

There's no guarantee that even intelligent life would use radio waves to communicate, and if they did, that they'd do it in such a way that we could decipher the message.  I must admit, though, that the whole "sequence of prime numbers" thing as a beacon was a pretty cool idea; it's hard to imagine a natural phenomenon that would result in blips in a pattern of prime numbers.

Even besides the issue with how exactly a technological species would choose to communicate, there's the problem that this method would miss the vast majority of life that's potentially out there.  Consider the fact that there's been life on Earth for 3.8 billion years, give or take a day or two, and until about a hundred years ago, we weren't producing any radio waves ourselves.  To a civilization two hundred light years away -- so, seeing us as we were two hundred years ago -- Earth would be, to borrow C. S. Lewis's pithy phrase, a completely silent planet, even though there was a thriving biosphere that included at least one intelligent, soon-to-be-technological species.

So except for those presumably few planets that host intelligent beings who communicate kind of like we do, detecting extraterrestrial life is a tricky question.  The most promising approach has been to look for biosignatures -- chemical traces that (as far as we know) can only be produced by living things.  One example on Earth is the fact that our atmosphere contains both oxygen and methane.  Both are highly reactive (especially with each other); to keep stable levels of these gases in the atmosphere requires that something is continuously producing them, because they're constantly being removed by oxidation/reduction reactions.  In this case, photosynthesis and bacterial methanogenesis, respectively, pump them into the atmosphere as fast as they're being destroyed, so the levels remain relatively stable over time.

Two other chemicals that, on the Earth at least, are entirely biological in origin are dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.  You've undoubtedly encountered these before; they're partly responsible for the unpleasant smell when you cook cabbage.  They're produced by a variety of living things, including bacteria, plants, and fungi -- dimethyl sulfide is what truffle-hunting pigs are homing in on when they're after truffles. 

Well, data from the James Webb Space Telescope showed that an exoplanet called K2-18b has measurable quantities of both dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide -- to the point that even the astronomers, who ordinarily have zero patience with the "It's aliens!" crowd, are saying "this is the strongest hint yet of biological life on another planet."

So far, the spectroscopic data that found the chemicals is at a significance level of "3-sigma" -- meaning there's a 0.3% chance that the signal was a statistical fluke (or, put another way, a 99.7% chance that it's the real deal).  It's exciting, but we've seen 3-sigma data do a faceplant before, so I'm trying to restrain myself.  Generally 5-sigma -- a 0.00006% chance of it being a fluke -- is the standard for busting out the champagne.  But even so, this is pretty amazing.

K2-18b is 124 light years away, and is thought to be a "Hycean world" -- an ocean-covered world with a thick, hydrogen-rich atmosphere.  So whatever life is there is very likely to be marine.  But even if we're not talking about your typical Star Trek-style planet with lots of rocks and an orange sky and aliens that look like humans but with rubber facial appendages, the levels of DMS and DMDS suggest a thriving biosphere.

"Earlier theoretical work had predicted that high levels of sulfur-based gases like DMS and DMDS are possible on Hycean worlds," said Nikku Madhusudhan of Cambridge University, who co-authored the study, which appeared this week in Astrophysical Journal Letters.  "And now we've observed it, in line with what was predicted. Given everything we know about this planet, a Hycean world with an ocean that is teeming with life is the scenario that best fits the data we have."

The issue, of course, is not just the statistical significance; 99.7% seems pretty good to me, even if it doesn't satisfy the scientists.  The problem is that sneaky little phrase that was in my description of biosignatures earlier; "as far as we know."  We don't know of a way to produce DMS and DMDS in significant quantities except by biological processes, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.  It could be that in the weird chemical soup on an planet in another star system, there's an abiotic way to produce a stable amount of these two compounds, and we just haven't figured it out yet.

Be that as it may, it's still pretty damn exciting.  It's certainly the closest we've gotten to "there's life out there."  And being only 124 light years away -- in our stellar neighborhood, really -- it's right there for us to study more intensively.  Which the astronomers will definitely be doing.

So that's our cool news for today.  I don't know about you, but now I'm daydreaming about what kind of life there might be on a world entirely covered by water.  I'm sure that whatever they are, they'll be "forms most beautiful and most wonderful" beyond Charles Darwin's wildest dreams.

****************************************

The tapestry of lies

In my novel Sephirot, the main character, an ordinary guy named Duncan Kyle, finds himself lost in an interlocking maze of worlds, each of which seems to be doing its best to trap him permanently.  The first character he meets, the enigmatic Sphinx, gives him a warning about what he's about to face.  "The first thing you should learn here," she says, "is that everything you see and hear is a lie."

Duncan quickly comes to the obvious question, which is if everything here is a lie, is the Sphinx's own statement a lie as well?

The Sphinx cocks a sardonic eyebrow and says, "Oh, of course not.  I wouldn't lie about something that important."

When later, he meets the gruff rogue Jack Holland, he's once again confronted with whether anything he's seeing is the truth.  "Do you believe it?" Holland asks him.  "All this?"

Duncan responds with a question.  How can he not believe what's right in front of him?

"Then you're choosing to believe a lie," Holland responds.  "You're more'n half gone already."

Lie to people often enough, and they lose their ability to tell the difference.  Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, knew that principle well, and used it to astonishing success.  He put it succinctly: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.  The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

It's a lesson the Trump administration has also learned well.  Consider the following:

They said they'd never overturn Roe v. Wade; it's "established law."

They said they were all for a healthy environment, including clean water and air.

They said grocery prices would come down and the stock market would surge "on day one."

They said the war in Ukraine would be peacefully resolved within three days of Trump's inauguration.

They said there'd be no instigation of, or participation in, more military actions overseas; the focus would be on helping Americans.

They said they'd never make cuts to Medicaid and Medicare.

They said they'd never touch Social Security.

They said of course they were supportive of equal rights for LGBTQ+ people, that Trump is a "real friend of the gay community."

They said they aren't after legal immigrants, only illegal ones.

They said well, okay, they are after legal immigrants, too, but they'd never go after American citizens.

And... surprise!... just two days ago Trump said that his pal Nayib Bukele, dictator of El Salvador, had better build five more concentration camps, because the "homegrowns are next."

Trump supporters, look long and hard at this photograph.  This is not a terrorist or a criminal or a gang member.  This is  Andry Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist, weeping as his head is shorn in the CECOT concentration camp.  He was in the United States seeking asylum from his native Venezuela.  He committed no crime, received no constitutionally-guaranteed due process.  Go ahead, try to defend this, I dare you.

Every single time, they're hoping that enough people will say, "Well, even if they lied, it doesn't affect me" that their supporters will not think to add the obvious word "... yet."  But each lie further erodes our freedoms -- and further dulls our ability to recognize it for what it is.

Part of the problem, of course, is the media.  That we even had to invent the word "sanewash" to describe Trump's handling by the media is telling.  But beyond that, they've downplayed the lies, calling them "evasions" or "partial truths" or "alternative views" or even "opinions."  Outlets like Fox News and OANN are the most egregious, but even supposedly centrist media like CNN and The New York Times routinely soft-pedal stories highlighting the barrage of falsehoods coming from this administration.  The result is that unless you put in a concerted effort to find the truth, you're being given watered-down half-truths at best, and at worst deliberate omissions and outright glaring lies.

I've found myself wondering how many of the Republican officials know these things are lies.  Some, like Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and Tom Homan, are clearly True Believers, and are every bit as culpable as Trump himself.  Some, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, are probably too stupid to tell the difference.  But the others?

Doesn't matter in the end, of course.  Someone might want to remind Marco Rubio, for example, that "I was following orders from higher up" was not considered an acceptable defense at Nuremberg.

My one (small) consolation is Stephen King's observation that "The effective half-life of evil is always relatively short."  The flipside of this, though, is that even in a short time, the victims of regimes like this one will suffer horrible harm.  Some will die.  Our standing as a world leader, as a light for freedom and equality under the law, has already been irrevocably damaged.  I don't know how likely it is that the legal system will save us; Trump already received one 9-0 (even freakin' Clarence Thomas!) Supreme Court vote demanding he bring back Kilmar Ábrego García, another innocent man sent to a concentration camp without due process, and Trump's response basically was "I don't hafta, who's gonna make me?"

And so far, no one has.  If the president defies the Supreme Court, we have no checks and balances.

I wish I had something more positive to say.  Like Duncan's predicament in Sephirot, simply realizing you can't believe anything you're seeing or hearing only gets you so far.  Disbelieving what they're saying is just the first step.

The second -- the one we've yet to take as a nation -- is to demand truth, fairness, and justice in a voice loud enough that it cannot be ignored.

Keep in mind that the one advantage we've got is numbers.  Once the tapestry of lies is torn to shreds, once the men and women who created it have been deposed, we've got the power to rebuild what we once had.  But that means getting enough people to recognize what's happening that they're willing to act.

Otherwise, as Jack Holland put it, we're "more'n half gone already."

****************************************

Reinventing Lysenko

Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agrobiologist during the Stalin years, whose interest in trying to improve crop yields led him into some seriously sketchy pseudoscience.  He believed in a warped version of Lamarckism -- that plants exposed to certain environmental conditions during their lives would alter what they do to adjust to those conditions, and (furthermore) those alterations would be passed down to subsequent generations.

He not only threw away everything Mendel and Darwin had uncovered, he disbelieved in DNA as the hereditary material.  Lysenko wrote:

An immortal hereditary substance, independent of the qualitative features attending the development of the living body, directing the mortal body, but not produced by the latter -- that is Weismann’s frankly idealist, essentially mystical conception, which he disguised as “Neo-Darwinism.”  Weismann’s conception has been fully accepted and, we might say, carried further by Mendelism-Morganism.

So basically, since there were no genes there to constrain the possibilities, humans could mold organisms in whatever way they chose.  "It is possible, with man’s intervention," Lysenko wrote, "to force any form of animal or plant to change more quickly and in a direction desirable to man.  There opens before man a broad field of activity of the greatest value to him."

Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) [Image is in the Public Domain]

The Soviet agricultural industry was ordered to use Lysenko's theories (if I can dignify them by that name) to inform their practices.  Deeper plowing of fields, for example, was said by Lysenko to induce plants' roots to delve deeper for minerals, creating deeper-rooted plants in following years and increased crop yields.  Farmers dutifully began to plow fields to a depth of five feet, requiring enormous expenditure of time and labor.

Crop yields didn't change.  But that didn't matter; Lysenko's ideas were beloved by Stalin, as they seemed to give a scientific basis to the concept of striving by the sturdy peasant stock, thus improving their own lot.  Evidence and data took a back seat to ideology.  Lysenko was given award after award and rose to the post of Director of the Institute of Genetics in the USSR's Academy of Sciences.  Scientists who followed Lysenko's lead in making up data out of whole cloth to support the state-approved model of heredity got advancements, grants, and gifts from Stalin himself.  Scientists who pointed out that Lysenko's experiments were flawed and his data doctored or fabricated outright were purged -- by some estimates three thousand of them were fired, exiled, jailed, or executed for choosing "bourgeois science" (i.e. actual evidence-based research) over Lysenko.  His stranglehold on Soviet biological research and agricultural practice didn't cease until his retirement in 1965, by which time an entire generation of Soviet scientists had been hindered from making any progress at all.

He is directly responsible for policies that led to widespread famines during which millions starved.

Lately, George Santayana's famous comment about being doomed to repeat history we haven't learned from has been graphically illustrated over and over.  Donald Trump, and the fascist, anti-science ideologues he hired to run the place while he's out golfing, have in the last three months:

• done a systematic search-and-destroy against government-sponsored research about climate change
• eliminated funding for the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control, especially targeting anything that mentions mRNA (presumably because of the COVID-19 vaccine, which is still widely hated by the far right)
• issued a decree declaring that there are only two biological sexes; the CDC was instructed to delete any papers, articles, and online resources that even mentioned the word "gender"
• virtually shut down USAID, which funds global disease prevention, treatment, and care
• once again doubled down on the idiotic claim that vaccination causes autism; as an indication of the level to which he understands science, his pronouncement about this was, "If you look at things that are happening, something's causing it."
• fired staff at NOAA and the National Weather Service just in time for tornado and hurricane season

So just like in Stalin's day, we are moving toward a state-endorsed scientific party line, which non-scientists (and scientists in the pay of corporate interests or the politicians themselves) are enforcing using such sticks as censorship, funding cuts, and layoffs.  They're even calling the firings "purges;" how they don't cringe at using a word associated with the horrors of people like Stalin and Mao Tse Tung is beyond me.

Or maybe, given how proud people like Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, and Marco Rubio seem to be of their own cruelty, they have no problem with their viciousness being out on display for all to see.

Lysenko died forty years ago, but his propaganda-based, anti-science spirit lives on.  My hope is that because of the greater transparency and freedom of information afforded by the internet, this sort of behavior will at least not be shrouded in secrecy the way that Stalin's and Lysenko's actions were.  But even if people know what's happening, they have to speak up, and demand action from the spineless members of Congress who are standing idly by while one man and his neo-fascist cronies destroy decades of vital scientific research.  

It's only been three months, and the damage is already horrific.  And keep in mind Trump is, astonishingly, only one-sixteenth of the way through his term.

You do the math.

We are following the same devastating path that annihilated the USSR's position in the scientific community for a generation.  Like the Stalin regime, our nation is at the mercy of the whims of one catastrophically vain, immoral, and stupid man who has elevated a cadre of anti-science zealots to control our science policy based not only what is right or true, but what lines up with party propaganda.  And I fear that over the next three years the claws of partisan politics will sink so deeply into scientific research that it will, as it did in the USSR, take decades to repair the destruction.

****************************************

When the saints go marching in

My mom was an extremely devout Roman Catholic, and I still recall her instructing me to "pray to St. Jude" when I was worried about a bad outcome.

At some point I thought to ask her, "Why St. Jude?"

"Because he's the patron saint of lost causes," she explained.

I pondered on that for a moment.  "If he's in charge of lost causes," I finally said, "wouldn't he be the worst person to pray to?  Shouldn't I be asking for help from someone with a better track record?"

My mom, who had many fine qualities but was born without a sense of humor, didn't appreciate my attempt at levity.  She took her saints seriously.

St. Jude is hardly the only Catholic saint whose story is a little on the odd side.  Consider, for example, St. Rita of Cascia, who lived in the fifteenth century in Perugia, Italy.  Rita at first seemed like she was destined to live a completely ordinary life.  She was the daughter of a moderately wealthy couple in the town of Roccaporena, and upon reaching marrying age was wedded to a nobleman named Paolo di Ferdinando di Mancino.  Mancino turned out to be a nasty piece of work, and was verbally and physically abusive to poor Rita, but by her "humility, kindness, and faith" she was able to convert him to better behavior.  They had two sons, Giangiacomo Antonio and Paulo Maria, and everything was going on swimmingly until a guy named Guido Chiqui, who belonged to a rival family, stabbed Mancino to death.

Well, Rita was understandably upset, especially after all the effort she'd put in to turn her husband into a nice guy, and she was even more chagrined to find out her two sons were planning on taking revenge and murdering Chiqui, so she prayed that they be spared from doing something that would land them both in hell forever.  God obliged by making them both die of dysentery.

So be careful what you pray for, I guess.

Rita, now husbandless and childless, decided to join a convent, where she died in 1457.  She's now the patron saint of abused people.

A painting of St. Rita of Cascia from her tomb [Image is in the Public Domain]

Then there's St. Lidwina of Schiedam, a fourteenth-century Dutch woman who was injured while ice skating at age fifteen, and afterward supposedly didn't need to eat anything.  Despite this -- and the alarming and bizarre claim that she "shed skin, bones, and parts of her intestines, which her parents kept in a vase and which gave off a sweet odor" --  she lived another thirty-seven years, and upon canonization became the patron saint of chronic illnesses... and ice skaters.

Seems like if I was an ice skater, I'd want to pray to someone who hadn't nearly died doing it, but that's just me.

Then there's the third-century St. Denis, who was a Christian bishop among the Parisii, a Gaulish tribe who lived along the banks of the River Seine (and for whom Paris is named).  St. Denis went around preaching, and apparently was so well-spoken that he converted a lot of local pagans, which pissed off the local authorities.  They appealed to the Roman Emperor Decius, who gave the order to arrest Denis and his friends Rusticus and Eleutherius.  After a stint in prison, all three were beheaded with a sword on the highest hill in the area -- what is now called Montmartre.

So far, nothing too odd.  But after Denis was beheaded, his body stood up, picked up his own head, and walked three miles with it, his head preaching a sermon the whole way.  At some point evidently even holiness couldn't propel him any further and he collapsed and died (again) -- on the site where the Basilica of St. Denis currently stands.  But this is why many images of St. Denis are shown with him holding his own head:

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Thesupermat, Paris - Cathédrale Notre-Dame - Portail de la Vierge - PA00086250 - 003, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Besides being the patron saint of both Paris and France as a whole, guess what else St. Denis is the patron saint of?

Headaches.

Another third-century saint who is mostly famous for how he died is St. Lawrence, who came from the town of Huesca in Spain.  He preached all over southern Europe but got himself in trouble when he was in Rome in 258 C.E. by recommending redistribution of wealth to the poor.  (If you can imagine.)  The powers that be decided Lawrence needed to go, and they came up with a nasty way to do it -- they chained him to a grill and roasted him over an open fire.  Lawrence, defiant to the end, yelled at his executioners, "You can turn me over, I'm done on this side!"  And this is why he's the patron saint of cooks... and comedians.

But the weirdest claim I've seen along these lines is an obscure seventh-century British saint, St. Rumbold of Buckingham.  Rumbold was supposedly the grandson of King Penda of Mercia, who was a prominent pagan, but his parents (names unknown) converted to Christianity.  Rumbold was born in 662 C.E. and only lived three days -- but was born able to talk.  His first words were allegedly "Christianus sum, Christianus sum, Christianus sum!" ("I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian!"), which even if you're devout must have been creepy as hell.  Afterward Rumbold  politely requested baptism, and preached several sermons before expiring.  

There are several places named after him, including St. Rumbold's Well in Buckingham:

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Fractal Angel, St Rumbold's Well - geograph.org.uk - 423381, CC BY-SA 2.0]

The best part of the whole story, though, is that Boxley Abbey in Kent had a famous statue of St. Rumbold, that was small and light (because, of course, he was a baby), but sometimes inexplicably would become so heavy no one could lift it.  The deal was, the monks said, that only someone who was holy and pure of heart could lift the statue.  Well, when the Dissolution of the Monasteries happened during the sixteenth century, and Boxley Abbey was abandoned and largely torn down, it was discovered that the statue was fixed to its heavy stone base by a wooden pin that could be released by a person standing unseen behind the alcove.  So, basically, one of the monks would check out whoever was trying to lift the statue, and decide if they were holy enough to pull the pin for.

Sometimes even Miracles of God need a little human assistance, apparently.

Anyhow, that's our cavalcade of holiness for the day.  Unsurprisingly, I think the whole thing is kind of weird.  I feel bad for the saints who got martyred -- no one deserves that -- and even for poor St. Rita with her life-long run of bad luck.  I don't think I'll be praying to any of them, though, however much our country could use some help from St. Jude at the moment.

Or even from talking babies and guys walking around carrying their own severed heads.

****************************************

Cultivating uncertainty

In Haruki Murakami's haunting and surreal short story "Kino" (from his collection Men Without Women), Kino is a quiet and unassuming bar owner whose preferred way of spending his evenings -- splitting his time between serving his few customers and deciding which jazz record to play next -- is upended when a man named Kamita starts showing up.

It isn't every night, but when he's there it's always the same.  He orders a whiskey with water and ice, sits reading his book, then pays up and leaves.  Kamita, Kino tells us, "looks like he could be yakuza," but there isn't really anything concrete he bases this assessment on.  Although there is that one night, when two thugs seem to be intent on beating Kino up, and Kamita tells them to meet him outside instead -- then twenty minutes later Kamita comes back in, unruffled and unperturbed, and calmly tells Kino that the two "won't bother him again."

Other than that, Kamita seems to be a perfectly ordinary thirty-something, enjoying his quiet drink and his book.  But still, there's something off kilter about the whole situation, as if what we're seeing isn't quite real.  That sense magnifies as the story progresses.  Kino's cat mysteriously disappears.  Then he starts seeing snakes everywhere he goes.  He asks his aunt -- who had once owned the building housing his bar -- if she'd seen snakes around the place, and she says she hasn't.  But then she cryptically adds, "[Snakes] often help guide people.  But when a snake leads you, you don't know if it's in a good direction or a bad one...  [A snake] hides its heart somewhere outside its body, so it doesn't get killed.  If you want to kill a snake, you need to go to its hideout when it's not there, find its beating heart, and cut it in two."

All through this, we become increasingly unsure if what we're experiencing through Kino is real.  Murakami is the master at creating a believable Unreliable Narrator -- where we're never certain how much to trust.  Especially when the mysterious Kamita tells Kino one evening that it's absolutely imperative he close the bar "before the rain comes," and leave town.  Kino is instructed not to stay in one place for more than a day or two, and send postcards to his aunt -- no message, don't write his name, just his aunt's address and a stamp -- so Kamita will know he's okay.  "She asked me to keep an eye on you," Kamita tells Kino, "to make sure nothing bad happened...  When it's all right for you to return, I'll get in touch with you."

Amazingly, Kino accepts all this with few questions.  Closes his bar, and leaves... just as the rain starts to fall.  But a few days into his trip he ignores one of the directives, and puts his name and a short message on a postcard to his aunt.  That evening, there's a knock on his hotel room door, quiet but insistent.  It goes on for hours:

Kino pulled the covers up, shut his eyes, and covered his ears with his hands.  I'm not going to look, I'm not going to listen, he told himself.  But he couldn't drown out the sound.  Even if he ran to the far corners of the Earth and stuffed his ears full of clay, as long as he was still alive those knocks would relentlessly track him down.  It wasn't a knocking on a door in a business hotel.  It was a knocking on the door to his heart.  A person couldn't escape that sound.

And that's where we leave him.  We never find out who's behind the door, or even if there was someone at the door.  We never find out who Kamita is, why he did what he did, or how he had a connection to Kino's aunt.  We never learn for certain the significance of the snakes and the disappearance of his cat.  It is weird, surreal, evocative, tantalizing -- and ultimately, we're left to figure out the answers for ourselves.

This kind of ending drives some people crazy.  Me, I love it.  It's the kind of story that stays with you, rather than just handing you the whole thing tied up in a neat package with a ribbon on top.  It keeps you working at it, trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together.  All the clues are there, it seems to say to the reader.  You're smart enough to figure this out.

It's why one of my favorite Doctor Who episodes in recent years is the haunting "73 Yards."  The Doctor's companion Ruby is being followed by an old woman who always stays exactly 73 yards away from her, making enigmatic hand gestures.  Ruby, of course, can't get close to her, but anyone else who approaches the old woman and speaks to her ends up terrified, running away in fear -- and then turns against Ruby, refusing to have anything more to do with her.  (In two horrifying scenes, this includes the stalwart Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, and Ruby's own mother.)  We get hints at the end of who the old woman is and what's going on, but it's never really resolved completely; certainly, we never see the whole picture.

It's creepy, unsettling... but also brilliantly plotted and deeply intriguing.

One of the most critical things for developing an understanding of how things work is a tolerance for uncertainty.  The rush to find an answer -- any answer -- is completely antithetical to true knowledge.  On one level, I get it; it'd be nice if things were simple.  It'd all be so much less trouble.  But the basis of curiosity is in the suspension of that tendency, of allowing yourself not to know for a while, but to think, "Okay, I can do this.  Let's see how this all works."

The drive to fill in the answer blank and be done with thinking is a large part of what's gotten us into the political situation we now have in the United States.  It's the "All we have to do is..." mentality.  All we have to do is... put tariffs on other countries, and industry will come roaring back to our own.  Get rid of all the illegal immigrants, and our streets will be safer.  Cut the size of government, and waste and fraud will magically disappear.  Believe what Donald Trump says, world without end, amen.

And it's fed by the talking heads on the news, too, who give us little bite-sized pieces, nice and manageable -- and due to our tendency to gravitate toward the media we already believed, nothing that'll challenge our preconceived notions.  Nothing that forces us to question.  

Nothing that says, "Here are the actual facts.  Now, put them together.  You don't need me to tell you what to believe, you're smart enough to find the answer yourself."

Psychologist Todd Kashdan said, "If we are interested in producing a population of critical thinkers armed with courage, resilience, and a love of learning and discovery, then we must recognize, harness, and cultivate curiosity."  But the flipside of that is if you want to produce a population of people who will blindly follow an amoral autocrat, who will swallow every last bit of party-line propaganda from his mouthpieces, then make them incurious, unquestioning, and the unable to sustain uncertainty.

The frightening truth is that the last thing our current elected leaders want is a populace who asks uncomfortable questions, who probe deeper, who tolerate ambiguity, who examine their own biases and those of the people they meet.  No, they want followers who'll wear a gold pin with Donald Trump's face on it.  It's easy to get scared people to fall for hero worship -- and scared people are far more susceptible to bullying by the greedy and power-hungry.  

I get that we live in uncertain times, and as someone who has had a lifelong struggle with anxiety and depression, no one knows better than me how uncertainty can provoke fear.  But I'm asking you to hold that fear in your hands for a while.  Examine it and be curious about it.  Ask it questions.  Find out about your biases -- we've all got them, but they're not dangerous as long as you keep them where you can see them.  This approach may not be as instantly gratifying as having Fox News tell you, "Here's what to think," but in the end, it'll be worth it.

Believe me about this much, at least; in the final tally, a deep understanding is worth the anguish of being in the dark for a while.

Be brave.  I trust you to figure the answers out.

****************************************

Wanderlust

Maybe it's because I'm fundamentally a home body, but I find it really hard to understand what could have driven our distant ancestors to head out into uncharted territory -- no GPS to guide them, no guarantee of safety, no knowledge of what they might meet along the way.

A couple of years ago I wrote a piece about the extraordinary island-hopping accomplished by the ancient Polynesians -- going from one tiny speck of land to another, crossing thousands of kilometers of trackless ocean in dugout canoes.  We don't know what motivated them, whether it was lack of resources on their home islands, being driven away by warfare, or simple curiosity.  But whatever it was, it took no small amount of skill, courage, and willingness to accept risk.

The wanderings of the ancestral Polynesians, though, are hardly the only example of ancient humans' capacity for launching out into the unknown.  Two papers this week look at other examples of our forebears' wanderlust -- still, of course, leaving unanswered the questions about why they felt impelled to leave home and safety for an uncertain destination.

The first, which appeared in PLOS-One, looks at the similarity of culture between Bronze-Age Denmark and southwestern Norway, and considers whether the inhabitants of Denmark took a longer (but, presumably, safer) seven-hundred-kilometer route, crossing the Strait of Kattegat into southern Sweden and then hugging the coast until they reached Norway, or the much shorter (but riskier) hundred-kilometer crossing over open ocean to go there directly.

While the direct route was more dangerous, it seems likely that's what they did.  If they'd skirted along the coastline, you'd expect there to be more similarity in archaeological sites along the way, in the seaside areas of southern Sweden.  There's not.  It appears that they really did launch off in paddle-driven boats across the stormy seas between Denmark and Norway, four thousand years ago.

"These new agent-based simulations, applied with boat performance data of a Scandinavian Bronze Age type boat," the authors write, "demonstrate regular open sea crossings of the Skagerrak, including some fifty kilometers of no visible land, likely commenced by 2300 B.C.E., as indicated by archaeological evidence."

Considering people twice as far back in time, a paper this week in Nature describes evidence that seafarers from what is now Italy crossed a hundred kilometers of ocean to reach the island of Malta.  A cave in Latnija, in the northern Mellieħa region of Malta, has bones of animals that show distinct signs of butchering and cooking -- and have been dated to 8,500 years ago.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Frank Vincentz, Malta - Mellieħa - Triq il-Latnija - Paradise Bay 05 ies, CC BY-SA 3.0]

"We found abundant evidence for a range of wild animals, including Red Deer, long thought to have gone extinct by this point in time," said Eleanor Scerri, of the University of Malta, who was the paper's lead author.  "They were hunting and cooking these deer alongside tortoises and birds, including some that were extremely large and extinct today...  The results add a thousand years to Maltese prehistory and force a re-evaluation of the seafaring abilities of Europe's last hunter-gatherers, as well as their connections and ecosystem impacts."

What always strikes me about this sort of thing is wondering not only what fueled their wanderlust, but how they even knew there was an island out there to head to.  I know that patterns of clouds can tell seafarers they're nearing land, but still -- to launch off into the open ocean, hoping for the best, and trusting that there's safe landing out there somewhere still seems to me to be somewhere between brave and utterly foolhardy.

I guess my ancestors were made of sterner stuff than me.  I'm okay with that.  Being a bit of a coward has its advantages.  As Steven Wright put it, "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."

So if y'all want to, you can take off in your dugout canoes for parts unknown, but I'm gonna stay right here where it's (relatively) safe.  I suppose it's a good thing our forebears had the courage they did, because it's how we got here.  And I hope they wouldn't be too embarrassed by my preference for sitting on my ass drinking coffee with cream and sugar rather than spending weeks at sea nibbling on dried meat and hardtack and hoping like hell those clouds over there mean there's dry land ahead.

Chacun à son goût, y'know?

****************************************

Footprints in the sand

What comes to mind when you think about the Isle of Skye?

Chances are, it's one of three things.

The first is the stunningly beautiful scenery.  It's the largest of the Inner Hebrides, and is noted for its rugged, rocky hills, craggy coastline, and emerald-green meadows.

Sidney Richard Percy, Loch Coruisk (1874) [Image is in the Public Domain]

Second, history buffs will remember Skye as the place where "Bonnie Prince Charlie" (Charles Edward Stuart) fled, with the help of Flora MacDonald, after Scotland's devastating loss at the Battle of Culloden.  Stuart's repeated attempts afterward to claim the thrones of England and Scotland never came to much.  He died in exile in Rome in 1788 at the age of 67, depressed and miserable -- but even today, he remains a symbol to many Scots of "what might have been."

Third, if you're someone who likes to indulge in a wee dram on occasion, you probably know that it's home to the famous Talisker and Torabhaig distilleries, which produce absolutely fantastic single-malt whiskies.

I doubt, somehow, that many people would come up with a fourth thing that Skye should be famous for, and which was the subject of a paper in PLOS-One this week: it is one of the best sites for middle-Jurassic age fossils in the world.

167 million years ago, Scotland was about at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer, and was a hot, lush swampy rainforest.  Prince Charles's Point -- the place where Bonnie Prince Charlie supposedly landed after making it safely "over the sea to Skye," in the words of the Skye Boat Song -- was a shallow, sandy-bottomed lagoon.

And it was home to some big dinosaurs.

The paper describes tracks by huge, long-necked sauropods like Cetiosaurus -- and those of the carnivorous theropods that hunted them, such as Megalosaurus.

A complete Cetiosaurus skeleton found near Rutland, England  [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Paul Stainthorp from United Kingdom, Cetiosaurus mount, CC BY-SA 2.0]

The Cetiosaurus tracks are as big around as car tires, and the study found individual trackways twelve meters long -- made, the researchers said, by dinosaurs ambling about, probably in search of the huge amounts of food it took to keep an animal that size going.

It's hard to imagine the rugged, windswept islands of the Hebrides like they were then -- something more like today's Florida Keys, and the home to the whole assemblage of mid-Mesozoic fauna.  Not only the big theropods and sauropods, such as the ones that left the footprints on the Isle of Skye, but pterodactyls flying overhead, and in the seas, the superficially dolphin-like icthyosaurs -- and the long-necked plesiosaurs that still come up in conversations about Loch Ness, only a hundred miles east as the Rhamphorhynchus flies.

"O Earth, what changes hast thou seen?" Tennyson mused -- "There, where the long road roars, has been the stillness of the central sea."  And those changes are still occurring.  The Atlantic Ocean is still progressively widening; a complex series of faults is making all of the Anatolian region twist counterclockwise; the "Horn of Africa" is rifting away from the rest of the continent and eventually will drift off into the Indian Ocean; Australia is on a collision course with Southeast Asia.  We humans leave our own footprints in the sand, but how ephemeral are they?  Will paleontologists 167 million years from now know of our presence, from traces left behind on whatever configuration the continents will then have?

It recalls the haunting lines from another poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, which seems a fitting place to end:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert.  Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

****************************************