You are what you speak.

I found this article in New Scientist.

The general theory with language has been that there are underlying rules; some kind of pattern which connects all languages that ever have been. This is termed "universal grammar" and was put forwards in the 60s by Noam Chomsky. However, a new theory has been presented courtsey of two guys called Evans and Levinson. Their theory is that the language we learn actually shapes our brain.

So what made linguists question the universal grammar theory?

-> It was thought that there would never have been a syllable in any language that begins with a vowel and ends in a consenant if it didn't also have syllables that begin with a consonant and end with a vowel. But this was shown to be wrong when the language Arrernte was found.

-> It was thought that every language would at least have verbs and nouns. Some, however, don't.

-> The fact that where some languages need an entire sentence to depict something, other languages have but one word for the meaning (e.g. In English, for example, you'd say "I cooked the wrong meat for them again". In the Indigenous Australian language Bininj Gun-wok you would say "abanyawoihwarrgahmarneganjginjeng"). It's hard to see an underlying structure in the two.

But there's a more worrying, or at least more eye opening, side to this discovery:

This theory suggests that humans are more diverse than we thought, with our brains having differences depending on the language environment in which we grew up. And that leads to a disturbing conclusion: every time a language becomes extinct, humanity loses an important piece of diversity.

Considering that half of world languages have gone extinct in the past 500 years, it's scary how much we must have lost with them. Each particular brain structure must have had with it new ideas that we could have used to enrich the world and improve it. With all the problems we're facing, we can't really afford to be losing out on new ideas.
Every time a book is translated, it loses some of its authenticity and some of its original meaning- hence the phrase "lost in translation". If so much can be lost simply by the act of translation, how much do we lose every time a language goes extinct?
I guess the blow is softened if the language evolves into another instead of just disappearing- which I would presume would happen because shifting language would be extremely difficult for a society (the only time I can see it working is if it is a forced change- i.e. imperialism).

On the other hand, there are cultures out there which speak the same language as another country but have different ways of life and societies- for example France and the Republic of Congo which both speak French. On the other hand, there are other recognised languages in the Congo- it's just that France is the official national one.

Also, presuming all of this is true, the evolution of new languages will mean new cultures and new ways of life which is exciting.

"Not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslim."

... that is, except the 94% that aren't- or 99.6% depending on which source you look at it. Either way , it's blindingly clear that the assertation of all terrorist being adherents to Islam is utter tripe.

Islamic terrorism - 1 strike
Separatistic terrorsim - 397 strikes
Left wing terrorism - 28 strikes
Right wing terrorism - 0 strikes
Invidual terrorism - 5 strikes
Un-classed terrorism - 11 strikes

Islamic terrorism - 187 people arrested
Separatistic terrorism - 501 people arrested
Left wing terrorism - 58 people arrested
Right wing terrorism - 0 people arrested
Invidual terrorism - 3 arrested
Unclassed - 4 arrested.

Source.

So why are people so terrified of Islam? It probably has a lot to do with the Islamic states in the world which are renouned for their abuse of human rights and lack of respect towards the liberty of women as well as their hostile treatment of rule breakers. However, I don't know of many muslims who don't see said states as anything short of reprehensible- ditto with terrorism. And I suspect that there is no religion out there (out of the big ones, at least) that hasn't had a country run under its name which has done vile things.

There's also things like this article from The Times which informed readers that the Muslim population is rising ten times faster than the rest of society. Firstly, their use of the phrase "the rest of society" is very vague. I'd guess that the number of Jacko fans has increased tenfold since his death let alone the past ten years, and one could easily qualify Micheal Jackson fans as a section of "the rest of society". But I digress. Judging from the table that they provide, they mean in comparasion to other religions.

So let's take a look at this table (sorry, I don't know how to get the whole thing to fit on. Just click on the table to view the whole of it):



Number of Christians: 42, 675 thousand. Number of Muslims: 2, 422 thousand. Err, yeah. Clearly the latter group are a massive threat to society.

The article also quotes an expert who present this change in the Islamic population as something that could lead to changes in politics. This is what he (a professor of demography at Oxford) had to say:

"The implications are very substantial. Some of the Muslim population, by no means all of them, are the least socially and economically integrated of any in the United Kingdom ... and the one most associated with political dissatisfaction. You can't assume that just because the numbers are increasing that all will increase, but it will be one of several reasonable suppositions that might arise."

So in effect, he is saying that there will be more support for Islamic parties. However, I don't know of any Islamic parties. There was the Islamic Party of Britain but they stopped being active in 2006 so I'm not seeing this threat, really. The professor also makes a blanket statement, assuming that all Muslims have the same beliefs and would all want a certain party in power or a certain set of rules enforced. No. Like Christianity, there are many denominations of Islam and it's stupid to assume that even within the denominations, there would be a unanimous consensus.

If you look at the table, it states that the majority of muslims are under 4. That is ridiculous. There is no way that under 4s pose a threat to society. I find it idiotic that an under 4 could even be classified as "muslim". They will not grow up to be militant jihadist because they will grow up British. They will be nationally British and will grow up ingrained into society. So again, where is the threat?

The article attributes this surge in Islamic popularity to:

1. Immigration- which, by the way, is a way of making sure that the menal jobs that no one wants to do are taken. Immigration keeps the NHS afloat and helps reverse the ageing population problem. Plus it's very hard to get citizenship from here if you're not from a country in the EU- and most members of countries in the EU aren't muslim.

2. Higher birth rate- again, an answer to the ageing population. It's a human right to have children and it's not like non-muslims are being barred from having children.

3. Conversion- How dare people exercise their right to freedom of choice with religion! How dare they!

4. Growing willingess to describe themselves as muslim because the western reaction to terrorism and war has strenghtened their identity- I find this one pretty interesting. I think it should be modfied to read "media reaction to terrorism" though because I doubt many muslims have a problem with the west being opposed to terrorism.

The other expert mentioned in the article says that, with the majority of muslims being under 4, a strain will be put on the NHS. I take on board this point. However, I think it's ridiculous to use Islam as a scapegoat for this. Yes, the fact that there are a lot of children will probably put a strain on public services but no, this does not mean that Islam is a threat to the UK. Not to forget that the parents of these children (irrespective of ethnicity or religion) will be paying tax. And remind me who it is that will prevent the ageing population from being a fiscal and moral disaster?



Oh yes. Children.

Toothpaste prevents heart attacks, apparently.

I have this app on my laptop which gives me a news feed that I've set to send feeds only from the UK and NHS choices. For some reason, I never get any news that isn't related to healthcare, but alright. The other thing I've noticed is that all of medical articles have been reported by the Daily Mail which has a reputation of being slightly, er... hyperchondriac. The articles are usually based on a study of about 100 people over an average of around six months which, suffice to say, is hardly enough to draw an adequate conclusion.

Even by their normal cancer-ridden headlines, I couldn't believe my eyes when I opened up my laptop a few days ago and saw an article which claimed that "clean teeth reduce heart risk". And surprise surprise, "reported by the Daily Mail". I sighed. But I nonetheless clicked on the "read more" button which linked me to the NHS choices page where I had expected to see a blatant disregard of the importance of having a large sample size. I thought that the study would have failed to take into account the fact that if you're less likely to brush your teeth, chances are you're less inclined to eat healthily and do physical exercise. Alas, I was wrong. The study was based on 11,689 people over a period of 8 years which is pretty impressive. The researchers also had taken into account other factors:

•When all other possible influences had been taken into account, people who reported poor oral hygiene (who never or rarely brushed their teeth) had a 70% greater risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who brushed their teeth twice a day. (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.3)

•By modelling the link between toothbrushing and inflammatory markers, the researchers say that the fully adjusted model shows a reduced rate of brushing is linked to higher levels of the two markers for inflammation - C reactive protein (ß 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08) and fibrinogen (ß 0.08,95% CI –0.01 to 0.18). This suggests a significant association.

The reasoning behind it, in brief, is that oral bacteria, if released into the bloodstream, can attatch to fatty plaques and cause clots. The other possibility is that the inflammation caused by periodontal disease increases plaque build up, which may contribute to swelling of the arteries. I'm still bemused that there can be a connection between the mouth and heart but I guess the beauty of the human body is that everything is connected.

Moral of the story? Brush your teeth, kids!

A question of ethics.

To answer the question of whether or not plants deserve rights (in light of them having senses/possibly feeling pain as I blogged about earlier), we must first ask what it is that defines whether or not something has rights, be it as a moral agent or as a moral patient. I'm going to firstly rule out that anything nonliving has status on the grounds that to have a moral status, you would need interests which could be fulfilled and so you'd need wants and desires. A nonliving object has no desire to "live" and it can't do/have anything to ensure that it carries on existing. Hence it does not have what I have read to be termed "autonomous goodness". Even the most basic living creature has autonomous goodness as it is in its interest to continue living (unless, that is, it is living a life of continued suffering with no pleasure whatsoever). Now, a plant, being living, has at least that.

But the fact is, we've got to eat something to survive and a life without killing is impossible- every time you breathe in, you are killing bacteria. Your immune system has probably destroyed many-a-microbe and the mass of the cells which die every year via apoptosis adds up to your the same mass as your entire body mass. We must therefore establish a hierarchy of moral patients, and I think that there are two ways of doing so. The first is by the amount a living being can experience in terms of pleasure and pain and the second is whether or not a being is sapient and autonomous. The latter probably links into the former because being able to choose your actions and distinguish yourself as independent adds to your quality of life.

Now, I haven't seen anything to suggest that plants are sentient; I mean, I don't even know if animals are and plants seem to be a lot simpler, so on those grounds, I don't believe that plants are entitled to a high moral status. However, now that it has been established that they do have senses, I can deduce that they do feel at least some degree of pleasure and pain which does raise them up on my imaginary hierarchy. Then again, if their nervous system is not as developed as that of animals, the degree of pain which they would feel would not reach the degree that animals do hence they are not as deserving of the title of "moral patient".
In other words, assume that the suffering I inflict is "2". The suffering that a plant can feel is hypothetically "2" and an animal "4". 2+2=4 and 2+4=6, with the latter being higher. Therefore, it is less desireable to inflict pain on the latter (namely the animal).

I think that maybe something that makes life worth living is whether or not you have a future; whether or not you have a way in which you can better yourself and your situation. Plants do not have this (the poor things are rooted to the ground!) but animals can migrate, they can reproduce and so on. Ignoring determinism, this indicates that animals (when I refer to animals, I'm referring to mammalian animals- sheep, cows and so on- namely the kind that we eat) can get more pleasure out of life. On the other hand, I don't know if animals deliberately migrate because they want to secure a better future for themselves. I doubt this, though am by no means sure, and if it is the case, then it slightly drowns out my previous argument about the animals being able to get more pleasure out of life.

As I said, we must eat something in order to survive and in terms of the food chain, it's more efficient to eat a plant than an animal:



I know about fruitarians but I find it extrememly doubtful that you'd be able to get everything you needed from a diet consisting of fruits and nuts. Unless, that is, you turned to vitamin supplements and the like but surely even they would be packaged with paper (which comes from trees)?

For anyone skim reading, you're not actually missing much. The information I have on how developed both plants and animals are is nowhere near enough for a decent conclusion to be drawn. But for now, plants as far as I know are not conscious, thence are not moral patients.


Picture from here.

Plants and sensetivity to pain.

Apparently there has been evidence (not particularly new by any stretch of the imagination but I've only recently stumbled upon it) to show that plants respond to stimuli- with some sources going so far as to claim that they feel pain.

So before I delve into this research, I should point out that I don't understand how this logically is a possibility. To feel pain, you need to be conscious. Maybe you don't need to be sentient or sapient but consciousness is a prerequisite. Since plants have no brains, hence no cerebral cortexes, they can't be conscious. This begs the question: if they aren't conscious, how do they feel pain?

Even is they do feel respond to stimuli (which they probably do), I don't see how we could empirically conclude that they feel "pain" in a way that is equivocal to the way we do. Humans and plants have completely different neurobiolgy and anatomy. Humans feel empathy because of mirror neurons* (which are neurons that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another). If we understand the pain of others, and assume that they feel pain in the same way as us because of mirror neurons, we can't do the same with plants as we have different hormones and nervous systems etc . Thus it would be illogical to conclude that plants feel pain in the same way as us.


Plant neurobiology:

Auxin- is a hormone unique to plants which in charge of growth and plant behaviour. It stimulates the formation of vascular strands and roots. It also regulates vesicle trafficking and gene expression in roots.



Root apices are the "brain-like structure" of a plant. They're very sensetive to auxin and they are involved in lateral root formation (lateral roots are roots that extend from the primary root and anchor the plant to the ground- see picture on the left).

Plant synapses- Two adjecent cells which auxin and other chemicals are transported across. These synapses also play a part in immunology because they are the basis of cell-to-cell adhesions with other organisms (namely bacteria, viruses and so on). The cell-to-cell adhesions are also the active sites of the transport of molecules and metabolites.

And plant nerves:

Vascular strands: acts as a plant endoskeleton (something that holds the plant together) as well as the plant nerves. The leaves have single strands which combine to form the bundle of the stem and the vascular cylinder.

As for xylems and phloems, xylems are involved in the transmission of action-potential-driven electric signals (which cause short lasting events) and phloems are involved in the transmission of hydraulic signals (i.e. water-driven signals).

And root apices are, to quote:

Plant Brains: Each root apex harbours a unit of nervous system of plants. The number of root apices in the plant body is high and all brain-units are interconnected via vascular strands (plant nerves) with their polarly-transported auxin (plant neurotransmitter), to form a serial (parallel) nervous system of plants. The computational and informational capacity of this nervous system based on interconnected parallel units is predicted to be higher than that of the diffuse nervous system of lower animals, or the central nervous system of higher animals/humans.

So all of this concludes that plants do indeed have a nervous system, albeit not as complicated as that of animals. Then again, none of this has specified that plants feel pain, just that they can transfer hormones and electrical impulses. Until I find more conclusive evidence, I won't subscribe to the idea that plants do feel pain, but I do accept that they respond to stimuli.

NB: Obviously, none of this is mine. I've stolen everything from this website and reworded so that it's easier to understand. If you're interested in reading more about human pain and the mechanisms behind it, this website seems pretty interesting.

I think I'm going to follow up this post with another one about the ethical and philosophical implications for me if as a result of this research because I'm not sure about whether or not, in light of this, plants should have more of a moral status.


* Note that the existence and significance of mirror neurons is by no means definitive in humans, although it is generally accepted in monkeys so I'll just give the theory the benefit of the doubt.