UNIVERSAL VALUES - PEACE, FREEDOM, SOCIAL PROGRESS, EQUAL RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY

UNIVERSAL VALUES - PEACE, FREEDOM, SOCIAL PROGRESS, EQUAL RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm9076.doc.htm

ACUTELY NEEDED, SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS AT TǕBINGEN UNIVERSITY, GERMANY

Following is the text of the lecture by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Global Ethics, entitled “Do We Still Have Universal Values?”, delivered today at Tübingen University, Germany:

Let me start by thanking Professor Küng –- not only for that very kind introduction, but also for inviting me here to give this lecture.  I was deeply touched when, eighteen months ago in Berlin, he handed me a note asking me to do this as a birthday gift for him, at any time after his 75^th birthday on 19 March 2003.

As you know, dear Hans, I had not intended to make you wait so long for your birthday present.  I had hoped to be here on April 30^th.  The pressure of world events made that impossible, but here I am now.  And yet I cannot really think of this lecture as a gift from me to you.  It is you who do me a great honour, by asking me to speak on your home turf, on a subject –- global ethics –- about which you have thought as profoundly as anyone in our time.

Indeed, I realise now that the title I chose for my lecture might even strike you as a little offensive.  When someone has written as extensively and inspiringly about universal values as you have, it seems rather impertinent for me to march right into your Global Ethics Foundation and question whether we still have such things at all!

Let me spare you any suspense, and tell you right now that my answer is Yes!  The values of peace, freedom, social progress, equal rights and human dignity, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are no less valid today than when, over half a century ago, those documents were drafted by representatives of many different nations and cultures. 

And they were not any more fully realized in actual human conduct at that time than they are now.  Those great documents expressed an optimistic vision, not a description of existing realities.  Let’s not forget that among the States that drafted and signed them was the Soviet Union, at the height of Stalin’s terror, as well as several unrepentant colonial powers.

The values of our founders are still not fully realized.  Alas, far from it.  But they are much more broadly accepted today than they were a few decades ago.  The Universal Declaration, in particular, has been accepted in legal systems across the world, and has become a point of reference for people who long for human rights in every country.  The world has improved, and the United Nations has made an important contribution.

But universal values are also more acutely needed, in this age of globalization, than ever before.

Every society needs to be bound together by common values, so that its members know what to expect of each other, and have some shared principles by which to manage their differences without resorting to violence.

That is true of local communities and of national communities.  Today, as globalization brings us all closer together, and our lives are affected almost instantly by things that people say and do on the far side of the world, we also feel the need to live as a global community.  And we can do so only if we have global values to bind us together.

But recent events have shown that we cannot take our global values for granted.  I sense a great deal of anxiety around the world that the fabric of international relations may be starting to unravel –- and that globalization itself may be in jeopardy.

Globalization has brought great opportunities, but also many new stresses and dislocations.  There is a backlash against it -- precisely because we have not managed it in accordance with the universal values we claim to believe in.

In the Universal Declaration, we proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”.

Just three years ago, in the Millennium Declaration, all States reaffirmed certain fundamental values as being “essential to international relations in the twenty-first century”:  freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility.  They adopted practical, achievable targets –- the Millennium Development Goals –- for relieving the blight of extreme poverty and making such rights as education, basic health care and clean water a reality for all.

Many millions of people in the world today are still far from enjoying these rights in practice.  That could be changed, if governments in both rich and poor countries lived up to their commitments.  Yet, three years after the Millennium Declaration, our attention is focused on issues of war and peace, and we are in danger of forgetting these solemn commitments to fulfil basic human rights and human needs.

Globalization has brought us closer together in the sense that we are all affected by each other’s actions, but not in the sense that we all share the benefits and the burdens.  Instead, we have allowed it to drive us further apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between societies and within them.

This makes a mockery of universal values.  It is not surprising that, in the backlash, those values have come under attack, at the very moment when we most need them.

Whether one looks at peace and security, at trade and markets, or at social and cultural attitudes, we seem to be in danger of living in an age of mutual distrust, fear and protectionism –  an age when people turn in on themselves, instead of turning outwards to exchange with, and learn from, each other.

Disillusioned with globalization, many people have retreated into narrower interpretations of community.  This in turn leads to conflicting value systems, which encourage people to exclude some of their fellow human beings from the scope of their empathy and solidarity, because they do not share the same religious or political beliefs, or cultural heritage, or even skin colour.

We have seen what disastrous consequences such particularist value systems can have:  ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism, and the spread of fear, hatred and discrimination.

So this is a time to reassert our universal values.

We must firmly condemn the cold-blooded nihilism of attacks such as those that struck the United States on 11 September 2001.  But we must not allow them to provoke a “clash of civilisations”, in which millions of flesh-and-blood human beings fall victim to a battle between two abstractions –- “Islam” and “the West” –- as if Islamic and Western values were incompatible.

They are not, as millions of devout Muslims living here in Germany, and elsewhere in the West, would be the first to tell you.  Yet many of those Muslims now find themselves the objects of suspicion, harassment and discrimination, while in parts of the Islamic world anyone associated with the West or Western values is exposed to hostility and even violence.

In the face of such a challenge, we can reassert universal values only if we are prepared to think rigorously what we mean by them, and how we can act on them.

That means we must also be clear about what they are not.  And one thing that should be clear is that the validity of universal values does not depend on their being universally obeyed or applied.  Ethical codes are always the expression of an ideal and an aspiration, a standard by which moral failings can be judged rather than a prescription for ensuring that they never occur.

It follows that no religion or ethical system should ever be condemned because of the moral lapses of some of its adherents.  If I, as a Christian, for instance, would not wish my faith to be judged by the actions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition, I should be very careful to judge anyone else’s faith by the actions that a few terrorists may commit in its name.

Also, our universal values require us to recognise the human characteristics, both good and bad, that we have in common with all our fellow human beings, and to show the same respect for human dignity and sensitivity in people of other communities that we expect them to show for ours.

That means we should always be prepared to let other people define their own identity, and not insist on classifying them, however well-meaningly, by our own criteria.  If we believe sincerely in individual rights, we must recognise that an individual’s sense of identity is almost always bound up with the sense of belonging to one or more groups –- sometimes concentric, sometimes intersecting.

Therefore the rights of an individual include the right to empathize, and to express solidarity, with others who share this or that aspect of that individual’s identity.

And that in turn should affect the way we define the obligations of citizenship, in each of our national communities.  We should not oblige people to dissociate themselves from the fate of their co-religionists, or ethnic kin, who are citizens of other States.

Muslims, for example, should not be reviled or persecuted because they identify with Palestinians or Iraqis or Chechens, whatever one thinks of the national claims and grievances of those peoples, or the methods used in their name.  And no matter how strongly some of us may feel about the actions of the state of Israel, we should always show respect for the right of Israeli Jews to live in safety within the borders of their own State, and for the right of Jews everywhere to cherish that State as an expression of their national identity and survival.

But if it is wrong to condemn a particular faith or set of values because of the actions or statements of some of its adherents, it must also be wrong to abandon the idea that certain values are universal just because some human beings do not appear to accept them.  Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely the existence of such aberrations that obliges us to assert and uphold common values.  We need to be able to say that certain actions and beliefs are not just contrary to our own particular morality, but should be rejected by all humanity.

Of course having such common values does not solve all problems, or eliminate the scope for different societies to solve them in different ways. 

We may all be sincerely committed to non-violence and respect for life, and yet disagree about whether it is legitimate to take the lives of those who have themselves taken life, or to use violence to defend the innocent when violence is being used against them.

We may all be genuinely committed to solidarity with our fellow human beings and a just economic order, and yet not agree which policies will be most effective in bringing about that order.

We may all be deeply attached to tolerance and truthfulness, and yet not agree how tolerant we should be of States or systems that seem to us intolerant and untruthful.

And we may all be genuinely committed to equal rights and partnership between men and women, without agreeing on how far the social roles of men and women should be differentiated, or whether it is the responsibility of society to enforce the sanctity of the marriage bond.

On all such issues we must expect differences to continue for a long time -– between societies and within them.  The function of universal values is not to eliminate all such differences, but rather to help us manage them with mutual respect, and without resorting to mutual destruction.

Tolerance and dialogue are essential, because without them there is no peaceful exchange of ideas, and no way to arrive at agreed solutions allowing different societies to evolve in their own way.

Those societies that consider themselves modern need to recognise that modernity does not automatically generate tolerance.  Even sincere liberals and democrats can sometimes be remarkably intolerant of other views.  One should always be on one’s guard against such temptations.

On their side, societies that put a high premium on tradition need to recognise that traditions survive best, not when they are rigid and immutable, but when they are living and open to new ideas, from within and from without.

It may also be true that, in the long run, tolerance and dialogue within a society are best guaranteed through particular institutional arrangements, such as multi-party elections, or the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary.

But these arrangements are means to an end, not the end in itself.  No society should consider that, because it has found them useful, it has an absolute right or obligation to impose them on others.  Each society should be given the space, not to distort or undermine universal values, but to express them in a way that reflects its own traditions and culture.

Values are not there to serve philosophers or theologians, but to help people live their lives and organize their societies.  So, at the international level, we need mechanisms of cooperation strong enough to insist on universal values, but flexible enough to help people realize those values in ways that they can actually apply in their specific circumstances.

In the end history will judge us, not by what we say but by what we do.  Those who preach certain values loudest –- such as the values of freedom, the rule of law, and equality before the law –- have a special obligation to live by those values in their own lives and their own societies, and to apply them to those they consider their enemies as well as their friends.

You don’t need to be tolerant of those who share your opinions, or whose behaviour you approve.  It is when we are angry that we most need to apply our proclaimed principles of humility and mutual respect.

Nor should we ever be satisfied with things as they are.  The state of the world does not allow that.

In our own case, at the United Nations, we are sometimes tempted to proclaim our self-evident utility and relevance to the world, and to blame our Member States for not making better use of such a valuable institution.  But that is not enough.

We need to do everything we can to improve the United Nations –- that is, to make it more useful to the world’s peoples, in whose name it was founded, and more exemplary in applying the universal values that all its members claim to accept.

That means that we need to be more effective in many aspects of our work, and especially in what we do to promote and protect human rights.

Human rights and universal values are almost synonymous –- so long as we understand that rights do not exist in a vacuum.  They entail a corresponding set of obligations, and obligations are only meaningful where there is the capacity to carry them out.  “Ought implies can.”

So what is my answer to the provocative question that I took as my title?  Do we still have universal values?  Yes, we do, but we should not take them for granted.

They need to be carefully thought through.

They need to be defended.

They need to be strengthened.

And we need to find within ourselves the will to live by the values we proclaim –- in our private lives, in our local and national societies, and in the world.

Thank you very much.

* *** *

The Origin of Life - the major scientific theories - ( from chapter ( ii ) of my book - " The Universe - A Personal View " )

The Origin of Life - the Major Scientific Theories


Link to my book :-  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqa2hjbGlmZXN0eWxlfGd4OjM5NmM2NTViMjAzY2M5MTk



( A ) The Theory

Star Dust

39

The origin of life is still one of the four biggest unsolved mysteries in science to date. The other three are :- how gravity works, the nature of space-time ( including the arrow of time ), and the correct interpretation of quantum theory. Scientists have been stero-typed as cold, logical and down to earth. They are almost never associated with romance and soft human touch. As far as the general opinion on human sentiments goes, emotions are being equated with the lack of logic. However, I hold a different view. Science can be the most romantic of all the subjects in our quest for knowledge. How about looking towards the heavens for our origin ? Don't you find statements like :- “ We are all star dust ! “ and “ Look for a star in search of our ultimate beginning “ romantic. To me, they invoke a profound sense of beauty and eternity. Why are we star dust ? You'll be surprised to learn that we have come from such humble and lifeless origin but it is beyond doubt.
I am not contradicting myself when I say we came from the stars on the one hand and that the origin of life is still a mystery on the other. Chemically, we are carbon based and carbon can only be manufactured in the stars in heaven. You should recall in your secondary school Chemistry lessons that the special properties of carbon have given rise to a whole unique branch of study called organic chemistry. To this extent, we are made in heaven. However, the process by which such lifeless element came to life in conjunction with other elements like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and so on is still a very deep mystery.

Before going into the various theories about the origin of life, let us learn the connection between life and the stars. In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was the Big Bang. In the heat of the explosion, hydrogen and helium, the two simplest elements were created. These have one and two protons in their atomic nucleus respectively. Different elements have different numbers of protons ( and some also have neutrons which is formed by the fusion of a proton having a positive electric charge with an electron having a negative electric charge ) in their atomic nuclei whose positive electric charge is balanced by the negative electric charge in the same numbers of electrons orbiting around the nucleus to make a stable element. However, I must qualify this picture when we are dealing with the Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics which theorizes that the atom is actually a fuzzy blob of minute mass togther with its associated energy field having an indefinite postion and velocity by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle. The heat radiation created in the Big Bang dissipated pretty quickly thanks to Inflation and was not hot or long enough to create other elements by nuclear fusion. Other heavier elements have to be cooked over millions of years in the fiery core of burning stars through atomic nuclear fusion. The foremost expert in this astronomical alchemy is none other than Sir Fred Hoyle of the Steady State Theory fame. Another brilliant astro-physicist whose life long research has revealed a lot of profound insights into the life cycles of stars was the late Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his life-time achievements in astro-physics in 1983.

The higher the element on the Periodic Table the longer it will take for it
to be created in the nuclear fussion process. In fact, even the ultra high temperatures in a normal star cannot cook up elements beyond iron ( Fe ) with the most stable of all atomic nucleus and an atomic number of 26 ( meaning there are 26 protons in its nucleus ). This is the reason why the heavier the element the more scarce it is. All elements above iron in the periodic table are created in a more catastropic event of a supernova expolsion at the end of a star's life when it has exhausted all its fuel in its nuclear fusion enterprise. These supernovae expolsions are the most spectacular cosmic sights. Their brightness is equvalent to 100 million suns or sometimes more. They can shine like a small galaxy for days or sometimes weeks. The most famous supernova occurred in the Milky Way Galaxy in 1045 and was recorded in Chinese history books. Its remnant is the famous still expanding cloud of gas called the Crab Nebula or designated as M 1 ( Charles Messier 's astronomical catalogue object # 1 ). In 1987, there was another supernova occurring in our galaxy dubbed SN1987A which is a Type IA supernova with a constant or standard candle brightness most useful for gauging cosmic distances. Nowadays, it is a serious undertaking in astronomy to hunt for supernovae because of their unique characteristics,
With the really ultra high temperatures, a supernova expolsion can cook up the heaviest of element like gold, platinum and uranium. Besides the creation of the

40

heavier elements, supernova explosions also carry out the most important function of cosmic recycling. After they have used up all their nuclear fuel the dying star produces the debris dispersed by supernova explosions which will form the building blocks of another generation of stars. These cosmic debris will coalesce into clumps under gravity. When the cosmic materials are compressed by their own weight through gravity to the tipping point they heat up and will start the nuclear fusion process and the clump begins to shine in its nuclear glow. At this stage, a new star will be born. By estimating its chemical contents through the spectrum of light collected from a particular star through telescopes astro- physcists are able to work out whether the star is a first, second or third generation star like our own sun. Furthermore, by estimating its size and the brightness ( different brightness correspond to different colours and, hence, the age of a star ) scientists can also work out the remaining life span of a star. To recapitulate, our sun is an average size, middle-aged and third generation star that can burn for 10 billion years. The bad news is that it will die out one day but the good news is it will not perish in a supernova until 5 billion years from now. As it usually happens, things are not really what they appear to be. Don't assume for a moment that the bigger stars have all the advantages in terms of age or duration of existence. On the contrary, the bigger the star the faster the rate of dissipation of its nuclear fuel. The largest stars burn out their fuel in only a matter of may be a few million years. So, never take things at their face value. Didn't you enjoy the Tom and Jerry cartoon - the big cat and the small mouse while you were a kid ? We enjoyed it because the small guy always came out on top despite all odds against him. Life is the same. It has perpetuated despite all unfavourable odds. The fighting spirit in life makes it precious beyond all physical and quantifiable measurements.

Given sufficient time, a star like our sun will develop its own solar system but whether or not the system contains a bio-friendly planet like the earth is purely a matter of random chance. So far, scientists have not discovered any extra-terrestrial life. This will be discussed later in the book. First of all, we have to define what life is. In Erwin Schrodinger's book “ What is life ? “ written in 1944, the then prevailing view seemed to be a mechanical one. Life seemed to be defined as an elaborate set of micro machines ( the small little cells working independently and yet in unison to produce a complex organic machine ) mysteriously working in harmony to carry out functions such as respiration, nutrition, irritability, locomotion, rejuvenation ( repairs to itself ), growth and reproduction. In short, it is a metabolic machine capable of perpetuating itself through reproduction. Later on , more sophistication is introduced after the discovery of the DNA molecule in 1953, the most important bio-chemical molecule of all. The added details icluded complexity in organisation, passing on of genetic information and the entanglement of hardware ( the body parts ) and software ( the genetic code embodied in our genome ). You may also recall from your secondary school Biology class that there are some conditions that must be present before life can thrive. These were :- oxygen, water, warmth, light and gravity. Howerver, such conditions are no longer considered absloutely essential for life. The discovery of oganisms around submerged active volcanoes in Hawaiian waters which thrive on sulphur and carry out anaerobic metabolism eliminated the need of oxygen for life to exist. The boiling temperature of over 100 degree Celsius around these volcanoes have also extended the heat tolerance limit of life considerably. As more scientific evidence comes to light, each additional piece of evidence has become a testimony to the great tenacity of life to survive against all impossible odds. Our own dear Professor Stephen Hawking is himself a living testimony to the incredible human ability to survive against all impossible odds. No sufferer of ALS or motor neuron disease is expected to survive beyond 30 years of age but look at him. He is over 60 years old having been born in 1942 and has survived despite all medical statistics against him. He has also expressed his conviction that his medical conditions have, in fact, strengthened his sense of purpose in life and have provided him with endless inspirations for his scientific endeavours. Just imagine how much you would value your life if you had only one more day to live. This is the ideal attitude towards time. Live as if today were the last. Then you will surely appreciate the true meaning of life. Am I talking nonsense ? Well, simply ask yourself this question. Can you be 100% sure that you will be alive tomorrow ? You may be 99.9999.......% sure but never 100% by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle. Nothing is absolutely certain, period !

41

The Primodial Soup

One of the earliest ideas on the origin of life was proposed by Charles Darwin but he did not elaborate on it mainly due to the then prevailing strong religious beliefs and their powerful influence on society generally. In a letter he sent to his fellow research scientists he wrote thus :- “You expressed quite correctly my views where you said I had intentionally left the question of the Origin of Life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of knowledge. “ Despite his intentional omission of the explanation for the origin of life Darwin did make a passing comment on the possibility that life might have started in warm little ponds at the beginning of earth's formation. The earliest form of life, microbes, started on earth as evidenced by rock fossils as early as 3.6 billion years ago ( the earth is about 4.6 billion years old ). The relatively rapid appearance of life on earth put very strict time limits on any theory which purports to explain the origin of life on earth.

The first classic theory about the origin of life was proposed separately by Alexander Oparin and J.S.B. Haldane at the beginning of the 20th Centuary. It is , therefore, known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It proposes that the rich hydrogen, water vapour and methane contents of the earth's atmosphere were subject to various energy sources like solar radiation, volcanic heating and lightning strikes to form simple chemical compounds. One may recall from horror films like Frankinstein that the application of electricity through lightning is very often suggested as the energy source giving rise to the life force that turned Frankinstein alive. Such simple chemical compounds were washed into the ocean by the rain and were subsequently cooked by nature through millions of years to form the ancient primeval molecule which ultimately became the primodial replicator capable of self-reproduction. Then through mutation and natural selection as explained by Charles Darwin this self-replicator eventually became the proto-cell.

In 1953, Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago succeeded in producing amino-acid, the building blocks of life from inorganic molecules. He passed electrical currents through a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour in a flask to simulate the natural conditions of lightning striking through inorganic chemicals that existed in the primodial atmosphere. After about a week, some amino-acids were observed in the experimental mixture. It must, however, be emphasized that the formation of amino-acid is a long, long way from the spawning of life. Furthermore, later experiments carried out as follow-ups to Miller's ground breaking demonstration never yielded any further advancements towards the actual creation of life and his venture seemed to have led to a blind alley.

Panspermia

It will be recalled that Stanley Miller's creation of amino-acid in the laboratory was hailed as a ground breaking experiment back in 1953 as a hopeful path towards the search for the origin of life. You may appreciate the excitement if you realize that the amino-acid is the basic ingridient for the formation of protein, the fundamental substance of which all living things are made. However, proteins are not made of just any amino-acids they are composed of very specific chains of peptides and still longer chains of polypeptides that are in turn built up of the correct sequence of amino-acids. Typically, the simplest of proteins contain some 100 amino-acids of 20 varieties. So the odds of getting the amino-acids to combine in the correct sequence by random chance is 10 to the power of 130. Compare this with the total number of atoms in the whole visible universe which is only 10 to the power of 78. On top of all these odds, you should also know that protein is only the most common bio-molecule. There must also be others such as lipids, nucleic acids, ribosomes and so on to make up a properly functioning living organism.

42

Therefore, the most conservative estimates of getting everything right by random chance is calculated to be some 10 to the power of 40,000 which is like more difficult than winning the first prize of all the lotteries held in past human history and all the coming lotteries to be held until our sun burns out its nuclear fuel in 5 billion years time. If concepts from Quantum Theory are introduced the odds may be considerably reduced but the minimum odds are still pretty staggering.

To top up all these overwhelming odds, there is also the problem of the time frame. As mentioned above, the earliest form of life started on earth some 3.6 billion years ago based on carbon dating of fossils which is relatively reliable. The earth itself is only about 4.6 billion years old ( the age of our sun as you will recall is only 5 billion years old ). Thus, life had started surprisingly soon after the earth's formation. This led to the speculation that earthly life might have originated from outer space. The champion of such a 'crazy' notion is none other than our good old friend of the Steady State Theory fame, Sir Fred Hoyle. He, in fact, likened the chances of life having been created through random chance to a hurricane sweeping through a junk yard and producing a fully assembled Jumbo Boeing 747 by accident. Many have criticised him for shifting the problem of life's origin to outer space which does not provide a true answer to the problem. In my opinion, this accusation is not valid. In fact, he is implying that like his Steady State Theory life has existed for all eternity or co-existed with the universe as his theory of the origin of the universe. Let us now examine how viable this theory of Panspermia is. The theory was originally advanced by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrihenius in early 20th Century, the term meaning “ seeds everywhere “.

In 1834, carbon compounds were discovered by a French scientist in a meteorite that fell near the town of Alais in France. This was the beginning of the speculation on the possibility of life in outer space arriving on earth through meteorites as supported by tangible evidence. Then on 28th September, 1969, another meteorite was seen to fall near the town of Murchison in South Eastern Australia which was found to contain a mix of various amino-acids some not found on earth and others that were similar to those commonly found on our mother earth. The distinction between the two is that earthly amino-acids are left-handed meaning that the structure like the DNA molecule which is made up of proteins and, in turn, amino-acids is seen to twist clockwise while viewed in cross-section. This geometric structure is significant in that in reproduction the DNA molecule split into two halves each joining up with the other halves of the DNA of the mating partner. Therefore, the handedness of the DNA molecules must be compatible in geometric structure before life can propagate by copulation of the DNA molecules of the mating partners. Of course, there are other restrictions for DNA molecules to function properly. For example, the basic structure of the DNA (Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid ) molecule is made up of these four bases:- guanine (G), cytosine ( C ), thymine (T) and adenine (A). A can only pair with T and G with C. Apart from the reproductive function, the simulation of protein in nutrition also follows the same rules. Therefore, only left-handed molecules take part in bio-chemical reactions which sustain life. That is why I mention earlier that the universe is left-handed.

Going back to Panspermia, the most famous of all meteorites which made
the headline news is the Martian meteorite found in Antactica in 1984. On 7th August ,1996, President Bill Clinton held a press conference to announce to the world in a high profile manner that NASA had evidence of signs of life on Mars. He was referring to this piece of meteorite from Mars found earlier in the Antacrtic. He also made a remark to the effect that if this discovery was proven it could redefine mankind's relationship with the cosmos. As it turned out the final testing of this piece of extraterrestial rock did not lead to a definite conclusion and the search for extraterrestial life went on without any concrete answer. In fact, the search has shifted into higher gear with projects like SETI ( Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence ) initiated by NASA to recruit the ordinary citizens of the world to watch and listen for artificial signals from an assigned area of the cosmos using the participant's personal computer. There were also movies based on books written by science writers like Carl Sagan, the most notable being 'Contact' which is in favour of the existence of ET.
After researching all available evidence, Professor Paul Davies of the

43

Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, Sydney was of the opinion that :-” It occurred to me that if apparently solid rocks can have microbes living inside them, and if rocks can travel from Mars to earth ( or visa versa ) in the debris of cosmic impacts, then microbes could tag along, and so cross-contaminate the planets. With a rock as a protective shield, the journey would be far less hazardous than it would be in Arrhenius' theory. In particular, organisms might readily be conveyed between Earth and Mars that way. “ There is a popular counter argument against Panspermia. The brute force of impact when the meteorite strikes the earth surface upon landing together with the heat of combustion on the surface of the meteorite when passing through the earth's atmosphere was are enough to kill off all extraterrestrial life even if it is in dormant form of spores encasing the microbes. However, this counter argument has been proven wrong by computer models simulating the impact. The microbes are saved by their small size ( and consequently low mass ) and sheer numbers. At least some of them are predicted to survive the hazardous space ride according to such calculations.

As regards circumstantial evidence, it was noted that the first emergence of life which was a mere 150 million years after the formation of the earth ( about 4.6 billion years ago ). This relatively short period means life emerged once the conditions were suitable. There did not seem to be enough time for the complex proto cell structure of 500 genes to develop without some push from outside the earthly system. It would appear that some sort of bio-foundation had been built in to allow for the seemingly sudden outburst of life in a relatively short span of time after the earth's formation. Futhermore, there was an intense late bombardment period of several hundred million years during which the earth was showered by leftover rock fragments from space resulting from the earth's formation. The termination of this period roughly coincided with the first emergence of life on earth. These are various pieces of circumstantial evidence in support of Panspermia but they are inconclusive. The current debate is still going on and perhaps only further evidence from exploration taking place in other planets such as Mars and the other moons of Jupiter will shed further light on the current debate. 


Made of Clay

There is another theory of the origin of life which resembles the Biblical scenario to some extent. This particular theory was advanced by Graham Cairn- Smith of Glasgow University and it theorizes that life started off with mineral crystals building up in clay and replicating themselves in it. Clay is known to possess the property of absorbing organic substances onto its surface. Furthermore, the surface of the clay has electrical charge which will facilitate the formation and 'growth' of chemical crystals. As the structures of different generations of crystals may contain imperfections a selective process similar to Darwin's evolution would take place to select the most efficient replicator. Under this theory, the first life on earth should be clay-based replicators. This scenario in bio-genesis on earth sounds logical but, again, it lacks empirical evidence. The most damaging argument against this theory is that if the original ancestors of life on earth were clay-based then why do we not find any form of clay-based organism today. Thus, it unfortunately turns out again that this theory leads to another blind alley.



( B ) The Inspirations

So far, this is all we know about life :- Life is self-sustaining autonomy involving metabolism, nutrition, reproduction, complexity, self-organisation, self repairs, growth and intriguing information content ( embodied in the DNA molecule ). There are enormous complexities in living organisms. For example, the human brain with 10 to the 11power ( 100 billion ) of neurones and 10 to the 12 power ( 1 trillion ) of non-nerve cells is the most complicated structure in the known universe. There is also individual

44

character ( or characteristics ) in each living organism. It is a common consensus that each individual person has his or her own personality and this applies to identical twins as well. Going down the line, no two individual animals such as puppies are exactly alike. Similarly, no two leaves are totally identical. The strangest of all, no scientist has so far succeeded in creating the simpliest form of life such as a single-celled amoeba despite everything that is bio-chemically known about it. There are such beauty, mysteries and varieties in life that Francis Crick the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule said :- “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”

Let us recapitulate what we know about the origin of life up to the present moment in our human history. Life on earth is carbon base and carbon can only be manufactured in the nuclear fussion process in the stars. At the end of each cycle of their lives stars explode as supernovae and these catastrophic events help to disperse carbon ,nitrogen and oxygen atoms into space. When these astro-debris coalesce under gravity to form stars and galaxies again the star creation process is repeated once the matters are compressed dense enough for nuclear fussion to start. In solar systems like ours, bio- friendly planets may arise. Through the grouping of suitable chemicals elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen under favourable conditions ( which are not yet known to us ) the basic building blocks of life, namely, amino-acids are formed. These eventually link up to become longer chains of peptides and through even further more complicated processes the first self-replicator or the proto-cell is formed. Inspirations regarding how the complicated processes took place have come from another branch of scientific theory called the Theory of Complexity which states that when any systems evolve to a certain threshold of complexity a whole different set of rules will apply. Such rules may involve interactive feed-back loops among its components making the total greater than the sum of its parts. Furthermore, the system may become an automata meaning it can take on a life of its own resembling the characteristics of a living organism. Greater details will be described in the Chapter on Chaos and Complexity. 

Suffice it to say at this stage that the Theory of Complexity has shed some light on the evolution of life. To give an example of Complexity at work, the boiling of water can serve as an illustration. When we start to boil some water the heated part of the water is lower in density so that individual bubbles or cells are formed at random distribution. As the boiling process progresses, these random cells become more organised and develop into convection currents which finally become two main streams. One goes clockwise and the other counter-clockwise. As more energy is fed into the system some kind of order seems to appear. At boiling point, the picture changes again. With enough energy to cause the water to vapourise into steam the water surface becomes more turbulent as each water molecule escapes from the boiling water surface at different points into the atmosphere to form steam vapour. For the eyes of the ignorant, the movements of the water molecules appear to be highly organised and under the command of an intelligent program. This is ,in fact, the characteristic of the Laws of Nature. All lifeless atoms seem to be acting in unison as if they had a life of their own and obediently following the Laws of Nature. The role played by Complexity in the development of life on earth also shows that everything and, in particular, each component part of individual life is interconnected in some delicate and multilateral manner.

Regardless of the true origin of life, at least one thing can be certain about life. It is precious. If you believe in God, then life must have a purpose to you. To such an extent, it is precious because you are God's masterpiece of creation. If you believe the scientists' version of creation you are even more pecious because the odds of having life by random chance is estimated to be 1/10 to the power of 40,000 ( the total number of atoms in the visible universe is only 10 to the power of 78 ) or comparable to finding a fully assembled Boeing 747 Jumbo jet after a hurricane has swept through a junk yard as Sir Fred Hoyle so imaginatively put it. The message from Nature is loud and clear. Cherish your own existence. Life also teaches the lesson of peaceful co-existence. During the 1970s, two scientists called Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock advanced a theory of the earth as a holistic, living and breathing eco-system tantamount to a living organism in its own right. Their environmental theory is known as the Gaia Theory originating from the Hindu concept of the goddess of mother earth, Gaia. Their theory raises the status of

45

mother earth to the level of a living being that demands the highest respect from her human inhabitants. This theory has found wide support from environmentalists such as Geen Peace members and the scientific community at large. Lynn Margulis has also advanced another theory on the origin of the nucleated cell or eukaryotic cell. It was suggested that the nucleus of such more complex cells was originally another invader cell which had since learned to live in symbiosis and harmony with its host because the destruction of the host cell would ultimately lead to the invader's own demise. It is strategically wiser to co-operate with one another and strive for survival as a team. A lot of subsequent evidence has emerged to make this theory a generally accepted one among bio-scientists. Therefore, peaceful co-existence is also inherent in Nature and so should human beings behave.


( C ) The Eccentric Ideas

The seemingly impossible odds of life happening by chance have led to an intensive search for other possible explanations of the miraculous occurrence. The latest theory on the origin of life comes from inspirations of the Quantum Theory and, hence, the term Quantum Evolution. Under this new and innovative theory put forward by Johnjoe Mcfadden, the behaviour of atoms in bio-chemical molecules such as the DNA and amino-acid molecules are hypothesized to act under the laws of Quantum Mechanics applicable to atomic activities which is not unreasonable. Owing to the fact that atoms can assume superpositions ( being different places at the same time or having different probabilities of being present at different positions ) until they decohere into definite positions upon the collapse of their related probability function ( as described by Erwin Schrodinger's equations by virtue of an observation or measurement being made on them ), the chances of the formation of the suitable kind of bio-molecules are greatly increased.

The strange and yet abundantly proven rules of Quantum Theory may sound like science fiction at this point but I can assure you that Quantum Theory is one of the most reliable and consistent scientific theories ever formulated as borne out by the invariant predictions supported by numerous experimental results. Despite its reliability, the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory are still as controversial as ever notwithstanding its inception in 1900. The reader will learn of its detailed descriptions in the next Chapter. Meanwhile, I regret to say that the theory must be taken at its face value. It is not as academic as its name may imply. Quantum Theory has found applications in our everyday technologies such as the computer, the television and laser technology as pioneered by Albert Einstein. The word LASER is the short form for light amplification by the simulated emission of radiation. MASER is, therefore, the magnetism counter part of the same technology. The latest application of Quantum Theory is in a revolutioary concept in computer engineering called the quantum computer which will increase the processing speed of conventional computers by thousands of times and ultimately million of times. The peliminary testing of the underlying principles had been successful in recent months and hopefully the commercial quantum computer will be on the market in a matter of a decade. When the time comes look out for stocks and shares of quantum computer companies. You will surely make a few bucks if you invest in them. There is an old Chinese saying :- “ There are houses made of gold inside the books ( of knowledge ).” Knowledge is power !


Going back to Quantum Evolution, it is argued that Quantum Theory
can theoretically reduce the astronomical probabilities of getting the atoms to form the correct sequence of bio-molecules by matching the infinite number of possible and similar arrangements of atoms ( the so-called superpositions ) through trial and error in a reasonable amount of time frame. When the correct sequence of atomic arrangement is achieved then decoherence ( or materialization in less technical terms ) would occur leading to the formation of the correct kind of bio-chemical molecules to allow the evolution of life to proceed. This is supposed to be a logical and reasonable explanation for the relatively quick pace at which life evolved as soon as the conditions on earth were bio-

46

friendly about 3.6 billion years ago ( the earth itself being estimated to be some 4.6 billion years old ). As farfetched as it may sound, this is, indeed, an ingenious way forward although it still lacks experimental evidence at this stage.

At the present time, there is no definitive explanation given by scientists regarding the origin of life. On the one hand, various scientific theories on the origins of life have not been convincingly supported by objective evidence and on the other, the delicate requirements for life and its ultra complexities in terms of structure and working have baffled most people including many scientists. To this extent, it is not surprising to find numerous supporters of the religious version of creation. Even many scientists agree that life is not only made up of physical atoms but something deeper. But while some call it the life force ( a very unscientific term I have to admit ) or soul created by God others prefer to call it a piece of missing information ( a scientific term for the unknown ) or software. In my opinion, had life been merely a physical arrangement of atoms scientists should have been able to manufacture it by now with the ever progressing computer technology.

Before leaving the mystical subject of the origin of life, I think the reader should at least be acquainted with a little bit of the philosophical theory advanced by philosophers of science. Back in 1973, Brendon Carter suggested that our own existence was sufficient to account for the creation of the universe and life on earth. His ideas had since been collectively called the Anthropic Principle. In essence, he was saying that if the universe and its laws were not the way they are we, human beings, would not be here to ask the 'why' question. There is another stronger version of this principle which states that the purpose of the creation of the universe is custom-made for us humans. Scientists who hold this stronger view is represented by famous physicists like Freeman Dyson who once said :- “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must know we were coming.” Although the Anthropic principle is logical it does not meet the criterion of a good scientific theory in that it makes no useful predictions. It is simply a statement of the facts without answering the questions of how and why. In other words, it is like saying that your parents are the people that gave birth to you. No further useful information can flow from such a statement.

On the other hand, there are those who hold the extreme opposite view that there are no intrinsic purposes to life and this universe at all. Both the universe and human affairs are meaningless and pointless. Representatives of this school of scientific thoughts include Nobel Prize laureate Steven Weinberg and the French biologist, Jacques Monod. Weinberg once said this ;- “ The more the universe seems comphrehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” I totally disagree with such a perspective. This view implies that only the objective and physical facts are important and our subjective feelings and perceived reality are worthless. This is a completely materialistic view point devoid of human sentiments. With the power of creation and ingenuity of the human mind which matures and grows with every social interaction on a nonlinear and multilateral basis, we are fully capable of creating a meaningful and rewarding realty if we so choose. The vital importance of the intellegent human consciousness is abundantly borne out by Quantum Theory and not purely a philosophical conjecture.

As regards Jacques Monod, he was of the strong opinion that science and philosophy like oil and water cannot mix with each other. He wrote thus ;- “ Any mingling of knowledge with values is unlawful, forbidden,” To this view, my response is that “never say never again “ ( with complements of Ian Fleming of James Bond fame ). If science is to serve humanity, there is a great urgency for a Connection to be set up between science and philosophy because science tells us what we can do while philosophy what we should do. Science represents power and we are inviting tragedy if power falls into the wrong hands. What can be more tragic than nuclear power falling under the control of a mad man like Hitler ( which almost did ) who did not know the proper thing to do for want of a set of humane philosophical value? One of my humble objectives in this book is precisely an attempt to forge a Connection between these two very vital disciplines - vital to human survival that is !
To me, it requires a lot of faith both in oneself and in Nature to face an issue such as the origin of life which is, in effect, looking for one's own ultimate root. If one is pre-determined to include only one given methodology to the exclusion of all others

47

without an open mind one would only arrive at partial truths and may even fly in the face of other possibilities which are precluded by a set perspective. This is the notorious Selection Effect which leads us astray from the ultimate truth because we only select evidence that is compatible with our set perspective or the existing paradigm. That is why all great scientific discoveries or, for that matter, everything of greatness are made by overthrowing some existing generally accepted framework. We must have the courage and foresight to resist applying our common sense if we need to do that to get to the ultimate truth. Let us hope that the search for knowledge and the truth be unimpeded by any standards or disciplines. 

The optimal 50-50 conversation flow - The Wall Street Journal

The optimal 50-50 conversation flow - The Wall Street Journal

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303722604579111220890756120.html?mod=e2fb

It's True: You Talk Too Much

How to achieve the optimal 50-50 conversation flow

By 
• ROB LAZEBNIK

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but you talk too much. I know you think you don't, but seriously, you do.

Take this simple test: After your next long conversation with someone, estimate what percentage of it you spent talking. Be honest. No, you're already underestimating. How do I know? Because it's more fun to talk than to listen. Talking is like drinking a great Cabernet. Listening is like doing squats.
Add another 20% to your total.
If you talked more than 70% of the time, you jabber too much. I know, because my son has Asperger's syndrome, and part of his education was learning conversational dynamics.
People with Asperger's tend to give monologues about their obsessions, which can be problematic socially. It's hard to get a date after you've just told a girl all the subway stops in North America.

"The Simpsons" writer, Rob LaZebnik argues that almost everyone talks too much. He explains what makes talking so great, how to be a better listener, and offers a few tips on escaping a never-ending story.

Dr. Lynn Koegel, who is clinical director of Koegel Autism Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says that an optimal conversation flow has each person talking about 50% of the time. This is the Ali-Frazier of good give-and-take.
But, you say, what if your talking partner is just quiet and loves to listen? Stop it. She doesn't. Listening is like reading a corporate report. Talking is like eating a cinnamon bun.
So how do you achieve this 50-50 conversational ideal? Easy: ask questions. But don't think that one "How are you?" is going to turn you into Oprah. Actually listen to what the other person is saying, and find openings.
For instance: Your friend says, "I think that Henry the intern is probably a psychopath."
Now if you're inclined to say, "So's my mother! Yesterday, at the museum, she…" don't. You're talking too much. Instead, try, "Why do you think Henry's a psychopath, and if he's cute, would he be good for my niece?"
Now you're doing great. Your friend will love telling you about Henry. When she's done, if you really must, you can tell the anecdote about your mom. But if you're talking about someone whom your conversation partner doesn't know, especially a mother, keep it short—one minute tops, unless it's a truly fantastic story. And to qualify as such, at least five people need to have said to you in the past, "Wow, that's a fantastic story." Not "a great story" but "a fantastic story."
I can hear you complaining already: "One minute? But I need to include all the details." No you don't. Just get to the part when, on a crowded elevator, your mom turned to you and said, "I wish I could press the up button on your boobs." Your job is to quickly entertain and inform, and then to ask good questions.
Also, let your chattering breathe a little. One dastardly arrow in the big talker's quiver is to slow down in the middle of his sentence, then to blow through the period so that there's no opening for anyone to squeeze a word in. Secretly tape one of your own conversations, and if you realize you do this, stop it or never go out in public again.
Another essential rule is to monitor your audience. Is the guy you're talking to glancing at his cellphone, spinning his Dorito like a paper football or making his tie into a noose? If so, pull the ripcord and ask him if Heineken is his favorite beer, since you've just seen him drain five of them. Watch how relieved he is to have a turn to talk! Talking is a Miguel Cabrera home run. Listening is getting hit in the head by it.
But, you say, this conversational paradigm sounds like work. And talking feels so good! Besides, people don't seem to be complaining about you.
Oh, but they are.
If you don't let others participate in conversations, I promise they are hatching schemes against you. Fevered discussions are happening over where to put your place card at the dinner party—"Not next to Uncle Joe! He's only got six months to live!" Colleagues at nearby cubicles tell you they have to wear headphones to "concentrate on work." At parties people always say to you, "Excuse me while I grab another drink." People at parties are so thirsty!
So when reading this piece, did you recognize yourself? Did it perhaps make you think of someone else? If so, wouldn't it be great to send it to him? But you don't want to hurt his feelings, so how would you go about it?
Decent questions, right? Now I'll sit back and let you talk.
—Mr. LaZebnik is a writer on "The Simpsons."A version of this article appeared October 4, 2013, on page C3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Talk, Talk, Talk of the Town.

Peter Higgs and his Nobel prizewinning boson

What is the Higgs boson ? 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116236

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/oct/08/peter-higgs-profile-nobel-prize-video

Even before he won this year's physics Nobel prize, Peter Higgs had already earned his place in history. But how did a 'hopeless experimenter' – whose original paper was rejected for being of 'no relevance to particle physics' – figure out half a century ago how elementary particles get their masses? And what is a Higgs boson anyway?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/oct/12/peter-higgs-winning-nobel-award-physics-video

Physicist and Nobel laureate Peter Higgs responds to winning the Nobel award for physics at a press conference in Edinburgh on Friday. Higgs was awarded the prestigious accolade jointly with his Belgian colleague, Francois Englert, for their work on the Higgs Boson particle. Higgs says he first learnt he had won the prize when a former neighbour informed him on the street.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2012/jul/06/peter-higgs-edinburgh-university-video

The physicist who gave his name to the elusive god particle that scientists believe they have found said on Friday it was 'very nice to be right'. Prof Higgs gave his reaction to the discovery in a press conference at the University of Edinburgh. The Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics will bring together scientists from around the world to seek an even deeper understanding of how the universe works.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2012/jul/04/cern-higgs-boson-video

Scientists at the Cern research centre in Switzerland reveal they have found a new subatomic particle that could be the Higgs boson. The announcement was greeted by rousing cheers and a few tears from the audience. The finding marks a breakthrough in understanding of the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2011/dec/14/higgs-boson-cern-god-particle-video

Scientists at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory in Switzerland, believe they have seen a hint of the Higgs boson. The results are inconclusive. But confirming the existence of the so-called God particle would confirm how elementary particles acquire mass, and would be the most coveted prize in physics.