Monitoring Peak Oil Number 9

World Total Liquid Fuel Production -January 2008: 87.18 millions of barrels per day (mbpd)1.

The production is again the highest prodution recorded so far. However, the production of crude and condensate achieved its peak in May 2005. This means that the production of natural gas plant liquids (NGPL), ethanol, biomass to liquids (BTL), coal to liquids (CTL), gas to liquids (GTL) and processing gains is still increasing. According to certain estimates, the peak fossil fuel production will be reached in 2018, taking into account also coal and natural gas 2. In the meantime, the supply and demand mismatch will create oil price increases and a slowing of the world economies as an average.

References

1. http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/13feb08tab.pdf

2. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3565

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 8

World Total Liquids Production -November 2007: 86.55 millions of barrels per day (mbpd).

This is again the largest production recorded. However, the figure is very close to the ones on October 2007 and July 2006 so technically the global production is still at a plateau. The supply/demand relationship is still worrisome for 2008, which leads me to think that the barrel price will be more expensive than the average for 2007. If the world economy goes into a recession in 2008, the demand side of the equation would ease up the tendencies of price-climbing.

The Cyclic Nature of Nature. Dying and Rebirth, Essentials for Invincibility

The Cyclic Nature of Nature.

Dying and Rebirth, Essentials for Invincibility.


The quest to understand the nature’s phenomena started the moment in which the first spark of conscience was lit in the evolving animal brain. This spark eventually led to the fire that illuminated the minds of the ones who have changed how we see the world. This spark was generated probably some millions years ago and, I am sure, did not lit a fire instantaneously. In millions of years, the fire grew in slow motion. Slow motion for us, of course, since we have such ephemeral lives. The light provided by the growing fire was sufficient for humans to realize that things come and go. The day, the night, the moon, the stars, the greenness of the trees, the whiteness of the snow, they all make a come back after leaving us for a while.

Some cyclic phenomena are more subtle and require more illumination. One of those is the cycle of daylight duration throughout the year. It took millions of years for the animal brains to figure out that there will be a shortest and a longest day, and a shortest and longest night. The durations of day and night changed slowly day after day. By trial and error and by the use of shadows and brighter light, the longest day and night were pinpointed and served as anchors for the development of calendars.

The Sun, the bearer of light, the bearer of heat and other electromagnetic waves for this planet, is also the bearer of life. If something gives us life it is logical to consider that something with some respect, just like a progenitor. Unlike us, progenitors and progeny at the same time, the Sun comes and goes, not only in 24 hour cycles but in longer cycles. After the longest night of the year, when it seems that the Sun will eventually fade away, it returns stronger and stronger, showing that impending death was momentarily. Soon, the empowered Sun is able to bring back the green, the bird and the food.

Invincibility, the ability to never be conquered, the capacity to make a come back when hope is fading, is a quality that our Sun posesses. Even now, when our minds have been lit up so much that we know that in a couple billion years, hydrogen for the nuclear fusion reactions that power our Sun will deplete and reach a terminal decline, for our minuscule duration and importance, our Sun is invincible.

Comment 1

Here is my comment about the article "How Should We Be Thinking About Urbanization? A Freakonomics Quorum" in the Freakononomics-Opinion section of the New York Times. The article was posted on December 11, 2007. My comment is number 54.

There is a period of transition waiting for us. How is the transition going to be? I depends on us. It could be organized, gentle and civilized if the nations agree that we have to reduce our numbers, our toxic emissions and our use of energy. It could be tumultous, tragic and apocalyptic if we deny the realities of physics and geology, if we believe in growth-economics as a dogma and if we selfishly decide not to proceed as a community.
— Posted by Dr Marco

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 7

World Total Liquids Production -October 2007: 86.43 millions of barrels per day (mbpd).

This is the record production so far. The only way we can say we are not at peak is if we see a continuous production increase in the following months and years. It is important to realize that the most important issue is the supply and demand relationship. If demands keeps rising faster than supply it would not matter if we are at peak or not, the prices of oil will continue to rise.

The other issue that I want to bring to the attention of my readers is that the crude and condensate (C&C) production peak occured in May 2005 and there are no signs that the record will be broken. So, what is the difference between C&C and total liquids? Total liquids include the following: Natural gas plant liquids (NGPL), ethanol, biomass to liquids (BTL), coal to liquids (CTL), gas to liquids (GTL) and processing gains. The increase in the non C&C liquid production has avoided a total peak so far.

Still the relationship between supply and demand does not look good for the 4th quarter of 2007 and the 1st quarter of 2008.

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 6

All liquids Production- September 2007: 85.09 millions of barrels per day

The record production of all liquids was in July of 2006 as I always repeat in these updates. If we only take into account crude and condensate (C&C), the peak production month was May of 2005.

When I wrote my last update, we were in the third quarter, when all liquids demand started to surpass all liquids supply. Now, we are entering the fourth quarter during which the gap between supply and demand is going to get worse. The demand is going to be around 87.6 mbpd (million of barrels per day). This, together with the well known geopolitical concerns (Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, etc) will make the price of oil and its derivatives highly unstable for the next months.

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 5

Oil Production July 2007: 85.26 millions of barrels per day

The highest production of all liquids ever recorded was in July of 2006 as I always emphasize. However, if we only count crude and condensate (C&C), the month with peak production was May of 2005. If oil demand were to stay steady, this would not matter too much. We are entering the third quarter of 2007, were oil demand is predicted to be 86.1 mbpd. Furthermore, in the fourth quarter the demand will be 88.1 mbpd. Guess how much the gasoline prices would rise...

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 4

Oil Production June 2007: 84.28 millions of barrels per day

Are we seeing a pattern here? The month with highest production for all liquids is still July of 2007. As I said in my previous post regarding the oil production, the demand for oil will be significantly higher than the supply, and according to the IEA, the trend will continue in 2008. This will likely reflect in increased oil prices in the following months, taking into account the well known seasonal variations.

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 3

Oil Production: May 2007: 84.94 millions of barrels per day.

There is a dip in the production of oil. The IEA report states that Nigerian decrease in supply is partially to blame. What is more alarming is that, in the third and fourth quarters of this year, demand is going to surpass supply without any major political event going on (as it happened in 1973 and 1979). July of 2006 continues to be the month with most oil production recorded.

Middle Class Dismantling 101. (MDM 101)

The purpose of this course is to enable future aristocrats take active part in the destruction of the middle class. Middle classes, when they represent a significant percentage of the total population, create a pervasive environment that leads to common people acquiring positions of power that do not let hard working and smart individuals (and their offspring) achieve the power they deserve.

The course is directed to the young sons and daughters of the nascent aristocracy, who need to completely dismantle the decaying but still powerful middle class. It is an organized form of knowledge that will help in the building of the ideological backbone of the future aristocracy.

The syllabus of the course contains the following topics, which will be briefly described.

1. Democracy: The antithesis of Aristocracy.

The etymology of the words democracy and aristocracy is as follows. Demos is a Greek work for people. Kratia is the Greek word for government. As a summary, democracy is the government of the people. Aristos is a Greek work that means best. As a summary, aristocracy is the government of the best. Future aristocrats have to be completely convinced that they deserve to rule because they are the best of humankind. Why are they the best? Because they have inherited the power from a prior generation that was already the best and were educated to be the best. In addition, the common people usually are not well educated and lack the character for optimal decision-making. This is why aristocracy and democracy are opposites. The common cannot be the best.

2. The Corporation: The base of the Aristocracy

Corporations have to first make sure that they can have the same rights that people in a democracy. Once that is achieved, they have to grow accumulating always a greater proportion of the generated wealth than the common people. The future aristocrats will be always at the top of a corporation. A historical analogy can be made with the feudal system of the later Middle Ages. The lord of the manor (CEO) will provide protection to the peasants (workers) in exchange for loyalty. Achieving this, starting with a society with a large and strong middle class, with a two century old tradition of democracy should take a few generations, however, the goals have to be set up.

3. Destruction of democracy… using democracy!

As it was said before, the people lack optimal decision-making capacity. They will elect to office politicians based on charisma. They lack an intellectual framework that will be able to protect themselves and their offspring. The goal of this topic is to learn the tools that will enable the leaders who will destroy the middle class be elected. The process, once started cannot stop so if there is the risk of a setback in anyone of the electoral processes, mechanisms of fraud should be designed to avoid them, raising minimal suspicion. People tend to vote for candidates who show strength, who share beliefs in the supernatural with them and who are against “alternative lifestyles”. Fear, religion, ethnocentrism and homophobia should be exacerbated in electoral campaigns. It has to be taken into account that middle class people will be voting for their own destruction so electoral processes should always be taken seriously.

4. Socioeconomic tools for MDM

Once in power, measures that transport wealth from the common people to the best people should be implemented. Tax-cuts for the wealthy are essential. The unions have to be dismantled. Common people (95th percentile or less) should be more concerned about paying energy bills, medical bills and food than to save for a decent retirement. Once this is achieved things should go smoother since the energies of the common people will be concentrated in survival. Once this happens they will look for the new aristocracy for protection.

5. Educational tools for MDM

The educational system has to be reformed in a way that public education creates weaker children with useless knowledge. Fun has to be more important than intellect. In this way, superstition and fear will be able to be used more easily. Questioning should be discouraged. Socialism should become taboo. Established scientific theories should be placed at the same level with religious myths. A well educated middle class is the worst enemy of an aristocracy. The lessons from the French Revolution should not be forgotten. In other words, the Enlightenment should never happen again.



6. Why an Aristocracy?

The world of the future is a world in which energy will be scarce and wealth will be unevenly distributed. It is the right of the people with the best capabilities to rule and to guide the surviving common people to better grounds for survival of humanity.

By the end of the course the future young aristocrat will know how and why a middle class should be dismantled in order to establish a solid and stable aristocracy that will replace democracy as we know it.

Note from the author: For first visitors, I encourage to read the rest of my blog to get a feel of my real ideological positions. This post is intended to describe what kind of future is reserved if we let our precious middle class disappear.

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 2

Oil Production:

March 2007: 85.28 millions of barrels per day

According to this, and looking at the figures of my previous entry, the production of oil seems to have reached a plateau since April of 2006. I think that it is still premature to call it a "peak oil", however, we have to keep an eye on it.

Monitoring Peak Oil Number 1

Many people believe that oil production will soon achieve its peak. Some people believe that global oil production has already peaked. Regardless of individual opinions regarding the subject, if oil production starts to decline and it is not replaced by other energy sources at a greater rate than that of its loss, the global economy will enter a period of recession. The length and severity of the recession will depend, again, on the finding of new oil or the replacement of the oil loss by alternative energy sources.

The intention of this series is to provide an easy access to internet surfers to the latest reports on global oil production. I am obtaining the data from Oil Market Report, published by the International Energy Agency. The production figures are expressed in million of barrels per day.


Jan-05 83.95
Feb-05 84.45
Mar-05 84.89
Apr-05 84.89
May-05 85.31
Jun-05 84.87
Jul-05 84.48
Aug-05 84.77
Sep-05 84.07
Oct-05 84.09
Nov-05 84.86
Dec-05 84.65
Jan-06 84.29
Feb-06 84.44
Mar-06 84.72
Apr-06 85.21
May-06 84.79
Jun-06 84.98
Jul-06 86.13
Aug-06 85.52
Sep-06 85.14
Oct-06 85.35
Nov-06 85.39
Dec-06 85.45

According to this data, oil production seems to have peaked in July of 2006. However, as peak oil "experts" say, we would be able to identify the peak oil production some time after it had actually occured. There are many variables, like the finding of new oil fields, the production of oil from sources like tar sands and the arbitrary OPEC production quotas.

I will try to update this information in a monthly basis.

Dissecting Intelligent Design Number 2: “The Shakespeare Sonnet”

In January of 2006, I wrote the Number 1 of this series, called “ The Mousetrap” in which I explained and criticized the idea of “irreducible complexity”. In this post I will concentrate in the Intelligent Design (ID) idea called “specified complexity.”

Specified complexity states that information that is “specified” can just be characterized as just a single informational unit. The example that is given is the one of the single letter of the alphabet. It could also be a bit or a pixel. A phrase, a novel or an article could also be regarded as units. By complex I understand “a group of single informational units”. A sequence of random letters would be complex, but not specific. A Shakespearean sonnet would be specified and complex, because it can be regarded as a unit on its own and it is composed of smaller units (letters of the alphabet). When something is specified and complex, ID says, it has to be designed by intelligence. The creator of the concept even defines specified complex information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. So, the Shakespearean sonnet, by being specified and complex, would have a less than a 1 in 10150 chance to occur in nature without the intervention of a designer.

ID states that the DNA base sequences of living beings are specified and complex. According to it, they have a less than 1 in 10 to the power of 150 chance of being a consequence of random mutations aided by natural selection. ID implies that 4.6 billion years of molecular history is not enough to produce the genetic code of a bacteria or a human being.

First of all, this theory is not taking into account the actual nature of DNA. DNA is made by protein-coding exons and non protein coding introns. The introns, are located in between exons, interrupting coding sequences. Since their genetic code is not transformed into protein, mutations that locate in them are not subject to natural selection so they remain part of the DNA of any given species. This has given rise to a genetic tool called the molecular clock, which attempts to establish the temporal relationship between different species and their hypothetical common ancestor. This makes the DNA look more like puerile writing, corrected by a teacher than a Shakespearean sonnet.

Secondly, the creator of this theory has chosen the power of 150 to define when we are in front of creation by intelligence. He probably did some math, taking into account the mutation rates and the proofreading mechanisms; however, the theory cannot be tested by experiment, cannot generate any predictions, and cannot propose new hypotheses of their own.

My third argument against specified complexity is logical. If we take the statement: “Complex specified information does not occur without the aid of a designer, or the chances of it occurring without that aid are less than 1 in 10 to the power of 150”. The statement seems correct, so now we have to determine if it is a validity or a tautology. The definition of complex specified information involves what is mentioned in the second sub-statement. It is the same as saying that “oranges are not cubes, or they are spherical”, i.e., a tautology.

As a conclusion, I must say that it is clear that specified complexity cannot be counted as an argument against evolution by natural selection or for the existence of a designer. It fails the biological and the logical sense. In addition, it cannot be tested, like all other scientific theories, by the scientific method.

Epicurean Philosophy: Principle Doctrines 1-4 out of 40

I consider myself an atheist due to my lack of belief in gods, a bright (noun) due to my naturalistic approach to life, a socialist because I believe in redistribution of wealth so that society can avoid phenomena such as billionaires or homeless individuals. Philosophically, I must say that I am an epicurean. After reading for some time what Epicurus meant about life and how to live it, I can say that my goal is to live as close as he said life should be lived.

I am going to show the 40 Principle Doctrines in different posts. After each Principle I am going to write a brief paragraph of what I understand of them.

1) A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings signify weakness.

Weakness means a vulnerable state. We are vulnerable when we are angry; we are vulnerable in extreme joy; we are vulnerable in sadness. Why? We become vulnerable because extreme emotion makes us lose awareness of our surroundings. On the other hand, strength is the ability to keep our integrity despite the intensity of the aggression. By living a moderate life avoiding causing trouble for us and for the people we interact with, we avoid situations in which we could be the subject of the anger of the individual we interact with. In addition, we save energy for what is really important.

2) Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us.

This seems very logical. Why worry about death? Dead people do not feel. This is one of the situations in which the concept of afterlife is pernicious. It creates an extra worry. Personally, my only worry would be the financial one, to assure my family with a secure future in the event of my death. The other issue with afterlife is selfishness. People who believe in an afterlife are still concerned about themselves even as they are going to pass away. On the contrary, it is better to think about leaving a legacy and to assume that our memories are going to be our only survivors.

3) Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long as it lasts, there is no cause of neither physical nor mental pain present – or of both together.

In the absence of disease and violence, which cause physical pain, the only source of pain is mental. Anxiety is a major source of “mental pain.” This is why, in order to achieve the state of maximum enjoyment of life, we have to live anxiety-free. This is difficult, especially in the 21stcentury world. The lesson here would be to remove minor daily problems as a source of anxiety and only worry about the important things of life. Of course, there will still be many major sources of anxiety for the common people, however, without the extra weight of the anxiety caused by the minor issues, the stress produced by the major ones would be better dealt with.

4) Continuous physical pain does not last long. Instead, extreme pain lasts only a very short time, and even less-extreme pain does not last for many days at once. Even protracted diseases allow periods of physical comfort that exceed feelings of pain.

This is a good observation. After a major injury, the human mind loses its consciousness and when it is regained the memories of the injury are found to be erased. When this does not happen, post traumatic stress disorder is the consequence. I see this Principle Doctrine as an optimistic message for the future sufferer.

Book Review Number 1: The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire by Alan Palmer

Click at the picture to find book at Amazon.com


I just finished this book. I think it is well written, easy to follow. I perceived at some times the attempt to mimic Gibbon’s style, however, I believe that author wanted to keep it simpler than that.

The book gives the idea of an Ottoman Empire constantly in decline from the seventeenth century onwards, which is probably true. It places the pinnacle of the Ottomans at the siege of Vienna in 1683. It shows the multiple attempts and failures of ”westernization” within the Empire and the challenges the Empire had to govern the outer provinces.

This is not said, but one can obtain as a conclusion that the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment reversed the balance of power that existed between Europe and the Ottomans between 1453 and 1683.

**** 4 stars out of 5

Speciation and Creationist Mythology

Speciation is the formation of a new species. Defined more properly would be: “the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.” It is a concept key to the understanding of evolution. Unfortunately, we live in times in which there is a great rift between scientists and not-scientists. Concepts that are basic for the science student at the university level are completely unknown for other people.

The first step to understand the concept is to define what a species is. A good general definition of species is “the basic unit of biodiversity”. However, we need to get a little bit more specific. A working definition for the post, at least for the sexually-reproducing species, is “a set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations, which always generate fertile offspring.” Using this last definition makes us easily visualize that, for example, the dog, in spite of all its different morphologies is a species. A Fox Terrier, can breed with a Great Dane and have fertile offspring. On the other hand, a horse and a donkey can breed, but their offspring is not fertile.

One creationist myth is that we have not seen a new species being generated since humans populated the planet. This is not true. Species have been created artificially. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridization, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended. The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Scientists bred fruit flies, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not interbreed. Evolution can happen in front of our eyes.

The second step to understand the concept is to understand the mechanisms by which this happens. I am not going to go deep into this, however, I will explain the simplest theory which is the allopatric speciation.. During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated allopatric populations (due to geographical change or emigration). The isolated populations then go through genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence, through mutations, as they become subjected to different selective pressures. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of interbreeding. This is what happened in the experiment mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Creationism implies that the species we see are the species that were created 6000 years ago by a divine being. This can be seen in websites such as Answer in Genesis. Intelligent design, a refined form of creationism, argues that a superior intelligence engineered the morphology of the current species and not different selective pressures through to random mutations in the genetic code. Unfortunately for the ID supporters, that would not be able to be proven since someone superior would have to have designed the designer, then the designer of the designer and so on until we reach the level of the supernatural designer, not provable, since it is outside nature. On the other hand, proper scientists have shown that new species can be formed and that the key for this is differential selective pressure combined with geographical isolation for a given period of time, which can be short like in the example of the fruit fly or longer like in the example of domestic sheep.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_45

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Are You Really Free?

Most people would answer “yes! We live in a free country!” However, in order to answer to this apparently simple question we have to clarify a couple of concepts.

First, we have the concept of political freedom, which is a combination of the ability to exercise, in an unrestrained form, the following rights: Assembly, association, education, movement (or travel), press, religion (or belief), speech, and thought. Anyone who lives in an environment that provides the above mentioned rights can consider itself living in a free society. However, is that enough?

There is also the concept of philosophical freedom. I went to the Wikipedia to find a good definition of this and I found this: “Freedom is a many-faceted, positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction”.” It is often measured by the degree of absence of external restraint or external control; however, the biggest restraints come from the self: ignorance, which leads to fear, then restraint; and the lack of self control”. External restraints (or control) are also the ones that make a society not free from a political point of view.

Given the two concepts, we must conclude that in order to be free, we have to live in an environment that provides enough rights {political freedom) and, at the same time, be able to act always consciously without internal restraints (philosophical freedom). Therefore, an individual who lives in a politically free society cannot consider itself free if its actions are limited by ignorance, fear and lack of self-control. Likewise, a person who is intellectually superior and emotionally balanced cannot consider itself free if it lacks the essential rights mentioned above.

Now, after the definitions have been provided, how many of us are really free? We can argue that we, in the U.S., live in a politically free society. So, in order to define ourselves as free we have to concentrate in the concept of philosophical freedom. We can reduce the issue to 2 simple questions. Are we ignorant? And, do we always exhibit self-control? (Or do I never let my emotions take control of myself?)

Ignorance is not an absolute term. We can be ignorant about some topics and knowledgeable about others. If we remain ignorant with respect, for example a potential threat, we become fearful, therefore prisoner of an emotion. This is a moment of weakness that can be used by other individuals to restrict our political freedom. The key to fight ignorance is to achieve high quality information. How do we achieve it in a world that seems to have an abundance of it? There are 3 elements that I took from an article by Sheldon Richman. They are independent thought, rigorous questioning and rational skepticism. If we exercise these 3 elements in our everyday gathering of information, we certainly become freer.

Emotion control is also important. Fear, rage, panic, sadness, extreme joy, can certainly impair the judgment and limit the range of options we have we confront situations. We are human beings, not machines, so we certainly will be moments in which our freedom will be restrained by an intense emotion.

Having said everything, I must conclude that freedom is not an absolute term. We can be free sometimes and prisoner in other times. However, I can say that there are people that are freer than other ones. Living in a politically free society that lets us speak our mind and travel where we want is certainly not enough.

Our most common recent ancestor might have lived only 3500 years ago

This is bad news for all racists of the world. Anthropologic studies tied with computer simulations show that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans could have lived as early as 1500 BCE. The reason for this is that human populations have migrated and interbred significantly throughout the millennia. By estimating how different groups intermingle, the researchers built up a picture of how tightly the world's ancestral lines are linked. What the researchers also stated is that if there were no oceans the MRCA would have lived much more recently. The investigation goes further and stated that the MRCA might have lived in East Asia. The reasoning behind this is that East Asia is close to the Pacific, the Bering Strait and is contiguous with Europe. “Nonetheless, the results show that we are one big family”, the author of the study said. He and his colleagues added: "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors with those who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."

I wonder how a racist would interpret this information. Would he or she question the research, its methodology or the statistical analysis? How would someone who ascertains the superiority of his or her race view the world after learning this? How about the ones who claim the “purity” of their genetic background? Most of my readers are not racists; however I am curious with respect to the opinion of a self-proclaimed racist.

I have researched the topic and the estimates for the time when MRCA existed range from 3500 to 15000 years ago. It does not matter. As the authors of the study said, we are all one big family.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrca
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html

Multae Sententiae responds to the pope

Pope Benedict XVI recently gave a speech in Germany in which the most notorious part is his criticism of the violent methods of jihad. This will probably generate a lot of attention from outspoken Muslims, educated or not. It might inflame anti-Christian sentiment among the followers of Mohammed. However, if you read the whole speech, he dedicates most of his intellectual effort towards questioning the secular world and its use of reason. He criticised the West for rejecting god and faith and blames it for not understanding the way religious people think. He went ahead and said that the root of atheism is "being afraid of god"

First, I believe that one of the consequences of the Enlightenment is the opening of the mind of the common man, not only the ones of naturally illuminated scientists. It made possible the transition from societies that believed in supernatural beings and that were tied to superstitious ideas to societies which, by majority, reject gods and that at the same time enjoy the highest levels of human development like the Scandinavian countries. It made possible the advance of technology, the Industrial Revolution and the wonders for space flight and modern medicine. The Enlightenment allowed the Western world to finally surpass the once insurmountable achievements of the Classical Era. It is true that those same advances have placed us several times in the verge of a nuclear winter and that we have not yet solved the issues of fossil fuel scarcity and major climatic change, but it is only through the scientific method that we will be able to solve those problems, with more or less pain. The use of reason, using logic as a tool and knowledge as building blocks, has constructed the hope of a world that could finally live in harmony, freed from superstition, in equilibrium with nature and emotions, id est, the dream of Epicurus.

Second, I do not understand atheism as being originated in the fear of deities. I can only speak for myself in this area, however, I am sure that many atheists share a similar view. Atheism, according to me, is a misnomer. If we follow the Greek roots we conclude that it is the negation of god. However, the process of thought that leads to atheism in many people is not a rejection of a concept, but the construction of a whole intellectual framework that does not include the supernatural. The lack of need of superstition becomes a by-product of that framework, not the core of the atheist thought. The idea of seen a person praying or reading the horoscopes evokes amazement and not disgust.

Third, I do not understand what the pope means by saying "the West". Is the US the West according to his definition? Are only the East and the West Coasts of the US part of the West? What about Eastern Europe? Where does Latin America fit? If West means secular, we would have to divide countries according to unspecified parameters in order to determine which segment of the population belongs to the West and which does not. Suddenly, to be a Westerner would become a stigma, just as what happened with the word "liberal"

To conclude my response, I will repeat what I have said several times thoroughout this blog. The appearence of sets of beliefs that consider themselves unique, the only truth, the only bearers of the real message from the divinity has caused too much loss of life, too much misery and destruction, too much loss of knowledge that will never come back. The destruction of the Hellenistic culture and its replacement by a fundamentalist philosophy represents, the way I see it, the worst sociological and political disasters of known history.

Nature versus Man Number 5: The Toba Supervolcano eruption, 74000 BCE

This is part of a series which is intended to show that we are not necessarily the architecs of our future. Sometimes, unexpected events shape our history in ways that we cannot imagine.

This topic came to a complete surprise to me, I must humbly accept that I knew nothing about it. I am referring to the existence of supervolcanoes. These are enormous deposits of magma that erupt from very large areas every tens or hundreds of thousands of years. I learned that the whole Yellowstone National Park is the largest supervolcano! and it erupts every 600000 years. (Approximately of course). These eruptions have been colossal events on a global scale. They have driven the extinction of species through catastrophic changes in the environment.

The specific event that I mentioned in the title is the eruption of Toba, the supervolcano that exists close to the island of Sumatra. This has been the only supervolcano eruption in which Homo sapiens has suffered its consequences. According to the evolutionary evidence, we, as species should have a greater genetic variability. This is taking into account that homo sapiens exists for about 200000 years in the planet. However, it has been a mystery, the reason why we are not as variable as predicted by the longevity of our species. Archaelogical and geological evidence has surfaced regarding a massive volcanic eruption in Toba, Sumatra around 74000 years ago. This has been associated with the genetic variability of Homo sapiens which seems to be a 700000-80000 year old species according to this parameter. Following complicated genetic and statistical models, it has been determined that the population of Homo sapiens was reduced to 1000-10000 individuals in eastern Africa. Modern man almost went extinct then. It took more than 40000 years for modern humans to repopulate the affected areas again and start replacing the populations of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus that prevailed in Europe and Asia, respectively.

Events of this magnitude have happened before, they do not belong to science fiction. I am not being pessimistic or anything like that, I just want to raise the awareness of how weak we are compared to the forces of nature.

Nature sometimes works in ways we cannot predict.

Further reading

http://exodus2006.com/transcript.txt

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/ch5_bottleneck/textr5.htm