Oh Science, How I Love You

As I was researching for a topic in microbiology to present to the class in May, I encountered many different science articles that were quite interesting. I didn't know scientists asked these kinds of questions in the first place! Well, here are the top 5 science articles that I read. Enjoy!

5) Pious "fight death the hardest"

Apparently, people who have the strong religious beliefs tend to do anything and everything possible to try to stay alive, even though they are on the edge of death. People who who had terminal cancers and prayed regularly were three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion. The major issue of this is that people who receive this life-prolonging care ultimately had a massive reduction in the quality of life on their last few days on Earth. Intensive end-of-life care includes ventilator support, resuscitation, having a feeding tube, and non-palliative (non-disease treating) chemotherapy. These treatments were associated with more psychological and physical distress. In addition, the chances of a patient dying in their "preferred place" is reduced.

The reason for this study is primarily targeted to those who give religious guidance to these patients, like the chaplains in a hospital or hospice. It opens the discussion as to if those that provide pastoral counsel to these patients with terminal cancers or any life-ending disease should try to convince these patients to be more comfortable with dying. I would especially like to die at a place of my choice if I'm struck with a terminal cancer. I found this article surprising because I would have thought that a person strong with their faith would be more embracing to their fates. However, perhaps these same patients are looking for a "miracle" that will allow them to live a few years more. If God really wanted them to live a little longer, He would've found a way. Otherwise, if He wants us to come home, He will find a way to that as well.

Also, maybe this article is another way of saying that humanity is afraid to die, regardless of whether or not we are confident on what is on the other side. I think even those that don't seem to be afraid of their deaths are afraid to die. Even though we may not have control on how we will leave this Earth, we have control on how we meet that fate. If I knew that I was going to die in a few days or weeks, the last place I would want to be is in a hospital having tubes shoved in my throat just to live a few minutes more.

4) Kids Curb Marital Satisfaction

A study involving 218 couples found that 90% of them have experienced a decrease in marital satisfaction when they had their first child. Note that couples who don't have children will have a decrease in marital satisfaction as well, but at a slower rate than those who have children. There are key variables that can exacerbate this marital dissatisfaction. Couples who lived together before marriage had more problems after the birth of a child than those who lived separately before marriage. Also, the problems are increased further if the couples' parents fought frequently or were divorced.

To be fair, the article also states that children don't ruin everything. Even though, marital happiness may go down with a child, other forms of happiness, like family happiness, can make the experience of marriage much more satisfying. However, this aspect of the relationship was not a part of this study.

3) Calorie-Burning Fat? Studies Say You Have It

If you especially have taken BIO SCI 98 at UCI, you may have been introduced to the concept of brown fat. It is the type of fat most commonly found in infants to keep them warm since they are unable to shiver when they are cold. However, it was once believed that as we get older and when the shivering response improves, the brown fat goes away. Researchers are proposing that this is wrong.

The paper indicates that most adults have a little bit of brown fat left in them that burn massive amounts of energy (a.k.a Calories) when activated by the cold (the example given to this type of environment is sitting in a room that is between 61 and 66 degrees Fahrenheit). There are also key variables in this study. Thinner people have more brown fat than heavier people, younger people, people with a higher metabolic rate, and women also have more brown fat than their respected opposites. What makes brown fat does its thing is that it is filled with mitochondria, which are the major energy producers found in a cell. Mitochondria also contains iron, which gives brown fat its reddish brown color.

Note that while there is potential that brown fat can be used to curb obesity in this study, it will no doubt take years to actually confirm this to be true and to find out what are the conditions required to make this happen. If it is confirmed, we may find drugs that increase brown fat production in our lifetime. Also, there's the idea of just hanging out in the cold.

2) 10 Surprising Sex Statistics

While there are nine other surprising sex statistics, the one that sticks out was the human papillomavirus (HPV). A startling 50% of sexually active men and women will catch a gential HPV infection in their lives. This can result at the very least genital warts and at the very worst cervical cancer and other forms of cancer. However, note that 90% of HPV cases will be fought off by the immune system in 2 years.

Also, there was another article that stated that HPV is also a chief culprit in throat cancers from those that had given oral sex to more than 6 partners. And who said oral sex was a safer form of sex? What a dirty world we live in, both figuratively and literally.

Note that there was a stastic about the average size of an erect penis in this article. Just looking at the ruler on my desk, I think they meant 4 to 6 cm in circumference, NOT 4 to 6 in.!

1) Our moral thermostat - why being good can give people license to misbehave

This is the article that stood out the most for me. It seems that the more people think of themselves as being good or morally right are also inclined to morally "slack-off" than those that think that their moral identity is being threatened. The study shows that people who describe themselves in a more positive note like "caring", "generous", and "kind" are less likely to give to charity or care about the environment than those that have a neutral descrpition of themselves or even those that thought of themselves negatively.

The researcher states two reasons for this. The first is habits. The more we do good and selfless acts, the more likely it becomes routine (e.g. recycling). Therefore, the effort lessens, the "costs" seems smaller, and the potential for moral licensing fades. The second reason is the standards that people give to themselves. People who satisfy their moral goals tend to award themselves by disengaging from their morally right behavior. Those who give themselves much higher goals are more likely to stay morally right and good.

Perhaps this is why the so-called "religious" people in our society are so damn annoying, or even why the big pastors, priests, and ministers do such heinous or shocking things. I guess our world is indeed filled with "saintly sinners and sinning saints".

In terms of myself, I can describe myself as a good person, but I'm not that good.

That is all.

Getting Ready for the Future

Here's the top five for the moment:

5) I'm going nuts being a total bum at the moment! Well, not totally nuts, but just itchin' to earn the dollars. Other than that, I've learned a lot in microbiology. I really like the class! By the way, Listerine is an excellent mouth wash:



As you can see, the bacteria are totally gone after 5 minutes. I guess using the mouthwash once a day for 30 seconds is worth the time. Sure beats spending more money to fill those cavities! Other than that, I can't wait to work...eh, maybe I'll find myself eating those words when I actually start working.

4) I was watching 30 Days on Hulu and it was about Same-Sex Parenting. You should watch it, because when I watched it was a very unpleasant hour due to all the conflicts and clashes of ideas:



Ultimately, Christian dogma does make homosexuality a sin. Sure, Leviticus does state that homosexuality is wrong, and it also states that slavery is right, shell fish and pork is forbidden, and a widow should produce a child with the husband's brothers if she has no child. However, Leviticus is not the only book that condemns it. A good number of New Testament books like Romans and 1 Corinthians does condemn it. This just further supports that possibly makes homosexuality wrong. On the other hand, we can argue that the translation was misinterpreted considering that Scripture was originally Hebrew and Greek and was converted to Latin, which was converted to other languages like English, which was again converted to different versions and styles (you should look at the Bible section at a Barnes & Noble or a Borders if you don't know what I'm talking about). I'm not a Bible scholar so I really don't want to divulge on that possibility.

I have to ask the question of is it that wrong for gays and lesbians to marry and adopt kids? Does it make it right that the kids should stay stuck in orphanages and never experience a structured household rather than be in a house with a homosexual couple that can love and nurture them? While 30 Days does show an example of a woman who had an extremely negative experience when she was adopted by a gay couple since they were extremely open about their gay sexuality in front of her, I think a traditional couple who does the same exact thing in front of their kids in terms of being extremely open about their sexuality are screwing them up as well. Perhaps society is more worried about how more openly promiscuous gays and lesbians are in front of everyone than the actual concept of a homosexual couple being perhaps "legitimately" in love. On the other hand, heterosexuals are just as intimate or even promiscuous in front of open society (for example, those PDAs). Perhaps the big question to ask is whether same-sex parenting will be the destruction of our morality in the US or can it perhaps enhance our obligation to take care of those children who have been abandoned?

If you're as confused as I am, then that was the reason for this point. Perhaps you can comment your opinion and make something convincing or more clear. Actually, I'm asking you to comment your opinion about it. Thanks.

3) The last point brings me to an even bigger point. Does goodness and doing what is right ultimately reside on a sole religion or faith? I mean, this is why we fight about these sort of topics like homosexuality. It's really the debate on will we still have a right and good society with or without a strong religious namely a strong Christian backing, despite the fact that the US does not have an official national religion. Yes, I use my Catholic faith to have a more structured path as to what is right and good. However, I don't know if it's a sign of weakness in my faith at the very least or even blasphemous at the worst to possibly entertain the idea that maybe my faith and my way of doing things is not the the only way to doing what is right and good on this Earth. Is doing right and good things even connected to our faith in the first place? I can recall that concept that even though we do so much good on this Earth that if we lack a belief in God, we therefore have a a lack of salvation and our "works" are for naught (a very Protestant concept, I have to admit, but a good one to consider). Does this mean that good and right deeds and concepts can exist even with an absence of God in an individual or even a society's lives?

If you want to answer that one, I appreciate your answer to this point as well.

2) My Lenten commitment to trying to become healthier is working. I lost 10 lbs, which is good! However, when I started this, I found myself starting at 220lbs. Man, I really let myself go my last year in school, and my sedentary lifestyle while at home before Lent really exacerbated the problem. However, at least there's progress. I'm now at the weight when I was in my second and third years. I really need to stick with it though even though Lent is about to end. In addition to trying to be spiritually and mentally strong, I have to be physically strong as well.

Besides what good can you do if you're to physically sick or incapacitated to do anything?

1) Overall, I do enjoy the spiritual challenges that He's given to me at the moment. Sure, I may seem doubtful at the moment, but the big characters and saints of our faith have had doubts and questions before they were lifted by Him to do something great. Perhaps I'll find something beneficial in the end of all this and maybe find my relationship with God stronger.

Perhaps.

That is all.

Question.

My sister had a question in her philosophy class that got my mind twisted for quite a while before having some solid reasoning to establish my answer. If you are willing to read this entry, sit down, get something to munch or drink on, and prepare to think like crazy!

ASSUMPTION: Throughout this discussion, we are assuming that whatever God commands IS good or right.

QUESTION: What makes God's commands good or right?

There are two possible answer to the stated question:

(1) It is right because God commands it (Our morals is entirely in the will of God).

(2) God commands us to do certain things because they are right (Our morals has a reason identified by God).

Note that this discussion is based on whether God Himself MAKES the moral truths true or God RECOGNIZES them as true. Also, note that we considering these statements as an absolute statement.

It seems like we can agree with either statement as to what makes God's commands good or right. However, here are the problems with each statement:

Problem with reason 1:
(a) The result is that God's commands are arbitrary. God's commands are not based on reason, but based solely on pure will.
(b) The well-known statement "God is Good" is an empty and cheap statement based on this reason. If x is good means that x is commanded by God, then God's commands are good would mean that God's commands are commanded by God, which is an empty statement because God is good only because God commands Himself!
(c) This reasoning confuses "might" and "right". The reason would suggest that God is to be obeyed not necessarily because He is good, but because He is the boss! This results in God who becomes some sort of totalitarian ruler whose rules and wishes must be followed.
(d) It creates the wrong reasons for moral principles. For example, child abuse happens because of many reasons like maliciousness, unnecessary pain, long-term effects, etc. If reason 1 is applied, there is no reason for child abuse but simply because it is the will of God for whatever plan He has for the child abuse.

Problem with reason 2:
(a) It implies a moral standard outside of God's control. If God makes a command for a reason, then it is that reason that makes the action right or wrong NOT the fact that God commanded or forbade the action.
(b) There is an issue with the idea of "God's total sovereignty". Reason 2 would state that God does NOT have absolute control over everything.
(c) It leaves open the question of the basis of morality. Who or what stands behind moral commands? In other words, what makes good things good or bad things bad?

Considering all of these problems, I would have to agree with the idea that God commands us to do certain tings because they are right. Here are my reasons. The main idea that completely made my disagree with reason 1 was the statement that the moral principles in our world would have the wrong reasons. Even though we have the tendency to toss the phrase "will of God" loosely, based on my sister's lecture slides, the will of God is an absolute term. This would mean that God has total control of everything, both the good and the bad. An example is that God allowed the creation of sin through Adam and Eve, that God has a reason for every bad thing that happens in our lives. For some reason, God uses the bad to bring us closer to Him. However, this is a problem because that would suggest that the source of good AND evil is God, which can't be since God can't do wrong.

I remembered the story of Genesis to realize that reason 2 is rather more compelling. God created and made commands BECAUSE he knew that it was good or right. He had the initial thought that the creation of the earth would be good. However, when Adam and Eve was created, it was solely themselves that disobeyed God, resulting in the so-called original sin. It's in fact the entire concept of what sin is in the first place and perhaps the basis of our entire Christian faith. Sin is the idea that we would rather not follow God's command but instead follow our own and therefore results in our own cut off from God. Therefore, we have the free will to either follow God or not, or even more so, we have the free will to seek forgiveness for the sins we commit. This can only mean that God's commands are rather suggestions to live a lifestyle that is good or right, which most likely means that God commands us to do certain things because they are right (There has to be a reason for all those rules and regulations that we follow.).

However, does that mean that God has less control over us? It depends on how you see the so called "control." Even though he probably does not have total control on our decisions in life, that does not lessen His power over us. He is still the one who created us, and He is the one who ultimately decides where we go when we die based on many factors (Namely, did we take His "suggestions" or not.). In my opinion, if God was in control of every single detail of our lives, it would only degrade every single thing that we believe and hold dear to. This would mean that it is not us who are responsible for everything in our lives, but rather it is God controlling the universal show. With our free will, we are even more responsible of our actions. Therefore we are the ones in control of how we use our lives either for Him or for our benefit.

To give some more interesting facts about this question, Martin Luther and John Calvin were strong supporters for the first reason. St. Thomas Aquinas was a major supporter for the second reason.

If you're still puzzled, think about it. Perhaps make your own opinion about it.

That is all.

Riches and Humility (In a Political Sense)

Another two points.

2) I was watching the release of the 2009 fiscal year budget for the US. $3.6 trillion?! Well, the Bush administration had trillion dollar budgets, but still!

I don't really have an opinion about the budget, but it's just that we are now on the era of trillions of dollars worth of wealth. Where did this money come from in the first place? I guess the world economic system just states that we do "have" trillions of dollars of wealth.

SO, I guess the "dream" is now to be a billionare?! What the hell am I going to do with billions of dollars? Or even tens of millions of dollars? The one thing for sure is to set up a charitable foundation. Perhaps it will be known as the Derrick Dumo Foundation. What will the foundation do? That I will think about.

1) I think we are in a time period where being rich is evil. I don't think so. Being rich is not evil. Being greedy is! There's a responsibility to society that we do use our wealth wisely to benefit everyone. I agree with people when they say that the economic crisis was caused by people who wanted to make the quick buck without contributing to anyone and leave the system to crack from their greedy ambitions.

Another thing is that there's so many people that expects the government or someone to bail them out when they screw up. You know what that is...socialism. Sure, I believe that we should have some form of universal health care (or even better universal health wellness and prevention) program. I believe we should have some guarantee to survive. However, we shouldn't promise anyone success. If you made the bad decisions, the poor choices, then you should deal with the consequences. If you made the wise choices, you should bask in the success. This is the United States of America, people. We are only give opportunities, not guarantees. Not everyone is going to be homeowners or be rich. There's no shame in renting, working with your hands, or even just having a humble lifestyle. Deal with it, everyone! I guess you have an idea of what I think about the bail outs.

That is all.