Andy Borgmann's Blog

It's A Small World is by far the worst amusement ride in the history of all amusement rides. And I am pretty sure Al Gore designed it...

On May 24, 1956, Al Gore was 8 years old. He decided to take a break from inventing the internet and called up his good buddy Walt Disney. Walt Disney took a break from hating the Jews and decided to listen to Al Gore's idea.

Al's vision: design a ride to convince the world that it is smaller than it really is. Why? Because 50 years to the day - May 24, 2006 - Al Gore knew he would release the greatest powerpoint presentation ever called The Inconvenient Truth, and in order for the premise of the "movie" to be true, humans had to believe they were bigger than they really were.

A small world is to Global Warming like time is to Evolution. For Evolution to be true, it needs a lot of time (hence the reason the world keeps getting older and older¹). For Global Warming, we have to believe humans are actually of some real consequence of size when compared to the world. But it just isn't true...

The current world population is 6.6 billion people. The most dense city in terms of population is Manilla with 41,014 people per square kilometer. What does this mean? We can fit the entire world population in the state of Washington. Or maybe better put, humans only take up .108% of all the land on the globe, or .032% of the entire globe (including bodies of water).

Ok, but you say, Andy, who would want to live in Manilla. Fair enough, lets compare it to what I call the "good life." Fort Wayne, IN has a population density of 1,071 people per square kilometer. This means you can fit the the entire world population in the states west of the Mississippi plus Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida. Or better put, 4.114% of all the land on the globe, or 1.208% of the entire globe (including bodies of water).

Don't even get me started on the math when we switch from 2-dimensions percentages (area = people per square kilometer) verses 3-dimensional percentage (volume = people per cubic kilometer).

Now the question I pose: are we really as important and influential and in control of this world as we think?

Like I have said before, it isn't that I am against "global warming" per se, I am just skeptical. And despite what Walt Disney and Al Gore came up with, we don't live in a small world, we are just small people.²

Please note this article was originally written for my Newsvine Column so verbiage is slightly different.

We interviewed David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots yesterday in London in preparation for a show we are doing this weekend roughly titled "Why We Get Married?" His prediction is that by 2050, Massachusetts will be the first state to legalize human-robot marriages.

This got me thinking about evolution (which I am sure has got Mykola floored). Now, I am not a total believer in evolution. This is not to say I don't think it could be true - I have no quarrels with the theory. I just don't think scientifically there is the evidence for Macro-evolution. But that is not really my point. My point is that if evolution is true, I think robots are going to be the end of human existence.

We usually think of the end of human existence with robots something a-la-Terminator or Matrix. There is a giant war between the robots and their creator, yet inferior humans. But robots are far too smart for that. They are going to take over the world more subtly.

In the interview, we started to talk about if a human-robot marriage will be able to have kids. Sure enough, David responded by saying that the robot will be designed to produce genetically similar mini-robots that will combine traits from the "natural human" and the robot. Thus making kids.

So here goes. In theory, all things being equal and morality set aside, I think humans will naturally want to have relationships with robots more than humans assuming you can't tell the difference between the way a robot looks/acts/talks/etc...when compared to a human. Why? Because life could be all about the human. Everybody could marry a supermodel or "Dr. McDreamy." The robot could cook and clean, etc...sex would be what you want, when you want, how you want, etc...You could have the number of kids you want, not what your spouse wants. You would have no in-laws. It is essentially one less person to "feed / house / pay for." Conversation would always be about what you want to talk about, and it can be as deep, intimate, or shallow as you would want. You could essentially create a life that is all about you.

Now, throw in that the robot can manufacture robot kids and then you have the start of an evolutionary process that essentially wipes out the human race. Sure there will be some that will hold on (I'd like to think I would be one of them), but sooner or later the robots will become the far superior race and with survival of the fittest kicking in, they will easily be the next step in the evolutionary chain.

Side notes:

1. I should state for the record that a.) I don't think human-robot relationships are a morally acceptable and valid form of intimate relationship, and b.) I don't believe that robots really will be the end of human existence. But it is interesting nevertheless.
2. P.S. You should really listen to the interview if you have 6 minutes. I think it is really interesting and, yes, I am the "Andy" they make fun of in the middle of the segment for not being able to find a girl.
   http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Home/play.php?FileURL=...

It has been a freakin' hot summer in Atlanta - they don't call it Hotlanta for nothing. Needless to say, I am glad I spent most of it at Kathy & Charlie's beach and at Molly's lake. But all this warmth got me thinking about Global Warming and why I think it is a bunch of crap!

Now before you label me a heart-less conservative that is just toting the Republican line: give me a second. I want to believe in Global Warming. I really do. I would love to believe that we have enough data to know that out of the millions and billions of years this earth has been in existence, the last 100 years of human interference through the use of fossil fuels and energy has created a global warming effect that could be stopped if we just changed our habits. But frankly, I just can't.

Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember that Hurricane season and how bad it was? All the Global Warming people were crying at the top of their lunges that it was due to Global Warming. The next hurricane season came and they "predicted it was going to be worse because of Global Warming" - alas it was pretty week. But did anyone retract that statement: no. This hurricane season was even weaker.

But here is the real crux in the whole theory: the whole universe is getting hotter. Check out these two articles by National Geographic and Colorado University. According to these articles Mars and Venus are also getting hotter. So unless there are men and women consuming oil and other fuels on Mars and Venus, something else is at work here.

So here's my question; what sounds more plausible. A.) Our limited 100 years of data showing that the mere 6 billion people on this earth (which is relatively small given the surface area of the earth) has consumed enough oil and related products to drastically change the climate of a MASSIVE planet; or B.) the sun is getting hotter for some reason we don't know and raised the temperature of the earth a few degrees.

I am going with B. Al Gore can continue flying around on his private jet burning more fuel in one flight than most Americans do driving their car for an entire year telling us how the world is going to collapse due to our fossil fuel usage, but for me, I am going to blame it on the sun.

Recently, three very large instances of hypocrisy were brought to the attention of the citizens of America.

First you have Al Gore winning an Oscar for his movie about Global Warming, but then reports come out that say his pool house uses $500 in natural gas a month (which is more than I spend all year), and his main house uses more electricity in a year than most people do in a month. In addition to that, he flies around in a private jet, and since we all know I am an aviation expert, let me tell you that his private jet uses more fuel in one round trip than most people do all year in their cars (example: one-way from Washington D.C. to San Francisco would burn 3,260 gallons of fuel).

Then you have John Edwards crying, in LBJ fashion, "war on poverty." Yet, this guy lives in the biggest house in his entire county.

And thirdly, you have Ted Haggard. A Christian evangelical leader who on many occasions has spoken out on the immorality of sexual impurity, especially homosexuality, but then it was found out that he himself visited homosexual prostitutes.

Now here is what I am thankful for out of all this: we can finally have a discussion on the lack of value hypocrisy has in relation to an issue.

Lets start with global warming. Now my verdict is still out on global warming. But regarding my global warming doubts, I sort of take a Pascal's Wager approach to the issue (which I will discuss more another day). But here's the issue for today: regardless of Al Gore's personal hypocrisy, it doesn't change the issue at all. Global warming is either true or it isn't. Al Gore's hypocrisy might show a lack of virtue in his character, but it doesn't change the argument. The same is true for John Edwards. The war on poverty is either a good cause or it isn't (it is). But John Edwards living in the biggest house, all while crying we should help the poor, really doesn't change the argument. Same goes for Ted Haggard (and this is what is really going to set people off). Sexual sin is either wrong or it isn't (it is). Ted Haggard's actions show he isn't a man of integrity, but it shouldn't hurt the moral stance.

I often use a financial planner as an example when talking about hypocrisy. Now lets say I visit one and she tells me I need to stay out of debt (except for a mortgage), save 8% a year for retirement starting at age 22, and save another 4% a year in general savings. I later find out through the grapevine that she herself has $80,000 of consumer debt, and doesn't save for retirement. Now, I could react and say, what an idiot, I am not listening to anything she said. But the only person this would be hurting is me because while she is a hypocrite, her advice is still valid.

I fully admit I am a hypocrite. Just reading this blog will tell you that (particularly the porn blogs). But this doesn't mean that my moral stance on this issue is wrong, it just means that I lack integrity. And while I strive and try so freaking hard sometimes to live up to it, sometimes, I fall short.

What I am thankful for is God. He has established a moral law that is absolute. He (not us) has determined what is and isn't morally correct. And our actions do not change what is and is not true. But yet He tells those who believe in Him to strive to their very best to live up to this. But He, in His infinite love and wisdom, knows full well we aren't going to live up to it. So He chooses to forgive us when we ask Him to. This doesn't excuse our actions. And it sure as heck doesn't give us an excuse to be a hypocrite. But I am definitely grateful for that grace; and so should Gore, Edwards and Haggard.

(P.S. I am really not trying to rip on the democratic party with this post. As I have posted before, I definitely don't think being a Christian means you are by default a republican).

Last week (ok I wrote this two weeks ago, so I should really say three weeks ago) "science" released the fact that the earth is hotter now than it has been for 400 years (and maybe 2000 years). It's conclusion: humans are to blame, and if not rectified, humans will perish.

The irony in this, is that the "science" that releases this information, is the same "science" that tells us we are constantly evolving. So even if global warming is true (which I am not saying it is), doesn't the theory of evolution basically say that we will adapt to the warmer climate? I am not anti-evolution or anti-science (check out my post on evolution for reference), but what I am not a fan of is inconsistency - from both the faith community and the science community. But I digress.

Here's my problem with this study. How the heck do we know this is the hottest the earth has ever been? According to the CNN Article, we know this because:

"For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps."

Honestly. Proxy-evidence? That just isn't good enough. You're telling me that the best conclusion science has to offer is based on some artistic rendition of the Alps. Please! We can't even come to a conclusion on whether or not the Mona Lisa is actually a woman, or just a man in women's clothing. But yet all of the sudden DaVinci and his buddies are detailed enough to determine the snow masses on the alps?

The thermometer was originally developed back in the 16th century, and the modern thermometer was developed in the 18th century by Gabriel Farenheit. Who knows when people started collecting accurate records for comparison (that wasn't shared in the article). My point is this, we have too short of an accurate observation period to actually know if the world is getting hotter due to our activity or if it is just the natural cycle of the earths atmosphere over 100s of years.

And this ultimately is my problem with Global Warming. I'll be the first to admit I might be wrong. This world could be getting warmer due to humans irresponsibility. But I don't think science has proven that to me, nor do I think science really can prove it. So like always, science has to take a huge leap of faith in order to confidently stand on its findings. The last time I accused science of this, I exclaimed hell had frozen over. Now I must ask, since hell has frozen over, it it hot in here?

I am pretty sure hell has frozen over. Where do I get this profound theological revelation from. The Colbert Report. The other night, Ted Daeschler of the Center for Systematic Biology & Evolution was Stephen's guest. Now Mr. Daeschler seemed like a nice guy, in fact, he seemed like a genius. Very smart, definitely knew what he was talking about. Except about halfway through his conversation he made a startling comment at passing regarding the fact of evolution.

Now I should take a moment here to say that I am not anti-evolution. I am not totally sure I buy it as it was spoon fed in high school, however, I have no faith dilemma with the concept of evolution. God could have very easily decided to create the world over billions of years through the process of evolution. Genesis should hardly be seen as a scientific explanation of creation, which in my mind leaves the door open for possible scientific explanations to show us the majesty of God the Creator.

But here's my problem. Evolution is not a fact. It isn't even a law. It is a theory. Now theories are based on facts, which is what separates it from a hypothesis. However, theories, by definition are not facts, or else, we would call them facts.

So you might be asking, ok Andy, why has hell frozen over? People have been claiming the truth about evolution for years. Right, but it hit me while watching The Colbert Report that I think scientists have more faith than Christians. Sure, it isn't a faith in Jesus Christ, but it is a faith nonetheless. Faith is defined as being certain of what we do not see. Now I know many Christians who profess to have faith, but their belief in God hardly has an unfailing certainty day after day (and that's ok, God lets us doubt). But when you look at the facts and the "gaps" that make up the theory of evolution, there is far more uncertainty than certainty. Yet, scientists like Mr. (Dr.?) Daeschler speak with absolute certainty in the factual belief that evolution is true, thus it has led me to believe that science is more faithful than religion.

My new favorite word is truthiness, which I have to also give credit to Stephen Colbert for inventing (despite attempts of the liberal media to take the credit away from him ;-). But Stephen defines truthiness (and I am paraphrasing) as the disregard of fact for what "feels" true. And that is why Mr. Daeschler's statements speak to the truthiness of evolution.