A three year examination of what happens when we die, conducted by a doctor who wrote a book on the subject.

The thesis found that phenomena occur after we die, such as the mind retaining verified memories for prolonged periods of time, even after the brain stopped receiving blood.

Findings should be fun.

The May issue of Wired Magazine has a fascinated piece on injectable vasectomies that can be reversed with a follow-up shot. The procedure, dubbed by Wired as “the biggest advance in male birth control since the condom,” is flawless so far in clinical trials and dirt cheap to administer. Cool.

But I resent the article’s assertion that if successful, the procedure would “increase the chance” of humanity escaping poverty (p. 171). People aren’t poor because they have a lot of kids. They’re poor because they’re oppressed, complacent, or both. Offspring have nothing to do with personal wealth. (At least mine don’t, and I’m a freakin’ thousandaire!)

Of course, if you’re an absent parent and express your “love” in the form of material gifts, than yes—parenting children can be expensive. But otherwise, children have less impact than you think when it comes to a sinking or swimming family.

The temperature of the Earth’s surface is uncharacteristically rising. That’s a measurable fact. What’s unclear is the cause of the change: Stinky humans who are skilled polluters… or Mother Nature spiking the climate like she’s done before (the Ice Age, the Little Ice Age, etc)?

There are two groups behind two popular theses. The first group, whom I will call “believers,” vigorously accept that humans undeniably cause climate change. They are thereby antsy to implement an immediate solution, least they be burned by planetary hell fire at some future date. The second group, whom I will call “atheists,” believe in no such thing, arguing that “intervention” is a farce, and we are just another brick on the wall. In their disbelief, they don’t want to prove or confide in anything. (My metaphor has range—not to mention irony, no?)

Oddly enough, both sides treat their argument as scientific fact—like the law of gravity—while arrogantly ridiculing the other side, quite unfairly at times. It’s a major turn off. That said, as a global warming “agnostic,” I’m ready to become either “a believer” or “an atheist.” I’m just hoping someone can answer the following eight questions first. (more…)