From the three little pigs to Little Red Riding Hood, the civilized person’s fear of the natural world has long been represented in legend and story by a single animal–the wolf. And nowhere is this fear more apparent than in the ever popular Halloween figure of the werewolf. In such stories, the anthropomorphised version of the animal finally manages to break through the mysterious border between nature and civilization. But the question remains, why the wolf?

Apparently, it’s time for us to give up on the Fifth World project.  No matter what we come up with, it won’t be able to beat reality.  Such is the case in Norway this week, when construction began on what is being called a “doomsday vault.”  The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, located near the town of Longyearbyen, will house 3 million of the world’s crop seeds in order to “ensure the survival of crop diversity in the event of plant epidemics, nuclear war, natural disasters or climate change, and to offer the world a chance to restart growth of food crops that may have been wiped out.”  Now the nickname “Doomsday Vault” may sound dramatic.  But not when you take into account the fact that they originally considered just putting up a sign that read, “Agriculture: Inescapable Even After the Apocalypse.”

The term “tribe” gets thrown around quite a bit both here on Anthropik and on other online communities like it. “The Tribe of Anthropik” has itself been criticized of late because it is not really a “tribe” in the technical sense. And these people–who shall henceforth be referred to as cornmongers–these cornmongers have a point. Much like the way that the International House of Pancakes isn’t much of a “house,” online FAQs are often made up of questions that have in fact never been asked, and “American democracy” is really a lot more like a republic. But most decent citizens are polite enough to not point these things out. What’s the point of all this? Quite simply that imprecision is a common feature of modern English, especially when dealing with a word as mixed up in different uses and meanings as the word “tribe.” As is the case in most words worth bothering to take the time to define, true accuracy becomes a tricky thing. So then what is it that we mean when we talk about living as part of a “tribe?”

Science and society have a habit of crossing paths every so often. And when they do, the result is rarely good for either. Such is the case when scientific theories such as evolution are used as the basis for moral philosophies. Not only is the theory of evolution unsuited for the development of normative statements, but to do so seems to run counter to the very idea of ethical systems.

Philosopher David Hume first touched on this issue even before Darwin’s time with the is-ought problem. He writes,

In my short time on this little globe I’ve had the good fortune to meet a wide variety of people. Male and female. Rich and poor. Gay and straight. White, black, and Asian. Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, pantheist, and Wiccan. Geeks, jocks, punks, stoners, and pot-smoking hippies. Everyone from the most scholarly intellectuals to the most closed-minded bigots. From the most Communist of liberals to the most fascist of conservatives. And while I have not been what one would call “friends” with all of these people, I have been able to have mostly pleasant interactions with each of them. No matter how much we may have fought or disagreed, they have all, in some way, been my teachers. And probably the most important lesson they had to teach me was to pity the poor fool who thinks he has nothing to learn from any of them.

I think I’ve been pretty clear in the past regarding my intense dislike of President Bush. But lately, I’ve been doing some thinking. It occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, Bush isn’t entirely bad for America after all. Maybe he’s actually doing what he should be doing, in an evil genius sort of way. It’s no secret that my philosophy toward politics and government is extremely libertarian. As Henry David Thoreau once said, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” But that we have a strong government that does make use of its power cannot now be changed. That is a battle that was lost a long time ago. So the question then becomes, now that we have this powerful government, what do we want it to do with all that power?

I would like to begin this thread by apologizing to our readers. I am sorry you had to witness the unpleasantness that recently erupted here on Anthropik as a result of the outbursts of former contributors Benjamin Shender and Miranda Belcher. I could respond to their attacks on the members of this site as Shender chose to in his last post (deleted by myself, but reproduced on IshCon). I could share with you pieces of conversations we had in private that, I assure you, would be far more damaging to them than an e-mail by Jason “ordering” two people who were not even full members to repair the damage they had done to the group is to us. But I refuse to do that, as I have far too much respect for myself and for my readers to sink to such a level. Members of a group like ours do not sell each other out so easily, something that those leaving never seemed to quite understand. Rather, I would like to take this moment to explore the underlying issues at work here. What have we learned through all of this? What are the critical elements involved in forming a social group such as a tribe? And where did those things break down in this particular case?

The long awaited V for Vendetta came to theaters this weekend, claiming the number one spot at the box office. The adaptation of Alan Moore’s and David Lloyd’s 1980s comic book is without a doubt the most controversial action movie you’re likely to see this year. Vendetta centers around a masked freedom fighter known only as V, who uses startlingly violent tactics to bring down the dystopian government that has risen to power in the United Kingdom.

Nashville’s WSMV-TV recently pulled NBC’s new Christian drama The Book of Daniel from its schedule, joining six other NBC affiliates refusing to air the controversial program. The midseason replacement, easily one of the most intriguing new dramas of the season, centers around the life and family of Reverend Daniel Webster, an Episcopal priest who is addicted to painkillers and has occasional conversations with Jesus Christ. He has a gay son, his mother is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, and he has found himself involved with the mob to build a new school after his brother-in-law stole funds from the church. These are only a few of the problems facing the good reverend. So perhaps the controversy surrounding the show is not entirely surprising.

“He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past.”
—George Orwell, 1984

The German metal worker Johann Gutenberg is arguably one of the most important figures of the last millennium. His invention of the printing press in the 1450s totally revolutionized the way people communicate. Rather than reproducing each copy of a given work by hand, the printing press allowed people to mass-produce identical copies of the same material for widespread distribution. And thus, the media as we now know it was born. However, one might suggest that we stand now at the beginning of a very similar revolution in communication—the weblog.