Evolution: a belief or a fact?

It is not uncommon to "meet" people on the net who are critical of others who "believe" in evolution. I think the term "believe" is not the correct one here. Is evolution scientifically proven? Probably not in the sense in which e.g. the theory of gravitation is. It does however make a lot of sense, and as far as I can judge, it is consistent with what can be observed of nature.

I too was once suspicious about evolution. It is hard to believe that we evolved from a bunch of cells swimming in sea water.

I changed my mind after considering what is required for evolution to work. Each of these prerequisites is in itself so simple and obvious that no sensible person can reject it. So what is needed for evolution to take place?

First, you need a genetic code that decides survival. This genetic code need not be the only factor deciding survival, but it should be relevant.

Then, you need heredity. Parents must be capable of passing their genes to their children.

If the reproduction mode is cloning, i.e. one parent alone is capable of generating children, as is the case for viruses, then mutations are needed to introduce new features.

These ingredients are all that is needed for evolution to work. Because I do not doubt any of these ingredients, I am left with no other option than to "believe" in evolution. I am quoting the word "believe", because my acceptation of the theory of evolution is not based on faith, but on rational thinking.

There are no rules

I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It's taking me a long time to read because it sparks all kinds of reflections on the origin of the universe.
I think Man (or more likely Woman, Man was too busy hunting to think) came up with the idea of God as an explanation for its origin, and by extension, for the origin of the universe. The problem with this explanation is that we don't know what's responsible for God's existence. Really, it's not much of an "explanation".
But why do we assume there are explanations for everything?

Let's play a game. I give you sequences of 0 and 1, and you have to guess the rule I used to generate the sequence.

0000000000000000...
1111111111111111...
0101010101010101...
0101110111111101...

All these sequences can apparently be generated by more-or-less simple rules: "Only 0", "Only 1", "Alternate 0 and 1", "Read the sequence aloud and concatenate the result to the sequence".
But how do we know the unseen parts of these sequences (the dots) follow these rules? If I want you to lose the game, I can always add a 0 or a 1 to a sequence in such a way that your guess will turn out wrong.

Scientists look at the universe, the way you look at the sequences. They guess a rule that is consistent with the universe as observed so far, then check if the rule continues to apply. But how do we know the universe will continue to obey the rules?

The fact is that if you consider the set of all infinite sequences, there are sequences which follow rules, and sequences which do not follow rules. What's more, there are many, many, many more sequences that do not follow rules.

If we continue the analogy between universes and sequences, what are the odds we live in a universe that follows rules?

Saddam Hussein's execution: What a waste!

The execution of Saddam in Iraq surprised me a bit. I don't understand why it was so urgent to kill him. There are quite a few other cases that should have been investigated. I don't believe it was the Americans who speeded up the process. I read in the Herald Tribune that the American administration did all they could to prevent that execution, arguing it was barely legal. Indeed, Iraq's president approval was needed to go ahead with the execution. Talabani did not give a clear approval, instead of that he refrained from objecting.

It feels like the Shia wanted to show their power. The unofficial video of the execution shows clearly who the executioners were serving. Al Sadr and his followers have now taken over Iraq. I am shocked to see that the upcoming investigation is targeted at who recorded the scene using a mobile phone, rather than addressing the behaviour of the government towards the Sunni part of the population. Showing how the execution really went, in contrast to what the official video shows, was a brave act that is probably more of a milestone towards democracy than the execution itself.
I think Shias taking over the government is what Sunnis (in Iraq and in neighbouring countries) are so upset about, not so much that it was done during the Eid.

Keeping Saddam alive and judging him in an international court for his invasion of Iran would have been (1) fair and (2) a gesture towards Iran, thus demonstrating the West is not an enemy of the Iranian people, as Iran's propaganda would have their people believe.

Going out of Iraq

Now that Americans seem to agree that the military intervention in Iraq was a bad idea (or that it was a good one but poorly implemented), they must still decide how to get out.

They could leave the country to the ruling Shia militia men, and look away while Sunni get slaughtered. After all, what can one do about such barbaric behaviour?

I'm being cynical here, there must be better solutions. I see only one viable option. How is the current situation? Kurdistan looks OK, if you don't see Kurdish militias chasing away Sunni settlers from Mosul as a problem. Close ties between Kurdish leaders and Americans mean it's possible to pressure Kurdish militias to behave. The Shia south suffers from Sunni terrorists, but Shia militias should be capable of keeping car bombings in (relative) control. They get unlimited supplies from Iran, so their survival as a people should not be endangered.

Remains Baghdad and Sunni areas. It is now clear that a united democratic Iraq is not going to happen. Americans should aim divide the country, and prevent ethnic cleansing. That can be achieved through massive increase in military presence on the ground. The idea is to extend the green zone to the entire city. Being no military expert, I have no idea if that's feasible. If not, another option is to divide Baghdad in respectively Sunni and Shia quarters and strongly advise inhabitants to move out to their assigned areas. I know that is basically what ethnic cleansing is all about, but if it cannot be avoided, one should aim to achieve the same results with as little life loss as possible.

Unrests in banlieues

The violent protests that took place in autumn 2005, with some resurgence in 2006 constitute a major problem. When the economy depends on young male for its future expansion, a country cannot afford letting its youth fall into crime and unemployment. The problem cannot be left ignored, as if its scope was limited to poor suburbs.

Although high-visibility violence, such as car burnings has decreased, many banlieues are places over which the police has little to no control. The priority must be to regain control.

Sarkozy (and Royal too, to some unclear extent) seem to favour the "zero-tolerance" option. That sounds like empty words to me. It's not as if the police was currently being lenient and forgiving. The problem resides in the fact that identifying the perpetrators of crime is currently impossible. The police force is not given the means to fight crime. Investigation is a tool seldom used by officers. It has been replaced by recurring identity controls. That way of working is akin to shooting in the dark. I don't see how it can significantly curb crime.

As a virtual candidate to the elections, I would suggest the following:
1) Increase funding of the local police. Funds would go into better education of new police officers, computer upgrades, improvement of existing databases registering criminals, new offices, more cars. Compare the level of equipment that American policemen looking over traffic have at their disposal with the lack of equipment of the french local police. A shame.
2) Focus the spending towards improving detecting, following and ending crime. Don't try to make policemen look "tougher". Competing with young males on who looks tougher is not a contest any intelligent person would consider.
3) Improvements in investigation is going to put more pressure on the judicial and punitive systems. Additional spending on courts and prisons seems necessary.

Where to get all the additional money that is needed? The solutions are not few:
1) Increase taxes
2) Take it away from lower priority tasks: subventions to the agriculture, health care and welfare to the middle class, military spending.

It is unfortunate that most of the options in 2) are a no-go if you are a honest politician who needs votes. Maybe honesty is overrated. Don't mention taking away subventions to peasants and the middle-class, their votes are needed.

The right wins in Sweden

The alliance between right-wing parties won the elections in Sweden. Göran Persson will leave his post as "statsminister".
The result of the vote is somewhat strange, in the sense that the country does well economically speaking. So why change a winning team?

I wonder if this is the curse of left wing parties: When the economy goes well, the middle class gets better, and sees no need for heavy, costly state wellfare. The middle class is usually the deciding segment of the population. If the left wants to remain in power, it must prevent the economical situation from improving too much, which of course is unacceptable.

I was told the Swedish approach to economy and wellfare was to have high taxes when the economy does well, to have enough funding for difficult times, during which taxes are lowered to favour a rebound of the economy.

Is the new idea short-sightedness, "party when it's time, we'll call in the socialists for help when things get tough"?

To vote and not to vote...

My position as a frenchman living in Sweden gives me the right to vote to local elections. That's interesting, there is a vote on the 17th next week. Swedes will vote for the parliament, the county and the town, but I get to vote "only" on the last two. That's more than I'm asking for, frankly. Ah, and since I live in the capital, there's also a referendum on whether we want to reinstate definitely the fee for driving cars into Stockholm's center. Now, I got all necessary papers to proceed to these votes, without having lifted the finger.

On the other hand, as a frenchman, I get to vote on the presidential elections next year. Except I don't have my voting card, and I have to register this year, even if elections take place next year. I did make an attempt to register, sent all papers to the consulate here, but I haven't heard a peep since then. I've been too lasy to do anything about it yet.

I would love to pretend I am well integrated into the swedish life, but the fact is I'm not. I have no clue who I'm going to vote for. Although I follow what happens on the national level, I ignore pretty much what happens at the local level. Too bad it's on the local level I get to decide.
I think I'll vote yes in favour of the "trängselskatt", the fee for driving on the streets of central Stockholm. I remember than in Marseille, where I lived earlier, you get to pay to use the tunnel to cross the town quickly. Getting stuck in the day-long traffic jam on the surface is free. It would seem to me that the reverse policy, which may be installed in Stockholm, makes a lot more sense.

I do follow however what happens in France, and sure want to do all the little I can to keep Sarkozy away from the throne. The sad thing is, the surest way to do this would be to vote for Segolene Royal, but her program is more or less identical to Sarkozy's.

During the previous presidential elections, I threw an idealist vote for the green party. Big mistake, that vote should have gone to Jospin and the socialists. Because of that (and of millions of other young nuts like me), the left's part got fragmented, which lead to the horrific 2nd place of Le Pen (and no possibility to vote for anyone on the left on the second round).

I'm considering if I should reiterate my mistake. Should I vote for Royal, who's tough stance against "la racaille" is too similar to Sarkozy's, whose policies are inspired my Le Pen's? Or should I go for the Greens, knowing there is no chance they will continue to the second round?

Israel...

... is misbehaving again. I don't quite understand their military operations in Gaza. How does bombing power stations going to help free the soldier?
Recent actions in Lebanon are even worse. Despite what Bush says, military intervention on another country's soil is considered an act of war, which for UN members is illegal. Yes, Hizbolla striked first, but as far as I know, they are not Lebanon's army. I don't see how bombing Beyrout's airport is going to help either.

Chirac has just demanded for a UN force to be sent there, I wonder what our dear friends from the other side of the ocean will have to say.

Joh for president!

Every now and then, I feel frustrated at the lack of progress of the economical and social situation in France. If I let my mind drift, I'll picture myself 20 years from now as a young, successful and popular Président de la République....
Who doesn't? That's all nice and fine, but what would I actually do to improve the situation?
The first step to build a programme is to identify the main issues. Racism and lack of integration of the black and north-african populations are one. Unemployment are another. Keeping the social benefits system afloat comes third. These issues are all related, so the priorities I have assigned are rather unimportant, all that matters is that those are the problems I would focus on.
The second step consists of identifying causes for these problems, and then devise solutions, points on which I will ellaborate later on.