text:
<?php
// This file is part of Moodle - http://moodle.org/
//
// Moodle is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// Moodle is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
// GNU General Public License for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// along with Moodle.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

defined('MOODLE_INTERNAL') || die();

/** General rendering target, usually normal browser page */
define('RENDERER_TARGET_GENERAL', 'general');

/** General rendering target, usually normal browser page, but with limited capacity to avoid API use */
define('RENDERER_TARGET_MAINTENANCE', 'maintenance');

/** Plain text rendering for CLI scripts and cron */
define('RENDERER_TARGET_CLI', 'cli');

/** Plain text rendering for Ajax scripts*/
define('RENDERER_TARGET_AJAX', 'ajax');

/** Plain text rendering intended for sending via email */
define('RENDERER_TARGET_TEXTEMAIL', 'textemail');

/** Rich text html rendering intended for sending via email */
define('RENDERER_TARGET_HTMLEMAIL', 'htmlemail');

// note: maybe we could define portfolio export target too

/**
 * A renderer factory is just responsible for creating an appropriate renderer
 * for any given part of Moodle.
 *
 * Which renderer factory to use is chose by the current theme, and an instance
 * if created automatically when the theme is set up.
 *
 * A renderer factory must also have a constructor that takes a theme_config object.
 * (See {@link renderer_factory_base::__construct} for an example.)
 *
 * @copyright 2009 Tim Hunt
 * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3 or later
 * @since Moodle 2.0
 * @package core
 * @category output
 */
interface renderer_factory {

    /**
     * Return the renderer for a particular part of Moodle.
     *
     * The renderer interfaces are defined by classes called {plugin}_renderer
     * where {plugin} is the name of the component. The renderers for core Moodle are
     * defined in lib/renderer.php. For plugins, they will be defined in a file
     * called renderer.php inside the plugin.
     *
     * Renderers will normally want to subclass the renderer_base class.
     * (However, if you really know what you are doing, you don't have to do that.)
     *
     * There is no separate interface definition for renderers. The default
     * {plugin}_renderer implementation also serves to define the API for
     * other implementations of the interface, whether or not they subclass it.
     *
     * A particular plugin can define multiple renderers if it wishes, using the
     * $subtype parameter. For example workshop_renderer,
     * workshop_allocation_manual_renderer etc.
     *
     * @param moodle_page $page the page the renderer is outputting content for.
     * @param string $component name such as 'core', 'mod_forum' or 'qtype_multichoice'.
     * @param string $subtype optional subtype such as 'news' resulting to 'mod_forum_news'
     * @param string $target one of rendering target constants
     * @return renderer_base an object implementing the requested renderer interface.
     */
    public function get_renderer(moodle_page $page, $component, $subtype=null, $target=null);
}

/**
 * This is a base class to help you implement the renderer_factory interface.
 *
 * It keeps a cache of renderers that have been constructed, so you only need
 * to construct each one once in you subclass.
 *
 * It also has a method to get the name of, and include the renderer.php with
 * the definition of, the standard renderer class for a given module.
 *
 * @copyright 2009 Tim Hunt
 * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3 or later
 * @since Moodle 2.0
 * @package core
 * @category output
 */
abstract class renderer_factory_base implements renderer_factory {
    /**
     * @var theme_config The theme we belong to.
     */
    protected $theme;

    /**
     * Constructor.
     *
     * @param theme_config $theme the theme we belong to.
     */
    public function __construct(theme_config $theme) {
        $this->theme = $theme;
    }

    /**
     * Returns suffix of renderer class expected for given target.
     *
     * @param string $target one of the renderer target constants, target is guessed if null used
     * @return array two element array, first element is target, second the target suffix string
     */
    protected function get_target_suffix($target) {
        if (empty($target) || $target === RENDERER_TARGET_MAINTENANCE) {
            // If the target hasn't been specified we need to guess the defaults.
            // We also override the target with the default if the maintenance target has been provided.
            // This ensures we don't use the maintenance renderer if we are processing a special target.
            if (defined('PREFERRED_RENDERER_TARGET')) {
                $target = PREFERRED_RENDERER_TARGET;
            } else if (CLI_SCRIPT) {
                $target = RENDERER_TARGET_CLI;
            } else if (AJAX_SCRIPT) {
                $target = RENDERER_TARGET_AJAX;
            }
        }

        switch ($target) {
            case RENDERER_TARGET_CLI: $suffix = '_cli'; break;
            case RENDERER_TARGET_AJAX: $suffix = '_ajax'; break;
            case RENDERER_TARGET_TEXTEMAIL: $suffix = '_textemail'; break;
            case RENDERER_TARGET_HTMLEMAIL: $suffix = '_htmlemail'; break;
            case RENDERER_TARGET_MAINTENANCE: $suffix = '_maintenance'; break;
            default: $target = RENDERER_TARGET_GENERAL; $suffix = '';
        }

        return array($target, $suffix);
    }

    /**
     * For a given module name, return the possible class names
     * that defines the renderer interface for that module.
     *
     * Newer auto-loaded class names are returned as well as the old style _renderable classnames.
     *
     * Also, if it exists, include the renderer.php file for that module, so
     * the class definition of the default renderer has been loaded.
     *
     * @param string $component name such as 'core', 'mod_forum' or 'qtype_multichoice'.
     * @param string $subtype optional subtype such as 'news' resulting to:
     *              '\mod_forum\output\news_renderer'
     *              or '\mod_forum\output\news\renderer'
     *              or non-autoloaded 'mod_forum_news'
     * @return array[] Each element of the array is an array with keys:
     *                 classname - The class name to search
     *                 autoloaded - Does this classname assume autoloading?
     *                 validwithprefix - Is this class name valid when a prefix is added to it?
     *                 validwithoutprefix - Is this class name valid when no prefix is added to it?
     * @throws coding_exception
     */
    protected function standard_renderer_classnames($component, $subtype = null) {
        global $CFG; // Needed in included files.
        $classnames = array();

        // Standardize component name ala frankenstyle.
        list($plugin, $type) = core_component::normalize_component($component);
        if ($type === null) {
            $component = $plugin;
        } else {
            $component = $plugin.'_'.$type;
        }

        if ($component !== 'core') {
            // Renderers are stored in renderer.php files.
            if (!$compdirectory = core_component::get_component_directory($component)) {
                throw new coding_exception('Invalid component specified in renderer request', $component);
            }
            $rendererfile = $compdirectory . '/renderer.php';
            if (file_exists($rendererfile)) {
                include_once($rendererfile);
            }

        } else if (!empty($subtype)) {
            $coresubsystems = core_component::get_core_subsystems();
            if (!array_key_exists($subtype, $coresubsystems)) { // There may be nulls.
                throw new coding_exception('Invalid core subtype "' . $subtype . '" in renderer request', $subtype);
            }
            if ($coresubsystems[$subtype]) {
                $rendererfile = $coresubsystems[$subtype] . '/renderer.php';
                if (file_exists($rendererfile)) {
                    include_once($rendererfile);
                }
            }
        }

        if (empty($subtype)) {
            // Theme specific auto-loaded name (only valid when prefixed with the theme name).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => true,
                'validwithoutprefix' => false,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\output\\' . $component . '_renderer'
            );

            // Standard autoloaded plugin name (not valid with a prefix).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => false,
                'validwithoutprefix' => true,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\' . $component . '\\output\\renderer'
            );
            // Legacy class name - (valid with or without a prefix).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => true,
                'validwithoutprefix' => true,
                'autoloaded' => false,
                'classname' => $component . '_renderer'
            );
        } else {
            // Theme specific auto-loaded name (only valid when prefixed with the theme name).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => true,
                'validwithoutprefix' => false,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\output\\' . $component . '\\' . $subtype . '_renderer'
            );
            // Version of the above with subtype being a namespace level on it's own.
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => true,
                'validwithoutprefix' => false,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\output\\' . $component . '\\' . $subtype . '\\renderer'
            );
            // Standard autoloaded plugin name (not valid with a prefix).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => false,
                'validwithoutprefix' => true,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\' . $component . '\\output\\' . $subtype . '_renderer'
            );
            // Version of the above with subtype being a namespace level on it's own.
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => false,
                'validwithoutprefix' => true,
                'autoloaded' => true,
                'classname' => '\\' . $component . '\\output\\' . $subtype . '\\renderer'
            );
            // Legacy class name - (valid with or without a prefix).
            $classnames[] = array(
                'validwithprefix' => true,
                'validwithoutprefix' => true,
                'autoloaded' => false,
                'classname' => $component . '_' . $subtype . '_renderer'
            );
        }
        return $classnames;
    }
}

/**
 * This is the default renderer factory for Moodle.
 *
 * It simply returns an instance of the appropriate standard renderer class.
 *
 * @copyright 2009 Tim Hunt
 * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3 or later
 * @since Moodle 2.0
 * @package core
 * @category output
 */
class standard_renderer_factory extends renderer_factory_base {

    /**
     * Implement the subclass method
     *
     * @param moodle_page $page the page the renderer is outputting content for.
     * @param string $component name such as 'core', 'mod_forum' or 'qtype_multichoice'.
     * @param string $subtype optional subtype such as 'news' resulting to 'mod_forum_news'
     * @param string $target one of rendering target constants
     * @return renderer_base an object implementing the requested renderer interface.
     */
    public function get_renderer(moodle_page $page, $component, $subtype = null, $target = null) {
        $classnames = $this->standard_renderer_classnames($component, $subtype);
        $classname = '';

        list($target, $suffix) = $this->get_target_suffix($target);
        // First look for a version with a suffix.
        foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
            if ($classnamedetails['validwithoutprefix']) {
                $newclassname = $classnamedetails['classname'] . $suffix;
                if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                    $classname = $newclassname;
                    break;
                } else {
                    $newclassname = $classnamedetails['classname'];
                    if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                        $classname = $newclassname;
                        break;
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        // Now look for a non-suffixed version.
        if (empty($classname)) {
            foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
                if ($classnamedetails['validwithoutprefix']) {
                    $newclassname = $classnamedetails['classname'];
                    if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                        $classname = $newclassname;
                        break;
                    }
                }
            }
        }

        if (empty($classname)) {
            // Standard renderer must always exist.
            throw new coding_exception('Request for an unknown renderer class. Searched for: ' . var_export($classnames, true));
        }

        return new $classname($page, $target);
    }
}

/**
 * This is renderer factory allows themes to override the standard renderers using php code.
 *
 * It will load any code from theme/mytheme/renderers.php and
 * theme/parenttheme/renderers.php, if then exist. Then whenever you ask for
 * a renderer for 'component', it will create a mytheme_component_renderer or a
 * parenttheme_component_renderer, instead of a component_renderer,
 * if either of those classes exist.
 *
 * @copyright 2009 Tim Hunt
 * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3 or later
 * @since Moodle 2.0
 * @package core
 * @category output
 */
class theme_overridden_renderer_factory extends renderer_factory_base {

    /**
     * @var array An array of renderer prefixes
     */
    protected $prefixes = array();

    /**
     * Constructor.
     * @param theme_config $theme the theme we are rendering for.
     */
    public function __construct(theme_config $theme) {
        parent::__construct($theme);
        // Initialise $this->prefixes.
        $this->prefixes = $theme->renderer_prefixes();
    }

    /**
     * Implement the subclass method
     *
     * @param moodle_page $page the page the renderer is outputting content for.
     * @param string $component name such as 'core', 'mod_forum' or 'qtype_multichoice'.
     * @param string $subtype optional subtype such as 'news' resulting to 'mod_forum_news'
     * @param string $target one of rendering target constants
     * @return renderer_base an object implementing the requested renderer interface.
     */
    public function get_renderer(moodle_page $page, $component, $subtype = null, $target = null) {
        $classnames = $this->standard_renderer_classnames($component, $subtype);

        list($target, $suffix) = $this->get_target_suffix($target);

        // Theme lib.php and renderers.php files are loaded automatically
        // when loading the theme configs.

        // First try the renderers with correct suffix.
        foreach ($this->prefixes as $prefix) {
            foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
                if ($classnamedetails['validwithprefix']) {
                    if ($classnamedetails['autoloaded']) {
                        $newclassname = $prefix . $classnamedetails['classname'] . $suffix;
                    } else {
                        $newclassname = $prefix . '_' . $classnamedetails['classname'] . $suffix;
                    }
                    if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                        return new $newclassname($page, $target);
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
            if ($classnamedetails['validwithoutprefix']) {
                $newclassname = $classnamedetails['classname'] . $suffix;
                if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                    // Use the specialised renderer for given target, default renderer might also decide
                    // to implement support for more targets.
                    return new $newclassname($page, $target);
                }
            }
        }

        // Then try general renderer.
        foreach ($this->prefixes as $prefix) {
            foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
                if ($classnamedetails['validwithprefix']) {
                    if ($classnamedetails['autoloaded']) {
                        $newclassname = $prefix . $classnamedetails['classname'];
                    } else {
                        $newclassname = $prefix . '_' . $classnamedetails['classname'];
                    }
                    if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                        return new $newclassname($page, $target);
                    }
                }
            }
        }

        // Final attempt - no prefix or suffix.
        foreach ($classnames as $classnamedetails) {
            if ($classnamedetails['validwithoutprefix']) {
                $newclassname = $classnamedetails['classname'];
                if (class_exists($newclassname)) {
                    return new $newclassname($page, $target);
                }
            }
        }
        throw new coding_exception('Request for an unknown renderer ' . $component . ', ' . $subtype . ', ' . $target);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The Top 5 Discoveries in Cannabis Science of 2019
2019 proved to be quite the year for scientific discoveries in weed. Many of the biggest studies confirmed things we already knew, like cannabis works great for migraines, it kills some cancer cells, or that legalizing weed leads to lower opioid abuse rates. While some studies challenged our most persistent academic understandings of ancient cannabis use, others gave us deeper insights into the plant's evolutionary origins.
What you'll find here is a short list of discoveries MERRY JANE believes will have far-reaching consequences — not only in terms of cannabis science, but also for the industry and cannabis culture as a whole. Keep in mind that due to federal restrictions on cannabis research, this field is still in its infancy, and any mind-blowing discovery made today may be debunked by 2020.
That's just how we gotta roll in the new age of legalization and normalization.
No. 5 — Flushing Weed May Do Nothing for Its Flavor or Burnability
OK, so, admittedly, this first discovery was the least scientific compared to the others mentioned in this article. Nonetheless, it challenges some long-held beliefs about cultivation, and whether cannabis connoisseurs really possess the sensitive palates they claim they have.
In December, RX Green Technologies conducted its own in-house study to see if cannabis critics could tell which buds got properly flushed and which ones didn't. Flushing is a process where growers feed their plants pure water to wash out any excess nutrients that may have built up in the plant's tissue. The general rule of thumb is to flush plants for a good week or two before cutting them down and hanging them to dry.
RX Green Technologies' study not only found that most participants were incapable of telling flushed from unflushed buds, but also most of those in the study preferred the flavor of unflushed buds. Additionally, chemical analyses of the flower showed no discernable differences between flushed buds and unflushed ones, nor were there any detectable differences regarding how the buds burned or ashed.
Of course, RX Green Technologies manufactures two popular chemical feeds for cannabis — GROW and BLOOM — so the company's study may be biased. Furthermore, the study wasn't peer-reviewed or submitted to any journals, so it hasn't been subjected to the same scientific scrutiny as the other discoveries listed below.
Nonetheless, RX Green Technologies' findings should kickstart discussion on what makes high-quality weed, and whether cannabis critics really know what they're talking about.
No. 4 — Bees Love Male Hemp Flowers, and We Have No Clue Why
This month, a study published in Environmental Entomology found that American bees flock to hemp farms. The little pollinators seemed especially keen on hemp's male flowers, even though these buds don't produce nectar, the sugary-sweet liquid that bees feed on for energy.
While the scientists weren't sure why bees loved hemp, they did discover that bees would pollinate nearby on non-hemp plants at higher frequencies, simply due to the presence of hemp. On top of that, bees would communicate to their hives where to find the hemp farms, indicating that cannabis plays an important role in overall ecological health, not just commercially-driven agriculture.
No. 3 — Biotechnicians Can Now Customize GMO Weed Strains Using Bacteria
Regardless of how you feel about GMO crops, cannabis has officially entered the gene-tweaking fold. A New Mexico-based firm, Trait Biosciences, announced this summer that it had created a truly transformed cannabis plant, which the company designed by splicing artificial genes into weed via genetically-modified agrobacteria.
This new plant, which does not exist in nature, can produce water-soluble CBD, meaning the modified cannabinoid can be extracted by simply cold-pressing the plant material rather than subjecting it to toxic hydrocarbons like butane and propane.
Trait Biosciences claims it can customize cannabis strains for specific cannabinoid ratios, terpenoid ratios, and other characteristics such as drought- or cold-resistance. While many of these claims remain to be seen, scientists have accomplished similar feats in other crops using the same technology, so we'll likely see Big Ag move in on our favorite flower sometime in the next decade.
No. 2 — The Most Potent Painkillers in Cannabis Are Its Flavonoids
While the masses are riding high on the CBD craze, researchers discovered that neither THC nor CBD are cannabis's primary painkillers. Instead, they found that two other flavonoid compounds — cannflavins A and B — actually possessed the greatest pain-killing potential, with analgesic properties estimated at 30 times stronger than aspirin. They published their results in this summer's edition of Phytochemistry. The results will impact our understanding of cannabis as a pain management treatment, seeing as chronic pain is the number-one reason why Americans get medical marijuana cards in the first place.
Here's the wildest thing about cannflavins A and B: They're only found in cannabis. No other plant species are known to naturally produce these two flavonoids. So, while scientists remain fixated on THC and CBD, the scientific community may be ignoring flavonoids and polyphenols — two prominent chemical classes in cannabis that are often overlooked in favor of the cannabinoids' novelties.
No. 1 — Our Genes May Explain Why We Experience Different Highs
To be fair, this isn't just one discovery. Researchers found a few genes related to various psychoactive responses with cannabis, and when we add them all together, we start getting a very different picture regarding customized highs, one that's much more nuanced than what the cannabis industry is currently marketing.
Right now, terpenes are all the rage. These aromatic compounds possibly affect what kinds of highs or moods we experience when we get lit. For instance, the terpene limonene (found in lemons and limes) may contribute to our focused, motivated highs, while myrcene (found in mangoes) may contribute to the sluggish couchlock effect. So, naturally, weed products are now marketed for specific heady effects, such as alertness, euphoria, or sleepiness.
However, terpenes alone don't explain why some of us get wired on limonene while others may experience completely opposite effects with it. Or why others feel no difference between weed strains or products, which suggests there are other factors affecting our moods and highs.
One study from April found that many people are born with mutant CB receptors, the proteins on our cells that interact with THC, CBD, and our bodies' endocannabinoids like anandamide and 2-AG. So far, scientists know about 15 different versions of the CB1 receptor, the one that's most responsible for feeling weed's sweet high. These mutant receptors bind to THC differently than the average or "wild-type" receptors, which could produce differing psychoactive effects when two people smoke the same kind of weed.
Another study from July discovered that weed activated two separate brain regions in rats. Rats that seemed to experience euphoria from weed had forebrains that lit up the most from THC. Meanwhile, rats that seemed to experience paranoia had their hindbrains light up the most from THC, indicating that genetic differences among the rats were the greatest contributors to whether they experienced "up" or "down" highs.
Some studies found that mutant genes were responsible for the 10 percent of unfortunate people who get (mildly) addicted to weed, while other data determined that the CHRM3 gene, which is linked to psychosis, might explain why some people experience hallucinations when stoned.
Of course, none of the above studies invalidate terpenes and customizable highs, but they do show that our experiences on weed cannot be reduced to a simple Terpene A causes Effect B in all or most people.
What will 2020 have in store for the science of cannabis? It's currently unclear, but considering that the federal government is starting to loosen up on weed research, and millions — if not billions — of dollars are being poured into studying this plant and its constituent chemicals, you can bet this next year will grant us an even greater understanding of this plant that is, as you read this, already revolutionizing commerce, science, medicine, politics, religion, and culture.
Follow Randy Robinson on Twitter
EU Takes Strong Stance in Rejecting "Contrary" Marijuana Trademark
Problems With Spider Mites On Cannabis Plants?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home / Astronomy / Life science / Science / Slider / Life in the Universe
Priyankar Monday, March 09, 2015 Astronomy, Life science, Science, Slider
by Stephen Hawking
This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor Hawking.
Note that there may be incorrect spellings, punctuation and/or grammar in this document. This is to allow correct pronunciation and timing by a speech synthesiser.
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on the development of life in the universe, and in particular, the development of intelligent life. I shall take this to include the human race, even though much of its behaviour through out history, has been pretty stupid, and not calculated to aid the survival of the species. Two questions I shall discuss are, 'What is the probability of life existing else where in the universe?' and, 'How may life develop in the future?'
It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent, ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat. In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring. A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.
What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted. One can apply the Anthropic Principle, in either its Strong, or Weak, versions. For the Strong Anthropic Principle, one supposes that there are many different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. In a small number, the values will allow the existence of objects like carbon atoms, which can act as the building blocks of living systems. Since we must live in one of these universes, we should not be surprised that the physical constants are finely tuned. If they weren't, we wouldn't be here. The strong form of the Anthropic Principle is not very satisfactory. What operational meaning can one give to the existence of all those other universes? And if they are separate from our own universe, how can what happens in them, affect our universe. Instead, I shall adopt what is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. That is, I shall take the values of the physical constants, as given. But I shall see what conclusions can be drawn, from the fact that life exists on this planet, at this stage in the history of the universe.
There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.
The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars.
Other stars are too far away, for us to be able to see directly, if they have planets going round them. But certain stars, called pulsars, give off regular pulses of radio waves. We observe a slight variation in the rate of some pulsars, and this is interpreted as indicating that they are being disturbed, by having Earth sized planets going round them. Planets going round pulsars are unlikely to have life, because any living beings would have been killed, in the supernova explosion that led to the star becoming a pulsar. But, the fact that several pulsars are observed to have planets suggests that a reasonable fraction of the hundred billion stars in our galaxy may also have planets. The necessary planetary conditions for our form of life may therefore have existed from about four billion years after the Big Bang.
Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars. The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen. Somehow, some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson, in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. I'm afraid my speech synthesiser is not very good, at pronouncing their names. Obviously, it was not designed for molecular biologists. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself.
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.
One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there.
If the appearance of life on a given planet was very unlikely, one might have expected it to take a long time. More precisely, one might have expected life to appear just in time for the subsequent evolution to intelligent beings, like us, to have occurred before the cut off, provided by the life time of the Sun. This is about ten billion years, after which the Sun will swell up and engulf the Earth. An intelligent form of life, might have mastered space travel, and be able to escape to another star. But otherwise, life on Earth would be doomed.
There is fossil evidence, that there was some form of life on Earth, about three and a half billion years ago. This may have been only 500 million years after the Earth became stable and cool enough, for life to develop. But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. If the probability of life developing on a given planet, is very small, why did it happen on Earth, in about one 14th of the time available.
The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance.
As DNA reproduced itself, there would have been random errors. Many of these errors would have been harmful, and would have died out. Some would have been neutral. That is they would not have affected the function of the gene. Such errors would contribute to a gradual genetic drift, which seems to occur in all populations. And a few errors would have been favourable to the survival of the species. These would have been chosen by Darwinian natural selection.
The process of biological evolution was very slow at first. It took two and a half billion years, to evolve from the earliest cells to multi-cell animals, and another billion years to evolve through fish and reptiles, to mammals. But then evolution seemed to have speeded up. It only took about a hundred million years, to develop from the early mammals to us. The reason is, fish contain most of the important human organs, and mammals, essentially all of them. All that was required to evolve from early mammals, like lemurs, to humans, was a bit of fine-tuning.
But with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage, comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the development of language, and particularly written language. It meant that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other than genetically, through DNA. There has been no detectable change in human DNA, brought about by biological evolution, in the ten thousand years of recorded history. But the amount of knowledge handed on from generation to generation has grown enormously. The DNA in human beings contains about three billion nucleic acids. However, much of the information coded in this sequence, is redundant, or is inactive. So the total amount of useful information in our genes, is probably something like a hundred million bits. One bit of information is the answer to a yes no question. By contrast, a paper back novel might contain two million bits of information. So a human is equivalent to 50 Mills and Boon romances. A major national library can contain about five million books, or about ten trillion bits. So the amount of information handed down in books, is a hundred thousand times as much as in DNA.
Even more important, is the fact that the information in books, can be changed, and updated, much more rapidly. It has taken us several million years to evolve from the apes. During that time, the useful information in our DNA, has probably changed by only a few million bits. So the rate of biological evolution in humans, is about a bit a year. By contrast, there are about 50,000 new books published in the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so, the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not billions, higher than with DNA.
This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them, is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.
The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, is the time scale for accumulation of information. This used to be hundreds, or even thousands, of years. But now this time scale has shrunk to about 50 years, or less. On the other hand, the brains with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written.
This has meant that no one person can be the master of more than a small corner of human knowledge. People have to specialise, in narrower and narrower fields. This is likely to be a major limitation in the future. We certainly can not continue, for long, with the exponential rate of growth of knowledge that we have had in the last three hundred years. An even greater limitation and danger for future generations, is that we still have the instincts, and in particular, the aggressive impulses, that we had in cave man days. Aggression, in the form of subjugating or killing other men, and taking their women and food, has had definite survival advantage, up to the present time. But now it could destroy the entire human race, and much of the rest of life on Earth. A nuclear war, is still the most immediate danger, but there are others, such as the release of a genetically engineered virus. Or the green house effect becoming unstable.
There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance. Once we have read the book of life, we will start writing in corrections. At first, these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression.
Laws will be passed, against genetic engineering with humans. But some people won't be able to resist the temptation, to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease, and length of life. Once such super humans appear, there are going to be major political problems, with the unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete. Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings, who are improving themselves at an ever-increasing rate.
If this race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, it will probably spread out, and colonise other planets and stars. However, long distance space travel, will be difficult for chemically based life forms, like DNA. The natural lifetime for such beings is short, compared to the travel time. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. So the round trip to the nearest star would take at least 8 years, and to the centre of the galaxy, about a hundred thousand years. In science fiction, they overcome this difficulty, by space warps, or travel through extra dimensions. But I don't think these will ever be possible, no matter how intelligent life becomes. In the theory of relativity, if one can travel faster than light, one can also travel back in time. This would lead to problems with people going back, and changing the past. One would also expect to have seen large numbers of tourists from the future, curious to look at our quaint, old-fashioned ways.
It might be possible to use genetic engineering, to make DNA based life survive indefinitely, or at least for a hundred thousand years. But an easier way, which is almost within our capabilities already, would be to send machines. These could be designed to last long enough for interstellar travel. When they arrived at a new star, they could land on a suitable planet, and mine material to produce more machines, which could be sent on to yet more stars. These machines would be a new form of life, based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules. They could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.
This mechanical life could also be self-designing. Thus it seems that the external transmission period of evolution, will have been just a very short interlude, between the Darwinian phase, and a biological, or mechanical, self design phase. This is shown on this next diagram, which is not to scale, because there's no way one can show a period of ten thousand years, on the same scale as billions of years. How long the self-design phase will last is open to question. It may be unstable, and life may destroy itself, or get into a dead end. If it does not, it should be able to survive the death of the Sun, in about 5 billion years, by moving to planets around other stars. Most stars will have burnt out in another 15 billion years or so, and the universe will be approaching a state of complete disorder, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But Freeman Dyson has shown that, despite this, life could adapt to the ever-decreasing supply of ordered energy, and therefore could, in principle, continue forever.
What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant.
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence. We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life. Another way, in which life could fail to develop to an intelligent stage, would be if an asteroid or comet were to collide with the planet. We have just observed the collision of a comet, Schumacher-Levi, with Jupiter. It produced a series of enormous fireballs. It is thought the collision of a rather smaller body with the Earth, about 70 million years ago, was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A few small early mammals survived, but anything as large as a human, would have almost certainly been wiped out. It is difficult to say how often such collisions occur, but a reasonable guess might be every twenty million years, on average. If this figure is correct, it would mean that intelligent life on Earth has developed only because of the lucky chance that there have been no major collisions in the last 70 million years. Other planets in the galaxy, on which life has developed, may not have had a long enough collision free period to evolve intelligent beings.
A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself. This would be a very pessimistic conclusion. I very much hope it isn't true. I prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. There used to be a project called SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. It involved scanning the radio frequencies, to see if we could pick up signals from alien civilisations. I thought this project was worth supporting, though it was cancelled due to a lack of funds. But we should have been wary of answering back, until we have develop a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilisation, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it.
That is all I have to say. Thank you for listening
Thomas April 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM
That sounds amazing, I thought I saw a UFO the other day, my dad ran in and told me there's something in the sky and it's moving around and just passed over head. So I ran out there and looked at it, I was just really boggled and I ran to bring out my giant 8 Inch telescope so I could finally see perhaps a UFO up close, I sighted in on it and It was a weather balloon (the ones with sensors! The sun reflected off of it giving it a yellow glow. Yours sounds more strange though.
Robbie April 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM
I tend to be very dismissive when one person (or several people) claimed to have seen UFOs, (I guess we should apply that same reasoning to me as well, if you're reading my story smile ) and then gone and reported the account to other people and authorities. Because TBH, those accounts can so easily be fabricated for its sensationalism. What's needed is a good body of evidence, such as the mass sightings that get reported, or where several people (who are unknown to each other) report the sightings in their vicinity, but they all see it from several different locations, and at the same time. Those kind of claims can be corroborated and validated, those are the ones that are genuine. What also reinforces the existence of these UFOs more so today, is when a mass sighting has many people recording the same event on their phone-video-cameras, giving even more evidence but from different perspectives.
But be wary of the youtube vids today and those claiming they captured UFOs on their camcorders. Most, if not all of those are fake or some kind of Earth-phenomena believed to be a UFO. And of course, with today's super computers, 3D graphics quality is nothing short of spectacular. I particular loved the mother-ship in the film District 9 - it was one of the most believable and convincing space ships I've seen for realism. But Youtube is turning UFO sightings into a computer-graphics-generated wankfest IMO. Which is a shame really, because it's such a fascinating phenomenon to study.
George April 1, 2015 at 1:22 PM
I too believe that life and alien civilisations are common in space. Thousands of them spread out in the galaxy, and with a mean distance between them of ~100 ly. They do not use radiowaves or lasers for communication, because it is a very primitive technology to them. I believe they can travel between stars at faster-than-light speeds, so their communications are faster than light too (so we can't detect it with our instruments). They do not build huge constructions like Ring-worlds or Dyson Spheres (that we could observe using modern telescopes), because they use the energy of a vacuum instead of utilizing energy from stars. I believe they are here, but they only observe us. Maybe they're interested in observing civilizations that are at an early stage of development, so they can compare it with their own history. This is one solution of the Fermi paradox (we can't see them because they are invisible to our instruments; they don't contact us, because they only want to observe us).
BTW, there is a mistake in the movie "District 9" and "Independence day". Those huge ships cast a shadow to the ground and buildings, but do not cast a shadow inside the atmosphere. It should look like a dark cone, such as a big cloud would cast
Another thing that fascinates me with my particular sighting was the notion that if there were alien beings inside the UFO, they must be utilizing technology very similar to Star Trek's inertia-dampener system (IDS). Let's say the object I saw was flying at ~10 km/second and had stopped immediately in flight, has me presuming they must be using some kind of 'IDS' technology, else they'd all end up as mince meat inside thier ship. smile
Of course, then again, who knows, I may have witnessed some kind of drone ship, without alien occupants at all, thus making it possible for this UFO do such crazy maneuvers.


text:
Keyboard Players in Hudson, QC
202 Keyboard players found in Hudson, QC
Browse other profiles in Hudson, QC by instrument:
BandMix.ca brings Hudson, QC Keyboard players and bands together
keith94400
Les Cedres, Quebec, J7T 3C7
R&B, Blues, Classic Rock, Funk
Saxophone, Keyboard
Laval, Quebec, H7w 4c4
R&B, Lounge, Latin, World
Musician | Les Cedres, Quebec, J7T 3C7
Musician | Laval, Quebec, H7w 4c4
mathys123988
Laval, Quebec, h7r 6c8
Alternative, Ska
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Keyboard
Mirabel, Quebec, J7J 1J3
Alternative, Funk, Latin, Hip Hop/Rap
Drums, Other Percussion, Electronic Music, Vocalist, Keyboard, Bass Guitar
claude123388
Saint-Jerome, Quebec, J7Y 0p2
Acoustic, Blues, Classic Rock, Country
Vocalist, Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Keyboard, Steel guitar, Bass Guitar, Piano, Background Singer, Harmonica, Mandolin, DJ
DinizDaniBass
Montreal, Quebec, H3X 2G2
Jazz, Lounge, Funk, Folk
Vocalist - Bass, Rhythm Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Guitar, Background Singer, Keyboard, Upright bass
SYRAF
Montreal, Quebec, H4B 2T6
Alternative, Jazz, Lounge, Funk
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Guitar, Keyboard, Piano
Kings3and3Lions
Montreal, Quebec, H7N 0E4
Metal, Acoustic, Blues, Folk
Rhythm Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Lead Guitar, Keyboard, Piano
bolluckjeeh
Montreal, Quebec, H3S 1L7
Acoustic, Cover/Tribute, Pop, Rock
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Keyboard, Piano, Vocalist - Tenor, Background Singer
Laval, Quebec, J5M 0J1
Acoustic, Punk, Rock
Drums, Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Guitar, Keyboard, Background Singer, Vocalist - Alto
mehdi_b
Montreal, Quebec, H4B 1N7
Electronic, Hip Hop/Rap, Pop, Rock
Vocalist - Tenor, Acoustic Guitar, Background Singer, Keyboard, DJ
fadi
Montreal, Quebec, J7W 9C2
Acoustic, R&B, Funk, Country
evan711
Montreal, Quebec, H4R 1Y8
Alternative, Electronic, Pop, Rock
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Electronic Music, Keyboard
Nick Captn
Montreal, Quebec, H7N 6B4
Electronic, Progressive
Electronic Music, Keyboard
juanself
Hampstead, Quebec, H3X 2G2
Funk, Other, Electronic, Pop
Other, Electronic Music, Keyboard
jumpinspace
Montreal, Quebec, J6J 1A1
Metal, Blues, Celtic, Progressive
Vocalist, Rhythm Guitar, Drums, Keyboard
leo_doganierimenzel
Laval, Quebec, H7M 3N2
Classical, Reggae, Pop
Vocalist, Keyboard, Piano
Musician | Laval, Quebec, h7r 6c8
Drums, Other Percussion, Electronic Music, Vocalist, Keyboar...
Musician | Mirabel, Quebec, J7J 1J3
Alternative, Funk, Latin, Hip Hop/R...
Vocalist, Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Keybo...
Musician | Saint-Jerome, Quebec, J7Y 0p2
Acoustic, Blues, Classic Rock, Coun...
Vocalist - Bass, Rhythm Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Guitar...
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H3X 2G2
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Guitar, Ke...
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H4B 2T6
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H7N 0E4
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Keyboard, Piano...
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H3S 1L7
Drums, Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Bass Gui...
Musician | Laval, Quebec, J5M 0J1
Vocalist - Tenor, Acoustic Guitar, Background Singer, Keyboa...
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H4B 1N7
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, J7W 9C2
Rhythm Guitar, Lead Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Electronic Musi...
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H4R 1Y8
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, H7N 6B4
Musician | Hampstead, Quebec, H3X 2G2
Musician | Montreal, Quebec, J6J 1A1
Musician | Laval, Quebec, H7M 3N2


text:
Did you see people like you?
Posted byby Beth Simpson
Our Society and Community editor Beth discusses LGBTQ+ sex education in schools and representation in children's literature…
LGBTQ inclusive education and representation in children's literature
In September of this year, all secondary schools in England will be required to teach Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and all primary schools will be required to teach Relationships Education (RE). In secondary schools these lessons must include exploration of gender identity and sexual orientation and the challenging of everyday sexism, misogyny and homophobia. A timely (if not extremely, shockingly late) addition to what can often feel like a very one-sided curriculum. In primary schools however, the guidelines only state that children should be taught about different families, which can include LGBTQ parents. What I struggle with here is the power given to teachers in deciding which relationships children are required and able to learn about. As if educating children about healthy LGBTQ relationships is an option, but not a necessity. In lingering on the can of this guideline, we become aware that the heteronormativity of the curriculum remains pretty much unchallenged. The governmental regulations requiring the teaching of RSE and RE are a massive step forward in the mainstream normalisation of multiple and disparate identities. But they express no conviction; no recognition of the urgency of teaching LGBTQ children about people who are like them.
The topic of LGBTQ representation in the school curriculum has received a lot of coverage recently. In 2019, protesters gathered outside Parkfield community school in Birmingham, against the teaching of LGBTQ rights, identities and relationships. Largely, the protests were sparked by a series of books introduced at the school. One, for example, told the story of a young boy who sees three women dressed as mermaids and decides he also wants to dress up as a mermaid. The books were included in the 'No Outsiders' program, introduced in 2014 by the assistant head teacher, Andrew Moffat. The program was created with the intention of teaching about, and thus encouraging, the celebration of difference among students. It sought to represent identities across genders, sexual orientations and ethnicities; identities which are so often disregarded in children's literature.
What are we to make of the resistance this program received? How are we to deal with this reality kindly? Firstly, I think it is important to recognise that these protests were embedded in multiple sensitivities, too complex to discuss here. One thing that we can see is that they highlight the conflict of needs and interests at play when it comes to representation. Undoubtedly, the books being protested against draw attention to differences between people which need to be acknowledged; differences which have for so long been denied or used to ostracise groups of people. The protests highlight a difficulty however, which comes with this attention given to difference. Namely, they shine a light on the reality that different people will have diverging needs regarding who or what should be represented on the curriculum. The resistance highlights the tension faced by educators in deciding who or what children should be taught about. The reality of this dilemma is not to be denied. In my view however, school teachers have a responsibility to represent the richness of diversity amongst people within the curriculum. Having the choice of who to include in a child's education is a privilege which should not be taken lightly.
The protests leave us with the questions of who should determine who is represented in on the school curriculum, or in children's literature? Who should have the authority to decide which identities and relationships children will be taught about? Should it be the parents, the teachers, the children themselves, or the groups who have been so often unrepresented or misrepresented?
It seems clear to me that the answer to this question ought to be the latter, but this consistently fails to be the case. What I am certain about is that as a child growing up, it is important to see people like you in the stories you read. A book can be a universe to get lost in. It can provide comfort and adventure when the world does not. But a book can also be a very lonely place to be. There is no doubt that we read ourselves into stories. But what if there is no one in these stories to read yourself into? What happens when you are both lost in the world and made absent in a book? The 'No Outsiders' program overcomes this dilemma, ensuring that children see themselves in the characters of the stories they read. Including this as necessary in the curriculum has the power to relieve children of loneliness and make them realise that there are a multitude of people like them. The ramifications of this, I believe extend far beyond the individual reader. Seeing and reading about difference encourages children to accept people around them; an acceptance which will only diffuse amongst people.
In short then, I don't think offering primary school teachers the mere option of teaching about LGBTQ relationships is enough. These lessons and stories should be a necessity in any curriculum. Yet, in making this suggestion we must remain intersectional in our thinking. Who may resist or protest against this inclusion? Why? And how do we encourage conversations across our differences, which enable people to see the value in the representation of a multitude of people in children's literature?
Beth Simpson, Society and Community Editor
Society and Community
How Mayor Pete Pretends to be Progressive
LGBTQ+ Climate Activists
Posted byby Trisha Mendiratta
Anna Cowan, Girls Against
Posted byby Anna Cowan
Reflections on 'Feminist Futures' at the Lighthouse Radical Bookfair, Imagining an alternative world


Simply saying the word 'ukulele' elicits a smile; playing them is more than enticing for 5th and 6th graders. Jonathan Feulner, music teacher at Eisenhower/XinXing Academy, is an experienced ukulele teacher and knows the allure of the small instrument. HEF is funding 30 instruments, expanding the school's instrument library enough for 160 more students to learn chords, rhythm patterns, and the role of harmony. The ukulele's small size and low string tension encourage confidence and success, and will also tie into students' classroom poetry unit as they set their own writing to music. The ukulele is also a great stepping stone to the guitar, offered at Hopkins High School. Watch for spirited ukulele performances at the Spring Arts Festival in May 2018!