Cheating death
Achieving immortality is as easy as disproving Newton’s second law
MARK BALDRIDGE is a
senior English major and
a Daily Nebraskan colum
nist.
Want to live forever? It’s easy;
I’ve been doing it for years: just keep
on breathing in and out, in and out -
you can’t miss.
Actually, it’s a little more compli
cated than that as the universe contin
ues its slow bum, degrading softly off
into the sort of cosmic “white noise”
that some physicists tell us is the
eventual destiny of every mother-lov
ing thing.
That’s entropy for you and it’s a
bitch.
Based on a pre-Einsteinian view
of Newton’s Second Law of
Thermodynamics the idea is this:
Everything runs down; everything -
but everything - dies.
So no matter how long you live,
eventually the heat death of the uni
verse catches up with you and you
vanish in meaningless static, along
with the entire Star Wars dodecadil
logy and every word ever written by
Hugh Nibley.
The universe is only good for
another 1031 years on die outside and
that sets an absolute limit to the num
ber of candles you might legitimately
stick in the pasty icing of your penul
timate birthday cake.
So much for eternity? Not on
your life.
Self-organizing systems seem to
operate in a counter-entropic or
“extropal” manner, moving from
states of lesser towards those of
greater complexity
What is a self-organizing system?
Why, you are, for one.
The development of the human
fetus in the womb is an illustration of
the process, evolving as it does from
a simple, single-celled organism into
a ball of wailing gristle in just nine
short months.
But that same individual will age,
deteriorate, eat Twinkies and die
within a century of its first confused
glimpses of this world unless ...
Well, unless nothing. That’s the
received wisdom, and you don’t get
any points for bucking the cliches.
What goes on under Newton’s
disapproving gaze, however, is Life -
that is Life itself as opposed to any
individual organism. Life, the tri
umph of self-organization over for
mal decay, extropy over entropy by a
knockout.
So one way you might extend
your days beyond number is to turn
yourself into Life. That is, drop your
identity, your personality, your body
with its twinges,
its aches and pains,
and put on the
Technicolor dream
coat of evolution.
You don t have to
give up the mind
because Life includes
the human mind and
you can have all of
human interaction in
which to think your
complicated thoughts.
And talk about
sex! All kinds of sex.
' From the rutting of
mountain goats in the
spring to the kinky 24
hour orgies of homy
bacteria, you get more
sex than you can even
imagine right now with
your limited cranial
capacity.
Problem with
becoming Life, how
ever, is it’s a solution
more in line with the
powers of a deity than
some 21-year-old
undergraduate music
major with maxed-ouf^
credit cards and a run
away case of toenail
fungus.
Sure it works for
Shiva, but what
about Joe Cannibal
here?
On the other
hand, if you want to
live forever, why are
you complaining? No one
said it would be a cake walk.
On yet another hand (and Shiva,
mercifully, has any number of “other
hands”), your idea of eternal life may
entail going on as something recog
nizably yourself - though why you
would want to keep your nose or even
your P.O. box forever is a mystery to
me.
In that case, consult your physi
cian immediately; it may already be
too late!
People (and army ants) die
because they are programmed to die.
Or, failing that, because errors creep
into cellular reproduction (cancer)
and after a while systems dependent
on those cells collapse.
As we have hinted in passing,
Deb Lee/DN
Life doesn’t care too much about
individuals - and once sexual repro
duction came on line way back in that
primordial sea or whatever - death
became an absolute necessity: Eat,
Copulate and Die became Nature’s
prime directive.
Otherwise the pool gets a little
crowded.
But we’re not talking about
everyone else here, we’re talking
about YOU, unique and irreplaceable
YOU. For YOU death is unthinkable,
a terrible, terrible waste.
So you might start taking antioxi
dants.
Antioxidants are chemicals that
shield the cells of your body from
free radicals, those pesky rogue mol
ecules responsible for the develop
ment of neuro-degenerative disorders
such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s,
as well as auto-immune disease, can
cer, coronary disease, artherosclero
sis, diabetes and more.
One of the best antioxidants, and
one of the key elements in your cells’
program of DNA replication (and
error correction), is something called
NADH.
Although NADH was discovered
in 1934, technological breakthroughs
have only recently allowed for the
manufacturing of a stabi
lized, tablet form of
this crucial co
ll enzyme (nicotinamide
adenine dinucleotide
- the “H” stands for
'?i i “hydrogen”).
Unfortunately,
j. the only information
available on the bene
fits of NADH seems
to come from the
manufacturers holding
the patent on its pro
duction processes.
But if even half
of what they say is true,
a daily dose of NADH
and you’re well on your
way to immortality.
Also you will need
plenty of rest, lots of fresh
vegetables and to avoid like
the plague all falling anvils.
(Avoiding the plague is also a
good idea.)
As for that “heat death”
thing, well, remember we said it
was pre-Einsteinian, which
means it doesn’t take into
account all kinds of quan
tum facts of life such as the —
little-known truth that
there’s no such thing as
simultaneity - that is, no two
events can be said categori
cally to occur at the same
A_ time.
This is complicated
and has to do with the
speed of light and other
niceties of Relativity,
but let’s just say that
when the universe ends,
you arrange to be out of
town and leave it at that.
Pollution of the press
The media cannot be objective, no matter how hard they try
JESSICA FLANAGAIN is a
senior English and philoso
phy major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
Objective news reporting is a sham.
Sham, sham, sham.
There’re no two ways about it -
members of the media, like tiie rest of
us, are simply incapable of leaving their
opinions at home.
This is not to say reporters and edi
tors alike, do not make a valiant effort
to report “the facts.” The problem is,
the facts reported are the facts as they
see them, and their perception is
undoubtedly tainted by their subjective
life experiences - not to mention a host
of other factors.
You see, you are a product of your
environment and the choices you’ve
made. No, no, I don’t intend to engage
hi the Nature vs. Nurture discussion -
but you have to admit, your surround
ings and your choices have shaped who
you are.
As humans, our collective experi
ences develop our perception of reality:
our lens through which we view the
world, if you will. The point is, we’re all
subject to bias. And the differences in
our experiences are likely the determin
ing factors for the differences of our
opinions. So opinion is likely a reflec
tion of experience and predictably,
opinion is present in perception.
Simply, nobody can be truly objec
tive.
Come on, do you really think Dan
Rather and Connie Chung are going to
have the same take on sexual harass
ment? No, how could they? And I’m
certain both would acknowledge and
address their preconceived notions
before they attempted to report cm a sit
uation involving sexual harassment
But chances are, their coverage of the
issue would differ. Now, back to how
individual bias translates into our little
realities. In case you missed it, the
news flash here was that members of
die media are subject to bias and opin
ion, even in reporting. “NO!" you say,
aghast at the very idea.
Well, I’m here to tell you it’s true;
there is no such tiling as objectivity in
the news - or anywhere else for that
matter.
“What does that mean for me?”
you wonder, as the foundation of reality
as you know it begins to erode away.
Well, settle down - it just means
you can’t believe everything you read,
that’s all.
When reading (or watching) the
news, you must keep in mind the biases
of the source. Even in a respectable
profession such as journalism, individ
uals are subject to racial, religious,
social, political, educational, economic
and whatever else you can think of
bias.
Because of mis, we, as consumers,
need to consider these biases and ques
tion the presentation of facts.
Oh yes. Question, question, ques
tion. ' x.'
Question not only tire presentation
of facts,, but the absence of alternative
perspective. Question tire amount of
attention devoted to a specific issue and
why the issue warrants that much atten
tion. Question why a story was front
page. Question why a story was buried
somewhere in the middle. Question the
headlines, the pictures, and even die
cartoons, if you’re so inclined.
Rock the boat, baby.
I must warn you though, question
ing a news source about objectivity in
reporting or newsworthiness may not
be looked upon favorably. In fact, you
may be designated a “rabble-rouser” or
some equally dreadful classification.
And if you are in the ideological minor
ity, you will almost certainly be chas
tised.
Should you choose to question the
unquestionable, you will undoubtedly
be accused of being opinionated Boo
... If you disagree with someone you
may be accused to trying to force your
opinions on others. Heaven forbid
you’d be accused of being partisan.
Hiss...
Just remember, questioning the
news through your own subjective lens
is not only your right, but it can be an
important tool for the general public to
hold die industry accountable.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “In
this age, in this country, public senti
ment is everything. With it, nothing can
fail; against it, nothing can succeed.
Whoever molds public sentiment goes
deeper than he who enacts statues, or
pronounces judicial decisions.”
And he was right.
Any ideological movement that
seeks to end injustice, or prompt any
significant change, must first sway
public opinion. To do this, there must
be a shift in how it (the idea, group of
people, or the movement) is portrayed
in the media.
Thus, the media must be courted
In my meager political experience,
I have witnessed firsthand the power of
the press. Candidates and activist
groups buddy up to reporters, cater to
their every need, all in the hopes that a
pleasant experience will translate to a
favorable story.
Underestimating the power of the
press has been the downfall of many a
formidable candidate.
Earned media is invaluable to polit
ical organizations and campaigns
because the news is widely perceived
as being objective and factual. Because
if something or someone is cast in a
positive light in the news, and fee news
is objective, that something or someone
must then, be positive. Right?
Well, no. Whatever light it’s cast in
is invariably a manifestation of the lens
throughwhich the reporter sees the
worid. This is not to say reporters pur
posely insert their opinion in an attempt
to skew the facts. In fact, I would think
most of them give objectivity their best
shot
So, while the news industry strives
to be objective, and endeavors to give a
fair and accurate account ofhistory in
- the making, our news, and thus our
public sentiment is merely a reflection
of our own prejudices.