100 Things

Yet another of those dastardly memes. It's random but fun though. Those I have managed are highlighted in Bold.

1. Started your own blog: Fairly obvious this one, though I have more trouble keeping to repeated new year resolutions to keep updating it regularly.
2. Slept under the stars
3. Played in a band
4. Visited Hawaii: I even walked on dried lava after a recent eruption
5. Watched a meteor shower
6. Given more than you can afford to charity (you can always afford to give more)
7. Been to Disneyland: All of them except the ones in Tokyo and Hong Kong
8. Climbed a mountain: Several, including a 6,000m one in the Andes mountain range.
9. Held a praying mantis
10. Sang a solo
11. Bungee jumped (I would love to, though!)
12. Visited Paris:
13. Watched a lightning storm
14. Taught yourself an art form from scratch: folding paper airplanes doesn't count does it, not that I was even any good at that?
15. Adopted a child: surely having a child is the more common.
16. Had food poisoning: once after having ten oysters at a buffet that had clearly gone off, and for half of a holiday in Indonesia when I was 9.
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty (went there, but it's still closed post 9/11)
18. Grown your own vegetables
19. Seen the Mona Lisa (American tourist in front of me: "My Gawd, it's so small!")
20. Slept on an overnight train
21. Had a pillow fight
22. Hitchhiked
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill
24. Built a snow fort (and a snow man, who promptly melted the next day)
25. Held a lamb
26. Gone skinny dipping
27. Run a marathon (I did manage a half marathon)
28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice
29. Seen a total eclipse
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset (on Mount Sinai, Manchu Picchu.....)
31. Hit a home run
32. Been on a cruise
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person (at least half a dozen times)
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors (I guess China counts right?)
35. Seen an Amish community
36. Taught yourself a new language
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person
39. Gone rock climbing
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David
41. Sung karaoke
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt
43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant
44. Visited Africa (but only Egypt)
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight
46. Been transported in an ambulance
47. Had your portrait painted
48. Gone deep sea fishing
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling
52. Kissed in the rain
53. Played in the mud
54. Gone to a drive-in theater
55. Been in a movie (I have been interviewed on TV and been on televised gameshows)
56. Visited the Great Wall of China
57. Started a business (given my lack of entrepreneurial inclinations, this is not likely to happen)
58. Taken a martial arts class (Army unarmed combat - hated it)
59. Visited Russia (I really want to do this)
60. Served at a soup kitchen
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies (I sold cookies for the Canadian equivalent - The Beavers)
62. Gone whale watching
63. Got flowers for no reason (Hah! Fat chance!)
64. Donated blood, platelets, or plasma
65. Gone skydiving (Again, I would love to!)
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp (I want to visit Auschwitz, if I have a chance)
67. Bounced a check
68. Flown in a helicopter (though I have flown in a military transport plane, and a small four-seater)
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial
71. Eaten caviar
72. Pieced a quilt
73. Stood in Times Square
74. Toured the Everglades
75. Been fired from a job
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London
77. Broken a bone (Surprisingly, this hasn't happened yet, touch wood)
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle (riding pillion in Vietnam and Cambodia)
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person
80. Published a book (One day, perhaps)
81. Visited the Vatican
82. Bought a brand new car
83. Walked in Jerusalem
84. Had your picture in the newspaper
85. Read the entire Bible
86. Visited the White House
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
88. Had chickenpox (I'm now vaccinated, so no chance of this now!)
89. Saved someone’s life
90. Sat on a jury (Again, not likely to happen, given Singapore doesn't have juries)
91. Met someone famous (depends on how loosely you define famous)
92. Joined a book club
93. Lost a loved one (grandparents)
94. Had a baby
95. Seen the Alamo in person
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake
97. Been involved in a law suit
98. Owned a mobile phone
99. Been stung by a bee (a wasp actually, during army training)
100. Read an entire book in one day

A clean 50 out of 100, which is not bad at all.

The Beginning of the End

According to a recent BBC article, it may already be the beginning of the end for me. The article suggests that "mental powers start to dwindle at 27 after peaking at 22, marking the start of old age". Apparently, Professor Timothy Salthouse of Virginia University has discovered that reasoning, speed of thought and spatial visualisation all decline in our late 20s.

I am turning 27 this year. At the peak of my mental ability, and yet to accomplish anything of note. What a truly depressing thought.

Fallout 3

Fallout 3 has been sitting there on my shelf for the better part of half a year now. Given it was my one week break, I decided to install and play it. My only regret is that I never got round to doing it earlier. It is a marvelous game, superbly detailed, full of a vast number of different characters, quests and locations, in a very original and powerfully realized world.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Fallout series, it is set in a post nuclear apocalyptic America and involves the struggles of the remnants of humanity to survive in the resulting nuclear wasteland. Some humans survived by seeking shelter in specially created underground Vaults, thus escaping the nuclear Armageddon. Your character grew up in a Vault, but the disappearance of your father under mysterious circumstances forces you to leave the Vault and enter the wastelands to search for him.

Fallout 3 itself is set in the ruins of Washington D.C and its surrounding environs. It provides an enormous environment in which to explore. If you were to focus just on completing the main elements of the central storyline, you would only be skimming the surface of what Fallout 3 has to offer. Part of the strength of the game is its almost endless multitude of random quests and locations. You do get a fantastic thrill fighting an enormous supermutant behemoth in the rotunda of the Capitol building, or clearing the Lincoln memorial of slavers, or even visiting the White House (though you won't be able to get in the front gate).

The game was so good that after I finished it the first time, I immediately began the game again, so as to have the chance to explore some of the other side quests and locations that I missed out on the first time round. The narrative depth of the Fallout 3 universe is truly amazing, with wonderful bits of background and threads of individual stories left behind for the intrepid explorer in the form of notes, or holo-recordings. These provide many little windows to the past and what transpired after the nuclear bombs fell.

Gameplay wise, Fallout 3 is a very interesting amalgamation between a First Person Shooter (FPS), and a Role Playing Game (RPG). Combat wise, it has completed the transition initiated by Fallout: The Brotherhood of Steel from the turn-based combat system of the first two Fallout games, to a more conventional shooter. However, it ingeniously incorporates a form of turn based combat by including a VAT system, allowing the playing to slow down combat and target specific body parts subject to them using up 'action points' that have to then be replenished.

Admittedly, slow motion combat is hardly new to computer games, but Fallout 3's system enables players to target specific body parts. Shoot out the legs and your enemies will end up limping. Shoot at their arms and they might drop that rocket launcher that is causing your so much grief. The overall combat system is simple and effective.

At its heart though, Fallout 3 is an RPG. Typical of the genre, your character advances based on experience points that he earns, thus gaining skills and additional perks. Skills are affected by basic stats (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence and Luck respectively) chosen at start. Unlike previous Fallout games where perks were chosen at the start of the game (with a maximum of two selections possible), and provided both advantages and disadvantages, in Fallout 3 the player got to choose a new perk each time he leveled up and perks were always advantageous.

There were a wide assortment of perks to choose from, ranging from those that were combat based, or those that were speech, or skill related. The more random and interesting ones included Bloody Mess - causing enemies to die in the most spectacularly messy way possible and Mysterious Stranger, in which a random trench coat wearing person mysteriously comes to assist you on occasion in the midst of VAT combat.

So, overall, Fallout 3 was a truly fantastic game. My only regret was not being able to spend sufficient time fully exploring every nook and cranny of the gaming universe, and the fact that leveling up maxed out at Level 20. It is definitely a game that is worth revisiting again, just to discover more of its richly detailed universe.

Euthanasia and Causing Distress

One common argument against euthanasia is the emotional unhappiness to doctors, relatives and friends that such an act would cause. This is of course asserted, and there have been numerous instances of friends and family actually feeling a great deal of relief that their loved ones could die peacefully and without agony at the time of their own choosing. But admittedly, there are also instances (so artfully illustrated in the movie The Sea Inside), where the family members would strongly oppose such a move, and would be greatly distressed by it.

The case is more difficult with regards to doctors. Some doctors in places where euthanasia is legal (or in some cases such as Oregon, assisted suicide) do report emotional distress after their participation in an assisted death, or in prescribing the necessary medication to enable a patient to take their own lives. Others have found it an intrinsic part of what they view as their duty of care to a patient. However, it is reasonable to point out that if it offends a doctor's conscience (or religious beliefs) to assist in such an act, he can pass on the patient's case to another qualified medical practitioner who will be willing to carry out such a patient's wishes.

Let us assume, at the very least, that a patient's decision to take their own lives, at a time of their own choosing (which I deem the basic definition of euthanasia) will cause significant emotional distress to third parties (doctors, nurses, family, friends). Is this justifiable grounds for rejecting a person's request for euthanasia?

Say that a person, who is of sound mind, has decided that by their own assessment, their lives no longer have any value and they wish to die. One classic example would be a quadriplegic who is completely paralyzed from the neck down due to an accident. That person might feel that the loss of the independence and autonomy of his current condition that necessitates him being cared for by others even involving the most basic of needs, means that his life, to him is inherently valueless (or even of negative value) and he thus desires to die. I shall put aside, for now, questions over the person's capacity to make such a decision, and assume that it is a rational decision, not made under the duress of emotional distress or physical pain (though arguably these components make up a vital part of any decision is whether life is worthwhile or even tolerable). There is a demeaning tendency to associate anyone who is considering taking their own lives as being psychologically unsound, which I argue is not necessarily the case.

If we were to deny his request on the grounds of his action causing emotional distress to other people, we would effectively be saying that he should merely be living, not for himself but in due consideration to others. This is something most of us will find inherently odd. Think about a scenario when a somewhat angsty teenager who reads too much philosophy declared to his parents that he had come to the conclusion that his life was fundamentally meaningless and that the only reason why he continues to live was the psychological and emotional anguish that his suicide would cause his parents. If you were his parents you would probably be very disturbed and send him for counseling.

We thus seem to have a deep seated belief that we should have some individual purpose for our lives that is independent of merely living our life for other individuals (I leave aside the question of living for God, which is not anyhow, inherently a person). It thus seems strange that if that same teenager above were completely paralyzed from the neck down, and he told his parents that he found his life completely meaningless and he wished to die, we would tell him that he cannot do so because of the emotional anguish it would cause them and others.

This question of emotional anguish and causing distress relates to one of the fundamental problems facing strict utilitarians (and hedonists) with regards to murder. A strict utilitarian will argue that an action is right so far as it maximizes some ordinal value, usually taken as pleasure. So we should act in such a way as to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain. So according to such a view why is murder inherently wrong? A strict utilitarian could argue that it would cut short any possible future pleasure or happiness that the murdered person could experience.

This view is problematic - first of all it is not at all certain that, on balance, that person would necessarily experience a pleasurable life in the future had he not been murdered. Second of all, there is an inherent problem in committing to maximizing future pleasure. If it is a duty not to kill someone because of the inherent loss of possible future pleasure accrued to that person, will that not imply that we have a corresponding duty to maximize future happiness by creating other individuals that could possibly lead pleasurable lives? So, a couple, if indifferent to having a child (say the pros and cons balance out) on this view must have the baby if the baby will then have a resulting life that is pleasurable.

Strict utilitarians can then appeal to the indirect harmful effects of murder. Murder can lead to other individuals being fearful for their safety, which increases their unhappiness. It causes significant emotional anguish to the murdered individual's friends and family. It can even be argued to disrupt the basic functioning of society. On this view, a strict utilitarian can be said to take the view that the only thing that matters is present pleasure and suffering (of which the potential future pleasure of the murder victim would not count), and still argue against murder. On this view, the only wrong that is committed against the victim by his murderer is the possible pain involved in the ending of his life. Thus seems strange - would killing someone in his sleep through the use of a painless form of poison be any less wrong than stabbing him violently and repeatedly? And worse still, it seems to suggest that murder is wrong only because of the effects it has on society, and the victim's relations, not on the victim itself.

Drawing a parallel with the example at hand. Euthanasia is in effect a decision by an individual to take their own lives - 'self-murder' or bluntly a form of suicide. (The exact differences and similarities between euthanasia and suicide is outside the scope of the current discussion). If, as above we find it hard to accept the notion that murder is inherently wrong due to the indirect harm that it will cause, then it seems inconsistent to apply this same criteria of indirect harm to euthanasia. That is why suicide is no longer illegal in most countries (Singapore being an exception).

Of it can be argued that there is a difference between suicide and assisted suicide. In one case an individual unilaterally (often in distress), takes his or her own life, while in the latter case it usually involves the participation and consent of others, including a qualified medical practitioner. I will not delve into the complex arguments regarding legalizing assisted suicide and/or euthanasia here, but it does seem strange that in a country like Great Britain, you are legally allowed to end your own life by jumping off a building, but you are not allowed to do so by asking a doctor to prescribe you pills that will end you life if you are in a state of severe illness or pain in which otherwise ending your life would be impossible.

Academic Blues and (Un)Motivation

I'm glad that it is the beginning of a one week break. I just completed a set of exams, and finally managed to submit an overdue term paper that involved two excruciating weeks of painfully trying to write something that was coherent. I think I have reached the stage where I have rather lost motivation with the course - one of those existential moments where you attempt to ask yourself exactly what is the point of writing a paper on the end of the Cold War or on U.S. grand strategy. For me, academia was also supposed to provide an end in itself. I am not doing this to earn a piece of paper, or to gain a Master's per se. I am doing this because I want to learn more about U.S. Foreign Policy, about the Cold War, about International Relations. So losing my intellectual interest (did I even have it to begin with?) is akin to losing the raison d'etre for doing the entire Master's program itself.

I told myself that the Master's would provide a perfect opportunity to think and to read. Not necessarily just on International Relations but on a whole host of other things. Certainly, it has been a delight browsing around the Humanities and Social Science library borrowing books on such random topics as film studies, ethics, euthanasia, random fiction, equality, and much else besides. But if you seem happier watching and critiquing movies and researching classic film criticism, and if you are more engaged in a book like Why Read Marx Today? as compared to a homework assignment, then something has certainly gone off tangent.

It is quite galling to me, how the whole of January and February has now passed without my having made any substantial headway on my thesis, not to mention my struggling with a smaller workload than the other students (because I am taking less classes due to the thesis). I feel like I've sunk into some kind of mild disinterested torpor which is very disturbing indeed.

I was more and more convinced recently that I should pursue the path of the Academy. To go and get a Phd and find a job as a professor. There were always nagging issues in my mind, though. Could I, the arch generalist, the gadfly, possessing not so much a short attention span as one that is simultaneously occupied by a dozen different things, find and work on one single topic that would occupy and satisfy me for the better part of 4 years? What then afterwards? More papers, read by learned colleagues, a merry-go-round of point counter point. Given my current frame of mind, a Phd is out of the question - it would be a tremendously foolish undertaking.

Perhaps, it comes down more narrowly to determination, setting goals, being motivated. But it is not as if I came into this term unmotivated. I did like the classes I had chosen and I was rather enthusiastic over my thesis topic. So what happened? As for setting goals and being determined, that flies out the window once you lose your motivation. But perhaps the whole point of being detemined is to not allow yourself to become unmotivated.

I shall attempt to concentrate on the narrower issues first. A first draft of my thesis is due very soon indeed, in a matter of weeks. If I throw all my weight behind it, I might just be able to churn something out, before the deadline. There is the further deadline of the actual submission date to meet. Let this be a test of character then, of any tiny lingering remants of academic ambitions that I might have. I pray I survive it.