The 10 Commandments: 2.0

21st of May, next week, is the end of the World. Apparently. Biblically speaking, anyway. And I find there's nothing like a looming deadline to realise all the things you haven't done. If the reality predictions are wrong, then it'll become clear that the Bible and associated religions need to be updated. If the rapture does occur, then we only have a few days to show the almighty vengeful God who embodies all peace and love on goodness that we have been paying attention all along, and what better way to do that than by reworking the religious teachings so that they still apply to modern society?

Granted, there are probably hundreds of better ways, e.g. going to church, praying devoutly for hours a day, and suddenly setting fire to your homosexual or alternative-faith friends. But that sounds like a lot of work and expense (petrol alone is ridiculously expensive these days, whether you use it for travelling/burning). But none of those make for a particularly interesting/legal blog. We already have a secular Bible thanks to AC Grayling, but in today's modern fast-paced society, who has time to sit and read a massive book? Even if it's presented via a 'cool' high-tech medium. But more and more of us seem to be coming more rational and dismissive of religion, so an attempt to incorporate science and reason into the Bible, although counterintuitive, is probably essential, as Grayling has noticed. Especially with, you know, the rapture and that. But in this culture we need sound bites, summaries and abstracts.

I've always felt like the 10 commandments are like the 'blurb' of the Old Testament. Easy to remember, quick to read, generally useful pointers for daily life. But you could easily argue they're outdated, considered by most of society to be less outright 'rules' and more 'rules of thumb'. A good example of a rule of thumb would be 'never base a cliché on wife beating', but that's beside the point. As a result, I reckon the 10 Commandments are ripe for a new version, a full overhaul, to make them applicable and useful for modern times. The originals were read on a tablet, so it seems ideal really.

So, what are the 10 Commandments, why are they outdated, and why should they be updated

1	"I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no other gods before Me. Obviously, this one comes first. It's good business sense, God at the time was new and fledgling, so the first he'd need to do was make sure his followers stayed loyal. Even today's trendy modern youngsters can get their heads round this, judging by the number of hysterical overreactions I've seen when someone loses a facebook friend or twitter follower. But although logical, it's not necessarily accurate. Longer versions of this commandment specify that God freed Moses and his gang from Egypt, where there was a veritable plethora of Gods. And the Greeks, and Romans, and those in the Middle East, and India, and China, and so on. There were loads of Gods before God. But I understand that it's not saying God was the first God, but that you 'shall have no God before me'. But technically, this rules out people converting to Christianity, which doesn't seem like something they'd agree with. It essentially is the Bible hanging a 'no girls allowed' sign on the door of it's clubhouse (which doesn't sound too far from the truth, actually), so is effectively ignored. This seems to encapsulate up a general and worrying tendency of many people to selectively adhere to the truths that are convenient for them, while discarding others which are equally valid but less convenient. Whether religious or not, it's important to acknowledge and accept facts. If you believe God is the true God because it says so in the Bible, then the rest of the stuff in the Bible should be equally valid, especially if it's by the same author. Likewise, if you believe something because a 'scientist' said it, then other scientists should have just as valid a claim to say it's nonsense. If one scientist says something, but if hundreds or thousands of more qualified scientists in the same or even more relevant fields say the first scientist is wrong, you can't just ignore them (see antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers and David Icke). So, in order to maintain adherence to these commandments and the rules they lay down, and discourage mad behaviour and beliefs, the first Commandment becomes Updated: Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions.
2	You shall not make for yourself any engraven images, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. This seems like a re-emphasis of the first commandment. It reads like 'Seriously, I'm the only God you're allowed to have. I don't care if you make it yourself, it's not a God, I am'. I guess people worshipping home-made objects was a big problem in the old days. Although you could argue it's persisted somewhat. It's quite grating to be around anyone who owns multiple iPhones and sees Steve Jobs as some kind of Techno-deity. These Macolytes even have their own churches and rally's, all for the worship of small flat plastic things. And how many manufactured bands or celebrities are famous purely by dint of the media surrounding them? Simon Cowell, Cheryl Cole, they clearly aren't normal humans as we know it so clearly have been engineered in some way, and yet they are adored without question. This goes for the self-help gurus, radical scientists, alt-med practitioners, and so much more. Obsession and fanatical adoration of non-real or non-genuine people and things is as rife as ever. Perhaps with a bit less emphasis on religion and home crafts, this one's a keeper. Updated: Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so.
3	Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain… Basically, don't bad-mouth God. On that count, I'm earned a number of extra eternities in the pit of fiery torture for this blog alone. But these days, when people say things like 'Oh, God' or 'Jesus Christ!', it's not people actively wanting to disparage religious icons, it's just our language has evolved to the point where the original blasphemous nature has been replaced by a pure frustration or surprise at what is undoubtedly not a spiritual or miraculous event. But restricting what people say in this manner runs completely contrary to freedom of speech. Stopping people saying things on the ground that you 'don't like it' isn't really on at all (despite the best efforts of some). You being offended by something is no excuse to stop something happening, unless the thing being said is being said purely to upset and offend and has no logic or merit outside of that. Unfortunately, the ease of communication these days means this sort of thing is very common and easy to do, and there are many who clearly feel some satisfaction from being anonymously and pointlessly insulting to complete strangers. Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom to be a pointlessly vindictive twat? I don't think anyone gave their lives for that. Updated: Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube)
4	Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. The Sabbath is not so holy these days, not since Wetherspoons started opening on Sundays. Also, given that the Sabbath immediately follows Saturday nights, it's unlikely that anything particularly holy or spiritual occurs to most people. Not in the mornings, anyway, although many will probably have made vows and religious proclamations while embracing the porcelain. But there are always complaints of things being too hectic lately, to fast paced, too stressed, so an emphasis on relaxation is probably a good idea. Less stress means less anger, less violence and less intoxication. Updated: Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year.
5	Honour your father and your mother. A reasonable point, be good to your parents. A more cynical person could view this as an attempt to make sure people are subservient to a higher authority, and then God becomes our 'Father' and gets indirect respect an obedience via a learned reflex. Lucky I'm not cynical, then. This can lead to abuse and bad results though. People from broken homes and/or who have parents that really shouldn't be allowed near lamp posts, let alone children, they're bound by this rule to honor and obey the people who birthed them for no reason other than a biological fluke. But also, it is not always parents who raise you or help you out, it can be foster homes, or just good friends. And the father and mother thing suggests it only applies to typical heterosexual couples, not same sex couples. Christianity doesn't much like the idea of same sex marriage anyway, it seems, but what if you want to obey this commandment but have two mothers or two fathers. Do you respect one and subject the other to constant streams of hideously abusive language? If so, how do you choose which one? I think this commandment actually needs to be less specific. Updated: Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason.
6	Thou shall not murder. Somewhat hard to argue with this one. And yet, what with all the killings in the name of religious ideals, it seems like some people still can't quite get the hand of it. Some people write it as 'Thou shall not kill'. Still, same lack of understanding. Perhaps it doesn't count as killing or murdering if it's someone who's not part of your religion? Well, we can't have that these days, the streets would literally be filled with blood, and many other gristly, hairy, horrible bits, no doubt. No, this commandment should be made more encompassing so that nobody has a get-out clause or a way of interpreting it so as to give some ambiguity. Also, it could take into account the rise of technology, seamlessly melding with another set of established rules. Updated: Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm
7	Thou shall not commit adultery. Again, one that seems perfectly reasonable in isolation. Did you promise to marry and stay with someone forever? Yes? Do you want to have sex with other people as well? Yes? Well, don't! That's cruel and rather gittish. But once again people can interpret this in rather worrying ways. By specifying adultery, it's possibly implied that other forms of negative sexual behaviour are fine. Technically, rape is not adultery if you're not married, so it's ok? No, of course it's not. But it's not specified. And we all know what some priests (self-proclaimed unmarried, chaste men) get up to with children under their care. So although I agree with the point of this one, lets enhance it so it applies to, you know, everyone. Updated: Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so
8	Thou shall not steal. Yup, can't argue that. Might benefit from a bit of clarifying to encompass modern definitions of 'stealing' though. Updated: Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it.
9	Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. I think this one is about lying about your neighbour, and neighbour being a catch-all term for 'someone else who categorically isn't you'. So basically, don't tell lies about other people. I can get on board with that. Seems to be a nasty habit of politicians and lobbying groups the world over. It boils down to people wanting something to happen (or not happen) and being unable to achieve this without removing or discrediting someone who is preventing this thing from happening (or causing it), so they shift blame or cast discrediting aspersions like a bunch of dicks. This sort of behaviour is pathetic and offensive, but also insidious and ingrained in many systems in society, so should be covered by a more sweary commandment to emphasise the point. Updated: Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat
10	Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's. Although an essentially well-meant commandment, it's not exactly practical any more. Although it's probably spiritually beneficial to not want things other people have, and to be happy with what you've got an look for some peace in that, if everyone stuck to this rule there's a really good chance that our capitalist economy will collapse. It's still getting itself together after that last time that nearly happened, it's in no fit state to risk it again. People wanting things they don't have is normal and human, and somewhat to be encouraged as it encourages them to work harder. It's the people who just want things for no other reason than greed or status, that's not good or helpful to anyone. Especially when, as is the case worryingly often, they are in charge of banks; or, in several cases, countries. And I also don't like the way that wives and servant are bundled in with inanimate objects and pack animals. That can't be good for the people involved. Updated: Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts') So there we are, here are the 10 commandments, updated for modern times. Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so. Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube) Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it. Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts') There you go. Feel free to read, ignore and trust your own better judgement immediately. And yes, I did get a lot of these commandments from The Simpsons. So don't go trusting my theology on this or anything related. Just so you know. P.S. See comments for corrections of my (no doubt numerous) mistakes and misinterpretations. It's the Bible, baby! Happens to the best of us (a group to which I can only aspire to) Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk Twitter: @garwboy

Society, Socialising and Salamanders

Right, I've been asked why a lot of my posts recently have focussed specifically on Axolotls. This is a fair point, and as is my want, I will answer it in a long rambling fashion.

I've been to a lot of conferences recently, and throughout my adult life. I've also joined numerous societies and groups which, invariably at some point, involves being put in a room with a large number of strangers and instructed to 'meet people', or 'mingle'. Normally, if booze is available (particularly if it's free), this happens of it's own accord, as long as people are patient.

At first, groups of people who know each other stick together rigidly, usually in a circle so as to present no weak point to a potential interloper. Some of the looser knots are just people who met earlier that day, or on the way in to the room, or even if some brief eye contact has been made and now all parties feel obligated to mingle. But two or three drinks in, guards will drop, one group member will spot a friend in another group and a connection will be made, potentially causing both groups to merge. Someone will pick up someone else's drink and a laugh will be shared, and friendships will form. Two groups will meet randomly and realise that together they have a chance of taking and maintaining the best seats, or the table with the crisps, or just keeping even more interlopers from joining. But this keeps happening until the gathering is one seething, chaotic mass with no structure or leader.

It's basically the whole of human social development, occurring over a few hours, accelerated by alcohol. I believe this is why alcohol is often described as a 'social lubricant', although nobody yet seems to be picking up my habit of calling alcohol 'conversational KY jelly'. Give it time.

However, if the gathering is big enough, or the organisers want to speed up proceedings further than simply by supplying alcohol alone, there will be some sort of enforced-mingling game (EMG). Enforcing is actually never really used, but it feels forced, so...

A recent conference of Science Communicators included the EMG of swapping tables between courses, although this only works during a sit down meal. This was fun for all concerned, apart from the waiting staff, who got progressively more confused until one ran out screaming obscenities and trying to dispense plates of an admittedly standard chicken based dish to passers by in the street. Still, this provided more fodder for mingling conversation, and how we laughed as the police tackled him to the ground.

My most memorable EMG was several years ago, where I joined a University society doing student radio. I wasn't there long, never going back after this particular social. That's one drawback of these things, you end up talking to people you would never have talked to otherwise, and sometimes these things serve to show you exactly why that is. I would never normally choose to socialise with these ascending-autoposteriosphinctoral* media wannabes, why start now?

The EMG used in this instance was a more simple one; on arrival, each person was given a name badge with one half of a 'famous couple' (corresponding to the gender of the individual) on it. You were instructed to seek out the other half of this famous couple and when you did, you had to, quote, "do what that couple would do". Asking for clarification from the organisers, this (quite obviously, going by their patronising tones) meant 'talk to each other'.

I know many couples. I'm even in one. As far as I'm aware, 'talking to each other' is below the absolute minimum level of interaction required in order to be classified as 'a couple'. At this point, I was getting alarmed as to exactly what sort of 'social event' I'd attended.

I was assigned 'Kenickie' [sic?], which thanks to my younger sisters constant watching of the bastard film growing up, I knew to be the second lead male in 'Grease'. I guessed I had to find 'Rizzo'. The place was already pretty full, and quite dark, so this was hard. But I did notice a lot of other halves of famous couples.

I saw 'Fred Flintstone' talking on a mobile phone (to Barney I assume), 'Mr Darcy' on the dance floor looking like a gyrating tit, 'Cleopatra' (18 stone at least), 'Romeo' (squeezing the arse of a woman who definitely wasn't Juliet), 'Victoria Beckham' (blatant Pikey, so at least she was accurate, HA HA HAAAA). But you get the gist. These were the ones I recognised, most I didn't really get, so couldn't say if they were ironic opposites or not.
But after a while, I got the impression that whoever had organised this game hadn't really put much thought into it. I saw three girls representing the Corrs sisters. A 'coupling' I'd never thought about before apart from pretty much constantly during my teens and probably for the next few days now that I've brought it up again. I also saw a Linda McCartney and a Heather Mills, and even a Loretta Bobbtit.
Then I saw someone which made me realise that whoever had been given the task of making these badges had resented it greatly, that's the only explanation. On the way to the toilet, I passed a woman looking pretty pissed off. I couldn't blame her, on her badge was written 'Maxine Carr'.

Remember the instruction, 'Do what that couple would do'.

Poor girl, not only did she have to wear that badge, she was going to be alone all night. Seriously, any normal bloke arriving at a party and being told 'You've got to wear a badge saying that you're Ian Huntley', he would probably turn and go straight home. And if he doesn't that's worse, he'll be avoided by everyone there, especially by any young woman who'd been labelled Maxine Carr.
You can see why I didn't go back.

Anyway, Axolotls? I'm getting to that.
We had a psychology conference last week (PsyPAG 2009, for those interested, look it up). Good times. During the wine reception for 150 people, there was an EMG I'd not encountered before; People Bingo.
Good idea really, says the guy who is pretty sure the people who organised it will read this. You go round the assembled crowd and get people to sign boxes on a scorecard, in each box is a general description of a person. "Has an unusual Tattoo", "Enjoys Teaching", "Has a child", and so on. You find a person that fits a description, get them to sign it, fill your scorecard, get a prize. Fair enough.

At one point, some asked me if I’d ever broken a bone. There was a box that said ‘someone who has broken a bone’. I said I hadn’t.

She said ‘But it’s the only one I haven’t filled’. The implication being, I think, that if I was any sort of half-way decent human being, I would voluntarily and manually break one of my bones there and then, in order to provide a slight convenience for a total stranger. I thought about it, but still had to walk home, so chose not to. What a selfish prick I am!

Anyway, I kept getting asked to fill in the box “someone who had had an unusual pet”. I myself had an Axolotl for a brief period, which everyone agreed was quite unusual. Actually, that’s a lie. Pretty much everyone refused to believe they exist. They still had me sign their card, but assumed I’d made the whole thing up.

Here’s the thing. Axolotls are salamanders, originating in Mexico (hence the vaguely Aztec name). They are very fascinating creatures, being neonates they can spend their entire lives in a larval state, only maturing into land-based salamanders if exposed to sufficient iodine. They are also cool in appearance, and amusing to look at, and make good pets if you don’t mind feeding them strips of raw liver with a pair of tongs on account of them being meat-eaters with crap eyesight. They have many other cool properties.

The part that bugged me wasn’t that so many people, all future doctors if they weren’t already, genuinely didn’t know of the axolotl. No, the worst part is that so many people actually believed that I would invent an exotic salamander in order to get the attention of strangers. They genuinely laughed when I said I had one as a pet. (Where did I keep it? In a pond in my secret garden, next to the Unicorn Barn?). Admittedly, this is the sort of thing a 5 year old would say in order to give credibility to some bullshit story. Thing is, I’m not 5, I’m 27, and I thought I was more credible than that.

So, in order to rectify this gross injustice to both myself and Alan (my Axolotl, I didn't name him) and the Axolotl species in general, please join my facebook group and further the cause

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=112688824437&ref=search

And spread the word!

There you go, from social development of human culture to Axolotls in one seamless rant.

No I'm not bored.

* = The technical term I invented for someone who is 'up their own arse'. They never know what you're saying, so use it freely.