Think of the world map. Most of you will think of the typical map where Europe and Africa are in the middle, with Russia dominating the Eurasian landmass and Greenland easily outsizing South America.
Mercator projection
The most common world map we use nowadays is based on the Mercator projection. Because the Earth is spherical and maps are two-dimensional rectangles, complex mathematics are involved to project the former on the latter by distorting the picture. The Mercator projection was created by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. The map was extremely useful for sailors because it depicted the curvature of the Earth in straight lines, making navigation much easier.
However, the Mercator projection severely distorts the size of each continents, meaning the image of the world we have in our heads is completely misleading. According to the Mercator projection, Greenland is as large as Africa, Alaska is as large as continental USA and Antarctica dwarfs every continent.
Gall-Peters projection
To solve this problem, the Gall-Peters projection was suggested in 1974 as an alternative as it correctly displayed the continents’ respective sizes. As you can see, in reality Greenland is significantly smaller than even Australia, Europe and Russia are much smaller than expected and Africa is an extremely large continent.
Dr. Arno Peters argued that the Mercator projection was a biased, euro-centric projection that harmed the world’s perception of developing countries. This of course, led to extreme controversy over the politics of cartography.
Africa vs Greenland
There are many other distortions commonly found in maps. Maps tend to enlarge the landmass of the own country subtly and some American maps go as far as placing the USA in the middle even if it means splitting Eurasia in half. Even though landmass does not correlate in any way with how well the lives of its inhabitants are, such distortions can be seen even nowadays. This shows that not everything you see is as it seems.
Meeting people, hearing their stories, sharing a moment and leaving a positive mark on their lives.
There’s a branch of philosophy that believes that the world only exists within our minds. That the people around us are merely figments of our imagination. As crazy as this thought is, to some degrees, we human beings all live at least a little selfishly, absorbed in our own worlds. For example, thanks to a psychological phenomenon known as special pleading, we are prone to judging others by how their actions affect us while we only judge our own intentions.
Because of this human nature, we often forget one simple fact: each and every person that you see around you has a life of their own. That person that you accidentally bumped into has a name, a job, a family (maybe). He or she will have hobbies and interests, goals and dreams, experiences and memories.
Of course, it’s understandable that your brain tends to ignore this simple fact on a routine basis. The poor bugger has to process an overload of sensory and cognitive information every nanosecond, and if it was to consider every little details of everything, your head might just explode. But that’s no excuse to not think about it every now and then. You know, just ponder the implications.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt about the world, it’s that each person has a very unique story to tell. They are walking books that are in the process of being written into a grander, more epic tale by the day. You’d be surprised what kind of stories you hear from complete strangers. One of the reasons I wanted to go into medicine was to hear all the stories every patient had to tell. I am reminded of this fact every day in the hospital. I’ve met old men who survived wars, kids who’ve suffered more diseases than you would in three lifetimes and even an old lady who gave the best tips on how to cook fish (which I’ve sadly forgotten…). Point is, if you take the time to stop and have a chat, you might hear some amazing stories that put movies and books to shame.
I think one of the greatest joys we can experience as human beings is really opening up to someone, getting to know who they are and showing them who you are to them. Memories, stories, values, dreams, opinions, humour, all that jazz. It might be crazy to think that the world only exists in our heads, but it’s not at all crazy to think that everyone’s perspective of the world is very different. When you share a bond with another person, it’s like connecting those two different worlds. Yup, getting to know a person is like opening a wormhole between dimensions. What that’s pretty cool right. The best part is that this could happen between two lovers who’ve known each other for ten years, or even between two people that happened to meet by chance an hour ago. That’s human interaction I guess. It’s not about the amount of time you’ve spent with them. It’s about the quality of the time you shared with them. Opening wormholes and stuff.
My last point is to do with leaving a mark. It’s one thing to be aware that the person that’s in front of you is a unique life of their own, it’s another to be conscious of the role you play in their story. For example, a compliment you paid in passing might completely change the person’s day. A simple act of kindness you thought nothing of could be recorded in someone’s life book as a life-changing event.
I said at the start that we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions. Well then, by that logic, once you pass away the only thing that will be left to affirm your existence will be recordings of you in other people’s life books. So consider the mark you leave. Even a smile can make a difference.
I’ll end my 30 day challenge with a quote I particularly like regarding human interactions, by a certain Mr. Rogers:
“If you could only sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet; how important you can be to the people you may never even dream of. There is something of yourself that you leave at every meeting with another person.” ~ Mr. Rogers
May your life be full of little, simple pleasures 🙂
Dracula is a fantasy/horror novel written by Bram Stoker in 1897. It is written as a series of letters, diary entries and other log entries, telling the battle between the vampire Count Dracula and Professor Van Helsing (with the help of some other people). It is one of the most well-known horror fictions in history and defined the modern image of vampires. Although it seems unlikely, the blood-sucking, immortal, creepy vampire that is Count Dracula is (loosely) based on an actual person.
Vlad III Dracula of Wallachia was a Romanian prince who led his army to fight against the invading Ottoman Empire during the 15th century, which was expanding its reach throughout Europe at the time. He was also referred to as Vlad the Impaler due to his incredibly cruel punishment of prisoners and enemies. He would kill the victims by stabbing their bodies with spears, typically through the anus up to the mouth. He would then have the bodies hanging as a warning to others. The victims would die a slow and painful death as they were drained of blood.
Another interesting fact is that Vlad III was an expert in guerilla warfare and would frequently hide his army in trees and strike the enemy at nighttime. This earned him a legend that he was bat-like – hanging from trees and only attacking at night to drain people of their blood. It is likely that Stoker took this legend and incorporated it into his novel, making Count Dracula able to transform into a large bat.
It is fascinating to see how someone who is portrayed as a noble hero in Romania and Slavic countries is remembered as an archetypal monster in modern times. This serves to remind us that no matter what good deed we may do, the world will only focus on a certain aspect and define you by that characteristic. The world is stubborn, critical and narrow-minded. Ergo, it is a waste of time trying to convince the world that you are a certain kind of person. As long as you know what kind of person you truly are and accept it, you will be able to live a happy life.
Larry Niven is a science fiction author. Like many other science fiction authors, he is responsible for citing many rules regarding the world, humorous or not. Niven took to this another level by publishing a series of laws on “how the universe works” as far as he can tell. The following is the revised list as of January 29, 2002.
Never throw shit at an armed man.
Corollary to #1: Never stand next to someone throwing shit at an armed man.
Never fire a laser at a mirror.
Mother Nature doesn’t care if you’re having fun.
Giving up freedom for security is beginning to look naive. (or “F x S = k”, meaning that the product of freedom and security is a constant.)
Psi and/or magical powers, if real, are nearly useless.
It is easier to destroy than to create.
Any damn fool can predict the past.
History never repeats itself.
Ethics change with technology.
Anarchy is the least stable of political structures.
There is a time and a place for tact.
The ways of being human are bounded but infinite.
When your life starts to look like a soap opera, it’s time to change the channel.
The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently.
Corollary to #15: The gene-tampered turkey you’re talking to isn’t necessarily one of them.
Never waste calories.
There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
No technique works if it isn’t used.
Not responsible for advice not taken.
Think before you make the coward’s choice. Old age is not for sissies.
What is the typical look of a human being? The following is a character bio using data of the most common traits and average statistics from the world population.
The typical model of Earth is a 28 year old Han Chinese male called Mohammed Lee. His height is 1.75m, weight 80kg, he has black hair and brown eyes and he is right-handed. He speaks Mandarin Chinese and his religion is Christianity. He works in a factory earning less than USD$12,000. He owns a cellphone but not a bank account. The following is the most typical face constructed using a composite of 190,000 faces of people fitting the above description.
What exactly is the present? The present is the middle point between the past and future, the world that we experience and perceive on a real-time basis. But would you believe it if the world you perceive is not the true “present”? To experience the world, we use our five senses. The brain collates all these sensory information and processes it to construct “the present”. This process takes about 80 milliseconds. Ergo, the world we experience is actually the world as it was 80 milliseconds ago. For a similar phenomenon, consider the stars. The stars we observe are not what they look like now, but what the stars looked liked when they emitted the light that we see. Thus, the star you are looking at may not even exist anymore.
But 80 milliseconds is a very short time; surely it has no impact on our everyday life? To prove that this delay has a critical impact on our understanding of cause and effect, neuroscientists designed the following experiment. The researchers would ask the participant to press a button that caused a light to blink after a short delay. After about ten tries, the participants reported that the delay had disappeared and the light flashed immediately after they pressed the button. This was due to their brain editing out the time delay and directly connecting the cause (button) and the effect (flash). But a much more peculiar phenomenon was seen when the researches removed the delay between the button press and the flash. Participants reported that they saw the light flash before they even pressed the button. The participant’s brain had become so used to the editing process that it was confusing the order of the cause and the effect.
The brain’s time-editing ability can be seen in the following simple experiment. If you touch your nose and toe at the same time, logic dictates that as the toe is further from your brain, the signal will have to travel further and it will be felt later. But in reality, you feel both at the exact same time. This is because your brain uses a map of the body to edit the relative time the signal takes to reach the brain to better construct a “real-time present”.
There is a German word called weltschmerz, which translates into “world pain” or “weariness against the world”. This word describes sad emotions felt after realising that the material world cannot satisfy the mind and that the ideal, hypothetic utopia in your mind cannot exist. It also describes the sadness felt after realising that your weaknesses arose from physical and social conditions of the world. Weltschmerz was widely used by poets such as Lord Byron, mainly as a way of viewing the world. It is a very pessimistic view of the world that often leads to or associated with depression, resignation and escapism. In severe cases it may lead to mental disorders such as hikikomori (a social disorder where the person does not and cannot leave their room due to fear and disgust of the world, also known as agoraphobia).
How many friends can a person have? Believe it or not, science has solved this question. An anthropologist called Robin Dunbar studied various societies, tribes and primate groups to determine how many members a group can have to maintain stability. He discovered that the ideal size for a group of humans was about 150.
What happens if there are more than 150 people in a group? This is easily explained by the following thought experiment. Imagine that you have a friend called Mr. White. Add a personality to him – flesh him out as a person. Next, you make another friend called Mr. Red. Then Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. Maroon… At a certain point, you will no longer remember the name or personality of your “friend” and not even care about that person. This is the limit set by our brains – known as Dunbar’s number, or more colloquially the Monkeysphere.
Any person outside of this Monkeysphere is not of your concern. Once you saturate your brain with 150 relationships, the brain ceases to care about other people. Interestingly, the Monkeysphere is directly related to the size of the neocortex (the part of the brain responsible for higher order thinking). For example, most monkeys can only operate in troupes of 50 or so.
The Monkeysphere can be defined as the group of people that you conceptualise as “people”. Because of this limitation, we are physiologically incapable of caring about everyone in the world. For example, we are highly unlikely to be concerned about the welfare of the janitor at work compared to a loved one. As politically incorrect it may be, the brain sees the janitor as “the object that cleans the building” rather than a human being. You may “care” about the janitor in the sense that you greet him in the corridor, but there is a limit to this. This effect actually explains quite well why society is dysfunctional in general.
Because we do not see people outside the Monkeysphere as “people”, they mean less to us. Stalin once said that “one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic”. Similarly, the death of a family member is devastating but 10,000 people dying in a foreign country from war does not have the same emotional effect. Furthermore, if a stranger was to die in front of your eyes, you would still not be nearly as devastated as the death of someone you are close to.
Also, as we do not feel connected to these “outsiders”, we are much more prone to act rude or aggressively. For example, one may insult other drivers with the most colourful words on the road, but would (hopefully) never say those words to a friend.
This expands to a greater scale in the context of survival. We are wired to put the need of the members of our Monkeysphere ahead of those outside of it. Thus, we would not steal from our friends but openly evade taxes as we see the government and others as a cold, faceless body. It does not occur to us that through our actions, we are harming other human beings. The same applies to our view of corporations; despite being made up of real people, we only see them as heartless machines actively conspiring against us.
What if the scale was then expanded to countries? If we do not see a person on the other side of the road as a human being, it is extremely unlikely we would register a foreigner as one. This explains why racism and stereotyping is so common in human societies. Although liberal-minded people would like to believe that we should treat every human being like we treat our mothers, our brain is incapable of it. In fact, it is much more likely we would see those people as acting against our interests by “stealing jobs” and so forth. Thus, racism is a hard-wired behaviour to protect the best interest of our Monkeysphere.
We have established that it is impossible to worry about the seven billion strangers in this world. This brings us to an important point: it is just as impossible to make “them” interested in “you”. It is a cold, hard fact that if you are outside of their Monkeysphere, people will not care about you. Ergo, they treat you badly, put you down, steal from you and downright ignore you. In fact, cognitive dissonance means you are even less likely to care for people outside the Monkeysphere as your brain actively rejects people from getting closer to your Monkeysphere, exceeding the preset limit of 150 people. This is why propaganda always focusses on dehumanising the enemy and why people seeking votes and attention pull at sympathy strings – to try get as close to your Monkeysphere as possible.
Many people will lament how we are not monkeys and the Monkeysphere does not apply to us. We have laws, ethics and “humanity”. However, we cannot escape our primitive psychological behaviours and this is reflected in societies filled with crime, unhappiness and a general disinterest in people not related to yourself. This is why city-dwellers tend to be less friendly than villagers, as there are too many people to fit in one, happy Monkeysphere. In fact, monkeys may have more functional societies than us because they hardly ever exceed their own Monkeyspheres (which may also explain why they rarely have wars). The same can be said of tribes and villages of the past.
Ironically, the development of society has been based around working around the limitations of the Monkeysphere – a theoretically ideal society. By living in larger groups, humans can achieve greater feats such as industries and large-scale economies. Although we suffer the consequences of racism and crime, we have become very effective in survival.
Economics is based on the Monkeysphere too. As we only care about our Monkeysphere, there is no reason for us to be concerned about the needs of others. So when a system such as communism forces us to share our bananas, we become infuriated that we have to give up our bananas to people we do not know. But in capitalism, every individual can pick bananas for just ourselves and those we care about. The system thrives as each Monkeysphere acts dynamically and everyone is happy. This is the concept of the invisible hand that is the foundation of modern economics.
But still, the concept of countries means that we have to share the burden of millions of people we do not care about in the form of taxes and civil duties. This makes us unhappy. So what can we do?
Firstly, realise that you are to others what others are to you. If you find a certain person on television as annoying and irrational, chances are that someone else sees you in that light. You are limited to your Monkeysphere of 150 people and people outside of it are in their own Monkeyspheres.
Secondly, understand that no one is special. There are no heroes or perfect beings. Everyone is a human being and prone to making mistakes and acting “human”. Therefore, we cannot idolise people and be disappointed by their actions. This also means that you cannot judge another person and consider their words and actions as insignificant, as they are just as human as you.
Lastly, never simplify things. The world is not simple. It cannot be generalised as one happy village with everyone living happily in harmony. It is a composite of a massive number of different Monkeyspheres, all concerned with their own well-being and not caring about anything else.
Remember the words that Charles Darwin spoke to his assistant, Jeje Santiago: “Jeje, we are the monkeys”. As much as we would like to think that we are higher-order beings, we are simple creatures of habit and behaviour limited by our Monkeysphere.
If you think of an election as a game, it is a rather fascinating game. Let us pretend that you are a player participating in a game called Elections. As a player, what is the most rational decision you can make?
The obvious answer is to not vote on the day of the election and do something else instead. As elections tend to be decided by a significant difference in the number of votes between parties, the probability that your single vote will make a difference is near 0. Ergo, instead of wasting your time submitting a vote that will have virtually no effect on the results, you are better off doing something more productive.
However, despite this, there are fools who vote in every election. The fools’ votes pile up and make the world keep on moving forward.
_04.jpg?w=620)
