What’s the point of violence in our rich part of world where there’s – let’s face it – actually very little need for hunting in order to survive?
After hundreds of thousands of years of technical evolution the cultivation and harvesting of the earth’s resources has become refined to the point of making our predatory instinct redundant.In today’s network economy violent behavior is even less essential for surviving. Our most relevant violent action today would be a frustrated, frenetic little clicking on links to websites that doesn’t upload fast enough. But a crooked and angrily wiggling index finger hardly poses the same threat as one of our ancestors would in a state of agitation.
So, from a strict evolutionary perspective it may be that violence has survived its own relevance. That we occasionally still need to mobilize our defensive instincts cannot be denied. But the fact remains that there seem to be other aspects to violence than it being a mere defense mechanism.
Perhaps some curious facts observed by Professor Craig Kennedy, professor of special education and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, can shed light on our violent tendencies. In a recent study on the aggressive behaviorial patterns of mice Kennedy has been able to establish that mice are inclined to pick fights for no apparent reason other than for the sheer fun of it. Apparently, mice need no cheese as motivation for a good brawl. In this they are, interestingly enough very much like humans.
For the experiments, Kennedy and his team of researchers placed a pair of mice, one male and one female, in a cage. When the female was removed and a male intruder mouse entered the cage it triggered violence in the home male. After the initial fight ended, the resident male mouse was trained to nose-poke a target to get the intruder to return. The home mouse consistently poked the target in what apparently would indicate, according to the researchers, that the aggressive encounter was seen as a reward.
To figure out whether the brain's reward pathway was involved, the scientists blocked dopamine in certain parts of the brain involved in rewards like sex, food and drugs. The treated mice were then less likely to instigate the intruder's entry. And since the reward pathway in the brains of humans and mice are very similar Kennedy’s conclusion is that violence probably also gives humans a sensation of reward. Violence is its own goal.
Now, what does this imply? That violence is fun? If, so, one may very well wonder what this says about fun and pleasure. Perhaps we just have to accept that humans are not as rational as we would like to think. What we see today in bars, soccer stadiums and late night city centers is at bottom perhaps a pretty confused ancient human instinct without a goal, an impulse desperately seeking evolutionary validation.
25 years ago Swedish Hollywood actor Dolph Lundgren came back to Sweden demanding that all interviews with him would be held in english. This wasn't too popular with the Swedes who are known for being the worlds biggest upholder of the "Jante Law". Which pretty much is the law telling you "– Your not better then us, so don't act as if you think you are". So the Swedish people has been locking down on him for the better part of almost 25 years now.
For crying out loud, if I would have gotten back from Hollywood with Sly's phone number on speed dial, I would have demanded some shit too. So I say let him speak frickin' Mandarin for all I care. That's respect none the less!
But in the eye's of the Swedish people he made his comeback, big time, as the host of the Swedish competition for who's going to be representing us in The Eurovision Song Contest. Take a look and judge for yourself.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is on a copyright rampage. From fighting for a tax on blank cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, they are now claiming ridiculous amounts of money from small-scale file-shares.
Jammie Thomas, a single mom, was recently sued for sharing 24 songs. The jury found her guilty and sentenced her to pay $80,000 per song – that is, $1.92 million in total. The punishment, if compared with legal downloading, increased the cost with approximately 7 million percent. From a juridical standpoint, this seems a little steep (if not downright medieval).
But Thomas is not the only one being brutalized by the RIAA. Actually, it’s become a kind of industry in itself: With increasing assistance of governments around the world the recording industry is now making millions from suing small-scale individuals with claims like this.
But being however deplorable, there’s always at least two sides to every story. Like any other business the music business wants to protect their interests, which, in principle, is kind of understandable.
In fact, isn’t it kind of strange that so many have such strongly held convictions about file-sharing – being either passionately for or against it? In line with the vast drop in sales, loads of us haven't bought a record in quite a while now. Obviously many think it's a treat to be able to download music for free. But how many of us can really back it up with a conviction that illegal file-sharing is a 100% great in general?
Moby, who seem to have such a conviction, comments the Jammie Thomas-debacle: “I’m so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.”
Moby’s assertion has an agreeable romantic ring to it. But since file-sharing actually means getting products that aren’t paid for, one might ask if the same should apply to things like food, paintings or cars? Could it be argued that those getting also these things for free (illegally), shouldn’t be made to “feel bad” since they merely enjoy food, art or driving cars? No matter how outrageous their opponents become, defenders of illegal file-sharing could sometimes be more nuanced in their understanding of the issue.
But anyway, new routes have appeared. Compromises like Spotify have opened up a middle ground that potentially fuses the interests of the various parts of the conflict. We should therefore hope that the RIAA drops their preposterous war and joins the bandwagon. And: that we all stop the whining and – like the guys at Spotify – try to do something creative instead.
Some people do the strangest things when they’re not awake, i.e. sleep. And many of them have no recollection of doing anything more than staring at the back of their eyelids.
Sleepwalking, night terrors, teeth grinding, restless leg syndrome — nothing too out of the ordinary about these sleeping disorders, right? Chances are, you probably even know a few regular folks who have experienced at least one them. But sleep sex? Sexomnia? Come again?
Sleep sex is a rare form of parasomnia whereby individuals have no conscious awareness of their sexual activities, and when wakened, have no recollection of it. Bummer.
The thought of performing sexual acts in one’s sleep is somewhat amusing, maybe even downright comical, but for those who suffer from the disorder, it’s a real nightmare.
According to Newsweek, “When Jan Luedecke of Toronto was arrested and tried for sexual assault, he had an unusual defense—he did it in his sleep. On the night in question, he'd been drinking at a party and found himself sacked out on the couch with a woman he'd met there. Hours later, she jolted him awake and demanded to know what he was doing. Luedecke claimed he was unaware he was having sex with her.”
To the outrage of women’s organizations, Luedecke was acquitted. His winning defense: Under the law, if there’s no intent to commit a crime, you haven’t committed a crime.
While sexsomnia appears to be a legit disorder recognized by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, one cannot help but imagine what other disorders are likely to start popping up in the near future. We can already see the pharmaceutical advertisements trying to sell us their patented prescription.
“Do you suffer from sleep strangling? How about abandoned newborn syndrome? Are you like millions of others who commit terrorist acts in their sleep? Don’t go to jail. Go to your doctor instead.”
Some time ago T-post sponsored a short film made by the brilliant filmmaker and friend Patrik Eklund. We ended up putting 4 T-post issues in the picture on one of the characters.
Once finished it was selected to be shown at both Cannes and Sundance Film Festival, where it won best short film. Yesterday we got word that it got nominated for an Oscar for best short (live action). Here's an interview made with Patrik this morning on Swedish television (see the clip here).
Read the Pressrelease here. World's First Wearable Magazine Creates T-shirt That Projects 3-D, Interactive Game Via Your Web Camera.
T-post, the World's First Wearable Magazine Presents Their 51st T-shirt Issue With Augmented Reality. The T-shirt Projects a 3-D Interactive Game of Rock, Paper, Scissors Via Your Web Camera. Watch Preview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIof7yEsOn
(PRWEB) January 28, 2010 -- Starting this week, subscribers of T-post will be able to wear their graphic T-shirt in front of any web camera and play a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors against a computer-generated arm that extends from the shirt itself.
Pulled from the headlines, and interpreted by Swedish designer Marc Strömberg, this innovative issue of T-post uses augmented reality to comment on the future of college education.
From exotic dancer research and marijuana horticulture to popular TV show logic and, you guessed it, underwater basket weaving, college just isn't what it used to be. It used to be that sex, drugs and recreation were extracurricular activities. Today, they are part of the actual coursework.
While we may all have to wait to see if T-post’s prediction of higher education will come true, and Rock, Paper, Scissors is used to teach university students the art of business negotiation, a new trend in fashion begins now, thanks again to T-post’s and their innovative use of augmented reality.
About T-post T-post works a lot like a magazine subscription. Every six weeks, subscribers from over 50 countries receive a new issue/t-shirt in the mail. The offbeat news story is printed on the inside back of the shirt. And a graphic artist’s interpretation of that news story is printed on the front. For subscribers, the comment “Nice shirt” now becomes an invitation to tell the story behind the design and create dialogue about an interesting world event.
More than just an innovative social brand, T-post is also an environmentally conscience one. To reduce waste, T-post is only sold online to subscribers using the principles of on-demand manufacturing, i.e. making only what consumer's want. Additionally, shirts are sweatshop-free, often organic, and printed with eco-certified inks.
Our friends over at Gizmodo made a post on our latest issue. Thanks guys for that! As if that was not enough, one of their readers posted a hilarious comment concerning our Augmented Reality game which was included in the latest issue.
"Today is a momentous occasion. Today, for the first time in history, a Japanese game show host looked at another country and said "WTF?" ".
Starting this week, subscribers of T-post will be able to wear their latest t-shirt issue in front of any web camera and play a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors against a computer-generated arm that extends from the shirt itself.
My name is Peter Lundgren and I'm the founder and editor-in-chief on T-post. 'A Day in the Life of a T-shirt Maker' is a daily update on T-post, the life around it and stuff that simply interests and inspires me.
Should you ever have any thoughts regarding what we have or haven't done, don't hesitate to send me an e-mail on peter@t-post.se and let me know. I'd really enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions.
