The New Yorker: Russia's Museum Cats

These curators of St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum have the right idea. Perhaps this is the wishful thinking of a person without a pet, but I would love to work in an office full of cats...

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/russias-museum-cats

Much as dogs were humanity's first security system, cats were our original pest control. In an environment full of delicate artwork, where thousands of visitors circulate every day (including, I'm sure, many children), it makes sense that instead of rat poison and traps, the museum staff are resorting to this age-old solution to rodent problems. And, of course, they're providing a loving and safe home to a veritable squadron of cats, many of whom previously lived in less-than-healthful circumstances in the museum's heating system.

The article doesn't mention that these cats (their predecessors, really) were first brought to the museum, which was then a palace, by decree of the Russian empress Elizabeth. They were specially imported from Kazan, a city whose cats were reputed to be the best mousers in Russia. These cats lived in the palace for many years, until the feline population was virtually decimated during World War II. About twenty years ago, a program was begun to care for the animals, and in recent years, in addition to maintaining its existing cats, the museum has even begun to adopt cats in need of a home.

The museum director is noted to have said that "they are the spirit of the place. The museum’s genius loci.” It's a curious but apt comparison; genii loci were ancient Roman guardians of specific locations (usually homes), whose goodwill was usually secured through piety and sacrificial offerings. These cats seem to have become such a part of the fabric of the museum that without them, the Hermitage Museum would be a different, less feeling place. But as long as they continue to be loved by staff and visitors as they are, the cats appear quite content to stay in their unusual abode.

Sochi 2014: Where can I buy a rainbow flag?

I've been watching the Winter Olympics this weekend (mostly for the figure skating, which is wonderful). I've also been keeping abreast of Putin's crackdown on LGBT rights and the subsequent displays of pride and solidarity from other countries. Here's an excellent little video by The Guardian, wherein a number of British celebrities learn how to say "Where can I buy a rainbow flag?" in Russian:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/feb/07/learn-russian-protest-anti-gay-laws-sochi-winter-olympics-video

Neil Gaiman! Stephen Fry!

Because damn it, Putin, you're not going to bring Russia into the twenty-first century without some twenty-first century values -- among which are equal rights for all citizens, including gay ones. (Yes, we have a ways to go on this issue in the US as well.)

Free Will and Nuclear Winter

I've been thinking, lately, about free will -- and I recalled this article that I read last year. It's a good, concise analysis of causality (particularly the bits about levels of complexity), and addresses some of the fallacies of breaking down human behavior into ever-smaller constituent components:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will_mean_and_how_did_it_evolve.html

The question is a version of "are we more than the sum of our parts?" Many people attempt to derive an answer from religion, espousing a concept of "soul," a metaphysical quantity that science is -- by definition -- unable to prove or disprove. But in the absence of such a belief, are we not just collections of atoms? Isn't each of our thought processes a mere chemical reaction in our neurons? It's a chilling way to think about ourselves; the idea that there is only one possible course of events because our actions are governed by a set immutable physical laws, that each circumstance leads logically into a specific next circumstance, is essentially a secular version of the idea of fate or predestination.

But there's a scientific argument against fate: the multiverse. If there is an infinite number of possible universes, infinitely many points at which one universe becomes multiple, then there isn't one logical state for the universe at any given point in time. The possibility of parallel universes implies, if not conscious choice at all times, then at least many possible outcomes, none of which are certain to happen. Quantum physics likewise deals with uncertainty -- with thought experiments such as Schroedinger's Cat, in which a situation manifests both possible outcomes simultaneously. Science, it appears, disproves fate.

Then, there are situations like this one, in which one person's choice, a split-second decision in a situation of incomplete information, may have prevented all-out nuclear destruction:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831

Given a circumstance like this, it's hard not to believe in free will. I'm sure that there's a parallel universe out there in which the world ended on September 26, 1983.

NYTimes: Nabokov Theory on Butterfly Evolution Is Vindicated

Nabokov: celebrated novelist and amateur entomologist. Who would have thought?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01butterfly.html

A Leonardo of the modern day, a Renaissance man, in the classical sense.  There is also something deeply literary, deeply Romantic about a brilliant writer who spent the proceeds from his art on butterfly quests.

It's humbling to remember that often, literature is but a reflection of a wilder, more beautiful reality.

BBC: Tiger Team Marks Twenty Years of Conflict Resolution

One of the biggest problems facing wildlife conservationists today is human-predator conflict -- not the one-sided conflict between poachers and game, but rather that of ordinary villagers faced with large carnivores that venture ever-deeper into human territory, because they have nowhere else to go, by virtue of the destruction of their natural habitats and human encroachment onto their natural lands. Often, such stand-offs result in aggressive measures on the part of the human villagers, including resurgence of poaching in areas that would otherwise not engage in such activities.

This Russian Tiger Response Team reduces the instances of aggressive retaliation by giving villages recourse -- they deal with tigers in a humane, safe, and effective way -- and have been doing so for twenty years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9313000/9313098.stm

It's heartening to see. 

Al Jazeera: Amnesty Report Slams Global Abuses

The usual culprits, of course: China, Russia, and the US. It's always those who aren't terribly concerned about repercussions in the international arena -- the US is no exception:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/05/2010527164537464311.html

It's so hard to be an optimist, sometimes.

NYTimes: Russia's "Illegals"

This could be fuel for more than a few thriller novels -- or James Bond films (my father has a slight obsession with them):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/europe/30sleepers.html?hpw

Deep-cover spies seem rather anachronistic in this day and age -- a relic of the Cold War, perhaps -- but I can see why the idea is appealing. It's like the way small girls love having "secrets" in the schoolyard, secrets they can deny their classmates and giggle about amongst themselves, or how small boys are attracted to the idea of having a pistol hidden in the lining of an expensive suit. It's the same impulse that explains, methinks, my love of Sherlock Holmes and Dumas's musketeers.