2009/01/19
Another silly response to the atheist bus campaign
A workshy bus driver has refused to drive buses sporting the atheist ad, because the ads conflict with his religious beliefs. Since when has driving a bus indicated endorsement of the adverts on the side of the bus? Of course, the bus company has been very respectful, and agreed not to schedule this fellow to ride these buses.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/atheist-bus-campaign
But what if another driver suddenly decided, for religious or non-religious reasons, not to ride a bus because it advertised pork pies, or beer, or a bank? To let drivers behave like this is to peer over the precipice of a bottomless pit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/atheist-bus-campaign
But what if another driver suddenly decided, for religious or non-religious reasons, not to ride a bus because it advertised pork pies, or beer, or a bank? To let drivers behave like this is to peer over the precipice of a bottomless pit.
2009/01/15
Silly responses to the atheist bus campaign
I'm loving the atheist bus campaign, and amused by the wide variety of silly responses from the religious:
Silly response #1: The ad should be banned, because the it is untrue
This view has been expressed by the noisy Christian activist Stephen Green, who has formally made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority on this premise. For such a complaint to be upheld, the ASA would have to be shown some strong evidence (the sort that would stand up in a court of law) that God exists -- strong enough at least to make it unlikely that God does not exist. The likelihood of any such evidence being found is remote, to say the least. Apparently, experts consulted on whether this complaint had any chance of success responded with "peals of laughter." (Daily Telegraph Newspaper and elsewhere.)
Silly response #2: The ad should be banned, because the it is indecent
According to the same newspaper report, a number of individuals have complained to the ASA saying that the advert is offensive or indecent. Again, no chance. Do those people think we're living in the 18th century? Or in Australia?
Silly response #3: The word "probably" indicates that the atheists aren't convinced of what they're saying.
Tosh. The main purpose of "probably", as stated by Ariane Sherine, who came up with the slogan and the idea for the campaign, is to avoid the advert being banned by the Advertising Standards Authority on grounds that the existence of God is a "matter of opinion". It has the bonus of inclusiveness, encompassing as it does the views of many agnostics, as well as being less confrontational towards the religious than a categorical statement would have been (not that this has prevented numerous persons of religious persuasion from taking offence at the ads).
Silly response #4: It is wrong to tell people what they should believe, ergo, the atheist bus campaign is wrong.
Where do the adverts tell people what they should believe? They say "There is probably no God". They don't say "There is probably no God, and you should believe this proposition". If the latter is implicit, then every statement of every proposition is an instance of "telling people what they should believe", and therefore every statement of every proposition is morally wrong. What nonsense! Especially when it comes from one such as policywatcher, who spends quite a lot of time on GUT telling people what they should believe, sometimes about politics, and sometimes about IT issues.
Silly response #5: By saying what they believe on the side of a bus, atheists become as bad as religious evangelists.
(This is related to, but not the same as, #2) If proselytizing is bad, regardless of what you proselytize, does that mean it is bad to put up adverts to, say, persuade people that drink-driving is bad (or something else you think is true and good)? Also, is it literally true that the atheists are behaving as badly as Christian evangelists? Aren't Christian evangelists a bit more pushy than that? Don't they organize rallies, knock on strangers' doors, stand in corners ranting through a megaphone, to spread their message? Worse still, don't they try to ban material that conflicts with their views? Are the atheists as bad as that?
Silly response #6: Atheists need to acknowledge that religion can be good for society.
This view has been expressed by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. I suppose this attack is aimed at the second part of the ad, the bit that says, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Two problems: First, it is open to debate whether religion is ever a net good for society, so atheists obviously are not required to acknowledge it as if it were true. Second, even if religion can be a net good, it can also, as Lord Carey in his phrasing tacitly admits, be a net bad. If following one of the Abrahamic religions is currently a net bad in the UK (perhaps because it inspires anxiety about one's possible sinfulness and damnation to hell, and so prevents people from fully enjoying their lives), the admonition in the advert is a good one, regardless of whether some other religion could in some other circumstances could be a net good.
Silly response #7: Atheists are failing to respect the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs.
No, they're not. They're fully respecting those rights, and at the same time respecting their own right to express their own beliefs. Respecting another's belief does not mean keeping quiet about your own, and letting the other rant on ceaselessly.
Some responses inspired by the ads have been general attacks on atheism have been inspired by the ads, such as these two, which crop up repeatedly, like bad pennies:
Silly response #8: Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad
Most of Stalin's persecutions and cruelties had nothing to do with suppressing religion, and even when they did, he was inspired by Communism, not atheism. Mere atheism does not inspire anything at all, in particular. Another politician who was a self-described atheist and ruled at the same time as Stalin was Clement Attlee, held by many to have been Britain's best modern Prime Minister. One of Clem Attlee's achievements was the establishment of Britain's National Health Service, a great institutional monument to kindness of spirit. Yet, I have never heard this credited to atheism, and if I ever did, I would have to laugh.
Silly response #9: Atheism is mistaken because God's existence cannot be disproved
This argument is worse than weak -- it is pathetic drivel. The God of the Bible certainly does not exist. If you make up some kind of blethery vague thing, carefully constructed to evade any obvious disproof, and call that God, as theologians have increasingly done since the Middle Ages, then good for you, but note, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe in such a thing. Mere assertion that such a thing might conceivably exist, despite total lack of evidence for its existence, is not enough to justify actually believing in it. Otherwise, we all ought to believe in fairies, goblins, centaurs, dragons, and every other fantasy anyone has ever dreamt up that is not a logical (as opposed to mere physical) impossibility.
Strange enemies of the atheist bus campaign:
Curiously, a few people calling themselves agnostics or pantheists have expressed vehement opposition to the ads, apparently out of a strong emotional loyalty to religion. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
There's no particular reason why the vaguely conceived "God" of pantheism should be called "God", unless one is nostalgic for real religion. Pantheism is a mildly silly idea (being a belief that is completely unjustified and unjustifiable), but is harmless, and has nothing particularly to do with Christianity or any of the religions that tend to annoy atheists. If there were only atheists and pantheists on the planet, there'd be no call for an atheist bus.
The least silly response:
The official response of the Methodists to the ads has been to welcome them, on the basis that they get people to think and talk about religious ideas. It makes sense, if one is confident of one's religious faith, to expect that the more people think and talk about religious ideas, the more likely they are to sign up. Steven Green's approach (attempting to get the ads banned) suggests a lack of confidence.
Silly response #1: The ad should be banned, because the it is untrue
This view has been expressed by the noisy Christian activist Stephen Green, who has formally made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority on this premise. For such a complaint to be upheld, the ASA would have to be shown some strong evidence (the sort that would stand up in a court of law) that God exists -- strong enough at least to make it unlikely that God does not exist. The likelihood of any such evidence being found is remote, to say the least. Apparently, experts consulted on whether this complaint had any chance of success responded with "peals of laughter." (Daily Telegraph Newspaper and elsewhere.)
Silly response #2: The ad should be banned, because the it is indecent
According to the same newspaper report, a number of individuals have complained to the ASA saying that the advert is offensive or indecent. Again, no chance. Do those people think we're living in the 18th century? Or in Australia?
Silly response #3: The word "probably" indicates that the atheists aren't convinced of what they're saying.
Tosh. The main purpose of "probably", as stated by Ariane Sherine, who came up with the slogan and the idea for the campaign, is to avoid the advert being banned by the Advertising Standards Authority on grounds that the existence of God is a "matter of opinion". It has the bonus of inclusiveness, encompassing as it does the views of many agnostics, as well as being less confrontational towards the religious than a categorical statement would have been (not that this has prevented numerous persons of religious persuasion from taking offence at the ads).
Silly response #4: It is wrong to tell people what they should believe, ergo, the atheist bus campaign is wrong.
Where do the adverts tell people what they should believe? They say "There is probably no God". They don't say "There is probably no God, and you should believe this proposition". If the latter is implicit, then every statement of every proposition is an instance of "telling people what they should believe", and therefore every statement of every proposition is morally wrong. What nonsense! Especially when it comes from one such as policywatcher, who spends quite a lot of time on GUT telling people what they should believe, sometimes about politics, and sometimes about IT issues.
Silly response #5: By saying what they believe on the side of a bus, atheists become as bad as religious evangelists.
(This is related to, but not the same as, #2) If proselytizing is bad, regardless of what you proselytize, does that mean it is bad to put up adverts to, say, persuade people that drink-driving is bad (or something else you think is true and good)? Also, is it literally true that the atheists are behaving as badly as Christian evangelists? Aren't Christian evangelists a bit more pushy than that? Don't they organize rallies, knock on strangers' doors, stand in corners ranting through a megaphone, to spread their message? Worse still, don't they try to ban material that conflicts with their views? Are the atheists as bad as that?
Silly response #6: Atheists need to acknowledge that religion can be good for society.
This view has been expressed by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. I suppose this attack is aimed at the second part of the ad, the bit that says, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Two problems: First, it is open to debate whether religion is ever a net good for society, so atheists obviously are not required to acknowledge it as if it were true. Second, even if religion can be a net good, it can also, as Lord Carey in his phrasing tacitly admits, be a net bad. If following one of the Abrahamic religions is currently a net bad in the UK (perhaps because it inspires anxiety about one's possible sinfulness and damnation to hell, and so prevents people from fully enjoying their lives), the admonition in the advert is a good one, regardless of whether some other religion could in some other circumstances could be a net good.
Silly response #7: Atheists are failing to respect the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs.
No, they're not. They're fully respecting those rights, and at the same time respecting their own right to express their own beliefs. Respecting another's belief does not mean keeping quiet about your own, and letting the other rant on ceaselessly.
Some responses inspired by the ads have been general attacks on atheism have been inspired by the ads, such as these two, which crop up repeatedly, like bad pennies:
Silly response #8: Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad
Most of Stalin's persecutions and cruelties had nothing to do with suppressing religion, and even when they did, he was inspired by Communism, not atheism. Mere atheism does not inspire anything at all, in particular. Another politician who was a self-described atheist and ruled at the same time as Stalin was Clement Attlee, held by many to have been Britain's best modern Prime Minister. One of Clem Attlee's achievements was the establishment of Britain's National Health Service, a great institutional monument to kindness of spirit. Yet, I have never heard this credited to atheism, and if I ever did, I would have to laugh.
Silly response #9: Atheism is mistaken because God's existence cannot be disproved
This argument is worse than weak -- it is pathetic drivel. The God of the Bible certainly does not exist. If you make up some kind of blethery vague thing, carefully constructed to evade any obvious disproof, and call that God, as theologians have increasingly done since the Middle Ages, then good for you, but note, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe in such a thing. Mere assertion that such a thing might conceivably exist, despite total lack of evidence for its existence, is not enough to justify actually believing in it. Otherwise, we all ought to believe in fairies, goblins, centaurs, dragons, and every other fantasy anyone has ever dreamt up that is not a logical (as opposed to mere physical) impossibility.
Strange enemies of the atheist bus campaign:
Curiously, a few people calling themselves agnostics or pantheists have expressed vehement opposition to the ads, apparently out of a strong emotional loyalty to religion. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
There's no particular reason why the vaguely conceived "God" of pantheism should be called "God", unless one is nostalgic for real religion. Pantheism is a mildly silly idea (being a belief that is completely unjustified and unjustifiable), but is harmless, and has nothing particularly to do with Christianity or any of the religions that tend to annoy atheists. If there were only atheists and pantheists on the planet, there'd be no call for an atheist bus.
The least silly response:
The official response of the Methodists to the ads has been to welcome them, on the basis that they get people to think and talk about religious ideas. It makes sense, if one is confident of one's religious faith, to expect that the more people think and talk about religious ideas, the more likely they are to sign up. Steven Green's approach (attempting to get the ads banned) suggests a lack of confidence.
Labels: advertising, atheism, atheist bus campaign, censorship, religion
2009/01/11
BBC Radio 4 Looks into the question of "sex trafficking"
How much "sex trafficking" is there? Activists and some politicians are fond of claiming that huge numbers of women, and even children, are trafficked from third world countries to rich countries where they are forced into prostitution under slavery conditions, and most sex workers are working under such duress. One politician is quoted saying, "Something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, or their pimp or their trafficker". These claims have struck me as implausible, and the BBC programme More or Less, which is an excellent documentary series looking at the importance of numbers in our lives, has decided to investigate. I'm pleased to say that the BBC confirms my suspicion that the sex trafficking figures are nonsense. The phenomenon may exists, but it is plainly much less common than the activist make out. What's more, the show interviews some politicians, and gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the current UK government, which seems to hold that any abuse of statistics is okay, if it serves a political purpose, and facts don't matter if they conflict with the prejudices, blind assumptions and dogmas of the politicians.
It is clear that the myth of mass sex trafficking is cooked up as an excuse by politicians and activists who wish for quite different reasons (moralism or xenophobia) to clamp down on either prostitution or immigration, or both.
Here's a link to the podcast of the program (downloadable as a podcast for the next few days).
Here's a link to the report by Ruth Alexander from the programme.
If only we could get rid of innumeracy, we could perhaps have much better government.
[Edit:] I notice there's an article in The Register on this topic, and it links an article from the Guardian and another from the Telegraph, both highlighting how the government and activists are putting a massively false spin. The Telegraph article gives this quote, which rather deflates the sex traffic hype:
[Edit #2]: Adding links from commenter Laura Agustin to very good Guardian website article and blog on this topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/humantrafficking-prostitution
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin
Thanks for the links.
It is clear that the myth of mass sex trafficking is cooked up as an excuse by politicians and activists who wish for quite different reasons (moralism or xenophobia) to clamp down on either prostitution or immigration, or both.
Here's a link to the podcast of the program (downloadable as a podcast for the next few days).
Here's a link to the report by Ruth Alexander from the programme.
If only we could get rid of innumeracy, we could perhaps have much better government.
[Edit:] I notice there's an article in The Register on this topic, and it links an article from the Guardian and another from the Telegraph, both highlighting how the government and activists are putting a massively false spin. The Telegraph article gives this quote, which rather deflates the sex traffic hype:
As for trafficking, the only official report from the police operationAnother quote from the Telegraph article succintly identifies the thinking behind the legislation that the government is proposing:
Pentameter 1 shows a tiny proportion, just 0.11 per cent, of people in the sex
industry have in fact been trafficked. A subsequent operation, Pentameter 2,
found 167 trafficked people, which is still only 0.21 per cent.
The many dubious ideologies behind these groups include the radicalThe Guardian article gives the sex workers' angle, and accuses the government of persecuting sex workers and refusing to listen to them, as well as being generally blind to reality. Sample quote:
feminist thesis that all heterosexual sex is exploitation, a Marxist view that
all work is exploitation, and a religious evangelism which argues that all
non-procreational sex is wrong.
The 21 people around the table had between 250 and 300 years of experience
in the sex industry, and all spoke positively about their clients, described the
problems caused by our criminalisation, warned that driving the industry further
underground would only endanger us and expressed hope this event would be part
of a continuing process of involvement.
[Edit #2]: Adding links from commenter Laura Agustin to very good Guardian website article and blog on this topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/humantrafficking-prostitution
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin
Thanks for the links.
Labels: politics, prostitution, sex trafficking, statistics
2008/04/04
Private v. Public Sector "New Town" Development
There's been stuff in the news lately about the government's plans to build ten new "eco towns", designed to be carbon neutral, and to show the way forward to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable Britain. It plans to do this via the private sector. Developers will submit their proposals, and if government officials deem them sufficiently "green", they will get the planning permission.
Some people object. Aside from nimbies who live near prospective sites of these developments (how come they always live next to prospective developments – do they do that deliberately, or is it coincidence?), there are others who seem simply to object to such projects being built by the greedy, profiteering private sector. Well, to those, I offer this reminder:
Greedy, moneygrabbing, private sector property developers gave us Bath – and built on green field land, natch. Here's a picture:
A famously beautiful city, now officially a "World Heritage Site", according to the U.N. Or is it the E.U.? . Well, someone important.
Links to more pictures of Bath:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aerial.view.of.bath.arp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Royal_Crescent_in_Bath%2C_England_-_July_2006.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Royal.crescent.aerial.bath.arp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulteney_Bridge%2C_Bath_2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clevelandhouse.JPG
Professional government planners gave us Cumbernauld New Town. Here's a Picture:
Some people object. Aside from nimbies who live near prospective sites of these developments (how come they always live next to prospective developments – do they do that deliberately, or is it coincidence?), there are others who seem simply to object to such projects being built by the greedy, profiteering private sector. Well, to those, I offer this reminder:
Greedy, moneygrabbing, private sector property developers gave us Bath – and built on green field land, natch. Here's a picture:
A famously beautiful city, now officially a "World Heritage Site", according to the U.N. Or is it the E.U.? . Well, someone important.
Links to more pictures of Bath:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aerial.view.of.bath.arp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Royal_Crescent_in_Bath%2C_England_-_July_2006.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Royal.crescent.aerial.bath.arp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulteney_Bridge%2C_Bath_2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clevelandhouse.JPG
Professional government planners gave us Cumbernauld New Town. Here's a Picture:
Cumbernauld is reputed to be a decent place to live, but it is ruined aesthetically by the disastrous brutalist architecture put up in the 1960s, in one of those "New Town" developments that were supposed to bring about Utopia. How disastrous? Well, the building in the picture above was recently voted Britain's Ugliest Building in a national poll, and there have been continuous grass-roots efforts to persuade the authorities to pull it down since it opened.
More pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_Carbrain.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cumbernauld_Town_Centre1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cumbernauld_Town_Centre.jpg
They say it all, really -- when it comes to uglifying the landscape, it's not the private sector one should be worrying about. Govt-led developments should scare us far more.
Labels: eco-town, green, private v public sector
2007/10/30
Gap between the ears
Gap has said that it will withdraw certain clothes from sale which it has discovered were made with child labour. The clothes will be destroyed, they announced.
Well, excuse me, but what good will that do? It's nothing but a sad and stupid waste. If it is important not to profit from these clothes, take the labels off and give the clothes away, or sell the clothes and give the money to charity.
Anyway, what's so evil about child labour, eh? Let the kids work. It's the Third World, and they don't have Playstations to keep them busy. As long as the work it not too dangerous, and the children are not prevented from getting any schooling, there's no reason why they shouldn't work. Children in the rich West have long summer holidays, and it seems to have been forgotten that the reason for these holidays was, historically, so that the children could help out on the farm in the run-up to harvest. Now our children work full time as professional consumers. It helps keep the economy going, but I doubt it makes them truly happy.
Well, excuse me, but what good will that do? It's nothing but a sad and stupid waste. If it is important not to profit from these clothes, take the labels off and give the clothes away, or sell the clothes and give the money to charity.
Anyway, what's so evil about child labour, eh? Let the kids work. It's the Third World, and they don't have Playstations to keep them busy. As long as the work it not too dangerous, and the children are not prevented from getting any schooling, there's no reason why they shouldn't work. Children in the rich West have long summer holidays, and it seems to have been forgotten that the reason for these holidays was, historically, so that the children could help out on the farm in the run-up to harvest. Now our children work full time as professional consumers. It helps keep the economy going, but I doubt it makes them truly happy.
2007/10/27
James Watson Retires, and I'm Sad About it
I wish somehow the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory could have ridden the storm of bad PR over Dr. Watson's remarks about race and IQ. The criticism was, after all, quite unfair, and it is now unfair that such a brilliant mind should be forced to retire under a cloud, on top of everything else, when he's done nothing wrong.
2006/01/19
Say No to Space Opera
By far the commonest kind of science fiction, in books and on TV, is space opera, which is based around the idea that interstellar travel is common. Usually there are "galactic empires" and so on.
Well, forgive me for being pedantic, but the whole idea is so damned hokey, I just can't bear it. So, please, sci-fi programme-makers, I'm begging you now to stop this nonsense.
And don't tell me it's even remotely plausible. The nearest planets to Earth are multiple light years away, and since faster-than-light travel is impossible, any trip between planets on different solar systems would take years, if not decades. Neither trade nor government can go on across such distances.
Assuming (optimistically) that you can accelerate to near lightspeed and slow down again quickly without destroying the occupants, a round trip to the nearest planet would still take years, from the standpoint of those at either end. There's nothing worth trading over such distances. Nor is it possible to govern a place remotely at such distances, or even to maintain a friendly correspondence. Therefore, any colony would have to be entirely self-sufficient and self-governing. There's no advantage to the people of Earth in going to the expense of setting up such a colony, except in the event of a threat to the very survival of Earth as a habitable planet.
Here are some reasons why a galactic empire based on trade isn't an option:
So, galactic, never mind intergalactic, trading empires are impossible. Of course, impossibility is not a reason why something can't be allowed to happen in fiction, but the central conceit of sci-fi is that it is scientifically plausible. Let's have some more original ideas in sci-fi.
Well, forgive me for being pedantic, but the whole idea is so damned hokey, I just can't bear it. So, please, sci-fi programme-makers, I'm begging you now to stop this nonsense.
And don't tell me it's even remotely plausible. The nearest planets to Earth are multiple light years away, and since faster-than-light travel is impossible, any trip between planets on different solar systems would take years, if not decades. Neither trade nor government can go on across such distances.
Assuming (optimistically) that you can accelerate to near lightspeed and slow down again quickly without destroying the occupants, a round trip to the nearest planet would still take years, from the standpoint of those at either end. There's nothing worth trading over such distances. Nor is it possible to govern a place remotely at such distances, or even to maintain a friendly correspondence. Therefore, any colony would have to be entirely self-sufficient and self-governing. There's no advantage to the people of Earth in going to the expense of setting up such a colony, except in the event of a threat to the very survival of Earth as a habitable planet.
Here are some reasons why a galactic empire based on trade isn't an option:
- Suppose two planets are five light years apart, and a space ship takes ten years to cross that distance. You can't trade for cash, because you can't rely on the value of the currency you use not collapsing in the time it takes to cross the distance between the two planets. Actually, a currency collapse is pretty much a dead cert, since there's nothing at all to sustain the value of the currency. Trade will have to be by barter. (Not that that eliminates the risk -- it only reduces it.)
- There's little point in placing orders in advance, as that merely adds multiple years to your delivery times. Therefore, trade will almost certainly have to be speculative.
- You can't enforce contracts: if you send a spaceship bearing goods to another planet, and the people at the destination decide they don't want to pay for your goods, it'll take you years to find out, and when you do, what can you do? Send another spaceship after them?
- And what happens if you get a shipment of gizmos that doesn't fit your sockets? Do you send it back?
- You can't trust the ship's crew. If they jump ship at the destination, tough on anyone who owns shares in that ship or its cargo back home.
- There's no point trading in high-tech products, because by the time your product reaches its destination, your product will be out of date -- unless the people at the destination are so far behind you technically, that they have nothing to offer in exchange.
- Aesthetic goods run a very high risk that when they arrive, they will not accord with fashion.
- If you're very lucky, you could find yourself living on a hospitable planet that happens to be, or to be close to, a rich source of a highly valuable material (uranium, perhaps) that you can sell. But you also have to find another planet that not only lacks the thing you want to sell, but has something you need, that is worth the cost of delivering your surplus to them. That requires quite incredible luck.
So, galactic, never mind intergalactic, trading empires are impossible. Of course, impossibility is not a reason why something can't be allowed to happen in fiction, but the central conceit of sci-fi is that it is scientifically plausible. Let's have some more original ideas in sci-fi.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]