Lili. In This Spellbinding Short, A Girl Fights A Sandstorm To Save Her Childhood

Short animation film, 2016, stop motion. Lili refuses to let go of her childhood and fights a sandstorm that threatens to take it away. In the heart of the storm she rediscovers the joy of childhood, but forced to choose between illusion and reality. Created by: Hani Dombe & Tom Kouris Music & sound: Gil Landau Supported by: Israel Lottery Council For Culture & Arts, Gesher multicultural film fund.

Lili from TOM & HANI on Vimeo.

Richard Dawkins: Why Religion and Evolution Don't Mix Well

What is the Darwinian survival value of religion? That's not the right question, says Richard Dawkins. To find the right question, he relies on an evolutionary analogy: Why do moths fly into flames? It means instant death, so what's the evolutionary value of this kamikaze behavior? Dawkins delivers a crash course in proximate and ultimate causality, two very important distinctions in biology. Moths evolved to navigate using celestial objects as compasses. The moon and the stars emit parallel light, a very reliable and consistent beam, meaning a moth can fly in a straight line guided by that light. Candle light is an entirely different source that emits light in a spiral... leading straight to the hottest part of the flame. These moths aren't suicidal, says Dawkins, it's a misfiring of an evolutionary trait because of a modern technology in their environment. "The right question is not, 'What’s the survival value of a suicidal behavior in moths?'" he says, "The right question is, 'What is the survival value of having the kind of physiology which, under some circumstances, leads you to fly into a flames?'" There survival value of religious behavior may be at the genetic level, Dawkins suggests, and the proximate question in this case would be: what part of our brain does religion serve, and is religion really the only way that function is manifested? Richard Dawkins' new book is Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.

Richard Dawkins: No Civilized Person Accepts Slavery, So Why Do We Accept Animal Cruelty?

Richard Dawkins: There’s quite a lot in Science in the Soul about the ethics of the way we treat nonhuman animals. I say nonhuman because, of course, we are animals we’re not plants, we’re not fungi, we’re not bacteria, we are animals.

There is a double standard in our ethics at present, which builds a wall around our own species Homo Sapiens, which is rather un-evolutionary if you think about the fact that we are close cousins of chimpanzees, if you think about the fact that we are descended from a common ancestor that lived only about six or seven million years ago.

 If you want to erect a moral wall around our species and say, for example, that a human embryo, even a very beginning human embryo (long before it develops a nervous system) is somehow worthy of more moral consideration than an adult chimpanzee, then that is a rather un-evolutionary view point. If you look back in our ancestry, at what point would you draw the line?

Would you give... if there were Australopithecus—almost certainly our ancestor Australopithecus three million years ago—if you were to meet one if one had survived in the African jungle, would you give it the same moral consideration as the rest of us or would you say “No, no—that has the same moral consideration as a chimpanzee”? 

If we look back in history a couple of centuries ago most people accepted slavery and nowadays, of course, that's a horrifying thought. 

No civilized person today accepts slavery. And if you look back further still we had the appalling things that the Romans were doing in the Colosseum with spectator sport, watching people killing other people, lions killing people, regarding it as fun entertainment to take the children out to. 

We’re certainly getting better, as Steven Pinker has said in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Michael Shermer in his book on The Moral Arc, so we’re changing a lot and it’s sort of a fairly obvious thing to do to look in the future and say “What will our future descendants think when they look back at us the way we look back at our slave-owning ancestors with horror? What will our descendants look back in our time? 

And I think the obvious candidate would be the way we treat nonhuman animals. My view would be that we want to avoid suffering; therefore the criteria would be “Can this creature suffer?” This is the criteria that Jeremy Bentham the great moral philosopher laid out: “Can they suffer?” There’s every reason to think that mammals, at least and probably many more, can suffer perhaps as much as we can pain. 

If you think about what pain is for, biologically speaking, pain is a warning to the animal: “Don’t do that again.” 

If the animal does something which results in pain, that is a kind of ritual death—it’s telling the animal, “if you do that again you might die and you might fail to reproduce.” 

That’s why natural selection has built pain into our nervous systems, built the capacity to feel pain into our nervous systems. So don’t mess around with hornets because it’s painful; don’t do that again. 

Don’t pick up burning coals from the fire; don’t do that again. There’s absolutely no reason as far as I can see why a nonhuman animal, a dog or a chimpanzee or a cow, should be any less capable of feeling pain than we can, when you think about what pain is actually doing.

Nuclear Waste: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Nuclear waste poses a serious threat to public health if it's not stored in a safe place. John Oliver explains why the United States desperately needs to build a metaphorical toilet for all that waste.