Via Dave Gorski, I’ve learned that it’s Homeopathic Awareness Week. Homeopathy, in case you’re not aware, is the belief that incredibly dilute solutions of non-pharmacologically active herbs can somehow cure disease. Basically, it’s making magic potions, minus the magic part. Also, minus the curing disease part. To celebrate, here’s a great sketch on the subject from the BBC show That Mitchell and Webb Look (also a hat tip to Gorski).

Andrew Sullivan points to this post by Jonathan Rowe, in which he quotes someone who claims to have a phD in astronomy on a listserv discussing reincarnation and immortality from an atheistic perspective. Here’s the argument, in toto:

If time is infinite on both ends, then we have infinite rolls of the dice of probability. That means, however infinitesimally small the probabilities that brought “you” into existence, with enough rolls of dice, “you” will come into existence again, and again and again forever. And if time is infinite in reverse, “now” isn’t the only time “you” existed.

Accordingly, “you” have always existed and always will.

This falls under a category of philosophic argument that only sounds clever if you don’t think about it for more than thirty seconds. Let’s examine the premises of the argument, one by one:

1. Time is infinite on both ends.

Well, no, it isn’t. According to our current understanding, the universe, as I would expect someone with a phD in astronomy, is not infinite at both ends. It started with the Big Bang, and will end in one of two ways, depending on how much matter there is in the universe: (1) it will collapse in on itself or (2) it will expand forever, but with all energy converted into heat due to entropy.

[Quick digression: But what about the multiverse? We could have a long discussion about this, but let me give you my quick perspective: there ain't no such thing. The math of quantum mechanics perfectly lends itself to there being one universe, and until you can actually empirically demonstrate the existence of another universe, it makes no sense to think they exist. End digression.]

2. Therefore, there are infinite rolls of the dice.

Even if we assume that premise (1) is true, the problem is that the universe does not run on “rolls of the dice,” or chance. It runs on certain physical laws, some of which have a probabilistic aspect, and some that don’t. The laws of thermodynamics, for example, are the latter. No matter how many times you “roll the dice,” you’ll never wind up with a perpetual motion machine, just like you’ll never roll a 20 with a 6-sided die. The physical laws of the universe all interact with each other, creating some things that are more likely to occur than others–that’s the probability aspect. But they can’t make anything happen.

However infinitesimally small the probabilities that brought “you” into existence, with enough rolls of dice, “you” will come into existence again.

Here we can see the two problems with the premises above having a severe impact on the conclusion. Not every physical law is subject to chance, and time is not infinite. Accordingly, the idea that it was merely “infinitesimally small probabilities” bring a certain person into existence ignores the operation of time and the interaction of physical laws. Consider what has to happen in order for a certain human being to come into existence: 1. The solar system has to be created. 2. Earth has to be in it. 3. Earth (probably) has to get hit by a large body in order to create the moon. 4. Life has to evolve on earth on the same time scale. 5. An asteroid has to hit the earth and wipe out the dinosaurs. 6. Humans have to evolve in a particular climatological and geographical context. 7. People with identical genetics and personalities to your parents have to be born in a way that they’re able to meet, fall in love, and have sex. 8. They have to do it at JUST the right time so that one particular sperm hits one particular ova. 9. The genes from that sperm and ova have to rearrange their chromosomes in exactly the right way. Etc. etc. etc.

And you see, the above is just the big picture stuff. Some of which is determined by probability (genetic recombination, for example). Others are determined purely by physical laws and chance simply doesn’t have an opportunity to play a role–gravitation in the formation of the Earth and particular asteroid strikes, the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, etc.

More to the point, who “you” are isn’t dependent on mere genetic recombination. It’s from the interaction of genes with the environment, combined with free choices that you make. The very existence of differences in personality among identical twins shreds this hypothesis to ribbons. And that’s just personality. There’s also the concept of epigenetics. Epigenetics is, basically, the study of how particular genes express themselves under different circumstances. And which of your genes express when can be determined by one’s own choices. For example, if you have two twins, one of whom becomes a professional bodybuilder and the other an office-working couch potato, they’re going to have different genes express differently. They’ll look different, they’ll have made different choices, and their underlying biochemistry will also have changed. There’s no chance involved here, either–it was the free choices of the two twins that resulted in markedly different phenotypic expression of the same genes (in other words, they were, in many ways, different people.)

To sum up, this idea that someone how you are going to be eternally recurring in the universe because of the operation of chance in an infinite universe simply doesn’t have a leg to stand on. You’re the only you there is, was, or will be.

So make the most of it.

Updated: In the comments, Jonathan Rowe clarifies that he was originating the idea, based on an astronmer’s conjecture that there is an infinite expansion/collapse cycle in the universe. But this doesn’t get around some of the major problems. For one, it assumes that there is such a cycle, when at the present time it’s unclear whether there is enough mass to create the gravitation necessary for a universal collapse. Additionally, we are left with the same problem as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics — there’s no empirical evidence for the existence of past and future universes, and the math works out just as well when we go along with the evidence and assume there’s only one universe. Additionally, this interpretation still does not grapple with the idea that probability is constrained by physical law or the role of choice and environment in controlling epigenetics and personal identity. So again, I say that this argument of “immortality” is simply, fundamentally flawed.

Image Credit:

One prediction of the climate change hypothesis is that methane, trapped under frozen ice in the ocean and under permafrost on land, will start to be released into the atmosphere as a consequence of rising temperatures. According to the IPCC, we should start seeing these effects around the end of the century. Unfortunately, the IPCC is wrong–it’s happening now.

During six cruises in the region from 2003 to 2008, the researchers gathered data at more than 1,000 spots in the Greenland-sized stretch of shallow ocean. The team also took atmospheric readings of methane concentration during one helicopter survey and a wintertime excursion from shore onto the ice-covered sea, says Shakhova.

The researchers found unexpectedly high amounts of methane dissolved in seafloor waters across 80 percent of the area they studied. In some spots, methane concentrations during those six years averaged more than 80 times normal. Because the water over the shelf is relatively shallow — average depth in the region is about 45 meters, Shakhova notes — much of the methane reaches the ocean surface and then wafts into the atmosphere.

To date, thankfully, this appears only to be happening in undersea methane reservoirs, which are expected to begin melting much sooner thanks to the salt water in the ocean depressing the melting point. Still this highlights the fact that some of the predictions made by the climate change hypothesis are coming true–and scarily, are coming true faster than previously anticipated. This is particularly disturbing because methane is a MUCH more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Put more of it into the atmosphere, and it could potentially accelerate the warming we’re already seeing.

Speaking of warming, it’s also worth mentioning that despite record levels of snowfall in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere, January was, according to satellite data, the hottest January on record. And this is also despite the fact that we are currently in a deep solar minimum — meaning that radiation from the sun is lower than it usually is. Meaning that temperatures should be lower–but they’re not.

Don’t worry, though. There are plenty of people who will patiently explain to you that you should ignore all of these facts, because scientists are engaged in a massive global conspiracy to manipulate data in order to destroy the economy and technology. Because scientists HATE money and technology. Everyone knows that.

Image Credit:

Megan McArdle discusses this New York Times article by Olivia Judson, which hypothesizes that the act of sitting, all by itself, is a contributor to obesity. As it states:

That, at least, is the conclusion of several recent studies. Indeed, if you consider only healthy people who exercise regularly, those who sit the most during the rest of the day have larger waists and worse profiles of blood pressure and blood sugar than those who sit less. Among people who sit in front of the television for more than three hours each day, those who exercise are as fat as those who don’t: sitting a lot appears to offset some of the benefits of jogging a lot.

So what’s wrong with sitting?

The answer seems to have two parts. The first is that sitting is one of the most passive things you can do. You burn more energy by chewing gum or fidgeting than you do sitting still in a chair. Compared to sitting, standing in one place is hard work. To stand, you have to tense your leg muscles, and engage the muscles of your back and shoulders; while standing, you often shift from leg to leg. All of this burns energy.

As far as I can tell from the abstracts of the papers cited by the author (I couldn’t find free full text versions), however, these studies are nothing more but a long line of studies that merely demonstrate a correlation between sedentary lifestyles and obesity. They do not demonstrate any kind of cause, and the idea that it has to do with a simple extra expenditure of calories is absurd. It’s far more likely that these studies and this article, like many similar studies, are simply reversing cause and effect. In other words, those who are genetically prone to obesity are also genetically prone to being sedentary. Let me refer you to Gary Taubes fantastic 2007 article on the subject, where he examines the history of the “exercise = weight loss hypothesis” and explains why the evidence doesn’t support it:

Ultimately, the relationship between physical activity and fatness comes down to the question of cause and effect. Is Lance Armstrong excessively lean because he burns off a few thousand calories a day cycling, or is he driven to expend that energy because his body is constitutionally set against storing calories as fat? If his fat tissue is resistant to accumulating calories, his body has little choice but to burn them as quickly as possible: what Rony and his contemporaries called the “activity impulse”—a physiological drive, not a conscious one. His body is telling him to get on his bike and ride, not his mind. Those of us who run to fat would have the opposite problem. Our fat tissue wants to store calories, leaving our muscles with a relative dearth of energy to burn. It’s not willpower we lack, but fuel.

For the last 60 years, researchers studying obesity and weight regulation have insisted on treating the human body as a thermodynamic black box: Calories go in one side, they come out the other, and the difference (calories in minus calories out) ends up as either more or less fat. The fat tissue, in this thermodynamic model, has nothing to say in the matter. Thus the official recommendations to eat less and exercise more and assuredly you’ll get thinner. (Or at least not fatter.) And in the strict sense this is true—you can starve a human, or a rat, and he will indeed lose weight—but that misses the point. Humans, rats, and all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics. When we deprive ourselves of food, we get hungry. When we push ourselves physically, we get tired.

[...]

The key is that among the many things regulated in this homeostatic system—along with blood pressure and blood sugar, body temperature, respiration, etc.—is the amount of fat we carry. From this biological or homeostatic perspective, lean people are not those who have the willpower to exercise more and eat less. They are people whose bodies are programmed to send the calories they consume to the muscles to be burned rather than to the fat tissue to be stored—the Lance Armstrongs of the world. The rest of us tend to go the other way, shunting off calories to fat tissue, where they accumulate to excess.

Read Taubes’ whole article, which goes into great detail in explaining the hormonal regulations that prevent exercise from leading to much weight loss–if any at all. You’ll note that Judson’s article is based on the archaic “thermodynamic black box” model of weight loss (standing burns more calories, so you’ll lose weight!) without any consideration of the underlying biochemistry in order to defend her hypothesis. This is, sadly, not just true of newspaper reporters, but of a lot of people in the obesity field as well. Most studies about obesity tend to center around the types of observational studies that Judson cites, which are simply bogus exercises in statistics that lack controls or any rigorious testing of variables in order to defend or deny a hypothesis (e.g. “these people say they exercise and they’re lean, these people watch TV and they’re fat, therefore, watching TV makes you fat”). The best experimentation in the field of obesity are those studies that actually test changes. They control diets and/or types of exercise, then they test body composition, including triglycerides, fasting glucose levels, etc. after such changes.

Beware of observational studies–they’re simply fodder for speculation.

Image Credit: Sighthound’s photostream via a Creative Commons License

The AP is reporting that the Obama Administration is set to announce that it will provide loan guarantees for new American nuclear power plants.

The Obama administration’s planned loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the U.S in almost three decades is part of a broad shift in energy strategy to lessen dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

President Barack Obama called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” in his Jan. 27 State of the Union speech and followed that by proposing to triple loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. He wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to shift energy policy.

Obama in the coming week will announce the loan guarantee to build the nuclear power plant, an administration official said Friday. The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan that administration officials hope will draw Republican support.

I am definitely all for this. Nuclear power is a much safer, cleaner source of energy than coal. This is long overdue.

h/t Dodd Harris

Image Credit: Sarah Elzas

I opened up my browser this evening to the Drudge Report headline “The Great Climate Change Retreat!”, which led to this Daily Mail article, which is entitled (take a deep breath), “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″

The scientist in question is Professor Phil Jones, who is the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Suffice to say, this has made quite a hubbub around the blogosphere. The article is based on an interview that Jones gave to the BBC. Of course, delving into the article itself, it’s clear that Professor Jones did not say that there is no global warming since 1995. He says that there is no ’statistically significant’ global warming since 1995. Which still sounds bad.

Unless, of course, you actually read the interview.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

That’s hardly the same as “no global warming since 1995″ and certainly does not represent a “retreat” or a “U-turn.” (For a good primer on statistical significance and what that means, check out this link).

There are several other flagrant misinterpretations of Jones’ statements in the Daily Mail article, as well, but they’re pretty easy to spot simply by comparing the article to the interview and its companion piece.

Heck, reading the Daily Mail, one might come away with the impression that Jones was renouncing the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. To correct that impression, let me just quote one more part of the interview:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Whether you accept the hypothesis of global climate change or not, I’m sure we can all agree that shoddy reporting like the Daily Mail article ought to be repudiated. It’s a deliberate misinterpretation of a fascinating interview (I’d highly recommend reading the interview, though–the reporter asking the questions clearly knows his stuff and it is not a softball).

Frankly, I think this provides an excellent example of why, when it comes to scientific topics, you’re much better off going to primary sources than you are trusting a newspaper reporter.

Popular Science has a rather terrifying article about the ability of neural researchers to actually reconstruct images by scanning brain waves.

For the past 10 years, Gallant has been running a neuroscience and psychology lab at Berkeley dedicated to brain imaging and vision research. He’s one of a few neuroscientists in the world on the verge of unlocking the key to mind reading through brain-pattern analysis using magnetic resonance scans and algorithms. By showing me a series of random photographs and evaluating fMRI readings from my primary visual cortex, Gallant says his technique can reconstruct imagery stored in my brain. His current method takes hours of analysis, but his objective is to hone the technology to the point where it can deduce what people are seeing in real time.

If successful, it could influence the way we do just about everything. Mind-reading machines could help doctors understand the inner worlds of people with hallucinations, cognitive disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder and other impairments. Judges could use them to sneak a look into suspects’ brains by having them reenact the experience and reading their visions. Such machines could also determine whether someone using the insanity defense is faking it, or whether someone claiming self-defense truly feared for his life. On the flip side, the technology raises serious ethical concerns, with critics worrying that it could one day make our private thoughts vulnerable to snoops and hackers.

Obviously, the practical apparatus for this is decades off. But personally, while I’m generally pro-technology as it gets, I can’t help but think that the bad applications of this technology probably markedly outweigh the positive benefits. On the other hand, maybe I’ve just been watching Dollhouse too much.

Image Credit: Mike Gericke

John Briffa reports on an interesting study whose conclusion indicates that a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids, already known to be important in preventing coronary heart disease, may also reduce the incidence of psychosis.

The omega-3 fats led to a statistically significant reduction in risk of individuals progressing to a full psychotic disorder over the course of the study: 4.9 per cent of those taking omega-3 became frankly psychotic compared to 27.5 per cent of those taking placebo. Symptoms associated with psychosis were also reduced and functioning was improved by the taking of omega-3 fats. Adverse events were similar in both groups.

The authors of this study concluded that omega-3 fats “reduce the risk of progression to psychotic disorder and may offer a safe and efficacious strategy for indicated prevention in young people with subthreshold psychotic states”.

Of course, you don’t want to state anything definitive from one study, but the difference in incidence is certainly significant. And, frankly, a higher omega-3 to omega-6 balance in your diet is a good idea, anyway. So if the prospect of better heart health isn’t enough for you to want to improve your omega-3 intake, then perhaps the prospect of not going mad will.

I will say, too, that this has a corrolary interest to my current reading about health and nutrition. It’s pretty well known from late-19th and early 20th century medical records that diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were rare among native populations in Asia and Africa until they began eating a Westernized diet. But one thing I’ve picked up in my reading is that diagnoses of mental illness, compared to the Westernized populations, were also lower. I’ve not seen a hypothesis as to why that is, but perhaps the omega-3/omega-6 balance plays a role.

Incidentally, a great way to get more omega-3s without stomaching a nasty fish oil pill is simply to eat free range chicken, free range eggs, and grass-fed beef. Free range eggs are probably the most cost-effective way. Around my parts, getting a dozen free range eggs versus caged eggs is about $0.60 a dozen–much more cost effective than fish oil. And much tastier, too.

Image Credit: James Jordan

Here’s an interesting paper from the International Journal of Biological Sciences which concludes that rats which are fed a diet of genetically modified corn show a higher degree of organ damage than rats which don’t. Part of the reason why this study is interesting is that the researchers did not themselves conduct the research. Rather, they analyzed the data provided by Monsanto and approved by various governments and subjected them to statistical analysis that they claimed was superior to that of Monsanto’s. Unfortunately, I don’t have the statistics background to judge which method is superior. (For the record, Monsanto’s response to this paper focuses on the statistical analysis, and you can read it here.) However, what I did find interesting was the researchers’ critiques of Monsanto’s methodology:

Only 10 rats were measured per group for blood and urine parameters and served as the basis for the major statistical analyses conducted. In addition, the investigators claimed that OECD guidelines and standards were followed. For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated). There were also two comparative control groups fed diets containing similar quantities of the closest isogenic or parental maize variety. Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design. A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control. In addition, no data is shown to demonstrate that the diets fed to the control and reference groups were indeed free of GM feed.

[...]

The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. For example, concerning the statistical power in a t test at 5%, with the comparison of 2 samples of 10 rats, there is 44% chance to miss a significant effect of 1 standard deviation (SD; power 56%). In this case to have a power of 80% would necessitate a sample size of 17 rats. Therefore, the statistical power is insufficient in these studies to allow an a priori dismissal of all significant effects. Indeed, this is true overall with the amplitude of the effects that can usually be observed within three months, in the case of usual chronic toxicity appearing after one year of treatment.

[...]

Moreover, to select significant results, they only contrasted the data sets from the 33% GM maize feeding groups (for NK 603 and MON 810) with all reference groups. Moreover, their biological interpretation of statistically significant results differs from case to case. In particular, sex differences were frequently used to reject pathological significance, despite the fact that this was without measuring effects on sex hormone levels. They also used the lack of linear dose-related effects, which is almost inevitable given that only two feeding doses were measured, to declare the diet as safe, as proposed for MON 863 GM maize. In the MON 863 experiments, the authors still failed to apply their declared methodology, which was slightly different. The ANOVA and contrast analysis (33% GM feeding dose versus controls) were in this case the determining criteria for evaluation of statistical significance, but only if the mean of the 33% GM feeding group was outside the range of the mean of the reference cohorts. All this increases noticeably the risks of false negative results.

In other words, according to the researchers, there were four primary problems with Monsanto’s study: (1) The sample sizes were in adequate; (2) There was no indication that the controls were true controls; (3) The study period of 90 days was too short to ascertain toxicity; and (4) Results appeared to be rejected by Monsanto without adequate justification.

Of course, it’s impossible for me to evaluate whether the authors claims are true because I don’t have access to Monsanto’s raw data: nobody does. Additionally, in their response to this paper, Monsanto does not respond to the methodological claims, so I don’t know what their justificaiton for this setup is. Which is not really Monsanto’s fault. For a number of legal reasons, Monsanto opens itself up to allowing proprietary information to be stolen by competitors if they publish their research data. That’s obviously not in their best interest. But it’s the law that opens them up to that risk, not some nefarious conspiracy.

For my own part, I don’t have anything against the genetic modification of crops for pest control and/or health reasons. I do, however, think that such crops need to be adequately tested before they are released into the market, and those tests should be conducted independently of the company marketing the product. I don’t know if the criticisms leveled by this article are correct or not. I can’t know, because the data isn’t transparent. That’s a real problem, and the government needs to provide a solution.

[For those interested in looking at this further, there's some pretty good discussion of this study (including the reputation of the journal itself) in the comments at BoingBoing.]

Image Credit: jimmedia

The traditional story of the building of the great Egyptian pyramids is that they were built by armies of slaves. For those who get their history from Cecil B. DeMille, it’s often thought that these slaves were Jewish. However, recent research indicates that the builders of the pyramids may have been private contractors, instead.

Evidence from the site indicated the approximately 10,000 workers who built the pyramids had eaten 21 cattle and 23 sheep sent to them daily from farms in the Delta and Upper Egypt, said Dr Hawass.

This would suggest the farmers who sent the animals were not paying their taxes to the Egyptian government, but were sharing in one of Egypt’s national projects, he added.

The workers were employed for three-month stints, and the tombs, which date from the 4th and 5th Dynasties (2649-2374 BC), were for those who died during construction.

The authorities have long fought what they call the “myth” of slaves building the pyramids, saying it undermines the skill involved in their construction, and the sophistication of ancient Egypt’s civilisation.

This is just utterly fascinating to me. The history of Ancient Egypt is, sadly, something I don’t know enough about. I will say this though–I’m probably the only one, but this story prompted my memory of the story in Genesis which states how Egypt turned from a society of free laborers into a centrally-planned proto-feudal serfdom. It was all because of God’s chosen, Joseph, the son of Israel who became Prime Minister of Egypt.

There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is used up.”

“Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock.

When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”

So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”

“You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”

There you go, folks. Biblical support for the nationalization of agriculture and a 20% gross income tax…

Image Credit: Swamibu