The Drunken Philosopher #4: The "what if" for the night

Time for another random train of thought that crossed my mind in the middle of the night:
Suppose there is another planet on which the ecology was not carbon-based. Since oil is a direct byproduct of cellular decay of carbon-based organisms, what sorts of energy sources might they have come up with in its absence?  In addition, since much of our technology has been driven by the development of plastics (which are synthesized from oil), how differently would their technology have evolved with the use of different materials in their stead?
It also occurs to me that there are many substances and chemicals which exist on our planet, which we do not have an immediate use for.  In the case of an ecology for which the entire fundamental basis of composition for its organisms is vastly different from our own, would it not be fair to assume that some of the chemicals for which we have no use, or which may even be harmful to us, may conversely be essential to some other form of life?
Recall that there are many environs even on our own planet within which organisms from the same roots as ourselves have adapted heightened senses or entirely different senses altogether from what we are capable of using; how stimuli imperceptible to us are perceived by these other organisms is naturally not fully understood by us (as the saying goes, "it's like trying to describe a color to someone who never had sight").  Imagine now the advances we may have been able to have made so much sooner, or even the technology we do have which would be obsolete, if we could even do something as simple as seeing infrared or x-rays; or the music we could create with another few octaves of sound to work with... let alone how we could have developed sociologically with something even more "out there" such as telepathy (some fish have an organ which emits a "frequency" used to communicate with one another to coordinate movements underwater, for example.).  Would a species derived from an entirely different set of circumstances from ours even need to develop any form of communication which could be picked up with our scientists' instruments?
We already know that a culture develops along an entirely different path depending on its environment; what if there was some other sense, the nature of which we are not even capable of grasping the concept of, which allowed a culture to perceive some fundamental fact of science or the universe which we are still struggling to figure out; and how differently a society would develop without the need to create myths and legends to explain phenomena the workings thereof seem beyond logical explanation?  Would a social desire for religion even exist, if we developed a sense with which we could witness the energies of life coalescing and dispersing at every birth and death occurrence?

The Drunken Philosopher #3: Religion and Humanity's Significance

Anyone who would doubt the significance of humanity needs only to look upon the history of this world, wherein our species has displayed an absurdly greater mastery of our environment and potential to change the image of an entire planet than any which came before us.
While there exists scientific evidence of our gradual divergence from other, less sophisticated organisms through the process of evolution, nonetheless, this is no reason to assume that our species is not special.  The debate still exists between those who steadfastly believe that the presence of our species is merely a fluke in the ultimate scheme of the universe and that we are destined to merely fade into the void, with our only testament being a background of cosmic noise and space probes which no other sentient species will ever discover, and those who believe that we were placed here by a being on a higher plane of existence, with a purpose of being a sort of "master species" for this planet, with dominance over all lesser species, and in some systems of belief, over eachother as well; until we have reached a point at which we are prepared to join with whatever entity placed us here.  Our unique role in relation to other species of our world is such that at this time, there are compelling arguments in the favor of both sides of this eternal debate of beliefs.  As my beliefs compel me to take a more objective view of the world around me, I have, over the years, come to a different conclusion altogether.
Life is self-purposed.  The primal desire to exist and thrive, the force of evolution, and our free will and intuitive curiosity about the universe are all interconnected.  Life itself is a tenacious survivor; if environmental conditions are such that life begins to struggle, as long as there is a will to continue to exist and the changes are gradual enough, life will nearly always find a way to adapt and survive.  Scientists throughout history have witnessed this self-preservation instinct in even the lowest forms of life; however, the mysteries of life are such that even the most intensive of scientific research cannot pinpoint the exact cause of this basic urge.  To say that it is merely a chemical response system is also debatable, as there have been found microbial lifeforms which never advanced beyond that point, whose chemical composition are vastly different from those of other species, which nonetheless still exhibit the same self-preservation instinct as any other organism of that level of complexity.
That's right, as a species we have managed to split the atom, even collided sub-atomic particles to discover ever smaller objects of matter than current theory holds should even be viably possible to exist within the understanding of physics within this plane of existence... and yet, we still cannot find the source of our desire to exist.
If you are of an open mind, allow me to share my personal theories toward this subject.
Firstly, a common theme throughout nearly all religions is the mystery of the entity which created us.  Some common statements are that (1) we were created in God's image, (2) that no man has ever seen the true face of God, and (3) that God exists in all of us.  We should keep in mind that at the core of nearly every religious conflict throughout our history has been the disagreement over the exact form of our creator... but this directly conflicts with the second point listed above.  How can any side ultimately be proven right if they cannot agree on what should be an inherent truth at the core of their own beliefs?  In addition, with our current understanding of the nature of existence, is it not fair to assume that if something has a finite, perceivable form, that it therefore cannot be omnipresent?  Or, by assuming that the entity we all have come to know as God even has a finite and perceivable form, are we not attempting to suggest that there is a limitation to a being which is understood to be omnipotent?  The most simple conclusion in all of these questions is that what we refer to as God simply has no specific form which we can understand, and presents itself within our physical realm as the desire to exist... and that Yahweh, Allah, and all others are just titles which various human cultures have come up with as a means to identify the exact same thing.  In other words, while one could argue that, as we are currently the most advanced species on the planet, that we are the closest to God's "image," there is still the issue that most cultures' understanding of God is based off of their own cultures' influence;  that, in essence, we have created many Gods in our own image.
Essentially, the conclusion which I have come to is that God is present within our physical realm as the desire for continued existence, which in turn influences the direction of evolution as a means of achieving this goal.  It is an influence on living beings which transcends the physical realm, which gives rise to what we know as souls and our ability to make decisions out of our own unique perspectives regardless of cultural influence.  There should be no reason for the concepts of "free will" and "faith in a higher power" to be mutually exclusive as many people seem to believe; rather, can it not be said that these concepts can not only coexist, but are even one and the same?  Perhaps the scientific evidence of humanity's rapid development from lesser species, the tales of our sudden creationism, and even our desire to explore and expand our frontiers are all, in the end, different means of expressing the exact same ideal.  Our purpose in existence is, above all else, to continue to exist.  This is a desire that is inherent in all living things, which transcends our physical being, even after the physical body has long since been extinguished.

The Empire of the "OhShitPlz" Icon

A few years ago, while bored (as with when the vast majority of more interesting; wouldn't necessarily say "better" ideas come to me), I decided to create a joke account on DeviantArt as part of the "_plz" craze, or for those unfamiliar with the site and its memes, an account created for the sole purpose of using its User Icon as a large Emoticon on the site.
Thus, the OhShitPlz was born.
It was a nearly instant success.  Within roughly a year, it had surpassed my actual account in terms of popularity and pageviews, despite only having three actual items in its gallery; all themed around the icon.  As time passed, there came to be several pieces of fanart making reference to it, which I, of course, added to my Favorites with great pleasure.
A considerable length of time passes; the joke account now has 3 times the pageviews of my true account.  There are even other accounts which are permutations of the original, made by others along the way.  And then, just recently, while doing random searches on a whim I stumbled upon this.
Yes, it would appear that the OhShitPlz's influence has begun to spread beyond the sphere of DA, with a (albeit small) following even on such a major networking site.
Further searches revealed an OhShitPlz account on Photobucket for the utilization of the Emote on an even greater range of sites and forums; even a few hits on Gaia which link back to the original!
Such a wide-reaching propagation of a meme, with the only effort required on my part being a handful of drawings and occasionally logging into the original account on DA in order to interact with its fans.
Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?

The Drunken Philosopher #2: Social Networking Truly Social?

I sometimes wonder if the concept of the traditional "reunion" shall be supplanted by recent advances in online social networking. It does have the obvious advantages of being free and simple to keep touch with others; in addition, Skype and other means of teleconferencing even eliminate the time and travel cost requirements of a genuine face-to-face meeting!
Of course, there is subtle sarcasm in these words.  Essentially, as a society, our newfound social aptitude seems to be, at the same time, making us more socially inept.  Is it not a common perception that we value a meeting by how rare it is; or to quote Thomas Haynes Bayly: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder?"  It's no secret that words, regardless of their significance, lose much of their impact when related via impersonal means.  The ability to share jubilation or commiserate over a life-changing event in person carries with it a certain level of emotional frankness and intimacy which simply cannot be conveyed through mere text; while video communication may seem a suitable surrogate, sometimes such a simple gesture as a hug or a high-five are irreplaceable instruments with which to epitomize a conversation and its meanings.
Maybe I'm just being old fashioned... however, it seems to me that while social networking is an invaluable tool which allows people to maintain bonds with others despite the expanses of distance and time, those bonds are, by necessity of their very nature, generally not as strong as those with genuine personal contact.