December 2008 Archives

Since when have beards been news?

I flicked on ITV news this morning only to be confronted by some unrecogniseable author telling the anchors that beards are pure vanity and Prince William shouldn't be allowed to grow one. Of course this chap didn't have a speck of hair on his tubby face, and I'm willing to bet that if he did decide to grow some facial foliage he would end up looking like a toddler who has got hold of a Biro and scribbled randomly across its chin.

I myself sport a beard which ranges from quite carefully tended and trimmed to, more often than not, fairly untamed and bushy. I do not see this as an act of vanity, if anything it is laziness which buys me five extra minutes in bed each morning, but since growing a beard I have been amazed by the number of people who have felt the need to pass comment on it.

Facial hair has become so naff in the eyes of the general public that people can actually raise money by letting their inner primate out. My friend recently participated in 'Movember', a charity event which originated in Australia, where men are sponsored to grow a moustache during the eleventh month. But if you think about it participants are actually receiving money for being lazier than usual, as they have a whole lip-worth of face which they no longer have to regularly shave.

It seems strange that something which is essentially a natural part of life can actually go so out of fashion, to the extent that people seem surprised if anyone under the age of about 40 grows some chin cover, and now the heir to the throne has decided to bin his Mach 3 it is actually making headlines.

What will outrage the media next? "Harry in hat-wearing scandal"? "Revealed: Camilla wears contact lenses!"? It's ridiculous that we are actually using time which is supposed to be for news to discuss whether it's a good idea for the little prince to experiment with five o'clock shadow.

I realise the irony of complaining about something not being newsworthy then dedicating a whole blog to it, but as a militant beard-wearer I thought someone had to speak up. I don't care if it is no longer the mode, facial hair now has the royal seal of approval and all I can say is leave beardies alone!

I love science, but I hate scientists.

I know this is a sweeping generalisation, but I spent four years of my life at Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology, surrounded by the analytic autistics, and I'm afraid it has tainted my views in a way that can't be remedied.

I was reminded of the reason I most dislike members of the scientific fraternity today when I read this article on the BBC news website.

Science is a beautiful thing, it contains incredible revelations, such as the fact that all known matter is made up of only 118 elements, and uncovers even greater mysteries, such as the double slit experiment, which shows that light can act like both a particle and a wave.

The problem is the people who tend to research science are, by definition, scientists. Now I'm sure there are a few good egg scientists out there who can empathise with people's feelings and recognise things outside their own work as being important. The problem is that in the academic world these people are probably not very good scientists.

Apart from a small group of my close friends (I know that I would say that, but remember that birds of a feather drink heavily together) almost everyone who I encountered at Imperial fell into the category of bad scientists.

These people are not malicious, or in any way stupid, but what they are is blind to humanity. They are the kind of people who could be talked into designing a bomb which could destroy the universe for the sake of the challenge, and then be suprised when someone actually builds it.

Everything in the world of scientists has to be rationalised - there is a theory that if you knew the position and direction of every particle in the universe you could map out the future. But where does that leave humanity and the concept of free will?

The above article angered me because it is part of this whole school of thinking that says love is nothing more than synapses flashing in our brain, predictable human behaviour, part of our internal programming to make sure we procreate and the species survives. Who is anyone to tell us that our ideas of romantic love are delusional? That there is no such thing as love at first site?

Why can't people be allowed to believe in magic, even if they are wrong? Why does everything have to be explained? Why shouldn't we hold out for someone we believe is perfect for us and who seems to be able to read our mind?

And the worst of it is that once again the good old media get the blame. This time for spreading an unachievable view of the romantic ideal.

But if you look at it I think it is the exact opposite - the media and advertising have been killing the idea of true love for ages. Open any fashion magazine and you will see airbrushed pictures of the beautiful folk wearing £1,000 dresses or cufflinks studded with diamonds, with vacuous unemotional looks in their eyes.

Television tells us we must all be on the property ladder and decorate our homes with IKEA cupboards and eggshell paint. No longer are relationships supposed to be about feelings, but instead financial security, desirable possessions and superficial looks.

Now I'm not saying it is wrong to chose this path, I'm just saying I wish modern life wasn't quite so accepting of it, with pre-nuptial agreements and online wedding gift lists.

Like a kind of emotional X-Files, I want to believe, I think there is one person out there for me and I'm not going to settle until I find that person. In the meantime I'm off to watch the Princess Bride, a film which features giants, miracle workers, true love and pirates, but no scientists...