18. The smartest people I know

I know many smart people... here's a list of some of the smartest (just because I thought it'd be interesting). Post your own list (but don't include yourself on the list). If you don't want to read the reasons, at least read the names.
If I forgot you, then you're either not on my Facebook list (I browsed through all the names before I finalized this list) or I just don't know you well enough outside of the world of science. Or maybe you'd be in Tier 3 if there was one.

Tier 1

• Dr. Ruth M. Ruprecht, MD, Ph. D, tenured professor at Harvard Medical School (I worked at her lab one summer) - I think her title says it all, but I'll add some more: in addition to completing a full residency and a postdoctoral fellowship, she has helped make significant advances in HIV research and may be currently working on a successful vaccine. And despite her age and the amount of time that she invests in her job, she is still in amazing physical shape and her purse always matches her shoes (or whatever it's supposed to match).
• Dr. Wynn Volkert, Ph. D, tenured professor of medicine/nuclear engineering/medical physics/radiology/radiopharmaceutical sciences/biochemistry/chemistry at Mizzou, head of at least one of those departments... if it has to do with radiation (especially radiation in medicine) and it's going on at Mizzou, then it's not important if Dr. Volkert isn't involved. Full professor since 1981, Curator's Professor since 2000, Director of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences Institute since 1999, Director of Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute since 2001.
• Dr. Jeffrey Phillips, Pharm. D., associate professor at University of Missouri School of Medicine, Director of Department of Surgery - Applied Research (my current boss). Although Dr. Ruprecht and Dr. Volkert have undertaken more mentally-challenging and difficult-to-execute tasks, Dr. Phillips has been more successful at making a difference in the field of medicine. He invented the drug Zegerid (which is already the fastest-acting and most effective acid-reflux drug available and will soon be the top acid-reflux drug on the market) by applying a very simple principle that nobody ever thought to apply. We are now applying another very simple principle to another problem (ventilator-associated pneumonia, which kills around 10% of patients who are on a ventilator)... but this time, since he has funding now, we are trying to show that an outdated procedure can be resurrected by using new technology... and we can save lives by doing it.
  
• Farrukh Sohail Quraishi, MS (Civil Engineering), MBA - My uncle; graduated #1 in his class at the top engineering college in Pakistan; he got into MIT but didn't go for financial reasons. Don't be fooled by the fact that he's a relative... he's one of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet and has a very analytical personality. He makes good decisions more effectively than anybody I've ever met. Plus, he's a great singer.
  
• Karthikeyan Ettigounder Ponnusamy (yes, I had to type it all out) - Just admitted to Hopkins Med School (btw... Karthik, if you read this, congratulations); already has a patent on some random medical device that I don't know much about; got a 1600 on his SAT along with perfect grades in high school and a 37 on the MCAT (unless he re-took it). I actually don't know much about his personality because he never really talked much, but you could tell that he's one of those guys that doesn't talk because he doesn't want people to realize just how smart he is (out of modesty). One of the few people who I might admit is smarter than me.
  
• Matt Watermann - The only person who can consistently change my opinions about issues - I honestly think that he was sent by Satan. As much as I may hate to admit it, he was better than me at chess in high school and although I may be better at math (and thereby anything related to math, i.e. Physics, some chemistry, etc), he seems to be a more well-rounded individual. We both love to discuss historical and current issues, but I think that he's better at that. Another one of the few people who might be smarter than me and still somehow manages to find the time to run three marathons a day and then go lift weights for twelve hours after that.
  Oh, and in case you don't know, I've lived with him for well over a year now.
  
• Nick Dashman - He's a lot like Matt (crazy-smart, modest, athletic)... except instead of a star cross-country runner/chess player, he was an all-conference linebacker. I don't know where he is now; I haven't talked to him since high school.
• Robert J. Fischer - My seventh-grade math teacher - He taught me techniques that my high school calculus teacher didn't know; I attribute a good portion of my successes in life to him. He has turned countless promising students into geniuses.
  
• Honorable mentions:
• Anis Khimani (has a Ph. D. in virology and did his postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard). He definitely deserves to be in Tier 1, but it's hard for any scientist to match Dr. Volkert and Dr. Ruprecht... and Karthik, for that matter.
• Mike Herrmann (teacher at my high school; BS in biology and BA in education) - he could have led a much more "glorious" life as a doctor or a professor, but I think that he does the world a lot of good by teaching promising students how to become good doctors and good resesarchers.
• Tim Morrison (teacher at my high school; BS in biochemistry and BA in education) - another great teacher, can't say any less about him than I can about Mike Herrmann.
• James Whitney (former co-worker at Harvard; has a Ph. D. in virology from McGill University in Canada)
• Ruijiang Song (another Harvard co-worker; Ph. D. in virology from Hopkins)... I don't know them too well beyond the world of science, but they were definitely geniuses.
• Added on 1-27-07 (I don't know why I forgot him before) - Saad T. Siddiqui - One of my cousins... another person that might be smarter than me (might)... but I haven't talked to him much recently.
  

Tier 2
No particular order: Sridhar Kandala (friend from Mizzou), Vasu Polineni (another friend from Mizzou), Dennis Yungbluth (another friend from Mizzou, one of my roommates), Manu ben Johny (friend from high school), Mike Howe (high school chemistry teacher), Srikar Rao (another friend from high school), Josh Jacob (random person I haven't talked to since high school), Emery Cox (another random person from high school), Nick Woodard (friend from high school; I still talk to him), Kevin John (random person from high school... he's on my AIM list, but I rarely talk to him), Dustin Shipp (haven't seen him since high school), Jane Song (another random high school person... I think she's the only woman on the list).

Added to Tier 2 because I forgot them before:
Greg Thompson (from high school)

17. Who would take a bullet for you? Who would you take a bullet for?

I was sitting around talking to Dan (my white brother... not to be confused with Naaim, my brown brother) about his plans to attend police academy, and I got to thinking... what would happen if we were at the pool hall or at Steak'n'Shake or at the chess club (in the Bread Co at the Loop) when somebody held up the place with a gun? If he was a cop, he'd have to take action... but what would I do? Would I face a significant chance of death so that I could reduce his chances of suffering the same fate?
Would he do it for me?
Yes to both questions. Here's what I think (in no particular order); post what your list is. Don't feel bad if I'm not on your list, because most of you probably aren't on mine (no offense, but I'm sure you understand).

• Dan - He's first on the list because he was the person I was talking to when this question popped into my head; no questions asked, he'd do it for me, I'd do it for him.
  
• Naaim - Again, no questions asked.
• Talal - I'm the oldest of my cousins and Talal is #2. He was the first best friend that I ever had (when I was 6 months old and he was just born), but we've grown farther apart over the years as our interests and our goals diverge. I think that if he were to put himself in harm's way to save me, it would be just as much an attempt to be a hero as it would be to protect me. If it were a split-second, reflex-action sort of thing, I don't think he'd do it (although I would).
  
• Saad - Saad is #3 on the list of cousins by age (9 months younger). I was always closer to Talal (because Saad moved to Saudi Arabia when I was about 5, and when he came back to Pakistan, I quickly migrated to the US), but it seems that I was always more similar to Saad in terms of interests and core values, and we seem to be converging in every way. I would have to say that he would take a bullet for me in a heartbeat and I'd do the same for him... but if he had to choose between me and one of his brothers (or if I had to do the same thing), I'm pretty sure we'd each choose our brother.
• All four of my grandparents - They are getting old, but if they ever had the opportunity, they would gladly give their life to make sure that I could live mine.
• My uncle Tausif, my aunt Cyma, my uncle Ahson, my aunt Rubina, and maybe my uncle Arsalan (all on my dad's side) - The first three and the last one are my dad's brothers/sisters... aunt Rubina is his sister-in-law. Since I was the first one born on this side of the family, they all think of me as a son... they would never think twice about taking a bullet for me. I would be inclined to do the same for any of them, but I know that they wouldn't want me to (since I'm younger and I have more years ahead of me)... so I don't know if I would (but that's only because I thought about it in advance... if I hadn't written this post, I would have taken a bullet for any of them without thinking twice).
• Any relative on my mom's side - There is no question in my mind that any of my mom's brothers or sisters would take a bullet for me and that I would take a bullet for any of my mom's nephews or nieces (my cousins). As much as I'd like to say the same about her siblings, the same goes for them as for my father's siblings... I don't think that any younger relative should ever do something like that for an older person.
• My parents - no-brainer there... they'd do it for me, and as much as I'd like to do it for them, the same goes as above.
• The President of the USA (whoever it may be at the time) - that'd probably fetch me a Congressional Medal of Honor and an automatic citizenship. Plus, I'd do anything to stop Dick Cheney from becoming President (even if it means taking a bullet for Dubya).
• I probably forgot to mention a few people... but that's only because it's late at night (or early in the morning) and I'm starting to get bored with this. And some people are still in the interim stage where they're not quite there yet.
  

What is your list?

16. Zambian Infant #1157... the cure for depression

Everybody occasionally feels depressed. Relationships... school... work... family... there is a plethora of reasons. You may be overwhelmed with more tasks than you have time for... or you may be struggling with a core belief in your basic life philosophy... or you may be upset because no way exists for you to get 7 hours of sleep tonight.

So what do you do? Well, every single time I feel that life has been treating me unfairly... I promptly see a picture of Zambian Infant #1157.

I worked with a sample from Zambian Infant #1157 when I was doing HIV resesarch at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The sample was modified and a strain (known as SHIV1157) was produced... and whenever anybody talked about SHIV1157 or its derivatives, they thought of a virus. I'm not sure if anybody knew where the virus came from or why it was numbered as it was... I imagine that there were 2000 infants in a study and the 1157th one had an interesting viral strain.

Zambian Infant #1157, last time I checked, was 6 or 7 years old and still alive, battling HIV. He is one of the few infants born with HIV who manages to survive beyond a year or two. And his parents probably consider themselves lucky because he gets good medical care because he has such a unique viral strain.

Zambian Infant #1157, an impoverished child who was born with HIV, is lucky. He is still alive at age 7 and his viral strain is used wordlwide in HIV research.

So what is unlucky in Zambia? And who am I to be upset about my bad stroke of luck?

I look to the right at the PowerBook that I recently convinced my boss to upgrade to a MacBook Pro, I look to the left at the Ford Taurus that I hate because it is one of the few cars that succeeds in mixing bad power with bad gas mileage, and I look above my head at the projector that I complain about because I don't have cable and can't watch the Cardinals play 162 times every year.

Until the day that I can't afford to eat and my son is born with HIV, I am in no place to complain.

15. Death-defying feats... does Steve Irwin classify as a tragedy?

A variety of "tragic" events will, unfortunately, occur throughout time. 16-year olds will be involved in car accidents, oblivious HIV-positive mothers in Subsaharan Africa will give birth to infected offspring, and occasionally, terrorists will blow themselves up, and occasionally, somebody will be stung in the heart by a stingray.

Which of these things is not like the others? Simple IQ test question.

I think this group is more fitting: occasionally, somebody will fall off of a motorcycle during a "death-defying" stunt... or somebody who has a lot of unprotected homosexual sex will be diagnosed with HIV... or a member of the bomb squad will blow himself up... or a crazy Australian (who likes to feed wild crocodiles while carrying his infant child) will, after surviving a thousand instances of disturbing dangerous wild animals in their natural habitats, be stung in the heart by a stingray.

I liked Steve Irwin and I was as upset about his death as any average American... but I just want to remind people of the old idiom: "you play with fire, you wind up burned"... "you play with stingrays, you wind up stung."

At least he can serve as a posthumous example of what NOT to do (for kids). Don't play with crocodiles and stingrays... because if you do, they'll eventually kill you.

14. The end of consistency

Maybe I am more emotional than a man should be, maybe I am the worst carnivore ever, maybe I am simply the weak offspring of two strong parents. But after three years of raising a fish, you get attached.

They weren't just any fish... these fish stuck with me through thick and thin, through richer and poorer, through happy and sad; they are the only thing in my life that has been consistent over these years that have been so volatile. There has been depression and rebirth, there have been destructive moments and refreshing ones, there have been regrets and endeavors, but the fish have been swimming, as always, in the 10-gallon tank. There has been heartbreak and recovery, there have been mistakes and good decisions, and there have been countless episodes of Scrubs, but the fish don't go away after 100 episodes; they simply swim around the 10-gallon tank and eat whatever fish food is sent their way.

But, as with any other trend, this consistency had to come to an end. The fish had become far larger than what is recommended for a 10-gallon tank, so I was forced to acquire a new, larger tank. My roommates and my friends and I were excited to supply the new tank with a filter, rocks, decorations, and typical functional necessities, but we went one step too far... a new algae-eating fish from Walmart to keep the tank clean, unlike the previous tank. We transferred the fish to the new tank; little did we know that the Walmart fish was, like many other Walmart fish, infected. It did not take long for it to die, and my fish followed soon after.

I stared at those sick fish for hours; I know that fish don't supposedly feel emotion, but I don't think I've ever seen them so sad. They flocked together as long as they were all reasonably healthy and then the smallest one quarantined itself. I bought some water treatments that were supposed to cure them, but I couldn't save any of them; over the course of the next two or three days, they were all gone.

I know, they're just fish, but I've been dreaming about them. I had a dream that I never took the last one to die out of the tank and that it was magically cured. But then the cured one turned out to be the ghost of the sick fish; the original fish still floated at the top of the tank. I was excited for a second.

Goodbye fish; may you rest in peace.

13. Resurrection of this Blog

This blog has seen no new posts for the past three and a half months. I would like to attribute this to the fact that I have had nothing to write about.

The reason why I have had nothing to write about is, in case you haven't noticed, that my blog posts have been progressively more and more serious and profound. My first posts were jokes (literally), but I eventually began to write about trends in education, sociology, science, and, finally, religion.

My latest post, which required the reader to choose between a belief in God and a belief in a total lack of human conscious control over anything, was probably the most profound thought that has ever entered my mind. I made the claim that any atheist must believe that every universal occurrence is the result of a certain molecular interaction and that these interactions will occur in a given way, no matter what. Therefore, atheists believe that no matter what, we will make the same decisions and the outcome of the world will be the same; whether or not this is true, I doubt that most atheists realize that by claiming that there is no supernatural power in the world, they are stating that there is no form of "human" control over the world.

I found it difficult to write something more profound than this. Therefore, I just wrote nothing. Starting today, I will start writing again... regardless of how deep of an issue I am writing about.

12. Randomness, Predestination, and God

All physical forces can be explained and predicted using particle physics. Any chemical reactions, genetic conjugations, and simple human decisions are possible to predict with perfect precision by a powerful computer with a working knowledge of every physical force in the universe. There is no such thing as "random"... all of our decisions are governed by electrical pulses and all environmental factors are governed by photons of determinable wavelength and by interatoic interactions with calculable forces and momenta.

Scientists in every field use the concept of "randomness" to avoid calculating all of these factors (which, of course, is practically impossible) when the factors can be simply replaced by statistics. When such statistics are accepted, results will traditionally vary from expected results due to "randomness" or the "standard deviation."


So, if randomness is not truly random and can be explained by physical forces, then is everything in the world predestined?


Most people will be inclinded to say "no." But why not? You like to think that you are in control of your life? Me too.

But everything in my life can be explained by a physical force. Everything can be predicted by a very advanced science whose surface has yet to be skimmed. So yes, I am in control of my life, but electrons and photons are in control of me.

Then who am I?

Am I a creation of God or a product of evolution? Or both?

If I am not a creation of God, then the world is controlled by physical principles and not by independent thinking. If you are not a creation of God, then you are merely an amalgamation of subatomic particles which work together to do things... not only are you not in control, but "you" do not even exist. Your mind is just a collection of neurons that is only different from other minds becuse of slight differences in the neurons. You are nothing more than particles that do not differentiate you from anybody else. And these particles will interact in the same way with their surroundings no matter what you decide - because they control your "decisions."

If I am a creation of God, then He provided me with a soul that cannot be explained by physical means. I can make decisions because He gave me free will and I can control my fate.

Why? I don't know. I don't really care. All that matters is that if I am a creation of God, then I am in control of my life. If I am a creation of God, then I can make decisions. I can control my neural impulses because I exist as more than just a product of these impulses.

So is the concept of randomness truly nonexistent? Does everything in the world occur with a precise plan?

Or do we have some control?

11. Evolution: Mathematically Possible

Many people argue that evolution, notwithstanding all evidence found by science, simply doesn't make sense. How can a bacteria, they say, simply become a human, even if it has a billion years to do it? How did homo habilis suddenly decide to "get taller" one day and "evolve" into modern man?

I will not devote a great deal of time here to natural selection; it is clear that, if a mutation in an individual organism is a favorable one, that organism will live on and reproduce. The organisms I will use in this pseud0-proof are two HIV strains that I work with on a daily basis, HXB2 and 93TH253; more specifically, I will talk about a gene known as the "RT gene" (if you are some form of biologist, I apologize for the oversimplification). I chose these two strains solely because I know a lot about them and I can probably answer any questions; these strains are no more adequate in proving my point than any other two strains.

HXB2 comprises a major branch on the HIV "family tree" (a.k.a. the phylogenetic tree, for those of you who know a little bit about genomics). It was first found in France in 1983, and a great deal of humans is now infected with one of the many mutated variations of HXB2.

One of these mutated variations, 93TH253, was found in 1993 in Thailand. The RT gene of this strain has well over 90 mutations, which comprises over 10% of the gene. Therefore, let's be safe and say that IT IS POSSIBLE for 10% of a gene in a simple organism to mutate within ten years.

Now let's assume that in only 20% of cases (1 out of 5) will this 10% change in a gene result in a 5% increase in gene size (this is, again, a very safe estimate) while the other 80% of cases will either result in insignificant size changes or a decrease in size.

Therefore, in ten years, a gene has a 20% chance of increasing in size by 5%.
Take 20% of 5% (equals 1%).
So, in ten years, a gene may very plausibly increase in size by 1%.
So, in ten years, a gene's size may plausibly increase to 101% (1.01 times) its original size.
If this is true, in a mere thirty thousand years, a gene's size can increase to 9 trillion (9,000,000,000,000) times its original size. After thirty thousand more years, it will be 9 trillion times that amount (81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

The human genome is about 3 trillion bases long and took over a billion years to create.

The human genome is one-third the size and took over thirty thousand times as long to create as this theoretical genome.

30,000 / (1/3) = 90,000.

Therefore, by this interpretation, there is a 1/90,000 chance that these calculations are incorrect and that evolution is, as a matter of fact, impossible.


Remember that all of these calculations are approximations and are not 100% correct... the actual probability may be 1/60,000 and it may be 1/120,000.

10. Writer's Block

What do you do when you have writer's block? I'm in the mood to write (I'm sitting in class and, therefore, I have nothing better to do) but I can think of absolutely nothing to write about. I have plenty of opinions, but none that you care about. I mean, what could it mean to you if Punjabi groundsmen seem to be preparing horribly draw-oriented batsmen's pitches in their cricket stadiums? Why would you care if I just finished taking a final exam that I postponed because I was going to Pakistan?

And there are plenty of things that readers care about, but I really don't want to write about them. If I poured out my opinions on P.Diddy & Jennifer or Nick & Jessica or Ben & Jennifer or Brad & Jennifer or Brad & Angelina or Tom & Angelina or Tom & Katie or Aishwariya & the guy from Masti or whoever the hot new couple is in Hollywood or Bollywood (forgive me if one of the couples I mentioned is broken up by now), then I'm sure I'd have plenty of readers. And readers would leave comments like "yeah... Nick and Angelina would make such a cute couple!!!! Nick's so hot!!!! I wish I was Jessica!!!! heehee giggle giggle!!!! I don't have the capacity to challenge myself in my own life, so I like to worry about other people's lives!!!!"

I apologize to whoever is currently reading this for killing a couple of your brain cells.

9. Evolution and Science Education

Scott Adams (the genius who draws Dilbert cartoons and writes a pretty damn good blog) recently made a post his blog (click here to see it) that concerns how he knows nothing about evolution, but believes it because scientists -- his specific example mentioned microbiologists -- say that it must be true. He basically said that a person who is vehemently opposed to the concept of evolution would make a "crappy microbiologist."

As a religious microbiologist, I was delighted that he mentioned that issue. No reasonable microbiologist can deny the concept of evolution; a plethora of microbiology experiments not only rely on evolution as background information, but also validate the fact that it happens. Even as I type this post, I am sitting in the lab and waiting for the results of such an experiment.

Mutations happen in every species; this is undeniable. Even in humans, every person has unique characteristics that define the difference in their respective genomes. Larger distinctions exist in populations that were isolated from one another for thousands of years, as evidenced by the clear variations in genetic traits between East Asians, South Asians, Africans, Europeans, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans. When we go a little bit farther back in time and get a little bit broader in the spectrum of life, clear variations exist in genetic traits between chimpanzees, humans, and the various other members of the ape family. The question is, "have we had enough time for our genomes to change from a bacterial genome to a monkey genome?"

Whether or not evolution gave rise to us the way we are today, I can guarantee you (based on experiments that I have performed with my own two hands) that evolution does, as a matter of fact, happen. Maybe the world was made as it is today and evolution started afterwards (although a paleontologist would kick me for saying that), but evolution is happening right now for all scientific purposes.

Typically, the main reason why we care about history is to learn how to handle the future. We only really care about evolution because (notwithstanding the "curiosity" factor) understanding evolution helps us plan future scientific experiments in, among other fields, microbiology. Therefore, whether or not evolution happened in the past, all that really matters is that it's happening now.

Anyway, my point is that for all practical purposes, it shouldn't matter whether evolution happened. We should still learn about it in school because, even if it's not true, it's a great guide for experiments. If you choose not to believe in it, that's fine, but remember that it can explain all physical principles and its validity can be assumed for any study. So, even if you believe that evolution didn't happen, keep in mind when you're planning some form of study that evolution is happening now (take my word for it) and, assuming that recorded history wasn't simply fabricated, has been happening for all of recorded history.

But if you do care about history, then stay tuned...

COMING SOON, TO A BLOG NEAR YOU:
Shan uses a mathematical proof (involving probabilities) to determine whether evolution in history is plausible.

8. Trust

I generally attempt to be laid back and accept the world as it is. However, there are a few things that bother me to the extent that I am probably developing a brain tumor just by thinking about it. I don't have many of these pet-peeves, but here is all that I can think of:

1. Lies
2. People accusing me of lying
3. Murder
4. Stubbornness

As an honest man, I would like to advocate a provision that requires a form of lie detector to be affixed to everybody. This would easily solve many of the problems aforementioned. Although I have occasionally done something to lose an element of trustworthiness, I would be delighted if I had hard evidence to prove every correct statement I made.

I fail to understand why people must accuse me of lying, especially about subjects where I have nothing to gain from lying. So, I would like to hereby formulate this new philosophy:

Choose to either trust a person or to not trust a person, and be very selective about who you trust. If you trust a person:
1. Believe everything they say, and:
2. Expect from them what they expect from themselves; applaud them when you get more, chastise them when you get less.
If you do not trust a person:
1. Believe only what is believable, but:
2. Expect nothing from them; applaud them when you get more and chastise them only if they hurt you.


By following these simple guidelines, a person will be affected much less adversely by the actions of others.

Post comments to this blog if you disagree or if you have suggestions; trust and truth are topics that I love to hear others' opinions about.

7. A Prick in Perfection

We, as human beings, are always striving for perfection. We want the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect family. In this quest, however, few succeed in any of their aspirations for even a short period of time.
Many people, including myself until recently, say that you should aim high if you want to come near your goal. Nevertheless, I would like to hereby make a case against the strife for perfection on these grounds:

The navigator on a journey to perfection will be most deeply hurt by an imperfection when the journey is nearly complete.

The perfect job or the perfect partner or the perfect family is, of course, unattainable; many people are simply trying to get as close to it as possible. The navigator of a ship on its journey to perfection will learn when he nears his destination that in the land of perfection, any small imperfection in the ship can cause it to sink.

When a situation is in a perfect state, it cannot tolerate any misgivings. Anything that happens that is less than expected will be devastating. A family of people who hates each other will be relatively unaffected if one of the cousins becomes a wanted criminal; however, a "perfect" family will become distraught if one of the cousins fails to graduate from medical school.

When a near-perfect state is attained, the attainers are clearly very capable of maintaining such a state. However, the negative influence will come from outside rather than inside. Not only can one bad girlfriend or wife or boyfriend or husband can destroy a person's interactions with their perfect family, but collections of militant tribes has succeeded multiple times in destroying the potency of an entire empire (as with the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Mongols, Alexander's empire, the British Empire, and a multitude of others). The founder of the "perfect" state may be spared, but the perfection itself will find its way into a tailspin.

A state of near-perfection can be maintained only in an isolated society; once outside influences become involved, the innocent inhabitants of the perfect society are exposed to the rest of the world and are rarely able to maintain their perfection. They will instead fall into the clutches of temptation and, as many wealthy families can attest to, will annihilate the hard work of their predecessors in less than a generation's time.