Friday, December 7, 2018

Kant, Well...

Kant had something he called the categorical imperative; something we just need to do always. He had a test, and most employment generally fails that test. We should always do things that are ends in themselves, not just a means to an end. Most employment is just a means to obtain money. If you doubt that, well just consider what you would do if you became a lottery winner... Most would not continue. So the concept of work fails Kant's test to ethical behavior. Now the question becomes is Kant's test right or is it the test that is wrong?

Kant had three tests; the first was reciprocity or universality. It is unclear to me at this point if he thought something needed to pass all three or just one of the three. If he thought it needed to pass all three, he is out to lunch, for there would be little left. A pass on one leaves little enough. 

Ideally we would all like to be doing something that we enjoy; it makes the time go fast. Few have that much. Even when we enjoy our jobs, there will be parts that suck and we do not enjoy. When the job changes, and the computer takes away the part we enjoy, we may need to make changes. Advancement may also take away the part we enjoy... now what? Oh well, in the end we just die. Pucker up, butter cup.

But Kant oversteps, I think. Oh well. Doing our duty, as long as our duty is ethical, is just fine. Perhaps.

Ethics needs to respond to the issues of the time. We live in an overpopulated time, so abortion, birth control, are right for survival. A hundred years ago, we were a species with issues, so these would have been wrong, even if they were possible at that time. Ethics are relative. It would therefore be unethical to provide fertility assistance, but what about vaccinations, and medical aid? We need to look at each ethical decision as a decision, there is nothing objective, all is subjective.

We need to tolerate others. We do not need to tolerate wrong beliefs, and teaching of hatred, or violence. That is what religions like Islam and Christianity do. We should be eliminating this as permitted behavior. But this is just opinion, and is this really the time; I think it is, for if not now, when?

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Humans are Doomed

Our fate is sealed. The carbon dioxide cycle continues at a slightly faster rate, but our carbon dioxide production grows faster. Spaceship earth will become a carbon dioxide death trap, with no escape, except for perhaps a few that can breath well enough to live in a high Co2 atmosphere. After the population drops, plants will take up that Co2 and lock it back into fixed carbon, and the next species of homo can do this all again. That is reality folks. As we die off, oh well. We all die off, and nature will take care of earth, not humans. We humans can make our own way, individually, or as small groups, or as a population, if we have leaders, educators, and enough courage to learn.

Ethics, doing what is right to do, even when it is not easy, must be the foundation of going forward from here. This must be founded on survival as a species, or at least the foundation for the next species, which is more likely, as we animals are always in transition, the examples we have are also in transition, until failure of the line occurs, and sooner or later, it always does, or has in the past. We humans have caused the extinction of many species. Oh well, in the end we just die anyway. Death is always with us, looking back, it always has been. We can choose to ignore death, until it grabs us, or we can look at it and understand it; it is the end of life. Where does the light go when you  turn out a lamp? Life is similar, life is, death is just not life. Life has value, death not so much. We, as individuals are doomed.

Ethics likely came to humans before religions grabbed on to them, and tried to upgrade them. We need to go back and understand the foundations, we want to live, flourish and prosper. To do that, we need cooperation of all humans, so the contract of reciprocity, equality, symmetrical treatment, whatever we call it, was developed. Historically we saw this with the Indians in North America in the Six Nations. Historically the nations states of Athens and Sparta started in a big way. We can surmise  similar happened elsewhere, and once peace is established, we just forget and carry on in flourishing. Occasionally there is an issue, and a civil war occurs, but the problem is resolved, and we carry on. But there is no easy solution for flourishing too well.

First, to keep the peace, we need to prevent any group from teaching hatred and violence to their young. That means we must give up hatred and violence. Not going to happen in the foreseeable. Humans are therefore doomed. Oh well. Equality must be enacted at the same time. And to help with the population control, a one child policy until the Co2 comes under control. Population needs to decrease to something like 1/2, oil production to 1/5, coal to 1/3, long term to match Co2 production and absorption. Oh well. Population controls everything, if we have the will.

Greed drives humans. That is a biological fact that can be observed in free living humans everywhere. We like comfort, ease, security, heat, light, and will tolerate some work, exertion, and the like when conditions are right. This work, effort must be ethically driven. Religions may have been the first way to try to force the non compliant into line. Perhaps we religion, but without any gods. Reason based religion to develop society. Starting with the foundation of ethics, through reciprocity, flourishing, to satisfactions. We currently admire run-a-way success, but this also needs to be capped... somehow. Some sort of succession duty, wealth redistribution, or the like. 


Sunday, December 2, 2018

The Unwilling

Steven Novella, religions and other groups display a logical facility type failure that is not often talked about, the unwillingness to look at the evidence, to understand the implication, and to even consider the possibility that the evidence is correct. Consider the vaccination/autistic issue.

What do we know about autism? It is a early development issue that strikes a few children in developed nations; the frequency increases with time and/or development. The frequency of autism seems to be lower in areas where vaccination is less, but in those areas development may also be lagging. We also know that it occurs in children that have closer column spacing and more neurons per column than average; as dyslexia occurs in people with larger than average spacing and fewer neutrons, but only of a few of such children. There must therefore be one more factor, something like an epicgenetic switch that is either on or off, or an allergy/hyper sensitivity that selects individual children. The columnar spacing is a genetic, nutritional, structural that becomes fixed or fully defined by about 18 months of age. What ever the cause, it is in the first 18 months and/or during gestation. This applies to both autism and dyslexia.

People like Steven Novella do not get this, or do not accept this. It is just unwillingness to believe the evidence, and argue, just unwilling to accept the known information.

Vaccinations upset some children considerably, they are often irritable, have minor fever, but nothing helps to settle the child. It is always anecdotal, occasionally with a medical report that shows a mild temperature and little else. Now a child receives some 23 vaccinations before age two. All this does not mean a autistic child, however, it is likely an environmental cause in addition to an hypersensitive/clergy to something in there environment. Vaccinations are one of the potential factors that needs to be explored further, along with other environmental possibilities.

The mothers diet is also a potential factor, as vegans seem to have a higher frequency of autism. It is noted that many if not all autistic children have digestion/gut issues as well. Some find relief by picky eating, totally avoiding some foods, milk, gluten and/or wheat, eggs/ meats, greens, whatever.

So why the reluctance to consider the possibility Mr. Novella? Why the reluctance to consider the facts? Unwillingness to look at the facts is just one more logical facility.

This same reluctance to look at the evidence shows up in climate change deniers, the religious, the emotional, and other places. 

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle describes the flow of carbon. We can put mass numbers to many parts and it show how much trouble we humans are in. It has not silently slid up on us, but few are willing to take action, likely because it is going to force big change on us.

We humans are so good at reproducing that there are now 7.7billion of us. The carbon cycle shows failure started with 3.0 billion. (~1960) We are now severely overpopulated, and the crunch is coming soon. No one is taking action. Oh well, we are a species in transition, going through a boom and die off cycle. We are about to go into a die off phase, the survivors will found the next species. Oh well.

All I can do is to continue, as I will soon die off anyway. That and taxes is about all we can be certain of.

The skeptics of this; there are many, will come to understand in old age. Oh well. One child policy is our best hope, but the religious will not listen because they have given up logic. It is logic that is the great hope; but after the logic comes decision, and then action. And decision and action are not always driven by logic... or economy. If it is not right, the price does not matter. If there are two choice, the cheaper or easier may not be the best one, but that is what our government and so many will select. It does not matter, it is only money.

Carbon Tax in a political concept that generates revenue for the government and has little effect on the carbon demand. It is a tax, not a strong solution to the problem. No one is willing to take the first step, that is to outline a plan, teach that plan, implement that plan. It will need to tackle ignorance, non logical thinking, and population growth. One Child policy, is not enough of a cut, but it will be, after we existing die off. It is the only way. Religions need to be removed. Who will do it?   

Monday, November 26, 2018

Asymertical Thinking

 Conformation Bias or is it non-reciprocal or asymmetrical thinking. No, it is I am right, and if you do not agree, then you are just wrong...

Steven Novella

Currently, I am reading The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe which is a lovely book, but it contains some inaccuracies. Yet these same inaccuracies are talked about using some of the same bad argument/ logical failures that he describes.

Circular logic or what? We are biased by our beliefs. We learned these from our culture, education, and we practice these without seeing these for what they are. As Thomas Paine said, to argue with a person who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

When Novella talks about GMO and Autism/vaccinations he never considers that there could be a link; a third condition such as hyper-sensitivity, akin to allergy that only effects a tiny percent of the population. Both cases for are without clear evidence either way; however, there are anecdotes that suggest a correlation. Without allowance for these, he sweeps reality and his arguments under the bus of his ego. We humans are not uniform, like the medical and chemical industry likes to think. Consider allergies as one example.

It is like the useless ass covering medical direction: do not take if you are allergic. You cannot know until you try it... so what value is the statement? It is ass covering removing the liability.    

Asymmetrical thinking comes from not being symmetrical or reciprocal in the study of ethics with no authority foundation. (no god ethics) This is to say that we all want peace, security, economy, stability to live and grow. In order to have this, we need to provide that to others, aka reciprocal conditions to others, or symmetrical conditions, depending on the author. Do to others and you would they do to you sort of thinking, which goes back to and likely before recorded history.

It all does not matter, for in the end we all just die anyway.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Competition vs Aggression

Competition vs Aggression

Is competition a gateway to aggression? I think probably it is one gateway, if control is not developed.

Many people think competition is the greats thing. Bill Gates for one. Others think as I do, like the Quakers, Mennonites, and similar pacifist groups, that competition is the gateway to aggression as they stimulate similar emotions, and those emotions, passions need to be tempered with reason, and that sadly does not always happen. As a result we see aggression occurring, especially when one is not fair, the opponent may express this through violence. This is common in youth, and it is a struggle for coaches, especially when dangerous weapons are in play such as in archery. Life is not fair, and everyone needs to learn that. Many cannot handle success or loss. They are both a problem.

We see hazing occurring in school sports teams, and while that may seem OK, both sides learn that violence is OK. Not good learning for either the hazer, or the hazed. Once again we see competition as the gateway to aggression. There are some who are aggressive that say it is survival of the fittest, but as we see in the US, a gun makes the weak willed dangerous. Not a safe situation. As old Colt said, I created an equalizer.

US nationalism is going to excess and has caused aggression against it's neighbours and the world. In the north of Pakistan, the US has caused somewhere north of 125,000,000,000$ damage in bombing and war raids, killed 75,000, displaced 2,000,000 and the Taliban are as strong as ever. US has provided about 1,300,000,000 in aid, that the US also directs the spends in developing and backing the Pakistan Army. Some infrastructure will remain after the army no longer needs it, but it is built for the army, not the civilian use. And this, the US calls aid. How can they rational expect cooperation? More aggression.

On a human level, addiction has a physical component, and a psychological component, when combined, the human has no reasonable chance of defeating while using. That is the problem, one must get clean and lose the desire to use, before they can have a chance of recovery. They also must never use again, if they wish to stay clean. That is the problem for food addicts, we must eat to live. And to that problem, modern science and the medical profession has no real answer. They say that used as directed, opioids are not a problem, but once addicted, we lose the ability to not use, so the medical people say it is not our problem. They do not take reality into account. This is passive aggression, institutionalized. Addiction is real. And it is the competition, elimination of competition is aggression. It is that I am the best attitude that causes aggression and unreality.

So as we go through a life with failures, we need to keep our spirits up, depression is also real. We need psychological support, too know we are right. Life is unsatisfactory, our thinking is the cause, the solution is to change our thinking. It is not the situation that cause us strife, but our thinking about the situation.Religions provide a thinking for you; Buddhist and Stoics* provide a logical alternative way of thinking. In the end we realize that much of the common wisdom is just wrong; we need to unlearn, and relearn the right thinking in this overpopulated world where every one is selling, many are selling bullshit. We each are on our own; but there is logic to guide us through this restructuring.



 * also include several other early Greek schools in this case.

"They believe peace is achieved by dismissing concepts of ownership, competition, vanity and greed."

Tuesday, November 13, 2018



How does one stay relevant in an over-populated world? Once we accept overpopulation as being real, that is to say that spaceship earth can support perhaps 3.5b peoples long term, based on Co2 absorption capacity, and we are now 7.7b, how does one stay relevant?

Well first our population will clime to I do not know, 10-12 billion, and then the general population will get the idea, Co2 will be 550 to 600ppm, death will be common from just going to sleep without a forced air device.. Now know as a CPAC. Oh well, it is a peaceful way to go. Our population will start to decline... but the decline will be in the industrial areas where life is easier, physically. Those that work hard physically will be those that are better adapted to poor air quality, self selecting, those who are adapted will be the ones who are able to work harder... Humans will survive; but the next species will have better lungs, to be able to live in a high Co2 environment. They will be the next species... new and improved. Perhaps after this version of humans are gone, the earth can return to low Co2, after the plants take over and capture carbon... or not.

With a population of 7.7b, how important is an one single life? Not to the statistics, but to each individual life, life is important until it is not, or it become a negative. Canadian right to die legislation needs to loosen up a bit. The Catholic facilities need to get on board, and the right to request self termination at a future time or condition needs to be in the legislation. I, with a deadly condition, must be able to leave a directive to terminate when I reach a non-compos and/or painful stage. That extends life as far as is rational.

Using the Frye standard of evidence, which is something less than scientific proof level of proof, we can test all claims for truth. Does god exist, no evidence; therefore not likely. Is the world flat or round, the flats lose, as round is the only real possibility. Vaccinations, well vaccinations work but giving them too soon may also cause damage. Proof of no damage is not been proven. Cholesterol, well they have shown that people with lower cholesterol live longer, but not lowering peoples cholesterol cause them to live longer. Their quality of life is lower so suicide and self termination is higher, overrunning any benefit. Oh well. GMO do not allow the land to produce more crops, it does allow one of two crops in a row to produce more, but moisture is usually the limiting factor. The land then must be rested or rotated. There are some areas where intensive farming is possible, but these are rare.

Fire, climate change, dry winds, forest management is a big issue in some areas around inhabited areas. But if one level of government is unwilling to allow direct management, they are then responsible... as I see it.

Trump's policies seem nihilistic, without meaning and purpose, but what do I know? More than average, I expect. Placing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum just raises prices; placing quotes would have greater impact if his intent is to raise internal production. But without understanding the environment, and putting a price of pollution, WTF.

A one child policy worldwide is the only move now that makes sense along with a few years of freezing migration everywhere. Muslim countries must deal with the Muslim refugees, and there still is no god. Oh well, reality is a bitch...