What is in a name? When a name cares with it a bunch of negative baggage, is it better to live with the name that is likely recognized, or to move on to a new, better name?
We, the beautiful too many... Greg Brown perhaps...
As you likely know, I have become an atheist, yet I do not like the name. I do not like to be against anything, and in fact, I, the singular being, do not care what you actually believe, but only about what is true. You can believe what ever shit you want, as long as you do not try to preach what is wrong.
So how can I say that there is no god? Well, if we want to debate this at the science level of proof, what evidence is there for a god? None, only belief and stories, feelings, and suggestion. Lack of evidence is not proof of non existence, but it is a good indication. So when there is actual proof, I may believe, but until there is proof, I will not believe; and therefore I live god free. Realists, god free or godfree is a much better name that atheist.
Now on to the other big misnomer that is causing problems, "Climate change". Climates are always changing, but it is man's impact on climate that is of concern, and not just man's impact, but man's negative impact on living conditions, both now and for the future. We are drying out the surface of Alberta, south of fifty four degrees, and in the Peace district. This makes farming and living better with respect to available land, but we are draining off fossil water, and as a result interrupting the interior water cycle, that is summer evaporation and thunder storm rainfall. That is what crops and gardens need, rain. That is the real problem, not warmer temperatures.
But then the Co2 goes up, causing ocean acidification. That kills of lots of thing, but most importantly plankton, and other autotrophs that use sunlight to fix carbon, and lower Co2. The solar energy goes to heat water now, which make the problem worse. Climate is fragile, and varying; we humans have pusher climate over the knife edge, and the result will not be pleasant. Cooling is typically the result of particles in the atmosphere, and we are much more effective at cleaning the air out then reducing Co2. Old coal fired and wood smoke produced both articles(cooling) and Co2(warming) effects in the atmosphere. Oh well, I am old now. It will be the young's problem, even if it is our fault. Oh well. But the problem is made worse by the name. Rather than climate change we should call it some more descriptive like man's impact on climate, or the delta effect on climate. I have not yet found a good man made name yet. Oh well.
I look back w/moderate degree of nostalgia on my brief period of spirituality as a young teenager - I actually FELT SOMETHING during church services, even if in retrospect it was most likely swirling hormones!
ReplyDeleteThen I grew up... And while I appreciate many of my Church's contributions in the social work sphere, I can't buy into the mythology. As one of my riding buddies says "The woods are my church".
Yes, it is all mythology. We should use mythology to understand the principle that they are trying to describe, and then evaluate that concept/principal. Some concepts/principles are useful and some are rubbish, or suitable for a few people in society. The decision is our individual choice. The prime directive applies.
ReplyDelete