Reality Wakeup Call

https://youtu.be/ydPZRoLzu-E

Justifing a Bad Decisions

There are time that all the known choices are bad or have at least one bad component or criteria outcome.

Typical decision theory generates alternatives, generates criteria and importance of the criteria, applies some form of evaluation, and pronounces the best choice. It is not uncommon to stumble across another criteria part way through the evaluation process, but beware, some computer evaluation process do not handle this, and well manual process can be work.

Now there are all sorts of criteria process; maximum reward, minimum regret, maximum profit, maximum sales, best quarter... next year may suffer, but I will have my bonus, what ever.

But if there are no clear good choice, now what. You want someone to blame, or to pass the decision on to. Is that what "god's will" is used for? Often it is to keep a historical decision in place, long after the reason is evaporated.

We live in an overpopulated world, not necessary in an overpopulated region or community. We have exceeded the viable earth population by two, but oh well... It is the Co2 level that indicates overpopulation, not water or food, fish health, climate change or something else. So should we hold to the same traditional value of human life... or should we allow Myanmar to eliminate a million radical Muslims... or should we promote reality... no god, or allow and even protect belief in god and historical belief in god, with attached idiotic beliefs and behaviors. It is the other side of the planet, and I am not going to get off my ass on this question, so it does not matter anyway, I cannot do anything anyway.

So the reality is to sit back and watch as the lives of the uneducated refugees are wasted. And that allow me to sit back and watch as the natives here destroy Canada by economic drain on our federal government. We should not let them starve, but we do not need to make the elders rich... well not really rich... rich implies retention of wealth... but they spend it all in a great high social life style, while there people languish is poverty. Many of the young that decide to leave do not survive. Oh well.

Conforming to standards has it place as long as the standards have reason. When the standards become just silly control freak issues, then it is the standard that should be questioned. So historically there are often more than one way to spell a word, and more than one meaning for the same word. Confusion, yes. There are concepts what we English speaking have no words for, like improvement to a artifact that improve one aspect and reduce another aspect. Oh well, all this generation need to do is to leave offspring behind and that is happening... but the offspring are not learning well and to many of the sick are reproducing. We are going through a evolutional wide period; the choke point will come.    

   

A belief in god is a delusion since there is no god...

We believe much of what we were taught, but should we? It reminds me of a story: a doctor told a story about his first day in medical school: a professor told the students, “Over the next twenty years or so, we’ll learn that half of what we’re teaching you today is wrong. Trouble is, we don’t know which half.”  In engineering, when I was a student, it was similar but without the half; it was just some. In life, what we learned as children is riddled with wrongs, and that depends on what we use to test against. Is it wrong to be biased against religions, cultures, breeds or races, people with specific behaviors, people with specific beliefs? Given that we live in an overpopulated world, no matter how we try, we will be biased, for or against, and if we try, we will be biases against ourselves. Since we live in a overpopulated world, taking action to resist genocide can be seen as biases against ourselves.

If we are not already overpopulated, we will soon be.  I use a maximum viable population long term at which the earth can no longer keep up with absorption of Co2 as a definition.  At that point, we cannot continue to value human life as we have in the past. That is a moral tipping point, and we are at that point.

Many people have a strong belief in a gods, yet there are no gods, no supernatural, no souls, life after death, no reincarnation. So these people have a test book delusions, the belief in something that does not exist. The sure way to break the spell is to inflict the knowledge that a god, any god, does not exist. But that delusion is self protecting, and the believer builds this tremendous bias against reality. So the question is, how does one penetrate this bias against the single most important truth? Reality is the truth. And we should always tell the truth, right?

Once we accept reality, there is no god, we see religion as frauds, they do some good, or promote the doing of good, but have little or no money after building their structure and paying the priest for the doing of there intended good works. It all goes for support and wages. So why do we, the people, allow no taxed structures?

So we can divide humans into two groups, those who believe in gods, and those who know there are no gods. So which group will be better off?  At some point the world will need to understand the new reality of overpopulation and just stop reproducing. Then comes the question, do we save the overproducing savages or do we let them die? Myanmar is that time for me. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway. We can chose to look at the problem or not. 

  

Morals aka Zuckers, what is right to do

So what are good morals founded on? Logic? Greek cosmopolitanism? Stoicism? Christian? Buddhism? Science, aka modern psychology? Philosophy? Science, the physics of the world? Economic considerations? Notice Islam is not on the list. They have too little to offer. Yes, all have some input, but that is not the problem of morals. The problem is others imposing there morals onto others who have a slightly different set. That is the real problem of trying to control others. If you over control, and do not provide real reasons, you lose the moral reason, moral authority, for the statement, and you lose respect, and the willingness of the underlings to follow. We see volunteer  organizations that go through the same thing, fail and collapse.

Religions belief systems are a poisonous infliction on the world, but they do occasionally have good points but... the world is over populated now... if we use Co2 level as a indicator. Population growth must be slowed, and all religions try to grow new members. This is morally wrong now. Birth control must be promoted by all for all, to help limit the earth population. There is no longer a moral imperative to try to save all people... some must die. This may be the kindest thing to do. The population must decline to something less than 4 billion, based on our current Co2 production. This number is contested, and is a soft number, depending on how we are willing to live, and what condition we allow the earth to get into. Our population is effecting the environment in a big way.

Our outlook on this changes our morals quite a bit. I recognize that those who do not accept human driven climate change... and all the lesser effects will be upset, but oh well. But for those of us who recognize the changes we have made on this world, we humans bear the guilt, and responsibility once we recognized this, and have spoken out against abusing the earth, but few have listened.   

Once we see that we are already overpopulated, the value of human life decreases. We are the too many. To this end, unviable children should be allowed to expire, and we should assist voluntary terminations. Abortion is then not an issue. Only the strong physically will survive, as it was before the modern age. And still we overpopulated the planet. It is easy to understand the resistance to allowing in the refugees. We, in Canada, have enough population, for we in Canada need much winter heat to survive, and that produces much Co2. Everywhere else is already much over populated.

Carbon capture should be given priority, where practical. Forest is good, we should be burred, not burned. A one child policy is needed to allow everyone to carry on their genes if they so wish. Some of us have found youth to be joyless, and would not inflict life onto another human, and thus remained childless. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Gays and other lifestyles we would not chose should be allowed to live out their lives quietly, but if they get uppity or to much in our faces, they will be beaten down. Same goes for the natives, as they were a concurred race which we have supported in recovery to the point of being in a position of influence. Now they want a free ride in our society. My suggestion is it will not happen... Trudeau needs to have the natives account for the money, for the chiefs are becoming rich, and the natives... not so much.  

          

So where do we find ourselves

Yesterday I heard a Gretta Vosper talk that was a call for action, to follow her... more or less. But I am an atheist, not a United plus atheist; Her call is not my way.  

We are all searching for our path forward, and that becomes the issue. We start where we are, not in terms of years of atheism, but in terms of where we are at in our head space, our psyche, for the lack of a better descriptor. Some are searching for community where they can grow, and some of us have enough community, but need spiritual or conceptual growth, confidence building, or concept development to define what we now know/believe. Some of us need action, projects; works of "faith". Faith is not the right word... works of virtue, humanism, or of community development... as AA says, "faith, without works, is dead" sort of concept. Some of see our role as converting others to atheism, while others of us see our role as defining what we actually think more clearly first, and then we will decide what our "work" should be.

I am at the stage of indecision; or perhaps possibility development. After coming to understand that religions, all religions are false, just fanatics, It take a bit of time to gather up a suitable world view; there is no evidence of a god, a soul, afterlife, and for some of us, no tribe, not much like minded local community, but groups of specific interest community.

So now to a world view, where there are two logical choices, a) create my own, or b) adopt in whole or in part. There are two which are suitable for adoption: Stoicism and Buddhism. In actual fact, there is so little conflict between them, one could adopt both, but each emphasize different parts of what could be a well rounded plan, one would need to choose emphases. So where does this leave one; having abandoned the past drags and anchors, free to go into the new world unencumbered.

Much of the lifestyles and mythology of other humans is just irrelevant, as is their religions and their belief systems. It does not matter to me what they believe, even if it is wrong, it is just none of my business. But they had better not impinge on my freedoms, else look out. David Silverman explains why here.    

Along the way, I realized that my thinking quite matches some of the concept is Object Oriented Programming, all thoughts are objects (nouns), or methods (verbs). Stitches on those objects take the form of modifiers, and away we go. The mental objects reference real world objects, and if the real world object is just a concept, the mental object exist, while the real world object does not, it is just a concept. So that explains how so many people can be fooled, the mental god object is real, but the real world object does not; there is no evidence of it`s existence; in this case I speak of god.