Politics, elections have become Picking the Lesser Weevil. Here in Alberta, we are likely to vote for provincial and federal elections this year. It is much cleaner here than the US gong show, but it is not that great either.
Provincially, the issue could be pipelines, access to markets for the oil. It is all about convincing others to allow a pipeline to tide water to be built. Beyond our control, so we can do much, but we cannot force. Additional capacity is required to fund the governments, to provide the economic drivers. So who will do the best at this? Well, who knows? Anyway, they will try, but what should the issue be? Overpopulation of the world, carbon dioxide rise, or maintaining our economic place in the world? It will take tremendous political will to address this real issue, but I do not see anyone stepping up to lead the fight. It will be a losing battle, an information battle, for many years, until things get much worse. Nobody cares. It is seen either as just false or a battle no one can win, so it is unable to get much traction. Oh well, it is real.
So carbon tax may be the big new revenue source for the province. It is a tax on a physical need, so consumption is not heavily dependent on the price. Well, except in rare cases, is there a choice. It is not about identifying the actual issue and addressing that issue, but keeping the governments going. Not even about the economy. It is about funding the government now. Government by the rich for the rich, both at the provincial level and the federal level.
Trudeau II, got into power by claiming to support natives, immigrants, government reform, political reform. Although he has done government, he is short on delivery of much real change, much real reform. He has been up to his neck in administration, and little in taking the country to be a world leader in anything, but he has kept us out of conflicts... well sort of. He has not communicated his version of what Canada should look like; and what he has, like native and immigrants, has not been well received. He has lost support in these areas, but will that translate into loss of votes? There is not a viable choice.
Multiculturalism is crap according to many. Everyone is bigoted to some extent. So what are the chances of a identifiable minority leader gaining support? Considering Trudeau II is the best the liberals have to offer, the Conservative is an asshole, and the NDP is a trubin wearing individual, we are likely to be stuck with more Trudeau II, perhaps a minority though.
Most of the time the election will have been decided before the poles close here, but oh well, we will have a bit of a say. We are left with what I feel is a poor choices... who among the good would want to take the abuse that politicians get. It is just ugly. So what do I suggest... Speak out, speak up, and perhaps someone can be found. It is done. Hail All.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
US Train Wreck
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/01/23/sarah-huckabee-sanders-dismisses-climate-change-in-favor-of-a-higher-authority/
Just for reference.
As we watch this US train wreck happening, can you imagine a worse voice than Sanders... Well I can, Miss Trileven (sp?) in grade seven, eight, nine. She was gone one year and came back on the other side of the desk. Such a screechy voice... like Sanders, but higher. The screech hawk.
Well, Sanders world view, god centered ignore climate change, deal with the imaginary crisis, rather than defining and addressing the real problem, overpopulation both world and the US. It is the ego of Trump that will not listen to advice of those in the know, that is producing this current problem. Oh well, there will be another election in 21 months or so... And I do not live in the US, so there. But Trump is causing issues with immigration in Canada, which is also full.
So if she is so far out to lunch on these two issues, why would I even try to make sense of what she has to say?
Just for reference.
As we watch this US train wreck happening, can you imagine a worse voice than Sanders... Well I can, Miss Trileven (sp?) in grade seven, eight, nine. She was gone one year and came back on the other side of the desk. Such a screechy voice... like Sanders, but higher. The screech hawk.
Well, Sanders world view, god centered ignore climate change, deal with the imaginary crisis, rather than defining and addressing the real problem, overpopulation both world and the US. It is the ego of Trump that will not listen to advice of those in the know, that is producing this current problem. Oh well, there will be another election in 21 months or so... And I do not live in the US, so there. But Trump is causing issues with immigration in Canada, which is also full.
So if she is so far out to lunch on these two issues, why would I even try to make sense of what she has to say?
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Is Trump a Russian Asset?
The FBI seem to think that he is behaving like one and opened an investigation. Meetings with Putin, of unknown content, do not reduce the questions. Calling on Russia to find Hillary's emails, and aid with the election. It is specious. NATO beating, also better for Russia than the US. Pull out of Syria, letting Russia in. The question "is Trump a Russian Asset" must be asked.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
What is Truth?
What is truth? Reflection for my own self clarification...
The question arises form how do we tell if something is true. Religions, all of them claim to be true, yet there is much that is mutually exclusive. We therefore need to separate being true from the claim. An objective test for truth would be ideal, but that is not likely; science is as close as it comes, the evidence said so, or it must be that way for x to happen, unless you have a better explanation for all the data. One negative negates. It takes many positives to confirm, until a better concept comes along. We ratchet toward facts and truth, in a similar way as we ratchet toward better designs.
It is the criteria that we judge a design by that we test against. But with designs, the criteria changes. Truth should be long lasting. We can make a Chretien type proof, if it is true it is because we have proof that it is true, then it is true because we have proof. Not helpful. It is all about criteria.
When we here a statement perhaps it should be placed into abayence first, and then tested. Is it important? If yes, consider it more, if no, than ignore it or keep it in abayence. It does not matter. Back to important; does it conflict with present beliefs? That is the big sticker, for if it comes down to conflict/mutual exclusion/cognitive dissonance situation, most of the time the individual will stick with what they know, even if it is wrong. It is their loss.
If we start with the basic principal of equality, even the wrong have the right to believe wrong shit, even when it is damaging to themselves. Do they have the right to spread their misconceptions to others? In our current environment, yes. Philosophically, they should not have such a right. That is almost obvious. It is obvious that false information should not be spread to future generations. That is one reason why it is important to come to know the truth. The big issue is how do we test for truth?
Traditionally, we have accepted historical/cultural norms, but when these norms become mutually exclusive, one or both is just wrong. We are left with levering off some principal, or random generation/test for best against some criteria, or we can take a new look at the evidence.
When we place this argument in front of the religious, they usually walk off in a huff. Oh well. Shunning has long been a religious practice, mainly to protect the group. There was no concern for the out of group people. No understanding, no compassion, no contact. But government cannot do that, for the disenfranchised and never were franchised still live here, and must be cared fore, else they band together and rise up and smite a might blow on the government. Sorry, but you get the drift. We, the shunned, also have voice. If those about us do not change, we can move on to a new group... well until we run out of people.
Philosophy does not provide answers but it frequently changes the questions, or moves the discussion along. We should not teach the young wrong stuff, so we must examine what we teach, and teach the questions along with the possible choices. Teachers do not like those who question too much, so philosophy is not taught in schools. It should be taught in high school; logic in 10, ethics in 11, epistemology in 12. But life goes on. It is done. Hail all.
The question arises form how do we tell if something is true. Religions, all of them claim to be true, yet there is much that is mutually exclusive. We therefore need to separate being true from the claim. An objective test for truth would be ideal, but that is not likely; science is as close as it comes, the evidence said so, or it must be that way for x to happen, unless you have a better explanation for all the data. One negative negates. It takes many positives to confirm, until a better concept comes along. We ratchet toward facts and truth, in a similar way as we ratchet toward better designs.
It is the criteria that we judge a design by that we test against. But with designs, the criteria changes. Truth should be long lasting. We can make a Chretien type proof, if it is true it is because we have proof that it is true, then it is true because we have proof. Not helpful. It is all about criteria.
When we here a statement perhaps it should be placed into abayence first, and then tested. Is it important? If yes, consider it more, if no, than ignore it or keep it in abayence. It does not matter. Back to important; does it conflict with present beliefs? That is the big sticker, for if it comes down to conflict/mutual exclusion/cognitive dissonance situation, most of the time the individual will stick with what they know, even if it is wrong. It is their loss.
If we start with the basic principal of equality, even the wrong have the right to believe wrong shit, even when it is damaging to themselves. Do they have the right to spread their misconceptions to others? In our current environment, yes. Philosophically, they should not have such a right. That is almost obvious. It is obvious that false information should not be spread to future generations. That is one reason why it is important to come to know the truth. The big issue is how do we test for truth?
Traditionally, we have accepted historical/cultural norms, but when these norms become mutually exclusive, one or both is just wrong. We are left with levering off some principal, or random generation/test for best against some criteria, or we can take a new look at the evidence.
When we place this argument in front of the religious, they usually walk off in a huff. Oh well. Shunning has long been a religious practice, mainly to protect the group. There was no concern for the out of group people. No understanding, no compassion, no contact. But government cannot do that, for the disenfranchised and never were franchised still live here, and must be cared fore, else they band together and rise up and smite a might blow on the government. Sorry, but you get the drift. We, the shunned, also have voice. If those about us do not change, we can move on to a new group... well until we run out of people.
Philosophy does not provide answers but it frequently changes the questions, or moves the discussion along. We should not teach the young wrong stuff, so we must examine what we teach, and teach the questions along with the possible choices. Teachers do not like those who question too much, so philosophy is not taught in schools. It should be taught in high school; logic in 10, ethics in 11, epistemology in 12. But life goes on. It is done. Hail all.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
By Choice or Indecision
As Seneca said so long ago, wherever he went, voluntarily or in exile, he found people living by choice or indecision. So not making a decision is in a way a decision; but realty it suggest a false dichotomy, for really it is a trichotomy, to not make a decision, aka never consider the question, is not the same as making a considered decision to leave or to stay, not the same as to go a specific place. Split hairs... is the way of philosophy... western culture since the Greeks invented philosophy.
Buddha handled this all differently; he left everything up to the individual to decide. Examine it, turn it over in your own mind, and if it stands up, adopt it and live up to it. The individual was responsible, and thereby had a duty to self, within their own society. Forms and consciousness was not of concern; life was, physical life that is.
Great philosophers live in the shadow of their own cultures, just as we live in our current electronic-internet-isolationist-mixed tradition- jumbled- impermanent- rapid change- electronic communication- political motivated- irrational -erratic -confused culture. Try to make sense of our culture is not just moving goal posts, but multiple goal post, that change after the goal is made. We have no fixed culture, no common goals, no common ideology, no coherent national direction. We have a mesh-mash of liberal/conservative views, living on borrowed money, depending on others to pay it back, in a society and economy that is not rationally sustainable. The only question is, like death, when will all this coming crashing down.
So the Greeks were great talkers/writers/academics and the Buddhist lived in a monastical environment. So what is in common, and why does it fit together so nicely. It all comes down to the individual is left making the decisions about how they are going to live, because, despite all the discussion and analysis, in the end, philosophy seems to never really come to a conclusion on so many things.
Consider ethics. The philosophers have though of a bunch of different ways to make the decisions, and we are left with nothing better, clearer nor more in any way then the Buddhist compassion, equality, and consideration. Virtues, categorical imperatives, existentialism, utilitarianism, whatever, results in nothing better, as ultimately, it is the individual that must decide. Ideology cannot prescribe, that is just one human lording it over another. That cannot work if we are all equal. It is just one more ideology. Consider the situation in the US with the "pledge of alliance" in schools. One group of asshats lording it over another equal group. There is no equality there.
So they can decide to stay or go, and in an overpopulated world, it does not matter where they go, there will be conflict, as we all strive for our space. There is not a solution beyond a one child policy that can equatable reduce population to a reasonable level, constant to slightly declining Co2 level, then a two child policy. It is done. In the end we all just die anyway. Hail all.
Buddha handled this all differently; he left everything up to the individual to decide. Examine it, turn it over in your own mind, and if it stands up, adopt it and live up to it. The individual was responsible, and thereby had a duty to self, within their own society. Forms and consciousness was not of concern; life was, physical life that is.
Great philosophers live in the shadow of their own cultures, just as we live in our current electronic-internet-isolationist-mixed tradition- jumbled- impermanent- rapid change- electronic communication- political motivated- irrational -erratic -confused culture. Try to make sense of our culture is not just moving goal posts, but multiple goal post, that change after the goal is made. We have no fixed culture, no common goals, no common ideology, no coherent national direction. We have a mesh-mash of liberal/conservative views, living on borrowed money, depending on others to pay it back, in a society and economy that is not rationally sustainable. The only question is, like death, when will all this coming crashing down.
So the Greeks were great talkers/writers/academics and the Buddhist lived in a monastical environment. So what is in common, and why does it fit together so nicely. It all comes down to the individual is left making the decisions about how they are going to live, because, despite all the discussion and analysis, in the end, philosophy seems to never really come to a conclusion on so many things.
Consider ethics. The philosophers have though of a bunch of different ways to make the decisions, and we are left with nothing better, clearer nor more in any way then the Buddhist compassion, equality, and consideration. Virtues, categorical imperatives, existentialism, utilitarianism, whatever, results in nothing better, as ultimately, it is the individual that must decide. Ideology cannot prescribe, that is just one human lording it over another. That cannot work if we are all equal. It is just one more ideology. Consider the situation in the US with the "pledge of alliance" in schools. One group of asshats lording it over another equal group. There is no equality there.
So they can decide to stay or go, and in an overpopulated world, it does not matter where they go, there will be conflict, as we all strive for our space. There is not a solution beyond a one child policy that can equatable reduce population to a reasonable level, constant to slightly declining Co2 level, then a two child policy. It is done. In the end we all just die anyway. Hail all.
Monday, December 24, 2018
a bit of fiction, maybe
The Real Creation Story...
There was nothing. It was cold and dark. Nothing exists, so the space is truly infinite. That is the characteristic of nothing, the great cold dark void of non existence.
The time was before t=0, if real time even existed. Conceptual orthogonal time always exists, as much as any concept exists. All the force were one and none, it was just too cold to exist. There was no matter, as the temperature was absolute zero. It is essential to understand the conditions that existed before t=0, for these are unstable conditions. It was dark because no photons existed. It was too cold for matter to exist, as it was too cold for the forces to exist.
In everything there is a bit of natural variation. It is next to impossible to fine something without natural variation. One bit of the infinite space varied slightly in temperature, the four forces split, and all shit broke loose. The reaction is spontaneous and exothermic. It cannot be stopped once it starts. After that bit of variation, a universe was inevitable. What that universe looks like is, well, it might as well be random, because there are so many variations possible. And now, some 13.8 billion years later, we have a radiation bubble, some 13.8 billion light years in radius, and growing, floating in infinite space. There maybe other bubbles out there, we cannot know with today's information, or not.
There was no bang, as there was no atmosphere. Space itself splits into matter. It would have been a flash, but there was more radiation than flash. Quirks, quarks, bosons, fermions, leptons all spinning in integer ways to form hot plasma, combining to form electrons, neurons, protons. At the edges Hydrogen and Helium, perhaps a touch of lithium form, with mass and are forced outward at slightly less than the speed of light as mass has come into being. It is a spontaneous and exothermic reaction, driving itself outward, it cannot be stopped now. It grows without plan, without purpose, without meaning, without any control. It is spontaneous and growing.
Expansion has continued now for some 13.8 billion years, measured backward, after the year was developed on this lonely planet. We lie somewhere in the middle 1/3 of this massive radiation bubble, that we can just measure... well sort of, now. We animals have developed, and learned to build machines that are able to scene the radiation, just. So now, how long do we have before we destroy our own atmosphere by overgrowth?
There was nothing. It was cold and dark. Nothing exists, so the space is truly infinite. That is the characteristic of nothing, the great cold dark void of non existence.
The time was before t=0, if real time even existed. Conceptual orthogonal time always exists, as much as any concept exists. All the force were one and none, it was just too cold to exist. There was no matter, as the temperature was absolute zero. It is essential to understand the conditions that existed before t=0, for these are unstable conditions. It was dark because no photons existed. It was too cold for matter to exist, as it was too cold for the forces to exist.
In everything there is a bit of natural variation. It is next to impossible to fine something without natural variation. One bit of the infinite space varied slightly in temperature, the four forces split, and all shit broke loose. The reaction is spontaneous and exothermic. It cannot be stopped once it starts. After that bit of variation, a universe was inevitable. What that universe looks like is, well, it might as well be random, because there are so many variations possible. And now, some 13.8 billion years later, we have a radiation bubble, some 13.8 billion light years in radius, and growing, floating in infinite space. There maybe other bubbles out there, we cannot know with today's information, or not.
There was no bang, as there was no atmosphere. Space itself splits into matter. It would have been a flash, but there was more radiation than flash. Quirks, quarks, bosons, fermions, leptons all spinning in integer ways to form hot plasma, combining to form electrons, neurons, protons. At the edges Hydrogen and Helium, perhaps a touch of lithium form, with mass and are forced outward at slightly less than the speed of light as mass has come into being. It is a spontaneous and exothermic reaction, driving itself outward, it cannot be stopped now. It grows without plan, without purpose, without meaning, without any control. It is spontaneous and growing.
Expansion has continued now for some 13.8 billion years, measured backward, after the year was developed on this lonely planet. We lie somewhere in the middle 1/3 of this massive radiation bubble, that we can just measure... well sort of, now. We animals have developed, and learned to build machines that are able to scene the radiation, just. So now, how long do we have before we destroy our own atmosphere by overgrowth?
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Kant's Magic Eightball
His Categorical Imperative says: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
So consider the abortion issue: We can see this yields easily two alternative; no abortions ever or each human has the freedom to exercise control over their own bodies. So what value is Kant? This result depends on how the question is asked. This can be extended to any human body issue, suicide a self mercy termination by another name.
Freedom to exercise control includes the rights, authority, responsibility, and obligation. OK. What about the power to do that which is necessary? Well if they are not addicted, and has the knowledge to know what must be done to overcome the resisting desires, appetites, emotions, chemical drives that oppose the logical directions. It is easy to say go on a reducing diet, while all about is food, food being pushed, that has drug like effects on some of us.
Each of us with the our own rights, authority, responsibility, and obligation over our own body is something that we could call personnel freedom which many governments and societies try to regulate against, with limited successes. We, as a world population, are in an overpopulated condition, above the carrying capacity of spaceship earth. So we do not need such strangle hold on the people, which was never real anyway. It was just an effort to control that which could not be really controlled anyway.
Our world populations is above the long term carrying capacity of spaceship earth, based on carbon dioxide levels. This is driving climate change, and will result in the sixth extinction or mass die off. Oh well. The governments are not serious in dealing with this issue; if they were we would have a world one child policy, free birth control, abortions, assisted suicides, and the like. Fertility Clinics would not exist. Births of less that eight months would not receive neonatal care, perhaps there would be no birth assistance... those which were not born alive and health not be resuscitated... Because we can do something does not mean we should. Those things could be regulated to some social contract standard.
Social Contract is a valid ethical standard. All that know the standard can learn to live with that standard or change that standard to something acceptable to all or more. It is those who wish to impose their opinions on others that have the issues. Our individual freedom comes with obligations to others, as well as responsibilities... to take care of ourselves.
So after examining ethic, philosophy, and the like it all comes down to this: it is up to us to make the decisions; there is much money to be made by discussing the choices, but in the end, is is still down to each individual to make their own decisions... right or wrong, and to take responsibility for those decisions. But Kant lets us off the guilt for he is all about intent, not results.
So consider the abortion issue: We can see this yields easily two alternative; no abortions ever or each human has the freedom to exercise control over their own bodies. So what value is Kant? This result depends on how the question is asked. This can be extended to any human body issue, suicide a self mercy termination by another name.
Freedom to exercise control includes the rights, authority, responsibility, and obligation. OK. What about the power to do that which is necessary? Well if they are not addicted, and has the knowledge to know what must be done to overcome the resisting desires, appetites, emotions, chemical drives that oppose the logical directions. It is easy to say go on a reducing diet, while all about is food, food being pushed, that has drug like effects on some of us.
Each of us with the our own rights, authority, responsibility, and obligation over our own body is something that we could call personnel freedom which many governments and societies try to regulate against, with limited successes. We, as a world population, are in an overpopulated condition, above the carrying capacity of spaceship earth. So we do not need such strangle hold on the people, which was never real anyway. It was just an effort to control that which could not be really controlled anyway.
Our world populations is above the long term carrying capacity of spaceship earth, based on carbon dioxide levels. This is driving climate change, and will result in the sixth extinction or mass die off. Oh well. The governments are not serious in dealing with this issue; if they were we would have a world one child policy, free birth control, abortions, assisted suicides, and the like. Fertility Clinics would not exist. Births of less that eight months would not receive neonatal care, perhaps there would be no birth assistance... those which were not born alive and health not be resuscitated... Because we can do something does not mean we should. Those things could be regulated to some social contract standard.
Social Contract is a valid ethical standard. All that know the standard can learn to live with that standard or change that standard to something acceptable to all or more. It is those who wish to impose their opinions on others that have the issues. Our individual freedom comes with obligations to others, as well as responsibilities... to take care of ourselves.
So after examining ethic, philosophy, and the like it all comes down to this: it is up to us to make the decisions; there is much money to be made by discussing the choices, but in the end, is is still down to each individual to make their own decisions... right or wrong, and to take responsibility for those decisions. But Kant lets us off the guilt for he is all about intent, not results.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
More Kant
So Kant thinks that we should always do our duty. Ah but there is a problem in the translation of duty from the German pflicht. The Germans have a dozen words for duty, while we have duty and obligation. To be human is to do human things. Do human things is more in line with pflicht than duty, but the art of translation is not an exact science, more of an art. Perhaps we should read only interpretations, not translations.
All human actions can be broken into two groups, the categorical imperative or hypothetical imperative; required or choice. But which decisions are which? So we know how to deal with categorical, but not what is in that group. There is a concept that all decisions dealing with others must be moral; but there is also freedom of person to choose... and these seem to conflict.
Consider the abortion issue; when we universalize just abortion, abortion can be said to be wrong, but when we universalize the free choice to chose abortion, it appears to right. These are opposites, even though I have worded one in the negative and one in the positive. So the categorical imperative can be played with to give what ever result we wish to get... some test. So when we add freedom that humans must have, that must be a human right, it becomes clear, nobody has the right to force anyone to do anything... illogical or religious.
So a good will or intent, freedom and eudomonia, joy of satisfaction from the Greek, are the basic human needs, that we can all self impose on ourselves. How different is this from the Stoics or Buddhists? Not much. The order of priority different, and perhaps the words used to describe the same feelings.
All human actions can be broken into two groups, the categorical imperative or hypothetical imperative; required or choice. But which decisions are which? So we know how to deal with categorical, but not what is in that group. There is a concept that all decisions dealing with others must be moral; but there is also freedom of person to choose... and these seem to conflict.
Consider the abortion issue; when we universalize just abortion, abortion can be said to be wrong, but when we universalize the free choice to chose abortion, it appears to right. These are opposites, even though I have worded one in the negative and one in the positive. So the categorical imperative can be played with to give what ever result we wish to get... some test. So when we add freedom that humans must have, that must be a human right, it becomes clear, nobody has the right to force anyone to do anything... illogical or religious.
So a good will or intent, freedom and eudomonia, joy of satisfaction from the Greek, are the basic human needs, that we can all self impose on ourselves. How different is this from the Stoics or Buddhists? Not much. The order of priority different, and perhaps the words used to describe the same feelings.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Oh well, we tried
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-poland-canada-lead-1.4943722
So Canada response is not adequate. No shit Sherlock. To stop climate change, we would need to go to 1960 carbon use, world wide. Not going to happen until we humans have a major die off.
We would need to have 1/2 the population, 1/5 the oil, 1/3 the coal, 10% of the natural gas. Not going to happen.
Trudeau is government by the rich for the rich. If he were serious about climate change, he would recommend a one child policy, cut immigration to next to nothing, cut fertility clinics, preemie treatment before 32 weeks, promote open assisted dyeing, and all other means to trimming the population. He is not; therefore, he may talk climate control, but it is just talk.
So what is the plan? To carry on a mild plan that will be uncomfortable but have no real effect beyond generating revenue for the government.
So Canada response is not adequate. No shit Sherlock. To stop climate change, we would need to go to 1960 carbon use, world wide. Not going to happen until we humans have a major die off.
We would need to have 1/2 the population, 1/5 the oil, 1/3 the coal, 10% of the natural gas. Not going to happen.
Trudeau is government by the rich for the rich. If he were serious about climate change, he would recommend a one child policy, cut immigration to next to nothing, cut fertility clinics, preemie treatment before 32 weeks, promote open assisted dyeing, and all other means to trimming the population. He is not; therefore, he may talk climate control, but it is just talk.
So what is the plan? To carry on a mild plan that will be uncomfortable but have no real effect beyond generating revenue for the government.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46301059
"They believe peace is achieved by dismissing concepts of ownership, competition, vanity and greed."
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.
added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46301059
"They believe peace is achieved by dismissing concepts of ownership, competition, vanity and greed."
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Irrelevance
Irrelevance
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...
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...
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Nationalist or Globalist
It is Important to understand the effect on Canada of this document. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds
We live in an overpopulated world. Immigration and refugees. both economic and political are going to increase, people seeking a better place to live, where their homeland is more overpopulated than they perceive other areas to be will try to migrate. North America was founded by refugees, many were religious and philosophical refugees, and some economic refugees. The cause of refugees is not important, but we need to understand that they are making the decision to migrate at a time when the whole earth is already overpopulated. The is no available lands that are not needed for solar powered carbon capture.
In 1960 there was 3b people, and we produce 20bb of oil. The earth Co2 was more or less stable. Since then, the population has risen, oil production has grown, and the Co2 level has risen. There is little we can do about the carbon dioxide level... underground storage is leaky... just look at the natural gas storage in California. So what is the solution? We know that the fuel demand is not easily reduced with price, making carbon tax a ideal money generation tax but a poor reduction of use tax. Carbon use has become tied to population. The only thing we can do is reduce population.
So how are we going to do this, and where is it going to be done at? If we are a true "Nationalist" we will keep all non producing people out of our country, and keep our population low so we will not need a world one child policy, and similar measures, in our country.
So the US has created a "public charge" concept, a class of spending that the government must pay. All welfare, medical for the poor, feed for the poor, education, and the like. All they want to let in are the wealthy, working, educated people. That is going to put a load on Canada to accept the ones that do not qualify to the US. We are going to get the US rejects.
If we are a nation of the future, we need to become selective of who we let in. We are going to need to become "Nationalistic" to protect Canada.
We live in an overpopulated world. Immigration and refugees. both economic and political are going to increase, people seeking a better place to live, where their homeland is more overpopulated than they perceive other areas to be will try to migrate. North America was founded by refugees, many were religious and philosophical refugees, and some economic refugees. The cause of refugees is not important, but we need to understand that they are making the decision to migrate at a time when the whole earth is already overpopulated. The is no available lands that are not needed for solar powered carbon capture.
In 1960 there was 3b people, and we produce 20bb of oil. The earth Co2 was more or less stable. Since then, the population has risen, oil production has grown, and the Co2 level has risen. There is little we can do about the carbon dioxide level... underground storage is leaky... just look at the natural gas storage in California. So what is the solution? We know that the fuel demand is not easily reduced with price, making carbon tax a ideal money generation tax but a poor reduction of use tax. Carbon use has become tied to population. The only thing we can do is reduce population.
So how are we going to do this, and where is it going to be done at? If we are a true "Nationalist" we will keep all non producing people out of our country, and keep our population low so we will not need a world one child policy, and similar measures, in our country.
So the US has created a "public charge" concept, a class of spending that the government must pay. All welfare, medical for the poor, feed for the poor, education, and the like. All they want to let in are the wealthy, working, educated people. That is going to put a load on Canada to accept the ones that do not qualify to the US. We are going to get the US rejects.
If we are a nation of the future, we need to become selective of who we let in. We are going to need to become "Nationalistic" to protect Canada.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Rational... well not so much.
Barbed wire, used properly, can be a beautiful sight. A statement that brings to mind: " I love the smell of napalm in the morning." I am predicting that the first statement will become a cult classic, like the second is/was.
Live in according to human nature: human nature is rational in the Stoic ideal, therefore humans should live rationally. Well that is the Stoic belief of concept anyway. Once we start to eliminate all the coping systems, we may need to examine a "philosophy for life" or should that be a "philosophy in life" or of life.
Trudeau and the liberals say that diversity is Canada's strength; others say that diversity is a burden, and some of the new immigrants will overload this country. I personally am more concerned about the drag the natives place on this country, with the taxes and debt load to support them.
Science make it clear there is little to define a meaning of life, and our only real purpose is to produce the next generation, which we have overdone, with overpopulation since 1960 based on atmospheric Co2 levels, so we are free to live, learn, and understand the human condition. To live rationally seems to be the plan. Now WTF does that really mean? And we note that the native reproduce much faster than the white population.
Until now, most people in the world have used coping systems, religions as guides to life. Today, most may be true still, but there is a cutting edge breaking free without a religion or state directing life. We are absurdly free to decide how to live; now it is our responsibility to decide and to do it.We are being held back by taxes and slow to change bureaucracy. We are being held back by the religious mess of the immigrants. We are being held back by religious education and ignorance of religions being pushed onto the young of those religious. They do not realize that they are using coping systems, not reality.
Recently, well, within the last century, Existentialism has pushed this freedom view, but had little to offer for advise or caution. Two millennia ago, the Stoics provided directions that realized freedom, and these two view result in similar outlooks but from different approaches. Buddhism also arrives at a similar end state, once we strip it of all the ritual and supernatural stuff, as the Modren Western Buddhist movement has tried to do. This may suggest that the outcome is correct, not necessarily the method of arrival, but that does not matter either.
The founding principal must be rational, or rationality. This, along with prudence, the ability or skill to make right choices. These, when understood and adopted will end all religious thinking. Oh well, if the Co2 does not get us first.
Live in according to human nature: human nature is rational in the Stoic ideal, therefore humans should live rationally. Well that is the Stoic belief of concept anyway. Once we start to eliminate all the coping systems, we may need to examine a "philosophy for life" or should that be a "philosophy in life" or of life.
Trudeau and the liberals say that diversity is Canada's strength; others say that diversity is a burden, and some of the new immigrants will overload this country. I personally am more concerned about the drag the natives place on this country, with the taxes and debt load to support them.
Science make it clear there is little to define a meaning of life, and our only real purpose is to produce the next generation, which we have overdone, with overpopulation since 1960 based on atmospheric Co2 levels, so we are free to live, learn, and understand the human condition. To live rationally seems to be the plan. Now WTF does that really mean? And we note that the native reproduce much faster than the white population.
Until now, most people in the world have used coping systems, religions as guides to life. Today, most may be true still, but there is a cutting edge breaking free without a religion or state directing life. We are absurdly free to decide how to live; now it is our responsibility to decide and to do it.We are being held back by taxes and slow to change bureaucracy. We are being held back by the religious mess of the immigrants. We are being held back by religious education and ignorance of religions being pushed onto the young of those religious. They do not realize that they are using coping systems, not reality.
Recently, well, within the last century, Existentialism has pushed this freedom view, but had little to offer for advise or caution. Two millennia ago, the Stoics provided directions that realized freedom, and these two view result in similar outlooks but from different approaches. Buddhism also arrives at a similar end state, once we strip it of all the ritual and supernatural stuff, as the Modren Western Buddhist movement has tried to do. This may suggest that the outcome is correct, not necessarily the method of arrival, but that does not matter either.
The founding principal must be rational, or rationality. This, along with prudence, the ability or skill to make right choices. These, when understood and adopted will end all religious thinking. Oh well, if the Co2 does not get us first.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
To Comment or not to Comment
It is always a question, to comment of not to comment on other blogs. It can draw traffic, or just bullshit rhetoric. Noise. I got into a discussion with a (((punk))) on an atheistic lite blog. I did not realize that three brackets around the name (((name))) was a )))far right radical((( symbol or (((Jewish))) symbol; or I would not have responded. The young fellow was missing any logic, but Oh well, what do we expect from a ((( punk)))... rhetoric only.
Now let me say that I do not have anything against jews, but they seem to want special treatment because they are Jew. They invaded Palestine after WW2, for the second time and expect peace. Our ancestors invaded North America, and we expect the native to be peaceful... well where is the logic there... and what do we get. Open season on natives...
Back when I was young, and at University, when the slide rule was common for calculation, when we need to track mantissa and exponent, there were rules of calculation. Significant, potential error, were considered at most calculations. Buckingham's Pi theory ruled, and occasionally the question was questioned as to the value of the question. There was one more; is the data real or noise? Is the data significant? Slide rule fourth digit, the smugged number, the beer induced laboratory experiment with totally fudged data, where the data had no value, the write up and calculations were all that was marker. Lots of those at Uni. Is the data real or imaginary?
Where the data does not pass Buckham's Pi theory, and the data has no checksum like component, then, should be considered as suspect. That pitches our much of the studies and potentially bogus. Oh well. I think that we need to evaluate the things we have lost with the computers, and no error calculations. Check sums. Also tests for data validity. Too much is just bullshit.
In taking on a study that goes against our interests, companies often tear down the author. The study may be correct, but the author has exposure, so it easy to discredit the author, rather than the work. We see this frequently in diet studies, like Tim Noakes, and NHS vaccinate Andrew Wakefield for example. Noakes was correct, while Wakefield paper had minor errors in the calculations. Wakefield was destroyed, even though his data shows that 18 autistic children had MMR vaccination at less than 12 months age. It found a common element with a cluster of autistic children. It also showed some form of IBS was also common to all. It cannot say anything about cause either way.
All this does not matter, there is much bullshit on the net, and it all should be exposed for what it is, bullshit. But so is religion. We now understand that all religions are just group coping mechanisms. There are better ways to cope, reality, understanding, truth, and those systems that intend on exposing the truth, mainly science.
Now let me say that I do not have anything against jews, but they seem to want special treatment because they are Jew. They invaded Palestine after WW2, for the second time and expect peace. Our ancestors invaded North America, and we expect the native to be peaceful... well where is the logic there... and what do we get. Open season on natives...
Back when I was young, and at University, when the slide rule was common for calculation, when we need to track mantissa and exponent, there were rules of calculation. Significant, potential error, were considered at most calculations. Buckingham's Pi theory ruled, and occasionally the question was questioned as to the value of the question. There was one more; is the data real or noise? Is the data significant? Slide rule fourth digit, the smugged number, the beer induced laboratory experiment with totally fudged data, where the data had no value, the write up and calculations were all that was marker. Lots of those at Uni. Is the data real or imaginary?
Where the data does not pass Buckham's Pi theory, and the data has no checksum like component, then, should be considered as suspect. That pitches our much of the studies and potentially bogus. Oh well. I think that we need to evaluate the things we have lost with the computers, and no error calculations. Check sums. Also tests for data validity. Too much is just bullshit.
In taking on a study that goes against our interests, companies often tear down the author. The study may be correct, but the author has exposure, so it easy to discredit the author, rather than the work. We see this frequently in diet studies, like Tim Noakes, and NHS vaccinate Andrew Wakefield for example. Noakes was correct, while Wakefield paper had minor errors in the calculations. Wakefield was destroyed, even though his data shows that 18 autistic children had MMR vaccination at less than 12 months age. It found a common element with a cluster of autistic children. It also showed some form of IBS was also common to all. It cannot say anything about cause either way.
All this does not matter, there is much bullshit on the net, and it all should be exposed for what it is, bullshit. But so is religion. We now understand that all religions are just group coping mechanisms. There are better ways to cope, reality, understanding, truth, and those systems that intend on exposing the truth, mainly science.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Dog Whistle Politics
Dog Whistle Politics
The modern meaning of dog whistle:
So what am I on about? US politics, the Trump used this to call in the Russian to find Hillery's emails. So the Trump does not realize that there were and are people who listen to what he says, and try to help. We see the same in Canada and Trudeau's efforts to pacify the Indians.
Who is doing our thinking for us? Are we allowing ourselves to be fooled by fast talking peoples who have their best interests at their heart. Are they out to fleece the taxpayer? When we see the oil line purchase, yes. The Oil Line guys say this is a bad investment, Heavy Alberta Crude is just not bringing the dollars. There is no money to be made with this line, if we do get it built. And Trudeau buys the line, and we taxpayers will pay. It might eventually make money or not, but we are on the hook for the cost now. We are being fleeced. So do we respect Trudeau? Should we believe Trudeau?
Should we care what he says?
The earth is overpopulated, if we use Co2 as a guide. So why are we letting more people into Canada? Are we letting the Liberalism drive our thinking to non-rational places? Is the Liberal ideology beyond reality, beyond what is practical?
Who is doing our thinking for us? And who is responsible if they are wrong?
When we see the light on a topic, concept, and know that we are right, we must persist. It is easy to see this on the internet. Some will insist that black is white, and refuse all argument, all discussion, all evidence, just like the religious insist that gods are real, or insist that their god is real. Religions are the original coping mechanisms, systematized as a group delusion. It is pointless, unless to clarify your own thinking about a subject. All we can do is clarify our own thinking and arguments. It is futile to think we can change others much. We may occasionally, but it is the exception.
The modern meaning of dog whistle:
noun
- a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.
- a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group.
"dog-whistle issues such as immigration and crime"
So what am I on about? US politics, the Trump used this to call in the Russian to find Hillery's emails. So the Trump does not realize that there were and are people who listen to what he says, and try to help. We see the same in Canada and Trudeau's efforts to pacify the Indians.
Who is doing our thinking for us? Are we allowing ourselves to be fooled by fast talking peoples who have their best interests at their heart. Are they out to fleece the taxpayer? When we see the oil line purchase, yes. The Oil Line guys say this is a bad investment, Heavy Alberta Crude is just not bringing the dollars. There is no money to be made with this line, if we do get it built. And Trudeau buys the line, and we taxpayers will pay. It might eventually make money or not, but we are on the hook for the cost now. We are being fleeced. So do we respect Trudeau? Should we believe Trudeau?
Should we care what he says?
The earth is overpopulated, if we use Co2 as a guide. So why are we letting more people into Canada? Are we letting the Liberalism drive our thinking to non-rational places? Is the Liberal ideology beyond reality, beyond what is practical?
Who is doing our thinking for us? And who is responsible if they are wrong?
When we see the light on a topic, concept, and know that we are right, we must persist. It is easy to see this on the internet. Some will insist that black is white, and refuse all argument, all discussion, all evidence, just like the religious insist that gods are real, or insist that their god is real. Religions are the original coping mechanisms, systematized as a group delusion. It is pointless, unless to clarify your own thinking about a subject. All we can do is clarify our own thinking and arguments. It is futile to think we can change others much. We may occasionally, but it is the exception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)