Picking the Lesser Weevil

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.   

  

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? 

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.

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.

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.

   

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? 

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.