Most people (outside of Iran and North Korean) would probably tend to agree that it is preferable for the types of "unfriendly"(?) governments, characterised by these two countries, not to have nuclear arsenals.
If so, we must decide what kind of coherent policy civilised countries can advance to deal realistically with the phenomenon.
We must take tangible steps to make the argument credible ... that if such governments decide to opt out of developing WMD arsenals ... they will nonetheless be safe. We must be weary (to say the least) of Bush-type imbeciles being allowed to commit international crimes. By now, few people ignore that International law, human rights and the principles of civilisation were not taken into account during the invasion of Iraq. This means that countries like the usoA, traditionally a voice of reason, have no ethical legitimacy to speak of anymore. This makes everything more difficult.
And it was all foreseeable.
And those surreal infomercials that pass for “news”, "debate" or 'analysis" in the usoA don't help. It's like a good-cop-bad-cop routine with CNN and FOX playing each role. Thing is ... the world is much less stupid than the neocons seem to think it is.
What did they think would happen when they responded to Iraqi disarmament by promptly invading that weakened country!?! Did they really think that they would get away with killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands ... then have the bad taste to try to prop up a puppet regime made of any corrupt -or desperate- Iraqi they could find (including the worse among the thugs from the previous regime) ... and then tie a ribbon around it all and try to call it ... “Iraqi democracy!”?
Won’t some people realise that it’s most peculiar that a “democratic government” should need some foreign invasion force to protect its members from being lynched by the people?
At this point neocon actions have made people all over our planet ask themselves: How dearly can we make them pay if they attack us? And feeling under threat, people are reverting to primordial instincts, as they always do. This tends to favour all kinds of dictatorial immune responses. And everyone is trying their best to arm themselves as lethally (WMDs), as fast, and as covertly as possible. They figure that they need to, just in case.
Basically, the principles of civilisation, international law and enlightened reason have been hit hard. And we are now facing the possibility of new dark ages. And we must work hard to avoid that. Things are worse off than they should be ... but still solvable.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Biology vs religious "biology"
Let us perform a “Gedankenexperiment”:
Let us imagine an ideal rational thinker in a jungle studying earth biology. He is not influenced by any religion … not Zoroastrianism not Judaism not Christianism not Hinduism not Buddhism ... no preconceived notions, no creation myths, no paranormal nonsense.
He examines all life forms there, including some primitive hunter-gathering humans in their huts.
This scientist observes, experiments, thinks and eventually, using reason, draws conclusions.
He would notice that the essential biological differences are not between humans on the one hand and all other animals on the other … but rather ... between some animal groups and some other animal groups of this planet. There are differences between reptiles and mammals, between plants and animals or between sexually reproducing vs asexually reproducing life forms.
In terms of similarities within lifeform-types like "the great apes," there is practically no essential physiological difference but for hair, stance and of course the fact that humans are much smarter than any other ape. There is of course this difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees ... BUT humans are not so much smarter compared to chimps than chimps are compared to, let’s say, worms.
As it is, on what rational basis would our biologist come up with a scientific theory according to which humans are a biological entity entirely alien to all other life forms? To claim that humans are the result of a separate act of creation is simply not supported by observation. Coming up with the theory that … the human (male) was created apart by some paranormal entity, that the human female was made from his rib … supernaturally … and that none of this had anything to do with any of the other similarly (sexually) reproducing life forms ... can only be a fairytale ... not science.
Humans are born just like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins are and then they eat, piss, shit, play, fuck, sleep, die and do basically what all other mammals do.Again, the big biological differences are between some animal groups and some other animal groups. Humans simply belong to one of these groups. The structural physiological differences between a dolphin and a shark, for example, are much more essential, than those between a human and another ape. Humans are brilliant but biologically they function exactly like the other animals.
If unlike other mammals each human, was born by appearing from nowhere with the sounds of trumpets as a result of a prayer ... well ... then ... I guess that the religious myths would make more sense.
PS)
We humans are our own and our ecosystem's greatest threat ... but ... if the goal is for our type of intelligent life to make well into the future ... as in millions of years into it ... then ... in the very long run, we are also it's only hope.
But right now, we are still stuck in primitive superstition! It may be time to start getting serious again about reason. It is not a trivial concern. If we do not start thinking about some real basic steps to improve our species' chances for the next millennia ... but instead spend our time, energy and intelligence arguing over fairy tales, magical beings and such similar nonsense ... we might one day find ourselves in a situation of too little, too late.
If this does happen, the loss of our happiness, the unnecessary suffering and even possibly our extinction could have been caused by those of us too stupid, weak and disingenuous to face the still manageable realities of our one and only planet as it hurls through space.
Let us imagine an ideal rational thinker in a jungle studying earth biology. He is not influenced by any religion … not Zoroastrianism not Judaism not Christianism not Hinduism not Buddhism ... no preconceived notions, no creation myths, no paranormal nonsense.
He examines all life forms there, including some primitive hunter-gathering humans in their huts.
This scientist observes, experiments, thinks and eventually, using reason, draws conclusions.
He would notice that the essential biological differences are not between humans on the one hand and all other animals on the other … but rather ... between some animal groups and some other animal groups of this planet. There are differences between reptiles and mammals, between plants and animals or between sexually reproducing vs asexually reproducing life forms.
In terms of similarities within lifeform-types like "the great apes," there is practically no essential physiological difference but for hair, stance and of course the fact that humans are much smarter than any other ape. There is of course this difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees ... BUT humans are not so much smarter compared to chimps than chimps are compared to, let’s say, worms.
As it is, on what rational basis would our biologist come up with a scientific theory according to which humans are a biological entity entirely alien to all other life forms? To claim that humans are the result of a separate act of creation is simply not supported by observation. Coming up with the theory that … the human (male) was created apart by some paranormal entity, that the human female was made from his rib … supernaturally … and that none of this had anything to do with any of the other similarly (sexually) reproducing life forms ... can only be a fairytale ... not science.
Humans are born just like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins are and then they eat, piss, shit, play, fuck, sleep, die and do basically what all other mammals do.Again, the big biological differences are between some animal groups and some other animal groups. Humans simply belong to one of these groups. The structural physiological differences between a dolphin and a shark, for example, are much more essential, than those between a human and another ape. Humans are brilliant but biologically they function exactly like the other animals.
If unlike other mammals each human, was born by appearing from nowhere with the sounds of trumpets as a result of a prayer ... well ... then ... I guess that the religious myths would make more sense.
PS)
We humans are our own and our ecosystem's greatest threat ... but ... if the goal is for our type of intelligent life to make well into the future ... as in millions of years into it ... then ... in the very long run, we are also it's only hope.
But right now, we are still stuck in primitive superstition! It may be time to start getting serious again about reason. It is not a trivial concern. If we do not start thinking about some real basic steps to improve our species' chances for the next millennia ... but instead spend our time, energy and intelligence arguing over fairy tales, magical beings and such similar nonsense ... we might one day find ourselves in a situation of too little, too late.
If this does happen, the loss of our happiness, the unnecessary suffering and even possibly our extinction could have been caused by those of us too stupid, weak and disingenuous to face the still manageable realities of our one and only planet as it hurls through space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)