Tuesday, January 27, 2004
For my opening discourse I want to explain what I've come to understand thus far about life here on this planet and what it's implications are for our future.
This peculiar species of homo saipien saipien has managed to span the globe in what everyone can agree, is but the blink of an eye in the terms of greater natural history.
As a species we notice that we are endowed with extraordinary abilities to develop complex language to describe our existence and the ability to manipulate our environment in profound ways. These traits have set us apart from other animals in this world to such a degree that we feel compelled to explain to ourselves and eachother the meaning behind our unique disposition.
Throughout human history this desire for explanation has born itself into countless ideologies and cultures. Each of these social arrangements has come into existence with the sole purpose of creating a system wherein the members of these societies are able not only to support their continued existence but in most cases to expand both the influence and disposition of a particular code of morality and belief to the surrounding cultures in an effort to achieve primacy.
In most instances, cultures base their assumption of providence on any number of texts, natural events and prophecies. It would be hard to dispute that the result of having common values and beliefs is inevitably the subjugation and unification of multiple people that would otherwise be inclined to seek to do only that which benefited them individually.
From the begining of time however, all organisms have displayed an understanding that strength comes in numbers and that many goals can be more easily achieved when a concerted effort is made. This understanding was not lost on our species.
Early human history shows us that virtually every culture was in almost constant conflict with it's neighbors. No doubt these conflicts have been occurring since before recorded history. Each society being convinced that it's system of values was superior to that of it's neighbors'. Many wars have been waged with the goal of expanding one culture and destroying another.
My reasons for posting this log center around my desire to determine what the best system would be for achieving a social structure that will be sustainable for an eternity, granting to every person a comfortable and free existence.
I believe that this can only be accomplished once we as a species have come to an understanding that all of us are in this together and that without a unified front, we will surely be wiped out of existence forever within a relatively short period of time.
With this in mind, I will now describe what I find to be some fundamental flaws in some of the value systems that are at present, the dominant ideologies playing into the current form of world politics.
A Ticking Timebomb. Religion at a Glance:
I understand that it is almost impossible to change peoples minds about the religion they choose to believe and realize that most people do not consider the logical problems with their faith. I must ask those of you that are convinced that there is some sort of all powerful being controlling the universe if you have something to say that could put my mind to rest regarding some of the consequences inherent believing in such philosophies.
Because most people in this world subscribe to some form of religion or another, most elected politicians (as well as most appointed ones and dictators as too) especially if they subscribe to one of the Abrahamic religions, are operating under the assumption that there will be a finite end to civilization and life as we know it here on Earth. All of the major of these religions embrace some sort of "final judgment" or apocalypse.
This is a dangerous mindset for us as a species to settle into for two reasons. Reason 1 is that if everyone in power is going about their business in an understanding that we are in the "last days" or even that there is such thing as a "last day" then they are not all that inclined to seriously plan for the types of things that could potentially destroy our planet like an asteroid or the moon's weakening orbit or another massive climate shift. There's not just a chance of these things happening, they are indeed happening and have been for millions of years, so it's not a matter of if but when.
Problem 2 which is far more remote, but a possibility nonetheless. Is that there are other intelligent species out there that might have been around for a while longer than us and have far more advanced technology. As of yet there has been no empirical proof, but you would have to have your head buried in the sand not to realize that there have been many things flying around our planet seen by very credible people that cannot be explained in knowable terms. If indeed there are other space faring species in this universe then the possibilities for what their motivations are in visiting our planet could be a worry. I can imagine that most planets like ours can only support intelligent life for a short period of time given how quickly intelligent species can multiply and use up resources. I know that it would behoove us here on Earth to be looking for another home when ours is no longer livable so I don't see why other species wouldn't be doing the same thing. Most religious people seem to think that humans were created as a special thing by the all powerful creator of the universe and refuse to accept that there may be other intelligent species out there.
If you are a Christian that believes that the universe was created something like 7500-12,000 years ago then you are ignoring very basic facts about the universe as we know it. Our galaxy alone contains 50 billion stars with maybe several million of these solar systems containing planets like ours. There are also 100 billion galaxies in this universe that we've found so far, each of them with their own compliment of millions if not billions of worlds. All together that means 500 trillion stars. Be conservative and say that 1% of those stars have solar systems like ours. That's 5 trillion. Now say that 1% of those sloar systems have planets that could sustain life. That's 50 billion. Go a step further and say that 1% of those planets have been around long enough in the right conditions to develop intellegent life. That leaves the posibillity of at least 500 million solar systems that could have intelligent organisms on them. And that's just what we can verify exists. We also know that the amount of space between these things is extremely vast and incomprehensible to the human mind. This lets us know that the universe is indeed billions of years old because the stars that we see in the sky are so far away that it would take the light from them millions of years to reach us. Indeed most of the stars we see in the sky no longer exist. There is no trick of science as Christians often claim about carbon dating which is admitedly unreliable. The speed of light is a definite measurable thing and is constant.
Once you start to wrap your head around these numbers (no one can really comprehend them but you can understand them in the abstract) you will see that life as a random occurrence is not only possible, it is inevitable and has no doubt been happening forever and will continue to happen forever. I don't see any logical reason to assume that there was ever a "beginning" to the existence of matter and certainly don't think there will be an "end" to this dimension. The concept of start and finnish is attractive because it fits nicely into the realm of human comprehension but is irrelevant to the universe. Solar systems, galaxies and universes come and go but there is no beginning and there'll be no end. So I urge those of you that have tied your philosophies to this idea of a finite existence to reconsider for the fate of the species as a whole. As long as we have people operating under the misconception that we are the all beloved creation of some sort of all powerful primate in the sky, we are going to be loosing precious time and research needed to keep our species around long after our planet becomes unlivable. To put it like one of my science minded friends in the south did, "It's been two thousand years people. HE AIN'T COMMIN' BACK!"
But jokes aside, I have gone to all the creationist web sites and reviewed much creationist evidence in an effort to find an argument that could seriously dispute the fact that we are a randomly appearing phenomenon in the universe and have always noticed that there is an inherent and glaring logical fallacy involved in all of these arguments. The fallacy is this: All people base their logical systems off the example of family members, their society and their own interpretation of secondary history sources (secondary history sources being any piece of literature or other form of media that was reliant upon the interpretation of 1 or more people before it was rendered into the account that you read). As Noam Chompsky once said "Every man is born with a thousand pounds of history on his back." Because of this, it is often difficult take the broader and objective overview of how things work because of the institutionalized and subjective nature of human understanding.
We have multiple religions in this world and each has adherents that are absolutely and utterly convinced that theirs is the only possible entirely true religion, so they cannot all be right if any are at all. Each of these religions claims that they have real historical events that confirm their validity as well as some sort of text (usually either a collection of some very abstract and ancient poems and laws, or the conjecture of some person claiming to have an accurate account of events, which can rarely be authenticated). All of these moral and ideological codes consist of rules and regulations, advice about how to achieve some sort of positive eternal existence and all of these brands of morality demand that you believe in these things without any sort of verification that what you're being told is indeed true. All religions term this as "faith" although in any other instance outside religion, believing in that which cannot be proven is there, is insanity at worst and gullible at best.
People are an extremely adaptive and versatile species and most of us know that with proper conditioning and incentives (both good and bad) it is possible to get people to vow to the death that their particular religion, tribe, nation, cult etc. and it's ideals should be preserved at all costs insofar as many are willing to give up their lives for the benefit of promoting/advancing their particular brand of faith or other belief. By all accounts it is possible to convince people through any number of braiwashing tecniques that they themselves are a diety or some other propsterous thing.
Therein lies the fallacy of the arguments of creationism science. All of the creationist "scientists" ignore two sound scientific precepts. First of all Acham's Razor: "All things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." None of the arguments made in favor of creationism comes close to tackling the impossible stretch of the imagination to it takes to envision how humans were able span the entire globe long before The Bible (or any other widely believed in text) was composed. Along with many other types of confirming evidence that can be cross-referenced like tectonic plate activity, layered fossil records etc. Given that no religion contains an accurate account of even recent history on a scale that would indicate that everything in the texts are true in any verifiable way, it makes much more sense to accept that which can be verified to at least some degree. When starting out to determine what this existence actually is, using such an abstract source as these text's claims as your default understanding, is nothing short of saying that you believe something just because you were told to believe it so many times.
One way or the other, the evidence for evolution or the big bang or other intelligent species is not complete but it is overwhelming. Creationist "scientists" are able to comfortably ignore this because they do not use the tried & tested scientific process when approaching the question but rather approach the questions with the assumption that their preconceived notions about their belief systems are true and seek information to support this theory while attempting to discredit evidence that does not support it. I know that Christians and other religious people will claim that secular scientists do the same thing but this is not true. The reason most scientists believe that life is a random occurrence is because they base their decisions on information that they can see and observe. There is no conspiracy amongst geologists, paleontologists, archeologists and astronomers to systematically destroy or discredit religion. There is simply no useful purpose or benefit for the scientific community in such an effort, and it would be impossible to convene a conspiracy on that scale anyway.
So I ask you to consider. All things being equal: Do you think it more likely that this universe exists on some sort of finite timeline with a beginning and an and controlled by an all powerful version of ourselves that has handed down his road map for "returning" to him to less than 7% of people ever to exist . Or is it more logical to assume that when you're dealing in probabilities like 1 in 500 million the random occurance of intelligent life is not only possible but inevitable?
Next post: A briefe synopsis of the history of humanity.
This peculiar species of homo saipien saipien has managed to span the globe in what everyone can agree, is but the blink of an eye in the terms of greater natural history.
As a species we notice that we are endowed with extraordinary abilities to develop complex language to describe our existence and the ability to manipulate our environment in profound ways. These traits have set us apart from other animals in this world to such a degree that we feel compelled to explain to ourselves and eachother the meaning behind our unique disposition.
Throughout human history this desire for explanation has born itself into countless ideologies and cultures. Each of these social arrangements has come into existence with the sole purpose of creating a system wherein the members of these societies are able not only to support their continued existence but in most cases to expand both the influence and disposition of a particular code of morality and belief to the surrounding cultures in an effort to achieve primacy.
In most instances, cultures base their assumption of providence on any number of texts, natural events and prophecies. It would be hard to dispute that the result of having common values and beliefs is inevitably the subjugation and unification of multiple people that would otherwise be inclined to seek to do only that which benefited them individually.
From the begining of time however, all organisms have displayed an understanding that strength comes in numbers and that many goals can be more easily achieved when a concerted effort is made. This understanding was not lost on our species.
Early human history shows us that virtually every culture was in almost constant conflict with it's neighbors. No doubt these conflicts have been occurring since before recorded history. Each society being convinced that it's system of values was superior to that of it's neighbors'. Many wars have been waged with the goal of expanding one culture and destroying another.
My reasons for posting this log center around my desire to determine what the best system would be for achieving a social structure that will be sustainable for an eternity, granting to every person a comfortable and free existence.
I believe that this can only be accomplished once we as a species have come to an understanding that all of us are in this together and that without a unified front, we will surely be wiped out of existence forever within a relatively short period of time.
With this in mind, I will now describe what I find to be some fundamental flaws in some of the value systems that are at present, the dominant ideologies playing into the current form of world politics.
A Ticking Timebomb. Religion at a Glance:
I understand that it is almost impossible to change peoples minds about the religion they choose to believe and realize that most people do not consider the logical problems with their faith. I must ask those of you that are convinced that there is some sort of all powerful being controlling the universe if you have something to say that could put my mind to rest regarding some of the consequences inherent believing in such philosophies.
Because most people in this world subscribe to some form of religion or another, most elected politicians (as well as most appointed ones and dictators as too) especially if they subscribe to one of the Abrahamic religions, are operating under the assumption that there will be a finite end to civilization and life as we know it here on Earth. All of the major of these religions embrace some sort of "final judgment" or apocalypse.
This is a dangerous mindset for us as a species to settle into for two reasons. Reason 1 is that if everyone in power is going about their business in an understanding that we are in the "last days" or even that there is such thing as a "last day" then they are not all that inclined to seriously plan for the types of things that could potentially destroy our planet like an asteroid or the moon's weakening orbit or another massive climate shift. There's not just a chance of these things happening, they are indeed happening and have been for millions of years, so it's not a matter of if but when.
Problem 2 which is far more remote, but a possibility nonetheless. Is that there are other intelligent species out there that might have been around for a while longer than us and have far more advanced technology. As of yet there has been no empirical proof, but you would have to have your head buried in the sand not to realize that there have been many things flying around our planet seen by very credible people that cannot be explained in knowable terms. If indeed there are other space faring species in this universe then the possibilities for what their motivations are in visiting our planet could be a worry. I can imagine that most planets like ours can only support intelligent life for a short period of time given how quickly intelligent species can multiply and use up resources. I know that it would behoove us here on Earth to be looking for another home when ours is no longer livable so I don't see why other species wouldn't be doing the same thing. Most religious people seem to think that humans were created as a special thing by the all powerful creator of the universe and refuse to accept that there may be other intelligent species out there.
If you are a Christian that believes that the universe was created something like 7500-12,000 years ago then you are ignoring very basic facts about the universe as we know it. Our galaxy alone contains 50 billion stars with maybe several million of these solar systems containing planets like ours. There are also 100 billion galaxies in this universe that we've found so far, each of them with their own compliment of millions if not billions of worlds. All together that means 500 trillion stars. Be conservative and say that 1% of those stars have solar systems like ours. That's 5 trillion. Now say that 1% of those sloar systems have planets that could sustain life. That's 50 billion. Go a step further and say that 1% of those planets have been around long enough in the right conditions to develop intellegent life. That leaves the posibillity of at least 500 million solar systems that could have intelligent organisms on them. And that's just what we can verify exists. We also know that the amount of space between these things is extremely vast and incomprehensible to the human mind. This lets us know that the universe is indeed billions of years old because the stars that we see in the sky are so far away that it would take the light from them millions of years to reach us. Indeed most of the stars we see in the sky no longer exist. There is no trick of science as Christians often claim about carbon dating which is admitedly unreliable. The speed of light is a definite measurable thing and is constant.
Once you start to wrap your head around these numbers (no one can really comprehend them but you can understand them in the abstract) you will see that life as a random occurrence is not only possible, it is inevitable and has no doubt been happening forever and will continue to happen forever. I don't see any logical reason to assume that there was ever a "beginning" to the existence of matter and certainly don't think there will be an "end" to this dimension. The concept of start and finnish is attractive because it fits nicely into the realm of human comprehension but is irrelevant to the universe. Solar systems, galaxies and universes come and go but there is no beginning and there'll be no end. So I urge those of you that have tied your philosophies to this idea of a finite existence to reconsider for the fate of the species as a whole. As long as we have people operating under the misconception that we are the all beloved creation of some sort of all powerful primate in the sky, we are going to be loosing precious time and research needed to keep our species around long after our planet becomes unlivable. To put it like one of my science minded friends in the south did, "It's been two thousand years people. HE AIN'T COMMIN' BACK!"
But jokes aside, I have gone to all the creationist web sites and reviewed much creationist evidence in an effort to find an argument that could seriously dispute the fact that we are a randomly appearing phenomenon in the universe and have always noticed that there is an inherent and glaring logical fallacy involved in all of these arguments. The fallacy is this: All people base their logical systems off the example of family members, their society and their own interpretation of secondary history sources (secondary history sources being any piece of literature or other form of media that was reliant upon the interpretation of 1 or more people before it was rendered into the account that you read). As Noam Chompsky once said "Every man is born with a thousand pounds of history on his back." Because of this, it is often difficult take the broader and objective overview of how things work because of the institutionalized and subjective nature of human understanding.
We have multiple religions in this world and each has adherents that are absolutely and utterly convinced that theirs is the only possible entirely true religion, so they cannot all be right if any are at all. Each of these religions claims that they have real historical events that confirm their validity as well as some sort of text (usually either a collection of some very abstract and ancient poems and laws, or the conjecture of some person claiming to have an accurate account of events, which can rarely be authenticated). All of these moral and ideological codes consist of rules and regulations, advice about how to achieve some sort of positive eternal existence and all of these brands of morality demand that you believe in these things without any sort of verification that what you're being told is indeed true. All religions term this as "faith" although in any other instance outside religion, believing in that which cannot be proven is there, is insanity at worst and gullible at best.
People are an extremely adaptive and versatile species and most of us know that with proper conditioning and incentives (both good and bad) it is possible to get people to vow to the death that their particular religion, tribe, nation, cult etc. and it's ideals should be preserved at all costs insofar as many are willing to give up their lives for the benefit of promoting/advancing their particular brand of faith or other belief. By all accounts it is possible to convince people through any number of braiwashing tecniques that they themselves are a diety or some other propsterous thing.
Therein lies the fallacy of the arguments of creationism science. All of the creationist "scientists" ignore two sound scientific precepts. First of all Acham's Razor: "All things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." None of the arguments made in favor of creationism comes close to tackling the impossible stretch of the imagination to it takes to envision how humans were able span the entire globe long before The Bible (or any other widely believed in text) was composed. Along with many other types of confirming evidence that can be cross-referenced like tectonic plate activity, layered fossil records etc. Given that no religion contains an accurate account of even recent history on a scale that would indicate that everything in the texts are true in any verifiable way, it makes much more sense to accept that which can be verified to at least some degree. When starting out to determine what this existence actually is, using such an abstract source as these text's claims as your default understanding, is nothing short of saying that you believe something just because you were told to believe it so many times.
One way or the other, the evidence for evolution or the big bang or other intelligent species is not complete but it is overwhelming. Creationist "scientists" are able to comfortably ignore this because they do not use the tried & tested scientific process when approaching the question but rather approach the questions with the assumption that their preconceived notions about their belief systems are true and seek information to support this theory while attempting to discredit evidence that does not support it. I know that Christians and other religious people will claim that secular scientists do the same thing but this is not true. The reason most scientists believe that life is a random occurrence is because they base their decisions on information that they can see and observe. There is no conspiracy amongst geologists, paleontologists, archeologists and astronomers to systematically destroy or discredit religion. There is simply no useful purpose or benefit for the scientific community in such an effort, and it would be impossible to convene a conspiracy on that scale anyway.
So I ask you to consider. All things being equal: Do you think it more likely that this universe exists on some sort of finite timeline with a beginning and an and controlled by an all powerful version of ourselves that has handed down his road map for "returning" to him to less than 7% of people ever to exist . Or is it more logical to assume that when you're dealing in probabilities like 1 in 500 million the random occurance of intelligent life is not only possible but inevitable?
Next post: A briefe synopsis of the history of humanity.
