The Right Thing

September 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm (By Realpc)

I have found that people don’t like talking about this subject very much, and that no one seems to have any good answers. I am concerned about how we know what is the “right thing” to do in any situation, and the example I will use is extremely common these days. Sure doing the “right thing” is easy when it’s what you wanted to do anyway. I never want to kill anyone, so not killing is easy for me. I don’t want to steal anything, especially since the idea of getting caught is terrifying. I don’t want to drive through red lights, because it’s dangerous and besides I don’t want a ticket. So, I am always doing the “right thing.” Well, always, EXCEPT when I have no idea what the “right thing” is, or when what might be the “right thing” seems worse than death.

A woman I know at work, whose name is Mercy, is my example. I have known her for 10 years, and all that time her mother has been sick, and Mercy’s life has revolved around her mother. Not because she wants to, and not because she has a close relationship with her mother (she doesn’t), but because it’s the “right thing” to do. Her mother worked hard, as a poor single mother, to raise Mercy and her sisters. She did her very best, and wound up poor and sick.

For a long time, Mercy’s 3 sisters, who all live nearby, have felt that their mother belongs in a nursing home, so they do very little to help. Mercy has cooked and cleaned for her mother since I have known her, probably much longer. She feels that putting her mother in a nursing home would be abandonment. Mercy is single, probably because taking care of her mother never left much time for socializing or dating. Too bad, since all she ever wanted was to get married and have kids.

Recently, Mercy’s mother became very sick and unable to get out of bed. Mercy moved her into her own small home and started caring for her 24 hours a day. Mercy stopped coming to work, and did her job from home. Several months went by. I wondered what would happen, because our office is strict about limiting telecommuting. No one is allowed more than 2 days a week at home, and most don’t telecommute at all.

The other day Mercy’s manager informed her she would have to start coming to the office 5 days a week. She said the director has been concerned about Mercy’s productivity, since it’s hard to do her job entirely from home.

So Mercy is trying to get home care aides to stay with her mother on weekdays. She also plans to ask her manager if she can telecommute 2 days a week.

Mercy told me what her life has been like this summer. She can’t ever go out, except when one of her sisters stays for an hour, so she can go out for shopping and errands. She never takes a walk, has no social life, never does anything for fun. She is always home alone with her mother, who no longer speaks.

I have not been able to figure out if Mercy is doing the “right thing” or not. Some people said she is unfair to her employer — they are paying her the same, but getting less in return. Others say they would always put their family first, no matter what.

I think Mercy has been unfair to herself, and has missed so much of her own life because of her mother’s sickness. But I also think Mercy is doing this out of genuine love and goodness. She is resentful and angry and feels deprived, but she also feels virtuous. Maybe she is doing exactly what she wants to do?

I absolutely don’t know. I know Mercy very well and she has always been very unhappy, since I have known her. But maybe unhappiness and self-sacrifice is her happiness?

Amba’s situation is kind of similar, but Amba is never resentful or unhappy. For one thing, there is no one for Amba to be angry at, while Mercy has her uncaring sisters. Also, taking care of a mother who has always been miserable is different from taking care of a husband who was always the center of your world.

Anyway, I just don’t know the answer at all. Next month Mercy has to figure out how to come to work every day, while managing unreliable home care aides.

Permalink 57 Comments

What Will People Think?

August 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm (By Realpc)

My mother always advised me not to worry what people think. Of course I questioned her advice — what would happen if I really didn’t care? And of course she didn’t mean what she said. She was really just rebelling against old fashioned conservative ideas. Worrying about what people think used to go without saying, because the social group was always more important than the individual — the whole was more than its parts. And that has probably been true in every society — human or animal — except for our modern liberal society. Now the parts often seem to be valued more than the whole.

But not really. We all care, very deeply, what other people think. We might not worry about it consciously, but our subconscious mind is always hard at work, paying careful attention to the infinitely intricate and subtle details of social life. We must resonate with some kind of social context. When liberals like my mother say they don’t care what the neighbors think, they actually mean they don’t care what the old-fashined conservative neighbors think.

People who really don’t care are the ones who don’t resonate with any social group. And they are, by definition, insane.

An old belief said that each society, human or animal, has its group mind. The group minds, or “over souls,” might exist on every level. Each village could have its group mind, and so could every household. In other words, I am talking about gods. A god is a unifying force that holds societies, and sub-societies, together.

So if you resonate with modern liberal humanism and atheism, for example, your subconscious mind is a devoted worshiper of a god that rules over that belief system and holds its followers together.

Permalink 42 Comments

Is Life Meaningful, and Does it Matter?

May 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm (By Realpc)

If you are an atheist, then you believe each person’s mind is physically separate from all others. And you believe there is no inherent meaning or purpose in life. Whatever meaning we experience is created by ourselves. This is because an atheist’s view of the world is based on a certain way of defining “matter.” For an atheist, matter is something that exists because of what the laws of physics happen to be, and those laws have no reason for existing. They just are. The laws of physics, or of nature, just happen to be there. And matter, which results from those laws, just happens to be here. There is no need to question why any of it is here, since it started for no reason and it continued for no reason.

Atheism is considered scientific now days. But is there any real connection between science and atheism? I am not talking about Intelligent Design versus neo-Darwinism right now, although that is also relevant. For now, I want to just talk about matter and meaning, on the most basic level.

It might be interesting to note, first of all, that the words “matter” and “meaning” are used similarly. We say “it doesn’t matter” to indicate that something is not meaningful, is not relevant. We also say “it makes no difference” to express the same thing as “it doesn’t matter.”

And this is my central point — matter is made out of differences, relationships, vibrations. See what I mean? Physicists now know that they don’t know what matter is made out of. Strings? Matrices in eleven dimensions? What is all that about? No one knows.

But we do know that it’s all waves, vibrations. And what is a vibration? It is simply a pattern of differences in time. High-low, off-on, etc.

There is a philosophy called “digital physics” which is based on the idea that the universe is some kind of infinite multidimensional computer program. Something like this was expressed in the “Matrix” movies, but the idea goes back at least to the 1960s and the early days of computer science.

Of course no one knows what the universe really is and whether it’s like a computer program. The idea seems reasonable to me however. People who believe in digital physics are not usually the same people who believe the universe is Infinite Intelligence — the two groups don’t seem to communicate. But I see obvious connections between them.

Let’s say the universe is ultimately made out of information, and information processing. Well what is “intelligence” if not information and information processing?

I will leave it at that for now, and hopefully it all makes sense and everyone who reads this will say yes of course. If not, we can have fun arguing in circles.

Where I am coming from, by the way, and what I’m getting at, is the idea that religion and science are perfectly compatible. I am a skeptical scientific person, a computer scientist. And I believe that everything is made out of relationships, differences, meaning, and everything is connected.

So I believe that meaning created us and we are meaningful. There is no possibility of anything being meaningless in a universe that IS meaning.

So I am a theist.

Permalink 20 Comments


March 30, 2010 at 6:21 pm (By Realpc) ()

I got a phone call from MegaBank the other day — they were taking a survey of customers who had recently closed their accounts. The purpose was to find out the reasons, and to see if they could entice these customers to come back. I wouldn’t usually take a telephone survey, but I had a horrible experience with MegaBank, after being a loyal customer for 10 years, and I thought this might be my chance to curse them out.

The survey guy (I’ll call him “S”) said the survey would only take 10 minutes to complete, and would be recorded and listened to by the MegaBank management.

S: Ok, we’ll get started. The first question is about age. What age category are you in — are you under 18?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 18 and 20?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 20 and 25?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 25 and 30?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 30 and 35?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 35 and 40?

Me: Whoa! Hold on a minute. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ask me what my age is, and then put it in the right category?

S: MegaBank says we have to ask it this way.

Me: This survey is a perfect example of why I hate MegaBank and why I left.

S: I am so sorry you feel that way. Shall we continue?

Me: On with the torture. When do I get a chance to tell them why I hate them?

S: Just let me get through this question, please. Is your age between 40 and 45?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 45 and 50?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 50 and 55?

Me: No.

S: Are you between 55 and 60?

Me: Bingo! You must be psychic!

S: Next question. This one is about education. Did you complete kindergarten?

Me: Yes.

S: First grade?

Me: Yes.

S: Second grade?

Me: Yes.

And so it went on, and on, and on. It took 20 minutes instead of 10 because I spent so much time cursing and swearing and explaining how much I deeply despise MegaBank.

It turned out that the motivation for the survey was to find out if disgruntled customers would come back to MegaBank for a bonus of $200 and some free gifts. A feeble attempt to get back some of the customers who have run screaming out their doors.

But who needs customers anyway, when you have the American taxpayers to pay your mega bonuses?

Permalink 8 Comments

Hatred of Hatred of Hatred

March 23, 2010 at 8:27 pm (By Realpc)

I was at the coffee machine at work and somehow another liberal conversation broke out. There were the usual comments about the stupid Christian southerners and about the wonders of diversity, etc. I struggled to keep my mouth shut, while over-reacting inwardly. Why do I hate to hear this kind of conversation? I decided it’s because, in trying to be oh so tolerant and kind, they are actually expressing hatred for the Christian southerners. They are hating the hatred. And I felt myself hating their hatred of hatred.

And I got really confused.

It sort of reminds me of the folk music movement of the 1960s. The folk musicians expressed appreciation of the art of ordinary rural folk. The movement stood for protecting and respecting the ordinary person. But at the same time, the folk music movement’s values were at odds with rural folk values.

The rural folk are mostly traditional, conservative and family-oriented. They are not idealists or utopians or socialists. They are not Marxists or atheists. They are not overly tolerant of “weird” ideas or people.

My liberal co-workers congratulate themselves on their educated open-mindedness and their compassion. And who can disagree with all that? I hate intolerance and bigotry as much as they do. I belong to an ethnic minority so of course I have been a terrified target of hate.

At the same time I believe that hate, in one form or another, is inevitable, and becomes more so as our civilization grows ever more impossibly complex. Progressives see us marching toward ever-increasing tolerance and love, while I see us marching over a cliff.

Well maybe not. I don’t pretend to know where we’re marching to. I just know it isn’t Utopia. And I know we are not growing more loving. We are more tolerant of racial and ethnic differences, and of unconventional sexual orientations. But we have replaced these with other targets for our intolerance and hatred.

Looking down at, and even hating, the ignorant folk that you are supposedly trying to help is an old liberal tradition.

Permalink 14 Comments

Them vs. Us

March 17, 2010 at 6:24 pm (By Realpc) ()

I shouldn’t criticize Granny D. right after she died (she was a Democratic congresswoman, in case you never heard of her), but I happened to see one of her speeches on the Michael Moore website, and it seems like an ideal example of non-centrism and Us vs Them thinking. She was probably a nice and well-meaning person, and I don’t completely disagree with her whole speech. But I want to show some quotes from her speech that I think are examples of someone who seemed to be irrationally and one-sidedly caught up in an ideology.

GD: “Let us consider the self-repression of the political right … Where authority and power flow down from above, from heaven to the White House to husbands and ayatollahs, the free and joyful living of people can be quite the enemy. If you will remember the free spirit of those flower children who grew up in the 1960s, for example, you will also remember the harsh attitude that attended to their joys from the more traditional, often more rural, elements of our society”

So the flower children of the 1960s represent her ideal type of free and joyful person. She must not have noticed that most of the 1960s flower children finished college and got jobs and are now wearing ties and driving SUVs. Flower childhood was not a responsible way to live, so people grew out of it. Maybe those traditional rural people had reasons for not wanting their kids to become free and joyful hippies.

GD: “those in the clan of authority are not given the privilege–the natural right–of living their own lives. They do as they are told, say and think what they are told. Smothered is their curiosity and their healthy skepticism, and also their imagination, joy, freedom, and lust for life itself. When they see others actually living lives, they react with anger, as if someone had cut to the front of a line that, for them, never moves.”

GD:: “the authority clan parades itself as pro-life while it is truly more like a cult of death. Having died themselves, strangled by authority and fear, they cannot wish happy lives for others–they cling only to that magic symbol of what might have been. They relate to the unborn baby selfishly; it is themselves: unborn, unlived, still hoping for a life.”

So being against abortion is actually a symptom of what sounds like a serious mental derangement. Granny D. can’t imagine anyone having any sane reasons for not liking abortion, or being ambivalent about abortion, or being against late abortion.

GD:: “How horrible to be enslaved to the wrong way of thinking at such a time of national crisis! We owe it to our friends and neighbors to free them if we can, so they might stand with us.”

GD: “Imagine that your friend is very much pro-life and pro-war and doesn’t see the illness of her mental conflict … I think you might notice that this friend of yours lives a slipcover-protected life and has not even allowed herself the freedoms of a good fantasy life. Let’s repair that … Let me suggest that we take her to a good arts district, rent her a studio apartment full of art supplies above a good sidewalk café, find her a lover and come back in ninety days to see if her politics have changed. As she lives a real life, as she explores her own potential, she will learn to let others live and enjoy their lives, too.”

So, there aren’t any women who are artists and have lovers, and yet are against abortion? So all you have to do, to make someone think abortion is perfectly ok, is give them art supplies and a lover. Simple.

GD: “She will want to help the young woman artist next door who gets herself into trouble. She will even begin to be amused and impressed instead of angered and depressed by the Clintons and other lively, joyful, free-living people of this beautiful earth.”

So Clinton wasn’t a compulsive tom cat after all. He was just so lively and joyful and free-living he couldn’t keep his fly zipped. And Hillary didn’t mind, no not at all. She just loved the joyful freedom of being betrayed by her husband in front of the whole world.

Is anyone except me thinking “huh?” right now?

GD: “We must help people see the mental traps that they are victim to, and we must do this by telling it like we see it, by asking them to see that the pro-life, pro-war movement is really a cult of death, that fundamental Christianity represents the opposite of Christ’s teachings, that authoritarian control and elite profiteering are the strings of the far right’s puppet show …. Let us indeed believe that all people are equal, but let us not assume that all political opinions are equal, for some are toxic and sociopathic and require our loving intervention.”

Yes the Democrats are the party of lively joyful love and light, while the Republicans are followers of Darth Vader.

Well anyway, I think Granny D.’s world view is quite common these days. If you loved the 1960s and the flower children, and you still love them, then you might agree with her. If you hated the 1960s then, and you still hate the 1960s, then you might be a Republican. And if you sort of liked some things about the 1960s, but didn’t like other things, then you might be an ambivalent centrist today.

Permalink 2 Comments


February 26, 2010 at 7:43 pm (By Realpc) ()

In the 1980s, an AIDS diagnosis meant death within one or two years. But after HIV was discovered and antiretroviral drugs were developed, AIDS mortality dramatically decreased. AZT was the first antiretroviral, and it was approved as the standard AIDS treatment, after effectiveness was demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials. Subsequent drugs, often used in combination, were shown to be even more effective than AZT (the newer drugs were compared against AZT, not placebo, since AZT had already been proven effective).

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has been the standard AIDS treatment for the past 10 years, and now AIDS patients can expect to live almost normal lives.

So things are going quite well with respect to AIDS, aren’t they? Well yes, if you believe the mainstream AIDS propaganda. But I have found what appear to be some weird problems with the mainstream reasoning.

For example: Early in the AIDS epidemic, patients who were diagnosed were very sick. Later on, after the discovery of HIV, diagnoses could be made earlier. And the diagnostic criteria were expanded, so that AIDS patients were diagnosed who were not as likely to die within a year or two. In fact, a patient with a positive HIV test might remain free of AIDS symptoms for 10 years or more.

So did the dramatic decrease in AIDS mortality result from the antiretroviral drugs, or from the earlier and expanded diagnoses of AIDS? Or both?

The AIDs Truth website claims that AZT was shown, in controlled experimental studies, to prolong life and improve health, and it cites a meta-analysis. But the meta-analyss says that, although AZT was effective in studies lasting less than 3 years, it had NO effect in studies lasting 3 years or more. AIDS Truth leaves that part out.

And AIDS Truth says that newer drugs, and combinations of drugs, were shown to be even more effective than AZT. But AZT was not effective, except in short term studies.

So what is really going on? I don’t know. I do know that people who are pro-mainstream medicine can get very angry at anyone who questions the current theories and treatments. Anyone who questions or wonders is called a “denier.”

About the drugs: Even mainstream AIDS researchers acknowledge that antiretroviral drugs are toxic and can cause heart disease, cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, premature aging, etc., etc. But if the drugs save lives, it’s better to suffer from “side effects” than to die.

And furthermore, the AIDS mainstream claims that these “side effects” are only occurring because AIDS patients are now surviving much longer, thanks to the drugs. Cancer, heart disease, etc., are a sign of the effectiveness of the drugs, not of their toxicity.

And there is confusion about which symptoms and diseases are caused by AIDS and which are caused by the treatments. No one really seems to know.

So what is true? Are the drugs prolonging lives and improving health, or are they killing and disabling and destroying health? Or both? I don’t know.

The very foundation of the current theories and treatments appears shaky. And the justifications are often baffling. HAART has been used for 10 years, and its proponents say it has extended the lives of AIDS patients by 45 years. How can they know that, if no one has taken the drugs more than 10 years?

They extrapolate based on 5-year survival. But 5-year survival for AIDS patients has been increasing because of earlier diagnosis, expanded diagnostic criteria, and more HIV testing. And maybe also because of HAART. But maybe not. Probably not, in my opinion.

Based on all the information I have been able to find so far — and it’s mostly confusing, confused, and possibly deceptive — I think HAART is lethal, and that its benefits are mostly illusory. I don’t know if HIV causes AIDS, but I think maybe it doesn’t. Or maybe it does, but maybe there are other complicating factors involved.

Permalink 30 Comments

The Killer Mothers are Coming!

December 30, 2009 at 6:22 pm (By Realpc)

I am so relieved. I just found out that careful scientific research has discovered the cause of our society’s worst problems — war, violence and religion. And that there is a cure! It turns out that, believe it or not, people become violent because they were raised by “killer mothers.’ Yes, killer mothers. We think of mothers as loving comparssionate creatures who would die to save their baby’s lives. In reality, when their babies cry, mothers sometimes have an urge to throw them out the window! Most of the time, they don’t act on these urges. But they feel them, and the babies know it, and are therefore terrified most of the time. And, of course, when they grow up, they enlist in the armed forces. Not, as you thought, because they love their country, but because their amygdala has enlarged and their frontal lobes have shrunk — all from being raised by a killer mother!
You don’t have to believe me (you probably think what I’m saying is ca-razy!) — no, you can read it for yourself:
This is real scientific proof, and we know that because they used brain imaging technology!
So what can we do? Killer mothers have been around since our species landed on earth. In fact, it used to be much worse, and thanks to scientific progress and the decline of relgion, killer mothers are not quite so common as they were. But we still have an epidemic on our hands. What can we do? Well, start by making sure every mother gets psychotherapy. As we all know, psychotherapy makes angry, depressed, violent people as fluffy and loving as a batch of purring kitty cats! If you haven’t tried it, you should!
But don’t stop there. We need government programs and agencies that will ensure mothers do a good job and don’t even think about hurling their screaming infants out the window.
So that’s that. Have a fluffy loving day!

Permalink 4 Comments

The Case for God (by realpc)

October 3, 2009 at 4:30 pm (By Realpc) ()

There is a new book called The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong. It was recommended to me and I read some reviews, but I did not read the book. Of course I can’t really know what a book is like just by reading the reviews, but the reviews convinced me not to read it, and I will try to explain why. The title led me to think it might be a logical and scientific argument explaining the evidence against atheism, which is the kind of book I might want to read. The reviews I read , on the other hand, suggest that it’s the old “religion and science inhabit completely separate worlds and have nothing to say about each other” argument. Which I do not agree with at all. And furthermore, scientific atheists are impervious to that argument because they “know” science has shown that the “god hypothesis” is unnecessary. They “know” that consciousness, intelligence, only can occur as the product of a physical brain.

The form of pro-god argument expressed in that book says that god is beyond human comprehension and cannot be studied by science. It says that god is not a person, is not tangible. And it says that faith in god can make us a better, nicer, happier person. Ok, there might be some truth in some of that, but there is untruth in it also, and the truth it contains is incomplete and inadequate.

I had read one of C.S Lewis’ books, having heard that it was a logical argument for god. But it wasn’t. It was the old “god is beyond science and reason, and faith in god will make you happier and nicer” argument. It just makes scientific atheists laugh scornfully (something they do a lot of).

I’ve had many arguments with scientific atheists, and I have never won, and they never accepted a single one of my points. But the experience has made me aware of exactly what scientific atheists believe (and their beliefs are pretty much identical). I think I know exactly what the major holes in their logic are, and how they misinterpret the evidence. I won’t try to explain all that in this post. I just want to say something about my beliefs regarding science and religion, why I have always considered this of great importance, and why scientific atheism is becoming a powerful force in our society. And why that’s too bad.

I first learned that god is not real many years ago in college. I believed the professors because I didn’t know much, and they seemed to know a lot. They said that science had demonstrated there are no such things as gods, spirits, angels, devils, etc. It was all the childish unscientific fantasies of ignorant uneducated people.

“Knowing” this made me feel smart and superior, but sometimes I still wondered. Why did so many people believe these silly fantasies? Why had people in all corners of the world, in all cultures, held similar beliefs in spirits, demons, etc.?

So I was motivated to find out if what I learned in college was true. Or was it just another myth, another product of human imagination, a story “smart” people told themselves so they could feel superior and scientific? I set out to learn if scientific atheism is actually based on logic and evidence. I read a lot and I thought a lot, for many years.

I found that no, scientific atheism is not based on scientific evidence or logic. Richard Dawkins is not a voice of reason, fighting the dark forces of ignorance — he is a promoter of a myth. And no, science and religion do not inhabit separate worlds, and yes it is possible to study “god” scientifically.

You can say that god is infinitely beyond human comprehension, but that is saying nothing. Almost everything is beyond human comprehension. And what does the word “god” mean anyway? I don’t even frame the question that way. Instead of asking if god exists and is real, I ask whether “Matter creates Mind” or “Mind creates Matter.” To me the latter is obviously true, and is supported by evidence and logic.

We don’t have to seek evidence for an ultimate infinite God, an all-knowing source of everything that is. We can simply ask whether Mind creates Matter. Is the brain a machine that generates consciousness, or a machine that allows consciousness to interact with the “physical” world of our senses (as described by Sheldrake)?

Dawkins’ basic premiss is that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been proven, and that it shows that natural selection acting on random, purposeless events caused life to appear and evolve. The world is made of lifeless “matter” which assembled itself through the Darwinian process into ourselves, and all other living things.

An enormous amount of evidence has been found for evolution, and for the Darwinian process of adaptation by natural selection. Anyone who doubts these facts is stubborn and silly, or ignorant. But there is nothing whatsoever in any branch of science that suggests this is how and why life originated and evolved. Evolution is true. Natural selection is true. They are two different things; one did not cause the other — I have never been able to explain that to an atheist!

The purpose of the Intelligent Design movement is to show that, although evolution occurred, we do not know how or why. ID is a criticism of the Darwinian theory, which says lifeless, mindless matter can generate life and mind. ID says it is mathematically impossible. ID has not convinced the scientific atheists; they just laugh scornfully at it.

I believe our universe is made out of information, not “matter.” Science has shown us that “matter” is not “physical.” Everything is made of relationships, forces, differences. There are dimensional levels above and beyond the world of our senses. The universe is an infinite Mind, I believe.

So Mind creates Matter, and Mind can and does exist separately from physical brains. There are higher, or different, planes of existence than our own. There are beings, entities, “people,” gods, demons, spirits, angels, devils — why can’t there be? Millions have seen them and heard them and felt them — they were not all hallucinating, in my opinion,

This is not a case for “god,” it’s a case for Mind over Matter. The universe is an infinite Mind and it generates Minds, beings, spirits, etc. Each of us is a face of the ultimate infinite God. There are infinitely many aspects of the ultimate God, and there are an infinite number of mental beings, gods, spirits, etc., on all levels.

I am trying not to make this a long post. I have many reasons for what I’m saying, but I know someone might say it’s ridiculous and unscientific, that I am taking vague and untested scientific theories and spinning wild fantasies. No, I am not. But it would take hundreds or thousands of pages, which you would not read, to explain. I will just say for right now that there is more than enough evidence from parapsychology that Mind can exist and operate separately from matter.

I am not basing everything on parapsycholgy, but I am saying it’s at start, and you can’t just deny and dismiss it. Many times I showed scientific atheists evidence from parapsychology and, after they laughed scornfully, they were unable to explain why they refused to believe it. It must be a mistake, it must be fake. They stopped laughing and started yelling and cursing. I was banned from their blogs.

So .. the case for god. I believe in god and I experience god in my own way. I don’t have a definition for it. I feel I am part of a living conscious universe. And actually, yes it does make me a happier person. Nicer I am not sure about.

Permalink 108 Comments

Communism — Why Not?

September 4, 2009 at 11:27 am (By Realpc) ()

I keep hearing progressives use the word “communism,” and they obviously are not afraid of the idea. Certainly not these days, now that we “know”capitalism doesn’t work. They explain how happy everyone is in Scandanavian countries, and what a crime it is that the richest country on earth, America, does not take care of its citizens. If you tell them communism has been tried and it failed every time, they say it never was done correctly. If you tell them the Scandanavian countries are actually capitalist, they change the subject. If you tell them communism is not compatible with individual rights and freedom they won’t believe it. Or they’ll say we aren’t free anyway, in a country owned by giant corporations.

So why not give communism a chance, now that we don’t seem to have much to lose anyway? We’re being strangled by too-big-to-fail monsters, in league with a government full of crooks. How could communism be any worse than this? Aren’t we smart enough by now to create a system that is fair and efficient and logical, and compassionate?

You would think so, with all the noble prize-winning scientists and economists we have here. How hard can it really be?

What they don’t see is that creating a functioning economic system is one of those things that seems like it should be possible, but isn’t. Scientists have never created a living organism, they have never created a computer with anything like human intelligence. And for similar reasons, they will never create a functioning economic system (not to mention a functioning system that is also fair and compassionate).

Progressives have not ever been able to see the limits of science and human intelligence. If humans can build rockets and split atoms, they should becapable of anything.

I won’t try to prove my point in this short post. I’ll just say, for now, that human intelligence and science have limits. We can make progress in certain ways but not in other ways. And our progress always has unforeseen consequences. Conservatives generally know this, or at least are much more likely to know it than progressives. Progressives don’t know it, won’t believe it, and can’t see it.

Permalink 44 Comments

« Previous page · Next page »