Think, Think AgainConsidering and reconsidering at its best …

{From October 2005}

I just read an interesting passage near the beginning of a chi kung book by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming, Qigong, The Secret of Youth that posited an interesting thought. Throughout time people found spiritual meaning through religion, but now people search for spirituality outside of religion because religion has not kept up to the scientific approach of judging the validity and usefulness of concepts.

I can’t say that religion SHOULD be scientific, but I understand what he means. And his angst about religions building walls, especially between cultures, is preaching to the choir from where I stand.

So is the popularity of secularism really because it is some an “enlightenment” of rational thought and science, or is it simply growing in its usefulness because of the failings of traditional religion?

Dr. Yang believes a revolution must occur in what he calls “spiritual science” (a concept that doesn’t make sense to most Westerners, but there is such a thing) where religions all get together and share, bringing about a new revolution where religion again plays the main role in spirituality.

However, I could care less if our spirituality is secular or religious, and think that the religions of the world has as much to learn from secularism as from each other.

Side Note: That’s why my inter-faith ministry will not be limited to what people would call “religious beliefs”, but will recognize the legitimate truths found outside of theistic belief. Some will be offended, but MY God is bigger than the idea of any god. But that’s for another topic of discussion.

{Posted on a Hobowars.Com gang forum, on my Q&A thread in December 2007}

Q: Why did Al Gore get a Nobel peace prize for telling us something we already know?

A: Actually, he got the prize for being an effective advocate for something we are merely convinced that we know. I often joke that he must be the only person more stupid than Bush who has ever run for president. You will also catch me say things like, “The biggest cause for global warming is Al Gore” and “Gore is the Paris Hilton of the scientific community.”

Nobel would be spinning in his grave. He basically decided to turn a quasi-religious environmentalist viewpoint (barely a bona fide theory) based mostly in fear into an international political money-making scam by declaring a “consensus” in a scientific community before actually asking them. Almost none of the signers of the original “study” were scientists!

It’s a far worse hijacking of science than “creation science” back in the 1990s (the forerunner of “intelligent design” ), because the politics took over the scene so fast that almost every scientist with any credibility became a “dissident” overnight and either kept quiet to save their jobs or get mocked by the media and a religiously zealous public looking for the next desperate self-justifying cause.

If you really believe something so scientifically incorrect as “global warming is caused mostly by CO2 and man makes most of that”, ask a real (unafraid) scientist to explain the basics statistics of oceanography, meteorology, greenhouse gasses and effects — and look at evidence such as the Vostok core sample data yourself instead of just reading articles ABOUT it.

In 20 years, the global warming scare will be one of the biggest embarrassments of our time. By then we will be probably just as stupidly afraid of the next ice age. That is, until the next bad hurricane (Hurricane Gore?) comes along and we change our uneducated minds once more, in a perpetual Chicken Little Dance of “The Sky is Falling!”

This secular version of Armageddon was around when I was a child (then changed briefly to concerns of cooling, then back again quickly, because they couldn’t find a way to blame that on ourselves or some big evil corporations). According to what “everyone already knew”, New York City would have been underwater in the late 1990s. But in all things, people have memories even shorter than their ability to process facts from propaganda.

{Addendum, 2008}

Boston Globe reports it NOT a record year as predicted, not the last 10 years having any increase in warming. Read it HERE.

Also, please note that the 1998 figure was a mistake by NASA that someone outside the scientific community caught and notified them. They corrected to show the “hottest year of the 1900s” to be in the 1930s, not the 90s. However, the news will keep reporting this error (not unlike the erroneous idea of a man-made hole in the ozone later determined to be sunspot-based) for many years to come.

{Written March 2007}

Catching up on a parenting newsgroup, I thought of a new way of looking at personal beliefs. We either hold them as our own — and keep them in perspective — or we hold them over others, and get what we deserve.

I love my Dad. He’s the best dad in the whole world.

Let’s look at this back and forth in two directions.

Did I just make a statement that is true or false? Does it have to be true or false? It depends on if I believe it as a personal belief or if I think I’m stating a fact, right? How old would you think I am if it was the latter? Should a belief about my dad being the best be more real to me at all times than your dad being the best? Can’t beliefs share my consciousness a bit, or am I lost in my own creation at all times?

Now turn the tables.

Did I just insult your own dad by saying mine was the best? If you were offended, what would that say about the nature of your belief about your dad? Or about your ability to know the difference between a fact and a belief? Are you confusing beliefs with reality, as if they have the same import? If so, maybe the belief about beliefs isn’t serving you that well and it needs reconsidering.

Back to the experience … Would you stomp your feet and push your belief on me that your own dad is the best and I am wrong about my own? Would I be accused of bias, as if it wasn’t perfectly fine to be so on my part, and as if you don’t have any of your own?

What if I hear you brag about your dad all the time, and maybe think he’s really cool, but mention my dad also has a good job, or that lots of dads spend quality time with their kids like yours did. After all, if you go so far as to try convincing me I should have had your dad my whole life, you deserve a reality check, right? I’m not questioning your dad’s greatness, but your own levelheadedness about it — a huge difference.

Another way to put it: Am I taking something away from your dad? Am I even taking away from your belief? Or maybe I’m taking away from a rigid ego-view of your belief. Do you have enough awareness to tell the difference between these three layers of belief? And if you can, am I doing it on purpose to hurt you or just keeping a mature perspective that other dads are cool too? Does it even matter, as if I’m responsible for how you take my words so you can play the victim?

Maybe it depends on tact on my part. Maybe it depends on if the person you are speaking with is so immature they can’t handle any ideas that might make them think — even in their own mind — that their dad ISN’T the best dad ever. Which isn’t even what was implied. It’s a little bit of both.

The point of all this?

People confuse belief with reality. Belief can create reality (sort of, sometimes), but when you take it too far or can’t separate a belief from yourself, you’ve lost touch. You start schoolyard fights trying to defend your dad’s honor just because someone doesn’t like him, or thinks their dad is better, or whatever.

One could take beliefs as the currency of consciousness. But all it really means is that people who are stuck mentally in such an economy are filthy rich with counterfeit fortunes — and they can’t realistically expect a decent exchange rate in anyone else’s world.

This article {written December 30, 2007} is a bit simplified, but could be used as a primer for discussing such a topic rationally and fruitfully. The inspiration of writing this essay is the debate over the publicizing of written materials used in an LGAT (Large Group Awareness Training) seminar by someone outside the organization / individual who owns the copyright to those materials. The motivation claimed by they who made the materials public is that people have a right to know what they are getting into before they pay for a course, and assume that it will protect people from being coerced into something they would not have wanted to otherwise. There is also the element of depriving the owner of income derived in part from such materials. Other considerations, such as the claim used by some religious or quasi-religious groups that upper level “secrets” are their religious right, will not be addressed here.

Basic Ethical Considerations

Like any ethical situation, every factor can play a role in determining the right and wrong in a situation. Specific acts are not wrong, but the circumstances make it so. Killing someone in self-defense or accidentally or unknowingly is different from killing in war and is different from murder. If you don’t understand the obviousness of this statement, then studying and discussing ethics isn’t for you. Right to the fruits of one’s intellectual property is no exception, and is neither inalienable nor absolute.

What are some of the factors surrounding the making of another’s copyright materials public? Two come to mind right away: intention and consequence. Intention does not necessarily change the consequences of the action, but it can make it more or less justifiable depending on point of view. That is why there are rarely one-sided answers in ethics, but a set of sometimes contradictory understandings that must be weighed against each other, sometimes even arbitrarily.

In the case of “secret” upper level practices of an organization or company, these cannot be copyrighted. However, the FORM of the ideas, i.e. a written manual or book, CAN be copyrighted in United States law. The case for doing so is in principle to protect trade secrets with the assumption they have trade value. The possible negative consequence of making such words public is the decrease in sellability by the work’s owner due to alternate availability. However, unless the process underlying the expression is patented (if even possible or defensible), the ideas can be disseminated legally and cause the same effect. The origin — even if borrowed entirely from other sources — is irrelevant to the copyright so long as the expression of the ideas is original.

Also there is the question if the work itself has market value. If it is part of a course, the question is whether people are paying for a course experience or for the written materials. Conversely, a person has the right to know — and the company an obligation to provide — reasonably detailed information on the content of the course. One way of doing this is to make the written expression of it public, and by default is a decision for the owner to make and take the ethical responsibility for. If someone other than the owner makes it public, there must be a reason.

Reasons for Exposure

There are justifiable reasons for publishing the copyrighted works of others. The three that come to mind is proof, journalism, and warning.

The first reason is to use a work as proof of itself. In other words, if one argues that certain statements were / are being made, and there is a challenge, the work must be provided and quoted. However, this assumes a challenge and limiting the quoting of the work to the necessity of proof, and only in some cases would the whole work be necessary to provide context.

The second is to publish necessary portions of a work for journalistic integrity, but not necessarily more than a few snippets and a summary UNLESS a challenge is expected or given as to being quoted in context.

The third reason is to publish a work is if by its nature reveals something of sufficient potential harm to someone. A simpler way to describe this is “consumer awareness”. For example this could mean written statements that are evidence of the nature of an organization that is hidden from the public, and in particular would affect their relationship with the organization if they knew beforehand. People have a right to know who they are doing business with and what they are getting themselves into, and this is why cults very often have hidden beliefs and practices above and beyond the motive of mysticism for the sake of marketing. This reason is especially important if the relationship between an organization and its consumers / adherents is manipulative to the extent that nothing short of total disclosure (if that) would make them believe the nature of the organization.

Another Consideration

The ethical question of intention versus consequence is noteworthy. A person may publicize another’s works with the intention of hurting their business with malice and forethought, while another may deem the information journalistically noteworthy or even necessary for consumers’ free will (real choice due to more knowledge), yet the action and consequence is the same.

In the end, it is a balance between the right of a person to the rewards of their works and the right of the public and/or the consumer to know. If the work is simply an expression of an individual to be sold by itself, such as a work of art or writing, then the latter rights are minimal or non-existent. If the work is part of a program sold to consumers — especially if its nature is potentially harmful such as in quasi-psychology alternative therapies (unproven by professional review or independent clinical studies), then the latter has much more weight.

Summary

When publicizing another’s work without their consent, there are inevitably disparate views on the ethicality of such acts. For it to be just, there must be a cause and/or consequence that outweighs the rights of intellectual property, regardless of other intentions.

{This paper was written for a Religious Studies course circa 1990 taught by someone who previously was a teacher at a local Girl’s high school. We got along well, and I think we both learned a bit from each other. I believe the grade on this was an “A” with a note that she didn’t claim to understand some of what I had written, but was sure it was worthy of the grade had she understood it.}

My theory of creation is that it never happened – sort of. It’s not that time is an infinite progression and/or regression on a straight line, but that it is circular. We philosophers, after all, like a closed system.(1)

I shall explain. Without going into too much explanation as to the nature of life itself, it suffices to state that “the creation”, the cosmos, exists. Also, we perceive time to exist as well. But I would suggest that the two — time and space — are not independent of one another, but time is as legitimate a dimension as is space.(2) Time, therefore, is part of the cosmos. It then becomes obvious that time was created along with the rest of the cosmos, but a new question forces it’s way in. When were space and time created?

As to the answer of this question, to say simply “at the beginning of time” is not acceptable. Why? The question itself is nonsense. Time itself could not be created at its own beginning if it did not yet exist.(3) Alternatively, time seen as dimension similar to the physical ones would suggest that all of time and space was created simultaneously. “Simultaneously” here cannot mean “in one instant” in the usual sense, since there are no instants in time if time is again not existent. It must mean that in the eyes of God (figuratively or literally) all of time is viewed as a single, gestaltic whole, as one would view “simultaneously” a whole piece if wood, end to end.

In conclusion of this argument, I must suggest that the idea of a specific act of creation at a given time is unfoundable, given the aforementioned axioms and statements.

But conclusive or not, the theory is not complete in that things exist, events take place, and how we got here has in no way been answered to the fullest.

First, time, in light of what was stated earlier, did not have a start (and likewise no finish) because any endpoints must have a relation to another body of reference, of which there is none (because time does not
exist apart from itself in the cosmos).

This idea is best explained by the problem of infinite space. The physical dimensions (and time as well I am proposing) cannot have a boundary, for any such limitation would be a contradiction. If there is an outer shell to the universe, there must be something outside of it, perhaps a giant sea our universe is floating within- but then by definition, the “Cosmos” must also include this sea or external region as part of it.(5)

But if the universe is infinite in size, the Laws of the Conservation of Mass and Energy become a wrench in the works. These laws by their nature call for a sum total of mass and energy, hence a finite universe. How is a finite universe with no boundaries possible? Again, I shall explain.

A two-dimensional view (ie. a map) of the surface of Earth shows a specific total area, yet one can sail off the page as Megellan did and miraculously reappear on the other side. Why? The Earth is a sphere — a three-dimensional sphere. If we perceive it in one less dimension than it is, the fact that it is unbounded yet finite is a seeming contradiction. By extrapolation, we can then say that the physical cosmos, when perceived as unbounded and finite in three dimensions, must therefore be four-dimensional.(6)

If time is a dimension of similar nature as the three “physical” dimensions (ie. the geometric axes x,y,z), then it also must curve in upon itself so that going in one direction will eventually result in arriving back at the starting point. (A bit too much for Megellan, eh?) So the time axis, like space, is a straight line in our limited perception, but a circle in the next-higher dimension.

It is now the unavoidable time to discuss History, natural or otherwise. No one with reason can ignore, or fail to at least hold true with the intellect, that all empirical evidence points both to evolution and to a lesser extent, the Big Bang theory. Geologic and Paleontological data prove beyond doubt, with the help of constant, known rates of radioactive decay (ie. carbon dating, etc.), that the cosmos is immensely older than human history itself. However, as will be explained, the role of God as creator, even in this repetition of events in an open yet finite universe (called “Toroidial time-space”), is not altogether inconsistent.

The Big Bang theory is the catch here. The theory states with some certainty that the universe expanded rapidly (”exploded”) from one point, about 15 billion years ago.(7)

It also states that just as sure that the universe is still expanding, basic physical forces will eventually cause the universe to contract to a single point, an estimated 70 billion years down the road. This span of 85 billion years, from the “Big Bang” to the “Big Stop”, is the finite realm of time.

If it is circular, the Big Stop then continues with the Big Bang, all over again.(8) Having no rationale for a time line with a beginning or end, along with the proposal that all dimensions are necessarily finite, I hereby state that circular time as well as space, must be the status quo.

Any act of creation then must involve the creation of the cosmos “instantaneously”, in a higher, non-temporal sense of the verb. Circular time, covering all the events in any salvation history past, present, and future, must have been [I use the past tense figuratively now] imposed into being as a stamp would print an entire figure or message — all at once, no chronological beginning or end.

The least empirical part of the theory, which is arational and therefore not truly theoretic by definition, is the presupposition that the Absolute Infinite, that whose oneness is both Being and Non-being, brings forth the Cosmos from being into non-being. God (it’s personified or personal form) is therefore the Designer of the natural order.(9)

With its empirical methods and instrumentation, Science studies the physical, finite laws of the Cosmos, while the nature of the realities of Life apart from such laws can only be left on the roadside. It is for the theologians and philosophers to carry it further, onward infinitely to the Absolute, from that point on.

FOOTNOTES

(1) This is not simply an arbitrary preference, though, but that my mystic intuition dictates that in actuality all infinities subordinate to the Absolute Infinity (ie. “God”, “Oneness”, “Nothingness”, the pseudo-mathematical Omega) exist solely within a finity of the same nature.

(2) Comparable to the Einsteinian concept of time as a dimension of space (ie. the fourth dimension).

(3) For “God’s time is not man’s time” and God as creator or otherwise is beyond time itself. This transcendence is taken for granted but not understood by the average Judeo-Christian believer.

(4) A man’s life is but an instant to the eyes of God, as a Judeo-Christian would say.

(5) Consider the Law of Inertia. A mass traveling to any “edge” of the universe would not know how to continue. [Pardon the personification] How would it? It could not go further, since there would be no place beyond, and yet the would be nothing beyond to deflect it back inward or even do so much as put the body to rest.

(6) Theoretic physicists would call its shape in four dimensions a “hypersphere”.

(7) In perspective, the Earth is about 5 billion years old.

(8) This takes place by the same opposing forces that reversed the universe’s expanding to contracting, 40-some billion years before the Big Stop.

(9) The laws of nature (with or without a divine design) I believe not to be arbitrary, though. Only one combination of physical laws is possible without there being inconsistency. More simply, no cosmos with any other rules could exist.

{This was posted on or aroung December 2004, in response to a thread on www.HoboWars.com asking people’s opinions on what to improve in America. There were lots of tongue-in-cheek answers, a lot of talk about laziness, de-religionizing government, etc., but one theme that recurred by both Americans and posted from other countries was keeping out of foreign affairs … a return to isolationism. Published elsewhere, this response received 4 five-star reviews out of 4, and over 1000 views as of this posting.}

I consider myself an American, but also very seriously as a citizen of the world.

Serious Isolationism is no longer an option – for ANY country that wants to survive. This isn’t a political opinion, but an economic position just short of absolute fact. A global economy is falling on us like landslide wether we like it or not, and we are ignorant to ignore it, and better adapt.

This brings up the question of our (or any nation’s) rights to protect their economic interests versus the sovereignty issues of other nations. And what is in the global economy’s interest (such as non-disruption of energy or food supply, etc.) is EVERYBODY’s business.

The problem (which rubber-stamps American pride as arrogance by the rest of the world) is that we are one of the heaviest hitters in the global economy. We make up the lion’s share of the UN’s resources, militarily and otherwise.

But we can’t win.

We are expected to contribute our own prosperity to the rest of the world, who is resentful that we gain vast influence in the process. Our foreign aid muddies the water of sovereignty in other nations, while we are battered for not doing enough.

Such influence / interference is in our national interest. Selfish humanitarianism. But any country would do the same if THEY were “The Man”. And if they wouldn’t, then their people are not looking out for their best interests, which in the real world we must all do.

My point is that we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, but even if we fight the right war for the wrong reason, with our position comes the ETHICAL responsibility of participation in global affairs.

My position is that we ARE our brother’s keeper. Overall, we have the biggest muslces and wallet in the family. That doesn’t mean we should bully just because we can, but that doesn’t MAKE us bullies just because we can either.

If America can walk the fine line between globally manipulative empire and the older brother you want on your side in the fight against whatever evil may arise and a helping hand when mankind is hurting, that’s the America I say the pledge to.

But America is not a person – it is people. A LOT of people. It is unrealistic to think there shouldn’t or wont be people to use world events unfairly to America’s advantage, but that is THEIR agenda – not America’s.

There are just as many (if not more) whose intentions are to do the right thing for ourselves AND the world at all times.

But until someone invents a black-and-white solution from on high … Forgive us our tresspasses. We are human too.

{This article was originally sent to the Western New York Catholic monthly periodical on 4 February 2003, not published except on a personal forum, where it received hundreds of views. Please note this was written before the War of Iraqi Liberation.*}

A local pastor in a neighboring parish wrote in a message to his congregation, “the President [Bush] will listen to no one about more peaceful ways of negotiation” with regards to the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the dictator of Iraq. This may or may not go over the line of preaching politics, but the next statement truly concerned me: “… war never solves problems but only creates more.” I will not argue the possibility that peaceful means may or may not be exhausted, but I will argue that such absolute pacifism is an extreme that we should not adopt..

As Catholic Christians, we know the Kingdom of God is at hand, but are also faced with the reality that the “Old World” had not yet passed away. We can choose not to participate in the world of senseless violence, greed, and the abuse of power. But it has been often repeated that the only thing evil needs to succeed is for good to do nothing. Scripture teaches us (in Ecclesiastes) that there is a season for all things, including war. If we do not believe force is ever an option, then why do we have arms at all? Is it a sin to participate in the military or law enforcement?

It seems like yesterday that the leaders of our Church made an international apology for not standing up to Nazi Germany. In acknowledging this sin of omission, we have learned that an unwillingness to fight under any circumstances is a choice to participate in all the evils of fascism, terrorism, and violence. Or have we learned nothing?

The ability of mass violence to occur any time, even in our own cities, does not warrant a wait-and-see attitude toward evil. We needed Pearl Harbor to wake us to WWII (and it was military force that liberated concentration camps, not rallies). We needed September 11th to justify to ourselves the forceful overthrow of the Taliban. I am not saying now is the time to act or not act, and we have elected leaders with far more information that bear the burden of that decision. What is clear is that we are at a crossroads that affords us the opportunity to save countless lives by acting instead of reacting after it’s too late.

As an educated Christian, I am a pacifist. I will turn the other cheek, and you can pluck my beard as well. But can I enable you to do this to my neighbor by walking past you, bloody on the side of the road, and say a prayer or two later? Instead of pretending evil will go away if we stay home and hope for the best, we ought to be actively committed to peace, by works and as peaceful means as necessary, even if it means a war that would liberate a people from oppression and torture, and eliminate an indisputable biochemical threat for all of us. As faith without works is empty, peace without a willingness to fight for it is a poor excuse for true Christian pacifism.

*{For the record, I wont take any flack about not finding “weapons of mass destruction”. It was the repeated conclusion of the UN inspectors and multiple countries’ intelligence that there were unaccounted weapons. Heck, they’re still out there. But time proved my sentiments true in at least one way … the weight of a feared regime has been lifted for millions, and the difficulties in transitioning to self-determination are, in the end, gratefully accepted by the Iraqi people.}

Having just checked my site traffics statistics for my new blog, Think Think Again, a revelation is upon me. First, the number of visits is low, since I only promote this on Facebook. This is not unexpected. However, there were only TWO click-throughs in December from Facebook.

Meaning no one gives a fex.

{And yes, that is a real word, useful for highbrow cussing and scrabble.}

Even my own wife won’t read my blog, under the non-superfluous criticism that my verbosity is … ah, heck, there’s no one to impress or turn off … I use big words. My sentence structure is lugubrious, my arguments tedious, and I’m not sure I can care to change that.

One of my plans is to add images to my posts, which psychologically would make them more attractive at least twice as much, resulting in possibly FOUR visitors this months if I play my cards right.

So here is a picture of a monkey.

It really doesn’t matter that my taxonomy is incorrect enough to drive the more zoologically educated mad with rage — what are the odds any of them are even here? Face it, you, lone reader whoever-you-are, read this far just to see what the picture was all about, didn’t you?

So I continue for its own sake, as you likely click away from this page.

And continue I must: Is attribution necessary, even if protected by a copyright held by a rich, lawyer-laden entity? (If a tree gives a swan song while falling in the woods and no one is there to hear it, do they have to pay royalties?) Is my usual list of analogies unbounded by fear of losing an audience I don’t have? can I truly protest too much?

Will my obsessive compulsion to comment on the primate’s oddly-chosen companion as “unperplexed” or dare I say “looks like a stuffed animal but clearly is not” loose it’s steam? Heck, no, I can mix metaphors and no flags will be thrown as there’s no umpire here.

I can add porn and make rude comments about your maternal genetic source. However, it assumes some certainty of a such a small demographic to have any import, and I have no idea who you are. Except that you are probably not my wife.

And with technology, I can date this whenever I want, past or future, the implications of which are probably astounding to me and only me and I could add many paragraphs about it. Not having a readership, my choice to do so or not is utter freedom without consequence!

Knowing few may ever read this, a secret is given up by the fact I write it:

Does a man with no audience chose sloth over plying their art, or do they aspire further, unfettered by the influence of criticism? Forget not getting paid. Would YOU do what you do in life if no one ever knew about it except yourself? Would you do it more boldly … or just not bother? (If someone IS reading this, I hope this is a useful thought.)

Is it about the hope of someone discovering a fossil of your temporal existence, giving it more than a turning over in their palm? Imagine you being reborn to someone you will never meet, becoming some meaning or encouragement in their own existence by a simple story, memory, song, business, idea, building, statue, article … a monument to you in any form that lives on.

I guess in no small part, I write to hear myself think. Sure, I want to reach out to others, or be forever preserved in some undifferentiable strata in the blogospheric sediments of my time.

But perhaps in the end, it about the choice of expressing my own existence, with or without any of those things. I blog, therefore … well, dear reader, if YOU exist, I leave it to you to finish the statement.

{This article is based on a recent rant of mine on a Yahoo! Group}

This is worth repeating — from the rooftops: Anything bad can be made worse by turning it over to the government. And when they take it over, they take credit for meeting a need already filled by a community by people like you and I. Even if you do not subscribe to this belief, the fact that it is populat sentiment ought to dismiss the fallacy that people not wanting government to fix their lives is not some callous denial of a real problem, merely the rejection of what in some views is an unacceptable solution.

If you really believe it’s society’s job to take care of it’s members unequivocally — good for you. The left and right agree on that more than you think. But you better damn well be able to discern why there IS a disagreement, and it comes down to the vital distinction between GOVERNMENT and SOCIETY. Even in an ideal republic or democracy, they are not the same. “We the People” aren’t elected to office — bureaucrats are — and it is more and more difficult to defend the belief that such people are still part of “We” in terms of common goals and private interests.

Societies with little or no government WORK. How? Through free association, charity, volunteerism, and all sorts of things that one could argue are actually diminished by the intrusion of government. The more we are taxed, the less say we have about HOW we contribute to society (charity, etc.). And the more taxes flow upward (to the Federal level, for example), the more decisions are being taken out the hands of our local communities. We have less and less say as communities, neighborhoods, and individuals.

Amusingly, some {expletive deleted} started a website to protest “Socialized Fire Departments” to make fun of people criticizing government-funded health care. This more than misses the point above, doesn’t it? Imagine if fire departments WERE funded and run by the Feds instead of their local communities, and their budget allocation and rules were decided by politicians rather than volunteers and hands-on experts in the field who are familiar with the community’s needs. I need not say more.

And don’t be fooled into thinking preserving a private option (temporarily?) makes it all good — every version of the bill I’ve seen places all sorts of controls throughout the industry, public and private, right down to the employer and individual. It’s not government PROVIDING health care that’s bad — it’s the POLITICIZING of it. Isn’t that the problem with the existing system? It was back door deals with politicians and special interest votes that eliminated, state by state, the competition our elected officials now decry as a reason THEY should enter the arena with our own tax dollars.

And this doesn’t even touch on the unexamined yet vitally pertinent example of how Medicaid and Medicare spiked costs on their inception, pressing us onward toward the current situation all the faster. So if you don’t agree with the statement starting this article, you have a lot of explaining to do. Or rather, generations of Congressmen do.

But if anything, take this one point to consideration: The primary objection to a more nationally-run and regulated system is NOT a rejection of the ideal of universal access to health care in our society. It’s about the extent by which “Obamacare” will place a bureaucratic politic even MORE in charge of an important part of our lives, with our own money disproportionately as usual, and to a predictably negative result.

In astronomy, Earth is considered a “Goldilocks” planet, meaning it is in a star’s “habitable zone” — in a nutshell, the distance range from a star that allows it to have the presence of liquid water. Of course this, along with other suppositions of the necessary conditions for life (as we know it, mind you) make up a “Rare Earth” hypothesis that hints at mind-boggling odds against our existence.

In fact, a basic premise in Intelligent Design is that the existence of a world with exactly the right conditions for life cannot be a coincidence for just that reason.

First, let’s get all the science out of the way as to why such a hypothesis is nearly undefendable, and then look at the raw logic that … well … it certainly is NOT a coincidence, but for reasons the opposite of the fallacious way this premise is commonly touted.

The Science

As far back as I can remember, I have watched and pondered the search for extraterrestrial life, perhaps more than the average geek glued to the Discovery Channel (and PBS back in my day). But even that would suffice to give a contrary mind-opening perspective — especially when one considers the historical scientific journey itself:

(1) We are constantly finding life forms on our own planet in places we did not believe life could exist. The existence of more and more heretofore unimaginable extremophiles tells us one thing: whatever parameter limits we set on life forms and conditions, we have always been wrong.

(2) We are finding potentially hospitable places on other planets (in particular many moons of gas giants) that are LESS hostile than places we now know life exist on Earth.

(3) The conditions on which we understand life to have first formed is absolutely nothing like the conditions on Earth today. This alone expands the possibility to many known bodies past our big blue marble.

(4) We do not currently have the capability to find “earth-sized” planets except when “too close” to parent stars (via transit method), so it is no wonder we have catalogued over 300 extrasolar planets and none of them Earth-like. However, like our limited concepts of life, we have discovered a plethora of planetary system configurations we thought impossible, and still may contain earth-like planets.

(5) We have yet only attempted to find planets around the tiniest fraction of our approximately 100-billion-star playground known as the Milky Way, which in turn is one among countless others. So even if the Rare Earth principle has any merit at all, the immensity of the universe plus the Drake equation will always equal putting the odds back in our favor.

Yes, from all this, we can say with some sanity that it is far more likely than not that SOMEWHERE there is SOME other being on SOME other world writing an article similar to this one. (If they finish and publish it first, I personally swear this one isn’t plagarised.)

The Logic

First, let’s put aside any assumption that the universe revolves around our existence. Yes, that is not only the punch-line of a blonde joke I heard once, but the premise of Intelligent Design which is why the whole darned thing is one big circular argument.

It is at least one possibility that the universe was NOT created to accommodate us, and we can easily understand the viewpoint that we are a product of the universe — or at least the biblical and scientific chronology agree which precedes the other. Either we were created by the universe or through it as a tool and framework of existence by divine will or whatever.

Which perspective we hold as truth is irrelevant to the Goldilocks question, so let’s assume the IDers are right, that for whatever mysterious reason, a universe of seemingly infinite size was created expressly for the solitary grain of sand that is our total existence and experience.

Back to Goldilocks, since we can at least agree on which planet for us is “just right”, let’s step back and see the flaws.

What if Goldilocks was Fat?

Marveling that the Earth is so suitable to us is like being amazed that car seats are perfectly made for human bodies, or even that the length of a giraffe’s neck is always amazingly suited to how far its head is from it’s body.

All the straw man criticisms and perceived negative implications of Darwinism aside, the most basic concept we can use from him is the common sense premise of Natural Selection: An organism that is NOT suited to its environment is less likely to survive long enough to pass on it’s genes. Therefore, ALL organisms — except for limited populations and individuals over short periods of time — will naturally be suited for whatever niche they adapt to or live in. If they hadn’t they wouldn’t be there, but somewhere else, or nowhere but in a losing game of chance to be remembered in the fossil record.

So from the other side of the coin, consider this: If Goldilocks was an obese adult, which chair would be “just right”? If our physical beings were designed (figurative or literally) to live under different conditions, we would either be living IN those conditions, perhaps on ANOTHER planet being amazed at how it seemed to be custom-built for our comfort. Otherwise, we would clearly be unable to blog about it.

Never Tell Me the Odds

What are the odds that someone exactly like me (meaning me myself) would exist, given the almost infinite possible combinations of genes?

The odds are 1. Think about it.

If I didn’t “happen”, someone else would be asking the same question. The correct answer is always “yes” when someone asks you if you can believe you are alive as exactly where, when and how you are. The odds of your characteristics is no different from any other combination, limited only by the combinations that are possible and survivable.

Goldilocks could have just as easily sat somewhere else, or been unable to fit in any of their beds, or not be able to finish even the smallest bowl of porridge. Maybe she would have found some other mammal’s house to invade. But in the end, it wasn’t her house. It wasn’t built for her. She CHOSE to sleep in the bed her size; the bed didn’t choose her.

However, as much as that contradicts the primitive notions in Intelligent design, to be fair, that would in a more intelligent way make the idea that a diversity of beings would exist through an intentional variety of conditions something actually worth writing home about. We are simply marveling for the wrong reasons.

The Goldilocks Universe

If we take this understanding — that an organism exists as it does because if it didn’t, it couldn’t survive — to the whole of creation, what do we get?

Physicists hypothesize multiple universes running on different rule sets and conditions. This is not because they are physicists, but because they are thinking too hard. If an organism doesn’t follow the rules of survival … well … it doesn’t survive or cannot even be born. Is it possible for a universe to exist in any stable, long-term way UNLESS its rules allow for it and not contradict each other into some void of self-destructive oblivion?

Perhaps the Cosmos (with the term’s noteworthy etymological philosophical connotation) can ONLY exist as it is. The rules MUST be this way, or it wouldn’t work and we wouldn’t be arguing over it. The bottom line from this position? It is not chance. And if it may or may not be “design” in terms of a divine conscious intention … that is perhaps more about perspective than fact.

The only question then left would be if a hypothetical Goldilocks from another universe would or could come here, would they be able to find a seat?