Raise people's standard of living and you don't need vicious policy to lower birth rates.  Vietnam's has been radically decreased as the people become more prosperous.  The government has done nothing (of course contraception and abortion are available here, as part of being a secular state, but people who need them pay for them, not the government).

In particular, giving women the ability to decide when and how many children to have, and squashing those men who see it in egoist terms, brings down birth rates remarkably.  Women have more sense about these things and, of course, are the ones who have to go through the pregnancy.

What can happen, though, if population growth slows too fast is that you get an aged population and not enough young people to support them properly.  This is going to happen in China because of its foolishness here, and probably much of Europe and of course is happening in Japan -- that is what is behind its lack of economic growth now.

Power naturally gravitates upward in any federal system.  They can pass laws prohibiting local governments from doing certain things, can hold out carrots of money for compliance, have a much better tax base, control the strings of publicity much better, and so on.  Over time local government institutions become empty shells.

Some time go look at a Federal court house and compare it to a local court house.

In a richer society than exists today, one where most things are automated, everyone will be provided the basics of housing and food and health and education and entertainment and even some luxuries, but must do something that earns extra money if one wants more.

If Scotland had separated itself when nearly half the population was against, it would not have been good for Scotland.  Now the English have to deal with a Scotland where nearly half the population wants to separate.

Satan

It's a bit hard, and I have to bite my lower lip, to avoid ridiculing the Satan idea.  He has, however, over the centuries, gotten a lot more sophisticated -- he no longer has horns and cloven hooves, for example, and in Victorian literature tends to carefully pick out his targets as people of intelligence and talent who appear to be particularly desirable souls, much as we pick out a ripe red cherry.

As a literary device, then, he is great, especially if you want to deal with aspects of human existence and desire and ambition and pride.

Now, though, really -- get real.  Such a figure would long ago have given up, since he knows he is otherwise doomed.  Be rational folks -- and this bit about Satan wanting to convince the world he doesn't exist is just a remarkably stupid rationalization -- conflicting with his supposed pride.  Why should he care to bring others down to perdition?  What would it be to him since he's doomed anyway?  You have to break through the childhood indoctrination and think about things a little.

As I understand it, Satan entered Jewish thinking during the Persian exile under influence of Zoroastrianism, with its two immortal deities in eternal conflict -- one good and the other its opposite (I don't say "evil" because to it the good is evil).

They had already (maybe, depending on when the narrative surrounding the Job poetry was written -- if this was written during or after the exile then they didn't already have even this) had a figure appointed by God to make sycophants honest by pointing out problems with what they say.  In other words he was an angel in good standing doing a job God assigned him.

The identification of the Zoroastrian deity with this Shatan or something was not hard, and it fit with the Jewish monotheist thinking (you can't have a co-eternal deity and be a monotheist even if you follow only one of them).

It was then much, much later that Christians identified Satan with the serpent in Genesis.  As far as the Genesis account has it you only have a talking snake.

The horns and all that also came later, in identification with the Greek god Pan (as described above).

The thing to notice is in the OT you don't see evil acts or idolatry or anything like that blamed on anyone except the perpetrators, not on a devil and his existence is not mentioned (although God himself blames himself a couple times) .

What I really don't get is why doesn't Satan just give it up and beg for mercy?  Would God deny it?  Satan's pride is described in Milton's Paradise Lost, and I remember when I read that (way back) thinking, "This is not real, not believable."

• Top
• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Edit
• Report

"Reality tunnel," -- I just was introduced to that word as a modern psychological insight.  It is I think similar to a Buddhist concept dating from way back as to why it is so hard to change people's religion and conscience and even things like thinking the earth is flat and up and down are absolutes.  We are wired to "believe" things we pick up as a child.

I think though that there are complications.  Hard core "beliefs" can be modified with meditation into less rigid opinions, which then become subject to analysis.  (Meditation can also, unfortunately, be used to harden opinions into beliefs).  Also there is a teen period of rebelliousness (so that the individual can establish an independent identity), when much of this can come into question, leading to no end of angst and turmoil, until in most cases the individual returns to the fold, with much joy and peace (all hormones in there doing what they are programmed to do).

The thing about such beliefs is that most people don't even notice they have them.  They sit on them as though they were furniture -- something to be noticed only if attention is drawn to them by someone else, and then the reaction is typically not of the mind but of the instincts, with denial and anger and rationalization and so on.

There are some who break some of these beliefs.  Interestingly when the person does so sometimes the reaction is hate of the original belief and of the organization that imposed it.

Some always are cynical about love of country to the extent of willingness to die for it and say things like, "What has my country done for me."

I really don't know about such people.  The word "selfish" comes to mind, but I think it goes beyond that to a sort of effort to be "sophisticated" and not have emotions -- good emotions -- about one's motherland.

As a rational issue, a country cannot persist without patriots, and that is the way our world now is organized.  It may be that someday the nation-state will disappear, but there will always be one's city, one's culture, one's neighborhood and eventually one's family.

I think the person who scoffs patriotism is the sort who throws trash out onto the road with no compunction so long as no one is watching.  Pride in one's country is just an extension of pride in oneself.

Nationalism, though, is a political disease.  We have seen a lot of that in Scotland (although I am sure many of the yes votes were patriotic and not nationalistic, the campaign was mainly nationalistic, which is what soured me on it).

I'm glad for Scotland that it decided to stay in the Union, although the world would have not changed all that much if things had gone the other way.

Momentous things of this sort should be subject to super-majority whenever one is to change the status quo.

It seems that there was an age differential in the vote -- the young tending to vote yes and the old, no.  This is not surprising -- as you get older you become more cautious -- I think because you have had more experience in life and realize better the perils of change.  At any rate I suspect the radical young people who think they just have to wait until the present older generations die off will find that as they age they develop a different view. 

Patriotism as I understand the word is a high virtue, combining love of one's homeland and willingness to make sacrifices for it.  Don't confuse this with nationalism, the view that one's culture and nation are superior to others, nor with jingoism, the hatred of other nations.

As usual, dictionaries lose these fine distinctions in the process of how the words are sometimes used, which has to include uses by sloppy people.

I can't say there are objective morals in the universe, but I think the Western type of materialism is wrong.  I just don't know what to replace it with -- my inclination is some sort of Tao -- and that would imply objective morals.  So would a universal karmic mechanism as envisioned in India.  I note that neither the Chinese nor the Indian view involve deities -- any deities are as subject to it as we are.

In any case the thing is one can deduce maxims or rules from fundamental principles such as compassion and love.  Do not harm, be of help -- these then lead to the Golden Rule or Kant's categorical imperative (a tighter statement of the same idea) -- which in turn lead to do not kill, steal, lie, enslave, and so on.  It is rational progression.  That religions and cultures don't always follow this progression and teach children incorrect things -- which gets buried in their emotional responses or consciences, is simply a reflection that humanity and its cultures are not always rational.

What society or tradition or religion or our own conscience says is right and wrong are good but not completely accurate guides.  In the end we have to think about it, not letting our emotions and biases get in the way, and deduce right and wrong from more fundamental principles.  One of these is that every person is a "person" with innate rights to not be harmed and to pursue their life so long as they don't infringe on the same rights of others.

I suppose one could take this as a pragmatic necessity for modern living, if there is to be peace in the world.  I tend instead to take it as derived from even more fundamental principles, those of "love" in Western terms and wise compassion in Buddhism.

Militarization of police

Police all over the world tend to have issues with authority and respect.  It's a result of self-selection (those with such issues tend to want to be police) and experience dealing with low-lifes.  That they need civilian control and civilian review boards is obvious, but how to be sure those boards don't have their own agenda is hard, and there is always pressure from groups like police unions to extract such a board's teeth.  (To me the vary idea of a police union is outrageous and an abomination).

I think certain selected police squads should be given military equipment and training in using it -- at least in large cities -- since there are situations where they need it and one does not want to have to call in the army.  However their deployment should be from outside the force itself in civilian hands.

It looks like Putin is going to move Russia toward being economically isolated, "self reliant".

Of all the countries in the world Russia would probably be the best able to pull this off, but it would be bad for Russia and its people would be stuck.

I see where Putin is coming from though -- deny it or not (and all countries subject to embargo deny that there is any effect), the embargo must be biting, and he wants to be free of it.

Still, when a country adopts such a policy, the long-term effect is to gradually, and sometimes not so gradually, weaken the country's economy relative to the rest of the world.  The reason isn't hard to see -- if you can buy something cheaper elsewhere in the world, a country is better off doing so and using the money saved in other ways.

Of course almost everyone puts up trade barriers, and as such they harm themselves, but it is usually in response to special interest agitation.  Sometimes the excuse is to allow domestic industries time to get on their feet, sometimes the excuse is to protect local jobs, sometimes the excuse is to protect the local economy from better technology elsewhere.  Very often the excuse is fairness -- the other country is restricting the country's ability to sell things there.

All these excuses are really special (selfish) interest and in the end do harm.  Of course successes can be pointed to -- a given enterprise was rescued (from a destruction generally caused by bad management and unions that think they can forever get their members better wages than the value they add otherwise permits).  My thought there is that this weak firm will go on being a drain on the country's resources.

Nations are better off letting industries that can't compete internationally go, and concentrating on their unique special advantages.

I see where North Korea has the "most advantageous human rights system."  Advantageous to whom?

The Golden Rule needs qualification before it really works.  If I were on a criminal jury the Golden Rule says I should vote in all cases to acquit because if I were in the defendant's shoes I would want me to vote that way.

How does a company like Gilead get away with charging Americans all told over $100,000 for its hepatitis C treatment and through an agreement with a generic drug company (I presume a limited license agreement) make it possible for Vietnamese to get the same thing for around $6,000?

That the States permits this kind of obvious gouging indicates there is something seriously wrong with its patent and copyright monopoly approach.  A tenth the profit they are taking would still be enough to motivate the risk taking and study expenses.