Sometimes outmoded industries with dinosaur management in the habit of caving to unions all the time, or who have no choice and the union is unreasonable and selfish, need to be allowed to go.  A nation is better off buying from foreigners if the foreigners can produce it cheaper -- that way the nation doesn't waste money on subsidies or barriers -- and can concentrate on what it does best.  The economic process is called "creative destruction" and means that it is foolish to try to hold onto old industries when their time has come.

People are starving today because of bad governance and cultural ignorance and things like that.  When a country is well governed and the population is literate and the agricultural industry is not run by corrupt officials and people don't insist on so much meat, there is no problem providing enough food.  I constantly cite Vietnam as an example, but Japan and China and India and Indonesia and of course all of Europe and North America are examples.

Considering what Vietnam exports, it could easily feed three times its present population, and, believe me, the population here is dense.

As far as water, it is true that no one dare touch the water in Vietnam, either in the rivers or from the tap -- but bottled water is abundant and cheap.  The problem in Vietnam with tap water is a prejudice against chlorine inherited from the French -- and I will admit when I'm in the States I let my water sit for an hour or so before drinking it so the chlorine can evaporate out (in my case, though, it's taste, not a conspiracy theory).

It is obvious there has to be some sort of limit on the earth's carrying capacity, and I would agree that from an environmental point of view a steady population can be of help, but the fears are way overdone.  Besides, the way to control population, as we have seen over and over around the world, is to raise living standards.  When living standards reach the level of even less than half that of Vietnam, population growth takes a plunge.  Rigid birth laws are intrusive, autocratic, even fascist.

I want to comment too on the idea of our living in space.  I fully expect that to happen -- not so much colonizing the galaxy (although that could happen too) but building self-sustaining space cities, maybe tethered to the earth or maybe out there on their own.  This stuff, however, is centuries away.

Tomatoes -- not the ones the American markets sell -- they may as well be cardboard (in the States you have to go to a farmer's market or grow your own or know someone who does), is one of life's little but wonderful pleasures.  In Vietnam you also have to avoid the markets and the imported tomatoes and go to one of the ubiquitous outdoor markets.  Since the market tomatoes are cheaper, easier to buy (there is a market one can walk to no matter where you are in the city) and much better tasting, for the life of me I don't see why anyone would want to buy an imported tomato.

I like to steam them a little to release the lycopene.

What about aliens -- good or bad?

Proof of aliens with either no religion or religions different from ours would ultimately spell the end of our religions, except maybe those without deities and a philosophy.  Whether that would do good or harm is a different question, as so many are so dependent on their religious beliefs for their sense of purpose and future.

I'm not terribly concerned about an alien invasion, unless it turns out physics as we now know it is all wrong, which doesn't seem to be likely.  However, I wouldn't want to go off half-cocked building a contraption they send us instructions on how to build, as was done in some movies.

If we ever do meet face to face, the odds are significantly in favor of a peaceful, productive, and helpful relationship.

There is no shame in accepting help, if you need it, from any quarter, including help from the state.  The shame is either when pride prevents accepting help or when one could perfectly well take care of oneself.

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.