"Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure." - J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)
I believe that knowledge, understanding and wisdom are the greatest treasures, not material things. If these would be our values and not material stuff, the world would be very different. I believe it would be much better.
In our society, people want as much as possible, it's never enough. A very rich man was asked how much is enough and he answered: "just a little bit more". What if people would want as little as possible?
Most children want to be like David Beckham or Lady Gaga. What if their role models would be Einstein or Gandhi or Marie Curie or any other exceptional person who has lived? Our role models are rich people, celebrities, these are our values.
I never understood why a football player earns more than a scientist. A scientist can save millions of lives by discovering a cure for a disease or by improving agriculture.
Our values should be inner wealth, not material wealth.
-------------------------------------
An interesting example is Diogenes, a man who lived in ancient Greece (412 - 323 BCE). He slept in a tub and made a virtue out of poverty. I believe that Diogenes was revolted by the absurdity of the society, so he wanted to mock all that was sacred to them. He used to carry a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
Make no mistake, Diogenes was an intelligent, well educated, wise man. He chose to be poor. He chose to revolt against the society and not only by words, but by deeds, because he believed that virtues are better revealed in action than in theory.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Ignorance
I believe that ignorance is the "root of all evil" in our world. In the past 200 years, our technological progress has been incredible. Sadly, most people are as ignorant as people living thousands of years ago.
Right now, we are like chimps with nuclear weapons, our technological development is way too advanced for our mental development, that's why we face the threat of destroying ourselves. It's like giving a real loaded gun to a child and expecting everything to be fine. That's the stage we are in, really. We are not civilized yet.
Behavioural psychologist B.F. Skinner made an experiment with pigeons, where he set the dispenser to release food at a certain time interval. If a pigeon did something while the dispenser released the food, it associated the action with the reward. So, one pigeon was making turns in his cage, another would swing its head in a pendulum motion, while others also displayed a variety of other behaviours, all done in the hope of receiving food from the dispenser. It didn't matter how many times they performed an action without receiving anything. When the dispenser finally released the food, they associated their action with the reward. This is superstition and humans have it too.
Knowledge and understanding are powerful weapons against superstition and other absurd beliefs. If people would understand more about the world, the Universe, about life, they would not believe the absurdities of religion, of astrology, of homeopathy and all other superstitions.
Most people still believe in gods, in heaven and hell, in angels and demons. I find that silly but I'm not really against religion, I'm against ignorance. If religion would not exist, people would find other absurd things to fill their ignorance hole.
I call God "the god of ignorance", because what we can't understand we explain through him. Of course, God explains nothing, it just gives an illusion of explanation. Supernatural answers (like "God did it") are just an elegant way of saying "I have no idea".
As Voltaire put it "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities".
Right now, we are like chimps with nuclear weapons, our technological development is way too advanced for our mental development, that's why we face the threat of destroying ourselves. It's like giving a real loaded gun to a child and expecting everything to be fine. That's the stage we are in, really. We are not civilized yet.
Behavioural psychologist B.F. Skinner made an experiment with pigeons, where he set the dispenser to release food at a certain time interval. If a pigeon did something while the dispenser released the food, it associated the action with the reward. So, one pigeon was making turns in his cage, another would swing its head in a pendulum motion, while others also displayed a variety of other behaviours, all done in the hope of receiving food from the dispenser. It didn't matter how many times they performed an action without receiving anything. When the dispenser finally released the food, they associated their action with the reward. This is superstition and humans have it too.
Knowledge and understanding are powerful weapons against superstition and other absurd beliefs. If people would understand more about the world, the Universe, about life, they would not believe the absurdities of religion, of astrology, of homeopathy and all other superstitions.
Most people still believe in gods, in heaven and hell, in angels and demons. I find that silly but I'm not really against religion, I'm against ignorance. If religion would not exist, people would find other absurd things to fill their ignorance hole.
I call God "the god of ignorance", because what we can't understand we explain through him. Of course, God explains nothing, it just gives an illusion of explanation. Supernatural answers (like "God did it") are just an elegant way of saying "I have no idea".
As Voltaire put it "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities".
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Capitalism
Capitalism is very similar to evolution by natural selection. The problem with evolution and capitalism is that there is no wisdom involved. In capitalism there is a constant competition and only the fittest survives, just like in evolution.
I will quote Darwin: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
So, you see, suffering is an intrinsic part of evolution. Do we really want a system based on war, famine and death?
Just like evolution, capitalism creates its parasites and also its immune system, the parasites of capitalism are people who earn money by harming others and there are a lot of them. For example, capitalism creates thieves (parasites) and also creates the police (immune system). Thieves would not exist in a society where goods are spread equally. The inequality created by capitalism creates criminals so it also has to create the police.
Thieves are not the only parasites of capitalism. To me, all bureaucrats and all bankers are parasites. Politicians and lawyers are other parasitic life forms.
In capitalism, people don't care about harming others, they don't care about nature. If they can earn money from destroying nature and destroying human lives, they will because in capitalism money is more important than anything, it's more important than nature, health, peace and life. Smoking harms people and yet people are selling cigarettes and we consider it normal, that's how brainwashed we are.
Capitalism has created a new GOD, its name is "money".
Capitalism also creates wars. The war in Iraq is a good example. One of the objectives of it was to "secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure". The USA wanted the petroleum.
The Second World War was also created (indirectly) by capitalism. It's no coincidence that WW2 started during the Great Depression. Germany was in a desperate state, it had to pay debts to the countries it attacked in WW1 but the unemployment rate soared to 30% (1932). Desperate times call for desperate measures, so the Nazi Party (with Hitler) was elected to power.
Before the Great Depression, the Nazi Party had 2,6% of votes (1928), after the Great Depression started (1929), the Nazi Party had 18,3% of votes (1930) and 37,4% of votes (1932), after Hitler was candidate for presidency.
So, you see, I'm pretty sure that the Second World War would not have happened without the Great Depression and the Great Depression is a direct consequence of capitalism. That's between 60 and 80 million deaths caused (indirectly) by capitalism. But capitalism has many more skeletons in its closet.
Millions of people are starving or don’t have clean water. They are in this situation because they don’t have money. There is enough food on the planet to feed us all. So, capitalism is at fault for this also.
I will quote Darwin: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
So, you see, suffering is an intrinsic part of evolution. Do we really want a system based on war, famine and death?
Just like evolution, capitalism creates its parasites and also its immune system, the parasites of capitalism are people who earn money by harming others and there are a lot of them. For example, capitalism creates thieves (parasites) and also creates the police (immune system). Thieves would not exist in a society where goods are spread equally. The inequality created by capitalism creates criminals so it also has to create the police.
Thieves are not the only parasites of capitalism. To me, all bureaucrats and all bankers are parasites. Politicians and lawyers are other parasitic life forms.
In capitalism, people don't care about harming others, they don't care about nature. If they can earn money from destroying nature and destroying human lives, they will because in capitalism money is more important than anything, it's more important than nature, health, peace and life. Smoking harms people and yet people are selling cigarettes and we consider it normal, that's how brainwashed we are.
Capitalism has created a new GOD, its name is "money".
Capitalism also creates wars. The war in Iraq is a good example. One of the objectives of it was to "secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure". The USA wanted the petroleum.
The Second World War was also created (indirectly) by capitalism. It's no coincidence that WW2 started during the Great Depression. Germany was in a desperate state, it had to pay debts to the countries it attacked in WW1 but the unemployment rate soared to 30% (1932). Desperate times call for desperate measures, so the Nazi Party (with Hitler) was elected to power.
Before the Great Depression, the Nazi Party had 2,6% of votes (1928), after the Great Depression started (1929), the Nazi Party had 18,3% of votes (1930) and 37,4% of votes (1932), after Hitler was candidate for presidency.
So, you see, I'm pretty sure that the Second World War would not have happened without the Great Depression and the Great Depression is a direct consequence of capitalism. That's between 60 and 80 million deaths caused (indirectly) by capitalism. But capitalism has many more skeletons in its closet.
Millions of people are starving or don’t have clean water. They are in this situation because they don’t have money. There is enough food on the planet to feed us all. So, capitalism is at fault for this also.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Nuclear war
During the Cold War there was a strong threat of nuclear war.
I don't believe that the danger has passed. There are lots of people who would gladly destroy a country if they had the means. I'm talking about extremist muslims, mostly.
If we ever manage to destroy this world, I think that religion will have an important role in that, maybe through a war between islam and christianity (the religions of peace). We could, of course, destroy the world through peaceful means, like poisoning everything (and ourselves) by way of pollution.
I believe it's only a matter of time until extremist muslims get a hold on a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are far more powerful now than they were in the Second World War, they are also smaller.
The Hiroshima bomb had a weight of 4,400 kg and an explosive force of 15 kilotons of TNT. A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing 1,100 kg can produce an explosive force of 1200 kilotons of TNT.
So, a modern nuclear bomb weighing 1/4 of the Hiroshima bomb is 80 times more powerful than it. That means 320 times more power per weight.
When we think about the total global nuclear arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5 gigatons (5 million kilotons), it would be a miracle if we wouldn't destroy ourselves.
I pray that people will become wiser soon, before it's too late.
I don't believe that the danger has passed. There are lots of people who would gladly destroy a country if they had the means. I'm talking about extremist muslims, mostly.
If we ever manage to destroy this world, I think that religion will have an important role in that, maybe through a war between islam and christianity (the religions of peace). We could, of course, destroy the world through peaceful means, like poisoning everything (and ourselves) by way of pollution.
I believe it's only a matter of time until extremist muslims get a hold on a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are far more powerful now than they were in the Second World War, they are also smaller.
The Hiroshima bomb had a weight of 4,400 kg and an explosive force of 15 kilotons of TNT. A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing 1,100 kg can produce an explosive force of 1200 kilotons of TNT.
So, a modern nuclear bomb weighing 1/4 of the Hiroshima bomb is 80 times more powerful than it. That means 320 times more power per weight.
When we think about the total global nuclear arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5 gigatons (5 million kilotons), it would be a miracle if we wouldn't destroy ourselves.
I pray that people will become wiser soon, before it's too late.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Exponential growth
Most people don't understand exponential growth. Many of our current problems are caused by this lack of understanding.
A nice example of exponential growth is a legend: the man who invented the game of chess showed it to a king; the king was very pleased and wanted to grant one wish to that man. The man said this: "I want a grain of wheat for the first square of the chess board, two grains for the second one, four for the third one, and so on, doubling the amount each time".
The king didn't understand exponential growth, so he said: "I can give you a sack of wheat", but the man said: "I just want what I asked for, no more, no less". It was impossible for the king to grant him his wish because the number of wheat grains amounted to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. That amount of wheat is approximately 80 times what would be produced in one harvest, at modern yields, if all of Earth's arable land could be devoted to wheat.
The world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion in 39 years (1960 - 1999). If that trend would continue, we would have 12 billion by 2038, 24 billion by 2077, 48 billion by 2116, etc.
Resources are being exploited at an exponential rhythm, that's insane. The only way that would work is if resources were infinite, which are not.
If the economy grows by 2% per year, in 35 years it would double.
What we do is just unsustainable, we are growing exponentially on a limited planet. We are acting as if there is no tomorrow. Are we incapable of understanding the consequences of our actions? This will end badly.
A nice example of exponential growth is a legend: the man who invented the game of chess showed it to a king; the king was very pleased and wanted to grant one wish to that man. The man said this: "I want a grain of wheat for the first square of the chess board, two grains for the second one, four for the third one, and so on, doubling the amount each time".
The king didn't understand exponential growth, so he said: "I can give you a sack of wheat", but the man said: "I just want what I asked for, no more, no less". It was impossible for the king to grant him his wish because the number of wheat grains amounted to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. That amount of wheat is approximately 80 times what would be produced in one harvest, at modern yields, if all of Earth's arable land could be devoted to wheat.
The world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion in 39 years (1960 - 1999). If that trend would continue, we would have 12 billion by 2038, 24 billion by 2077, 48 billion by 2116, etc.
Resources are being exploited at an exponential rhythm, that's insane. The only way that would work is if resources were infinite, which are not.
If the economy grows by 2% per year, in 35 years it would double.
What we do is just unsustainable, we are growing exponentially on a limited planet. We are acting as if there is no tomorrow. Are we incapable of understanding the consequences of our actions? This will end badly.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Beggars
Giving money (or anything) to beggars is wrong because you encourage that behaviour. If nobody would give anything to beggars, they would not exist. There would still be poor people, but they would not beg because nothing would come out of it.
Even worse is that people tend to give more money to begging children and mutilated beggars. Some poor families have more children because begging children bring them more money, this is the case with a lot of gypsy families. People also mutilate themselves to earn more money by begging.
In India, there are organized gangs which exploit children, sending them to beg and mutilating them because mutilated children bring more money.
Beggars exist because of this sick society. It's odd that in prison people have a roof over their head and food, but society can't provide shelter and food for (all) poor people. Do poor people have to commit crimes so that they could have a roof over their head and food (in prison)?
Again, I need to stress the fact that all people need a home, food & water, education and healthcare.
You should read this:
http://www.childright.nl/en/index2.php?navid=212
Even worse is that people tend to give more money to begging children and mutilated beggars. Some poor families have more children because begging children bring them more money, this is the case with a lot of gypsy families. People also mutilate themselves to earn more money by begging.
In India, there are organized gangs which exploit children, sending them to beg and mutilating them because mutilated children bring more money.
Beggars exist because of this sick society. It's odd that in prison people have a roof over their head and food, but society can't provide shelter and food for (all) poor people. Do poor people have to commit crimes so that they could have a roof over their head and food (in prison)?
Again, I need to stress the fact that all people need a home, food & water, education and healthcare.
You should read this:
http://www.childright.nl/en/index2.php?navid=212
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Altruism
My favourite example of altruism comes from an unlikely source.
In the animation movie "Aladdin", at one point Aladdin steals a bread and goes through a lot of trouble because of it but, finally, he arrives in a safe place and prepares to eat. At that moment, he sees two children searching through trash for something to eat. He gives his bread to those children, even though he is hungry.
I think that most people wouldn't have done that. It's difficult to be truly altruistic in the real world. When people have everything they need they can afford to be altruistic. When people lack some basic things, altruism becomes more difficult.
In this world, a truly altruistic person is a dead person because there are lots of people dying of hunger. For example, if there were hungry people around you, at what point would you stop giving them your food and begin to eat it yourself? At what point would you think: "my life is more important than another human life"?
Luckily, we don't have to take those decisions every time we eat because hungry people are mostly in underdeveloped countries (out of sight, out of mind).
As I showed before (in my post about overpopulation), giving them food is not the solution because that would only increase the demographic explosion and there would be more mouths to feed.
So what do we do?
In the animation movie "Aladdin", at one point Aladdin steals a bread and goes through a lot of trouble because of it but, finally, he arrives in a safe place and prepares to eat. At that moment, he sees two children searching through trash for something to eat. He gives his bread to those children, even though he is hungry.
I think that most people wouldn't have done that. It's difficult to be truly altruistic in the real world. When people have everything they need they can afford to be altruistic. When people lack some basic things, altruism becomes more difficult.
In this world, a truly altruistic person is a dead person because there are lots of people dying of hunger. For example, if there were hungry people around you, at what point would you stop giving them your food and begin to eat it yourself? At what point would you think: "my life is more important than another human life"?
Luckily, we don't have to take those decisions every time we eat because hungry people are mostly in underdeveloped countries (out of sight, out of mind).
As I showed before (in my post about overpopulation), giving them food is not the solution because that would only increase the demographic explosion and there would be more mouths to feed.
So what do we do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)