Archives for posts with tag: Long time survival.

I ran across this article published by CNS News.

Unusual Answer from Panelist Receives Standing Ovation at Benghazi Coalition Meeting.

It is about a meeting organized by Heritage Foundation to discuss the terrorist attack that took place in in Benghazi  in 2012.
At some point a young ‘Muslim student’ asked “…how can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about – it’s an ideology. How can we ever end this thing if we don’t address it ideologically?”.
One of the panelists answered her that ‘there might be some 75% peaceful Muslims in the world but this is of no consequence: they follow the lead of the extremists, they don’t make their voices heard and, because of that, ‘the peaceful majority are irrelevant’ ‘. The panelist’s answer was received with standing ovations.

I’m afraid those people are making a huge mistake.

For those of you who don’t have time to read the article I’ll summarize the arguments used by Brigitte Gabriel, the panelist:
– The Germans are known as peaceful people yet the Nazis imposed their agenda and provoked horrible massacres.
– The Russians are normally peaceful people yet the Communists among them caused tens of millions of deaths, among their own people, without significant protest from the general population.
– The same happened in China.
– The otherwise peaceful Japanese allowed the militarists to take power and to start a war (the Pacific ‘portion’ of the WWII) in which another 12 million people found their death, “mostly killed by bayonets and shovels.”
– “On September 11th in the United States we had 2.3 million Arab Muslims living in the United States. It took 19 hijackers – 19 radicals – to bring America to its knees, destroy the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon and kill almost 3000 Americans that day,” Gabriel said. “So for all our power of reason, and for all us talking about moderate and peaceful Muslims, I’m glad you’re here. But where are the others speaking out?” Gabriel asked.
The people in attendance began to applaud.”

First of all we need to differentiate between the two situations presented here.
The Germans, the Japanese and the “19 radicals” committed acts of international aggression while the Russians and the Chinese allowed themselves to be overrun by ‘misguided’ people.
Not at all the same thing.
On the other hand the German and Japanese examples are extremely interesting. A significant number of historians agree that the WWII was produced, at least in part, by the manner in which the defeated Germany was treated after WWI – they were imposed crippling war reparations which burdened Germany during the Great Depression so heavily as to produce the set of social circumstances that allowed Hitler to accede to power. This lesson was well understood so after the WWII Germany was included in the Marshal plan instead of made to pay for it. As a consequence we had, since then, 69 years if uninterrupted peace in Europe.
Japan was a ‘closed society’ until Commodore Perry forcefully ‘opened’ it in 1854, at first for trade and then to other western influences: Centralized state administration, modern army, modern management and technology, etc. And in those times the Japanese were treated, by the ‘white people’, with a ‘healthy dose’ of disdain, just as all the other non-European nations were. After the WWII all this has changed and nowadays the ‘peaceful majority’ of the Japanese have found a way, with a lot of help received from the Americans, to build a democratic society not at all different from what can be currently found in Western Europe and in North America.
Something rather similar happened with the Chinese. After Nixon went there and started to treat them as partners they basically stopped killing each-other.
But, unfortunately, this change of attitude didn’t come about between the West and Russia after the end of the Cold War. For instance we call the Ukrainian rebels  ‘pro-Russian’. Are they of any real service to Russia or to the Russian people? On the contrary… Somehow the old habit of blaming the entire Russian people for actions perpetrated by their leaders survived. Maybe because we can no longer understand the workings of a non-democratic society…since we are so accustomed with censuring our leaders.

So…

My point is that of course we have to defend ourselves from the direct actions of the ‘radicals’ – ‘shoot back’, effectively and efficiently, when ever somebody attacks us. Yet there is something else we dearly need to do, at the same time. Find a way to connect, in a respectful manner, with the ‘peaceful, yet silent, majorities’. They are “irrelevant” only as long as we treat them with the same disdain they are receiving from their own rulers. Even worse, confronted with two different kinds of disdain they’ll naturally prefer the one they are accustomed with – the one displayed by their own rulers – so if we keep packing together radicals with peaceful people and treat them as one the result will be that we’ll have to deal with an ever increasing number of radicalized ex-peaceful individuals. I propose we learn something from our parents, the ones who found a way to change the atmosphere between them and the German and the Japanese people. And since we pretend to be wiser – as all children do – than our parents were, how about doing this without wagging all-out wars? (Unless attacked, off course)

japanese kids earthquake

israeli kids rockets

 

Japanese kids learn what to do when earthquake strikes while Israeli kids learn how to deal with incoming rockets.
When are we, the grown ups, going to learn?

Initially politics was an activity. “Was” and not “were” because it was something in which every concerned citizen played an part, a collective effort. Oh, I forgot to tell you that this happened in Ancient Greece during what we now call the ‘first stage of democracy’.

Then, after a little less than two millennia, it became an occupation. People who had successful careers behind them were deemed trustworthy by the rest of the community and elected into government positions. The countries which used this ‘democratic mechanism’ thrived: the US, Britain, France, …to name just a few of them.

Lately politics have become a profession. People study it in Universities and engage in it without any prior experience outside the field. I believe you all know what ‘community organizer‘ means, right?

No, I’m not going to discuss this notion right now. The results can be both good or bad, exactly as it happens with almost all human professions: both Mengele and Albert Schweitzer were MDs…

For now I’ll refrain myself to observing that people have less and less tolerance for digression on the part of the politicians.

“Nicholas Sarkozy arrested over corruption allegations”

Gerhard Schroeder, lionized in his time for cutting down to size the German welfare state is now widely criticized for his involvement with GAZPROM.

Silvio Berlusconi is serving time, disguised as ‘community service’, for tax evasion.

Need I go on?

And this is happening in what we call ‘democratic countries’. In other places former rulers are stabbed to death  or brought to justice in a cage.

In fact we have indeed progressed, as a species. The last time the French got really pissed off by their leaders quite a few people lost their heads…

The most disturbing thing in all this is that the politicians were supposed to be the ones capable/willing of doing ‘the good thing’ AND professional enough as not to exaggerate in anything they do….

Is there anything to be done about all this?

How about upping the ante?

I keep hearing ‘we need a strong leader’ or ‘we need more true leaders’. Are we really sure about that? Leaders would do almost anything to take us where THEY see fit.
How about politicians acting as ‘administrators’?
Right now politics is played, in a lot of places, as a beauty pageant. Would be rulers (leaders) come up-stage to make promises and we choose the ‘best-looking’ charmer. After a while he unfailingly fails so we ‘boo’ him out of office.
Switzerland, for instance, has another way of doing things. They talk a lot more among themselves, many ideas are put forward and then some of them get to become policies and other get dumped.
When have you last heard about a Swiss political leader or about a Swiss political scandal?

intelligent design

 

So this is what ‘intelligent design’ is about!

In fact it’s funny even if rather inappropriate since pigs appeared on the face of the Earth long after dinosaurs went extinct.

Thanks to “I fucking love science” for this subject and for the cartoon.

rocking the boat

Tesla was a great physicist and a very intelligent man but his wording was rather lousy.

I get the gist of what he wanted to say and I basically agree with him but I don’t think “anti-social behaviour” aptly describes what he had in mind.

The real meaning of ‘anti-social’ is ‘acting against the interests of the group of which the perpetrator is a member”: from stealing to high treason.
What I understand of Tesla’s words are gestures made against ingrained habits which induce social stiffness – social rigidity that inhibits innovation and adaptation.
And in fact all these gestures are pro-social, they are good for the society at large and not at all bad or anti-social.

It is true that today ‘anti-social behaviour’ has been ‘stretched’ to include all actions that disturb ‘social norms, socially sanctioned customs and widely held beliefs’ but this would be true only as long as these ‘habits’ were still useful to the society we are speaking about.

I don’t think Tesla would have condoned theft or any other criminal activity, no matter how anti-social, but he would have applauded, had those things happened during his life, what Copernicus, Giordano Bruno and Darwin had done. Or Martin Luther King.

 

no piggy back

For some 30 years now the western press is periodically awash with news about the impending doom that is going to engulf China. If not now then soon, very soon.

While I’m not particular fond of the Chinese communists – every political force that enjoys monopolistic control over the space where it resides eventually becomes too rigid and looses ability to cope with the day to day challenges – I must give them what is theirs.

By drawing from the rich experience of the Imperial China the current rulers have learned something. Don’t push it unnecessarily hard, don’t appear to be callous when there is no need for such thing. Not because it would be immoral or anything like that but because it is ‘a mistake’ to do such a thing.

In most countries if something like that would have happened it would have meant that the ordinary people were getting fed with the callousness of the government officials and that generalized riots will follow. Like what happened in Tunisia at the start of the Arab spring.
In  China when ever something like this grabs the attention of the public eye the ‘Party’ springs into action and promptly punishes the perpetrator instead of trying to shield him/cover up for him. This way the ‘Party’ preserves it role in the society and makes sure it remains relevant.

So please put those doom scenarios on hold, at least for as long as things like that will continue to be severely sanctioned by the ubiquitous ‘Party’.

Click here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666147/No-free-rides-Chinese-government-worker-sacked-picture-emerges-riding-employees-flood-avoid-getting-wet.html if you want to read the whole story and thanks Veooz http://www.veooz.com/news/WHHU7ev.html for the picture

There is a intense debate going on in some circles about this subject.
Some think that vaccines are poisonous because some of them contain traces of mercury.
Some others believe that autism can appear, at least in part, as a reaction to certain vaccines.

No real proof has ever been presented for any of those assertions yet the storm is raging on.

Here is my take on this.

Basically we have two kinds of infectious diseases that can be prevented through vaccination.
Some that have high mortality rates or survivors are left with permanent damages: small pox, polio and rabies come to my mind right now.
Others that are milder or just a nuisance, for most people at least. Measles, mumps, chickenpox… Of course, there are people who develop serious consequences from having one of these, for instance mumps can be a real problem if had at an older age and chickenpox is really dangerous for pregnant women, but on the whole this second category is less dangerous than the first.
Now what I would really like to know is would anyone seriously consider not vaccinating their children for the first category of diseases IF MOST OF THE GENERAL POPULATION HADN’T ALREADY BEEN VACCINATED?

I know that there are some religious extremists who try to disrupt immunization against polio in their countries. This only fuels my dilemma: what does it really mean to be a rational human being?

“The wiser of the two equally matched opponents will give up first.”
This is a Romanian proverb oftentimes interpreted as a justification/rationalization for cowardly behavior.

It’s anything but!

In a protracted conflict, where none of the opponents has a clear advantage or when the price of wining would be so huge that no one is willing to underwrite it, it is essential that at least one of the interested parties comes up with something new that might defuse the situation. Otherwise the whole thing drags on, people get bitter and calloused and what might have started as a misadventure or as a badly calculated move eventually becomes a festering wound that changes, for the worse, the life of many generations to come.

Think of what happens when two families become embroiled in a ‘vendetta’.
Or about the outcome of the WWI when the people of Germany were punished for the ‘mishaps’ perpetrated by Kaiser Wilhelm.

After WWII the victors have built on previous experience and didn’t fell anymore in the same trap. Instead of inflicting further pain on the already tormented German population they came up with the Marshal Plan. Now, 70 years after the allies landed in Normandy, it would be inconceivable that war might start again between France and Germany. The victors of the Cold War weren’t as wise as their predecessors.

What is happening right now in Ukraine is completely unacceptable. Occupying, in full or in part, the territory of another country, under any pretext, puts the aggressor outside the realm of the civilized world.
But who is the aggressor in this case?

Not so long ago (historically speaking) Louis the XIV-th used to say “L’Etat c’est Moi”. In those times political decisions, including those that had to do with the neighboring states, were made by the rulers while the general population could do nothing but endure their effects. Up to a point of course.
Meanwhile, in a large number of states the political system has evolved considerable. Elections are held periodically so that political leaders and general policies become sanctioned by the electorate. Because of this most of the time there is a certain compact, however fragile and contested, between the political class and the general population.
Unfortunately there still are a number of states where the political situation is ‘ambiguous’ and where the link between the powerful figures of the day and the general public relies more on deceit than on mutual respect and informed consent.
Whenever a country like this is involved in a less than savory encounter on the international scene a very fine line has to be toed when communicating displeasure with its actions. While firm and unambiguous, each message must be very carefully calibrated/formulated lest the general population of the less than democratic country involved will feel besieged. And will naturally coalesce around whoever is in power at that moment. Exactly what that person would wish for and exactly what those who are displeased by the actions perpetrated by that person should try to avoid at any cost.

PS.
In modern terms this whole concept is called re-framing.
And yes, it involves ‘giving up’ in the sense that the ‘wiser’ makes the gambit of renouncing rigidness and maybe even some ‘face’ in exchange for a workable solution.
Any incurred costs are temporary while the benefits tend to stretch far out into the future.
I repeat, just look at what role Germany is currently playing in the European concert.

the right to bear arms

Somehow I don’t think the 2nd Amendment is that much about guns as it is about trust.
That your neighbor can be entrusted with such powerful tools.
That more individuals being powerful enough to defend themselves will bring about safety for all while power becoming concentrated in the hands of the few will eventually lead to tyranny.

Industrial Age

I found this picture on Bob Colgan’s FB page accompanied by the following caption:

THE LONGER You stare at this…….the more you realize how wrong the Industrial Age has been

I don’t want to sound apologetic but isn’t it that the ‘Industrial Age’ is nothing but a set of circumstances that lays at our discretion the technical/social means for us to complain about the shortcomings of the very ‘Industrial Age’ itself?

What if it is US that are responsible for the way WE (mis)use the means at OUR disposal?