Assessing democracies weakest link - Independence day 2015

Democracy, science, and drought (Re: Assessing democracies weakest link)

Dear V-8 Buick thoughtful patriots,

I'm sorry that this thread had gotten really derailed from what I was trying to point out. People take religion as a hot button item, but I was trying to say something about how people think depending on their world view. This morning I thought of a hopefully clearer comparison that will hopefully get the problem in focus.

There is now a convincing argument that the Mayan civilization was done in by a period of extended drought. Their water situation was eerily similar to the one in the western United States, but their response to drought was radically different to what ours should be. Drought was recognized as a problem by the Maya, but they had a religious world view. If there was drought, the gods were unhappy and the remedy was to carry out the appropriate rituals to placate the gods. If the Maya ever worried about how much reservoirs to have, they would have probably asked their priests. The idea that droughts were periodic and beyond the control of the gods was unthinkable to them. This is why the collapse of their civilization was probably panicky and full of violence - their very view of the universal order had been shattered in the very process of running out of water.

Fast forward to present day California and we have more than sufficient science to make reasonable guesses about how long droughts can last. Tree ring data shows that droughts lasting decades have occurred in the period immediately before the arrival of Europeans. So it stands to reason that California should be prepared to withstand droughts lasting at least 10 years (more likely more like 20 or more.)

So what is California doing? Well, the public has an environmental lean and so building reservoirs isn't "fashionable." Alternative ways to provide water are expensive and the public doesn't want to spend the money. Water conservation is fashionable, but there is a flaw in that strategy. You can only save so much water while a very long drought would exhaust existing reservoirs no matter how much water is saved. Californians are also more liberal than most, meaning that they expect the government to take a greater role in taking care of their needs - insuring a reliable supply of water being one of those needs. So the public has needs that they prefer not to have met - what does the government do - that very government tasked with insuring the water supply?

Here is where democracy become a kind of suicide. The voters don't want what is needed. Who is ultimately in charge? . . . the voters. Politicians do what gets them reelected. They don't sternly lecture the public on the needs for an expanded water system - that would be political suicide. That is why California hasn't even remotely prepared itself for the current drought and this drought could easily last to the point that the majority of Californians would have be evacuated for lack of sustaining water. We are in year 4 of the current drought, there is only water for one more year - after that - what does California do?

All of a sudden, the California public is - very - concerned about the drought. Of course this is too little, too late. Unless the rains come, the world economy will face a disaster like never seen before. Yet, perhaps a worse scenario is if the drought is broken next winter. Will Californians decide to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously and do what is needed to drought-proof California? I'm definitely not optimistic.

Edouard

 

Two comments: Sagan was an atheist, but he was so because he had not by his standard, seen satisfactory evidence that a God existed. This does not mean that he had a closed mind towards the existence of a God.
My second comment is that much of Southern California is desert or near-desert. There is virtually no surface water in that part of the state. Essentially all water provided to Southern California is moved there by man-made water systems. (The same is true of Phoenix). The area should be very sparsely populated but it isn't. The geography of the area simply will not support the number of inhabitants that currently reside there. If the folks in Southern California are planning to continue living there, they better get busy building desalinization plants. Lots of them. Now.

 

Maybe after he and Einstein died they had time to think about it. Einstein had sort of the same mentality when he said "there are only two ways to look at things,nothing is a miracle,or everything is a miracle". I wonder if their grandpas ever discussed the notion of running not hot or cold,but lukewarm. You would think that anyone who understood -273 degrees kelvin could figure out the opposite. So much for smart people......I will trust my own instincts,and stay away from overpopulated areas like California. I was in six lanes of traffic there in the 80's and no one thought it was a problem then.

 

Back to the government part of the thread, it has been stated here that democracies do not last forever. Quite true, and I believe our's is well on the decline. We are not nearly as free in the US as people like to think and say. Having lived abroad, I was shocked at the true personal freedom some post-communist countries have. Maybe because they were oppressed for so long, and for us we have been free for so long.

The entitled, politically correct culture is ruining our country. Look no further than Greece for the entitlement problem. In Athens people were partying in the streets when the vote to default was announced. I look at this situation, and I just don't get it. Unfortunately, lots of people think fiscal and other irresponsibility is OK. That is not sustainable.

 

Amen to that!

 

Definitely some good points, but as Americans we are always a bit late to listen to the idiot fundamentalist type. How long ago did we actually here a twanging hillbilly say "I wish a buck was still silver,it was back when the country was strong"? The information is always available but we are too busy compensating for inflation while more programs are being created to educate the consumer on ways to refinance. It is a circular affair with no end in sight. It gets right back to elagache's point on who is in charge? We have the power to overpopulate and over borrow and many of us do. That makes one a slave eventually and as slaves our owners are in charge. Do our owners care if we starve,dehydrate,or get healthcare? I think some do,and I think there are others who would pollute all of our drinking water if they thought there was a profit in it. Why would some of these guys be so interested in colonizing the moon? Trust yourself and your friends,not those who want you to give them a job that accomplishes nothing.

 

X3! I'm damned sick of kids coming out of the womb with their hands out so they can be just like their worthless 'womb ride' and the sperm donor whom we all support.

 

Not believing in God but counting on God! (Re: Assessing democracies weakest link)

Dear John, schlepcar, stickshift, Dan, Jerry, and V-8 Buick thoughtful patriots,

You'all are touching on some interesting themes. One of the points I was trying to make in this thread is that people in our modern world have a very strange cockiness that is precisely the opposite of the reality of the situation. The situation in places like Southern California, Arizona, and the rest are very much a ticking time bomb like what the Maya faced. Yet, people seem to think science will save them. The reality is that science is warning them to radically change their lifestyles - but they aren't willing to explore the science enough to understand that.

We live in a most paradoxical world were people no longer feel the need to carry out the acts of religious devotion that in the past guaranteed salvation. Yet, they act as if salvation is already guaranteed. How people can have such ideas . . . . is utterly beyond me . . . .

Edouard

 

Are you sure you haven't been riding around in the billy goat with Garland Green? I think we're swimming in the deep end of the pool and no lifeguard on duty. I completely understand the frustration, but I have no answer. I know I probably fret about a lot of such things, but it isn't the things we think about that actually get us the worst. It is always a new more unpleasant surprise. Good question though........My grandpa always said "never re-elect anyone"

 

Were does false confidence come from? (Re: Assessing democracies weakest link)

Dear schlepcar and V-8 Buick thoughtful patriots,

I like your phrase: I think we're swimming in the deep end of the pool and no lifeguard on duty. There are so many things that western civilizations are taking for granted that it is positively scary. I'm dreading the next bridge collapse. All over the west, deferred maintenance is an essential strategy to keep government budgets from going too much into the red. So there will be another old bridge that gives up - why doesn't the public react? I thought if there was something everybody could agree on is that we don't want to die.

I'm convinced that spirituality isn't a lifestyle choice, but a genuine phenomena that science thus far hasn't been able to detect. Yet, when you see the vast majority of the educated west playing Russian roulette you have to believe that they have a false confidence - not one born of a faith in what is good. Most people are uncomfortable with the concept of the devil - perhaps they should ask themselves why.

Edouard

 

" Most people are uncomfortable with the concept of the devil - perhaps they should ask themselves why."---- Edouard
And yet they live a 'devil may care' lifestyle. I'll bet he does. From an old song I like: "Hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven. You can justify it in the end......."

 

I have nothing to add to this. :gp:

 

Proving the existence of the devil? (Re: Assessing democracies weakest link)

Dear Jerry, Ken, and V-8 Buick spiritualists, . . .

After I wrote this, I had an odd thought based on my experiences with the philosophy of religion. You may have heard of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Descartes makes a phenomenological variation on this argument. According to Descartes, his experience of God was such that God had to exist. Alas, not everybody has this experience, so the argument isn't particularly compelling.

Yet, there is an odd reality about the human's react to the devil that suggests maybe there is an analogous argument. People have a odd sense of being uncomfortable at the very mention of the devil. There is real sense that people feel it is "bad luck" to even mention its name. This is a very different kind of fear than say one could feel about the Minotaur or T-Rex. If you describe a T-Rex, you might be fearful in simply imagining how creature like that rips its victims apart (Jurassic Park movies helping your imagination.) Still, nobody feels fear when someone mentions that there is a new T-Rex exhibit in town. As long T-Rex doesn't exist, what's to fear?

The human reaction to the devil is different and seems to preclude it being just a concept like the Minotaur. How can you have bad feelings about something that - doesn't exist? Since there is a very widespread repugnance to the devil, isn't that sufficient to proof there is something out there we experience as repulsive? Of course it isn't a slam dunk argument. Intellectuals will insist they have no such feelings to win the argument. However, if when they are alone they must admit to themselves they also have this fear - you will in the argument in fact, even if they are refused to concede it in person.

Perhaps this is not the way most religious people would prefer to persuade others to consider religious matters, but perhaps this is the better argument to make. It is a long standing tradition that you cannot simply know that salvation is possible, salvation is only possible through true faith. Yet, if we can be certain there is a malevolent force in our world, that is reason enough to seek faith, because without it - certainly all hope is lost.

Some food for thought, . . . . Edouard

 

:TU:

Without faith, all hope IS lost. Then there is false hope. Hope that the things of this world will bring you true happiness and salvation. Hope is just a word. "True" and "False" are the qualifiers for hope.

As you already know, I believe there is only one true Hope. The devil exists, Christ exists. The devil's biggest accomplishment and deception is convincing people he does not exist. He's doing a great job. Because the longer we believe that lie, the closer we are to never finding True Hope, which makes the devil very happy. Evil and the enemy's tactics are not always blatantly recognizable. The evil one can be very discreet. If it takes the devil all your life to discreetly lead you away from God, that's fine with him. Whatever it takes. The devil is very patient, and the end result is the same.

There is also widespread repugnance to Christ. Probably way more than there is to the devil. Ask a thousand people if they believe in "god" and the majority would say yes, Ask a thousand people if they believe in Jesus Christ and who he is and watch that number slice right down by 75% or more. How this does not sadden more Christians is beyond my comprehension, but again, I am not naive, I do understand that some will never come to know Him, by their own choice.

One of the greatest blessings God gave us, free will, has also been used by the enemy to convince us to turn away from God for more "fun and better" things. Live for the moment right? They say "that God thing works for you but I'm all set". Despite the belief, we will all stand before Him on the last day and then what do we say? There's no do overs when it comes to eternity. But God gave us what we need to overcome the prince of darkness, He gave His Son, to die in our place so that we can live forever with Him in His glorious presence if we believe in Him and if we believe we are sinners and are in need of a savior. Without the Spirit of God in your heart, this sounds like nothing more than a ridiculous movie plot and an annoyance. But with the Spirit of God in your heart, which only by faith will dwell in you, this brings one in tears to their knees with thanks. And then every day that passes, one becomes a little less self absorbed. Every day a little more of "self" dies and a little more of "His Spirit" in you lives. Until suddenly you realize that you are indeed a visitor here and you are not in your true home yet. And the unquenchable desire to know the things of God, little by little, are what becomes your heart's desire. The challenge is that we still live in the world and the world is what it is, corrupt and self absorbed, with pride and arrogance, loving money and power more than people, death, deceit, greed, lies and all the amenities the devil has to offer. This is the challenge and the decision we all face. Believe in the lies or believe in the truth.

 

Very insightful posting, Edouard and Ken. I read both of your posts and, as well as being very well written, the reflections and thoughts expressed both inspire me and make me nod in agreement. Kudos, Gentlemen.

 

I was merely expressing my opinion in somewhat tongue in cheek manner. p I have stated that I do not believe in any form of higher power. What I purposely neglected to say is that I DO believe that it's possible that such a deity, or deities can exist.

You are correct in stating that science will likely not prove or disprove the existence of any higher power, be that a god, allah, buddha, or any other deity in our lifetime. Then again, science has a proven track record of altering and modifying its findings, unlike most religions.

I personally do not care what anyone believes in. That's their choice to make, not mine.

Edit: I posted the above prior to reading most of the comments between schlepcar's quoted post, and my response here.

 

Re: Not believing in God but counting on God! (Re: Assessing democracies weakest link

One only has to take a good look at how democratically elected governments operate to discover their agenda, which is to heighten public alarm and concern about the state of affairs. Then governments can constantly discuss what type of fixes are required. All you need to do is follow a few stories for an extended time.

In my profession, highways and bridges are often at the forefront, since I drive for a living. Typical government discussion centers around their current condition, what future construction needs are, and how to keep up with maintenance. Seldom is there any real consensus about what is really needed, since the US Congress is bent on stalling and delaying any progress over the past several years. I have followed this story for years now, and little is being accomplished. It's become politics at its finest, or worst, depending or your viewpoint.

Now apply this template to any other public issue and one quickly learns it's all encompassing. Government does NOT want real progress, they want continuous debate and discussion with an eye to prolonging their existence. That in turn, makes them "valuable" to the public they are supposed to serve. Governments can claim to be so important all while scheming and passing the buck behind our backs.

Eduoard, your point about cockiness vs reality is exactly what I meant by society becoming one of narcissists.

I'm not sold on the idea of religious devotions being the perfect solution to counterbalance science's harsh realities. Especially when you factor in all the capitalistic "pseudo scientists" It will take a government with genuine fortitude to extract us from this path we seem to be traveling on.

Here's a brief look at how a one time Soviet satellite has rebounded from oppressive rule to become a Republic. It's rather enlightening, especially how most of the citizens bought in.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2015/07/features/estonia-e-resident/viewall

 

Can fish see the water? (Re: Democracies weakest link)

Dear Ken, Jerry, Tom, and V-8 Buick world observers, . . .

I agree with Ken's point completely, but am also very interested in the mechanisms by which religious experiences are had by only some people - not all people. By the same token, I'm also seeking an explanation for why there can be such vastly different kinds of religious experiences.

Most people accept that science is a machine that is without assumptions and simply uncovers the truth. That is simply untrue and to this day, the objections of David Hume undermine everything we have learned through observation. So it is naive to suppose that science can be the arbiter of all human experience. The philosophy after Hume attempted to come to grips with this problem and in particular Heidegger realized something that cuts science is a particularly damaging way. Effectively, the Quantum mechanical notion of uncertainty applies to all observation. There is no way to avoid observer bias completely.

The problem is very much like asking if fish can see the water the live in. Anything that is that pervasive and omnipresent is invisible. This necessarily transforms our view of how things like evil operate. I do believe there is an unembodied mind that that the consciousness of evil. Yet, it operates on the world as a field of force analogous to a magnetic field. This field only appears to effect biological entities which is why making a scientific detector of these fields is impractical. It seems that evil only effects humans, but there is evidence of evil in the animal world if you look for it.

So to me it is perfectly consistent that some people are aware of evil and others cannot believe such a thing could exist. As Ken says, it is extremely well hidden.

You may disagree with me, but I think your point is correct for an unexpected reason. The resentment of Christ is once more a phenomena related to this sort field of force phenomena but where the field is trying to foster good. Here is where the puzzle about different religious traditions come in. Some people insist that religious traditions are simply different paths to the same good, but this is simply untrue. The best counter-example is the different goal of Buddhism. The Buddha came to a religious crisis that is very foreign to western thinking. He came to a awareness that his future was a futility of endless reincarnations without any ultimate resolution. Buddhism seeks to break this cycle of futile reincarnations. That doesn't look at all like the Western notion of Jesus's second coming. My conclusion is that Buddhists are experiencing a different spiritual reality - they aren't going to be saved by Jesus. Even Islam and Judaism reflect conceptions of hope that look very different than the Christian view of Jesus's return to earth and through that return, fulfilling the possibility of the earth as a heavenly paradise.

The Gospels in a way have just as much to say about what isn't included as what is. Many people want to believe they are among those who would be saved. Yet, it seems obvious from how Christianity broke off from the Jewish community after the crucifixion that those Jews weren't going to be saved by Jesus's presence on earth. How many people in fact understand what Jesus's calling really is?

If the devil can spin false hope, how many Christians have been mislead into believing they are going to be saved by Jesus, when they won't? For a time, there was an obsession with the idea of original sin - could this concept represent a metaphysical reality? Heidegger struggled hard to try to eliminate religion from his philosophy, but in a way, he might have proven it was impossible. He had a idea of existential guilt that looks very much like someone who suffers from some kind of damnation from birth and yet is in denial about it. For many people, the resentment of Christ is that it seems Jesus is asking the impossible of them. Perhaps for some people it literally is. With such people on the earth, isn't there the temptation to follow their broken ways, because it is less challenging? If like fish, we cannot see the actions of evil and the devil is clever in it concealment, couldn't the devil lead our civilization to ruin on what at least appears to a be path paved by "good intentions?"

Edouard

 

Lots of very interesting posts here, love the intelligent well thought through responses and points of view.

For me, as an Australian, but one who believes the US used to be the model for democratic freedom (note the term used to) I believe three things have changed, and not for the good;

1. As many have stated, the US has moved from a republic (that was best in the 40-60's) to some form of bastardised form of mashed up socialist oligarchy. This has been slowly happening over decades
2. In making this shift to subtly make it happen the Govt has used the primary force of human motivation. Fear. Stats show it motives twice as much as potential for gain. Little fears (we need to increase rates so we can take away your garbage every week), to big fears (you and your kids aren't safe so we need to monitor your every breath and thought). But the problem is decades of fear mongering, lead to a massive shift in culture. It essentially results in people becoming beholden to the Govt to do the thinking for them, leading to entitlement. I can't look after me, the govt will. As a 43 year old I find it interesting that I'm part of the problem. When I grew up, we did stuff like playing outside, on the road, in creeks etc that we wouldn't even dream of letting our kids do now, we tell them it's not safe. We add to this cultural shift of control and less "freedom"
3. Finally lack of accountability. Republics are by their very definition "rule of law". But how many laws get broken each and ever day, from violent crime, to petty crime, to white collar crime, to govts breaking the law but claiming in the interest of the greater good. The reality is the law if no longer considered the arbiter of right or wrong, everyone has an out clause (plead insanity, get a good lawyer who can find a technicality etc). So how can you have a meaningful republic when the rule of law, is in fact the rule of ignore the law

I haven't stepped into the relies part of the debate. I agree that a lot of the above starts and stops with people's belief systems, values, ethics, behaviours etc. But culturally the US (and many western countries are following this example, including my own) are simply comfortable in allow these small changes over time. Culture change like this can take 100 years, we are probably a good 30-50 years into it. History will repeat itself, these things never end well.

I'd love to see the US (and Australia) back t it's best

 

I have separated and highlighted the point I wish to respond to.

There's an old axiom in the advertising world which effectively says that in order to get people to believe in what you're saying, you must endlessly repeat the same message until (most) everyone believes it to be true. Once the masses have bought into your message, it becomes much easier to steer (control) them into whatever it is you're selling. Using fear is one of the best methods.

I also have vivid memories of playing on the concrete and asphalt streets where my friends and I grew up in the sixties. We sometimes played tackle football on those streets!! We played road hockey and baseball as well. We rode our bicycles with reckless abandon as fast as we could. We had a blast doing so, and if we got hurt, our moms would take care of that, while telling us to not hurt ourselves again. Of course, those words fell on deaf ears. :laugh:

Fear of injuries, lawsuits, plus child molesters hiding behind every tree and shrub has effectively robbed today's children of those experiences. Well that, plus the insidious electronics of today all designed to create the obedient sheeple drones of tomorrow who must always be connected with the world.