Survival of Life on Earth

February 1st, 2010

This concern of mine is not one that in the long term effects me, I won’t be around that long; however, I feel that I must record my concerns, hence this blog.

I have recently been listening to the 7.30 Report on channel two which had a series of programmes relating to the population growth in Australia, and tonight I listened to Treasurer Swann talking about the problems we face regarding aging population and global warming. I also have been listening to people like climate sceptic Monkton and others such as Senator Joyce, Senator Fielding, and others such as economists and industrialists and have been impressed by the fact that none of them appear to have been able to address the real problem. The only one that made any sense was Dick Smith, and Lindsey Tanner poo-hood him as being naïve.

Firstly I would observe that no one seems to have appreciated that this wonderful planet could well be able to support life for another two or three billion years providing we don’t suffer an astronomical catastrophe. The leadership that is charged with the responsibility of guiding us through the present global warming and population problems seems to be unable to visualize anything beyond three terms of parliament. Consequently, they only plan for a maximum of 50 years population growth and then extrapolate that this will cause economic growth from which we will all benefit. They haven’t yet appreciated that long term planning with regard to life survival should be measured in thousands of years, if not billions…Nor do they seem to appreciate that continuous growth is just not sustainable, even over relatively short periods of 100 years, the planet must run out of its finite supply of resources and space.

I will first talk about the problem of global warming.

When talking about global warming we still seem to talk about our ability to afford to address this problem as if our economic state is of any real importance to this issue! Global warming is a consequence of our not abiding by the requirements of the real force that controls the universe i.e. science. The universe evolves and operates within set parameters set out by physics and chemistry and if we break these laws then we suffer the consequences. We are polluting our environment and if we do not effectively address this problem we will all possibly suffer extinction. Therefore, it is imperative that we keep the problem as the objective and possibly use economists and the like as they should be used, i.e. to advise the best way to obtain the required solution and minimize the effects on the population of the world. This is a problem which we have to solve, even it means that we have to make drastic changes to our present life styles..

Listening to the global warming sceptics and opposition politicians reminds me of when I was much younger the similar argument was about asbestos and smoking. Then we had these sceptics and bogus scientists making statements that asbestos and smoking were safe and it wasn’t necessary to shut down the mines and factories or stop smoking. These charlatans managed to keep the mines working for years and the miners kept their jobs, likewise, the smokers still kept boasting that they would smoke if the chose and there was proof or evidence of smoking related cancer. The charlatans walked away rich, the companies paid out massive compensation and the workers and users are still dying, often in great agony!

The consequences of ignoring global warming will be far worse than those resulting from asbestos mining and smoking!!

Regarding population growth, this is a really interesting and difficult problem to solve. Firstly we, like all other forms of life on the planet, are programmed to reproduce. Over the millions of years of our evolution, we had arrived at a position where we reproduce at a rate that matches the expected death rate from natural predators and disease and as a result the total environment stayed in balance and all was in harmony. However, our evolution has taken us to a situation where we have almost nullified all the natural methods that existed to control our growth.

It is still necessary to reproduce for the species to survive; however, it is now possible to over reproduce and threaten our very existence, therefore, it is essential that we devise a means by which it is possible to keep the population within sustainable limits. Today I heard both Dick Smith and Lindsey Tanner state that the world population is expected to plateau out at 9 billion. How can they make this statement without having set maximum population target and having put in place a means by which the population can be forced to not exceed this limit.

Again we are confronting the ultimate power controlling the universe and if we don’t control the population to a level in harmony with the environment we will breed ourselves out of existence.  This is a really hard social problem because we will somehow have to determine who will be allowed to breed and who will have to be celibate. The problem will be further complicated by the fact that we will have to make a choice but ensure that we don’t destroy the diversity of population or make racial or national based selections.

Another problem with population control is that we no longer have the reason for breeding we inherited through our genes. Our politicians and industrialists would have us believe that the reason for our existence is to work in factories and create growth and money for someone else. Something like an ant community? However, I would prefer to think that we could have a very good future where we live in harmony with the ecology and yet by education learn to enjoy the sciences and arts and other wonders that exist in this world.

This is a problem in that we will not be able to call on our self made gods for a solution, in fact we will have to make sure that we ignore the religious indoctrinations we have been subjected to over the millennia, we certainly can’t afford to breed at a rate of 8-10 children per family, if we do we will very shortly, (less than 100 years), reach above 60 billion and this will most certainly stretch the limit of the available resources!

The language of science is mathematics and since the problem we face is a consequence of science, we must surely be able to come up with a model that would enable us to work out almost exactly the population the world can support comfortably and even a way to obtain the necessary birth regulation system.

Remember, we are looking for a solution effective over a couple of billion years not 50 or 100 years

Posted in population growth | No Comments »

Population Growth

January 25th, 2010

The This Day Tonight program on the 25th January, had a piece on this subject which I feel inclined to comment upon as follows.

It would appear that the population problem is really matter of having an available area for expansion whilst keeping the needed space to support that population within the confines of a finite fixed area without destroying the environment for all other life forms.

We have evolved to a degree where we are now the first life form that has the option of controlling our reproduction or breeding our selves to extinction. Mr Rudd has formed the opinion that we will be better off with a bigger population. This is based on the impossible belief that we can have everlasting growth; which would need everlasting growth of population. Since there is only a finite space available, adoption of a policy of everlasting growth will inevitably lead to our extinction as a species!

It is not now necessary for human beings to breed flat out to obtain the survival of the species so we should now be working out what we do want from life and how we can balance our breeding to obtain this state, in balance with the rest of the environment, such that we can have a long term future for ourselves and the rest of the life forms!

When I say long term I mean thousands of years not fifty years, one gets the impression that our world leaders feel that they only have responsibility for looking after the events happening within their life span whereas I would hope that, such a magnificent life form as we have evolved into would be able, by application of this powerful brain, ensure that life goes on as long as our planet will support it.

Frankly, I don’t think that the world is yet ready to address the problem of over population, they have too many religious and personal freedoms hang-ups and not enough responsibility commitments.  It will need a realization that there is a fast approaching apocalypse to jolt the masses into a state of action and this may well be too late!

Posted in population growth | No Comments »

what is education?

December 14th, 2009

If we look at the Grand Inquisition, it was made up of the educated of the time and they were well aware, inter alia, of the fact that the world is the centre of the universe, accordingly, it was quite right of them to incarcerate someone that should suggest that this was not so. Unfirtunately for them, Galileo was right.

Even though Galileo was educated in the same system as the Inquisitors, he was able to ask the question why is this so and is it right.

Some hundreds of years later Darwin was likewise persecuted for again questioning the accuracy of the details of the subject matter being taught at that time by the educated elite. and again, Darwin was right.

This has happened throughout the years and every one that questions the teachings of the day is reviled and often persecuted, some times severely so but eventually they are frequently right and their ideas win the day.

I am hoping that the being right continues to win the day because we are presently faced with a global problem which is not just an academic problem for the advancement of our knowledge, this problem could well result in the extermination of all life on this planet for a number of years, if not correctly addressed.

My worry is that we have now an opposition which is just like the Inquisition, it knows that there is no global warming caused by human activity and there is no need to do anything about it because we have god to look after us. Unfortunately, we seem to be ruled presently by these people of strong religious belief such that one of our senators claims to believe in god when there is no evidence of the existance of such a creature, whereas, he claims that, despite all the evidence of global ice caps melting etc, there isn’t enough evidence of global warming for him to press for some appropriate action.

It seems to me that there is too much teaching in our education system and not enough questioning!

We should be teaching our students priciples of maths, science, etc but we should also be encouraging them to question what they are taught and to understand why things are considered to be so. The trouble with our present leaders is that they have been taught things from a religious aspect and they are unable to put that training aside and consider things from a logical view point, for example, Kevin Andrews preaches freedom of choice but when the Northern Territory voted for voluntary Euthanasia, he was able to override that choice as being not one that he could live with, so much for freedom of choice?

Frankly, I’m pleased to be old because I can’t really see that, with the world leadership we have today, there can be any great odds that they will be able to come up with a solution to the global warming problem, and if they should get so lucky, there is no chance that they will be able to solve the over population problem.

The trouble is, now days parents send their children to school to be disciplined  and taught comformity and not to be a pain in the arse by asking awkward questions and to just do as they are told.  Which makes for disillusioned young adults with no aim other than to make money which is their measure of success or to be no hopers!

Where is the old fashioned idea of learning for learnings sake?

Posted in education | 4 Comments »

The Law and Justice

November 4th, 2009

I have looked at this blog and can see why it is not too clear what is being ranted about if one hasn’t been following the same news stories. The stories which initiated the rant were the stories, in all forms of media, which related to the release of the convicted murderer of Dr Chan ( a Mr Lim ) some years back and the reaction to this release on parole, and then the other story indicating a similar interference from the government, was the hounding of the paedofile, Dennis Ferguson.

My rant was a consequence of coming to the conclusion that present day politicians would override any legitimate legislation to suit their political aims without regard to justice or the rule of law. It also seemed that there is no  sound constitution or bill of rights setting limits to the extent to which the government of the day can over ride existing legislation to obtain its own political aims

It was and is my conclusion, that because the law makers are the politicians, and because the politicians have to go to the people to be re-elected and because the politicians have no set restrictions on their legislation, then they will enact the laws that are politically most expedient at any one time without regard for the long term consequences of any such legislation. This enables any rabble rousing tabloid paper to put pressure on the government of the day to make a headline without regard to the consequences of issuing such rubbish.

It was my conclusion that to obtain really safe legislation, free of political exploitation, it is essential that we have a genuine overhaul of the existing constitution and add to it a bill of rights. Unfortunately, I haven’t kept a record of the press releases referred to but I trust that this addition will somewhat clarify my earlier rant.

Posted in Justice | No Comments »

the law and justice?

November 1st, 2009

I find that it is frightening the way that the law is administered by a well proven justice system and then overruled by  weak politicians as a result of pressure from daily papers  which have very little cridibility but a largish reader base.

The latest of these ” lynch mob ” type interferences by weak and popular vote catching politicians is the Victor Chan killer release  on parole case .  I can understand the family of Victor Chan being annoyed by the release of Lim on parole but they are naturally biased, most normal people would be quite prepared to kill someone that had killed their father in cold blood for no reason other than to make money. However, such emotions will, if unchecked, lead to never ending killing where everyone is trying to exact the revenge that they feel entitled to   To stop such lawlessness we have a the law of the land which is administered by qualified and, we hope, unbiased and wise legally knowledgeable Judges.

Unfortunately, the laws of the land are formulated by politicians and these seem to have no back-bone and are only looking to get re-elected.  As a consequence, the laws of the land are frequently manipulated by rabble rousing daily papers which rouse the mob instinct of the populace and pressurize the politicians into making dangerous laws which eventually will be used in a way that they are not intended.

Lim was sentenced under the law and it is proper that that sentence be enacted in accordance with the judges sentence. We have to presume that the judge, who probably listened to days if not weeks of testomony, will have taken all things into consideration and arrived at a judgement that was as just as could be humanly expected. It is absolutely stupid to allow some elected politician to toss the law out on a whim to aid in his re-election prospects.

It is obvious that we need a new constitution that protects the people not the States, which seems to be the main function of the present Australian constitution. It is possible to argue that we would be better off as a country of Australia with one government and not have all these divided loyalties to various States. We also need a Bill of Rights which sets out clearly what the politicians can do  legally. At present, each political party in power in the Commonwealth and States and Terrortaries can enact any law as they see fit, or so it would appear.

An example of this abuse of power is the special laws enacted against the paedophile Ferguson, his crime is one that is most distastful but he is entitled to the protection of, and justice from, the law. Once he has finished his sentence and provided that he complies with the law, then he is entitled to his liberty. If we have a problem with this, we should change the law to take into account the circumstances of various crimes.

I understand that paedophilia is a complaint for which there is no cure. If this is so, then we have to adjust the law to permit the euthanasia of people that have this affliction or adopt the less humane option of shutting them away for life in a, usually, most unfriendly prison. It is certainly not acceptable that we should enact laws that relate to individuals, there is no end to the possiblilties of giving politicians  such powers.  Also we have to accept that if we allow a paedophile to have his freedom after a prison sentence, then we have to allow him to have the means to support his life style and work etc to feed himself, it is inhumane to expect that he will sit down and starve himself to death to avoid contact with his fellow human beings.

We have to have a system such as a Bill of Rights and a person orientated Constitution, to ensure that the laws that these politicians enact are not just political ploys to appease the, generally ill informed, public.

I have listened to people like John Howard argue that if we have a Bill of Rights the power will rest with the judiciary rather that the elected parliament. This is a valid arguement but we need to set out what the politicians can do and have the judiciary administer those rights, the judges don’t have to present themselves to the people for re-election every three years or so. Having seen the way in which our politicians have behaved with their strutting the stage to show that they are the stronger on crime  and punishment, I’d have much more faith in a judgement by a judge even though I know that the judges are appointed by the politicians in the first place.

From past judgements in the High Courts we have seen that judges don’t always go the way that one would expect knowing their political persuasions. By comparison we have the rantings of Rees and O’Farrell both of whom seem to think that the Daily Telegraph has some credibility, a belief that is most difficult to understand.

I still can’t understand why it is that we are supposedly so well educated but we don’t think beyond what we are told and just follow like sheep and allow the dismantling of a legal system that has grown and proven itself over many hundreds of years. We should be looking to improve and widen our liberty and rights rather than trying to persecute those that have fallen foul of the law and suffered the consequences thereof.

Posted in Justice | No Comments »

rich private v poor public schools

October 22nd, 2009

I will start by saying that I’m an atheist so I am against the public funding of any religious school, I feel that it is both immoral and a waste of public money to subsidize the teaching of matters of faith for which there is no evidence of there being any basis for the faith.

Knowing my views on religious education, you can imagine my outrage when I read that the Shore School had been able to outbid the Federal Government for a property adjacent to their school. To think that a school that is subsidized to the extent of $9,000,000 annually could put up $35,000,000 for a property which it only required to house a museum and sporting facilities left me astounded and annoyed.

My annoyance wasn’t in anyway abated when I heard the School Governor, an ex business CEO of course, state on the talk back radio that the school had not used the subsidy to pay for the property but had been saving for this purchase over a number of years.

I suppose that the Governor didn’t listen to the rest of the broadcast when a member of P and C for a state school came on and explained that their school had just had a very successful fete and had raised $7000.

From these two talk back subjects it is easy to work out that if the public school was really keen to raise enough money to make a similar purchase it would only take a successful fete every month for the next 444 years to raise the necessary $35,ooo,ooo

There were a number of other men that rang in about this subject and many were ex students of this and other rich private schools. I was surprised at their apparent honesty when they admitted that the education that they had received wasn’t any better than a public school education, some even said that it wasn’t as good; however, the thing that they did get out of the attendance of the private school was an access to networking. Many seemed to be admitting that they had been able to get appointed to jobs, for which they were not really the best applicant, purely on the basis of having been to a private school and knowing the right people.This seemed to me to be a reasonable enough claim since when I was a working person I found that the majorith of the executive jobs seemed to be held down by nincompoops whose only talent was to be able to surround themselves with enough advisers to be sure that they would  get some things right.

It is actually no wonder that the international  banking system collapsed and that we can’t find solutions to global warming. It is obvious that the powers that be are not really able to appreciate that the global warming isn’t something that will hang around whilst they dither and try to please every one.

Our problem now is that we are in a position when we need scientific solutions if we are survive and we are still run by people that are there because of their contacts and old school associations. It is no wonder that Ken Henry is pessimistic about the ability of out Governments to be able to solve the problems of global warming and over population which is forecast to occur over then next 40 years.

Posted in education | 1 Comment »

Populate and Die !

October 16th, 2009

I see that recent predictions for Australia’s population is set to reach 40 million by the year 2040 and this news has been well received by the powers that are supposed to run this country for the long term. They claim that it will produce great growth and development possibilities and will enable this country to assume a greater roll in the world.  This all seems to me to be a load of utter rubbish!

These people haven’t yet realised that though we may well be able to manage the  population of 40 million I very much doubt that we could manage too many more. They haven’t worked out that in 2040 the population won’t suddenly stop growing, infact, the increase obtained to that date will speed up the rate of population growth such that if the same rate continues for another 30 years, we will then be looking at a population of over 60 million. I wonder how they will manage that growth?

We are still trying to build the rail system first suggested some 100 years back so it is hard to imagine that we will be able to cater for another 20 million in a mere 30 years. We then won’t just be looking at rail and transport systems, we will be looking at desalination plants, sewage water reclaim systems, and still we will be arguing about how to lower the carbon footprint to stop the global warming,get wate flowing in our rivers, etc.

To exacerbate this problem, the rest of the world will also have an increasing population such that, at the present rate of increase, the world population will have grown from today’s 6 billion to something like 14 billion and, of course, it won’t stop there unless the problem is properly addressed.

I wonder if any of today’s  scientists are looking at the problem of an ever increasing population, surely they must realize that the population can’t keep expanding  indefinitely without eventually collapsing in on itself? Furthermore, I can’t understand what is the objective of an ever increasing population when we know that it is just exhausting the resources available at an ever increasing rate, surely we must eventually ( provided we survive the global warming threat ), start looking at the world population level that can be sustained without destroying life itself?

Population stabilisation is a problem which makes global warming look like childs play, to obtain a steady sustainable population will require review of the fundamental principles by which we presently organize our communities. I wonder if we can do it?? Not in my time of course!

Posted in Political | No Comments »

caring?

July 24th, 2009

I recently had cause to visit the gym at the hospital where my wife needed physio, I accompanied my wife but could naturally take no part in her treatment. However, I was able to observe the other patients being treated in the gym. This situation was both inspiring and depressing.

Many of the patients being treated were old as would be expected but a surprising number were young men suffering paraplegia, there were no women suffering this way there in the gym at this time. I could only guess that the majority of these young men were so handicapped from having been involved in awful accidents.

The inspiring part of this visit was to observe the gentle and kindly way in which the staff dealt with these men. I thought that it must have been very hard to go to work each day to be faced with such sad cases knowing that despite all your efforts there is little that you can do for these young men other than keep them sane and comfortable.

In particular there was one young man that seemed to be paralysed completely and could only move his mouth, he also had a life support system fixed to the wheel chair and pipes going into his every part. Sad indeed but he was accompanied by a young woman that appeared to be his wife. This got me thinking about what is caring?

It is all very well to be kind to these people but I wonder if they have ever been asked the question as to what they want for a future. I can imagine this young man looking at his wife and thinking how terrible it must be for her, and what the future holds for her. He must feel that his incapacity had not only ruined his life but has ruined the life of someone that is most beloved to him.

I wonder if the medical profession has put it to him that if he finds that it is all too hard and that he doesn’t feel that he can cause so much suffering in the future, then he has only to say the word and the profession will facilitate his gentle and dignified demise.

I am aware that if you asked a loved one the question about whether this young man should be allowed to terminate his life,  they couldn’t make the decision, it would be too hard and it would maybe make them feel guilty. However, I think that the difficulty in making a decision that would avoid this young man’s mental and physical suffering is the result of our having been raised to think that death is a punishment rather than a necessary part of life.

I am not heartless and I can well understand the terrible trauma that such situations place ordinary people in, situations that they can’t be trained to face up to in the normal every day run of the mill life, but I feel that the person that is most effected by the situation is the person that has the least say in what his/her future should be. I can’t accept all the crap about the sanctity and ” right to ” life, life is for living and once one is not able to participate in living, then the choice should be there to finish life painlessly.

This is a matter that I am increasingly mindful of since my wife and I are now of an age when the onset of dementia and other age related incapacitating complaints become ever more a possiblility. I read all this rubbish about the old becoming and increasingly high cost to the community because of the espense of operating nursing homes and the like to house all these zombie like creatures. This problem is a self imposed problem not a real problem. I together with most of my friends of similar age, don’t want to be kept alive sitting drooling, eating gunk, knowing no one, being bathed, put to sleep probably with sleeping pills etc. When I don’t know that I am me and can’t remember, recall or act out, my life in a meaningful way, then I am dead, the fact that others still have the ability to keep my body functioning is not keeping me alive. I am the sum of all my feelings and experiences and once those functions of the brain have gone then I no longer exist

Surely, caring is providing what is best for the patient and if the patient is suffering because of unwanted treatment, then the caring becomes a way of satisfying the needs of the carer more than a true caring for the patient!?

I know that things like dementia block out all memories and feelings but whilst I am still able to think, I have already decided that I don’t want to be a cause of pain and unnecessary euffering to my loved ones, far better that they can only remember me as me and not come and look at drooling zombie!

Posted in life & death | 3 Comments »

who believes in God?

June 24th, 2009

Just a ramble to relieve my horror at the oppression of the people of Iran by the clerics of Islam.

It is quite obvious to me that the clerics of Islam have no belief in Allah/God because of their behaviour. They claim that they have the authority of Allah and follow the tenets of the Prophet, however, the Prophet and all other prophets, comdemned murder as a mortal sin which would be punishable by eternity in hell.  This sentence would be enough for any believer to take notice and to refrain from committing murder to ensure that they have a chance of  ending up in heaven. This is not the case for the clerics of Islam, here we have the Ayatollar and his side kicks, not only endorsing the murder of Iranian citizens that disagree with them but they encourtage the murders and even offer a reward for those that commit the murders in the name of the Ayatoller and therefore Allah/ God.

It is obvious that the heads of Islam, and all the other religions, have no more belief in God than I do and I’m a confirmed atheist. It is clear that sience has now answered most of the questions that gave rise to the belief in gods as an answer to questions such as the origins of life and evolution etc. Now the need to ensure that a belief in gods continues is purely to give authority and power to the likes of Ayatollars, Popes and Rabiis and the like and they have shown over time that they are prepared to commit murder and mayhem to ensure that their authority is maintained.

This is not a recent development, the not too distant case of the Muslim thug that filmed as he carved the head off an innocent, good man in Iraq and then held the head aloft and shouted ” Allahu Akbar ” must have been the greatest act of blaspheme ever. The act of murder was blamed directly onto Allah, but not one cleric thought that it was worth condemning this act of blaspheme. However, when a Danish cartoonist depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, that was an act of blaspheme that warranted the calling of murder of the cartoonist and the cartoonist wasn’t even a Muslim. Such hypocrisy can only further show that these clerics are infact just using the naivity of the brain washed general population to abuse power and advance their own ends.

Isn’t it a blessing that old age will eventually rid the world of these cursed creatures, but unfortunately, they seem to often get replaced by others that have similar desires.

Posted in Religions, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

the religious war in palestine

March 11th, 2009

Simon,
You miss the point, in the case of Israel/Palestine it is a religious conflict, there is no other explanation for the situation. It may have started off as a conflict between one group taking over the lands of another group but it has been taken over by the two religions, Jews and Muslims, and this is despite the probability that the majority of ordinary people yearn for a peaceful settlement of the problem.
As I said before, it can be likened to the situation in Northern Ireland but in that case the people were of different ethinic origins, i.e. Celts and Picts, but it the case of  palestine, both groups are of the same ethnic origins so it is almost like a civil war.
I still reckon the solution is to have a common country of Palestine with one government, which the constitution would demand be secular, and get the protaganists to live together with one common constitution and law.To keep on having retaliation for seeming afronts is a no where situation. A Palestinian kills an Israeli and the Israelis then kill a dpzen Palestinians, who were probably not anti Jewish till they were targeted in the revenge attacks, but then they want revenge and so it goes on. Why has the Ulster problem taken 400 years to solve and it still lingers to this day?
G

Posted in the great injustice of 20th century | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries