Listen To Your Elders

I recently read an article by Chris Keene regarding the actions of Prof. Michael Reiss and in most of the comments was struck by the continuous reference to religion and science. Evidently, the Prof is also a priest with a religion, I presume a Christian religion and these references and Prof’s belonging to a religion seem to have bemused the readers into thinking that science and religion are comparable in some way and both should be taught in our education facilities.

All the commentators seem to overlooked the fact that, whereas, there is only science which is an explanation of all happenings in the universe, there are many religions all of which are an effort to explain how we got here and where we are going after we die by making one or several gods responsible for our existence.

As there is only Science it is possible to prove or disprove any theories of the existance of the earth and all that is there upon it. However, since there are so many religions, it isn’t possible to prove anything before one proves which religion is right.

As all religions are based on absolute unquestioning faith, none of them will ever accept that it is wrong so it isn’t possible to prove anything one way or the other. Consequently, it is wrong to teach any religion in an educational establishment, if anything, it should be more the responsibility of education establishments to ensure that its students are taught to question all things and not rely on just an acceptance of the teachers or their parents etc.

I recently came across a reference to transformity, a word that was new to me and which I couldn’t locate in the Oxford Dictionary, as is my usual wont, I referred to my Grandson for an explanation. He referred me to an article by Sean Seefried.

I have read the article by Sean and found it most interesting and easy to follow, I’m not able to comment on the actual figures used but the concept isn’t surprising. However, I did find the article a little hard to relate to the immediate problem of global warming.

If one acknowledges the transformity to obtain solar cells or wind turbines, it would indicate to me that we have to gamble that the extra dirty power must be used to produce the clean power as soon as possible no matter what.  As the article points out, solar radiation is, to all intents and purposes, an infinite constant energy input to the earth. We can’t use it up and we can’t increase its input, nor can we stop it.

The solid, dense energy sources laid down by the suns input over millions of years, has been discovered and used in a big way since the industrial revolution, and, unfortunately, use of these fossil fuels to produce power also releases the gases removed from the atmosphere when they were laid down. The release of these gases seems to be our main problem, I’m no expert but it appears to me that we are again producing the atmosphere required by the dinosaurs some millions of years ago, not too good for modern homosapians!

If we are to reverse the production of the greenhouse gases in time to save life as we know it, I would suggest that we need to modify our use of power produced using dirty fuels. This could be done by making sure that the power was used to produce the clean power generators rather that the rubbish that we present produce. I wonder how much power is presently wasted in producing weapons to further pollute the atmosphere, how much power is used to produce all the junk mail that is put into letter boxes every day, etc, etc.

I would also think that we would have to get over this mad drive to have growth. No one seems to know why we need the growth other than to make profits for some few so called entrepreneurs, as a consequence we keep on populating and needing more energy etc but for no purpose. As a result of this feverish population expansion, we like any other animal species will eventually reach pest proportions and, like for the other animals, we will die out.

It is time that we started to use our brain power to work out just what is the future aims of humanity. This could well mean controlling the population to a sustainable quantity and then also deciding on how we can make life for all the members of the population exciting, enjoyable  and satisfying. Surely it must be possible to rid ourselves of doctrines inherited from thousands of years ago and start to accept responsibility for our own future. If we don’t we are doomed, I think personally that we are too late already!

I have just read the Sydney Herald Garnott report and was struck by the seeming lack of understanding of how the scheme should be paid for and also the unforgiving nature of the problem and the consequences of not doing enough to limit its finality if we fail to meet the demands of a solution. if such a solution is still possible!

We are always talking of the need to implement the user pays principle but it never seems to apply when it is the really rich and greedy that will be asked to pay.

If we go back to primary school arithmetic we can easily work out how it is that the cost of any trading scheme will impact most on the less able to pay and this will have the least effect on the pollution problem.

We all need a basic amount to survive which can be set at say, $300 per week, this will meet the food and yearly bills for a family of 4 say. I am not an expert so I don’t have the exact figures, but let us assume that this is the case. Now this figure applies to any family to provide the basic living requirements and therefore any surplus is used to raise that living standard to incorporate more luxury items.

Garnott talks of giving tax relief and social services to help the less able to afford more costs but this will not reduce the pollution and carbon use. A few dollars to the less well off will maybe help them to survive but it will not impress the rich by one iota so they will grumble but, simply go on using the resources with gay abandon! To really make people cut back it is necessary to make the onus on all more or less equal which means making the more well off feel the pain of the increased charges.

I believe that to make the community equally share the burden of saving the planet, it is necessary to make the ones that do the most polluting pay the most for the clean-up. Going back to my original statement, it takes $300/week to survive so any one living on this basic standard will have a minimal effect in pollution. As we have the more affluent spending, they will be doing more polluting and when we get to the people with a real surplus of money spending their surplus on yachts, sporty cars, speed boats, international holidays etc, they are really doing a lot of polluting. Accordingly, it is only fair that the richer the people the more they pay towards the carbon emmissions trading scheme.

When I was young after the end of the second world war in the UK we had taxation which was graded to make the ones that took most out of the country pay most back through taxation, top rate was 19s6d in the pound. Now we have got to the stage where the top income earners pay the least percentage of their income in tax and moan most if they have to pay more. At the same time they are often wasting the money on such things as transporting polo horses around the world for a game here and there.

It seems to me that we are now faced with a global problem which could well see the end of all life on this planet and we can’t now afford these greedy and selfish idiots that think that the destruction of the environment will only effect the poor and they will be able to buy their way out of the situation. If we fail to control the pollution, it will kill us all!

I suggest that we again reconstitute a taxation system which makes the rich pay their way and feel the pain of survival. This is an almost impossible solution to this problem because these CEO’s and the like are not really interested in anything but their own careless lifestyle so if Australia were to impose a more equitable tax system they would simply move off shore and continue to hasten the their own destruction together with the destruction of the rest of us!

If we are really going to save the world we have to have international agreement to limit the greed of these executives and thee like so that if they give themselves $10000/week they pay a greater proportion of it back into the cost of keeping a viable environment. In the long term it is in their best interests to feel the pain like the rest of us!

As I’ve said in previous posts, probably unread, the existence of the planet isn’t really influenced one way or the other should life survive or fail, so it is up to us to do what we can to ensure that life goes on if we really want this to be the case!

Whether Peter Garrett changed his mind is not the issue, the issue is why do our Australian politicians want to cede parts of our nation to foreign countries?

We should adopt the US constitution requirement that bans any state or the federal government ceding any part of the US to another country.

We should learn from history and understand that there would not be too many Cubans that think that it was a good idea to let the US have soveriegn power over so much of their country. It is obvious that the US isn’t using their control to advance the welfare or dignity of the Cuban population today.

Wake up Australians, keep our country for ourselves!

How can Howard talk about Hicks having a fair process when he still is letting it be known that he considers Hicks guilty even now before he has been officially charged.

For Hicks to have a fair trial it is first necessary for any such trial to be held in a proper court where the laws and rules of law are respected and apply to all persons.

This court that Howard is prepared to accept is a court set up specifically to find Hicks, and the others being held, guilty of something and then being sentenced to life imprisonment. It has nothing to do with justice as recognised in any of the civilized countries.

Hicks may well have trained in terrorism etc but if the civilized world is to protect it’s standards of justice and libery, it is essential to ensure that Hicks is, firstly charged with a proper crime, and then to ensure that he is given a fair trial in a properly constituted court of law.

I feel that there is more at stake here than Hicks innocence or guilt, at stake is the whole credibility of the legal systems of the USA and Australia. To date the outlook is pretty sad for the future of our justice systems.

This news is frightening in that it seems to indicate that Howard and Bush have no interest in maintaining the law and just want to charge these people in Guantanamo Bay with something and have a life sentence brought down as an end to these cases.

There is not even a pretence of there being any presumption of innocence until found guilty nor any relationship to any recognised law covering the particular circumstances. Infact every impedement seems to have been put in the way of the defence to ensure that it can’t obtain a fair trial.

I’m sure that future generations of both Americans and Australians will feel nothing but shame for the way in which our two governments have dealt with these matters.

It appears to me that at the coming australia day celebrations we should spare a thought for that other australian citizen that we have seemingly abandoned and left to rot in a US concentration camp.

We could also have cause to mourn the passing of our independence to become a “whipping boy” for the US administration , without even having the status of statehood or even colony, we just do as we are told even if it is illegal as in the case of Guantanamo Bay prison camp and the invasion of Iraq.

Australia day has become a time when the well heeled can show off their wealth, but I’m thinking that we have less to be proud of as a nation, having abandoned our principles and belief in fair play and a fair go for every citizen.