Laziness and Comfort vs. Advancing

This is what I hear when businesses argue that reducing pollution costs too much:

"If we spend money designing cleaner technology, we won't have money to create more jobs."

Designing is jobs! Instead they'd rather reduce regulation, keeping a large force of unskilled workers that won't have to learn new skills/technology or strive for advancement. This is analogous to students in a class whining that an assignment is "too hard" and forcing the instructor to cancel it or reduce the expectations  The students won't excel or learn except that complaining gives them leverage.

People would rather spend their time finding ways to avoid working, than actually doing the work asked of them. I thought capitalism is supposed to solve the "lack of incentives" problem that communism failed at.

Superstition and the belief in science vs. religion

Firstly, let me point out that a "superstition" is simply a belief which has not been backed by the latest scientific findings; so a superstition can become scientific fact later, it's possible. Secondly, the term "atheism" is used loosely and often incorrectly. I prefer the more appropriate term "agnosticism", because whether or not god exists is quite literally the last question that science could ever hope to answer, so any belief (true/false) about that subject is a "superstition" per my definition above.  My point here is that you can still be superstitious about things, just NOT the things which science has clearly proven true/false.  Instead of debating unverifiable claims, it's better to discuss what we do/don't know, and how to proceed from there.

Let me also distinguish that science isn't a belief itself, but a (logical) process of hypothesizing, measuring, observing, verifying, debating and accepting evidence.  An appropriate belief would be that

Using the process of science can give us the answers [to everything].

Which I assume is a belief that all modern agnostics intrinsically hold, whether they're aware of it or not.

Also, by definition, people only hold beliefs which they believe to be true (regardless of whether they are actually true), and seeing two or more conflicting beliefs is very bothersome. It's also difficult to accept that others are "wrong" when you think you know the "true answer."  However, one has to succumb to the idea that all beliefs are inherently wrong/biased.  Scientific findings are based on simplifications/models and underlying assumptions about perceptions (that we may not even be aware of).  Science also rests upon the shoulders of philosophy, which still poses many unanswered questions through interesting thought-experiments.

However, a major difference between religion and the "belief in science" (also known as Scientism) is that scientific "truths" are dynamic, and allowed to be challenged with more rigorous science, whereas many religions are static (unless it's one of those pick-and-choose ordeals, in which case the religion is being diluted/debased and should just be disregarded entirely as a fallible source claiming to be infallible).  By our human nature, changing fundamental beliefs is difficult/painful, which is even more reason that scientists need to be able to readily alter/adapt their beliefs based on latest findings. This is not easy because people need some stability of perception. What if tomorrow we discover negative mass particles that behave oppositely to gravity? Our whole world would be turned upside down (haha, that was a pun).

Nonetheless, I personally choose to believe in something which has an effective basis for acquiring knowledge and subsequently verifying it.  So if agnostics want to unite for some common cause, it should be to point out that the process of science is useful/revealing, teaches us about our origins/universe, can save lives, that it's fun/interesting, that anyone can do it, and that it DOESN'T have all the answers, but this is a sandbox for curiosity and exploration.  People's trust in science will follow from there.

Coping with Climate Change

Have you confronted the consequences of climate change? Have you coped with the idea that your lifestyle may be harming the planet in ways that could have devastating repercussions? Even if you doubt the severity of it, is it worth the risk to test mother nature?

Mitt isn't alone in thinking it's all a big joke, and that's the philosophy of people who choose to avoid confrontation or change.

Who determines what measures of action we need to take, and how much apathy to tolerate? There's a trade-off between how much work we should put into something we aren't even sure is going to happen, but that's just a question of risk analysis:

The answer is probably government, not corporations. Time and time again government has needed to step in to regulate corporations that were harming the balance of ecosystems. Sometimes corporations step up to the task, but it's not always enough.

Germany vs. USA

I have been to Germany many times, spent about 2 years there total. On my recent trip to Germany (and then Denmark) I took note of the major differences in lifestyle and culture. Though some of these things only occur in Germany, many apply to most of Europe as well.

1. Toilets use a press-and-hold water feed, which can be very annoying and may not even save water.
2. In cities, people bicycle everywhere, even while wearing business casual attire.
3. Sales tax is already included in store price tags and restaurant menus.
4. Tips are also included in restaurant prices (though you may still tip additionally).
5. Gas costs about $7.50/gallon.
6. Cars are much smaller, nearly ALL manual transmissions, usually diesel, and speed limits don't exist on many highway stretches.
7. Obtaining a drivers license costs around $1000 and requires training courses/tests. Must be 18+.
8. Solar panels can be seen on houses in almost any direction you look.
9. Most people younger than 60 will speak English (as a 2nd language) pretty well.
10. Movie theaters have restaurants in them, offering a huge selection of food/drinks for the movie. They sometimes also have assigned seating like in an airplane.
11. Almost EVERY plastic/glass bottle has a deposit value on it. This encourages people to return empty bottles and/or rummage through trash to profit from recycling.
12. Usually bottles are purchased in a crate of a dozen, and returned to receive around $3 back. The bottles are then washed and reused (even better than recycling).
13. Garbage is collected only every other week, and the typical home only gets about a cubic foot of volume for trash (There are separate containers for compost and paper/plastic which are about 3 times in volume each.)
14. Their elected chancellor is female.
15. The average birth rate is 1.38 children per mother, one of the lowest in the world. They have huge incentives such as mandatory maternity leave for both parents.
16. No one drinks tap water, they drink bottled water instead (sometimes bubbled), and ordering tap water at a restaurant usually costs a small fee.
17. Smoking cigarettes is very common still.
18. Healthcare is centralized and regulated by the government, making prices very affordable and covering everyone.
19. High quality beer is almost always cheaper than soda/water.
20. The drinking age is 14 for beer/wine (with adult supervision), 16 without adult supervision, and 18 for hard liquor.
21. Prostitution is legal and regulated.
22. Free speech is not the same, i.e. holocaust denial is illegal.

Technology

I thought this was a joke when I first saw it, but nope. It's real. Religion is still managing to infiltrate new technology mediums. And here I was hoping it'd fade away in the near future along with many of its outdated methodologies.

That electronic tablet device represents everything that religion is not. Do you know how many centuries of scientific and engineering struggle it took to create this masterpiece? Testing and questioning our understanding of the laws of physics and chemistry to progress us out of the dark ages of religious stagnation? This is a slap in the face to some of the greatest minds who came before us, such as Galileo, who sacrificed and suffered from religious persecution just to point out some observable scientific truths.

War against the unknown

It's becoming appallingly clear to me that humans instinctively enjoy conflict. This is an evolutionary trait, because conflict/suffering improves us, and "builds character". War (tragic as it may be), can lead to prosperity and most definitely technological innovation. However, where we choose to go to war can either be detrimental or helpful to mankind. And thankfully we learn from the past, so we are not doomed to repeat it. I'll explain where we should be focusing our instinctive nature to conquer, and what the soldiers should be fighting against.

We create sports so that we can unleash our competitive nature (which also helps improve us) in a humane and entertaining way. Unfortunately, this instinct is often unleashed through war, where many lives are at stake. I often thought if we ever went to war with aliens, this would help unite all of mankind to a common goal, as we'd see just how much we earthlings have in common. This is a recurring trend: similarities unite, disparities divide. As perspectives broaden, what we once considered major disparities become "acceptable small differences". Gender, skin color, religion, culture, sexual preference, etc. these were once a basis for segregation (to some extent they still are). What we have in common with one another is MUCH greater than any of these differences. A Caucasian may have more in common with an African American DNA-wise than with another Caucasian, i.e. race doesn't exist (fact).

I would argue that being a life form, is the greatest similarity and we should all cherish it. LIFE IS VERY RARE IN THIS UNIVERSE. On earth's surface it may seem plentiful, but think about all the "dead" rock below our feet, or the sky above you. Think about how small earth is in this vastly void universe. Living organic matter constitutes a minute amount of the total mass of the universe, and yet we continue to divide ourselves by our differences, when we have so very much in common. We can get lost in our day-to-day perspectives.

When people say "life's not fair", they're usually referring to the random outside forces of nature beyond our control/perception. Unpredictable events can happen where no person is at fault. Some refer to this as "God's Will". A family member gets cancer, or dies in a tragic accident. Instinctively we become angry that something has been taken away from us, and we want to focus that anger and blame it on something (or in the worse case, someone or group of people). Many people cope with their feelings using religion and God. Tragically, religion is often twisted into justifying actions against other people who have been blamed for something that wasn't their fault either.

My point is this: living creatures have much in common (eyes, ears, legs, emotions, DNA, parents/children), and many outside forces are at work that we cannot perceive nor predict (yet). These often cause us pain and suffering. Our goal should be to reduce suffering by preemptively seeking to understand these outside forces. The solution is not directly apparent, and often times, the solutions will be found accidentally. But they won't be found unless we make an attempt. Pain, suffering, and sympathy are usually the driver for improvements/advancements, thus suffering is a necessity for change. Change is gradual. In a sense, scientists are the soldiers fighting the "unknown", constantly broadening mankind's horizons of understanding.

I want you to imagine that the universe is a giant cage that all sentient beings are trapped in, and instead of working together to figure out why we're here, why things happen the way they do, how to "get out", or understand it better; instead we fight amongst one another, spend $ trillions on war, let millions of people starve, and place blame on each other. The real enemy is the unknown/randomness of the chaotic universe we live in. Our overarching goal should be to discover WHY we are here, help one another, and determine "randomness" by achieving an understanding of the complexity of the dynamic systems in our universe.

We are so easy to accept our existence in this universe, but HOW did we get here? We never had a choice to be brought into this world. Why are things the way they are? If you want the easy way out, religion will tell you not to worry about such things: be content and don't strive for deeper understandings, especially if they conflict with the "infallible" words of god, which just so happen to be very different in a variety of holy text versions.

In a deterministic universe, we have more control over events, we can enforce safeguards. Two centuries ago we didn't even know bacteria existed. People became sick and accepted that's how things were. Well... not everyone. A few scientists strove to understand the causes. To investigate and conquer the unknown, and that is just one example of how science has helped increase determinism in support of life forms (except maybe not for the bacteria and viruses).

It's long been a belief of mine that

"Nothing is random; the pattern/model is just exceedingly complex."

This is not to say that we will be able to comprehend the complexity of the universe overnight, but in the long term this must be our goal as a species life form.

Each time we determine an unknown, a new, more complex, unknown will take its place (is there an end to this trend?). If we ever do remove ALL unknown randomness from our lives, we will eliminate an ingredient that has shaped us from the beginning, so we must tread carefully toward reaching a more deterministic understanding of the universe.

If only it were easier to get everyone on the same page, imagine what the world could be like. We'd only need a "military" to defend us against any unpredictable outside forces as a safety precaution to account for any remaining uncertainty.
Mankind would celebrate life, help and love one another, while seeking to understand our origins and the inner-(and outer) workings of the universe. I dream of that kind of society.

Bible Storytime

This conversation took place on Skype:
Alsehr: Why do people think Jesus was white?
Alsehr: If he did exist (which there is no real proof of) why would he be white?
Me: Did you see that pic I posted yesterday?

Me: Thousands of years ago people probably had IQ's equivalent to a pretty dumb person by today's standards.
Me: considering they were also famished/fasting in a hot desert
Alsehr: Lol...
Me: They told stories, which were spread by word of mouth for a thousand years before anyone could write them down. Yup, I'm sure the story is perfectly accurate to actual events.
Alsehr: besides, most of the stories in the bible aren't even about jesus.
Alsehr: They're just allegories about moral lessons. And some asshole tried making a geneology of them.
Alsehr: like if you took red riding hood and tried to prove she was related to rapunzel.
Me: It's like merging the comic book heroes into the same fictional plotlines.
Alsehr: You get a ton of plotholes, and when it comes right down to it, none of them exist anyway.
Me: It's a perfect analogy
Alsehr: I wonder if in another 2000 years, if people will claim that spiderman was real
Me: Possibly, there'd be no eyewitnesses left.

Me: Spider man would leap around the city of New York with his webs, and fight evil!
Me: Nowhere in the comics does it say it's a fake story, it's supposed to be thought of as real, even if common sense shows it's not possible.
Me: I'm thoroughly convinced that the bible was basically a comic book
Alsehr: Then you'd have the Superman Saints of Latter Day Marvel
Me: LMAO
Alsehr: and the Southern Spideys
Alsehr: They'd all argue about whose plotline was true, because in 1978, the world was nearly destroyed by Lex Luthor, and we dont owe our lives to spiderman for that
Me: In the end, the stories might still have some useful lessons in them, but they should not be taken as fact.

And ironically I just saw this meme with Stan Lee today: