Researchers are hoping that by using a common tool for measuring of brain activity in a new way, they may be one step closer to identifying whether a child is a greater risk for autism
If autism research had not been derailed by the celebrity lead masses’ lack of understanding of vaccines, we could potentially have accomplished this years ago and been able to brain scan for autism now.
But lack of science education and inability to think critically, resulted in autism researches engaged in a fruitless debate over the role of vaccines. Correlation is not causation.
Worse, parents who were simply concerned about their child put everyone else’s children at risk by failing to vaccinate their child. As a result, diseases that were eliminated because of comprehensive immunization, are not making a comeback in children who weren’t vaccinated – and this breaks down the protection of herd immunity.
It is selfish for one parent to make a decision for their child, when it has the potential of great harm for other people’s children. After all, thinking about the children is to consider all the children.
By the same token, the religious masses objection arising from their limited concepts morality and deferring to the ancient wisdom and traditions of stone age goat-herders have also delayed not only medical advances such as stem cell research but also social and civil rights advancement of people that ancient goat herders didn’t approve of – basically women, children, seniors and ethnic and sexual minorities.
The harm caused by religion is not the apparent driving and cause of violence – because again, correlation is not causation.
Violence occurs in conjunction with religion and without. That a person is beaten or killed because they are or are not a particular religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, mental or physical ability or any other measurable characteristic of an individual that connects them to a group – makes no difference to the actual beating or death.
This speaks only to the motivation of the violent person. What their emotional investment or attachment to their hatred of the other person or group.
Religion, racism, sexism, genderism, ableism, ism-isms – these are all merely rationales, applied after the fact – and not motivators. To the perpetrator, the ism is the rationale they assign to their action, as if by explaining that the individual member of a given group deserved the beating/murder because of their inclusion in the immoral, subversive and all around lesser than group.
This is what makes a hate crime assault or murder different from one person hating another particular person for their individual action or non-action. The rational is that the other person specifically did something or failed to do something and thus deserved it.
The real problem in society is people seeking to control it by imposing their ideal of what that society should look like.
The religious right seeks to control our private behavior while socialist lefties seek to control our public behaviour.
Where any individual falls in that spectrum is dependent on how they interpret what the common good is.
Religious fundamentalists of all religions emphasize traditions, conformity, unquestioning obedience to authority – as if we all just pretend to be the same and get along, things will be better. All religious fundamentalist seek to limit women’s role in society, control education policy to prevent education and critical thinking, and marginalize sexual minorities.
Society fundamentalists of all political stripes & religious affiliation emphasize focusing on each individual’s impact on other individuals and their environment – be it a workplace culture to actual nature. Conservative people in this spectrum fear corrupting influences while Liberal people in their spectrum fear stagnation and conformity, loss of individuality.
Conservatives think that they are staunch individualists, but this is an oxy and regular moron view when, by attempting to control private behaviours, they demonstrate an absence of consideration or respect for other individuals. Instead, they seek to validate themselves by coercing others to appear the same. My country right or wrong is not a democratic principal, but a theocratic/dictorial one. It’s not a democracy if as an individual you are deemed unentitled to equal citizenship and participation because you expressed your disagreement.
To cling to tradition is to cling to ignorance.
Tradition really means that we aren’t capable of making decisions in the here and now. That we should just repeat what the people before us did.
When the “people” being copied lived in a small region with limited technology…. the perception, understanding and awareness that the earlier society had, cannot possibility address anything in a society that would appear to be magical and alien.
Stone Age Goatherder reality is not the reality of the Global Information Age; and the solutions that the goatherders developed made sense to them in their world. But we have to create our own solutions in step with our reality.
That is the real cost of ignorance and blind worship of ancient authority.
It prevents us from solutions to the dilemmas that we face in the here and now.
The main issue of society is finding a balance between consistency and change.
Because change for the sake of change or to see what can arise as a result of change doesn’t serve our interests anymore than clinging to the past.
The solution is not to pick one or the other – they are both harmful without being governed by the other. The solution is a balance.
Steady change is consistency – changes accumulate over time and appear seamless.
What people insist is traditional marriage now is not what marriage actually was. The idea of romantic love being the basis for marriage is entirely modern. Marriages were previously to create political or business alliances and to concentrate wealth and power in elite hands.
That it tends to be the people with the wealth and the power who are also the traditionalists, is hardly a surprise. After all, it’s worked out really well for them so far.
It also explains why “old money” thinks “new money” vulgar. New money comes from a change – a new technology, a new area of research and development, a new solution to an existing problem – it comes from progress.
Over time, with more accumulated changes, new money becomes the old money – and the old money becomes a painful reminder of past glories or a fall into decadence. Think nobility with titles but no substantive social position, land or cash and the grandchild era of the generation that actually made the money.
It comes down to, like life, society also evolves.
Evolution of life rests on simple principles – accumulated changes over time, a selection process that favours some changes and works against others and disasters.
Society evolves in the same way.
When we really look back in time, there is no consistency to see – there is nothing but change.
The appearance of consistency is little more than ignorance of the past, something the current solutions and future cannot afford.