Hat Trick on Religion

Why rejecting religiously biased stories presented as documentaries is not closed minded.

When the basis of religion is unsound – that there’s a deity – the details of the story to support the essential claim don’t require that much consideration – especially when the only facts in said stories – that a city or person had existed, doesn’t make the story verified when the details of the story are not corroborated in secular histories or are not consistent with what’s known from other sources.

Basically, that the bible stories are set in real locations and include some real people is no more proof of the claim than Forest Gump being a documentary about a real person named Forest.

Documentaries purporting to support the religious stories are manufactured and twists the lack of evidence into the appearance of evidence is a foregone conclusion, when in the whole history of archeology, there’s not been one single artifact or record or site that remotely confirms any of the substantive god claims

James Cameron made that mistake when he rushed to present the James ossuary as evidence, despite the lack of clear chain of ownership and tests to show that the “brother of Jesus” portion of the engraving was carved centuries after the identification

If there was real evidence, we would have heard of it before this propaganda/confirmation bias film was made.

Rushing to a conclusion and attempting to make the appearance of fact be fact to support a forgone conclusion, is not a compelling way to make the case –  the closed mind belongs to those who try to justify a conclusion – not to people who follow facts to a conclusion.

These documentaries require not only closing your mind to the facts in favour of the preferred conclusion, but also closing your mind to understanding the process to arrive at conclusions, instead they start with the conclusion after the fact, then force or massage the facts to fit the conclusion, as opposed to the actual method of reaching conclusions by reviewing the facts and determining where they lead (to the conclusion).

Religion of Mass Destruction

There is certainly a direct parallel between how xtians treat atheists and how they treat gays. Xtians will justify any action by claiming a good intent trying to save someone else’s soul is not a good intent, it is an evil intent to assert their control over someone else’s life that they have no business even commenting on, never mind controlling I recognize the value of religion as a weapon of mass destruction of individual lives it should be afforded the same respect as you would any weapon that should be safely locked away from children and childlike adults who have no clue what they are wielding

Godbots get no respect

If a person wants respect for them and their beliefs, then they shouldn’t hold dear such stupid beliefs.

Showing respect when none is felt or deserved would be being a hypocrite, and it’s important to walk the talk, not do what you want and repent later. This is a major reason for the lack of respect towards believers, they do what they want and repent later as if it’s a direct wash – and yes, it is in their world view, but that’s not the worldview of the people they are demanding respect from.

Believers should demonstrate that their religion is what is advertised – a framework for moral conduct – because I’ve yet to see any religious person being moral in the public square – it’s all about condemning other people and denying them rights that they are due as citizens of the same country.

There is a lack of respect in the world and especially in the US, and it starts with the idea that one group is special above all others because of a set of shared beliefs. Until you don’t view yourself as above everyone else, no one is going to respect you as much as you respect you.

Believerscan’t seem to understand that everything they feel is the same was what everyone else feels,  it’s not special or divinely gifted just to them.

Everyone has the same needs, wants and desires; it’s when you adapt external beleifs that dictate or twist those into something alien to our nature – like sex is bad, unless it’s missionary within marriage –  like married people don’t like to mix it up and single people don’t really want sex – well, nice girls anyway.

It takes religion to really screw up rather simple creatures and make them think that the simple things are not universal and are unique to them; that thinking different means that everything else must be different to, because they just can’t understand how we can see and experience the same as they do, but arrive at different conclusions.

Believers are so afraid of being wrong, that they can’t accept that other people have the same need for community, affirmation/validation and love and needs and wants met and desires made possible.

heavy sigh

Imagining a world with that kind of mutual understanding makes me long to hear the Armstrong song What a Wonderful world without thinking of it as a bitter cliche.

Why Nonbelievers and beleivers can’t talk to each other

Christians try to put everyone they don’t like on the same spectrum of rebellious and misguided children who are willfully disobedient;  that way, they think that if they are stern enough, that we’ll become manageable.

It’s because the authoritarian approach stern dietydaddy works on them, so they imagine that what works and motivated them, also works and motivates other people.

But, their tactics don’t work because we aren’t misbehaving children, we’re thinking adults who put god on the same spectrum as Santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

Non-believers think of believers as deluded and willful children who need to grow up and are chosing not to,   but, with encouragement and education (an authoritative approach), they can grow up and become productive adults.

But, we’re wrong too, because no one is willing to own how childish it is, in a manner that will break the stalemate – largely because the change that’s required is for believers, if not to stop believing, at least to not literally beleive.

There are orders of magnitude of belief – there is only one magnitude of non-belief.

I provide a true and not entirely typical exchange, because most exchanges devolve into childish name calling, but it’s the grown up essence of the usually childish debate:

JosephOne wrote:

 Lucifer had free will. And he eventually used that free will to rebel against God and take a third of the angels with him….

nina wrote:

so basically you are admitting that using your free will is what god deems to be evil
so good is obiedance and evil is using your brain
that explains much more than you meant to

JosephOne wrote:

Evil is rebellion against God.
How interesting that you identify with the devil…

You seem to be able to twist things as masterfully as Satan and seem to be able to know what God is thinking.

nina wrote:

if by “twist” you mean, unravel and speak plainly
then yes, atheists do speak plainly and truthfully
you should try it sometime

JosephOne wrote:

He didn’t create rebellion anymore than American created Charles Manson.
Think that through a little while. Ponder it for more than a few minutes.

nina wrote:

you think about it; we are all products of our environment, America did create Charles Manson – the lack of universal health care and welfare resulted in his being raised in a boy’s home rather than in a family home

the fundamentalist factions created the social conditions that resulted in the 50’s sexual/teenager generation gap, the 60’s civil rights – it created the disaffected and disengaged generation – that Manson drifted into and became a leader to a small group of disaffected suburban teens who a generation earlier would have been Manson’s childhood tormentors and what he had aspired to be.

Manson acted out exactly as a wounded, maladjusted power mad and righteous man who was angry at being shut out of the system where as a straight white man, he should have benefitted from.

I see little difference between Manson and George W. Bush – only wealth and entitlement separate the two; the scale of childhood difference created the scale of adult destructive behaviour.  Manson didn’t have a strong parental presence to guide him and neither did Bush Jr. Both resolved their daddy issues with violence – sending young men and women to do their killing for them.

JosephOne wrote:

So, shall we free Manson immediately? I mean you have just made a case, albeit flawed, for Manson’s innocence. “I am not responsible, I am only a product of my environment.”
Don’t think that flies in real real-world.

nina wrote:

how unsurprising that you missed the point. but then, what can I really expect when you are such a rigid product of your environment.
try to break the programming and use that free will you hear so much about

JosephOne wrote:

God. His creation, His rules.

nina wrote:

You admit your god is a dictator then.

JosephOne wrote:

Yes you are a petty dictator who can’t be reasoned with, but God is not like you.

nina wrote:

better to be the dictator than the dictated to, like you

JosephOne wrote:

There IS evidence. Just evidence that you do not believe. Again disbelief does not cancel existence out.

nina wrote:

claiming everything is not evidence for – that everything exists does not indicate where everything came from – it’s just a fact of existence.

also, claiming everything is evidence, doesn’t erase or take away from the contradiction of there being no objective evidence.

you are basically making the same claim that is the basis for the Elder Scrolls of Zion – that the lack of evidence of conspiracy is evidence for the conspiracy.

A lack of evidence is because there is nothing to create any.

As it occurred to you yet that the reason the people here are not believers is exactly because we stopped to think about these core issues and that it’s you who haven’t thought them through enough to reach the obvious conclusion?

The facts on the ground – reality – does not support there being a deity.

The laws of nature that can be observed or deduced or inferred through observation are observable because they are natural – unnatural or supernatural things do not make sense in a natural universe, they are against the laws of nature.

That every region throughout human history has had their own unique religion should be your first clue that religion is religion is religion – there is no more proof of one over another.

Unless you want to claim that god is all the gods of all the religions – in which case, you are worshipping a multi-personality, insane, instable, egomaniac, genocidal, god – with the only difference between that and your present god is the multiply personality part.

JosephOne wrote:

And you can’t say something or someone doesn’t exist just because you haven’t seen them, don’t know them, or don’t believe in them.
Imagine how Darwin would feel if every Christian would say that Darwin never existed? Or go back further. How do we know that Julius Caesar existed? Do we have his remains?

nina wrote:

Darwin won’t feel a thing, he’s dead. We have photos and film of him – and there are people with living memory of him.

if you don’t understand how we know that Darwin and Caesar were real people, it’s no wonder that you don’t understand what constitutes evidence.

His remains were burned and many historians wrote about the event and about his life and career DURING HIS LIFETIME.

Further, there are accounts of Caesar in civilizations OTHER THAN ROME

the same cannot be said of your Jesus – there are no historians who wrote about him, King Herod was dead before the alleged birth and as much as Herod was hated, there is no secular record of him putting infants other than his own family members to death.

Nazareth was a Roman village founded around the 3rd century CE, so Jesus couldn’t have come from there. No Roman census records support the Mary and Joseph story.

None of Pontius Pilot’s records support the crucifixion – so, the whole thing was pretty much a smear campaign done centuries and several generations after the fact.

The equivalent would be if Elvis Presley had done everything in the 1950s, but no one took his photo or wrote a word about him and no recordings or movies survived

and no one wrote about him until 2 or 3 hundred more years yet – think about that for more than a few minutes

US Civil War Rages On

Capitalism in it’s purest form, puts profit before people.

Capitalism tempered or alloyed with socialism, depending on the magnitude of socialism, can balance between the two.

The US Civil war is the beginning of the battle of how much to temper capitalism – the heady days of the robber barons and a slave based economy have not quite left the world stage.

The US civil war was not about slavery in terms of human rights; the US civil war was about economics and how slave labour gave the south an economic advantage – and that the south wasn’t wanting to be lesser than the north.

The north only freed the slaves to reduce the southern labour pool and in hopes of the slaves rising up and creating a second front inside the southern lines – and revisionism doesn’t help resolve a matter when only by acknowledging it, can it be actually dealt with.

The founding fathers were more enlightened than most of their day, but do not impose modern sensibilities and make them into that level of visionary; as most founding fathers owned slaves, so slavery was never an issue for them – all the people they thought of as human had rights – white male landowners, like themselves.

If the founding fathers had a more modern sensibility, then gender would have been explicitly made equal and it wasn’t – women didn’t get to vote in the US at first and have they ever passed the ERA?.

Slaves were not going to get more consideration than free women.

I was kindly reminded that the North’s industry was based largely on textile manufacturing, which was profitable because of cheap southern cotton. Yankee mill owners were deeply complicit in the slave trade, because they well knew that while they piously outlawed slavery in northern states, they made their money from a system that only worked because slavery existed in the south.

Of course, in colonial times, the ancestors of the mill owners were even more directly involved in actually importing slaves as one leg of the “triangle trade”. England was supporting the south because English cotton mills were in direct competition with New England’s mills, and the English saw an opportunity to open a new supply source cheaper than the existing one.

One of the often overlooked keys to the Union’s victory was the naval blockade of southern ports that kept the south from financing their war effort with the profits of foreign cotton sales…..

This confirms my point that the civil wasn’t about the north being upset over slavery – since they continued to benefit from it indirectly –  the south wanted to leave and that would have increased the cost of doing comparatively slave free business in the north.

So why do I say that the US civil war and the central issue of slavery is still being fought? Because we haven’t learned the lessons as multinational corporations outsourced jobs overseas because labour was cheaper than in the US – because there were no human rights, unions, environmental protection act that increase the cost of labour.

Why didn’t anyone consider that the US was effectively still struggling with the issues that caused the civil war – labour vs management – in fact, it’s a battle over the form of capitalism – pure capitalism, uncaring of the people who power the economic engine and unwilling to share the profits with the labour that produce them.

So who is it that has the jobs to buy these cheaper products of what is essentially still slave labour? At what cost do we continue to produce cheap goods that are cheaper to replace than repair? Especially when the warranty costs nearly as much as the product?

Or does the world follow on Canada’s model of socialized capitalism, where there’s environmental, labour and consumer protection?

The reality is that the few who benefit, benefit the most in the short and immediate term by the exploitation of the masses.

We can’t keep pumping poo into the environment or burning through the labour forces;  after a while, all of this comes back on us – the pollution, dead zones in the oceans, desertification of arable land, increased cancers, shorter lifespans.

There isn’t a god who’s going to fix all our bad behaviour – and, if there was a god, we would all be collectively condemned, not rewarded for how we’ve treated the planet – as a personal playpen filled with poo.

An Existential Universe

We are living in an existential universe, everything that is possible to exist and occur will – but we individually only experience a tiny fraction of what is possible.

Religion seeks to put artificial and unnatural limits on even that tiny part of life that we do have available – this is why we must fight back that dark ignorance and fear with everything we have.

Which worldview will prevail the natural worldview or the religious worldview? It truly is a matter of life and death – the religious viewpoint is leading us to our extinction event with the push for over breeding, burning through resources as if our growth is sustainable, destroying massive portions of the environment and upsetting the balance of nature throughout the interconnected web – because a deity will be along any moment and take the good people to a reward and leave the rest of us to deal with the mess that’s been made.

But, there is no stern daddydiety coming to spank us, there is only the mess of the room we call earth that we have toxified, polluted and over extracted resources that aren’t coming back – all in the pursuit of maximizing our population at the expense of everything else. But our unsustainable behaviours are no longer sustainable – we are at the opportunity stage of the crisis – and we need to change while we can to delay the inevitable, if not defer it and turn it around into a sustainable model of continued existence and not a race to extinction.

The religious viewpoint is to embrace death and live in fear; that the point of life is a dress rehearsal for the afterlife. To be religious is to live your life in preparation of death, to constantly dither between either/or, to be fixed, stuck fast, irresolvable. Relgion’s great answer to life the universe and everything is “goddidit”. But this tells us nothing of how, why and not even who.

The naturalist viewpoint is life – in all its diversity, to accept the facts on the ground and to seek to understand and experience as much as we can while we can. Life is existentially resolving conflicts, to continue momentum, learning, movement, it’s experiential. We experience, understand, give meaning, because to be alive is to be whatever it is that is referred to as god. To know our own mind, to direct our experiences, to give and take symbolic and actual meaning of things.

So what does an existential universe without a god look like? This is what I think:

The universe is the question – existence or non-existence. If the universe and everything in it didn’t exist, then there’s no question of existence. But non-existence has no meaning without existence – so both must occur and not occur.

Much like a movie film is made up of frames of still images that when moving and project, appear to move – perhaps the universe is the same – flickering, but moving so fast as to appear to be continuous. Matter after all is mostly empty space, no matter how solid it appears. Existing and not existing, flickering, tick tock clockwork, driving speed momentum.

Existence is all about perception – so we can define existence by being aware of non-existences and vice versa.

If there’s non-existence, it’s a sum total game and we can move onto existence. In existence, everything that is possible to occur, does occur. What defines what is possible – the natural laws of existence – which humans are increasingly being able to understand and recognize and it’s going to continue to take a group effort – each building on the understanding of earlier generations.

What holds us back from increasing our understanding is religion retarding scientific and philosophical advances and understanding – by using fear and ignorance to control the masses and to corrupt political management of societies.

In the existing universe governed by natural laws, only natural things are possible – so deities and anatural (aka supernatural) things that do not conform to the natural law, cannot exist in a natural universe.

How does existence come to be – well the big bang kicked out all the energy in the universe and the energy was not smooth, it warped, folded, made pockets and moved away from the creation event unevenly and over time, cooled to make the galaxies and everything down from there.

Creation events are the release of energy between the bonds of particles – the biggest one humans have done are nuclear collectively, and orgasms individually – creation is scalable. There is a massive amount of energy and energy exists in several forms from pure energy all the way down to physical matter.

There is more dark matter and dark energy than matter and energy in existence – this to my mind, suggests that what is dark is existing in another universe or is the reserve potential that can exist in this universe. Maybe both.

Black holes and white holes transform the energies and matter from one state to another. One possible reality is terminated as a black hole, which all the matter and energy from the unrealized reality is spewed into another via a white hole. Think of black and white holes as innie and outie belly buttons in space that flip all the energy and matter from one universe into another.

Existence is a perpetual motion machine at the universe level – shifting between existence and non-existence, reality and unrealized.
That’s why there’s no beginning and no end, everything is perpetual middle.

The manner of resolving the conflicts in everything possible existing in perpetual middle is to determine meaning. What has meaning, where does meaning come from, what meaning does meaning have?

It’s well advanced from the mere existential crisis of what meaning does your particular life have, given that you will die eventually? Even bigger than what meaning do meaningful lives have when the contextual civilizations those meaningful lives occur in also begin and die, no matter how many meaningful lives contributed to it.

I am also not asking you to accept anything, I am merely sharing what I have been so far, been able to resolve and it would take too long to catch you up to speed, because you should not accept what I am telling you as reality based, because you do not base your values on anything within yourself.

If a person bases their values on an external god, that god, being external, will always be distant from the follower – who will never feel any god-presence in their lives.  Like the evil Mother Teresa, who will concerned herself with the trappings of feeling close to godliness – which she took to be suffering – and what made her evil was that she reveled in the suffering of others and did not herself suffer – so she never again felt what she called god. What she felt was the call to god of her herself, standing fully in her decision to pursue god – but she should have pursued inwardly, not outwardly, for outside, there is no god, no god can exist in a natural universe.

Which is why godbots are always seeking validation in numbers for their beliefs – if they get enough critical mass of numbers, they convince themselves they are godly or that their god wins by some kind of first past the post election system.

I am an atheist – I have no faith. I am a naturalist – I believe in the natural world, because it is what I see and experience. There can be no god in a natural world, for the laws and rules of a natural world are not conducive to a god, who is outside of laws and rules.
So the rule breaking function in a natural world is random chance. Chaos. Luck. Chaos theory.

That’s what I believe, because that’s what I have – through the meta existential process of stepping beyond the mere Übermensch to a state of self perpetuating enlightenment that isn’t named as far as I know, but what I am referring to as a god. It’s a state of mind where perception is expanded well beyond the normal human scale perception.

I can only tell you that it is better to reject the beliefs of others – including what is taught to you by family and your subculture and mainstream culture because it will never be as fulfilling, harmonic or balanced, as what you arrive at in your own process of giving meaning meaning.

What makes everything and nothing comprehensible is time and what we are able to comprehend at a given moment given our ability to perceive at said moment. Comprehension is limited by our senses, the technological extension of the senses and what we can reason, imagine and perceive. Once you expand perception, you can unfold and unpack all of the stacked everything.

Human brains seek patterns, we understand and filter everything we experience through patterns – literally stimuli and response – and the natural world appears orderly because it is orderly. Pyramids don’ fall down but rectangle buildings on the narrow edge do.

So, we built in ways that were sound in order to live in groups. Society and our participation in society – our role – gives us the structure we need to cope within the society and to react and response to the stimulus.

If five people are in a room, and there’s a gunshot from the next room; most of the five will do nothing because they think it’s not their place to deal with this unexpected thing. In a famous disaster in an LA building that caught fire – the convention of doctors and nurses and administration staff, set up a triage before the first responders came, the serving staff helped get the clients out, and there was very little loss of life, because everyone behaved according to their work/social position.

Because there was a sense of a clear hierarchy of individuals, whereas, in the nightclub where the band’s pyrotechnics set a fire, people panicked because it was egalitarian more or less, no clear hierarchy, well that, plus the building code did not require exit doors to open outward, so when the people tried to open the doors, they would not open in towards the crowd pushing to get out. Bad engineering contributed, or maybe, lack of thinking and heart at the city by-law level,

But, if there had been ushers or other staff to give direction, and the people were of the sort to accept authority/direction – or take authority and give direction – there would have been more people who got out alive.

We seek order because order is what we understand. Order is patterns. People rebel against social order, because it doesn’t accommodate their personal values and what they give meaning to. When you are you own god, Übermensch, you decide what is valuable and what meaning everything has, and you can feel the interconnectedness of everything.

I strongly think that there have been many people who have undergone this process that I am undergoing. That other people who only understood bits of it, used parts to invent religion in order to gain power, wealth and control over other people.

That’s why it’s all gone kerflooey – religion, power, religious power corrupts. This is why I am not selling or telling you what to believe.

For your beliefs to have meaning, they have to come from within you – and so, for the universe to have meaning, it has to come from within the universe – not externally from.

Patriotism – a US v Canada Debate

I wanted to share a discussion I had on a forum with an American Patriot, posting as “The Patriot”.

It was interesting, growing up in Canada and in the shadow of the UK and the US – and Canadian identity seemed unclear between these two nations. But now, I find the distinction glaring.

The Patriot’s text is left justified and my responses are indented with the left bar:

The Patriot:

Sorry but when my ancestors immigrated on the mayflower from England to America they established a strong nation with Christian values and European traditions..These values and ideals then spread to Canada,we white people have been here now for many generations.

The Mayflower people were a particular group that settled in New England they were not the founding fathers of america – but a group of people who were intolerant and uptight and pretty much kicked out of England for being so.

You clearly don’t understand how Canada and the US were populated with many waves of immigrants, and American so call values didn’t migrate up to infect Canada – Canada is a very different country than the US. We like our capitalism tempered with socialism – capitalism with a heart.

I would say this country is ours as we are the first civil people to live here not that I hate other cultures and religions it’s just we are becoming too multicultural…

US is not multicultural, it’s a melting pot that reduces people down to the lowest common denominator. I would also suggest that there is yet to be civil people living in the states, given your statement, as you clearly do hate, fear and mistrust other cultures and have no confidence in your own or yourself to be so threatened.

If you had any self esteem or strong sense of culture, then that other people have a strong cultural identity wouldn’t bother you at all.

The aboriginal people who were in what became US and Canada were not technologically advanced, they were still essentially a stone aged culture were perfectly civil – they had strong cultures, oral traditions and they had complex societies and customs.

You are confusing technology with behavior – the way that the aboriginals were treated does not indicate civil behavior on the part of Europeans who arrived and slaughtered them to take the resources for themselves.

It is no longer acceptable to think in terms of nation, but we must think globally and the earth has many cultures – we are a multicultural species, regardless of your personal hermit isolationist and self centered preferences.

We need to have a stronghold for are values, Canada is a Christian stronghold whereas India is Hindi stronghold.It’s time Canada took a lesson from the great United states of America and started to stand up and protect our way of life.

Canada is not a stronghold or an imitation of America – we are a multicultural society and proud to be so.

There is no need to cling to one way of life – there are many ways to live – and what the essentials of life are – food, shelter, family – are the same in all cultures – the differences are all minor window dressing as to be the manner of dress, preparation of foods, all the how of what we do.

The United States hasn’t been great for a very long time – you started with a bang of humanist enlightenment and fizzled out as religion wormed it’s way into the halls of government.

And, the isolationist stance where you act as if you are not part of the world – despite the invitation to the poor for a better place to be.

We would be selling out our sovereignty if we didn’t. Sikhs are arrogant and they terrorists,They are committed too coming here to disrupt our way of life. I can tell you this ,a Sikh will never be in a position of power in this country.It’s time we brought back the old Canada.By the way I do not hate Sikhs themselves I just hate what they stand for.

 You hate Sikhs for doing what you want to do – get your own place and build a fence around it and declare it wholly your own an independent of everyone else.

It is time to stop pining for what we think the old anything was and look to the future and new ways to share the planet

not be ostriches with heads in the sand or up their butts.

Leaders and Dictators

Leaders lead people, Dictators dictate to people – without people, there are no leaders nor dictators.

So when we the people have the opportunity to vote and select our leaders, we need to ensure that we are selecting for leadership and not allowing dictators to slip under the radar and dictate to us in defiance of the form of government and the social contract that defines and binds the country.

There are people who seek to be leaders for actually good reasons – but they tend to be naive and idealists – easily crushed by the masses who prefer to hear what we want to hear, rather than object truth, which is harsh and unpleasant.

Marx’s manifesto was such a document, but it was perverted and corrupted by other people for greed and self interest. Age and experience will always trump youth and ideals; which is why there’s never been true communism, Marx was naive.

Luckily, fixing the problems of the globe aren’t hard – we just have to stop trying to fix anything and let the balance be restored – but it’s harsh. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

The reality is that we’ve lost the fight against bacteria – we were in balance until we introduced penicillin – the bugs got better than the medicines because they have a new generation every 20 minutes, their evolution has outraced our artificial selection and artificial impact to the natural environment.

Instead of killing off the susceptible bacteria – to re-balance humans and bacteria, we need to allow the bacteria to kill off the susceptible humans, if we don’t the bacteria will continue to evolve until there’s no human left to be able to withstand them.

So, it’s easy to fix, just hard to get agreement and action on.

Instead of trying to feed everyone in the world, we have to reduce the human population down to the level where it’s matched by the food we can produce – and produce locally.

It’s not cheap produce when it has to be shipped and trucked across the globe – we didn’t do badly eating seasonally according to our region – in fact, we were all healthier and fitter.

We can’t allow for mono-crops and low diversity agricultural – we have to stop with the pesticides that disrupt hormones, because hormones are the same whether it’s bugs or people – we are agriciding ourselves to death.

We nee people in lower density and agriculture more diversified – more bio diversity, not less – more diversity means more things survive drought, disease and extinction-death.

The bees will stop dying when the agricultural diversity is restored – and they are not limited to single foods.

Biodiversity means competition and it’s competition that makes for a strong system.

There’s not a food chain, but a food web – everything is interconnected – and humans have upset the web along all the key support lines:  we’ve over-fished, under-planted, over grown our habitat and left every few places wild and untouched.

Humans will be the extinction event unless we change our ways to sustainability; because  mere existence is the path to extinction;  it is survival that is sustainable.

Right now, humans are not sustainable. Not without the will of the people and moreso, the will of leadership of said people.

To be a leader, one must be popular and popularity is at odds with truth. Specifically, at odds with telling the truth, because we the people don’t want to hear it – we want to hear that things will be okay, even when they won’t.

But they won’t be okay as long as we deny truth – because then, we can’t solve problems when we won’t identify the problems.

This is again were religion points us in the wrong direction – life is special, of all the planets that we know of, ours is the only one with life on it. But the lives of individuals aren’t special or magical or sacred – life itself is.

We are too human-centric in thinking that the universe is our plaything or made just for us, and if we’re good little obedient creatures how don’t play inappropriately with our genitals, then we’ll be rewarded. We are going to die no matter what and who we do with our genitals.

We cannot insist on saving everyone we can, we have to consider the longer picture and think about the people who are only not born, but their parents and their parents and their parents that aren’t conceived yet.

We do not inherit from our ancestors, we borrow against our children.

W e borrow from the future for today – but if we continue to defer the bill, there won’t be a future with humans in it.

Allowing our technology to outstrip our ability to manage it in a way that doesn’t displace people is to doom ourselves tro extinction

How many Easter Islands do we need to see?

Civilizations that used up their resources in worship rather than in sustainable works? Principals and ideals ahead of people do not serve the needs of the people.

The stone heads are interesting, and we know how they were made – but no one is left to tell us why they were made and the making of them – the destruction of the forest for lumber – is what lead to the destruction of the civilization – no forest reduced the biodiversity, lead to soil erosion, lead to famine, to extinction of that culture.

We cannot allow technology to replace human labour and leave nothing for people to do –  this is why the Egyptians didn’t do anything more than discover steam power – it was too costly to figure out how to make use of the power of steam – but also, too costly to figure out work for the displaced workers.

And displaces workers are discontented people, and discontented people tend to revolt and overthrow a system that excludes them.

People with meaningful work are meaningful people, contributing people, people do not sow revolution of the society that they are participating in.

Religion occasionally gets a few things sort of right, but only to ensure that there’s some truth to be found in order to control the masses.

Idle hands are the devil’s playthings, because when you have nothing to do with your hands, it means that you have time to use your mind – and more likely, you will use your mind to see what an evil blight that religion is on the land – and the end of religion is what religion fears the most. It was, after all, the fruit of knowledge that was forbidden.

This is why athiests are a threat to religion, because not only do you not need religion to be good, religion is no good, so no good can come of religion – any good within religion is down to the individual good that people are – it’s despite the/ir religion.

So, bringing it back to election time and leaders and dictators – we the people decide who leads us – either by voting or revolting.

There is an upper limit of how much people can stand a society wherein the social contract is a lie.

This is why no one can win in Afghanistan and we’d been better off to not have gone – change in a nation must come from within – must come from the people.

People won’t change or do anything unless tricked, forced or bribed in normal circumstances and in extraordinary ones – such as we are in in these times of massive social change across the globe – until the truth is less distressing and preferable to the truthiness and lies we generally content ourselves with.

It is time to put aside and away the dictators and lead as we the people. One for all and all for one. Inclusion, multiculturalism, consultation, bottom’s up.

We need leaders who will consult, consider and work cooperatively.

We don’t need wannabes with secretive and controlling agendas who want to be in the big chair and cost us time and money that we don’t have to spend.

So, this Canada Election – remember Danny Williams and mark your ballot – anyone but conservative.