Sunday, June 17, 2018


From the evolutionary prospective, what benefits does faith provide?

Faith allows for quick teaching/learning. There is no justification required. Here it is, know this. Not great for understanding the reasons, but the primal lesson is quick to be had. When life is brutish, hard and short, those lessons may be needed before adulthood, and the parents cannot count on being around when his children need him. It was law in Greek times that the father was obligated to teach his sons. Many wrote books to there sons, life was uncertain. Faith, that what father knew was right was just required. That is the first and big value of faith. Just take what I am saying as truth, aka faith. Test if for yourself when you get time came later, but that is also an essential step.

I, an old retired person, am still learning things which are probably obvious to most people, but not to me. I grew up poor and in a isolated area, essentially physically provided for... well at a survival level. Faith that there was a better life to be had away from there was all that kept me going. I did not need to go that far, 80 miles, and there was opportunity. I grew up knowing I would be leaving. That is just how it was. Faith, not knowledge was all we had. 

Now, when we get time, we each need to test what we were told, and sort out the bullshit, no longer true, and the like.

Altruism, as prescribed in the religious texts, exists only in tight communities, such as the Mennonite, Hutterite, Amish, and other religious groups. It is a within group characteristic. We likely have a  bit built in biologically, but much more is learned, religion, cultural, societal. Within the modern mass societies, very little exists, but within groups, it does exist. Faith in mass society does not work, there are too many that want to separate us and our money. That is the ultimate problem.

The real problem is there are too many people. The earth can absorb the Co2 of a modren society of about 3.5 billion, we are twice that now, and pain is about to be felt in a big way. Check out the data. and when you do look at the data, not just the argument, you will see. Faith is not required except in the science, mathematics, and the data.  

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Hormone Driven

Hormone  Driven, sexually dangerous, young males

What does sexually drive have to do with morally correct behavior? The young single male has three choice, maybe more. Resist, self, or do. With so many of the females setting their sights on the rich, good looking, or on career, and the excess of males, what is one to do?

Once we become directed at a attractive career, or those who have the gift of gab, we a are off to better things, and the call of women may be reduced, or we became the incels. Oh well, we get older, and perhaps we find a mate, but could anyone satisfy her? She is a body of want, want money, want time, want property, and there is only so much money available, and soon she will be gone to what she sees as greener pastures, unless she has the nesting urge, and then...

We humans have always had difficulties, even when the female was trained to be subservient, and to nest. Now, with what they call freedom, more are questioning what their role should be,
and society is going to change, and change, and change until... happens.

We humans are likely coming up to an atmosphere driven partial extinction event, or a population reduction event, or a time of extreme human suffering event. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Monday, June 4, 2018

In Responce 

Perhaps I am not understanding things here.

"can’t have a moral theory that says that desires are the primary object of moral evaluation without a theory of desires."

Just because your argument can be expressed does not mean that the concept has merit by any or my philosophical system, no matter how much is written about it or how well it is written.

Once we have settled on a ethical system that seems right and feels right, all new systems are tested against that system, and any found lacking are rejected. That is the process of ratcheting to the best system of the day. From that we can define a set of virtues to live by and we do not need to employ our time consuming reasoning but employ or rapid automatic portion of thinking. Away we go. Desire does not even come close to primary object of moral evaluation in my understanding of life. Life is the primary object of my moral evaluation, and from what I can see, is for most of the philosophers of life sorts.

Well, all this does not matter, for this is the internet. It is a place for expression, not facts. The truth is elusive, and we must test each statement against our previous accepted knowledge. It it does not match, just reject it, without more evidence. Cognitive dissonance is also not good. We have three choice, reject, assent, or hold in abeyance. Abeyance just takes too much memory.

There is a related issue also. Most professionals will not listen to non-professionals... people of lesser standing... well perhaps not, that point out something that may make the professional wrong. CDC will not look at data that suggests one of there proclamations are wrong, food guys with their food pyramid, the same "we are always right" attitude, big ego attitude, Monsanto and GMO, chemicals, Autism Speaking, and their funding controlled message, Autism Spectrum lumping all the autism's together into one, yet there are at least four desperate issues, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version 5 (DSM-5), and the same issues with eating disorders.

Some of the time the data is right and the organization is wrong. There is one principal that keeps those organization in ignorance, "contempt prior to investigation."  

But what do I know?

Sunday, June 3, 2018

The Downside of Cross Pollination

The Downside of Cross Pollination

Volunteer organizations always have difficulties in member retention and member participation. One of the strong reasons are attempts to impose a second message onto the group. Atheist hate prayers. Those who are clearly straight may be opposed to carrying a gay message, and just prefer to ignore the gays. Neutral is likely to be the predominant group. So groups should stick to their primary subject, and not muddy the waters.

The atheist group may not want to be strongly mixed with the gays, nor politics, anti GMO, anti vaccination, nor humanists, nor women rights, nor incels or volcels, nor book club, nor service to the community, nor food bank; because having two interests may will cause splintering in the root cause. Do they wish to be social group, or a topic discussions group? There is nothing that will cause resentment faster than imposing something that is not supported onto membership, nor not doing what should be part of it. It is either exposure or too much exposure.

But what do I know? 


Saturday, May 26, 2018


Compromise. Compromise. Once two people have to agree on something, it will typically not what either want, but what they can both tolerate. Struggle to get something we can live with and leave it there.

It is you a gardener or a farmer? A bit of bad grammar just for emphasis. What is the difference? As near as I can figure the answer lies in the equipment, and or is most of the work hand or machine. It does not matter, with the climate changes we are seeing, it will be difficult.  

When we get beyond a tribe, then tremendous compromise must will be necessary to build a nation. A nation needs a project to get behind, what that project is does not matter. War, a railroad, a pipeline, a highway, a light rail passenger system, anything. then we can forget or put on abeyance other issues and get on with something we can get agreement on. That is the problem of tribalism in politics, once you get electing by appealing to all these diverse groups, there is not enough support to get anything done, unless the individual has the power to make the changes.

Political mandate should be based on what is good for the country long term, not just as a reaction to the short term, what can get me elected.   

Friday, May 25, 2018

Religion is not a "human right"

The right to religion is not a human right, because it operates at the society/cultural level, not at the individual human level. We humans can believe whatever lunacy we wish, but I prefers to believe that there is evidence for, and no evidence against, that can possible be true, not some supernatural stuff.

The right to believe "what ever" may be some kind of right, but it is not a human right that is inalienable, as it is choice of the believer. It is indoctrinated, not a birth animal characteristic. It cannot be controlled by others and you can believe "what ever", but that is a society/culture issue.

A society can demand that anyone believe something, and any government can specify if its citizens should believe something or not, but believe is impossible to police or enforce. This is a problem with the Muslims as their penalty for apostasy is death by stoning. Enforcing a belief system does not work in transient population, however we can see that any freak system, where everyone believes the same, could be harmonious. An example would be communism, but the population needs to come to believe it is the best way. There is no human reason for altruism at a society level, and that alone is likely the reason Communism fails naturally.

Compassion for other human is likely a virtue, but not once the giver fails to support there immediate family to the same level as the recipients. We saw this with the christian churches in the west. The farm families were living in primitive conditions supporting ministers living in modern conditions. That created resentments toward religions. That is the basic problem with modern governments, they pay too well, and corruption  is too common. Oh well, there is no better way of government.

Without truth what do we have? Well, we have corruption and deceit. We have instituted sponsored corruption, the worst kind, where corruption is considered a virtue, as money is considered a virtue. It is not a good thing.

Truth, information, knowledge with evidence should be a human right, or a societal right. 

What is the alternative? Truth all the time, but silence is also permitted. 


Thursday, May 24, 2018

Niggers and Crackers

So the UDHR needs an update.

Article 1.2  All humans should be entitled to the truth, facts, evidence, knowledge, which over time and examination becomes wisdom.

Expressing just an article without the implication being expressed is sort of lost on the public. The above item is in conflict with Article 2 and 26.3. Article 2 protects religion, which does not allow truth to prevail. Religion survival is dependent on keeping the youth in the dark, which condemns your children to everlasting ignorance. Article 26.3 allows the parents to teach whatever and to withhold truth from the young. We all know how difficult to unlearn wrong information from the mind. If there is any doubt, consider the difficulty of change of life style actions.

Truth is the essential of human rights. Without truth all else is not as useful. Equality infers that we must allow others to respect their opinions, but what about those opinions which are not founded on truth. Does it come down to the loudest voice, or the truth. Truth requires evidence for, no evidence against, and a strong probability of truth. Evidence must be admissible in court, so the religious books are out.

Any statement can be true, false, somewhere in between, or just irrelevant... a concept with no real meaning. We can also assent, reject, or hold in abeyance any proposition or concept. In the process of developing documents such as UDHR, it is common to just leave out any contentious issues, and be happy with what we can get agreement on. I say it is time to include truth, facts, evidence, knowledge into to the UDHR.