Sunday, October 14, 2018

What is your evidence?

What is your evidence? Can you direct me to your evidence? If you are unable, then your story is just story.

So MMP does not cause Autism? Where is your evidence?

Actually there is a higher frequency of autism on early vaccinated children than among the later vaccinated... no wait.... between early vaccinated British verse vaccinated East European... the co-factors were not corrected for. To really disprove one would need to look at infrequence of occurrence between early vaccinated and late vaccinated children, but that is not about to happen... because it would be unethically to risk children getting measles, but not exposing them to a higher risk of autism is OK because the authorities having jurisdiction say that MMP does not cause autism.

When we look at frequency of autism, we see and year over year increase, and it is often not identified/diagnosed until teen years. And it is high in industrial cultures, and non-existent/diagnosed in undeveloped.  And then the disordered kids are all called autistic/UDHD/ADD/dyslexic or something. Autism is difficult to diagnose until school age, perhaps 10 or so, unless you are looking to hang a label on a child.

So both sides are in a battle of words, there is no evidence either way; the study's that cast doubt are all discredited by the other side, the drug companies. Oh well, it is not my issue.

Wakefield was poor at dealing with children with gut pain: even trying to understand the problem got him into ethics problem/mine field, and it blew up in his face. What he found is that people with gut problem frequently have other issues.... autism and crones/IBS are common. Why? Who knows? These both seem it be development issues. But the evidence of all this in summarized in various autism/dyslexia studies.  We need to recall that the opinion of an expert is the lowest form of evidence by the Frye Standard.

But the question, what is you evidence separates the critical thinkers from the marketing types. Oh well. As one old fellow told me about business plans, "as long as it looks good, no one will ever read it." I it is all just marketing story.  

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Overeating is a coping method

We humans are a puny bunch, physically and mentally. We cannot handle what the world has to throw at us without coping methods. That is just a downside of our big brains, especially when life does not go as it might. Fate or Fortune always is there; we get pushed off our even keel so easily by nature. We developed coping strategies, delusions, or would they be illusions some of the time. We use our inability to see that we are wrong when we are focused on a single wrong idea. Religion. Religion is a coping method for handling situations we do not like. Suffering exists and is part of life. It is caused by our delusions, aversions, attachments and similar concepts. Oh well, there is a solution and that solution is to follow a reasonable plan for life including a view of ethics, reality and the world around us. Sound familiar?

So my claim now is that "religions are the original coping methods" of not being able to deal with nature and the goings on that our ancestors found. Later a few turned to alcohol, and then in 1935 AA came along, as a replacement/return to religious thinking. Overeating is often a coping method, but for many OA is not successful, as we now realize that religions are just coping methods, and there are no gods. All is just a coping method for a life which we are learning to live all our lives.     

How much damage is our attitude that "freedom of religion is an indigenous right" actually doing?

We allow freedom of religion, and this is essentially allowing people to believe what ever nonsense they choose. Is it freedom or neglect? What damage is being done to young minds, and of the adult mind believing in fiction, being controlled/oppressed by organizations and old books?

Consider Islam. The damage is real. Consider Catholics. The damage is real, but less than Islam.

Christians are good at building community. That is their primary good. They hold back other development, try to stop science, and foster the spread of disease and overpopulation through resistance to birth control and condoms. Is that beneficial to society?

But all religions are just coping methods, as are alcohol and mind altering drugs. So ethics, with its issues of relativism, adaption, uncertainty, delusions, principals, concepts, and the like is a partial solution, perhaps.

We live on a planet, and if the Co2 level is an indication, it can support about 3.5b and our current carbon demand level. We are 7.7b now. This is the ethical life boat problem. It is doubtful if we can engineer our way out of this. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

This is thanksgiving weekend in Canada. Lets all just give thanks, eat and not think or speak of this real problem... that is coming to a head in the next 50 years or so.  

Monday, September 24, 2018

Nuts and Ethics

Today the world is full of nuts. We are at a population of twice what the earth can support with our present life style, based on Co2 level rise. Only a few are even aware of this. Oh well. And at the same time religions are keeping the population in ignorance of reality. Oh well. So what is the solution? There is not one, the sixth extinction will make the correction.

Ethics come from two sources, those handed down and those we develop through logic plus some obvious statement, obvious after considerable study. If we want to live well, we need to provide the conditions that others can live well, and together we all can live well. It is all about cooperation. Little more. In an overpopulated world, gaining cooperation becomes more difficult as we each do not have the space that we each need to be comfortable in our life, so we try to get the upper hand rather than fair and equal cooperation. This bully nature is human nature, I think. We see this in the US attitude today. We see this in Ontario today with Ford over-reach, and many other places. All this has a common factor, and that is crowding, aka overpopulation. Overpopulation makes the bullies seam like leaders. They get their way, not because their way is right, but by force.

Humans seem to have an inborn ability to cooperate, yet we are easily able to psychologically or intentionally override this ability. Or is all this a psychological ability, is cooperation a learned characteristic? Beavers build dams, spiders build webs, and all that is genetic programing. I expect that human cooperation is genetic also, as it is so important to our survival. We cooperate as long as the action is in our individual interests; beyond that not so much. We really see this in volunteer run facilities and organizations. We seem to have a genetic predisposition to look after our own interests first; and then maybe we do a bit more, but we need to enjoy it or get something else out of it first. Oh well.

What is right is not a clear ethic, but yet it is the foundation of prudence, which is a foundational virtue, upon which all ethics are based. But right itself is a subjective concept, well partly at least. It may be better to look at right as not wrong, as the wrongs are easier to define. Imposing our opinions on others is a wrong, expression our opinion and letting other chose is not. Minding our own business, and doing the right for the right reasons, not failing to do right because we dislike the person suggesting the right course of action, is prudent. To do this we need to take the time necessary to learn all the facts. That is the problem, the shortage of facts, and the available of information, and sorting; fact/fiction.

Sorting of fact/fiction has a parallel in criteria of the decision. It is as archery, which is the most important skill, speed, accuracy, range, weight of arrow, speed of arrow, range of arrow, but if it misses... well what is that all about. Or is it all about having fun, enjoyment, pleasure, and doing it again tomorrow?  

Ethics are about what is right, not about who is right. Ancestors and their beliefs need to take a back seat to our current needs, and current logic, current reality.

Thursday, September 13, 2018


Aristotle called it something that translates into incontinence. This incontinence like thing, to Aristotle, was described as the nonrational desires are stronger than the rational desires. This sounds like the overeating problem.

So lately, I have been on an stomach acid reducing medication, proton pump inhibitor. It kill hunger. Has the problem been too much stomach acid all these years?

So if the nonrational desire is removed, aka the hunger is removed, and it is possible to not eat, should one still eat?  

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

What People Could Be

Communism fails for the reason, it is based on what people could be, not what they are. We are headed for the sixth extinction for the same reason. Humans are unwilling to place the community good over personal economic greed. Trump is the prime example.

For communism to work, altruism would need to be a common or near universal characteristic of the human species. It is not. Even many of those who claim to be altruistic do altruistic things for how it make them feel, not because they are altruistic by nature. The same characteristic would be necessary to stop carbon dioxide rise, climate warming and the impending climate change disaster that is looming on the horizon, along with the sixth extinction. It is less clear it extinction is the correct term; great population reduction, bottle neck, or similar may be a more correct term. Crop failure will cause starvation and populations conserving the remaining foods will cause even more starvation. Distrust, and evaluation of needs may cause much economic issues for the high living peoples. Those who produce foods will have to feed themselves first, and others will just come second or last. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Our purpose, if we have one, is to produce the next generation, and teach them how to live for the next year, until the next crop, be it animal or plant or plants to feed the animals. Cloth and shelter come next, but as these are more durable, are less urgent. But what do I know?

The point is that we must honestly, brutally know what people really are, even if we are trying to be more Liberal, Progressive, forward thinking and altruistic humans. We can never lose sight of what people really are, else we will parish first.      

Sunday, August 26, 2018

And thinking makes it so    got me thinking. What is "spiritual but not religious" really mean?  In conclusion it is a not owning the beliefs as the atheist is forced to do, but rather placing the ownership of our beliefs outside of us, but not in a defined god. The spiritual do not claim ownership of their own beliefs. If they do not own them, then they are not responsible. There is nothing else.

God allow a simple thinking to occur. Someone else is responsible for telling us how we should live, why to live, our morals from society, dictates our should do behavior. All these things are truly subjective, while religion makes the decisions to make these items seem objective.

Existential philosophy says that since we exist, we should make the most of it as a society. To do this we need to follow something like the golden rule, but some of us do not like to be patronized, therefore the silver rule, "do not do to others those things which we would not tolerate being done to us. We need to treat others as political equals, but not provide for them beyond survival. Since the earth is now overpopulated, survival is not necessary. Only the best should reproduce, and then only one child until we get to a reasonable population, as defined by a stable carbon dioxide level. That will take a century or more. 

Virtue Ethics, that is picking a bunch of virtues, and saying that virtue is the only good, and vice the only evil, is fine and good some of the time, but some define greed for money as a virtue, and that is not completely right. More money is good, but abusing the people to get it is not. Yet modren society thinks that being rich is a desirable. That is a limitation of Virtue ethnic and that philosophy.

The Philosophy of Caring, must also chose carefully. Family may be important, but some families have bad people within them. Should I care about those? Not so much, for society would be better off with out them.

It is not the event that bothers us, but our thinking about the event. This suggest that our thinking makes it so. So who owns the basic beliefs that we originally learned from others? Are these beliefs right and true? It is my opinion that those who claim to be spiritual but not religions have broken away from god thinking but have not yet taken ownership of their beliefs, but what do I know. And thinking makes it so.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018


Does this explain the benefit of prayer?

Ethics, morals and values have no intrinsic values. Those are always subjective and adaptive.  We do not have mind independence, as much of what we know was learned from others. Our mind is a reflection of the culture we grew up in, well, at least until we start to clean up out beliefs, and even then, it is a reflection of what we read and who we relate to.