But Should We

 

 “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”

This was one of those weeks, wonderful in so many ways but not beneficial for coming up with something for the blog. Our son drove down from Oregon for a short visit here in the desert with us. It was very good with him, but the weather didn't contribute as it rained most of the time he was here. Not exactly desert weather supposedly, but the desert loved the rain as it didn't flood that much and the plants flourished with it. He had come hoping to hike and fortunately he did get one good hike in, but not what he had hoped. 

As our life returned to normal, I began to think about the blog and what might I write here. I don't use photos or stories about the family to protect their privacy; so that was out. Then, I came across that quote from Jurassic Park and thought it fit so many situations today.

First, of course, is science and how the word is used to make agendas happen. I have a problem when science is used in a way that to me is really projections based on science from the past but assuming it can continue as it was in a known pattern, but does that work given how the earth changes. 

To call it science, it should be based on known facts and repeatable. But then as this quote says, you need to think if they should do it. We can see a lot of examples of when it should not be done, but we only have choices for what comes next. That is what counts-- in my opinion.

I was distracted because my real reason for that quote was for our lives. We could do this or that but should we? In the culture where I live, the options are huge for what we could do based on our skills. A bigger question comes with should we? It's what makes that quote from Jurassic Park so powerful to me.

When I write my books, I think about good stories and characters but also what should I depict as being beneficial. This is not only for readers, but for myself. I spend a lot of hours with these characters and their actions. I want that time to improve my life and not just be about making money or even popularity. 

 Finally, this moon was the wolf moon, first full moon of 2024. Moons mean so much to us as they change with their cycles through a year. They can determine planting cycles as well as help us recognize the seasonal changes.

a bonus post and a different view

by Rain Trueax

Because I got this from Facebook, I wanted to share it widely. As countries and states open up, each of us will need to decide what that means for our choices. Do we go back or do we continue to self-distance? If it's a job, where we have no choice, do we demand protected working conditions, some changes that take the virus into account?

Having all the facts helps us make those decisions. That means hearing diverse opinions and weighing which seems best for us. Below is a different opinion from something I posted earlier. I believe it's worth reading. It made sense to me and pretty much is what I have believed is my personal choice when governors lift the various bans. 

One thing I have learned from my many years of following what should or should not be done. Experts constantly change their minds or disagree with other experts. In the end, it's your life and body. Get information and don't be afraid to look at different ideas for what might be best. Then make a choice. If you click on Read More, you will find what I consider to be a reasoned and non-partisan view of the situation.

Yellowstone and Nine Mile Opportunities

In July, besides the scenery and animal watching, I learned more about what happens at the Yellowstone Institute in the Lamar Valley. It's an onsite lab for Yellowstone Forever. There are classes and clinics. Participants get to stay in the primitive cabins, which would be cool.

What got me interested in what was going on at what had been the buffalo Ranch, was in July, we saw students walking behind an instructor as they observed and photographed a wolf kill and the reaction of the elk to what had happened. We thought our new telephoto would capture it. It didn't help that it was getting dark but we need an extender and some shoot through spotting scopes. I'll share what we got but you'll have to take my word for it that besides the elk and kill, there are wolves hunkered down in the sage.

Elk are not helpless and wolves have had their jaws broken in attempting taking one down. We did not hear the lecture but bet it was worthwhile as the students learned improved ways to use their cameras. 

Here are a few links I came across on what the Yellowstone Institute is about.

Yellowstone Institute classes-- Summer

Yellowstone Institute Classes-- Winter

What is Yellowstone Institute?

Who can work there

Off the Grid in the Lamar Valley

So that was cool, and then we came across something else out of Missoula-- Nine Mile ranger Station. 

It was created out of a ranch as a Remount Station for the forest service. The buildings, like this residence, were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933-35. They were made to look like New England homes or a Kentucky horse farm. Today, when they need restoring, all has to stay in accord with their original construction. Besides housing, there is a bunkhouse, cookhouse, museum, and the barns.

It is lovely, but more than just pretty, it sponsors annual horsemanship and packing clinics where the trainees learn to and restore mountain trails. Stock continues to be kept there except when in the mountains. It's a working ranch where 4 pack-trains of mules await their next fire call.  

When we were there, the mules were out but the parking spaces were full of those who had gone somewhere, whether a fire call, since it has an engine, or on clinics, I don't know but was amazed how many vehicles awaited someone's return. 

Nine Mile Ranger Station could have been just another historic site instead it's both that and of continuing use.

Ninemile Wildlands Training center

The opportunities are cool but more for the young than me-- at least me at this stage of my physical capabilities ;).

Einstein

There have been times where I watch little television. I normally avoid anything smacking of a series where I must remember its times to stay with the story. Saturday I got into a series that ran one after another on National Geographic Channel-- Origins: The Journey of Humankind. Fascinating and because it was a marathon, I only missed the first two (I think).

That led to reminding me that I wanted to see [Genius] about Albert Einstein's life. So Saturday night I watched the first of what is to be a 10-part series (airing on Tuesday nights). The story (so far) delves heavily into not only Einstein's brilliant mind, his personal relationships, but also what that meant at the time the Nazis and Hitler were rising to power. 

To be honest, as a young man (the film skips around in his life), he's obnoxious to watch, uncaring of what he does to others, and with the arrogance of genius, always sure he's right. As an old man, Geoffrey Rush plays him and he's always fantastic. It has him at 1933 when he's trying to leave Germany.

As happens often to me with such a program, I turned to the internet to see how accurate the show was going to be. It's based on a critically acclaimed book, Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson.

Wikipedia on Einstein

There are so many stories about Einstein as he lived an astounding life on levels many never risk. Years ago, I read one such story in the memoir of Shelly Winters, who had been a roommate and remained a close friend of Marilyn Monroe. Winters wrote that Marilyn had a list of men with whom she wanted to have sex. Einstein was on the list. Later she told Winters they had done it. 

Did Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein do it?

After watching the first two episodes, I could believe they did it even if stories about a Fire Island affair might have been imaginary (i.e. early fan fiction). As possible evidence he might've wanted to have sex with a gorgeous woman, consider this quote from Einstein--

The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

The series makes much use of his imagination in how it worked for him to come to his scientific theories. Of course, as a writer of romances and fantasy, obviously I agree on other levels :).

The politics of Germany in the early 1930s are ones both parties in the US will claim as belonging to the 'other' side. Whatever the case, to be a Jew and a scientist, it does add tension to the series-- also frustration. Now my question is-- did Marilyn make it into the book/series? My guess is she didn't. Too bad... *s* 

False Expectations Appearing Real

Warning: if you see fear as a good thing, you probably will not like what comes next. Return on Saturday, and I'll be back to more 'normal' posts... i think.

 Petroglyphs from Lava Beds NM where long ago humans tried to leave a message for those who would come after.

Because of what I've been reading in Facebook, blogs, and articles, I felt I needed to cover one more outcome from this election-- fear. Fear is anticipating what has not yet happened. It is often encouraged by spin doctors who benefit from having people living in fear as they are more easily manipulated. Someone experiencing terror finds it hard to use clear thinking.

I am not saying that fear is never valid but when it is, it should be a physical and real danger. When there is a very real physical risk, like say a tornado approaching your town, fear can serve a positive purpose by increasing your adrenaline to get your body in action. It can cause you to move to your basement or a shelter. Fear though that you might be hit by a tornado when none are around can prove debilitating. What does adrenaline do when the risk is not one you can address physically?

Fear has been stirred up by the recent election. Despite what some believe now, that fear went both ways with those who believed a Clinton Presidency would be the end of our nation, take away all freedom, bring the government to collapse, increase our debt to an impossible level, destroy our culture, over-regulate, use power to go after enemies, and start new wars. Trust me, many feared all that and more. Well, she's not the one now to fear.

What could President Donald Trump actually do to this country? There are many fears regarding that. I'd like to start with the big one for many progressives-- that he will quicken global warming and destroy the earth through rising oceans, increasing big storms that decimate natural vegetation leading to droughts, leading to massive migrations of humans and animals. In his four year term, he can hasten global destruction. 

The irony here is many of those, who fear global destruction and too much CO2, fly around the world, think nothing of taking a cruise (boy do they pollute), and drive many miles at a whim.  

Progressives want the government though to at least say it can do something about what might be a natural periodic event on this planet. Trump denies climate change exists hence making him a leader for them to fear. 

Much of the science of global climate change is based on observations of fossil discoveries along with projections. It depends on making certain assumptions because if it's happening, by the time it is measurable, it would be too late. For those who don't trust the conclusions, who believe it's all about bringing on Communism or destroying businesses, they see it as a hoax, and Trump has been in that corner.

Personally, one of the reasons I voted for Clinton was environment (think pipelines and mining), but I am not convinced we have as much influence on the earth's warming as we might wish. Some say a long period of low sun flare activity (which we are in) may do a lot to cool us.  Currently, where I live we have yet to have a freeze, which is unusual but then the measured temperatures for any region isn't all that long, and this might be par for the course in a long range cycle.

What I think environmentally important is protecting wilderness areas, air quality, and water quality. However, let's be honest-- in the years of the Obama Presidency, Flint happened, Standing Rock happened, fracking happened, and nothing very real about climate change. Gasoline prices dropped to unbelievable levels encouraging people to drive more. Obama had the majority in Congress his first two years, and he did nothing beyond talk. He has not supported the Native Americans trying to protect their water supply as that pipeline is ongoing as I write this. 

It's hard to say what Hillary might've done. Maybe a carbon tax to encourage some to fly and drive less, but big money is what gets most politicians elected. In the end, they cater to it. Such a tax would bring in revenue, but likely, given the current low price of fuel, won't do much to discourage travel unless it was so large that it destroyed the economy. Some of the regulations intended to lessen pollution end up with other side-effects that are undesirable. There are things that can be done but getting rid of all fossil fuel is not happening no matter how many extreme left leaning sites claim it will. And whether we end up with a catastrophic change may involve more than what the US does. So should we fear it? Is it something real that endangers us, that we can do something about-- especially with so many proposals years in the future.

Another Trump fear that I am seeing expressed is that minorities are being violently attacked after the election, and it will get worse. This is working on the assumption that the racial divide began with Trump running for office. The only ones believing that read only left wing newspapers. It's been ongoing-- as has been the violence in too many communities. How much of the fear about Trump regarding this is stirred up and how much is a very real danger to anybody? 

The Black Lives Matter movement has stirred up fear among the minorities that the police are hunting them down. Now this is not to say we don't have bigoted cops, but seriously, does anyone really believe blacks are being hunted down by the police? Maybe Hillary did when she said in the debate to a question:

Lester Holt: Do you believe police are implicitly biased against black people.
Hillary Clinton: Lester I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone not just police.

I wish those believing that about the police would give a little thought to what they face. It might give some perspective-- as police fears are based on anticipation of dangers they regularly face. The fact that their fear leads them to sometimes overreact is another example of the problem of fear.

In the aftermath of the election, the violence has gone both ways, with the extreme left also attacking those who supported Trump-- or even someone they thought supported him. The recent accusations that he has caused bullies to grow larger in number ignores the rest of the story. Yes, there are bullies. Yes, they are in many groups. But the President doesn't cause that. It comes out of a rage and anger that is there before either a Dem or Repub gets in. If you don't believe that, then you have to believe Obama has caused it for the last eight years. Seriously, you don't believe that do you?

Trump went to black communities. He talked about the need to protect the people in Chicago where stray bullets and gang wars cause so many innocent deaths. He claimed the left has let the black community down by destroying jobs and the fabric of the family through policies that sounded good but did harm. Now whether he could do any of what he wants or said he wants, who knows. That was always the risk with him. But a lot of the fear here is being stirred up by certain elements, who gain from that. The people who live in some of those neighborhoods have plenty to fear now-- with real physical threats, not an assumption of them to come.

Some see Trump as a path to Hitler. It seems that's always pulled out and they bring out the books to prove their point. Except we elect Presidents every four years. We have a Congress who can stand against the President-- and has with Obama. Our Presidents can be impeached. This is not Hitler anymore than Obama was the Antichrist. The hysteria of the left and right always leads to such accusations but get a grip. 

Regarding the Antichrist, evidently some are saying Nostradamus predicted Trump as the last one, who will usher in the Apocalypse. That requires having a spiritual belief that such a thing has been predicted and might be spiritually brought on. It requires reading couplets that can be taken many ways and interpreting them to suit yourself. It requires ignoring earlier predictions of doom like 2000 or the end of the Mayan calendar.

While I have had my own ideas on the damage of fear and how it has been fed, I read something very good at Facebook by a professional grief counselor and writer, Dr. Debra Holland. She had said it can be shared. I think it is good to share here for those who don't want to be afraid and are looking for tools to help them get past this. And yes, I realize there are drama queens/kings who get off on fear. This is for those who see it as negative, but they just can't let it go, read this and think about it:

     I read a lot of Facebook posts this morning that were full of grief, as well as fear and anxiousness about the future. Since I’m empathic, I was very impacted by the pain and fear and disappointment people were expressing. This post isn’t about those who are grieving, whether the election results and what that means to them, or some other loss. This is post is about fear, specifically what I call fear fantasies—some vision you have of the future which is causing fear and stress and anxiety in the now.

     Did you know research shows that 96% of what we fear DOESN’T come true? What fear, anxiety, and stress does is take a toll on your physical, mental, and emotional well-being. YOU (and perhaps those around you) pay the price for your fears.
     The past is over.. The future has yet to unfold. All we have is the NOW. We have no guarantee that we’ll even be alive tomorrow. Yesterday, I did grief counseling for a company that had an employee die from being hit by a car on Halloween. This is one of many counseling jobs I’ve done for sudden deaths. I see all the time that we have only now. As for our nation, for all we know, aliens will descend in the next few months, and the whole world will be completely different from what we expected. Yes, that’s tongue-in-cheek, but it makes my point. We don’t know what the future holds for us as individuals, for our communities, for our nation, for our world.
     You can spend today in fear. You can spend today in shock. You can spend today projecting meaning onto millions of voters of either side that probably has little to do with each individual person who voted. There are a myriad of reasons people vote the way they do, which might not be at all what you think. Every American wants the best for our country, even if they disagree with the who and how.
     I’ve long believed that aside from voting or political activism, there’s nothing I can do about what happens in Washington. I STRONGLY believe that there’s plenty I can do to impact the world around ME. Regardless of the beliefs and actions of the people who govern us, I can live my beliefs. I can be a person who’s loving, kind, caring, tolerant, supportive, and giving. I can make the world a better place through my thoughts, words—written and spoken—and deeds. I can touch the lives of others. I’m not perfect, so I’ll slip up, but I’ll do my best to be a good person.
     After the time on Facebook reading about my friends and seeing the gamut of emotions, especially the pain and fear, I spent time in reflection and prayer for everyone who’s afraid or in pain—regardless of the reason. I prayed for our current and future presidents, that they would make wise decisions. I prayed that our country would heal and thrive.
     After that, I spent time with my animals. I cooked (which is not common for me,) I gardened. I straightened the house. All things to control my own environment and nurture myself—good to do when you can’t control and nurture the world (no matter how much I’d like to.) Later, I’ll write, I’ll exercise, I’ll nap—all things to take care of myself. And to take care of others, I went through the collection of bills and pulled out all the ones for charity (a lot come this time of year.) I sat down and wrote checks for all the ones I support, then I prayed that what I sent would be multiplied and bless people. As I did all these things, I stayed mindful of my blessings. I focused on all I’m grateful for in my personal life and in my country—all the things I tend to take for granted.
     After many years of dealing with people in crisis, I’ve seen those who are the most resilient. They manage their finances in a way that they have savings, little debt, and live below their means. They focus on their families and other people they care about and what they are grateful for. They give back to their communities. They acknowledge the impact of painful events on them or their families, but they don’t create more fears about what will happen because of the events.
     Please...today and in the coming days, practice resiliency. When you catch yourself fearing for the future, STOP. Take a deep breath, and then another. Remind yourself that you are making up a fear fantasy; it may or may not come to pass. It probably won’t. And if it does come true at a future time, deal with it THEN. Don’t let those fears rob you of peace for the NOW. Focus on what you can control—your mind, your body, your immediate environment, your finances, your personal goals. Follow your intuition, not your fear. Take steps toward your goals. Forgive. Be kind. Try to see the best in others, not the worst, and certainly don’t imagine and project the worst. Practice gratitude. Be loving. Through it all, remember to keep breathing.

 As something else that could prove helpful for living through difficult times, you might check out one of her books-- Cultivating an Attitude of Gratitude.

Global warming means climate change

climate reports dire-- and it's not just about polar bears

Personally I doubt someone like Marco Rubio (or his ilk) gets it why, when he says the age of the earth is up for debate, he is put on a persona non gratis list for future government leadership by anyone who takes science seriously.  This is not about whether there is a creator or there is not. It's about something science has data to prove-- the age of the earth. For someone who still considers creationism equal to evolution for potential to be right,  (whether it is said out of ignorance or pandering) that person should not be taken seriously as a national leader. There is a reason for this and why it matters-- global warming.

Having written on the subject of global warming several times in this blog, what is being said about it hasn't changed much-- if you read scientists who are not paid to give the answer someone wishes. Basically it is called global climate change now because too many humans couldn't get their heads around how the earth growing some degrees warmer would actually make some regions colder. The earth is getting steadily warmer; but when we talk of weather, it's about possible ice ages (from 2003) as well as super storms. When ocean currents change, what does that do to the world's climate? Can you see the connection?

If you read no other links from this piece, please check out the following. It's lengthy and the story of one man's investigations into what was happening and where might it lead. Was he an alarmist or trying to get attention by telling humans what's coming whether sooner or a bit delayed? What should we be preparing to do? This is one opinion from 2007 (not when he began speaking or writing on this but date of this interview).

At one time Lovelock believed the earth would balance itself, but it's looking less as though it can when man is doing little to help it happen. The release of methane in the Arctic might contribute to why this thing is badly out of control. Some think we can do nothing but are they the same ones worried more about dollar cost than scientific research?.

The prophet of climate change: James Lovelock

For me caring about this and believing it's happening is not new. Here are a few of the pieces I have written on the subject, all with links most of which still work and are worth following.

 global climate change 2012

drought and fires 2012

bottom-line 2010

science and earth 2009

weather and global warming 2009

When you do research, a lot of the articles talk on what is likely to be seen with a few degrees of increase. Then there was this-- what if it's more and comes faster? There is plenty of evidence that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is unprecedented for anybody who believes in science. Yes, scientists can now check such things through old ice and rocks.

Basically the earth is warming and humans are unlikely to be able to totally stop it. Can we though slow it or delay it? Some still don't believe it will happen, think their god will fix it, or claim since it costs money and inconveniences us, why do anything?

They are the same ones, of course, who wouldn't value anything listed above. They think dollars will fix any problem. Likely they believe they can move to some new country where the weather is better-- but can they? Will they find they are trapped in the world they created and die along with the poorest of poor?

I am not sure why some desire to amass wealth in things. They appear to think $1 billion + dollars is necessary but what they can do with it to improve their lifestyle that they could not with say $100 million? Isn't there a point where those dollars accrue to no avail and where the damage they have done to the earth, which is of value beyond paper or gold, isn't worth it? Evidently not yet for the ones still paying for environmental studies that will let them keep on abusing and avoiding real choices that might change this.

Listening to a speaker on NPR the other week-end, he said we could still change things on the East Coast of the US by reducing our emissions. According to most experts, it will not stop it, but it would slow it. What many experts are suggesting is we do what we can but we also prepare for the change. Are we? Anywhere? If the oceans rise will dikes be enough to save major cities like New York City? There are places where a lot of people currently live that are likely to become uninhabitable.

The latest super storm should convince those of us who can do math to change our view of at the least shorelines. Shouldn't it? The houses built on the shore in New Jersey should not be rebuilt there. I know humans like to think we can fix anything with money but once again, we cannot-- not when it's a big earth shift.

Facts and figures and we all agree-- right?

latest predictions shock

turn down the heat

Except they don't because for all the major scientists predicting this kind of thing, there is a rightie claiming it's all communism and there is a paid fossil fuel corporate scientist who says it isn't happening or if it is, it's not man's fault. For those who think that way, it requires ignoring the climate changes they are seeing, the horrible tornadoes of 2011, the super storm of 2012, the melting ice caps, the change in the Arctic because they confuse climate and weather. Since it seems colder to them today, global warming can't be happening.

The end result is a resistance to government doing anything and they aren't considering possible changes for their own lives if this thing does get worse. Such people like the Rush Limbaugh faction claim it's Henny Penny running around crying the sky is falling and they forget the story of the grasshopper and the ant. Of course, a lot of them have been stockpiling wealth because everybody knows dollars/euros/gold can protect them from anything, right?

Well it cannot and whether the direr predictions of Lovelock come to pass, this earth has been in a balance. It will crave balance and won't let us vote on how that happens.

To have the Republican party put people at the head of Congressional science committees who believe the earth is 9000 years old, who believe God can fix anything, who think more trees should be cut down since they use oxygen, who don't believe in science basically at all, says they are currently the party of yahoos; and if they want to change that, they need to find new candidates to run for office. right now they get the title of science deniers and dollar valuers-- while they call themselves the values party.

So what do I think we, who do take science seriously, can or should do? One thing is be prepared ourselves to see disruptions in food supplies. Commonsense just says that regardless of whether a major disaster is imminent.

Then support new technologies. If you aren't in the field, you have no idea how many ideas are out there. The latest I heard about was getting water from air (assuming the air has it in it, of course)-- NDB Nano. The advances in solar and wind are impressive with better batteries to store the energy.

We use solar for the electric fence on our leased cattle property.  Some of these new green technologies won't work in the long run but others will and it takes support to get them off the ground.

Too often such ideas were bought up in the past by oil corporations who didn't want competition. The innovators need to hold out and think of the long range, not their short range gain. Same with keeping the companies in this country instead of the temptation of sending them off to other nations with $.50 an hour labor. We have to as a people care about more than ourselves and think of the future generations.

Once a super storm is on its way, there's not much we can do except get somewhere safe, if possible, and accept that maybe where we live isn't going to be safe in the future. What do we as a world do when that's whole nations? Do we really care about our brother or is it all us? The days ahead may cause many of us to have to seriously consider our own answer to that question.

What can we do other than put our collective heads in the sand? 

Be sure we are living somewhere that has a maximum possibility of surviving big changes.

Redesign and build homes that can survive tornadoes if that's where we live. If not your whole home, make sure you have a well-designed storm shelter.

Learn hunter gatherer skills.

Practice container gardening and buy heirloom seeds that can be saved and used the following year.

Be flexible and alert to what's around us. 

Always look up, down, around, and listen.

Learn the earth's patterns where you live.

Stockpile a rotating food supply

Owning basic tools would not only be good but valuable for barter if things truly turned bad-- they are good for now even if they don't.

Favor government support for research into green technologies.

Minimize our own carbon footprint without a law forcing us to do so.

 

 And finally for anybody who does believe in science, they absolutely cannot ever vote for somebody who says something like this-- Marco Rubio has no idea of age of the earth. That person cannot figure out how to deal with what is coming because they give equal weight to a theological interpretation of the Bible and what science can determine with technology. I think people can believe in a creator and still believe in science; but they cannot question the age of this earth and consider it equally possible it's a few thousand years old. You might consider that a partisan statement but it doesn't have to be if Republicans stop catering to ignorance and creating heroes out of religious leaders who have turned into political ones.

Does evil exist?

Once in awhile I feel I should repeat what should be obvious all the time with this blog-- it's about my opinion.  Regarding this particular issue, I am not a doctor, seminary graduate, or trained professional in the mental health field. I am also very open to others posting opinions that differ. 

Real discussions, when politely done, come out of such open discussions and differences as issues are explored from various angles. I mention this here because the following is one of the issues that can excite passion as it looks at religion as well as human behavior.

Does evil exist? If it does, how can we explain it?

You can find dictionary definitions to evil but they don't really explain the primal feeling that we experience at hearing the word. Maybe we cannot explain and because we cannot, many people want to say evil does not exist. They do not like to hear the word used. Some of that is because of how it has been misused in the past. Religions have jumped on the word as a way to attack anybody who is against their religion. Evil has justified more evil.

The thing is, for me, even knowing some would say I am being judgmental to use the word, there is no other way to explain certain actions. It's not hard to see how early man came up with mythical demons and why religions created a Satanic type figure. If we cannot understand how men can do evil things, then we have to make there be a reason. The Devil cuts it when looking at our fellow man does not.

Evil is there; and if we don't name it that, we call it something else. The thing is what explains it or can we? When something seems so bad, so feckless, so inhuman, so mean, so horrible, the usual words simply don't cut it.

Religions provided what mankind needed-- a personification of evil. Man needed it because frankly evil is out there and can be seen. What we see, we would like to understand and control. Christianity named it Satan and gave control of it to Jesus whose protection man could then utilize through prayer and proper living.

Because of religious misuse of the word evil for witch burnings and wars, many rebel at even hearing it. If something is defined as evil, what comes next?

Most recently we had an example of something I would call evil with the shootings in Colorado. It's not the first time I've seen such a tragic happening and won't be the last no matter what we do (if anything) about this one. Each time it is beyond understanding. Evil describes it, but doesn't fix it or even necessarily help us figure out why it happened as there can be many ingredients.

We see personifications of evil with serial killers also. It's when something is so bad that we simply cannot grasp how anyone could do it. The Holocaust certainly qualified to anyone willing to use the word.

So what happened in Colorado was simply evil in my mind. Plain out evil. But it's not that simple and never has been with evil as I don't think its source is always the same.

I think there is evil done by perfectly sane people. They are those who are sociopaths with no sense or rules nor compassion for others. It is all about what pleases them.

I also think sometimes it comes out of something else especially when it's a horrible act carried out by a young person, who is at the perfect age for the onset of schizophrenia, a little understood disease and one that often is hidden by those with it. Does it being named a disease mean there should be no consequences for the deed? Not in my mind.

[He's the Joker]
[shooter's life in Aurora]
[behavior spurs speculation] 

If you have had much experience with people who have schizophrenia, you know one thing, most don't want treatment. They hear voices. They see visions. They don't see the reality everybody else does, and as long as possible, they hide their own reality. If they are found out, they hate the medicines that can control it because of their side effects.

Some of them have a god complex and feel those visions (evil or benign) are a sign they are special. For many of the schizophrenics, who are not dangerous, it is difficult for family and friends, but it doesn't endanger anyone except maybe themselves. Those voices, those visions can be benign in a sense, but they can also make a normal life nearly impossible as the disease takes more and more control over their ability to function.

Do we, as a society, have to force them to take the medicines that will allow them to conform to our standards if they hurt nobody else? But what about when they have the potential to do just that? What about the 10% of schizophrenics where it can turn violent?  Is there a way to find the potentially dangerous ones, and then do something about it? When they do turn to bad, there is only one word that I can think of for what comes next-- evil.

We are already hearing from those who want to understand what happened using religious justifications. [Shooting result of ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs]  So no church goer ever has schizophrenia or does something evil? Surely he knows better but he's counting on votes from those who don't, I guess.  We also heard from the ones who say they were protected from the carnage by their god. Guess that means the ones who died were meant to die?

The guy who killed Trayvon Martin has now gone on an interview program to declare it was all god's plan. I am not sure how he meant that other than it would sound good to those who think like the paragraph above. I won't say that shooter in Florida was evil. He was certainly misguided and ruined his own life along with taking that of another's. I also believe serial killers and mass murderers can be not only evil but sane. They aren't all schizophrenic.

And whether the Colorado killer is schizophrenic, only experts can probably identify and with someone who knows a lot about the illness, faking it wouldn't be impossible. To me a dangerous schizophrenic, who has committed such an act, should never be out of prison regardless of the diagnosis. He could have gone to a doctor and been taking medicines to control the symptoms-- if he had chosen to do so.

So mentally ill or not, what do we do about evil? One thing is face up to the word. Another is be more proactive where it comes to mental illness. We don't deal with it. It's not evil to be mentally ill. It's evil what some might do without treatment. Certain religious sects would still call it possession by the devil.

Evil has been in mankind all along. It was feared in cultures like the Native Americans where they often banished or killed someone who was deranged. It is feared for good reason. But when we don't face it, we are not only dooming many innocents to face its wrath with no protection but also the one suffering from it when today there are drugs that can help control it before it goes "postal".

I know there is much fear of over-diagnosing, of looking over everyone's shoulders for some reason to lock them up. That concern has been with good reason too. But we are supposed to be a more advanced society and yet it looks as though we wait for it to strike and then it's too late for the victims.

Most of these mass murderers, not all, have been shown to be worrisome before the slaughter. In the case of this young man, he left his home zone. He kept to himself. He was hiding something because he didn't want to be found out. He was capable of plotting his massacre. Does he not have accountability even if he's proven to have that disease-- especially when he did know what it was.

Ronald Reagan, the prince of the right wing, had a lot to do with how we treat mental illness when he put so many out on the street. Our culture has put rules in place that even families can't react until something violent has happened. Religion also has accountability when it named it possession by the devil. Science has some answers but more could be done if we faced it as we do an illness like diabetes without judgment unless/until it commits an act that goes beyond the pale. When that happens, we lost. That doesn't mean we should quit trying to fix it before disaster strikes.

Before we can do something about a problem, we need to define it, try to understand it, name it. Being willing to call out evil when we see it is a start. If that word doesn't work for you, what does?

Pre-publish update: After I had written this, I came across an excellent piece on mental illness and why don't we do something before the shooting (or bombs or knives or...) starts. That's the question I am asking and frustratedly heard Chris Matthews try to justify not looking at people for this kind of problem as it would infringe on their freedoms. Seriously doesn't he get it that another life was lost that night in the theater and all the other times-- the killer's. We have to get more proactive on this in a positive and effective way.  Will we? I wish I believed we would. It's commonsense but frankly that's in short supply these days.

We stop the next Aurora with better mental health treatment

Drought and fires

If you don't think this map regarding drought is about global climate change, if you don't think mankind (in particular our nation) did anything to cause it, don't you at least think we oughta figure out what we can do about it for the people in the zones that are drying up and burning? Or would you rather wait until the people who used to live in those red zones move into the white ones? Is everybody really on their own according to right wing philosophy?

Has it occurred to the climate change deniers that they do need to grow food somewhere?  Manna does not fall from heaven these days. We buy it in stores or at markets. It has to be grown or produced on land last time I checked. The area worst hit by the drought has been considered our bread basket. That word give anybody a clue what is at stake?

Largest natural disaster in US history 

Wildfires and ranchers 

ranchers to sell herds to cut losses 

 Yes, it's bad that homes have burned with year after year of disastrous fires in one state after another, but there is more at stake and it's food production and likely, if the forests burn off, further climate change.

With people in charge of the US Government who don't believe in government, who are cutting programs left and right to get to a point where nobody has the expertise to even figure out what to do, what is their solution? Private enterprise? Those guys don't want to put out a dime right now as they wait to get rid of the president who might get in their way with regulations and while they donate heavily to usher in the one who has no intention of doing any such thing.

Here's the thing, the arguing over why this is happening, that is old news. I remember writing blogs about why it mattered in 2004 and it might've been too late even then. By now, this might be a direction that cannot be turned around even if the right admitted they had been wrong (not holding my breath on that one), but what do we do about it?

Somebody with the money of a Rush Limbaugh or a Mitt Romney, they can move where they want, where the weather is better if things turn dire in the United States. Now exactly where that might be is iffy. Europe might not have the heat but they are the ones predicted to get the mini-ice age (something that earth has done before). When humans had these things before in the world, millions died off from starvation. There are a LOT more of us now.

It seems to me (and has for a long time) that we ought to have a national plan. Even naysayers about carbon dioxide do know about the earth's history (I think). If there is a plan in place, I don't know what it is. From what I have read, we are seeing more government fire fighting ability cut back by the starve the beast mentality of the right.

Possibly this is just going to happen and it won't be pretty. Maybe government can't really help with natural disasters. Maybe it's only good for fighting wars overseas (Cheney thinks Romney is the only one running for president who is capable of dealing with foreign affairs. Cheney was so good at that himself.)

If a large population of people are forced to migrate from one zone where nothing can grow and the heat is such that they can't live, are other regions ready for that kind of migration? What about growing food?

You know plastic can only fix so much...

Energy and Matter

When thinking about the times I had written of us as beings of energy, I wanted to go further with this in terms of what I meant. It's not so much a spiritual way of thinking as a physical one. We are not what we appear to be; so I asked Farm Boss to give me some of what he knows about it from the science perspective.

Incidentally, this is what passes for pillow talk in our home as we often, if we both wake up in the middle of the night, end up discussing politics, cultural issues, farm problems, spiritual questions, his work, or the blog world.

Basically as a scientist, he's seen things I can only imagine. They do relate though how it works for us as humans... or so I believe when I say we aren't as simple as we think for how we are put together.

So the following are some of the things he described which I found interesting. It's all about energy which can be taken on a very flat plane or go soaring off into who knows where.

Farm Boss's (photo is of him January 30 at the Oregon Coast) comments are in blue.

An interesting place to start talking about this is with a science experiment for kids called the beating heart of mercury. You place a drop of mercury in a glass fill it with a small amount of acidic material (diluted battery acid, or something similar), and add a small amount of hydrogen peroxide and the tip of an iron nail or a small piece of iron wire. Do not touch the mercury with the wire-- yet.

Mercury is a shiny metal that makes a nice ball in the solution. When the wire is moved close to the mercury with say a q-tip, the mercury starts to vibrate. And if the size and shape of the glass are right, the mercury will suddenly move toward the iron and then jump back. [YouTube]

So what is the magic force that you cannot see that causes that to happen. It's a study of electrical charge and balancing of surface energies. It is the balance of energy that drives the whole universe. In this case, the mercury surface will oxidize. The iron will become oxidized, which means it will give up an electron to the mercury when it touches it. The mercury surface energy is restored and the ball returns.

Another experiment to show nothing is as solid as you think is a phenomena called Rutherford Scattering. This is where you can see the structure of the nuclei of the atoms in a gold sheet. If alpha particles which are similar to helium atoms are discharged from radioactive materials can go through the gold sheet, why? The gold is a conductor. What Rutherford found was that while most go through, some are deflected. In this case, in a very specific pattern. That pattern is the stacking of atoms within the sheet; therefore most of the space between the nuclei is empty space. Yet we see it as a solid.

Now in fact, everything is bound together by a cloud of electrons around those nuclei. But what you see is a solid and the physical properties ...hardness, strength, etc. are determined by how strongly the atomic structures are bounded together. Yet all that 'bonding' is a 'distance'.. you can still shoot alpha particles or electrons between the atoms.

Other interesting places to start looking are in the areas of transmission and scanning electron-microscopy. LINKS>>>

You know where this is going and why it matters. It's that we see in scientific experiments how energy works to not only hold things together but to change them. We are beings of energy and even though we are used to thinking of our bodies as solid, we are actually made up of moving atoms and molecules. We are held together by energy.

Auras, which the New Age community discusses, are ridiculed by ones who see this life as physical wanting it on the level they can see, are nothing more than the energy around us which is measurable. We don't stop right at our skin for our energy zone.

If we are energy beings, than the Eastern methods of medicine aren't as mystical as some would make them. They aren't about a witchdoctor saying a spell, they are part of the energy network and healing it when it is broken.

Years back Bill Moyers did a series on healing, the gist of which was looking at western and eastern medicine and making the point that we have one treat us for one thing and the other for another. Neither are the only answer for what works. There are things that western medicine doesn't treat well that eastern with acupuncture, yoga, meditation, and acupressure deal with more effectively than surgery or pills. With all medicine, it's letting the body heal and getting what is blocking it out of the way.

So if this is how it is with our bodies and everything we would call physical, then what about the rest? That's what I am thinking about-- the stuff some would call woo-woo but is it? Or is it taking advantage of our actual physical make up and using it? How do we use that? That's the rub, isn't it.

More on this coming next.

Collapse

One point with which both creationists and evolutionists will likely agree, albeit for different reasons, is that collapse of this world is inevitable.

The creationist will see this collapse as a part of God's plan and the renewing of the earth which God will accomplish after the total collapse of the existing world. They will see this as a result of sin and believe they will escape the worst of the coming disasters.

(You notice I didn't say mention a specific religion because I think not all religious people are involved in creationist thinking. Not all object to evolution being taught in public schools. Some believe in environmental laws, feeding the poor (shock of shocks) and wouldn't inherently believe there is an Antichrist among us or that the world has to be destroyed to rebuild it. They might think much like an evolutionist practically speaking.

My concern where it comes to American culture is about creationists. I do think it's about more than a religion but a worldview that is destructive to life on this planet, that would bring about its downfall sooner than nature alone would accomplish. While in our country, creationists do claim to be Christians, many of them espouse ideas totally opposed to what Christ taught; so it's not provable that they even know his teachings. They use for some of their evidence the Jewish Torah which they take as historic. This is a little different take on that -- The Political Intent of the Bible).

To believers in creationism, facts or discussions like that book must not get in the way of 'faith' which I guess wouldn't matter except there are some situations where faith can prove detrimental to survival. I think we are in such a time but there have been others in the past where religious views had to be thrust aside for practical scientific wisdom-- like doctors washing their hands between surgeries.)

The evolutionist also would expect collapse at some point based on what has always happened to species before us and then historically to cultures. It is part of life here. No empire lasts forever. No age of anything is forever.

The earth itself is on a change timetable involving the sun if nothing happens before that. NASA says polar shifts have occurred and might again. Climate changes occur and animals on earth must adjust to them if they can in time. In the case of man, that would be whether he had brought it about or just was here when it happened. We know man has made major climate changes in localized regions. Now that may end up being the whole world. If man's culture is too large when big changes come, a lot of people will die and those who remain will readjust or disappear as another earth footnote.

Collapse is part of the earth plan no matter what you believe, but the difference would be how each philosophy of life would respond to it. A creationist would believe pray, be ready for the Rapture, and figure it'll all be to the good as the earth is messed up anyway.

An evolutionist would be trying to devise plans for what they could do to either avoid the disaster or survive it if they couldn't avoid it. Evolutionism is practical. Creationism is idealistic.

Now an evolutionist might have no fear of immediate catastrophe because these changes are often millions of years apart; but then the age of the mammals did begin 60 million years ago; so maybe earth is due for something big. Maybe not. Looking at history can only tell us so much. Creationists though have always thought collapse is imminent and you see that throughout history-- the group who thought they were to be the last ones.

This following is for the evolutionists because creationists wouldn't believe it anyway.

Collapse is a documentary available on Netflix mostly involving an interview with Michael Ruppert where he discusses his belief, using statistics, regarding what is going to happen to our world in the relatively near future due to energy depletion and our own abuse of resources.

Some, mostly right wingers and corporations, making money from the current situation, say that we have plenty of fossil fuels. Our government doesn't want to spook us, but Ruppert makes the case that not only do we not have enough, but we are dependent on them for a lot more of our culture than we tend to think about.

Fossil fuels are at the core of the shipping network that enables us to feed people in areas where food could not be produced in sufficient quantities. It is what we have built our culture on-- not just this one in the United States but the world. When oil is no longer available to maintain those cultures, what will be the result?

His conclusion is chaos is inevitable. He discusses ways as individuals we can prepare for such a time. There are two approaches to seeing collapse is ahead. One is to try to change a large enough group of people's minds about what they must do to prepare.

Remember Aesop's Fable; The Grasshopper and the Ant. The Republicans, of course, have put out a new version to make their point [Right wing interpretation of Democratic policies to help the poor using the old fable with a modern twist]. I would suggest there might yet be a third with the ant having laid up stores that the grasshoppers attacked illustrating a time of possible world catastrophe which turned humans back into animals.

Basically if a lot of people haven't prepared for dire times and not everyone can, it could mean chaos at the least. There is no way one family can lay up enough stores to survive a nuclear winter without a community or government effort which would both protect and divide what they had stored and frankly even that might not be enough in some situations.

Ever seen the movie Ice Age, the first one? One of its funniest bits (it is the most sophisticated of that animated series for the humor) is the dodos when the heroes come into conflict with them over a melon they want for the baby they are protecting. The dodos say, "This is our private stockpile for the Ice Age. Sub arctic temperatures will force us underground for a billion, billion years." Manfred, the mammoth replies with disbelief, "So you got three melons?" The dodos quickly change the subject to 'doom on you' and go into attack mode.

In life, there are things we cannot do anything about and we just will die; but what a practical culture does is prepare for what they can-- recognizing that cannot cover all eventualities. They try to learn from the past and apply the lessons to their current lives.

Jared Diamond wrote another book on what leads to collapse of cultures-- Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

Given the situation in our country with such a polarized populace, I don't think our culture can do much as a whole. We can't seem able to agree on anything. While there are a few religious groups that teach stockpiling, that kind of thing takes a lot of management and not many do it effectively.

What the DVD, Collapse, encouraged was forming communities where people will be mutually responsible for each other, especially since some will simply not be able to do the work required to learn basic survival skills, attain trade goods, or be able to store food. [He suggested acquiring gold, but I am not sure I see that it'd have much value in a time of real emergency and food producing tools would probably be more in demand.]

After a disaster is no time to learn survival skills like how to kill, skin, cut up and cook an animal to eat. It's no time to learn how to plant a garden that could be harvested in the future assuming you lived long enough. It's no time to have living seeds on hand that you can plant because a lot of the seeds you are buying today are hybrids and cannot be harvested from the plant to reproduce their own kind. It's no time to figure out a system to protect what you have acquired or develop the strength to recognize you have to do that.

I don't live in a panic just waiting for a collapse. I have found what works for me is doing whatever I can to be prepared for emergencies and then leaving the problem behind for when something actually arises.

I did grow up in a household that had seen the Great Depression and talked of how close we came to a total societal collapse back then. I am also aware of change and the potential of our current network being broken. I have thought of what I would have to do to protect my family if we ended up with such a time leaving us back in a prehistoric mode for how we had to survive.

The ideal thing would be to have a culture as a whole that is doing this kind of thinking for its citizens. I don't think we have such a culture, do you? That means it's up to communities, families and individuals to at least have a general plan in the eventuality we are the ones living when the next collapse comes.

(Ruins in Northern Arizona from an earlier culture, the Sinagua peoples.)

The Ice is Melting

The argument over global climate change has been very much a political one but it should not be. It is happening or it is not and the disrespecting of scientists, which I have been writing about, is part of what makes the right able to turn it into an issue of economics which means once again profit for somebody and no concerns greater than that.

When we discussed education earlier, one of the commenters mentioned that while the United States might be educating less scientists, we are educating more lawyers than anywhere else. That person could have added financial managers. We evidently have decided, as a people, that the profit is in moving money around instead of responsible manufacturing. This viewpoint puts aside anything that doesn't profit someone and puts it forth as all a culture needs. Is there something else coming to make that all moot?

The ice is melting

When a rightie reads a headline like that, they too often dismiss it without looking at the details. They go to Fox news and get reassured by something that doesn't relate to the real questions like there were some emails exchanged that sounded like global warming was being hyped. What a relief, they say and ignore the possibility that some who hyped it did so out of concern for what was coming and a need to get people awake and that those who did that were few. They don't care because they heard what they wanted from someone who was reassuring them-- no problem.

If they live above a certain elevation, maybe it won't matter to them or then again when other people are displaced, maybe it will. Will it matter when weather patterns change and we end up with increasing violent storms or rain where it wasn't and not where it was?

If the warming leads to wind and ocean current changes, more people might realize that they live on this earth at its pleasure not at their own. That they must cooperate with it, not force it to fit their agenda.

Science that is oriented toward profits and is controlled is okay. Science that says something they don't want to hear-- not so much.

Something that many don't want to hear is global climate change, sometimes called global warming but that became too confusing to those who don't understand that global warming would impact winds, ocean currents, and weather which might lead to ice ages one place and droughts another.

With a look at the prehistory of this world, it's easy to see these changes impacting other species in the past. Are we prepared for another such time? If not, why not? It is possible that we can't really prepare for some events, but are we doing all we can to not be part of the problem?

You know, mankind's history on this earth is full of instances of completely wiping out other species, cutting down forests to create deserts, abusing the soil to the point it no longer could grow food. Some of that was in times we were more ignorant of consequences. What is our excuse today?

When we as a culture have downgraded the importance of education, ridiculed the intelligentsia, seen science as a threat to faith, where does that take us? Yes, it is possible, looking at earth's geologic and fossil record, that change might come no matter what we have done; but are we hastening it? Are we preparing for it?

I think the answers to those questions have a global perspective but also a personal one. What are we ourselves doing to be ready in case the relatively peaceful time most of us have known is going to come to an end during our lifetime?

(View from Yaquina Head looking south-- December 2010)

Study of evolution leads to...

In this look at how we, as humans, came to be where we are today, I have been writing about two life views, both of which want their theories taught in public schools under science. One believes that whether by a natural process or a dramatic six day event-- God (through Intelligent Design or personally forming everything) not only created this earth but continues to keep it humming along by his presence and tweaking. The proof of this is in holy texts.

The second looks at the known Universe, how creation is still happening, as well as what looks like ongoing destruction. It uses these observations to posit something referred to as the Big Bang. This group makes its case for man's evolution through bones, DNA and observations on how the earth operates today.

Where most religions teach you it's not okay to think for yourself, that reason and facts can only take you so far and can be threats if they go against the religion's primary teaching, studying the theory of evolution would teach exactly the opposite and demand that you must think for yourself and choose wisely because nobody is there to pick up your toys if you break them. If you destroy your entire food supply, you will starve as no sugar daddy is waiting to send manna from heaven.

The conflict of which way to teach in schools is a huge issue for how a whole culture will think and what they expect. On the one hand you don't have to worry about what you do because actions don't really have consequences-- not if you are a believer. Oh they might for a temporary time but it all can be fixed in the end because you're not in charge.

The other doesn't have you in charge either. You are part of a natural process of selection on an earth with its own set of operating rules-- some of which mankind is still unsure of how they work.

To teach children about evolution is to teach them about chemistry, about the human body, about how the choices people make does impact other choices but not at the whim of a god rather at a natural process that sometimes cannot be turned around. Evolution teaches to observe the world around and be alert to changes.

Some of mankind's choices have already led to the extinction of whole species of animals (man is the first animal with the potential to destroy all of life on earth by his technological advances). Yes, the same thing can (and eventually will) happen irrespective of man and through earth's natural forces. Nature gets the last vote.

Through the study of evolution, we can look at the Age of the Reptiles where their fossils tell of an earth that was totally controlled by reptilian animals who mostly disappeared. Then for over a million years came the Age of the Dinosaurs where they ruled until change came in such a catastrophic way that they appeared to disappear within almost the equivalent of another big bang.

The dinosaurs gave way to the Age of the Mammals. Sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths roamed America from around 65 to 10,000 AD. When we were up at John Day we saw many fossils from those eras of creatures we don't see today at all. (No dinosaurs fossils or bones in Oregon because at the time of the dinosaur Oregon was under the ocean.)

Sabre-tooths disappeared when the climate changed abruptly (at least that is scientists' best guess) about 10,000 years ago. Some think man, who had recently arrived on the continent we call North America, was responsible; but it's more probable that the food upon which they relied was dying off due to climate change and they were too big to survive. They could not adapt fast enough.

What studying evolution teaches students is what science can tell us about our own identity, from where we came and some of how we got here. It can't give us definitive answers, like religions would offer. They cannot tell us what enabled an early ancestor to separate from the chimpanzees, stand upright or later make the biggest lunge forward of all when he developed a language that allowed the transferring, one to another, of increasingly complex ideas. Change is the essence of this set of beliefs.

Evolution helps us understand what did happen, and how it benefited mankind in his development. Unfortunately it also shows a dark side, possibly our animal nature. The very technology that has given us better lives can destroy cultures that are weaker. It has happened time after time in prehistory and history. Is this a requirement for species success or something else, something darker in human makeup?

Evolution shows man as part of a process that is both wonderful and frightening; but one that he better be observative about and try to prepare for changes because they can come fast and without any lifting everybody up to heaven to be safe ahead of them. Our ancestors didn't understand the consequences of wiping out a whole species they depended on for food. We do-- or at least should.

I think it does something else. I think it teaches a possible view of God that is far more flattering to God and more likely to be the case. Seeing how life has evolved leaves you also free to not believe in a god at all.

Now I don't know if God has a distinct personality, whether God ever gets interested in us as individuals. I know some believe it empowers them to think that way. I believe it empowers people more to think of God as having set in place a benevolent universe (that's what my scientist husband, who I call Farm Boss but is also Chemistry Boss, has always called it) and we are lucky enough to be part of this whole experience-- a tiny part but a big one to us.

We were gifted with an opportunity to be part of an earthly experience that can be what we make of it. It's up to us what that will be. When we run into bad things, we can try to use them positively. We can continue to make those, who first walked upright and then developed a language, proud (figuratively speaking, of course) of what they accomplished by working to utilize what is here in a responsible way that keeps the power of Homo sapiens being not a bad thing for earth but a good one.

Here comes another personal note-- I am not an atheist and I believe in evolution. When I was asked if I'd call myself an agnostic, I thought actually, no, I would not. I am most likely a [deist], who believes in a god, a creative force, but not a god who zaps things on a seeming whim.

The problem with thinking God is involved in causing miracles is that it leaves you also, to be consistent, needing to see him involved in causing tragedies. Because I don't dismiss the possibility of the supernatural and things that I don't understand, I am content to leave this all in the realm of the mysterious and to me life is mystery-- beginning with that it exists at all.

We have been born into this Universe. We can learn about it in its totality and make the most of our knowledge. We don't have to be afraid of a god who destroys whatever that day has irritated him because I don't think that god, in any of the many religions that teach about him/her/it, exists. I think that was man's way of explaining the many things he saw from tragedies to miracles. Man wants life in boxes and I don't think the truth of the Universe fits into boxes.

Incidentally, my believing in a god, whose presence I have believed I have experienced since I was old enough to be aware of anything, doesn't mean I believe in some kind of spirit realm that we go to when we die. I don't know what happens after our body dies. Is this it? Do we come back in a new form? Is there a heaven and hell?

Well heaven and hell I really don't believe in as the religions describe them. No 70 virgins waiting, no angelic choirs constantly singing. I don't know it isn't that way, but my belief in god doesn't go that far. It's all about now, about what happens here on this earth and how we make the most of our wonderful opportunity to experience life if only once. If it goes on, well great (maybe) but this was a pretty special gift either way. I believe in a god who put in motion natural universes and when one collapses, another is born. We are just one teeny tiny part of that and how lucky we are to be that much.

What evolution teaches us is that while we are not in control as such, we can make the most of the ride. Our ancestors did and they didn't reap nearly the advantage for doing it that we see around us today.

Teaching that this universe is a product of Intelligent Design, as in where a god continually makes everything perfect (and man has to see it as perfect as he has to see that god as perfect) is believing in a capricious god who demands we say what we do not see around us, that we deny facts to satisfy him. That's what some want taught in the schools when they want taught Intelligent Design-- a perfectly created world that only man screws up or the devil. Some of them want this taught, as they want their prayers in schools, because they fear god's reaction if they don't.

Learning about the science of evolution which incorporates chemistry, biology, history, and even physics, and making sure it is wisely taught in our schools is one way we can teach future generations the lessons of earth. Philosophy, in terms of schools, should stay in sociology classes.

Looking at evolution, we see how early man was able to master his universe through technology and language skills. Is that any less necessary today? Ignoring the lessons of evolution is going backward.

Repeating, those lessons would be-- technology, communication skills, and one more-- listening to the wisdom of elders because when Cro-mangon man began to advance in what he could do, it was benefiting from a longer lifespan where there were several generations in a village, tribe or family and they could hear the wisdom from out of the past for the future. We have history books as well as the elders to our benefit today.

What happens when a culture ignores these lessons, ignores what science tells them, decides economics are all that really matter-- and economics are about money? Coming next a discussion on that.

Eagle Nebula at the top photo, a colorized version of the energy and chemical make up of a part of the Universe beyond us.

Oh and I have another book on evolution which I recommend but wasn't sure was still in print. It turns out Amazon has it-- 'The River that Flows Uphill-- A journey from the big bang to the big brain' by William H. Calvin. It's a story of rafting the Colorado River with a group of scientists and non-scientists as they explore the river while discussing history and natural history. It's a wonderful account of the river and the kind of thinking man is capable of doing when his mind is freed to go where it will. (I got a surprise when I looked at what I bought this book for-- $12.95 and now Amazon has it for $30,95! Counting on dollars for our security makes so much sense... not.)