Old Blogger

022904 - Autonomous robot vehicle race!
DARPA in the US is hosting an autonomous vehicle race across the Mohave desert, from LA to Las Vegas. Participants must complete the race in 10 hours, a 200 mile trip over rough terrain where they will expect sandy trails, narrow underpasses, power lines and hairpin turns.

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/

The vehicle must complete completely robotic, able to guide and steer themselves. One team is entering with an autonomous motorcycle!

http://www.ghostriderrobot.com/

Michael

022704 - Women!
Caroline said: "oh and the bestest, bestest part about Chau, and that is a very rare trait among guys, is that he never subconsciously needs to feel superior to the girl he's with, and that's a good thing, because we all know that everything subconscious eventually boils it way up to the top in some form or fashion"

Caroline, do you really think this, do most guys desire to feel superior to the girl they are with? Most guys, as far as I can tell, don't care about much more than getting laid or just have someone to distract them from being bored. Many are in relationships where their significant others are passive and following, while the others I know are in relationships with unique, spirited assertive women. But in either case do they feel the need to feel superior? Not being female, its tough for me to answer that, but I just don't see it in any male friends and their relationships.

For my part, I would LOVE to meet a girl I feel is superior to me! And by superior I would be referring only to traits I value, such as kindness, rationality, perseverance, ambition, compassion, spirituality, humanism, etc. In fact, the only girl I have ever loved is the one I have learned the most from, admire the most, and I believe is superior to myself in most, if not all of these areas. Do I care if I can run faster, get more holes in one in mini golf, or get a higher score in tetris against her? Not at all! What I care about is the fact that multiple times over she non chalantly changed my entire worldview with a few words. Pointed me toward things I didn't know I would like, and furthered my interest in things I did like. She inspired passion and reverence in me. I want nothing less from any women I am with.

So why do you have this perception of men, is it perhaps your statistical sample happens to be prevalent with men of this type? You are a physically very attractive person, and as such would attract men of similar physical attractiveness. However, with both sexes, it seems the more physically attractive someone is the less unique and interesting they are personality wise (this is only an average, there are certainly exceptions, like yourself) For both sexes I attribute this partly to the fact that they can get by with less effort because they are more attractive then average, while less attractive people have to excel on nothing less than hard work and lots of effort.

I was never more aware of these thin when I was a TA in Bio at my local community college. The most physically attractive people in the class were complete dunces, even though they had startling potential and were all very capable of learning, acquiring knowledge, and thinking for themselves. It seemed it just did not interest them, no doubt they spent more time putting makeup on and picking the right clothing for class than they did studying. This was for male and female alike.

Given that, perhaps being higher on the totem pole of attractiveness that you are, then men of similar levels as you are more likely to be arrogant, chauvinistic, or even ignorant. People almost always tend to date people that are in similar levels of attractiveness when rated by large samples of people. When they don't, we as a society take notice, evidence in phrases like 'whats HE doing with HER' (or vice versa) even though we may not outwardly voice it, most of the time we a startled at the difference in attractiveness between the two. Of course, attractiveness is subjective to some extent, but the patterns and statistical prevalence is there. What are some other peoples experience with this, guys, do you think your friends, or if you can be objective, you, tend to want to feel superior to who you date? Women, do you feel the guys you have dated tend to want to feel superior to you?

"And guys, yes, we do notice whenever you're always out to prove something. Just because we don't say anything doesn't mean we're oblivious to it. Girls are just nice that way! hehehe! (^_^)"

Ugh, what a generalization! Half the women I have dated turned out to be manipulative, catty, vindictive women who despised the fact that I had any interests that deviated from the normally socially acceptable concerns of TV and sports. Men and women are both just as capable and likely to be violent, mean or stupid.

Michael

022704 - Using your 'logic'
Caroline said - "Also, Roy, just chill and try not to have a coronary if people use rhetoric in their opinions here. It's just a forum for opinions, not a debate class, no one's being graded and it's not a competition or an exhibition of who has better command of argumentative tactics. And forcing people to make their points the way you've learned to debate doesn't lend itself very well to complicity. Just wanted to say that because you use it too."

Since I tend to speak in a manner similar to Roy's, I am going to take this as a criticism against myself as well, and defend myself accordingly.

Your comments here, Caroline, imply that 'debating' and 'argumentative tactics' that we employ are just one kind of way of conversing, no more or less valid than any other. You being someone who has studied of the Wisdom of the Ancient Greeks, I am surprised to see you say such a thing. Logic, and everything that is attached with it, is not some mere not so unique way of conversing compared to all other, it was devised and invented to answer questions, to resolve problems, to figure out the truth. The ancient Greeks hoped it would be used to govern all forms of quarrel, disagreements of opinions, or questions needing answering. When it was invented, developed, and formalized, the greeks thought they would solve all the problems of the world with it, because it would lead everyone to the truth. If two people who disagree follow normal logical dictums, they will come to resolve their disagreement. However, so few people use or are aware of any basic logic that, here we are 2000 years later, and still arguing that opinions are equally valid.

What is the use of an opinion when it can not be backed up by arguments or facts? Is it not something that is indistinguishable from a random thought, with no foundation in reality?

Roy and I (I admit I am talking for Roy here, but I suspect his feelings would be similar, he is welcomed to disagree) use logic in all areas of life, because no other manner of interacting with the world is useful. Do you frequent arguments about 'which musician is better?' In high school I would hear friends argue all day about who's better, the Beatles or Kiss, or whatever. For hours they would argue, with no resolution, each vehemently arguing that one was better than the other. It's a pointless conversation, it is, by definition, un reasolvable (unless they take the time to define 'better' and it is something discernable in the real world, like record sales)

There are lots of times people use the logical syllogisms defined by the ancient greeks throughout the day without realizing it, it is what makes them able to function in the real world. But many more people don't use a lot of the logic that should be used, and get caught up in things merely cause a lot of other people are, because its something old, or something new, or something not a lot of people like, because it 'feels right', costs more, looks prettier, etc. etc. etc.

When you say " And forcing people to make their points the way you've learned to debate doesn't" It practically leaves me speechless. What way *should* people make points? Is it not right for us to ask for facts to back up opinions? If one can't argue well why they hold an opinion, they shouldn't be holding it!

Is someone says Jews run Hollywood, they should be expected to back up their opinion, if they cant, then they really have no business holding it, but can simply respond with 'I don't know why I think this, but I
do, and will continue to'

And I wonder if we made such light remarks of the plight of say, the Vietnamese immigrants and boat people from the Vietnam war, or the Cambodians under Pol pot, even going so far as to suggest that neither of these things happened, would you not be perturbed by this?

Michael

022704 - Passion of the Christ comments
Wow, I am away for a day and all this goes on...

Caroline said:
"Not to sound racist but Jews really do find any opportunity to complain they can, and this shows it well"

Hello, at least 6 million jews were killed in WWII, every few years all the arab tyrannies of the world band together and try to drive the jews into the sea, wiping them off the face of the earth. They have been oppressed and attacked throughout the modern era more than any other individual ethnic/religious group, the victims of the worst genocide known to human kind. Anti-Semitism is yet again on the rise in Europe as well. And absolutely no part of me is Jewish (far as I know).

I have no interest in seeing this film really, I have heard a lot of condemnation of it being too violent, and for those who think that (I know that complaint has not been specifically made on this forum) should go back and read the bible, it is quite violent.

If you don't have a bible, check out http://www.bricktestament.com as it retells the biblical stories with legos! It strange, as it graphically depicts (via lego figures) the violence in the bible (including circumcisions, murder, and rape)

Caroline said "I never said anything about the Jewish community being whiney every chance they get, I was just glad they felt what it was like to be the target of Hollywood media casting a negative light on their community."

You being Asian and knowing what it is like to have be negatively portrayed in Hollywood, I can't understand why you would wish that upon anyone. Are you a vengeful person? Wouldn't you prefer, instead, that Hollywood just get rid of typecasting?

Of course, that's impossible. Everything is typecast, and whoever is being portrayed is going to be offensive to someone in some manner. White males are the villains more than any one else in Hollywood tv/film. Almost every time a scientist is shown in Hollywood he is bent on taking over the world, a complete social buffoon with unkempt hair and broken glasses, or building some doomsday device. Ditto for inventors. Asian are always martial artists, Jews bankers, Whites the villains and the heroes, blacks the comedic relief, guns are never shown in the hands of a civilian under the use of self defense, the world is always about to end in some great catastrophe, usually caused by greedy men... on and on and on. No matter what you portray any person of any race/religion/nationality doing, its going to be considered prejudicial by someone. But all these stereotypes are not born of malice, but of ignorance of people reflected in the need for movie makers to make appealing movies. If most people were bothered by these things, they wouldn't be in movies.

We should all be opposed to any negative portrayal of any group in any movie / film. An easy thing to say, but much more difficult to act on. Try defining 'negative portrayel' and 'group' and youll find it not so easy. Movies will end up being androgenous silhouettes of human esque looking people with no particular qualities (else they'll be stereotyping humans!!)

Caroline, in that article you post, it says (in the red highlighted section)

" It is ignoble to ignore the wrongs done to others while loudly deploring those done to us."

Is that not what you are guilty of when you said

"I was just glad they felt what it was like to be the target of Hollywood media casting a negative light on their community."

It also says in that section

"In spite of Congressional testimony showing that these songs really did influence teenage behavior,"

Congressional testimony is NOT proof of anything!!! Its all special interest groups trying to scare congress into giving them taxpayer's money. Besides of which, shouldn't it have been the black community protesting this? Strangely enough, if a white guy kills a black guy, its all over the news, but a black guy killing a black guy? Hey, big deal, happens all the time, that's not news!

And had Time Warner, and the Zionist conspiracy, not allowed those CD's to be sold, they would been accused of conspiracies to silence black musicians and rap artists! It's a lose lose, whatever a Jew does, it's accused of being part of a conspiracy.

Prince Fan Group said - " Was Pearl Harbor anti-japanese?"

It wasn't anti-japanese *enough* Disney really toned down portraying the Japanese in any negative light in that film, in order not to offend its large Japanese market. Which is in itself an Orwellian re-writing of history, considering the Japanese were bent on taking over all of Asia. Just ask the Chinese about Nan-king and see what they thought of how the Japanese were portrayed in 'Pearl Harbor'

Michael

022404 - In America film comments
'In America'

I just returned from seeing the recently released film 'In America'

This is a wonderful movie that tells the story of a family of Irish immigrants leaving Canada and heading to New York. The father is hoping to find work as an actor, and the mother as a teacher. They have two young girls, wonderfully played by real life sisters. The elder sister demonstrates acting that I have not seen in a child since 'The City of Lost Children' and the whole family puts on a thoroughly engaging performance.

We are taken along for the ride as the family learns to cope with the death of a child they lost before the drastic move, not having any money, strange neighbors and a new pregnancy.

I enjoyed this film so much because it was a real, down to earth story of a family dealing with difficult circumstances. It did not set how to convey a message, or to have a moral, or to make a political point. The family snuck into the US, but no more attention was paid to it than any family who would try to do such a thing, though the simple fact that they had to made me angry at the immigration policy in the US. The mother got pregnant, and racked up quite a hospital bill, but no comments were made about them having or not having health insurance, the father got a job as a cab driver, an industry heavily regulated in New York. Both parents worked hard to try to make a better life for their children, while dealing with the passing of their son, but no complaints were made about not being able to make it. Their life might have been easier had the father desired after a more pragmatic job from the onset, and not focused wholly on acting.

In short though, this was a story that was told about family dealing with the way things are, and not trying to make a comment on how they should be. More than anything else though, for me, was that this movie again reminded us how terrible death is, and how random and unforgiving the real natural world can be.

It was not till the ending credits that the hint was made that this was a story based on real events, as the directors two sisters, who shared the first name of the sisters in the film were thanked as contributors to the film, and the film was dedicated their relative Frankie, who shared the first name with the son lost to the family in the film.

The narration of the story by the elder sister, Kristy, carries us trough the gut wrenching stages that we all go through when dealing with the death of a loved one, and trying to make sense of it against the beliefs we hold. While it was not clear what exactly the children and father's beliefs ended up being, it was clear that both wrestled dearly with the concept of death and God, at least some times, abandoning a belief in God.

I recommend everyone see this wonderful film, and bring some tissues.

Michael

022104 - Still denying reality
Angelus said - "Mike, it was your assumption that I denied your thoughts, ideologies and "objective reality". Thing is, and it's what I've been trying to get thru here, is that when at least two parties have different ideologies and one thinks his is "truth", it does become a waste of time. "

And what I have been trying to get through to you, is that it is not a waste of time when one acknowledges that there is a truth! Which you have not. Whatever our disagreement over a question, reality is the final arbiter, where I am wrong, I will learn, where my adversary is wrong, he will learn. Your comment presumes that since both of us claim to be speaking the truth, then there is no truth. But as I said, everyone has a right to an opinion, but not everyone's opinion is right. But you continue to dodge the question over and over again, is there, or is there not an objective reality that exists independently of your, or my, opinions? Yes or no? All questions have right and wrong answers when the questions are dependant upon reality.

"I never denied your views as being true. I could answer all those questions you asked for but it's pointless because the only known answers are and have been written for years on science books"

It is not true only for science, it is true for history as well. Did Hitler exterminate millions of jews, yes or no? Did Stalin starve millions of Russians, yes or no? Did I pay my taxes last year, yes or no? on and on, matters of empirical edification do not pertain only to things you imagine being discussed in science classes. Anything that is dependant upon reality can be answered scientifically, if it is not dependant on reality, it is a waste of time to discuss.

"Plus it would have never proved anything, it was just to satisfy your ego."

You have the most immature manner of debating, instead of admitting you are wrong, you take it as an opportunity to attack your opponent. You do not need to answer these questions to 'satisfy my ego' my ego has never been, and never will be dependant on something so insignificant in my life as your opinion. You need to answer these questions because your life depends on it, everyone's life does. Does reality exist? Yes or no? Will food fall into your mouth merely by looking into the sky and beckoning for it, yes or no? Given you previous comments about despising your own existence, and the existence of all humans for that matter, it seems you have already failed, you have all ready answered that question wrong. Yet you still eat, you still type away on your computer, you still go to whatever job you probably don't like, why? If your existence is vile, why continue to exist?

"My main argument was to tell you: if you're going to have a discussion with someone who has a different view on things, a view that differs from yours, don't dismiss it. "

I do not partake in discussion about how the earth is flat, about how my neighbor is a witch, or that blacks are inferior to whites. These are 'different views' but I will dismiss them, because they are wrong. No evidence supports them. They claim to be descriptions upon reality but are incorrect. I do not respect them because people hold them, those people who hold them lose respect. Just as those, like you, who abdicate reality, feel existence is vile, and can not even be made to answer a simple question.

"You have to validate someone's view and try to understand "why" it's that way for them."

I don't care why you hate blacks, like having sex with children, get pleasure in suffering, deny reality, dream of communist utopias, abandon technology, think medicine is evil, etc etc. You are wrong, plain and simple. (you as in whatever person holds any of these ridiculous beliefs) If a person bases their conclusions upon their collected knowledge, I can either demonstrate that their knowledge is incorrect or their logical propositions are wrong, and hopefully get them to change their mind, if they are reasonable people. Or I will change my mind, If I am wrong. If their minds are made up independent of reason, it matters not why they hold such beliefs, for they will indefinitely. Those who do not think by reason can not be conquered by it. I have no interest in holding opinions, it is a waste of time, I only want more and more accurate descriptions of reality, and the second I find some description to be incomplete or wrong, I abandon it as quickly as my fallible human mind will let me.

"Just because you filter it and doesn't fit your ideology doesn't make it false. It may be false for you and that's fine."

Reality makes it false, not my filter. Where I have sufficient knowledge about a subject to feel confident in understanding it, I will claim those who have less knowledge and have drawn different conclusions are WRONG. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no reality independent of our opinions, yet refuse to rebut simple objections to such a claim. You are wrong, reality is independent of our opinions, since neither your opinion nor mine can bother a flea.

"I understand that you can look at everything thru a microscope and break it down to it's atoms to determine how something functions. But know that 'that' isn't the ONLY truth, it's just ONE view."

This is the ridiculousness I am talking about. It isn't the 'ONLY' truth? HOW MANY TRUTHS ARE THERE? Is my desk made of atoms, YES OR NO? You confuse different views with different truths, there can surely be different views, every idiot can have an opinion on something, but there Is ONLY ONE TRUTH! And that is reality. Despite any ones opinion, you still must eat to stay alive. If you think that is an extreme example, read up on the breatharians, who think they can survive by breathing alone. It is their view, but it is wrong, and people have starved to death from being brainwashed by this nonsense, the same nonsense (a denial of reality) that you are preaching here.

"May be truth for you, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree with you."

There mere fact that you wantonly switch 'truth' where 'opinion' should be read is evidence of your complete disregards for reality. Whether or not some disagrees with me on what truth is, that does not mean that there is no truth. I may be wrong, after all. But truth is never wrong. I can't believe I even have to say this absurdity. Opinions are not reality!

"I'll feed your ego a bit and tell you that I acknowledge your intelligence."

If you make another comment as repugnant as this I will be more than happy to refuse to continue discussing anything with you. You disguise your conceits of points as insults. You dare imply I have an enlarged ego when you think that all of reality is a creation of yours!!!! Do not pretend to know me, I base my ego, my conception of myself on the same thing I base everything on, reality. Where I am intelligent in a subject, I acknowledge it, where I am ignorant; I acknowledge it and seek nothing but more knowledge, While you claim that whatever opinion you hold, regardless of what knowledge or lack there of it is based on, is as accurate a description of reality as mine, or anyone elses, no matter what they know. And you imply that MY ego is over inflated!!!

I am an Aristotelian eudaemonist, and as such follow closely Aristotle's ideals. Aristotle argued that ones conception of oneself should be based on a 'reverent love for the truth' and the term he used for ego was 'megalopsukea' which roughly translates to 'GREATSOULDNDESS' Aristotle argued that all virtues are finding a balance between extremes, having the right amount of courage is a balance between wimpishness and brazenly rushing into battles, being noble is a balance between being too selfish and too selfless. Similarly, ego is finding a balance between thinking too little of oneself, and thinking too highly of oneself, and the only way to find that balance is to have an accurate perception of oneself, that is, one based on REALITY! So if you deny the existence of reality, what do you base your conception of yourself on?

"You know a lot, they taught you well. Still, some of us don't agree being smart means knowing all you learned and what to think."

Perhaps, instead of spouting nonsense like this, you should read what Aristotle had to say about 'wisdom'

"If you dropped this part of the subject in the forum, let's move on. Otherwise, if you continue, I will too."

I have no interest in continuing unless you answer the questions I have repeatedly posed and you stop hiding insults in your responses, such as this comment about 'feeding my ego'

Michael

022004 - Bipartisanship, False Dichotomies, and Libertarianism
Caroline said - " "Also, you say that you're pro-nobody, but from your words, I get the feeling that you are Pro-Replubican."

I think you should try to shy away from using such terminology. I am not 'Pro-Republican' as that implies I endorse absolutely every republican person / ideal. Are you 'Pro-Democrat' Do you endorse absolutely everything democrats endorse? John Edwards opposed NAFTA, while John Kerry endorsed it, you hope to see 'anybody but Bush' in office, but these two stances are quite ideologically opposed and will lead the world into very different scenarios. Democrats are now set to re-instate the draft. Being 23, you might well be drafted to fight in a war you oppose. Do you support the draft?

If there is not a single thing you do not like about democrats, you might want to think about why you have the party affiliation you do (same of course goes for republicans). Democrats imagine all republicans to be greedy evil bastards, and republicans imagine democrats to be moral-less lazy godless commies, or whatever. To imagine that all the complexities of operating and running a nation state can be narrowed into two simple categories is absurd! This is a false dichotomy!

I have no doubt the ideals and your 'pro democrat' stance (if you consider yourself to be) is born of your compassion and desire to see the world, and all people in it live better lives. But this is the same ideal that drives republicans! It drives anarcho-socialists and communists as well! However, only one way is the correct way, and neither solely democrats or solely republicans actions will make the world a better place while protecting the rights of individuals. Much more harm has been done in the world from good intentions + ignorance than from malice + intelligence, people in the latter category are at least encumbered by guilt, while those in the former can justify anything they do by saying 'I was just trying to help' Some of the former category are not even encumbered by the consequences in the real world of their actions, such as Angelus, who simply deny there is any objective reality.

I should have hoped that from my words you would have come to consider me pro-freedom and pro-progress. There are a million individual points of contention between democrats and republicans, and each point of contention has a right answer that is dependant on the conditions of the question and the definitions of the words in the question, and a million wrong answers. Objectively considering each point of contention and then determining a right answer has led me to the libertarian party, which are referred to as classical liberals in Europe. Roughly speaking, they probably endorse 1/3rd of the answers of the democrats, and 1/3rd of the republicans, and 1/3rd that neither party cares to endorse (such as gay marriage, ending the war on drugs, etc)

Perpetuating the false dichotomy of either democrats or republicans serves to re-enforce that very same categorization, and both parties organize the political structure in America to make it very difficult for any other party to gain stature. Additionally both parties will oppose good ideas of the other parties *solely* because they originate from the other party, and if the good idea of the other party was implemented, then more people might like the other party more. Thus this mentality from both parties that absolutely everything the other party endorses is absolutely wrong.

Regards,

Michael

021904 - Caroline and Vietnam
Caroline said "Sometimes, I wonder if the motives of America coming in to "help" S. Vietnam were completely altruistic. Also, have you considered that America's involvement may have be the very factor resulting in such high genocide rates? Sometimes, I wonder if America hadn't gotten themselves involved at all, then the South probably would have lost all the same, but there wouldn't have been such a backlash of genocide committed against the people."

Let me answer that question for you, they certainly were not altruistic! Nor do they need to be. America was fighting the expansion of the most murderous political force the world has ever since, by this time Soviet Stalinism and client states had killed more than 70 million people. That Vietnam was caught in the middle was the fault of Ho Chi Minh and the Soviet Union, not the United States.

You make a reasonable point, but imagine what it would be like now had the South prevailed? The south was able to successfully fend of the advances of the north for two years after the US Withdrawal from the region. With only minor help, they could have staved off the north indefinitely. Look at North Korea and South Korea, where almost an identical situation occurred. Both countries had similar climates, cultures, and populations when the communist north invaded the south, backed this time by Mao's communists, who were backed by Stalin. Today North Korea is *the worst* country on earth, with more than two million people starving to death in the last few years while factories and fields rust and rot, with artillery permanently pointed at Seoul, and the largest standing army in the world. While South Korea is freer and more wealthy than the majority of countries in the world now, even though at the time it was headed by a pretty bad dictator. In 1970, South Vietnam was the 3rd largest rice exporter in the world, today the country as a whole imports rice.

But everywhere Stalinist communism took over a country massive deaths resulted, and the genocides had all ready begun even before the US was involved in the war. By 1955, Ho Chi Minh's land reforms had all ready killed nearly 50,000 people in the north, mostly peasants. I have a web page entitled 'Free Vietnam' here is a pertinent excerpt from it

"With the establishment of the communist government in the North in 1954, the new power of the state allowed these atrocities to widen in scope. The lower class peasants were instructed to choose which of their fellow villagers were to be considered landlords, and to subsequently kill them. Amazingly, the central government laid down a death quota- 5 percent of the population of each village were to be killed. From 1953-1956, an estimated 150,000 people were killed in this manner. Not surprisingly, some peasants rebelled, these campaigns were brutally suppressed, at an estimated cost of an additional 10,000 lives."

http://www.matus1976.com/politics/vietnam/free_vietnam.htm

Death Quotas! The genocide was all ready in progress, it was merely delayed by the US's involvement. Had the US stayed involved and not abandoned the entire Indochina region, the massacres in Vietnam, the hundreds of thousands of boat people drowning, and the Cambodian genocide would have been prevented, in all likelihood, with very little effort.

From R.J. Rummels Power Kills site, you see

Vietnamese Death Toll (excluding war dead): Total 1945-1987 1,813,000
Democide by (North) Vietnam: Total 1945-1987 1,669,000
Domestic 1945-1987: 944,000 Foreign 1945-1987: 725,000
In South Vietnam 1954-1975: 164,000
In Cambodia 970-1987: 461,000
In Laos 1975-1987: 87,000

**Notice most of the deaths were in the NORTH!!!**

"Also, you say that you're pro-nobody, but from your words, I get the feeling that you are Pro-Replubican."

Yes, in this instance I am pro-republican, but on many other I am pro-democratic. I am an atheist and a humanist, so I despise conservatives infiltrating the government with religion, yet democrats have religions of their own, namely paternalism, environmentalism, relativism and nihilism, even though they pretend to support individual civil liberties, not a single democratic presidential candidate will be making gay marriages legal. As Roy has noted, they also plan on re-instituting the draft.

Amazingly, the parties have seem to swapped as of late, with 'tax and spend' democrats now vocally criticizing the massive expenditures of the Bush administration and 'small govt' republicans coming up with new programs every week. To be fair, 9/11 and homeland security definitely need some funds, but I have no interest in paying 1.9 billion for religious people's marriage counseling in the south in Bush's effort to revitalize the marriage institution. And now the democrats call for a draft! The very same democrats that argued so vehemently to abolish it during the Vietnam war! Both parties adamantly support agricultural subsidies, which keep the rest of the world poor, and pay people not to work. Republicans love corporate welfare, and democrats love bribing poor people with money to get them to vote for em, social welfare. The middle class working man has no one working in his best interest. But all in all, this particular election for me comes down to the people in Iraq, who democrats are ready to abandon to slaughter, while republicans will at least wait six months to abandon them, and hopefully come to their senses a little bit in those six months. Four years later, I will probably vote democratic, though not if Hillary Clinton runs, which it seems she is preparing for. Because after four years Iraq will likely be a much stabler region. For the record, I quite liked Wesley Clark.

" And I don't know what to think or do about Vietnam's condition today, but I know how I feel....very, very sad. When my brother and his gf went back to Vietnam 1-2yrs ago, he brought back pictures and stories of how my dad's side is living back there, it made me cry and feel so spoiled w/what I'm used to having here. Seriously, most rural parts barely have electricty and only for certain hours, almost none have running water or toilets. While they were there, I sent back $4k of my hard-earned money to give to my relatives still back there."

I know, its depressing, and most people couldn't care less. The government is slowly initiating market reforms, but after Saigon (er, Ho chi minh city) had its per capita income sky rocket, the govt cut back on reforms saying they were 'too wealthy' My friend Julie is half Vietnamese, and we recently got to watch the home video of her mother returning to Vietnam. Most of it was in Saigon, and I don't think they left the city. Siagon was nice, but that's like judging the US by touring only Fairfield county in CT (the wealthiest county in the country AFAIK) The standard of living today is worse than it was in 1975, its ridiculous. But what can we do? We have re-opened trade relations with them, but the Govt has to change, it has to respect individual civil liberties, property rights, markets, and the voice of the people. My friend jokes that if he becomes president, the first thing he will do is fabricate evidence of WMD in Vietnam. It seems sadly in many cases that the best thing that can happen to a non-west country in the world is to be invaded and conquered by the US.

Right now writing and publishing an article about Democracy will get you thrown in Jail. Vietnam has some of the most gorgeous scenery in the world, and today could have been the tourist hot spot of Indochina, had the North not won. Some 60% of the income in Vietnam is specifically from relatives sending money back to family members. Note that their govt takes a significant portion of that money you send back. A few weeks ago I met the daughter of a retired 3 star general of the Vietcong, she was married to a friend of my friends family. They just got back from a trip to Vietnam, and the husband, a white male American marine could not speak more highly of it.

Apparently once they arrived in the airport the security personal recognized the wife and immediately escorted them to another room where nearly 100 armed soldiers lined the walls, where the womens father standing in the middle of the room, there just to greet her daughter! In a country where the wrong look to the wrong person who knows the right people could get you indefinitely imprisoned or 'disappeared', its no doubt they were treated very well during their visit.

The Husband spoke highly of his trip and encouraged us to visit. As it turned out I had just purchased a travel guide that day as I had been invited by my friend Will, who inspired my interest in Vietnam with a long lunchtime lecture one day ages ago, and their (our mutual friend now) Julie to go to Vietnam with them. The trip would be around march of next year. I am still not sure I can go, I can afford it, and I can get the time off no problem (I work from home) but publishing an essay and many posts in many forums about how terrible and murderous and oppressive the Vietnamese communist rulers are, I am worried about going. I think it unlikely something would happen, but you never know with communist countries, they are closed and the outside world knows little of their inner operations.

" But that's why I think I'm so adamant about racism and human rights here in America. Suffering and living a hard life because you are poor is nothing compared to living a hard life and having mental anguish for being belittled, ostracized, patronized, and discriminated against for not being the same race/culture as the majority population. We are trying to bring more and more of our relatives here to America but thanks to the Republicans, it becomes harder and harder to do so"

You make good points, and like I said, I despise many things that republicans do. But I don't think either party has a good track record on race, the Democrats have kept black people boor and broken up their families with the cyclical welfare institution they have wrought, basically to keep them voting democratic, yet it was Nixon that finally desegregated the South. It was southern white democrats that drove the racial divide in the south for so long. The Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharptons of the black world have done more disservice to blacks, and to the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr, than any republicans have.

But hiring quotas and affirmative action are racist as well (I should note that affirmative action *only* applies to blacks, not to any other minorities!) Any law that *recognizes* a race is racist by definition.

Both parties have terrible track records on immigration, democrats content to keep immigrates out to 'keep them from taking our jobs' with republicans content to let em sneak in but not give them any legal protection.

Anyway, I have babbled enough. I only hope I can safely visit Vietnam one day, and Cambodia, and Iraq, and North Korea, and the people in this countries are given the opportunity to live decent lives with modern technology and basic civil liberties.

Some links for everyone to enjoy

http://www.ykien.net/ - Human Rights Watch

http://www.danchu.net/ - Democracy for Vietnam

http://www.vnhrnet.org/ - Vietnam Human Rights Watch (San Diego, US)

http://www.clandestineradio.com/intel/vietnam.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ - Freedom House

Regards,

Michael

021904 - Caroline's Anti-Bush rhetorhic
I will take a moment to comment on some of these points. First of all though, let me relay that I am not a democrat or a republican, I despise both parties for different reasons.

"After taking-off the entire month of August 2001, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history"

I think it truly unfair to blame entirely Bush for 9/11, or even Clinton for that matter. Americans in general did not care about radical Islam, it was not on the radar. Was it for anyone here before 9/11? Was it a major blip, even after the first world trade center bombings, which were also attributed to Bin Laden? The cause of 9/11 was the rampant ignorance present in the American population, and the fact that political parties reflect that ignorance. Such is the major failing point of a democracy, as Jefferson himself pointed out. Clinton ignored a genocide in Somalia and did little to better the world regarding Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, or Vietnam, the worse countries of the world.

" I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD. "

Caroline, do you think it fair to label a tactical bunker buster nuke a 'weapon of mass destruction'? These are low yield nukes with directed energy blasts, primarily for obliterating deep cement bunkers, which civilians would not be hiding in. Additionally, the major problem with 'WMD's' is not their existence, it's when they are controlled by people who are not responsible for their actions to the people they govern. While Bush might get away with being AWOL during Vietnam, or drunken driving in Maine, he would NEVER get away with detonating a nuclear weapon over a civilian population.

" I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends and the CIA, where, coincidentally, my daddy used to lead."

I supported the invasion of Iraq from the onset, though not primarily because of WMD concerns. I supported it because Saddam was a murderous bastard, killed nearly 300,000 people in the past 30 years, was oppressive and brutal, and controlled a good portion of the worlds oil supply, which, being a murderous tyrant, he was content to use for murder and tyranny.

However, I do not condone the way this was carried out, and is being carried out. But we have no freed more than 20 million people from an oppressive murderous tyrant, and no democratic elected to office would have done any such thing.

The fact is, the administration had to use the WMD argument to justify the intervention to the American people, whose predominant attitude is 'hey, he's killing his own people, not ours, so its none of our business' As is the case throughout history, the best blow that can be dealt at any time against an enemy should be. North Korea is a far worse country, but militarily intervening their would be much more difficult and have much greater consequences. The rise of radical fundamentalist statism must be stopped before individuals have the capacity to create and carryout plans that will result in millions of deaths. Right now, rogue states and really wealthy individuals must sponsor development of any WMD and its deployment, 50 years ago only the worlds superpowers could do it. A few decades from now, one motivated intelligent individual may be able to construct a weapon of terrible consequences. The region of the world of oppressive Arab states is a terrorist breeding ground, and the effort to change it had to start somewhere.

If Bush came on TV and said we must oust Saddam because he is a murderous tyrant, would you have supported it? If not, I wonder what you suggest be done about these issues. Being of Vietnamese descent, you know closer than many people the suffering endured under the hands of brutal leaders. Vietnam today is consider by Freedomhouse to be one of the ten worst countries in the world, it's brutally poor and oppressed. It's GDP per capita is *still* below that of what is was in 1974 in the South. Saddam Hussiens Iraq was one of the top 5 worse countries in the world. What should be done about these murderous tyrants?

" In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month, leaving us in higher than ever unemployment."

To be fair, democrat or republican, 9/11 would have still occurred and would have still absolutely devastated the economy, especially travel and tourism related industries. To blame this solely on Bush is absurd. Presidents are always given too much credit for economic gain and blamed to much for economic down turn. 'Higher than ever unemployment'? Is it higher than the depression? Which, incidentally, occurred shortly after the first minimum wage act was passed? Are we talking real numbers or percentages?

"I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period."

Again, cmon, if any one deserves credit for this its Osama Bin Laden.

" I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done. "

Is that price adjusted for inflation? I am sure you are familiar with that, there is no possible way that any gas price during the Bush administration was higher, in absolute dollars, then gas prices during carters price controls, or 50, or 75 years ago, when a massive oil infrastructure was not present. When taking inflation into account, gas prices are lower than they have ever been and continue to decline.

" I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of humankind."

And that's really sad, and proves the point that most people care about their ideologies over reality or even the life of other people (as angelus so eloquently demonstrates) The entire western world should take a stand against murderous tyrannies, theocracies, dictatorships, and communist countries. The western world is the freest, richest, and most militarily powerful part of the world, yet it's people have an 'I've got mine screw you' attitude that disturbs me greatly. Many people protested Bush purely because he is a republican, and for no better reason than that. Many people protested his arguments and efforts to free more than 20 million people in one of the worst places in the world. Many people referred to, and still do, Bush as Hitler, while never comparing the most murderous dictator alive today, who even had a twisted little mustache that dictators seem to prefer, to Hitler. Many of the protests in France, Britain, and the US were organized by the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition, which is nothing less than a front for the workers world party, and world wide communist organization. Conspiracy theory? Don't think so, take a look at some of the footage from these protests, or better yet, attend them and see for yourself. Or Attend an ANSWER conference, and you'll see what I mean.

" I attacked and overtook two countries, promised to rebuild them and have not yet done so."

First of all, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were countries, they were nothing more than Areas Ruled by Thugs. The only legitimate countries are ones that are made up of the collective will of the people being governed, Iraq was governed by Saddam's will and Saddam's will alone. Despite the current worlds trend to refer to these areas as countries, they are nothing of the sort. Merely calling them that gives them credibility amongst people who assume that by embracing an effect one can acquire the cause. North Korea, for instance, is actually called 'The Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea' There is nothing democratic about it. Neither of these were 'sovereign' nations, and if you think so, I challenge you to argue what makes a country legitimate. Second of all, rebuilding a country takes time, lets be realistic here.

" I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her"

Show me a poor democratic congressman or president, and I'll give you my house.

" I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community"

Iraq was not a sovereign nation. It should not be present at the UN, nor should any non-democratic 'country'. This is also the same UN, I should note, and I would think you might find interesting, that turned more than a million Vietnamese refugees who fled the communist take over of the south BACK OVER TO THE VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT, I'll give you one guess what happened to them. This is also the same UN that put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission, whose charter was written by Alger Hiss, a known Communist spy and ardent Stalinistic communism supporter, It is the same UN that has presided over a worldwide ban of DDT, which has led to the death of 30 million people.

"I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission."

A commission headed by Libya, a known terrorist sponsoring state. The UN is the single more regressive power in the world today, its own potential was crippled by allowing non-free countries to participate.

"I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant."

As it should be. The UN was used by Bush as it should have been, to try to talk reason and to get support for doing something that should have been done ten years ago. The UN security council voted unanimously for 'serious consequences' to come the Iraq for violating many conditions of the 1994 ends to Desert Storm. What were those consequences? More votes and debating apparently, while the Iraqi people were imprisoned, raped, tortured, brutalized and oppressed. Given the above comments I made on the UN, do you still hold so high an opinion of it?

"possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in world history."

Or the largest failure of common sense by the rest of the world.

"I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years."

Here I am happy to criticize Bush. Any increase in hostility in the Israel Palestine conflict lies solely on Arafat, who wants nothing less than to be his own dictator of his own murderous oppressive Arab state (hey, so many other Arabs get to be murderous dictators, why can't he!) Bush fails to draw a clear moral distinction between these two parties, Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, it treats Arabs AND Palestinians many times better than ANY OTHER ARAB nation, yet the left of the western world care little. It seems its ok for Arab's to brutalize, murder, and oppress other Arabs, but it is INTOLLERABLE for a jew to do it!

"I am the first president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea."

Huh?

"I failed to capture Saddam Hussein."

I guess this is a bit outdated?

Again, while I am no ardent Republican, Democrats are intent on abandoning the middle east to the very terrorists that are trying to undermine confidence in the operation. This will be a death sentence to millions of Iraqis, and as such in no possible way could I in good conscience vote for any democrat.

Think about it this way, even if the many claims in this list above are true, and not utterly oversimplified biased comments on complex and intricate issues, you will be voting for more jobs at the cost of millions of Iraqi deaths or less jobs (if you believe the Bush's administrations actions are causing job loss) and saving millions of lives in the middle east, and supporting the creation of a stable democracy in the last region of the world to lag behind.

Of course, even the Bush administration doesn't want to stay very long, I am worried that a hasty withdrawal will cause many problems, if not create a situation worse than before. But the only reason the Bush administration is adamant on early withdrawal is because so many Americans oppose being there in the first place, and oppose staying there.

I want to remind everyone of the last time the Americans fought for a just cause (although ineptly) only to have a democrats abandon those people. That was in Vietnam, where more Vietnamese were killed in the six months following U.S. withdrawal then were killed in the entire war, and then the communists overtook Cambodia, which was abandoned in the same act that Vietnam was, and caused the greatest genocide as a percentage of population the world has ever seen.

History certainly has some important lessons to teach.

Regards,

Michael

021704 - Denying reality still and the color blind are so devoid of color...
I said: "Not a surprising statement coming from someone who embraces new age mysticism such as yourself."

Angelus said: "I guess I understand why you can't grasp my views. There is no language that can come close to describing it."

If you can't describe your views, how do you even know what they are? But you continue to be contradictory, you have all ready described your views in depth, you think existence is vile, you think that intelligence life, humans, are a blemish on a perfect universe devoid of thought. You think your opinions create reality, and that there is no such thing as truth. That I can not grasp why you hold these opinions is not because you have difficulty describing them, it is because you can not justify them, because they are not based on logic.

I said: "If it is so horrible [being human], then why are you still here?"

Angelus said: "If you're doing to dismiss my views, should I even answer?"

You assert that existence is horrible, yet you continue to exist. You hope humanity all dies, but you are human, yet you have not killed yourself. You are full of contradictions. I am only trying to understand how on one hand you can be perfectly fine proclaiming A is B, and on the other claim C is B, yet refuse to acknowledge A = C. It is a contradiction, and that you hold such ideas begs me to try to understand that. The most likely explanation is that your thought process is simply not rational or logical, and since you espouse the virtue of discussions devoid of logic, I think this seems to be a correct description of you. This reminds me of another Rand quote I like...

"No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the sum of his knowledge." - Ayn Rand

Angelus said: " I guess I'm the Anti-Christ himself... you never know. ;)"

You could be, but being a-religious, I wouldn't care, I was speaking metaphorically. I would call your ideals antithetical to reason, progress, and survival. None of these seem a stretch, since you denounce reason, truth, objectivity and existence.

Angelus said: " The Crusades slaughtered millions of people, for what reason? That's still being debated. But debating it really won't do much good because you can come to your conclusion and it will conflict to someone else's way of thinking."

For no good reason, most things that kill a lot of people are for no good reason whatever. That Nazi extermination of the Jews? 12 million. Soviet / Mao communism 170 million. The ban on DDT, 30 million. Irrational fear of Nuclear reactors, 300 million or more early deaths.

Historical questions do have factual answers when evidence exists to support them. The purpose of debate is to determine the validity of facts, by all this being part of the discourse of logic I expect you to not understand. Answering historical questions with evidence happens to be another project of mine, so do not begin to think I am unfamiliar with this irrational line of reasoning. History was real, and one set of events happened, history is not subject to interpretation or opinion. Hitler did actually exterminate 6 million jews, though the number is debatable within a few 10 thousand, the evidence is clear and undeniable. Simply because people deny it happens doesn't not wipe its occurrence from the historical track record of the universe.

Angelus said: " Just like you do in this forum, you might think your view on the Crusades are right and the other person is wrong, and that other person might think HE'S right and YOU'RE wrong"

Ah, but we are talking about things much more tangible and more easy to determine than difficult historical questions of the distant past where little evidence remains. Shall we debate on how much this book in my hand weighs? Does it have no objective weight until you and I agree on one?

Angelus said: " Every one's view is valid"

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but not everyones opinion is right. What is your opinion of the nature of magnetism? The evolution of life? The reason why electrons feel a force perpendicular to an external magnetic and to the direction of their travel? What is your opinion on the DIRECTION of that force? Is it as valid as mine, or as a physicists who is leering over the bubble chamber photos from a particular accelerator?

As is your usual tactic, you will ignore these points and revert back to something that seems to you to be an unanswerable question where everyone's opinion is valid. The only questions of this nature are ones that have no pertinence to reality, and thus are a waste of time to discuss. Hence my example of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin this, btw, was quite the raging debate amongst theologians during the middle ages.

Is your opinion of the weight of this book in my hand as valid as my opinion? Yes or no? Does this book have weight independent of your or my opinion, yes or no? These are not difficult questions angelus, why do you avoid answering them?

Angelus said " why does one have the desire for his view to be truth?"

Because one view is. I note you have made no objections to my comments on truth in relation to philosophy of science, nor facts in relation to the physical sciences. You merely repeat the same question as before. Angelus, does an objective reality exist, yes or no? If not, convince me of it! I am open to learning such startling news. However, I imagine it would be difficult to convince me, objectively, that no objective reality exists!!! (I hope you can see why by merely reading that sentence again)

Angelus said: "Many will shine a different light on anything. Therefore they see what's being projected according to their "light"."

Nevertheless, the object reflecting the light is real, which is why it is reflecting the light in the first place. Your objections are based on an ignorance of rudimentary philosophy and philosophy of science knowledge. Instead of asking yourself why we might believe an objective reality to exist when all knowledge must be filtered through subjective means (us) you say that since all knowledge must be filtered through subjective means than all knowledge must be subjective, this is not true!!!

Angelus said: " It's pointless to argue that something is Red to a person who'se colour blind."

But is it pointless for me to argue what is red to a person who can see color? Red, in fact, is perceived in color blind people, red is a creation of the brain and is a label placed on light of a particular wavelength, 650 nm to be exact, color blind individuals lack the ability to distinguish red frequency from green frequencies because particular proteins are associated with this particular frequencies. Color blind people still see red!!! It is just not placed on areas of their eyes where other people see light at 650 nm. Wanna know how we know this? Objective tests!

It is quite possible (though unlikely) that most people's brains associate the perceived color of red with completely different frequencies. In that, there is no way to know, since both people will point at the same frequency of light reflected off an object and call it red. However, both people will always point to that same frequency and call it the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what label their brain puts on it. Its still red.

Color blind people (some of them, there are different types) have an advantages over normal seeing people when it comes to seeing camouflaged individuals. Normal camouflage does not work quite as well against a color blind persons eyes.

Angelus said " In his perspective, he'll call YOU colour blind. Who's right? The majority who are considered to have "normal vision"?"

See, another example of you yapping about something you apparently know little about. He may claim I am 'color blind' but any objective test will show that I arrange a spectrum of colored pieces of paper in an order of increasing frequency when asked, and he will sometimes mix the green and red (again, depending on the type of color-blinded ness) Yet again, your attempt to show that there is no such thing as an objective reality is ignorant of the subject your are speaking on. I have a feeling that your argument was based on the fact that 'color blind' is labeled misleading as such.

People who are color blind can still see what we call 'color' In fact, most animals that are normally considered 'color blind' like cats and dogs, probably see colors as well. Their retinas lack the cones needed to differentiate light of different frequencies (they are called cones because the proteins are stacked like cones, and farther ones smaller and responding to higher frequencies, the deeper ones larger and responding to lower frequencies of light) however, their rods can certainly respond to light intensity, and place any arbitrary label of color on those intensities. Thus a grey shadow next to a slight darker grey animal in our eyes may appear to be a bright pink animal next to a dark blue shadow in theirs. I personally know of no test done to confirm this but it would certainly create a striking evolutionary adaptation over straight brightness based grey vision, and would probably be a simple test to perform.

Angelus said: "As long as what's true for you works for you, and what's true for them works for them, making your argument as truth is just insulting. You'll just end up with constant conflict."

Unless we simply both agree that reality exists independently of either of us, and simple tests show repeatedly that he fails to separate two colored pieces of paper that I can separate readily. As I noted, he sees other colors differently, so who is 'blind' is a completely misleading label, but sufficient for its purposes.

I came to all these conclusions after practically interrogating a friend of a friend whom I found out was colorblind. I was quite interested to know all the details possible.

Michael

021704 - Zoolander saving the world
Zoolander said:
question: instead of discussing problems and going no where....what can someone do today, right now...to make it better for 'mankind'?

At the risk of being accused of talking to much or liking to hear myself talk, I suggest taking a look at my attempt to answer this very same question for myself (and anyone interested)

http://www.matus1976.com/politics/save_world_2.htm

This is still a work in progress, and I have not yet drawn the conclusions. I plan on rating things we can do by the likely hood of accomplishing them, the suffering they relieve, the effort required to accomplish them, etc. As this is a work in progress, ignore grammatical errors. I am still at the stage of creating the logical foundations for my arguments.

Michael

021704 - Facts are opinions, Denying reality
Angelus said - " get the sense that just because MY view doesn't meet eye-to-eye with yours, you dismiss it"

I dismiss your view because it is wrong, plain and simple.

" because you think a discussion has to be reasonable"

What kind of discussion would you prefer to have? An 'unreasonable' one? Any non-reasonable discussion is a waste of time. Shall we argue about how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin?

" What dismisses my ideology and validates yours? Facts? Facts are merely thoughts and/or opinions that people agreed to as being truth, or holding some sort of truth."

Not a surprising statement coming from someone who embraces new age mysticism such as yourself. If facts are merely thoughts and opinions, then how is it that when you type your text appears on a screen, where an electron beams path is deflected by a magnetic field generated by an electric current running through a coil of wire to hit a clump of phosphor atoms where promptly the outer electron energy level is raised, releasing a photon that hits your retina, unfolds and refolds a protein, which then promptly fits into a new receptor, sending a signal to your brain that you see a white spec here or there.

Are these opinions? Does your computer work only because you believe it to? Do you breathe AIR only because you believe it helps you to live (try not breathing) do you eat only because it is your opinion that you need to, try having the opinion that you do not need food or water, that gravity does not exist, that electron paths do not curve in magnetic fields, that a spark in a cloud of gas and air burns, propelling your car forward, that a high pressured steam turns turbines to generate the electricity, from hundreds of miles away, that, according to 'facts' run your computer.

Do you require food to live, yes or no? Is that a fact? Yes or no?

"But what is truth? Not even the most intelligent person in the world can tell you what truth really is"

And even someone with the most rudimentary understanding of philosophy of science will tell you that while no one can be absolutely sure what the 'truth' is, we are getting closer and closer to it. As Carl Sagan said, we are approaching the truest description of reality asymptotically. We may never reach it, and we may never know if we did reach it, our formulas would just more and more accurately predict and describe reality.

Is it the truth that you require food to survive, yes or no?

" I'm glad the "real world" doesn't match my ideology. Reality is merely your interpretation of the world that is never free from the limitations of your own perspective. In other words, it's what you make of it."

Bullshit, this is the kind of unreasonable stuff I'm talking about. Reality is my own interpretation of the world? Then why do every single one of us, every human and living being on this planet require the same things to live? Do we all 'happen' to interpret reality the same way, from bacteria to elephants? Reality exists independently of your, or my, opinions of it. It does not change from day to day. Your thoughts and opinions alone are impotent to alter the course of a single speck of dust in the entire universe. Your mantras, prayers, and flights of fancy will do nothing to end starvation, free the 20 million people who live in North Korea, or the 20 million that live in Vietnam, both countries peoples living in brutal oppressive hell holes, while you sit here in front of your fancy computer in a heated comfortable house with a car, and probably a pet or two, complaining that there is no reality. Tell that to people getting raped, murdered, tortured, beaten, people who see their children starve to death, people who get diseases that turn their brain to mush, organs to stew, and memories to ash.

The kind of ideology you hold is the very reason this suffering exists in the world. Your thoughts are the anti Christ of reason, progress, and an end to suffering.

" If you want to have a discussion, open up to other ideologies other than your own. If you don't, you're just hearing yourself talk."

And what would our discussion be about when there are no facts and no reason to use as a foundation for discussion? *That* is nothing more than just hearing ourselves talk, and it is a waste of time. I have no desire to listen to you proclaim that I am a figment of your imagination, that none of us really exist, and how could we know, etc. etc.

" But I'm flattered I've strucken a chord in you to actually respond in such a way that you did. To actually give me the power to influence you. I'm touched. :) "

Because I value my existence, as you do not, and you threaten it. I do not consider your threat significant at the moment, as thankfully you abandond reality, and thus could not use any 'facts' or 'opinions' to build any devices to harm me. Alas, you are using a computer, how is it again you manage to believe that no facts exist while arguing it over your computer? Shall you next argue that there are no absolutes (no doubt not realizing your are stating one) 'Influence' me? Don't flatter yourself. There is still a real world, and should a rock fall on your foot, it will still break your toe, regardless of what you or I believe, and should I trip on the ice outside my door, which still freezes at 0C, and still has a low coefficient of friction, and land of my arm wrong, it will still break my wrist, still cause a compound fracture, and still bleed, whatever nonsense you believe.

You say we talk to much, you think too little.

Yet in all this you did not even answer my simple questions!

You said "I hope the human race dies real soon" and you are part of the human race, so why do you go on existing when you hope that you die real soon? How soon do you hope to die? Or do you just conveniently hope the human race ends after YOU get a chance to live a long life? What are you waiting for?

You also said "Being human is horrible. I don't know why I signed up for this gig."

If it is so horrible, then why are you still here? As one of my intellectual inspirations Ayn Rand said 'An idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy' In fact, it is indistinguishable from not existing at all. So either you think being human is horrible and you hope we all die soon (including you) or you do not. Let's see it Angelus, actions speak louder than words, so the saying goes. Let's see you express your ideas in physical action, or finally renounce them as the farce they are.

Michael

021704 - "We consume all the natural resources, pollute the earth..."
Joe said - "We consume all the natural resources, pollute the earth, and create destructive nuclear weapons"

Then why is it that all natural resources are less expensive than ever before if we are 'running out of them' If you chart the number of deaths from war it steadily climbed throughout history, peaking in WWII at tens of millions, yet after 1945, that number plummeted. Why is that? In the Iraq war, nearly every single death is headline news. More people were lost in the first 10 seconds of the Normandy invasion then in the entire Iraq war. Nuclear weapons have not been all bad, they kept the world from entering yet another war of attrition. Imagine such a war between the Soviet union and its client states and the entire western world in a world absent of nuclear weapons, deaths would have likely been nearer to 100 million. Nuclear weapons kept the conflicts limited and much more behind the scenes.

Joe said - "It's only a matter of time before our existence will end. It's a slow but sure process"

Mind if I take a look at the crystal ball you have access to? Why then are there more democracies than ever before in the world, and no two democracies have ever been at war with one another, and no democracy has ever started a war. Why are there more free people than ever before, and more people living longer than ever before?

Joe said - "we need to find solutions to solve the problems."

But we must objectively identify problems first. Right now the ban on DDT has killed nearly 30 million people since 1960, DDT is not carcinogenic and has negligible environmental affects, such was even admitted by the UN council that decided to ban it ANYWAY.

The WHO estimates that 3 million people die every year from the inhalation of the by products of the combustion of fossil fuels. More radioactive uranium is released INTO THE AIR in one coal burning plant that is burned in an average nuclear reactor every year. Yet nuclear power is still demonized, while France quietly gets 80% of its power from it, and coal plants poison and kill us all slowly.

Michael

020904 - Environmentalism is the new religion of the secular west, Speech by Michael Crichton

Take the time to read this phenomenal speech given by popular novelist Michael Chricton. I have been a big fan of his for a while, despite the repetitive theme of his books, they tend to get some interesting science in them. In this speech he suggests environmentalism is the new religion of the secular west, complete with its blissful Eden (people in tune with nature, noble savages, etc) Its wanton disregard for facts in the wake of 'True Believers', Salvation (sustainability) and, of course with any religion, lots of suffering and death (DDT Ban). - Michael Dickey

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club

by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003

From - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does inbdeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call "the force of nature." They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there---though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much. [Michael Crichton]

020804 - Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton
-----Original Message-----
From: Matus
To: eudaemonists
Subject: [eudaemonists] FW: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton

Forwading from the extropy list, another good article/speech by chricton. Upon checking his website I found this

"I'm pleased that the speeches that I have given this year on aspects of the environment have provoked interest and discussion, as they were intended to do. Many of you have written with questions, or asking for further elaboration of my views. I have answered many of you, particularly those who work in environmental science.

But I want to finish my next book, which concerns this general area of interest. Some of your questions will be answered by the book when it is done. Some will not.

But in any case, I can't write the book and also answer questions. So I am not going to talk about this any more, until the book is done.

For the time being, I have removed the speeches from my site. I will replace them when the new book is out.

Thanks for your understanding, and I'll post news of the book when it's finished."

Great! It seems he is writing a book elaborating on these comments. The popularity associated with his name might make this quite the influential book in the name of reason. We can only hope he sticks to what we have yet read in his speeches and stays away from that strange talk that David dug up on him.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:24 AM
To: Extropy Chat
Subject: [extropy-chat] More good stuff from Michael Crichton

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003 http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.

And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extrat