The Brass Swan Cosmology
by
John Pallyn
© 1991-2012 by John Pallyn

Introduction
This is the Brass Swan Cosmology. A Cosmology is a study of the Cosmos, or all encompassed by the structure of the Universe. A Brass Swan is simply a Brass Swan. I call this the Brass Swan Cosmology only to differentiate it from any other cosmology. No other inferences should be drawn from the title.
Obviously, this is not a complete study of all that is known. That would require a nearly infinite volume continually updated until the end of time. Being a finite inhabitant of this Universe, I have chosen a less arduous course. The design of these essays is to give a collective overview of the realm of Human experience. This is our Cosmos, our Universe. The following essays originate from an individual Human Being. As a result, they will not be accepted as the definitive word on the Human experience. The Human condition, however, is not so nebulous, nor knowledge so unattainable that we cannot arrive at some basic conclusions about ourselves and the Universe we inhabit. We therefore proceed on the best information available. When a new discovery is made, a new insight realized, previous concepts must change accordingly. Knowledge is a nearly infinite ladder with new rungs being continually added as new insights are proven a more accurate definition of our world. Each new step depends on the step before it. We will never reach the top of the ladder.
Yet, many have reached the top of the ladder simply because they have stopped their ascent. Most of the religions and political thought that currently dominate the world are rooted in thinking thousands of years old. While some aspects of the Human experience have remained constant during that time, most ideas about our place in the Universe have been radically altered. The philosophical truths at any time in Human history are dependent on the quality of the knowledge at that time. It is unreasonable to expect that the best thinking of three thousand years ago be readily transplanted to a relevant position in modern philosophy.
This is the underlying force behind these essays. The Brass Swan Cosmology is an exploration of the Universe based on our current position on the ladder of knowledge. After the first chapter, which explains the basis for our thinking, I will be taking major category topics, in turn, explaining the underlying principles of our perception of the Universe and ourselves. These conclusions are in no way dogmatic. With better information, I will change my position in order to fit more closely with the new information. I will no doubt, in time, make some revisions in what I have presented here. This is the nature of Human knowledge.
I have endeavored to present my conclusions as clearly as possible. Nothing should be inferred or read into, except at the most fundamental level. These essays are not designed to create a following of any kind. They are a personal exploration in a public arena.

Chapter One
Relatively Speaking
I live in a suburb of Los Angeles. This is a relatively simple statement of a fact. Unfortunately, it is open to a wide range of interpretations. First, let us examine Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a word that defines a major population center on the coast of Southern California. It is a physical area with its boundaries defined on a map. I would think, however, that the first thing that would come to the mind of a reader when reading the first line of this chapter would not be a geographical description of Los Angeles. A long-term resident of Los Angeles would have a different set of references from someone who has never been to Los Angeles. Writing that I live in a suburb of Los Angeles is hardly exact. The area in which I reside was not considered a suburb only twelve years ago. The area, in which I grew up, fifteen miles closer to Los Angeles, was not considered a suburb twenty-five years ago. A cartographer, however, might suggest that I actually do not live in a suburb of Los Angeles, but rather of San Bernardino, a population center to the east. San Bernardino, is after all, the nearest large city. The expansion of the suburbs however, has occurred outward from Los Angeles, not San Bernardino. In this context, the statement that I live in a suburb of Los Angeles is correct. I feel like a dog chasing its own tail. Where is the conclusion to this simple line of thought?
There is no end because there are no parameters to the question. There was no end to the above discourse because there were no boundaries. If the question were asked of me, “Where do you live?” the opening statement would have been quite adequate without further extrapolation. It depends on the parameters of the question. A casual acquaintance would be satisfied, but a foreign businessman looking to relocate in the area might enjoy my little demographic discourse. Here we go again, the boundaries are falling. The reason for this confusion is that included in language is information that is taken for granted. Like a geometric proof, Humans communicate with a certain number of givens, or preconceived notions about the communication. Unlike a geometric proof, Human communication does not establish rigid boundaries around the question or the answer.
This is a book, primarily about philosophy. This establishes a certain number of expectations in the mind of the reader. One of these expectations is that the author will not be discussing geography. When I started by discussing geography, the reader assumed that it was to illustrate some other point. In this instance, the assumption was correct. No harm was done. No expectations were dissolved. It is these assumptions that are inherited with the use of language that provide us with some of our greatest stumbling blocks on the road to understanding. Yet, without certain assumptions communication in the medium of language would be pointless.
Let us start from the beginning. Words are taught to us as symbols. We are shown a picture of a tree. We are told, "tree", and we are shown the written expression of that vocalization. We are taught to recognize objects in our environment, vocalize them, and memorize their written equivalent. It is this process that adds substance to something as ethereal as language. We learn the concrete nouns of our environment first because they are the easiest to represent and assimilate. They provide the basis for understanding the complex relationships that have to be expressed by language. It would be useless to try to explain the concept of time without first explaining the device we use to measure it. This method of learning has its drawbacks.
It is easy to mistake time for clocks. We feel cheated is our watches run down and lose time. We have expressions in the English language such as: "Time flies when you’re having fun", or "Where has the time gone to?” These expressions reveal our sense of time as some sort of physical quantity allocated to each individual at birth until your "Time runs out". Unfortunately, the physical Universe is not run on our clocks. One of the great leaps of imagination in this century was to realize that time was a dimension of space. Time, like three-dimensional space, is relative to the point of view of the observer. Time is not the same for an observer in an intense gravitational field relative to an observer on Earth. Despite this insight into the nature of the Universe, our language has not changed in its conception of time. There has been no need to change. The concept of time we teach to our children is more than adequate, as it is expressed in our language, to function with absolute certainty. It is not likely that any of us will need any advanced notion of time in our daily affairs.
It is this use of language that presents us with a dichotomy that pervades our language, and therefore the way in which we experience our world. Language serves as the template we use to express our cosmos to other Human Beings. Yet, as I have illustrated, it is often imprecise and on occasion completely inaccurate. An example of this dichotomy is the system of justice administered by the government. Someone accused of digressing the law is not immediately punished for his or her actions. Their digression must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a trial ensues, the representatives of the government will attest to the guilt of the person charged with the offence. The person charged with the offence will then attest to his innocence. Each side will present evidence on behalf of their positions. A judge or jury will decide which position is the more valid of the two. That decision can be rejected by another court. So it goes.
The problem comes back to the use of language. Laws in the United States of America are written in the English language. The laws are written is such a way as to be specific about their purposes. Any written law, however, cannot cover the wide range of Human activities. Written in the English language, it cannot be perfectly specific about what it encompasses in the social relationships of man. The inherent inexactness of the language opens it to interpretations that can take multifarious forms. Language is itself an act of imagination. We connect words with a mental symbolism that is unique to each individual. We create our own dictionaries based on our experiences. The six billion dictionaries running around this planet are nearly identical in general and individual in particular. When a person is on trial for a crime, he is either guilty of committing the crime or he is not. Very few cases fall into the category where it would be impossible to make a distinction between the two alternatives. Nevertheless, the courts are filled with such cases. Individual motivations, and the imprecise nature of the vehicle of truth, language, turn the prospects for finding the truth into something of a word game.
The dictionary is a circle. Definition of a word depends on knowing words. The word being defined is itself defined by words. This is the reason we are taught words like tree, dog and cat before we are taught catharsis, symbolic, and bucolic. The language works its way up from the concrete to the ethereal. In doing so, the impressions we learned in our childhood are reflected in the attitudes we express as adults. Our language provides a means of expressing ourselves. Yet we are influenced in our language by the way we were taught the language. We are influenced in our thoughts by language, for language is the most accurate expression for the way we think.
Science does not have this problem. Its language does not stray into the conjectural aspects of English. It is black or white, guilty or innocent. 2 + 2=4. S=KlogW. The circumference of a circle is equal to its diameter times pi. The language of mathematics is at the same time accurate and eternal. The geometry of Pythagoras is as useful today as it was at the time of its invention. The statement: 2+2=4, does not alter over time. Unlike most Human knowledge, mathematics and a large portion of science have been proven and are without dispute. No one chooses sides over calculus. There are no cults of true believers practicing a radical form of trigonometry.
This is true only when the answers are tied to a question that is fundamental in its nature. In mathematics, to the question 2+2=?, there is only one correct answer. The answer does not have to be deduced, only worked out. Computers are extremely proficient at mathematical analysis. As long as the rules and instructions are correctly followed, the result will be correct. The correct result is the only result that is correct. This is not the case in Human language.
The language of science is exact. Most Human interactions do not require this degree of accuracy. The requirements of math in daily life are not so great that we need to know much about them. We seem to get along very well with the inaccurate substitute of the English language. It would be incredibly cumbersome to conduct our lives using math as our means of communication. The very lack of precision in the English language is precisely what makes it the preferred form of communication. The ability to communicate effectively in a very short time those things in our lives that need to be related to others is the strength of language. It is the underlying concepts of language that are its weakness.
Children are brought up in a society and a language that reflects that society. Society, language, and mathematics all come with a number of preset fundamental ideas, which are assumed true. They allow us to explore increasingly complex concepts with certainty. If, however, we were to find out that 2 is not twice 1, but rather the square root of 1, everything we know about math would be wrong. The same conditions apply to everything we are taught in our own language. If our definition of a tree is inaccurate, it would follow that our definition of complex concepts based on an accurate definition of "tree" would also be in error. A person growing up in one of the more arid regions of the world might not have a full definition of a tree and would therefore have difficulty in explaining a familiar concept like "family tree". The same problem results from someone who is given an inaccurate definition for love, government, or people with black skin. The fundamental words we learn as children enable us to increase our store of knowledge. Incorrect or imprecise definitions can just as effectively stunt intellectual growth.
I would be hard pressed to find anyone with an inaccurate definition of the word "tree", or "dog". It would not require much time to find conflicting definitions for the word "God" or "love". The fundamental concrete nouns we learn as children are safe and secure in their meanings as long as they are expressed fundamentally. Even a complex word such as "God" can be defined without any consternation as it is in the dictionary. If I ask you, however, to define your God, we are going to run into trouble. Your definition will more than likely stray somewhat, if not completely, from the dictionary definition. I have changed the question. Instead of asking;" Define your God", the question may be more appropriately asked: "Explain to me your view of your existence in the Cosmos dependent on but not exclusive of an Entity, Entities, or Force that is responsible for your existence and travels through time-space including any influence exerted on your existence by aforementioned Entity, Entities, or Force". I must insist at this point that I am not being flippant. This is the shortest version of the question I could come up with, and still maintains some small measure of accuracy. A small measure it is. If I really want an accurate answer, the question must be equally as accurate as the desired response. Alternatively, I could simply ask you to explain your personal concept of God. I would probably get a satisfactory answer.
Along with the assumptions contained in the simplified version of the question, the likely response will be based on my assumptions about God and the Universe. If the question has been asked of someone with similar basic definitions of words and their meanings, the simplified question is adequate. If, however, the question is being asked by someone who has not acquired the same definitions of certain basic concepts, the differences will be reflected in the answer. It is taken for granted that a person whose origins lie in Japan will not have the same associations with words, even those in English, as a person whose origins are in the United States. People from different regions of a particular country can display variations in the exact meanings of many words.
In addition, these are just environmental considerations. The way in which each of us assembles our own lexicon, and applies meanings to our words depends on a variety of factors. Certainly, our religion, or the lack thereof, has an influential impact. Our social and economic status, gender, and abilities all contribute to our own particular definition of the world through the language. This is true of our own personal experience, but those who taught us our words carry their own intellectual and cultural baggage that was passed along with the meanings of words. Parents, in particular, encode not only genetic predispositions, but also moral and philosophical attributes in the presentation of language.
If, for instance, I were to go to a local shopping mall and begin to burn an American flag. I would no doubt be stopped from burning the flag, or at least chastised for my action. This is an assured response. The people passing by would have been educated using the same standards as I encountered, my parents encountered, and my children will encounter concerning the American flag. In a general sense, if I asked people why they stopped me from burning the flag, I would get some sort of answer relating to patriotism. All citizens are required to attend school. All schools have American flags and will instruct students that the flag is an important symbol of their country. As such, it requires that a certain amount of respect be accorded to it and it is to be handled only in those ways that do not create dishonor. This is precisely why flags are burned. The people who burn flags are symbolically fouling the highest attributes of a nation. These attributes have been instilled in nearly every person in the country. They have been instilled in the flag. Everyone knows it. It is the perfect vehicle for displaying discontent because although each individual has a particular set of meanings attached to the flag, most will show negative responses to its defilement, and some will certainly respond in an aggressive manner to its defense.
Unfortunately, only nylon has been defiled. Someone without associations tied to the flag will not be offended in the least by someone burning it. Another person with negative associations might feel pleased with the burning of the flag. It depends on our preconceptions. The words and symbols that are attached to ideas and things are mistaken for the ideas and things themselves. The burning or a colorful piece of nylon relies upon the institutionalized precepts of the people witnessing the act for its meaning. We all carry these meanings with us in every day life. They affect our judgment in both simple and profound ways.
In order to learn, in order to advance on the ladder of knowledge, it is necessary to realize not only what one knows, but to put that knowledge to empirical tests. Advancing intellectually based on information that is essentially inaccurate, or flawed, taints any advance thereafter. When the impressions of words or symbols we are taught as children are incorrect, or simply outdated, the resulting errors can be as simple as a dislike for tomatoes or as profound as an unshakable belief in a personal deity dispensing justice to all the Human Beings on Earth.
It would be helpful in the illustration of the above points at this time to play a word game. Start with the idea: “Everything you know is wrong”. Contradict any statement made to you as truthful. Support any obvious lie or fabrication. Do this on a strictly experimental basis. While you will find yourself suspect among your acquaintances, you will also find out how often the ideas taken for granted in routine of daily experience can vary wildly in their accuracy. Just as it is possible to fly to the Moon using the laws of motion set down by Newton, it is possible to go through life fairly self assured with the laws set down by your particular society and your teachers. If however, you wish to be as accurate as possible, in life, or in moon landings, it is imperative to use the best information possible. Playing the word game described above will not only illuminate some of the inaccuracies in the language, but in the logic we us to express our ideas, as well.
It is the practice of politicians, lawyers, advertisers, and priests to use the inherent logical constraints of the language to persuade others to their view. Persuasion is a particularly annoying aspect of the societal condition. In mathematics, in science, an assertion must be substantiated by proof. This is hardly the case in the public arena. Matters of public policy are frequently determined by some sort of debate. That is, sides are chosen after a particular question has been named. Despite the nature of the question, or the validity of the evidence, there is always a side to be chosen. For or against. A person who knows the inherent vicissitudes of the English language, or any language, is able to manipulate the language and its concepts to achieve an argument that, on the surface, seems to support the facts. Taking course work in debate is an introduction to these techniques. In formal debate, the opposing parties are prepared to present either side of the question put before them. In such a situation, the debate is won or lost, not on the best empirical evidence, but on the ability of the participants to use the language is such a way as to convince others of their point of view. It is this compromise of truth that occurs daily in courtrooms, legislatures, and in the various media providing news and information services.
The object is not to enlighten, but to persuade. Unless there is a vested interest in the presentation of evidence for enlightenment, the position of any person in an argument can be traced back to the set of principles or ideals that person hopes to advance. There are certainly many questions for which there are not adequate evidence to make a final judgment. Yet, decisions must be made without waiting for better evidence. It is at this point, where personal judgment, based on our previous concepts, ideals, and knowledge, is the overriding influence in decision-making.
There is a strong emphasis on being in the right. Children are presented with the black and white of right and wrong without any consideration to the areas of gray that lie in between these two poles. This is the system of achievement in school. We are tested for our knowledge on a black or white, right or wrong basis. There is no room for partial knowledge. Our achievement scholastically, is represented by the number of right answers versus the number of wrong answers. Knowledge is not all or nothing. Yet, it is treated as such, and not exclusively in the classroom.
Our moral knowledge and societal values are taught in very much the same way as we are taught math or English. A set of rules is set down which are meant to apply to certain situations in real life. To act in any way not stipulated in the rules is equivalent to immoral behavior. Life situations are rarely so easily distinguishable. The vast arena of Human interaction is played out in the gray areas. Christians are forgiven for their transgressions against their own rules. If this were not the case, none would reach their heavenly reward. I cannot think of any person known to me of legal age who has not committed a crime. I doubt if there is such a person. Most transgressions of the law are minor, though transgressions nonetheless. With the myriad of laws that have been enacted, it would simply be too burdensome to obey them all. Fortunately, while laws are written to be black and white, their enforcement is very much in the gray.
Yet, we still act as if there were absolutes of right and wrong and as if their parameters were clearly defined. While it is easy to discern the parameters of a geometric problem, the Human condition is astronomically more complex. While there are thousands of federal laws to govern our behavior, hundreds more are signed into law every year. One might expect that with so many laws covering the Human experience that each year would see a reduction in the number of laws enacted as the gray areas of Human activity are slowly covered. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. More laws are enacted every year because growth of change in the Human condition is expanding the gray areas of Human experience faster than legislatures can fill them in. There is a term in law called the loophole. Stated simply, a loophole is that circumstance or set of circumstances the lawmakers failed to recognize when writing a law that would allow someone to act in some way the law was designed to prevent. Loopholes regularly put felons back on the street. It is an act of pure optimism to think any legislative body could put together a simple set of rules governing the behavior of its citizens by using language to describe them. But like the search for truth, we try to get as close as we can, recognizing that the language we use as the principle tool is flawed and our efforts are expected to achieve only partial success.
It is vital to realize that language is not reality, but an analog of reality. Just as playing a vinyl recording is not the artist performing, but a close approximation. Actions take place in real time and have very real consequences. That is why it is possible to simulate real world events on a computer. The physical world is translatable into the language of mathematics, which is understood by the computer. Computers operate in a very black and white world. Either something is understood or it is not understood. The language that is used to instruct computers to perform tasks is exact. There is no room for error. Very small errors can render instructions useless. A single error in a mathematic equation will result in the wrong answer.
I have a piece of software than locate the position of any planet at any time a thousand years ago or hence. While complex, it is not state of the art. There is no program that can understand Human language with the accuracy with which a five-year-old child employs it. The problem, again, revolves around the complexities and inexactness of the medium. The subtleties inherent in the language are taken very much for granted by their practitioners. There is no great need to understand language, only to use it. Again, for all the common experiences of daily life, language performs superbly. It is in the accurate expression of our most intricate thoughts that language will fail.
Our thoughts are language. I find it impossible to think without words. Words are the vehicle for expression of my thoughts. They are also the medium for expression. I cannot think what I cannot put into words. This is the way I was wired to think. This is the way we were all wired to think, regardless of the language we use. People without the ability to speak simply use other means to make words. To explore new arenas of thought, it is often necessary to invent new words to describe them. New words do not arrive completely out of the firmament. They arrive attached to previously well-known words or to the experience, which they are describing. They often take well-known words as their root, and are subsequently changed to provide a new meaning. There are times when words are simply inadequate.
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These atomic constituents have a property that is called spin. However, it is not the property we can usually identify in our daily lives. In reference to atomic particles, spin is the closest word we have. Spin, in the case of an electron, means that it has something like an angular momentum. It has a spin-like quality in the way it acts. Yet, it many circumstances, when particles with a certain spin are sent on a collision course, they do not react in the way we expect spinning objects to act. There are many aspects of nuclear physics that are not fully understood. Perhaps, when we fully understand what is meant by the spin of an electron we will have to invent another word to describe it.
The work of physicists in this century has been a test of the Human language. The difficulty has been to describe a world in which we have no reference in our own experience. I can tell you that time is a dimension of space in the same way as the horizontal or vertical. But what would it mean? What causal relationships would be inferred from such a statement? The world of quarks, neutrinos, gluons, fermions and gravitons cannot be seen, let alone experienced. It is a world where discoveries are made without actually finding something in the macro sense of reality. Particles are studied by seeing their effects on other particles than can be detected. Discoveries in this area are made as much by reason as by physical evidence. Yet discoveries are made and researchers build large, fantastic machines to further probe into the exotic world of the sub-atomic. I am not a sub-atomic physicist and yet I believe that quarks exist. I certainly have not seen any, and I would have to rely on experts in the field to explain it to someone who was challenging my belief in quarks. What I have to ask myself is whether I am fooling myself into believing in something simply because I wish to believe it is so. Could I be the perpetrator and victim of my own propaganda?
Perhaps. This is always a consideration when we are dealing with a language that is inexact, relative, and constantly in flux. To prove the existence of quarks, I can summon up the language of mathematics. It would be exact, and incontrovertible, because the rules are fixed and are universally recognized. Math is the only universal language. It is the only common tongue of mankind. A problem with the higher mathematics needed in this example, or in any scientific explanation for that matter, is that the vast majority of people are mathematically and scientifically dysfunctional. The theories and discoveries made by scientists today are fully understood only by the handful of specialists in the field. The masses are treated to a distillation of the truth, which often as not confuses more than illuminates its recipients.
While I am not a nuclear physicist, I can look at the field with a discerning eye. I have a fundamental knowledge of physics, math, chemistry and atomic structure. Most importantly, I understand the scientific method and the rules of logic it employs to arrive at a conclusion. An example illustrates the point. In the spring of 1989 a team of scientists announced they had attained room temperature nuclear fusion. The cold fusion apparatus consisted of a test tube of heavy water with a palladium plate that had an electric current passed through it. The contention was that as hydrogen atoms passed through the lattice of palladium, they were brought in close enough proximity to overcome the natural repellent forces between atoms and would fuse, releasing heat and other by-products. I do not propose to issue a formal rebuttal of the issue of cold fusion, only to examine it with the tools I have available to me. My first impression is that it is a bit simple. Simple in the sense that it could have been passed over while so many investigators are actively involved in the search for cold fusion. Simple in the apparatus used to produce the effect. I could not make a judgment on this alone when it might have been my knowledge that had been simple. The most lucid point I had to make was that no one was able to duplicate the experiment and its results despite the simple apparatus. Duplication of experimentation is the proof of any scientific theory. Results were not duplicated despite the fact that nearly everyone who understood the experiment was trying it.
As of this writing, the case for cold nuclear fusion is still very much in doubt. Experimenters have been unable to achieve consistent results or explain the absence of certain phenomenon that would accompany the fusion process. My conclusion is that cold nuclear fusion is not operating in this case. I have no evidence to support a case for nuclear fusion. While I make these statements, I need to make some further comments that will apply to any case where the contention is found to be false.
My first point is that I may be mistaken. I acknowledge the fact that there may be forces operating that are not completely understood at this time. If this were a case concerning the driving force behind Quasars, I would be extremely careful in my condemnation simply because there is a large area of the question that is not understood. Test tubes holding heavy water and palladium with a current passing through them are very well understood. I am confident that claims of cold nuclear fusion are false, but not in an absolute sense. I cannot be one hundred per cent sure of anything. I can only be convinced to ninety-nine per cent. This is the nature of Human knowledge. Anyone who professes to absolute knowledge is both self-deluding and dangerous. World history is littered with the remains of ideologies and ideas that have fallen under the weight of their own pretense. History is also stained with the blood of countless millions who followed blindly, or were trodden upon, on the path to absolute knowledge.
Recently, there was a discovery of rapidly rotating neutron star, called a pulsar. Nothing had ever been seen with such an incredible rotational velocity. Scientists searched their theories to account for the observational evidence. It turned out that a video camera mounted near to the detector was emitting the unexplained signal. This is another proof of the fallibility of Human knowledge. It also points out another problem with Human knowledge that is only of recent experience. The sheer complexity of Human knowledge has been growing at a nearly exponentially rate since the turn of the twentieth century. Rising with that complexity is a fragility of knowledge, of certainty. Specialization has become entrenched in our society due in part to the amount of training and education required to master any field of endeavor. As we learn more, it seems, we have more to learn.
While the efficiency of specialization has subsidized the growth of material wealth, the specialization of knowledge has its costs. We rely on the specialists, sometimes referred to as experts, to make those decisions that are outside of our own specialty. We hand over our health to doctors, our money to bankers, our children to teachers, and our society to politicians. The extent of what we know about any subject has become voluminous while the capacity for the biological storage and retrieval has remained constant. Human Beings store and retrieve information differently from computers. We store information as connections. Like a dictionary, each piece of information is related to other pieces in the way that we use words to define words. This may be the reason it takes approximately twenty-three years of education in order to earn a doctorate in most fields. Twenty-three years to become an expert in one field. I am not attempting to insinuate that this time is a fixed biological parameter. The educational system is geared so that even below average learners will be able to advance with their peers. Yet, there are few people with multiple doctorates. By the time it would take an average person to obtain a doctorate in five different fields, the years that person would be in the work force would make it economically burdensome to pursue such a course. The solution is the current system of experts that provides society with the collective equivalent of everyone being an expert in every field. Unfortunately, on an individual basis, the society is represented by people who can function only marginally outside of their specialized knowledge. We are left with people whose only option is to trust the experts because they are not equipped to argue successfully against them. This inability by the masses to effectively understand the complex arguments that are being used to determine their laws and the policies of their governments results in a simplification of those arguments to the detriment of the truth.
We are not educated in such a way to possess the skills needed for an independent appraisal of the truth. Our earliest learning experiences of language and the world around us are given to us as fact without consideration. Most of our early learning is very accurate. The simpler concepts are hard to misconstrue or to have their meanings altered. If the fundamental words and behaviors we learn as children are very much in the wrong, it would show up early in life in the stages of more advanced learning. The way we are taught as children, the rote memorization of the language and actions of our teachers, is as much in evidence in kindergarten as it is in a four-year college. Success depends on the accuracy of the regurgitation of data presented at daily lectures. A good memory is the greater tool for scholastic achievement than ability to reason. The classroom is not an arena for discovery. While logic is taught to philosophy majors, business and liberal arts majors are not required to arrive at independent conclusions. The act of learning is a passive digestion of what the majority of educators would refer to as the truth.
The specifics are not so clear. It is possible to attend a university whose teachings are more liberal or conservative than other institutions. That is a very strange thing to say about knowledge. It is imperative at this point to realize the motivations behind any search for knowledge. Liberal and conservative institutions choose their curriculum with a certain philosophical leanings that support a particular point of view. The areas in which a slanted view of the Universe can be supported are slowly being diminished. The accuracy of scientific investigation has ruled out many contentions based solely on a particular point of view. As I stated earlier, there are no religious sects practicing an alternate form of trigonometry. There are areas in which the solutions to problems cannot be worked out arithmetically. These areas are concerned mostly with Human and societal problems. It is in these areas that a position is taken to be the correct course of action dependent on previous philosophical predispositions. These are roughly defined in our society as liberal and conservative points of view. They can also be defined as left or right, so that an individual may take the "middle ground" as a point of view. This system may make positions easier to describe or defend, but it does little to support accuracy.
A public discussion of a societal issue will usually involve a representative of the left and right of the political spectrum. This is a daily event on certain news programs. Another daily event will be the complete denunciation by each of the participants of the other's point of view. This is particularly evident in political debates, where the sides are clearly defined. The members of Congress are designated as Republican [right] or as Democrat [left] to identify which side of the argument a Representative will take on a particular issue. Although the voting that takes place to enact the laws that govern the nation will fall mostly along the lines of left and right, there is usually some leakage from one side or the other depending on the particular issue. A Republican can be liberal or conservative within the restraints of still being classified as a Republican. The most interesting aspect to this predisposition in decision-making is the minor role the search for truth plays in making public policy. It is not uncommon in political debate to hear one side of the issue completely reversed by the other side, while each side lays claim to the truth. Every day, the forces of the left and right engage in debate over artificial boundaries set up by the dogma they have inherited and dispense as the truth.
That a problem is reduced to a question of right or left does not mean that either side is incapable of grasping the intricacies of the problem, but rather that their constituencies prefer the simplicity endowed in two party politics. It is far less complicated to align oneself with a philosophy or point to view than to examine each question individually as it arises. It is far easier to communicate with other Human Beings on a daily basis in the vernacular than it is to precisely explain your thoughts in every instance. The cost for simplicity and speed of communication is accuracy. While this cost is negligible in daily conversation, it is when it extends to matters of public policy the cost can be enormous and far reaching.
Opinions are placed in categories such as left, right, radical, neo-Nazi, or Christian fundamentalist, to name a few. This categorization of knowledge in effect reduces the parameters of thought and reduces the channels of communication. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, elected officials take a certain category of political predisposition and proceed to act along the lines dictated by the dogma of that particular category. Serious questions about the integrity of a public official would be raised if he were to be elected as a Democrat and voted along Republican lines. People are expected to act and think in ways that correspond not only to political affiliation, but also in terms of their sex, geographic location, social status, color of their skin, and any number of factors identifying their individuality. It is ironic that those features that distinguish us as individuals are used to place people in a group that emphasizes uniformity.
Prejudice is a term used mostly in terms of dividing people according to their skin color. Yet our pre-judgments abound from our interpretation of the word "tree" to our political and social leanings. We carry with us the prejudices of societies that have long passed into obscurity. Ideas concerning numerology or astrology still invade our language and our reasoning ability. Familiar concepts such as fate or destiny are very much a part of our understanding of the world. Yet, they have not been proven by any empirical evidence. Traditional concepts and ideas played a vital role in the cohesiveness of a society. The languages and customs of people that have survived the ages provide the basis for the societies and nations we define today. The cultural distinctions that have arisen through the centuries are fading with modern global communication and interaction. With such a diversity of ways of perceiving the world, conflicts arise about the nature of the truth from what foods are to be eaten to the understanding of the Universe.
Explanations arising from the prejudices of cultural and social precepts are doomed to inaccuracies in predictable ways. An explanation derived from the scientific method of investigation is often surprising. It comes from the areas of our imagination that have not been shaded by the intellectual rose-colored glasses of our preconceptions. Just as the vote of a Congressman can be deduced with no small amount of certainty by his political labels, so it extends to each one of us that our intellectual preconceptions lead us to certain conclusions. The identification with a certain group, cause or philosophy, is a constriction on formulation of an individual viewpoint. Subscribing to a particular belief system requires a substantial commitment to all the positions of that belief. The following of any religious or political view does have its benefits.
As in the case of language, political and religious affiliations give us shorthand of communication. We can align ourselves with certain well-known philosophies that are capable of being disseminated with very little trouble. Everyone has a basic understanding of the concepts of Christianity in this country. Calling oneself a Christian carries with it a set of practices, concepts about the Universe, and association with a particular type of literature. Of course, these are very wide parameters. Yet, they are very limiting when the incredible diversity of religious thought is taken into account. While claiming membership in the Christian faith leaves a lot of room for variables, just as many possibilities are excluded. I am assuming that anyone, of any philosophical predisposition is still searching for a more complete truth. That is usually not the case. Subscription to an article of faith or a point of view is the end to the search for truth. The intellectual energies of a true believer are dedicated to defense of the truth as it has been told to them. Like a lawyer, defending a client he knows to be guilty, he uses the inaccuracies of the language to assert that which is unproven or false.
The search for truth becomes a game, a debate, in which the semantic skill of the debater determines the claim to truth. As with most games, the winners and losers are temporary fixations. The debate continues ad infinitum because there are no real advances. The real search for truth in any field is directly related to advances that have come before it. It is a process of building on the tested principles that have achieved some degree of certainty. One cannot build a nuclear reactor without atomic theory. One can, however, start a religion or philosophy based entirely on dogma. It is because the realm of science and the realm of religious and philosophical matters are perceived to be mutually exclusive. There is usually some sort of claim to a universal truth or phenomenon that is outside of Human understanding. It defies the conventions of science and is therefore taken to be the truth by the sublimation of logic known as faith. While a person's faith may guide him in his moral reasoning, he will not count on faith to start his car in the morning.
The line of scientific reasoning that has increased our life span and improved our comfort on this planet is removed like a fallen chess piece in matters of personal philosophy. Faith does not move mountains, plate tectonics is responsible. Faith healing is not being practiced at any accredited medical institution. Understanding is built in phases, not created whole and complete. Any major advance in science is predated by any number of smaller advances. It can be traced without much difficulty to a line of accomplishment that invariably sets the stage for its emergence. The faiths of this world appear to rise in completeness from a single event. This is not the case in any seriously researched religion, but such a relationship is espoused in dogma. Human culture is devoid of any cultural singularities. Myths, fables and historical preconceptions are found at the root of all religious beliefs. We would not fly in airplane built on the constructs of faith rather than aerodynamics. We are fully prepared to abandon the scientific method to adhere to a belief system based on information that is not available to everyone in the same way.
The scientific method of learning is the cornerstone of the structure of our knowledge. Yet is it tossed aside in most of the Human and societal decisions we make in our daily lives. Whether we are buying a new television set or subscribing to a set of moral principles, the scientific method is left to the scientists. This is not only unfortunate, but also leads to most of the conflict between people and nations. Society would be best served by a system of dealing with the inevitable differences of opinion that arise in any problem that is without sufficient evidence to support a particular view. We need to simply proceed on the best information available.
The information available now is greater than it has ever been at any time in history. Like the growth of Human population, it is realizing exponential growth. The rate of change has increased dramatically because we are at a stage in our development in which pace of learning is greatly accelerated. The dramatic increase in knowledge has the effect of increasing the possible answers for even the simplest questions. Designing and constructing an airplane just twenty years ago was much simpler because of what we did not know. What we did not know included things such as new types of materials, precision aerodynamics, computer controlled flight and navigation systems, and the problems of stress on already existing materials. Our solutions to problems are expanded with the increase in information. Information is available on every subject in ample quantities. Knowledge is the distillation and formation of information into concepts that able to withstand critical exposure.
It is the avalanche of information that can result in over simplification. In many instances, we simply do not have the time or inclination to examine the evidence in its totality. This is a mistake. Lying behind the concept of language, of mathematics, is the promise of understanding. To understand the basic words and constructs of language or mathematics is the foundation on which all further understanding can be built. While the world of the astronomer may seem intellectually as distant as the stars, it is comprehensible. If it were not, there would not be such a thing as astronomy. Astronomers, physicists, doctors and lawyers are all using the basic symbols and logic that we use in common everyday experience. We have all been taught to use language. It really does not matter which language one learns as long as one learns a language. To understand another language requires only the substitution of sounds and symbols for those of the native tongue. To understand antimatter is simply more complex.
A basic understanding of language and an understanding of empirical evidence and the rules of logic allow for unlimited learning. I will take a back seat to the experts when it comes to designing an aircraft. The consequences of lift, drag, and thrust, however, are not lost to me. While I cannot design an aircraft, I can project with some accuracy that Human powered flight cannot be made to be practical. The understanding of the fundamental forces and laws of nature are the basis for any exploration of the Universe. It is also the key to discrimination between fact and dogma, knowledge or certainty. We are able to know what we know, not because of the words that we use, but because of the nature of the Universe we inhabit. We know that the Universe is not random. The burning of hydrogen inside of a star millions of light years away is using the same forces and materials to ignite the furnace of our own Sun. Our Universe proceeds in such a way as to be describable and predictable. Prediction is a fundamental aspect of proof. Predicting the rotation of the planets proved Keppler's laws of motion to the accuracies attainable at the time. Economists are notorious for their lack of predictive powers. It is because they are not able to explain and account for all the variables present in any economic system. Economics is not a naturally occurring system. Although it does mimic some of the attributes of a physical system, it is strictly a Human invention. This is another reason predictions in economics are so difficult to make. Economics is subject to Human interventions that can alter the basic premises on which predictions are based. The laws of nature cannot be compromised. It is impossible to turn lead into gold through alchemy. It always has been and always will be the case here as well as every other place in the Universe. We advance on the ladder of knowledge because the rungs on which we ascend are not being cut out from under us.
We are able to seek greater understanding because the universe we inhabit is immutable in its form and processes. The areas of our experience that remain a mystery to us are the result of lack of evidence, lack of insight. It is simple matter to invent solutions to those areas of Human experience that are lacking in empirical evidence. Could a light moving across the sky be interpreted a visiting extraterrestrial? Of course not. Because something is not understood does not mean that anything is possible. Anyone wishing to assert the existence of extraterrestrial life is burdened with the proof of evidence. I cannot disprove the contention and I do not need to do so. The contention for extraterrestrials, supreme beings, or hair growth tonics must be accompanied by evidence and experimentation that can be duplicated by anyone else using the same procedures. As our technology becomes more complex, it becomes essential that any assertion be subject to basic understanding of what evidence is and how deductions are to be made. Yet the police fraud files contain numerous incidents of perpetual motion and other machines possessed of equally impossible qualities.
Throughout this chapter I have been exclusively concerned with the frailties of the language and the detrimental effects it has on ability to discover the best truths about ourselves and the Universe we inhabit. It is because we so closely tie our thoughts and actions with our words that a critical analysis is imperative. There is not a Human situation that cannot be worsened with a few well-chosen words. Human Beings are quite capable of taking the life of another over some certain specific sound waves propagated through the air. We attach great emotional significance to our words. This is no great mystery as they are the medium of all we know and feel. Unless we use words as accurately as they are capable of being used, we lose a measure of truth.
It is the accurate use of words and symbols that provides Human Beings in this country at this time with the greatest comfort and fulfillment man has ever known. We have been able to use the language to penetrate the atom as well as travel to the end of the Universe. We exist at a time when we know more than we ever have and that knowledge is increasing at a rate never before experienced. The influx of information can be overwhelming at times. It is the invention of language and its proper use that allows anyone to reach their own intellectual potential. We owe it to ourselves as individuals to realize that potential. We owe it to the community of Human Beings.
It is required of us in the survival of life on this planet. At this time in history, more than at any other time.

Chapter Two
The Universe and Life
The Universe has been in existence approximately 13.7 billion years. The Earth has been in existence for nearly five billion years. These two figures are an abstraction for Human Beings. They have meaning only in a mathematical sense. Our references for time are infinitesimal compared to the time scales represented in Astronomy or Geology. 13.7 billion might as well be a hundred billion. Distances in space are equally remote in our ability to grasp their full meaning. Whether it is the number of light years to a quasar or the size of an atom, we are limited in our ability to understand their meaning in a cognitive sense. It is therefore difficult to appreciate the significance that astronomical time and distance have played in the formation of the Universe and life around us.
We live in a Universe around 13.7 billion years old. We cannot be exact about the time because of the lack of the evidence that would ensure accuracy. We can be reasonably sure that our estimate of the age of the Universe is not off by more than a few billion years. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation and of distances to the farthest detectable objects in the cosmos are calculated to determine the age of the Universe. As I have said, the calculation could be off by several billion years, which would hardly disturb the sleep of most people on this planet. Consider how old the Universe might be and the calculation takes on added significance. Estimates could range from several thousand to an infinite number of years. It is not, however, anywhere near those two extremes and that realization helps to put Human Beings in a particular place and time.
The state of the cosmos as we see it could not have originated yesterday and cannot have continued in this way indefinitely. The galaxies are racing away from each other like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. The farther away in both space and time, the faster a galaxy appears to be moving away from us. The galaxies and stars are obeying the laws of gravity that we must obey on this planet. The Universe is consistent, knowable. We have been able to construct a picture of how the Universe originated. We see the galaxies expanding away from each other and we can trace their movements back to their original state. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation provided the necessary evidence for a suspicion widely held. The theory of the Big Bang, which gives us the origin of the Universe in a expanding fireball, is our best explanation for the evidence we can collect. Collecting evidence about the size and age of the Universe has been a difficult problem. The currently accepted view of the origin of the Universe was still very much in doubt only thirty years ago. Technological advances in optics, computers, and instrumentation have given us a view of nature our predecessors could, quite literally, only dream about. It has given those of us alive in this age an appreciation and accuracy of the workings of the Universe that has been denied to the best intellects of any previous time.
An understanding of the structure of the Universe may not seem to be a vital in one's philosophical positioning, but it is important. The Universe as we see it is expanding in all directions at once. Near objects are receding away from our point of view at lower velocities than those objects further away. Quasars, some of which are the furthest objects from our point of view, appear to be receding the fastest. This inflationary Universe will conclude in one of three ways: fire, ice, or some sort of continuing regeneration (unlikely, but not completely ruled out.). It depends on how much matter is contained in the Universe. Beyond a certain quantity of matter the gravitational attraction between objects will eventually stop the expansion and reverse it. Under a certain quantity of matter and the Universe expands forever and eventually dissipates. If the Universe contains exactly the right amount of matter to halt the expansion but not reverse it, [I doubt if we could ever make such an exact measurement], it would prove the existence of humor in the Universe.
At this time, there is not enough evidence to support a halt to the expansion of the Universe. The possibility that the expansion will be stopped has not been discarded. There is a question about the mass of the neutrino, a subatomic particle. Black holes and neutron stars may be more abundant than we realize. There exists substantial but unknown quantities of dark matter, which eludes exact observational analysis. Most of our observational evidence comes from the visible and radar frequencies of light. There may be enough invisible matter in the Universe to stop the expansion. Until we can decide one way or the other, the evidence supports an ever-expanding Universe.
This esoteric argument has real value in one's philosophical disposition. If the expansion of the Universe continues ad infinitum we can conclude that we are a singular event. The Universe came into being and was then was extinguished after some tremendous epoch. If we should find enough matter in the Universe to halt the expansion, the Universe is cyclical in nature. We would simply be one more expression in an infinite number of expressions of the Universe.
There are some loose ends. The absolute fate of the Universe is one. Another is the absolute beginning. Whether or not the Universe is cyclical or singular, the problems of its origin remain. We can trace the evolution of the Universe back to about the time of the Big Bang. We are unable to say with certainty what preceded the Big Bang. Where did all the matter in the Universe originate? A question of this kind is often referred to as a chicken or egg question. Unfortunately, this is a misnomer. The answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is simply: neither chickens nor eggs.
Chickens and eggs are not reliant on each other for their origin. Egg laying took place before the evolution of the chicken but was not the immediate precursor to the chicken. Some sort of protective casing evolved in species somewhere in the lineage of the chicken. Questions of this kind reflect a lack of understanding rather than a mystical mystery. We have been conditioned to think of origins in a linear sense. Most things, including life, have an original starting time and place. This is a reflection of the world, as we perceive it. The Universe has already been created and what we see in our own experiences are the permutations of the manifestation of that beginning. We run into a verbal, and therefore, mental block when attempting to describe the ultimate origin or fate of anything. Ultimately, the origin of anything lies at the origin of everything, of the cosmos.
We insist that there had to have been a beginning. As has been the case numerous times in the past, the Universe is under no obligation to bend to our preconceptions. If we seem to be chasing our own tail every time we try to figure out the primordial beginnings of the Universe, perhaps it is because we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps a more complete understanding of the nature of the architecture of the Universe is required before we are able to ask the right questions. In any event, we lack the information necessary to make an effective judgment of the matter. What conditions existed before the Big Bang are inaccessible to scientific observation. The Universe as we know it came into its recognizable form around 13.7 billion years ago. What was occurring or not occurring before that time is not known and any evidence of the pre-Universe Universe has so far been imperceptible. The evidence we have at hand is that the current expansion will continue indefinitely. The possibility of a cyclical universe will depend on acquiring new insights and evidence. We are left with the implication that although the Universe has an order and direction, its purpose (if there is one) remains unresolved.
The Universe as we see it is as we see it due to the fundamental laws that govern its action. A thrown ball will continue in a straight line until it is acted on by some other force. This statement is true on Earth or in any other place in the galactic sphere. A star with over a hundred solar masses will burn its fuel relatively quickly and eventually supernova. There is nothing mystical or magical about the way things work on earth or in deep space. Students learn about the laws of nature by very fundamental examples. The fusion of atoms is usually described by the interaction of two hydrogen atoms that form a helium atom and a release of energy. Fusion in our own Sun is not different, only more complex. This complexity stifles our understanding in the macroscopic world.
We may know how nuclear fusion works in the Sun, but we are at a loss to determine exactly how much longer it will continue to do so at the current rate. Any substantial fluctuation in the energy output of the Sun would have important consequences for life on Earth. The Sun is a complex, although very stable system. While such features as the sun spot cycle are discernible, the reasons for its appearance or regularity are not completely understood. In complex systems such as the Sun, predictions are restricted by the data available and the ability to effectively discern the consequences of that data. Our own biological limits and the limits of the material extensions of our processing capability place boundaries on our understanding of complex systems. Understanding the fundamental laws of nature, on the other hand, is limited only by the imagination. This is the distinction that allows us to describe why we have weather, but limits our ability to predict it tomorrow. The inability to predict the weather or the output of the Sun is not a failure of theory but of application. If we allow for an expansion of the parameters of time and accuracy, predictions can be made with greater certainty.
The age of the Solar system is around five billion years. This estimate would not have an error similar to that of our estimate of the age of the Universe. We are able to obtain significantly more evidence from our immediate locale than from the Universe as a whole. Rocks are considered inanimate objects because we see them from a position in space and time that does not reveal any motion. On the molecular and atomic levels, however, something is always happening even in the most mundane piece of silicate. Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom and the molecules vibrate in the latticework of their structure. Earlier I mentioned that the Universe has a certain sense of direction. Atoms decay in a very predictable fashion. The scientific term for this is called a half-life. This represents the number of years it takes for half of a sample to decay. The half-life for Uranium 238 is four and a half billion years. If we take a sample containing Uranium 238 and measure the amount of the products of its decay, such as Thorium 234, we can determine the age of the sample. The Earth, during its initial phases, erased most of the evidence for the first billion years. Meteorites have remained virtually unchanged during the formation of the Solar system. They have provided the most accurate specimens to determine the age of the Solar system. Samples gathered from the Moon also support the current estimate of the age of the Solar System.
Our Solar system lies on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy. It appears to be a spiral shaped galaxy very similar to the Andromeda Galaxy. The shape of our galaxy can only be deduced because we are looking at it from the inside. The Andromeda galaxy is one of our nearest neighbors and lies at a distance of 2.2 million light years. Light travels 5,880,000,000,000 miles in a year. The Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies are part of a cluster of about twenty-four galaxies known as the Local Group. The visible matter in the Universe is not spread out evenly, but rather clumped together into regions of greater and lesser concentrations. There exist great formations of galaxies interrupted by great voids of visible matter.
That matter tends to lump together is the product of the gravitational force. Gravity and Electromagnetism are the only forces among the four fundamental forces whose range is infinite. Gravity is extremely weak when compared to the other forces and its influence was minute until the Universe had cooled and expanded sufficiently to allow for its current predominance. Matter accumulates into clusters of galaxies, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and asteroids. We can readily observe stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Planets outside of our solar system have been optically resolved.
Our own solar system was formed from the remains of the primordial hydrogen that dominated the early Universe as well as the Universe we see now. All of the heavier elements were forged in the interiors of stars and then cast into the void during the last stages of the star's life. It is these heavier elements that coalesced to form the Earth and the other inner planets. The lighter elements were evaporated by the thermal energy of the Sun. The outer planets are composed of mostly lighter elements because of their distance from the Sun. Most of the mass contained in the Solar system is in the Sun. That is why the planets are locked into orbits around the Sun, and the same logic applies to the Sun's orbit around the galactic center.
While the details of planetary formation are still debated, the basic premise of gravitational attraction is without dispute. The probability that planetary formation is not an integral part of the fabric of the Universe is nearly negligible. The notion that ours is the only solar system in the Universe is contrary to the evidence we have been able to gather. It reflects an anthropocentric attitude about our place in the Universe. When all we knew of the Universe was the Solar system, we put ourselves at the center of it. Despite the current state of knowledge, a view that we are a singular, special, unique, or divine act of the Universe persists in popular thinking. Along with being naturally anthropocentric, we are unable to fully appreciate the vast dimensions implicit in astronomy or subatomic physics.
A chemistry professor I once knew would use an analogy to try to explain the size of the atom. His contention was that if one were to increase the size of an atom and diminish the size of the Universe incrementally, the two would meet at a size about that of the Earth. I am not comfortable with this sort of analogy because I have no firm grasp of the size of the Earth without numbers. The size of the nucleus of an atom is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of a meter. A quick calculation I have done gives a little more perspective. If one were to take a meter stick, divide it in half, and keep dividing it in half at the rate of one division per second, it would take well over ten million years to reach the size of the atomic nucleus. Huge numbers such as the size of an atom or of the Universe are hardly transferable to everyday experience. Comparisons made to physical systems are limited in the amount of information they can convey.
It is in the knowledge of and appreciation for large numbers that the Universe can be brought into the realm of understanding. The Human population is estimated to be around six billion people. I cannot imagine more than a hundred thousand people, the largest crowd I have ever personally witnessed. I can quantify this figure by playing with it a little. The population of the United States represents only four per cent of the world population. The Chinese are nearly seventeen per cent. The population of Hong Kong is roughly one one-thousandth of the world population. I still cannot visualize six billion people, but I have established a small measure of appreciation for the numbers. The astronomical figures used in describing the Universe must be given meanings when they have no basis in experience. To say that we are but a speck of dust in the Cosmos is to exaggerate our place in it. The volume of space occupied by the Solar system in the Universe is so minute as to make the atomic nucleus voluminous by comparison. We use terms like infinite to describe things that are very large. To describe something as infinite in common usage is not the same as it is used mathematically. We use infinite and infinitesimal to describe something beyond our ability to comprehend its value. It may very well have an actual numerical value, but it lies so far beyond our abilities to appreciate it that it takes on the proportions of a mathematical infinity.
It is not only space, but time that is subject to the same intellectual and conceptual boundaries. The time a Human Being is alive gives us a very limited idea of the time scales on which the Universe is operating. Human Beings in the industrialized countries of the world commonly live to be seventy or eighty years old. Less than a hundred years ago, the average life span was twenty to thirty years less. For the nearly all of our history as a species, the average life span was close to thirty years. Our species is long lived compared to the other animals on the planet. We are not equipped to examine with any relevancy the vast dimensions of time that have been calculated since the formation our planet. Both the age and size of the Universe are discoveries of this century. Efforts to place an age on the Universe were constricted not only by technological advances, but also by the ability of the Human imagination to conceive of the tremendous epochs and distances that are the fabric of the Universe.
The Universe is filled with objects and processes of such diversity and complexity that it seems unreasonable that it is the product of four fundamental forces and a handful of elementary particles. Any system that has the potential for complexity can be rooted in a few fundamental laws of operation. The binary system is an example. A computer reads the binary signals as either off or on, zero or one. This simple system is the basic premise on which any computer functions. Whether a computer is designing micro circuitry or playing chess, its fundamental structure is zeroes and ones. It is the complex and specific arrangement of the binary code that determines a specific task. The binary system is capable of providing a great diversity of tasks in information processing.
The same principle applies to the Universe. It is the very specific combinations of quarks that form protons, electrons, and neutrons. Protons, electrons and neutrons combine to form ninety -two naturally occurring elements. Different combinations of neutrons and electrons produce a wide range of element isotopes. The elements combine to form molecules. It is here that the mathematical possibilities take off exponentially. There are literally millions of possibilities for the molecular structure. More are being continually discovered or created. Molecules and atoms make up the perceived structure of the Universe. They follow the four fundamental forces in their reactions. Balls do not spontaneously start bouncing from rest. Although there does exist at the edge of possibility a chance that all the molecules in a ball might line up in order for that to happen, it is unlikely to the extent of absurdity. Work cannot be reversed. Heat does not flow spontaneously from a refrigerator into a warmer room. Entropy increases.
The atoms and molecules and the way they interact are the Universe revealed to us. The galaxies, stars, planets, and life are all composed of the fundamental particles and are guided by the fundamental forces of nature. The complexity of the Universe rises from the flexibility of its fundamental nature. The rules of nature are the same for particles in an accelerator or in a large galactic cluster. Our current understanding of the processes and particles of nature issues very few surprises at the most fundamental levels. Scientific research has turned to the extreme cases of the natural world. Particle accelerators are built to give us a glimpse of matter in the first few microseconds following the Big Bang. Telescopes are designed to study the furthest reaches of the Universe. Tunneling microscopes study the contours of atoms. We are engaged in these activities because there is still much to be learned about our Universe.
The extent of our knowledge of the Universe changes our place in it. Human Beings, for most of their history have lived in a Universe controlled by unknown forces. The forces of nature were seen in terms of their effects on Humans. As a result, mankind was placed at the center of the Universe. In what is commonly referred to as Western Civilization, man was acted upon but distinct from the forces of nature. In Eastern Civilization, man is an integral part of the natural world. Both of these views came from the study of the molecular world at a macroscopic scale, and the Universe at a microscopic scale. In the scientific community today, there are no East-West philosophical boundaries when discussing the nature of the Universe. Yet, outside of scientific investigation these same general boundaries still exist. What the scientific community cannot quantify in very real terms becomes the fodder for speculation. Understanding the results of scientific investigation is not nearly as important as understanding the method by which those conclusions are made. People must necessarily work with the results of science in their everyday lives, but unless they are engaged actively in pursuit of empirical reasoning they are quite able to function without it.
It is this gap between the knowledge necessary to survive in modern industrialized society and the knowledge necessary for the understanding of the Universe that allows for the preponderance of misinformation concerning the world around us. Explanations that are not based on reason, experimentation and empirical evidence reduce the Universe to a system that seeks Human explanations for a physical reality.
On personal level, a comprehensive understanding of the Universe is not necessary. The substantial majority of Human beings in modern society are able to negotiate their travels through space-time without having to encounter calculus or trigonometry, let alone particle physics. A single individual is not the problem. It is the cumulative effect of scientific illiteracy and innumeracy that lead people in democracies to support people and policies that are detrimental to the continued survival of our species on this planet. Increasingly, there is evidence that our survival, or at least, our standard of living, is uncertain. It is now, at the beginning of the twenty first century, that we are beginning to assess and mediate the consequences that the exponential growth of Human Beings is having on our ability to survive. Apocalyptic predictions have always been with us, but for the first time, it is science, not superstition, predicting our fate.
The life on this planet is the only life in the Universe for which we have physical evidence. It is illogical and highly anthropocentric to think that life exists nowhere else in the Cosmos. No observations have been made which would suggest that our minute locality possesses some unique attribute that has allowed life to evolve into its present forms. While the Universe is not overflowing with life forms it is not very convincing to suggest our planet is unique in the Universe. The search for extraterrestrial life has been very recent and very sparse. The Viking Missions to Mars were designed to search for the existence of organic chemistry on the surface of that planet. The results were inconclusive. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence project is currently searching the electromagnetic spectrum for signals from other advanced civilizations. The project is still in its infancy and the task before it is enormous. Positive results, while high in probability, are not to be expected for some time. We do know that life is on this planet and evolved here because of the favorable conditions that have prevailed for nearly five billion years.
Unfortunately, like the evolution of the Universe, much of the evidence of the evolution of life is inaccessible. Our understanding of the first and ancient life forms comes mainly from the sparse fossil record. We add to that understanding through the study of modern life forms. As with the Universe, we can employ reason to look back in time to discover the origins and changes that have molded the life forms on this planet. Unlike the Universe, life exists at a scale that makes it accessible to Human investigation. In the latter half of this century the instruments and imagination of biologists have allowed us an understanding of the molecular structures of life. The life forms on Earth exist on a time scale that allows Human Beings to observe change. It may take thousands of years for the Milky Way to make a complete rotation, but the fruit fly will complete an entire life cycle in only twenty-four hours. The Universe and life do run parallel in that both are difficult to explain when taken as a complete system. While we may understand the life cycle of individual cell of the Human body, we are at a loss to fully understand all the cells that describe a Human Being. We understand the structure and function of DNA, yet we can hardly build a Human Being from scratch. Again, it is a case of great complexity being derived from a very fundamental, but flexible structure.
We can start with our investigation of life with the same tools that guided us through our investigation of the physical Universe. Life is composed of the matter that surrounds us, and obeys the same physical laws as anything else in the Universe. There are no physical processes going on in living matter that cannot occur in nonliving systems. There are no special atoms, or arrangements of atoms, that are exclusive to life systems. Life is, however, the most complex arrangement of atoms and molecules in the Universe. This complexity gives life in this Universe its singularity and fragility. There is no life on other planets in our Solar System because the environments of those planets are hostile to the intricate structures that are required for life, as we understand it. It would be far stranger to encounter life on any other world in our Solar System than it would be to encounter the lifeless worlds we already know to be there. It would be stranger still, to find a planet identical in history to the Earth, and find it lifeless. All the ingredients for life were here at the origin of the Solar System, and all the best opportunities were present on the third planet from the Sun.
The Earth lies at a distance from the Sun that allows water to exist in a liquid form. No other planet in the Solar system has this property. Not only can liquid water exist, but also it dominates the entire surface of the planet. Water also dominates all the life on the planet. Nothing on Earth can live without it. There is some evidence that liquid once flowed over the surface of Mars. Whether or not it was water, it has either evaporated or frozen. On Earth there has been liquid water for about 3.6 billion years. There has also been a consistent amount of energy input from the Sun. The Sun is rather average star. It does not vary significantly in its output and will probably continue very much the same for another five billion years. This has been a significant part of the evolution of life on this planet. All the elements are here: proper temperature range, a medium for mixing and concentrating organic compounds, and about four billion years of stable environment.
Life arose in the oceans and colonized the land much later. The ocean provided the protection from ultraviolet radiation that is now provided by the ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation is harmful to the to the DNA molecule, among others. Early on, however, ultraviolet radiation assisted in the assembly of complex inorganic molecules. The early Earth contained no free oxygen until plants were able to release it. The early species of life were anaerobic, and there are still a few species today for which oxygen is poisonous. I can speak of the earliest forms of life with only a small degree of certainty. We can deduce the environment and the elements that were present when life arose on this planet from ancient rocks and the study of planetary evolution. It is speculation to describe what life was like with any degree of certainty. It may have arisen with many different solutions to the problem of life of which the current solution is simply the survivor.
No matter how many alternative forms of life arose on the early Earth, one clearly predominated and eventually worked its way up to Human Beings. All life on Earth can trace its lineage back to the primordial life form that first began to extract energy from its surroundings and replicate itself. All life uses the fundamental structure of DNA or RNA molecules to produce the proteins that describe it. The proteins that make up living things on this planet are built from around twenty-two different amino acids. Amino acids have been found in asteroids that have fallen to the Earth. They date from over four billion years ago. The building of life forms from amino acids and various other elementary molecules is no way certain or predictable. Complex structures passed through intermediary stages between lifelessness and the ability to metabolize and reproduce. The precursors to life as we understand it may not pass our current tests for life.
The fossil record of life is minute until the Cambrian Age. Before the Cambrian Age, life forms did not build skeletons or hard outer shells. These are what are normally discovered as fossil remains. The Cambrian Age started about five hundred and seventy million years ago. The first life appeared almost three and a half billion years ago. The first mammals appeared only two hundred and thirty-five million years ago. The evolution of complexity grows exponentially. Life existed on a very simple level of complexity for around 1.8 billion years. The progress of complex life forms moved very slowly over its early history. This is to be expected. The amount of variation available from a handful of different organisms is minimal when compared to the variations possible with thousands of different and very complex species. The number of species on Earth grew exponentially after reaching a certain complexity that allowed evolution to proceed at a quicker pace. One of the most important inventions of life was sexual reproduction. It allowed for the exchange of genetic material between individuals producing unique but very similar offspring. Sexual reproduction, along with natural selection, drove the diversification of life exponentially around a billion or so years ago. At this time, the life on this planet reflects the products of nearly three and a half billion years of evolution, natural selection, and chance.
The role of chance in the evolution of our species cannot be understated. If the biological clock could be turned back and rerun, the results would certainly not be the same. Just as life on this planet required certain conditions before it could arise, so Human Beings required a certain set of circumstances before we could evolve to our present level of development.
Human Beings evolved in a way that is unique to life on this planet. We meet the challenges of our environment by changing the environment, rather than ourselves. In response to cold, we wear clothing instead of waiting for natural selection to create a Human Being with five inches of blubber. We use our imagination, not the forces of mutation and natural selection to succeed in our survival. We are equipped to do so. Our brain is the most complex structure on the planet. Dolphins have a very complex brain, a large brain for their body weight, and are comparatively very intelligent. Nevertheless, dolphins do not build bridges. Dolphins do not have hands. Chimpanzees have hands similar to Human beings but they use their hands for locomotion. The Human hand with an opposable thumb is as unique as the brain that controls it. Humans were able to seek out solutions to survival from their environment because they had two free hands with which to manipulate that environment. The hand helped to drive the evolution of the brain by developing skills far beyond grasping or climbing.
Human Beings are certainly the most complex assemblage of matter on this planet. However, we live in a world filled with complex life forms. Dolphins do not build bridges but they are highly skilled in the use of sonar. Tigers do not use sonar but they are faster and more powerful than any Human Being is. The enormous complexity of the life forms that share this planet at this time with us is a reflection of the enormous amount of time that life has been evolving on this planet. Nearly every species of plant or animal has achieved a degree of complexity that will leave us with mysteries about life for some time to come.
It is easy to remark on the complexity and predominance that the Human species has obtained on this planet. Our solutions to the problems of survival have been the most successful of any other species. We now dominate the planet. All life forms are complex. Earlier, I noted that we are far from a comprehensive understanding of our own biology. We are far from a complete understanding of bacteria. We have deciphered the fundamental elements of the genetic code, but we find it difficult to understand how that code translates into complex life forms. The insertion of a strand of genetic code into a living organism is far removed from designing an organism from scratch. Life on the macroscopic scale is easily observed while the capacity for producing that life remains outside of the boundaries of Human knowledge. It would be roughly equivalent to deciphering a large software program by studying the strings of ones and zeros used to describe it. Life is built on microscopic building blocks because that is the most efficient way to convey the information. Life is very complex and it is very economical.
Economy is one of the most important survival strategies. There is not a grossly energy inefficient creature on the planet. Our own mechanical inventions are not nearly as effective in conserving energy when compared to the natural world. Life arose and evolved based on the best possible solutions to the problem of survival. Those forms of life that were unable to successfully meet the challenge of survival were simply removed from existence. Every living creature removes from the environment the essential nutrients that it then must metabolize into both energy and structure. All of the extinct species that were on this planet having failed because they could not meet the challenge of extracting the requirements for life from their environment. Some have had some help in this matter. A significant percentage of species have been detained from acquiring nutrients from their environment by other species acquiring them as nutrients themselves. In either case, the surviving organisms have overcome the inequities present in their environment and have passed those characteristics vital to survival on to their progeny.
It is the result of the forces of chemical bonding, natural selection, and random mutation over three and a half billion years that has resulted in the myriad of complex life forms on this planet. Three and a half billion years is a very long time for any process to take place. If we find ourselves in awe at the diverse and intricate life that has evolved, we must also be in awe of the time that has passed. We must also recognize the abundant resources and hospitable environment that have existed on this planet for that epoch. It is the complete understanding of these forces that lead to the conclusion that life arose and evolved within the boundaries of our knowledge of the Universe. It is an incomplete appreciation for the forces of nature and the time scales involved that leads to erroneous or extra physical explanations for life.
It is understandably difficult to appreciate the time scale involved with our evolutionary path and equally easy to speculate that life had arisen en masse from a singular event. From the point of view of a Human life, the Earth is complete, whole, and unchanging. The order of nature seems resolute and unwavering. Life is mutable, however, and we have exploited that mutability for our own benefit. All of the breeds of dogs alive at his time are descended from the handful of wild dogs that first became an ally to men. We have manipulated the genetic material of wheat, rice, cattle, sheep and goats for thousands of years. We have done it without the aid of recombinant DNA or artificial insemination. We have been able to genetically alter other species because of the inherent pliability of sexual reproduction. This capacity for change is not exclusive to Human manipulation, but a fundamental trait of life on this planet.
Evolution and Natural Selection are not simply theories, but a well-established phenomenon that can be demonstrated readily with some of the more rapidly reproducing life forms. A farmer who uses a particular pesticide on a particular pest over an extended period of time will find the pesticide increasingly less effective as the population of pests breeds only those of its species with a resistance to the pesticide. This is the essence of Natural Selection. Natural Selection was operating before life as we would describe it had appeared. The fundamental long chain molecules of amino acids were selected by the availability of the surrounding medium to provide the essential ingredients for a sustainable structure. Life is also subject to the random mutation of the genetic code. Ultimately, all variations in the genetic code arise from mutations. The overwhelming majority of mutations are useless. It is the long history of life on this planet that has allowed mutation to play a significant role in the evolution of life.
The evolution of Human Beings has been an abundant source of misinformation. To this day, school districts debate whether to include texts that suggest the evolution of Human Beings from our simian ancestors. The opposition to currently accepted theories of the origin of our species comes not from the scientific community but from theologians and dogmatists. The fossil record will never be as complete as we would like. The best fossil remains are the result of an unusual and fortuitous death that left the remains preserved and intact. Another fortuitous event is required to locate the fossil remains. The remains must then be excavated in a manner that provides the most information and preserves the integrity of that information. There will always remain some doubt as to the details of Human evolution as long as the fossil record is the foundation of our knowledge. The fundamental laws and guiding principles, which have guided us to an understanding of the evolution of our species, is no longer a subject for debate in the scientific community.
Human Beings evolved from apelike ancestors. Gorillas and Chimpanzees also evolved from the same branch of that family at least seven million years ago. We are not descended from the current simian species. While they are our closest living relatives, we have been following diverging evolutionary paths. The Gorillas and Chimpanzees will continue to evolve directed by the same forces of Natural Selection and random mutation that have molded every life form in existence. Human Beings will not follow the same path.
Human Beings have replaced much of the effects of Natural Selection with technological and cultural selection. Humans are no longer selected against reproduction because of polio, measles, or an impacted wisdom tooth. In the developed areas of the world, Human Beings who do not die by accident, die from the results of having lived in a body that can no longer successfully repair itself. Death usually takes place many years after the reproductive capabilities of the individual have ceased to be operational. Babies are born under or overweight that would not have survived only a century ago. The advances of medical technology have eliminated the threat of an early demise from most common diseases, accidents, or environmental hazards. The beneficiaries of medical science are able to breed as much as any other person. It is impossible to predict what effects our technological capabilities will have on our future evolution. It would be absurd to assert that people should not receive the benefits of the modern world in order to stay in line with our evolutionary past.
Human Beings will certainly become more heterogeneous. The great effect of modern transportation is to eliminate the isolation of any group. The geographic barriers that previously allowed groups of people to follow an independent evolutionary course have been all but eliminated. The results of the geographic isolation of the past have given us the differences we commonly ascribe to race. Further proof of the evolutionary process is that all of the so-called races can mate with each other. We are not so different and obviously share the same lineage. These lines of distinction will certainly fade in the next ten to twenty thousand years. It would be a rare set of circumstances that would allow for any group of Humans to evolve independently in the modern world. The political boundaries now pose the greatest impediment to migration at this time.
99.999% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. What we refer to as Modern Man will certainly become extinct. The extinction of Modern Man will hopefully be accompanied by a replacement that is better able to survive on this planet. Any other extinction will most certainly come by our own hand. There are no animals that can successfully survive by predation of Human Beings. Our population is genetically diverse and numerically prosperous. It is unlikely that any disease or agent, curable or not, would be able to decimate the entire Human population. We are the only species that shapes the environment around it rather than being shaped by the environment. In order to insure our survival it will be necessary to not only shape our environment to our needs, but also quite possibly, shape ourselves. This would be the ultimate act of Human invention.
The realization of genetic manipulation in Human Beings will be the province of science fiction well into the near future. Our immediate problems must be solved with the abilities we now possess. The problems we have created for life on this planet have been on Human time scales. Evolutionary remedies would require thousands of generations if they were capable of remedies at all. Human Beings have realized such a profound potential for changing our environment that we have already altered life significantly and have brought into question its continued presence on this planet.
The problems of life and the environment tend to run the course of chicken and egg questions. Life both responds to and changes the environment around it. The conditions on Earth at any given time are predominantly the result of solar and geologic activity. Small changes in the output of the Sun or degree of inclination in the Earth's axis of rotation will result in very different conditions for life. Various environmental calamities of the past have resulted in mass extinctions. The most famous occurring with the demise of the dinosaurs approximately sixty-five million years ago. Evidence suggests that either a collision with a large meteor or a period of profuse volcanic activity was responsible. In either case, the change that precipitated the extinction was as simple as the result of less energy from the Sun making its way to the surface of the planet. The Sun is the predominant source of energy for life on Earth as well as for the physical processes of the Solar system. The Ice Ages are precipitated by a slight wobble in the rotation of the Earth about its axis. This small perturbation in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface can determine whether Iowa has glaciers. Life has adapted to the extremes of temperature available on Earth during the present conditions. Life is not adapted to the conditions that are possible in the Solar System. The eight lifeless worlds accompanying our circuits around the Sun are mute testament to the exacting conditions that must prevail for life to flourish.
At the time of this writing, there is no empirical evidence that the Human alterations to the global environment have inexorably altered that environment in a way that will lead to the demise of life supporting conditions. There is ample evidence that Human activity can irreparably harm the local environment and the life forms dependent on it. The life span of Human Beings tends to make for a short perspective on the future. Many ill-advised practices can be sustained by the environment over a short period. If we were anticipating inhabiting this planet for next few thousand years it would be in our best interests to preserve it in a life sustaining condition. Currently, the waste products of nuclear power plants and weapons factories are being disposed of in underground caverns or at the sea floor. The waste will be toxic to life for many thousands of years. The choice has been made to pass the burden of safe disposal to future generations. I doubt very much if I will live to see a time when nuclear waste will present a personal health hazard. This lack of foresight, however, is not what has allowed our species to dominate the planet.
Extinction is inevitable, predictable, and an integral aspect of evolution on this planet. It is, however, in our interest to maintain the status quo for some time. The biosphere at the present time ensures our continued existence. To irrevocably change our biosphere, without knowledge of its impact on the environment, the air we breathe or the food and water we consume, is to invite disaster. Unfortunately that is precisely the current policy of the governments of the most influential nations on this planet. The complexity of the biosphere and the limits of our ability to gather and process information has left us with conjectures about the future that cannot be empirically proven. While we are aware of an increase in greenhouse gases and deforestation, we are unable to discover what effects it will have on the climate. While Human population expansion is resulting in loss of habitat and species, we simply cannot know what contribution any single species may make to the understanding of life and of ourselves. There are some indications that Human activity may be absorbed by the environment without any great change in the biosphere that currently exists. There are also indications that the observed changes in the composition of the atmosphere could portend great changes for life. At this time, the proper behavior is to act as if the worst-case scenario is a certainty. The repercussions from making an error in this realm are at the very least unwarranted Human suffering and at worst, ecological disaster. What we do know with a great degree of certainty is that life has prospered under the relatively stable conditions that have preceded Human emergence. Our disruption of that stability could inevitably be our undoing.
Life is not mysterious, but very elaborate. We have been taught to identify life forms on this planet by emphasizing their differences in relations to ourselves. This anthropocentric view of life has given us Human Beings as the ideal life form and the rest of nature as deviations from that ideal. We look at other life forms and see them in a light that reflects only the differences between us. We concentrate on the differences because it is the differences that provide the most meaningful relationships. The similarities of life are equally astounding. All life requires water in the liquid state. All life uses DNA or RNA for defining the proteins that in turn defines its structure and its methods of maintaining life. All life existing at this time evolved from a single ancestor. Life on this planet is the result of three and a half billion years of variations on a theme.
Life is a variation on the theme of the physical laws of the Universe. Every form of life on this planet is constructed from the elements that were present on Earth approximately three and a half billion years ago. Life uses carbon as the essential building block of the various proteins and amino acids that provide physical structure to complex organisms. It has been speculated that life may use different elements, depending on their availability, for their fundamental structures. The speculation on what shape life may take in other parts of the Universe lies mostly in the realm of science fiction. In the extremely unlikely chance that we should encounter any extraterrestrial life form, it would certainly exceed our own imaginings. Life on this planet stills holds an enormous potential for intellectual investigation. The Human mind is the most complex and most powerful result of the processes of life on this planet. While the Human mind was not designed for the complex task of understanding itself, it can create machines that will make up for any shortfalls that evolution could not provide. Yet, while we may build machines with the ability to process gigabytes of information every second, we are not building machines capable of replication, self-maintenance, or metabolism. Of course, we have not had three and a half billion years. We have only had forty or fifty thousand.
No life will have another three and a half billion years. Life has already taken the best years our Sun will provide. Another few billion years will find the Sun unstable and life on this planet intolerable. Four or five billion years from now the Sun will be a Red Giant and the Earth and all the inner planets will have been incinerated. It will violate no physical laws for the Human species, or all life on this planet, to become extinct. Our survival is dependent on our ability to shape our environment to ensure our survival. We are the only life form on this planet with that choice. There are no rights or wrongs in the Universe. The Universe is without a sense of morality or justice; these are Human inventions. As a Human Being, however, I would feel a great loss at our inability to realize the potential of life. We have come a great distance; we have a greater distance to go.
Chapter Three
Society and Morality
Human Beings are animals as much as any other creature on Earth. We assemble into large groups in much the same way as other creatures for many of the same reasons. We do not; however, refer to Human groups as herds, flocks, or packs. These are names applied to animals without any regard to the activity of the animals within that classification. We arrange ourselves in a number of ways dependent on both size and function. We all have ties to families, extended families, clans, nationalities and societies. We may have ties to political or religious groups that further classify Humans in respect to each other. Political classification can reveal the type of existence a person may lead. Race is another category into which we place ourselves but which has grown to have vastly more importance than it deserves. In general, people with more pigment in their skin tend to enjoy less of the benefits of modern civilization than do people with considerably less pigment. This is a result of the different groups to which people belonged when technological advances changed the fundamental structure of society. Societies running relatively behind in technological knowledge were often sublimated by societies whose control of technology allowed them to exert that technological superiority in a very physical way.
I was told early in my early education that the continent of North America was discovered by Columbus in 1492. That was the date that Europeans discovered the continent. It had been discovered by people from Asia thousands of years previously. These people developed several complexes and flourishing societies by the time people from Europe developed the means to explore across the Atlantic Ocean. The Europeans exploited their technological superiority to subjugate the people and plunder whatever material wealth they could gather. The aboriginal populations that dominated the North American Continent lacked the weaponry and material sophistication of the Europeans. The current population of aboriginal people in the United States is less than one per cent of the total population. Societies, like all species, run the risk of extinction when confronted with an environment ill suited to their survival. The survival of our society depends on a continuing effort to maintain and improve our physical and social environment.
Societies are able to evolve and distinguish themselves by long periods of isolation from other societies. It is possible to speak of European society collectively despite the many nationalities and independent states that define it. It is possible at this time to speak of Western society as a single society because the advances in communication and travel have had a homogenizing effect. Certain tribes of Human Beings living in New Guinea have been unaffected by technological change only because they have not been exposed to it. Every society will in some way affect any other society with which it communicates. The technological innovations that have revolutionized communication in this century have set the stage for a global society. A complete assimilation of Human Beings into one society is not on the horizon. Yet, the credit card I obtain from a bank down the street can be used in Japan, Europe, Australia, or Africa. I can reach by telephone nearly anyone else in the world with a telephone. The most prominent obstacles to a universal society are language and custom. Our reality is shaped by language and our concept of the Universe is molded by the collective perceptions held to be true by the vast majority of our associate populous.
To belong to a society is not simply to wear a tag of nationality but to act and think in a way that reflects the values of that society. As we are imprinted with a language, we are imprinted with the standards of behavior and thought that are taught and continually reinforced from an early age. As we are in no position to question the legitimacy of the language taught to us, customs and morality are learned without much intellectual investigation. Societies are often distinguished only by the language they use. The influences of language have not only distinguished the society in which they evolve, but have isolated people from one another. The current advances in communication have left only minute areas of the world without communication with the rest of the world. The mass media have standardized most notably the English language with the accompanying loss of local dialects. The standardization of weights and measures, currencies, clothing, and symbols all point to a global perception of what it like to be a Human Being on this planet at this time. Strong differences remain and will remain in attitudes towards religion and morality. The physical world that we employ in our daily lives will continue to be the best example for the homogeneity that advances in communication and transportation bring to the global society.
Human Beings gathered to form societies as a technique for survival. Society allows for specialization among its members. I do not have to grow crops, slaughter animals, make clothing, or build shelter. I do not have to dispose of my waste, protect myself or my possessions from exploitation by others. These are the most fundamental advantages of belonging to a Human collective. The advantages of living in a modern Western Society are too numerous to list in detail. Generally, the largest and most complex societies also provide the greatest number of advantages. Societies evolve to states of greater complexity because it is advantageous for its constituents to live in such a society. Human Beings living in this country at this time are for the most part more comfortable than any other civilization at any previous time in history. Civilization could not advance as nomadic tribes following the migrations of the animals they needed for survival. It was the invention of agriculture and domestication of animals that allowed Human Beings to create civilization. It was an attachment to the land that enabled people not only to build permanent structures, but to make permanent progress as well. The specialization that this type of organization provided has been able to make technological progress and to build on previous knowledge.
A scientist is able to focus all of his intellectual energy on a single problem because the problems of daily survival are solved for him by specialists in other fields. Specialization is the modern equivalent of occupation. We are identified by the specialized function we perform within the framework of our society. Nearly everyone is identified with a particular skill or endeavor that we perform. This is our support of the collective to which we belong. As an individual, a Human Being has a limited potential. The potential of several billion Human Beings working toward a common goal is practically unlimited.
Perfect societies, however, exist only in the imagination of Human Beings, not in their cognitive experience. Societies are frequently involved in self-destructive behavior or conflict with other societies that are resolved by physical annihilation of one kind or another. Our occupation, or job, in some way helps the society to function as a cohesive whole. Yet people rarely aspire to become accountants or lawyers to fulfill society’s needs. They are, for the most part, fulfilling their own needs and aspirations. At this time, in this country, no one is told what career they should pursue. Nearly everyone in this society is allowed to choose for him or herself what function they will perform within society. Even the duty of defending the country from foreign attack is performed by volunteers. Given a large and diverse population, filling the manpower requirements of a modern industrialized nation does not require conscription into certain professions. It would undoubtedly instigate no small amount of unrest should a government undertake such a policy. The required occupations for survival are ensured by above average material compensation. It works much like the system of supply and demand that operates in fixing prices in a free market economy.
People expect certain fundamental amenities from the country in which they live. The freedom to choose their own path in life is certainly one of those amenities. It is the fundamental conflict between individual needs and the requirements of the support systems of society that generates the greatest conflicts. Acting individually in a society as large as the United States will not greatly disrupt the status quo. Fifty per cent of the police force of a major metropolitan area not showing up for work would certainly be cause for apprehension. Fortunately, people who choose professions that are the most elemental to safe and efficient operation of society tend to attract people with a highly developed sense of duty and loyalty.
No society can attain the status of a clearly independent society without the cooperation of the vast majority of its populous. The rules of behavior and law must be observed without significant deviation in order for the people to reap the benefits that a sustainable society can provide. The overwhelming majority of people in the United States do not commit serious crimes. They act in accordance with the norms of behavior set down by law and custom. While deviant behavior is certainly a problem, it does not bring our civilization to the point of disintegration. At this time, crimes are substantially no more rampant nor are people more corrupt that at any other time in the history of civilization. It may seem otherwise because mass communication, literacy, and reporting of deviant social behavior stimulates our awareness of it in ways not even dreamt of only fifty years ago. We are shown hideous crimes in real time on our televisions or the Internet while police department's computerized statistics provide a wealth of information on aberrant social behavior. There are twice as many people on this planet as there were only forty years ago. The numerical incidence of crime could have doubled without any proportional increase. The relative stability of the major global societies over the past fifty years indicates not only maturation, but also an acceptance of the social contract.
An acceptance of the social contract implies adherence to certain rules of behavior. Most of these rules are known as law. Fundamentally, laws are designed to prevent the unwarranted deprivation of an individual's personal or material well being. The complicated relationships of Human Beings within a societal structure and the inherent ambiguities in language have taken my single sentence on law and expanded it into volumes. A society must have both accessible rules of behavior and an authority to enforce those rules. I would not think that there has ever existed a society in which one or more of its members did not act in a way that would prove injurious to the society as a whole in order to meet individual goals. Human Beings will act for the collective good within a society as long as a majority of their individual needs are met. The difference between the needs of the individual and the requirements of a society is the amount of deviant behavior within that society.
The rule of law and the law of morality were at one time the same concept. This is no longer the case as we see law and morality as distinct, yet complimentary entities. The majority of activities considered immoral at this time are also illegal. Morality has become the rules beyond the scope of law. A person who seeks to live morally is exceeding the minimum standards for behavior set by the law. It is quite possible for someone to be well within the law at the same time behaving in an immoral manner. While the law tends to focus on the extent of Human interaction that can be quantitatively defined, morality seeks to regulate actions and thoughts that arise from subjective Human values. Morality is subjective. It arises out of a particular set of circumstances. Once removed from that particular set of circumstances it may or may not be relevant. If I were to murder an enemy of mine in the context of a normal social setting, I would certainly be sent to prison for most of my life or even executed. If, however, I were a member of the United States Marines and engaged in combat, I could slaughter as many Human Beings as I liked on the battlefield. This would not result in my imprisonment but rather would be viewed as an act of great benefit to society. Moral issues are hotly debated because there are no absolute answers. Each issue must be dealt with both individually and with a clear idea of the circumstances involved. The law as it is written implies not only standards for behaviors, but also the conditions under which the law is applicable. That is why there are thousands of laws trying to cover the multitudinous aspects of the Human condition. It is also the reason for loopholes that allow the law to be circumvented under unusual circumstances. Morality changes with the times. Many of the standards of moral behavior thirty years ago are not applicable at this time.
Moral doctrine usually arises from a religious source. Religious leaders are usually seen as a valid source of moral direction. It is the state, however, that decides the rules of law and has the ability to enforce them. In some societies there remains no difference between civil and religious authority. Religious authority is limited in its responses to immoral activity. In this country religious beliefs, while respected, are subject to the rules that have been elucidated for everyone. Perhaps the most volatile moral issue of our time is the issue of abortion. It was, at the latest confirmation hearings of an appointed Supreme Court Justice, the topic that received the greatest amount of coverage by the news media. The question of abortion has become not only an issue of morality, but one of politics as well. Moral issues are able to take center stage in our lives because they address the fundamental question of any cooperative collective: How should the individual in a society behave for the greatest good of both?
In the case of abortion, or any other moral issue, the above question is the best guide to a solution. An abortion is the removal of a developing Human Being from the womb of its mother for the purpose of termination of that development. The cases that are considered immoral by most of the opponents are those in which abortion is used as a form of contraception. There are a small percentage of people who assert that an abortion under conditions of rape, incest, or the endangerment of the mother's life, is also immoral. The assertion that abortion is immoral stems from the belief that all Human life is sacred and that from the time of conception a developing Human Being is entitled to all the rights and protections provided by the law. Abortion is then seen as the legal equivalent of murder.
It is easy in a society that is as stable and affluent as the United States to refer to the sanctity of Human life. The sanctity of Human life is unfortunately a condition alien to most of the people on the planet. Human Beings have slaughtered millions of each other several times in this century. Yet, it is illegal in this country to take another person's life from them. Abortions are legal, so it must be that in reference to the law, a developing Human is not afforded the same legal rights as fully developed Human Beings. That is a consistent statement. A one second old zygote or a six-month-old fetus is not a fully functional Human Being. It has the potential of becoming a Human Being. Life may start at conception but complete development is not finished until birth. At birth, it would be illegal to take the life of the infant. It has become a living Human Being and is subsequently in receipt of the rights and protection afforded to it by society.
Abortion is, however a very traumatic and complicated solution to a problem that would be better solved by improving birth control methods. The problem with abortion is not the sanctity of Human life or the legal rights of the unborn. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. Protecting Human life from its earliest inception with the rules of law would lead to a cascade of questions concerning the rights of the mother versus the child. Giving a fetus full protection under the law would put the mother in a position of defending herself against charges of child abuse should she smoke, drink alcohol, or become malnourished. Women routinely have fertilized eggs that do not attach the uterus or do not develop properly without their knowledge. Fecund women would have to be monitored for fertilization to protect the rights of the zygote. It would be impossible to provide full legal protection to an unborn Human Being without violating the established rights of the mother. Until birth, the unborn are physically and legally a component of the mother. The sanctity of life is hardly a relevant point in a country whose elected government commits more of its resources to the weaponry designed for the taking of Human life rather than the technology used in its preservation.
Abortion is not in the best interest of the individual or society because there are less costly, less intrusive, and safer alternatives. The moral opponents of abortion do not see contraception as a viable solution. Their alternatives bring the unwanted pregnancy to term or suggest abstinence from sexual encounters. The cost of bringing an unwanted child into the world is paid for in no small measure by the society into which it is born. The costs can vary greatly from a minimal additional burden on society to a lifetime of support. In 1985 in this country there were 1.3 million abortions. Eighty one percent of those women having abortions were single, separated, or divorced. This would imply some cost exceeding minimal expectations for those 1.3 million children. The problem of population is not addressed by the opponents of abortion. It is not simply the millions of children who were not born, but the tens of millions of their children and grandchildren who will not inhabit the planet. This planet is, at this time, over-populated by Human Beings. The quality of life we are capable of providing for ourselves cannot be provided for the entire population of the world. We are in no danger of running short of people any time soon. I am, of course, analyzing this question from the perspective of empirical evidence and reason. Morality arises from doctrine and dogma that is not open to criticism.
To suggest that Human Beings engage in intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation is to deny a very fundamental biological need. We would not have been very successful as a species if we were not sexually active most of our lives. A part of our success can be attributed to the fact that males are nearly always capable of sexual relations and that females are nearly always receptive. We are not locked into a particular breeding season. If we were only capable of breeding three weeks of the year it would be a simple matter to suggest abstinence. Unfortunately, that is not the case and abstinence cannot be seriously suggested as a possible alternative to Human sexual behavior. Our technology at this time and for some time to come will be incapable of amending our genetic instructions to create a sexually disinterested population.
The best possible solution to the problem of abortion is to educate Human Beings about their sexual capabilities and provide them with the best possible means for controlling their reproductive capacity. The people who are ardently opposed to abortion are not distributing pamphlets about sexual function or means of contraception. They rarely discuss sex except in reference to abstinence. My solutions to abortion and most other moral issues will diverge significantly from the solutions provided by people whose reference for such matters is a Christian ethic. A person, who follows the teachings of Christ, or a Christian, is following guidelines of action derived from the Bible and other writings and which is interpreted for them by an established authority. The ultimate goal of a Christian is to procure everlasting life through the creator of the Universe. This is achieved through adherence to the laws and practices of Christianity. Each individual denomination of Christianity has its own distinct rules and I would not attempt at this juncture to describe all of Christian philosophy in a few sentences. I bring into this discussion the basics of Christian thought for two reasons. It dominates the character of law and thinking within Western civilization and it places both the goals and ultimate authority of Human Beings out of the reach of cognitive experience.
The law already covers the vast majority of individual and collective behaviors that would be detrimental to the best interests of a society. In this country, we have the option of changing any laws that become antiquated or were ill advised in the first place. Issues of morality are not nearly as well defined and their impact on society is much less accessible. Since the lack of morality cannot be quantitatively defined, it would be ridiculous to assert that any measurable effect is being made on society. To assert that this society is morally bankrupt is to suggest that the fundamental aspects of Christian morality are not being widely held or observed. It does not suggest that either the society itself or its people are in a state of decay. The assumption here is that Christian morals are beneficial to society. This is an erroneous assumption based on my previous exposition on the issue of abortion. The costs to the individual as well as to society of abstaining from abortion at this time are far greater than the cost of abortion. This is a material observation. The loss of the ideal of the sanctity of Human life is an issue that has immense significance for the well being of society. This point however was not lost with the acceptance of abortion. The sanctity of Human life has been trampled on for thousands of years before the invention of clinical abortion. Before we can proclaim the sanctity of an unborn fetus, it will be necessary to procure the sanctity of Human life that has attained independence and complete development. I would regard an act as immoral if it were subscribing to a set of values without regard to their effect on society and the individual. An immoral act would not hold the promise of a continuing advance in the quality of life for Human Beings. We must act both individually and collectively in a way that will ensure our continued survival. Our survival will increasingly depend on improvements both technological and societal. This is what I would term moral behavior. The Christian ethic does have some excellent suggestions for the beneficial behavior of Human Beings.
To treat other Human Beings in a manner that you yourself would wish to be treated is a major tenet of the Christian tradition. It is a both a simple and effective philosophy for conducting daily relationships between people. Providing, of course, that an individual would want to be treated in a fair and civil manner. Unfortunately, my addendum rarely appears in sermons on the golden rule. People, even within a single society, rarely have a widely accepted preference for individual behavior. Like the law, any standard we set for the moral behavior within a society is going to run into the problem of the myriad of circumstances that can possibly arise in the course of Human interaction. Questions concerning the morality of any action are inherently subject to debate and will never be completely resolved to everyone's satisfaction. This is the case because the questions are raised not in order to establish a criteria for Human survival, but in order to satisfy the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.
Christian, Judaic, Muslim, and many other religious systems are subject to differing opinions when the foundational beliefs are used to assess a very specific Human situation. The legislative bodies of government are able to enact new laws in response to an unforeseen or new situation. New religious tenets are not added to cover new realities. The Bible is not being amended to fill the vast social chasm between the time when it was written and the present day. The response to a new situation calls for a reinterpretation of existing beliefs. Since the value of one interpretation over another cannot be quantitatively defined, the result is that there is no clear consensus on the particular action to be taken in response to a given situation. Many of our concepts about leading a moral life are derived from religious teachings and their current interpretations. This has lead to various groups of people acting in ways that prove to be injurious to their society at the same time they are conforming to a perception of moral righteousness.
As a society, we use the criminal justice system to encourage people to act in way that will be of benefit to themselves and the common collective. The way that we encourage people is to punish them when they transgress the law. There is very little in the way of reward for acting in accordance with the law. The reward for civil behavior is not being punished for it. An individual is allowed to exercise whatever freedoms are allowed under the system of government as long as no laws are violated. An individual who transgresses the law can be deprived of certain freedoms or possessions by the powers vested in the state. The moral transgressions that fall outside of the law cannot be dealt with as easily. A moral edict is enforceable only through the cooperation of the individual committing the transgression. If a person chooses not to reveal a transgression of moral standards or refuse to accept punishment, it will be entirely a matter of personal discretion. In the Christian tradition, an act of contrition is sufficient retribution. Without an act of contrition the punishment is eternity in hell. The reward for leading a virtuous life within the moral guidelines of Christianity is eternal happiness in heaven. Neither the rewards nor punishments handed out by Christianity are available to Human Beings in this Universe. Again, complete cooperation from the practitioners of a religion is necessary for its enforcement of rules of behavior. This is not the case with law enforcement.
Any Human Being living within the physical boundaries of the United States is subject to the laws of this country. Any punishment received is a very physical and measurable quantity. The society prevents actions it considers detrimental by physically preventing people from doing them. This usually applies to what are considered the most serious transgressions. The most common form of punishment is to deprive the transgressor of material wealth. This is how a modern society limits the range of acceptable behavior for its constituents. In the same sense that religious moral standards are unenforceable in this world and enforcement of law requires physical evidence of some kind, we are left with morality as the conscience of a society. The law differs from religious moral standards in that it is undeniably and completely of Human origin and can be amended at any time without destroying the meaning or purpose of the law.
The law is restricted in its effectiveness in controlling the individual behaviors usually associated with morality. It is unlawful to deceive someone for material gain but not to deceive someone for amusement. It may be ill advised for the environment to drive a car that gets less than three miles to the gallon, but it is not illegal. Laws are written by Human Beings and can reflect a bias for personal gain. Legislatures also tend to stay away from laws that would require enforcement on a very individual basis. Human Beings make very bad machines. They are as distinctive in their genetic code as they are in their perception of and reaction to their environment. Efforts in the past to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages or using illegal drugs by making it illegal have failed. Human Beings will act in their own best interests unless there is a strong motivation to do otherwise.
While laws are generally based on rational analysis, the body of religious morality is based on dogma. There are areas in which the Christian ethic is and has been beneficial to both the goals of the individual and society. Religious dogma is inflexible by definition. As our existence as a species becomes more tenuous, our decisions of not only global policy but of individual action must be made based on the best information at hand. The United States may represent about one twenty-fourth of the population of this planet but our economic prowess exerts an influence greater than many third world countries of greater size. With every action taken as a collective there is a measurable physical effect on the rest of the planet. Our numbers have placed areas of the world previously considered insignificant into a prominent global position.
The growing population of Brazil has turned to destroying vast areas of rain forests to fulfill its economic needs. The effects of despeciation can be readily quantified. The effects of the loss of carbon absorbing, oxygen producing plant life have yet to be resolved. The moral affirmation of large families and the moral disdain of contraception have contributed to the explosive growth of Human Beings. Large families were also considered a function of prosperity. While that may have been the case before the turn of the century, it is at this time an unquestionable detriment to our continued survival. It is because of empirical evidence and reasoned consequences that our individual and collective morality must be based.

Moral action is not only derived from its consequences on individual and collective basis, but from the point of view of near and distant consequences for the future. At this time it may be morally acceptable to access energy from nuclear fission in order to prolong our fossil fuel allocation and reduce the pollutants associated with their burning. It is immoral to leave to future generations tons of poisonous waste that we are unable to safely reintroduce into the environment. Human Beings have a very short lifetime in comparison to the half-life of many elements. It is difficult to appreciate or care about a remote future when current needs have to be met. Short-term morality will eventually handcuff future generations of Human Beings with a continually degrading quality of life. I will certainly not live to face the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I will not suffer the most drastic effects of an increase in greenhouse gases. I will simply not live enough years to have these and other problems affect my life drastically. If I address these problems within my lifetime in order to lessen their future effects, I will certainly have to make some choices that will affect my lifestyle in a negative way. I would have to bear a future burden in the present time. Why should I?
Upon my demise I will be unable to express any concern as to the condition of the planet or the lifestyle of its Human inhabitants. I will not have to pay restitution in any form for any mismanagement of resources. Future generations will inherit a legacy in which they will have no input whatever as to its contents. The future of this planet past the point of my death is meaningless to me. The preceding points in this paragraph are true. I am, however, misleading the reader as to my intentions. There are no moral questions of the distant future. The only moral questions are those that apply in a period that I am able to act upon them. The question remains: Why should I act to ensure the continued survival of the Human species when the benefits of such actions will not be realized by me?
This is as fundamental a question as I can pose that pertains to morality. Like most fundamental questions, its answer will influence the answers I can logically give to many other questions. To act at this time in ways that ensure the continued survival of our species into the distant future is to act to ensure my own personal survival at this time. The two are inseparable and contingent upon one another. To act without regard to the future is to dismantle the present. I may live for several decades should I stay free from accident or major illness. This life, this temporary existence, is all that I have evidence for that I will ever have. I would like it to be as fulfilling as possible. This planet is certainly not capable of sustaining all of the unbridled wants and aspirations of six billion Human Beings. I would doubt if I would last twenty years should Human Beings abandon the future to satisfy the needs of the present. I would act for a sustainable world because to do otherwise is bring the uncertainty of the future to my own time.
Human civilization and the accompanying progress made by this invention are the result of a continuing expectation of a better world than the one previously occupied. While conditions have improved only gradually over the first few thousand years, over the past several hundred, the value added to Human existence has grown exponentially. It is the cooperation of the members of a society in working for increasingly better living conditions that has generated our present abundance for so many people. It is the single-minded pursuit of individual and short-range goals that has retarded our progress. Both short term and long term moralities have been influential in the ascent of Human Beings. It is the balance between current requirements and future needs that provides for a stable and survivable environment.
At this point in our evolution, it has become apparent that a lack of foresight by past generations has preempted solutions for this time. Unchecked population growth and an ignorance of the intricacies of the ecosystem have been the greatest moral failure of past several hundred years. We are at this time looking for answers to questions not solely of progress, but of maintaining the level of affluence we have already achieved. The greatest threat to our level of sustainability is the issue of population growth. The geometric expansion of population during this century is the source of the most difficult problems we will have to solve in order to ensure our survival. It is imperative that we reduce our population growth and eventually reverse the trend. Under the present economic and government systems it is clear that the physical resources of this planet and our own inventiveness are insufficient to give every person on the planet a standard of living equal to that of most industrialized Western nations. It is an immoral act at this time in history to have a large family. It was an immoral act fifty years ago as well and we are currently encumbered with results of that collective action. Yet, there are no restrictions on family size in this country. People are allowed to have as many children as they can produce. The set of moral values that equates population growth with prosperity still exists despite the evidence to the contrary.
Morality arises from a distinct set of circumstances. Once removed from its initial circumstances it may or may not be valid. Morality as defined in this discussion is not the standards of behavior that are influenced by the fashion of the time and are as fleeting as the popularity of a design. Moral actions in this discussion are the actions taken collectively and individually within a society that have an ascertainable influence on Human survival. The moral standards of Western civilization are derived not from sociological studies, but from the dogma of Christian beliefs. They are therefore inflexible and not available for intellectual deliberation. Christians believe that their God has provided them with the necessary standards of behavior for Human Beings on this planet. A failure to open the current values of a society to close inspection and analysis is to deny the ability of reason that has made the progress of our species possible.
The structure of society itself is nearly as inflexible as religious dogma. Experiments in societal configuration are very limited. A Human society has to collapse before it can be replaced. Societies are subject to complete change only after some cataclysmic event such as war or revolution has destroyed the government and its ability to enforce behavior. The changes that result from these kinds of catastrophes are not made from the position of reason but from brute force. Revolutions bring into power people whose general inclinations are to solve problems using force. Violent revolutions often exchange one set of oppressors for another. This is true of dictatorships and monarchies. In a democracy a society has the option of radical change without completely disrupting the economic or social structure. Change in the social structure is possible in stable societies but only within the framework of its laws and standards of behavior. The societies of Japan and England still revere monarchs despite the fact that their role is entirely ceremonial. In the United States we still use the Electoral College to legally elect a president when the results of the popular vote are usually determined the same night of an election. Change is not usually welcome within a society because with every modification there will be winners and losers. The people in power tend to stay in power because they have the ability to maintain the status quo. Change on individual basis may well result in a loss in the standard of living. An increase in the standard of living has to be planned and executed. Deprivation can arise from the vagaries of weather or by accident. For this very reason Human Beings are inherently suspicious of any alterations to their societal environment for which the consequences cannot be readily determined.
The societal rules of behavior operate in a very similar way to an ecosystem. They both work toward a sustainable balance of growth and resources. A society such as the United States is very complex and interrelated. Any action taken in one area of experience will have an effect in every other area of experience. With any change it will be necessary to establish a new equilibrium for the society as a whole. The result is that it becomes very difficult to make any modifications to the existing structure with a high degree of confidence to its possible consequences. As with an ecosystem, it may be possible to bring a society down by the removal or addition of single element. Unlike an ecosystem, Human societies are a Human invention and have only been evolving for six or seven thousand years. Unlike an ecosystem, we have the capacity to alter any or all of its elements to suit our needs or configure the entire structure in novel ways. Societies are perceived as successful unless they have failed. To suggest to a nation as large and complicated as the United States that wholesale changes should be made in our goals and the way we act would be met with great opposition. This society works well for most of the population. It works exceedingly well for the people who make the decisions concerning its operation. There is no question that this society could achieve a greater standard of living for more people. We do not because to do so would be viewed as jeopardizing the level of affluence we have already achieved.
Change arises without notice, preparation, or conscious decision from the effects of technological advances. Whether it was the invention of the wheel or the Turing machine, our innovation in the physical world determines the parameters of social structure. Societies that are economically less advanced are also less stable. The possible configurations that can satisfy the very fundamental services they provide are numerically greater and less disruptive to implement. In modern industrialized society we have developed a hierarchy of technological infrastructure that dictates the possible configurations of any individual society. Since the end of World War II, no wars have been fought on the soil of an advanced industrialized country. The industrialized or Western nations have reached a point of technological complexity and economic interdependence that makes armed conflict between advanced industrialized nations far too costly to be permitted. It is not just war, but radical change of any kind is not possible without some severe calamity within the framework of modern society. With increasing sophistication comes an inability to explore alternatives without the possibility of catastrophic results.
The possibility of global climate change would mean starvation or deprivation for hundreds of millions of people. It does not matter what type of change occurs or what areas are affected. Any climatic change will alter food production negatively until we can find an adequate solution. A rise or fall in seasonal temperatures or precipitation will eliminate or reduce the yield of crops grown in a certain region. Until substitutes can be introduced, food production will inevitably fall. We are not at this time adequately feeding the world population. Any significant loss of production will have a significant effect in an area in which there is no room for error. Food production is the most critical area in which a complex society can risk catastrophe upon a failure to maintain the status quo. Disruptions in modern communications would have the most devastating effects on the countries most reliant on the technology. While a failure of the communications network will not result in starvation, it would seriously undermine the economic processes that provide both the capital and markets necessary to grow and distribute the crops. We are completely dependent on the systems of transportation and data processing for our dietary requirements. The effect is to place modern societies in a position where it is the technological infrastructure that determines the shape a society will take. Once in place, this technological infrastructure is usually replaced through catastrophe or upheaval.
An excellent example of this phenomenon is the widespread use of automobiles in the United States for personal transportation. In the first half of this century we built an infrastructure for automobiles that has proven to be both environmentally and economically unsound. There is no movement to replace this technology at this time because we have not reached a level of crisis that would bring about its demise. Human Beings in this country view both public transportation and fuel efficiency as reductions in their standard of living. The law does not require efficiency at this time because to do so would disrupt the current economic power structure. The populous does not insist on change and will not insist on change until the alternatives are easily recognizable and obviously beneficial. The costs associated with driving automobiles are far removed from the physical act of driving a car. The losses associated with our inaction at this time will most certainly depend on the amount of damage that has occurred before we recognize the problem and devise a solution. At this time there is a plethora of evidence that current transportation methods are economically and environmentally detrimental to the survival of our species. Yet, as a collective, we do not seek change. We are suspicious of the very same abilities that have brought us this far.
Decisions regarding the course a collective should follow to ensure a sustainable and progressively prospering society can be quantified on a fundamental level. The debates over public policy rarely include statistical analysis or experimentation. Again, the values of Western societies originate in the dogma of the Christian tradition. We are expected to act in a specific way not because of empirical evidence but in the reference of tradition and commonly held beliefs. The people we employ to make the decisions that dictate the rules of behavior are selected much like a consumer product. Careful analysis of a candidate’s positions on issues is dimly lit next to the glare of advertising that accompanies the ritual of election. The effective use of persuasion and misology involved in advertising raises serious doubts as to our ability to successfully deliberate. Advertising's major concern is with the emotional, not the intellectual capabilities of its audience. A few hours spent with commercial television or print advertising adequately enforces the emotional aspect of our decision-making criteria.
In this society, it is a rare interaction between Human Beings that does not contain an element of material gain. It is the promise of material gain that will lead to the majority of distortion or omission of a fact. Partial truths are the mainstay of persuasion. We therefore resort to a form of reason guided by intuition to gather information and to act upon it. An individual Human Being acting because of an impaired judgment will not share much of the costs with the rest of society. A society at this time in history, acting on reason guided by dogma can adversely affect the entire population of the planet. Human population has grown geometrically in both numbers and influence on the global ecosystem. Whether or not a society such as the United States drives inefficient automobiles can have a profound effect on the rest of the planet. How we dispose of our waste, water our crops, or house ourselves has a dramatic effect when multiplied by the hundreds of millions of people that constitute a modern society. The sheer weight of the Human presence on this planet mandates empirical and rational solutions to the problem of survival.
How then should we proceed? Individually we must act in a way that would benefit the survival of Human Beings and the society in which we reside. We have not reached a point in Western society where our actions must be exclusively altruistic. We can follow our individual bliss in many ways that will not interfere with our survivability. We cannot act exclusively on an individual basis, for by doing so we risk the future of our species and ourselves. The debate arises in deciding what form the restrictions on Human behavior will take. It is impossible to satisfy every individual need of a complex and diverse organism such as a Human Being in the social context. It is necessary to develop a hierarchy of Human requirements that are satisfied based on the sustainable resources available. It is imperative that the Human population is adequately fed, clothed and sheltered. These are fundamental requirements. It is not necessary, although it would be nice, for the entire Human population to drive Ferrari Testarossas. These examples may be extreme but they are limiting as well. We can also include the physical and mental well being of the populous as a reasonable goal. Shelter and food requirements are simple matters to discern for the Human species. What constitutes physical and mental well being varies as widely as individual tastes. It is in these areas that we find the most conflict between societal and individual needs. Fortunately, it is a very small portion of our existence. Human Beings are all members of the same species and as a result the needs of the individual are very much the same as every other individual. It is the possibility for individuality within our species that we recognize ourselves as individuals and what defines our individual needs. Every society must allow for a degree of variation from the standards of behavior that would normally be expected of an individual.
Experiments in trying to control and guide every aspect of Human behavior have been failures. Attempts to allow people as much freedom as they want have also been failures. Survival takes both invention and hard work. Success is achieved through organization that achieves common goals. Our survival as a species in the short run will become more difficult. It will require less freedom on an individual basis and agreement on the long-term goals of individual societies and the entire Human population. It is not the province of a collective authority to decide the apparel, reading material, art, philosophical disposition, or vocation of its citizens. It is important to regulate any collective behavior, whether short or long term, that has a discernible positive or negative effect on the survival and well being of our species. This covers many of the areas of Human behavior. It also leaves no small area to individual discretion. Conditions and challenges change and every society must be responsive to change or face the possibility of extinction.
The formation of public policy must be made in the same fashion as any other informed decision. Empirical evidence and experiment must be the guide for decisions regarding our behavior within a society. To effectively make global decisions every point of view and all the evidence must be considered. In this country we have the legal right to voice any opinion. It is not implicitly stated within our law that we have the right to think any opinion. It is generally considered that thought processes are not in the realm of legal statute. It is true that what a person may think cannot be refuted unless it converted into action of some kind. As a society, we can limit the imagination of Human Beings simply by keeping them unaware of the possibilities. The best way to ensure our survival is with an educated and imaginative populace. The restriction of behavior of Human Beings within a collective is necessary to derive the benefits of participation in that collective. To try to influence behavior through physical persuasion rather than reason is to deny the attributes that have brought us this far: imagination and the scientific method.
The way we live on this planet has been irrevocable altered in the last century. The way we interact within a society has remained much the same. The challenges of the future will not be answered by the structures of society or of thinking that have predated current civilization. Social theory based on dogma, institutionalized thinking, or subconscious acceptability is doomed to failure. Change or stability must be accompanied by the best evidence and the best reason available. The goal is to ensure the success of the Human species. Cooperative behavior based on scientific methodology is the surest course to follow.

Chapter Four
Government

The rules for behavior of Human Beings are decided by the structures of law and morality that are enforced by a government of some kind. Human Beings function within groups or societies for the benefits that are derived from collective living. Leadership or government of some kind is a necessary utility for a collective as it increases in complexity. Simple societies do not require a distinct leadership role because the level of cooperation does not need to be very high. The level of cooperation between the agencies that provide the essential services in a modern society reflects the essential function of a government. A government sets the standards not only of Human, but of physical interaction as well. Governments in the modern sense represent the highest and most comprehensive authority over the activities of Human Beings. Government is such a extensive concept that it is difficult to think of Human Beings not acting under the guidance of some kind of central authority. This authority arises from the consent of the members of a particular collective. The consent can take the form of popular endorsement or acquiescence. To live within and obey the edicts of any authority is to validate that authority. Whether or not Human Beings are ruthlessly oppressed or not, a government can only exude authority through the complicity of its members.
If this were a series of essays studying political science, there would be a number of configurations that a government could assume within the historical context of Human activity. For the purposes of this discussion I will not be discoursing on each individual variation of government, but rather on the essential features and primary functions of this Human invention. The style of government depends for the most part on the number of people involved in making decisions for the collective. The range of possibilities run from a dictatorship, which has a single Human Being making the decisions, to a democracy, in which the entire populous is actively involved in the running of a society. Neither of these extremes exists in the modern world. Governments referred to as dictatorships are controlled by a small organization of people who answer to an individual authority. A modern society, even a very poor one, cannot be controlled by a single Human Being. A society that is under the rule of a dictator does not fail in the event of a coup. The infrastructure of their government that operated under one person can operate under another. In the case of a democracy, it has been a technological, not social, dilemma that has prevented its ideal implementation. It has been impossible for every member of a society to communicate their preference on a decision in the period that such decisions must be made. At this time, there are certainly some societies capable of true democracies, but other factors have prevented its implementation.
The influences of our cultural and societal standards of behavior are manifest at the time of our birth and are subject to only very slow change. The possibility of change in government is both more likely to occur and easier to achieve. In this country, it is possible to completely change the members of the legislative and executive branches of government in six years within the rules of law. This has never happened in our history and will probable never happen. In countries that are less stable than most of Western society, change can occur in a day. It is physically easier to topple a regime in which one group of people has control of the government. The process by which a government changes when a small group of people are involved is usually violent. This type of change in government often exchanges one kind of oppression for another way of oppression. It brings into power leaders who view violence as a problem-solving tool. In democratic systems, regimes can be toppled without the use of violence. The same principle described above applies to changes in leadership in democracies as well. The leaders who can effectively wrest control from a government will be those well versed in the art of persuasion. They will be able to convince the voters of a change that would be advantageous over the previous regime. These leaders will view persuasion as a problem-solving tool.
Persuasion and violence are currently the most popular way of attaining high public office. One of the most popular ways of becoming a ruler throughout history was to be born into a ruling family. It has only been recently in historical terms that leadership has been decided by popular approval. The invention of society required that decisions be made on an understanding that they would affect the entire population uniformly. The simplest way to accomplish this is by allowing one individual to make the decisions. The voting records of Congress illuminate the problem with more than a few people attempting to decide the course of a collective. Human Beings established the dictatorship type of leadership role in order to effectively streamline and authenticate the decision making process. It is the selection of this type of ruler that runs the course of mysticism. Very often the ruler of a particular society validated authority by appealing to the religious beliefs of the constituency. Power to rule was often seen as the intervention of the creator of the Universe in the affairs of men. If such an authority could be established, the actions and the legitimacy of the ruler were not questioned. There is no evidence for supernatural forces playing any role in establishing the leadership of any government at any time. There is ample evidence for greed, nepotism, violence, and narcissism in the rise to power of the leaders of government.
Nearly all governments past and present have an individual leader of some kind. The advantages include decisions can be made quickly and an undisputed hierarchy of authority. A leader of great intellect would be able to employ that intellect for its greatest possible use. The power that members of royalty and dictators have wielded in the past points to the incredible changes that can come from a society obeying a single leader. Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, the overwhelming majority of the members of any collective were illiterate. The masses of Human Beings were not capable of understanding the seemingly complex relationships involved in running a government. It was perfectly reasonable, therefore, to assign the decision making process to those Human Beings with an access to knowledge and information which would facilitate their survival and progress. The intellectual differences between the average citizen and the ruling class made popular decision making incomprehensible. Leaders were chosen for their portrayed superiority over the people who would either benefit or suffer under their guidance. The alleged superiority of the ruling class resulted from opportunity, not genetics. The submission of the underlings of a society results conversely from the lack of intellectual opportunity and physical repression.
The surviving monarchs and dictators of the latter part of the twentieth century are still able to command from the populous no small amount of royal worship. Dictators are often represented as deities. This sort of representation provides the allegiance necessary to implement policies that would otherwise be viewed as preposterous. With the resource of fanatical compliance with policy, a king or despot can often achieve rapid and remarkable successes. The leadership of this type of government is usually not replaced except in the event of catastrophe. It is only through overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the followers of any type of ruler or dogma are able to discern the truth.
The process of convincing a populous of divine rule has become more difficult with advent of popular literacy, but not impossible. In the absence of popular literacy, myth and the abundant use of physical force can ensure the survival of the most brutal regimes. In order to replace a remove the power structure of a dictatorship it becomes necessary to wield as much power as the government. This is the main reason kings and despots are able to control a society despite the evidence that such an authority is responsible for severe oppression and degradation of its citizens. Those in power tend to stay in power. There isn't a government I can think of at this time in history without some physical means of maintaining its power. The royal families of the Middle Ages and the dictators of the twentieth century used paid armies not only to gain control of a collective, but also to maintain that control. Human governments and societies often reflect a hierarchy of repressors and repressed. All modern societies evolve toward this stratification based on economic and cultural bias. The use of ideological or dogmatic reasoning is worth precious little without the ability to physically enforce authority. It may be that the lower classes of any society do not necessarily believe in divine rule. When it becomes a life or death or even a quality of life decision, it is far more prudent to believe in kings and queens than to resist against incredible odds.
The history of civilized Human Beings is rife with examples of assassinations, betrayals, and gross criminality among the ruling classes. To remove an authority that rules by force requires a greater amount of force. The populous of any collective are usually far removed from the processes that create and dispense with their leaders. With the numerical growth in Human population, it became much more difficult to control societies through force for any extended period. With the advent of widespread literacy and education, it became nearly impossible. Popular literacy and education dissipates the information and skills that were usually reserved for the ruling classes and provides their access to the public. This dissipation of information and skills reduces the effectiveness to which it can be utilized by an oppressive authority. Public education dissipates power. It is the most effective force for the prevention of despotic rule.
Placing the power of government across the entire population is the essence of democracy. It has never been implemented in its pure form by any collective of substantial population. Small groups within societies often practice a pure form of democracy in making decisions. All the members vote on policy for the entire group. There are certain physical barriers that prevent the practice of pure democracy for large populations. Communications, even in the most advanced countries is not yet at the point where the government could easily extract the opinions of its people in a timely manner. The advances have been made in communications and transportation that have made pure democracy difficult to attain. The problems and situations that arise are often met with instantaneous reaction. Information is also instantaneous but deliberation will always take some time. We are physically not prepared at this time to implement what is usually considered the most equitable system of governing Human Beings. At such a time when we are able to effectively poll the members of a society on every action of government, there will still be problems with its implementation.
The foremost problem with instituting pure democracy in the United States is that the best selling periodical in this country is the National Enquirer. If pure democracy is achieved there is no guarantee that the decisions made by the members of a collective will be better than those achieved by any other form of government. Dictators and royalty have generally poor records for achievement but there have been some notable exceptions. It depends on the person making the decisions. A dictator can produce a model nation when the leader is capable of providing the leadership for such a nation. A democracy is only as good as the decisions the collective is able to make. A pure democracy might mean catastrophe for the nation that is functionally illiterate. A democracy is viewed as fair in as far as the results of any action taken collectively are realized by the collective itself. The benefit or detriment of each individual depends on their own choice rather than the vagaries of a single authority.
The responsibility for the actions of a democracy lies with the collective as a whole. This has certain disadvantages. For a democracy to effectively govern itself each citizen must take a degree of responsibility for his or her own survival. This would include attaining a level of education that would allow every citizen the ability to make choices on nutrition or space travel or any of the myriad of subjects that we have entrusted to experts. A democracy would require active participation of its members. A democracy spreads the responsibility for its policies among the entire population. A dangerous policy can be cancelled from a dictatorship by the removal of the despot. A collective that cannot recognize its own errors will eventually destroy itself. The promise of democracy is the mandate that their populaces make the most rational choices or faces the consequences of its error. Human Beings must use their full capacity to ensure their survival by taking the responsibility for the actions that will determine their fate.
In this country and in the prosperous societies of this planet the government takes the form of a representative democracy. In this style of democracy the members of a society elect candidates whose function is to make the decisions regarding running of the government. This is democracy once removed. Currently, nearly all of the adult residents of the United States are eligible to vote. Early forms of representative democracy restricted which members of the particular society could hold the franchise. The initial concern of this type of government was the volatility that would result if women, people with a lot of pigment in their skin, or the poor were allowed to vote. Women were only granted the right to vote in this century. Until recently in our history, anyone under the age of twenty-one could not vote. It is assumed that people in the aforementioned categories were in some way unable to make an informed decision regarding candidates or matters of policy. His or her vote could effectively cancel out the vote of someone making an intelligent decision. This is a definite problem when confronted with a society in which there is unequal opportunities to acquire the skills necessary to make reasoned decisions. The need for an enlightened populous is as important in a pure democracy as in a representative democracy. The problem of what age people should be allowed to vote depends on the system of education. In a country with a poor educational system, it might be better to wait until a person is thirty years old before granting the franchise. Individuals progress intellectually at different rates. Every eighteen year old in this country is not equipped to decide the complex issues presented at every voting opportunity. Without a reliable educational system and measurement of intellectual progress, any representative democracy must assume that the majority of citizens are capable of making the correct decisions.
All forms of democracy effectively distribute power when its members are directly involved in the decision making process. Representative democracies refocus that power in the form of legislative bodies. In the United States, that power is again focused by the political affiliation of the representative. Nearly all the elected representatives in this country are Democratic or Republican political party members. This designation is an affiliation with a national organization that represents a particular perspective on how the government should make its decisions. There is always room for individual behavior among the representatives, but generally they vote along party lines. The legislative representative's power is dispersed by the limited functions they are allowed to perform within the structure of government. The rules by which the government operates are outlined in the Constitution. This document distributes the functions of government among three institutions. This prevents any further consolidation of power. This is necessary because of the nature of a representative democracy. It is, as we have seen, impossible to poll every member of society on every decision. It would be impossible to poll everyone on even the majority of decisions. The division of power at the highest levels helps to prevent indecision during a catastrophe that cannot await a popular vote. All the elements of government must act in unison to effect change. It is a rare occasion when all the branches of government are in complete accord. It makes the workings of government somewhat ponderous. It also ensures a stability that is fundamental to the success of any collective.
Human Beings acting without regard to the consequences for the collective are a problem in any society. Such behavior in the context of government holds greater possibilities for serious error. We set up institutions such as governments and societies for the benefits they provide. The danger lies in the power that is concentrated in these institutions. Decisions made by the Human Beings who have been given the authority to decide the course of a government are the most influential and far reaching decisions any Human Being can make. By electing someone to the office of President of the United States we are making a judgment that this particular Human Being is capable of making intelligent decisions under the worst possible circumstances. The power of the modern military is such that even in a democracy the chief executive is capable of ordering wholesale destruction. Our system provides a greater margin of error than a dictatorship or monarchy. The problem remains that in order to make effective and time sensitive decisions there must exist a place in government for power commensurate with the tasks to be accomplished. Modern armaments have compressed the time and space available for deliberation in the event of physical aggression. The proper defense against such armaments is their elimination from the world's arsenals. Under the present systems, however, this is not an attainable goal in the near future. The course we must take at this time is to provide single Human Beings with this tremendous power and collectively ensure that it is used in our best interests.
The executive branch of government is an integral part of any representative democracy. The concept of a single Human Being making the decisions for an entire collective is and has been a part of nearly every type of government. Certain individuals have had the ability to effectively gain the support of a collective and use that support to run the society. The concentration of power in an individual Human Being provides both timely decisions and ultimate responsibility. When one person is running a government, the responsibility for the decisions made by that individual lies solely with the individual. Blame or credit is easily placed. Nearly all societies install such an executive position because the alternatives are simply too complex to operate as effectively. Congress may write the laws and control the spending of government, but it is the President who is perceived as both the guiding and responsible force behind public policy. It is difficult to place blame or accolades on over five hundred people. Congress may be perceived as the perpetrator of bad times but the voters of this country still return over ninety per cent of congressmen to their seats even in the worst of times. Congress is viewed as an institution rather than the individual components of flesh and blood that perform its function. Congress may be viewed with disdain, but individual congressmen are not held responsible for the actions of the whole. Presidents, however, are held responsible for conditions and policies that are not an aspect of their job description. The result is that a president that cannot persuade the legislature on a particular point of policy is doomed to suffer the consequences whatever they may be. The Congress as an institution cannot be voted out. The members of the Supreme Court are selected for life terms. In a governmental system that disperses power, the responsibility remains concentrated in one individual. This is the nature of the leadership role that has been indispensable to governments throughout history. It is an aspect of how Human Beings view the role of leadership within the boundaries of society.
An individual person is selected to assume the responsibility for the policies of a government due to the inefficiency with which committee decisions are made. A vote in Congress is rarely unanimous even in the case of largely uncontested proposals. Most of the elected government officials in this country have some background in law. They proceed through a process of election, which involves considerable attention to advertising techniques, and the general rules of persuasion. This influence on the decision-making abilities of legislative bodies is readily observed in the types of legislation that are passed. Democrats and Republican parties take sides on every issue. This advocacy on an issue represents the philosophical disposition of the party. Most of the legislation that makes its way into law is the result of some very considerable compromise in order to achieve its passage. The use of the scientific method in deliberation is absent from most committee meetings. Scientists rarely seek public office. It is the principles of debate and persuasion that are at the forefront of policy deliberation. It is the perceived political bias of a particular party that determines the successful enactment of law. There are, of course, disputes and philosophical leanings within the scientific community. The issues within the scientific community are decided by empirical evidence, not by political dogma. It is the nature of Human knowledge that what we know is imperfect. A modern representative democracy rules by the edicts of the majority of its constituents. Consensus is rare on specific issues due to the methods we employ to arrive at decisions. In this light, an executive branch of government becomes necessary not only for singularity of its leadership but also for the accuracy with which responsibility is placed.
The ultimate responsibility with any form of government lies in the adult constituents of a society. In representative democracies, that responsibility is shifted to elected officials. This shift of responsibility from the people to an individual is also a shift in power. The voting record of residents of the United States is a result of the reassignment of power. In the 1988 presidential election fifty and two tenths per cent of the voting age population actually voted. The winning candidate received fifty-three and four tenths of the votes cast. In the election of 1988 the president of this country won the election with the votes of twenty-six and eight tenths of those people eligible to vote. Hardly a mandate. The results of the election of 1988 would have probably remained the same if one hundred per cent of the available voters had exercised their franchise. There exists a possibility that the outcome would have been different. In either case the statistics reveal a constituency that has decided to relinquish its power not simply for the term of office but for the rest of their lives. A democracy of any construction becomes an oligarchy without the active and full participation of its constituency.
The eligible voters in this country who choose not to vote in elections are not only forfeiting their power but are also making a statement about their power within a democratic system. Most of the absent voters are described with an affliction known as apathy. They perceive that voting is a waste of time because their particular vote will note make any difference in the outcome of an election. This is true. The possibility of one vote affecting the outcome of an election in which millions are cast is remote in the extreme. That is not the point. The public perception of voting has been misconstrued. Whether or not a single vote has the power to decide an election is irrelevant when the act of voting is perceived as participation in the government. The government in this country is seen as an institution separate and distant from the individuals under its control. The act of voting is an assertion of the individual power that comes with the franchise. In the case of presidential election where nearly fifty per cent of the eligible voters do not participate, that power is concentrated in the people who exercise their voting rights. Half of the voters effectively control the government for themselves as well as the uninterested other half. The government of the United States and its policies are viewed by the apathetic from the mathematical perspective of a single individual voice in the choir of over two hundred and fifty million voices. Participation is an essential requirement of each individual in any kind of democratic system. The rate of apathy within the electorate of the United States is a condensation of power and a resulting loss of self-rule.
Whether or not the self-disenfranchised are producing a lesser form of democracy by their actions is not known. Polls taken on the eve of an election can usually predict the outcome within four or five percent.. These polls are the results of inquiries that take a very small but select sampling of the constituency. Using statistical analysis, precise predictions as to the outcome of elections can be made. It would be impossible to make these predictions if it were not for the homogeneity of societies and the small number of choices available. The results of national elections might not change at all if the percentage of eligible voters voting falls between fifty and one hundred per cent. It depends on who is not voting. Elections in which the difference between the winning and losing candidates is more than twenty percentage points would not be affected by the voter turnout above a certain threshold point. Close elections in which there is only a five or six percent difference are very volatile to the percentage of eligible voters participating. If self-disenfranchisement results from ignorance of the issues, or inability to make decisions, their lack of participation might benefit the society. There exists no empirical evidence to suggest that active voters are intellectually better equipped to make decisions than non-voters.
If a society is to make the best decisions based on the votes of its populous, it would be to the advantage of the society to have the best and brightest of its people casting the votes.
The essence of democracy in all its forms is that those most affected by decisions are allowed to make those decisions for them. If a collective decides poorly then it is the members of that collective that will suffer with the results. In the United States there are no intellectual restrictions on the ability to vote. The restraints are of citizenship and chronology. A person must be a resident of this country and eighteen years of age in order to vote. The institutionalized and the diagnosed insane are not allowed to vote. There are no restraints on the individual’s ability to make an informed and reasonable decision. A democracy provides the opportunity for individual responsibility for the way a society will operate. All members of a collective, however, are subject to the rules of behavior authenticated by the majority of people. If there are no minimum intellectual standards for the exercise of the franchise, a democracy is in danger of committing grave policy errors on a national basis when the voters are disinclined to use the methods of reason and empirical evidence to make their decisions. This is often the case in collectives in which the policies of government are tied closely to the dominant religious beliefs. Decisions made based on religious dogma may or may not be in the best interests of the collective. The rules of chance are such that it will become inevitable at some time that a catastrophic error in logic will be committed by an electorate using the dictums of an antiquated philosophy. The history of Human civilization is filled with such examples. The same principle applies to a collective in whom education is rudimentary and unevenly distributed. The quality of decisions made by a collective is only as sound as the reasoning abilities of the majority of its constituents.
It could be asserted that given the above information it would be in the highest interests of a democracy to exclude the franchise from those whose intellectual capabilities are beneath a minimum standard. Should this country adopt such a policy in order to ensure that the best possible decisions are being made? Of course not. The concentration of power that would result from such an action would effectively negate the individual's responsibility for determining the shape and design of the collective. Whether or not a person exercises the franchise, the responsibility of being a constituent member of a democracy remains with that person. The power that is displaced by non-participation can easily be reinstated by the act of voting. The power remains with the individual. It is the concentration of power within Human societies that has resulted in the greatest harm to the constituencies. A democratic system at this time in our development must assure the existence of an educated, literate, population in order to provide the greatest potential for survival. Both responsibility and power must reside with each individual member of a collective. To do otherwise is to deny both the incredible potential and uniqueness of the Human species. At this time in our history, the representative democracy offers the best practical application of Human potential within the present configurations of societies.
There are, of course, other ways of influencing the policies of government without participating in elections. It is possible to petition the elected representatives by directly communicating individual preferences. Elected representatives are often guided in the most dramatic and emotional issues by the influence of letters, telephone calls and other reports of public opinion. The various news media can also influence public policy because of their large audiences and singular viewpoints. These effects are not directly measurable and their impact on public policy is uncertain.
One of the more certain ways of influencing public policy is with money. Elected government officials in this country require millions of dollars for the campaign leading to the voting for major offices. Candidates for office utilize the methods of advertising and persuasion in order to obtain a majority of the popular vote. In order to raise the millions of dollars necessary for the purchase of advertisements, candidates solicit contributions from individuals. An economic fact is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Money is an invention to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. When it is given to a candidate for the procurement of power it follows that there is an influence associated with that exchange. That influence on the policies of government can be minimal or extreme depending on the character of the elected official. Money plays an important role in the ability of any candidate to secure power. Money is given with the political and philosophical leanings of the contributor. People with the money to invest in the election of a public official do so to support their own objectives. As a result, it is the aristocracy of wealth that has the greatest influence on which particular philosophies are presented to the public in the form of candidates. I would not be able to supply evidence that the ruling elite of billionaires have decided the power structure of the government of the United States. The successful election of a candidate contains many factors of which money can be the most influential. Money does exert an influence on political behavior and that influence can only be exerted by those members of society with the financial ability to exert such an influence. Candidates with philosophical dispositions that do not reflect the beliefs of the upper classes and therefore cannot raise the funds necessary for an effective campaign may find it impossible to hold office. Campaign reform laws have been enacted that reduce the individual influence of money. No law is so perfectly designed as to prevent infractions. New devices such as Political Action Committees easily circumvent the intent of the law. Until candidates are elected by the rules of logic rather than persuasion, money will be an effective influence and unit of power in the creation of public policy.
The influences of money and power are common to every system of representative democracy. The influence of politics is the result of the design of each individual system. In this country there are no limits on the number of political parties or the political affiliations with which individuals may align themselves. The reality is that overwhelming majority of successful candidates are either Democratic or Republican members. Individuals declare their allegiance upon registering to vote. If this does not indicate their vote on a particular issue, it does indicate a propensity vote with along the philosophical lines of the party. While an elected representative may cross party lines in voting for a particular issue, it is not possible to be a member of both parties at the same time. Democrats and Republicans are not only seen as mutually exclusive but also as in opposition to each other. The political party system is an unreliable method for determining a candidate’s ability to reason effectively but a very efficient method for concentrating power within a democracy. Political parties, like religions, serve a dogma that represents the favored rules and standards of behavior for Human Beings within a society. Political parties in this country stay in power because they have the infrastructure and fund raising capability to successfully elect their own candidates. The institutionalization of their power is used to discourage the emergence of new and potentially rival political parties. They also have a long history of positions on the policies of government. The number of choices and the complexity of decisions are dramatically reduced in the current system. Acceptance of political affiliation carries with it consensus for the dogma of the particular party. The constituency can vote for policies in a very comprehensive fashion. A Democratic vote for liberal policies and a Republican vote for conservative policies. This system satisfies the voting public in this country. There are no other political parties with the capacity for long-term successful candidacies. The large sums of money needed to achieve leadership roles would become available only upon wholesale desertions of the Democratic or Republican parties. The greatest efficiency in the use of money to influence public policy comes with investment in winning candidates. There is little hope of either a plurality of political parties or the demise of Democrats or Republicans as long as constituencies are reduced to liberal or conservative viewpoints. The strategy of political parties served an educational role when this country was largely functionally illiterate and the communication of ideas was a slow and limited process. At this time, however, political parties condense power by limiting the available choices. Candidates and policies arise from only two different sources. At this time our ability to communicate gives us the promise of multiple choices of candidates and uncompromising solutions to problems. The prerequisite is that the power vested in political organizations is decremented.
The problems associated with the invention of government such as greed, war, genocide, oppression, and starvation result from aberrations that are built into the system and from the lack of controls on the system that prevent their geometric growth. The problem is that power requires distillation to be effective and dissolution to prevent corruption. This conflict arises not from the imperfections of governmental systems, but from the imperfections brought to such systems by their implementation with Human Beings. Democratic systems represent the best government for Human Beings because the initiators and recipients of any collective action are one in the same. Different forms of dictatorships or oligarchies essentially divide all Human Beings into separate species. In dictatorships Human Beings are treated in much the same way that Human Beings treat the other animals on this planet. We are interested in the quality of life for most animals only in ways in which they provide a better standard of living for Human Beings. Cows, sheep, horses, and pigs are more like organic machines than distinct species sharing the planet with us. We have genetically altered their structure to better suit our own needs to such a degree that they have ceased to become an instrument of nature, but of man. Human Beings are very distinct from most other animals in function and therefore this comparison is limited in its range. It is the spectrum of capabilities within the Human species that are amplified within the societal context. The Human capability for the domestication of other animals extends to our own species as well. In the history of Human civilization, the widespread use of democracy in government is a very recent invention. For most of our civilized history the Human population was roughly divided between the oppressors and the oppressed. It was the democratization of knowledge through the written word that gave the oppressed the intellectual power necessary to implement change. It has been technological rather than social influences that have leveled the playing field for the democratic nations of the world. Our invention in the physical realm has been profound, but it cannot change our fundamental identity as the most successful species of animal on this planet. To effectively govern ourselves within the context of society, we must first realize and understand that identity.
One of the most fundamental aspects of survival is self-preservation. To place the survival of oneself above any other objective is to increase the odds that that individual's genes will influence further generations. The successful species on this planet have developed formidable means of self-preservation. Human Beings are the most successful species on the planet. We live, however, in societal structures that demand that the individual give up some of the attitudes of self-preservation to enjoy the benefits of community living. The conflicts that arise in this situation stem from the incompatibility of individual and collective goals. On a fundamental level, the needs of the individual and society hardly conflict. Clean air and water, adequate and stable food supplies, sufficient shelter and clothing. These are necessary for Human survival and the continued growth and stability of a society. The aforementioned needs are easily provided by most of the advanced Western nations. They are taken for granted by the majority of the populous who can then direct their efforts to the satisfaction of less basic and more personal aspirations. In the retention of personal goals the individual is asserting their own self-preservation. Our behavior as individuals within the context of society will be determined by our perception of our needs and the most efficient route to their attainment. Deviation within society results from the individual goals superseding the collective authority. The predominance of self-preservation within a community may be genetically appropriate but is without merit in the social contract. The reason we have societies is that we are also genetically endowed to bond with familial and tribal groups. This conflict is usually resolved by deeming others as “other” and therefore dispensable.
At this time in history, every Human Being is a member of some society, acknowledged or not. We are not asked at birth or at the age of responsibility to join the society into which we are born. It becomes a part of us as inseparable as language or the color of our hair. There is no place to reside without communal affiliation of some kind. The style of government determines the parameters of the shape the society will take, which in turn influences the kinds of behavior expected from the Human Beings that are under its jurisdiction. In dictatorships, the standards of behavior are rigidly enforced and require unquestioned compliance. Human Beings are capable of adapting to numerous environments either man made or natural, but our genetic legacy restricts the extent of our adaptation. The successful design of a government must realize and incorporate into its structure the inherit qualities and abilities of Human Beings. Many experiments in government have failed to recognize or attempted to repress the special identity of Human Beings. These experiments have failed and will continue to fail as long as governments are designed for a species of Human Beings that has yet to evolve.
Numerous attempts have been made to create a process of social evolution of the Human species. All forms of government are trying to create a social situation in which Human Beings will act in a preferred way. All of the variations of government throughout Human history have sought to achieve cooperation with authority using physical force. We still prefer this method in this country. Human Beings behave very individually when confronted with very similar circumstances. Nearly all children are told the same information about the acceptable behaviors in the context of this society. Yet individual behavior can run the extremes from complete compliance to utter defiance no matter what the particular rules and regulations of a society may be. Physical repression of unwanted behavior is in no way a remedial measure. The act of deviant behavior results primarily from a misinterpretation of the social contract and the expression of the individual's desire for survival. No amount of political ingenuity can devise a governmental system that will compensate for the expression of individual behavior within a collective.
Imprisonment is a solution adopted by nearly every modern government for the problem of deviant behavior. The physical separation of Human Beings whose behavior is deemed harmful to society from the main body of society is an extremely simple solution. It does not attempt to solve the fundamental problem with Human Beings acting exclusively in their own interests. Imprisonment temporarily solves the problem of a single individual for the term of incarceration. It does not solve that individual's behavioral maladjustment or address the fundamental question of the proper response to deviant behavior within a collective. Prisons and jails will remain a commonplace feature of every society until we find a method for the inclusion of individuality in a system that is designed to promote uniformity. History is littered with the failures of governments that effectively denied the individuality of every Human Being through physical repression. Governments acting on behalf of the constituency of a collective put trangressors in jail for punishment as well as separation from those who express their individuality within the rules of law. At this time, there is no other place to put them. The entire habitable surface of this planet is accounted for by one nation or another. Each government is responsible for its own criminal population. It is therefore the responsibility of each government to provide the opportunities for individual expression within the context of providing for the common good.
In the United States at this time there exists a plethora of actions that effectively express individual uniqueness without risking arrest. The majority of reasons for being arrested in this country are taking physical property or inflicting personal damage without consent. Essentially, if one does not steal from or personally harm anyone else, the chances for incarceration are slim. I doubt very much whether or not these fundamental tenets of our government and society are fully understood or believed by the transgressors.
Stealing or harming another person is perceived as transgressions only in the instance where the transgressor is brought to justice. This is the only instance of negative reinforcement that governments can provide for a criminal's actions. If the government can punish only when the crime is discovered, the act of being caught, not the crime, becomes the critical error. Human Beings committing crimes without being caught are succeeding in their own expression of individuality while at the same time reaping the benefits associated with living in a collective. The benefits of living in a collective are not completely dependent on behavior. While imprisonment does carry with it a heavy price in personal freedom, many of the benefits of collective living are still available. Food, clothing, shelter, and both intellectual and physical recreation are provided to all except for the more grievous transgressors. It would not be possible or prudent at this time to cast all transgressors into the wilderness to fend for themselves. The solution to deviant behavior must come from a basic understanding of and agreement with the framework of laws and government within which a collective functions.
A democracy depends on an educated and participatory collective in order to prosper. Any form of government requires that the citizens under its control fully understand and concur with the laws governing their behavior. As we are not asked formally to join a particular society, neither are we informed of the responsibilities and rewards for living under the rule of law. A society, or a democratic government, is viewed as other than oneself. The type of government that has jurisdiction over the particular piece of the planet on which a Human Being is born fully controls the possibilities of that individual's existence. It is imperative that Human Beings realize their own distinct role in government as well as their responsibility for the actions of that ruling body. Government is a Human invention and is best treated as such. It should be altered or completely transformed to better serve the needs of the Human Beings in its charge. This sort of change is prevented by the way in which political power is acquired and maintained. Human Beings in power tend to stay in power because of the effort they exert in the maintenance of the status quo. The losses incurred with the loss of power are mostly conceptual rather than substantial.
The efficiency with which the basic needs of Human Beings are met in Western societies promotes an attitude of necessity for needs that are in no way considered important for survival. The loss of power or money within a political structure is imbued with life or death consequences. The loss of great wealth in Western societies does not result in death but simply makes life less comfortable. The loss of power renders achievement more difficult but not impossible. Yet the democracies of the world value and promote the accumulation of great wealth and power. The Human Beings who achieve great wealth or power are perceived as being a more advanced form of Human Being. Those who live in conditions of poverty are seen as defective or inferior in some area of their genetic makeup. This viewpoint is mainly the result of the goals and structure of a collective. We have created an environment in which Human Beings with certain attributes will prosper and Human Beings not in possession of those attributes will languish. Every Human Being has the capacity to contribute in some meaningful way to the survival of our species on this planet. It is the role of government is to assure that the harvest of Human potential is being reaped. It is the role of government to distribute power in order to control its potential abuse. Human Beings will continue to seek power and wealth as long as the rules of government make these ends a desirable and attainable objective.
The vast majority of Human Beings in Western societies live very comfortably in comparison to historical conditions or the conditions that now prevail in Third World countries. No small measure of the wealth of Western nations comes from technological ingenuity and the exploitation of the vast natural resources under their control. The challenge at this time is to maintain and increase the standard of living when those resources are exhausted. This will depend to no small measure on how we are able to manage our Human resources. The governmental and societal inventions that have brought us this far will not succeed in an era of limited natural resources and a geometrically expanding population. Our survival depends on the retention of the enormous potential of Human cooperation and the dispersal of power. Human Beings in the identical political positions as in the past centuries wield exponentially more power because of technological innovation and uncontrolled population growth. To realize the inherent inexactness of Human knowledge is to realize the great potential for catastrophe with the current political structure.
Each individual Human Being must enter into the governmental contract by assuming their share of political power that comes with being a member of society. Each individual must take the responsibility that comes with membership. This would include taking the necessary steps for complete literacy and realization of personal intellectual capabilities. It includes full participation in the political process. It includes the acceptance of the benefits and limits of cooperation within the collective. It includes the realization of the special identity and promise of the Human species.

Chapter Five
Religion
Religious and philosophical belief systems are often synonymous but can also be mutually exclusive. Such is the case with this treatise, which has no small amount of philosophical exposition and absolutely no attempts at religious persuasion. The difference between philosophical and religious ruminations lies in the source of their conjectures. Philosophical dispositions arise out of learning, religious or secular. Religious beliefs arise from faith. Faith is an interesting concept and is the prerequisite for any Human Being who ascribes to any of the thousands of religions that have found practitioners. The number of religions has decreased as the technological innovations in communication and travel has brought competing belief systems in contact with each other. The result, as in the case of imperialism, has been an extinction of those religions unable to survive in the same environment as a better-adapted intruder. Many beliefs of aboriginal populations in the New World were subjugated by religious systems that were intolerant of rival systems and possessed the wherewithal to enforce that exclusion. Christians and Moslems in particular were fond of physical methods of conversion. Whatever the motivations and permutations of religion, they all arise out of the very Human quality of intellectual curiosity. Religious beliefs seek the answers to questions of Human origin, destiny, and role in the Universe. Human Beings have asked these questions since the dawn of our intelligence until the present day.
Faith is an acceptance as truth of any doctrine or position without questioning its validity. Faith is an essential element to any religious system. The problem is that the fundamental religious beliefs deal almost exclusively in places, events, and life forms that are beyond the ability of Human Beings to detect. Faith requires not only unswerving allegiance, but allegiance to a thing that they cannot see or define outside of religious doctrine. An act of faith might be proposed as a daily occurrence in secular life. Most people do not have a very deep understanding of aerodynamics, the physics of force and propulsion, or an intimate understanding of metallurgy. Yet millions of people board jet aircraft around the world with the full expectation of a safe and uneventful journey. The fact that they do not fully understand how an aircraft works does not exclude them from placing their lives in the certainty of that particular technology. The people who fly in aircraft every day do so because it is a daily occurrence. It is not necessary to understand the complexities of flight to be able to discern that it works. Nearly one hundred per cent of the flights that take off around the world arrive safely. This is the kind of faith that is practiced in our every day experience. It is a faith in our senses and our ability to reason. The faith found in religious discussions is entirely different. It is this faith that would permit a person to willingly board and expect a safe flight from a type of aircraft that has crashed on every one of its previous flights. It is a belief that a concept is true and independent of the physical reality.
Religious faith is successfully expounded because it deals primarily in areas that are not accessible to Human investigation. Religious beliefs deal primarily with concepts that cannot be proven by empirical methods and therefore must be accepted as a matter of faith. This is an argument without merit. If something cannot be proven empirically, it does not carry with its implausibility the ring of truth. The burden of proof lies not with the dissenters, but with the proponents of any concept. Validation comes not from literary dogma but from the scientific method of experiment and reason. The acceptance of certain precepts as a matter of religious faith results not only in the plethora of religious belief systems at this time but also the inherent intolerance for conflicting views which are derived from an act of faith. If faith were in actuality an insight into the true nature of the Universe it would then be a single and universal truth. The current evidence suggests otherwise. The faithful come in many guises: Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, Hopi, and many others. They are all equally faithful and confident in their beliefs. In addition, they are all in some way in conflict with each other. S does not equal KlogW for all religions. Belief systems are based on faith that is based on dogma that is usually derived from ancient writings based on an ancient belief system. Faith in god is a very nebulous term and an article of reverence such as the Bible is replete with opposing interpretations.
Religious systems have dominated the collective thinking of nearly every known civilization of Human Beings. The acceptance of a concept or an entire set of rules based on faith has some justification in the way we have invented and implemented our societies. It has been the oligarchy of knowledge that has left the mass of Human Beings to accept dogma as truth. Without the physical or intellectual capabilities to challenge authority, it becomes prudent to accept and submit to that authority. Throughout nearly all of the history of Human civilization, religious precepts have dominated not only the Human view of the Universe but the laws governing behavior within a collective. The roots of all cultures are grounded in the religious belief systems that have proven the most successful at survival. The Constitution of the United States makes a distinction between religious and state institutions. This was necessary in the light of previous governmental systems in which no distinction was possible. It has only been in recent recorded history that the religious and secular rules for governing a collective have been viewed as separate entities.
Separation of religious and secular institutions is also necessary for the existence of a plurality of religious beliefs under a single rule of law. The United States was populated by a diversity of faiths and nationalities. It would be impossible at this time to implement rules of behavior based on one religious system that would not discriminate against many other belief systems. Modern nations that have not experienced the great waves of emigration that has occurred in this country are able to construct rules of behavior based on religious tenets due to the uniformity of religious beliefs. The nation of India was partitioned after achieving independence along the lines of religious beliefs. Pakistan became a predominantly Muslim nation while India remained primarily Hindu. At approximately the same time in history the nation of Israel was created using force by the followers of Judaism. The populations of Central and South American nations are mostly Catholic and Christian. This was the religion of the European conquerors that were able to extinguish the aboriginal belief systems and replace them with their own systems. The rules of behavior we have established for ourselves in this country coincide closely with the religious doctrines of Christianity. This does not suggest unequivocally that the rules that guide our behavior are misguided or detrimental to our survival. It does suggest that serious and comprehensive scrutiny of our values and institutions is necessary. The early philosophical and religious beliefs have stayed with us in that our current view of the Universe is based on those beliefs. Religions no longer enforce edicts on the populations of societies in the modern Western world. The influence of belief systems still pervades our thinking about ourselves and in particular, our destiny.
The impact of religious beliefs on daily activities has decreased in direct proportion to technological abilities and understanding of the physical laws of the Universe. Our understanding of the Human body and the methods for curing and prevention of disease has nearly eliminated the role of religion in these areas. Faith healers may still perform their slight of hand for small groups of true believers, but they proceed without the recognition of the vast majority of society. Astrological forecasts are still printed daily in newspapers more as a means of entertainment than as a reliable prognosticator. At a time when little was known about the workings of the physical Universe, religious systems of all kinds provided explanations for what seemed to be incomprehensible mysteries. As these mysteries have been gradually solved by experiment and reason, the role of religious doctrine in modern lives has been relegated for the most part to current mysteries.
At the time in the nineteenth century when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, the idea was met with formidable opposition. The opposition was based not because Darwin's theories were unsound in reason or that his methods for collecting data were flawed. The opposition came from the Christian belief system in the origin of the Universe. In the Christian tradition, Human Beings are distinct from and possess certain quality ascendant to the other animals that inhabit this planet. Darwin's theories suggested that Human Beings evolved from the same line as the modern simians. It was this suggestion that drew the greatest opposition because it violated one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. To assert the evolutionary history of Human Beings is to deny the unique and sacred identity that is essential to Christian doctrine. The case of evolution is a singular example of the conflict between deeply held religious belief and scientific exploration. Since Darwin's time the theory of evolution has become a fixture in curriculums from elementary schools to the universities and colleges. Yet Christians are still taught the story of Human creation from an entirely biblical perspective. This perspective is taught to children along with the scientific view of evolution. This dichotomy is not resolved. Christian beliefs remain a matter of faith. Without this assertion of faith the entire structure of the Christian belief system would fail under scientific inquiry. Removal of religious doctrine from the realm of empirical investigation to the sanctity provided by the conditions of faith ensures the survival of those doctrines. Unfortunately, faith does not cure disease, produce electricity, or start our cars in the morning. Religious systems depend on the acceptance of truth without the burden of proof. Faith acts not to advance our abilities but to deny the Human potential that has brought us so far along our evolutionary path. Despite evolution being the most comprehensive and viable approach to understanding life on this planet, it is regularly challenged in the courts. We are still living in what Carl Sagan called a “Demon Haunted World” in which our religious indoctrination can impede our ability to reason.
Perhaps the most pervasive doctrine among all the world's religions is that of transcendence. This is also an assertion that is by its very nature unavailable for direct inspection. The lack of evidence to the contrary is in no way vindication of the premise. When a Human Being or any other living thing dies, its metabolism stops and it ceases to be alive. Human Beings find other explanations to death that are an integral part of any religious system. Whether it is reincarnation, transformation, or ascendancy, religious beliefs assert that what we are able to perceive of the physical Universe is only a small part of our existence on this planet. Most religions base the results of transcendence on the behavior of Human Beings before death. Most positive afterlife experiences occur as the result of pre-death compliance with the rules of behavior dictated by religious doctrine. Like the religious tenets of creation, most people are brought up with the notion of life after death. With no evidence to support the notion, this belief is still considered valid. Without some concept of transcendence religious philosophy can become indistinguishable from secular philosophy.
The concept of transcendence is accompanied by the rules of behavior necessary in order to produce a positive experience in the purported existence after death. There is also the promise of a negative transcendence when the religious doctrines are not followed. This concept is very useful in controlling the behavior of a large number of people for whom justice is not a reality in their own experience. The central idea is that people who escape punishment for behavior in this world are not able to escape punishment in life after death. The punishment for a life in deference to their particular religious edicts is usually quite severe. Christians are interned in hell for eternity and suffer with no hope of appeal. Hindus and Buddhists must suffer the pain of rebirth and the possibility of being born as a creature other than Human. If it is possible to convince a collective of the validity of such a premise there would be a strong impetus to act according to the rules established by a religious authority. Most religions also include a reward for acting in accordance with stated doctrine. Christians and Muslims ascend to heaven and Hindus and Buddhists are freed from rebirth. Muslims were recently promised in a Middle Eastern "Holy War" that to die on the battlefield would ensure their swift arrival in heaven. Without the premise of a specific and eternal system of justice it would be impossible to enforce religious beliefs without the rule of law. Religious systems carry with them the condition of eternal validity or they will suffer the transitory existence of morality. The foundational doctrines of most world religions have been around for nearly two thousand years. While many of the aspects of their practice have changed, their basic concepts have changed very little over time. The major religions carry with the promise of reward a chance for Human Beings to escape the life, which for the vast majority of Human Beings, has been difficult, short, and unpleasant. Life after death is very often the only escape from the horrors of Human existence.
The origin of the concept of life after death may never be known, but it is not difficult to think in those terms. Life on this planet follows cycles of death and rebirth. Fields that are barren in winter are full of life in the spring. This is true of every year and every time with drastic changes occurring outside of the life span of Human Beings. In areas where the seasonal changes are not pronounced, the cyclical aspect of all life forms continues. Even in death plants and animals become part of other living things in a continuous circuit. These observations are made without degrees in biology or any of the natural sciences. Human Beings have lived in societies for thousands of years. Only recently, however, have we disassociated ourselves with the natural environment to the extent with which we are familiar today. For the great part of our history Human Beings have been intimately tied to the natural environment. We have also noticed that we are an exception to the rest of the animal kingdom. This difference allows us to create mythologies that take us away from the conditions of which our consciousness makes us aware. It is our ability to mentally live in the past and the present that gives us the ability to create heaven and hell. The greatest heaven and the worst hell represent the fertility of our imaginative powers. Myths, religious or otherwise, are explanations of Human Beings more that the physical Universe. Taken as such they can reveal much about how Human Beings thought about themselves and their place in relationship to the rest of the Universe. Taken as truth, they effectively stifle our intellectual progress.
The concept of transcendence splits Human Beings into eternal and mortal components. The mortal component being the body. It would be difficult to build a religious doctrine around the immortality of the body when even kings and priests eventually succumb to biological destiny. The ancient Egyptians tried through the process of mummification to preserve the body for later use, but to no avail. The treasures with which they entombed themselves for use in the next world were mostly stolen for the profit of the living in this world. In nearly all theories of transcendence there is an element to Human Beings that is not of the physical world and therefore does not decay. This is loosely referred to as the soul. It is the soul that achieves transcendence to another plane of consciousness. Human Beings alone are the only animals that create mythologies or religions. Our distinctive intellectual capabilities have fostered the notion that we are composed of more than merely mortal flesh and bones. Descriptions of this state are necessarily vague within most religions and contradictory in comparison between religions.
Versions of the afterlife in Christianity contain images of Human Beings with wings attached to their backs. These are referred to as angels. The entrance to heaven is described as having pearly gates. These images are based on our available conscious reality and express the temporal and physical earthly aspirations of Human Beings. There is nothing in any religious doctrine that transcends the knowledge of the physical environment at the time of creation of the doctrine. There is nothing in religious doctrine about the incredible vastness and plurality of the physical Universe. There are no references to DNA in stories of creation. There are no allusions to the incredible amount of time that has passed since the creation of the known Universe. All religious doctrine is based on a divine inspiration of some kind or another. These revelations are revealed to certain Human Beings who attribute the source of their inspiration to a entity or entities not only transcendent of our Universe but also incredibly more powerful and knowing than we can ever hope to be. Close examination of Holy Scriptures does not reveal any edict or information beyond the capacity of mortal Human Beings.
Religious concepts and beliefs are not outside the realm of scientific investigation. The problem is that they are not meant to be studied in that way. Religious beliefs rise, fall, mutate, evolve, and change with the fabric of society in order to meet the needs of that society. At the time when most of the current religious doctrine was being formed, our knowledge of the physical laws of the Universe was at best incomplete and, at worst, erroneous. The knowledge that was available was in the hands of the minority of literate Human Beings, far from the popular mentality. This is no longer the case. Our understanding of the physical laws of the Universe and of the nature of truth is completely incompatible with same understanding of two millennia ago. Religious practitioners still regard doctrine and dogma as truth and present it as such. The modern conflicts between religious beliefs and scientific observation is the result of confusing mythology with divine inspiration.
Human Beings die. Death is not only the inevitable end for all life on this planet but it is also an indispensable element of the evolutionary process. Evolution occurs through natural selection and through the random shuffling of genes that occurs in sexual reproduction as well as random mutation. We are selected for death because immortality does not drive the machinery of evolution. The Sun and Earth are constantly changing, so it becomes a strategy of survival to maintain an ability to successfully adapt to those changes. Most Human Beings in the industrialized nation of the world live many years beyond their reproductive capabilities. We see ourselves as much more than another addition to the genetic pool of resources. It is this capacity for intellectual as well as biological achievement that instills in Human Beings the desire for immortality. We achieve this immortality vicariously through the practice and doctrine of religious faith. Immortality will then come to us from the creator of the Universe, but not until we have died.
There is absolutely no empirical evidence for any existence post-mortem. There is no evidence for a spirit or soul in the physiological makeup of Human Beings. People who suggest that they have existed in a life before the present one are mistaken. All life on this or any other planet is considered dead upon the termination of all metabolic processes. There is no evidence that any Human Being has done anything, spiritually or otherwise, after they have died. The evidence for ghosts, spirits, or other phenomenon follows the same pattern as evidence for extraterrestrial visitations. The witnesses are few and unreliable, the evidence is sparse, and duplication of the event is impossible. One of the best justifications for continued interest is that people make money exploiting the religious beliefs in this area. Scientific investigations of such phenomenon have revealed fraud or limited evidence that precludes an intelligent conclusion. There have been studies of people in near death experiences. The conclusion based on a survey of these incidents is that people tend to see and feel what they believe they will see and feel. The problem with near death experiences is that the participants are alive. There is a distinct boundary between the living and the dead. People who experience temporary loss of certain functions may be very close to death, but they do not die. The dead reveal nothing to us that we are able to perceive. To suggest that there is an afterlife is to suggest a concept without the benefit of any direct evidence. If there is such a phenomenon, it is outside of our knowledge of the physical Universe. To base a philosophy on speculation about something that is inherently imperceptible is to effectively stifle the intellectual ascent of Human Beings.
Religions are found in nearly every culture at every time of Human existence. They provide a structure and an order to a Universe that has been, until very recently, more mysterious than explicable. They also provide hope for the faithful in an existence that is the equal of our imagination. Life for Human Beings on this planet has been for the most part a difficult and painful passage. If we accept the fact that Human life is extinguished after death, it would seem logical to commit a disproportionate share of society’s resources to the extension of the Human life span. With a belief in the concept of transcendence, our priorities are shifted elsewhere. There would seem little reason to endure the inequities of existence when there is no prospect for alleviation from life's maladies. Religious faith and doctrine offer Human Beings not only an understanding of the Universe but an escape from it. We are offered a heaven or a nirvana, receivable upon completion of a life dedicated to the principles of a particular belief system. Suicide is not an option in most of the world's major religious systems. Taking one's own life to reach a heavenly reward invalidates that reward. Suicide would seem to be the logical choice. Why bear the burden of living when eternal bliss is only a gunshot away? This is not only a religious but also a sociological problem. If a positive transcendence was accomplished merely through the act of dying it would be ridiculous to stay alive any longer than necessary. Every society needs Human Beings who will be a contributing force in the community as long as they live. The stability and progress of a collective depends on Human Beings contributing as much as they can in this life. Neither reward nor punishment is guaranteed in this existence. If reward and punishment are to be used as motivational devices, a system must be developed to ensure their proper dispersal. Living a life of self-aggrandizement is harmful to the collective but not always enforceable by the collective. Religious systems provide an escape proof clause in which the transgressors of religious doctrine are dealt with in the afterlife. If we can establish a believable concept of an afterlife it is a simple matter to ensure reward and punishment in that existence. While punishment for religious crimes has been meted out for centuries by the various clerics, most rule of law prevents physical punishment for religious crimes at this time. The strength of religious enforcement lies in convincing Human Beings of the validity of the concept of an afterlife.
Religious indoctrination begins at an early age because certain concepts that are readily assimilated in our youth border on the preposterous by the time we have come of age intellectually. Young Human Beings do not posses the complicated structures of logic or the ability to use advanced reasoning within the context of their native language. Children understand instinctively the physical world around them. Language is a different matter and the logic and intricacies of argument and evidence are not usually mastered until Human Beings have been on this planet for around twenty years. The simplified versions of religious belief systems are taken at face value by children. So are the vast majority of ideals and concepts that must be taught to children in order for them to use the language. The language and the use of metaphors and symbols are extremely important in communicating religious doctrine. We cannot see a heaven or hell, speak with the creator of the Universe, or witness a religious miracle. Conveying a religious doctrine to a largely illiterate populous involves an extravagant use of symbolism. Statues, paintings, architecture, and stained glass were all utilized and are still utilized to this day to convey a religious doctrine. These symbols provide not only a means of communication to an illiterate following, but also give physical presence to an otherwise nebulous concept. The image of Christ that is common in western civilization has typical European physical features. Eastern versions give Christ more Oriental features. Both are probably incorrect, but the purpose of an icon or symbol is not replication but identification. The icons and symbols of all religious systems are designed to provide a singular reality to concepts that run the risk of multiple interpretations. Indoctrination of a belief system involves not only a literate understanding, but also an association with the symbolic metaphors that describe a universe beyond our perception.
The physical representations of a religious belief system serve not only to tell a story but also to create sanctity in a world that is viewed as fundamentally corrupt. The Christian and Jewish faiths consider the city of Jerusalem to be a holy city. The cities of Mecca and Medina are the holy cities of the Islamic faith. Whether it is a city, a book, or a statue, these physical objects are given the most exalted status within the belief community not because of some physical attribute, but the symbolism that is attached to these articles. Desecration is a word that is universally applied to religious objects. It can be used in connection with national symbols but only when a mythology surrounding that particular object has been established. Desecration involves some kind of purposeful damage to the symbolic integrity of a sacred object. Desecration of Jewish temples with the symbols of Nazi Germany is usually considered a newsworthy event. It is paint on walls. The significance and the religious crime result from the values that have been instilled in the believers who worship in the building. The symbols then become the reality of religious belief and their existence becomes a validation of that faith.
Religious beliefs are tied inexorably with the symbols of that belief. Religious doctrine contains many references outside of normal Human experience. These references must be universally accepted by the members of a faith. It is impossible to present an indisputable truth if every individual uses their imagination in creating symbols. If it were left to the faithful to devise their own interpretations of heaven and hell, that faith would cease to function as a unifying force within the community. The symbols of faith unify the perception of the fundamental doctrines of that faith. The followers of any belief system are told of the symbols, their meanings and their function within the structure of the religion. It is then that a doctrine can realistically be called a true faith. When a symbol of faith, such as the Bible, is interpreted differently from the established view, the result is the creation of a sect that is based on the differences in interpretation. This has happened to all of the current major religious systems and, in particular, Christian religions. Christianity is divided into many different religious groups that share the same fundamental symbolism. There is an only slight variation in how those symbols are interpreted. Distinct religious groups have distinct symbols and a distinct doctrine although they may have borrowed certain aspects from one another. The concreteness and stability of a symbol belies the basic ambiguity in religious doctrine.
Religious doctrine has evolved in Western civilization from controlling all the functions of a governing body, to being separate and subordinate to secular governments. At this time there are still countries with religious doctrine forming the basis of their government. Those countries that do use religious doctrine for the rules of behavior are not fully participating members of the world community. Interaction between different societies must be conducted on certain premises of law and conduct that supersede religious authority. What was recognized by the framers of the Constitution and what is now apparent in the world community is that religious doctrine is inherently closed to possibility of compromise. Tolerance for opposing religious views is very low among nearly all religious systems. This arises from the certainty with which religious doctrine is presented and the zeal with which it is practiced. Religious belief systems have an influence on the rules of behavior for a society. It is the rule of law that supersedes any belief system in the United States.
The change in authority from religious to civilian authority became necessary, as Human Beings were able to communicate and travel prodigiously on the surface of the planet. Religious systems can co-exist despite their difference as long as legislative control is not the exclusive province of one system. In the United States every major and most of the minor religions of the Human species are represented. There is a minimal amount of religious altercation because the effective power in this society is designed to be delegated to people whose political affiliations carry more weight than their religious beliefs. Religion is seen not as the unifying and distinguishing force behind a collective but rather as a personal philosophical choice. Religious affiliations may enter into the political life of this or any other republic. Its influence extends only as far as the electorate allows through the exercise of the franchise. By establishing civilian authority as the only source of power, religious freedom is secured and religious rule is effectively dismantled. Freedom of and from religious systems allows a collective to do what is necessary to ensure survival and prosperity. It is the fundamental structure of a belief system that ensures conflict without resolution when confronted with another belief system.
Conflict between rival religious beliefs or rival political beliefs arises from the fundamental requirements of self-determination within a collective. The conflicts between rival religious beliefs are different in that there can be no resolution to the point of conjecture. Religious conflicts are usually resolved by violence. There is simply no other alternative. The point of conjecture will remain, but if enough members of the opposing faith are killed, the opposition is eliminated. The wars and conflicts that have arisen in the Middle East since the end of World War II are mainly the result of the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, which is surrounded by predominantly Islamic nations. There will be no solution to the conflicts in this area as long as religious doctrines dictate the parameters of acceptable solutions. The same can be said of the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, or the Hindus and Muslims in India. They are conflicts without solution because dogma is unswerving and uncompromising. Reason and intellect does not deal in absolutes but recognizes the frailty of Human knowledge.
The faithful of most religious systems are prepared to die for their beliefs because that belief system assures them of a reward. In this context, death does not carry with it the finality that empirical observation would suggest. This is the extent to which religious doctrine is able to convince Human Beings of its validity. Human Beings die or endure great hardship based on a promise of reward that is not only invisible but also unimaginable. Human Beings dress, eat, and behave in certain ways because they are convinced that their eternal existence depends on strict compliance with religious doctrine. I would find it very difficult to persuade someone to die for a belief system that I have authored. I could offer someone eternal bliss in a heaven of their own making. I cannot offer what I do not have or am ever likely to possess. Standing alone with my invented belief system I have no concrete evidence or, more importantly, no large following of true believers. If I stand alone with my belief system I must present some sort of evidence to substantiate my claim. If, however, I can claim a following of eight hundred and eighty-four million, my doctrine is substantiated, though not proven, by sheer numbers. This is roughly the number of Catholics worldwide. They all belong and adhere to a singular belief system. Nearly a billion people believe that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified and was resurrected into heaven. Is the evidence of the faith of nearly a billion people such a preponderance of evidence that it dismisses any arguments of reason? Of course not.
One of the problems with this argument is that there are nearly as many Muslims who do not share the Catholic faith. Sheer numbers of followers does not in any sense equate with truth. It does, however equate with power. Nearly a billion people willing to die in a holy war would certainly be enough to snuff out any opposition. It is this power which motivates individuals to participate in and comply with religious doctrine. Religious systems have evolved within Human societies. The systems with the best survivability eventually overcame systems unable to effectively compete. When the government and the religious system of a collective are indistinguishable, an individual's choice of religion determines that individual's chances for prospering within such a system. The rigidity of the dominant religious belief systems at this time leaves very little room for personal variation. Religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a Catholic-Jew, or a Muslim-Protestant. Religious orientation is a single and well-defined aspect of nearly every Human Being's sociological identification. Non-religious Human Beings are lumped together as atheists no matter what form their personal beliefs take. Once religious affiliation is determined it is a simple matter to determine that individual's power within a religiously dominated culture. People who choose to be separate from the majority are relinquishing their power and very often risking their lives in the process. Religious systems developed the power inherent in majorities to effectively dominate the collective consciousness of a society. The concepts of heaven and hell, of justice and redemption, are presented to everyone in this culture because of the sheer weight of true believers. The influence generated by religious doctrine relies on foremost on the quantity and the exclusivity of its message. The religious systems that currently dominate Human societies are the result of a process of natural selection in which only the intolerant survive.
The scientific method for the acquisition of knowledge has been fully developed for only a few hundred years. Religious doctrine is derived from thinking thousands of years old. Those few hundred years of scientific investigation have altered irrevocably the Human understanding of the Universe more profoundly than any religious doctrine. Yet, Human Beings adhere to religious belief systems without any apparent conflict. Technological societies in Western civilizations will still fill churches and temples at least once a week. The true believer enters a church to worship god and his Human personification in Christ. They read from the Bible and try to follow the rules of behavior laid out in that document. Religion in western society has not replaced science nor has science replaced religion. Scientific investigation is, as a matter of its design, open to conflicting theories and postulates. In the contest for survival science is not predatory but exists without specific courses of action. It is a tool for understanding, not an understanding. Religious doctrine has had several major conflicts with the results of scientific investigation. The result of these confrontations has been less than a draw. Science alters its view of the Universe based on the best evidence available and religious doctrine changes slowly to meet changes in society. While some altercations appear and fade every year, they are for the most part, small waves on a very large lake. The history of science and religion has been one of a coming to terms with each other's existence. Science and its inventions must be facilitated by even the most devout follower. Reliance on god to feed nearly six billion Human Beings is not a possibility, even if we could decide on one god. As the tools of scientific investigation probes deeper in to the intricacies of the nature of the Universe, there will shortly come a time when religious doctrine must fade from the conscious identity of the Human species.
The religious leaders of our time rarely discuss astronomy in their sermons. The discussions on the nature of Human Beings are restricted in how it can be derived from the relevant holy text. Challenges to theory of evolution arise and are disputed on a local level. These areas are no longer the provinces of religious beliefs. Most of what is related to any religious following falls in areas yet untouched by scientific investigation. The problem of life after death or the rules of behavior for an individual are largely outside of scientific investigation. It is impossible to study the afterlife when there is absolutely no evidence that it exists. The sociological sciences do not dictate moral behavior but rather study the consequences of the collective actions of Human Beings. Religious systems find their niche in a technological society through the rituals of religious practice and the sense of identity that comes with affiliation to a particular belief system. These elements are not replaced by the scientific method. Without the stability and uniformity of thought and expression that modern religious practices provide, societies would be required to create a collective identity. Belief systems still exist because although our view of the Universe has changed, our needs within a societal structure have remained constant. Faith in a belief system provides an unswerving and palatable philosophical platform from which to act on the Universe around us. Scientific investigation offers no guarantees that our view of the Universe at this particular time will not be overturned in a decade or a year from now. The very nature of the Human ability to comprehend the Universe is continually changing as new evidence is acquired. Religious systems offer a view of the identity of Human Beings and the course our lives should follow that has been elucidated over centuries as eternal truth. The Human Beings alive at the early part of this century underwent a fundamental change in the perception of the structure of matter and of the size and complexity of the Universe. The fundamental beliefs of the world's major religions have not experienced any substantial change. We are instilled with a perception of truth as something immutable in its nature. We accept as fact propositions based on their longevity rather than their plausibility. Religious systems will not be replaced as long as we carry the intellectual baggage of pre-scientific philosophy. At this time religious systems serve important communal needs that are not met by any other social institution. Religious institutions will not decline until there is a widespread understanding of the nature of Human knowledge and recognition of our limited ability to define the Universe.
Any religious doctrine that is not sufficiently supported by empirical evidence falls into the category of mythology. It is an act of explaining ourselves to ourselves. It must be recognized as such. The mythology of Christian or Moslem or Buddhist faiths seek an explanation for the role of Human Beings within the Universe and then it creates a plausible plot and characters to secure its validity. The characters of Christ and Muhammad are both vehicles for turning myth into doctrine. The various deities or their earthly representatives have in common a feature that allows them to be used as a point of validation for any religious system. Whether a deity existed in Human form or was simply anthropomorphic, they possessed abilities that were beyond the capabilities of normal Human Beings. They were tied into a source of enlightenment and power beyond any mortal expectations. When deities are represented as historical figures it establishes a validity to the faith they represent. Muhammad and Christ were almost certainly real Human Beings. Their words and actions are the subject for serious scrutiny. Unfortunately, the deities of nearly all religious systems lived at a time with no video cameras or global news networks. History, until very recently, was written for the upper classes by the upper classes. There was absolutely no way to confirm or deny the accuracy of historical accounts because of the lack of evidence. Without concrete evidence it is still possible to construct a historical framework based on what historical records remain. However, it is not history in the same accuracy with which we can view the twentieth century. The daily activities of the peasantry in Biblical times are best reconstructed from archaeological investigation. Specific instances of miracles or supernatural acts must be taken not as historical fact but as a story in support of a mythology. The daily routine did not present any of the mythologies with the clear and precise acts necessary to support a doctrine. While most instances in the life of a deity may have been based on an actual occurrence, it is an act of pure faith to accept its accuracy.
The fact that there is no physical method for turning water instantly into wine is not an issue with which religious systems are prepared to deliberate. Belief in miracles is accepted as part of the structure of faith. Again, by placing the foundations of faith outside of the realm of empirical inspection, religious doctrine itself is considered beyond the ability of Human Beings to comprehend. Religious doctrine is replete with mysteries, events, and assertions that are accepted without debate. At the time when most religious beliefs were being formed our ability as Human Beings to probe the workings of the Universe were rudimentary. At this time our intellectual and technological capabilities provide us with an incomplete yet formidable understanding of the laws of nature. It is this understanding which allows us to distinguish between truth and incomprehension, fabrication and fact.
We accept as fact our current view of the history of Human civilization despite the possibility that it is quite probably replete with inaccuracies. We do not at this time, and more than likely will never have the evidence that will make us confident in describing ancient history. We have no choice but to live with this inadequacy. It is recognition of the limits placed on historical evidence by the fragility of its records. The damage done by our inability to reconstruct the historical past is limited to our appreciation of ancient civilizations. We do not make decisions at this time which are directly related to aspects of a culture thousands of years ago. It is this disassociation with the past that removes current decisions from the detrimental effects of misinformation. Religious doctrine is not so exempt. Decisions made by clerical leaders are made through reflections on writings that arose out of an environment completely alien to the current Human situation. There have been and there will continue to be certain precepts that will fail under the weight of new knowledge or social realities. No religious doctrine at this time contain any doctrinal references to an Earth centered Universe. Catholics no longer have to abstain from meat on Fridays and can participate in masses celebrated in the vernacular. These changes are on the peripheral edges of doctrine and do not alter the fundamental assertions of a faith. As new social situations demand new interpretations, those interpretations must comply with the central concepts of a belief system. It is the dogmatic nature of religious doctrine that precludes any departure from its essential tenets. Our perception of the Universe at this time has almost nothing in common with the perception of the Universe of two thousand years ago. Religious doctrine becomes dated when it cannot change with a constantly evolving understanding of the Universe. The stories and mythology of every culture are passed from generation to generation of Human Beings. We have reached a point in our intellectual evolution where the legends become distinct from our conscious reasoning abilities. Religious systems fail most obviously when they attempt to create a modern understanding of the Universe from the mythology of an ancient time.
Religious systems succeed by giving a collective a unified and stable perception of the Universe. Successful cooperation between all the individuals of a collective is a formidable force for building nations or destroying them. Religious belief systems not only provide a view of Human Beings within the framework of the Universe, they also provide the behavioral standards of existence. Along with every religion system the faithful are given not only an explanation of the world but also an explanation of the individual's place in that system. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Taoists are all given a complete list of correct and incorrect actions to be taken as a Human Being on this planet. The path of the true believer has already been chosen and life is simply a matter of following that path. The intellectual evaluation of religious beliefs by the faithful is to increase understanding of existing dogma. It is not an area of discovery or even of learning. The rote repetition of the doctrines of faith does not make for an argument nor does it increase our knowledge of the Universe. The singularity of perception that is effectively disseminated by religious doctrine is necessary for the cooperation of a collective. Religious doctrine is not exempt from examination of purpose and motive. As with a dictatorship, religious doctrine can be very successful if the doctrine happens to be in agreement with what is best for the collective. All dogma will succeed and fail based on the circumstances and requirements of the time. All dogma must eventually fail because it does not recognize the fallibility of Human knowledge. The need in a collective for a unified perception remains in the absence of religious systems. Very much earlier in our civilized history, the absence of religious doctrine would have left a void in the purpose of a collective. At this time we have achieved the necessary understanding of ourselves and the Universe that can guide our collective efforts. The void created by an evacuation of religious doctrine is readily filled by empirical evidence.
Christians believe that Christ will eventually return to the Earth from heaven. There exists no plausible explanation for such an event. No evidence is being offered by any of the world's religions to support their assertions. While the idea of a heaven is a nice thought, when Human Beings die they cease to exist in any form. I am not abdicating my previous position on the nature of Human knowledge by denying the claims provided by the religious systems of this planet. It is they who are making the assertions and it is they who must provide the evidence in support of those assertions. There is no convincing evidence for gods, ghosts, life after death, extra sensory perception, visitors from other planets, astrology, fortune telling, or any of the myriad of belief systems that pervade Human culture. Yet these beliefs remain viable and prosper within the most advanced societies. They will continue to do so as long as we teach our children and each other that knowledge is ethereal. We continue to this day to face the consequences of the lack of insight into our own nature. We can carry with us the myths and stories that have propagated through generations of Human Beings. If we use them as a guide to our survival, that survival is left to the vagaries of chance.

Chapter Six
God

Albert Einstein thought of God as the sum total of all the physical laws of the Universe. John Lennon wrote that God was a concept by which we measure our pain. In all Human culture for which there is enough evidence, there is some concept of a God or Gods. It is a concept that arises out of the consciousness of existence and our unique faculty for imagination. God is the answer to the question of our existence. It reveals much more about Human Beings, however, than it does about any explanation of the creation of the Universe. The examination of the concept of God does not stop with its presence in the mythology of Human Beings. At the root of the concept of God is a desire to know who we are, how we got here, and why the Universe is as it appears. The fact that we do not understand something does not prevent us from arriving at some sort of solution. Ancient civilizations did not understand the natural forces that drive the weather and the seasons. That did not prevent them from devising a solution to the problem. God does it. God makes it rain, snow, or shine. God also makes drought, floods, and hurricanes. Some countries can go generations without a major natural disaster. God must like what those people are doing. Some countries are just crawling from the wreckage of one disaster when they are struck by another. God must be displeased by their actions. Once there is established the premise of an entity controlling the destiny of the Universe, it becomes a simple matter to lay the blame or reward. It seems inconceivable to most Human Beings on this planet that there is no guiding entity that is in some way responsible for the fate of the Universe. If the Universe exists, it seems logical that it must have had some origin. The originator of the Universe is called God. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning does not stop at God. If God exists, it then seems logical to assume that something created God. The most logical point to be made at this time is that we probably do not understand the origin of the Universe well enough to ask a meaningful question. There exists a fundamental division in the perception of the concept of God. God can be viewed as the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe. Our current perception of the Universe validates that perception. The Universe is not random. It has an underlying order that as far as we know is never compromised. That order, or the rules by which the Universe operates, can be considered the primordial force of the Universe and our existence. Another view of the concept of God is decidedly more anthropocentric. In this view God is a conscious entity creating the Universe and with a special priority attached to Human Beings in some grand scheme. God in this case is seen as the driving force behind the creation of the Universe. God is seen to participate and influence the affairs of Human Beings and dispenses justice when necessary. The latter view of God is usually associated with religious systems and the former is a view derived from a scientific perception of the Universe. Unfortunately, neither concept answers the God questions about the origin of the Universe and the destiny of Human Beings.
God in the Christian faith acts like some kind of cosmic game-master. God has set up the Universe, given life to all the creatures that inhabit the Earth, and set things running. Human Beings have a special place in this arrangement. We are considered a special creation. God has provided us with a soul that is eternal. We have the promise of eternal life with God as long as we are able to do God's will while we are in mortal form. It is the physical presence of every Human Being that dies. The major religious belief systems give Human Beings an undetectable and eternal facet that supersedes the physical world. The soul or spirit of Human Beings lies in the same inaccessible dimension as God. God has the ability to interface with our perceptible physical Universe. Spirits and souls in certain religious beliefs and under specific circumstance are also able to cross this threshold. The average Human Being is usually not able to access the dimension reserved for souls, spirits and Gods. Again special circumstance may prevail and allow temporary access. This temporary access is only achieved by the most devout followers of whatever religious system to which that particular follower belongs.
The concept of God in the Christian, Judaic, and Muslim traditions has many of the same characteristics as dictators or kings. In Christian text, God is referred to as the King of Kings. God in nearly all religions is depicted as a male. Men have dominated the leadership roles in collectives and continue to do so even to this day. It is therefore not surprising that the role of dictator of the Universe is depicted with male characteristics. God is usually referred to by the male pronouns. This perception of an omnipotent, male, dictator of the Universe does not go much beyond the experiences of Human Beings. God's reason for the creation of the Universe, and in particular Human Beings, also remains within the bounds of Human experience. I would be more comfortable with the religious concept of God if it were not for the similarities to aspects of the Human condition. God reigns over the Universe with unimpeachable authority. He distributes justice by vanquishing his opponents and rewarding his allies. Probably the most interesting areas of God's effect on the lives of Human Beings are those of worship. As with the kings and despots of anytime in history, God demands an immutable allegiance. Faith in God must be unswerving under any circumstances. The faithful place their trust and lives in the hands of their God under any circumstances.
This puts not only Human Beings, but their ability to reason in a subordinate position. Human Beings are flawed. God is not. The creation of a God also categorizes Human Beings as inferior. As far as we know, Human Beings are the most intelligent and powerful life forms in the Universe. While this is an incontrovertible fact, it is not a fact of great importance. Our ignorance in this matter is so profound compared to our knowledge that it makes any assertions along these lines without value. Our intelligence provides us with an accurate assessment of our limitations and our imagination provides us with a window to our unlimited potential.
God is created in our own image excluding our perceived shortcomings. Whether or not one believes in the popular conceptions of God remains irrelevant. By its very nature God transcends our interpretation of physical reality. It would be impossible to depict God in any way that is not within our realm of experience. The attributes of God are such that they cannot be elucidated in our frame of reference. Unfortunately, it becomes extremely difficult to build a religious system around a concept which in inherently incomprehensible. The concept of God cannot function without some kind of grounding in common experience. The difficulty is trying to build a deity who is both transcendent and knowable. Christ becomes an effective means of circumventing this problem when he is interpreted as both God and man. God and man at the same time bring a solid identity to an otherwise nebulous concept. The idea of a God/man also solves another problem in creating a viable God: access. How is it that we can know so intimately the nature of a being so far removed from our own cognitive abilities? The God/man solves that problem by the Human part translating the information for those of us without access to the other realm. Another solution is the prophet or saint. God can reveal its identity through certain Human Beings. These are people whose faith is stronger than the average true believer is. God selects these people to interpret his identity and propagate it within the context of faith. Whatever the method of revelation as to the nature of God, religious systems are built on this spurious insight into a creator of the Universe.
The dominant religious systems at this time are based on belief systems at least hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Christ and all of the prophets and saints associated with Christianity are not associated with modern times. There have, of course, been prophets outside of the major religions. L. Ron Hubbard, for instance, founded the church of Scientology. Upon his death, it was announced by his followers that he had ascended to a higher plane of consciousness. He had, like all Human Beings before him, died. This would have been an ideal opportunity to extract some very valuable information that could have confirmed or denied the tenets of the Church of Scientology. We have at our disposal the technology to observe physical changes in all their manifestations. Unfortunately, no modern technology was used to record Mr. Hubbard's ascension. The lack of evidence is not surprising or isolated. Prophets and saints are missing from a time in Human history when we can faithfully record their works. Those people who at this time hear the voice of God are considered psychologically ill. Manifestations of the creator of the Universe within the context of religious beliefs are absent from modern reality. Miracles are now performed in laboratories and on operating tables.
What was once considered a miracle or an act of God is currently attributed to some physical phenomenon or results from the combination of spurious evidence and Human imagination. Human Beings view reality through the expectations based on their knowledge and experience. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all recognize Christ but vary wildly on the interpretation of his identity. The interpretations range from Christ being God to Christ being an enlightened Human Being. The varying points of view come from varying points of origin. God is a concept common to all belief systems because it is a fundamental concept on which to construct a theology. The nature of God is different depending on the point of view of the people constructing the theology. The possibilities for constructing a God and the origins of the Universe are unlimited. The problem lies with our ignorance of the origin and ultimate nature of the Universe.
Ignorance is a concept with which religious systems must walk a very fine line. While it is important for the followers of any faith to have a working understanding of the nature of God, a complete understanding of God runs into trouble. One of the most popular problems of God illustrates this point: If there is a God why is there so much suffering in the world? From the religious point of view there is no satisfactory answer. This question is so popular in debates about religion or God that it has become somewhat of a cliché. Unfortunately, the most common answer is also a cliché: God works in mysterious ways. The true believer is not asked to lead but to follow. It would seem that a complete understanding of the Christian concept of God is impossible for such finite creatures as Human Beings. Christians are taught to accept personal tragedy as part of an unseen structure of the Universe constructed by the Creator of the Universe. Understanding in these matters is not nearly as important as faith in religious doctrine. It has not been faith, however, but understanding which has provided Human Beings with the greatest benefits.
The Christian doctrine about God includes omnipotence and omniscience. If God is all-powerful and all knowing, this would also include complete responsibility. Given that God created the Universe and has complete knowledge of that Universe, God is responsible for the permutations of that Universe. People die. Some die quite agonizing and horrible deaths. At least several million Human Beings were killed in the Human slaughterhouses of World War II Germany. The list of Human atrocities, although finite, is extensive and is continually growing. If we are living in a Universe of a singular entity's creation and design, I can find no evidence for either a love or even a casual fondness for Human Beings. Christians often refer to their God as a loving and just God. Christians, however devout, are not exempt from many of the same maladies that afflict people of other faiths. Human Beings who profess no allegiance to the Christian or any other God are quite capable of leading full and happy lives. A close examination of the Human condition on this planet at this time reveals no obvious benefits from following one particular religious system. Apparently, the rewards and punishments alluded to in many or the world's religious doctrines are reserved for the imperceptible dimension where God resides.
This too, is covered in Christian doctrine. The social and material successes of people outside of their faith have not been lost on members of the Christian faith. Both reward and punishment are to be meted out by the Creator of the Universe at the end of time. Christ is supposedly poised to return at some time to judge the lives of all Human Beings. It is at this time that pagans and other assorted transgressors of the rules of behavior will be sent to hell. There they will be set on fire for eternity without any possibility of parole. Those who have followed the rules of behavior will enjoy the benefits of heaven. When Christ will return to perform this duty remains, of course, a mystery. Every several years or so there will appear an individual who feels that they have discovered the exact time of Judgment Day. These people may belong to the Christian faith but they are not recognized by any of the major faiths. It is outside of the province of any religious system to make any physical predictions based on faith or doctrine. Religious systems as a matter of their identity profess to know the nature of God and the mystery of the origin of the Universe. It is this knowledge, which allows religious leaders to make the rules and demand certain specific behaviors from their followers. At this time in the history of Human civilization the power to persuade intellectually or physically force people to accept religious authority and doctrine has declined measurably. This comes as a direct result of our ability to understand the nature of the Universe. Religious doctrine is unable to support or predict any aspect of the cognitive physical world around us. The Gods of religious doctrine have receded into the world of the intangible. It is only from this position can they affect the physical Universe.
Every religion uses a concept of God. No two religious systems use the exact same description of the same deity. That is, of course, why they do not possess the same God. A lot of conflict could be resolved if all religions were to agree on even the most fundamental aspects of the nature of God. I do not expect this to happen at any time in the next millennium. The positions of religious doctrine are intractable. They know the nature of God and how God would like us to behave. The true nature of God should be apparent. If I were to ask an official of any religion I could expect to get an answer. The problem is that I can get at least a dozen different answers by asking a dozen different religious representatives. All would come with the absolute assurance of being correct. Not every one can be correct. While there are some similarities in the description of God amongst the various religions, there are also some major discrepancies. Particularly, between the religions of the Western and Eastern hemispheres. It would be extremely helpful if there were a method to find out which belief system is the most accurate.
The representatives of the various faiths around the world are Human Beings. They do not exhibit behavior or perform tasks that would distinguish them as having a special relationship with the creator of the Universe. They may possess advanced abilities in leadership, intellectual capabilities, or many other favorable Human characteristics. They do not possess these skills to a degree that would suggest that they are better able to define God than any other cleric from any other belief system. They probably share the same characteristics that would in different circumstances place them in a position of responsibility at General Motors or IBM. I would trust a member of upper level management at IBM to present me with some of the best information about that company. I would extend that same trust to any cleric of any religion to provide to me the best information about their religion. I would trust the executive neither at IBM or the cleric to give me the exact truth.
The potential for straying from truth is directly proportional to the loss incurred from extrapolating the truth. IBM is simply a convenient example. All corporations for profit will disguise or misrepresent the truth in order to assure their profits. They are in business to make money. Whether or not that conflicts with the truth is a matter for case-by-case examination. Certainly, no executive at IBM would divulge voluntarily any information that would adversely affect the ability of that company to make money. Religious leaders in general do not have such an obvious concern with monetary reward, but it is nonetheless a part of their motivation. I cannot think of any major religion that survives without money. Money is a very real and vital support to religious faith. People are not willing to support a religion with their money, time or devotion without assurances from a religious leader that they are completely correct in the doctrine they represent. In the Catholic faith the Pope is the supreme authority on all religious matters. He is considered by Catholics to be infallible in matters of faith. This is a very useful doctrine in soliciting followers because it gives them the assurance that the investment they make in their faith is guaranteed. The Pope will not dispute or alter the basic tenets expressed in the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Neither will any of the other representatives of any other major religion. To do so is to forfeit the support based on their infallibility. Of course, they are all Human Beings. As such, they are disposed to make errors of judgment or logic. There are simply no infallible Human Beings in any aspect of the Human condition.
There is a distinction between the truth and our perception of the truth. The Pope is telling the truth, as he believes it. In matters of faith the discovery of the truth is an easy accomplishment. All that is required is to assimilate the doctrines of the particular belief system. If one professes faith in a religious system, the search for truth leaves the area of intellectual investigation for rote memorization. In accepting the concept of faith, and using that faith within a particular religious system, the search for truth is limited to the explanations of religious leaders. This is not how Human Beings acquire useful knowledge about the Universe. Nor is it the way in which we conduct our daily activities.
The validity of the Pope's or another other religious leader's explanation of God must be accompanied by evidence and reason. Most religious leaders do not claim to be other than Human flesh and blood. There are some who do, but their followings are usually as limited as their longevity. When a leader himself takes on the qualities of a God it becomes very hard to replace him when he inevitably dies. Kings and emperors of all kinds have perpetuated their authority post-mortem through their descendents. The children of such leadership were assumed to have the same superhuman qualities as the parents. This might have worked for a few generations but eventually such dynasties were overthrown. There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that any Human Being has possessed anything other than Human capabilities. There have certainly been recent examples of men and women whose talents or intellects have been profound in comparison with Human Beings of average abilities. There have been no saints pronounced or major religions based on these examples because we have had access to the intimate details of their lives. Close examination of any historic or religious figure will reveal the unmistakable mark of the Human species. The incompleteness of the nature of Human knowledge and the frailty of the Human body is present in even the best examples of our species. Certainly anyone who professes a nature outside of the genetic pool of the Human Species is immediately suspect.
The leaders of the major religious systems at this time do not suggest that they themselves are of a different design than other Human Beings. It would be ludicrous to suggest anything of the sort when we have the technological capability of confirming or denying such a hypothesis. Instead, religious leaders take the position that they are enlightened by God. Some of the more evangelic Christian leaders in this country profess to communicate with God on a regular basis. These people are not in mental institutions because they talk to God in a socially acceptable manner. All religious faiths require some sort of contact with the Creator of the Universe in order to establish their credibility. Contact with God is indispensable when confronted with new social circumstances unforeseen by the initial doctrines of a religious system. The way we live at this time is substantially different from only fifty years ago and foreign to the lifestyle of five hundred years ago. These changes operate outside of religious practice. Religious systems change with innovations in order to survive and remain marketable. Contact with God validates any changes necessary for a religious system to remain viable. There can be no dispute of a dictum that has its origin with God. There is no higher authority. God is a concept that is literally equated with absolute knowledge and wisdom.
Communication with God is not limited to highest Human authority in the religious hierarchy. Extremely devout followers will on occasion have some sort of communication with God. Fortunately, these communications stay within the realm of the individual's current life situation. The average true believer is not able to circumvent the course set by religious leaders. It is indeed fortunate that only a small percentage of the faithful communicate with God. Human Beings are unreliable in reproducing faithfully the simplest of messages. I would think there would great confusion if everyone had direct dialogue with the Creator of the Universe. The nature of these communications is not related to any of the physical phenomenon we can at this time observe. God does not leave notes on our desks or messages on our answering machines. I am not merely being flippant about this matter. If such communications exist it would be to everyone's advantage to have access to them. It is not necessary at this time to employ single individuals to disseminate any information gleaned from the Creator of the Universe. We live in a time with unprecedented communication capabilities. A few minutes of monologue from God over a satellite network would communicate very effectively with most of the world's Human population. It would also eliminate any of the subjectivity that comes with individual communication. Perhaps I am being somewhat flippant. God communicates with the faithful because they believe in God and they believe that God communicates with them. The lack of evidence is superseded by the desire to create a Universe in which God exists and Human Beings have the capacity for a life that can only be imagined in this world.
Most people, unfortunately, have had no direct communication with God. Our knowledge of God, the Universe, and our place in it comes from other Human Beings who lay claim to the truth. Without the benefit of evidence, should we abandon the skills we use daily to interpret our lives and accept the faith of nearly a billion people? Of course not. One of the first problems is choosing a religious system. Most religious systems are chosen for us by our parents and taught to us as children. This is not a choice we make, but one that is imposed on us. A choice that requires an act of faith cannot be made with the same intellectual tools we use to make other choices. The act of choosing a religious system for an explanation of the Universe rules out the usual methods for obtaining knowledge. How is it that we can use so nebulous a concept as faith to provide an answer to the nature of the Universe? How is it that we accept another Human Being's view of the Universe without the burden of providing empirical evidence?
We live at a time in our development in which we are still able to perform within the framework of a modern, complex, society and still practice religious beliefs that have become antiquated by our empirical knowledge of the Universe. There are no discernible differences between the practitioners of any of the major religious systems in the performance of their daily tasks. Buddhists and Muslims in this country pay their taxes, buy food and shelter, work, and receive an education along with Protestants, Jews and Mormons. Modern religious systems have adapted to modern society by not coming in direct conflict with the enormous tide of knowledge about the physical Universe and ourselves. The conflicts that do arise come from areas for which the evidence is sparse and therefore the conclusions are fragile. It is in these areas that a benevolent God can exist and dispense justice to Human Beings. When we believe that God acts in ways whose wisdom cannot be full understood by Human Beings, there can be no dispute over the legitimacy of any physical occurrence. To accept the tenets of any religious system as a matter of faith is to assert the unknown by wishful thinking.
By placing religious doctrine in the realm of faith, and God in the realm of the intangible, religious systems effectively place them outside of scientific investigation. To argue with a cleric over divine inspiration is absurd. The conclusions we reach in our search for knowledge and the answers we obtain from religious doctrine are mutually exclusive. The Universe however does not function under such duplicity of logic. Scientific theory must not only conform to what we know about the Universe, but also make predictions concerning its fate. Scientific theory resides in our cognitive experiences. We use that knowledge to grow food, explore our Solar System, and probe our own molecular structure. The concept of God must face the same criteria as the rest of our body of knowledge. Religious systems must produce evidence for their God. Taoist and Baptists must either substantiate their claims or withdraw them from public discourse. Predictions must be made based on faith in order for faith to be utilized for the benefit of Human Beings. It is not enough to conceive of God, he must be put to work. God as concept has to increase our knowledge of the Universe, not degrade it.
By dismissing the myriad of religious interpretations of God I do not dismiss the God question. The question still exists as to the origin and the ultimate fate of the Universe. We can start our investigation by thinking of God as the sum total of all the physical laws of the Universe. The Universe as we are able to perceive it has a definite set of instructions for the way it operates and our observations have not uncovered any contradictions to the present state of our knowledge. There are things that are not resolved at this time, but they represent flaws in our ability to collect evidence rather than our ability to describe the laws of nature. One of the first things I have to explain before I delve into the concept of God is why my perceptions should carry any more intellectual weight than those of a Buddhist monk or a Catholic priest. I have used the word perceive in describing religious and my own realities. How is it that my perceptions should take precedent over those of any other Human Being? Is not my concept of God equally as farcical as those espoused by the dominant religious systems? It is not.
I can make predictions based on the knowledge I have at this time. I use the same system of extracting knowledge about God that I use for understanding internal combustion engines. I am not advocating that any doctrine I might put forward be taken as a matter of faith. On the contrary, I invite any information or reasoning that would further advance my comprehension of any subject. I do not claim absolute knowledge on any subject. I realize the incompleteness of Human knowledge that is reinforced by my daily interactions with the physical world. I realize what certainty of knowledge I may possess in the technological prowess of Human Beings on this planet. This planet is now dominated by the Human species and by our understanding of the physical Universe. It is this understanding which gives us the insight to send spacecraft to other planets or to cure disease through chemical reactions. The technological capabilities of Human Beings which are manifested in nearly every facet of our lives are the evidence I propose to validate the way in which I perceive the Universe and understand the nature of truth. I would ask any religious leader to support their vision of God based on evidence for the way in which they perceive the Universe. Unfortunately, the evidence for any religious system returns to the doctrine of faith, without which no assertions can be made. Faith may provide for Human Beings a sense of psychological serenity and emotional fortitude, but it does not as a direct result of its implementation cure disease or increase our standard of living.
Now that I have firmly discounted faith as a means for seeking truth and have expounded on the benefits of the scientific method, I return to an area fraught with speculation. The concept of God, or the origin and design of the Universe does not lend itself to the hands-on inspection the microcosm of this planet allows. Human Beings are limited in our ability to make observations about the Universe and in our comprehension of those observations. This is our starting point. We can proceed along a line of reason that has taken along the way to comprehension of the Universe. It is not certain whether or not this will give us the insight into our creation. It may very well be that we are not presently equipped to discover and understand the things we wish to know. There are few experiments we can perform on the macroscopic Universe. The theory of relativity suggest that if were to accelerate to nearly the speed of light, from our point of view we would be everywhere in the Universe at the same time. This would be a very insightful experiment. The amount of energy necessary to bring a spacecraft to nearly the speed of light is unattainable by any physical means with which we are aware. Traveling at just ten per cent of the speed of light through interstellar space would risk collision with a large molecule. At that high speed the vehicle would be torn apart. We are limited not only by our own inherent restrictions as Human Beings, but the very structure of the Universe applies its own restriction on our understanding. The act of formulating the God questions suggests that we are capable of at least a rudimentary understanding.
Formulating the question of our origin may be the most formidable obstacle to our understanding. We may ask, "Why are we here?” and it seems to be a valid question. We base this question on observations of our own experience. We have noticed that everything has an origin. The Universe must have an origin of some kind. The question turns on itself at the point where we begin to discuss the original origin. Within our references of space and time, origins are easy to find. The complexity of the question arises from this perception. We use the concept of time as a fixed point of reference within our concept of the Universe. Time does exist and it follows that there must have been an origin of time. Unfortunately, I am beginning to chase my tail and there is no easy solution if we stay within the boundaries of a time dominated system. No matter how far back in time we may extrapolate, it is the concept of the arrow of time that precludes us from a satisfactory answer. Like a repeating decimal sequence, we will always return to our point of origin. That is, while we may know the origin of the Universe and explain it as the Big Bang; we cannot access the nature of the Universe before that time. It would seem that we are stuck without an answer to the God question.
The answer to origin of everything is effectively blocked by our understanding of the component of time in our Universe. It is the very nature of time that prohibits us from extracting its very origin. It is the nature of space that prohibits us from being in two different places at the same time. It is the nature of the relationship of gravity and its affect on mass that prevents us from traveling at the speed of light. At this point it may seem that we simply cannot understand our origins. I would not be the first person to come to this conclusion. Nearly all the religious systems have come to the same conclusion. The descriptions vary somewhat but they essentially boil down to the same lack of understanding. It is how religious or any other doctrine deals with this inaccessibility to our origin that provides a seemingly large repertoire of resolutions.
One of the most widely used ways to escape the inevitable dead end of inquiry that our Universe seems to represent is to call it a mystery. This is to say that Human Beings have no way of acquiring information about the subject and therefore it becomes a point for which there can be no effective speculation. In Christianity, there are several such mysteries. God is conceptualized as having three identities and at the same time is a singular entity. God loves Human Beings yet allows Humans to suffer and die. Calling something a mystery does not resolve the problem. Viewed from a scientific viewpoint, mysteries are simply unresolved areas of investigation. For the followers of a religious system, such mysteries are eternal and belong to that part of the nature of God that cannot be revealed to us while we are living on this planet. The only religious answers to this and other questions come with death. It is the position of Human Beings who belong to certain religious systems that some things are unknowable and it is fruitless to attempt to resolve them. This is in direct contrast to the scientific method. To engage in science or to engage in a meaningful examination of the Universe is to realize the limitations of knowledge but not the potential.
It is impossible to say when Human Beings will hit an intellectual roadblock. Many of the recent insights into the nature of the Universe were not only aided by computers but were improbable without them. The technology of the computer is an extension of the Human mind. Computers perform calculations literally impossible for individual Human Beings. The speed at which calculations and simulations can be performed by computers gives Human Beings an intellectual resource of incalculable value. We are biologically limited in both our imagination and cognitive intellect. There are very few restrictions on the extensions we can create to supplement what our genetic material lacks. We have not the time to wait for evolutionary processes to compensate for our deficiencies in memory and calculation. We do not have to wait. There is enough evidence to suggest that the silicon extensions of our mind will be able to carry us much further along the road to an understanding of the Universe.
Another solution to the problem of the origin of the Universe is the concept of the infinite. This is to say that the Universe has existed and will exist for all time. A world with no beginning and no end. This is a concept favored by most of the predominant religious systems of the Eastern Hemisphere. Time is seen as a circle rather a tangent. The circle represents a view that time neither begins nor ends but continues. The problem of the origin of the Universe is thus resolved. There is no origin and there is no end. The God question of how we got here is removed from discussion. We were always here. The same logic of the circle can be used to answer the God question of why we are here. Because it would be impossible to be anything else. This is sort of a game in which I keep finding myself chasing something that turns out to be my own shadow. The fault lies not with the logic I employ to answer these question but with the questions themselves. Whether time is an arrow or a circle does not answer the question, but merely displaces it.
Citing the origin of the Universe as inaccessible leaves us without an explanation. This is not acceptable. Referring to the Universe as an unbroken circle merely enlightens us to the ambiguities resident in our language and logic. Circles do not arise whole from the firmament. They have starting and ending points. It is impossible to construct a circle without them and equally impossible to construct a metaphor based on the concept. Perhaps it is time to restate the question since the answers have so far run into some definite problems with resolution. I have already stated that the information concerning the physical state of the Universe before the Big Bang is not available for inspection. Perhaps what we do know about the Universe will provide us with enough information about ourselves and our origins to proceed with formulating a palatable philosophical disposition.
The Universe appears to us as it is because if it were otherwise we would not be here to observe it. This is commonly referred to as the anthropomorphic principle. It is an argument of logic rather than of observation. It would be impossible to observe otherwise. Human Beings exist and observe the Universe because we are within the parameters of possibility dictated by he fundamental laws of nature and the identity of the structure of matter. We currently view the structure of matter and the rules governing its behavior as distinct from one another. It is not difficult to conceive of a Universe with rules but no structure. We separate rule from structure because of our perspective. We can devise rules for ourselves or the Universe that can be altered without affecting the fundamental structure. This is not the observational evidence. Quarks and quantum law are inseparable. They do not exist outside of each other. Human Beings and the law of gravity are equally inseparable. The Universe and all its variations arise from its unique structure. We may be able to conceive of parallel or complimentary Universes, but they are without evidence from our frame of reference.
What we are able to perceive of the Universe and what we actually know about the Universe do not necessarily belong to the same set. Observations are a simple matter for a conscious entity. An understanding of the Universe relies on making predictions concerning any future observations or inferences concerning the past. At this time our evidence about the macroscopic Universe is incomplete. The fate of the Universe cannot be successfully predicted with current technology. We cannot access present boundaries of the Universe, if they exist at all. The destiny of the Universe can be confined to three alternatives. The present expansion will continue until all the matter is completely dispersed. If there is sufficient gravitational impetus, the Universe will eventually collapse on itself. This would result in another Big Bang and the everything would start all over again. Or the Universe could be constantly replenishing itself from some unknown mechanism. We can narrow the possibilities for the fate of the Universe to three possibilities because of what we know about the rules governing its operation. Time is a component of the structure of the Universe. It proceeds along a line from the past to the future. We cannot directly access the past or the future. Large optical telescopes can observe the relics of the past and complex mathematical models can suggest the future. Human Beings exist as a part of this structure. The knowledge of the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe is an understanding of ourselves at our most fundamental level. It would be impossible therefore to know what the Universe was like before the Universe.
The structure of the Universe prohibits any direct investigation of the absolute past or future. The fabric of space and time, however, does allow for some interesting effects. Time in an intense gravitational field or under great acceleration is seen to move slower relative to time in a normal gravitational field or in a state of non-acceleration. The structure of the Universe does not allow us to experience both situations simultaneously. This prevents us from physically visiting either the past or the future. Our local view of time, whatever that may be, is the only view we get. Every atom in the Universe is woven into and affects the local fabric of space and time. In essence we are stuck in the Universe. Our language has developed in such a way as to be able to raise conjectures about the Universe that are not available under our current understanding. I can talk about the Universe before the Big Bang but I would not be able to make any confident predictions about its identity. This kind of speculation is essentially the province of fiction and is not useful in constructing a working understanding of the Universe.
The God questions must be refined to use the knowledge that we have been so successful in gathering. The knowledge we have assimilated is about the Universe we inhabit. Every particle in the Universe is inexorably tied into and confined within the fabric of the Universe. The atoms that make up Human Beings, plants, planets and computer chips are equally woven into the same fabric. The identity of the laws and structure of the Universe is our own identity. The only transcendence that occurs is the product of Human imagination filtered through our language. Our language describes our reality based on whatever knowledge of the Universe we have at hand. It is only recently, from a historical perspective, that the knowledge we have acquired has outstripped the capabilities of our language to adapt to the changes. Our language is the only reference we have to the knowledge that cannot be confirmed by our senses. Therefore, misconceptions persist when they cannot be successfully incorporated into the language or the mythology that we use to find our place in the Universe.
We answer the question of our existence by an examination of the laws of the Universe. Human Beings can be explained as a rise in the local entropy of the Universe. We see ourselves as much more than that because our intellectual evolution has brought us to a conscious awareness of ourselves. We are able to distinguish ourselves from our surroundings. This separation allows us to investigate both our surroundings and ourselves. While the exact circumstances of our evolution remain a mystery, the laws that govern such reactions are well within our ability to comprehend. We were not present at the first light of the Sun, but stellar evolution has not eluded the astronomers. Computer models based on the knowledge we have at this time are able to bring us vicariously to a time microseconds after the Big Bang. It is only our imagination that can penetrate the physical barrier to our understanding of a Universe before the one we now inhabit.
Imagination is limited by the language with which we think. Human imagination is limited by the physical system we inhabit. All the heavens and hells devised by Human Beings have their roots and justification in our own experience. In an attempt to describe the eternal we use the template of our temporal lives. The descriptions of other worlds, other Universe, other ways of perceiving Human Beings sound very familiar if one contemplates how different from our experience they must be. If we devise a new Universe it must be operating within our within our realm of understanding. Mysteries are a lack of information. Living with and within a finite Universe is an opportunity for the equally finite comprehension of Human Beings to recognize and delineate the truth.
At some time in the future of Human investigation we will certainly be able to make an educated estimation of the mass of the Universe. This will tell us whether we are one of a very long series of oscillating Universes, or the singular example of what we observe around us. It would be interesting from a particularly Human point of view. It would tell us the ultimate fate of the Universe, and perhaps of Human Beings. It would tell us of fire or ice. It would not change us, the Universe, or our perspective on God. We will still not be able to access the thing previous to the expression of the present Universe. Whether or not this is the first or first in a quintillion Universes does not answer the God question. We will never reach this kind of understanding. It would be perception beyond our ability to perceive. We can understand our Universe because we have reached consciousness and the Universe is not random on the time scales we can perceive.
I can describe God as the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe. The God questions we raise are an expression of the limits of our language to extrapolate logic. They are not the questions that should be asked based on our knowledge of the Universe at this time. We can return to the anthropomorphic principle to answer the question of how Human Beings got here. We exist as an expression of the physical laws of the Universe, of God, if you will. We got here through the physical expression of those laws. A small variation in those laws would have landed us somewhere else in space and time, if at all. This speculation once again removes us from the observation that our existence or the existence of any arrangement of atoms is dedicated to the fabric of the Universe. At this time our technological capabilities are a daily recitation of our knowledge of the Universe. This knowledge is flawed only because we have imagined absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge resides with heaven, hell, and wheels of reincarnation. We ascend on the ladder of knowledge by treading on the rungs of empirical evidence. It is not the arriving, but the journey.

Chapter Seven
War and Nuclear War

War is a problem-solving tool used by Human Beings in their societal relationships with other Human Beings. It can be very effective in solving conflicts in a social context. The use of physical force in the resolution of a problem results in a solution that defies the usual meaning of a solution. The use of physical force to resolve conflicts that is essentially societal in nature results in a cyclical process of resolution. Every action taken in the physical world has a real and discernible effect on the complete physical system. The Allied nations were victorious in World War II. The cost of victory included approximately ten million deaths of Human Beings and destruction of the economies of Europe and Asia. The possible costs of war are usually not a consideration when a dictator or an assembly decides for a collective on the course of war. Wars are not started by Human Beings performing cost analysis to determine whether a war will give the best possible return on investment. If this were the case war would be an artifact of an earlier and less thoughtful era of Human history. The fact remains that war is as recent a today's headlines. Human history is not only punctuated with war, it is perhaps the single greatest influence. Our insights into the physical world have been utilized nearly universally for the advancement of armaments. A technological advantage, whether it was the longbow or the intercontinental ballistic missile, is translated into a source of power and wealth when directed against another collective. The resulting power and wealth derived from military strength is a result of the system of nation-states and the way these political systems relate to each other.
War is a collective act of aggression. Aggression is not a concept with which Human Beings are unfamiliar. On this planet, some sort of aggression is necessary to sustain life. Every form of life on this planet has evolved in order to survive long enough to breed some more of its own species. For the carnivores of this planet, that involves taking the life of another animal. This will usually involves no small amount of aggression due for the most part on the fanatical propensity of other animals to stay alive. It is this propensity for self-preservation that must be subdued by an equal propensity on the part of the carnivorous aggressor to acquire sustenance. Human Beings must be aggressive in procuring food or defending territory that provides the food. Human Beings were killing each other long before we had organized into collectives. War is the collective expression of that aggressive tendency. Peace is the use of Human intellectual capabilities in the resolution of conflicts. Men are more aggressive than women are in general terms. Women are quite capable of actions that are as aggressive as any that men might commit. Men, however, are physically capable of inflicting more pronounced damage to an opponent or prey than are women. Men are not required for the care of children after conception and therefore evolved to meet a different set of needs. Biological evolution is a tedious process from the point of view of a Human life span. Social evolution is limited by our ability to recognize and compensate for our genetic predisposition.
Individual acts of aggression are prohibited by law in some fashion in all cultures that have developed rules of behavior. The proper ways for Human Beings to act aggressively are found within both the law and the customs of a society. It is perfectly legal in this country for one Human Being to beat another Human Being into unconsciousness under the regulations of sport. Boxing events occur on a daily basis in thousands of arenas around the world. To beat someone unconscious outside of the sport of boxing could result in incarceration. Shooting another Human Being with a gun, despite most extenuating circumstances, could result in the penalty of death. Shooting any number of Human Beings with a gun while under the auspices of the United States Army is legal. It is the design of the military indoctrination process to teach Human Beings the latest technology for destroying other Human Beings. Individuals who kill other Human Beings beyond expectations while under the direction of a military force are bestowed the nation's highest honors. Whether it is boxing, football, or military service, the rules of behavior for a society decide the proper environment for the expression of Human aggression. It is indefensible to deny the aggressive nature of Human Beings. Trying to adapt this Human capability to the societal environment requires an understanding for which we have yet to prove ourselves capable.
War is a collective form of aggression. Armies are the social institutions that provide the organizational structure necessary for mass destruction. The military utilizes the inherent aggressive capabilities in Human Beings and focuses that aggression on a specific target. Random, individually motivated aggression is not war. War requires organization, motivation for aggression, and a large pool of obedient men to carry out the physical destruction. At this time in the United States there is a completely volunteer military. This very recent development arose out to the substantial resistance to the draft during the Viet Nam War. The elected officials at the time of the Viet Nam War were unable to convince a significant and vocal minority of the validity of the war. Providing the proper motivation for war is essential in motivating Human beings to kill an enemy. In England, during the initial stages of World War I, a significant majority of the able bodied men at that time volunteered to go to war. All of these men had been educated both morally and intellectually in a very similar environment. They all felt it would be their duty as member of the British collective to fight the enemy. England had instilled the necessary values in these men through their educational system. These men willingly and enthusiastically entered a situation that would endanger their lives to an extent not possible in civilian life. England lost nearly a generation of young men in World War I. The military in the United States is able to fulfill its manpower requirements completely with volunteers.
Every Human Being is assigned a nationality of some kind. This is not only a collective identity but also an assignment of risk. The risk results because that identity aligns every individual with a military organization of some kind. Everyone has a nationality and every nation possesses some kind of military apparatus or is aligned with another nation's military. Our nationality makes us soldiers whether or not we are directly involved in the military. Small military organizations in the Middle Eastern section of the world are infamous for taking hostages whose national allegiance belongs to a Western nation. They take these people as prisoners because their nationality makes them an enemy in the perception of the aggressors. The prisoners may or may not be ideologically aligned with their captors, but that is not the point. Our nationality automatically aligns us with the actions of our government in respect to other nations and other collectives.
The reasons for war stem from this identification with a nationality. As we separate Human Beings from each other in this way we are setting ourselves up for conflict. Viewed from the perspective of biology, Human Beings from all cultures, nationalities, and societies are nearly exactly the same. Modern Homo sapiens has not been around for very long compared to some of the other species on this planet. Evolution through genetic mutation, natural selection, and sexual reproduction requires geologic time scales in order to make any fundamental changes in such long lived mammals. The geographic isolation of Human Beings early in our history created some distinctive characteristics of appearance such as pigmentation in the skin and the shape of the skull. This was an early form of national identification. With the removal of geographic barriers, these differences cannot be quantified to provide us with much useful information about individuals. We have replaced the physical distinctions with political affiliations. As with the amount of pigmentation in our skin, we have no choice in our original political disposition. The section of the planet where an individual is born determines their political affiliation. The location of birth comes with allies, enemies, and an assortment of predispositions.
Nations attack other nations for a number of reasons that appear as history. The causes of war are defined in the context of the worldwide system of nations and states. Every nation has physical boundaries that dispose them to attack. It is very difficult for the nation of Israel to attack the Palestine Liberation Organization because they have no territory. Israel can only effectively attack the PLO when the PLO congregates their resources in a particular spot on the planet. Claiming a certain territory also involves a claim to the resources of the territory. These resources may give an impetus to another nation to acquire those resources. Small nations with limited resources are rarely attacked for their limited resources. Large nations with abundant resources have been the greatest protagonists between nations. Their vast resources can be readily utilized for war and thereby used to gain new and more substantial resources.
Unfortunately, the nations with enough resources to be worthy of attack are the best prepared to defend themselves. War becomes a very costly enterprise under these conditions. The largest nations should attack only the small, poorly defended nations to reduce the costs involved. This also reduces the amount of return on investment. I cannot think of an example of a war in which the ultimate cost was exceeded substantially by the ultimate gain in resources.
The possibilities for material gain from physical force were far greater earlier in history. The continents of North and South America contained vast natural resources, which were poorly defended by the indigenous population of Human Beings. At the present time such opportunities are relegated to the history books. The system of alliances that followed World War II has diminished the profit motivation for war. Those areas of the planet with the greatest resources have also been the sites of the greatest growth in Human population. The sheer weight invoked by the number of Human Beings that would have to be killed to take possession of a modern nation reduces the probability of that nation being attacked. International trade facilitates the exchange of resources without the use of force. Those nations without adequate physical or monetary resources are without the means to acquire those resources from other sources. They are unable to wage war. War is started by nations whose wealth is sufficient to divert for a destructive capability.
War is not fought exclusively for material gain. The system of nation-states creates a situation in which political and religious dogma rule out the possibility of negotiated settlements. The Falklands War between England and Argentina occurred due to the intractable positions taken by both governments. The British military defeated the Argentinean military to secure their sovereignty over a small group of islands near South America. The Falklands War was a physical resolution for the problem of sovereignty. Physical force is an accepted tool in resolving disputes between nations. Every nation in the world recognizes the changes in international boundaries that occur after every war. It is the province of the victor in a war to make changes based on their particular view of the world. By acknowledging the rule of force over intellectual argument, the system of nation-states effectively supports the use of war as problem solving tool. The result is that national boundaries and international laws are based on the political dogma of the reigning military force. A government creates by force a climate in which the rules of behavior for nations are dictated by a singular perspective. The advent of the United Nations to solve disputes between member states has reduced the power available to any single military power. The effectiveness of the United Nations depends on its ability to solicit the cooperation of its members. Without the active support of its membership to create an environment in which debate and compromise supersede the use of physical force, the system of nations will continue to use war as method for securing objectives.
The costs of war in comparison to the costs of compromise clearly point to a resolution by compromise. It does not apply to circumstances in which national goals are unattainable through compromise. War is the only method for realizing unrealistic national expectations. Matters of political and religious dogma are outside of the province of intellectual debate. War is the only possible mediator between two opposing dogmatic positions. The political or religious views expounded by the winner of the war are given the status of vindication. Physical force is an effective argument when it is accepted as the preferred means of resolving international conflicts. Solutions involving negotiation and compromise can become invalid with physical force. Once a significant portion of a population or its infrastructure has been destroyed, however, they remain destroyed. War has physical finality that cannot be duplicated through treaties.
Nations would be less inclined to go to war if the costs of war were fully realized by the authorities making the decisions. The leadership of a democracy or a dictatorship makes the decision to proceed with physical violence but they do not perform that task. The actually killing and dying is performed by that segment of the male population deemed to be of a superior physical state of being. Usually these men have been on the planet from seventeen to thirty years of age. Nearly all the leaders of nations on this planet are much older than thirty years. The effects of aging on Human Beings makes them ill equipped to perform the vigorous physical activity necessary on a battlefield. Throughout Human history young men have sacrificed their lives because of the particular place on the planet where they were born. The current leaders of nations are in very little danger of being killed because of their decisions. Advances in communications allow both generals and political leaders to remain at a safe distance from the fighting. In nations with populations commonly exceeding tens of millions of people it is extremely doubtful that a leader will be intimately acquainted with a soldier who has died. War can be played out without directly experiencing its horrors. The ability of super power armies to exert their influence over the surface of the planet reduces the risk of accepting civilian casualties. During the recent Gulf War, there were little or no changes in the lives of the civilian population of the United Sates who were not actively involved in the war effort. Despite graphic television coverage of the event, the horror of the massive loss of life, economic and environmental damage was lost on the public. The resolution of the conflict was seen as a time for celebration. It is this detachment from the reality of war that will retain war as a viable alternative for national leaders.
The mind set of the national leaders is not nearly as important as the attitude of the millions of people on this planet who are prepared to kill and die for their country. Young men willing to sacrifice their lives based on the political decisions of their leader places their reasoning capabilities in the position of being extremely suspect. The entire concept of collective violence depends on the perception of soldiers that they are engaged in a worthwhile activity. It would be impossible for any nation to defend or attack any other nation without a large pool of expendable Human Beings. It is not enough to force Human Beings into combat. To be effective, they must be willing, and preferably eager, to risk their lives for the collective. There are no shortages of these individuals. While volunteer armies are relatively rare, conscription into the armies of the world is nearly universally accepted as a condition of citizenship. The roots of this failure of reason are to be found in the fundamental premises under which we conduct our lives.
The overwhelming majority of Human Beings are taught that there is an existence transcendent to the current life. Human Beings accept this as fact despite the lack of evidence for its support. Its support arises from the plurality of the concept. It may be interpreted in different ways, but the fundamental notion of transcendence is universal in the context of nearly all Human mythologies. When this life is viewed as a temporary existence, it follows that the very high risk of injury or death in war becomes acceptable. It is acceptable on the basis that performing the activities of a soldier is in some way rewarded after death. The Human Beings who have fought and died in war are remembered with admiration by the rest of the collective. To suggest that soldiers of a war, won or lost, were incorrect or immoral in their actions would erode the foundation of beliefs that provide Human Beings with the impetus to risk their lives for dogma. Dead soldiers are revered as heroes. Monuments are built in their honor and holidays are set aside for the worship of their deeds. The soldier and the military establishment are seen as the only defense against hostile and barbaric nations. Nations that are not hostile and barbaric are beyond the emotional impetus of Human Beings to destroy. The military is perceived within the collective as defenders rather than aggressors. An aggressive military cannot evoke the same empathy and moral righteousness as one that is perceived as defending against an aggressor. War must be perceived by those doing the fighting as both morally correct and justified. Even Human Beings who believe in an afterlife must be properly motivated in order to accept and endure the physical horrors of war.
Along with the concept of transcendence, there is an equally important concept that motivates Human Beings to become soldiers. This is the idea that there are some principles whose value exceeds that of an individual life. Put more succinctly, there are certain things worth dying for. God, freedom, and patriotism are among the most common principles that are worth more than Human life. This principle also depends on the idea of an afterlife. Human Beings think of life as important, but not as important as some religious or political dogma. Freedom is the usual impetus for Human Beings in the United States to risk their lives. In some nations, it might be the dictator or the royal family for whose honor the soldier is willing to die. Generally, it is the fundamental moral beliefs, the perception of right and wrong, for which a soldier is fighting. Soldiers on both sides of a confrontation are equally adamant about the just cause in which they are engaged. They are both risking their lives based on a belief system. Their views are in opposition when they are engaged in battle, but neither side can profess to be on the right side of a completely subjective position. As in the case of religious dogma, it is impossible to base Human rules of behavior on concepts that cannot be proven empirically.
Human Beings will continue to engage in war despite the obvious destruction and loss of life. We do so because we are basing our decisions on unproven principles and our perceptions on the majority opinion of the collective. The system of nation-states has built into it a propensity for conflict. That propensity is resolved most effectively through the use of physical force. National boundaries are founded based on conquest and subordination. International laws favor those nations with the ability to back up their demands with a show of strength. In the system of nation-states, might makes right. The ultimate responsibility with the systematic use of physical force lies with the members of the nation-states. As long as Human Beings are morally correct in becoming soldiers and paying for armies, the use of war as a problem-solving tool will continue. How much longer it will continue is a matter for some speculation.
Every technological innovation that can be effectively used for warfare has been implemented. Technological superiority in warfare is often the difference between victory and defeat. The advanced machines currently created for killing Human Beings could easily overwhelm any army of only a hundred years ago. Ancient armies required enormous use of manpower to destroy or capture an enemy territory. There was no other choice. The greatest implement of destruction at that time was the Human Being. Human Beings are capable of inflicting only minimal amounts of damage and expend a great amount of energy to do so. It is by technology that Human Beings have become such efficient killers. The argument for the opponents of gun control in this country make the point that guns do not kill people, people kill people. This is true, but guns make it much easier to kill people. It becomes a matter of convenience. There are many things we would do far less frequently if they were much more difficult to do. Whether it is a handgun or a thermonuclear device, it gives Human Beings a greater capacity for destruction. The aggressiveness of Human Beings and their propensity for killing one another remains. We have not yet reached our capacity for killing other Human Beings. Collectives continue to create new and deadlier means of destruction. I cannot predict a time when we will reach our capacity in this area.
One of the reasons we keep making better machines for killing other Human Beings is what is commonly referred to as the arms race. This is a race without a finish. Being in a position of technological superiority over every other nation not only provides security, but a means for projecting influence. The arms race is a term coined in the latter half of this century to describe nuclear proliferation. It is a term that can be applied to any other time in History. The aboriginal people of North and South America, Australia, and Africa were conquered by nations with an enormous advantage in killing machines. This allowed the more advanced nations to colonize and exploit for profit the natural resources of less developed nations. Among the more advanced nations there has always existed a competition for developing increasingly potent means for destroying Human Beings. The system of using physical force over the rule of law for collective gain was, and remains the greatest impetus to posses the most efficient armaments. Protecting or expansion of the material wealth of a collective depends on maintaining a technological parity with other nations. It is this competition not only for advanced armaments, but to prevent technological inferiority that drives the incessant need for weapons superior to those of other nations. During the period in our history when technological innovation was relatively slow and accessible, the arms race was a rather ponderous event. With the speed with which technological innovations have been made in the past century the arms race is viewed with a sense of foreboding. The insights we have made into the fundamental nature of the Universe have been utilized without exception to build armaments. It is our failure to recognize the potential of such a course that has placed Human Beings on the edge of annihilation.
The penultimate weapon, at this time, is the thermonuclear device and its accompanying delivery system, the intercontinental ballistic missile. The point at which these two devices were paired and placed in the arsenals of several countries divided the arms race into two different races: conventional and nuclear. The potential destructive capability of nuclear weapons does not put it in the same category as conventional weapons. The two weapon systems harness energy from different physical reactions. Weapons such as rifles or conventional bombs use the energy from the chemical reaction of certain compounds. These are called conventional weapons because they are based on a technology centuries of years old. A musket or an AK-47 uses the same principles by which they fire a projectile. This technology has been refined over the centuries. The refinement in the casting of metals and the understanding of chemical principles has resulted in the enormous distinction in destructive capability between the two weapons. Conventional weapons are limited in their destructive capability by the amount of energy that can be extracted from chemical reactions. The most destructive bombs are inevitably the largest. There will certainly be, at some time in the future, refinements in conventional weaponry, which will extend the current limits on destructive power. The limit on the destructive power of chemical reactions is not in the same realm of possibilities as nuclear reactions.
E=MC2. Einstein's famous equation of mass and energy is the limit on nuclear power. In this equation, the energy available from any mass is equivalent to the mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Light travels at one hundred eighty-six thousand, two hundred and fifty miles per second. The speed of light squared is thirty-four billion, six hundred eighty-nine million, sixty-two thousand five hundred miles per second. This is an enormous number. Based on this equation it is apparent that it does not take very much mass to make a lot of energy. This equation represents the upper limit of possibility. This is the most energy that can be derived from a specific amount of mass. Atomic weapons are not this efficient. The most efficient atomic weapons at this time convert approximately one five hundredth of the available mass into energy. There is still a lot of room for improvement. It is not, however, necessary to continue to try to improve the destructive force of nuclear weapons, despite the continuing efforts of several collectives to do so. The number of weapons and their destructive capability are more than adequate to eliminate the Human species from this planet.
The destructive force of the world’s nuclear arsenals is often described as having the ability to destroy the world a particular number of times. This may give us a perspective on the total destructive capability but it does not translate into rational terms. This planet can only be destroyed once. The worst-case scenario in which all of the nuclear capabilities are detonated would not result in the destruction of the planet. Some simple forms of life would undoubtedly be spared the initial holocaust. Most of the strikes would occur in the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere has very little in the way of nuclear weapons and would therefore receive only a small percentage of the world's nuclear arsenal. The planet would remain intact, but the worldwide ecosystem that supports life would be inexorable altered. Human Beings would not survive with the same kind of lifestyle that even the poorest Human Beings are able to achieve at this time.
Our affluence at this time in history is based on the technological infrastructure. We are not equipped to feed and shelter several hundred thousand Human Beings under the auspices of a collapsed infrastructure. We have designed and implemented systems of communication, transportation, and energy that have taken thousands of years to produce. Human Beings and the technology that sustains our civilizations are more precarious than at any time in our history. To conclude that we have the capability to destroy the world several times over is to realize our capacity for self-destruction. It is very anthropomorphic to think that the extinction of Human Beings will include the demise of the planet or of all life forms. The Universe will continue with or without us. The responsibility for survival is exclusively our own.
The first nuclear weapon was a bomb. It looked very much like a conventional bomb and was deployed by conventional means. The two nuclear weapons that have been detonated during wartime were extremely effective at reducing Nagasaki and Hiroshima to rubble and exterminating much of the resident population. The weapons that are deployed at this time are capable of hundred of times the destructive force of the bombs used over Japan in World War II. The amount of damage that would occur to a civilian target by a modern nuclear weapon is beyond our cognitive ability to comprehend. There were detonations of nuclear weapon in the atmosphere over thirty years ago, but there were no buildings, structures, or even very much land area in which to determine the probable effects on the actual targets. We can extrapolate the effects of modern weapons from our perspective on current weapons. To do so is to make an error in the basis for our reasoning. Modern nuclear weapons are not at all like any weaponry we have experienced in the past. Thinking of a nuclear weapon as a very good conventional weapon leads to conclusions that are at best incorrect and at worst catastrophic.
A single nuclear device detonated over a major population center would have profound and far-reaching effects on Human civilization and our future prospects for survival. A single nuclear device exploded over Los Angeles would instantly kill millions of Human Beings. The resulting radiation, firestorm, and collateral damage would take the lives of at least hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million additional Human Beings. The amount of destruction depends on the height of the detonation. Detonation at a high altitude results in the greatest possible damage to structures over a large area. Detonation near to the ground does not do as much damage over a wide area but results in more radioactive debris being thrown into the atmosphere. The fallout, as it is called, will eventually settle back to Earth. Where the radioactive ash settles is determined by the local and stratospheric wind conditions at the time of detonation. The general area of the Los Angles basin would be uninhabitable for quite some time. The crops grown in the area or in the region of fallout would be inedible. The limited water resources of the area would be unfit for Human consumption. The local fisheries off the coast would be affected in ways difficult to estimate. These are the physical losses.
The losses for the collective in terms of social, economic, and psychological damage would also be of great consequence. The physical infrastructure of the Western region of the United States would have to be altered to compensate for the destruction inflicted by the weapon. The businesses and productivity of the region would be lost to the general economy. The Human population in the immediate geographic area would be intimately acquainted with the horrors of nuclear weaponry. The psychological damage on the neighboring populations would be a matter of conjecture, but it would certainly not be business as usual. The collective world community could not maintain the previous mental state of security because of the nature of the delivery systems for these devices. Only an actual nuclear strike would intellectually solidify our vulnerability to these weapons. The intercontinental ballistic missile is incapable of being defended against by any current or foreseeable technology. The combined technologies of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems leave no spot on the planet safe from nuclear attack. The only defense against this weapon is to threaten to use the identical capability against the aggressor. This is the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. It is not something in which any Human Being can find solace. Mutually Assured Destruction does not seek to create in Human Beings a sense of security. It creates in potential opponents the sense of futility in the use of nuclear weapons. For the past forty years this has been perhaps the solitary method of restraint on the use of nuclear weapons.
Those nations with nuclear weapon capability have developed these weapons along the same lines as a conventional weapon system. They have increased the accuracy, power, range, efficiency, quantity and survivability of the weapon. Nuclear weapons are not at all in the same category as conventional weapons. Working properly, nuclear weapons systems can bypass any defensive system now employed and reach their target accurately. The United States under the Reagan and Bush administrations tried to devise a system to intercept incoming ICBM's. The progress so far has only illuminated the rigorous problems with trying to hit with extreme reliability a ballistic object with another ballistic object. In the event that future technologies could resolve the problems, such a defense system can be overwhelmed with current technology capabilities. The confidence with which nuclear weapons can be delivered to their target coupled with its devastating explosive power gives rise to the popular apocalyptic vision of a nuclear exchange. Combined with the effects of radiation, degradation of the environment, possible global weather disruptions, and the arsenal of ten thousand nuclear devices worldwide, nuclear weapons clearly represent a threat to Human survival unsurpassed by any threat at any other time. Of course, Human existence is not so secure that we can assure our survival by eliminating nuclear weapons. Ninety-nine per cent of the species that ever existed on this planet are extinct. We have only limited control over the forces of nature. We do have complete control over the use of nuclear weapons.
Given the uncompromising destructive capability of nuclear weapons, an explanation is required to justify the immense stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the growing number of nations with nuclear weapons capability. There are a substantial number of people on this planet advocating the elimination of nuclear weapons. Through their efforts and the processes of democracy there has been a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons globally. The reduction however is not significant. It does not require many nuclear weapons to inflict a devastating blow to any nation on this planet. The justification for the present numbers of nuclear weapons is in defense. A large-scale attack by an aggressor that targets the receiving nation’s nuclear force could destroy the ability of the nation attacked to respond. This may have been true thirty years ago but it is no longer the case. Satellite surveillance will ensure warning of such an attack. In addition, the nuclear capability aboard submarines would be invulnerable to such an attack and capable of retaliating in a very convincing manner. Nuclear arms can be effectively reduced but it requires a change in the perception of their possible tactical role. The inherent destructive capability of the nuclear weapon should imply that only a small number of the devices would be required to inflict incredible damage on an opponent. Surely no difference of opinion between two nations is significant enough to risk the extinction of Human Beings. It is a scenario that is unfortunately played out by the military when nuclear weapons are perceived as the best weapon in nation's arsenal.
The case against nuclear weapons being employed to settle differences between nations is a formidable argument. The system of nation-states and the resolution of conflict by physical means is an issue that does not accede to reason. A restructuring of the world order to prevent collective physical violence would inevitably involve some kind of realignment in the current power base. Those Human Beings in power tend to use that power for the retention and expansion of power. Nations allocate much of their resources to be prepared for war. War is an excellent means for the retention of power. When threatened by foreign destruction, collectives will unite in opposition to a common enemy. To suggest that those resources be allocated for the prevention of war seems ludicrous. This very well might be the case. We are just beginning to resolve international crises through negotiation rather than military intervention. The United Nations is barely half of a century old. The system of nation-states, by comparison is nearly two thousand years old. The method for resolving international conflicts before the invention of the United Nations has been the use of war. The invention of the United Nations has not stopped war. The United Nations has only provided an opportunity for peaceful resolutions. Negotiated settlements would require the active participation of all the member nations in a rational process of debate and deliberation. It would also require the subjugation of national priorities and dogma to empirical evidence and the reasoning abilities of Human Beings.
War has been limited to the smaller nations of the planet and has spread little beyond the boundaries of the involved nations since World War II. The invention of the nuclear bomb and its development by the more powerful nations has prevented war between nations with nuclear capability. The large-scale wars that dominated the first part of this century are impossible to play out since the invention of the nuclear bomb. For many nations the consequence of nuclear weapons has been a sense of security no other weapon system can provide. Nuclear capability guarantees the ability to inflict massive losses on any nation exclusive of the military prowess of the nation being attacked. While nuclear weapons have been treated in the same fashion as conventional weapons, their destructive capability has not been lost on military strategists. The engagement of one nuclear capable nation against another could conceivably produce a scenario that would lead to the destruction of both nations. The primary reason that nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II is that no one has devised a method for using such devices without the inevitable nuclear retaliation and escalation. The conventional wars that nuclear nations have engaged have not required the use of nuclear weapons to defeat the enemy. In the cases of the Viet Nam and Afghanistan wars, those nations posed no threat to the territories of either the United States or the Soviet Union. In both instances a nuclear power was forced to withdraw without achieving a military victory. The use of nuclear weapons against an opponent without this technology would bring further uncertainty to a situation already fraught with volatility.
Those nations in possession of nuclear weapons have not fought a nuclear war because there is no equitable scenario in which to fight such a war. The best possible outcome would be an obliteration of the opponent while the aggressor would remain in control of what was left of the society. In this vision of victory there would be many variables. The effects on the ecosystem of a massive nuclear exchange are unpredictable, but hardly beneficiary. The disruptions in international economies would be equally uncertain and equally despairing. As the Human population of this planet increases, there is an accompanying increase in the sophistication and fragility of the technology needed to sustain Human life. It would be difficult to engage in a nuclear confrontation anywhere on the planet without the possibility of the collapse of civilization, as it now exists. There are no nation-states at this time that can function as a modern society and be exclusive of the world community. The entire global society has become dependent on the exchange of information and technology to grow our food, cure our illnesses, and mange our resources. The wholesale damage for which nuclear weapons were designed has been rendered obsolete by the dependence on technology and the rise of a global society.
Nuclear weapons can only be used in a nuclear conflict. Conventional conflicts cannot assimilate the destructive power of nuclear weapons into their itinerary. Traditional rules of war would, in effect, disassociate nuclear weapons from the special category of weapon into which they belong. The initial use of a nuclear weapon in a conventional setting would demand a similar response. It would be considered an uncivilized act for the first nuclear detonation, but not for a nuclear response. Human Beings have devised numerous horrendous weapons for destroying other Human Beings. A few of these weapons and some tactics have been so effective that their use has been outlawed in time of war. Biological and chemical agents are in this category. The United States and several other nations continue to manufacture and store chemical weapons. The purpose of these reserves is for use in the event that another nation would use them against the United States. It is at this point that the United States, or any other nation so attacked, would be morally justified in using similar weapons against the initial protagonist. Human Beings have inserted into war the concept of fair play. The United States could have used nuclear weapons to secure a victory in Viet Nam, but it would not have been fair. War without rules would result in the collapse of civilization. An apparently defeated nation could employ the reserves of a particularly heinous weapon to destroy the victorious nation once all hope was lost. There would be no victories. War would lose one of its primary objectives. If nuclear weapons are used in a conventional setting, it would result in a cascade of justifiable responses that would ultimately end with nuclear war. No nuclear nation would accept a defeat without using its nuclear capability. The result would be a situation in which both sides of the conflict are defeated. Using nuclear weapons thus defies the goals of war and renders such conflict useless. Until military strategists can find a way of changing our concept of war to include self-destruction, the use of nuclear weapons will be the actions of a demented society. A singularly sobering thought when the collective actions of previous societies are taken into account.
The creation of collectives and the power that arises from guided collective action develop into its most potent forms during times of war. Given the life or death scenario involved, solders are prepared to commit acts that would be considered horrible in the context of nearly any civilization. There are boundaries to war. These rules of war exist only to ensure that the combatants will be able fight each other some time after victory has been decided. Until this century, the expectation of completely obliterating a society has not been a reasonable possibility. Nuclear weapons have changed irrevocably our ability to destroy an opponent. Nuclear weapons have created the possibility of being defeated in victory. The destruction of the already tenuous stability of the ecosystem on which our survival depends could destroy an aggressor who had successfully obliterated an enemy. We are, however, quite prepared at this time to engage in such a scenario. Most of the nuclear forces of the world are ready to attack on a moment's notice. While the probability of nuclear conflict is low, there exists no lower boundary of probability that is sufficient to allay the fear that accompanies the potential use of nuclear weapons. It would not be nearly as reprehensible to possess nuclear weapons technology if Human Beings fully realized the potential for self-destruction inherent in such weapons. If it were a matter of policy that the survival of the Human species is the ultimate goal of any collective, we would not possess nuclear weapons. War would be an unfathomable relic of a previous age.
This is not the case and will not be the case for some time to come. The limited resources of this planet have put societies in competition against each other. The finality and certainty of physical violence has made it the favored method of resolving international differences. The exponential growth of Human population in this century has placed a new burden on the ability of the planet to sustain its compatibility with life. This has increased the competition between nations for the limited resources of our planet. Depletion of resources has also created a situation in which war is not nearly as attractive a tool for problem solving. The invention of nuclear weapons has turned war between the largest nations into a suicide pact. The full use of the nuclear potential that exists in its various forms would effectively return any surviving Human Beings to a Stone Age existence. Unlike Human beings during the Stone Age, however, survivors of a nuclear holocaust would not have the promise for a better future. We are not only capable of destroying Human civilization, but the global ecosystem that supports all life on this planet. Life would no doubt exist in some manner and may reach a comparable level of plurality in several hundred million years. Extinction is without appeal. What we would lose in any sort of nuclear exchange is potential. It is potential of Human Beings to create a viable and thriving world of life on this planet and elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
The problem with nuclear weapons is not with nuclear weapons. The problem lies with the uncertainty that Human Beings bring to their use. The danger of nuclear weapons is not in their existence, but in their use. If we were to eliminate nuclear weapons from the surface of the Earth, Human Beings would still fight wars and destroy life on a wholesale basis. What we would lose is the potential for self-annihilation. We would gain the time necessary to make the inevitable adjustments in Human nature that will ensure our survival. The removal of all nuclear weapons is a physical and very simple problem. The removal of the aggressive nature of Human Beings, and the resulting system of nation states is beyond our current capabilities. To ensure our survival we must eliminate the potential dangers where we have the ability to do so.
We will continue to fight and die in conventional wars as long as the perception of war includes success. The costs of war not only include the death of young Human Beings and the destruction of infrastructure and resources, but also include the burden of preparing for war. In the preparation of a national defense, nations create and destroy resources that are never used for the benefit of the collective. Every collective has a limited amount of resources available for the use of the collective. The use of war in the resolution of differences extracts from those resources a significant proportion of the total. Negotiation and resolution through the use of empirical evidence and reason hardly remove anything from the wealth of nations. In the preparation and implementation of war for problem solving, we are wasting resources that could otherwise be directed towards enhancing the survivability and comfort of Human Beings. At a time when those resources are being used at an exponentially increasing rate, it will eventually become necessary to refrain from war simply because we cannot afford it. The system of nation-states will eventually evolve into a global realization that our survival depends on cooperation. I cannot honestly foresee any time in the near future when the system of nation-states and the potential for conflict inherent in that system will be replaced by a reasoned solution. Our survival as a species depends on when our intellectual capabilities will override our aggressive heritage.
Chapter Eight
Justice and Punishment
Justice is a concept that, like the concept of God, pervades most Human cultures in a vague sense. Specifically, justice depends on the way an individual group of Human Beings view the Universe. Justice arises out of a perception of the Universe in which there is a conscious entity controlling the physical Universe in such a way as to provide for a system of regulation. This system is an integral part of the particular belief system. A belief in most of the popular religions at this time includes an unalterable structure, which guarantees Human Beings that at the end of this existence there will be a fair assessment of their activities and reward or punishment will be equitably distributed. The justice of a God or a religious system can only be attained in the afterlife. This concept of justice cannot be supported within the context of Human experience. People who might be considered shining examples of Christianity or Hinduism regularly fall prey to disasters and painful death with the same frequency as people who are pagans. Faith in a religion involves a belief that at some future time the apparent inequities present in the Universe at this time will be resolved into compliance with religious doctrine. As we have flawed information regarding God's apparent designs for the Universe, the concept of justice is taken as a matter of faith.
Pagans can also ascribe to a system of justice. If I were to take a baseball and throw it across a field, it will continue in a straight line until acted upon by another force. The force of gravity will curve the trajectory to the center of the Earth. The spin I impart to the ball and its raised stitches will move the surrounding air to provide lift if I throw it correctly. The energy I imparted to the ball will be dissipated by its collision with the molecules in the air. Its attraction to the center of the Earth will be halted abruptly by the ground and its motion will cease. Justice has been done to the baseball. This is not the same sort of justice that Christians think of when a sinner is cast into the fiery regions of hell. I can invoke a system of justice on the Universe without violating any of the laws that govern its action. This would be a justice for atoms and molecules, not for Human Beings on the very personal level with which religious justice concerns it. The justice of the baseball does not find a special place for Human interactions. The physical laws of the Universe apply equally to calcium ions or the Queen of England. The common association we have with justice refers exclusively to Human Beings and their actions within the context of a collective.
While religious systems will recognize the differences between justice dispensed by an omniscient, omnipotent being and the justice we experience in a collective, it is the perception of the ethereal system of justice which we apply to social standards. The system of justice that is applied to religious faith must have arisen from the formation of laws in early civilizations. The rule of an early dictator or king would be applied to the concept of God, or the ultimate king. We endow God with certain properties that allow for a complete and reliable system of justice. We can expect no less from an omnipotent being. The Human system of justice is invariably flawed. It is flawed because justice is a concept that has evolved to become something unattainable in its purest form by Human Beings. Human Beings are limited in their ability to access information and in their ability to assimilate information into the processes of logic. The system of justice we impose on the creator of the Universe includes total knowledge. That God sees every sparrow fall is a common Christian dictum. I was told in my early religious education that God sees and records my every action and thought. It would be impossible to fulfill the Human expectations of justice without such a capability. Human Beings are capable of retrieving very little exact information about the complex and innumerable circumstances that constitute our lives. This is one of the main reasons we employ courts and lawyers to decide the issues of justice. The facts are hard to obtain and the nature of Human knowledge is incomplete. Yet we base our system of justice, of reward and punishment, on the system of justice we apply to our religious belief systems. These belief systems are inherently inaccurate when they are based on dogma rather than empirical evidence.
Unfortunately the system of justice practiced in most nations has the authority of life or death over individual lives. The idea of right or wrong within the context of a collective depends on the dominating values of that collective. The system of reward and punishment dispensed by civil authorities follows the same logic as the values of the collective. In the United States there is a perpetual controversy over whether or not the state, acting for the collective, has the propriety to take Human life. The death penalty is usually reserved for those individuals who are convicted of taking at least one other Human life. Human life holds the highest value in the legal system. The ultimate punishment is to take life. In other nations with different value systems Human life is taken by the collective swiftly and uncompromisingly. Justice, as implemented through the structure of law, is relative to the values held by any single collective. There are no absolutes of justice because we do not have the ability to enforce the concept of justice as it is generally conceptualized.
The goal of any transgressor of the law is to perform the transgression without detection. Without some manner of physical detection the justice inflicted by the society will remain impotent. Despite this improbability of obtaining justice, collectives continue to use this system of controlling the behavior of Human Beings. We accept this system along with the other requirements of living within the collective. We also accept the very limited potential of Human Beings to successfully implement this system of justice. Depending on the society, there exists a certain probability that the system of justice will fail via conviction of the innocent. The result of that failure may be a twenty-five dollar fine or the loss of life. The power we instill in our system of laws and justice is a necessary provision for maintaining stability within a society. The power of life and death over the individuals of a collective is complimentary to the preservation of the order and cooperation that makes the benefits of collective living possible.
Justice is depicted in this country is depicted as a blindfolded Human figure holding a set of scales. This represents the weighing of evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Weighing the evidence to arrive at a conclusion is in principle an excellent way to arrive at the truth. Difficulties arise with the quality of the evidence to be weighed. In science, the evidence presented to support a theory must be confirmed by independent observation. It must also adhere to the present state of knowledge at the time or introduce a more accurate description. The search in science is for the general laws of nature and the ability to effectively predict an outcome. The system of justice deals with events that are very singular in their nature. The courts of any nation are rarely concerned with the microscopic or atomic scales of reference. They deal with the macroscopic world of Human Beings and their interaction within the societal context. Much of the evidence presented in courts is testimony. Testimony is the spoken or written observations of a single Human Being. It is the custom in this country that a person about to submit testimonial evidence to a court promises that the evidence that person presents is true to the extent of their knowledge. This does not require any person to tell the truth. When it is a matter of life or death, giving false testimony might be in the best interest of the accused. Testimony in most cases must be supported by physical evidence or reason. The ability of Human Beings to gather and retrieve data concerning a specific incident varies widely. The best possible observations are limited by the sensory apparatus with which we use to gather that information. Combined with the natural propensity of Human Beings to survive, or at least prevent damage to themselves, testimonial evidence leaves no small amount of room for interpretation. Human testimony will remain a vital part of the judiciary system despite it flaws. The inaccuracy of Human knowledge is taken into account in weighing the evidence. The information will be slanted in its perspective but the prospect of working without any evidence necessitates its submission in a court of law.
The judicial system in this country compensates for the inadequacies involved in Human perception and motivation with use of the concept of reasonable doubt. Based on the total evidence presented, a decision of guilt is rendered only upon a preponderance of supportive evidence. Human Beings must be assured beyond a reasonable doubt that their assessment of guilt or is correct. It is in this way that this and many other societies have realized the limitations of Human knowledge. The problem with the implementation of the death penalty lies in this doctrine. There can be no reparations made for the loss of life. An error in this matter is of the greatest consequence for a collective. The overwhelmingly convincing evidence necessary for a criminal authority in this country to execute a prisoner has resulted in the thousands of individuals whose sentence of death may never be fully realized. In this way a collective protects itself from the possible inaccuracies of judicial indulgence. Confidence in the system of justice by its members is secured through the acquittal of the guilty rather than the conviction of the innocent. The justice system in this country operates under the assumption that is far better to allow the transgressors to go free than it is to imprison someone who is innocent. This is compensation for the lack of certainty that accompanies determining guilt in the majority of transgressions. The individuals of a collective are in this way assured that anyone convicted and punished for a crime will have the preponderance of evidence in favor of conviction.
To quote a cliché', the prisons are filled with innocent men. Most of the people who are convicted of crimes that are tried in court claim innocence. Human Beings do not have at their disposal an omniscient police officer that will provide a record of the actions of every individual in the populace. The ambiguity inherent in our knowledge of the individual interactions of Human Beings is exploited for individual gain. There are certainly some individuals in society that feel that they should be punished for their transgressions and will freely admit to their guilt. These people have accepted the rule of law and the authority of the collective. This type of individual will not become successful at crime. The successful criminals in this society will readily abandon the formal structure of morality and replace it with the instinctive desire to meet their own needs. Despite the modern tools of forensic science it is possible to be successful outside of the rules of behavior due to the uncertainty of Human knowledge and the certainty under which the system of justice must operate. It is very simple matter to transgress some of the relatively minor infractions of society without detection. Crimes of a more serious nature must entail careful consideration and planning to succeed without detection. Without a sense of moral standards or responsibility to the collective, crime becomes a craft as intricate as any other. The practitioners use the society in much the same way as a retrovirus exploits the working of the Human cell in order to further its own survival. Without a suitable host there can be no predation. It is the inequities of the structure of a collective that propagates aberrant behavior. The fundamental structure of society has not been radically changed for several millennia. To create a collective in whom every member recognizes the responsibility to the collective, the structure of society must be accessible to that function. A collective that wishes to implement a system of justice will contain the necessary motivation for successful Human behavior. We may never possess the capability to record or thwart every transgression of Human behavior. The best possible solution is to correct the problem at its source.
The dominate method at this time for the correction of a transgression of the rules of behavior is punishment. The prisons and jails in the United States are referred to as correctional institutions. In the same way as the concept of God punishes Human Beings for their actions, the society punishes the perpetrators of crime. The most common form of punishment at this time is deprivation of liberty. Human Beings found guilty of a serious crime will be physically removed from society for a designated period. The gravest offences will confine the guilty party to prison until they die. Certain crimes are considered so far removed from the collective conception of acceptable behavior that the guilty individual is considered beyond redemption and may be executed. An offense considered much less harmful to the collective will result in less time spent in jail or prison. The severity of the crime is proportional to the length of the sentence. A crime is considered severe when the lawmakers decide that a certain action has an especially detrimental effect on the collective. The actual punishment is the time spent without the freedom realized by the rest of society. Punishment at various locations around the planet will include physical hardship as well as confinement. It is not the kind of punishment but rather the concept of punishment that carries the most weight in every system of law.
The concept of punishment is supplemental to the concept of justice and reflects a flawed assumption concerning the motivations of Human Beings. The concept of justice includes reparation for violating the rules of behavior. Justice is a balance. A criminal tips the balance in their favor by the commission of a crime. The collective restores the balance by punishing the transgressor. Not only is punishment designed to restore the stability of the system; it also serves to convince the transgressor of the futility of the inappropriate act. Children are commonly physically punished when they cannot be reasoned with to perform in an acceptable way. Children are not very advanced intellectually, so their response to negative physical stimulus is usually sufficient to temporarily prevent the unacceptable behavior. Animals that can be trained are often trained along the same lines of physical reward and punishment. As Human Beings mature intellectually, and their sensitivity to pain decreases, the effectiveness of corporal punishment declines. Adult Human Beings are quite capable of sustaining severe physical punishment without changing their minds about the validity of their actions. Yet, changing the attitudes of criminals in their relationship to a collective is the ultimate goal of any system of correction. Behavior that is outside the normal expectations of society relates to either a misunderstanding of the social contract or a personal revocation of that contract. A system of correction has two options with the transgressor. The transgressor must either be convinced of the validity of and accede to the rules of behavior or be removed from the rest of the collective.
The concept of punishment as retribution is unsound once removed from the context of social justice. Depriving Human Beings of the freedom of motion does not confer correction in any way. Any physical loss suffered by the collective through the actions of a criminal can be effectively compensated in a physical sense. The retribution that is involved in punishment is a moral rather than a physical retribution. The common perception is that punishment serves to correct the behavior of the transgressor and prevent others from acting in a similar fashion. Human Beings can be prevented from deviating from the standards of behavior using physical torture. The damage that is done through physical means is implemented to change intellectual dispositions. The psychological basis for deviation must be altered to affect any real change. Physical torture or confinement prevents a criminal from committing crimes until the torture stops or the criminal is released. Drastic physical measures of persuasion have been eliminated in the advanced nations. Human Beings do not function well under the duress of physical persuasion. The cumulative effect is to destroy those characteristics of Human Beings that are the most beneficial to a collective. Physical repression can induce a more orderly but not a more productive or survivable society. The result is a loss of motivation, intellectual curiosity and creativity in Human Beings. Punishment is a temporary solution to a problem that is fundamental and long term.
A system of reward and punishment is only effective in the presence of some kind of reward. Sentencing people to several years in jail does nothing to encourage acceptable behavior. Confining thousands of criminals in an area of high population density does little to prepare them for a useful role in a collective. On the contrary, it seems to make them better criminals. The punishment of the loss of liberty is endured. It is primarily the prerogative of the individual as to whether they will continue or abate their criminal activities after their release from confinement. An imprisoned Human Being qualifies for re-entry into society through a calendar. The end of a sentence does not necessarily include an assurance that upon release the individual will be able to assume a functional role in society. The sentence is a type of fine that is paid with the transgressor's time. After that fine has been paid, it will not be necessary for an individual to agree to the social contract in order to rejoin society.
Prisoners in this country may have their term of punishment reduced by showing good behavior in prison. The rules of behavior within the walls of a prison are not representative of the way a society functions outside of prison. While the attribute of good behavior under incarceration may reflect a higher level of cooperation than previously experienced with the individual in question, it does not suggest that individual will become a good citizen. The reward of early release is more than adequate incentive to temporarily comply with the rules of behavior. In order to ascertain whether or not an individual has changed their attitudes concerning their responsibilities within the collective the individual must be placed in a similar environment. Any system of reward and punishment loses its effectiveness when the goals of such actions do not represent the true goals of society.
The amount of aberrant behavior within a collective result from the flawed system of reward and punishment. In order to obtain the full cooperation of all the individuals of a collective it becomes necessary to provide a coherent and intellectually defensible set of rules. When the law is based on politics, race, economic status, or religious beliefs, there will always be ample room for variations in the concept of right or wrong. Rule of law that is based on concepts that are accessible to every literate person and can be defended on the grounds of empirical evidence and reason will inevitably lessen the burden of misinterpretation. There will exist an element of any collective that will be in opposition to a law for which the evidence is lacking to make an informed choice. The collective must provide a means of expressing discontent and create an arena in which the voices of the minority can be heard. When the laws of any collective are based on dogma, the defense of the status quo depends on physical violence. The opposition to any dogma can only achieve change through the use of physical force. If successful, the overthrow of any dogmatic system is usually replaced with equally dogmatic, albeit conceptually different, rules of behavior.
Order through force is a direct result of any system of justice that is based on dogma and allows for little or no representation from the members under its rule. In such a system, the rules of behavior are imposed by physical means. Punishment and reward become very tangible quantities. Human cooperation within a collective is not a measurable quantity. To obtain the maximum amount of cooperation in Human societies requires substantial input from the collective. This input must arise from the understanding of the individual's responsibility that comes with living in social setting. There is no cooperation under the duress of physical force. It is only sublimation to authority. Cooperation within a collective is the result of personal motivation. That motivation can only be instilled when individual Human Beings cognitively realize that cooperation is in their own best interests. A system of reward and punishment can enhance this cooperation when implemented without the use of physical force. It cannot create in Human Beings a desire to engage in the social contract. Without this source of cooperation there will be little hope for a survivable collective.
Human Beings make lousy machines. We do not exceed at tasks that are repetitive in nature because those are not the circumstances under which we evolved. The struggle for survival in a primitive setting requires innovation and elasticity in adaptation. Human Beings can attribute their success on the ability to adapt to environmental changes. Laws that do not take into account this propensity for individual adaptation will inevitably fail in the effort to elicit cooperation. The rule of law must be designed with nature of Human Beings in mind. Unfortunately, a system of justice that creates some semblance of plasticity is in opposition to the normal concept of justice. While mitigating circumstances may be involved in the determination of guilt or innocence, the concept of justice requires a uniform standard of behavior. This standard for uniformity is necessary for fairness. Justice is viewed as blind to anything except for the evidence. The evidence is weighed and the verdict is decided on the preponderance of that evidence. Once the evidence has been weighed, and is deemed conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, justice is dispensed based on the current law. If the law itself is somehow poorly written or does not reflect a meaningful purpose in society, there can be no justice. The rigidity of most systems of law reflects the desire to impart an impartial means of regulating Human behavior. Without the rigidity and anonymity of the system of justice as it now exists, individuals seeking to further their own needs at the expense of the collective would use any available latitude the law provides. This is a by-product of the current system of justice.
The amount of slack in the law can never be completely removed. The language we use to express the rules of behavior and the incomplete nature of Human knowledge prevents an airtight system of justice. In a society that has been in existence for some time the laws tend to become very complicated through legislative attempts to create a flawless system. The system will never be endowed with the ability to cover all the variations in possible Human behavior within the confines Human language and in the absence of an omniscient police officer. Human Beings have evolved to ensure their survival through the creativity inherent in the Human mind. An appreciation of this Human propensity implies a change in the concept of justice within a collective. Under the current system there can be no expectation of justice or fairness when the written law is the basis for that justice.
Lawyers and judges are a necessary element in a system of justice because the law is inadequate. In totalitarian regimes or dictatorships, the lawyers and judges are merely an unusual kind of assembly line worker. Human Beings have little flexibility in the design or quality of a product assembled through the means of mass production. In system in which there is no attempt to secure a concept of justice, there will not be appeals or interpretations. Inviting the concept of justice in the context of society creates an area for interpretation of the law. Nations in which the law has become extremely complex over time creates the need for a specialist for the interpretation of law. The complete legal ramifications of activities within the jurisdiction of a complex society are lost to the majority of the population of that society. The difference in legal representation can very well mean the difference between life and death in the extreme cases. The law is interpreted in order to implement the concept of justice. If there were no interpretation of the law there would not be a need for lawyers or judges. The complexity of the law requires that lawyers and judges are educated in a very specific manner in order to practice the law. This high degree of specialization creates a hierarchy of competence.
The greater specialization that is required to perform any task will sort out those Human Beings without the ability to perform that task in the manner that is required. Not all Human Beings are endowed with the ability to play major league baseball. Every specialty attracts those individuals with the unique ability to succeed in a particular area. The enormous need for lawyers in a large and complex society may require that individuals will choose a specialty in which they are not fully competent. This is the case in the United States at this time. Anyone convicted of a crime is guaranteed the use of a lawyer. In the United States the quality of representation by a lawyer depends on the on the amount of compensation the individual can extend to the lawyer. The system of justice has become so complex that is only those individuals with a propensity for the interpretation of the law that have a complete and useful understanding of its nature. The more competent lawyers generally receive the greatest compensation. This results in a system where economic status can determine the quality of justice an individual receives.
Judges in the legal system must be endowed with no small amount of independence in order to perform their function. The judge in court rules on the on the evidence and the rules of behavior. Judges interpret the law in order to apply the law to a particular Human set of circumstances. The final arbitrator of the law in the United States is the Supreme Court. These judges are selected for life-long terms. This increases their independence for their tenure on the court. The process of selection is a political process. The President nominates candidates for the position that are evaluated and voted into office by the Senate. Presidents with liberal or conservative political positions tend to nominate judges who share the same fundamental political leanings. Whether it is the Constitution or the local leash laws, the role of a judge in a system of justice is to fill the gaps in that system. There exists a necessity for interpretation of the law due in most part to the changing technological and social circumstances of Human Beings within a collective. The law as it written in this country at this time is based on some of the best thinking of two hundred years ago. Much has changed in the interim except for the fundamental rules of behavior. These rules are interpreted by judges in order to maintain their relevance in a modern society. The rules of behavior dictated by the Constitution are interpreted in modern contexts by judges. These individuals interpret the law for two reasons: they are mostly independent of outside influences and they are acquainted with the intricacies of the law.
The law under which individuals operate at his time is due to the interpretations of the law by judges. Despite the political and social influences on judges, their independence exceeds any other political or governmental institution. Lawyers are for the most part well acquainted with the law. Lawyers do not interpret the law because they are being paid to practice law in the best interests of their clients. The power over a society through the control of the law requires that the law be the only influence on those individuals making interpretations. This goal can never be achieved. Every Human Being is taught the rules of behavior for their time. We are given a view of right and wrong. This view is for the most part reinforced by the society and figures of authority. It is in this way that we are able to institutionalize certain concepts and present them as inalienable truths. Judges do not possess the independence to change the fundamental concepts of right and wrong within a historical based collective.
The Constitution of the United States is the starting point for all interpretations of law. The Constitution itself cannot be altered in such a way as to contradict its fundamental precepts. These precepts are outlined in the Bill of Rights. Judges arrive with certain Human predispositions, which places limits on the interpretations of the law. Those limitations are further limited by the unchanging character of the Constitution. The law itself becomes dogmatic without the latitude for unrestrained alteration of the document. There are many concepts in the Constitution that are as completely valid at this time in history as they were when they were first written. A few are not. The idea that the Constitution may be altered in its fundamental precepts would be considered blasphemous by a significant percentage of the population. In this case the law has become dogma. As with religious or political dogma, legal dogma will eventually fail to provide a meaningful basis for the rules governing the behavior of a collective. No amount of interpretation of the law will be able to provide a meaningful direction to a society once the law has outlived its usefulness.
The law has become so complicated that a distinct specialty is necessary to fully comprehend its meaning. We pay lawyers and judges to implement the rules of behavior. The law becomes complex as we seek to impose capabilities for which it was not designed. Change is difficult to implement because of its uncertainty. As in the case of an ecosystem, small changes can produce effects that were unforeseen at the time the changes were introduced. The legal complexities are a result of the uncertainty with which we view our society. Fundamental alterations to the rules of behavior would have effects that would be impossible to fully predict. The net impact of these changes would certainly alter the power structure of a collective in a very comprehensive manner. Those individuals within society that benefit from the current system are also the same individuals controlling its destiny. Certain changes may not affect the current power structure in any significant way. The complexity of the system coupled with the uncertainty with which Human Beings will react to changes in that system fails to provide any impetus to create significant change. The change in the rule of law will not come with the violent or political overthrow of the current power structure. Change in the rules of behavior and the system of law will only come with a revision of the Human concepts of justice and punishment. Law must be designed with the prosperity of Human Beings as its foremost consideration. We will never be able to either implement or design a system of law and justice that will meet our current expectations of how Human Beings should be treated in the context of a collective.
The idea that the Universe should in any way reflect our view of fairness is more than anthropocentric, it is ludicrous. The Universe is under no obligation to surrender to any conception, however elegant, Human Beings are able to create. It is not required of the Universe to comply with the theory of Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. These are descriptions by Human Beings and reflect our interpretation of the way the Universe is through our senses and intellectual capabilities. We have imposed a system of fairness and justice on a Universe that contains no evidence for such a system. The inevitable course of the Universe will lead to the extinction of all life forms by continued expansion or by an ultimate contraction. This would hardly be considered fair or just to most Human Beings. We can, of course, impose a system of justice on the Universe if we can pretend that the Universe is mysterious and that we are not capable of understanding its true intent. The concept of justice implies an equilibrium that is hard to defend. Physical events in the Universe do not share the sense of right and wrong, of good and evil that is found in the concept of justice. Physical events follow the rules of the laws of nature, as we are able to describe them. Human Beings and all their possible interactions are governed by these laws. An understanding of the laws of the Universe does not suggest any relationship to the concept of fairness. There are no rights and wrongs as far as the Universe is concerned. The only right for the Human species is survival.
Human Beings look for fairness to solve the problems of cooperation and equality in a collective. Human Beings possess varying quantities of the qualities of intelligence, physical strength, stamina, and dexterity to name a few. The cooperation and benefits of a society would be subjugated without a system of utilizing individual strengths without having a singular trait dominate a collective. Fairness requires that Human Beings be allowed to compete on the same level within a society despite the disparate individual capabilities. This is far removed from the natural environment in which the fittest members survive to propagate their genetic heritage. The support systems of a collective allow Human Beings who would not normally be able to do so, the opportunity to propagate. Human Beings extend the concept of fairness to most of the interactions between individuals. A balance, or equity, is the goal of the concept of fairness. Within the context of a collective it is possible to override the propensities of the physical Universe and promote a Human system that includes the prospect of equality. Societies can strive for this goal but it can never be fully realized. In our attempts to create the cooperation and equality necessary to gain the greatest possible benefits from society, we have lost sight of the true nature of the Universe. It may be possible to change the rules under which Human Beings operate to achieve a balance in their daily interactions. It is not possible to inflict that concept on physical phenomenon. Unfair societies, laws, and actions will continue to be a part of Human experience as long as we continue to hold to the current definition of fairness. Human societies will be plagued with injustice as long as our perceptions guide us into an inaccurate idealization of the nature of the Universe. The concept of fairness can be employed to define our course of behavior within the context of a collective. Fairness will not bring us to a closer understanding of ourselves or of the Universe.
Justice is dependent on fairness but carries with it the concept of punishment. When an individual has done something wrong, the invocation of justice requires that some kind of punishment is meted out. Punishment restores the equilibrium upset during the commission of the particular wrongful act. The idea is that punishment will also reform. In the absence of any possible gain from an action, Human Beings will not perform that act. The idea that justice will be done will provide a barrier to the possibility of such an act occurring. This is the general premise. In practice, it is only marginally effective. Wrongful acts represent a product of probability. Every society has a proportion of the population engaged in criminal acts at any time. The criminal recognizes the possibility of punishment. This possibility of punishment is weighed against the possible benefits to be derived from a criminal act. Justice, right and wrong are relative quantities. Absolutes exist in nature, not in the inventions of Human Beings. Punishment is not an effective means of coercing Human Beings to conform to the rules of behavior. Punishment is an element in the equation. The behaviors considered to be of the least value to a society are given the harshest punishments for their transgressions. This does not stop Human Beings from committing those acts. The possible benefits from murder might be worth taking the risk of the punishment of death. The possible benefits from the embezzlement of funds or the assault of another Human Being are not considered in the absolutes of right and wrong, but in cost effectiveness. The best possible promise for a cooperative and survivable collective lies with enlightenment rather than punishment. Punishment and justice cannot effectively solicit the desired behavior of Human Beings within a collective. History presents ample evidence for the inadequacy of such a system. Human Beings have been using the present system of punishment throughout our history in various forms without ever achieving the kind of cooperation it is intended to provide. The future will depend on the ability of Human Beings to understand their own nature and use that information to further their own ends.
The majority of Human Beings in a society follow the rules of that society. The possible gains from a major criminal act does not compensate for the possible punishment to be incurred through the system of justice. This is a reasonable way of thinking for an individual who is somewhat successful within the context of the collective. Upper and middle class members of a society are less likely to violate the rules of behavior because they stand the chance of losing the basis of their lifestyle. Those individuals that prosper from the shape of the rules of behavior are naturally less inclined to transgress those rules. They will also show an interest in maintaining the rules of behavior in the current form. To do otherwise is to threaten their position in society. Individuals who are not benefiting from the shape of the rules of behavior show a greater propensity to violate those rules. This is not a very profound assertion, but it receives very little attention in the search for a answer to the problem of crime. All cultures that develop a system of justice and law are designing for the constituency a path to success within that culture. The laws and the system of justice that has been implemented in this country is a force that guides the direction an individual's life will take. When this system can be successfully enforced by a national authority, the majority of Human Beings will follow the path of least resistance. They will benefit from compliance with the law and their success will encourage others to follow the same path. The system of justice will create cohesiveness within a society due to the rewards and punishments assigned to certain behaviors. As long as a nation can provide an adequate reward for a set of behaviors, the validity of those behaviors will be reinforced through the propagation of individual success. The majority of the citizens of the United States do not commit serous crimes because it would lessen their chances for prosperity. If, at any time the upper and middle classes are not adequately rewarded for compliance with the rules of behavior, there will exist a possibility that status quo will be overthrown. The perception by Human Beings that following the rules of behavior will ensure prosperity also ensures the stability of authority.
In this country, social status is in direct relationship to economic status. We define the various layers of society strictly in terms of material wealth. Physical and emotional well being is a priority for most Human Beings on this planet. In this country the amount of comfort for a Human Being depends on the amount of wealth that the individual is able to accumulate. The middle and upper classes live with more comfortably than Human Beings do at any other time in history. The lower class in this country lives considerably better than the lower classes of poorer nations. Apart form physical pain, comfort becomes a term relative to the physical conditions present in a particular collective. The basis for the perspective of success for the lower classes is the upper and middle classes. In this country, the rules of behavior provide the greatest rewards for those individuals capable of accumulating vast amounts of material wealth. The goal for most people in this country is to acquire at least the equivalent of a middle class status. The lower class of this country would certainly prefer the comfort that comes with increased amounts of material wealth. The individuals in the lower classes do not acquire that material wealth for reasons that are complex and singular. In general, the lower classes are not able to follow the path of success dictated by the rules of behavior. The impetus to succeed in the acquisition of material wealth is very strong. As the probability for succeeding within the rules of behavior becomes less likely, the attractiveness of acquiring wealth outside of the law increases. Individuals with comparatively little accumulated wealth will not be in the position of assuming a substantial risk by committing a crime. The equation of social responsibility becomes balanced on the side of criminal activity. The lower classes in this country have very little to lose and nearly everything to gain. Their position in society is a result of their inability to follow the path chosen for them by the rules of behavior. The lower classes commit more than their share of criminal activity because they have a greater impetus to do so. The cost of losing freedom does not represent a formidable obstruction to violating the rules of behavior. Freedom, as it is commonly defined, relates to the Human situation in terms of the ability to go anywhere and act according to the individual's wants and needs. In this society both mobility and material goods are acquired through the exchange of money. The lower classes, and in some instances the middle class, are without the monetary wherewithal to express their freedom. In this way the amount of fiscal success is translated into a possibility for greater freedom. The loss of freedom through the system of justice is not an effective deterrent because the perception is that most freedoms have since been lost through economic status.
Of course, economic status alone does not dictate a propensity for living outside of the rules of behavior. Crimes committed by the upper and middle classes are less common but hold the potential for greater damage to a collective. Criminal behavior is essentially a problem solving technique. Whether or not the problems or the solutions are reasonable is not relevant to the commission of a crime. Human Beings can easily distort their intellectual capabilities by using emotional or unreliable evidence to make their decisions. The resolution of a problem will then turn on a system of logic that is fundamentally flawed. The educational system teaches children and adults the acceptable methods of reasoning and problem solving. These methods are reinforced through their widespread use within a collective. The political leaders of this country commonly call on God to help them with a particularly severe problem. Millions of dollars are spent every single day on gambling of some kind or another. This, despite the fact that the odds may be overwhelmingly against their chance of winning. Criminals take an equal risk despite the odds against their chances of prospering in the long term outside of the rules of behavior. Most crimes, when analyzed from a scientific perspective, are outside of the probability for a successful completion. The fault lies in a distorted view of the evidence and a misunderstanding of the use of logic. Misinterpretation of an individual's role and opportunities within a collective are a direct result of a flawed educational system. To elicit cooperation from members of a collective it is necessary to state unequivocally the responsibilities and rewards from living in a social setting. The collective itself must be open to as many possible permutations of Human Behavior that can make use of the benefits of cooperation. Criminal behavior will exist as long as the benefits of cooperation, perceived or otherwise do not equal the perceived probability of gain from illegal behavior.
The punishment of Human Beings for their transgressions tries to solve a problem by physically beating it into submission. The cost to society of putting people in prison when they come of age is far greater than eliciting their cooperation from the beginning. The correctional institutions in this country are not churning out Human Beings who have realized their errors and become productive and cooperative citizens. The system of correction does have its successes, but they are not in the majority of individuals who pass through the system. In 1986, eighty-two per cent of all federal prisoners were recidivists. These inmates had committed crimes after serving a pervious prison term or after being on probation or parole. Of all inmates in the federal system, sixty percent had been imprisoned two or more times, forty-five percent three or more times, and twenty per cent six or more times. In fiscal year 1986-1987, local, state and federal governments spent a combined sixty billion, six hundred million dollars on the enforcement of the rules of behavior through the criminal justice system. The benefits derived from a more cooperative population are obvious. It is equally obvious that our current methods of creating a cooperative populous are not effective. The crime rate oscillates with economic and social circumstances. It does not show a marked decline despite the increase in the technological sophistication of the society’s enforcement capabilities.
Punishment is enforced at the end of the criminal activity. The individual has already decided that the commission of the crime is in their best interests. The reasoning may be flawed or the rules of behavior may be flawed. In either case it is essential that a collective recognize the necessity of both education and a logical structure for the rules of behavior. Nearly all societies provide an educational system in which both language and mathematics are the primary concern. There is not currently an equal concern with education in the responsibilities of the individual to the collective. We use punishment rather than enlightenment to elicit cooperation from the members of society. Punishment does not succeed in accomplishing the goal of a cooperative sustainable society. It does not change either the motivation or the reasoning behind criminal activity. The concept of retribution that is inherent in punishment does not exist in the plane of Human experience. The net effect is to create an alienation from the individuals from which we wish to elicit cooperation. To be effective, punishment must override intellectual resistance through physical pain. The result is a Human Being with an extremely limited potential. To ensure our survival, it will be necessary to ensure that we can tap the full potential of every Human Being. This can only be accomplished through an acceptance and understanding of the social contract.

Chapter Nine
Economics
Economics may initially seem to be a topic inconsistent with a philosophical exposition. Philosophy is essentially the understanding of the Universe and the role of Human Beings in that understanding. Economics, money, the concept of a market and the exchange of value are all Human inventions. It is these inventions more than any other that determines not only the potential comfort, but also ability of individual Human Beings to survive and live full, meaningful lives. The role of economics in our lives can very easily mean life or death. It is always an indication of our potential and level of comfort throughout our lives. The universal means for the acquisition of material wealth is through the use of money. Governments do not exist without the ability to levy taxes on its constituency. The invention of money has driven the exchange of value for several thousand years. The concept of money has changed by becoming increasingly complex and universal in it application. The fundamental premise of money as a representation of value has not changed. There exists no collective of Human Beings on this planet that would not be inexorably changed by either a sudden windfall or deficit in the amount of money at its disposal. Economics is a Human invention that has been universally applied to every modern society. The monetary and market systems of the world along with the political systems of a collective determine to no small degree the potential for Human Beings on this planet. Economics is a contract into which all Human Beings accede. The particulars of this contract depend on the political, social, and past economic environment of the collective. Living within a collective is living with the economic conditions of that collective. These conditions affect every aspect of Human existence.
The nation of Japan has a Human population of approximately one hundred and twenty five million people on one hundred and forty-five thousand square miles of land. The Federal Republic of Nigeria has a population of nearly one hundred and fifteen million on three hundred and fifty-two thousand square miles of land. The average yearly per capita income in Nigeria is five hundred and twenty United States dollars. The average yearly per capita income in Japan is twenty two thousand equivalent dollars. This is not a direct comparison. Purchases made in Japan require more monetary units than in Nigeria. The average Human Being in Japan does not live forty times better than the average person in Nigeria. The average person in Japan does live substantially better than a person in Nigeria. Nigeria is a relatively poor country and Japan is a relatively rich country. The Human Beings living in Japan, and in most Western nations, use their relative economic wealth to provide safe and abundant supplies of food and water and high levels of education and physical comfort. The lack of monetary units in Nigeria prohibits the Human Beings in this country from providing the same levels of comfort and health to their population. The potential for an individual Human Being in Japan is very different from the potential for Human Beings living in Nigeria. Japan is a country with relatively limited physical resources within its borders. They have acquired their status as rich nation because they were able to develop the intellectual resources of Human Beings in a way that could utilize the world economic system to acquire wealth. The people of Nigeria would, without a doubt, prefer the standard of living in Japan. In order to do so, they would have to radically change their society to exploit the current economic system. Such a change is not foreseen. The relative wealth of nations remains intact without serious upheaval in the economic system that creates wealth.
The system of nation states prohibits the equitable distribution of the world’s physical resources. A nation may not be the adversary of every other nation on this planet, but every nation does place its own priorities above those of any other nation. The idea of borders and nations creates within a collective an extended identity of the self. Most Human individuals would not significantly sacrifice their comfort to provide additional comfort to another Human Being. Material wealth used effectively can promote a relatively long and prosperous existence. The instinct for survival places an upward limit on the distribution of resources. The individual's instinct for survival is perpetuated in the allegiance to a collective. Nations respond collectively in response to a perceived threat to their survival. There are no nations at this time that are not dependent in some way on the resources of other nations for their present level of comfort. Trade represents a way of distribution of wealth that generally benefits all the parties involved. The advanced nations on this planet acquired a substantial amount of their wealth through processes outside of equitable trade. Subjugation of less advanced collectives and outright theft of resources provided European and some Asian countries with an economic windfall. This windfall was used to create higher standards of living and create more wealth. Any threat to the resources of a powerful nation usually ended with physical destruction of varying degrees. There are no limits on the amount of wealth a nation may possess or control. Economic well-being can be directly translated into physical comfort and military power. Both of which can be utilized to perpetuate current economic and political systems. The poorer nations on this planet tend to remain poor due to the way economics has become an international form of government. The use of money, the exchange of resources, and the accompanying influence of the international economic system dictate the probability of survival for nations as well as individuals.
The invention of money accompanied the rise in trade between nations and the declining utility of barter. The use of money as a medium for the exchange of value is money in a very primitive form. Money has evolved from the representation of value to possessing a value of itself. We have created institutions such as banks and stock markets that deal exclusively with the exchange of money. The value of any currency at this time is entirely dependent on the perception of Human Beings. Money is very limited in its physical usefulness. Most money is printed on paper. It can be used for fuel but it does not burn nearly as well as wood. Coins usually contain some small amount of a refined metal that could be very useful making tools and utensils. This would, however, require some knowledge of metallurgy and smelting processes.
The value of money is an extension of its usefulness. This usefulness arises from a significant number of Human Beings in agreement on its representative value and rate of exchange. The value of money rises and falls based on the perception by a substantial number of Human Beings as to its worth. Every nation has agreed on a type of currency it will employ for the exchange of value within the confines of its borders. In this case, the government enforces the value of a particular kind of decorated paper. Using this particular paper for the exchange of value, Human Beings within a collective assert the legitimacy of a currency. The currency of the Confederate States of America is worthless for purposes of exchange of value. After defeating the Confederacy, the United States established through the rule of law a single currency to be used for exchange. This action eliminated any perception of value for Confederate money. Money is different in nearly every nation, but there is an accepted value for each currency relative any other currency. Money has been endowed with a value based on the perceptions of Human Beings as to its usefulness. This perception brings a utility to the concept of money that allows an incontrovertible and efficient exchange of value.
The sanctity of a national currency is protected with the same enthusiasm as its borders. Monetary stability and integrity are essential for any nation to conduct trade with any other nation. The currency of some of the economically less successful nations has little value as perceived by the majority of nations of the world. These nations need to acquire the currency of prosperous and stable nations in order to conduct trade. No nation at this time has the physical and Human resources within its boundaries to be completely self sufficient with a standard of living represented by the Western nations. For economically well-developed nations such as Japan and the United States, trade is essential to maintain the standard of living. They can effectively trade because their currency is considered very valuable by the other trading nations of the world. Trade allows a nation to produce those products for which it has the resources to create in the most efficient manner. It is then possible to acquire from other nations with different resources the products necessary to sustain their standard of living. Nations with underdeveloped economies and inferior currencies find trade to be cost ineffective. Poor nations cannot trade with same efficiency as rich nations. The perceived instability of a currency adds a cost to trade that compensates trading partners for the perceived risk involved. This additional cost creates an economic inequity that further stifles economic growth. Economic power and prosperity are fundamental to military, political, and national well-being. As recent events in the Soviet Union illustrate, economic prowess within the current system is essential to the stability and survivability of any collective on this planet.
It would be very difficult for any poor nation of the world to attain the standard of living associated with most Western nations. At the time the wealthy nations of the world produced most of their wealth, resources were perceived as unlimited and population was relatively low. It is now recognized that the resources of this planet are not inexhaustible. The population growth over the last century has limited the potential for economic growth of many nations. Nations, like individual Human Beings, have a hierarchy of needs. Food, shelter, and clothing needs must be met before the luxuries of mass education and sophisticated means of production. A collective that cannot produce a surplus of money to invest in education or factories will not be able to increase the standard of living for its constituents.
The fundamental aspects of money and supply and demand in economics produce a system that in some ways emulates a survival of the fittest scenario. The goal for every nation is not economic survival but economic prosperity. Economics is a Human invention and as a result does not follow exactly a Darwinian evolution. Rules of economic behavior are created by the national community. These rules are written by and favor those nations who will be able to realize the greatest gain from their implementation. Economics is much like a sport in which the rules are enforced by the home team. In order to succeed, economics must be played according to the current rules. Whether or not these rules represent an equitable exchange of value is irrelevant. Either poor nations will remain in poverty until the rules for economic prosperity change or a poor nation can play the game by the rules.
One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that of supply and demand. The value assigned to any physical or intellectual property is measured by its scarcity and utility. Gold is worth more than aluminum in part because of their relative abundances. Oil has risen dramatically in value over the past few decades because its widespread use has created an artificial scarcity. The immense need for petroleum products by industrialized nations has created more demand than readily available supplies of the product. A higher value is attained through the system of market economics. Wealth is a relative term and its acquisition is the goal for most Human Beings on this planet. The supplier of a scarce product will be inclined to trade it for the highest possible value. This creates the greatest possible wealth for the supplier based on the available resources. This wealth can then be exchanged for a higher level of prosperity. Individuals as well as nations operate under the same principles. The global community operates under the present economic rules of behavior. To attempt to operate outside of global economic system would inevitably result in a reduction in the standard of living. To sell a commodity well below its market value would be to abdicate the game of economics. The penalty is deprivation of material wealth. In modern times this results in a diminished quality of Human life. Supply and demand are inexorable rules of economic behavior. They are the equivalent of a global system of justice. The system itself pronounces judgment on economic activity.
Economic justice, like the justice of law is dependent on the preconceptions of Human Beings for its existence. Human Beings are able to justify the value of any particular commodity in the context of the current economic system. That value is direct reflection of the priority of creating wealth. With a limited amount means for the creation of wealth, economic justice provides that the reward of wealth is assigned to most competitive elements within the economic community. The economic system utilizes competition to create efficiency. Efficiency is a reward for natural systems as well as economic systems. The material resources of this planet are limited. Using those resources in the most efficient manner possible extends their utility. Living organisms that are grossly inefficient in their use of resources are replaced by more efficient species. The uncertainty of available resources demands the ability to survive under the most oppressive conditions. This margin of error in economics creates wealth through greater utilization of limited potential. Efficiency in economics creates wealth.
Creating a competitive environment for economics is the primary motivation for using available resources to their fullest potential. Competition also assures that the minimum possible value is assigned to any commodity. This is the efficiency of value. Competition is also an element of the natural world. It helps to ensure that only the relatively best equipped to survive will survive. This is true of economics as well. An efficient producer will survive through the creation of wealth in markets. Wealth is created through efficiency and regulated through competition. In any competition, game or sport, there will always be a loser. This is not true of the natural world. Through competition in the natural world the species that are removed from existence are replaced with species whose genetic endowment creates greater latitude in their capability to survive. This genetic superiority is used to evolve ever more survivable species. In economics, the losers of this competition are Human Beings. These Human Beings are not deficient in their ability to survive, only in their ability to survive economically.
Economics is a Human invention. The rules that have been created are very fundamental and carry slight variations from nation to nation. Entirely different rules of economics have been tried but have failed. These failures result from the motivations behind the current system and the sheer weight of the popularity of the current rules of economics. The principal motivation in the current system is the acquisition of wealth, or greed. Wealth is a relative term depending on the state of the local economy. Human Beings in Ethiopia may perceive the poor of New York City as wealthy if they have a steady and reliable source of food. The current economic system rewards individuals who acquire wealth in any form by a greater propensity to acquire more wealth. While it is necessary for every individual to actively pursue wealth in order to obtain it, there are varying degrees of difficulty associated with wealth acquisition.
In the United States there exists a common mythology called rags to riches. In this mythology, it is put forth that any individual willing to work hard will be able to acquire wealth, regardless of that individual's initial circumstances. It is a myth because it is only partially true. The vast majority of poor people remain poor throughout their lives. A small fraction of the poor acquire substantial amounts of wealth and conversely, a small percentage of the wealthy descend into poverty. The overall pattern favors the acquisition of wealth by those who have already achieved economic success. It is easier to create wealth from wealth. Wealth creates the opportunity for material achievement through its use. Wealthy Human Beings in the United States grew up in an environment that provides the opportunity to succeed economically. Malnutrition can effectively stifle intellectual capabilities. The urgent need for money to satisfy the basic Human needs can retard educational success. The time required to meet fundamental Human needs for daily survival has an inverse relationship to the amount of time available to acquire the skills necessary for economic success. Wealthy individuals or societies are able to concentrate their intellectual and physical efforts on the further acquisition of wealth rather than the means of survival. The current system of economics rewards and perpetuates those individuals who have already attained a certain amount of wealth. Economic justice is far removed from the concept of justice under the law. Both are Human inventions designed to serve different needs of a collective.
The justice of law seeks equality among the individuals of society in order to solicit the cooperation of the collective. The acquisition of wealth through the economic system seeks to create a situation in which particular Human traits are selected for through the rewards of wealth. Acquiring wealth in most nations requires some kind of aggressive behavior. The natural propensity of Human Beings for aggression can be utilized to their utmost in economic activity. An economic system is a game in which there is competition, winners, and losers. Those individuals in possession of excess material wealth will not relinquish it without a valid reason. The rule of law prohibits acquisition of wealth through physical means on an individual basis. Acting as a collective during a time of war, theft is justified.
Individuals are not limited in the amount of wealth that they can control. They are only limited in their ability to control it. An individual dedicated to the acquisition of wealth will be rewarded, as far the individual's talents will allow. As in the instance of the superior motor skills of a sports champion, a natural inclination to make money coupled with an aggressive nature usually combine to make for wealthy individual. Wealth carries with it not only an increased standard of living, but also a substantial potential for influencing and perpetuating the current economic system. The wealthy in any collective have been selected for their propensity to excel under the current economic system. The economic system perpetuates itself by allocating the power to change the system to those individuals least likely to change it.
The fact that certain traits are selected for in the acquisition of wealth would not be an important issue if it were not for the importance of wealth. Thousands of Human Beings every year defy the law and suffer great physical hardship in order to live in the United States. The impetus for such action is the expectation of increased wealth. This sort of illegal immigration is not restricted to the United States. It occurs wherever the national boundaries create economic as well as geographic boundaries. The world economic system controls the allocation of all the resources necessary to sustain Human life. Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care, and intellectual enlightenment are all purchased through the economic system. The motivation for employing a system of economics in the distribution of resources is much the same as the motivation for living in a collective setting. The trade and efficient uses of resources that accompany the present economic system translates into increased comfort and survivability for Human Beings. The Human population at this time prohibits a strictly individual responsibility in the allocation of resources. Economic as well as social cooperation is necessary to the survival of six billion people. The current economic system encourages the efficient use of resources through competition. The fact that we are depleting those resources at an unprecedented rate is not the fault of economics. It is the failure of Human Beings to exchange short-term gain for long-term stability. No portion of the landmass of this planet is without a border. No allocation of a resource is without some economic influence. We live in societies that operate by the laws of economics and currency. Recognizing the importance of economics to Human Beings is the first step in using economic systems to further Human survival.
Poor countries and wealthy countries exist because of the system of nation states. The Human population is not a single unit but rather a conglomeration of distinct entities. The current system of economics places individuals and nations in competition with each other for the limited resources of this planet. The premise behind competition for resources is that the competition will result in greater efficiency in the use of resources. Competition is a concept from which the remainder of economic principles is derived. The foremost assumption in the concept of competition is that Human Beings will not be inclined to put forth their greatest effort without the competitive impetus to do so. This competitive impetus is derived from the competition to survive in a natural environment. Collective living eliminates the natural competition to survive through the benefits of civilization. The creation of increasingly higher standards concurrently eliminates a larger percentage of the population from the competition. This is the intent of competition. With Human Beings, the result is a stratification based on the current criteria for success. The primary reason for living in a collective setting is the benefits that are derived for all the members through cooperation among the members. Competition instills a hierarchy within the cooperative system of a collective. The current economic system rewards an individual's ability to succeed on an individual basis. The wealth acquired through economic success can be used for either the benefit or the deprivation of the collective depending on the inclination of the individual. Competition certainly creates increasingly stronger and quicker athletes for professional sports. Fortunately, economics is not as decisive as professional sports. Partial success in economic terms is still a success. Individuals and nations are classified according to their ability to acquire wealth under the current system.
Individuals with considerable economic success are referred to as the upper class. The original meaning of this term was used to describe royalty or the heads of government in a particular society. In the advent of increasingly democratic governments, the term began to apply to an individual's economic status rather than birthright. Economic democratization has created another class of moderately successful people called the middle class. There was no appreciable middle class until the Industrial Revolution was able to create enough wealth to equip a substantial number of the poor with an increased standard of living. In countries with limited economic potential a middle class does not exist. Countries with a large middle class can claim substantial resources and wealth. Those individuals who have achieved the least amount of economic success within a particular collective are the poor, or lower class. All of these terms are relative to the economic health of a particular country. The poor or the wealthy in Japan are not the same as their equivalent in Nigeria. In the economic competition, the wealthy are the winners and the poor are the losers. In a country with enough resources to develop a middle class, they are generally considered to enjoy a relatively high standard of living. The middle class generally has a higher standard of living than the majority of Human Beings on this planet. The middle class in the United States has a standard of living well above that for most Human Beings on this planet. The competition for resources within the context of economics creates a situation in which there is an inequitable distribution of those resources. The underlying reason for this inequitable distribution is to provide Human Beings with the impetus to create wealth.
This creation of wealth can then be utilized to raise the standard of living for individuals incapable of creating economic success for themselves. This happens on a very limited scale. The economic system guarantees reward for certain capabilities and actions. The potential use for the individual creation of wealth is left, for the most part, to the individual. Assuring that individual wealth is reassigned to create a higher standard of living for those individuals less able to compete is perceived as stifling the initial impetus for the creation of wealth. The individual propensity to acquire wealth under the current system will dictate the comfort and prosperity of the individual.
The current economic system is written on a base of very simple ideas. Nations compete for scarce resources because every nation first and foremost seeks to acquire wealth. Individuals compete for scarce resources within a collective for the same reason. The primary goal is the acquisition of wealth. This wealth can be utilized to increase the comfort, longevity, and meaning of Human life. Limitations on the amount of wealth have not been established. Nations and individuals attempt to gain an infinite quantity of wealth despite the fact that the resources from which the wealth is derived are limited. The establishment of a limit on wealth would stop the game of economics. Human Beings whose motivations are rooted in the competition for economic success would have no further motivation upon reaching the wealth limit. Without any limits on the amount of wealth that can be legally acquire and controlled by individuals or nations, the motivation for economic success will continue unabated. The resources, however, remain limited.
The ability of an individual to control gigantic amounts of wealth does put certain limits on individual acquisition. The wealth that is created with economic systems requires substantial handling costs to ensure its stability. Unlike natural systems, economic systems require Human enforcement of rules and regulations that ensure that the game is being played fairly. The legitimacy of fair play depends entirely on the rules that govern play. The fundamental economics systems of the world try to assure that certain Human attributes will be rewarded and those individuals not in possession of those attributes will not be physically eliminated. In economics, it is the control of the competition rather than the elimination of competition that results in the greatest gain. The creation of wealth is derived from a limited pool of resources. With every gain there is an accompanying loss.
Human invention and efficiency can reduce the loss of resources, but they cannot fully eliminate a degradation of the economic environment. Human Beings are a particularly useful resource. The physical elimination of Human life may reduce the competition, but it also reduces the potential for creating more wealth. The nations that have acquired relative wealth created much of the wealth with an expanding population and expansive resources. Those nations that are relatively poor at this time experienced an exponential growth in population without the resources to exploit the Human potential. An increase in population requires an increase in resources to sustain the additional Human Beings. To achieve economic expansion requires an abundance of resources that are efficiently employed to create wealth. The relatively wealthy nations are experiencing very low rates of population increases. Their accumulated wealth can then be directed to sustain or increase the national wealth. The greatest rise in population is currently in those countries least able to afford the increased strain on limited resources. These nations must divert any excess wealth to sustain the growing population. This stifles the ability of poor nations to create wealth. The relatively wealthy nations would suffer the same fate with an exponential rise in population without an exponential rise in resources.
The game of macroeconomics is straightforward. The consequences of economics on large scales over long periods can be predicted on an equally large scale of reference. It is in the micro-economic perspective that economics takes on a great degree of uncertainty. This is an aspect of Human knowledge that is reflected in our perspective on physical systems. The large-scale structures and isolated phenomenon are within our intellectual province to be observed and understood. Understanding the intricate interrelationships of the entire system is a much more difficult problem. We have established some very basic economic laws that are enforced by the rules of behavior established by the various Human collectives around the planet. The establishment of the right to own something is essential to the economic system. Nations would not exist without the boundaries that establish ownership of pieces of the Earth's crust.
Individuals would not seek to acquire wealth without general agreement that they can legally come into possession of it. Possession of anything is a premise that can be traced back to our desire for survival. Material possessions such as clothing, shelter, and territory, increase the potential for survival in a very primitive setting. In a modern social context, the possession of money, pension plans, and insurance policies are equally vital to an individual's survival. In economics, possession is everything. The rule of law that protects an individual’s right to possess material wealth can be subjugated by the use of physical force. As late as World War II, France was plundered of many valuable works of art by the invading German Armies. This would have increased the wealth of the German nation if they had been able to retain the art in a civilized post-war environment. Without the organization and protection of possession that the law provides, the elaborate economic system now employed would not exist.
Once the right of ownership has been established and protected by law, it is then possible for the transfer of that ownership. Trade would not be necessary if the resources of the planet were distributed evenly among the various nations. The material resources of the planet and the national boundaries are randomly distributed because they are based on the physical system of the Earth. The processes that lead to the distribution of resources on this planet are the result of the physical laws of nature. Economics is an artificial system imposed on a natural system. The potential material wealth of a natural resource depends on the economic worth of the particular resource. Crude oil was not very useful until technological advances were able to extract it from its reservoirs and process it within a reasonable cost. Eventually the reserves of oil will become depleted. The scarcity of the product will increase its cost and lower its utility until it eventually becomes a marginally important source of wealth. The trade of any material wealth for another kind of material wealth becomes inefficient very quickly. The necessity for the trade of material wealth between those parties in possession of that wealth remains high. The problem of the inefficiency this kind of trade is solved though a monetary system to which everyone accedes. This has not happened. There is no single world monetary unit. The economic difference of wealth between nations precludes such an invention. By the time transportation and communication had advanced to the point of being able to implement a world wide monetary system, the inequities of resources and wealth had already been established. The monetary units of every nation had been set and used for many generations of Human Beings. The establishment of an international monetary unit becomes very difficult because the function of money has changed. Money does not only represent wealth, it is wealth.
The basis for the importance of money in Human lives is the confidence with which we use money. Money has little intrinsic value. Its value is derived from the expectations of Human Beings as to its worth. The accumulation of money is equivalent to the accumulation of wealth as long as the confidence in the monetary system remains intact. For any nation to change its form of currency at this time would be accompanied by social upheaval. National currencies not only represent the wealth of a collective, they are the wealth of the collective from the perspective of other nations. Money is managed much like any other resource. A scarcity of dollars effectively increases its value. Central banks control the supply of money in order to achieve economic stability and prosperity. Money that is extremely low in value compared to other currencies still has some value based on the limited amount of confidence shown by the people using it for trade. For a nation to abandon its currency in favor of another type of money would require a great effort to create the sense of confidence necessary for its use. To try to establish an international currency under the current conditions would be impossible. Money is wealth. Very few Human Beings would surrender that wealth for the possible future legitimacy of another currency. Currencies will retain a minimum value as long as they are used for exchange. National currencies will continue to fluctuate in value relative to each other as long as the perception of its value is an objective process. The complexity of modern currencies results from the permutations of the very basic concepts of value and individual possession of property on which economics is based. It is in this way that the Human invention of economics imitates natural systems by continually increasing the disorder and complexity of the system.
There are at least several thousand people on this planet who get their money by buying and selling money. Money is a commodity as well as a unit of exchange. There are at least many thousands more who lose money by buying and selling money. The stock market, commodities exchanges, and monetary exchanges regularly lose and create fortunes through the legal prognostication of Human perceptions about value. Prices rely on the Human perception of the value of any physical object in the Universe. Along with language, from an early age we are taught the concept of money and how it measures the value of nearly everything on this planet. Those perceptions of value result form previous experiences with concrete examples of value. On an individual basis, these expectations are readily accessible. The large-scale results of these perceptions cannot be confidently predicted. The economic system has reached a level of complexity that defies our ability to make consistent, accurate predictions as to its future. People lose money in the stock market and on commodities because they are based on this aggregate of Human perception. There are companies that make considerable sums of money by making these predictions. Their profit arises mostly from the use of extremely large amounts of money carefully invested in a broad range of possibilities. No investment firms or private investors will trade their accumulated wealth on a single issue. The possibility of the failure to predict the future of the investment is sufficient to prohibit more than marginal confidence in those predictions. The possibility of success is sufficient to make some well-researched gambles on the capability of Human Beings to predict the outcome of their own invention.
Economists and politicians are often called upon to predict the future cycles of economic activity. These predictions are based on the best possible information the time. Unfortunately, the current complexity of the economic system prohibits accuracy. Business mangers and legislators also make predictions about the economy with an equal degree of inaccuracy. The effect of a legislator’s expectation about the economy will determine directly the physical comfort level of millions of Human Beings. Both prosperity and economic depression affect the very resources of survival for Human Beings. The vagaries of the economic system can result in food shipments raised for Human consumption that are instead devoured by bacteria and small animals. The primary motivation behind the current economic system is the creation of wealth. Poverty is a result of this economic system. We have the means to transport excess food and other items to Human Beings incapable of sustaining themselves. There is no creation of wealth in giving food away to hungry people. The expectation is that the excess created by the Human motivation for wealth will no longer exist with the removal of that motivation.
Economic systems currently fall into two categories: Centralized and Capitalist. Neither of which are practiced in the same way in which they are theoretically explained. They are, fundamentally, two different goals for the wealth created through Human endeavor. The principle of capitalism is that the individuals in a society most responsible for the creation of wealth should make the final decisions on how it is to be used. In the centralized system, wealth is created for the benefit of all the members of a collective. Centralization, like Christianity, contains some very positive principles on which to base the structure of a Human society. Unfortunately, neither is practiced in the same way it is conceived. There are rich and poor in centralized economies as well as capitalist economies. The problem with implementation of any economic system is that it must be able to mesh with current rules of behavior and moral precepts of the society. Centralization has not succeeded in becoming the dominant economic system of the world. It has failed not because of its lack of competition or its centrally controlled economy. Centralization fails because it lacks to change the fundamental attitudes of the members of a collective towards their role in that collective. Human Beings can attribute their success in survival to the flexibility that a complex intellect and a dexterous pair of hands can provide. The successful implementation of an economic system that distributes wealth in an equitable manner inevitably relies on changing the Human perceptions about survival within the context of a collective. The objective of Human Beings in a capitalistic or emtralized economic system is to acquire enough wealth to provide a reasonably comfortable existence. The perceived scarcity of resources translates into aggressive behavior that will secure the physical means for survival. The implementation of an economic system that is based on equitable distribution of wealth would require a completely different attitude from Human Beings about the means for securing survival. Placing one's level of comfort and survivability into the hands of a bureaucracy does not inspire confidence in most Human Beings. Individuals will not be inclined to work either harder or with more efficiency when there is no perceptible reward for increased productivity. The reward for a centralized economy is the security and stability of the collective. This is impetus enough for True Believers but not for the majority of Human Beings on this planet. Their perception is that survival within a collective is a largely an individual matter. It is up to the individual to exploit the resources available through the collective to realize individual expectation of comfort and survivability.
The economics of capitalism is based on the inherent struggle to survive. Capitalism is the dominant form of economics on this planet. Its exact form varies from nation to nation in order to fit more closely with the established rules of behavior. The system of capitalism uses rewards and competition in conjunction to stimulate Human Beings towards increasing efficiency and productivity. The reward for working within the rules of behavior and succeeding economically is money. Money can then be traded for an increased quality of life, and in most nations, political and social power. The aspect of fair competition keeps the immense power available through huge monetary reserves from being in the control of a single group or individuals. Capitalism, like centralization, does not exist in its pure form. Rules of play are established to ensure that the weak do not devour the strong simply because they have the ability to do so. The rules of behavior dictate exactly how much monetary reward may be freely utilized for personal use and a concept of fairness in the competition for those monetary rewards. All governments take a portion of wealth created by an individual for redistribution into the collective wealth. The laws of the United States in regards to the creation of wealth through the business environment are as complex and comprehensive as those governing the activities outside of the business sector. Laws and taxes combine to restrict the collective damage that would result from the unrestrained acquisition of wealth by individuals. An unrestrained capitalistic system would mimic more closely a natural ecosystem. Those individuals most fit to survive would dominate the system and bring about the extinction of those less well equipped to survive in a particular environment. It would also result in an economic dictatorship or oligarchy that would be extremely unstable. National sport teams have evolved a system to promote this kind of competition. The result is that no one team is able to completely dominate over a number of years. The rise and fall of the fortunes of sports teams creates an exciting atmosphere for the fans of the game. This sort of cyclical environment does not promote successful Human societies. The rules of behavior are adjusted to meet the goals of a successful and sustainable society. The rules of economics are adjusted to provide Human Beings with sufficient impetus for the creation of wealth.
The economic system of capitalism creates a situation in which Human Beings create wealth within the context of a collective for purely individual needs. The collective benefits vicariously from the enforcement of law and the imposition of taxes. A collective under this system essentially capitalizes on the Human propensity for individual survival. Through the government, this potentially destructive driving force behind economics is used to promote the well being of the collective. It is far easier to tap the natural inclinations of Human Beings than to try to alter their perception of the world. This is exactly what must happen in order for an economic system such as centralization to create a prosperous society. Such a change in Human perspective is not likely to come about until such a time as there is more than adequate material wealth for every individual and an elimination of the competition associated with the system of nation-states.
Governments continually adjust the rules of economics that govern the possibilities of economic survival for Human Beings on this planet. The rules change in order to reflect the changing social conditions of a society. The rules change in order to either sustain or increase the standard of living. The rules change in order to create an environment in which nations are economically competitive with one another. Every nation is in competition with every other nation to absorb the greatest possible wealth from the Human manipulation of the resources available on this planet. A change in the economic rules is usually minor in nature. The growth in the complexity of the international monetary and trade systems prevent making full-scale changes with any assurance of predictable results. The small changes made by governments in tax structure or trade cannot be designed to provide a completely predictable result. Major changes in economics, as in politics, usually result from a revolution of some kind. Change cannot be realized unless the power structure that supports the current system is abolished.
Despite the fact that there are very poor nations and an inequitable distribution of the resources of this planet, there will not be a revolution in economics in the near future. The countries that control the resources of this planet are not likely to lower their standard of living to increase that standard for other nations of the world. The relatively poor nations that would like to increase their standard of living to that of most of the industrialized nations will find it a formidable task. The growing populations of such countries and the diminishing resources of the planet created a situation in which the economic growth of the Western nations in the past two hundred years becomes only a historical reference. The poor nations of this world will undoubtedly remain poor. The relatively rich nations at this time may eventually become poor but it will be at the expense of the resources of this planet.
Money and economics are usually not investigated to any depth until students in the United States reach the college level. Money has become a natural part of our existence within a collective. We grow up with an understanding of the utility of money but little knowledge about how it affects our very lives. By assembling the world into various collectives, we have removed Human Beings from any interaction with the natural economics of survival. We have replaced that system with a system of our own invention. The rules of economics have placed certain nations in a position of perpetual poverty while other nations are able to maintain a much higher standard of living. Any nation that can increase its standard of living will have to do so according to the rules of the economic game. The potential for change is small, but the cyclical nature of economics and history will eventually erode the economic base of every nation. There will be no reallocation of wealth as long as there is a strong impetus to maintain the current system. Human Beings have tied ourselves to the present system and live with its consequences. The effects of this system can give Human Beings the potential for prosperity or degradation. The choice is always in the hands of Human Beings. It may eventually be a choice of survival of our species.

Chapter Ten
Conclusions
This is the Brass Swan Cosmology. In the previous nine chapters I have elucidated my perspective on the Universe and the place of Human Beings in this context. I have endeavored to explain this very Human view of the Universe with a minimum amount of criticism. Criticism is made to establish the validity of a viewpoint held by a Human Being. The type of criticism encountered most frequently in daily life is usually regarding politics, art, or sport. This analysis of Human activities is of very little meaning. The criticisms that carry the most value are those that are supported by an intimate knowledge of the subject being criticized. From the perspective of Human knowledge, a critic not only refutes or supports a particular view but supports the critic's own beliefs through the criticism. Every aspect of Human existence is open to criticism. This is a result of the fallibility of Human knowledge and the limits placed on understanding through the use of language as a medium for the expression of knowledge. I could have spent the previous nine chapters bringing into disrepute the civilization and the follies of the Human species. It is a very easy target. This path would have enlightened the reader on my ability to persuade, not on the nature of the Universe. It has been my goal to observe the Universe from a rational and objective perspective. It is through these observations that I am able to collect evidence on which to base some conclusions.
These conclusions are not presented in support of my individual perspective on the Universe. The conclusions I have reached about Human Beings and their place in the Universe are in support of the evidence as I am able to understand it. My conclusions can only be as valid as my ability to understand and process the empirical evidence I have been able to gather. There will certainly be points of view in direct contradiction to the points I have made in this book. The validity of a criticism of any point I have made would depend on a more complete understanding of either the evidence or the reasoning behind my assertions. I will not be able to defend my conjectures from criticisms based on dogma or faith. This is not the way in which I have acquired knowledge. I can only defend my positions by the same method of scientific extrapolation of evidence by which I have made those positions. Any errors I have made in either evidence or reason are welcome to correction. It is in this way that both the reader and I will come to a more precise understanding of the Universe from the perspective of the Human species.
Perhaps one of the most enduring forms of Human entertainment is magic. Magicians seem to make objects appear from the void and disappear into the same void. In doing so they seem to defy the laws of physics. Magicians do not violate and have never violated the laws of physics. They appear to do so because they take advantage of the limited sensory capabilities of Human Beings. The molecules that make up a pigeon do not spontaneously arise from the incantations of a skilled magician. The pigeon is hidden from view in the sleeve or jacket of the magician until its presence will enforce the idea of magic. The motion picture moves at twenty-four frames per second and yet we perceive the motion as being smooth and flawless. We are unable to perceive the stuttering motion of the motion picture. The motion picture is moving at twenty-four frames per second whether or not we can perceive it as such. Human Beings are endowed with a limited set of senses with which we can gather evidence about the Universe. If we had limited intellectual capabilities as well, we would be living a lifestyle not very far removed from our distant relatives of the simian family. The Universe we can perceive with our senses and limited intellectual capabilities is the Universe of legend and myth. The precision of our understanding is directly related to the sophistication of the physical extensions of our senses. Technological invention gives Human Beings the opportunity to seek a nearly unlimited understanding of the Universe. The Human ability to create the physical extension of our intellectual capabilities is the primary force behind the domination of our species on this planet. The biological processes that have given rise to the complex forms of life on this planet are not capable of making large scale physical changes on short time scales.
Human Beings are very limited in sensory capabilities, but it is not our sensory capabilities that have made us the most successful species on the planet. It is the nearly unlimited potential of our intellectual and imaginative capabilities that allow us to see the Universe with increasing accuracy. The ability to separate ourselves from our environment and therefore act on that environment is the fundamental reason for Human success. We manipulate our environment in such a way as to elicit a specific result from that manipulation. No other species on this planet shares this capability. Animals that are radically removed from their food sources or temperature range will perish because their biological structure cannot accommodate drastic change. Human Beings have lived and thrived in all the environmental extremes this planet has to offer. We are able to survive because of the ability to manipulate the environment to compensate for any biological deficiencies. The limit on our ability to alter the environment is totally dependent on our intellectual capabilities. We will not be able in the foreseeable future to alter our brain structure in any way to enhance its potential. We will continue manipulate the environment as the primary method of enhancing the survivability of Human Beings.
The process of effecting survivable change depends on our knowledge of the laws of the Universe. Errors in the understanding of the Universe will eventually result in our extinction. The methods we employ to gather knowledge of the Universe and prove our conjectures will become vital for our survival. To gather knowledge about the Universe, Human Beings use language and mathematics. These are both inventions of Human Beings that are superimposed on natural systems in order to extract the data necessary for knowledge. Language and mathematics are the vehicles for the transportation of knowledge. As with vehicles, such as trains, they have a limited capacity that determines how much they can carry. We use language as the most important vehicle for the exchange and acquisition of knowledge because it arose out of our biological predispositions. Language is a fundamental Human capability. Mathematics is not in our genetic heritage. It is extremely precise but requires a way of processing information that is outside of the Human genetic resources. Computers use the language of mathematics very effectively as communication because we built them that way. We cannot alter ourselves to use C++ rather than French or English. The continued success of Human Beings is validation of the utility of language. The gross Human failures of history are testament to its inadequacies. Human Beings depend on language for their understanding of our Universe. We use that understanding to act on our environment to ensure our survival. It is therefore an understanding of language that enables us to know what we know.
Knowledge is then the extent of accuracy with which the template of language and mathematics is able to define the Universe. The Universe would exist without the ability of Human Beings to describe it. Human Beings are a product of the sum total of all the physical laws of the Universe. When we impose our own system on the system of the Universe, however, it appears the other way around. The philosophical dispositions of many of the world’s major religious beliefs place Human Beings at a pivotal point in the process of the Universe. Christians, for example, believe the Universe was created exclusively for the Human species. The evidence we have now for our understanding of the Universe invalidates any such supposition. Yet, the world is inhabited with hundreds of millions of Human Beings aligned with Christian faiths. This kind of misunderstanding can be directly attributable to the use of language to define the Universe. As a conversation with most car salesmen in this country will illustrate, the use of language carries great potential for inaccuracy.
As language becomes increasingly complex, it must become increasingly accurate in its usage. Our understanding of the Universe has become increasingly accurate and from our point of view, increasingly complex. Language can be used at nearly every level of complexity encountered by Human Beings. It can also be manipulated to create new meanings from old ones to facilitate the expression of a new concept. An incomplete understanding of the intricacies of Human language results in incomplete understandings. The Scientific community does not explain a concept in the same terms to the scientist as it does to the community at large. The concept presented to the community at large is less precise to convey at least a basic understanding of a concept. The original concept is understood differently because of the variations in the capability to understand its most precise meaning. Partial understanding is not understanding. Successful use of language as a means of communication depends on its mastery by Human Beings. The inaccuracies we experience in daily life with language are the result of the failure of Human society to fully intellectually grasp and use the complex description of the Universe we create using language. The best hope for truth is in the accurate use of the facility of language.
The nature of knowledge is defined through its medium of expression. Human Beings use language, mathematics, and art to express their knowledge of the Universe. Some knowledge is absolute as far as Human Beings can be absolutely sure of anything. The mass-energy equivalency of Einstein's famous equation is absolute as far as our experience can determine. The Earth revolves around the Sun every three hundred sixty-five and one-quarter days. I could be more accurate, but that is not the purpose of this discussion. What we refer to as facts are merely our best approximations of reality at the time. In order to survive, we act on our environment with the facts as we know them. The difference between our expectations of the future results of our actions and the actual results of our actions is the accuracy of our knowledge. Human knowledge is proven through prediction of results and measurement of reality. There will always exist for Human Beings a measure of inaccuracy. This degree of inaccuracy depends on the accuracy of Human comprehension of the Universe. The best accuracies are obtained with the scientific methods of investigation.
The use of the scientific method of investigation to understand the Universe is usually too tedious for Human Being to use in their daily lives. To find the pathogen for a disease or send a spacecraft to the outer planets, the scientific method cannot be replaced. It is a matter of the degree of accuracy needed to perform a task.
The accuracy needed for creating an efficient system of transportation for a large country is not as great as for intraocular surgery. Energy is still abundant enough that a certain level of inefficiency will not seriously impede the economic progress of that nation. This is the perception and it is false. Energy on this planet is limited and its cost will continue to rise in the absence of a fundamental insight into the nature of the Universe. I am, of course, projecting into the future of a planet with a large and growing population of Human Beings. There are no forecasts for a depletion of energy resources in this year, the next, or in the next decade. Human survival will be dependent on the energy resources of this planet as long as there is a civilized population of the Human species. Short-term energy inefficiency is a very substantial long-term problem for the survival of Human Beings. The survival strategy of our species must be able to accommodate the long term as well as the short-term problems to be solved. The costs involved with energy efficiency are incurred mostly by a change in the ways tasks are physically accomplished. The benefits are not physically accessible. The current system operates without change because without physical support for change, intellectual forecasting is considered unreliable. Our ability to forecast the future is in question because Human Beings generally do not understand the nature of knowledge and is therefore unprepared to act on its prognostications. No knowledge is black or white despite our efforts to create such a dichotomy. We live and must act on the future with the greatest probability for success. By employing a system of black and white knowledge, we eliminate the possibility for revision that is necessary when the inherent inaccuracies of prediction arise. With an understanding that knowledge is based on probability rather than certainty, the revisions that will be necessary will be anticipated and enlightening.
It is through the interpretation of the Universe with a template of dogma that we run the greatest risk in our ability to survive. Scientists do not change their minds because they cannot be positive in the first place. The possibility of error is an aspect of all knowledge. Whether it is a Buddhist monk or a rocket scientist, Human Beings are born with nearly identical means of gathering information from their environment. The only information that has any value for our survival is that information that can be empirically verified and successfully predict the future. It is in this way that Human Beings can increase the potential for survival by making use of a continually updated and increasingly accurate body of knowledge.
Human Beings are generally not acquainted with or practice the scientific method for gathering knowledge about the Universe. The use of the scientific method may have provided the technological wealth of modern societies but it does not rule the intellectual processes of political or religious leaders. Every Human Being on this planet has entered into a society that is based on traditions of thinking thousands of years old. The scientific method has only been in widespread use a few hundred years. The way we act and the way in which we think, are taught to us by Human Beings who are themselves educated by very similar means. Authority does not lend itself to radical change in the context of most societies. The retention of power within a collective depends for the most part on maintenance of the status quo. This is not a problem in societies in which the technological and intellectual progress is relatively slow. This has been the case for well over ninety per cent of the history of Human civilization. Human Beings born at the beginning of this century had no experience with powered flight. Seventy years later, Human Beings were regularly orbiting the earth and more than several had landed on the surface of the Moon. Yet the fundamental skills and rules of behavior taught to children have changed very little by comparison. Human Beings, like all animals, are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors and viewpoints of their environment. Human Beings are also genetically predisposed for learning. Language is a method for learning the particularly Human perspective on the Universe. Social structure determines what is taught about the Universe. The increased accuracy with which we manipulate the physical Universe has not been translated effectively into the context of Human collectives. Atoms and molecules do not represent a power structure that must be obliterated in order to establish a more precise understanding of the Universe. Science has in the past and at the present time continues to meet violent opposition to ideas and concepts that threaten the perpetuation of the current authority. Both authority and power are derived from the social context. In this context the truth is not nearly as important as what is perceived as the truth. Human Beings who seek authority in such a context do so for very Human motivations. Perpetuation of that authority depends not on the transitory knowledge accrued through scientific investigation, but through the repetition of the dogma through which authority was first obtained.
Human Beings live at this time with the mapping of the Human genome as well as astrological forecasts in our daily lives. This is the result of the historical baggage accrued over the centuries by Human civilizations. Customs and traditional beliefs are difficult to remove from collective consciousness because they represent and reinforce the common identity of a group of people. Human Beings believe in astrological forecasts not because they have found it to be an effective prognosticator, but because they have inherited certain concepts about the nature of the Universe that are fundamentally false. Human Beings believe in an afterlife because they have been taught to believe that way. There can be no other explanation. There is no physical evidence for an afterlife, visitors from another planet, or an accurate astrological forecast. The traditional logic of a religious belief system is not discovered, but acquired through the rote memorization of scripture. Human Beings without any contact with the various modern civilizations do not acquire any civilized religious systems. The truths espoused by various religious systems are truths only in the context of a dictatorship of intellect.
The traditional beliefs of a collective remain fairly constant over the centuries. The dominant religious system will be taught as truth to the majority of Human children within a collective. These children will then pass this belief system on to their children and so on. This applies not only to religious beliefs but to social custom and the rules of behavior as well. Human Beings have been educated and continue to educate their children through intellectual submission. We teach not the possible variations of Human knowledge but a selected frame of reference with which to perpetuate commonly held belief systems.
The various religious, astrological, political and social institutions arose out of the ashes of previously failed institutions. Previous systems had to be destroyed in order to be replaced by a new set of doctrine. The dogma contained in these systems cannot include precepts from previous systems. Dogma is exclusive and righteous in the certainty of its conclusions. A change to a religious or governmental system based on the scientific method would not theoretically require any alteration to the previously existing system, although in practice it would, without a doubt, entail change of no small degree. To create rules of behavior for Human Beings that rely exclusively on empirical evidence and logic would severely disrupt any current society. The disruption of a collective would arise from the redistribution of power. Where would the power of decision reside in such a system? It would be impossible to say at this time because there is no such system in place. There exists not even a semblance of such a system. Such a system cannot be created within the current popular understanding of the Universe. Change does not occur in the absence of knowledge. The majority of Human Beings on this planet would be able to describe the Universe. This is a concept that we have been taught. Very few people would be able to justify or explain how the Universe works. People can use computers without understanding how they work. They can also use mythology or dogma without an explanation of the reasoning behind it. Change does not evolve from this intellectual predisposition because change can only arise form understanding. It is possible to alter scientific theory because its foundational logic and evidence are accessible to understanding. When a concept is taken as a matter of faith, or as a matter of course, it is without the foundation of understanding that would permit alteration. Societies, religions and traditions resist alteration by Human Beings due to the inherent inconclusiveness of dogma. Human Beings do not regularly change the fabric of a collective because they do not understand exactly how it works. Any alteration might prove to be catastrophic, or perhaps beneficial. Understanding in science can arise out of experiments that did not include in their design a confirmation of the current paradigms. This leads not to confusion but to a more accurate understanding because the system being studied is both rational and universal. Experiments on Human collectives may not always yield to a more accurate understanding of the system. Human Beings act collectively and individually on information and rules of behavior that are based on dogma rather than empirical evidence. Until such a time when Human Beings are not taught knowledge, but the means to acquire knowledge, the process of change will remain a game of chance.
The successful Human collective will be able to set as one of its foundational premises the scientific method for the acquisition of knowledge about the Universe. The current methods for making decisions on the future survival of Human Beings will eventually result in the extinction of our species. The current system of nation-states depends on political rather than rational means for making the decisions that decide the future survivability of the Human species. The current decisions are made in order to support the current political power base. This may or may not result in action that will advance the cause of survival. The extent to which the decisions made by political leaders affect our future is not a goal of those decisions. The political institutions of this planet have evolved to meet the temporal and short-term needs of the collective. Survival is not a problem in the economically advanced countries at this time and it is not addressed by political leaders. The primary concerns of Human Beings lie not in the accessible future but in the time reference of the Human life span. The primary concern of Human Beings within a collective at this time is economic prosperity. The economic status of a collective determines the amenities with which Human Beings conduct their lives. The results of the policies of government in this area are easily accessed and represent timely and physical measurements of an individual's prosperity. The matters of survival are relatively ambiguous and can only exist within the province of Human imagination. It is difficult to appreciate the future difficulties of the Human species when the present situation employs all available resources in the quest for a higher standard of living. The current political, religious, and economic systems will eventually erode the possibility for the extended survival of Human Beings. The current system meets political goals that may not include the prosperity of Human Beings.
The United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, and China all have built the weapons and delivery systems that would gravely endanger Human survival at the cost of political expediency. The risk associated with the nuclear arsenals is far greater than any potential benefit to Human Beings. They exist, along with innumerable other public policies in the support of a political system whose only justification is popular consent. The only reasonable goal for any institution of government is the long-term prosperity and survival of the Human species. Without the assertion of this fundamental premise within the world collective, the probability of survival and prosperity for Human Beings is assigned to the vagaries of chance.
The individuals who compose the constituency of any collective are responsible for the decisions made by the representatives of that collective independent of the style of the political system. This responsibility is not taken up by the individual members. Rather, it is a function that is included in an individual's participation in any collective. The degree to which an individual participates in the political decisions of a collective is not indicative of the level of influence. Individuals who do not participate in the political process can, through the impact of their numbers, indirectly but profoundly influence the decision making process. A large, inactive constituency exerts its influence by creating a vacuum of power that is filled by groups that are more active and adamant in their desire to affect political decisions. Human collectives can be controlled by oligarchies only in the presence of a large percentage of the constituency who are politically benign. The decisions that are made are made with the sole benefit of the members of the oligarchy as the primary goal. Dictatorships and their accompanying oligarchies eventually fail under the burden of misplaced priorities. A collective that exists for the creation of wealth for a small group of people cannot sustain the cooperation or the incentive necessary to increase the standard of living. Human Beings will not create higher standards of living without the reward of those higher standards. There is no impetus to succeed without a possibility of success. The members of any collective exert an influence through simple membership as well as through active participation.
A plurality of political activity does not solve the problem of the propensity of governments to make illogical decisions. In the current active democracies the plurality of input into the decision-making process results in an atmosphere of compromise rather than conclusion. The decisions made in democracies around the world are still tied to the expediency of political compromise. Democracies rarely act in a decisive manner unless it involves a crisis that requires immediate action. Democracies assure that a single point of view does not dominate the decisions made for the collective. It does not assure that the best possible decisions are being made. Democracies or dictatorships employ political power to stay in power and to make decisions. The decisions made in a democracy are more complicated but arise out of the same fundamental leanings for the acquisition and perpetuation of political power. The use of empirical evidence and reason to make the decisions for a collective will not happen until the power associated with such decisions is rendered moot.
The type and effectiveness of decisions made for a collective depends on the interactive status of all its constituents. The ability to employ the scientific method to arrive at the best possible solutions depends on the comprehension and literacy of the scientific method by the entire population. In this country at this time there are roughly ten times as many astrologers as astronomers. The largest selling periodicals regularly run lead stories of UFO landings or impossible permutations of the Human genome. The majority of its population is scientifically illiterate in this society. In a democracy the scientifically illiterate are endowed with the same propensity for power as the scientifically literate members of the population. As in the case of political power, every member of society exerts an influence whether or not that influence is participatory. The solution is not to exclude the illiterate from power but rather to create a larger base of literacy that will mitigate the effects of a partially illiterate constituency.
Political power in this country has its source in the electoral process. We do not elect astronomers to the United States Senate because they do not seek political power. We elect politicians to political office because politicians seek power. They are able to convince the majority of voters that their ability to make decisions exceeds that of their opponent. It is the ability of the voters to make an informed decision that decides the accuracy of decisions made at the government level. I would doubt if anyone in this country believed that the Human Beings making decisions for the collective are making the best possible choices. Various public opinion polls reveal a substantial percentage of the population think the government policies are in serious error. Advocacy in this country rarely exceeds seventy per cent. This country will not have the best possible solutions until a majority of the voting public is familiar with the means by which the best possible solution is obtained.
The process for creating a scientifically literate collective starts with the things we teach our children about the Universe. The most important lesson for any Human Being is how we are able to arrive at knowledge. An understanding of the scientific method and the democratization of knowledge through unrestricted access to information are sufficient to any inquiry. The rote memorization of a previous generation's concept of the Universe does little to develop a rational intellectual process. Teaching Human Beings how to think is immeasurably more valuable than teaching them what to think. The former exploits the resource of the Human intellect and the latter uses that resource as a form of memory storage. The use of Human Beings as units of memory storage was a valid concept throughout nearly all of Human history. The invention of writing, and more importantly of printing, voids the perpetuation of using Human intellect to recall the advances of previous generations.
The Human capability to exploit the environment to ensure our own survival rises from our ability to explore our surroundings, gather information, and project into the future the possible consequences of Human intervention. It is not an accident of history that the pace of technological innovation of the past few hundred years has outpaced any other historical perspective. The progress we have made is a result of the inherent invention of the scientific method. This is currently the most accurate means through which Human Beings can obtain knowledge. Unfortunately, it is almost exclusively practiced by the scientific community. It is the very nature of science that demands that evidence be empirical and that experiments can be duplicated. Science provides proof to ensure that the next step taken on a particular path of insight leads to a increasingly accurate understanding. The most accurate possible understanding of the Universe is the goal of scientific investigation. Human collectives do not share this goal. Human Beings within the context of a collective strive for temporal success. It is an understanding of the Universe, not the accumulation of wealth that will guarantee the continued survival of the Human species.
I have stressed the importance of Human survival throughout this book not only because of its fundamental importance to Human civilization, but also in respect to the recent events and evidence that have presented a foreboding vision of the future. The current methods for making the decisions that affect the world collective may ensure the survival of Human Beings, but it only does so by continuing to pursue political goals. Global political policies will not change unless it is accompanied by a comprehensive reversal of the perceptions of the Human population. Human Beings acting either passively or aggressively support the legitimacy of the current system through their membership in the world collective. The foremost concern with the current political system is the absence of any concerted effort to control the rate of population growth. Population growth in economically advanced Western nations has declined with the advent of higher standards of living and the move from an indusrtial based economy to an information based economy. Large families are perceived as a liability to the standard of living in industrialized nations. Less industrialized and more agriculturally based nations require the resource of Human labor provide economic growth. The Third World countries are responsible for the majority of Human population growth on this planet. They are playing the economic game in the same way that the more advanced nations played the game one or two centuries ago. The rules of economics have changed very little in that time. The condition of the world economic system has changed radically.
There were no protests when the United States was destroying millions of acres of temperate forests and conducting despeciation of the North American continent to satisfy the needs of an expanding population. The nation of Brazil is under continuing international pressure to halt the expansion of their population into the vast rain forests of that country. The reason for this opposition is that the Third World contains much of the remainder of the easily exploited resources of this planet. Brazil does not have the wealth to acquire the resources of other nations to create a higher standard of living. Brazil will continue its expansion into the tropical rain forests under its control, albeit at a reduced pace, in order to create wealth in the current economic system. The population growth of Brazil and many other Third World nations will continue until they reach a comfortable level of industrialization or until the resources for sustaining Human life can no longer expand to meet the growing demand. Until either of these situations come to pass there will be little motivation under the current system to control population growth. The prognosis is for an eventual collapse of the ability of the local ecosystem to provide the resources necessary to sustain Human life at modern standards. Population growth is not aggressively addressed because it is an aspect of the global economic system. Population growth is the source of exacerbation from which economic, environmental, and sociological problems become a threat to the modern standard of living.
Human Beings living in Third world countries have a standard of living relatively lower than Human Beings living in industrialized countries do. They way in which we currently use the resources of this planet, those resources would not be sufficient to raise the standard of living of the Third World nations to that of the industrialized nations. The growing population on this planet will require either the development of new resources or an increasingly efficient use of the available resources. It is not in the fabric of the current economic system to create an arrangement for the equitable distribution of resources. Everything in this system has a cost. Relatively rich nations are able to acquire these resources through the economic system. Relatively poor nations are unable to purchase the resources necessary for an industrialized standard of living and thus remain in a continual state of poverty. There are currently about one billion two hundred million Human Beings living in the industrialized nations. Not all of these Human Beings enjoy the high standard of living associated with these societies. It would not be unreasonable to believe that this planet could support around two billion Human Beings at the level of comfort experienced by most of the people in the industrialized countries. Unfortunately, there are around three times that many people on this planet.
The efficient use of resources is not a priority until the particular resource becomes scarce. This is the market function of the economic system. This economic premise depends on the replacement of a scarce resource by a resource that is relatively less scarce. Human Beings in this century have developed a system of civilization that requires enormous amounts of hot water. Very hot water is essential for the survival of Human civilization on this planet. Hot water, or steam, spins the magnetic field lines on generators to induce a current of electricity. It would be impossible to inhabit any large office building without electricity. It would be impossible to support any current society without electricity. All lines of communication and official public records and private records would be useless without electricity. Modern Human societies are as dependent on electricity as they are on the food that sustains our metabolism. The energy used in the production of electricity relies on finite resources of decayed and pressurized living organisms. These resources are not renewable in any period relative to the lifespan of Human Beings. The issue of energy is that Human civilization cannot exist without it and we are running out of it. Until our technological progress can create either renewable or inexhaustible resources of energy, we will be on a collision course with catastrophe. I will personally not be alive to witness this catastrophe if it occurs. We have enough fossil fuel reserves to maintain our current standard of living for at least several, perhaps a half dozen decades at the current levels of consumption. The exact time of a global brownout cannot be exactly determined. The fossil fuel resources of this planet are difficult to retrieve and equally difficult to assess. If one of the larger Third World nations should rise to the standard of living of the industrialized nations it would create an extra draw on those resources. The continuing rise in Human population will extract an undetermined energy toll depending on the actual numerical increase. The situation in which Human Beings find themselves at this time is that Human civilization depends on the limited resources of fossil fuels for which there is currently no substitute.
The logical inclination at this time would be to conserve the current reserves of fossil fuels until such a time, as we are able to develop an acceptable alternative. At this time, we have the technology to conserve a sizable percentage of our consumption through efficiency. We do not do so because it is not economically or politically justified. It would be difficult to convince the majority of members of any nation that we should be responding to a crisis that might develop in sixty years. The vast majority of Human Beings on this planet do not have a firm intellectual grasp on the decision making process which would lead to the action of conservation of resources. It would require an act of faith to acquiesce to decisions made by any intellectual authority without an understanding of the process by which those decisions are reached. Human Beings utilize faith in respect to God, not scientists. Scientists are fallible, God is not. It is not economically justifiable to conserve because the value of fossil fuels has not risen to exceed current substitutes. The price of energy has risen to be relatively more expensive than it was a few decades ago. If the price of energy should exceed a certain value which is prohibitive to economic growth, the standard of living will fall in relation to the economic decline in productivity. It is the exponential rise in population and thus in the expenditure of limited resources that has placed Human civilization in a position in which our destiny depends on hot water.
Human civilization will be required to develop a sustainable form of energy within the next century. If this goal proves unattainable, the resulting scarcity of energy resources will create a reduction in the standard of living for all countries. The current system of nation-states would exacerbate the current system of problem solving between nations. Not only energy, but food, water, wood and mineral resources may eventually become scarce though their consumption by an exponentially increasing Human population. The distribution of resources around the planet will continue to be random and inequitable. The United States and most industrialized nations have invested in and continue to invest in weapons of formidable destructive power. Only the circumstances at the time of severe shortages will tell at what point the war will be initiated for the acquisition of natural resources. The economic and political systems have short-term perspectives. Decisive action is not taken to prevent a crisis but rather at the moment of crisis. At the moment of crisis, the action taken is unilaterally supported because the situation has degraded to point of few alternatives. At this time, Human civilization is not in either an ecological or economic crisis situation in the industrialized countries. At this time, we are unable to predict with certainty the time or degree of catastrophe that will result from the exponential growth of Human population. This is the nature of Human knowledge. We must act on the best information possible and be prepared to alter our actions based on more precise information. Crisis management is not the intellectual tool with which to solve the future problems of Human civilization.

One of the most prevalent tools in crisis management among nations has been war. Wars have been and continue to be fought for physical resources. These wars have been fought for the most part to expand the boundaries and wealth of an aggressor nation. There have been no historically recent wars fought for simple survival. Military strength in this situation would be the ultimate arbitrator of the distribution of resources. The nation-states of this planet are not in cooperation to distribute wealth amongst its members. Nation-states compete against each other for the accumulation of wealth. At this time, the economic and political rules of the game are, for the most part, adhered to with sufficient compliancy to prevent a collapse of the system. The rules for nation-states as well as for Human Beings can and will be violated by a perception that the violation is justified on individual circumstances. The rule of physical force can only be repealed through the use of physical force. Nation-states competing militarily for scarce resources will not advance the cause of Human civilization. The enormous destructive force of nuclear weapons coupled with the penetrability and accuracy of their delivery systems promises to make the next international conflict a test of our intellectual capability to survive. Our technological capabilities may yet save us from the possibility of a Human civilization struggling for survival. It is not our technological, but our intellectual resources, which will allow us to succeed as a species on this planet.
There is some speculation that fears of environmental collapse or of resource depletion are unwarranted. The suggestion is that this planet will be able to sustain a Human population double its current size. The environmental and technological difficulties will be overcome through the inventive powers of the Human species. This does not appear to be an unreasonable hypothesis at this time from the perspective of the advanced industrialized nations. The standard of living is at perhaps its highest point in Human history. The majority of Human Beings on this planet do not live in industrialized Western nations. The majority of Human Beings on this planet are not enjoying the highest possible standard of living. If we rely on our ability to manipulate the structure of the Universe to ensure our survival, it would be prudent to have a more complete understanding of that Universe. Our knowledge of the Universe at this time is unable to solve the problems of an unlimited non-polluting source of energy, Human disease and aging, despeciation, or toxic waste disposal, to name a few. While our understanding of the Universe is profound relative to our experience, it is minute relative to what we must know. To delegate the future of the Human species to an unforeseeable enlightenment is to assign an unknown risk to our survival. I would suggest that until the entire population of this planet can enjoy a standard of living equal to that of the advanced industrialized nations that our motivations and capacity for invention leaves much to be desired.
It is the intellectual resources of Human Beings that give us the flexibility to alter our environment and write cosmologies. Human Beings are not the only complicated forms of life on this planet. We are the only life forms endowed with the ability to comprehend the Universe separately from sensual experience. We have been able to build on knowledge that traverses the Human life span using language. Language is the template of the Universe of Human knowledge. It is a degree of accuracy that is no greater than our understanding of the Universe. When language is corrupt, or imprecise, the ideas language represents are equally corrupted and imprecise. Any understanding of the Universe begins with an understanding of how and to what degree Human Beings are able to comprehend the Universe. Language and mathematics can describe the Universe only with the precision with which we can use them. Human knowledge is as much a description of ourselves as the Universe we inhabit.
We live on a planet circling a large mass of hydrogen gas compressed through the force of gravity to release energy through the fusion of the element hydrogen into the element helium. This energy has driven the chemical reactions on this planet for approximately four and a half billion terrestrial rotations. The entropy of the Universe is increasing on macroscopic as well as microscopic scale. The Earth's orbit around the Sun placed it in a very favorable position to both retain the necessary elements and compounds that would eventually promote the formation of life. Life has been on this planet for approximately three and a half billion years. It is only recently in the life history of this planet that life forms have achieved their present level of complexity and diversity. Human Beings are one of the end products of an extremely long and complicated series of evolutionary events that has lead to emergence in our present form. While we can describe arithmetically the amount of time that has passed since the Earth's formation, we are unable to cognitively comprehend such time scales. The evidence is incontrovertible that Human Beings do exist and that the physical laws of the Universe in no way prohibit our existence based on the current state of understanding.
As with time, space has a dimension beyond our comprehension. Our solar system is in the outer arm of a spiral galaxy moving at great speed away from billions of other galaxies in the Universe. As the atom is incomprehensibly small to Human Beings, the Universe is incomprehensibly large from our perspective. The numbers we assign to the size of an atom or to the boundaries of the Universe give us a relative rather than an absolute determination of our place in the Cosmos. The instructions for running the Universe and the matter that describes the physical Universe comes to us completely assembled. The particles and the laws that govern their action are intertwined to produce the Universe. Every action of an atom on this planet obeys the same rules as atoms in the heart of a Quasar five billion light years distant. It is this consistency that allows us to, on a basic level, to alter our environment. On a very complex level, it allows us to collect the evidence that has brought Human Beings to their current level of understanding.
The accuracy of our understanding at this time is a reflection of our ability to invent a concept, which probes the structure of the Universe in a meaningful manner. The most meaningful application of this understanding is in the survival of the Human species. This survival will entail an understanding of more completeness as the physical challenges to our survival become more arduous. Human survival is dependent on an accurate understanding of the Universe and us. The Universe is mute in respect to the fate of Human Beings or any other life form or collection of molecules. We are made up of the constituents of the cosmic material and we are a result of the physical interactions of that material. The ability to reshape and transform this planet must eventually extend to us. Human Beings are more complex than the greatest achievement of our minds and hands. The genetic endowment of Human Beings is finite in its ability to comprehend the Universe. The ability to create alternatives to our genetic restrictions is nearly limitless. This is the reason why Human Beings are the dominant species on this planet. This is the reason we can continually create an environment that will continually advance the aspirations of Human beings beyond our inherent abilities. This is the best hope for the Human species.

The Brass Swan Cosmology