Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPolitical 'Science' and Truth of Consequences
[This article is excerpted from Norman Solomon's new book "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."]
Contempt for the empirical that can't be readily jiggered or spun is evident at the top of the executive branch in Washington. The country is mired in a discourse that echoes the Scopes trial dramatized in "Inherit the Wind." Mere rationality would mean lining up on the side of "science" against the modern yahoos and political panderers waving the flag of social conservatism. (At the same time that scientific Darwinism is under renewed assault, a de facto alliance between religious fundamentalists and profit-devout corporatists has moved the country further into social Darwinism that aims to disassemble the welfare state.) Entrenched opposition to stem-cell research is part of a grim pattern that includes complacency about severe pollution and global warming -- disastrous trends already dragging one species after another to the brink of extinction and beyond.
Disdain for "science" is cause for political concern. Yet few Americans and no major political forces are "antiscience" across the board. The ongoing prerogative is to pick and choose. Those concerned about the ravages left by scientific civilization -- the combustion engine, chemicals, fossil-fuel plants, and so much more -- frequently look to science for evidence and solutions. Those least concerned about the Earth's ecology are apt to be the greatest enthusiasts for science in the service of unfettered commerce or the Pentagon, which always seeks the most effectively "advanced" scientific know-how. Even the most avowedly faithful are not inclined to leave the implementation of His plan to unscientific chance.
So, depending on the circumstances, right-wing fundamentalists could support the use of the latest science for top-of-the-line surveillance, for command and control, and for overall warfare -- or could dismiss unwelcome scientific evidence of environmental harm as ideologically driven conclusions that should not be allowed to interfere with divinely inspired policies. Those kinds of maneuvers, George Orwell wrote in "1984," help the believers "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies."
In the first years of the twenty-first century, the liberal script hailed science as an urgent antidote to Bush-like irrationality. That was logical. But it was also ironic and ultimately unpersuasive. Pure allegiance to science exists least of all in the political domain; scientific findings are usually filtered by power, self-interest, and ideology. For instance, the technical and ecological advantages of mass transit have long been clear; yet foremost engineering minds are deployed to the task of building better SUVs. And there has never been any question that nuclear weapons are bad for the Earth and the future of humanity, but no one ever condemns the continuing development of nuclear weapons as a bipartisan assault on science. On the contrary, the nonstop R & D efforts for thermonuclear weapons are all about science.
When scientists found rapid climate change to be both extremely ominous and attributable to the proliferation of certain technologies, the media and political power centers responded to the data by doing as they wished. The GOP's assault on science was cause for huge alarm when applied to the matter of global warming, but the unchallenged across-the-aisle embrace of science in the weaponry field had never been benign. When it came to designing and manufacturing the latest doomsday devices, only the most rigorous scientists need apply. And no room would be left for "intelligent design" as per the will of God.
The neutrality of science was self-evident and illusionary. Science was impartial because its discoveries were verifiable and accurate -- but science was also, through funding and government direction, largely held captive. Its massively destructive capabilities were often seen as stupendous assets. In the case of ultramodern American armaments, the worse they got the better they got. Whatever could be said about "the market," it was skewed by the buyers; the Pentagon's routine spending made the nation's budget for alternative fuels or eco-friendly technologies look like a pittance.
We're social beings, as evolution seems to substantiate. Blessings and curses revolve largely around the loving and the warlike, the nurturing and the predatory. We're self-protective for survival, yet we also have "conscience" -- what Darwin described as the characteristic that most distinguishes human beings from other animals. Given the strength of our instincts for individual and small-group survival, we seem to be stingy with more far-reaching conscience.
Our capacities to take humane action are as distinctive of our species as conscience, and no more truly reliable. As people, we are consequences and we also cause them: by what we choose to do and not do. The beneficiaries of economic and military savagery are far from the combat zones. In annual reports, the Pentagon's prime contractors give an overview of the vast financial rewards for shrewdly making a killing. To surrender the political battlefield to such forces is to self-marginalize and leave more space for those who thrive on plunder.
The inseparable bond of life and death should be healthy antipathy.
**********
We've had no way of really knowing how near annihilation might be. But our lives have flashed with scarcely believable human-made lightning -- the evidence of things truly obscene, of officialdom gone mad -- photos and footage of mushroom clouds, and routinely set-aside descriptions starting with Hiroshima. Waiting on the nuclear thunder.
Five decades after Sputnik, such apocalyptic dangers are still present, but from Americans in my generation the most articulated fears have to do with running out of money before breath. The USA is certainly no place to be old, sick, and low on funds. Huge medical bills and hazards of second-class care loom ahead. For people whose childhoods fell between victory over Japan and evacuation from Saigon, the twenty-first century has brought the time-honored and perfectly understandable quest to avoid dying before necessary -- and to avoid living final years or seeing loved ones living final years in misery. Under such circumstances, self obsession may seem unavoidable.
There must be better options. But they're apt to be obscured, most of all, by our own over-scheduled passivity; by who we figure we are, who we've allowed ourselves to become. The very word "options" is likely to have a consumer ring to it (extras on a new car, clauses in a contract). We buy in and consume, mostly selecting from prefab choices -- even though, looking back, the best of life's changes have usually come from creating options instead of choosing from the ones in stock.
When, in 1969, biologist George Wald said that "we are under repeated pressure to accept things that are presented to us as settled -- decisions that have been made," the comment had everything to do with his observation that "our government has become preoccupied with death, with the business of killing and being killed." The curtailing of our own sense of real options is a concentric process, encircling our personal lives and our sense of community, national purpose, and global possibilities; circumscribing the ways that we, and the world around us, might change. Four decades after Wald's anguished speech "A Generation in Search of a Future," many of the accepted "facts of life" are still "facts of death" -- blotting out horizons, stunting imaginations, holding tongues, limiting capacities to nurture or defend life. We are still in search of a future.
**********
And we're brought up short by the precious presence and unspeakable absence of love. "All of us know, whether or not we are able to admit it, that mirrors can only lie," James Baldwin wrote, "that death by drowning is all that awaits one there. It is for this reason that love is so desperately sought and so cunningly avoided. Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within." This love exists "not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth."
The freezing of love into small spaces, part of the numbing of America, proceeds in tandem with the warfare state. It's easier to not feel others' pain when we can't feel too much ourselves.
If we want a future that sustains life, we'd better create it ourselves.
Norman Solomon's new book "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" has just come off the press. For more information, go to: www.MadeLoveGotWar.com. The documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" is based on Norman Solomon's book of the same title. For information about the full-length movie, narrated by Sean Penn and produced by the Media Education Foundation, go to: www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org
45 Comments so far
Show AllDrat! I missed this intriguing debate of intrepid, enlightened minds,
My late comments for what they're worth (at least I'll get the last word!)
Religion is and always has been used by power hungry leaders as a form of control. It occurs to me what religion really is: Control of the weak minded. It had some redeeming value as a psychological comfort for the downtrodden and as a moral guidepost to prevent an individual from falling into the common perils of being human. So it has some social value, and has been a part of every society throughout recorded history.
Science, on the other hand IS nature. Science is merely the description of known reality. How men (politicians) choose to cherry pick it is another matter. If it is manipulated to render a preordained end result such as: the science of killing in war, or the science of torture, then it is still science, albeit not worthy of pursuit in such measure as to neglect everything else in the human world. Science never offers apologies, because it is never wrong. Only men's understanding of science is wrong.
This makes pure science the epitome of honesty; and religion the apex of deceit. If you want your species to survive in a form besides perpetual war, you want to keep your religion out of government, because religious holy wars are the very definition of extremism. Which is where we find ourselves today.
Separately,
I always find Sixrose's posts interesting. Reading her is like looking through a window back through the time of the ancients. Although astrology is considered by most to be junk science, it does not mean that the space-time fabric of matter and it's geometrical dance with alignment doesn't have some effect on our thinking. We know that the tides are affected by this dance. Is it impossible that cells in your brain are immune to this pull?
Remember science itself is never wrong, because that impressive body of knowledge is constantly being updated and changed. Mechanisms which exist such as El Nina weather patterns, which would have been ridiculed fifty years ago, are now understood to be part of previously invisible "complex systems" (which is now an established branch of science, e.g., "Conscilience" by Dr. Edmund O. Wilson) If there is life after death, a God watching over us (which I don't think likely) these things are actually part of the physical world too; they are science also; we just haven't gotten to the level of sophistication necessary to describe them (and maybe never will because we lack the tools to track vast subatomic particle behavior.)
Of course, to be useful, science must not be subject to the ravages of unchecked corporate capitalism or religious oppression. Take Indigenous medicine for example. The art of applying plant substances to illnesses is an alternative science stands in sharp contrast to the uncaring drug pushing of monster pharmaceuticals who worry not about suppressing dangerous side effects when they conflict with massive profit potential.
I 100% agree with treefrog, and do not think that this corp/gov has the wisdom to brandish and wield the mythic transmuter scepter: Who dares play God and makes us all the human guinea pigs based on a few years of frankenfoods and transgenetic poison released into the biosphere? When you gene splice pieces grabbed from opposite sides of the not only the phylum, but of plant/animal/spore worlds you are doing something that happens by chance in billions of years on a routine basis. Some scary chit man! So this is an inadvisable use of science and would never be permitted in a true democracy. But I agree also with dgoodin's passion for the process and discipline of science. God, how I love it. To dispassionately distill a problem down to its elemental parts and mechanisms and behaviors.... ahhhh. Is there any such beauty and harmony in all the world?
Science is truth. Whether you like what it is telling you or not. Whether you ask the wrong questions or not. The U.S. government usually asks the wrong questions IMHO, because it is contaminated by an self destructive employer: Greedy CEO's of oligopolies. What is to save us from these destroyers of worlds?
I submit, that as an evolutionary creature at the core lower function (and much older hippo) brain stem, you only have altruism and compassion for others if their suffering is vivid in your immediate visual world or memories. While this "in front of your eyes" empathy is possible with Chimps, only Man can extrapolate and extend it's consequences into the distant future.
This is why you don't want a chimp in an important decision making role. He can understand cause and effect that will benefit himself and his friends in the near future, but he cannot correlate that his destruction of the forest, and overpopulation will lead to misery for his offspring and to the end of the sustainable world for his species.
I would also submit, that your learned contributions to sights like commondreams is a evolutionary human capacity in itself for the altruistic fight for the survivability of those who will come after you. Lower animals, and shrubs, can only have compassion for their personal profits and lifespans. They apparently care not for even their offspring or the legacy they leave behind.
What a noble undertaking is such a thing as posting such great insights as yours above are. The subject matter is: how to save the world.
How intoxicating. Nothing else even comes close.
I thank you all for your truly spellbinding posts.
pac
(Lastly guys, at the risk of lecturing the mentors, please consider composing your responses in another text editor or word processor, and keep saving that file. Then copy it via the clipboard, or copy buffer into the CD discussion box. It is not fair to the world not post just because you lost the whole thing due to a technical error! We, the world viewers demand enlightenment! Cheers!)
Hi Treefrog:
I think this thread is about to disappear, or whatever it is that thread do when they're past a certain point, so this may be the last hurrah. I did want to reply to your points.
I agree completely that food safety and security, as well as ecosystem health services are crucial issues in the world right now. In fact, they always have been. This is one of the reasons I work in this field and one of the reasons I am rather passionate about it (maybe too much :) )
there has been a loss of biodiversity and humans have played a role in this. I think it started thousands of years ago and is continuing at an accelerating pace. I don't think this is due to any particular technology, and it's not entirely a bad thing, since some of the diversity lost has been replaced with life forms adapted to support people. Unfortunately this has also led to uncontrolled population growth, which I believe is at the root of many of our current problems. Climate change, land cover change, pollution, etc., are all symptoms, the ultimate problem may be overpopulation.
The fact that there are few incidents of problems with GE crops on the CDC website should be reassuring. If a food is not immediately toxic, there isn't really much chance for a long-term reaction (time window in this case would be post-metabolic reduction). Once a food is metabolized, it is reduced to constituent micro nutrients and amino acids. There is no more opportunity for them to be toxic. Regarding the case of the allergic reaction to GE corn, food allergies are extremely common things. Several people die each year due to reactions to peanuts. Not to discount the tragedy of a loss of life, but this is not adequate reason to ban GE of foods. If reactions to a particular crop were common, then that's a different story and that particular strain of crop should not be circulated. My colleagues and friends that developed the new strain of wheat did so under BSL-3 conditions -- high biological containment. This is required under federal research guidelines for recombinant DNA. This is doubly important because I live in Kansas, where damage to the wheatcrop could be an economic catastrophe. Once it was shown that the crops have no ill effect, they were transferred out of containment and can now be grown in greenhouses for further testing. It's a long process. In a way, it's like testing a new medicine. I am very much in favor of rigorous testing, but once those tests verify the safety of the crop, then I see no reason to worry further.
Which brings me to my last point -- the discussion we have had is from the perspective of two (presumably) citizens of developed, wealthy countries. We have food galore. This is not the case in most places. If people choose not to consume GE products, then that's their choice. But shouldn't we provide the opportunity to those who DO want to use these crops? In some cases, they may be the best hope for reduction of starvation, and this may become even more true as the climate changes and new environmental stresses come to bear on the current generation of crops. I hate war metaphors, but I would like to fight the battle against hunger with every weapon at our disposal. I agree with your point about proprietary ownership of crops. I am not in favor of the types of manipulations like our friends at Monsanto are doing. However, I go back to the example of the wheat strain developed here -- it was funded through a grant from the USDA (not a private company) and it is patented by the university and the developers. If they start a company and make a ton of money providing a useful strain of wheat to farmers who can make more food, then I say bravo! More power to 'em, as long as they provide it in an ethically sound way. It's the people that apply it and not the technology itself that determines the outcome of applying any innovation.
I hope we do not declare any moratorium on recombinant DNA research in the US. We have been down this road before -- there were attempts to limit genetic engineering way back in the '60s. However, even if we in the US choose to ban this research, it will not go away. The Indonesians have put tremendous resources into developing a biotech industry, including some of the best new PhDs from Europe. It may not matter what happens in the US -- the Indonesians are under no obligation to follow our laws. GE will be used -- I want it used well and for the right reasons.
Again, I'm not sure what will happen to this post but I will try to check back for your last words, if you want to reply. If not -- interesting discussion, thanks!
TREE FROG: Love your last paragraph above! Pure poetry! As per human beings mostly water, and that this element retains memory, those words fall into synch with the book I am currently editing. I began this project in l992! It was orignally held by a good publisher, but then passed on. I did the rewrite last year, and the edit is still underway. Its partial title is MOON DANCE and it explains why TIME is not "one size fits all," why days have moods, and how women in particular, clocked to the moon biologically as per their menstrual tides, FEEL the imprints of time. Three times in my life I shared my domicile with a man, and it was a great "mirror" that allowed me to see what I was projecting. I feel the changes when I live alone, but as the moon is yin and reflects the sun (yang) light, it is much easier for women to process their feelings and their changes that correspond with the spheres of time, if there is a man consistently in the picture. The moon also pulls the oceanic tides, and as you mentioned, we are about 70-75% water. Moon Dance explains the more subtle expressions of time as felt/experienced on the INSIDE. I am 75% done and will likely self-publish it. Every new amalgam I ever come up with merits this response from agents, "It's never been done!" If I manage to find something in print remotely LIKE my project, they do a 180 reversal and say (without any hint of irony), "You see it's already BEEN done!" FOLLY! But this witness to the "As above, so below" Divine equation labors on. Best wishes, Sioux
dgoodin
Ok then, I will give this another try. One point I would like to address is simply that the ramification of issues such as world hunger, food safety and security, species extinction, and agricultural productivity are profound and vital concerns. The second consideration is that I am not a scientist so this response is from an empirical stance that includes scientists. :o)
Here goes: The long term studies. There is the issue of functional equivalence whereby GE/GM are not required to be safety tested because they are considered equivalent to conventional crops. The problem with this is a reliance on individual cases. I recall the case where a man in Florida (a doctor) was exposed to GM corn that had been approved for animal use but contaminated our food supply. Most people would not identify symptoms of illness with something that they did not even know existed but the doctor did and had tests done. THe CDC has this report and it indicates an allergic reaction to GM corn.
There are studies (not long term) that have resulted in the removal of GM crops like potatoes and wheat,long term effects are unknown.
When I think of the implications of world hunger I am not reassured by this technology or industrial applications. After more than 40 years of industrialized farming that includes the use of pesticides, herbicides, and monocultures the implication for environmental hazard and public health risk warrent further examination of policies. There is a very good arguement here but I want to get some sleep tonight so and I will try to be brief for your sake as well.
There are significant levels of plant and animal species extinction due to the loss of diversity and human inaction with the environment. The Papaya is a good example, the banana is another. In this case there are people that will no longer eat papaya because it is GM so this actually creates a hunger or eliminates a food choice. Another example might be "golden rice".
The genetic modification of plants and animals is an industry. This industry is largely influenced by companies like Monsanto. I think three of the top positions at the EPA are filled by former Monsanto emloyees. I don't think you can take this company and others like them out of the equation with an expletive, but it's a nice thought.
As for case studies I remember searching the NIH site and was astounded by the absense of research. This issue will have to rest for the moment.
Thank you for your patience.
Treefrog
I'd be interested in your reply if you still want to post it. I'll check back later.
dgoodin
I just spent over an hour writing a response to your post and the information was lost due to a technical error on my part. I don't have time to re-write the information.
With the uncertainty that this is a viable thread or that you will be reading this I am resigned to make an apology for this late response. If there is a continuance of this discussion I would gladly revisit the discussion.
You raise some very good points for discussion and I regret the omission of a proper response.
Thanks dgoodin.
Balakirev:
Interesting points. I never really thought of science and technology as ever being unlinked, but I can see your point. Science (as an institution, not as a process) became powerful when it became wedded to technology and linked to the development of the state. It's been a bit of a Faustian bargain, no doubt about that. Amazing things have been accomplished, but so have terrible ones. I agree that it is ironic how the political right has become so adept at using the tools of technology to attack science.
SiouxRose:
Interesting thoughts, as always. As I said, I'm not really a person of faith. I don't really know if there are gods or godesses, and I choose not to believe (agnostic with atheistic leanings). I do like some aspects of the Buddhist's world-view, but in the end I subscribe to no faith. This does not mean I don't have a spiritual side. It amazes me (in a spiritual way) when I look at the night sky and realize that all the iron in my blood (and your blood, for that matter) was created some billions of years ago when one of those stars exploded. It amazes me further still when I think that the hydrogen in the water in my blood was created very shortly after the entire universe began, probably around 11 billion years ago. I have a good friend who teaches math at a Navajo college (he is Navajo, himself). We've talked a bit about religion and spirituality over the years. According to him, the ultimate goal of the Navajo afterlife is not to have one. In the Navajo view, the reward for a well-lived life is nothingness upon death. I myself believe that when we die, we are gone for good. No afterlife, no reincarnation. This used to cause me some despair, but I now realize that it is a marvelous way to give my life meaning. I believe that it's up to me to provide that meaning in my life, and I better not mess around because time is finite. Eventually, my atoms will be recycled, I hope in a way that sustains life into the future. Maybe that's an afterlife, after all?
Personal information will follow in an email.
This thread has been much more interesting than the usual CD threads.
I'll add my two bits.
Until recently, there was no difference in worldviews between the formally educated upper-classes and the general population.
The population, as a whole, believed in astrology, magic, ghosts, gods, etc. In other words, everyone shared a metaphysical view of the world.
In Western Europe, with the advent of the Enlightenment, the educated upper-classes began to presuppose physical explanations for natural (and supernatural) patterns of events.
During this intellectual transition, science also changed. This form of natural philosophy was transformed when its methods and presuppositions were applied to the physical world.
The key to this transformation of science was the marriage of technology and science.
Previously, technology was the domain of craftsmen who kept their power by keeping their technological knowledge to themselves through guild organizations.
At the same time, science was the domain of formally educated, upper-class philosophers.
With the birth of capitalist forms of industrialization, craftsmen and their monopoly over technology were torn asunder.
In turn, scientists found they could only expand their research and analysis of nature by innovating and applying new technologies.
Of course, both the state (mostly) and organized capital invested in a new institution that permanently established the technology/science marriage: the research and design lab.
However, the average European and much of the world, (did and) still believes and acts on their beliefs in astrology, magic, ghosts, shamans, and so forth.
In constrast, the European (ized) elite believed in technology and science. Of course, a portion of the elite did separate technology and science by equating the never expanding wonders of technology with magic. Thus denying its marriage to science.
It is this belief in technology as magic allows non-rationalist or irrational political parties to attract millions of less formally educated, lower-class followers. This common belief in magic is an elective affinity uniting both social classes.
An example of technology as magic (or religion) is when computer scientists advocate inputting an individual's whole personality (which is stored in the central nervous system) into the computer's memory chips. As a result, that individual will become immortal.
The U.S. is riven with people who deny science while pursuing its handmaiden -technology- as a religion or as magic.
And this belief has also allowed rightwing religious movements to produce, distribute their beliefs and political agenda and effectively organize to pursue them. They are masters of using the most modern technologies...to spread ideologies/political agendas that refute scientific theories.
Ironic!
However, these religious movements do block rationally analyzing society and it's institutions. In other words, these movements prevent discussions focusing on who does and does not benefit from how things are organized.
In turn, it prevents people from organizing around their common self-interests.
dgoodin
Some additional thoughts here on our relationship to food.
When I was a child I use to go out to the pasture to help my grandfather bring in his cows to be milked. The lead cow was a beautiful Jersey cow with big brown eyes and I use to ride on her back as we walk to the barn. When I visited my grandparents I had to see rosey too. I drank raw unpasturized milk and I am probably much healthier today because I had this advantage. The important point here is that there is a connection between all things. It is probably why I feel so sad when I see cows in milking lots standing in mud and feces up to thier knees, and udders so large they can hardly walk. Cows that never see a pasture (thier natural diet) or have thier babies with them instead of in a box where they are forced to stand 24/7.
As human beings we have evolved along with all the elements that we choose as nurishment. People see things differently whether it is the position of mars or the moon, the tide of the ocean or a leaky faucet. Water can heal and restore or it can be destructive and carry illness. It can tell time and has a memory. We are mostly water.
D GOODIN: When I resided in Puerto Rico, as a colorful American expatriot introduced to the elite community through photo-journalism work, I began to get my astrological columns published.
This led me into professional friendships with first a popular psychiatrist who sent several patients to me, so that the understanding of their birth charts (and how these were being impacted by current planetary cycles, known as transits) could help them recognize the lessons they faced. I had great success with this. Then he introduced me to his superior, who was the secretary for the department of mental health in P.R. We are still friends. I find Latins more open to esoteric subjects. The original psychiatrist and his superior are still in contact with me, and they are of a small ilk of people capable of understanding some of my books.
I lectured twice for MENSA and my topic the first time was, "How the intellect blocks the SPIRITUAL process."
I have a phD client who told me that she learned more from paying me to do the charts for all her family members, than YEARS of therapy.
Not all astrologers (same with doctors, scientists etc) are "created equal." Currently the psychic world is proliferating with a phenomenal number of self-proclaimed seers. I felt like Margaret Mead entering this zone to see what could be learned. It was an expensive experiment emotionally and financially. But in the final analysis, "Many are called and few are chosen" style, I would say about 5% have GENUINE psychic ability, and as for their capacity to read character, that can run high; but predicting ACTUAL events, unbelievably low returns! Better odds tossing a coin.
The "future" is always given to more than one probable play-out, therefore what astrologers do best I liken to a cosmic weather report. I can describe conditions. For instance, Mars is now in Cancer, and this position is known (especially when found in birth charts) to cause damage to property directly from water. Last night we had a terrifying lightning storm where I live. It makes one feel quite vulnerable, especially since shortly after I moved to this new modest home, persons were "air lifted" by tornado from their own beds and quickly deposited into a nearby lake to unsuspectingly breathe their last gasps. Having had the privilege of spending 10 days at a Buddhist monastery in Nepal, I certainly recognize the power of their teaching on the transitory nature of our human lives, the need to HONOR what time we are given, for we exist on the basis of IMPERMANENCE. Like the Buddhists, however, I subscribe to the notion that we are part of it all (the ubiquitous life stream) and just like the elements of nature that recycle, so do we... i.e. reincarnate. I could never understand why someone would argue for the limits of the body, presume that the answers to the great mysteries can be found in the extremities of flesh and its "shelf life." WE are so much more... a lesson I imparted to my dying father a year ago. I could elaborate forever on this subject, but as I mentioned, the work, MOON DANCE, waits...
D GOODIN: I have THREE books coming out and am busily editing a 4th, a seminal LIFE work that explains why women internally orb, and by that I mean experience dynamic mood cycles, with the moon. I figure this book would put me on the hit list of religious zealots and scientists, what an honor! Between editing this huge volume and reading CD and its often long streams of comments, and corresponding with friends via email, I just do not have time to read a study. I will make a note of it for some future leisure time. (I barely keep up on back copies of Harper's these days!)
If you do not wish to put your date, time and place of birth (hopefully you do know the time? As without that, my accuracy diminishes by about 25%) on this site, then feel free to email me at my email: Astrologo77@ yahoo.com.
We'll take it from there! Biking, alas, it's great. I wear a size 4 and I am past 50. Typical female, I like male attention and being in shape definitely provides that. I do Yoga and swim in the springs and require these outlets as the means to ward off the angst that comes with being a sensitive caring human being with eyes wide open in the face of enormous and ongoing calamities that one feels powerless to alter. In other words, this exercise regimen keeps me SANE.
Thanks for asking!
...And replies to SiouxRose
"I wonder if the astrological study you site only focused on SUN signs?"
Carlson's study used a panel of astrologers, they cast natal charts, their results did not deviate from chance. I can't tell you more beyond that. I would urge you to read the paper. The statistical analysis in it is a bit dense, so maybe read it with a statistician?
"I challenge YOU to send ME your full birth data and I will make an analysis. Then YOU decide if it really lacks insight into WHO you are."
I'm game! What do you need to know?
"I think you conflate genetic engineering with the old skill of plant hybridization."
Both are similar in that they change the genome of the organism. The main difference is the techniques used. Most non transgenic genetic modifications these days are accomplished by cloning, not selective breeding. But see my comments to TreeFrog for further thoughts on this topic.
"I avoid the sun thanks to ozone depletion and the probability of skin cancer spots"
So do I. The damage done to our ecosystems has been profound. However, we can't recover through wishful thinking, only through asking hard questions, conducting rigorous analysis, practising clear-eyed observation, and taking appropriate action
"Truth that cannot always be measured"
Truth can never be measured. Scientists don't necessarily seek truth, we seek fact. As Indiana Jones said "truth is in the philosophy department" :)
"so it's time for me to bike"
I hope it was a lovely ride!
Replies to TreeFrog:
"There are no long term studies that prove genetically engineered crops are safe for human consumption."
What do you mean by long term? What is your time window?
"In fact, there are studies that prove the opposite."
Please post a reference from the primary scientific literature to support this statement. The one case I can recall is the incidence of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome that occurred in several children on the 1980s. Subsequent evaluation of this incident showed that some of the tryptophan involved in the deaths(which was sold as a health food) was manufactured prior to the GE version being placed on the shelf, so placing the blame only on the GE foods is not tenable.
"GM or GE crops are proprietary and have done nothing to reduce hunger."
These are two separate and unrelated points. The first is not true -- I know of some GE foods that are in the public domain, including the 'FlavRSavr' tomato. The second may or may not be true, depending on how you look at it. If you've ever eaten a papaya from Hawaii and were hungry at the time, then GE foods have reduced hunger. All 'natural' papayas in Hawaii were killed by a virus -- only the GE varieties survived.
But to address your larger point; yes GE crops have not yet made a major impact on world hunger, because they haven't had a chance. I personally know people who have created a wheat variety that is resistant to wheat rust. If may increase yields by up to 15%. That would dent hunger a bit, wouldn't it?
"There is enough food to feed for everyone, hunger is the result of economic injustice."
True, but the only reason it's true is because technological advances (Hello Science!) have made it true. Unfortunately, we've reached the limits of what we can do with non transgenic GE (i.e. selective breeding and cloning). In the next 50-80 years, there will be 3 billion new people to feed. Right now, we produce about 108% of the needed calories to supply everyone with 2700 kcal/day. If we stay at current levels of production, or even improve incrementally, this becomes insufficient in about 2025. What then? Ask people not to be born? Also, remember that the climate is changing and land is under stress as never before. This means more disease, drought, etc., which means that the current generation of crops will not suffice. GE may be our only humane option, and I think we owe it to those people to use whatever tool is at our disposal. To do anything less is just wrong, in my opinion.
"GE crops create genetic pollution (think Canadian farmer that was sued by Monsanto) and have actually had the opposite effect in third world countries where the crops were so bad, poor farmers burned thier crops that they were actually forced to plant"
Pardon my French, but f*ck Monsanto. They abused biotech to their own ends, and I strongly disapprove of this type of behavior. Like I said before, science can be used by good people and by bad people, so don't blame the science, blame the people.
"Selective breeding is not an equivalent to transgenic experiments in a laboratory."
Yes it is, in the sense that they both result in a permanent alteration of the organisms genome.
Dgoodin
There are no long term studies that prove genetically engineered crops are safe for human consumption. In fact, there are studies that prove the opposite. GM or GE crops are proprietary and have done nothing to reduce hunger. There is enough food to feed for everyone, hunger is the result of economic injustice. GE crops create genetic pollution (think Canadian farmer that was sued by Monsanto) and have actually had the opposite effect in third world countries where the crops were so bad, poor farmers burned thier crops that they were actually forced to plant. GM crops along with the conformity of trade agreements are and will prevent the trade of any non-proprietary crops (think Iraq). Selective breeding is not an equivalent to transgenic experiments in a laboratory.
I would be happy to respond in detail, but not at this moment. I wonder if the astrological study you site only focused on SUN signs? I challenge YOU to send ME your full birth data and I will make an analysis. Then YOU decide if it really lacks insight into WHO you are.
I think you conflate genetic engineering with the old skill of plant hybridization. I have NO problem with it, so long as--which is the Frankestein issue of modern times--fish genes are not artificially melded to tomato genes, or chicken to potatoes. Etc. Earth Mother took her time and LOVE to come up with the combinations that work (Darwin was right!) over many, many millennia. For guys (or gals) with a 6 year degree deciding which DNA combinations to recombine with other DNA combinations IS playing God and it INSULTS the Goddess.
I avoid the sun thanks to ozone depletion and the probability of skin cancer spots (I had one), so it's time for me to bike. I need to get away from the computer and immerse in the springs, a virtually untouched (apart from the leakage of God knows how many chemicals through the detritus of cow shit in this area of mucho grazing) part of Florida still wild, where I get some solace from doing my version of a Thoreau thing. Later (and thanks for writing. The debate wages on! in the spirit of that Truth that cannot always be measured... "there are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy" style.
SiouxRose:
The study you propose was actually done and the results published in 1995. See:
Carlson, S. 1995. "A double-blind test of astrology" Nature. 318:419-415.
The journal Nature is considered one of the top journals in the world -- you should easily be able to find this. One of things that I found interesting was that Carlson allowed a panel of astrologers to design this particular experiment, and the results were negative. The astrologers were not able to match personality profiles with natal charts at any rate greater than what would have been expected by chance.
I personally don't demean you or anyone else - I just don't agree with you and I will express my opinions (which, I've noticed, you also do). Personally, I think of astrology the way I think of religion. I practice no faith, but do not think ill of those that do. My only concern is when mysticism is used to bilk people out of their money. Here, I am mainly concerned about faith healers. It is genuinely dangerous to allow these people to operate legally, since it may lead directly to human suffering and loss. I'm also not too fond of those who claim they can contact the dead and charge people to do do, because they are preying on the raw emotions of grieving people. They are heartless, cruel, bastards. Otherwise, I say live and let live.
On the subject of science "playing God", I disagree. Sometimes, people play God, using science. Scientists are human beings, with the same egos, values, and motivations as everyone else. Being a scientist does not make anyone more or less moral or ethical. Look at someone like Edward Teller, amazing scientist, moral degenerate (in my opinion). Science is not moral or immoral, it's just a way of thinking. I consider the ethics of what I do very carefully -- other scientists probably also do, however we don't all agree on what is or isn't ethical. As for genetic engineering being a sin against nature -- you'll have to define sin for me. Humans have been practicing genetic engineering in one form or another for thousands of years, so think carefully about the definition of sin before you eat corn (or any other crop, for that matter) or take antibiotics, or insulin, or any number of other medications that have been genetically engineered. And please explain to the people in the countries where I do research how using genetically engineered insect controls to kill mosquitoes (thus protecting them from malaria and dengue fever, two killers) is a sin. For that matter, please explain to millions of people world-wide who have food thanks to the genetic engineering of people like Norman Borlaug how this was a sin. And then explain to the BILLIONS who are still starving, and whose only hope may be genetically disease resistant crops like the ones being created in a laboratory not 200 meters from where I am sitting right now, why they and theirs may starve because we don't want to "sin" against nature. Sorry to be strident, but this is an area of extra, special passion for me, because my motivations as a scientist are 1) understand nature, 2) reduce human suffering due to disease and food security issues.
I also have a problem with conflating science and religion in opposition to astrology, and then blaming the former two for war. In my opinion, astrology is a religion, and no war in history has been fought in the name of science, although plenty have been fought over religion. Wars are the result of human jingoism, greed, and paranoia. Science has been a tool in war, that's true. But do you blame a gun for a murder? No, you blame the murderer.
I also have to challenge your assertion that science is a linear mindset. In fact, the most exciting science (in my opinion) is being done in the areas of complexity, non-linear dynamics, and deterministic chaos. I use all of these tools in my own research. They are the key to understanding how disease emerges and spreads (my current area of research. If you want a good introduction, read "How Nature Works" by Per Bak. Awful title, great book.
I agree about the boat rockers. My personal favorite was Charles Darwin. He changed everything. I'm also pretty fond of the great Martin Luther King, whose statue on my campus is visible from my window. My only plea is that we learn to think more critically about things. One of the reasons why we are in the political mess we are now in is that people are susceptible to a well-presented line of bull. I try to teach my students to see past the bull and ask the hard questions (and demand hard answers!). This is why I abandoned the faith I was raised with -- because in the end it could not provide satisfactory answers about the things I see around me. It's why I have never believed in astrology ( that and the fact that I am NOTHING like what my birth sign traits say I should be like). Carl Sagan warned repeatedly about the "bamboozlers" unfortunately, one managed to slip into the White House despite warnings.
I have never claimed that science knows all the answers -- in fact if you read my earlier post I gave an example of a question that could not be answered scientifically. Personally, I love those kinds of questions, because they often get to the heart of the human condition. My personal answers to them are tempered by the fact that I am a scientist -- it's what do and what I am. I therefore cannot accept, for my own reasons, that their is a God, or that the stars control our fate. I believe that it is up to me to give my life meaning, and I fill it up with my beautiful family and my amazing, smart, funny friends, and my absolute fascination with nature, and my love of learning and knowledge, and that is more than enough. And when I'm gone, I'm gone -- no heaven,no hell, just nothing.
Wow -- did I ramble!
Siouxrose
I always enjoy your posts and I appreciate your understanding and abilities. My mother taught Chinese astrology, 4000 years of observation and practice. Native Americans also have an oral tradition of star knowledge. It is not my intention to demean you or your knowledge. I would extend this to scientists here. As for me, I am just a human being.
I suggest comparative studies have been made thoughout the ages, but I find your challenge interesting.
Kemel
I agree that there is more than one rule of thought that governs how we view our existence, and as far as I know nothing is 100% accurate. I'm not saying there is no place for science, I'm saying it is invasive, misplaced and corrupted. Political science demonstrates this corruption as one small example, however this is a much larger issue. Science is all to willing to disparage anything outside of its fractional analysis, I say consider the source. Or, wait just a second you do not have my consent.
Fundamentalism is hard to argue with.
When Reagan's Alzheimer's dementia was out of control he turned to Nancy for help with decisions and Nancy consulted her astrologist.
We now live with that legacy.
Apparently (sic) many do not understand what science is. Science is the business of discovering truths about the physical universe. It does not attempt to "explain" every human concern.
To quote the late, great Richard Feynman: "Love is not science. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It just means it's not science."
KERNEL: Thank for your intelligent input.
TREE FROG: Your commentary should humble science, which mystic Rudolph Steiner defined as "the consensus of mediocre minds."
Too often in science the ego of the observer leads to focusing on an anticipated outcome, i.e. proof of his hypothesis. Obviously science has a place in the human experience, as does faith in what our mortal (i.e. limited) intellects can fathom.
I am sensitive to the prejudice against my field for three reasons: 1. the castigation projected for centuries by the old church has made its way into academe. Therefore educated practitioners in my field are demonized before we ever speak or can share what we know. 2. the destruction of indigenous voices, the burning of women (as heretics), and the control of information, which is to say an age-old attempt to manufacture consent (thank you, Chomsky) is still with us.
3. On a personal basis, my career as media personality has been silenced for more than a decade BECAUSE of the buy-out of many outlets by rightwing elites.
In last night's inspired post (my initial reaction to D GOODIN, I made 2 important points. First, that what MOST take for astrology is the pabulum published by mainstream magazines. I write it, because it's the only way I can make a living. (This is equivalent to getting Meryl Streep to play the same bad script over and over again.) In other words, just as I cannot attempt to speak from the perspective of one who's been in the lab for 35 years, NO ONE in this forum can wear my moccassins. I know what I have seen. Poets, mystics, ecstatic lovers and indigenous shaman have seen and experienced things science has not, nor can it explain with its current tools. Those tools are the projection of a linear mindset that believes all things can be measured. Infinity itself defies that agenda.
I am submitting this earnest challenge. If a university would like to sponsor a comparative study of the following nature, I will readily volunteer to participate. Choose 3 persons trained in psychology (or psychiatry) and allow them to administer their tests and/or deploy psychoanalysis. Let them write up reports on "case subjects." Then hire 3 astrologers to study the natal charts of these individuals and ask them to write up personality reports. Have a neutral panel compare the results.
Some things can be known, and some are meant to lend magic and mystery to the human experience. Every society has had its medicine men and women. In the modern world that expression has largely fallen to orthodox religion. Note the use of costumes (especially in Catholicism) and ornate rituals, the focus on rules and proving one's self a good person. Too many think these rules satisfy the deity, and don't recognize how authoritarian bastians of tradition use them to force conformity.
Every society is allotted citizens who by nature, I'll call it the Aquarian syndrome, will not and cannot think inside the box. Therefore we are always guaranteed those who will rock the boat, challenge the status quo, and leave the world with new amalgams and inventions. Both mystics and scientists contribute to that outcome.
If you--science--stops demeaning me, I will show you more respect. However, science plays god, and what it's doing with genetic engineering is not only a sin against nature, but according to Plato & Cayce and the "great flood," has capsized mankind's fate before. And then there is the bomb... so science is not always "the good guy." Like religion and its zealots, a lot more blood has been spent thanks to science and religion, than astrology. Demonizing mystics is so Dark Ages. And what's ahead for mankind IF we make it through these awful growing pains, this transition from neanderthal mores to recognizing ourselves as citizens of a cosmos, unified in our differences (not anxious to kill one another on accoun of these) is a vision that will connect us with the stars, and remind us (replant the vision) of how heaven sees us.
Treefrog___The things you mentioned that are degrading the earth and possibly the atmosphere are mostly due to humans greed, mismanagement, stupidity, etc. Of course, science is involved in all of this, depending on what course people take to help foul everything up. My point was that it is not necessary to believe in only one theory, whether science, astrology, or a higher power, but that all may have influence on how our world works. So much time and effort is expended in trying to prove only one point of view is responsible. One has to admit, whichever idea one espouses, it is remarkable that our universe and especially this planet, even manage to keep going on schedule for many centuries.
The great giant machine is over populated, polluted and degraded, the sky has holes the size of Texas, animals are subjected to torture and given diseases and discarded at the same time science states they are intelligent animals and 99% percent similar to you or me. Read the de-classified reports on plutonium testing on humans. It is not better, not even by scientific standards. Just because it is not common knowledge does not eliminate it from our common experience. SCIENCE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN JUST A WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. That being said, I have worked in behavior science. I know first hand about operationally defined objectives. How you can shape how you look at anything and still have an a measured, observed, and repeatable result all of which has nothing to do with anything more than a biased objective.
I believe it is a waste of time to debate whether the answer to our human condition is either astrologic, as Siouxrose so well explains, or is totally due to the scientific, as dgoodin understands. Is it not possible that both of these are working in our universe, along with a higher force that we can only imagine, to complete the picture? Astrology seems to have some merit, even to those of us that do not fully understand it. Likewise, science cannot be denied, as there is vast proof that it has been with us for centuries, and is the reason we have such a highly developed living standard compared with our ancestors. Also, due to the fact that our planet and the universe is only a giant machine in action, does it not seem plausable that it is all controlled by an unseen power? How many machines are able to run for many centuries on a perfect time and space schedule without breaking down? It argues for a supernatural force beyond our comprehension. Therefore, I am a believer in all of these aspects of our world and do not think any should be disparaged.
SiouxRose,
OK -- I'll look forward to reading your thoughts.
And concerning my last sentence -- in retrospect it would be more appropriate to say that I don't believe that psychic or supernatural phenomena exist (I include astrology here), and I have seen no evidence for their existence compelling enough to change my beliefs. My original words were fairly strident, and for that I apologize.
D GOODIN: I responded and thanked you for comments, most of which I agreed with up until the last paragraph. I am not sure if CD erased what I wrote, or if it will show up later... a phenomena I have witnessed before. I have editing to do. If the missing data does not return, short of Sherlock Holmes recovering it... I'll respond manana.
SiouxRose:
It's true that the roots of many academic establishments (i.e. universities) lie in religion, but I would submit that the academic disciplines themselves predate The Church, or *any* church. Ten thousand years ago humans were learning how to domesticate plants. They did this using science: careful observation, experimental testing, and above all open-minded inquiry. In the process, they layed the framework for modern human society. I might add that the scientists who did this work were quite likely women. I am more than happy to allow this ancient wisdom a place at the table. Modern science began during the reformation, which was a direct refutation of the church. The list of those who insisted on asking questions about the world, and scientifically seeking answers is long; Galileo, Copernicus, Hypatia (very much a woman) to name a very few. All of these people were punished by the church for their beliefs, so I think your attempt to link the church to academia to oppression of women is partial truth at best. Yes, religious establishments have punished an enormous number of people, of both sexes.
I would also challenge your statements about hemispherical dominance and science. First, the whole 'left brain/right brain' thing is just a model, and a simplistic one at that. The reality is far more complex, and few people are truly dominated by either hemisphere. I have been tested for hemispherical dominance and been found to be almost perfectly balanced between left and right brain traits. Why do you assume that scientists are not creative, or appreciate creativity? My main research partner (a woman by the way) is both a supremely talented researcher and no slouch as a painter. Several of my friends (all biologists or physicists) play in a great blues bands, I myself am a published science fiction writer (unfortunately not anywhere near as good as Asimov, Clarke, Bear, Brinn, or some of my other favorites, all of whom are trained as scientists). I love works of imagination and fantasy. I just make sure that I know where fantasy ends and reality begins.
I never claimed that science had all the answers, my only claim was that science provides a way to ask questions about how the world works. I stand behind this. Some questions have no scientific basis for an answer. For example, "what is the meaning of life" cannot be answered with science. On the other hand, the question, "what is the organic basis for life" can be addressed scientifically. The former question is more of a spiritual/religious question, and since I am not a theologian, or a spiritualist, or even a person of faith, I'll leave that to others.
Real truth has been out of style for a while now, mainly because it's uncomfortable to think about. People would rather believe that miracle diets can help them lose weight, pills can increase their sexual potency, psychics can contact the dead, and that their fate is in the stars. Personally, I would like to think that I can communicate with loved ones across the void, or know what was in store for me by looking at my natal charts, but the real world just doesn't work that way.
D GOODIN: In those things science can measure it does a grand job. I wonder if it ever dawned on you that the basis for all academic studies (in Western culture) originated in the old church?
For a time, only church scribes or the MALE children of the elite were taught to read, and much that was studied focused on the Bible. Those who trained their psyches in less rational disciplines faced quite real death sentences. It was during this phase that the church branded astrology and its practitioners as heretics, and that fate was a lethal one. I STUDY astrology. Its correspondences go back to a field of data compiled over centuries. I was an A student in ALL advanced classes, scored a perfect 100 on the NY State Geometry regents, etc. What you take for astrology is the Fox news equivalent of what's going on, it is the magazine-style pabulum that is intended to mesmerize the masses.
I take umbrage with your castigation against my field. And there ARE many who have had strange experiences that cannot be explained by science. Science works well with rational parameters, and functions on logic. Our brains, dear man, have two specific hemispheres so that there is a place for the receiving and processing of more diffuse sentiments, like intuition. Millions of women were burned by the church because they understood things about healing that were way ahead of science. It's that way with the indigenous shamen of various tribes, too.
While science has a place in our world, it does not answer for everything, nor should it. We are at the end of an age that has exacerbated all bases for polarized thought, thus science opposes religion (the faith-based). It's as if the world had to conform to merely perceptions of black and white and relinquish all its color. Science fiction (the work of expansive imaginations) has often seen things before they existed, so have mystics. As Richard Bach stated in "Illusions," "If you argue FOR your limitations, you get to keep them." If science or religion had all the answers WE (i.e. mankind) would not be in the mess we're in. Show some humility. Invite the ancient voices back to the table. Real truth never goes out of style, and as all things circle and thus come full circle, there is much to be learned from things dismissed by an age of gross materialism and a massive failure of both empathy and imagination.
I'm a scientist, and the thing that struck me the most reading this essay and the comments is how different my view of science is compared to the authors and some of the commentators. Most of the critiques of science expressed here (many of them quite fair) are based on a view of science as an institution, but I view science as a process. I see it as a way of asking questions, in a way that tries to minimize the chance that one will be fooled by either nature or one's own self. Science, in my opinion, is the best way to ask certain types of questions.
I also admire science as a mental discipline because it requires an almost ruthless adherence to skepticism and rationality. If an idea cannot be supported by evidence, then no matter how beautiful the idea is, how much we may believe in it, or how right it seems, it has to be rejected. In this sense, I agree with the late Carl Sagan that science is a candle in the dark. Unfortunately, the darkness seems to be winning. Government officials denigrate the "reality based community" in favor of a constructed belief system with no supporting evidence. If evidence challenges their beliefs, then that evidence is suppressed and in some cases, the individuals who express those beliefs are attacked or muzzled. In everyday life, people insist on believing in angels, flying saucers, conspiracies, esp, astrology, mysticism, and numerous other myths, none of which can stand the test of scientific scrutiny. School boards insist on teaching religious mythology and fantasy as if it were fact. I could go on. So, rather than attacking science, I wish more people would look closely at what it really is, and perhaps use its thought patterns more commonly in everyday life. It would make for a population that is harder to fool with nonsense.
Except in posts such as these, it's unlikely for most of us to even read anything that was not first filtered through a corporation, that is, selected and approved by an editor for inclusion in something published for a commercial purpose. This makes it hard for most of us to know whether we're hearing "truth" in any new science, or whether we're hearing a calculated means to an end.
Forrest Gump was profound, though, when he famously said: "I am not a smart man, but I know what love is." Most of us somehow feel we can discern love when we see it, too, even if we have a harder time with the so-called facts that are constantly coming at us.
Here is a thought. Perhaps we homosapians are and have alwayss ben illegal aliens to this Earth.
I mean let's face it even the Dinosaurs fit into this Earth.s plan.
Have We?
Beside our attempts to destroy and kill everything on this Earth . We also kill are on kind for stupid reasons.
We do not really fit Darwin's pattern. Nor do will evewn try to work in Earth's chain oof life.
Here in the USA today we work on a huge fence at the Mexican border to keep out aliens.
A pity this Earth did not do the same thing when we arrived here.
Lets face it Zillions of articlees can be written about this subject. Yet humans will never change. Even the tiniest bacteria oof this earth knows it;s purpose. We don't and never will
Everything is becoming a science. Politics is a science. It is not benign. It is a cause, not a solution. Nature functions without science and you are part of nature. Only part of nature.
Siouxrose: Your post is an interesting mixture of truth and nonsense. There is no Mars vs Venus dichotomy, no heavenly masters, no creation blueprint. The stupa is seamless. If you know about the Grand Totality, why do you hold the concept of returning to the garden? There is no self that left, no self to return.
Mr. Solomon, we have always created our own reality. Want to be a dog? Think like one. Want to be a god? Think like a god. Of course the future is ours to create - it's just thoughts. But there is no thinker behind any thought. No being has ever entered into or departed from this eternal now.
SCIENTIFIC BETRAYAL
Never before have Americans experienced such dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data, as used by this administration to derail vital environmental reforms, conservation, family planning-- and the list goes on. The resulting long term environmental and social damage are beyond measure, and can only worsen if not curtailed.
Despite their clandestine cloak, or environmental friendly disguise, these sellouts have been evident since Bush first was handed the presidency. They have been exposed by defectors from the EPA, health & human services, etc; and have been documented and chronicled by numerous dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
The gravity of these unprecedented betrayals eclipses the Monica Lewinski scandal which led to an impeachment, and pose greater dangers than Watergate which terminated a presidency. Blame falls mainly on the populace and our legislators for tolerating this reckless and arrogant occupant of the White House.
Blame for these dreadful consequences falls mainly on the five supreme court justices who placed politics ahead of the law and put him in office against the voters choice; our legislators for allowing such reckless and dangerous behavior from this unlearned president guided by his financial and radical supporters; and especially the apathetic populace for tolerating this unprecedented outrage
Science is a method for understanding nature. That's all.
KRISTINA40: Many thanks. I really believe in the circle as the cosmos' symbol for peace, unity among intentionally diverse tribes. It takes all colors to compose white light! Many notes to make music! So my children's book on this topic, "the oldest story never told" is now in production. I plan to offer a few gratis copies to people in the forum open-minded enough to appreciate this basis for discourse. May the stars be with you...
Siouxrose, you nailed it, excellent post.
EPA should be free of political control of funding research?
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0228-03.htm
The Union of Concerned scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/
is trying to organize scientists against this administrations determine to allow science to be filtered through political policy and religious dogma.
They have listed specific abuses and interferences in science.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html
Unfortunately, politics now rules almost every agency, including the EPA and the CDC, areas that should be free of political control.
Great food for thought, but perhaps more than can be linked coherently in this length. Many of the individual sentences are complete topics or paragraphs at the least. However, nothing is gained unless something is risked when attempting to focus on the big picture. Perhaps Solomon is inventing political poetics? It might help to simply and avoid ambiguity and thus reach a larger audience.
" We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo
I love Norman Solomon but found this essay very jumpy. Marianne Williamson made a name for herself in particularly eloquent interpretations of The Course in Miracles. It distills to a singular choice: that which gravitates to fear, or that which gravitates to love. In celestial parlance, this dichotomy is referred to through the planetary vehicles of Mars (war, fear, violence, raw ego, me-first, competition, extreme notions of individualism, the promotion and celebration of destructive human drives) versus Venus (peace, negotiation, realization of how to compromise to promote a balance between self-interest and the greater good, love, art, music, creative drives).
The Creation blueprint utilizes the circle because as a result of complex intermingling geometrical relationships the trespasses Mars is so naturally given to are held in check by the surrounding players, Venus being Mars' natural counterpart and intended agent of balance. Mars can certainly be seen in the behavior of all individuals, but supports the masculine values of macho pride and ruthless courage. Venus tends to work better for women who have been socialized to nurture and according to those who follow biological determinism, they'd argue that Venus relates to the very essence of motherhood.
Neither is "better." My point is that the last 3000 years have so over-emphasized the base qualities of Mars, made THEM attributable to the Deity (as if this speaks for GOD), that now at the cusp of a time of vast transition, this over-glorification of violence cast dubiously as god's will has literally taken mankind to the precipice of outright global destruction. WOMEN and VENUS are an essential part of the Divine equation, and the values aligned with Venus are what would save us from our collective selves. And yes. Every male owns an "inner Venus." Each of us is the sum of stars, a living, biological breathing moment of cosmic consciousness materialized into our individual form. Each of us hears that "Greek chorus" within because none of us is less than a minute representation of the Great Totality.
As individuals identify with values that extend beyond Mars, the earth will change. Unfortunately, with the media held hostage to its corporate masters, many of whom answer to the military industrial complex (see article posted today that PROVES this point as per the $ garnered from international weapons sales, while so many want for food!) the chant for war (grotesquely championed by too many religious institutions, these representing all 3 patriarchal religions) overcomes that of the ways and means to work towards a peaceful earth, a return to the Garden bequeathed to us by our heavenly masters.
"Those least concerned about the Earth's ecology are apt to be the greatest enthusiasts for science in the service of unfettered commerce or the Pentagon, which always seeks the most effectively "advanced" scientific know-how."
**true
"We're self-protective for survival, yet we also have "conscience" — what Darwin described as the characteristic that most distinguishes human beings from other animals. Given the strength of our instincts for individual and small-group survival, we seem to be stingy with more far-reaching conscience.
Our capacities to take humane action are as distinctive of our species as conscience, and no more truly reliable."
**
other species are capable of altruistic behaviour-ducks will feign injury to lure predators away--there have been many incidents of animals of one species adopting animals of another...-we can only guess at what their motives are.
A particularly cruel experiment where monkeys in one room were shocked if they didnt press a button to shock monkey in another room ended up showing that monkeys would rather be shocked then do it to another. when a mock experiment was done to humans--just having an authority figure ask that someone shock another person was persuasion enough.
What really separates humans from other animals is its capacity for sadism--being able to cause suffering to another --knowing they are causing suffering--and taking pleasure form that.
Even the most vicious domestic cat has ever erected a stadium where other cats could watch mice being tortured.
Kelmer
You have touched on the blind spot of science. Science never sees the whole picture, it is only partial truths. I read another great explaination of this on climate change on this web site, but it is difficult to grasp. As science is used more and more to define our reality the old adage, "question authority" is very important. Science has no oversight, science rewards its self and judges it effectiveness by peer review. More over it's most glaring mistakes are never admitted and never is there an apology.
You have only to look around you if you want to see how unsound science is, like plastic producing plants in the environment, genetically altered lean pigs. There is not enough time or space here to list the injustices and disrespect that science holds for life on this planet.
This is why the gods created Karma.