@chilaxe @NetRunner

I've been stupid busy all week, but would've loved to talk about this stuff with you two.

About importing poverty...have either of you heard of this thesis? I gather that it has been tested, but I haven't seen that evidence myself.

Dopamine, a pleasure-inducing brain chemical, is linked with curiosity, adventure, entrepreneurship, and helps drive results in uncertain environments. Populations generally have about 2% of their members with high enough dopamine levels with the curiosity to emigrate. Ergo, immigrant nations like the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly the UK, have high dopamine-intensity populations.


It's been cited numerous times in things I've read, including in the infamous citigroup plutonomy memos:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

High dopamine is also associated with risk-taking. The citigroup guys were obviously citing it as though being an immigrant nation was going to save us in uncertain times. However, regardless of which theories or hypotheses you subscribe to or hear about, there's something quite different about people who emigrate. Taking that idea further, you have to separate people who emigrated en masse because of rather forced conditions (tons of Irish people during the potato famine, Polish/Lithuanian people in the early 1900s, etc) and individuals who emigrate simply because they're after more money/opportunity.

I've also read some stuff that indicates dopamine levels affect your perception of time. Schizophrenics have really high dopamine levels, which causes their internal clock to speed up, and it alters their perception of time. This is interesting in relation to the dopamine/emigration theory because of Philip Zimbardo's work on perception of time and how it relates to personality.

Plus, Zimbardo's work is just interesting, period:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secret-Powers-of-Time
http://fora.tv/2008/11/12/Philip_Zimbardo_The_Time_Paradox

Another article about time perception with a few mentions of dopamine, drugs, etc.
http://delontin1.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/stretch-time/

Anyway, not to derail things, but it's mostly on topic with all the earlier discussion of brain stuff. I really think perception of time affects our personality in profound ways, and it's clear that brain chemistry affects our perception of time. I also think there's evidence that there can be overall brain chemistry trends in populations which have interesting implications.

Colonization doesn't have to imply genocide. It often has, I agree. But the British colonization of India was not so violent. There are claims that Indian famines resulted from British mismanagement, but there are also historians who think India benefited (and still does) from the British institutions, and that the Indians were often willing partners (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Economic_impact ).

In the Americas there are scores of documented atrocities against the native population. But the worst killer, by far, was unintentional -- disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease ). These outbreaks would have happened regardless of military aggression (and it did, which is what made the initial military conquests so easy). Europeans had unknowingly built themselves into amazing germ warfare machines over 100 generations. There's no way that the contact between the new world and old world has a completely happy ending. The germ theory of disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease ) was not accepted; people didn't know better.

But consider this hypothetical situation -- there is an alien race with technology vastly superior to ours. They are 500 years more advanced than we are. Would you rather a) the aliens leave us alone completely, not making contact or b) the aliens non-violently assume high level control of much of the planet, while leaving nations largely autonomous (Analogous to the British "conquest" of India).

I would absolutely choose b. In Earth's history it's not likely that many cultures had such a clear cut choice, but the cultures that stayed isolated and backwards have suffered for it.

>> ^westy:

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)


You can`t label famine and bad economic policies as genocide. And no, you can`t blame Bush (2003 - Present) for genocide, just because a lot of Iraqis died in the war and following it. If a war is fought with a country of course a lot of people from that country of the same ethnicity will die. If you call that genocide then every war will be genocide. That`s just stupid.

Race hatred has been and forever will be a tool in the hands of those who seek to manipulate the minds and control the actions of an uneducated mob. The world is full of countries easily manipulated by those they have given their power and will over to. Pure racism is one the least of the problems facing the planet.

Obama was not elected by thoughtful, intelligent, empowered people. He was groomed and sold to the mob by the same folks who have given us such wonderful things as media control, genetically manipulated seeds, pharmaceuticals, unreasonable taxation, endless war, famine, dictators, fascist regimes, sexual repression, corrupt prisons and law enforcement agencies, slavery, contrived and manipulated economic models, organized sports and religions, etc etc........."Goodbye, and good luck??"....Fuck you too, Olbermann.

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

>> ^ghark:
Except that, while those problems exist (which they will for the forseeable future) having more children does make it worse - having more children while you are poor certainly doesn't make poverty disappear, that's wishful thinking. Have you looked at the birth rates in the coutries most affected by poverty, hunger, AIDS, malaria etc?
The groupthink speaking is actually the people that think that donating money for food is making any long term difference, it warms the cockles of their heart because they think they did something good, and it feeds a hungry child for a month, but in the meantime that childs mother had 5 more babies, like in the Congo for example.


Between 300-800 years ago, and further back of course; Europe was in a similar situation in the pre-industrial setting. The only way to succeed is to have children, because kids are useful, they can be used to *insert use here*(from dealing with crops/work/etc). The other flip side is, when you have a high child/infant mortality rate you need to replace them. Having children doesn't make it worse, it's the only way to survive. If you want to wipe out a population, then not having children is the way to go.

And actually, then we're getting back into the positive population checks theory that was in limited traction at the time too. Positive population checks = famine/death/war/etc keep the peons/serfs/peasants in line for those at the top. Sound familiar? Many parts of the world that you're talking about are strikingly similar to everywhere within the last 1000 years.

Now it's not bad, that people want to donate money. Actually, that's not really group thing. There's no MOI factors there. And again with your second paragraph, refer to my first two. As with the future, and current situation you look to the past to see how it unfolds.

Nostradamus quatrain 1:55,

There will be a great shedding of blood
Heaven will appear unjust
Both on land and sea and in the air
Cults , famine, kingdoms, plague, confusion.

Nostradamus wasn't predicting the future; he was describing the human condition!

"yet time and again his predictions are interpreted as highly accurate"

Key word there - interpreted

That's as far as I got watching this video. I was afraid I was about to suffer a nonsense stroke.

I have to believe that at least some of the speakers in this vid fall to the floor in fits of laughter as soon as the camera is off.

The analogy of the video is flawed. Both the debtor and creditor have entered the contract willingly and with expectations of gain. I have agreed to no such contract with God and God has nothing to lose or gain by the defaulting or fulfillment of that contact, only I would. Because of this, justice is not relevant and a benevolent God would have no reason not to show mercy. Even if I were to believe God made me and gave me life, it would have been a gift given of his own free will. He has no right to require a gift in return. I have no debt to God.

God is a perfect being, yet he is eternally progressing.

A contradiction. If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

If we suffer because of floods and famine, it will be for our good. You might say that people who live their entire lives in poverty are not benefitting from hardship, but God will reward us and make up a million times for our sufferings. You'd better believe that impoverished people are humble, and God has promised to reward the humble and meek. In the scope of eternity, suffering is a blessing. He has promised rewards in heaven for enduring our trials well that are beyond our comprehension. I think that's benevolent.

That's only benevolent if he doesn't have the power to make a difference during our lives. Let's say I found you locked in a cage in the woods. I can easily release you but instead I leave you there for 2 weeks. When I return I find you sick from exposure, dehydrated and starving. I then release you and take you home. I personally nurse you back to health over the course of 3 months and then take you on an exotic vacation, pampering you and catering to your every need. Have I been benevolent or should I have just let you out of the cage in the first place before any harm was done?

Like the video explains, in order for justice to be satisfied, Christ had to "pay for" our sins.

The video suggests this but explains nothing. As I said above, justice is not part of the equation because God has nothing to lose or gain from forgiving us (or not). Furthermore, we're talking about God. If God wants to forgive us it's entirely within his power to do so. He doesn't have to play by anyone else's rules. The only reason the sacrifice would have to "have a body, be separated from God, and die" is because God decided to do it that way.

On a side note, this just and loving God seems to require a lot of suffering to make him happy.

As a general rule, if something about Christian doctrine seems unjust or unmerciful or illogical to you, it is probably because it is wrong.

That's kinda my point, actually.

In reply to this comment by thepinky

I appreciate your comment, and I understand what you're saying. I once wrote a 16-page paper on the "Problem of Evil," so I understand it a little bit. It took me at least 16 pages to write a sufficient solution to the Problem of Evil, but I feel that I did it. To me the solution is extremely simple, but I can never seem to convince anyone of this. Frankly, I don't have the time or the energy to try and convince you, but I'll give some highlights.

God is a perfect being, yet he is eternally progressing. He progresses through his creations. His creations increase, his children grow, etc. We, as his creations, are extensions of the progression of God. I think that you understand that in order for us to grow or be anything more than biological robots, we must have choice. God allows us to make evil choices and hurt ourselves and each other. He has provided the means for us to learn "the rules," but because of agency, people are free to choose what they will believe. This always worries people when I talk about it. We are all born with the ability to tell good from evil, but many people are never given a fighting chance to be "good" because of the evil of others or for whatever reason. The simple truth is that God is perfectly just. Because he has given us agency and because he will not intervene in our agency, some people do not have the same choices to be good as you or I, but it would be crazy to believe that God condemns people for things that they do not have a choice in. Whatever the inequites of this world that are created by man, God will make sure that all is fair, all is resolved, all is right. People worry about death and despair in this life, saying that a just God would not allow people to suffer so much. But to God, death is not a punishment. This life is so incredibly short in the grand scheme of eternity that it is not hard for me to believe that God will take care of it. If we suffer because of floods and famine, it will be for our good. You might say that people who live their entire lives in poverty are not benefitting from hardship, but God will reward us and make up a million times for our sufferings. You'd better believe that impoverished people are humble, and God has promised to reward the humble and meek. In the scope of eternity, suffering is a blessing. He has promised rewards in heaven for enduring our trials well that are beyond our comprehension. I think that's benevolent.

A couple more things concerning the Atonement. I do not believe that we will be punished or condemned for our sins unless we make them with full knowledge and consent. Even then, we have the chance to repent.

Here's a really corny video that is a brief explanation of why the Atonement is necessary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc8rKcc4t4

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

Like the video explains, in order for justice to be satisfied, Christ had to "pay for" our sins. In the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross, Christ suffered for our sins. This is a matter of faith that I cannot explain. He was a mortal god, and because of this he was the only one who could suffer all of that exquisite pain. It had to happen the way that it did because Christ had to suffer as we will suffer. He had to

1. Have a body, because we have bodies
2. Be separated from God, because we are separated from God
3. Die, because we will die

It was moral because Jesus volunteered and knew what he was doing. And of course everyone before 1AD isn't going to hell. Time is a mental construct. The Atonement pays both past and future debts. Another thing is that we are not punished in eternity for mistakes that we make in a limited amount of time. If we do not repent, we have to pay the debt for our own sins instead of Jesus doing so, and then all but the vilest of sinners will be rewarded. I believe that only those that have a perfect understanding and knowledge of God and then deny him will be cast off forever. And maybe a few other really, really bad people. And that's almost no one.

I'm not done and there are lots of holes, but I want to go to bed. As a general rule, if something about Christian doctrine seems unjust or unmerciful or illogical to you, it is probably because it is wrong.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:

The first step to determining if any god exists is to clearly define this god. In these times, when someone says 'god', they're probably talking about something which pretty closely resembles the Christian God, but not necessarily.

Some of the defining characteristics of the Christian God I was raised with are:
- Benevolent
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient

(abbreviated "BO&O" below)

There are others, of course, but I can comfortably say that any god definition which includes these 3 is immediately invalid due to the reality in which we live. If God doesn't have the power to end suffering, then he is not omnipotent. If God doesn't have the will or desire to end suffering, then he is not benevolent. If God isn't aware of suffering, then he is not omniscient. It's an old argument, but the only rebuttal I've ever heard is "God works in mysterious ways."

This doesn't have to be taken to the extreme of saying God would create a utopia for us if he was BO&O. The argument can be made that the trials and tribulations of life make us better people. I'm not talking about trials and tribulations, I'm talking about starvation, disease & famine.

Take away any of those 3 attributes and you've got yourself a non-conflicting god definition, at least for this particular problem.

MINK used to rattle on about how retarded everyone was when... actually it didn't matter what the topic was... but in the case of (a)theism, he would generally state that "God is everything" and so all arguments against were futile. Without knowing exactly what he meant by that, no argument can really be made. If he literally meant that God is the sum of all matter then, yeah, I'd have to conclude that God does exist, but that would seem to have zero value scientifically, morally or philosophically.

Speaking of philosophy, questions have been posed as to why a BO&O God would create existence, the universe, life, etc. Any answer is only opinion, but it's worth contemplating.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
If a god or this "something" did exist, why not God? It couldn't possibly be a personal being who interacts with us? If this were possible, why not the Christian God (not as he is defined by modern Christianity, but as Jesus described him)? Rather, it must necessarily be something that is impersonal, not conscious, or takes no interest in us? I don't know why you so positively reject that definition of the "something."

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Does this not seem the slightest bit like jumping through hoops? I agree, on one hand, that we grow as people as we face adversity and obstacles. We can grow as people without faith and worship. Why does God want us to pass a test that he won't tell us we're taking, let alone what the rules are?

As per the tags, it seems Liam Hoekstra has a genetic mutation affecting production of myostatin, a protein that is known in some animals to limit muscle growth. Before Liam, it was unclear whether myostatin performs the same function in humans, but his development seems to strongly indicate it does. As the condition is very rare, it's not known whether there will be any downsides to the mutation in the long run. Presumably there's a reason evolution hasn't selected more strongly for this mutation, but it could just be that in harsher conditions, a high metabolism and high muscle mass may not be ideal as someone with such a body will require more nourishment than a less-muscular person. Also the ability to put on fat is quite important for anyone without a guaranteed, steady source of energy. In a wealthy society, however, famine is not very common, so this kid may do just fine.

The idea has been thrown in the air, by the way, that the myth of Hercules might have stemmed from someone with this mutation. Completely unverifiable, of course, but a fun thought anyway.


Edit: Apparently this kid's condition is a little different, I was thinking of a German child whose body wasn't producing myostatin, leading to increased muscle growth. This is related as well, but apparently Liam's body does produce myostatin, it just isn't affecting him in the usual way. Apparently there could be several myostatin-related methods to increase muscle growth.

To be pedantic:
1) Turning the deserts into fertile lands wouldn't cure hunger in the long term. Famines are caused by changes in the amount of food production. Although this is addressed later, with the idea of perfect meteorological systems.
2) A geologically inactive planet would be a crappy place after million of years. Erosion would wear down all of the mountains. Ecological diversity would disappear. Nutrients would become increasingly scarce. For example, Australia, the oldest, flattest, and least geologically active continent, has some of the worst soils in the world (although it does still have some fertile regions). See http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/fertile_soils.html

And if the geological activity completely stops, meaning the Earth's core stagnates, then our magnetic field goes away, then our atmosphere is scoured by the solar wind and we are bombarded with cosmic rays and Earth become more like Mars.

So really we should be hugely grateful that we're on this geologically active planet.

I think there have been major social upheavals every 30 years or so in human society ever since the industrial revolution (1864 - Civil War, 1900 - Gilded Age, 1930 - Great Depression/WWII, 1960 - Civil Rights/Vietnam, 1980 - Ronald Reagan/Monetarist revolution, 2000's Iraq/Great Recession). I think we're seeing another upheaval now, I just hope it won't get quite so bad as some of the others in my list -- I hope we're going to end up comparing the 2010's more to the 1960's than the 1930's or 1860's. I suspect I'll live through one more major upheaval, assuming my lifespan ends up being somewhat average, and assuming the rate of social change isn't accelerating.

There's a part of me that thinks Kurzweil is right about a Singularity coming -- that the rate of technological advancement will speed up exponentially, and exceed our wildest expectations. I think there's a nonzero chance I'll live long enough to see the start of such a thing, but I think it could just as easily be a century or two away, and not decades.

I do think environmental issues are going to become a massive, unmistakable concern sooner rather than later. I don't think it will be the end of humanity or anything like that, but I suspect we're going to have to either rapidly retool our economy once people snap out of denial, or have a big economic crash coupled with major crop shortages and famine, and then rapidly retool our economy. I would even argue that environmental issues have played a nontrivial role in the current economic hardship, and that the time has come to really start enacting plans for moving away from fossil fuels, and start looking into more medium-to-long term issues like biodiversity and fresh water supply.

As for the freak globe-spanning natural disasters, there's no way to know about those. They could as easily happen tomorrow as they could a couple million years from now. Hopefully those will wait until post-Singularity when we'll be better equipped to deal with something like that...

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Uh oh Psychologic... You're daring to bring the taboos of logic, common sense, and reason into this discussion. That's going to get you labeled as a neocon. Get ready for it - because the neolibs won't stand for your simple, correct assessment of the world's capacity to generate resources.

One of the fundamentaal premises of the kook neolib left fringe is that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion. Look at this thread. It is filled to the brim with literal idiots who are talking all kinds of bull about stuff they know absolutely nothing about except what has been spoon-fed them by equally ignorant professors and media hacks. Check out this glittering example...

"Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can get..."

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not only does this dingus believe that he knows what number of humams should/shouldn't be born, he also believes he knows what the Earth's 'ideal' population should be. Based on what math? None of course. It's just his opinion.

The neolib left is chock full of these kinds of psuedo-intellectual dipsticks. They go around spouting complete nonsense on topics they know sod-all about and perpetuate fallacies that any person with two gangelon to rub together can see are patently false at face value. But they LOVE this particular left-wing piece of idiocy (overpopulation) because it lets them engage in their favorite pasttime... Making stupid laws to take away freedom, control people, and limit happiness & prosperity based on junk science treated as 'fact' through no other virtue than faith and the psychological makeup of a lemming.

Late to the party but oh well.

Lets see: You bash "the kook neolib left fringe" for their baseless assumptions that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion, yet you take Psychologic's statement that "we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone" as gospel. Hmmm. Hypocrisy says hi!

Also, I love how you take Psychologic's assessment that "Infrastructure is the problem" and "The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor." as "logic, common sense, and reason". Funny. I don't see any logic there considering the fact that "Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs" doesn't automatically exclude population as a significant contributor to famine. War = famine, therefore high population not = famine. Amazing logical inference there.

Hmmm. Perhaps when you say "logic, common sense, and reason", you're talking about Psychologic's claim that "Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too)."

What a prediction! The man must be a psychic or something! He knows in his heart that this "nanotech" thingy will be our salvation! What a brilliant scientific conclusion.

Seriously though, Psychologic's post is as full of bullshit as the posts that preceded it. It just happens to be your preferred flavor of bullshit. But hey, lets stick to the topic at hand here. I wouldn't want to bring something irrelevant such as politics into a discussion about population growth. Oh wait, you beat me to it.

And may I commend you on that wonderfully written diatribe against neolibs. It was definitely not full of your own opinion, and was instead nicely supported by facts, statistics, and science. I especially like the part where you called varietube a "dingus". I'd say something like "childish insults score no points here", but you already mentioned that yourself in your post to varietube below this.

Let me remind you of a quote of yours: "I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value."

If your vitriolic rhetoric against neolibs wasn't inflammatory, then I don't know what is. You might want to start practicing what you preach. Unless of course, you feel like it's your duty to counterbalance all the "liberal idiots" on videosift with your own brand of shit.

The famines that occur today aren't because of overpopulation. It's mostly because of resources not getting to people because on inequity

Exactly. Mostly the inequity of freedom. Africa is perfectly capably of growing more food than the United States could possibly grow. Why are they in a state of perpetual famine? Simply because the governments there operate by terror and control. People aren't allowed the freedom to prosper and so they starve. It isn't an issue of resources. Africa is resource rich. The problem is that Africa is FREEDOM POOR, and so the people can't make use of what resources they have.