If we say that humans have rights, then we can say that animals have rights because when a human mistreats an animal, then that human will have caused himself to be more likely to mistreat humans. He will probably have changed his psychology – and possibly his brain chemistry. He will have thus made himself more of a threat to the rest of us. An additional but lesser reason is that he will have made the animal more of a threat to the rest of us.
Let’s illustrate this phenomenon with a few examples:
Suppose an 18 year old girl has a well behaved dog who loves her and would die for her, and then she starts leaving him alone for 24 hours at a time because she wants to be with her boyfriend. Would you let her babysit your kids? Would you hire her? If her boyfriend had no problem with this, would you let him babysit your kids? Would you hire him?
She either has to accept that she is causing her dog to suffer greatly and let it sadden her greatly and make her feel very guilty, which will make her less attractive to the guys, or else, she has to stop caring, which is something humans can do, but then it becomes much easier to do it to other humans.
If she stops caring, then it becomes easier to occasionally let her dog run out of food and water. Then it becomes easier to completely ignore her dog when he is so glad to see her when she briefly pops into her apartment each day. Then it becomes easier to yell at him and smack him when he jumps on her and barks because he is so glad to see her. Then when he starts chewing up the pillows and furniture, it will be easier for her to open the door and let him run out into the street so that he will get run over.
You knew not to hire her or let her babysit your kids long before it got to this point. Same for her boyfriend.
At any time, even years later, she could still choose to feel the sadness and guilt over what she did and decide to be a different person, but until then, who can trust her?
This is how torturers are created by governments. A guard has to decide if he will feel the sadness and guilt of standing guard at the end of the hall when he hears the sounds at the other end coming from the torture room. If he chooses to stop caring, then it will be easier to guard right outside the door of the torture room. Then it will be easier to guard inside the door. Then it will be easier to hold the instrument tray. Then it will be easier to hand the instruments to the torturer. Then it will be easier to participate in the torture directly. Then it will be easier to become the torturer.
This is probably one of the ways that Obama’s DHS manufactures sociopaths, since we already know they torture. Another is the No More Hesitation program, which is where Obama’s DHS agents shoot at targets of pregnant women and children in their own homes. Some cops shoot at targets of their own children for this reason. Would you feel safe in the presence of these cops?
Many people who care about rights already know about the Stanford prison experiments and the Milgram experiments in the 1960’s where the majority of subjects devolved into sociopaths rather quickly and easily; whereas, the experts of the day had predicted that no more than 3% would devolve that far and fast.
Now that we’ve looked at some examples of this phenomenon, let’s consider what we should do.
If one thinks about these cases ahead of time, then it becomes much easier to resist such character devolution in the future. Therefore, simply failing to learn about such examples is actually the first step of choosing to stop caring.
Although dogs do have real emotions, it is an error to project more human attributes onto the dogs than they actually have. Likewise, people often project more sentience and emotion onto a fetus than it actually has. In fact, some people even project human attributes onto toys and other objects. Although this is an error, it still contributes to one’s character devolution if one feels that one is mistreating a sentient emotional being.
The reality of character devolution is a reason to say that people themselves have rights. Who would want to be in proximity to a single individual who has let his character devolve?
Therefore, if one wants to say that humans have rights, then it also makes sense to think of animals as having rights.
We should indeed say that people have rights because people need to interact with each other in order to thrive, and rights are those fundamental principles that maximize our ability to thrive. Rights must also be compatible with our genetically programmed behavior if we expect them to be the most effective. Clearly, rights are thus a useful but fuzzy concept, like good and evil, and like the legendary vanishing heap.
We should thus pretend that rights exist for people, and for animals too, but should the government punish those who violate rights, given that any government whatsoever will also be a violator of rights and a creator of perverse incentives? Should government also regulate behavior to prevent us from starting down the path of character devolution, which would be before we had actually violated any rights?
If we are not each allowed to make mistakes such as going down the path of character devolution at least once, then how can we ever escape the state of arrested development that plagues our society today? Wouldn’t a society based on everything voluntary be better? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a world of strong role models who have learned from the consequences of their reputation? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a world where we could easily find inspiration from art that was itself inspired by deep wisdom and enlightenment?
Does evil exist? Is it an entity, a collective, a force?
– or –
Is evil like a heap …
Suppose I show you a heap of sand, and you agree it is a heap of sand. If I remove one grain, then you would agree that it is still a heap of sand, and if I keep removing a grain of sand until only one remains, then you would agree that it is no longer a heap of sand. You would also agree that there was no magical grain whose removal transformed the heap into a non-heap, and yet, the heap did indeed transform into a non-heap. How is that possible?
A heap is a fuzzy but useful concept. Our language is full of fuzzy but useful concepts like: heap, big, good, right, moral … and evil.
Evil is really just an accusation that means that you have an intense dislike and/or distrust and/or disrespect for the target of your accusation, and that you believe others would agree with you if they knew what you know. In other words, evil is weak threat that is mostly bluff. Its power is mostly dependent on your reputation with your audience.
I prefer to use more precise terms like useful, profitable, objective, falsifiable, or voluntary. Of course, one can often just let the facts speak for themselves.
If the cops are above the law, then they are outside the law; and if they are outside the law, then they are outlaws.
This was inspired by the latest police abuse, which happens to also demonstrate the incompetence of government schools as well. This cop clearly feels untouchable even though every kid in every classroom has a camera. Given the growing backlash against how police are above the law, maybe this one will get an appropriate punishment.
Although this cop was not FBI, consider that the FBI are also cops; but they are not just cops – they are cops who work for Obama!
The mainstream narrative about Abraham Lincoln is almost entirely myth. Lincoln is portrayed as all good and as one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, the reality is very different from the mainstream narrative.
Let’s first look at the handful of positive things we can say about Lincoln:
In spite of the few positive things we can say about Lincoln, the facts prove that Lincoln was a reckless racist fascist democidal psychopath. For example, Lincoln:
Although governments, and especially US administrations, have a long history of perpetrating false flags, I have not verified the claims that the Union itself fired on Fort Sumter to get the war started. However, even if the South fired first, it is self-evident that the Union, under Lincoln’s orders, started the Civil War because placing one’s troops in a foreign country is an act of war.
For months after the Confederacy had seceded, it kept asking Lincoln to get his army out of Confederate territory and told Lincoln that if he sent more troops into Confederate territory, then they would be fired upon. Now, Lincoln knew the Confederacy was mobilized for war and was not bluffing, and he knew that Washington DC was undefended because he had been negligent, but he still sent troops to Fort Sumter, and thus it is self-evident that Lincoln started the Civil War.
When evaluating American history in relation to slavery and the Civil War, it is important to note several additional facts:
The Golden Rule is usually articulated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The world would certainly be a happy, healthy, productive place if everyone followed the Golden Rule, and yet some misrepresent it.
For example, the masochist would have people beat him, so does the Golden Rule mean he should beat others? – OR – Does it mean the masochist would like for others to give him only what he wants, and thus he should give others only what they want?
The so-called liberal says that no one should take anything from a person like him by force, but that if he were like you, he would want others to use government to forcibly take the fruits of your labor, so does that mean he should use the government to take the fruits of your labor? – OR – Does it mean that he would like for government to forcibly take nothing from him, and thus he should want government to forcibly take nothing from you?
The progressive says that he should pay taxes and that government should have more money, and yet he never gives one penny more than necessary to government, and he will break the law whenever he can get away with it in order to give less to government, so does that mean he should want you to be punished for not paying taxes? – OR – Does it mean that he does not actually want to pay taxes, so he should not want you to pay taxes?
Fortunately, The Golden Rule is in our genes. It gives Nobility to those of us who carry the Soul of Humanity.
A coward dies a thousand deaths.
A hero dies but once.
How can a man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the future of our children,
And their freedom from our gods.
Does it profit a man to gain the world …
And lose his very soul?
The world … is not enough.
Embrace the Soul of Your Humanity.
It’s the things you didn’t do … you’ll regret most.
Instantly become the person you want to be.
He’s what every little boy wants to be when he grows up,
And in the end,
What every man wishes he had been.
Is everything in the universe predetermined (predictable in theory) – like in a computer program?
Consider that all possible physical actions, whether atomic, subatomic, quantum, mechanical, electromagnetic, etc. are reactions. Let’s emphasize that all physical actions are re-actions, and thus, hasn’t every physical reaction been predetermined?
Suppose the workings of the human brain were nothing but physical reactions. If your brain were nothing but physical reactions, then because they were re-actions, must your every choice have been predetermined?
Suppose you were born in 1950, and Starbucks were created in the 1970’s, and you bought a particular coffee at a particular Starbucks at a particular time in 2010. Then, because your brain, every brain, and the universe, were nothing but physical reactions, would your purchase have been predetermined in 1950? Was your birth date a limitation on predicting your choice? Wouldn’t your mother’s and father’s choices have predetermined your birth? Wouldn’t all human decisions have been predetermined thousands of years before those humans were born?
Let’s consider a parallel example.
If the universe were nothing but physical reactions, then hasn’t every physical reaction been predetermined from the beginning of the universe? Wasn’t it predetermined that a particular leaf would grow? Wasn’t the leaf predetermined before the tree existed? Wasn’t the leaf predetermined before that species of tree existed? Wasn’t the leaf predetermined before that planet existed?
Instinctively, we feel certain that the particular leaf was not predetermined. Likewise, we feel certain that our choices were not predetermined.
However, we demand the concept of free will to explain why the physical reactions in human brains do not predetermine a particular choice. Whereas, we demand no concept to explain why the physical reactions of nature do not predetermine the particular leaf.
This thought experiment thus reveals a widespread cognitive dissonance in our thinking. Why must we project magical qualities into the physical reactions of our brains to explain why our choices are not predetermined? If physical reactions contained randomness, then randomness alone would make nothing truly predetermined.
A clever person would claim that maybe we can predict the leaf because we do think of the results of physical reactions, like a falling object, as being predetermined. However, predictable physical reactions are predictable only when two conditions are met: 1) we have isolated an event from all of the preceding reactions (the input) that led up to that instant in time, 2) it occurs on a scale that would overcome any effect of randomness, and 3) we are only predicting the next instant in time. For example, a 1000kg block of steel resting on top of an egg centered under it would definitely crush the egg when released. Even human choices can be pretty predictable when a large scale physical reaction is imminent – like stepping out of the way of a moving car. However, we don’t even know what will happen next. For example, which way would each egg molecule squirt?
A clever person would claim that maybe we can predict the leaf because we consider physical reactions such as the choices (the output) in a computer simulation, or even in any future artificial intelligence, to be predetermined when given known inputs. However, predictable physical reactions are predictable only when three conditions are met: 1) we have isolated an event from all of the preceding reactions (the input) that led up to that instant in time, 2) it occurs on a scale that would overcome any effect of randomness, and 3) we are only predicting the next instant in time. Considering randomness first, we have designed computers to have a very high probability of behaving predictably. We could have made the same computer circuit designs smaller, but then their behavior would be less predictable.
Considering the isolation of an AI choice is not as simple as it seems. While it is true that if we stopped an AI, took a snapshot of it’s data, and loaded that data onto identical hardware, then the two systems would perform the same next step; however, that next state (choice) would only be the next nanosecond, so we would have accomplished very little for our effort. To actually be able to predict the future choices of that AI, we would have had to load its data onto a faster (but otherwise identical) computer, and we would have had to guarantee that they both received exactly the same input (the same life experiences, saw the same things from the same angles, got the same reactions from other sentient beings, etc.), and that the faster one received that same input twice as fast (if the computer were twice as fast). We would thus need two planets starting in the same state, but with everything happening twice as fast on one.
The impossibility of predicting AI would be even more difficult with human brains because human brains are not identical hardware and because they are like a computer that has trillions of processors (instead of one) all processing at slightly different speeds and all changing their speed randomly. Also, human brains were not designed to eliminate randomness. Therefore, even if there were no such thing as randomness; the only way to predict human choices would be if our entire universe were an isolated simulation and another simulation started from the same state and were running on faster (but otherwise identical) hardware.
Note that software can emulate any physical process, so if we cannot yet model the workings of the human brain, then that is only because we do not yet understand the workings of the human brain.
Just as magic is not the reason that predicting the leaf is impossible, magic is also not the reason that predicting a human choice is impossible. The reality is that there is no magic. Once we understand reality, we are free from superstition, and once we are free from superstition, we have a greater incentive to start thinking for ourselves.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
I am an atheist who sees American Christians as allies in many ways because I find them to be both more open minded than progressives and more open to individual freedom than progressives.
There are two big reasons why American Christians are more open to freedom and to ideas in general than are progressives. 1) American Christians are more open to American tradition, which is mostly about individual liberty. 2) The entire mainstream media is constantly bashing Christians; whereas, they are constantly reinforcing progressive fallacies, thus forcing Christians to constantly think about and defend their positions, while insulating progressives from having to think about and defend their positions.
Nevertheless, there are several reasons why I am not a Christian, and any one of them is sufficient by itself. 1) I was at one time as sincere of a Christian as anyone has been, but over time I grew to find it no longer convincing. 2) The Bible is pretty flawed. 3) The actions of Christians today and throughout history are questionable. 4) There is little reason to believe in magic when there is no evidence other than a claim and many believers in that claim. 5) There is no reason to believe something when doing so will add nothing to my quality of life. 6) Religion is unnecessary for ethics.
Let’s look at the necessity of the Bible or any other religious text for living ethically.
If you are able to determine that the content of a religious text prescribes ethical behavior, then you already know how to behave ethically, and thus you don’t need it.
Let’s look at how the content of the Bible is flawed.
It says there is only one God, and it says that God is all powerful, all knowing, 100% good, 100% just, 100% fair, 100% perfect, and that he created everything. Then it says that God claims he is jealous of other gods, which contradicts the general nature of God as explained in the Bible.
It was written by a people (Jews) who claim it is what God told them, and what God told them was that they are his chosen people. The Bible thus promotes racism. I wonder if God’s chosen people are racist today …
More specifically, God told a man that all of the descendants of one of his sons would be his chosen people, but that the descendants of his other son would not be. Being one of God’s chosen people thus depends solely on your family tree. The Bible thus promotes nepotism. I wonder if God’s chosen people engage in nepotism today …
God allowed his chosen people to be slaves in Egypt for 400 years. The Bible thus promotes slavery.
Then God threatened to send ten plagues on Egyptians if they didn’t free the Jews. The plagues included murdering Egyptian children if the Pharaoh did not agree. The Bible thus promotes genocide.
Then God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not agree. The Bible thus promotes what can only be described as fraud perpetrated through mind rape.
It says God stopped the sun. Wouldn’t God want to gain a little credibility by claiming that he stopped the earth from turning, and thus be the first to claim that the sun does not go around the earth?
What about continents, stars, and galaxies. Why is there nothing?
What about atoms, germs, and evolution? Why is there nothing?
What about predicting the future? Why are there only vague predictions?
The Old Testament thus contains no advanced information at all, but it does contain a lot of material about how God demanded animal sacrifices – just like every other primitive culture. The Bible thus promotes primitive thinking and taxation.
Two of every species fit into one boat?
To one who reads the Bible and thinks for oneself, the the Bible is obviously self-contradictory and primitive, and it promotes fraud, taxation, rape, slavery, racism, superstition, and genocide.
Therefore, why would anyone believe the Old Covenant, which is the source of all of my examples thus far? Why would anyone want to believe it?
Jesus says that God loves you, but the New Covenant contradicts him when it goes on to say that non-believers will burn in a lake of sulfur for all eternity. Don’t forget who created everything and who is all powerful, so basically God is doing that to you. Would a just god do that? Would a God who loves you do that – just for not believing something so primitive, self-contradictory, and unethical as the Bible? The Bible thus promotes the logical fallacy that might makes right.
You could be the most ethical person in the world, but if you don’t conform, you will burn for all eternity? The bible thus promotes fascism.
The texts chosen for inclusion in the Bible were determined by Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century. The Bible thus encourages censorship.
The texts chosen just happened to be those most compatible with building and controlling an empire. The Bible thus promotes big government and big organized religion. Christianity was previously about a personal relationship with God, and there was little interest in a religious bureaucracy like the Catholic Church.
The entire Old Testament and some of the New Testament seems to have been inspired by the Soul of Animals; whereas, the teachings of Jesus seem to have been inspired by the Soul of Humanity, and thus Jesus may have been one of the first people to evolve with the Soul of Humanity. In fact, Jesus was a significant inspiration in the development of my theory of the Soul of Humanity. So, you could say I’m a fan, and thus a kind of Christian if you want.
Science is about as misunderstood as any idea can be. For example, most people today cannot even distinguish science from non-science, and this is no accident.
Science tends to distribute power more widely among us, and thus those who already have power are the natural enemies of science. Science also tends to cause change, and thus those who fear change are also the natural enemies of science. Therefore, those with power, such as Lenin, think of those who fear change as what would later be called “useful idiots”.
Those with power, and those who are useful idiots, are thus allies – except that the useful idiots often don’t know with whom they are allied. Often, the useful idiots think they are working against those with power! Lenin was quite accurate to think of them as useful idiots.
Those with power want us to believe that the work of an individual is the most scientific if he has the most degrees, the most awards, the most publication, the most advanced tools, the most fame, the most followers, the most agreement by other so-called scientists, and most importantly – because Anderson Cooper says so. These are all variations of the same logical fallacy known as an appeals to authority.
However, we don’t need their authority to tell us what to think. We can think for ourselves.
Science is simple to define.
Science is the creation and testing of falsifiable theories until all currently known methods of falsification have been tested.
However, science is very difficult to implement without error, such as the error that could result from the scientists’ personal biases or other fears.
It is easy to perform tasks that look like science, but to implement the simple sounding process of science without error is almost impossible without an instinct for integrity, responsibility, curiosity, courage, tolerance, independent thought, honesty, peace, nobility, and progress. Therefore, a couple thousand years ago:
Appeals to authority originated earlier in human evolution – from conformity and hierarchy – the Soul of Animals.
Falsifiability is the delineation between science and non-science, and thus if a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not a scientific theory. All tests are attempts to falsify the theory.
Falsifiability means it is possible to perform a test where a given result would prove the theory wrong. For example, a theory claiming “everything that happens is the will of a supreme being” is not a falsifiable theory, and thus it is not a scientific theory. Whereas, a theory claiming “the sky turned green and the grass turned blue while we were sleeping” can be falsified the next morning, and is thus a scientific theory.
Imagine trying to falsify the theory that everything is the will of a supreme being. Whatever happens, advocates of the theory could claim was the will of that supreme being. Likewise, the existence of the supreme being is not falsifiable. Nor is the supremacy of that supreme being.
In fact, anyone could posit the non-scientific theory that everything is his will, and no one could prove otherwise. Even killing that person would not prove otherwise. For example, some assholes killed Jesus, but wasn’t that his will? Doesn’t he still exist? Whether you believe that or not, more than a billion people claim it is true, but that claim is not scientific.
Science makes elites and conformists uncomfortable because of egalitarianism. Just one test by one layman could falsify a theory that has been tested by thousands of scientists for hundreds of years.
Science also makes elites and conformists uncomfortable because of transparency. Everything about every test must be completely open to review – forever. How else could we know it was truly scientific? Likewise, no question is off limits – by anyone – ever.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use to justify extremism because of open mindedness. A scientific theory is always open to the possibility of new methods of falsification, and thus nothing is ever final. Also, we can never truly know if the scientific process for a theory is complete because we can never know whether we have considered all the variables. It would thus be difficult for elites and conformists to argue why everyone should support their quest for totalitarianism, war, slavery, genocide, or Pyramids if they admitted that their theories might later be falsified.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use because it requires logic. If a test violated logic, then that test would be invalid. Whereas, logical fallacies are the language of politicians and conformists.
Science is hard for elites and conformists to use because it has authority independently of elites or of the majority. It is very difficult to argue against a theory for which all known methods of falsification have been tested – even if all of the most power people and a large majority want to believe otherwise.
Of course, because of the authority generated by true science, elites and conformists always claim that real science supports their agenda, and that their agenda is thus in sync with reality.
For us to be confident that a scientific theory reliably explains reality, or that an agenda is based on a completely tested scientific theory, someone must communicate that to us. Therefore, processes are necessary to reliably communicate scientific results. Such process include media peer review, multiple corroborating sources, checking the independence and objectivity of sources, checking the identity of sources, and media review by the sources.
Red flags to look for are substitutions for the scientific process. For example, “majority” and “consensus” are never the purpose of testing. Likewise, to claim that the science is “settled” can never be 100% true. Words like “majority”, “consensus”, and “settled” are almost always used as bully tactics to shut down debate.
A big red flag is avoidance of falsification. If a theory has been falsified, then it is wrong. A falsified theory is wrong even if the majority of scientists, the media, and politicians still believe it.
Falsification is a taboo word in a corrupted media because a layman can usually falsify most theories. For example, even a 2 year old child could falsify the theory that the grass turned blue and the sky turned green.
Let’s use Global Warming as an example. When the media report on Global Warming, they never talk about falsification, and they often use the words “majority”, “consensus”, and “settled”. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than when the media report on Global Warming.
In fact, to avoid the falsifiability of Global Warming, the media and other believers started calling it “Climate Change”. Now believers can blame both heat waves and blizzards, or both droughts and floods, on their opponents because everything that happens is climate change, and thus “climate change” is no more falsifiable than the will of a supreme being.
Science is still evolving. Many processes have been developed to make science more efficient and more reliable. For example, peer review usually reduces the probability of a mistake by a single scientist. Likewise, for a given test, reproducible results by other scientists greatly reduces the possibility of a mistake by a single scientist. Double blind studies help to eliminate the possible contamination of results by uncontrolled variables.
Science is neither the only process, nor an infallible process. It is merely the most reliable process we have discovered. No other process comes close.
The soul of humanity is the peak of human evolution; but just as most (maybe all) of us carry the soul of humanity, most of us still carry the soul of animals – the peak of pre-human evolution, which consists of conformism and hierarchy, which are incompatible with the soul of humanity.
However, today’s leaders and their followers act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are a part of the soul of humanity, and many act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are themselves the soul of humanity.
Consider that fascism is little more than the open belief that conformism is a good thing – that when we’re all on the same page, we all benefit. Consider that fascism is thus at the core of political correctness, big government, reeducation camps, progressivism, genocide, slavery, socialism, militarism, tribalism, racism, and communism – all bad things.
The soul of humanity has not yet evolved to the point that we always have the strength to do the right thing, but we have evolved to the point that we at least always instinctively admire the right thing – it’s in our genes.
Animals, of course, do not admire conformity and hierarchy. They just apply them – instinctively.
Surely there must be other intelligent life in the universe, and they must have evolved at least the equivalent of the soul of humanity in their genes at some point. Perhaps they are waiting for some of us to also evolve the strength to live consistently with the soul of humanity and abandon the instinct for conformism and hierarchy.
Whereas, evolution was heading the direction of giving us the strength to do the right thing (live consistently with the soul of humanity) and erasing the instinct for conformism and hierarchy; governments have been changing the direction of evolution by rewarding those who not only instinctively accept conformism and hierarchy, but who admire them. Admiration of conformism and hierarchy is new in human evolution.
Government is killing the soul of humanity – erasing it from our gene pool – forever.
There is much reason for hope. Although conformism and hierarchy are part of our genes, the soul of humanity was able to evolve later – in spite of conformism and hierarchy.