Не наступая на грабли...

Однажды уже развалили союз спровоцировав неразумную гонку вооружений а потом обвалив цену на нефть которая уже к тому моменту стала жизненно необходима.

Нынешняя власть в России утверждает что выводы были сделаны и ситуация не повторится.

Однако так ли это?

Дело в том что сегодня провокации не те что были, сегодня уже никто не пытается заставить Россию вооружатся до банкротства. Даже П.Р.О. которое строится вокруг России скорее всего дороже выйдет для самой Америки чем для России передвинуть пару ракет что бы противодействовать этой П.Р.О.

Сегодня это делается как все знают революциями, находятся стайка базарных "оппозиционеров" которые недорого будут шуметь и давить на болевые точки провоцируя власть. Так как однажды  провоцировали летая возле границ, размещая ракеты в Турции и.т.д.

И похоже что провокации работают, некоторые законы уже заставляют задумываться, как закон о клевете, чувств верующих, и что хуже всего похоже что были бы и не против ввести цензуру в интернете. И если провокации будут достигать свои цели, и законы будут становится всё более абсурдные в попытках остановить это всё, рано или поздно народ восстанет так как абсурдные законы равны для всех, как и все остальные (должны быть).

Единственное что стоит сделать это публично обсудить их требования, и быстро станет очевидно что кроме провокаций никакой программы или плана для улучшения нет. Вывести эту революционную шайку в свет как либеральных политиков которых они из себя пытаются изобразить. Не стоит боятся давать им легитимность вступив в серьезный разговор, на оборот пока они на улице, те не далёкие лозунги работают под влиянием толпы, дав им слово как серьезной политической организации и станет очевидно что никаких политических целей кроме хаоса у них нет. И народ требует больше он политика чем он кого то кричащем на улице. Например на улице можно поднять толпу громить магазины против высоких цен на продовольствие, а в серьёзном обсуждение по телевизору за право управлять страной такая идея уже не воспримется народом, и народ спросит а что вы сделаете по поводу цен, и эти революционеры сами  себя дискредитируют так как это им не интересно, им бы с омоном подраться да лозунги покричать.

Вместо этого похоже что Россия выбрала другой путь, пытаясь бороться с провокациями, закручивая гайку, и если это будет продолжатся есть риск что эта гайка сорвётся.

Короче говоря, грабли не всегда одинаковые.

Nothing in this life worth having comes easy!

Sounds wise at first, but that is true only if one assumes that things worth having are those that do not come naturally or are not possessed by the majority.

Therefore people work hard do get successful, famous and among all things possess things majority don't have, expensive phones, computers, cars, houses, watches, cloths and even spirituality or enlightenment i.e. "I am more enlightened than you" e.t.c.

To put it simply, things are hard because you suck at it. There are of course some hard things one inevitably must do in life there is no escaping that, but if you stop chaining your tail for a while you will realize that the amount of hard work required is only determined by your desires.

Not to desire is of course impossible, even Dalai Lama desires a free Tibet and I would guess plenty of other things as well,  and it would also be a rather dull life would one to succeed in not to desire, but simply giving your desires an extra thought, what those desires are and why they are is more than majority of people do. Some might be brought upon you by a clever commercial, some by your parent, some by your peers e.t.c.

In the global sense though, if you are tone deaf you will require plenty of hard work to become a mediocre musician. Therefore, if you lack math skills you will need enormous amount of work to become a mathematician.

No amount of polishing will make a rock into a mirror.

Therefore the best one can do is to discover ones talent as early as possible, usually manifests in things you enjoy and find interesting, they don't necessary need to be easy, they can be challenging but will not be hard work and in that sense will come easy.

Anything which comes easy is worth having, why would't it be? Because it might be easy for someone else as well? First of all that doesn't diminish the value of what you have, and also if you want to be so unique, find something which is easy for you, but hard work for others, and you will probably make a fortune in the process, while enjoying your life doing it.

Evolution proves there is no conspiracy

Evolution, can be seen simply as the ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Long ago we were living in an environment where we could be eaten, that is being attacked by a predator was a real hazard, and people best able to survive long enough and manage to reproduce presumably passed on those trait, which could be things as better hearing, eyesight, ability to plan, think ahead, and maybe strength to at least have a fair chance to come out on top when everything else fail.

I have seen some simulations of evolution showing that if environment conditions a certain train, even random deaths and global catastrophes wiping out majority of the population including all those possessing favorable traits, after certain amount of generations those traits will inevitably reappear .

With agricultural and industrial revolutions the environment changed somewhat, no longer did humans need to run away from animals out to get them, but there was of course other environmental constants affecting survival, now mainly controlled by humans. How hardworking you were on your farm or factory decided to a great extent your living conditions. The "fight" at that time I suppose was not to bee so poor that you can't afford to have a family. Basically the trait to posses for reproduction was stable income.

If you listen to your parents and especially grandparents the main advice you can get even today is to get a job, probably a hair cut as well and work hard to climb the carrier ladder.

But what are the traits that todays environment produce in the generations to come?

You can no be too successful or passionate about something because as we can see people that are, such as scientists, businessmen and other overly concerned with their carrier, changing the world, being creative, don't have time or will to have many children.

At the same time people not being successful, defined in this case by not having or doing anything don't have the means to have many children.

Hence the ones that reproduce the most are the ones not having any higher goals in life or a will to change the world or dedicate themselves for any greater cause but at the same time being smart enough to work, this is the natural progression from the industrial era. That big mass produces some that become passionate about something, and engage in great things, but due to the reasons stated above will be extinct in 0 or more generations. And this mass produces some which fail to get around in their environment and also get extinct.

What I am getting at is that we are conditioned by our environment not to give a damn, the most successful people in term of number of kinds are the ones that do work to survive and do nothing useful with their time but to increase their own happiness.

To cut on all that typing I will just claim things and you will have to figure out for yourself if that is so.

The reason that todays environment produces dispassionate ignorant people that are still able to work though is this: As long time ago getting away from predators and hunting for food was the main driving force of evolution, and after that the ability to farm and work in a factory, the two main driving forces for evolution today are, money and hedonism.

If you pursuit money you will probably end up rich old man with no children because you had no time for a family and got by with hookers.
If you only pursuit instant gratification you will probably and up addict with no means to support a family.
If you pursuit neither, you will probably end up as a scientist or an artist or some other altruistic person having no means for yourself therefore a family.
But pursuing both as mentioned before ends up in a person having money, and at some point realizing that maybe a family will give you pleasure you are missing in your life all those parties and random sex just don't do it for you when you are 30.

People know that this is happening but can't pinpoint it, they say there is a conspiracy to intentionally stupefy education, put florid in the water to make people complacent, dumbing down TV, to produce sheeple, working drones unable to do anything but to work and consume.

But as I hope I have managed to motivate above, there is no need for a conspiracy, it's just evolution, and that is much more sad, because it is much harder to change that put some shady government to the wall, mainly because the cause is in all of us, and that is the hardest thing to admit.

I also don't understand the debate about nature vs nurture, because any nature we are born with is decided by previous generations nurture, i.e. the environment in which the evolution occurred.

Hence to make any change for the future generation, what has to change is the environment, not only physical but also values.

But what should those values be? Consumption and hedonism of today produces sheeple. Altruism, depopulation.

What will the values of tomorrow be? How will those affect our evolution? Or maybe it is all inevitable? Maybe we are not greedy hedonists because of out environment, but the environment is like that because of our nature?

Look at the Soviet Union, they tried to change that, build a system where everyone got what he deserved, and everyone did to the best of their abilities, and in the end the whole system collapsed because due to corruption and inefficiency, with the usual exceptions majority just did as little as possible and tried to get as much as possible, that is greed and hedonism prevailed.

In that sense "Democracy" which is based on those values did win over Communism which tried to get away from greed and hedonism, and now those values are rampaging across the world with no counter-values. What will we become?

As I said people do see all the problems with todays system, some attribute it to conspiracy, other propose utopian visions, but no matter what we do and whom we put to the wall when revolution comes, we will end up in the same place unless values are changed, "democracy" is just a way to steer our uncontrolled human nature in the desired direction which is basically what politics should do, and hence does it's job adequately.

Just look at any developed "democracy" there are always two sides one promising more money, the other more happiness, usually in for of equality and better social benefits.

Anyway, it is getting late, the text getting long, I start to repeat myself and I am not really going anywhere with this, but sir Winston Churchill was a wise man when he said:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Rant over.

Worthless opinions

Many of the questions asked has already been answered, by scientists, by philosophers and perhaps even by religions. Some questions which are not possible to answer has been reasoned about and given adequate explanations.  

Therefore it is often enough to read and learn about previous solutions to know that there is little point to continue debating some things, because they has already been done, looked at from every angle, scrutinized and settled.

A person that reads and listens, talks little because he knows that nothing new will come of it, therefore a person that talks a lot, and has many, strong, opinions knows little, and every topic is new and full of possibilities.

This collection of thoughts I have going on this blog is therefore a direct measure of my level of ignorance. 

I foolishly display my ignorance here as a hobby, writing about things I often know little about. Instead of learning I express my own thoughts. Therefore nothing here is serious and in some cases even true. 

But the foolishness which goes on in all the seriousness with intent to convince, change or force other to change their opinion is really foolish. Because those you are trying to convince are either equally foolish and have plenty of their own opinions or know enough in order not to listen.

Simple example, consider all the arguments about evolution being just a theory, this is by now very old, but it would save countless amount of effort if people just red the difference between theory and hypothesis before expressing their opinion.

Hopefully I managed to express not as opinion but with some reasoning why opinions are worthless. 

Peace!

Contradictions in atheism

Many well known, probably all, atheists claim that morality is in no shape or form derived from any religion. In fact they claim that it is the other way around, religions adopt the morality of the time an culture they are practiced in.

This is why, they claim, we don't stone gay people today, or women who are not virgin before marriage, or people who work on sabbath, we don't even turn the other cheek. Simply put they claim that we pick and choose from the religion whatever agrees with our preexisting morality to justify it, and we throw away the rest which is no longer fit for a modern society or modern people.

There are probably even god scientific explanations for where morality comes from, how it is evolutionary justified, and if I'm not mistaking Richard Dawkins wrote a book on the topic.

Then why do atheists, including Dawkins claim that religion is the root of all evil? That obviously contradict their first point about morality. And then they bitch about inconsistencies in books which are at least a thousand years old and often written by different authors, when a living person contradicts himself all the time making public statements during a lifetime.

Because if morality does not come from religion, then those religious fanatics doing stupid shit picked and chose those particular verses which agree with their morality. That is, take away their religion and they find some other philosophy which they can pick and chose from to justify the stupid shit they are prone towards.

So, religion is not the root of all evil, carefully explained by atheists themselves, people wanting to do stupid shit will find a way to do so, religion or no religion.

Religions are like knifes, you might use one to cut food and feed people, or you might use it to kill people, or you might not have one at all. Is it then sane to try to eliminate it? Do knifes kill people? Or do people kill people?

Certainly religions have some roll in it, but not unless people want to believe. For example many have little to look forward to in this life, and I don't just mean sick and old people, I mean many perfectly normal people are smart enough to realize that they are working at a dead end job, for a minimum wage and no perspective for anything in their life. They are burning through it, not knowing what to do, or what the point with it all is. They turn to religion for hope that their lives, so to speak, cosmically speaking matters. Take away that and what will people do? No one knows, but we can look at Sweden, one of the most non religious countries, but also one with highest mortality rate, might there be a correlation? But perhaps it is more appropriate for people to lack religion and commit suicide rather than risking fanatics killing other people for their god. On the other hand religion might save many from suicide, who will later do great things, while fanatics killing other people do exist without religion, just look at what happened in Norway, no religious motive. As we already established morality does not come from religion, people prone to violence will find a way to justify it, by religion, race, nationality, football team, e.t.c

Beside one can wiggle religion and make it fit modern morality and society. Can one do the same with ideas which will replace it? Atheist often use this point to attack religion, claiming that it is not an authority because it is changing. Forcing religious people to defend their religion making it more rigid, hence more radical and dangerous. Once again contradicting intent by the outcome.

Hence atheists especially the ones calling themselves militaristic only harm their cause, making religions more radical.

Would one really want to improve the situation and not just sell books talking about hot topic, one would first think things through, so that one does not contradict oneself. And more of all one would embrace religion as a philosophical topic and try to talk about it in modern society and what one can learn from it, that is, religion 2.0 - rational approach, not the irrational and frankly rather childish attacks on religion many are involved in, equally blind an irrational as the people they are attacking.

What is needed, and I think I have said it before, are atheists for religion! We don't need militaristic and radical atheists that is a stupid idea, we need rational people, religious or atheists does not matter.

Once again if people want to be militaristic, radical, violent, us-vs-them, they will find a way to justify that behavior, by religion, race, nationality, sport, politics, economics and atheism.

Peace!

P.S. I think I have a good name for it: Agnostic against atheism!
D.S.

P.S.
In the end it is about having something to be passionate about, regardless of whether it is religion, sport or atheism. Too rational life without passion, over thinking things and rationalizing indulgences is very boring, and sad, which is more probable cause for suicide than lack of religion.

A simple place!

This world would be a simple place if evil wasn't so good.