A Perfect Society - a Vision.

A Perfect Society

 

Interacting with a variety of people over the internet; people with all manner of strong political views and social perspectives, gives me an angle on my own views. Someone asked me what a perfect society would look like for me and that set me thinking.

 

I believe all things start from a basic philosophy. So it is important to start with that.

 

My ideal society would no doubt be that of a small hunter/gatherer tribe living in harmony with nature. But that is a pipedream. Those days are long gone. With 7.6 Billions, and rising daily, there is not enough wilderness or enough animals to make it feasible. If everyone lived that way we’d have the planet stripped bare in a single year. No – we have to start with modern-day societies.

 

My ideal society would be:

  1. A society that respects and lives in harmony with nature and provides space for the natural world to flourish
  2. One based on equality, tolerance and caring
  3. A society with a democratic system with full accountability
  4. A society with excellent public services – schools, healthcare, provision for the elderly, libraries, swimming pools, leisure facilities, cycle paths, transport services, parks, playgrounds, sports facilities
  5. A society that puts quality of life above consumerism, status and power
  6. A happy, friendly place free of racism, bullying, crime, misogyny and nastiness – where a helping hand replaces the grasping hand
  7. A secular society where anyone’s faith is a personal matter and there is no indoctrination of children, discrimination or division
  8. A universal society that is outward looking and has a global perspective; where people can have their own cultural values but still buy into an overriding set of shared values
  9. A society where there is freedom of expression only restricted by the banning of hate-speech or incitement to violence
  10. A society where the individual has the space to grow and express themselves without discrimination, prejudice or coercion
  11. A society with a good work/life balance
  12. A diverse society
  13. A society that values the arts and creativity
  14. A classless society without an overriding elite or ruling class, where the rich and powerful do not pull the strings
  15. A society where hard work and effort is rewarded
  16. A society where nepotism and privilege plays no part
  17. A cosmopolitan society enriched by the mixing of cultures, races and views
  18. A society where people are not exploited
  19. A fair and just society where the laws and regulations are well thought through and applied fairly to create safety, order and yet retain freedom
  20. A society that limits its numbers so there is no overcrowding
  21. A society that does not pollute or waste resources

 

Well I probably could go on but I’d probably be repeating myself. It was an interesting exercise teasing out my vision. It is an idealistic vision. Without dreamers and ideals we have nothing to work towards. I’ll leave it to you to pick over. I’m sure the cynics among you will surmise that it is unattainable, unrealistic and against human nature.

 

I remain an optimist. It is the vision that drives my thoughts, actions and deeds and has done all my life. If we are not moving towards a better world we are moving towards a worse one.

 

I believe the vast majority of people are basically good.

Comments

opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 7:10am
It is at least a basis for debate.
Passion Blues Added Dec 7, 2017 - 7:40am
When do we start building?
Passion Blues Added Dec 7, 2017 - 7:42am
Optimism will get you much further in life than the dark shadows of negativity. Rejoice in your vision....I share it with you. Excellent piece sir, thank you.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:13am
The title says it all. Its a vision.  It would all work fabulously if there weren't people involved :)
 
I guess I have become somewhat of a jaded cynic. Wonder how that happened? Anyway....
 
Opher for as often as we may differ in matters I think it is fair to say that for the most part we share in many of these same aspirations. We just part ways on the mechanics of how we might arrive there.  To be entirely honest I have little confidence of very many of these actually being realized, but this does not diminish their merit.  
 
Visions are healthy until they become mirages. Wisdom is knowing the difference.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:15am
Calloused hands and a full pot?
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:17am
Passion - thank you. I'm glad we share that positivity and optimism.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:22am
TBH - my philosophy is based on having an ideal - a destination - to work towards. A journey is made up of many little steps.
I think I believe in the intrinsic goodness of most people a tad more than you do. In my school I worked towards a similar vision. I was told it was impossible but we pretty much achieved it. My school was not perfect but it was a place of happiness, friendliness and optimism. The youngsters were an inspiration. All you need is love.
If you know where you are going you can at least head in the right direction and begin building the pieces.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:30am
Michael - many are the problems in creating a perfect society - some aspects of human nature being some - but I do not envision a perfect society without a hierarchy. I think people inherently want leaders. I just feel it is a question of balance. We need leaders based on merit and a system where the inequality is within bounds. In my perfect world there would not be a class apart but rather leaders within the community and of the community and wealth and status that was reasonable and not excessive. All my citizens would be of equal value but not of equal status.
I used to say to my students when I was a headteacher that I was no more important than them, we all had the same worth, but my position conferred authority, not greater worth. They understood that, respected it and responded to it.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:31am
TBH - in my experience most people want to work and should be rewarded and recognised for their efforts. I think recognition carried more weight than reward.
Leroy Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:39am
Opher, I agree with most of your vision.  I think most people would.  As I have said before, it is only possible at the barrel of a gun.
 
I think TBH has it exactly right; if it weren't for people, we could achieve this vision.
 
We have all this technology that empowers the individual.  We should need less government, not more.  As a practical solution, I would advocate the federal government playing a lesser with the power given back to the states and the state governments giving more power to the individual.  Let men and women define their own roles in society.  Let's not get our panties in a wad if one group of people choose to live in a way that is different from our own beliefs.  We all don't have to be equal in all things.  In fact, we want to avoid that situation.
 
 
George N Romey Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:41am
Given human nature we will never develop perfect societies. In the US in the 50s is though 70s income equality was much closer yet we still had societal issues. In some ways we’ve gotten much better, for example not considering gay people mental deviants. In some ways much worse with the extreme worship of money.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:43am
Good to hear from you Leroy.
Thanks for adding that into the mix - appreciated. I'm all for individuality operating within a loose framework.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:44am
George - you are of course right - but we can still have an ideal to work towards and may still make some progress.
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 8:56am
Opher
The world is full of great vision for a better world. The question is how do we move from here to there?
 
"A goal without a plan is only a dream."
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:11am
Leroy - Oh! I get it! You mean we just have to follow the rules as originally written! What a great idea. Ok, let's synchronize our watches then on.....5,4,3,2...1. Go!
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:12am
How ya been, btw? Not heard in a spell
Bill H. Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:10am
 
Great article, Opher!
I suspect most of us would want the same, but where there is lots of money and wealth, there is also power. Sadly much of this power is being used to continue to build the wealth and power of the very small group at the top. As we are seeing (especially of late), they will always manipulate the system to work to their advantage at our expense. The byproducts of this are most of the negatives you list above that we wish would go away.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:25pm
Dave - we are already moving along the road.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:26pm
Michael - Great I look forward to it.
See - all you cynics - progress!! There will shortly be a plan.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:29pm
Bill - Thanks Bill. So it's about time we subverted their greedy schemes and got back on the right track. There's always hope!
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:30pm
TBH - What rules?
Stone-Eater Added Dec 7, 2017 - 1:02pm
My ideal society would no doubt be that of a small hunter/gatherer tribe living in harmony with nature.
 
Ok. I hunt for new songs and gather them on a stone wall. Then I look for a plug where I can play my heaviest solos to enlighten the gods of noise :-)
 
I can live with very few. But without that very few that allows me to express and enjoy myself it would be to dull. By all means - such a life is not possible for today's people. There ain't no way back.
 
We should have stopped long ago. But our intellect has driven us to a point of no return. It's not our fault. It's....nature. Maybe we're not intended to last.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 7, 2017 - 1:40pm
It begins with good morals and values that nurture good societies and wise policies.  It won't be perfect, but we should constantly strive to make it better!
Stone-Eater Added Dec 7, 2017 - 1:47pm
Dino
 
Should. Any proposls ?
Stone-Eater Added Dec 7, 2017 - 2:34pm
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:33pm
Stone - sadly I agree - we are the architects of our own downfall.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:34pm
Dino - striving towards an ideal is good enough for me.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:35pm
Michael - I'll check it out. Great stuff.
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:39pm
Opher
 
I see 1848 as a pivotal year in human history. Across Europe, common people took to the streets and the aristocratic classes ceded some of their power to citizenry. If we take the long term perspective, progressive causes have been ascending ever since then. If we are to extrapolate, we should expect more movement in this direction. In that sense, we need not do anything.
 
I would like to accelerate that movement. It's time that we put capable people in charge of our political affairs that are working for society, not the political parties.
 
 
 
 
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:40pm
Dave - I think you are right. we are progressing. The internet will prove effective if we can find a way through the monstrous stream of false information and mountain of data.
Neil Lock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:57pm
Opher: I agree with quite a few of your principles, but I disagree with your main thrust. A perfect society is one which allows other people, and other societies, to co-exist with it in peace and justice.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 5:36pm
Neil - I don't think my vision would preclude such an arrangement - though, in essence, it would be better if it was universal rather than on a national basis. Peace and justice, tolerance, empathy and respect are basic ingredients of what I see as a perfect society.
opher goodwin Added Dec 7, 2017 - 5:37pm
Neil - interestingly - what points do you not agree with?
Tubularsock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 9:05pm
op, what a great set of goals to start out on the trail. And yes the greatest downfall of humanity are humans but that is what we are stuck with and so one has to start from where on happens to be.
 
Tubularsock has a great deal of faith in individuals but once individuals become groups then things start to fall apart.
 
People should be left alone in their personal lives. Personal means that!
 
The best Tubularsock has come up with is to treat my fellow people and animals with respect and help when I can. But when it comes to a masterplan that is where the shit hits the fan!
Don Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:11pm
Opher, you always show you have no concept, theory or explanation of evil.
Michael B. Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:43am
Opher, for some reason, I have to lay out a quote from H.L. Mencken:
 
"An idealist is someone that believes that because a rose smells better than a cabbage, it must be more nourishing."
 
Something like that, lol.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:02am
The best Tubularsock has come up with is to treat my fellow people and animals with respect and help when I can. But when it comes to a masterplan that is where the shit hits the fan!
But that sounds like a plan to me Tub! Treat with respect! Step 1.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:06am
Don - quite right. I don't believe in evil. It's just another invention out of the medieval religious minds of men. What happens with people, even the most negative things, are the result of learning, psychological flaws, and experience. Some people have bad chemistry.
I have no doubt that all that is termed 'evil' will soon be treatable when we understand the way the brain operates more fully.
Evil doesn't exist Don.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:10am
Michael - rose petals are OK but I'm not sure they are that nutritious.
I'm an idealist but I am also a pragmatist. I believe an ideal is something we try to work towards - a landmark in the distance - but we never get there. The journey is the important thing. We have to make things better.
Without ideals we are rudderless.
Neil Lock Added Dec 8, 2017 - 5:29am
Opher:
 
To add to my brief comment from yesterday evening. The main problem I have is with the idea that there can be a single society that accomplishes everything you want. For whatever laundry list of proposals you adopt, there will be those who disagree with some of them. And some of those proposals will need to be enforced; and those, who have different ideas of what a society should be, won’t like that. It’s better, in my view, to allow people to be members of many different societies with different emphases, and tie the whole together in a framework in which different people and societies can co-exist peacefully.
 
As to specific disagreements with your list, here’s a few:
 
#1 – That’s your particular view. Not that I want to stop you giving up some of your own life space to wildlife; but I and others shouldn’t have to do the same if we don’t want to.
 
#2 – “caring” I think is a bit of a dangerous word... It can too easily be used as an excuse to force others to do things they don’t want to.
 
#3 – “democratic” pre-supposes a particular political system. And not, in my view, a very good one.
 
#4 – “public” services. Again, this pre-supposes a big state/government “granting” these things as privileges. Why not simply let businesses provide them?
 
#5 – Quality of life is subjective. Whose quality of life will you put above consumerism, status and power? Different people have different tastes; which tastes will you allow people to satisfy and which not?
 
#6 – Total freedom from crime, I think, is unrealistic. There will always be a few idiots.
 
#11 – Work/life balance must be the individual’s decision. Closely related to #5.
 
#13 – it is individuals who value arts and creativity. And each values them in a different way. To me, it doesn’t make sense to have a society try to do these things.
 
#14/#15 – as Michael C. says, there’s a tension between these two – and #5, too. Are you, for example, going to stop people enjoying luxuries they have earned?
 
And #14 has a deeper issue. Several of your suggestions – #1, #5, #19, #20, for example – require positive “laws” that mandate action. Someone has to, in your words, “pull the strings.” In fact, I’m not certain it’s even possible to have a society larger than a certain size (a few dozen?) without a ruling class of some kind. Then we have to ask, who should be allowed that privilege? And why them?
 
#16 – also has a tension with #15. I think you need “unearned” before “privilege.”
 
#20 – whose numbers are you going to limit? And who is going to decide?
 
#21 – targets of zero pollution and zero waste are unfeasible. Far better simply to hold people responsible for the damage they cause to others in these ways.
 
Don Added Dec 8, 2017 - 6:38am
Believe me Opher, until you come up with a concept of evil, you will never understand this world.  Evil comes into our world by the renegade elohims just as the Scriptural revelations are trying to get through to you.
George N Romey Added Dec 8, 2017 - 8:21am
I think we as a society believe with the Internet and advanced technology we have put to bed the evils and the riots attached thereto. I don’t think we have and I see massive revolt and revolution in the future.
 
Now revolution might change. Just think if 25% of people walked away from the debt they owe to the vampire banks. The entire financial system would collapse. Yet not one shot fired. When enough people have been hosed by this system designed to destroy the middle anything is possible.
 
But the what replaces it? Think 20th century Russia and Germany. A society in revolt is ripe for a mad man to take control.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 10:45am
A Perfect Society only has to answer one question, what is it to be a good or noble society? 
    A Perfect society should have Universal healthcare insurance?
     In a perfect society people would not get sick very often. There would not be a need for so much expenditure of prisons, and Courts, and litigation.
  In a perfect society people could trust each other, there wouldn't be a need for so many guns, and missiles and prisons.
Armies, prisons, so many police, nuclear missiles, anti missiles, surveillance technology, meta data collection,..
   If people are poor or starving they do their part, be good and ask the Lord and he gives to them.
     In a perfect society people would be good, honest and just. This all comes from worshipping the Lord for the sake of being good and Ethics.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:54pm
As a pro-gun guy I'm for the hunter society. Gathering is for pussies. ;-)
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:07pm
Neil - great - at least it has started a discussion about it. I will digest your words and get back to you in more detail when I get a minute.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:08pm
Don - I don't need archaic ideas to help me understand the world. Those ideas are long past their sell-by date.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:11pm
Barath - everyone gets sick and dies. Healthcare should be free.
Yes - hopefully there would be little need for guns or prisons.
Nobody should be starving. Unlike now where the starving call out to imaginary gods and are deafened by the silence.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:11pm
Barath - there is no Lord - all archaic superstition.
opher goodwin Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:12pm
Benjamin - a bit of gathering never hurt anybody. A bit of hunting did.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:44pm
Opher:
    People need protection from illness, disease and death everyday, not just when they get sick. Everyday there are a billion things in the environment trying to kill us; tetanus, bacteria, e-Coli, hurricanes, Sharks, snakes and alligators, drunk drivers and even other people.
   The Lord is powerful, he protects believers and punishes those who try to harm them.
       Sacraments have many purposes; they make one good, they give one more of the Lord's Spirit, they purify,(i.e. Communion), they are medicines. Having worshipped the Lord with faith and having taken proper  sacraments (Communion) one is immunized from their environment.
   Therefore they rarely get sick.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 1:47pm
Opher:
   Why do you keep telling me there is no Lord when I keep saying I believe in one and the Lord is real?
Stone-Eater Added Dec 8, 2017 - 2:32pm
Barath
 
I believe in one and the Lord is real?
 
Wrong. Why ?
 
I believe in one
 
True.
 
the Lord is real
 
The true before doesn't make the second "true"....
 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 2:59pm
Stone Eater and Opher:
     Nobody gets too much heaven no more
It's much harder to come by
I'm waiting in line

Too Much Heaven 
That's what people are looking for in a religion. Wonder, awe- they want to know a little bit of Heaven. Why complain about someone who has found it?
Stone-Eater Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:24pm
Why complain about someone who has found it?
 
An illusion can become reality for the person. That's ok for me. It's like self-healing. People believe god has cured them but in reality they themselves gained the power through belief to heal themselves.
 
I just don't understand in the first place HOW people can believe something that is so AFAR from any senses they have.
Stone-Eater Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:32pm
BTW: Radio waves were unknown until we were able to capt and interpret them. Because they're out of our natural spectrum. Ok. But "god" would have be something that encompasses the universe as a creator.
 
The ultimate question is:
 
When there is a creator - what created "god" - and what created the creator of "god" etc. ?
 
And - forget the word "purpose", because that word is a human creation. It doesn't exist in nature. And when it doesn't exist in nature "god" hasn't planned to create a "purpose" for humans, because "it" created nature....
 
Cat bites its tail.
 
FAZIT: Religion and god are useful solutions for things our mind cannot explain. Or are not trained to afterthink.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:35pm
Stone Eater:
     Why do you say it's an "illusion". You don't live in neighborhood, or know the experiences I have had. Because the Lord could not possibly have revealed himself to me and not you?
    Try worshipping him by his name.
    A father feels the greatest sense of pride when his infant learns to say his first word and it's "Dada" or father.  
     People say their infant is smart if he learns to speak early.
     People should be grateful to the Lord everyday for giving us life and a world to live in. The Lord only thanks people when they worship him by his name.
Don Added Dec 8, 2017 - 3:42pm
Once more Opher and all your fellow travelers.  Try to build a utopia and you will right away discover a snake has entered your garden.  It happens to all utopias.  Name one that did not eventually disappoint you. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 8, 2017 - 4:00pm
Its the 4:00 hour on a Friday, I've got a full bottle of Jamesons and jammin out on some Jimi. Boo-Yah! Perfect society!
John Minehan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 5:52pm
"So Opher, I completely agree with all your dreams listed above, but I think the 10-billion dollar question is how do you reconcile #14 and #15? 
A classless society 
and
A society where hard work and effort is rewarded
 
What is the proper reward for hard work?"
 
Just a thought, and certainly not an answer, answering this question:
 
1) needs to be based on understanding different people have all kinds of different motivations;
 
2) requires knowing a "classless society" also has to figure out how to be a meritocracy; and
 
3) such a society has to recognize some jobs have more economic value (and, thus, rightly claim a greater economic return); but
 
4) good work (that is needed) has an intrinsic value; and
 
5) unnecessary or valueless work is a waste of human potential, no matter how well it is done.  
John Minehan Added Dec 8, 2017 - 6:01pm
I think (based on what I have seen) that you probably can't do that on a societal basis, but maybe, for at least a while, you may be able to do it in an entity or part of an entity in the  business, social or government sector . . . and we can all learn from that no matter how long (or short) lived that endeavor might be.  (So long as "Lessons Learned" are captured and studied.)
 
You can't save the world, but you can make your part of it function better at least for today . . . . 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 12:47am
In a World where everyone is honest and fair everyone could be free.
opher goodwin Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:21am
Barath - believers get sick just as much as non-believers. I keep telling you their is no Lord, because there is none, and because you keep coming up with nonsensical statements like this on my threads.
opher goodwin Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:22am
Barath - nobody is complaining about your personal beliefs. They are complaining about you stating them as truths.
opher goodwin Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:25am
Don - it may well be, due to human nature, that a utopian society is not possible. But at least we are making progress. Life is better than it was a few hundred years ago. We are getting better. And we need ideals.
opher goodwin Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:25am
TBH - there you go! It is achievable!
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 7:21am
Opher:
  Everyone states what they know and believe as being  true. Why complain?
     There should be a place on the marketplace of ideas for views that people disagree with.They complain that I state the truth as truth.
      Your article is your point of view. I wrote mine. What complaint is there in that?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 7:48am
.  Opher:  
“Why should we not lie?” We feel that such questions are meaningful because in all discussions of this kind some ethical premises are tacitly taken for granted. ...
  Without (such) confidence, social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult. Such cooperation, however, is essential to make human life possible and tolerable. This means that the rule “Thou shalt not lie” has been traced back to the demands: “Human life shall be preserved” and “Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.”
Albert Einstein, The Laws of Ethics and Science
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 8:00am
    There is a deeper world than this
That you don't understand
There is a deeper world than this
Tugging at your hand
Every ripple on the ocean
Every leaf on every tree
Every sand dune in the desert
Every power we never see

(see Sting, Love is the Seventh Wave)
Doug Plumb Added Dec 9, 2017 - 8:22am
Several points opher, but I'm just going to tackle a few points here:
 
re "One based on equality, tolerance and caring"
So you would set common law aside in favour of a ruling class that makes policies to work toward these undefinable ideals.
 
re "A society that puts quality of life above consumerism, status and power"
This is a private thing, up to an individual, not a public government. Rights and obligations must first be divided in private and public before we can begin to discuss them. A government cannot legislate morality
 
re "A cosmopolitan society enriched by the mixing of cultures, races and views"
So that no two groups agree on what is right and wrong? Its well known that multiculturalism creates unhappiness for all groups being mixed. That is why we are getting it, because the PTB hate the West. They do not hate Japan or Israel or other countries, only ones that have common law are being destroyed through multiculturalism.
 
re "A society that limits its numbers so there is no overcrowding"
Who decides who lives and dies or is able to reproduce?
 
re "A society where there is freedom of expression only restricted by the banning of hate-speech or incitement to violence"
So no free speech, speech must be restricted or controlled by those in power. So what is hate speech anyway? Can you define? So if one group is seen as doing something bad, no one should speak out ?
 
re "A society where nepotism and privilege plays no part"
Someone has to make the decisions to create the reality you wish for. Will they do it for free and without privilege? Will they say that I will be the one not to have children to keep population under control?
 
  I do believe that people need to stop making up their own philosophies and learn what the great thinkers of the past have said before putting pen to paper and creating constitutions. Books on Theoretical Jurisprudence are relatively easy to read and do not require the deep though of good philosophy books.
 Immanual Kant has written Metaphysics Of Morals, and it is a guide to the good society. Very similar to USA constitution, but notably restricts freedom of association to prevent the emergence of secret societies.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 9, 2017 - 9:45am
Opher! How are ya this afternoon friend?  The Jamesons is good. I'm channeling James Joyce today :)
wsucram15 Added Dec 9, 2017 - 1:39pm
Opher..
Im coming to live in your world. Let me know the address and I will make reservations for the entire family.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 2:11pm
Opher:
   I'm tired of your liberal ass phony, failed liberal solutions that don't work crapola. I make perfect sense unless you liberal crapola Christian pathological lying price of crapola.
     Lie for the sake of your Devil go kiss his Crucified ass you turnip.
    Scientists would lead this world to its destruction. Your stupid scientists are inferior asshole. I know because I see.
Don Added Dec 9, 2017 - 3:41pm
Other, I am not really talking about human nature.  The  snake in the garden comes from another dimension.  Unless one can build spiritual protection into their Eden, sooner or later they are always done in.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 3:58pm
Opher:
     I apologize for getting too upset with you. I know you're basically good.
   But, I will tell you that scientists are arrogant. They are only mortals. In the vast expanse of the Universe what is man's rightful place? At the center. No. Most Other world's are still beyond the fastest Spacecraft. The Lord created this World for us, not the entire Universe.
    A man is a tiny being in the Universe be he a scientist or a manual laborer. Even the lowest Angel knows more than any scientist. 
   Though I know that talk of Angels seems nonsense to you, but then why do you think your experience is more valid than mine, or that of others recorded experiences?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:18pm
Opher:
    Your reality is relatively comfortable, I would take it, so is mine. But, take a man like Solzenhytzn, unjustly trapped in a Gulag. Would you tell him all there is the power of the State, that he has no hope of salvation or Justice save the State alone? Then he has little hope. Not everyone is as lucky as you or me. People live in war torn places, and torture cells. What hope have they except recourse to the Lord?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 4:27pm
.   The spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded;
    58.68 million deaths in 2016 so far, but rising at the rate of about 21 deaths every 10 seconds. World Population Clock: 7.5 BillionPeople 

www.quora.com/How-many-people-died-in-2016
    
The Lord cares when people die of injustice. People die everyday, or every 10 seconds.
opher goodwin Added Dec 9, 2017 - 5:26pm
Barath - what you believe is fine with me. It's a personal thing. But if you comment then expect people to come back at you.
Neil Lock Added Dec 9, 2017 - 5:31pm
Opher: I've just sent this e-mail to Autumn.
 
Hi Autumn,
 
An individual calling himself “Barath Nagarajan” has been disrupting my thread here: http://writerbeat.com/articles/19660-On-Community
 
I have dealt with the issue myself as well as I can. He seems to have a particular problem with another commenter called Jeff Michka. Initially I saw both as culpable, but having examined the evidence, I see that Jeff Michka was provoked. I’m not happy with how either of them have behaved, but I’ve already told Jeff Michka that I’m happy for him to comment on my threads in future.
 
But now I find that the same Barath Nagarajan is disrupting Opher Goodwin’s thread here: http://writerbeat.com/articles/19705-A-Perfect-Society---a-Vision-
 
In my view, it would probably be a good idea to ban Barath Nagarajan at this point. I’ll post a copy of this e-mail on Opher’s thread.
 
Cheers,
Neil
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 5:54pm
Neil Lock:
I'll give you an idea of the complaint I filed, since you're a liberal racist.
    Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights Ratified 7/9/1868. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(U.N. Convention Against Torture)
 PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 6:17pm
Neil Lock:
(See Snyder v Phelps)
     Westboro's signs, displayed on public land next to a public street, reflect the fact that the church finds much to condemn in modern society. Its speech is "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern,"
 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2981429692939250360&q=snyder+v+phelps&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 6:41pm
Opher:
   Okay, sorry for getting angry. But, I wanted to show you that a World with a Lord or God would be a better or 'more perfect' world as the Framers of the U.S.Constitution might say.
   Would you disagree with that in theory?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 9, 2017 - 6:47pm
Opher:
    I've gone beyond the point of wanting material things to a large degree, so what would you say I should want if I don't want material things as an agnostic? That non material things like Heaven don't exist?
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:08am
Barath - I would suggest that you either start creating something or you become involved in some meaningful activity such as saving the elephants or the planet. They make life worthwhile.
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:09am
Jeanne - you are always welcome in my world.
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:09am
Neil - Barath does get carried away in some religious mania. I just leave him to it.
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:16am
John - thank you for that input. I've been away a few days so am just catching up.
Reconciling - A classless society 
and
A society where hard work and effort is rewarded
I do believe in a meritocracy and a degree of inequality. I believe that if things are fair and just then life is better for everyone. A simple formula whereby nobody can earn more that 20 times the pay of their lowest paid worker would alleviate most of the problems and make things a lot better for everyone.
The incentive for hard work needs to be there. In my experience just being recognised goes a long way. People resent being taken for granted, looked down on or exploited. They don't mind working hard if someone appreciates what they do.
 
 
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:26am
Doug -
re "One based on equality, tolerance and caring"
So you would set common law aside in favour of a ruling class that makes policies to work toward these undefinable ideals.
 
No. I would simply bring in rules - such as nobody can earn more that 20times the amount of their lowest paid worker. I would endorse laws against hate-crime, discrimination and prejudice. I would care about the weaker members of society.
 
re "A society that puts quality of life above consumerism, status and power"
This is a private thing, up to an individual, not a public government. Rights and obligations must first be divided in private and public before we can begin to discuss them. A government cannot legislate morality
 
No again. The ethos of a country stems from the top. Governments do legislate morality in so many ways.
 
re "A cosmopolitan society enriched by the mixing of cultures, races and views"
So that no two groups agree on what is right and wrong? Its well known that multiculturalism creates unhappiness for all groups being mixed. That is why we are getting it, because the PTB hate the West. They do not hate Japan or Israel or other countries, only ones that have common law are being destroyed through multiculturalism.
 
I have worked in many multicultural environments. They work very well as long as there is mutual respect. I do not know why you think it creates unhappiness. The unhappiness comes when one group feels excluded and discriminated against.
 
re "A society that limits its numbers so there is no overcrowding"
Who decides who lives and dies or is able to reproduce?
 
It isn't a question of deciding who lives or dies. It is a question of bringing in the structures - female education, welfare and contraception. In the West fertility is well down. It is social structures that make the difference.
 
re "A society where there is freedom of expression only restricted by the banning of hate-speech or incitement to violence"

So no free speech, speech must be restricted or controlled by those in power. So what is hate speech anyway? Can you define? So if one group is seen as doing something bad, no one should speak out ?
 
We have laws on hate speech in the UK and incitement to violence too. It does not restrict my freedom of speech. It certainly does not restrict me speaking out against injustice. I am free to castigate with impunity. I am not free to incite people to hate other groups or to use violence against them.
 
re "A society where nepotism and privilege plays no part"
Someone has to make the decisions to create the reality you wish for. Will they do it for free and without privilege? Will they say that I will be the one not to have children to keep population under control?
 
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:57am
Neil - I have finally got a bit of time -
As to specific disagreements with your list, here’s a few:
 
#1 – That’s your particular view. Not that I want to stop you giving up some of your own life space to wildlife; but I and others shouldn’t have to do the same if we don’t want to.
 
I am not talking about anyone giving up their own space Neil. I am talking about setting aside wilderness areas as sanctuaries for wildlife. We could quite easily do that without too much trouble. I do not think that designating 50% of the planet for wildlife is too big a deal.

#2 – “caring” I think is a bit of a dangerous word... It can too easily be used as an excuse to force others to do things they don’t want to.
 
I like caring. We need to do a lot more of it, use it a lot more and apply it to both the weaker members of society, each other, foreigners, other people in need as well as animals and plants around the world. Caring needs nurturing. It is the highest order of human actions.
 
#3 – “democratic” pre-supposes a particular political system. And not, in my view, a very good one.
 
I think people need a say in decisions that are made. That is democratic for me.
 
#4 – “public” services. Again, this pre-supposes a big state/government “granting” these things as privileges. Why not simply let businesses provide them?
 
The history of businesses providing education or health-care, transport or energy, etc. is not good. They exploit people by charging too much, cream off profits and have the wrong aims. Example - education is not just to provide fodder for industry. It has a far wider remit. When business or religion becomes involved the remit narrows. This is not only not desirable; it is simply wrong.
 
#5 – Quality of life is subjective. Whose quality of life will you put above consumerism, status and power? Different people have different tastes; which tastes will you allow people to satisfy and which not?
 
Quality is something that can be established by creating an ethos - such as we used to see with the BBC but has been dumbed down. It is ethereal and complex but is not impossible to nurture and create the ground for it to flourish. We all know what it is.
 
#6 – Total freedom from crime, I think, is unrealistic. There will always be a few idiots.
 
Yes but we can aim towards it and, with the greater use of brain altering technology, develop treatments that will be far more successful than the crude prisons and fines applied right now.
 
#11 – Work/life balance must be the individual’s decision. Closely related to #5.
 
To an extent. It isn't right now is it? Most people are tied in to a treadmill. We need to provide choice. We will not have the need for mass workforces. Automation will free us up.
 
#13 – it is individuals who value arts and creativity. And each values them in a different way. To me, it doesn’t make sense to have a society try to do these things.
 
Society can provide the means. Society can provide the finance. Society can set the ethos. Society can give the education and emphasis. What the individual does is up to them.
 
#14/#15 – as Michael C. says, there’s a tension between these two – and #5, too. Are you, for example, going to stop people enjoying luxuries they have earned?
 
I have no problem with a meritocracy and hierarchy as lo ng as it is limited to 20 times the pay of the lowest paid worker. There should be reward for hard work and effort as well as exacting jobs. That tension can be resolved.
 
And #14 has a deeper issue. Several of your suggestions – #1, #5, #19, #20, for example – require positive “laws” that mandate action. Someone has to, in your words, “pull the strings.” In fact, I’m not certain it’s even possible to have a society larger than a certain size (a few dozen?) without a ruling class of some kind. Then we have to ask, who should be allowed that privilege? And why them?
 
We do not need a hierarchy to do that; we need a committee of varied experts. That's why we make governments.
 
#16 – also has a tension with #15. I think you need “unearned” before “privilege.”
 
Too many people get to positions of wealth and power through connections or support rather than on merit. It shouldn't be who you know or who your mum and dad were.
 
#20 – whose numbers are you going to limit? And who is going to decide?
 
I'm not proposing to limit by force - just by the social structure put in place. In the West our fertility rate is falling. W
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:58am
Don - I don't believe in that other dimension.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 10, 2017 - 11:28am
Opher:
    You suggest serving "saving animals or the planet". How about serving truth, justice, the law, Ethics, Art, music, plants, trees, birds, philosophy, theology, Astronomy, physics, (even Science,but not scientists), nature and the Lord(which you don't believe in, I know)?
   Is the only means of salvation to serve others?
opher goodwin Added Dec 10, 2017 - 3:09pm
Barath - all of those except Theology (the study of fairies and tales of the imagination) and the Lord (who is fiction too).
To serve others, improve the planet, and to help all creatures, to make people think, to evolve your art and create wonders, to appreciate the wondrous universe into which we have opened our eyes and absorb the beauty to enrich our dreams. To search for truth, to express ourselves most eloquently and to find fulfilment.
That's enough for me.
A. Jones Added Dec 10, 2017 - 8:46pm
My ideal society would no doubt be that of a small hunter/gatherer tribe living in harmony with nature. But that is a pipedream. Those days are long gone.
 
No, they're not long gone; they just never existed.
 
Hunter-gatherer clans did not "live in harmony with nature", nor did they practice "equality, tolerance and caring." You're not interested in history, I take it. No problem. Consder this:
 
You have at least 40 titles of self-published material on Amazon.com. Good, bad, or indifferent, I'm sure your writing took time and labor. Do you think that if you lived in your ideal society — hunting food, preparing food, looking for potable water, making your own tools, making your own hunting weapons, making your own clothing, making your own shoes, caring for the sick (including yourself), fighting wild animals, and trying to survive unpredictable weather such as storms or earthquakes — that you would time and energy left over to do something utterly useless to such a society like writing your personal opinions on rock groups?
John Minehan Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:39pm
'Do you think that if you lived in your ideal society — hunting food, preparing food, looking for potable water, making your own tools, making your own hunting weapons, making your own clothing, making your own shoes, caring for the sick (including yourself), fighting wild animals, and trying to survive unpredictable weather such as storms or earthquakes — that you would time and energy left over to do something utterly useless to such a society like writing your personal opinions on rock groups?"
 
People did (as very primitive societies do today). 
 
People might have thought, wrongly, it had practical effects. 
 
On the other hand, for the people doing cave paintings in France or rock painting in the Outback, there were probably personal benefits. 
opher goodwin Added Dec 11, 2017 - 4:33am
A.Jones - hunter gatherer societies had an interesting lifestyle. there were periods of easy living and periods of starvation - depending on success of hunting, seasons and migrations of animals etc. They also varied greatly depending on climate in the regions they lived.
I have been interested in a few of these groups - the Plains Indians and South American Indians and Australian Aborigines. There was a division of labour with women doing the bulk of the gathering, water collection and domestic activities including child care and food preparation. There was plenty of time for leisure, sport and honing skills. While writing would not be an art they would pursue, story telling was definitely high up on their agenda.
You are right to an extent concerning living in harmony with nature. Certainly where-ever they went the first victims were always the megafauna. They were easy to find and kill and were hence wiped out. However, most hunter/gatherer societies lived in harmony with nature, gave thanks for a kill and respected their prey. They didn't kill for pleasure and used every part of the animal they killed. They knew the habits of creatures and the vagaries of the seasons. They respected nature greatly.
This is far from the picture you portray.
opher goodwin Added Dec 11, 2017 - 4:40am
John - I think the cave paintings, music, dance, costume, hair, body art and tales were elaborate and essential parts of those primitive cultures. They have passed down to our own times and are all still highly valued.
There were aspects of shamanism in those artistic endeavours. They had meaning in a spiritual/ritualistic sense. The spirits were involved in making a hunt successful. There was much that we can only guess at or glean from studying the groups who are still living in this manner.
Neil Lock Added Dec 11, 2017 - 7:05am
Opher: Your suggestion of limiting what people may “earn” I find a bit strange. My immediate reaction was: who are you to claim such a right to interfere in other people’s lives?
 
It looks as if you have, at the back of your mind, the idea that company bosses exploit their workers, and so shouldn’t be allowed to profit from that. The problem certainly does exist in some companies. But you neglect the fact that entrepreneurs and company directors are shouldering almost all of the risk that attaches to doing business. If a company goes down, the employees lose their jobs; but the bosses lose everything. (Unless, of course, they can “do a Trump” and weasel their way out of it). There is, therefore, a case to be made that when a company is doing well, the bosses should get more than their immediate and direct contribution to it would seem to warrant.
 
There’s another problem too, which you may not have thought about. Many highly paid people aren’t company bosses at all. Top sportsmen or actors, for example? Or the top surgeons and medical consultants? Or people who do dangerous or risky work? How, if at all, would you seek to apply your idea to them?
 
Then: “The ethos of a country stems from the top. Governments do legislate morality in so many ways.” You’re almost sounding like a religionist here. Instead of believing that ethical rules come from some deity, you seem to think they come from governments! But the reality is, that political parties and governments today are basically just criminal gangs. Do you really want to hand criminal gangs carte blanche to rule over everybody as they see fit?
 
And you don’t think that “hate speech” laws restrict your freedom of speech? Well, the civil rights organization Liberty (of which I’m a member) thinks otherwise: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest.
 
Back to my specific points.
 
#1 – If you want to make a sanctuary for some species of wildlife you particularly care about, all you need do is join with some friends and buy a suitable piece of its habitat. Then it will be up to you and your friends who (if anyone) is to be allowed on to the reservation.
 
#2 – For me, before you can even think or talk about “caring” in a positive sense, you must show care in the negative sense: “First, do no harm.” Furthermore, caring must be a two-way process. You can’t expect anyone to care about those that behave badly towards them. You might want to insert the word “mutual” before “caring” in your original statement.
 
#3 – The subject of democracy demands an article in itself. It’s on the list.
 
#4 – You say the history of businesses providing certain services is not good. I’d say the same about governments providing services, like the ones you list, that have nothing to do with their core remit. And the reason is simple. When a business gets something wrong, it loses customers; and if it doesn’t fix the problem, it will eventually fold. When government gets something wrong, there is usually no fix; just lots more bureaucrats scurrying around, that in time become part of the problem.
 
#5, #13 – see what I said above about ethos. And what is this “Society” that is supposed to provide finance for arts? Who, specifically, do you think should pay for them?
 
#14 – Your faith in experts is touching. I agree with Steven Weinberg’s view: “An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.” Experts can be useful as advisors, but they do get things wrong (think dietary cholesterol, for example). And if experts let themselves become politicized… that’s trouble.
 
#20 – Is it, then, your view that population levels in the West are now acceptable, and it is only in those countries with above replacement birth rates that any action is needed to limit numbers?
opher goodwin Added Dec 11, 2017 - 8:37am
Neil - I find the level of inequality in society obscene. We have people living in doorways in subzero temperatures while others sit in their penthouses with so many billion squirrelled away they don't know what to do with it. It's an illness that sickens the whole of society. Capitalism and the free market has created a divided society. That is unacceptable to me. I live in the world's 6th richest economy and walk past homeless people. It is not right.
Yes - the obscenity extends to sportspeople and entertainers. I believe it needs capping just like it used to be. They are exploiting people through TV costs and ticket prices. I do not think that is right.
For me it is a moral issue. What is happening is immoral and unjustifiable. When you take it into a global perspective I find it even more despicable.
I am well aware of risks taken by entrepreneurs and they need rewarding for their risks - but within limits.
I agree that there are issues around free speech. Taken too far legislation prevents free speech. We need to carefully watch where the lines are drawn. But I still do not think that it has curtailed my speech in any way. My blog is full of all manner of contentious issues. We live in a community and need to compromise. Nobody should have the right to promote hatred or incite violence.
1. What you suggest is absurd. We are talking about areas of rainforest many times bigger than my country. We are talking about major ecosystems in deserts, oceans and savannahs. Only global action can protect these ecosystems. Individuals, or groups of individuals are powerless - unless they are called Zuckerman.
2. Neil - once again I disagree. Some of the people who need most care are the very ones who are antisocial, violent and antagonistic - drug addicts, criminals and those suffering mental illness.
3. Democracy can take many forms. It is not always wise to rely on the 'wisdom' of the masses as we have seen with Trump, Brexit and most governments that we end up with. However, these things can be addressed in various ways.
4. It is true than many Nationalised industries have not performed as well as they should have. They have a tendency to be monolithic, unable to change and have unmotivated staff. But all these things can be addressed using modern business methods. Many of the businesses (such as transport, water, energy, NHS, Schools) have a effective monopoly with little choice. I'd nationalise the lot of them.
5. Everybody should contribute. The Arts are an essential element of human life. It should be subsidised.
14. I've dealt with some great, dedicated experts in the course of my career (and so not so good ones).
20. No. It is heading in the right direction though. We need to build on it with incentives. I would like to see the human global population reduced to half of its present number. I reckon a world population between 3 and 4 billion would provide a sustainable population that could have a great standard of life without creating poverty, misery and destroying nature.
The major stupidity I see is this mantra towards growth and expansion. It is madness.
Neil Lock Added Dec 11, 2017 - 1:55pm
Opher: I live in the world's 6th richest economy and walk past homeless people.
 
You exhort us to be “caring” towards others, like the Good Samaritan. And yet, when presented with an opportunity to care for homeless people, you (in your own words) “walk past” them. Why do you not offer to take them into your home for the night, or even to pay for them to stay at a local hotel or guest house? And if you say, “I can’t afford it,” how could you have afforded to retire early? Or to travel to places like South America? Physician, heal thyself.
 
You call “absurd” my suggestion of privately creating a wildlife refuge. It’s not absurd at all; the National Trust was originally formed to do something very similar.
 
As to the Amazon rainforest, aren’t you aware that the Brazilian government set up initiatives for people to clear it back in 1964? And you think everything a political government does is morally right, don’t you?
 
Finally, the “mantra towards growth and expansion.” That’s another article I need to put on my list. (Sigh.)
A. Jones Added Dec 11, 2017 - 10:16pm
People did (as very primitive societies do today). 
 
Really? You'll provide evidence for that statement, please. Show me one example of written stories, myths, poetry, or anything else, from a hunter-gatherer society.
John Minehan Added Dec 11, 2017 - 10:21pm
How about this?
A. Jones Added Dec 12, 2017 - 3:52am
How about target="_blank">this?
 
I specified written works — stories, poems, myths, etc. — making use of written language.
 
Writing appeared after hunter-gatherer clans disappeared. 
Dave Volek Added Dec 12, 2017 - 1:46pm
One thing that amazes me about western people is their poor sense of relative wealth.
 
Back in my political days, I got the census stats for our constituency to gain some idea of who are voters were. At that time, the average household income was about $35,000.
 
I found it rather interesting at how many $100,000 income households still called themselves "middle class". Compared to most of the local population, they were rich. 
 
Westerners bemoan how the 1% wealthy dominates our national economies. Yet if we take a $50,000 annual income in the west, we come pretty close to being in that 1% group on a world basis.
 
Neil
I totally get where you are coming from when trying to point Opher to do his own charity work. It seems strange for some of us to admonish the state (or others) when there are so many opportunities right at our doorstep.
 
All I can say is that bringing a homeless person (or two) into one's house is a very disruptive process. We may no longer have that peace and contentment a home can give that helps us to be the good person we currently are. In essence, we just may become worse people because we are so charitable.
 
I'm in favor of lobbying for some basic housing and probably supervision of homeless people.
 
Jeff Michka Added Dec 12, 2017 - 4:47pm
Dave Volek sez: I'm in favor of lobbying for some basic housing and probably supervision of homeless people.-How do you mean "supervision of homeless people.  What sort and level of supervision to you see?  Highly germain at the moment, I've got a small enclave of homeless people staying on my property til month's end.  Am I their supervisor?  horrors! lol.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 12, 2017 - 4:50pm
They're technically "guests" to get around some of the regulatory hurdles and fend off the Trumpist neighbor scared of "the evil homeless," more crazed murderers and drug dealers, just like Latinos...
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 6:15pm
Opher:
   Let's face it in America and western democracies the wealth inequality problem is because of race. People don't care about great disparities in wealth or wealth inequality amongst fellow Americans  because the poor are minorities, and yes the scientists believe the problems of the lowest class are to some degree genetically based.
 Though scientists are full of arrogant, atheistic, superioristic horseradish.
    The Lord can save almost anyone(I know you don't believe in the Lord).
A. Jones Added Dec 12, 2017 - 8:16pm
Let's face it in America and western democracies the wealth inequality problem is because of race.
 
Wrong.
A. Jones Added Dec 12, 2017 - 8:27pm
Volek wrote:
 
bringing a homeless person (or two) into one's house is a very disruptive process
Then he wrote:
 
I'm in favor of lobbying for some basic housing
 
Guaranteed "basic housing" for the homeless is also a very disruptive process. It's simply disruptive in a different way from individual charitableness. A guaranteed "basic housing" program for the homeless merely disperses its disruption over the entire economy.
 
Helping the homeless entails a choice between two different disruptive processes: an individual one and a bureaucratic one.
 
As a genuine liberal, I favor the small, individual, non-bureaucratic, voluntary, charitable approach.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 12, 2017 - 8:31pm
Why do you keep telling me there is no Lord when I keep saying I believe in one and the Lord is real-Let's see, so it "must be true" because YOU say so.  I SAY YOUR VIEW IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT AND A COMPLETE FANTASY LIE.  SO NOW THERE'S TWO SAYING there is no "Lord."  Unless he wears sweaters and walks his family estate in Lincolnshire... :-)  A peer by any other name is still a place to moor a boat.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 8:47pm
Michael and Opher:
  H.L. Mencken:
 
"An idealist is someone that believes that because a rose smells better than a cabbage, it must be more nourishing."
    Actually flowers are sweet , they have sugar, that's how bees make honey. Its why the deer like them. I prefer them to cabbage. I like mine with honey.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 9:04pm
 A honeybee starts the honey making process by visiting a flower and gathering some of its nectar.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Do_bees_need_pollen_to_make_honey
Jeff Michka:
     I've recorded some of my experiences on Insta----. You should check it out. You don't have to believe me. I don't care, but my view has elegance. No theory that is so good could be untrue.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 12, 2017 - 9:43pm
I don't care, but my view has elegance. No theory that is so good could be untrue-And PT Barnum said a sucker was born every minute, and so it seems it was your minute and you buy into your own press and crap. I don't care, but my view has elegance. No theory that is so good could be untrue. -Again sez you...and that means??? 0000000000...a fistful of zeroes. 
Jeff Michka Added Dec 12, 2017 - 9:45pm
So you have no place in a perfect society and more than you do in an imperfect society...
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 9:52pm
Jeff Michka:
     I don't care if you think I have a place in your society. You don't even know me. I'm perfectly happy without "your society". I wouldn't want to be part of any society of yours that encourages jerks to be jackasses.
 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 9:59pm
Jeff Michka:
     I remember seeing the movie Wargames when I was a kid.
Shall we play a game?
    Stephen Falken: Now, children, come on over here. I'm going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren't even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 12, 2017 - 10:23pm
The ancestors of all today's birds evolved later, he says, between 65 and 53 million years ago, independently of the dinosaurs. 
PBS the Evolution  of Birds'
   Human beings they say only evolved about 2.5 million years ago. Thus birds are much older class of species than humans. What stopped their evolution?Do you think somehow they remember the dawn of creation? That somehow it's encoded in their memory?
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:13am
Neil - I hardly know where to start. You put such spin and absurdity on things.
a. I do not believe governments are morally right. Most governments have behaved immorally. I believe it is important for us to get the best government we can and make it work morally. They need holding to account. But just about any government is better than anarchy.
b. I do advocate people to be caring. I do give to the homeless. But those homeless people are the result of bad government policy and I cannot solve that problem by myself. And no - I am not going to give all my money to a black hole or ruin my life by taking people in to my home. There are limits.
c. I am aware that the Brazilian, and other governments, have had policies of hacking away at pristine rainforest for centuries. In recent years that has accelerated enormously and is making many species extinct and greatly threatening others. It is a huge problem.
d. The ecological problem is another that needs dealing with at a far higher level than my limited resources. It requires coordinated global policies that can only come from nations working together. I donate to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth but even they are mere pinpricks - individuals are powerless.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:18am
A.Jones - depends if you include the pictograms of the aboriginal people doesn't it?
Actual writing came about in the agricultural period but the stories go back much further. That oral tradition, dating back to hunter/gatherer days was later recorded in many traditions and myths all over the world. The hundreds of creation myths are part of that - such as what we find in the Old Testament.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:19am
John - the very point I was making to our Mr Jones
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:21am
Barath/Jones - race is one issue, religion is another, class and privilege is another (self-sustaining), then you have education, attitude, luck and serendipity.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:23am
Dave/Jones - I put the onus on the State to look after the weak and homeless. We buy into a caring society and should create a compassionate community. It isn't down to individuals.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:26am
H.L. Mencken:
 
"An idealist is someone that believes that because a rose smells better than a cabbage, it must be more nourishing."
Just shows that Mencken was a complete twat. An idealist is someone who has a vision of something better to work towards, something that is worth working towards. That is all. I don't know why you quoted such a ridiculously stupid statement.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 5:29am
Barath - Homo sapiens only evolved less than 200,000 years ago - incredibly recent.
Birds have not stopped evolving. No species has. Evolution is a continuous process.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 6:34am
Opher:(These were incorrectly posted on your other article).
   I'll quote the New York Times:
The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs. They were flaking crude stone tools by 2.5 million years ago. Then some of them spread from Africa into Asia and Europe after two million years ago.Feb 26, 2002
When Humans Became Human - The New ...
www.nytimes.com › 2002/02/26 › science
Opher in my view birds would be much more evolved than humans and other animals if they had kept evolving.
Mammals drink milk when they are young, without milk at young ages mammals don't develop fully.
Theory: Birds used to drink (cows)milk that was given to them or spilled, they still enjoy the smell but are not allowed to drink it anymore; they stopped evolving so that they would not be competitor to Humans, since they have the advantage of being able to fly.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 6:38am
Opher:
Knowledge is the Mother of this Universe, but goodness is its Lord. There is nothing better for men than to be good, since Gods and Angels know more than men. Knowledge without goodness would destroy this world.
Opher:
Animal Joke: Why are humans more advanced than animals?
Answer: Animals kill each other, humans kill themselves.
Not funny? Wait, It grows on you.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 6:51am
Opher:
    Or Humans kill each other for gain, that doesn't make them more advanced than animals.
     Bears have an opposable thumb and are more advanced than monkeys or apes, so why did humans evolve from Apes?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 6:59am
Opher:
    Why did men evolve from Apes? Apes aren't the smartest or best animal?(Next to humans).
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 12:32pm
If the Lord God created the Earth and living things in 6 days, whales(sea mammals) and sea creatures and birds on the 5th day, then how come birds(aves) are 60 million years old and human beings only 2.5 million years old?
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 12:49pm
Barath - we are apes. 98% of our DNA is the same as chimps and gorillas. We are basically a third type of chimp.
Small changes in our DNA created changes to our brains that promoted greater intelligence. It did not take much.
Bears do not have opposable thumbs, greater intelligence than apes, or hands that can manipulate tools. There are not arboreal.
 
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 12:51pm
Barath - that creation myth is a pile of bollocks. God did not create all that stuff. There isn't any god. He is straight out of human imagination.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 1:08pm
    The giant panda's paw has a thumb and five finges; the "thumb" – actually a modified sesamoid bone – helps it to hold bamboo while eating.
See Panda bears, Wikipedia
Hence the name Panda bear, or the Five brothers.
    After the Ice Age killed off the dinosaurs, the Lord led bears north by Polaris(constellation Ursa minor, the Little bear) to the North pole(e.g. polar bears), or to higher elevations like the Himalayan mountains where they could survive.
    Bears are clanish and protect their families. They are more intelligent than apes. Why didn't bears keep evolving to the level of humans?
     
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 1:34pm
Opher:
  If I use Einstein's simple derivation 
E= mC squared 
then E divided by C squared=m
where c is a constant(the speed of light), and E= energy, and m=mass
Thus solving the equation on the left side of the equal sign, an increase in energy would change matter. Matter changes with input of energy.
   Your DNA material code is wrong. Matter changes according to energy input.
opher goodwin Added Dec 13, 2017 - 1:36pm
Barath - DNA mutations are often brought about by ionising energy.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 1:40pm
Opher:
   The ability of the body for Regeneration of cell tissue is possible with input of energy.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 2:10pm
Opher:
    Lots of people who have undergone cancer treatment have had normal kids, like Lance Armstrong. 
      The energy I refer to isn't electromagnetic, it comes from the Lord's Spirit. In any case, if there is no Lord or Heaven, then what's the point, the dead stay dead. " From dust thou art, to dust thou shalt returnest".
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 2:13pm
Opher:
   They don't like minorities who are better than them.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 2:25pm
I should say the energy I'm talking about is not ionized, gamma rays or x-rays. It is Spiritual and non-ionizing.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 13, 2017 - 2:31pm
People are exposed to UV light without harm in physiotherapy-that's the ultra blue wavelength light.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 13, 2017 - 4:24pm
If the Lord God created the Earth and living things in 6 days, whales(sea mammals) and sea creatures and birds on the 5th day, then how come birds(aves) are 60 million years old and human beings only 2.5 million years old-MAYBE BECAUSE THE GAWDIST STUFF IS ALL BULLSHIT.and  They don't like minorities who are better than them. -Huh?
Jeff Michka Added Dec 13, 2017 - 4:26pm
Bears are clanish and protect their families. They are more intelligent than apes. Why didn't bears keep evolving to the level of humans? IS IT BECAUSE Bears don't like minorities who are better than them?
A. Jones Added Dec 13, 2017 - 8:30pm
that creation myth is a pile of bollocks
 
So is the Darwinian creation myth.
 
That pretty much leaves us with shrugging our shoulders in response to the question of origins — which is probably the only truly honest response.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 14, 2017 - 1:35am
.  The scientific way of thinking has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal.
Albert Einstein, The Laws of Ethics and Science
 Opher:
      A scientist has to be able to separate his feelings, and what he wants from what is true. In our former arguments on probability we discussed that it is not possible that the Universe and life created itself from nothing. Yet, the biblical creation story is full of childish errors and does not satisfy logical rigour or the known Scientific knowledge.
     Then something else might be right.
opher goodwin Added Dec 14, 2017 - 7:49am
Barath - lots of things might be right. We get to know by testing them, observing them and establishing how they operate. You seem obsessed with things that cannot be seen, cannot be evaluated or tested and do not appear to exist at all - outside the imagination of people. I say they do not exist unless I can experience them - even then they might not exist - they might be figments of my imagination.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 14, 2017 - 8:30am
Opher:
    Someone by their calculations might day the Himalayan mountains cannot exist, because nothing so massive or immovable could be sustained by the Earth. But, just because you have not seen Mount Everest doesn't mean it doesn't exist.What if someone else tells you he has seen them and they are real, would the scientist still deny the possibility of their existence?
     Do you deny History as a subject as well?Ancient historians and historical accounts have supported much of what I have said. How do you know there were Roman legions, or Chariot warfare in the days of Alexander?Or a walled city of the Trojans called Troy?
Neil Lock Added Dec 14, 2017 - 11:24am
Opher Goodwin’s sake! You’re the one that first used the word “absurd” in this conversation. Now you try to use it against me?
 
I cannot solve that problem by myself.” Clever trick, Christopher. You want to force other people to do things for your causes, and you want to force them to do those things against their wills and against their own interests. Yet you yourself refuse to make sacrifices for your own causes: “no - I am not going to give all my money to a black hole or ruin my life by taking people in to my home.” I – and, I suspect, many others here – call that hypocrisy. Opher, if you won’t practise what you preach, why should anyone listen to your sermons?
 
As to rainforest, I already gave you a link to ourworldindata.org that shows that tropical deforestation is decreasing, not accelerating.
 
And if “individuals are powerless” as you claim, do you also believe the converse; that individuals aren’t responsible for the effects of their actions? So it’s OK for us to do what we want without caring a monkeys about others, the environment or anything else?
Stone-Eater Added Dec 14, 2017 - 4:27pm
tropical deforestation is decreasing, not accelerating.
 
Not in the Sahara. I know it and I see it. Each year more dust in Senegal and Mali, each year more Harmattan and less rain....
Stone-Eater Added Dec 14, 2017 - 4:30pm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2808
 
Not new but still valid....
opher goodwin Added Dec 14, 2017 - 6:54pm
Barath - I have seen plenty of evidence of Mt. Everest and even flown past it. I don't believe anything until I see the evidence.
opher goodwin Added Dec 14, 2017 - 6:59pm
Neil - Ha - I only call things absurd when they appear that way to me. An individual, acting alone, is powerless in the face of governments and corporations. Acting together in groups they have power.
I do not ask anyone to go taking homeless people into their own homes. I urge people to appoint the politicians who are responsible for putting in a caring, compassionate system and policies of environmental responsibility.
There is nothing hypocritical about that.
Of course people are responsible for their actions. They are not powerless concerning their own actions.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 14, 2017 - 7:54pm
Opher:
     There is no reason that the North won civil war, the Allies won WWII, that the west won the Cold War, that Americans won our Revolution, and Indians won Independence, that Napoleon didn't finish his conquest of Europe, or that British people are not ruled by French Kings, or not being forced to eat fish eggs with Vodka, if their isn't a Lord.
    Opher, people are responsible for their own (choices)actions? Leaders of governments have made a lot of bad decisions, didn't their choices contribute to their societies considering themselves victims? 
     Any event depends on many choices made by many people, shouldn't one look for causality?
      
A. Jones Added Dec 14, 2017 - 9:31pm
Actual writing came about in the agricultural period
 
Yep. Long after the hunter-gatherer period. Thanks for agreeing with me.
 
QED.
A. Jones Added Dec 14, 2017 - 9:34pm
H.L. Mencken:
 
"An idealist is someone that believes that because a rose smells better than a cabbage, it must be more nourishing."
Just shows that Mencken was a complete twat.
 
Actually, it just shows that Barath misquoted Mencken. Mencken's quote referred to literalists, not idealists.
 
Mencken wrote that a literalist is someone who, on sensing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it must also make a better soup.
A. Jones Added Dec 14, 2017 - 10:15pm
Barath - we are apes. 98% of our DNA is the same as chimps and gorillas. We are basically a third type of chimp.
 
Actually, the non-genetic evidence (phenotype structure) points to the opposite conclusion: chimps and apes are best understood as degraded forms of human. They are retrograde, devolved species of homo sapien.
 
 Small changes in our DNA created changes to our brains that promoted greater intelligence. It did not take much.
 
Utterly impossible. Simple math and all of the empirical evidence disprove your statement. Small changes in our DNA result in injury to the organism or they result in innocuous changes to the organism (blue eyes instead of brown). The odds of a beneficial change happening randomly are effectively zero.
 
Your thinking on evolution is about 50 years out of date. Even hardcoare Darwinists no longer tout the idea of small, random changes to DNA.
 
Additionally, the 1% genotype difference between man and chimp has been revised to a 5% or 6% difference (which is huge) and some researchers claim it's even greater than that. See this brief article from Jon Cohen in Science magazine (2007):
 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1836.full
 
Jon Cohen's complete article from “Science” magazine here:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf
 
And see, especially, the final paragraph from Cohen's article:
 
“ 'I don’t think there’s any way to calculate a number,' says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. 'In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.' ”
 
The 1% myth of genetic similarity between humans and chimps was promoted to the popular media because of its political, social, and cultural implications; not because it was scientifically accurate.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 15, 2017 - 12:33am
     Small changes in our DNA result in injury to the organism or they result in innocuous changes to the organism (blue eyes instead of brown). The odds of a beneficial change happening randomly are effectively zero.
    In 1/10,000 births the Panthera Tigris Tigris species produces a positive mutation. The white tiger, which is has a pure recessive trait for color. This mutation happens because of UV spectrum in sunlight, but is positive sin e white tigers are beautiful and striking  in appearance.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 15, 2017 - 12:54am
The last known free ranging white tiger was shot in 1958. Since white is not a color in the spectrum of sunlight, and prior to 1958 there were few radiation sources other than sunlight, I conclude the white tiger variant is caused by UV based solar radiation.
Bibliographic information: Xiao Xu et al. The Genetic Basis of White Tigers.Current Biology, published online May 23, 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.054
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 15, 2017 - 1:05am
Therefore a positive mutation due to natural environmental factors(e.g. sunlight) has been seen to occur.
    White tigers deserve protection because the phenotype is considered positive, or desirable and  valuable because of its rarity.
opher goodwin Added Dec 15, 2017 - 5:19am
Barath - the reasons for things are complex. Sometimes serendipity plays a part - sometimes great planning - sometimes luck.
opher goodwin Added Dec 15, 2017 - 5:22am
A.Jones - apes aren't degraded humans. We both share a common ancestor and evolved in different ways.
opher goodwin Added Dec 15, 2017 - 5:25am
A.Jones - the way genes interact is only now being understood. The basic theory of Darwin is still the perceived wisdom - small mutations creating changes the beneficial phenotypes of which are selected.
We evolved from our common ancestor through a series of mutations - nothing drastic.
opher goodwin Added Dec 15, 2017 - 5:27am
Barath - it is the same albino recessive allele which occurs in many species.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 15, 2017 - 5:45am
Opher:
    Most white tigers are in India as a variant of the Bengal tiger. The white tiger population decreased close to the point of extinction after colonialism because in India they were considered sacred.
     White tigers also grow faster and are heavier from birth. Albinism isn't considered positive in other species and tigers retain their distinctive black stripes.
     White tigers are considered positive and valued to the point that zoo keepers inbreed white tigers in captivity so as to not lose their distinctive appearance.
   I consider recessive traits for color to be more feminine, as in sex alleles, girls are pure recessive xx, boys are xY with Y being dominant.
   White tigers are pure recessive for the color gene since they usually lose their appearance if mated with an Orange Bengal tiger, the orange color trait being dominant.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 15, 2017 - 3:21pm
Wow from Perfect Society to Tigers, and Barath's posts stay? I guess gawd wanted white tigers in a perfect society, eh?
Jeff Michka Added Dec 15, 2017 - 3:25pm
OH, Geeze someone just tell the Avenger of Amaritsar he's "right?" He looks for approval more than even Geo Romey does, with far less grace, but none the less.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 15, 2017 - 9:34pm
Jeff Muchka:
    Two reasons why the Lord is better than men:
    1. If you have faith in the Lord he never turns his back on you
      2. If you ask men for help in an emergency they do nothing. The Lord immediately sends Gods and Angels to help.
     3. The Lord always keeps his word. "My follower will never perish or fall."
   Jeff Muchka:
       Go annoy and attack someone else. Why don't you stop annoying people.
    
      
A. Jones Added Dec 16, 2017 - 3:54am
apes aren't degraded humans. We both share a common ancestor and evolved in different ways.
 
And that ancestor was what, precisely, and lived when, exactly?
 
Aw, you don't know? Too bad.
 
(Psssst! Opher. The so-called "missing link" is a myth. It's an imagined construct invented for the purpose of holding together a hypothesis for which most of the evidence fails to support.  Everyone knows that the great majority of fossils show the opposite of what Darwin predicted. They show long periods of stasis — nothing going on, and no changes in form — followed by sudden change and the appearance out of nowhere of a new form, i.e., a new phylogenic form, not just a superficial variation of the previous form. Sorry, but Darwinian ideas of random change in DNA fortuitously being beneficial rather than injurious ratcheted up "Mount Improbable" by a mysterious "Natural Selection" fail to explain the data in two fundamental ways: random-mutation+natural-selection fail to predict what the next form would look like; and it fails to retrodict what earlier must have looked like in order to give rise to a later form. Those are major failures.
 
the way genes interact is only now being understood
 
Yep. And the Big Truth about genes that is now understood is that random changes to DNA are either injurious or neutral; not beneficial. We might forgive Darwin for not knowing about that but we shouldn't forgive anyone today for making that assumption.
 
Darwin's hypothesis of randomly-occurring mutations over long periods of time being responsible for the appearance of new species, new phyla, and by extension, life itself presumably from some imagined "primordial soup", is nothing more than the 20th-century's version of a secular creation myth.
 
As I posted, you're thinking on this issue is at least 50 years old. You should try catching up.
 
For starters, read professor James Shapiro's book, "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century."
 
His CV, list of publications, and blog are here.
 
A video of him lecturing at the University of Chicago (where he teaches biochemistry) is here.
 
Open your mind, Opher. You're five decades behind the times.
opher goodwin Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:04am
Barath - the Y Chromosome isn't dominant over the X. It is in fact a stunted chromosome. Males are modified females.
opher goodwin Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:10am
A.Jones - the common ancestor of both humans and chimps lived on the African plains between 4 and 7 million years ago.
I'm sorry - I don't have their name and address.
opher goodwin Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:16am
A.Jones - I did not say anything about a 'missing link'. I was talking about common ancestors.
You obviously known nothing about population genetics. Allele frequency variants in a population would make it impossible to identify a precise time when a speciation occurred. It is a continuum.
My own research clearly showed the way evolution works. Periods of time when selection pressures were relaxed (food glut, death of predators) and mutations that would have normally been selected out survived creating greater and greater variation. When selection pressure resumed it selected one or two variants that were different to the original.
Evolution works in jumps and starts. It is not linear.  
opher goodwin Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:20am
A.Jones - alternative views on evolution are ten a penny. They sell a lot of books.
Try reading the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - or The Greatest Show on Earth.
But hey - you'll believe what you want to believe and ignore the rest.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:42am
Civilization started at many different places at the same time, but reached different levels of advancement due to environmental factors such as climate, availability of water, and soil fertility.
     The Arabs lived in the dessert, they were more nomadic. The civilization in Erbil can be traced back to about 5000B.C.E. The (dravidian)Tamils are probably the birthplace of civilization.
   Is there any reason to try to trace it back to common ancestors?
    There is a Y chromosome, where did it come from? I doubt it came from an x chromosome, that's why boys are different than girls. There is no evidence that an x chromosome can be altered into a Y chromosome. It's only an autosomal theory.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 16, 2017 - 5:57am
Hippopotamuses evolved after whales and dolphins, that doesn't mean Hippopotamuses are better or more advanced.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 16, 2017 - 12:10pm
The Amaritsar Avenger demands: Go annoy and attack someone else. Why don't you stop annoying people.-Why don't you as opposed to promoing your personal, worthless gawdist crap, talk about what constitutes a perfect society. Now yer talking Hippos.  They are clearly more advanced than you, and don't believe in the mythical being you call gawd.  Rave on crazy-swami....
Jeff Michka Added Dec 16, 2017 - 12:12pm
The Lord always keeps his word.-And geezus said, "Can I PISS ON Barath's face?" He missed.  Next time....
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 16, 2017 - 1:19pm
The Lord only appears to those that believe in him. If you believe the Lord always keeps his word.
  I'm done here.
   I already wrote about what constitutes a perfect society. What I'm arguing is that a perfect society is only possible if you believe in a good and just Lord.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 16, 2017 - 1:34pm
Truth and justice themselves are in debt to those who always worship them; to those who have paid off their debt to righteousness, righteousness always protects them.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 16, 2017 - 4:36pm
Jeff Muchka:
   I'm sure what kind of garbage goes into your vain mind, but your blather is incoherent. 
The Lord doesn't like as-/($es. He punishes them for worshipping the devil by making them intloerable.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 16, 2017 - 7:29pm
The Amaritsar Avenger spews: for worshipping the devil by making them intloerable-. What's "intloerable," your sister's name?
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 1:17am
the common ancestor of both humans and chimps lived on the African plains between 4 and 7 million years ago.
 
And how do you know that? You read it somewhere, that's how you "know" that.
 
I'm sorry - I don't have their name and address.
 
You have even less than their name and address. You don't even have their fossils. You have nothing. You believe a common ancestor lived in a certain area because you have a hypothesis that determines your belief. It ought to be the other way around: first the evidence, then the belief.
 
I did not say anything about a 'missing link'. I was talking about common ancestors.
 
"Missing link" = "common ancestor". In this context, the two phrases mean the same thing.
 
Try reading the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
 
Been there, done that. Dawkins's book is nothing more than pop-science-mythology. He has been debunked many times by many professionals in Origin of Life Studies. The book appeared in 1976 — almost 42 years ago. As I posted above, your thinking on this issue is decades out of date. It's clear you have no idea what's going on today. I posted links to one of the most important researchers in the field today, James Shapiro, at the University of Chicago.
 
Try reading anything by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. They invented the idea of stasis punctuated by rapid change . . . even though they have explanation for what could have caused such rapid change. It obviously can't be the Darwinian mechanisms of small, incremental change over long periods of time because the observed changes preserved in fossils are not incremental but large, and the periods of time over which they occur are geologically brief, not long. So Darwin and his adherents were simply wrong about all of that.
 
I know it's difficult for a narrow-minded, superficially educated dogmatist like you to alter his biases, but try keeping an open mind and learning something new.
 
The only things that are old and fossilized around here are your opinions.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 1:21am
My own research clearly showed the way evolution works. Periods of time when selection pressures were relaxed (food glut, death of predators) and mutations that would have normally been selected out survived creating greater and greater variation.
 
You have it  backward. Natural Selection does nothing but weed out mutants in an otherwise stable population, since mutations are mainly injurious to the organism. Natural Selection is a purely conservative force: it always works to favor stability in the current population. It creates nothing new.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 3:20am
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-richard-dawkins-is-no-scientist-the-survival-of-the-least-selfish-and-what-ants-can-tell-us-9849956.html
 
Distinguished biologist E. O. Wilson calls Richard Dawkins an "eloquent science journalist":
 
"What else is he? I mean journalism is a high and influential profession. But he’s not a scientist, he’s never done scientific research. My definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: ‘he or she has shown that…’"
 
Note well: "He or she has shown that _________", and not "He or she has argued on behalf of _________."
 
The former shows you've done research and drawn conclusions based on evidence that others can observe and verify for themselves. The latter merely indicates you believe something and that you have cherry-picked data (omitting other data) that might be read in the light of your belief.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 17, 2017 - 12:15pm
Opher:
     You're making a value judgment that humans are more advanced and evolved than apes. A.Jones says apes came from humans. I've seen no evidence for this judgement.
    Humans are actually descended from Hanuman(human), the first human avatara who found favor with the Lord because of his devotion to his Danava friend Rama Dasaratha for his assistance in building a bridge to cross the ocean.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 5:59pm
I've seen no evidence for this judgement.
 
The evidence is in phenotype, not genotype.
 
If you compare individual structures of the human form to their analogous structures in the ape, it becomes apparent that the human form is the archetypal form — the earlier, more plastic, more mobile form — out of which the animal form developed into something more rigid and less mobile. A classic example is the hand. The human hand — opposable thumb, precise articulation and movement of individual fingers — is the archetype of the ape and chimp hand, as well as the form out of which paws and wings developed in other species. It's easy to see how a plastic, mobile human hand gradually turned into a rigid, immobile paw; it's impossible to do the reverse: going from a rigid, immobile paw, to a plastic, mobile hand with its precise articulation of individual fingers.
 
Ornithologist Alan Feduccio has a similar idea birds and dinosaurs. The orthodox view is that modern birds evolved from winged dinosaurs, which in turn evolved from wingless dinosaurs. Feduccio correctly regards that hypothesis as nonsense. From a structural, engineering point of view, something that's land-bound could never gain the necessary structures for flight — including the development of true feathers (which have an amazingly complex structure) in place of something like scales. He concedes, however, that it would be possible for something that started out with wings, feathers, and the pre-existing ability to fly, to gradually LOSE those structures to become completely land-bound. He's right.
 
Embryology bears this out, too, for humans and chimps. The early stages of the chimp fetus and the human fetus are so similar that it's hard to distinguish them. But during development, the human fetus retains its early fetal form, while the chimp fetus loses it. One European scientist once said that the human being is actually a FETAL APE, that retains its fetal structures throughout its life, while the ape loses its early fetal forms. Additionally, at birth, a newborn chimp looks uncannily human, but loses that appearance and "animalizes" as it grows. By contrast, a human newborn retains much of its structural appearance throughout its entire life.
 
You have to look at structural form (phenotype) and not just genetics (genotype). In any case, the relation between those two is not understood, and there might, in fact, be no relation at all: i.e., the shape of an animal and its structures (a wing, a fin, a paw) might not be determined by functional strings of nucleotides on DNA (in other words, by genes) but might be determined epigenetically: physically interfering in some way with the very earliest stages of development. The genome might adjust itself to these changes, accounting for differences in genotype.
 
Before the genetics revolution, the idea of an archetype — in German, a Bauplan — was quite popular among some origin-of-species researchers, especially in Europe.
 
Finally, while paleontology is extremely important, fossil evidence (as well as lack of fossil evidence) should be taken into account along with other kinds of evidence, including the comparison of structural forms as summarized above.
opher goodwin Added Dec 17, 2017 - 7:17pm
Barath - you clearly do not understand evolution.
Or genetics - The Y chromosome is basically a stunted X chromosome with a number of genes missing.
opher goodwin Added Dec 17, 2017 - 7:31pm
A.Jones - of course I fucking read it. I wasn't there. It just so happens to have been verified from fossil evidence and DNA.
You do come out with some crap.
There is plenty of fossil evidence and 'missing links' but the most obvious of all is the DNA evidence that backs it all up. I don't know what your background is but you do not seem to understand a lot about biology.
A common ancestor is not a missing link.
As I said before - there are many people looking to make a name with other variations on evolution. You choose what you like. I'll stick with the real story.
You clearly do not understand how selection works. I've already explained this once so I'll type slow.  It operates conservatively in a stable population. When selection pressures are off variation occurs. When selection pressures return different variants are selected.
Evolution does not have to progress slowly or incrementally. It can progress in leaps quickly. There is no problem with that at all.
Your nonsense about apes, dinosaurs and birds is just that - pure nonsense.
The opposable thumb came from the arboreal monkey, to ape to human along with binocular vision.
Birds descended from dinosaurs.
You follow some weird people and believe some stupid things.
opher goodwin Added Dec 17, 2017 - 7:34pm
Barath - all life started from one single cell. Consequently every living thing on this planet is as equally evolved as everything else. Some are more complex and some remain simple.
Apes are as evolved as humans. We are just more intelligent. We both can be traced back to a common ancestor.
No we did not evolve from some supernatural avatar out of superstitious archaic nonsense.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 17, 2017 - 8:24pm
Opher:
   You went to an earlier stage of evolution to a single cell,  I was focusing on the monkeys. So a tiger and a human came from a cell embryo that differentiated into many different beings, but humans and tigers didn't follow the same line of descent. As humans they say evolved from Apes who found favor in the Lord's sight. The Lord taught Apes to walk upright, they used to walk on all fours.
     Take dogs, they evolved from wolves, but dogs believe in being good more than wolves so they advanced. Some animals believe in being good, others don't. The ones that do find favor in the Lord's sight and so evolve.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 8:47pm
It just so happens to have been verified from fossil evidence and DNA.
 
Fossil evidence of THE "common ancestor" of human and apes? Provide a link.
 
DNA evidence proving there was a common ancestor of human and apes? Link to it.
 
You know what's been 'verified" by fossil evidence and DNA? Nothing.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 8:50pm
Apes are as evolved as humans.
 
Compared to their own fetuses, apes are more evolved (i.e., "animalized") than humans, who retain much of their fetal shape and structures into old age.
 
As I posted earlier, your opinions are based on writings by pop science journalists like Dawkins, which are at least 40 years behind the times.
 
Try catching up.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 8:54pm
Take dogs, they evolved from wolves,
 
No they didn't. They were intentionally bred from wolves by humans. All dog varieties today are results of intentional human breeding of wolves, coyotes, and jackals.
 
Modern varieties of dogs can still mate with these animals and produce offspring, which means they are NOT "different species." Part of the definition of "species" is that they don't mate, or if they do, they produce no offspring.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 9:01pm
No we did not evolve from some supernatural avatar out of superstitious archaic nonsense.
 
Maybe not, be we also didn't evolve from non-living chemicals randomly colliding and miraculously forming a self-reproducing organic molecule that magically (and of course, randomly) collided with other material to form a complex, hierarchical piece of biological machinery like a cell. Abiogenesis is archaic nonsense, and Pasteur's "Law of Biogenesis" still holds true: "Living things only come from other living things."
 
Abiogenesis is just a variation on the medieval belief in "spontaneous generation" (e.g., flies appearing from rotting meat) but slowed down over billions of years instead of occurring quickly. It makes no difference: whether the word "spontaneous" means "happening by itself quickly" or "happening by itself over billions of years", it still means "happening by itself."
 
And as experiments have shown, living things never just "happen by themselves."
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 17, 2017 - 11:06pm
Opher:
      Among higher animals males and females were separated for the purposes of reproduction. How do you think mammals procreated otherwise?
  A.Jones:
      Dogs are still different than wolves.
   You are incorrect my experiments have shown that some animals believe in being good, and some don't.  Nature operates by rules, all animals fear punishment by the Lord for being bad that's why they don't misbehave in my garden. The orderly arrangement of nature is impossible without the Lord.
They're considerate to the person who is the rightful owner of the property. The one who has rightful ownership by nature's laws.
They also they are grateful to someone who cares for them, provides a home, food, and protects them or does good for them. Like a dog who is adopted from the shelter is loyal to his owner. Because humans bred them doesn't mean they think humans are good.
    Birds, dogs, nature have intelligence. I've seen it.
    I have a lot more to teach you on this subject by it's too much work to explain it all now.
   But, take the case of the horse whisperer, or the movie Flicka.
     Men normally break a horse by force, that's the hard way. It takes weeks, but a girl will take a cinnamon apple to a horse. When it trusts her to take the apple from her hand the horse will never buck her, in fact it would defend her against a mountain lion.
   A. Jones you know nothing about nature because you don't actually interact with it to learn about it.
A. Jones Added Dec 17, 2017 - 11:16pm
Evolution does not have to progress slowly or incrementally.
 
It does if the mechanisms are what Darwin claimed they were: random mutations and natural selection.
 
If evolution proceeds by jumps, then the process is something other than what Darwin claimed.
 
Read Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge on "punctuated equilibrium."
 
It can progress in leaps quickly. There is no problem with that at all.
 
There's a problem reconciling empirical evidence with what Darwinian assumptions predict. The problem is not with reality; it's with Darwin's hypothesis.
 
In any case, it's unscientific bunk to posit a hypothesis (such as Darwin's "random mutation plus natural selection") and then claim it's consistent with all possible evidence: if evolution happens incrementally over long periods of time, then Darwinism is OK with that. Conversely, if evolution happens in wide jumps over short periods of time, then heck, Darwinism is OK with that, too.
 
Sorry. That doesn't work for one of the main criteria of scientific theories: they have to be falsifiable in principle. If they're not falsifiable, then the theory is no better than religious belief, in which all data can be interpreted as verifying the belief.
 
And that, in fact, is what Darwinian evolution really is: a 20th century secular creation myth.
opher goodwin Added Dec 18, 2017 - 6:22am
A.Jones - No. It is precisely as Darwin claimed. It proceeds in jumps because of relaxation of selection pressures.
You are merely selecting the information you want to back your views.
At some point life came from non-life. You can believe that was by some supernatural force. I believe it was through chance and time.
opher goodwin Added Dec 18, 2017 - 6:25am
Barath - dogs were all descended from wolves. They have been domesticated and selectively bred. Modern dogs are the result of human selection of various characteristics - nothing more.
opher goodwin Added Dec 18, 2017 - 6:25am
Barath - sex is only about variation.
opher goodwin Added Dec 18, 2017 - 6:30am
A,Jones - many experiments have demonstrated how all the most complex building blocks of life can have been formed naturally. We do not require the ignorance of archaic spontaneous generation to explain it.
It is a huge event. That first cell was almost a miracle - but it wasn't. Perhaps in all the vastness of the universe it was so unlikely that it only occurred here. Perhaps the process is easier than we imagine and it has formed many times.
What is your explanation?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 12:31pm
  See Wikipedia,  Aryabatha:



Notable ideas
Explanation of lunar eclipseand solar eclipse, rotation of Earth on its axis, reflection of light by moon, sinusoidal functions, solution of single variable quadratic equation,value of π correct to 4 decimal places, circumference of Earth to 99.8% accuracy, calculation of the length of sidereal ye






Time and place of birth
Aryabhata mentions in the Aryabhatiya that it was composed 3,600 years into the Kali Yuga, when he was 23 years old. This corresponds to 499 CE, and implies that he was born in 476.[5]
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 12:33pm
 

Barath Nagarajan
 













 

View inbox



Location
Not defined






Social Status





(0)
(0)
(9)
(0)







Articles (24)
Profile
Comments (1260)
Followers (6)
Following (1)
Notifications









 

A Perfect Society - a Vision.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 12:31pm
  See Wikipedia,  Aryabatha:



Notable ideas
Explanation of lunar eclipseand solar eclipse, rotation of Earth on its axis, reflection of light by moon, sinusoidal functions, solution of single variable quadratic equation,value of π correct to 4 decimal places, circumference of Earth to 99.8% accuracy, calculation of the length ofsidereal ye








Time and place of birth
Aryabhata mentions in the Aryabhatiya that it was composed 3,600 years into the Kali Yuga, when he was 23 years old. This corresponds to 499 CE, and implies that he was born in 476.[5]
 
(0)UnLike(0)Report as improper
 

 

 




 

The Denuding of Britain.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 11:19am
   
 
  "There is no place in Heaven for persons with dogs. Besides, the Krodhavasas(steal their food) and take away all the merits of such persons. Reflecting on this, act, O king Yudhishthira the just. Do thou abandon this dog. There is no cruelty in this." "'Yudhishthira said, "It has been said that the abandonment of one that is devoted is infinitely sinful. It is equal to the sin that one incurs by
opher goodwin Added Dec 18, 2017 - 1:47pm
Barath - I'd abandon all the dogs of superstition. Religion is all false.
A. Jones Added Dec 18, 2017 - 9:47pm
It is precisely as Darwin claimed.
 
Not according to what Darwin actually wrote.
 
It proceeds in jumps because of relaxation of selection pressures.
 
(1) you don't know that because you're not observing "selection pressures". You're only observing FOSSILS that you assume are the result of unobserved selection pressures. That's all you have. However, (2) even if so-called "selection pressures" had been first steadily applied and then relaxed, and then re-applied, that doesn't explain why the form of species A jumped over a bunch of intermediate forms and turned into species B. You're assuming that a steadily applied selection pressure leads to smooth transitional forms while intermittent selection pressure leads to jumps. There's no proof for that at all. Those are arbitrary, "ad hoc" assumptions you're making to explain what you actually do observe, which are simply two disparate fossil forms.
 
You have no scientific explanation at all. You have nothing but a story that you believe to be true. The term for a story that one believes to be true is "myth." More:
 
By what means does the researcher know for certain that unspecified "selection pressures" were relaxed? By noting that the evolution jumped. And why did the evolution jump? Because the "selection pressures" were relaxed. A beautifully clear example of Circular Reasoning.
 
Example 1 of Circular Reasoning:
 
"Dr., I woke up this morning and cannot hear anything!"
"Ah, it must be that you've gone deaf."
"But Dr., what caused me to go deaf?"
"Well, you went deaf because you can't hear."
"But why can't I hear?"
"Because you've gone deaf?"
 
The cause of the patient not being able to hear is attributed to his deafness; the patient's deafness is verified by the fact that he cannot hear. The effect (cannot hear) is ascribed to a cause (deafness); and the cause (deafness) is explained by the already observed effect (cannot hear). The explanation is no explanation at all because the reasoning is circular.
 
Another example, exactly the same as the first in logical structure:
 
"Professor, we see fossil A and then we see fossil B nearby. They're very different in structure, and there are no transitional forms between them that would've suggested a slow, smooth, incremental, Darwinian evolution between them. Yet you claim B must have evolved from A. How is that conclusion possible without transitional forms between the two of them to suggest such an evolution?"
 
"Simple. Selection pressures relaxed between "A" and "B".
 
"But professor, what evidence do you have that these "selection pressures" (which you've never identified or specified, by the way) were relaxed?"
 
"Simple. There are no transitional fossils between fossil A and fossil B."
 
"But professor, why are there no transitional fossils between fossil and fossil B?"
 
"Simple. Because some sort of unknown and unspecified 'selection pressures' were relaxed."
 
The assumption of an evolutionary jump in two observed fossils is justified by the assumption of a relaxation in selection pressures; and the assumption of such a relaxation in selection pressures is verified by the assumption of a jump between the two observed fossils. The effect (two disparate fossils assumed to be evolutionary descendants of each other) is explained by reference to an unobserved cause (relaxed selection pressure, then re-applied selection pressures); and the existence of such cause is verified by looking at its presumed effect (the 2 disparate fossils).
 
If you don't understand why this is circular reasoning, and moreover, why circular reasoning is invalid in science, then you need to review a course in basic logic and scientific method.
 
You are merely selecting the information you want to back your views.
 
That was a statement you made with your unthinking glands. You admitted so yourself in another post. I actually take into account what Darwin wrote and compare it to what researchers in all fields have actually discovered. 

At some point life came from non-life.
 
That has never been shown empirically, so the great Pasteur's dictum that "Life only comes from life" still holds true. However, IF life did emerge from non-life, then it was clearly accomplished by means of a guiding intelligence. Random events in the world of non-life are completely at the mer
A. Jones Added Dec 18, 2017 - 9:47pm
At some point life came from non-life.
 
That has never been shown empirically, so the great Pasteur's dictum that "Life only comes from life" still holds true. However, IF life did emerge from non-life, then it was clearly accomplished by means of a guiding intelligence. Random events in the world of non-life are completely at the mercy of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which increases entropy by breaking down any kind of hierarchical structures that store or transmit information to other parts of the structure or system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not build up complex, hierarchical structures; it tears them down. The non-living is completely subject to the 2nd law.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 10:09pm
Opher:
    In other words, if everything came from nothing, then everything is nothing.
     Existence did not come from non existence since non-existence is only a negation, it doesn't exist: what is real did not come from what is unreal.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 18, 2017 - 10:24pm
Opher:
   Or, if everything came from non existence then everything is unreal.
Because the universe is real their is a Cause that existed before it, the Universe is the effect.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:39am
Opher, A. Jones:
    You mean people intentionally bred wolves to be dogs. How did they do that?
     . A number of scientific studies have attempted to turn wolves into the equivalent of dogs by rearing them from a young age in human homes, and treating them like pet dogs. The most recent of these was done by a team of researchers from Estovos University in Budapest. They took three-day-old wolf pups and home-reared them. They had no more success than many previous studies.
 https://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/how-dogs-were-created/12679
   Dogs already have existed in 3102 B.C..E.
If you tame a wolf its litter will still be wolves. Not dogs. It's not Lamarckian biology.
     They breeded wolves with what, reindeer to make them dogs?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:50am
Some animals believe in being good, other's don't. The ones that do find the favor of the Lord, and they advance. Beings advance by believing in being good. They do the opposite when they believe in being bad.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:49am
A.Jones - either life has always been here or it came from non-life. What you suggest about a guiding intelligence does not make sense. A guiding intelligence is alive is it not? So where did that come from? You're just kicking the can down the road.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:51am
Barath - yes - everything is nothing. There are no explanations. Human beings have tried to explain it and merely come up with more gobbledegook by creating supernatural beings. See my next post.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:51am
Barath - as Shakespeare said - all the world is but a dream.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:55am
Barath - it is very simple. It is called selective breeding. We have done it with all domesticated breeds of animals (sheep, cattle, goats etc.). You select wolves with characters you want and breed them. You keep selecting out what you want. That is how we have arrived at all the different breeds from Chihuahua to Great Dane.   
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:58am
Barath - animals do not believe in good or god. They have different dispositions the same as humans and have been selectively bred to create the types we presently have. Vicious ones are put down or bred as guard dogs (or fighting dogs) and friendly ones are bred as pets. Nothing to do with being good.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 6:37am
Opher:
    You believe people bred wolves to be dogs. When did they do that? Thousands of years ago people knew so much about artificial selective breeding that they turned wolves into dogs on purpose. What records do you have on that.
     What happened was that some wolves believed in being good and so separated from the more savage ones. They were loveable and so became domesticated as pets.
     Civilization didn't start in Great Britain, sorry, Opher. Yes your British ancestors were feudalistic savages that stole  everything. Yes degenerate savages are put down like dogs, I infer your meaning. Your God was the Devil.
I'm done.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 6:59am
So a long time ago some people said let's take in some wolves and selectively breed them to be dogs. Sorry, never happened. Who would they have bred the wolves to Santas reindeer?
That's why your British, Western Civilization, crapola is crooked, dishonest horseshit.
You worship the Devil again.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 7:15am
Barath - Wolves were domesticated in prehistory - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/humans-dogs-first-became-best-2792755
I've already explained selective breeding. Look at the DNA evidence!
They did not cross them with reindeers!
No - civilisation did not start in Britain - it started in what is now Iran.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 11:54am
Opher:
       No the Lord advances those beings that believe in being good. Some wolves believed in being good so the Lord advanced them.
You believe people intentionally bred wolves to be dogs. Sorry, Never happened. You think people took in wolves and decided they could turn them into dogs of dozens of varieties in prehistory. Never happened.
 I don't want read your links.
    Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together.
See Selective breeding, Wikipedia
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:23pm
Barath - Rubbish. I can't believe you're stupid enough to believe that. Your understanding of Biology is very limited.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:37pm
Scientist's knowledge is Garbage, their arrogant egotistical jerks. You know nothing.
   The Universe came from nothing.
     Life created itself.
      Humans came from common ancestors in Africa.
      
     People bred wolves to be dogs in prehistory.
      If that's what you know then you should believe in the Lord, human ability is only within a limited range.
      If you don't believe in God who cares about superior DNA, you all die and go to non existence. It doesn't make a difference. There is no reason why it should matter.
   Let every being be happy that can be.
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:39pm
Barath - that's right - we all die and go to nonexistence and no amount of your wishful thinking is going to alter it. Face up to it. Stop hiding behind this childishness. It's like believing in fairy tales.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 12:44pm
Stop being an obdurate egotistical pugnoramus, your material reality is  vain and stupid. Scientists only accept material things, they only now pride and egotism.
You worship the devil.
Asamatha Basta mukha scientists. Beast spirits.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 1:06pm
What scientist know is only a small fraction of what there is to know. Don't be an arrogant jerk admit I'm smarter than you.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 1:12pm
Opher:
   I'm clearly better than you by any fair standard, let alone the rest of the slobs on here. 
No one wants to read your books.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 1:36pm
Opher:
    Men are wrong. Climbing the highest mountain is not a metaphor for sex, it's a metaphor for life. Only, teach people to set the highest goals for themselves and let the Lord help them achieve them.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 1:39pm
Gods and Angels love when men reach for the stars, believe in being good and worship the Lord to help them.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 1:59pm
Men are good when they set difficult goals for themselves, when they reach for the Stars.
    Opher you know nothing about life, or how to teach students.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 19, 2017 - 2:41pm
Barath "The Amaritsar Avenger" sez: I'm clearly better than you by any fair standard, let alone the rest of the slobs on here.-You keep claiming, when all else fails, how much better you are than other person/party X.  Based on?  Have you been nice to cattle recently?  I bet you eat hamburgers under cover of darkness or knash on some beef short ribs out behind a shed.  Really? when they reach for the Stars.-or reach for their glass on a bar?
Jeff Michka Added Dec 19, 2017 - 2:42pm
"Go do that hindoo you do so well..."
opher goodwin Added Dec 19, 2017 - 4:45pm
Barath - your ignorance makes you feel superior but it is merely that you don't understand. Your faith in nonsense shows your naivety. Your constant hectoring is silly. You are a purveyor of fake news. Your manta is stupidity. What I know about life would astound you. You don't even know you don't know. Plenty of people read my books. You should try one it would enlighten you. What scientists know is definitely only a fraction of what there is to know and what you know is a miniscule part of that. Start paying attention. Your arrogance and obduracy is blinding you. Open your eyes and your mind. Stop believing in codswallop. Stop being rude. Show respect. Grow up. 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:00pm
Opher:
   Men have been separated from nature for a long time, at least since men tried to claim dominion over everything. It is because of your ignorance and that of Men that they don't understand nature, and why nature distrusts men and keeps her secrets from him.
      Nature does not like ignorance. It rejects Jesus's crapola garbage religion of man's domination. That is why men don't even understand basic things about nature correctly.
     Animals don't fear the Lord. No men are pumsam(the dirt that snakes crawl upon) since they abandoned their Creator to rule the world and claim dominion.
     Nature lovers beauty and dislikes cruelty( see mammals).
    " A boy and his dog went out looking for the rainbow, and what did they learn since that day"
Redwood Tree, Van Morrisson
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 5:20pm
It's right there in your bible:
     Genesis: 26Then God said,  Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over  all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
The Lord reveals himself through books, and nature, and music and Science and history, but only to those who look for him or want to listen.
   When you want to bake a cake you get a recipe and buy the ingredients. You don't look for the molecular composition of eggs, butter, milk, sugar and vanilla to see how they interact under high temperature.
   Some people use more chocolate, some people more sugar, but studying the molecular interaction of sugar and flour is not the right way to make a cake.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 8:00pm
I know alleles are genes they come in varieties. Great rocket science.  But, in the phylogenetic tree angiosperms evolved during the period of land mammals flowering plants are male or female, pollen from the male fertilizes the females ovule for purposes of producing a flower or fruit.
   But, you contend humans initially reproduced without sexual differentiation, from xx chromosomes. It was for the purpose of reproduction that xx-xy (the x and y male and female sex chromosomes differentiated).
Biology isn't rocket science. You don't appreciate contextually that you have opportunities that I am denied. I'm  better and smarter than all of you.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 8:13pm
Opher:
    Matter changes form with energy. This explains the phenotype of white tigers. Solar radiation in the UV spectrum. Genetics is only a material science, energy can change one body into another, changes in energy are not accounted for in your human genome project, only matter. It's all useless.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 8:28pm
Opher:
      A long time ago the Lord taught sages and they taught men, and the knowledge passed on into nature. Nature learns by the example of men.
     Angels always know more then men, but Gods and Angels will even worship a man who always speaks truth and justice, even if they are all knowing and from the Creator.
    If a sage teaches truth and justice and men will not listen, the birds, and deer will pick up the knowledge and advance by it. But Not from scientists who speaks crookedness.
    Space travel, men aren't capable of reaching life on other planets. How do Gods and Angels get here?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 8:39pm
La Jetée (French pronunciation: ​[la ʒəte]) ("The Jetty", here referring to an outdoor viewing pier at an airport), is a 1962 French science-fiction featurette by Chris Marker. Constructed almost entirely from still photos,...
Wikipedia, La Jetee
A. Jones Added Dec 19, 2017 - 9:06pm
is a 1962 French science-fiction featurette by Chris Marker. Constructed almost entirely from still photos,...
 
Chris Marker's film is a masterpiece.
 
It was badly remade by Terry Gilliam (formerly of Monty Python fame) and starred Bruce Willis. It was titled "Twelve Monkeys."
A. Jones Added Dec 19, 2017 - 9:16pm
In other words, if everything came from nothing, then everything is nothing.
 
Not sure I understand your argument. Honey "comes from" bees. But when I scoop some honey into my herbal tea, I'm not drinking bees. In any case, physics and chemistry have shown that even a supposedly solid piece of matter is mainly "empty" space. Neutrinos easily pass through the earth as if it didn't exist, and special equipment is needed to capture and record their tracks. So most matter really is "nothing" in the sense of being mainly empty space.
 
I think the problem resides in the literal, scientific meaning of "nothing". In Aristotelian terms, if we have two wooden boards and claim that there's "nothing" between them, then the two boards must be touching. So-called "empty space" might not actually be empty. I think recent experiments from the Large Hadron Collider suggest that there's a fundamental particle composing empty space itself, and which is capable of giving birth to "daughter" particles that eventually become the more familiar building blocks of matter: electrons and protons. Popular media has called this the God Particle.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 9:31pm
If everything comes from non existence then reality would not be real( reality has to be based on something(infinite) that exists). We experience a dream as being real, then we awake and it disappears. The Dream isn't real, even though we believe for a time that it is,  but the one who dreams it is.
   " Let me take you down cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields, Nothing is Real"
 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 9:43pm
When they built the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris in 1345 AD they put gargoyles on the tops of the support columns because they were afraid of bad Spirits. Are bad Spirits real? Or just emanations from the Lord's mind.
At a high point of reality all that exists is the Lord, the snake on the highway will not attack you, it will simply go away from you, but to others the bad Spirits are real, or the snake bites them.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 19, 2017 - 9:54pm
The guy in La Jatee can't escape material reality because he's a prisoner they are doing medical experimentation on. The God's and Goddesses try to help him, but he wants to return to material reality where he witnesses his own death.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 20, 2017 - 9:10am
God's and Angels aren't like that, they want you to have a material life.
     Jesus taught that material things were bad, that why some of the lower Gods and Angels accepted him, but afterwards the world became all the more materialistic.
opher goodwin Added Dec 20, 2017 - 7:48pm
A.Jones - your logic does not make any sense. Yes matter is mainly space but it is not space. It is made up of atoms. It is not the same as nothing even if it has a lot of nothing in it.
The God Particle - the Higgs Boson - is not a particle that fills space. The Higgs field does that. The Higgs Boson is the particle that gives matter mass.
Space, as we know it is full of energy and forces. It is not empty and not nothing.
Before the Big Bang and the universe came into existence there was a singularity. Before that was nothing.  
opher goodwin Added Dec 20, 2017 - 7:49pm
Barath - are you on drugs?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 21, 2017 - 3:32am
Opher:
     I don't think you can say scientifically what was before the Planck time, or what existed before the Big Bang, or even that there were not previous universes.
   No, no drugs Fitty Cent. A lot of people believe in Spiritual things. 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 21, 2017 - 9:17am
Opher:
    When a society pursues higher things it makes it better. When it pursues lower things it's lower. The Lord's Spirit, Virtue, Ethics, study of scripture are the source of happiness. Pursuit of desires and pleasures are lower.
    One who has much is often not satisfied with that much that they have here because they have no merit to squire in the life hereafter. They have little to acquire from virtue here since they don't believe in the life hereafter, but one who has little will not give up virtue knowing it produces its fruits in this life or the next.
 
 
That does't mean one doesn't get material things from pursuing what is Spiritual. 
    The perfect society pursues goodness, and virtue and nothing else.
   The Lord's Spirit is the source of happiness not desires.
opher goodwin Added Dec 22, 2017 - 4:37am
No Barath - obviously nobody can speak on what was before the Big Bang. But we can speculate.
opher goodwin Added Dec 22, 2017 - 4:39am
Barath - you believe what you want. I think it's archaic junk. One can find morality, happiness, fulfilment and purpose; one can have empathy and compassion, without believing in archaic junk.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 8:35am
Opher:
   So you're calling the Lord and his Dattas "archaic junk" that's an insult. God's and Datta's are all knowing, mortals have limitations, they can't predict the future well, if they could the World wouldn't have had all problems it has had.
     Scientists are human they have limitations, they are subject to pleasure and pain, emotion and desires. 
     Goodness is the Lord of this Universe, knowledge is it's mother. Without goodness and virtue the World would be wrapped in infamous darkness.. 
     War is one thing, sometimes it's necessary, cruelty and moral perversity another. People  can be very inventive in doing the worst things to people.
opher goodwin Added Dec 22, 2017 - 9:10am
Believe what you like Barath - just don't keep going on about it.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 9:25am
.Opher:
     Why do you insist on insulting the sacred:
 
Mahabharata:
"Yudhishthira said, 'Thy speech, O Yajnaseni, is delightful, smooth and full of excellent phrases. We have listened to it (carefully). Thou speakest, however, the language of atheism. O princess, I never act, solicitous of the fruits of my actions. I give away, because it is my duty to give; I worship because it is my duty to worship! O Krishna, I accomplish to the best of my power whatever a person living should do, regardless of the fact whether those acts have fruits or not. O thou of fair hips, I act virtuously, not from the desire of reaping the fruits of virtue, but of not transgressing the ordinances of scripture and beholding also the conduct of the good and wise! My heart, O Krishna, is naturally attracted towards virtue.
 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 10:04am
Van Morrison, Full Foce Gale:
Like a full force gale
I was lifted up again
I was lifted up again by the Lord
No matter where I roam
I will find my way back home
I will always return to the Lord
In the gentle evening breeze
By the whispering shady trees
I will find my sanctuary in the Lord
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 10:55am
Opher:
    I don't think you can just write down your values and think that will make a perfect society. People are unequal, the difference in natural abilities leads to differences in the ability to acquire wealth. Differences in class are in the nature of man.
   You can't mix higher virtues with lower ones. Honesty, justice, beauty, courage, patience, knowledge, learning, wisdom, are not equally distributed amongst Men, though those virtues should always be honoured.
    There is more to Ethics than equality and empathy. There is no equality between Men and Gods. The misfortune of Men is to know they are not Gods, not equal to Gods and Angels. Even the Earth itself is only of middling importance.
opher goodwin Added Dec 22, 2017 - 12:27pm
Barath - How can you insult things that do not exist? But I mean no disrespect to you. Your faith is your personal choice but please don't lecture me because I consider it all fictional and it gets annoying.
I like Van Morrison but he does talk some bollocks sometimes.
Only by stating our ideals can we start building a better society.
Of course there are differences between people. We are not all equal even though we have equal value. We can respect and help all people. Class is an abomination.
No. you are right about men gods and angels - we are not equal. That is because men are real and gods and angels are made up.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 2:03pm
Opher:
    If there is no God then why is there a theocratic State named Israel?
     If Angels are made up where did the Koran come from?
    You are insulting a large portion of the World.
     You're right God is made up, but the Lord is real.
opher goodwin Added Dec 22, 2017 - 6:27pm
Barath - because people are weak and gullible and easily taken in.
There is no God. It's a con.
The Koran was a product of Arab culture.
Stating what is true shouldn't be taken as an insult. People are subject to the culture they grow up in and are brainwashed by. We can't help it.
God, the Lord, - all made up.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 9:00pm
Opher:
     Yeah, but I grew up in the same culture you did(in America).  I watched the same movies, listened to the same songs, and I was educated in public school with American friends who were teenagers.
     I probably know more about Rock n Roll from Muddy Waters to Van Halen, U2, Billy Joel and Led Zeppellin than you do.
    I've probably seen more American movies than you have.
opher goodwin Added Dec 23, 2017 - 5:58pm
Barath - I grew up in the UK not the USA. But I'll bet you any money you like that I know more about music.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 24, 2017 - 3:15am
Opher:
    I'm a musician. I released four CD's of my own music. The Last one in 2015. My music is carried in the local Waterloo records store and I've been featured on Austin radio. Plus a lot of girls like my music because I have a good singing voice.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 24, 2017 - 3:26am
Having eolugized me in song the Kshatrias on both sides talked about the kindness and kinship and friendship shown towards heroes.   Listen to Sheryl Crow and Sting, "Always on My Mind"and " Strong Enough" What is the song about? " You Learn" Alanis.
" Needs his Woman" " Only the Broken-hearted" Eric Clapton.
     As well as many other songs and movies.
opher goodwin Added Dec 25, 2017 - 6:36am
Barath - I started going to gigs in 1964. I used to go to three a week. I've seen everyone and met a lot of them.
I ran a History of Rock Music Course at College and have written a number of books - check them out on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rock-Routes-Opher-Goodwin/dp/1514873095/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514202187&sr=1-20&keywords=opher+goodwin