Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

Life Arts

There Are More Sins Than Meets The Eye

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Intellectual dishonesty inhibits debate by misrepresenting what people say. Politicians avoid debating the merits and specifics of programs for fear of ridicule and confusion. All kinds of litmus tests replace debate on the merits. Are you American enough, or conservative enough, or red-headed enough to be president?

Natural selection provides the starting point in the search for truth. It teaches the facts we need to construct a sustainable moral code. The genome and the structures that support it reflect the results of natural selection. Introducing elements into the environment that the genome cannot tolerate (poison) is a sin under the ethic of survival of the species. We all do it, particularly in conjunction with technology. Reducing this sin must become a major purpose of science and all people.

The other cardinal sin disclosed by natural selection concerns inefficiency. Driving oversized, overpowered cars may increase one's status in the money game but the waste of energy and materials does not enhance survival of future generations. Improved gas mileage for personal cars will never match the efficiency that the universal use of public transportation provides. The number of examples provided by consumerism is endless.

How we measure efficiency presents the difficult question. Again, money does not provide the best test. It merely avoids value judgments. For example, if it costs less to use more energy than to use a new material in a manufacturing process but the material is renewable, which choice do you make? Today it would be to save the money, not the energy. What if the material used to generate the energy is far more important to survival then the material saved by using the energy?   Do we still save the money as the first choice? Is the energy undervalued? Should an added tax correct that situation?

No one asks these questions or makes a decision based on survival of the species. Few regulations address the long term; few receive scientific input based on all the impacts involved. Politics decides. How to maintain the species must become the political question.

One of the things Marx got right is the preeminent influence that means of production of goods and services has in human affairs. The means has changed so significantly that much work has become marginalized. The old jobs are disappearing or paying a lot less. Hence the huge rise in unemployment that stimulus by government no longer cures. Keeping people employed now requires the sacrifice of resources to maintain growth--capitalism's only answer to economic disaster.

Capitalism has failed to provide a future. Turning resources into cash and making it big mortgage future generations with debts to the environment that cannot be repaid. Anticipated technological miracles provide the apologies for taking the risk. Technology, in fact, played a major role in creating the danger. It provided the means for upsetting the equilibrium that millions of years of natural selection established.

Systems that require never-ending growth to survive must, in the long term, fail. Survival requires an anticipatory design strategy (see Buckminster Fuller) that employs technology for increased efficiency, not financial profit. The fact that we can build it and profit from it does not justify its use. Only advancing survival of the species can justify a technology.

1. Natural Selection's Paradox: The Outlaw Gene, the Religion of Money, and the Origin of Evil , by Carter Stroud, for the basis of these assertions and related matters.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

I practiced law for 30 years as a city attorney. I taught elementary school before that. I became concerned with the many adaptations to our environment that I could not believe could be sustained. How could so many rational people adopt clearly (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Work Does Not Work Anymore

The Choice: Socialism or Fascism

The Triumph of Engineering and the Failure of Capitalism -- Will It Produce Socialism of Feudalism?

The Biology of Evil

White Supremacy Is What It is All About

How Markets Fail

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The concept of sin has greatly influenced behavior... by Carter stroud on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:19:32 PM
"Given our biological limits for adaptation" it w... by R. A. Landbeck on Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:59:13 AM