The Paradox of our Time in History

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space; we've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We write more, but learn less; we plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower morals; we have more food, but less appeasement; we build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; we've become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships. These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.

Original

We have bigger houses but smaller families;
more conveniences, but less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense;
more knowledge, but less judgement;
more experts, but more problems;
more medicines, but less healthiness;
We've been all the way to the moon and back,
but have trouble crossing the street to meet
the new neighbor.
We've built more computers to hold more
information to produce more copies than ever,
but have less communications;
We have become long on quantity,
but short on quality.
These times are times of fast foods;
but slow digestion;
Tall man but short character;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It is time when there is much in the window,
but nothing in the room.

-H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama

Civilized Man Adjusting His Environment to Suit Him

The time has come to when machines and humans do interact on a daily basis. Some machines, such as the asimo—an android created by Honda, are also becoming more and more human like. This trend of manmade machines becoming more like humans does however worry some people. Some raise their concerns about this trend asking what a line to not be crossed will be in terms of robots becoming more and more autonomous. On the other hand however other people think that autonomous lethal robots are the best way to go. To minimize human error, most sensitive tasks, such as fighting combats, are about to be totally left to machines for them to decide what it right and what it wrong, on their own without human intervention. Robots that have conscious, fully autonomous, independent from humans: this sounds more like talking about an iPad in the 50ies… Will time come?

          The autonomous Urbie is designed for various urban 

                 operations, including military reconnaissance

                  and rescue operations. Photo courtesy NASA

One of the reasons that are raised if humans are taken out of the loop, fully autonomous robots that are not controlled by humans at all but that do make decisions on their own, is that their ethics will be highly questionable. It is argued that if fully autonomous robots do fully go into action, such as in combat, it will be hard to know whether they are behaving ethically enough to know when to launch their mission and when to not. It is also questionable how these robots would tell the difference between an innocent civilian from an undercover bad guy or the other way around. Another concern is about how artificial consciousness put into robots, that would supposedly be “more accurate than human’s because it would involve no emotions”, will reliably be and how successful this project itself would be. Even though it might seem to be successful that the robots have acquired artificial consciousness they might however have to make decisions in more complex and unpredictable way. This unpredictability would create extreme, if not infinite, danger problems between civilians and the military operations. 

On the other hand however it is argued that artificial conscience and humane-oids can potentially perform more ethically than humans in the battlefield. One point is that the use of autonomous lethal robots would suppress ethical behavior problem that humans do sometimes face. Sometimes humans do face ethical behaviors, but would sometimes end up acting unethically. Some great examples that humans likely do which robots would never do are such as seeking revenge, dehumanizing the enemy, receiving poor training or losing the main message throughout the line of command.  Here, the issue of ethics would no longer be an issue because the robots would solely act ethically.  This argument goes on into saying that wars would be a lot safer they were fought by robots, which would help into keeping humans away from danger. This reason does sounds more complete because some areas are more dangerous for a human and even if a robot was to be lost in that zone no human life would be lost, being more beneficial to humans. The criticism that there could be some glitches that would cause problems is rejected here because the robots to use would first meet and conform to international laws and that the designer would meet the systems that are built to be safe and to incorporate the laws of war.

Well, isn’t the introduction of autonomous lethal robots just another big step that humans are taking into trying to destroy other humans, if not themselves, than to better themselves? Any mechanical machines that is known to human seems to have some break down and this poses a great question of what would be the result if one of those lethal autonomous robots broke down.   

            There is also an issue associate with hacking machines that use software. This poses a great danger of what would be the result of having one of those robots hacked. The most powerful danger is what would result in a small or great, but irreversible error, which could happen in creation of those robots. Since they would be expected to have “humans out of the loop” there is a question that they could eventually choose to no longer serve but rebel against their master, humans.  If they are smart enough to make their own decision, they could say yes to the command, say no, or simply do the unexpected just as a conscious human seems to not full be completely predictable. As the title this paper seems to suggest the broader issue is how civilized man seems to have refused to adapt himself to his environment but instead has adapted his environment to suit him. Humans seem to keep trying to make things easier and easier, but in that process it sometimes seems like humans are only making the conditions worse. The problem the address should probably not be whether to fight combats in a smarter and safer way, but why fight them in the first place. 

Could There Be Other Alternatives Than Evolution and Creation?

Jim Tour, Ph.D., a professor at Rice University, is ranked in the top ten most cited chemists in the world. 

Nanocar (Courtesy of jmtour.com) 

He is known for creating nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures and carbon nanovectors in medicine. As the truth behind creationism, evolution… our existence remains a hot, but not to be debated about, debate, I personally don’t have enough proofs to take a stand, but below I quote him…

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this? “And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have. But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am.

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?” is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macro evolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys…

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University [unity in diversity]? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

So, do you really understand evolution? If  you do, does it explain what is the meaning of life and what is a soul or conscious? What about subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind? And for those who believe in creation, is it possible to prove this without faith (believing in things that can not be seen)?

"They are Wrong for that We are Right" Same Sex Marriage

“No more straight marriages or weddings until all same sex, gay and lesbians…, couples are married” that’s a stand for a church in N.C.

It is so easy for me to ban same sex marriage because I am straight. It is easier for me to call democrats and liberals wrong because I am republican and conservative. It easier for me to make jokes about fat people because I am skinny just as it is easier for me to think minorities are wrong because I am the majority. It is basically easier for me to do anything that the majority agrees with or to oppose something that I am not in the first place anyway.

It is great that we, the majority, are straight. Does our majority serve as a living proof that we are right? Let’s then ban same sex marriage because we are the majority, and we can do it! What about the day, who knows when, when the homosexual become the majority. Will it then be fair for them to ban straight weddings and marriages?  Oh no, don’t talk about that happening, it certainly will not, and if it was to happen it would be unfair for the homosexuals, the majority of then, to ban us—straights, the minority of then.  

So, this church in N.C took a great step, I am not sure about the directivity and greatness or evilness of its direction, to not officiate any straight wedding until all gays and lesbians are married. Its pastor argued that it is has some great exemplary families-believers of LGBT, who are happier and great people. So if this people find their true happiness in a different style than we, the majority do, does it make them wrong for that they are not like us?

If this argument of that “they are wrong because they are not like us” holds true we might want to think about the unpredictable future. There are great statements that have been issued in the past, which sounded accurate at the then moment, but they seem absurd as of today. In the future the homosexuals might become the majority. Wouldn’t it be fair then for them to ban straight weddings and marriages because they will be the majority of then, and thus anyone else who won’t agree with them will be wrong?

Thinking back in days when a standard computer was the punch card system it was virtually impossible to imagine what a today modern laptop would function or look like. A change that couldn’t be visualized rapidly occurred. We might also want to expect the unexpected and in a very rapid way about homosexuality as well. We might also want to recheck reasons why we oppose same sex marriage because if it is merely about who is the majority and its ideas or what is popular, this changes at any time. Ask white folks…

Other people use the Bible to defend their position. I am not quite sure about what the Bible says about the Internet, it’s a little early 2013, that’s all I am sure about. I am also quite sure that it teaches equality, that judgement is not for humans, and the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would want other to do unto you".

So they are wrong for that we are right, for that they are not like us, for that they do it differently than we do, for that we don't agree with them, for that we don't like it?