Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On Doom & Gloom


RESPONDENT: [...] Truly this is the greatest time in all of history to be alive. It will take time to bear collective fruit, but I think your discovery will gradually wash over humanity in due time, if humanity doesn’t destroy itself first (which is a very real possibility).

RICHARD: Ha ... as what you are saying, in effect, is that every single man, woman and child on the planet – all 6.5 billion – are going to be destroyed, as a very real possibility, by every single man, woman and child on the planet (aka species extinction) then here is a ‘word of the day’ for future reference:

hyperbole: a figure of speech consisting in exaggerated or extravagant statement, used to express strong feeling or produce a strong impression and not meant to be taken literally; [synonyms] exaggeration, overstatement, excess, overkill. (Oxford Dictionary).

*

RESPONDENT: Yes, that was a ill considered overstatement. It would have been more accurate to have said: if humanity is not destroyed first. That taking into account all of the various ways that humanity could come to an end like the sun dying out, the environment becoming inhospitable to life, etc.

RICHARD: Obviously I cannot comment on an etcetera but, as the astronomical evidence of stars with similar magnitude to the star at the centre of our solar system shows there is about another 4.5 billion years left in the sun, it is reasonable to assume humankind is not about to be destroyed en masse that way in the foreseeable future.

For the environment to become so inhospitable to life as to destroy humankind in toto it would require the planet becoming colder than where humans have lived/are living (the arctic circle, for instance, often reaches lows of -50ºF and the lowest temperature on record is -90ºF in Siberia; the antarctic circle, the coldest and windiest area on the planet, has a record -129ºF and a mean winter range from -40ºF to -94ºF plus winds commonly up to 200 miles per hour) or hotter than where humans have lived/are living (the highest annual mean temperature, of 94ºF, was recorded in Ethiopia from 1960 to 1966; the hottest temperature ever, 136ºF, was recorded in Libya with 128ºF in Queensland coming a close second; an unconfirmed 188ºF occurred during a ‘heat burst’ in Iran).

Put succinctly: provided the temperature remains somewhere between those extremes – and there are many, many millions of years worth of proxy evidence in regards to temperatures remaining well between that range – it is reasonable to assume humankind is not about to be destroyed en masse via an inhospitable environment in the foreseeable future.

RESPONDENT: Humanity could certainly destroy a large part of itself via something like nuclear warfare ...

RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17th century Strasbourg Agreement banned the use of ‘perfidious and odious’ toxic devices; the 1899 Hague Declaration, and the 1907 Hague Convention, forbade the use of ‘poison or poisonous weapons’ in warfare), as well as biological warfare (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of ‘Bacteriological Methods of Warfare’), there is adequate historical reason to assume that humankind will continue to show such restraint in regards to both the radioactive fallout (ionising radiation) and the substantial explosive capacity of nuclear weapons.

RESPONDENT: ... but yes, not everyone would be destroyed. Though, society as we know it could be radically altered.

RICHARD: As societies in general have not altered radically despite massive loss of life in warfare stretching all the way back into hunter-gatherer societies (where upwards of 25% of the population were regularly killed by warfare as compared to about 2% of the population in twentieth century warfare) there is no historical reason to assume that any modern-day or future societies would all-of-a-sudden radically alter were humankind not to continue to show such restraint as has been historically demonstrated in regards both chemical and biological warfare.

In fact, were the remarkable restraint shown over the last 65 years to continue – a bit too short to yet call it a trend – as a thus-far enduring result of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Doctrine, then the twenty-first century may very well end with the percentage being measured in the tenths of a percent. (Especially so with nearly 60% of the world’s population now living under democratic governance).

RESPONDENT: I’m actually quite pleased you pointed this out as I think some people could get the wrong impression that you think that humanity could destroy itself, and now you are on record saying that you think such a scenario to be nonsense.

RICHARD: I am already on record as saying there is neither an historical nor foreseeable reason to presume humankind will not continue to prevail. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: Given the magnitude of the problems you detailed above [all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on], and thus a certain urgency or at least importance which you convey to exist for application of actualism ...

• [Richard]: If I may interject? The application of the actualism method is neither urgent nor important (as humankind has not only survived and multiplied but has become the dominant species worldwide over millennia without it there is no historical/foreseeable reason to presume humankind will not continue to prevail) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive).

And it goes without saying, surely, what the identity in residence all those years ago preferred? (Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 103b, 24 Oct 2005b)

*

I know I have said it before but it is worth saying again: as it is an historical fact that democracies do not go to war against each other (with minor exceptions depending on the way war is defined and how a democracy is structured) there is reason to foresee a world-wide peace (cessation of warfare) in the not-too-distant future as the democratisation of nations gains more momentum.

Furthermore, just as the ‘Green Revolution’ has enabled a burgeoning population to be fed, the ‘GM Technology’ (the advances in genetically modified crops) will ensure food for all until the population stabilises (already foreseeable) and the rising standard of living in impoverished nations brings an end to the population explosion.

(Please note: these are neither prophecies nor predictions but rational projections based upon historical and empirical fact).

*

The only way societies will radically alter is by radical change on an individual level as it is individuals collectively who make society what it is.

And this is where actualism is pivotal as it must be borne in mind that the way children are raised is in accord with the prevailing wisdom of the time (currently in the form of values/ principles and morals/ ethics per favour the trickle-down effect of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment).

Thus it is the flow-on effect of the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition – as in practically anyone now being able to be as happy and as harmless (virtually free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible – which is the most probable and realistic prospect, in the foreseeable future, for all of humankind ... and which is why I stress the importance of a virtual freedom.

Although that is, of course, according to the current situation; the moment another becomes actually free from the human condition (especially if it be a female) that scenario may very well undergo a profound reappraisal.


RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17th century Strasbourg Agreement banned the use of ‘perfidious and odious’ toxic devices; the 1899 Hague Declaration, and the 1907 Hague Convention, forbade the use of ‘poison or poisonous weapons’ in warfare), as well as biological warfare (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of ‘Bacteriological Methods of Warfare’), there is adequate historical reason to assume that humankind will continue to show such restraint in regards to both the radioactive fallout (ionising radiation) and the substantial explosive capacity of nuclear weapons.

RESPONDENT: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Doomsday Clock is still set at five minutes to midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

RICHARD: So? Whatever arbitrary setting it is, which the directors of the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ choose to put Mr. Hyman Goldsmith’s 1947 ‘Doomsday Clock’ at, it makes no difference to the historical fact that, despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man woman and child on the planet.

On the contrary, humankind has shown a truly remarkable restraint despite being reactively driven by blind nature’s instinctual passions.

Even more to the point: the percentage per population killed in wars has been steadily decreasing; the democratisation of nations has been progressively increasing (and democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against each other); that hyped-up catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (which nowadays influences those director’s doom and gloom opinions more than chemical, biological and radio-active weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientism than the scientific method (and that is putting it politely); and talk of technological threats has been around since the Luddites in the early 1800’s.

RESPONDENT: To me it’s a matter of risk.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you were a gambler you would probably still be knowledgeable about odds: what are the odds, then, that something, which has never ever occurred in human history, will all-of-a-sudden happen at some particular date during the remainder of your natural life?

And it is worth thinking about, instead of just saying fifty/ fifty as in coin tosses, as there is no precedent to lay the odds against (as there is with coin tosses) of it already have occurred previously. (In other words, it is as if the coin being tossed, up until this present day, has had ‘heads’ on both sides for all we know).

Also, the risk factor must include that which does have a precedent ... to wit: the historical fact that, despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man, woman and child on the planet.

RESPONDENT: It may have never happened ...

RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘may’ about it: it has never happened (else we would not be here having this conversation).

RESPONDENT: ... but according to these scientists ...

RICHARD: Just what scientists are you referring to?

All the article you directed me to said was that it is according to [quote] ‘the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago’ [endquote].

Please note it does not say (a) they are scientists, or (b) that some of them are scientists, or (c) that any of them are scientists, or (d) what their qualifications are, or (e) what field of expertise they each have, or (f) whether their qualifications and expertise includes statistical analysis.

*

RICHARD: Shall we start at the top? Before joining the ‘Bulletin’ in 2005 the executive director was responsible for grant-making on issues of international peace and security at the MacArthur Foundation; before going to that foundation, in 1987, she taught at Rutgers University and the University of Illinois; her research and teaching focused on organisational decision making, jury decision making, and on women’s leadership and US politics; prior to her academic career, she served in the Massachusetts State Planning agency on law enforcement and criminal justice; she received her Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and her AB from Oberlin College (a private liberal arts college).

Do you want me to go on through the other twelve (two are in banking, one is a lawyer, one is in marketing and communication, one works in a department of psychology, one is has a Masters in management, one works in a school of medicine, one is a media executive, one coordinates investment teams, one is a director of architecture, one is president of a corporation involved in the development of proliferation resistant fuel technology and one is a cofounder of a peace museum and a foundation for women)?

RESPONDENT: ... who have more info about it than I do ...

RICHARD: More info about what, exactly?

1. Chemical weapons?

2. Biological weapons?

3. Radioactive weapons?

4. Climate-changing technologies?

5. New developments in the life sciences?

6. Nanotechnology which could inflict irrevocable harm?

7. Environmental and technological threats to humankind in general?

(All but the first two are listed in that article you directed me to).

More to the point, however, is what info pertaining to such a likelihood, as to have that high risk ascribed, could that board of directors have? How can such a high likelihood be quantified? Do they have access to Top Secret government documents from all around the world? Are they privy to Ultra Top Secret decision making in the highest echelons of military Chiefs of Staff from every nation? Have they a spy in every terrorist organisation?

Incidentally, does it not strike you as odd that the board of directors have added four more items (4, 5, 6, and 7) for you to be frightened out of your wits about yet do not have the first two (1, 2) on their list at all?

RESPONDENT: ... the risk remains very high.

RICHARD: What risk exactly? There are 1,440 minutes on a clock face and the board of directors are claiming that 1,335 minutes have already lapsed, right? On what basis can that 99.9% risk factor be verified? Or, put differently, 62 years ago the ‘Doomsday Clock’ was set as having 1,333 minutes already lapsed; on what basis can that 99.8% risk be verified?

Furthermore, what significance is to be placed on it having taken over 60 years to be moved 0.01% by the current board of directors? (Items 4, 5, 6, and 7 should give you a clue).

*

Here is a ‘word of the day’ for you:

arbitrary: dependent on will or pleasure; based on mere opinion or preference as opp. to the real nature of things; capricious, unpredictable, inconsistent; unrestrained in the exercise of will or authority; despotic, tyrannical. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here is a direct quote from that article you directed me to:

[quote] ‘Setting the clock is relatively arbitrary and decided by the directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ...’. [emphasis added].


RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17th century Strasbourg Agreement banned the use of ‘perfidious and odious’ toxic devices; the 1899 Hague Declaration, and the 1907 Hague Convention, forbade the use of ‘poison or poisonous weapons’ in warfare), as well as biological warfare (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of ‘Bacteriological Methods of Warfare’), there is adequate historical reason to assume that humankind will continue to show such restraint in regards to both the radio- active fallout (ionising radiation) and the substantial explosive capacity of nuclear weapons.

RESPONDENT No. 17: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Doomsday Clock is still set at five minutes to midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

RICHARD: So? Whatever arbitrary setting it is, which the directors of the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ choose to put Mr. Hyman Goldsmith’s 1947 ‘Doomsday Clock’ at, it makes no difference to the historical fact that, despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man woman and child on the planet. On the contrary, humankind has shown a truly remarkable restraint despite being reactively driven by blind nature’s instinctual passions.

Even more to the point: the percentage per population killed in wars has been steadily decreasing; the democratisation of nations has been progressively increasing (and democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against each other); that hyped-up catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (which nowadays influences those director’s doom and gloom opinions more than chemical, biological and radioactive weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientism than the scientific method (and that is putting it politely); and talk of technological threats has been around since the Luddites in the early 1800’s.

RESPONDENT: Interesting article that could add to the debate about democracies going to war. That is if there is a debate... http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

RICHARD: I have read each and every email posted to this forum and I have seen no debate at all about democracies going to war ... are you wanting to start such a debate, then?

If so, it would be to your advantage to be cognisant of the (parenthesised) qualifier in that post of mine which my co-respondent selected the further above paragraph from. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... as it is an historical fact that democracies do not go to war against each other (with minor exceptions depending on the way war is defined and how a democracy is structured) there is reason to foresee a world-wide peace (cessation of warfare) in the not-too-distant future as the democratisation of nations gains more momentum’. (List D, No. 12, 27 Nov 2009)

That (parenthesised) qualifier was specifically inserted because there is usually some smart-alecky lurker who pops up briefly, during talk about democracies going to war on other forums, with a link to that article ... which article you noncommittally say is [quote] ‘interesting’ [endquote].

Never let it be said you expressed an opinion, eh?

*

What I find interesting is the mind-boggling lack of interest in the hereto unprecedented politico-social developments of the twentieth century ... to wit: the rapid democratisation of so many nations worldwide and what it can mean in terms of health, wealth, leisure, pleasure and safety, for the average citizen, on a scale which is equally unprecedented in human history.

Things we take for granted – ranging from ice-cubes to a literal smorgasbord of foodstuffs – were things only autocrats (kings, emperors, pharaohs and the ilk) could enjoy in the past.

Yet all you can do is quibble – via a proxy at that – about what is already qualified in my post anyway.

Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.


RESPONDENT: I’ve been thinking lately (with all this war occurring) about what it’s usually called a ‘doomsday scenario’ and if that is to be considered a possibility in the near future. There are some things that triggered these thoughts; the Apocalypse (Revelation) by St. John or Luca, I don’t remember exactly, a book which I’ve read a couple of years ago; the fact that humans have never invented a weapon without making use of it; the current state of affairs within the human psyche (which is widely explained on this site).

RICHARD: The ‘current state of affairs within the human psyche’ is essentially no different to the state of affairs in the human psyche 3,000-5,000 years ago (according to recorded history) and 5,000-50,000 years ago (according to legendary pre-history) and, presumably, 50,000-120,000 years ago (according to archaeology and palaeontology).

Have you never noticed that many an otherwise intelligent person has been afflicted by the doomsday syndrome all throughout human history?

If so, the words ‘all throughout human history’ should speak for themselves.

RESPONDENT: I bring this topic into discussion although I know it is not a desirable or too pleasurable subject for discussing. I don’t know how many of you have read the Apocalypse ...

RICHARD: I started to read it yet had some difficulty getting past the first sentence (Rev 1:1) ... by the third sentence (Rev. 1:3) the writer has used up the last remnants of any credibility he had left.

Upon writing the second-last sentence (Rev 22:20) the writer should have twigged to the fact that, as a (biblical) generation is 40 years, it was all but a frantic hallucination and gone and sought psychiatric help.

RESPONDENT: ... but when I’ve read it, there were many things which resemble the current global situation.

RICHARD: There is nothing in it which resembles the current ‘global’ situation as the earth was flat for most people in that part of the world, when the writer had his delusory visions, and the Americas (the continents) did not exist as far as they were concerned.

Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene (if he ever existed that is) was a flat-earth god-man with a limited comprehension of worldly affairs.

RESPONDENT: As I’ve personally experienced an ASC-PCE?, I know firsthand that in these kind of states it’s possible to know things which are not available in an ordinary state of consciousness ...

RICHARD: As the above ‘things’ are an example of what is knowable in an altered state of consciousness (ASC) it is just as well they are not available in ordinary states of consciousness ... the global situation is in a parlous enough state with sanity running rampant.

RESPONDENT: ... and that these states have the possibility to transcend time.

RICHARD: As long as you keep on insisting that an ASC is a PCE (a pure consciousness experience), despite the correspondence you have had with me these last 22 months on that very subject, you will not comprehend a single thing on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

Time is *not* transcended in a PCE ... all of the above is the fruit of ASC’s.

RESPONDENT: So, I somehow regard what’s written there, with all the rudimentary language trying to describe things of the future, as a highly possible outcome.

RICHARD: What is ‘a highly possible outcome’ is that human beings, being contumacious as they are, will continue to tread the ‘Tried and True’ paths little realising that they are the ‘Tried and Failed’ paths.

For such is the case with stubborn perversity.

RESPONDENT: If you are interested I can bring about exactly those passages in the book which are the most relevant ... I’m very much interested in what you have to say.

RICHARD: Hmm ... if you actually were you would have been reading with both eyes and this conversation would not had to have taken place.

Plus by now you might even have been making your contribution to global peace-on-earth.


Re: Pragmatic comments

RESPONDENT No. 12: Truly this is the greatest time in all of history to be alive. It will take time to bear collective fruit, but I think your discovery will gradually wash over humanity in due time, if humanity doesn’t destroy itself first (which is a very real possibility).

RICHARD: Ha ... as what you are saying, in effect, is that every single man, woman and child on the planet – all 6.5 billion – are going to be destroyed, as a very real possibility, by every single man, woman and child on the planet (aka species extinction) then here is a ‘word of the day’ for future reference: hyperbole: a figure of speech consisting in exaggerated or extravagant statement, used to express strong feeling or produce a strong impression and not meant to be taken literally; [synonyms] exaggeration, over- statement, excess, overkill. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, I would wish read your pragmatics comments about this topic (human race extinction), because maybe this subject can be much more than one hyperbolic speculation to us. UGK also made some predictions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/7498 (quoted from http://www.well.com/user/jct/reddi.htm)

RICHARD: G’day No. 14, Reading down from the top:

1. Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is self-contradictory about it being [quote] ‘the sheer terror of extinction’ [endquote] which will save humankind as he also says [quote] ‘no power on this earth’ [endquote] can halt extinction.

Besides which, extinction of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty will do whatever saving is necessary (not that any such altruistic action ever occurred to him though).

2. He was wrong about the US being only [quote] ‘one of the superpowers’ [endquote] as the collapse of the USSR left it the only superpower (which says a lot about a market economy versus a command economy/ privatisation versus nationalisation/ democracy versus autocracy and so on).

Besides which, having also lived through the ‘Cold War’ era myself it was obvious to me at the time how individual capitalism was streets ahead of state capitalism in terms of generating wealth (and thus economic, military and social might).

3. He was dissembling where he said [quote] ‘I am not a god man’ [endquote] as he unambiguously categorised his state of being elsewhere as ‘sahaja samadhi’ (the sanskrit term for ‘natural state’) which is generally held by more than a few to be superior to ‘nirvikalpa samadhi’.

Besides which, it is obvious to anyone with the eyes to read how he still had the entire affective faculty intact and, thus, ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’).

4. He was wrong about it being [quote] ‘the separative structure of thought’ [endquote], which has [quote] ‘created the violent world’ [endquote], that will probably push [quote] ‘life on this planet to the brink of extinction’ [endquote].

Besides which, the non-cognitive consciousness of many and various animals has not precluded them from creating their own violent worlds (so to speak) which has pushed other species to extinction.

5. He was wrong about [quote] ‘the first and the last freedom and all the freedoms that come in between’ [endquote] pushing humans into [quote] ‘a manic-depressive state’ [endquote].

Besides which, political freedom, economic freedom, social freedom, and so on, has resulted in health, wealth, leisure, pleasure and safety for the average citizen on a scale which is unprecedented in human history.

6. He was wrong about how human self-consciousness, in contra-distinction to the way consciousness functions in other species, is [quote] ‘threatening the extinction of all that nature has created with such tremendous care’ [endquote].

Besides which, only the human animal (with its unique capacity for self awareness and intelligence) can adapt blind nature in ways beneficial to a continuance of life.

7. He was wrong where he said [quote] ‘no power on this earth’ [endquote] can halt that above extinction and how [quote] ‘Man is doomed. He has no freedom of action’ [endquote].

Besides which, so what were the human race to die out sooner than later as the planet itself – indeed the entire solar system – is not going to last forever anyway.

8. And he was wrong in saying [quote] ‘all we can do is to wait for the end of the world’ [endquote].

9. But he was right when he said that all the above may sound like [quote] ‘an apocalyptic warning of a prophet of doom’ [endquote].

As anyone would be well-advised to take everything he said with a pinch of salt then a large salt-shaker is a worthwhile investment prior to reading his books.

RESPONDENT: Before we have discussed more about it here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/7083. What the error behind Mr. Gaede’s theory? (quoted from http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/08Ext/00SumExt.html)

RICHARD: Quite simply, Mr. Bill Gaede bases his hypothesis on the premise that, because palaeontological evidence – fossilised remains – demonstrates how more than 90% of all species ever living are now extinct, the human species will likewise be soon to die out.

He says [quote] ‘all living organisms are born to die, individually and collectively’ [endquote] yet fails to take into account how the vast majority of those extinct species are either single- or simple-celled organisms, which were quite obviously barely sentient, or that even the higher-order creatures lacked self-consciousness (the capacity to be aware of sentience) and, thus, agency (the self-referential, self-serving ability) let alone the self-reflective facility called intelligence and its concomitant capability of language (rather than just the incoherent way of basic animal communication).

In other words, a flawed premise is bound to result in a flawed (erroneous) conclusion.

By way of illustration: in a famine or drought animals, just like plants (unless hardy), languish and die whereas humans, with their unique ability to observe, recall, compare/ consider and implement beneficial action do not only survive but can also prosper as well.

The survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean, as more than a few take it to be, the survival of the most muscular but clearly speaks of the survival of the most fitted (adapted) to the environment living long enough to pass on their genes; and the human animal, with its exceptional capabilities, is not only well-fitted (adapted) to the environment but can also fit (adapt) the environment for beneficial outcomes. (As in tool-making, animal husbandry, agriculture, food-stocks, water-supply, horticulture, aquaculture, mining, industry, cold-storage, hygiene, medicines, vaccinations, and so on and so on).

Although I am in accord with his take on theoretical physicists and had the odd chuckle at his expressive phraseology – his doom and gloom scenario left me decidedly unimpressed. Yet another doomsday merchant.

RESPONDENT: He also put the blame in our Human Condition because it created and allow this artificial economy fated to a global collapse (we can live without God, computers, sex and even without virtual or actual freedom, but never without edible FOOD, the actual money in a natural economy).

RICHARD: An internet search quickly showed he has hopped aboard the latest bandwagon to arrive in town: he has been peddling his scaremongering online for quite a few years and back in 2001, for instance, he was predicting the human race had less than 500 years left to live due to an inversion of the population pyramid. Vis.:

• [Mr. Bill Gaede]: ‘The population pyramid for EVERY country in the world without exception is inverting! (...) Octogenarians don’t typically have babies, so more than likely they will not perpetuate the human race. (...) If nature has its way again, the last of the hominids will walk the Earth in less than 500 years. We are not the eternal gods we have so arrogantly allowed ourselves to believe for so long, but just another mortal animal in Eden’. (04/10/2001) (psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?period=&msg=36991)

Now, fast-forward to the world-wide monetary situation of 2007 and, all-of-a-sudden, the end is nigh now! (And all because of a global financial situation which, although some say it is a global credit crisis/a global liquidity crisis, is more a monetary crisis brought about by an unprecedented level of both private and public debt per favour an inherently inflationary fractional banking system and non-governmental control of its nation’s fiat currency).

The man is clearly a doomsday opportunist; wait a few years and he will be haranguing a gullible crowd from yet another one of his scaremongering barrows.

RESPONDENT: Maybe something like an imminent menace to humanity can awake our potential altruism.

RICHARD: Ha ... the only imminent menace to humanity (to use your term) is gullibility.

RESPONDENT: Related to this, I bet you saw incredible feats in the ‘Nam.

RICHARD: I mainly saw young men – callow youth barely out of their teens – doing their duty as per military training. Incredible feats (valour) are few and far between. For instance, there have been only 1,348 Victoria Crosses (the highest award in the British medal system) awarded since its inception in 1856.

I have written about valour here: (Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 44c, 17 Aug 2003)

RESPONDENT: P.S.: one bizarre observation: two of your ex-wives had some type of cancer tumor. And even you had skin cancer some years ago...

RICHARD: My first wife had a spreading tumour, not a cancerous one; my second wife did have a malignant tumour (MMMT); my so-called minor skin cancer (a populous term) was actually a benign, non-spreading, non-burrowing abnormal tissue growth.

Here is what those two words can mean:

tumour: a permanent swelling without inflammation, caused by excessive continued growth and proliferation of cells in a tissue, which may be either benign or malignant.

cancer: a malignant tumour or growth of body tissue that tends to spread and may recur if removed; disease in which such a growth occurs. (Oxford Dictionary).

Incidentally, ever so slowly more and more cancers are being found to have a microbial or viral cause. Going solely from memory cancers such as a cervical cancer (HPV), a liver cancer (HBV), a throat cancer (HPV) and a stomach cancer (H. Pylori) for instance.

There is also some too-early-to-say evidence that heart disease may (note ‘may’) be microbial/ viral as well.


RESPONDENT No. 18: Too many people and too much greed may cause earth to give one last sigh and rid itself of these nobodies. Peace.

RESPONDENT: All nature has to do is give one good ‘burp’ and we could all disappear. My dad used to say, ‘no telling how many times we’ve come this far before and wiped ourselves out’. I remember Carl Sagan’s ‘time line’ in which his graph showed man’s numbers from his appearance on Earth to the late 19th century as almost a flat line, and then we had a population explosion that caused the line to go straight up. War was given as one of the most common devices of population control of ancient. So if we do not thin ourselves out, Mother Nature may have to do it for us.

RICHARD: Whilst not wishing to be overly optimistic, I find that peoples around the world are beginning to wake up to this recent exponential population growth and are gradually putting practices into place to slow the rise until it reaches some kind of equilibrium. I freely acknowledge that this is being done mostly out of desperation – as in China and increasingly in India – but it is happening anyway, for whatever reason. A glimmer of light is that a few Western countries are even dipping below Z. P. G. already.

War was but one of many factors controlling the population growth of old. One could add rampant disease, poor hygiene, insoluble famine, childbirth mortality ... not to mention infanticide, patricide, fratricide and cannibalism. I consider that the human race has come a long way with improving on blind nature in the area of technology, animal husbandry and plant cultivation. I have the utmost confidence that the human race will solve this problem too.

But because of the momentum of generational growth, global Z. P. G. may not be reached in my lifetime.

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, Mother Nature has been around too long to let a few billion ‘mealy mouth’ human beings come along and destroy her. The Earth has become nothing but a garbage dump anyway, and a good house cleaning is in order. So for those who have no plans to leave on a space ship, it might be wise to work harder at uncovering the root of all problems – the self.

RICHARD: The earth has not ‘become’ a garbage dump, as you so quaintly put it; it always has been so. Every human that has ever lived has discarded their refuse onto the earth – there just were not so many people back then to have enough waste material accumulate to call it pollution. Pollution has everything to do with massive population ... and a good start has already been made on becoming aware of the issue. It only was talked about in the fifties – now something is being done ... a good start has been made.

‘Mother Nature’ is a concept that has no bearing on facts and actuality. Nature is not caring or nurturing – which is what the concept so fondly conveys – it has not the slightest consideration for you or me or any other individual. Blind nature is only intent on the survival of the most fitted to survive ... and as the human being has a thinking, reflective brain, we will improve on nature even more than we have already done ... and are doing. And we do this because we humans alone care about ourselves.

And yes, by all means let us uncover the self ... so as to put an end to the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides. Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden. Yet there is a lot we have done, are doing and will do, whilst we are busy doing the uncovering.

Life is not all gloom and doom.


RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity