RESPONDENT: 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: 

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 17^th 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. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 27 November 2009)

November 27 2009

RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17^th 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 scientolism 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.

Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 17, 27 November 2009)

November 28 2009

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 radioactive weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientolism 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].

Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 17, 28 November 2009)

RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17^th 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. Viz.:

• [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? (Actual Freedom 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.

Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 27 November 2009)

RETURN TO FACTS AND GROUPTHINK INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

ACTUAL FREEDOM HOMEPAGE

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.