World Blues

Ending the Age of Embedded Journalism...

2010-12-15T10:17:00.001+01:00

Julian Assange, in my view, is an activist and first of all an investigative Journalist heading an investigative Journalism network. Investigative Journalism is a noble and dangerous profession and always was. Beyond that any musings about Julian Asssange's character or private preferences are none of my business. He is, after all, not an elected official or a state officer...
I keep thinking that if Wikileaks had appeared in the atmosphere of the 70s or even the 80s (here in Germany at least) it would have made the news, but it would not have lead to any hysterical reactions. In these old days the "mainstream media" themselves still were thoroughly engaged in investigative Journalism. But we now have lived in the age of embedded journalism for such a long time that we hardly remember what investigative journalism in nation-wide major newspapers looks like. An entire generation grew up without ever encountering it! And the face of embedded journalism is diverse: long before Journalists were embedded in selected military units encountering selected operations, they had been embedded (and thus effectively neutralized) in commercial units leading to selective whitewash reporting. At one point Journalistic output had become more defined by corporate advertiser interests than by the earnest urge to inform the public. What Wikileaks might be able to achieve, if anything, is to shake up Journalists, writers and citizens and remind them that a truly free press is an absolutely mandatory pillar of a truly free society. The best example to the contrary may well be Italy with a head of state who simply owns all major media outlets and thus controls much of the public opinion - enough to win elections. And albeit current day Italy may be an extreme case, the other western countries differ only by degree, not in principle. We need a free press. We need investigative journalists. I really dislike the worn out word "hero", but perhaps they can be called the "heroes of democracy". And I wonder if the likes of Sarah Palin ever bothered to familiarize themselves with the works of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley - on my side of the Atlantic they still are mandatory reading in high school.

Picture Moment

2010-10-07T11:58:00.001+02:00

Since Sophie is in the header with me, here be an Image of Liv and me. It became somewhat famous and was used in numerous publications around the globe. If interested do a google image search on “Pipitdapo”.

Top Three Most Sustainable Brands: Wagner & Co Nominated for German Sustainability Award

2010-07-26T17:51:00.000+02:00

(Cölbe July 21, 2010) The corporate philosophy of the solar energy pioneer Wagner & Co Solar Technology can be summarized in a single phrase: sustainability is our business. Now Wagner & Co was selected by a high profile Jury as one of three nominees in the category "most sustainable brand". The company is finalist for the German Sustainability Award. It will be awarded by the German Sustainability Council during a Gala in Düsseldorf on November 26, 2010. The event is held and organized under the auspices of the German federal government and Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel.

For more than thirty years Wagner & Co developed, constructed and manufactured award winning top flight solar energy systems, motivated by the idealistic goal to make clean and independent energy available and affordable for everyone. Wagner & Co is known for continuous innovation, including the planning and installation of many large scale solar plants, among them many technological "firsts". But the company does not only excel in the field of sustainable technology - the organization is also built upon sustainable foundations: from the outset, the 9 founders from the anti nuclear student activist scene devised the company as employee owned and with democratic decision structures. Despite more than thirty years of perpetual growth and economic success, these structures as well as the flat hierarchies, are still firmly in place and form the heart and soul of the company - a company now globally active, serving customers all over Europe and beyond, with branches in four European countries and the United States.

Following the motto "solar technology for everyone", the company also engages in corporate responsibility and supports sustainable development projects in diverse settings: solar hot water for a school cantina in the Chernobyl affected region of Belarus, solar light for a boarding school in Tanzania, solar water supply for a Nigerian village, to name a few.

The nomination for the German Sustainability Award confirms the path and strategy of Wagner & Co, focusing on sustainable high-quality products and a sustainable corporate governance with healthy work/life balance and a participatory climate for the company's employees. Past awards and nominations went to companies like the organic food brand Alnatura and the global logistics giant Deutsche Post/DHL. The high profile of these corporations as well as the status of individual prize winners underscore the nomination's value. The illustrious list of prize recipients includes for example the British heir to the crown and environmental activist Prince Charles or the retired UNEP director Klaus Töpfer, who also serves on this year's jury board.

Having been identified as one of Germany's three most sustainable brands and thus been nominated for the Sustainability Award is yet another encouragement for the company to further promote and live a cooperative and environmentally friendly business style. For a common solar future.

Wagner & Co is one of the leading collector manufacturers in Europe. The company offers solutions for solar heating applications and solar electricity. In 1979 Wagner & Co was spearheaded by nine college students rooted in the ecology and anti nuclear movements of the 70s. Nowadays the company headquarter and main production facilities are situated in Cölbe and Kirchhain, right in the geographic heart of the EU (near Frankfurt, Germany). The company is employee-owned, independent from the stock market and has more than 350 employees. The total turnover amounts to approx. 250 million Euro. Thanks to its subsidiaries in France, Spain, Italy and the United States the company passes on its more than 30 years of solar energy know how and experience throughout Europe. Many times Wagner & Co products came out first in rigorous tests by Stiftung Warentest (German consumer testing agency), and currently the solar package COMBI line SH 1440 AR is certified as “best in test” for the third time in a row in spring 2009. In the field of solar electricity the company offers highly efficient photovoltaic systems with precisely dimensioned installation components produced by globally renown manufacturers. Wagner & Co is a pioneer on the European solar market and received numerous awards, including the "Ethics in Business" award and the OTTI Innovation award.

Mind Virus Internet

2010-02-18T15:47:00.001+01:00

The internet was invented by the military. The World wide web was invented by researchers, and in the beginning it all was good - I recall that at first, back in 1994, the intention was to keep the web free and clean of the stain of commercial activities. It was to be a realm of research and experimental communication. But that did not take into account that the world is in the grip of only one remaining religion or ideology, depending on the point of view: the "Profitum". Money. We have long entered an era where money has not only become an end in itself - which already is a ridiculous notion, no, the sad and ultimately all consuming fact is that money is the only all dominating end in itself remaining. The focus of all human activity is to serve a religion that is indebting us all, a religion that creates guilt (debt) and guilt only. A religion without ethics, moral, sense or sensibility. A religion that is unintelligible in its entirety. The Internet is only the latest tool to serve the total exploitation of the human mind, soul and bank accounts. And indeed: much of the websites are parasitical. If not the entire web is a parasite of the mind, a gargantuan mind virus stealing our time, our thoughts - our life. Did life get better in any true and tangible way thanks to the internet? I think the development of the web shows clearly what United States Culture is mainly about: advertising. Trying to brainwash people into believing that they cannot live without possessing certain - in fact entirely useless or unnecessary - things. It is a culture focused on having instead of being. A culture that has and has ever more and more and constantly feels deprived of something without ever quite knowing what that is.

Why I am not a good Blogger

2010-01-17T14:32:00.001+01:00

Actually I think nobody is a good blogger – nobody can be. The principle of the blog is to perpetually babble on about something. About anything. Ideally daily. Unfortunately nobody has something relevant to say every day. In fact most of us never have anything relevant to say in the first place. So – why would I bother spending my time writing something irrelevant day in, day out?

Think about what kind of Blogger Albert Einstein would have been. The great Albert, the Icon of intellectual superiority and moral integrity in the 20th century. He would have written E equals m c squared. Grand. He would have written on a bit the Lorenz transformation. Interesting. And a few rather incomprehensible treatments on tensor calculations and 4 D space time. A no – actually he would not have written that in a blog as he would have published these things – as he did then – in peer reviewed academic journals. So what would Einstein have written in a Blog? Maybe a few witty statements about fashion, God (also a fashion) and a few things about people and their follies in general. There are a few dozen bonmots about Einstein. But not much more. Actually I believe he would not have become a blogger. Because there is no reason for it. Maybe some students would have sat down and collect his quotes and put them up on a blog or on Twitter or a similar one of all those hollow internet entities.

Einstein simply did not have enough to say to create an interesting blog. So who the hell would I be...

Climate Change: Does it make sense to argue with rightist believers?

2009-12-05T17:19:00.001+01:00

I have been reading the notorious Newsmax Newsletter for a while (it really is a painful thing for me to do), and it often leaves me speechless. For one, it clearly caters to the scientifically disenfranchised (which is a mild way of expressing it). At first it was difficult for me to understand that any even remotely educated person would fall for the style and content of these right-wingers’ arguments, but apparently there are enough relatively intelligent people with a cemented – and very limited - world view. Often it strikes me as if these people live in a parallel reality, and the method is to transfer bits and pieces of the actual reality into their limited realm where those morsels of facts and knowledge are cut off their roots and interpreted in the context of a world with which they have nothing to do. And although it is not politically correct to say that: it is impossible to convince a true believer of anything that contradicts his or her belief. It means to pull the mental ground away from under their feet – so understandably there is resistance to this onslaught of science. At the same time scientific ignorance is still the norm, not the exception. Even here in Germany – nowadays a very liberal, progressive and rather well educated society. If I go out onto the street of a big city, 80% of the 2009 populace I encounter there will not be able to tell me the difference between solar thermal applications and photovoltaic. Ten years ago I actually did a survey which included question aimed at finding out whether people could distinguish between “ozone hole”, “ozone smog” and “greenhouse effect”. The result was very sobering. So how much insight can be expected from the layman, when it comes to the tremendous complexity of the global climate system meeting the tremendous complexity of the globalized economy? It is near nil. And – although I am a trained physicist, climatologist and have over 20 years experience in the field: even much of my own perceived insight might amount to not much more than an illusion of understanding. When asked about the details I too often have to say “I don’t know”. The contrarians don’t do that. They blurp out their invented facts without doubt and hesitation. They are – or act like – believers. I have likened the situation to a medieval inquisition court. Imagine a scientist attorney in court addressing the Grand Inquisitor in favor of a defendant: “Your argument does not hold, because your fundamental proposition is unproven or wrong: the presumed existence of god and the devil.” I assume the argument would not have been very successful. But this points towards a fundamental problem: as long as we are arguing with people who live in an invented reality, there is no way of countering their arguments, because every scientific argument is a signal sent into and filtered by their closed set of quasi scholastic logics. They are, by their own definition, RIGHT. This means before their argument begins, they, in their own view, already have won the argument. There is no loosing. The scientific culture on the other hand is one of arguments, debate and discourse – a culture constantly in flux. The political right wing is by definition “conservative” - their values are solid, inflexible, well defined and ideally even eternal. Every change is perceived as a threat, and nothing is more disturbing to this mindset than the ever changing world of scientists. What a scientist like me considers a fascinating adventure of the mind that will keep me motivated up and running until the end of my days, many others perceive as an existential danger. So again: I am afraid there is no way to argue with anyone who religiously believes in any given ideology or religion and who is determined to defend their views – in fact their mental makeup – with every force they can muster. In such an argument everything you do or say – no matter what – will be turned against you. Because everything you do or say, no matter what, is, by definition, wrong from the onset. The only hope is to reach some of those who are not entirely inflexible yet, who’s mind is not yet completely close. That already would be a big success.

Such is that.

Freely quoting Laotse...

2009-11-28T14:57:00.001+01:00

Taking others for a ride is an art.
Taking yourself for a ride is a higher art... 8-)

What a former vice presidential candidate knows - and what not, and what she and I have in common. Or not.

2009-11-19T15:12:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I read in the notorious Newsmax newsletter, which I receive for unknown uncanny reasons: “Sarah Palin unaware that Bristol had sex”. Umpf. Okay, I thought, not surprised. She did not know that Africa was a continent, so it struck me as consequent that she was not aware that people in the city of Bristol also are busy with common human activities. A moment later I realized that Ms Palin, who – like my good old self – once attended Hawaii Pacific University, has a daughter named Bristol. But the wondering went on: was Ms Palin aware that Bristol is the 11th largest city in the UK and former center of the British slave industry? Did she name her daughter after the city? And if so: why would she do that? If she didn’t, she would not only not be aware that her daughter was busy with general human activities – she also would have been unaware of the origins and meaning of her own daughters name.

P.S.: Ms Palin and I are no alumni – we both have in common that we did not graduate from HPU. I graduated, for example, from the University of London. London is the largest city in the UK and of the European Union. If it were situated in the US, it would be the 2nd largest city there. Not that it is important... I assume Ms Palin and I have a lot of things in common that we both did not do... I did not, among other things, become Vice President of the United States. Or any other vice president of any other state. Nor president. And I never will. Again something she and I have in common. I hope. For the well being of the world.

We can save the World - but NOT the economy!

2009-11-18T16:44:00.001+01:00

I recently participated in the "Climate 2009" event - an online conference hosted by a Hamburg/Germany based university and the World Meteorological Organization - one of the pre-curser events to the Copenhagen conference next month. Having been involved in climate change science and policy in the one or the other way over the last two decades I have gotten somewhat tired. The discussion strikes me as if a ship is sinking from overload, and the passengers and crews are discussing whether one form of weight pulls the ship down more than another. They stay within the system, that is. I raised a question: Is it possible to ever achieve a net reduction of energy related emissions within a framework of forced continuous exponential economic growth? Is it principally possible to find a way of de-coupling economic growth and energy/resource consumption with related emissions? As far as I can tell fundamental physical laws stand in the way of constant exponential economic growth. Unfortunately raising this question means to question one of the leading global dogmas: that growth is the savior. Economic - or rather fiscal - growth is practically divine. That question is not asked. One quickly is viewed as a nutty doomsday prophet or conspiracy theorist. On the other hand - when talking to economists, businessmen and scientists individually on a one by one base they usually quickly admit: it is impossible. Simply impossible. This means our entire beautiful globalized economic system is based upon either a big lie or a big mistake. And - everyone who thinks about it quickly realizes it. And: the proportion of the issue is so enormous that nobody has even the remotest clue what to do about it. "Recycle Aluminum" is not really an answer. As a result everyone just closes their eyes and moves on as before.

When younger I argued against children, against population growth, and now I, myself, have three daughters and cannot even plausibly argue along these lines. I also drive a relatively big car because my job (in solar energy R&D) requires me to travel, our family of 5 plus dog won't fit in a GEO Metro AND we live in the country. So it goes. And we try to recommend not using excess resources on an individual level, yet the economy as it is is entirely based upon just that: ever more consumption of everything!

Be that as it may: arguing against forced economic growth as the fundamental cause of our future demise nowadays is like standing as an attorney in front of the grand inquisitor of medieval times saying "Sir - I herewith plead not guilty for these women accused of witchery, because God as well as the Devil and their ilk are cultural inventions and do not really exist, hence, they cannot serve as arguments in court."

Brainless American Right Wingers Scare me Shitless

2009-11-03T14:55:00.001+01:00

The right extremist NEOnazi Newsletter NEWSMAX had a headline today: Radical Obama won’t be re-elected. I wonder what that means? Here is an example for something that I consider so radical and extremist that it does not fit into any mainstream description of political wings: The Government of a Superpower deliberately lies about evidence and reasons for a war and then, without any such reasons, goes about and bombs an entire a country to rubbles. The American right wing self proclaimed pro-lifers/pro gunners do not seem to have much difficulties carrying out mass-abortions by blowing the expectant mothers to pieces, if those mothers speak another language or carry another passport or killing pregnant women is in the “Pro Lifers” financial interest. This is what the American Military does. Among other things – like mass murdering wedding guests in Afghanistan. This is what EVERY military machinery does that embarks in a war. Which is one of the reasons why we should avoid war altogether. There are no heroes – only desperate young men and women who are forced to do and experience things nobody should ever be forced to do and experience.

I keep reading along the NEWSMAX newsletter, and I believe these people are in need of some serious mental treatment (of course the liberals do not force mental treatment upon others – only the right wing has such ideas like the “Freedom Commission on Mental Health”). I read things like “Obama care can be stopped”. The majority of that sentence consists of the phrase “care can be stopped”. Care is an awful thing, isn’t it? It strikes me as if the believers of the market religion (who often falsely claim – or believe themselves – that they are Christians) find nothing more terrifying than the notion that people actually might CARE about each other. People apparently are not supposed to care about EACH OTHER. They are supposed to care about the market, their job, about consuming, about making money. About the economy. About paying their credit card debts. They are supposed to care about HAVING and not about BEING. All these people believe in is money. All they want is money. More of it, and ever more of it. That is their true and only faith. And there are millions of such believers – tens of millions in the US. That such people exist in the first place scares me shitless.

Seeking Climate Change Solutions from within a Diseased Dystem?

2009-11-03T14:43:00.000+01:00

I have been involved with global environmental and climate change related issues since my high school days in the 80s - that is well over 20 years. Having a geo and physical science background, I try to look at the entire problem from a whole systems perspective, and at the root of the entire global change syndrome seems to be the coupling of energy/resource use and economic growth. There is no evidence that economic growth (defined as fiscal/monetary growth) is going to be de-coupled from physical resource depletion anywhere soon (how could it?) - energy consumption and resource consumption pretty much follow the growth curve of the global GGP (gross global product). And yet aside from some fringe groups the topic of economic growth itself as the main cause of environmental degradation and, indeed, the main threat to the very planet itself is not taken up by anyone (Why do we need continuous economic growth? What drives it?), aside from a few fringe groups without influence in the political arena. Instead, enormous attempts are made to accommodate the climate change issue within the existing institutions and to find fixes that turn climate change into even further economic growth. In my view the wrong incentives are in place everywhere - e.g. Carbon trading focuses on trading profits, not on carbon reduction. In my view topics like our financial crisis and climate change also are deeply intertwined. And nobody could yet plausibly explain to me how a monetary and economic system requiring perpetual exponential growth in order to function could ever be sustainable - if I am not mistaken a physical and mathematical impossibility. I am not in any way ideological, but my prediction is that it will be impossible to adequately address the climate change issue within the existing economic and financial paradigm. Kyoto has been a band aid, and here in Germany - a world leader in renewable energy - the power hungry Internet alone easily outperforms all contributions of the renewable energy sector and the so called emission reduction successes in this country were nothing but a statistical trick made possible by the historical coincidence of the re-unification.

If anyone thinks that the issue will be solved by efficiency or a service oriented society: there is no 100% efficiency and there is no service that does not require any energy or resources at all, therefore a perpetual exponential growth is impossible in any case. And even if we consider that economic growth will more and more rest with non-material goods (e.g. software) there is another limited resource: consumer time. It does not matter how we look at it: perpetual exponential economic growth is not possible. And there also really is no need for it from an individual's point of view - it merely is a built in requirement of our financial system. Every single unit of money forming out of thin air results in a corresponding quantity of resource consumption and pollution.

If anyone can explain to me where I am wrong and how perpetual exponential economic growth in a limited world is possible without violating the most fundamental physical and mathematical laws, I would be very thankful. I also need to understand why even the richest country requires continuous economic growth in order to function properly. I hold a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and studied Economics, Climatology Oceanography and more, so you are most welcome to throw some serious theory and math at me. Before you do that, however, you might want to read Prof. Binswanger's rather mathematical book "Die Wachstumsspirale", though.

Tweepy out of Touch Crown of Creation

2009-10-30T11:36:00.001+01:00

I made an interesting discovery recently – I was vaguely aware of that before, but now it is clear: the vast majority of people cannot be at ease by simply being alone and sitting somewhere in quietude and thinking or dreaming a bit or – doing just nothing. The vast majority of people go nuts when they suddenly hear their own inner voices. That’s why they always must do something – or always must immerse in a sea of noise and continuous distractions called entertainment. I find that deeply disturbing. Conversation with others mostly amounts to one shallow, entertained and distracted mind’s surface out of touch with its own roots exchanging superficialities with a similar kin. Chippy, chippy chirp chirp. Tweepy, tweep, tweep. Crown of creation, heh?

The Oppositeness of It All

2009-10-19T14:52:00.001+02:00

Mails coming in claiming “Importance” to themselves are always spam – almost without exception. Statements that are shouted in most cases should not be listened to. And so it continues: no justice among the righteous, total control in self proclaimed free states (even if it is only the rope called money tightening around your neck), and reasons for war (another word for mass murder) usually are non-existent – or quite different from the public claims, and so-called truth in general is mainly nothing but unfounded belief. Practically everything the human world is based upon is a lie.

Masters of the Universe

2009-10-14T10:43:00.002+02:00

When I chanced upon this video, I thought: the mites are the banksters and speculators aka the self proclaimed "Masters of the Universe". And the lady with her vacuum cleaner - she is Mama Natura. Mother Nature, aka "Reality". So no matter who you think you are: you are only a dustmite in the big scheme of things.

Internet indifference

2009-09-05T09:53:00.003+02:00

Some time ago I wrote that the internet is pointless. That may or may not be true, but the internet is not an ideology or a religion and it also is not an end in itself. And yet people believe in it. I think the price we pay for its existence may by far outweigh the benefits (what are the benefits?). The energy consumption of the net alone is mind blowing. Be that as it may, I today discovered that I lost my interest in the net. I use it on a daily base as part of my work, for reference, for communication, but that is it - the evolution - or devolution - from the thrill of having "the world at my fingertips" to a thing, a collection of systems and services, that are not more than telephone, fax machine, library, bookstore, postbox and so on, only with different means. What I mean is that my feelings towards the internet by now are about the same as my emotional attachment to a postoffice. I feel a vast indifferene towards this technology - after a decade and a half with periods where I was in danger of getting addicted. So here is the good news: if you are in risk of internet addiction - that, too, will pass! ;-).

White Noise Conspiracies

2009-07-25T14:35:00.001+02:00

Sometimes I think about the myriad of conspiracy theories out there, that many conspiracies are real, but there are so many of them, working in opposite directions, that they basically nullify each other on the macro scale. Entertaining in detail, but merely fluctuations of white noise in the big scheme of things.

The Stain, the Mirror and the Log

2009-07-23T09:43:00.000+02:00

After years – if not decades – of complaining about mirrors and people who waste their life in front of them, I today, suddenly, empirically, understood what mirrors are for. They are not only there to serve vanity and pamper some women’s bloated and narcistic egos. No. They have a rather practical purpose: to help avoiding embarrassment...

When tooth-brushing with little Sophie (5), I noticed a stain on her blouse. A brown stain. Choc-milk stain. I suggested to change the blouse. What impression does it make when she goes to Kindergarten with a stained blouse? My child, the dirty, unwashed one, the one in stained clothes... no! It is not so bad, she said, and marked a size by putting the tips of her thumb and index finger together. “This is the size that is bad. Or bigger.”. A size a bit larger than a quarter or a 50 Eurocent coin. Okay, I thought. She is a girl. She knows better.

I brought her to Kindergarten, long good bye ceremony. I said hello to other parents, who looked at me in a somewhat indefinable way. Well. I went to my office. I passed by that silvery light reflecting pane on the wall and... I saw it. IT. THE STAIN! Not a little stain. Not a bit of choc on a little girl’s blouse. It was a huge stain, stretching almost from shoulder to shoulder. White stuff covering much of the chest area of my expensive dark shirt. Now I recalled what I forgot on that stressful morning after a long, sleepless, humid, tropical night. I had forgotten that baby Stella had emptied the content of her stomach onto me last night. I had forgotten that my favourite shirt was covered with half digested milk all over. All that would not have happened, if I simply had dressed up in front of the mirror in our sleeping room – the huge mirror ranging from floor to ceiling. The mirror I always hated, because it always reminds me of – me. It always shows me mercilessly who I am – at least on the outside. So they do serve a purpose, those mirrors! And the whole thing reminds me of the biblical proverb about the log in the eye. While being concerned about Sophie’s little stain, I was one huge walking stain myself...

Nurtering the "Human Capital"

2009-07-11T13:45:00.001+02:00

Although I do not like the term "human capital" or "human resources" (it sounds derogative to me) human capabilities are the number one resource of our civilization. It also is a known fact that complex minds tend to be more sensitive. From my experience I believe that wrong educational approaches combined with peer pressure can destroy the most gifted among us. It also is possible to literally bore clever child into oblivion - and certainly what we do not want is an army of highly intelligent people with unstable personalities. But that is something we do have around the world! Children - including the gifted ones - also need some form of moral and ethical guidance, but it must be open and honest. Rigid scholastic systems do not work - they only serve to let the child perceive his or her parents and teachers as hypocrites since they never manage to consequently live up to their own moral and intellectual standards. There also is a sad saying I once heard after just such a case had happened: "The most gifted among us commit suicide before they reach puberty". We must take care that we do not destroy what keeps us alive. There is no progress - in fact there is no hope - if we do not manage to employ the best minds of the world to solve the problems of the future. And they also need to be encouraged instead of being regarded and treated as outcasts and nerds and barely accepted weirdoes. Schools, Universities and other establishments of research and higher learning must provide sheltered, positive environments. Clever companies will do the same. We must get away from seeing intelligence a disease when the real disease of mankind is stupidity. As I have often mentioned I for myself re-named our species to "Homo Sapiens Potentialis". We should nurture those few who actually realize their potential - at least partially. We must feed the fishes that swim against the stream, for only they will spawn the ideas that make the future a place we want it to be for our children!

Human - and other Animal - Emotions

2009-07-11T12:14:00.001+02:00

It may be unscientific to speculate, but it is duly scientific to express a hypothesis based upon observation, anecdotal evidence and logical deduction. The hypothesis could start from an elevated point of view - alien, so to say. Looking at animals and humans it is obvious that they have more in common than parts them. The same basic substances, the same fundamental functions, nearly the same genome in some cases, much of the same environments and challenges throughout natural history and evolution. It then is not so far fetched to speculate or - indeed - hypothesize, that similar life forms have similar inner responses. There is no way to know for sure. But let's face it: a human psychopath is well able to mimic emotional responses and display emotions he does not have. In reality we cannot know for sure if the animal we observe feels what we feel, but in that same reality we also cannot know if any given human feels the same as we do - in fact in many cases they don't. I also do not see, what emotional responses have to do with reasoning. The two inner phenomena or processes seem quite separate, and every dog owner knows the grieving dog that doesn't eat when his or her best human friend is absent. Maybe what scientists call anthropomorphism occasionally is an intuitive understanding of what really is going on in our fellow animal inhabitants of earth? Emotions also are fundamental guiding tools in situations where reason only sends us into endless loops of unsolvable thought webs. There is much evidence suggesting that we ourselves - good old self proclaimed Homo Sapiens (or Homo Sapiens Potentials, as I like to call our species) bases many of his most important decisions on momentary emotions. Buying a house, choosing a partner for life - occasionally even starting a war: all that is mainly based upon animal emotions upwelling from the dark, (or illuminated - who knows?) uncharted depths of our souls.

Proclaiming human emotion to fundamentally differ from the emotions of other animals is laughable in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. That merely is an aspect of the outdated attempt to establish our species as the crown of creation, as something outside - or above - the rest of nature, rather than an integral part of it. Only the twisted human mind can speak of the environment as something surrounding him, something separate from himself, while in that very moment his heart pumps water that used to be part of the ocean, while at that very moment his lungs inhale gases produced by the metabolisms of myriads of photosynthesizing organisms. We are animals and as such an integrative part of the nature we live in and from. Our difficulties acknowledging that result from the very animal emotions we deny to have. We are jealous, we want to be special. We want to be something better than that perfect Tiger, Shark of Orca out there, because we feel small, weak and ugly in comparison to those magnificent and indeed near perfect creatures with who we share a planet - and a common ancestry. And if we look more closely at the word animal that we gave them, I must say yes, I am an animal, and I want to be one! For the word "animal" comes from the Latin word animale, neuter of animalis, and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. Considering this, if we say we are not animals, doesn’t that mean we have no soul? Is that a possible deeper truth about what become of humans?

fifty/fifty

2009-07-10T12:51:00.002+02:00

Currently I work on an article about the international year of astronomy. While at it, I stumbled over a quote by Prof. Sir Martin Reese, the British Astronomer Royal:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”

I have to let that sink in. A statement along the lines of the “Scientists Warning to the World” of the early 90s. A statement not coming from a nobody, but one of the most eminent scholars of our time. And he is not the only one. Something to think about.

The illusion of free will

2009-07-08T13:04:00.001+02:00

Free will ultimately does not exist. In any case our decisions are limited by natural laws. To define free by "being able to make two different decisions in two identical situations" does not satisfy logical criteria for a number of reasons. One is: what determines my decisions? Can I really decide freely, or am I a prisoner of my own internal programming leading to thoughts and decisions that are at best a guided random walk? Among external influences I cannot control are natural laws. Can I decide to fly? Can I decide to read someone else’s thoughts? Can I decide to spontaneously understand the math behind string theory? I can't. Of course we are also bound by society, economy - money. Even committing suicide might not be what in German is called "Freitod" (voluntary death), but in fact may be a result of what Kurt Vonnegut referred to as a "chemical imbalance of the brain." We are controlled by so many deterministic factors that talking about "free will" is complete nonsense. And when we have to define free will as only applying within certain limits, situations, frameworks, we already have defined free will into oblivion. Therefore: free will does not exist.

Life is a book - das Leben ist ein Buch

2009-07-07T14:12:00.003+02:00

The Internet is Pointless!"

2009-07-07T13:08:00.001+02:00

Why are people blogging day after day, after day, writing down tidbits of their empty lives or mostly shallow analysis of problems they are far from understanding from within their isolated little spheres? Loneliness. Marketing. An attempt to transcend the own perceived meaninglessness - the overwhelming pointlessness amidst the endless ocean of life. Unfortunately when millions upon millions are blogging, one is just another anonymous part of a huge anonymous mass of faceless individuals - with a few (totally random) outstanding stars. Things like Twitter are even worse than blogging. Institutionalized shallowness. Often it seems to me that everyone is connected, which results in a witches brew of opinion and information leading to a dilution of quality and facts so deep and profound that ultimately the entire web becomes questionable. What is it for? Does it enhance our life or does it merely keep us from living? And does it have a value to realize that for anything you do, no matter how clever and talented you are, there is someone who already did it - and better so? I am seriously asking: would I perhaps be better off without the Internet? Maybe not professionally, but privately... There practically is nothing anymore I want to do privately on the Internet. Over the years it has become boring. And too hectic and commercial and it becomes increasingly difficult to filter valuable content from junk. Like Earth itself, the Web is drowning in garbage and gibberish, and we destroy real world resources causing real world emissions to keep this cycle of commercialized mental shit up and running at ever higher speed. The Web goes the same path as cable TV in the 80s. As Pink Floy then sang: “13 channels of shit to choose from...” but there is nobody home. Connected to billions, and yet totally alone. Nobody is out there. Brave new world. And someone out there already saw this coming 20 years ago, and wrote about it, much better than I could ever do...

Penguins in 2005 (an older scrap book entry)

2007-09-25T00:28:00.000+02:00

Some time in 2005 I made this journal entry:

I am thinking... freedom is a complete illusion altogether.
Unless one finds it in the Buddhist sense.
Or the other extreme would be to be a psychopath.
Or a Christian or Muslim extremist.
Which is, in my view, the same.
No doubt.
Defying reality.
But in general...
Life seems to largely consist of demands from the outside and of actions
that we think we decide ourselves, but in fact they are a result of our
being manipulated or of peer pressure.
Like ironing.
Like mowing the lawn.
Like cleaning the windows, shaving the legs, etc.

I am looking out of the window, and five airplanes are trailing across
the blue, blue sky...
Not even airplanes are free.
Freedom was lost on this planet.
Except for a few Penguins in Antarctica...

Nothing of this is overly new, is it?
Nothing of this is overly creative.

I suddenly feel the big burden of potential failure on my shoulders again.

Mafia Angels

2007-09-01T09:10:00.000+02:00

There is no good reason why good cannot triumph over evil - if only
Angels get organized along the lines of the Mafia!

(Kurt Vonnegut)

Not knowing

2007-08-24T15:35:00.000+02:00

I do not know
Who I am...
Neither do I know what.
How could I
Since I do not even know
Whether I exist AT ALL
Or not...

Time Magazin's Global Warming Survival Guide

2007-04-30T11:59:00.001+02:00

This is my response to Times naive Global Warming Survival Guide (Time Magazin, April 9, 2007): Everything mentioned in the "Global Warming Survival Guide" represents steps in the right direction, however, even in combination all those actions are little more than holding a paper-sheet in front of ones face as a protection against a nuclear bomb. In this context I like to quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." In addition, reality at large is utterly indifferent to democracy: even solid majority decisions don't make it budge. I am working in the R&D department of a leading solar energy company, because I know that in the not so far future renewable energy will be an absolute necessity for development and to keep our living standards. But at the same time, I am fully aware that they will not be enough, and that they will have a relatively small impact on slowing global warming. One should be aware, though, that in a complex dynamic system even a small difference can have a big impact. It may be the little difference, that keeps the system from reaching a tipping point - a tipping point that surely exists, only we do not precisely know where. At the same time playing with ideas of planetary engineering is ridiculous. We have been doing planetary engineering for the last 5000 Years e.g. by means of massive land use change (deforestation and turning prairie into crop fields - and deserts), alteration of river flows, changing the atmospheric composition, even the entire makeup of the biosphere. All this did was bring us into a dangerous situation, and further doctoring around on a system we only have a very remote understanding would hardly do any good. Well. and today Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is meeting with Mr. George Bush, diskussing "Climate Change". In between two other topics: Making car exports from and to the US easier and making air traffic from and too the US easier. HARRRR!!! You cannot stare down reality, because it has no eyes.

Challenging Reality

2006-12-08T13:48:00.000+01:00

We live in a time, my friend, where genius in art and science is measured in money. We live in a time, where beauty is only acknowledged, if it can be sold. We live in a time where Goethe and Schiller would never be published, A time where Shakespeare would end as a curbside beggar, a starving fool writing poetry for food in vain. We live in a time where people never see the sky, because they stare at screens from dusk till dawn. If you are not the master over at least two thirds of your daytime, you are a slave, Said Nietzsche. We live in a time where freedom is consumption – for which we lack the time. Using things is replaced by obtaining them. We live in a time where greed is challenging reality itself. We live in a time, my friend, A time, that will come to an end.

I know not

2006-12-08T13:46:00.001+01:00

How can I possibly know, who I am – or what, if I cannot even be sure, whether I exist – or NOT!

December Spring

2006-12-08T13:46:00.000+01:00

I see the rain in the hills that falls onto fertile ground.

The Grass is green on well watered soil, soaked with life granting liquid,

While the trees are waiting for snow that does not come.

The warm Spring air this Winter carries a hint of shivering frost biting deeper into the flesh of our soul than mere cold.

Taming the Pitbull - no comment

2006-07-12T12:23:00.000+02:00

Intellectually challenged fan users

2006-07-07T12:31:00.000+02:00

Does an electric fan decrease the room temperature? It is one of the physics question tricks that you can ask someone to check if he has any idea about physics at all. I find it absolutely fantastic that at the beginning of the 3rd millennium practically everyone thinks a fan cools the air. Some people even let the fan run when they are not in the room. Causes me physical pain. In my view someone who lets the fan running when nobody is in the room should not be allowed to vote or to drive a car or to do anything else that requires even the most minimal intellectual capacity.... I wonder if George Bush leaves the fan on when he is not in the room... He probably does. Until the shit hits the fan.

Brrrrrrr.. What a world.

I am overdoing it of course.

Unexpected

2006-06-21T17:37:00.000+02:00

"...AND SUDDENLY THE AIR SOLIDIFIED UPON ME" said the finch that flew against a glass-window.

Liquid Astronaut Insanity

2006-04-07T19:36:00.000+02:00

I still did not quite return to Earth. I had chicken for Dinner. With: Dave's Temporary Insanity sauce. (It arrived today) Wow. WOW! My GOODNESS. I think if I ever would want to, say, kill my father (hello FBI or BKA: no such intentions), I only have to call him a coward... And make him try... Booff! That would be it. My eyes turned into overflowing lakes. My heart felt like it had to pump the Pacific Ocean. My good old SELF became the Pacific Ocean. Liquidified. Flowing over. Wavy. And the face turned into one big grin, while every pore, every gland, started to frantically produce liquid in defense. And neurotransmitters running wild, endorphines on the rise. Haha! Amie insisted to try a bit of chicken, with a tiny, tiny drop, and she disappeared behind the couch, whining, with the tail between her legs... "Du Nase!!" baby Sophie Maris shouted. Haha! "Du NASE!" And it sounds like NASA, when she says that.

PS: Nase is nose in German. Sophie Maris, of course, grows up bilingually.

Do Not Believe in Anything - Think Yourself Instead!

2006-03-19T18:30:00.000+01:00

I find the following an immensely compelling invitation for a Homo Sapiens:

Quote From the Buddha – Kalama Sutta.

Do not believe in anything (simply)
Because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions
Because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything
Because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply)
Because it is found written in your religious books
Do not believe in anything merely
On the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis when you find that
Anything agrees with reason and is conducive
To the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

Source: World Buddhist University

Cybermonk and Buddhadog

2006-02-16T05:45:00.000+01:00

Cybermonk sits on the mountain top in a world that ceases to exist. In a golden moment his Buddhadog hopes that the trajectory of compassion will finally cross the path of REALITY. But Cybermonk knows that the crossing point ist just an instance in time, a speck of knowhere in the nothingness. He cites the mantra of merging, and the universe waits...

Simulated Clouds

2006-02-16T05:42:00.000+01:00

A consumer advocate dances with simulated clouds, while the creators of science long for the truth about it all. Cybermonk is not so easily fooled: Someone behind the mirror, suddenly, is very hungry. These men of the cloth denie to legalize the hidden truth, but Cybermonk finally demands the knowledge about how things are.

Cbyermonk in Gold

2006-02-16T05:32:00.000+01:00

A Gypsy cleverly comes alive after midnight, whirling across the collective unconscious. The Masters of addiction want to legalize uploading of the brain. Someone's idea of a simulated joke. Jezebel smiles. Cybermonk is bathed in golden sunlight, Trying to control anything resembling maturity, he comes to life with the new moon.

Golden Veil

2006-02-16T04:39:00.000+01:00

The spies of mercy do not include life on this planet. Cybermonk keeps applying for time at heaven's gate. His constant companion, unexpectedly keeps asking for love, and finally turns out to be his former self.

His memory of the flash is fading, mountains of illusion sinking into dust. Trembling with delight, the soldiers of mercy will never forgive the city of greed. Cybermonk finally lifts the veil from the golden cage....

Reality of the unreal

2006-02-16T03:37:00.000+01:00

Reality. Shouldn't everything we do, every decision we arrive at, be grounded in reality? But is there any way to arrive at a conclusion as to what this reality thing actually is? A hell of a task! Let's see if you can agree with my list of unreal things, which may be illusionary or human inventions and yet basically run the world:

Money is not real.
God is not real.
Ideologies are not real.

And yet almost every action of mankind is based upon these illusions.

A few things that are real, at least as far as I can tell, include:

The stink of the shit in my daughter's diaper.
The suffering of a family who lives through Winter in an unheated tent in Pakistan after their home was destroyed by an Earthquake.
The pain of the feet of their little boy who walks barefoot through the snow.
The rain falling from the sky, drumming onto my window this very moment.
The angular momentum of our spinning planet.
Photons.
Electromagnetic fields.
Atoms.
Gravity.
The sun.
The stars in general.
Black holes in the centres of Galaxies.
Human brains.
Emotions:
Anxiety
Love,
Fear,
Compassion,
Joy,
Greed,
Sadness,
Envy,
Hatred.
Amie the dog snoring on her own armchair in our living room.

They are real.
They can be observed, felt AND they can be measured with physical instruments. They are not invented.

The list of real things that are not invented is truly endless. And still the actions of our leaders have little to do with the endless items on the reality list. They are mostly concerned with the three items on the list of unrealities.

I assume most of you out there won't agree...

Not so little anymore...

2006-02-14T16:25:00.000+01:00

This is what Sophie Maris looks like these days. Always in deep thought...

Oh this complicated world!

2006-02-14T13:11:00.000+01:00

My last post was a bit premature. That much I have to admit. Through the Alumni Network of the University of Münster, where I used to study, I yesterday received a long, detailed and very sober assessment of the idiotic cartoon conflict and its background that was written by Professor Dr. Muhammad Kalisch, chair of Islam Religion studies in Münster. He reluctantly had written an 11 page statement that I must say so far is the only reasonable assessment of the entire mess that I so far have read or heard. I myself am not an expert on the Islam religion, but I am also not entirely ignorant. Yet I had to reconsider some of my - admittedly emotionally colored - views. Yes, that happens. it made me wonder whether perhaps as a 14 year old I was wiser than I am now, for I was not so easily fooled. When in school back then we learned about the cold war, the evil empire, the nuclear bombs and the looming threat of global destruction, I had thought: they behave like little children fighting over the possession of toys in the sandbox . "I am right, you are wrong, no I am wrong, you are right..." It is mine, no it is mine.. NO IT IS MINE..!!" What a nonsense. From Prof. Kalisch's article I learned about the Danish Newspaper (the name of which my fuzzy mind already discarded). it seems to be a populist right wing newspaper with a history of racist, reactionary publications. It is well possible that the effect the cartoons had was indeed intended! This then is not freedom of press anymore - it is propaganda for lower purposes. At the same time: still nobody has the right to get violent over a drawing - let alone abduct people, burn buildings, threaten countries with destruction etc.

In any case: the deeper one digs, the more messy the entire subject becomes. The problem with thinking and getting informed is that complicated topics generally cannot be assessed with simple methods, cannot be described with easily understood one sentence descriptions. To my utter amazement I myself had to learn from Prof. Kalisch, that here in my own country, in Germany, home of Immanuel Kant, Blasphemy is a crime. But which blasphemy? And how is that defined? In any case: if this law applies to the established majority Christian churches only and not to every religion, our state is deeply hypocritical.

There are other points that Prof. Kalisch made and that I agree with. It is not a secret that the West - mainly the US - is mainly interested in the resources of the middle east. They are not interested in political stability, democracy, humanitarian issues etc. it is all about oil. In addition, the US seems to be interested in having a permanent enemy. This is not new - an external threat unites the nation. External threats are the only reason why Mr. Bush still is president of the United States. The US government is almost happy about every lunatic dictator. If they wouldn't appear by themselves now and then, they would have to be invented!

Islam is no more violent than any other religion. There are extremists hiding behind almost every faith. Although I must say it is extremely difficult to imagine an extremist Buddhist (like..uh.. becoming EXTREMELY compassionate? Practicing EXTREME meditation?). Well. But I, as the utter layman with an admittedly shallow understanding of the Quran, I do not agree with Prof. Kalisch when he says there is nothing violent in the Islam. My impression is that the word war appears quite often, that killing is justified under a variety of circumstances, that historically the Prophet himself duly carried a sword and at the very root of this religion we find military expansion.

The Islam described by Prof. Kalisch is of one of deep beauty - it is the Islam of dialogue, the friendly and tolerant Islam of mystics and scholars. It is similar to the Catholicism of for example the German Zen Master and Catholic Mystic Benedictian Monk father Willigis Jäger. But not only that Willigis Jäger's view of science, religion and mysticism can hardly be considered the view of the majority of Catholics (or even a significant portion - as desirable as that may be) - the Vatican also prohibited him to teach. This is what happens to the voices of tolerance and dialogue, the voices of the true seekers of answers. And I am afraid that is so in all Western religions - to varying degrees - the religion of Mammon being the worst of all.

In any case: think! Our own absolute view of things is just as likely to be wrong as someone elses is!

Religion and freedom and the flag miracle

2006-02-11T13:28:00.000+01:00

Reality currently is turning into a painful real satire. Triggered by cartoons. For heaven's sake. C A R T O O N S !!!! I have to check the calender... which year do we have again? Two years ago we celebrated the Kant year in Germany. Does anyone remember him? Immanuel Kant? The guy with the categorical imperative, the Philosopher of the enlightenment? The father of modernity? No? Admittedly... he is not easy to read. Even for me, a not entirely uneducated person, his text require significant thinking. Thinking. Freeing oneself. Wow. And now: A Cartoon "war". ??ß=&§#*+<>-ß?09/%&-:;??$§*!??

Okay... Tolerance. My saying always was: Almost anything can be tolerated, except intolerance. Of course this is more a Zen Koan, than an overly logical statement. The point is to think. Think it over before you judge. But how about the question: Can freedom of religion be granted to a religion that rules out freedom of religion? That brings it down to a more practical problem. My answer is no. My answer always is: religion must remain a private affair. Otherwise we end up in chaos. The separation of church and state is a must. In the US it is already near dead, but in Europe it is still functioning. More or less.

But there is another aspect to the Cartoon Conflict. Those were expressions of *private opinions* in a *private newspaper* which were perfectly legal under the law of Denmark and which are perfectly legal under the laws of all EU states as far as I can tell. Nothing of that was endorsed by any EU Government. And of course a Danish Newspaper has the right to publish whatever they wish in their own country - only the law of their own country is in charge there. Just like nobody has the right to regulate what I privately express in my own house or my own circle of friends. It is outright ridiculous.

During the history of mankind religion and ideology have been one of the main reasons for human suffering. Much of the European population has been wiped out during endless religious conflicts among Christians, although it requires significant mental twists to find anything in the teachings of Jesus Christ that could possibly justify greed and violence. If we are to believe scripture, he never held a sword and wasn't exactly positive about piling up riches. With the old testament it is slightly different - as it is with the Quran. Anyone saying they are only about peace and friendliness and seeking God apparently never read these books. They both are in fact oozing with blood and violence. They both make absolutistic claims. They both justify utmost cruelties under a variety of rather arbitrary conditions and circumstances.

And now Danish Flags are burnt because of cartoons. Cartoons depicting a Mohammed with a bomb on his head (not far fetched since so many self declared martyrs bomb themselves into oblivion, mass murdering others along with them, all allegedly in the name of Allah and Mohammed.) And the Cartoon with Mohammed and the Log in his eye.

It can be historically traced that Religion - and therefore God - are cultural inventions of mankind. And still it is not allowed to talk about the atrocities that are being brought about in the names of established religions. I stress established religions for if I claimed that I act in the name of, say, the Hawaiian Demigod Maui, who talks to me, I would most likely simply be locked away. It therefore seems that it is acceptable to behave in an utterly implausible way if there only are enough people who also do the same!

But it is not that easy. It never is. There is a level of reality that escapes out understanding, and there spirituality has its place. But in the moment where spirituality serves as an excuse for violence against others, something went wrong in the mind of the believer. Even in Islam, a religion brought about by a warrior prophet, the highest form of holy war is the war against self delusion. People should keep that in mind before they fall into religious psychosis and call for the destruction of a little country that many demonstrators in Afghanistan probably cannot even locate on the map. Makes me think: where actually did demonstrators in Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia suddenly obtain all those Danish Flags? I am living in the middle of the EU, and I would not have an inkling where I could spontaneously buy a Danish flag...

Who is wanted for Sept. 11?

2006-01-22T18:19:00.000+01:00

After all this time, I am still clueless about what in detail is the background of Sept. 11. I am a physical scientist, but not a structural engineer, so I cannot evaluate the engineering arguments of this discussion. It seems unlikely to me that both both buildings would collapse in the exact same manner after different hits on different levels - if they would collapse at all.

But something else bothers me more: if I don't get anything wrong, the FBI is as clueless about the individuals behind the Sept. 11 mass murder (which it was in any case) as I am. Among the most wanted terrorists - including Bin Laden - as of today, NOT A SINGLE ONE is charged with being involved in this monstrosity. So I am afraid it significantly bothers me that the government considered the evidence strong enough to attack foreign countries and murder tens of thousands of people along the way, while the FBI possibly fears that any half bake lawyer would take the case apart in court. I will not speculate about the background of Sept. 11, but every murder in the deep province seems to be investigated more thoroughly. And I really wonder why there never was a public outcry about that!

What I find funny are all the people posting sentences like "There is no doubt..." about this or that speculation about what actually was or is going on. I wonder where they find their strength for such conviction.

Human daily idiocy

2005-03-25T17:04:00.000+01:00

Why do we do, what we do? Why do we believe, what we believe? Many actions of daily life are so deeply embedded in our personalities, that normally we would never even remotely have the idea to question them, even though so many of our actions are - objectively - completely ridiculous.

Why do we mow the lawn? Why do we iron clothes? Why do women shave their armpits and legs? Why do people believe in Sta. Claus? It doesn't help that most of such strange beliefs and behaviors can be easily traced back to inventions, often as part of marketing campaigns. The purpose of brainwashing whole generations of women into believing that shaving their legs is a vital acitivity was and is: selling shavers. The purpose of dressing Sta. Claus in the corporate colors of Coca Cola was: selling Coca Cola. Who is behind ironing? The utility industry selling the electricity for these totally unnecessary power gobbling devices? I don't know, but I have the intense feeling mankind really wastes its time almost entirely with utter pointlessness.

Freedom to fail

2005-03-10T15:43:00.000+01:00

I am thinking... freedom is a complete illusion altogether. Unless one finds it in the Buddhist sense. Or the other extreme would be to be a psychopath. But in general... Life seems to largely consist of demands from the outside and of actions that we think we decide ourselves but in fact they are a result of our being manipulated or of peer pressure. Like ironing the clothes (what the hell is that good for? How many millions of tons of CO2 and exhaust are blown into the air for...well...for what?). Like mowing the lawn (same, same). Like cleaning the windows, shaving the legs (a nice article here - it is all business), etc. Gene Roddenberry allegedly said TV was invented to manipulate women. If we count the number of plastic bottles full of obnoxious chemicals in the average bathroom...well... looks like that was the most dramatically succesfull marketing scheme ever!

Sigh.

I am looking out of the window, and five airplanes are trailing across the blue, blue sky... Not even airplanes are free. Freedom was lost on this planet. Except for a few Penguins in Antarctica...

Nothing of this is overly new, is it? Nothing of this is overly creative.

I suddenly feel the big burden of failure on my shoulders again. I suddenly have the intense feeling, the whole series of projects I am working on is prone to fail. And I, once again, will have totally wasted my time and effort. Who cares about the lonely thinkers of this world. Who cares about finding solutions to real problems? Who in the world of power and business?

The hole in the soul

2005-01-17T19:12:00.000+01:00

Collectors and addicts are people with a hole in their soul. They try to fill the hole with things or substances, but naturally it all falls through. Their pathologic answer is to throw ever more into this hole that never fills up, until finally they themselves fall in.

The big betrayal

2004-11-15T09:40:00.000+01:00

If American democracy would work in any way, how likely would it be, that out of some 300 million people four fellows from the same school run for president and eventually two members of the same secret brotherhood hat consists of just 800 members eventually compete for it? HOW LIKELY WOULD THAT BE?

A bad idea

2004-11-15T09:32:00.000+01:00

Guess it was irresponsible to invent this universe, only because I was bored after all these billions of eternities. See all those creatures suffering... They perceive their suffering as real. Which it is not, but they perceive it as that. Which I did not foresee. Stupid mistake. Stupid, stupid, stupid mistake! Like these human lawmakers who invent ever new laws, only to discover that they have to invet yet more new laws to patch the problems the new laws create. New laws always create new criminals. New Universes always create more suffering. But the problem is that I DO KNOW that the suffering is not real, so I find it all a bit boring by now. Guess I am going to stop this experiment. Unfortunately that will take another 5 billion years. Which is merely an eye blink, but for those critters that inhabit this particular universe it is rather long. So it won't change their condition immediately. But perhaps if they would understand that at one point it all just ends - just like that, unavoidably - perhaps then they would have a better time? Or perhaps they would feel even more miserable? Or waste their precious time looking for a technical way out? Or make yet another totally pointless new law? I guess I created their brains slightly too big. Or slightly too small. There was this clever critter who had the idea that the middle way is right. That I once also thought, but it is utter bogus. Now I know: do it right, or don't do it at all. Not a middle way brain - either a big one or a small one. Either real, or not at all. The Earth is not suffering because of sheep brains. Neither because of Elephant or Whale brains. Not because of the very small or very big ones. The medium sized brains cause all the problems. Big enough to fantasize up all sorts of shit, yet too small to really comprehend ANYTHING of relevance. Sigh G

Clarification

2004-10-19T01:15:00.000+02:00

If any American reading my entries here feels offended: no need. At least you need not be more offended than anyone else. For one I consider the entire concept of national states as outdated. And then - if I call America sick, I merely consider it to be suffering from a more advanced stage of the same disease the entire Planet contracted - at least every corner that is inhabited by us humans.

My favorite miracle

2004-10-18T00:36:00.000+02:00

I just asked my sweetheart what is her favorite miracle in the Bible. Her's was the feeding of the masses. I can go along with that. But for the time being mine is the burning Bush. Maybe both should be repeated after all these hazy Millenia, and somehow the second seems to be the prerequisite for the first... all it requires is a little CROSS ;-)).

Pump and Pollute

2004-10-17T17:09:00.000+02:00

The following is a testinomial that was part of an environment impact assessment for a CO2 Ocean sequestration experiment off Big Hawaii. It took place about 2 years ago... 1. Ocean sequestration of CO2 experiments could lead to the large-scale pollution of the world's oceans, threatening not only Humpback whales but also other creatures that live in the world's oceans. COMMENT # 5 from GÃ©rard Nihous: Point 1. above is speculative. Moreover, the proposed Hawaii CO2 Ocean Sequestration Field Experiment is a small-scale research project (40 to 60 tons released over two weeks in daytime experiments not exceeding two hours). Point 1. tries to blur the line between a) research on ocean sequestration and b) the large-scale implementation of ocean sequestration. To put Point 1. in perspective, SAC members should be aware that about 5 million tons of CO2 per year - i.e. a third of the State of Hawaii's atmospheric emissions from human activities - pollute our SURFACE ocean waters; that could perhaps threaten Humpback whales and might be worthy of a resolution. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: if there is such a clear line between the research on a) deep-sea CO2-dumping and b) its large scale application, I would please like to know the purpose of the research in this field, especially when the project rationale, scope and involved funding bodies (basically the Energy industry) are taken into consideration. The project design as far as I know it indicates that it is the first stage of a technology development program and not a feasibility study. It also does not qualify as an EIA. Dr. Nihous' Point 2 above looks a bit as if he actually is the one who tries to blur issues since he himself knows better than anyone that "5 million tons of CO2" naturally dissolved in the Ocean's surface in low concentrations over large areas is something totally different from an abyssal CO2 lake far beyond the saturation limit. A CO2-lake on the Ocean floor WILL strongly affect local benthos life forms. His comparison has no place here, especially considering his scientific expertise. So why does he use it? CO2 is of course a natural component. This alone does not mean that CO2-dumping is in any way harmless. Almost everything in biochemistry and bio-geochemistry depends on concentration and even small changes in concentration can have large effects. This is scientific common sense and needs no explanation. COMMENT # 7 from GÃrard Nihous: If field research at sea required to monitor ALL changesÃ®, field research at sea would not exist, whether it involved adding CO2 to sea water or not. The ability to monitor something (not everything) Ã¬in large expanses of the oceanÃ® does exist in some cases, and certainly should be developed in the years to come (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles have been used very successfully already). This is a small-scale, short-term project. Measurement and monitoring protocols must be defined relatively to the time scale and space scale of a particular project. Details will be available in the final Environmental Assessment report when it is released. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: Field research at sea indeed does not require to monitor ALL CHANGES. This is not possible. The supposed CO2-dumping project however is not mere field research, it is an open field experiment that involves the dramatic alteration of a local part of the marine environmental conditions and that possibly has dramatic and not foreseable long term effects on the global environment if ever applied large scale. Although it could be argued that the immediate effects of this one local experiment would perhaps be tolerable for the purpose of pure science, it becomes completely pointless when it is seen in the larger framework of Earth Systems Science and global environmental change and policy. COMMENT #14 from GÃrard Nihous: I will address this with three questions. Is it ethical to deny future generations the benefits of scientific research that could help them cope with an environmental problem that we created? Is it ethical to drive motor vehicles with bumper stickers saying Ã¬NO CO2 DUMPINGÃ®, when 20 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned in these vehiclesÃ engines? Is it ethical to believe that billions of people who emit four to five times less CO2 than we do should not use their vast reserves of fossil fuels to improve their standard of living? 11. There are numerous sequestration methods available that could be used without jeopardizing the world's oceans, including land based sequestration techniques such as injection into empty oil and natural gas wells, deep land-based saline aquifers, reforestation, etc. Reaction by Stefan Thiesen, independent env. Consultant, Westfalia, Europe: The above questions by Dr. Nihous imply the following: The proposed small scale CO2-sequestration experiment IS after all a cornerstone for the development of large scale technology. How else could it be able to "help them (i.e. future generations) cope with an environmental problem that we created?" Dr. Nihous apparently stands for an environmental attitude that favors "end of pipe" and "business as usual" practice. The real purpose of the search for artificial CO2-sinks is to support the global fossil-fuel industry. Continued and even increasing use of fossil fuels is in their - and ONLY in their interest (see project sponsors and DOE lobbyists). The Car argument is polemic - it is after all the fossil-fuel and car industry that for decades has been running a psychologically intricate mind-numbing lifestyle campaign to make people believe that owning a nice car equals freedom and happiness. In addition the car industry and its fossil fuel allies have systematically destroyed or degraded public transportation all over the United States and elsewhere around the world. If a representant of the fossil fuel industry blames environmentalists for car driving, he actually blames his own industry fellows for vastly successful lobbying and marketing. Regarding the standard of living: Dr. Nihous implies that "standard of living" and "energy consumption" - especially of course consumption of energy from fossil fuels - are directly connected. He does not apparently realize that this is a very American definition of "standard of living". I by the way happen to live in a country with about half the per capita energy consumption of the United States and my living standard is at least as high as it would be in the US. I will also be happy to suggest literature by renown American and European Scientists and Economists who prove that there is no direct connection between energy consumption and standard of living and that standard of living is not directly connected to economic growth either (the US itself is the best example). So I should ask a question also: Is it ethical to let developing countries repeat our grave mistakes although much better technology is available? Is it ethical to let them use half a century old unsafe technology (e.g. in the Case of PETROBRAS) instead of helping them to preserve what in fact is the Heritage of all of Mankind? Is it ethical to devise a totally unnecessary and costly technology with completely unknown long-term risks, in order to preserve another costly and outdated technology? All this IS ethical only, if the ethics applied is that of maximizing corporate profit and shareholder value under all circumstances. The United States did not participate in the EXPO 2000, which ran under the title "Man, Environment, Future". An incredible number of ingenious renewable de-centralized small-scale energy solutions from Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America were presented on this exhibition along with local culture and architecture from around the world. From talking to people there and from my many visits to dozens of countries around the world I can assure anyone who wants to hear it that a) Many people in developing countries neither need nor desire a consumer and plastic culture and b) where they got it, it often had devastating effects on local culture and environment. Very often for the majority of population economic growth and higher energy consumption lead to pollution, noise, disease, social degradation, increased poverty and even more starvation instead of less. Connecting higher fuel consumption to higher living standard in third world countries is either complete ignorance or painful cynicism, especially considering long term developments of rising oil prices and degrading oil reserves. Finally: Dr. Nihous probably is right about the technical details of this particular meso-scale project. It is also clear that his opponents cannot usually "carry out credible calculations" - let alone significant field research - since they are doing volunteer work in their spare time and do not have the financial and technical resources of the global corporations that stand behind Dr. Nihous and his colleagues who work full-time on these topics. The significant flaw of the arguments favoring the experiment is that - I repeat it - it is entirely pointless if it is not seen in the context of global corporations, the Kyoto protocol, global warming, global CO2-dumping / creation of artificial CO2-sinks (e.g. also via ocean fertilization - yet another form of large scale marine pollution and ecosystem alteration proposed by United States corporations). The seemingly altruistic argument that all these efforts are for the good of the people of the world does not hold. What is at stake is not the well-being of the poor but the profits of super-rich countries (US, Japan, Switzerland, Norway) and corporations that control them or at least have immense influence in and on these countries. The large-scale CO2-dumping concept is a grave mistake since its macro-scale and long-term effects simply cannot be predicted. The dumped CO2 will also remain at least partly in the global carbon cycle and therefore it will not be removed but instead only masked for a certain period of time. Considering the facts that I know so far about the entire background I believe that the goal is not so much to find a solution for a pressing environmental problem but instead to create a new market plus an excuse to carry on with a business as usual energy policy, that is "pump-and-pollute". Taken the very far reaching global and long-term implications an EIA-commission should be set up by the state - something similar perhaps to a "bio-ethics commission" with interdisciplinary experts. It should be taken care though that not too many members of such a commission directly or indirectly receive pay-checks from industrial stakeholders with multi-billion profit interests. And once more: People like Dr. Nihous want to make the public believe that there is no connection between such meso scale projects and macro scale applications and in the next sentence they try to justify their proposals by claiming that they want to save the world, which, of course, implies a macro scale application. And last but not least: IS IT ETHICAL TO SOLVE A POLLUTION PROBLEM BY MORE POLLUTION?

Nightbirds - a tale of initiation

2004-10-17T16:52:00.000+02:00

This is a story I also wrote in Hawaii back in 1994.

In a way it is amazing that often the best and most impressive childhood memories seem to be about truly weird experiences. It is the sense of near mystic weirdness that renders them memorable. It was a day in the late summer - or rather I should say: it was a night in late summer. These warm September days I was waiting impatiently for November to come, where I would finally become a teenager and as so often in my life I expected everything to change from that day on - about which of course I was wrong.

In this special night I couldn't sleep. I always had dreamt of having a tame raven and there was a nest with young ravens right in our neighborhood, which I discovered in the forest one lonely summer afternoon. Of course I couldn't reach it without any equipment because it is an old raven tradition to built their homes way up in the highest tree to be found in the whole forest where it is protected from nosy little boys and the bloodlust of hobby hunters.

This day I came home from school and began to make up detailed plans. First of course I had to get a rope and other things you always need when climbing an almost insurmountable tree, but my mother wouldn't let me out again that night although it remains bright in German summer nights until late in the evening.

Now there I was - lying in my bed, thinking of these cute little birds. They were almost grown up animals about to leave their parents nest. "Will they still be there tomorrow? Will they fly out early in the morning?" I asked myself and I just couldn't sleep with these thoughts on my mind. Mothers just never understand!

At around one o'clock in the morning I was unable to stand it anymore - avoiding all noises I slipped out of the door, patting my dog so that she wouldn't bark. I fetched the rope from my father's garage and then headed towards the forest with the birdsÂ nest I was longing for.
My heart was beating fast as I strolled through this warm but dark and moonless night. I saw terrifying shadows and heard whispering voices that made me shiver but I pulled myself together and it only took me about ten minutes to get to the forest. Ten minutes which almost felt like hours.
In the forest it was even darker than on the open field - there was hardly any wind, and the only audible sounds were the shouts of eagle owls and silently rustling leaves of thousands of willow trees around me. I strolled through the dark forest, always expecting something horrible and unspeakable to happen but when I finally found the tree standing there pointing high into the night, I forgot all my fears and got more and more excited.
You have to plan every single step when you want to climb a high tree - especially when you are boy of twelve years fairly small for his age. But there was the experience of an almost uncountable number of similar enterprises - only they hadn't happened to occur during the night. And I never had embarked on them alone before. But still: this just had to be done!

The only approach to climb the tree was to first get onto a neighboring tree, which was nice enough to offer me branches making it easy for me to climb up to a height where I was at the same level as the lowest branches of the crow-tree. This was approximately ten meters above the ground and almost five meters away from the other tree but I didn't think of the danger. I had to throw over a help line, let it to the ground, get down to pick it up and climb up the "helping-tree" again, where I then could pull over the rope and secure it. This way I built a rope bridge between the two trees, and hanging with my head down to the ground I slowly traveled hand over hand until I reached my destination. There I had to pause for a while because I was out of breath and sweating heavily after this physical and mental exercise.

Finally there it was: just a few meters above me I saw the huge crows nest and I heard the birds squeaking silently and occasionally making funny birds' noises. I climbed upwards, one branch after another, slowly securing and tightening my grips to make sure I couldn't fall down. And then, almost in reach of the birds at a point where I already could see their bills on the edge of the nest - I got stuck.
My left foot was stuck in a fork of a branch and it was impossible to get it out immediately and while struggling with my stuck foot, the storm began.

Suddenly the silence of the night turned into a roaring and howling inferno and the wind was so powerful that it almost blew me off the tree. The noise was incredible. Clouds were coming up and covered the starlight what made the night so dark that I couldn't even see my hands in front of my face anymore. I was not only alone on this tree but alone in the whole universe, holding on to this tree, the last solid thing in existence and all by myself fighting against the united power of ancient Nordic gods.
In my imagination I had to undergo a test, which I only could pass when I wouldn't show any fear and I lost the fear all of a sudden - I felt great and incredible. I saw the rope falling down in the storm and while big heavy raindrops hit my face and while hanging in the tree soaking wet and hardly being able to hold myself I shivered, yet not of fear but of excitement. And then an unexpected happiness overcame me. I felt happy because in fact I wasn't alone! I was united with the crows now hiding in their nest, being so much closer to them than I could ever have been if I just took one out to own it. Now it was different. We shared the experience of the end of the world. A raven family and a human boy right in the center of the Apocalypse. How foolish I had been, to think I could own another living creature!

Later I just wondered what they might have thought of me, a little human boy sitting in the tree in the night for hours, laughing like a lunatic while staring up to them.
I never bothered them again, just watched them when they were flying around our house, talking to each other in their croaking language while feeding in the fields. I raised several young raven birds that fell out of their nests, but I never wanted to own one anymore. This lesson had taught me at an early age that nature cannot be owned.

Doubts and rain - a poem

2004-10-17T16:41:00.000+02:00

Not this is an old poem that I wrote as a teeanger - actually the first part I wrote as a teenager - the second part I wrote in 1994 when I lived in Hawaii and was not exactly a teenager anymore... Day One Doubts I' am stealing through the Dark, I can hear the swirling wind, I thought I had seen a spark, But my mind doesn't give a hint. I must find my way - but how? And then, I must find it now And if not, it was all in vain And I go on stealing down in the rain. The whole world could belong to me, The sky and the land and the sea It would be a very big DEAL But all I would own, I would STEAL. So is all I am going to gain To go on stealing down in the rain? Life Now I am striving in the waves, I can feel the swaying sea, I live in a world of slaves, But I hope that once will, what should be I am struggling but I survive, Sometimes drifting with no goals, I see living beings thrive, Hope lifts me from dooming holes. The morning is dawning here, And sun breaks through the rain, A laughing rainbow - no fear! Nothing is ever in vain. And though the world will never be mine, It will be in my heart for all time. Now I smile when the rain is falling Since I heard a secret life's calling

On Not Doing

2004-10-16T20:04:00.000+02:00

The philosophy of Wu Wei has often been criticized as being immoral and promoting inactivity, but to me the obvious meaning is not that I shouldn't do good deeds - it just means that I should not do the bad ones. Almost the entire evil on the world is brought about by humans, and the latest peril we have produced is the looming global environmental destruction. Now how does Wu Wei fit into the picture? For example recycling: recycling is generally seen as something very positive, yet it is just a way to cope with a problem that already exists. The Wu Wei approach would be not to produce garbage in the first place. Wu Wei means to avoid problems instead of inventing ever new half-hearted solutions to unexpected new problems. Wu Wei means not-polluting instead of cleaning up. It means to interfere with the world around us as little as possible and only if necessary. This goes along nicely with the more scientific precautionary principle: We should not interfere with nature since we cannot possibly ever now the effects it has because ecosystems are far to complex to be fully understood. Wu Wei therefore is a cousin of the precautionary principle. If we find an unknown mushroom in the forest, we will not eat it, because it may be poisonous. We would never say "Well, lets eat it - after all it may be harmless". In other words: not doing certain things is just common sense. But this common sense fails us in the case of the global environment since we have no natural intuition (or lost it) for natural complexities, let alone our planet as a whole. But Wu Wei points the way. Not doing, not needing, not desiring mere things. We more and more live in a dead, electrified plastic world, bombarded by the messages of the consumer machinery. We feel obliged to continuously obtain new things, yet despite all of our possessions many of us are never contented, never happy, never at ease with themselves. In my own case the happiest moments of my life had nothing at all to do with my purchasing power. I remember, for example, relaxed moments, sitting alone in the spring sun and studying or reading on my parents farm. The Skylarks are flying, singing their songs of life and joy. Lizards are playing on the ground and the trees are sprouting. I sit there and do nothing. And then this feeling comes from somewhere deep within, this feeling that I am a part of all things around me, that I am very small and yet an integral aspect of nature - of the universe - of the Tao. The feeling says that in this moment everything is all right. There is no desire. There are no wishes. There is nothing I have to have or I have to do - I only am. Wu Wei brings us into harmony with ourselves, the world around us and therefore with the Tao. In this sense Taoist philosophy is not only deeply spiritual but also deeply ecological. Wu Wei leads to mental quietude and is the beginning of all happiness. It must be admitted though that the dominant lifestyle makes it difficult to achieve good Wu Wei since we are continuously under pressure to do something - and mostly something completely pointless and artificial. Everybody must find ways for her and himself to break down these walls of outside pressure - or rather to grow beyond them.

Science and the Tao

2004-10-16T20:03:00.000+02:00

I was told many times, that Science and Taoism are very different, almost opposite ways of perceiving the world. So why is it that the philosophy of the Tao as well as Buddhist philosophy seems to be so appealing to many scientists? I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. The word "science" originates from Latin "scientia" and means nothing else but knowledge. Now as we all know our old sage Lao Tsu was critical about the never ending quest for knowledge. My personal impression is that he mainly means "applied knowledge", the kind of knowledge we use to trick nature and change the world to out liking. It happens now that the word "Science" was rarely used, and the profession of "Scientist" did not exist until the 20th century. People like Humboldt or Einstein, Kant and Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and Haldane, did not so much perceive themselves as "Scientists" but as "Natural Philosophers". Now what do we have here? We have a word that we can joyfully translate as "Lovers of Natural Wisdom". Couldn't we also say "lovers of the Tao"? But to my utter dismay these elders and sages of science are a severely threatened species, and it is not likely that many new members of this rare breed will appear. A love for natures wisdom, a love for the Tao, is nothing that is paid well, nothing that is tolerated on a rÃ©sumÃ©, nothing that is required by college examination boards. Current scientists have become little more than technical personnel employed for military or profit purposes. But if we talk to some of the old scientists or read through their late writings, we realize that the thought worlds of a Freeman Dyson, a late Carl Sagan, a Carl Friedrich v. WeizsÃ¤cker or a James Lovelock have more in common with Taoism, than with the so called "modern" western ways. Not bound by nations or ideologies, they are our elders, and we should maybe sometimes listen to what they have to say - for example in the 1992 "Warning to the World" that was signed by the worlds 1500 senior scholars. We should keep in mind that i n principle both - Science and Taoism - are originally concerned with the real word as it is. Modern (especially industrial) scientists unfortunately often forget that the real world does not only consist of data and technology.

Small is Beautiful - Slow is Cozy

2004-10-16T19:58:00.000+02:00

Here is an ethical problem I frequently have to face: I criticize the very companies that at least occasionally pay my bills. Here I write an article against the automobile industry, there I translate contracts or technical documentation for them, because I need money to survive. Here I campaign for a better climate-protection-policy and carry out research about environmental impact assessment, yet on the other hand I utilize airplanes to fly to environmental conferences, and I go to town by car, since there is no public transportation in my area. Here I criticize world governments, and at the same time in almost twenty years of arguing, I could not even convince my own father to look for alternatives to high-impact pesticides and herbicides in farming. And such is the truth: most street- and grassroots activists (in the West) duly use cars, when they can afford them; many duly eat fast-food and meat, many duly wear Nike shoes and quite a few forget their grand ideals as soon as they manage to grab a well paid job. Also I see little positive attitude among activists. I rarely see concrete and realistic suggestions about what a better future and what a better society should look like. Usually everyone seems to know what it should not look like, but does that help in the long run? How can reason and common sense replace greed and corporate profit interest? And what do reason and common sense look like? We do need intelligent solutions, we do need clever technology (sometimes low-tech, sometimes high-tech) to a certain extend. There is no way back to caves and grass-shacks. I think what we mainly need is a significant slowdown, away from the nonsensical fast paced continuos-growth-dogma. Small is beautiful - and slow is cozy. We need to get back to a human pace.

Suicidal Society

2004-10-16T19:33:00.000+02:00

In Germany the number of suicides is extremely disturbing and rising. The reasons mostly are lack of money and lack of self respect, which are interconnected: no money, no value, no self respect. It is terrible that people consider themselves worthless only because they have no money. The last concrete figure I have is 12225. The number of people who took their own life in the year of 1996 in the Federal Republic of Germany - one of the world's richest and most developed nations. Almost four times the number of victims of 9-11. Most of them just didn't see a point in living anymore. Only two weeks ago an uncle of mine who happens to be an MD had to cut a friend off the rope - the friends business had failed. He left a newly built house, wife and two little children. When I was a child, a friend of mine who was merely 12 years old threw himself in front of a train. Another friend of mine died by his own hand last year because he considered himself a failure and his life pointless. Humans need to see a point in living. A reason. They need respect. A purpose in life. I am suddenly thinking about the Jehovah's witnesses. These are really determined people and they did find a purpose in life for themselves. I perfectly understand that people completely loose (or find?) themselves easily in obscure sects these days - even if this sect revolves around selling a product as often is the case in quasi religious chain marketing schemes. A community and something to believe in. The ROOT factor. The emotional attachment to a group, an idea, a corporation or merely a product. Almost anything can substitute the lost sense of purpose, community and respect. The famous British Zoologist Desmond Morris (author of "The naked Ape" and the BBC series "The Human Animal"), who treats Humans as the Animals they are in his research, calls our large cities "Human Zoos", because the city is not our natural habitat. Our instincts and senses are not prepared for the onslaught of impressions in the cities. But interestingly the situation is worse in small dysfunctional communities. The world's highest youth suicide rate is to be found in Western Samoa, where a very authoritarian Polynesian subsistence village culture collides with the "free" Western consumer culture. A state of being clashes with the world of "having". Traditional knowledge is challenged by modern media and school systems. Old beliefs that grew over thousands of years were radically pushed aside by a new religion. The result is: extreme lack of self esteem for an entire culture - a culture that had sustained itself with limited island resources for Millennia. Fact is that WE probably could learn a lot from THEM.

The Servant Regulator

2004-10-16T19:24:00.000+02:00

In their early days, alarm clocks were called "Servant Regulators". Since the earliest days of my childhood I found that Alarm Clocks had something rather suspicious. I found them quite, well, ALARMING :-). My parents had an antic French clock, with an extremely loud bell, that originally was used to indeed regulate the work flow on vineyards. Servant regulator... If you think about it, it is rather unnatural that you need an alarm clock to wake you up. If we slept enough, we wake up ourselves. That we are in need of alarm clocks only shows that we don't sleep enough. Lack of sleep can dramatically reduce our mental capabilities. Lack of sleep is also used as a method of torture and as part of brain washing methods. The money system we now have to live with has something rather sinister about it. It would be idiotic to demand that money be abolished, but the interest based money system is not sustainable in the long run since it results in the necessity of constant economic growth, which is not possible in the long run, so constantly reoccurring crisis is pre programmed, and these "recessions" tend to go along with political turmoil and all too often war. The Swiss economics Professor Binswanger calls his fellow economists a "Glaubensgemeinschaft", which means a Sect. A community of believers. I can't get the "servant regulator" out of my head. Merde. If an alarm clock already is a servant regulator - what then is a telephone? Do wise people normally carry cell phones (affectionately known as "handies" in Germany)? I myself must be the last European of my age without one. That is because I once was "traumatized" so to say by an American TV commercial during my Hawaii time. This was the spot: A young, dynamic, sporty man climbing a wonderful mountain in splendid solitude. He arrives at the summit and enjoys a fabulous sunset vista. He takes a deep breath. An almost meditative atmosphere - and then: his phone rings. His wife is on the phone. Blabla. AT&T - always connected. I was horrified. Always connected! Always under control! Always a regulated servant... That was 8 years ago and I still live without a cell phone. Signs of real luxury in the year 2002: Having no cell phone. Having no watch. No Alarm clock... no servant regulators ;-).

Insight on the Cross

2004-10-16T19:19:00.000+02:00

There is one insight I gained during my more than three and a half decades on this blue ball in space: There is nothing from which I cannot learn something. Everything has a deeper level - all we have to do is change the angle from which we look and the seemingly plain and meaningless becomes deep and mysterious. Jesus on the Cross: "The father and I are one". Which reminds me of a line in Pessoa's "Book of Disquiet": "I am equal in size to all that I see". The sentence is part of a meditation on the relationship of the individual and the Universe at large, the inner and outer world, the assumption that "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu" - that we create the world inside of us, with our sensual perceptions as the building blocks. Also Science offers near mystic insights: The atoms of higher elements which form my physical body were once created in the fire of a distant Supernova. It's ashes formed interstellar dust, which were part of the raw material that formed our solar system, and its neighbouring sister stars and planets. The sub atomic building blocks that make up each atoms are as old as the Universe itself. So I and the Universe are indeed one! Jesus also did not say that his being one with the father is exclusive. We all are the Buddha. We all are one with the Universe, part of it, every our cell is penetrated by it. Nobody is an island - and finally nobody is alone. Unfortunately revolutions in the past never lead anywhere in the end. After it was over, people couldn't decide on what to do. The results were either chaos or hideous dictatorships. And look what happened to the peaceful revolution in East Germany: It began as a movement by the people in the East, it ended up as an unfriendly corporate takover by the west. East Germans still have over 30 percent unemployment in many areas, social problems, and everything of value in the region is owned by West German corporations. Now they are free. They can speak out - but nobody listens. They can go where they want, but they can't afford to. They have the freedom of choice between McDonalds, Burger King and Wienerwald. Between Coke and Pepsi. I am a West German and I grew up with the image of the Communist East as enemies, but in fact I now know quite a few people who say that the price for this kind of freedom they got may be too high: the price is the devaluation of self, a person only being of value if they are financially successful. So even this peaceful revolution that brought nominal freedom and ended the cold war has two sides. And in fact the largest power groups all over the world had no real interest in ending the cold war because it was a hell of a business. But now they got their business back, of course. I don't believe in revolutions. I don't believe in any form of organized extremism. I don't believe in violence. The Taoist Wu Wei may be a good start: no wrongdoing. To get beyond desire and only do what is necessary and good. Walk over the Earth without leaving any sign of your existence...

Creationism vs. Science

2004-10-16T19:15:00.000+02:00

I am only guessing now, but a creationist argument might by that - as the rule says - "entropy" (that is "disorder" or "Chaos") always only develops in one direction: it increases. Ergo the existence of life ought to be impossible - because life obviously is a very ordered and structured phenomenon. Order and structure developing from chaos. So, I would assume they say, their must be a creative FORCE. But physical laws always have Randbedingungen (forgot what the technical term is in English - it means that they apply under certain conditions - in a certain framework). The formulation of the 2nd law of TD is that entropy only can increase in any given thermally closed system. The price for ORDER is ENERGY INPUT. The Earth, for example, is not a closed system - it gets a lot of Energy from the outside - but also from its still hot and ever cooling core. If we jump to the creation of the Universe: here we can safely say that since its formation the total entropy did indeed increase. That does by no means exclude structure formation and local ordered anomalies. There is another factor to add: Thermodynamics was developed before we knew anything about quantum physics or synergetics/chaos theory. Another little remark: many of our dating methods for archeological artifacts rely indirectly on the second law of thermodynamics. I dare to say here that if the physical datings all are totally wrong, the second law of thermodynamics would be challenged as well, which would kill the argument as well. Science - especially Physics - is such an interwoven structure of interdependent theories that the entire building would shake if only one key concept would be proven totally false. In most cases it turned out however that challenged laws were not false but merely a special case in a broader and incomplete picture. If we think of Newton's laws: they are not an accurate description of reality, yet they are perfectly accurate for every mechanical process we observe in our daily life. From the perfectionist point of view they could be called wrong, yet you need not calculate relativistic effects for a car accident - there Newton is perfectly fine. I think if someone uses the 2nd law of TD to disprove the accuracy of science re. evolution, this person probably neither understood evolution nor thermodynamics. I made one experience with Creationists and other religious extremists: Their approach to any given subject is scholasticism. They do not attempt to understand it, they do not try to learn, because they already see themselves as in possession of absolute truth. The scholastic (or is it scholasticist in English?) approach was developed by the Roman Catholic Church during the time of the Inquisition. The idea: Since we already know the absolute truth, we can focus on building a perfect rhetoric framework that buries the arguments of the opponent. For me personally: I see no purpose in discussing with creationists. People may believe whatever they want. One of my mottoes is "Almost anything can be tolerated - except intolerance". But the second part is important as well, for the freedom of the one ends with the freedom of the other. History shows that extreme religious views eventually lead to disaster. This is why in my world view knowledge that can be tested plays an important part - in addition to the world of spirituality. My belief is that each of them becomes hollow and dangerous without the other. Our brain is well equipped for constant inquiry, so inquire we should. Even far beyond our dreams, nothing is sure, or what it seems...

Hope but little comfort

2004-10-16T18:27:00.000+02:00

I am the wrong person to offer comfort - the book project I am working on had the working title "worst case" and part of my dissertation research years ago was to examine the possibility of a total breakdown of the Earth's atmosphere.... The possibility indeed exists and it is difficult to figure out the threshhold - that is the point of no return. According to some models we already crossed it. According to the fossil fuel industry, it does not even exist. But exist it does - that much is certain. And indeed the world currently is not an a very promising part. Global warming occurs much faster than believed, genetic engineering has totally unpredictable side effects (think of the accidentelly produced killer virus by Australian scientists Ian Ramshaw and Ronald Jackson lst year), the economic development paradigm of the last 50 years has failed for the majority of the world's population, we live in the time of one of the largest and by far the fasted loss of biodiversity ever in the history of life on Earth and soil erosion, chemical pollution, deforestation, desertification, population growth, wars (mostly over money and resources), organized crime and so forth. I was shocked for example to learn that world wide some two million people die in car accidents every year. The source for this is the WHO. What shocked me even more was the tone of the article. Thre was no compassion for the victims, but concern about the negative economic effects of lost productivity, especially in third world countries. Well - life is suffering - at least it won't last forever ;-).

Money, Money, Money

2004-10-16T18:26:00.000+02:00

Money is a problem indeed. There are a few obvious fallacies about our culture that have become a clear and present danger. In my eyes it begins with the little problem that a mere tool (money) has become an end in itself, which really doesn't seem overly reasonable to me. The Swiss economist Prof. Binswanger studied around the world how ancient subsistence cultures disintegrated after the introduction of money and especially interest based credit systems. The old rule of "don't catch or kill more than you and your family can eat" is broken quickly, simply to meet the interest. Binswanger's prime example was a village of natives living in Russia by the Baikal lake, where credit based money economy had been introduced very late in the 20th century. Within a mere decade a formerly well functioning native community had fallen apart. A few got rich, other's fell into deep poverty. Cooperation in a sustainable culture was replaced by competition, greed and envy and the natural ressources were already depleted. It all began with one fisherman getting a loan to buy a bigger boat with a motor, having to catch ever more fish in order to meet the interest. It was the beginning of a vicious circle that drained the village. I was also surprised to recently learn that raising interest is prohibited by an old catholic church dogma which was re confirmed several times in history - and then aparently burried in silence. It reads: No money must come from money. Another statement goes: Money is the soul of war (Pecunia nervus beli), which should remind us of the origin of money: it was conceived to let otherwise unproductive members of society participate in economic activity: Soldiers and Bureaucrats. Which reminds me of a statement of the sword master Myamoto Musashi, who considered merchants and bureaucrats the lowliest members of society who's numbers need to be kept as low as possible. Apparently though it didn't occur to him that the same is might be true for his own warrior caste...:-). Alan Greenspan once said that the laws of economics are as close to absolute truth as anything could possibly be. I find that a very disturbing statement since the laws of economics are artificial all and through, plus they are not exact laws in the scientific sense at all. The British Physicist Christopher Caudwell already wrote in the 30s: "The Development of the Market cannot be predicted, therefore there are no known laws of the market. The free market is entirely anarchic." So in his eyes the "free market" is pretty much the opposite of what its Chicago School Laissez faire proponents claim it to be. There is one fundamental flaw in the currently existing economic system: since it is interest based, it has to grow constantly. A steady state situation already is considered a crisis. The obvious problem is - and I think this is simple common sense: There can be no unlimited growth within a limited system, which the Earth herself is for all practical purposes. The Earth's natural state is one of balance - homeostasis. A more or less stable self regulated system (as most of you probably know this idea was developed to the extreme by James Lovelock in the form of his "Gaia Theory", which treats the Earth as if she were a living creature. The "as if" is important here since Lovelock himself never said that the Earth actually IS a living creature.) Every living creature lives in homeostasis. Inner balance. Unlimited cell growth in a living creature has a medical name: it is called cancer. And it eventually kills the creature. So here we are back at Friedrich Nietzsche who already said at the end of the 19th century that "The Earth has a Pox Called man". Probably you know the little joke: Earth and Mars are meeting. Asks Mars: "How is it these millenia old friend" and Earth, looking slightly feverish shivers a bit "Well you know - recently I caught a really nasty mankind". Mars, with a compassionate voice says" Oh well - I am sorry to hear that. But I'm sure it will be gone soon." Eventually mankind WILL be forced to find a form of steady state economy. Otherwise good Mars in the joke may prove to be all too right. The insurance companies indeed are putting quite a bit of money into environmental research, especially the giant Munich Re Insurance here in Germany. The are the backup company for many of the large insurance companies and therefore are really hit badly when disasters strike. Currently we are demanding here in Germany that companies who want to release genetically manipulated organisms will need to obtain an insurance for that. No insurance - no permission. Problem is that the damage is not yet well defined. How do you assign a money value to, say, a vanished species? Well - I better stop here before I babble on and on. If anyone is interested: there is an absolutely fascinating book about money, written by one of the world's leading economists, the Belgian Professor Bernard Lieatar, who one of the main heads behind the development of the ECU - the convergence mechanism behind the Euro. The book is "The Future of Money" and it is surprisingly critical and creative - plus an exciting read. Topics include Monetary Instability, Aging Population, The Information Revolution, Fallacies of the monetary system, The Global Environmental Change and how it is connected with money, Alternative monetary systems (e.g. time dollars, community money etc.), economy from a Taoist perspective and much more. I learned a lot from it. If anyone cares: hee be the Amazon link. Probably some more description there: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712683992/mindquest-20

Doubt is Truth

2004-10-16T18:14:00.000+02:00

There is nothing absolute that can be comprehended, written down and taught as a dogma to others who are to follow blindly. Insight into reality means a thousand monks. A thousand religions. The number of neural connections in our brains outnumber the stars in the known universe. In terms of complexity, we have entire universes inside of our heads, and it is a hell of a task to explore even our own mental capacities and our own psyche. We can learn from the experience of our elders. We can be pointed out paths by Masters and show possible directions to those who are younger than us. We must not forget however to remind them to verify what we teach for we may be mistaken ourselves. At the same time we also must constantly verify what we were taught and we must not cease to question our own view of the world, for very often things are not what they seem and our own perceptions are based upon misleading illusions and manipulations. It is not easy. I do believe that an all encompassing reality does exists, yet it may well be possible that humans will never be able to comprehend it. All impression already is interpretation, and all interpretation depends on a myriad of interconnected factors. Tolerance and openness are at the heart of it all - and so are the willingness to ask the right questions as well as listen to the answers, even if they may be unexpected or even unpleasant. The old Buddhist/Taoist Masters' saying that "I can show you the way, but you have to walk for yourself" holds true. I also like the Taoist concept of Wu Wei in this context. Not doing. Not doing wrong, that is. If we look at the state of the world, most problems come from doing something and could be avoided by not doing them. But well - this is another topic...

Compass of the Way

2004-10-16T18:10:00.000+02:00

We could say that Taoism is the compass that points towards the right direction in the "magnetic" field of the Tao, helping us to chart the correct path through reality... Words, of course, are just that: words. Siddharta once said that "Every teaching that aims at relieving and ultimately ending the suffering of all livving beings" is part of his school He also said that his students in fact are warriors (ksatryias) who fight for moral (sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna). Guatama Buddha is also known as the Jina - or the Victor. In Asia a Buddhist traditionally often is called "a follower of the Dharma", and Dharma simply is teaching, according to the unfaltering faith that a right path can be pointed. My feeling is that everyone who self critically strives for light and the right path can be seen, then, as a follower of the teaching, because philosophically most mystic traditions are astonishingly similar, even though they might differ tremendously in cultural details. Our culture is that of nihilistic postmodernism - and would add that it has a strong timocratic tendency (a culture ruled by money, not be the democratic will of the people). When I say "our culture" I mean of course the entire Euromarican complex. There is a person whom I have come to see as a role model for every seeker of wisdom, and that is the German Medical Doctor and religious scholar Albert Schweitzer. I shall attempt here a crude translation of one of his enlightened quotes: "What is the insight both child like and most scholarly: Reverence for life, for the unfathomable that reaches out to us from the universe and which is like ourselves, albeit different in appearance yet identical in its innermost nature, terribly closely related to us - lifting the strangeness between us and all other living creatures." Albert Schweitzer

If you stare at it, you will go blind!

2004-10-16T18:06:00.000+02:00

P'an Shan's "There is nothing in the World": It is futile effort to linger in thought over the action of a lightning bolt: when the sound of thunder fills the sky, you will hardly have time to cover your ears. To unfurl the red flag of victory over your head, whirl the twin swords behind your ears - if not for a discriminating eye and a familiar hand, how could anyone be able to succeed? Some people lower their heads and linger in thought, trying to figure it out with their intellect. They hardly realize that they are seeing ghosts without number in front of their skulls. Now tell me, without falling into intellect, without being caught up in gain or loss, when suddenly there is such a demonstration to awaken you, how will you reply? Pythagoras believed that the Universe could in its entirety be described using natural numbers, which is clearly no the case. I would therefore not say that "everything is numbers" but that "everything can be described using numbers". I agree by the way totally that really good scientific ideas come as inspirations long before we apply mathematics to them. First we somehow "see" the solution - or rather the concept. "Somewhow" the concept of a problem materializes in the human brain, and only afterwards do we apply math to them. But the development of mathematics has been a long and tedious struggle with millenia of trial and error. Math consists of many branches, some of which are more obviously present on natural phenomena than others. It would seem to me that the fact that we can inuitively perceive problem solutions before applying math to them could also be used as an argument against the mathematical nature and in favor of a spiritual nature of rality. Everyone has intuitions and yet for most humans mathematics is a real pain in the ass. Feynman ones said something along the lines of: "A dog know Newtons laws - you can see that whenever he catches a ball". So indeed: something in the tiny, tiny brains of even the simplemost animal - even a fly - already knows a heck of a lot about applied physics. And we are lightyears away from understanding even the basics of these brain functions. Scientists ought to be careful about definite statements in borderland fields. History is full of stories about scientists who made fools out of themselves. Here a little quote from "Zen and the Art of Insight", which focuses on the Prajnaparamita and applies to the current state of Jediism as well: "For the time being, what is perhaps most essential to keep in mind, based on this teaching, is that a bhodisattva or Buddhist practitioner does not become devotee of just one form of knowledge, even perfect insight. In the course of time it may be necessary to concentrate on one or another mode of of knowing in order to round out the mind of the individual community, but on the whole it is not enlightening to focus exclusively on a partial capacity. Obsession with transcendental mode of perfect insight is particularly mentioned in Zen lore, no doubt as a balance to Zen's own intensity in this domain, as a dangerous form of intoxication that can deprive the obsessive individual of common sense. For pragmatic purposes, this important caveat can be brought to mind with relative ease by means of the Zen proverb "If you stare at it, you'll go blind." So, I guess, synthesis is called for. The middle way is the right one. Extremes and singlemindedness are to be avoided.

More on Numbers and Mystics

2004-10-16T18:03:00.000+02:00

I just browsed the bookshelves in my office here, and for everyone interested to pursue the Math and Reality topic a bit further I think Rudy Rucker's "Mind Tools - The Five Levels of Mathematical Reality" is an extremely valuable albeit not all too easy starting point. I hope it is still available. It was also translated to several foreign languages, including my own (German), where the title lived through a magical transformation into "Ozean der Wahrheit - oder die FÃ¼nf Arten zu Denken", which is "The Ocean of truth, or the five ways of thinking". Rucker explains that Math indeed is the language which we can use to describe the universe. He also clarifies that math is pretty much the opposite of religion since math relies on proof and not on faith. Of course it would be foolish to claim that there is no relationship between mathematics and nature. Even the weakest argument would have to acknowledge that our brain invented mathematics, and our brain duly is a part of nature. As an Astronomer I also know that it is quite astonishing just how far the predictive power of mathematics (or rather mathematical physics) occasionally reaches. But not always. Also it often turned out that our precise calculations do not describe nature accurately but only nearly so. In most cases mathematical Physics is only 100% precise for simplified thought or laboratory experiments. Some recent results from high energy physics also called into question the very concept of natural constants. It may turn out that what was deemed to be constants actually changes of time every so slightly Yet the numbers are there. Proportions are there. Certain mathematical constants are there (such is Pi or e). But we cannot say what they mean. We cannot draw any religious or spiritual conclusion from it. We can just say that they are there. But: They REALLY exist. But it also all is rather complicated. Maybe a quote from Rudy Rucker (re-translated from German again): "Only a landlubber can denie the existence of whales - only a philosopher can denie the existence of numbers..."

The Buddha Said

2004-10-16T17:59:00.000+02:00

(And for that I really like him...) "Don't accept anything because you heard it Or because it had come down from generations Or because it was traditional Or because it was written in scripture Or because it suited the argument Or because it was according to theory Or because it suited the vision Or because it came from a clergy Or because the teacher said it. With your own enquiring mind you must analyse it, And if you find it correct, then only should you accept it."

Math and Mysticism

2004-10-16T17:58:00.000+02:00

The "rules" or natural laws that govern the universe are neither bad nor good in the first place. Ultimately meaning is introduced by sentient beings, and it is our decision - in fact our emotions - that determine whether something is good or bad. And even here it is difficult to reach a consensus. For me, killing an animal to still your hunger is neutral. Killing an animal as a sport is evil. But many will contest this opinion of mine. And there is a myriad of similar cases. But why would Mathematics be in any way spiritually relevant? Mathematics is a useful tool to describe natural phenomena - but by no means all naturall phenomena. Many observed phenomena cannot be described using analytical mathematics (in some cases only numerical modelling provides a viable albeit crude alternative). At the same time many mathematical solutions have nothing to do with the real world - they are merely abstractions born out of themselves, so to say. A scientific modell of the world - based upon mathematical methods - is just that: a model. It does represent a portion of reality, similar to the way a map represents a landscape. It may be fascinating, but I see no deeper spiritual meaning there. For me as a scientist Math is a toolbox. A very sophisticated and intricate toolbox, but just a toolbox. Math is not necessarily logics - in synergetics (better known as chaos theory) and fuzzy "logics" many of the common interpretations of classical aristotelian logics are thrown over board. Getting deep into the far out fields of topological manyfolds, dynamic systems and math as applied to high energy Physics actually can cause otherwise sane minds to tilt. This is what happened to Kurt GÃ¶del, arguably one of the greatest heads of history. What pushed him out of balance was his famous incompleteness theorem: That Mathematics can never completely prove itself. But of course - Math WORKS most of the time. There is magic to a certain extend as well - and certainly beauty. And certain forms and structures that can be described mathematically DO reoccur thoughout nature. It is all rather fascinating. I only think that without necessity Math should not be mixed with numerology. The essence of Art is to find the balance between the complex and the simple - in fact to find the simple in the complex and vice versa. In terms of ideology one must be careful. More often than not simplified ideologies have caused extreme suffering and unjust. Maybe it is also true that Einstein in fact really just referred to Physics, where the saying is both: true and easily definable. Mathematics - by its very definition - is fully in the realm of reason (though not necessarily logics). In fact Mathematics is the pivotal essence of human intellectual endeavors. Spirituality on the other hand is not even clearly definable using mere categories of reason. This is not to rule out that there may be a connection that is as yet undiscovered. But if spirituality could be grasped in mathematical terms, would it still be spirituality? Or would it be mere science? I have two problems with the complete union of Math and Mysticism. The one is professional: As a trained Astronomer I do not see the connection. Instead I see the incompleteness of the mathematical method - although it is an extremely powerful tool. As a Mystic, I feel that it would be an ice cold world, if it turned out to be true, that everything had a purely logical explanation. This is a contradiction in my character - that much admitted. If - like Galileo said - Mathematics would be the language, in which God describes the world, the world (universe) would be a little bit too similar to a computer simulation. For my taste at least. But on the other hand: maybe nothing is what it seems... Yet I have to say that scientific theory building (for which mathematics is the preferred language) is all about absolute precision. Let me quote Richard Feynman here (actually it is a re-translation from German): Let me say one thing with absolute clarity: A vague theory is always difficult to disprove. If its assumption is incomplete and vaguely formulated and the calculation methods it uses also are somewhat uncertain, than you are not absolutely sure, and you say: "Yes - I do think that it is correct, since it all is based upon this and that which more or less behaves like this and that, and I can approximately explain how the whole thing is working..." (Feynman in his Cornell lecture "The Character of Physical Law"). This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to learn more about the very nature of science and math. Our understanding does go quite far. But we also know limitations. In many cases we have mathematical functions that appear to have the character of natural laws, yet they are only statistical assumptions. In Biology for example we can make good calculations about the reproduction rate of viruses in organism, yet the infection of a single bacterium with a single virus is an entirely un-mathematical process. The same is true, to use another common example, for radioactive Decay. If we look at a large number of free Neutrons, we can say that the half-lifetime of these Neutrons on average is 10.8 minutes. With astonishing precision can we predict that after 10.8 minutes half of the Neutrons will have turned into protons. At the same time, if we look at a single individual Neutron, we suddenly are completely unable to make any valid statement about its lifetime. It may decay just immediately - or it may still be around when every nuclear fire in the entire universe is about to die out. Chaos reins, and statistics is a branch of mathematics that helps providing us with some peace of mind. If you think about the uncertainty principle, you also realize that in quantum mechanics some of our most advanced research arrived at a point where mathematics fails to describe nature accurately, and it seems that this is not a result of missing knowledge or hidden variables but instead the very nature of nature herself: Uncertainty. Chaos. One thing be admitted: it is absolutely true that in some future science new solutions and answers will be discovered about which as yet we know nothing. But, since we know nothing about it, we also cannot make any valid statements related to it. That would be akin to a religious believer stating: We do not know how this or that came about, therefore it was created, initiated etc. by God. Life itself certainly so far escapes the grasp of mathematics. Mathematics on the other hand can be a formidable form of MEDITATION! ;-).

Black truly can be beautiful

2004-10-16T15:40:00.000+02:00

Recently while in the pool, I saw what may well have seen the most beutiful woman I have seen in my life. It is a pity that I only have rudimentary artistic talents, for her I would have wanted to paint. She was African, perhaps in her mid 20s. Despite her being highly pregnant she moved around with an ease and elegant pride that made her look as if she did not even touch the ground - and in comparison the rest of us there in the pool looked like pale, stranded jellyfish of somewhat undefined shape, looking up to to the apparition of some kind of higher being that descended upon Earth...

Culture of Liars

2004-10-16T15:28:00.000+02:00

Rudolf Augstein, the founder of Germany's most prominent and most independent political magazine "Der Spiegel" (The Mirror) once said:

"Es kommt nicht so sehr darauf an, dass die Demokratie nach ihrer urspruenglichen Idee funktioniert, sondern dass sie von der Bevoelkerung als funktionierend empfunden wird."

"It doesn't mainly matter whether democracy functions according to its original idea, but whether the people perceive it as functioning."

So... it is all a question or marketing. Which is just another term for "systematic lies." The point is not to make democratic policy, but to get the folks out there to believe that they live in a democracyand that all is good. The "Freedom Commission on Mental Health" comes to mind again. Surely they will invent a democracy pill some day. Any critical thoughts about the government? A friendly officer will come with a piece of paper that requires you to pop a pill to cure you from this abnormality. Do you take the blue or the red one?

Lies and Sighs

2004-10-16T10:38:00.000+02:00

We really have become a culture of liars. The most successfull people are not the most intelligent, most gifted and most hard working workers, but the most ruthless liars. And we all are forced to either play the game or to end up as ruminating sheep. Some analysts already judge the candidates for the most powerful office on Earth not by their abilities and qualifications, but based upon who told fewer lies! Perhaps it should be the other way round? Perhaps the one who is the more professional liar ought to be praised? But both candidates are amateurs in my eyes, because a truly professional liar would be one who isn't caught.

Money for Nothing

2004-10-15T17:12:00.000+02:00

Here is a question I sometimes ask people when talking about money and the terrific terror of it all: "When you put money onto your savings account - that is you lend money to your bank - for 2% interest, and the bank gives someone else a consumer credit for, say, 10% interest - what is the bank's profit?" Now the question ought to be easy enough to answer for it merely requires some rather basic math to solve it. The answer I usuall get from people of all educational levels is: Eight percent. Now this answer is as charming as it is scaring and wrong. The right answer is: 400%!! And this does not take into account potential interest accumulation.

Now wow! Where else does anyone in any trade have profit margins of such fantastic proportions? And why do we allow banks to cash in on such margins for services that damn closely border on doing absolutely nothing? A one or two percent margin ought to be enough for taking money from one person and handing it over to another one. When the bank borrows your money for two percent, that would result in loans with an interest rate of 2.04% Sounds far enough to me! A real estate broker here in my country gets a 3 percent commission, and he in fact does about the same actual work as the banker. A three percent commission for a credit (instead of 10% ongoing and exponentially accumulating interest) would be even nicer for the borrower - and still more fair. Let us say the bank borrows the money from you, and gives it away to someone else. The bank then receives a one time 3% commission for the whole sum. YOU get the ongoing 2% interest - or a bit more. After all it is your money, and why should the bank make most of the profit with it? And everybody is happy. Except the bank of course, which would be downscaled to what it actually is: a simple agent bringing together two parties. Otherwise banks do almost nothing other then providing the most primitive of services! There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for granting them the power and influence they nowadays have on almost every aspect of the world.

Selling out the Truth

2004-10-14T13:26:00.000+02:00

Here is another nice little story on the state of the American Nation...maybe there is not only a "Freedom Commission on Mental Health" that takes care of mental freedom, but also a "Freedom Commission on the Media" that takes care of the freedom of the Press?

" September 28, 2004--In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

Full story see here: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/092804FAIR.shtml

Frozen Terrorists

2004-10-14T11:45:00.000+02:00

I just read an article about a super secret US prison camp for captured top Al Qaeda cadres. Allegedly it is located in Jordan and not even Bush knows the exact location. The memory of a cheap but funny B-Movie popped up. I forgot the name, but it was about the CIA (or a similar service) faking terrorist attacks and blaming whatever group politically suited them. For this purpose they had a stock of deep frozen bodies of terrorists which then were placed at the site of the forged incidents. What if W just waits until the last moment to present captured top Terrorists just before the election? In the "democracy" as it is this could bring him just enough votes to once again enter the electoral error margin and get re-positioned into the white house by yet another judicial voting... The article about the prison camp(s) appeared in the Israeli Newspaper "Haaretz": http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/488039.html

Brave New Orwellian World

2004-10-14T11:26:00.000+02:00

That the Bush Government stands for a new kind of fascism-in-disguise (well - not really that much disguised) has been clear for a long time (my Grandma, who lived through the German fasciscm, said early in the W era that "this man is like Hitler"), but just how far it goes is new even to me. I just stumbled over an article in one of the very, very, few independent news sources of the United States, the Baltimore Chronicle:

"President Bush's little-publicized New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has proposed comprehensive mental-illness screening for all Americans. If carried out, no adult or child will be safe from intrusive probing by "experts," backed by drug companies."

This is the most scary thing I have heard in a long time. The article also mentioned that in America it is possible to sue parents for child abuse or neglect if they refuse to have their child poisoned with psychotrophic drugs. How much totalitarian can a society get? What can be more totalitarian than refusing parents the right to decide about the well being of their own children? I used to consider the US as my 2nd home. Nowadays I consider it simply SICK. It is a SICK, SICK, SICK country, and it tries to sicken the entire world.

Here goes the entire article of the Baltimore Chronicle: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/100704SheldonRichman.shtml

self lie

2004-10-13T22:53:00.000+02:00

I just watched Point Break. I think I already saw it five times. I always have tears in my eyes at the end. Why? Love. It is love. A love affair between me and the sea. My oldest and number one quintessential love affair. I keep talking about being interested in something, something concrete, but is that true? I am interested in Ocean Science, but what is the CAUSE for that? It is like being in love with a person. You are interested in what he or she says, but that is not the main issue. So my interest in the science of the Ocean probably comes from my love for it. The rational is caused by the irrational. Interesting. Now there is a show about Surfing on TeeVee. Extreme surfing. I really can become a couch potatoe when such Documentaries are aired. Especially things that remind me of my Hawaii time. I see the waves. And I have three marine science related applications running right now. That is still what I want. Getting back to where I lost track years ago. Doesn't mean I leave my writing or whatever, but I need the concrete, the field component, the hard work at sea. That made me happy. Surfing. The perfect metaphor for life. And the surfer Philosophy is one of the few positive American contributions to world culture. It is about being in tune. It is about adjusting to your surroundings and beating yourself, instead of destroying others.

Equipment list

2004-10-13T18:30:00.000+02:00

I'll be going onto an expedition in Wales later this month. Cold and rainy it will be. It is part of a crash course for the Expedition Leader Award. Let me see if I have all things I need. Things I am to bring to Wales: Large Rucsac, Liner for above (strong bin liner!), Day Sac, Warm Sleeping Bag, Emergency Bivvy Bag, Waterproof Jacket, Waterproof Trousers, Warm Jacket (Fleece), Warm Jumpers, Woollen Scarf, Woollen Mittens, Woollen Hat, Warm Trousers, Thermal Underwear, Thick Socks, Strong Leather Walking Boots, spare Laces, Gaiters (optional), Torch + Spare Batteries (head torch if possible), Compass (Silva type) + Whistle, Notebook + Pencil, Mug - Bowl - Spoon, Survival Kit, Towel, Wash Kit, First Aid Kit, Water Bottle, Hot Flask, Single Sheet, Pillow Case, Watch, Money for meal at pub on Friday night (now that is an essential one!), Casual Clothes and finally - even mroe essential: Sense of Humour. Anything missing here?

The Fuzzyness of the mind

2004-10-13T16:33:00.000+02:00

In one of his Dirk Gently Books Douglas Adams somewhere claims that the human mind is capable of holding seven different thoughts at once, and once another one appears, one of the other seven simply is dropped under the table. I am not sure about the actual number of parallel processes, but the principle surely rings true enough. At least for me. I am a constant thinker. My mind is busy all the time and never stops anlysing, fantasizing, worrying, noticing and the like. That might sound normal enough, but it can be utterly dangerous. OR expensive! Like today, when I got my own credit card in the mail. It was the second itime within a few weeks that I had left it somewhere in a teller machine. Scary that is. I didn't even notice it was gone. But it also leads me to the beautiful insight that most people indeed appear to be nice and honest folks!

Evanescence of ideas

2004-10-13T15:17:00.000+02:00

I just rushed to the computer to take down the fantstic idea I had, opened my beautiful Thinkpad R40, waited, waited, until finally the Open Office writer had started up and... it was GONE! The idea. That reminds me of Fernando Pessoa - and of the fact that I forgot to mention his "Book of Disquiet" as one of my favorite books. It is a book that strangely manages to explain everything without ever actually talking about anything specific in particular. That might be because Pessoa - according to himself - has the same problem that I have: an explosively creative but uncontrollably fuzzy Swiss cheese brain. Well - he nevertheless managed to become an icon of world literature. Which is not really reason for hope in my case because by the time he became recognized by a larger audience he had been under the soil for quite a while...

On taking oneself too seriously

2004-10-12T18:43:00.000+02:00

That is the biggest problem of the leaders of this world: they indeed do think that they are important. They tend to forget that the best they can hope for is to end up as a footnote - or possibly even a chapter - in history books one or two hundred years from now. One should not hope to get an own corner in the library, for rarely are entire books written about the friendly and merciful. But look who is talking! Apparently I take myself serious enough to believe that anyone out there is interested in my thoughts and ideas. Entire books I wrote, albeit mostly not about myself. Nevertheless I should be cautious with what I say, shouldn't I?

On Religion and Tolerance

2004-10-12T15:21:00.000+02:00

How can I stress tolerance and at the same time seem to be lambasting religion all the time? It is simple: Religion ought to be a strictly private affair. I do believe that freedom ought to find its limits in the freedom of others. Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently. Freedom is NOT to be allowed to act as one wishes on the cost of someone - or everyone - else. Dogmatic Religion is the opposite of freedom. Religious fanatics tend to deem themselves as the sole possers of divine and absolute truth. Needless to say that there is no principal limit to the numbers of competing divine and absolute truths. And all the holders of this divine and ultimate but yet utterly unprovable and contradictory knowledge consider themselves superior, consider others who do not believe in the same "truth" as lesser beings. In the best cases those poor souls are pitied and looked down upon, in the more extreme and everything but rare cases they are not considered humans anymore, not considered worthy to live, to exist and done away. It is interesting that the book religions which allegedly preach love and mercy are the most sucsessful instruments of dehumanization in the history of mankind.

It's Alive!

2004-10-12T13:03:00.000+02:00

The sun shines. It is utterly cold outside here somewhere in the north Western nowhere of Europe. The FBI seized servers of the Independent Media Center. Nuja. The nasty spirit of Hitler seems to be alive and kicking. And my dog needs to pee. Let it be, let it be. Reality.

The freedom of pointlessness

2004-10-11T22:27:00.001+02:00

Okay - now I can write and publish it on the web. Seems like I have been doing this for years, so what is different with this here? Perhaps the difference is that I am absolutely clueless as to the reason why I am supposed to have a Blog. There is no reason to write anything at all! WOW! FREEDOM!

The freedom of pointlessness

2004-10-11T22:27:00.000+02:00

Bush and Kerry

2004-10-11T22:02:00.000+02:00

Being a European, I have no choice: It is absolutely necessary that I comment on Bush and Kerry. I must say I find it all rather amazing. WHAT IS THIS? I could cry and scream and hammer my hands onto the floor - I simply am absolutely and eternally clueless as to what is going on in the US of A. Why is this Mr Bush president in the first place? His election was questionable, and he commited at least a dozen pollitical "crimes" that would have been instant political suicide for any other democratically elected head of state anywhere in the world. I see a double nature in him: on the one hand he is a lobby puppet in office. On the other hand he is a lobbyist himself - a christian extremist lobbyist. This man actually believes in God. Yes. In my view a supersticious person is not qualified to lead the worlds strongest country, to have command control over nuclear weapons. Imagine his God starts telling him things? I mean allegedly - if we take this book for granted - God already doomed cities and once even all of mankind. What of the believer in the white house is informed that he is God's tool to annihilate mankind a second time? I am not saying that is so, but WHAT IF? I feel compelled to ask a provocative question (actually I find it merely reasonable and straight forward): If someone claims to hear the voice of God - or simply believe in God - is that really any different from believing in Alien conspirators (I mean those from outer space here) or claiming to be in contact with the spirit of Elvis? IT ISN'T! It is the same. God (I always refer to the personal God from the book religions here) is not dead like Nietzsche claimed - he merely never existed in the first place. Instead GOD is mankind's most dangerous invention. An invention at that, the development and evolution of which historically can nicely be traced! Well - this was meant to be on Bush and Kerry. Instead a babbled on on something that does not exist.

The freedom of making mistakes

2004-10-11T21:44:00.000+02:00

Guess I rather use email for posting here since I am used to mail - one of the lesser addictions of my life. So the first thing I did with this new virtual toy was making a mistake by double publishing the pointless freedom. Sigh....