The big betrayal

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

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

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 For one I consider the entire concept of national states as outdated.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

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

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 Gérard 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 GÈrard Nihous: If field research at sea required to monitor ALL changesî, field research at sea would not exist, whether it involved adding CO2 to sea water or not. The ability to monitor something (not everything) ìin large expanses of the oceanî 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 GÈrard 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 ìNO CO2 DUMPINGî, when 20 pounds of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere for each gallon of gasoline burned in these vehiclesí 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

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

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

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

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 résumé, 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. Weizsäcker 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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 Fünf 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

(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

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 Gödel, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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!

Bush and Kerry

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

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....