About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, January 21, 2008 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Read the entire article, an excerpt from America Alone -- which got MacLeans hauled before the Human Rights Commission -- here.


Post 1

Monday, January 21, 2008 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very interesting, very enlightening - and very frightening.....

[but am not surprised - is logical consequenting...]

(Edited by robert malcom on 1/21, 2:04pm)


Post 2

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The scariest figure was at the end, where the fecundity of Muslim women in the EU was over twice that of the Westernized women. That kind of a thing compounds on itself, you know.

Here's a question for you math-heads out there:

If an experimental group of women (comprising 20% of the female population in a given Union) had an average of 3.5 kids per lady, and the control group of women (comprising the other 80%) had an average of 1.4 kids per lady -- how many generations would it take for the experimental group to outnumber the controls?


Ed


Post 3

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 2:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,
What can I say that Robert and Ed haven't already said.
I have passed the article on to a lawyer friend of mine, and his reaction was the same as mine and Robert and Ed's.
I suspect everyone is quietly mulling this article over and wondering what is the best way to move forward from here. If you turn back to Joe's home page and read his goals and objectives, I think everyone will agree that what is taking place in our world today leaves a lot to be desired.
Thank you for the heads-up.
I would love to read what William Dwyer's thoughts are on the subject.
Gordon


Post 4

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 3:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One

Alternative scenarios that can play out were hinted at, but dismissed.  The case of Japan is one.  When you live to 125... 250... what does it matter how many children some woman has?  Your ability to plan and execute into the future dominates those (for lack of a better word) lesser lives. 

There are many places to live where those (perhaps a better word) "other" people are not.  The undersea shelf, the Antarctic, Hudson's Bay... to say nothing of all of that wide open Siberia... 

The meek shall inherit the Earth.  The rest of us are going to the stars.

Two

Objectivism as a broad class of Enlightenment philosophies can still triumph. It has.  It does not draw "everyone" but only a better sort of person who actually makes a difference. 

If we Objectivists do our work we will  have not millions of ignorant Muslims burning down Europe, but millions of clever capitalists living their own lives and making the world a better place to be.

Three

Much of the hand-wringing is only a replay of the fears of Anglo-Saxons here in America as the Irish and others invaded the shores with their huge families and scary papally infallible religion with its unAmerican, anti-American insistence on obedience to Rome.  Max Weber demonstrated that Protestantism was the root of capitalism and now here come these Catholics to destroy free enterprise... and hey! ... here we are in 2007 AD with just exactly that...  or are we? Was it the Catholic hordes who destroyed America?  Or was it the Anglo-Saxon ruling class with its controlled political economy?

The essay Directive 10-289: SPQR touches on much and misses much more.  Alexandria in Egypt  was created by conquest.  The great Library was a state project.  It became a center of learning.  Asimov's Theory would say that this was an example of decay and decline, that they sought to organize and categorize rather than discover and create. Yet, Archimedes went there and learned from Euclid.  Moreover, when the Hellenistic wars finally bankrupted the Ptolemies, they closed down much of that great Library and cashiered those scholars.  That forced them to go out into the wider world and find new homes -- and that caused a rebirth of learning in the succeeding century as the knowledge was spread rather than being gathered.  In the long and broad history of China, there are similar stories.  When the Kitai pushed the Sung out of the northern half of China, the Southern Sung flourished with novelties as its capital was bursting with displaced scholars. 

So, you have these broad historical trends.  What you do with your own life is the salient question.


Post 5

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 6:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M.E.M writes:

The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars.

I respond:

Highly unlikely. Maybe to one of Jupiter's moons or a moon of Saturn that has enough water.

The nearest star is 4 light years away. It is a stretch to assume we can accelerate a massive space craft to 1/10 th the speed of light meaning that it is a 40 year ride to Proxima Centuri and at that speed the relativistic time dilation is hardly noticeable.

Conceivably several hundred thousand humans may yet live in lunar habitats a orbiting space vessels. If the asteroid belt can be tapped for its mineral wealth it could support a small percentage of Earth's population off planet.

Forget about terraforming Venus: it ain't going happen. Terraforming Mars is probably out of reach, but limited habitats can be built there.

The problem: no water. No water, no human life. It is a simple as that. Even on a long voyage where water can be recycled, the problems of radiation (solar and cosmic) to human health are considerable.

Bottom line: the stars are just too far away. The only way we will get there is the find some way of going faster than light speed (highly unlikely) or extending human lifetime by two orders of magnitude.

I know this is discouraging, we who have been raised on -Star Trek- and -Babylon 5-, but there are rock bottom problems with the physics. And puhleeze do not quote the famous British physicist who said heavier than air flight would not happen. That was not based on any scientific principle and birds -are- heavier than. Lord Raleigh based his pessimism on a -technological limitation-, i.e. not having engines with a sufficiently high power to weight ratio. It turned out he was too pessimistic as the Freres Wright demonstrated. But light speed and conservation of energy are rock-bottom facts about the cosmos. Unless we find a short cut (as in worm holes) or extend our lifetimes by a factor of a hundred to a thousand we are not going anywhere too far.

No matter how far we go the basic symmetries of the cosmos and the basic conservation laws will still hold.

Bob Kolker


Post 6

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael
I don't particularly like option #1. I lived in Canada's High Arctic for two years. But, that's another story.
I agree with what you say in option #3, but I prefer your option #2.
Objectivism has had its challenges over the years, and it has survived. The question is how do we effectively move forward from here. Rand believed that movies and fiction writing (and art in general) can play a significant role in determining the direction that a country or a group of countries is taking.
Branden writes on P 144 of "Who Is Ayn Rand":
"It is particularly when one is young, when one is still forming one's soul, that one desperately needs--as example, as inspiration, as fuel, as antidote to the sight of the world around one--a vision as it might and ought to be, the vision of heros fighting for values worth achieving in a universe were achievement is possible."
The examples Branden is referring to can be achieved through art as well parents and others acting as role models.
Apparently, over sixty million people read "The Da Vinci Code", and a lot of those people will never be able to view their religion in quite the same way. "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" had, and are still having, an effect on the way people (young people in particular) view the world.
I don't think a discussion on this topic would be complete without making reference to Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath's book "War In Heaven, The Arms Race In Outer Space."
This developing situation could easily be option #4, one that is taking place without much public input or knowledge of what is going on.
Gordon



Post 7

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
If an experimental group of women (comprising 20% of the female population in a given Union) had an average of 3.5 kids per lady, and the control group of women (comprising the other 80%) had an average of 1.4 kids per lady -- how many generations would it take for the experimental group to outnumber the controls?
It depends on some additional assumptions about how long mothers live after bearing children and child mortality rates, but a reasonable answer is only two generations.

After all, 20%*1.75^2 > 80%*0.7^2, the 1.75 and 0.7 being the number of female children born.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/23, 3:54pm)


Post 8

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 11:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism as a broad class of Enlightenment philosophies can still triumph. It has. It does not draw "everyone" but only a better sort of person who actually makes a difference.

Precisely which Objectivists were you thinking of when you wrote this? Precisely which Objectivists have "made a difference"? Precisely what do you mean by the phrase "make a difference"? And precisely how is an Objectivist a "better sort of person" than someone else?

You sound a bit like Tom Cruise in the recent pirated video about the superiority of Scientologists over everyone else. Linked here:

Tom Cruise & Scientology

If we Objectivists do our work we will have not millions of ignorant Muslims burning down Europe, but millions of clever capitalists living their own lives and making the world a better place to be.

This reminds me of Peikoff's statement many years ago: "Give me the philosophy department of Harvard, and we'll change the entire world" (a slightly different version of Archimedes' statement regarding the lever: "Give me a place to stand, and I will move the entire world!")

Most of the Muslims who are doing the burning and hijacking and ramming into skyscrapers are not "ignorant." Mohammad Atta was an engineer; several months ago, a group of Pakistani MDs practicing in England were plotting a terrorist attack. Rabid atheism on the part of Objectivists causes them to equate the term "religious" with the term "ignorant." That's a very serious mistake both by itself and in relation to the war on terror...which, as Oriana Fallaci correctly pointed out, is specifically a war between the Judeo-Christian west (including its Enlightenment values) and Islam. It's not a war between "reason" (atheism) and "mysticism" (religion).

Objectivists seem to overlook 20th history: the three biggest butchers were atheists espousing some variant of atheist ideology: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. In less than a century, they managed to murder over 100 million people -- far more than were killed in the name of religion throughout history. They were murdered for various non-religious agendas: to build a workers' paradise; to clear the way for the Master Race; to create a New Socialist Man within a Cultural Revolution.

Post 9

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 3:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Shannon: a) You ask, with evident sarcasm, "precisely how is an Objectivist a "better sort of person" than someone else". Any Objectivist can give you 1001 and many more reasons and arguments for this, though none of them will convince a person as you are, since you and Objectivists perceive two different universes, which renders a debate useless and senseless, as Ayn Rand herself stated in "Philosophical Detection", a comment Leonard Peikoff clearly underscored when he wrote: "If reality does not convince a person of the self-evident (Darwin's Evolution is also such a case - my comment), he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further. H. G. Wells recognized this too so many years ago when he wrote in his story "The Country of the Blind" that (one) cannot fight happily with creatures that stand upon a different mental basis to oneself.

 

Therefore, just for the record, I'll tell you out of the guts what makes Objectivists so special: It is well known that many ideologues, when confronted with the question, have always maintained that they are willing to die for their ideal. Most of them, however, will not do so by the time the moment of truth arrived (Rand even wrote a play on this) and we will never know if they wouldn't have retracted from their oath when the time came, since they were killed and, thus, never had to face the time when they themselves had to live (and not to rule and, thus, occupy the position of the bigwig) under the scourge they imposed on the common people. The "Che" Guevara is precisely such a case, being it well known that the Bolivians that he subjected hadn't the slightest desire to toil and suffer under his rule. Lieutenant Colonel Selich question to Guevara: "Why didn't you manage to recruit more national (Bolivian) elements, such as the peasants of the zone?" was never answered by the guerrillero, for obvious reasons. Besides, these kind of "idealists" don't care whether what they hold is correct or not. After all, they will be dead and, thus, not have to suffer the consequences of their illusions.

 

Well, of course, and speaking in the general understanding of the question, Objectivists are also ready to die for their ideal, but this is really a simple matter for, here too, they will be dead by the time Objectivism triumphs and don't have to take up the responsibility for any possibly resulting mischief.

 

What makes us Objectivists so special is something very different, something no other idealists have faced. As Rand herself explained, we are ready to LIVE for Objectivism, which means that we know the good Objectivism will accomplish and, thus, want to live, each of us individually, in an Objectivist society and participate in an Objectivist society and enjoy an Objectivist society, exactly as the T-Shirt I'm wearing on my photograph beside this massage states in bold letters: "Enjoy Ayn Rand's Objectivism".

 

You see, that's precisely what makes us so special, so superior if you want to put it thus, though you will never understand this.

 

b) Since we're at it, in http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0679_5.shtml I asked you to provide the required proof for your answer that the mind remains sober when the body gets drunk. I added that William Dwyer would surely relish your answer. However, in view of the time gone by, it's evident that you preferred to dodge the reply and remain silent instead of giving the requested explanation. There are unkind names for those who proceed thus, but I will leave this aside, merely stating that evidently courage failed you.

 

Further on, you thought that by mentioning the case of Christopher Reeve paralysis you had a good line of defense. However, this isn't so. You should at least notice when you yourself present a contradiction in terms. How so? Well, Reeve broke his neck during the accident (probably vertebrae C5), which destroyed the marrow that serves as a channel through which the nerve strings to and from the brain (location of the mind) run. If mind is so superior to matter and not related to it, as you and sundry religious people of all kind and types hold, it's really a great surprise that this powerful mind couldn't jump over the not much larger than 1 cm break and continue to send its orders to the lower part of the body below the separation. Why can't it use - if any material need be at all - some other means to transmit its commands? The skin, for example, or a combination of other organs. After all, the body doesn't consist only of nerves and such a superior thing as the mind is should even be able to operate without any physical means at all.

 

By the way, it is precisely the need for nerve strings that the mind (the brain) has to send its orders, which moved Reeve to support, through his Foundation, the search for the genetic creation of marrow and nerves starting from stems cells (a R&D issue unfortunately prohibited in most countries!).

 

You see, Ayn Rand clearly demonstrated, and absolutely finally, that matter AND mind (the brain) are NOT separate areas. They are VERY distinguishable and they operate in unison. No dualism exists; matter AND mind form a non-dualistic unit. They cannot be separated. Whenever they are, a most regrettable paralysis sets in. As I mentioned already in my writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe" (mind you, not a pep rally but a long string of arguments which, of course, you will refrain from reading) never has the time been more favorable to cure the outcome of such pitiful accidents as the one that hit Reeve, than nowadays existing material and intellectual research. You know very well that no religion would have ever been able to provide the required solution, though you won't understand this either, which puts a full final stop to this interchange of messages.

 



Post 10

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 3:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reply to post #9.

M.E.S. writes:

You see, Ayn Rand clearly demonstrated, and absolutely finally, that matter AND mind (the brain) are NOT separate areas. They are VERY distinguishable and they operate in unison. No dualism exists; matter AND mind form a non-dualistic unit. They cannot be separated. Whenever they are, a most regrettable paralysis sets in. As I mentioned already in my writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe" (mind you, not a pep rally but a long string of arguments which, of course, you will refrain from reading) never has the time been more favorable to cure the outcome of such pitiful accidents as the one that hit Reeve, than nowadays existing material and intellectual research. You know very well that no religion would have ever been able to provide the required solution, though you won't understand this either, which puts a full final stop to this interchange of messages.

I reply:

I notice you wrote "mind (the brain)". Which indicates that mind IS matter (what does a brain consist of?). Indeed. To paraphrase your post - No dualism exists; matter and matter form a non-dualistic unit.


I completely agree. Democritus and Lucipus were dead on right.

Bob Kolker




Post 11

Sunday, February 3, 2008 - 12:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Robert J. Kolker: VERY, VERY GOOD! Excellently expressed! A perfect reduction to a nutshell of what I said!


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.