Of what use is magical & fantastical thinking?

[This is an answer I supplied to a question in Yahoo Answers. I thought it was good enough to stand on its own as a separate blog entry.]

The very notion of the supernatural is self-contradictory. If something is supernatural, then it is "beyond nature." But if it can interact with us, with material beings and things, then it must itself be material & natural, a part of our universe. The only alternative would be a god who was completely removed from our universe, never interacting with it. But in that case, its existence becomes a moot point.

Since the first cavemen heard spooky wind blowing and attributed it to spirits, humans have had a bad and annoying tendency to engage in magical thinking, particularly whenever something happened that they couldn't explain. This creates all sorts of problems, especially later on when we ARE able to explain stuff, but the previous mystical belief has solidified into a religious belief that is nearly impossible to dispell, even with tons of evidence against it.

Humans believe all sorts of weird and irrational things. Why? Because WE WANT TO. One of the unfortunate signs that we are still a primitive species is that we have a hard time accepting that our wishful thinking is indeed fantasy and not reality. In the TV show "The X-Files," Fox Mulder had this poster up in his office. It's a picture of a flying saucer with the caption, "I Want To Believe." That sentiment is one of our most self-destructive ideas, and has done more than just about any other idea to retard the process and the maturity of the human species.

Is it really such a cruel, unbearable world if it is completely naturalistic, with nothing supernatural? Does nature brook no wonders of its own? What benefit is there in believing in stuff with no foundation in reality, no evidence to support it, no chance of passing objective scientific scrutiny?

death

Death sucks.

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine lost his father. The father had been admitted into a hospital for a medical emergency, and passed away while my friend was en route to there.

About a week ago I learned that the cancer my dad had been battling on and off for the past 15 years, was now terminal. He's got a year hopefully, maybe even two or three depending on the effectiveness of the treatments he's getting now, but he won't be recovering from this.

Then just yesterday, I lost an uncle (one of my mom's brothers). He had been in declining condition for a while now with heart problems, but his passing was still rather sudden.

Dammit. I need some Grim Reaper Repellent.

I don't believe in an afterlife. The whole concept never made much sense to me, except as a human invention as a primitive way to teach morals and also as a comforting way of dealing with the grief of death. Me, I find no comfort in this kind of wishful thinking. For the person who dies, death is the end. It is oblivion. It is no more thinking, feeling, remembering, or experiencing.

For those around the deceased, death is a phase transition. When a person is alive, they are in your past, present, and future. Your past as memories of that person, your present as interactions & experiences with that person, and your future as future plans & events with this person. When they die, they are no longer a part of your present or your future, only your past. You will never again have new meetings, events, talks, or experiences with this person. They are forever-more removed from our lives, residing only in the untouchable, unreachable past.

If I'm sounding a bit fatalistic or nihilistic right now, I don't mean to. If anything, death should be a reminder of just how precious our own lives are. We shouldn't squander it with petty worries, or making life unpleasant for others. (If only the politicians would take that to heart!) Life really is a great thing to experience, and the longer you can live, the better. As for myself, I'm hoping to live a nice long time--not so much because I fear death, but because I just love living. I don't want to miss a thing!

A solution for the Mexican election dispute--should also work for the U.S.!

Mexico's contentious election has been fraught with allegations of voting irregularities & electoral fraud, and the race is so close that neither side is willing to concede defeat without a major legal battle. Whew, it's a good thing we Americans have never had to go through something like that!

Well, I've got a solution for Mexico that should also work for the US: have a poly-presidency. Everyone who votes for the conservative guy, gets ruled by the conservative guy. Everyone who votes for the liberal, gets ruled by the liberal guy. The only catch is, any laws passed by either president only apply to those who voted for him.

If we did that here, every conservative could have a Big Brother camera in every room of their house, and a warrentless tap on every phone (yes, even cell phones!). Each conservative family will have its very own personal gov't spook to monitor their financial transactions, their library records, their bedroom relations, make sure they're attending the "right" church (it's the one gov't will be endorsing), and also ensure that no conservative ever burns a flag, joins an Islamic terror cell (Christian ones are still OK though), or marries someone of the same gender.

Every liberal, in turn, will finally get their own full-fledged universal healthcare--paid for entirely by other liberals. They'll be able to see any doctor the gov't chooses, in as little as 6 months (4 months for critical emergencies). Additional taxes to pay for this new deal should be modest (by liberal standards), costing only about an additional 30 or 40% of your paycheck...assuming no one ever gets sick or injured. Liberals will also have their very own "living wage" rate, set at a nice, comfy $20/hour (about $6/hour after taxes & union dues). Those high taxes will be put to good use supporting the 25%+ of liberals who will become quickly unemployed by that same living wage. Finally, shopping at Wal-Mart and other Evil Capitalist Corporations® will be strictly prohibited, unless a liberal can show proof of residence in a trailer park.

Of course, democracy & politics aren't about choosing what system of gov't you want to live under; it's about choosing what system of gov't you want to force everyone ELSE to live under. A minor technicality, but one which I'm sure could be worked out.

George W. Bush: Worst President in History

It's official, Dubya is the Emperor Nero of the U.S. So says Rolling Stone, a magazine I normally wouldn't consider for in-depth political commentary, but in this case they make a pretty good argument.

Proving that neocons have little in common with "traditional" conservatives, Bush has abandoned all semblance of fiscal responsibility and small gov't. He entered office with the biggest budget surplus in American history; he's turned it into the biggest deficit in our history.

If one needs further evidence that he is pissing away this country's future, consider this. Every president in the history of this country, thru and including Clinton, has borrowed a sum total of $1.01 trillion for gov't financing. Bush, to date, has borrowed a total of $1.05 trillion--more than all previous presidents combined. This is big, big money that will have to be repaid by all future generations. The yearly interest on it alone will have a noticeable dampening effect on our economy.

Bush fiddles while America burns--and to boot, he's the arsonist.

Good news on China

Up-and-coming economic superpower China continues its evolution into a market-based economy and away from the stagnation of communism. The above article details two good pieces of news. First, China's move to a market economy is further along than we thought it was. Market reforms are also spreading from the eastern coastal areas inland and to the west.

Second, China's environmental conditions are improving, not degrading, with their increased market capitalism. Furthermore, the best environmental conditions are to be found in the areas with the most private enterprise.

This latter point is not all that surprising to those of us who know a thing or two about economics & environmentalism. It's been well-established for some time now, that the more capitalist a country is, the better its record on environmental issues like pollution. Conversely, the worst environmental degradation can be found in areas with the highest levels of state-owned enterprises.

This is true in the U.S.; the federal gov't creates about three times more pollution than all private industry combined. As the above article points out, it is also true in China; treated waste-water is highest in those areas with the most private industry, lowest in areas with the most state-owned industry. And it's true pretty much everywhere else in the world. The worst environments can be found in places like the former East Germany and former Soviet republics, while the cleanest can be found in the U.S., Japan, Canada, & western Europe.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, being environmentally clean is expensive, and non-capitalist societies often simply can't afford to run cleanly. For-profit, market-based economies have much more (albeit still limited) of a monetary cushion to absorb those extra costs. Second and perhaps more importantly is the issue of personal accountability. While private industries' pollution is constrained both by market forces and by environmental laws, state industries have neither of these constraints. As a function of the gov't they exercise sovereign immunity, meaning that any enviro laws passed simply do not apply to them. Also, as they are usually monopolies, they have no accountability to their customer base. Their customers have no ability to demand green products & manufacturing methods, since the state industry is the only supplier.

But, getting back to China, the above article is good news for all of us. A more economically developed China will be a boon to the world economy as a whole, as they will be demanding more and more products and services from abroad. Increased trade relations have always been good for peace as well; with both sides benefitting greatly from trade, neither will feel inclined to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" by starting some silly war.

While China still could use more improvement on the state of their environment, and their communist leaders are still trying to run the country with an iron fist in the civil liberties and human rights areas, overall they have progressed stupendously in the past few years. It was only about 3 decades ago that millions were starving to death under dictator Mao's retarded economic and agricultural fantasies. I think China's progression toward more economic freedom will continue; their current leaders know a good thing when they see it. This, in turn, will be a boon both to the U.S. and the rest of the world.