THE ETHICS of WATER DEPLETION
How many times have we heard that we’re in danger of wearing out the Earth? Or that we’re polluting the environment to the point that we won’t be able to live here in 20 (30, 50, 70, 100) years? The alarmists would have us believe that if we don’t do something (or stop doing something else) soon, we’re toast. Glacial ice will melt, sea level will rise, drowning out shoreline properties and countless lives. But we can stop it by being better stewards. They’ll tell us how.
For the past several years it’s been the ‘global warming’ threat that’s happening because we’re burning fossil fuels. AlGore has made a fortune (and an undeserved Nobel Prize) by writing a book about the coming disastrous climate change called “An Inconvenient Truth” that is in fact a collection of half-truths and lies, even claiming that the debate is settled—he’s done it all (after inventing the internet). Of course, there has been NO SIGN of global warming for the past 18-years; last winter was brutal, and it looks to repeat this year…
You can read the facts about the supposed threat of global warming at www.extremeethics.org/?p=148; www.extremeethics.org/?p=594; www.extremeethics.org/?p=708 and other pertinent blogs on our website.
Now we hear that we’re facing the threat of running out of water. It isn’t enough that Earth is supposedly heating up at an unprecedented rate because we’re pumping great volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now we’ll be unable to put out the fires we’re going to cause. We’re running out of water! Maybe we’d be better off if we weren’t irrigating massive fields of corn to produce ethanol, a political fuel additive, but that’s another story.
Fact: Earth has a fixed amount of water—the same amount we’ve had for billenia. More than 332 MILLION cubic miles of it. Most of it (about 320Million cubic miles) is in the oceans, while essentially fresh water makes up the rest. Water, in fact, is part of every living thing. It changes place and phase according to nature’s needs, and it does so virtually instantly. You can read all about it at www.extremeethics.org/?p=2130 . We can’t run out.
It’s time to stop this drive for ‘sustainability’ (a catchword of the cognoscenti) because it’s another fact that we cannot stop warming (Earth is in an interglacial phase during which the planet will warm naturally). Ice will melt and sea levels will rise, but not to the extent threatened by the ‘experts.’ The self-styled doyens tell us that we’ll be in big trouble by 2030, backing it up with statements like “there’s some chance that something will happen” in 20 (30, 50, 70, 100) years. (The fact that shoreline population centers will someday experience flooding is our own fault for building them there in the first place…)
Face it! Earth has been doing its thing for 4Billion years—it’s been growing into the place we call home on its own for Billenia. It’s been taking care of itself without our help since well before Year One. It has adapted to comet strikes, droughts, sunspot damage, floods, earthquakes, seafloor spreading, disastrous volcanic activity and countless other violent natural occurrences, all the while preparing itself for our arrival by developing plant and animal life even as it fended off natural ‘disasters,’ www.extremeethics.org/?p=667 and man isn’t about to thwart its continued evolution. We’re not that important!
In fact, man’s innovation will enable him to adapt to coming changes just as he has in the past. Earth is not static, nor are we. Nor are we stupid. We don’t need politicians and their minions telling us to conserve resources, because that’s what we’re doing. Our environment is light-years better than it was just a century ago because we know enough to treat nature with respect. Apocalyptic experts do not factor this in when making their dire predictions—they assume that development will remain static—just as it is today. With an attitude like that we never would have traveled to the moon or dropped a probe precisely on a streaking comet deep in the universe.
The fact is that we will continue to make better use of the resources at our disposal. Nature recycles just as we’ve learned to do, and we are able to find new ways to do things better, even new materials, as we improve our lot. Copper running out? Use manufactured glass fibers to communicate… Need more fresh water? Desalinize sea water using solar energy (coming soon at a seaside near you…).
Ethics is based in truth and executed via honesty. Use your own head and see that things aren’t nearly as bad as the Apocalyps claim. Remember that the disasters predicted in the past failed to happen. Have faith in humanity, and do your best not to foul your nest. (Why would you do that, anyway? You wouldn’t.).
Don’t listen to those control freaks who would throw $Trillions at a problem that doesn’t exist (even if it did, we’d be powerless to stop it). Enjoy your time here on Earth, and try to leave it better than you found it (see the Boy Scout Handbook).
THE ETHICS of IMMIGRATION POLICY
Our current immigration policy is unethical. www.extremeethics.org/?p=2246
Our immigration system is structured to grant citizenship (or residency) status based on family reunification, needed work skills, or capital investment. It also covers refugees and those seeking asylum based on political persecution and provides as well a lottery for people who have less pressing immigration needs. The procedure for gaining legal immigrant status differs with, among other factors, the path a potential immigrant is eligible to pursue based on employment, education, or family situation. U.S. immigration laws also cover entry into the country for almost any other purpose, including temporary stays beyond a certain length of time.
The first thing to do is to control our borders and enforce current immigration laws
Immigration law is open to interpretation; however, it does provide enough qualifying criteria to be valuable. For instance, not every relative is eligible, and some spouses and children are given preference over others. In the case of employment, the individual must be eligible within certain categories specified under U.S. law; the potential employer must submit certification of need and the applicant must satisfy medical and security conditions; and in the case of investment the applicant must meet a certain dollar threshold that will, benefit the economy and create or save a specified number of jobs. Generally speaking, immigration law is written to the benefit of our nation.
The second thing to do is to enforce current immigration laws
Being open to interpretation, immigration law also is open to abuse, and from time to time abuse has occurred, some of it to our benefit. Now, however, the law is threatened. Even though voters across the nation reject the administration’s agenda, the President promises to change the nation’s immigration system himself if Congress doesn’t cooperate.
The third thing to do is to enforce current immigration laws
President Obama is planning to change the nation’s immigration procedures by executive order, including a deportation reprieve (‘deferred action’) for illegals that came to the U.S. as children as well as parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. This would give nearly five million illegal immigrants already in the country the right to remain here and seriously affect immigration in the future. The Department of Justice is responsible for the president’s obeying the law, but we have heard nothing from them. In fact, they have supported the president in his abuse of it.
The fourth thing to do is to enforce current immigration laws
The fact remains, however, that our Constitution gives the power to pass laws regarding immigration to Congress, not the president. Congress also has the power of the purse, and can vote to not fund the President’s actions.
The fifth thing to do is to enforce current immigration laws
The outcome of this dispute is not of concern here. What is pertinent is ETHICS.
Ethics is based in truth and effected via honesty. The truth is that it’s within the power of Congress to change immigration law, and ethics requires that all parties do their parts honestly.
It is incumbent on government to control our borders. To not do so is dereliction of duty, which is unethical.
The president and DOJ are being unethical www.extremeethics.org/?p=2017 and Congress will be the same if it fails to uphold its responsibility by not permitting the planned action.
Insist on proper action. Write your congressperson to control our borders and enforce current immigration laws. Now.
THE ETHICS OF SPIRITUALITY
It’s been my purpose for the past several years to move toward justifying the physical world (science) with the metaphysical (spiritual). I believe they are on parallel tracks that will merge when we finally know the truth. While realizing that Metaphysics is yet (if ever) to be mastered, it’s my goal to resolve the two approaches insofar as possible. I ask only that you permit me the latitude to present a case. This will require some consideration of the Bible and its importance in history, which is what this treatise is all about.
The atheist shuns the Bible, claiming that God does not exist because God can’t be proven. I claim that proof of God is not necessary—it is in fact impossible. Science accepts several basic hypotheses that can’t be proven (see following). Why not one more? I begin with the belief that, at minimum, the Bible has considerable value at least as a historic document.
To begin with, let us stipulate that Jesus was in fact an historical person. That his life had a prodigious influence on Western civilization is indisputable; the most influential creed in history bears his name, and we are currently in the 2015th year of his Era. In fact, every date in history (BCE and CE) is referenced to his birth. The fact of Jesus cannot be dismissed, nor can his influence on the world.
Like it or not, Christian theology has been vital to development of the Western world. It began in Year One and was in vogue for more than 1700 more until the Enlightenment tried to relegate it to history by replacing faith with science. But that didn’t change history.
And the fact remains that science can’t deal with spirituality. We’re more than mere physical beings. We possess MIND, a spiritual, not biological, gift. Let’s explore this situation further.
Religious philosophy chooses God as its dynamis. But what/who is God? At issue seems to be the God of the Bible and the description of Creation as recorded in Genesis.
The account of creation as recorded in Genesis is clearly unscientific. In Genesis, Earth preceded the sun and animals preceded plants (not to mention man preceding animals) and trees were created already bearing fruit. It is a story told in a time when the earth was flat, the stars holes in a ‘firmament’ and the reason for the day unknown; that the earth was a sphere rotating on an axis while revolving around a star was beyond comprehension. Creation, as described in Genesis, is impossible, yet it remains that the Universe did happen.
Whatever God may be is not physical but supernatural—before nature—therefore God is not nature (or reality, as some would have it). I propose (and it is not unique to me) that there exists (for want of a better word) an essential intelligent consciousness (a perfect spirit) underlying the entire Universe (and beyond, for that matter). It is not a product of the mind, but its foundation–a given, a first principle, an integral and eternal part of the universe that cannot be separated from the universe. It is, always has been, and always will be, eternal and infinite.
Before the Big Bang there existed neither matter, nature, time nor light (time and light requiring matter for their being), but something had to precede it (every effect must have a cause). Light, matter and the beginning of time as we know it were created via the big bang, but they had a source—consciousness.
To be continued…don’t miss it…
THE ETHICS OF SOCIETY
Alexander Hamilton wrote (1775): “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature…and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
continued from a previous post (October 15), as promised: In addition to any powers granted the individual by civil law, he retains certain powers granted by virtue of his humanity and natural law. When there’s a conflict, the individual must look beyond his privileges (granted by the group) to his rights (granted by his very being), and he is not only empowered but obligated to resolve the conflict in the interest of mankind, not the State. If the conflict involves ethics, there is no contest. Ethics is the only choice.
The ‘global community’ aspired to by many is a worthy goal, but only by way of first principles and natural law. It is, in fact, the way things should be, but it is not possible under the aegis of a government (or governments) that takes liberties with truth (anyone needing examples of this either has not been paying attention or is in moral denial). Only an ethical government can achieve this goal. Such a government is possible, but not under the current conditions resulting from servile deference to special interests. It is possible using a truly conservative approach.
This is not a call to political action. Conservative simply means a return to the original premises of our nation and of humanity generally. This process begins with truth and the primacy of the individual freedom guaranteed by our Constitution and implicit in natural law.
Conservatism, by definition, champions the Constitution and rights of the individual rather than the power of government. Should someone favor governmental power over the primacy of the individual, that someone would be in political opposition to conservatism. However, so long as he demanded truth in politics and compliance with natural law, we would be in essential agreement ethically. Any political differences would be his choice alone.
Note: I am in favor of individual freedom and people helping each other. I do not and never have relied on government for help to run my life—I alone am responsible for it. I also am a professional, one who speaks for himself without an intermediary. That puts me in opposition to unions, and especially public unions, which are made up of those who delegate to others the power to speak for them (and therefore are not professionals). As an individual, which like it or not we all are, I accept the responsibilities of my actions and will sink or swim with my decisions. Parenthetically, I’ve done both.
ETHICS ISSUES: CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change is a fact.
The planet is warming because of Earth’s being in an interglacial phase, recovering naturally from a glacial phase (about 10,000 years ago) when cooler temperatures prevailed. In other words, global warming is a perfectly natural phenomenon, and everyone knows this. The alarmists also know that the natural interglacial warming trend is responsible for some part of Earth’s rising surface temperatures (less than 1 degree C since 1850). Nevertheless, their arguments about ‘global warming’ never mention this (factual) natural phenomenon.
The current controversy revolves around the contribution of burning fossil fuels to warming—some believe increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to be a factor. A valid question: how much? CO2 is a minor atmospheric gas (0.04%), while water vapor makes up roughly 75% of atmospheric gases. Certainly water vapor (clouds, etc.) also contributes to Earth’s warming. But how much?
Carbon dioxide is converted to oxygen by flora and back to CO2 by fauna; nature compensates for changes in earth conditions as a matter of course to encourage life on earth. Another question: can nature compensate for unnatural increases in CO2? Answer: We do not know, but it apparently has over the past millions of years. Perhaps more flora (terrestrial and marine) will be produced to use more CO2 and produce more oxygen; after all, warmer temperatures should encourage plant growth…
Mathematical models have been constructed to predict warming by increased atmospheric CO2. However there is considerable evidence that presumed sensitivity to CO2 is too high. Nor do these models consider all of the factors which could contribute to global warming. Only one example:
Water covers more than 70% of Earth’s surface to an average depth of 2-1/2 miles; some 345 MILLION CUBIC MILES of water are kept in constant motion by little-understood variables like convection, temperature, pressure, chemistry, evaporation, gravity and the effect of Earth’s rotation. This massive, active and poorly-understood heat sink has great impact on moderating temperatures on Earth and in its atmosphere (and therefore biosphere) as well. There is constant exchange of energy between oceans and atmosphere that helps maintain Earth’s life-encouraging balance.
Scientists believe that ocean currents are responsible for 40% of global heat transport. More than 17 major currents, some warm, others cold, are known to affect climate worldwide. All move vast amounts of seawater over huge areas in all three dimensions to depths up to 1000 meters. However, little is known of deep oceans’ effect on global temperatures.
The conflict cannot be settled until models include significant variables affecting them. Rushing into solutions to problems that may not exist is political, not scientific. Let’s get real…