Citizenship is not a civil right.  It must be earned and there are enabling rules in place.  The system had worked for well over 100 years; millions of Americans have earned their citizenship and contributed to the Nation under existing law.  The border was never a major problem.  Most of those who slipped over  were apprehended and deported.  Some, mostly in California, were welcomed as farm laborers, their illegal entry largely overlooked.  This action has grown from an accommodation to a disaster.

Prior to recently, immigrants were expected to, and did, assimilate.  The concept was that of a ‘melting pot’ of cultures into the American way of life, enriching as well as being enriched.  Now the metaphor is more of a soup bowl (alphabet soup comes to mind) with cultures adding to, but changing rather than adapting to the culture, benefiting from the system without adding to it.  We have ceased Americanizing and are now being diluted by accommodating some of the worst, and on their terms.

It’s been estimated that it would cost more than $6-trillion to legitimize the 11-million illegals at large in the country.  There’s no way to round them up and deport them, nor is there a reason to send them all home; however, there is a way to stem the tide.  The federal government is responsible for securing our borders; this must be done at once, no excuses.  The federal government is not doing its job, and the reasons are largely political.

Current illegals should be offered a way to citizenship by adhering to the law.  They must agree to pay a fine, forgo government benefits available to citizens, and work toward citizenship from the back of the line of those who are and have been following the rules.  This may take years—some estimate as many as 20—but so what?  The rules must be enforced.  Those not choosing the legal route must be denied any benefits or employment—employers must verify employees’ eligibility and the government must crack down on overstayed visas.

IT IS WITHOUT QUESTION THAT EVERY NON-CITIZEN BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  Proof of citizenship must be required to vote in ANY election, the “Motor-Voter” law notwithstanding.

There are a lot of ‘musts’ here, but SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, IT MUST BE DONE AT ONCE, AND IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.

What do YOU think?

The Founders, not all Christian but religious to a man, agreed in principle that the law of God precedes and overrules the laws of man.  This is clearly written into the Declaration, to wit: “(the) people…to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” and “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” and alluded to in the Constitution: “the Blessings of Liberty…”.  Moreover, the Constitution prohibits laws that would establish a national religion, thereby negating any effort for a particular religion to use political power to the subjugation of others; and prohibits laws that would limit free exercise of religion. Their intent appears innumerable times in documents and letters leading up to and following the Constitution.  In fact, they embraced a Christian God, and promulgated use of the Christian Bible when swearing-in the various officers of State (www.extremeethics.org/?p=886) .  These facts are indisputable.  Others follow:

Secular progressives would limit the influence of religion by denying the Christian God written into the Law of the Land and, if that doesn’t work, to remove all evidence of that God and religiosity from public places, even limiting the influence of religion (read: Christianity) in government by changing the Constitution.  They would limit the free exercise and influence of religion in public debate and public life generally, and would have the establishment disenfranchise religiously-motivated voters to achieve their ends.

Their agenda includes moving to pass laws based on ‘public reason’ (rather than on the individual rights guaranteed by the purportedly out-of-date Constitution),  place the economy  under full control of government, and generally limit religious influence over public life.

How can less than 25-percent of those who claim no religious affiliation (20-percent), or only about five percent of the nation’s voters, exert so much political clout?  Because they include a preponderance of wealthy and socially-dominant elites including academics, the press, and Hollywood luminaries who have a strong ideological agenda embracing a so-called ‘fairness principle’ and the fallacy of political correctness.

On the other hand, thirty percent of the nation claims to attend church weekly.  Of the remaining fifty percent–the uncommitted population—we  can safely assume that a large number—probably most–are those with no particular political agenda, that ‘silent majority’ who just want to be left to themselves to “cling to their guns and religion”.  These people are seen by progressives as troublesome folks bent on limiting progressives’ ‘social  progress’ by opposing diversity, gay marriage,  abortion and euthanasia while favoring ‘discrimination’ (which, along with outright racism, in fact is practiced by progressives themselves in favoring certain select voting minorities).

How is it that a small minority of boors can savage our Constitution in the name of ‘public reason’ and seek redress from government in the name of ‘fairness’ (neither concept appearing in our founding documents)?  Why do we permit five percent of the population to dictate to at least sixty percent of our largely law-abiding (and quietly religious) citizenry?

How indeed… passivity.  After all, Christianity advises us to ‘turn the other cheek.’

All we have to do is nothing–let others do it.  That’s not the American way, and unless we get back to basics (the American way, the Constitution and spirituality), we’re going to lose 200-years of progress along with our hard-earned freedoms and world-leading status.

The Progressive Ethic is anti-religion (particularly anti-Christian) and, make no mistake, would remove religion from the public sector.  It is also seriously anti-Constitution, particularly anti-individual.  That would seem to make ‘progressives’ anti-American, considering our hallowed roots.

The founders warned against faction; this is clear in their writings of the time.  We now have a faction that has assumed virtual control over our government while trashing the very bases of that government.  Political correctness, abortion rights and changing the whole meaning of marriage and other secular (anti-religious) pursuits are evidence of their influence, and no wonder—political correctness has its roots in the communism of the early 20^th Century (proof at www.extremeethics.org/?p=216).   Liberty is being sacrificed in the name of what a small but strident minority consider the common good, with their socialistic government defining what is good.

The fact is that spiritual faith has been the most powerful and enduring force in the course of human events;  faith is characteristically individual and faith tends to foster ethics.  Spiritualty, individualism and ethics are  anathema to the Progressive Ethic. http://www.extremeethics.org/insight

Faith doesn’t require church-going, or even an organized religion.  It just requires that you believe what you already know (knowledge requires truth) and TRUST IN IT.   If you have doubts, read To Tell The Truth… (see sidebar) and act on it.  Make the world a better place.  YOU can make a difference—trust yourself.

Maybe the most basic philosophical question of all is: why is there anything?  This question is best answered by another: Who knows? which is enough to put philosophy on the shelf, a position often exacerbated by philosophers themselves—especially those with an agenda.  Philosophers love arguing with other philosophers, scaring off others who might make sense of it all.  The next few paragraphs illustrate why.  Stay with me here…

Philosophy incorporates three laws of thought, to wit: 1) Nothing can be and not be at the same time; 2) Something either is or is not; and 3) A thing is what it is (such as words, which simply describe what is). The alert reader will recognize these as saying pretty much the same thing in different ways and illustrate the validity of absolutes (there are absolutes—get used to it).

Another factoid: Fundamental principles cannot be proved to be true; these are the principles by which other claims may be proved true.  If you’ve been paying attention to past blogs, you’ll recognize this as describing First Principles.  These are the anchors for our thinking and are themselves anchored in what I consider to be the first of first principles, TRUTH.  Without truth, there can be no knowledge, and therefore nothing at all.

You are urged not to take too much issue with the foregoing, or you will be among whom Aristotle famously described as the wrongheaded who refuse to realize that some things cannot be proved (if this were not true, then nothing could be proved).

Are we having fun yet?

Well, for respite we can always fall back upon science, the favored daughter of philosophy.  Science, like its parent, has to do with our origins, reality and the physical universe generally.  Science provides a safe haven for those who must put things in the context of what’s solid, those who like to observe and experiment.

But science is really no more solid than philosophy because it too is founded upon speculation.  Science is based on a few postulates that are assumed, NOT PROVEN.  The problem is that even many scientists do not acknowledge that…

Which brings us to that other daughter of philosophy, spiritualty (the term ‘religion’ is too opinionated and limiting). This offspring deals with the spiritual world rather than the physical world of science.  It too has to do with our origins, ultimate reality as well as such intangibles as the meaning of life, human nature, good and evil, immortality (and mortality), right and wrong, and, taDA!, ethics.

Ethics is not a child of religion, as many of ‘The Enlightened’ would have you believe.  It’s an integral part of the substance of philosophy, the parent.  As such it supersedes even science, which often does not recognize religion as a function of spirituality.  There IS spirituality, just as there is the physical world.  This is fact, but as a First Principle can’t be proven any more than the EM (electromagnetic) Field can be proven (but we know exists) by science.  It may even provide the answer to the question “why is there anything?”  Don’t sell it short.  That science can’t prove it means nothing because science itself is an offspring, and an effect can’t prove its cause (see paragraph 4, above, any number of past blogs, and the book (To Tell The Truth…).

Ethics is founded in TRUTH, the first of first principles and, as such may be classified as a given. Now THAT’s extreme…

…and what ExtremeEthics is all about:  saving the world, one truth at a time.

Note the preface which explains the reason for the protected individual right (the entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights). The militia is necessary to the security of a free (meaning non-authoritarian) state. It’s a free country, after all.  The militia is composed of individuals for their mutual protection (“We, the people”) of their individual rights. “Well-regulated” does not mean government-controlled; this would be self-defeating. It means “of the (responsible) people.” Nor does government determine who is responsible.  Government exists for the purpose of securing equal protection of individual rights. The whole people constitute the Militia. It has the right of revolution and therefore the right to the means of revolution. This may be daunting, but it’s true nonetheless. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is the law of the land, and not to be taken lightly. Just responsibly.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

ISSUE: “…keep and bear Arms.”  Define ‘Arms.’  In the good old days, ‘Arms’ included swords, muskets, pistols, knives, bayonets, cannon, bombs.  If the term were meant to include only what could be carried in one’s arms, it would not include cannon or bombs, but that definition appears nowhere. And, by the way, ‘keep’ means own…

Not said being not meant, the fact that they are not specifically defined leaves the definition inclusive of whatever arms are available at whatever time. “Arms is (sic) arms.”  Got a nuke?  Hang onto it…

But wouldn’t that be overdoing it? Wouldn’t that threaten the powers-that-be?  After all, that would make “a well-regulated militia” capable of virtually anything.  Well…  Let government beware. The individual people are in charge. The Constitution says so.  The Second Amendment confirms it.

Not said is not meant. But what is said is that “a…Militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state.” This says that those capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated militia’ have a right to whatever methods of destruction are generally available. Where’s the line? Well, there really is none. The “right to keep and bear arms” is inclusive—all arms.

Those not capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated’ militia—this would include criminals, the insane and others who could not be well-regulated—do not.

After all, were it necessary for a ‘well-regulated militia’ to challenge a standing government army, why should it be limited to pistols and knives with blades less than 2-1/2 inches in length?

It is the right and duty of the responsible citizen to protect himself and his family. From anyone–anyone who would violate his family’s sanctity, which might include the police or government agents, and his right (duty) to protect is not given by government, but is a First Principle before government. The government secures rights, it does not dole them out. That means that it protects equally the equal rights of each individual. Power is delegated to the government (by the people) for the benefit of the people. The people have in fact reserved the right to revolution—make no mistake about it.  It is that right which guarantees every other, and while it may seem frightening, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is the law.

There’s a lot here to think about, but that does not include the right of government to violate the second amendment. The Constitution may be amended (at peril) by the several states, but any such move should be very carefully thought out. The Second Amendment is clear; the People have the right to keep (own) and bear arms for their individual protection as well as protecting those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Don’t jeopardize those formidable rights.  We, the people are in charge, and don’t forget it.  Let government  get used to it…

Freedom of religion is ensured by the First Amendment, as are other freedoms as well. But in cases where a religion conflicts with our Constitution or its protections, the Law must prevail. This is the case with Islam, which along with its (Muslim) religion includes an ideology (embracing Sharia Law) that does not recognize the freedoms ensured by the Constitution but is instead in opposition to them. The Qu’ran is in direct conflict with our inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and human rights generally. It  does not tolerate any religion other than Islam (further evidence of our Judeo-Christian roots—Islam was not in any way a factor in our founding and is not supported by our laws—killing infidels is not part of our heritage). Even a cursory reading of the Qu’ran will support this statement.

The current world situation (Islamic terrorism) is testing our nation and its resolve. The concept of Political Correctness has manufactured an artificial tolerance of Islam in the name of religion rather than upholding the law of the land.  But this is unconstitutional as well as unethical.

Political Correctness is false and therefore unethical; we need not tolerate terrorism in the name of ‘fairness.’  (Feel free to find any reference to ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in either of our founding documents.) Our Constitution is clear if we will take the time to read and understand it and its supporting documents, and our Constitution is the law of the land. It has helped to make us the envy of world cultures. There is no need to lower the bar to mollify those who do not realize its benefits.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment should that be deemed necessary. There are currently 27 amendments, duly processed and permanent parts of the current document.  You are encouraged to read the entire document. It’s short and understandable—not at all like our Tax Code. And don’t forget the Declaration—it’s even shorter but equally instructive. Even more information is available in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as other documents of the time. The intentions of the Founders are quite clear, should we care to investigate them.

Freedoms of speech or peaceful assembly are not limited.  This would seem to mean that anything may be voiced, including profanity or ‘hate speech.’  Not said is not meant.

“Hate speech’ is a function of political correctness, which has no constitutional support whatsoever.  Feelings are not considered by either the Declaration or Constitution.  Common courtesy and decorum were assumed by the Founders and would seem to limit what may be voiced, but the Constitution does not.  There exists a built-in concession to ethics and morality but there’s no code of ethics written into it.   http://www.extremeethics.org/home/code-of-ethics This would normally not constitute a major problem in a world of an objective press, which would itself compensate for flagrant bad-mouthing.  However, this is not the case in our society currently.

Somewhere along the societal line it has become common for those offended and/or insulted to seek redress from government.  This phenomenon tends to be one-sided; it’s OK for one to trash others but not to be insulted.  It is also not supported by the Constitution.

This is one reason for the current Progressive drive to change the Constitution in the name of modernity.  Feelings have become more important than objectivity.

But the Constitution is nothing if not objective.  It assumes that individuals will handle these problems themselves, without the intervention of government.  This is as it should be—not said is not meant.

Fairness is not a stated function of our Constitutional law, which may not and does not favor one special interest over another.  Such issues are left to propriety, individual action and the courts, which may not make law.   This is as it should be.  Deal with it, but mind the words of Blaise Pascal: “The first rule of morality (ethics) is to think clearly.”  Thinking clearly requires an accurate understanding of the language. Read the Constitution. You may disagree with what I say here, but make certain that we’re talking about the same thing should you challenge my statements. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=565

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Feel free!

All right then—what are First Principles?   First Principles are what IS—everything else is based upon them; nothing exists without them.   They cannot be deduced, nor can anything be deduced without them.  In Latin: ab initio. They are what in mathematics are called axioms or postulates.  You may use givens.

TRUTH is a first principle.  So are the EM (electromagnetic) Spectrum and Gravity.  TIME may also be included, as well as PERFECTION.  For us, EARTH is a first principle, as are its atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere.  (The ultimate first principle is a subject for another time…)  We’ve dealt with these before and will again.

Numerous blogs in this website deal with first principles.  Without these, neither science nor philosophy (or anything else) makes sense.  They must be assumed.

ETHICS is a first principle, being founded in and one with truth, and the Constitution is based in these: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The rights protected by the Constitution are private—the bill of rights is all about individual rights.  Government exists to secure, NOT PROVIDE OR LIMIT, the rights of the individual.  The Constitution says so.  This is important!

Modern progressive philosophy advocates social, political and economic reform—putting government  in charge—which requires changing the Constitution.  Progressive philosophy holds that we are in a post- constitutional era and that our system must change accordingly.  Progressives favor government expertise,  science, technology and especially education, as the solution to perceived societal weaknesses, individual rights be damned.  This requires a belief in the ability of government experts and in efficiency of government intervention.  The Founders were right to warn against this.

Our modern Administrative state would place the collective welfare of the people over liberty and render private rights subservient to collective rights.  The problem is that THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

What IS constitutional is of course the Constitution itself and its foundation in the equal protection of individual rights.  This of course demands an obligation of individuals to protect the equal rights of their fellow citizens.  This in turn requires that THE PEOPLE BE A MILITIA, anathema to progressive thought.

Does this seem like we’re getting off the subject?  Well, consider this: Putting all your faith in government negates the need to think for oneself.  Just trust government.  You don’t need protection because government will take care of everything.  The problem is that a police state is required to make this work.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=576

If you subscribe to this line of thought, then you deserve whatever you get, and the time will come when you don’t want it.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution clearly support those individual rights which constitute the very spine of our nation.  They include the right to trash the government, and here comes the right of militia and the all-important Second Amendment.

Surrender your Second Amendment rights and you surrender those of the First as well, and the rest won’t make any difference.  Trade independence for security and lose both.

Be careful what you ask for.  You might get it.  The Constitution—it’s the American Way.  Read it!  And support it!  If you want to amend it, the rules are there, and clear.

And read as well   http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=695  and http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

What’s happened was that we have over the course of time effectively subverted the historical process of our nation’s growth and development in the name of the way we’ve been led to believe that things are. The explosive growth of knowledge and technology has encouraged us to delegate the responsibility for progress to groups organized for the purpose.  In the process we have effectively signed over our own creativity, imagination and ingenuity to others, giving them permission to tell us what to think and accepting what they tell us as the way it is. Instead of sharing the load according to our ability to handle it, we have become caught up in self-interest, ignored our vital link with humanity. In the process we have drawn further from the principle, the reason for it all—to be, to live, to create, to become all that we can be—what humanity and life itself is all about. We have come to believe, perhaps even with good reason, that we cannot trust others to do the right thing, never even considering that others feel the same way about us. We forget that the vital connection includes more than shared interests and abilities. It includes, in fact, everything that makes us human, and it begins in truth.

And by allowing group relationships to displace the vital one in importance, we’ve allowed groups (including our society itself) to appropriate greater authority, and some members greater influence, than they are due. In this process, group rules have corrupted the basic ethical precepts of mankind upon which our hation was founded. Groups have written their own rules in order to accomplish their own ends, and these rules have found their way into law that may (and often does) misrepresent the relationship between the group and the individual. We have allowed, even encouraged, this to happen, and in the process we’ve subverted ethics in favor of law (group think) by assigning our own ethical responsibilities to groups that by definition cannot handle them. Instead of the representative government guaranteed by the Constitution, we have created a professional government with rights and privileges not available to those they are elected to represent.  The effect has been devastating on both levels that really matter: the individual and the whole of mankind.

“The very existence of government invites corruption since the governed, having granted certain powers to (government), are inevitably tempted to offer bribes and kickbacks to induce their governors to grant favors in their exercise of power.” (Michael E.C. Moss, letter to the Wall Street Journal, 4/11/13)

The ‘global community’ aspired to by many may be 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 and moral entity can achieve this goal. Such a government may be possible, but not under the current conditions resulting from servile deference to special interests. It is possible using a truly moderate approach. This in turn means a return to the original Constitutional premises of our nation (it is the purpose of the Constitution to moderate government) and, not incidentally, of humanity generally.

This process begins with truth and the primacy of the individual freedom guaranteed by our Constitution and implicit in natural law. It merely requires that all parties revert to the truth. Truth, ethics and morality are non-negotiable.  They are first principles, a foundation of humanity itself.

You are encouraged to refer to other blogs on this website dealing with ethical issues, ethical principles, ethical standards, political ethics, and others  for expansion on this subject.  The book, To Tell The Truth… covers it in some detail as well.

The Constitution does not grant rights; rather it provides limits to government.  Our rights are assumed by the document to have been born with us.  It is the role of government to secure and protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property.  It is not the function of government to provide for our material needs and/or wishes.  Quite simply, it can’t and may not do both at the same time.

It is the work of the Supreme Court to clear up any constitutional misunderstanding (of which there should be few because the Founding Fathers made their intentions quite clear in the Federalist Papers and other documents of their time).  It is not its job to invent or read rights into the Constitution that are not there.  Doing so would be (IS) unethical.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=695

There is nothing in the Constitution dealing with relationships.  The Constitution deals with individuals.  It does not define marriage, it protects it.  It does not define homosexuality or heterosexuality, it protects them.

The ‘progressive’ movement treats the Constitution as a ‘living document,’ which it is.  Of course it’s not dead—it remains our foundation.  It can be modified—the procedures for doing so are written into it.  But the progressive view is that it can be changed at the will of even a limited group of people.  This would be, and is, unethical. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

Thinking people have been trying to make government ethical for at least 2500-years (see Socrates).  They knew and know (as do we all if we think about it) that power corrupts, and politics (more properly politicians) is all about power.  The founders knew this and limited the power of our government accorfingly.  That’s the reason that our nation has become the envy of all others–those limits still exist.  To violate them is unconstitutional and unethical. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=526

ETHICS IS IMPORTANT.  And it is inviolate.  Redefining ethics to match so situation is impossible and unethical.  You can’t do it, I can’t do it, and government lx npt empowered to do it, no matter how many unethical people vote to do so.

Defend the Constitution.  It’s the best legal friend you have.  Be ethical, and demand the same from those for whom you vote.

Feel free to disagree, but be prepared to defend your position.

Our nation is founded upon first principles.  The form of our government is specific and inviolable.  Our laws are a product of the Declaration of Independence and presented in our Constitution.  What follows borrows freely from Professor Edward Erler of Cal State at Santa Barbara.

The first words of the Declaration state from whence the powers of our government come: WE THE PEOPLE.  The first ten Amendments (the Bill Of Rights, specifically individual) reinforce this.  Collective rights and the modern Progressive idea of a ‘living constitution’ are not in keeping with the original intent.  The Constitution cannot arbitrarily be changed with social evolution.  The foundation of our government is what it is (not unlike a first principle).   The mechanism for change—amendment—is built in and clearly specified; so is the separation of powers.

The modern administrative state is a product of progressive thought; there is no provision for it in the Constitution, nor can the judicial branch create it.  This is a free country.  Each of us is guaranteed equal protection of the law, which includes the responsibility to protect the rights of others.  You may recall this as an integral part of the definition of ethics as presented elsewhere on this website.  Ethics is built into our very foundation, and ethics is not subject to modification—it is UNIVERSAL.

Ethics has been under attack since the Greeks invented democracy.  The need for ethics was obvious some 2500-years ago to Socrates (as recorded by Plato and expanded-upon by Aristotle, whose probing mind and writings gave rise to conflicting interpretations resulting in the mess we have today).  The Enlightenment(?) cut away large chunks of it, throwing it into disarray.

It certainly appears that modern (Greek) ethics was born in response to government.  Apparently politicians have been creating their own reality since time immemorial.  Of course, ethics precedes the Greeks, having been built into our very beings at the dawn of man.

It falls upon us–you and me—to restore honesty to the world.  Truth has been bent, folded, spindled and otherwise mutilated, beyond recognition in some cases, and in any case should be recognized in its rightful place as an inviolate First Principle.  THAT’S where the effort should be spent, not in trying to wrestle nature to the ground or legislate behavior, both impossible tasks.

Doing so is simply making up one’s mind to be as honest as possible and not messing with the standards.  They ARE WHAT THEY ARE.  The law can’t return us to reality.  It’s up to We The People, individually, and that means you.

It’s Extreme Ethics’s mission to save the world one truth at a time.  We could use some help…

It’s clear that Earth is a living planet, unique in our solar system and perhaps beyond. As a geologist/earth scientist I can speak with some authority about our planet, and there exists scientific support for the following professional/personal conclusions in spite of its necessarily deduced origins. I welcome your checking the facts.

Although Earth was born devoid of life, it seems to have created its own unique environment for it, and has remained alive since the advent of prokaryotic bacteria some 600Million years ago. That the geologic and biologic realms are interrelated is supported by the coevolution of organisms, climate and the earth’s crust as deduced from the geologic record.

We don’t know the origin of the simple prokaryotic (photosynthetic) bacteria that started it all in the preCambrian period, but the fossil record supports their existence. These simple cells (without nuclei) were responsible for altering the atmosphere from anaerobic to aerobic to enable the support of life beginning with the basic eukaryotic cell (with a nucleus) typical of plants and animals. This cell is the progenitor of all life forms that have evolved from it, including us.

Organisms co-evolve with their environment, the biotic system influencing the abiotic system that supports it. Organisms interact with the inorganic environment to complete a self-regulating system that maintains life-supporting conditions on Earth. The biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere combine to maintain the balance necessary for our living Earth. That’s the way it started, and that’s the way it remains.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=594

Solar energy apparently has increased by 25-30% over time but surface temperatures seem to have remained within the limits of habitability in spite of it.  Apparently the life-friendly environment has withstood all of the many violent (literally earth-shaking) changes that have occurred since life appeared—vulcanism, sea-floor spreading and plate tectonics, meteor strikes and other cosmological hazards known to have occurred—to maintain conditions suitable for life to continue and develop to the current level. The system shows every sign of being self-regulating since its inception, and why wouldn’t it? It’s the system—Earth, the living planet.

The gases of our atmosphere are produced by biological reactions with Earth’s soils and rocks and are maintained in spite of changes in earth processes.  Atmospheric conditions have remained constant enough to maintain conditions necessary for life, and are kept in a narrow range by the life it supports. Air is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.04% Carbon dioxide, and just under 1% Argon and traces of other gases. Oxygen is a very reactive element that if much higher would lead to dangerous conditions (fire). That this probably occurred in the past is supported by the occurrence of natural charcoal in the Carboniferous coal measures, deposited when oxygen exceeded 25%.

Carbon dioxide is critical to maintaining atmospheric temperatures and in maintaining the oxygen level. Its major contributor is vulcanism, an apparently chaotic occurrence that nevertheless exerts some control over concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that help maintain our climate within acceptable limits. Another is animal life—it produces carbon dioxide by processing life-giving oxygen. Carbon dioxide is removed by vegetation, carbonate rocks, and certain phytoplankton. When carbon dioxide increases, more plants grow to process it. This includes certain algal blooms in the oceans, which increase with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.  The oceans are instrumental in controlling carbon dioxide, and there’s a lot of water–and plant life–in them.

There is feedback between the oceans, the atmosphere and the entirety of the hydrosphere. Ocean salinity remains near-constant at about the 3.4% necessary for life to exist in spite of natural phenomena that would seem to alter this number. This is partly a function of organic processes; organisms naturally improve their environment in order to survive. It’s natural, not planned.

THERE’S A SYSTEM AT WORK HERE. Call it a complex adaptive system or, if you prefer, spontaneous order. While it may appear from our limited perspective to be a chaos of pressures, tensions and constraints with no hope of resolution, that’s not the case. It’s not the case because Earth has its own code of ethics, It is innately ethical. And it’s innately ethical because it’s the way it is–a first principle. The environment as an ethical whole will handle whatever nature throws its way. Nature always adapts, and it’s always done “on the fly.” And we, individually or collectively, haven’t a clue as to how it really works. But one thing we do know is that it does work in spite of whatever happens to thwart it because the norm is innately ethical. If it weren’t, mankind would have been done for long ago. This, the way it is, is beyond our control.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A PERFECTLY NATURAL OCCURRENCE, and MAN IN ALL HIS ARROGANCE IS UNABLE TO CONTROL IT.  Earth is in an interglacial period, and nature is adapting and will continue to adapt to it as it has for millennia.  It’s the system at work, and it’s a good thing, not bad. We need only act responsibly, relax, enjoy it and stop trying to change it. We can’t (and that, too, is a good thing). http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=708