Killing Yourself to Live – Fossil Fuels, Man Made Disasters, and the Future of the Planet

The BP oil spill just seems to get worse and worse. The estimates of how much oil is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico seem to go up almost daily – the press reports are beginning to sound like an auction. Now, according to Steven Wereley from Purdue University, the amount of material spewing into the Gulf may be up to 84,000 barrels per day. Eugene Chiang, from the University of California, estimates the spill rate may be up to 100,000 barrels per day. There is a potential that 2 more months of oil spilling may go on until relief wells can be finished by August. This means that there will be 10s of millions of gallons of oil spilled into the waters of the Gulf. Compounding the problem is the toxic nature of the dispersant being used. The amount of environmental and economic damage this accident will cause is as yet incalculable. The genetic mutations caused in the creatures of the gulf, and the concentration of oil in the oysters, shrimp, crab, and fish will mean that people won’t be eating any seafood from the Gulf for quite a long time. We will never know the scale of the suffering of all the creatures affected by this unnecessary man made disaster - not only the lower life forms, but birds, sea turtles, manatee, dolphins, and whales, too. The Gulf ecosystem may be ruined for decades. We are looking at one of the worst man – made disasters in history.

There are many factors contributing to this disaster, including corporate greed, pressure to cut corners in the name of speed and profit, lack of regulations, drilling in dangerous environments without backup plans and technologies for accidents, a lack of foresight that such an accident could happen and what that would mean, a lack of vision of how badly things can go wrong. Oil drilling has been going on pretty much in the same way since it began, and the ways oil companies are accustomed to drilling on land have been applied to drilling underwater. There has been an emphasis on generating profits over innovation.

Our fascination with big business and industrial conglomerates has created massive bureaucracies run by people far removed from the day to day activities of their workers. Also, the managers of these organizations are insulated from the consequences of their actions upon the workers and the lives of the communities they affect. The vested interests of international holding companies and big businesses like the old Standard Oil, Enron, and AIG were and are - like BP - beholden to their shareholders – not their workers, local communities, or the environments in which they work. If they have no local roots or real ties to the communities in which they do business, such corporate goliaths will have no strong sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If there are problems, they can just move elsewhere.

The use of dirty technologies has taken precedence over the development of cleaner energy sources that require substantial up-front investments to develop. Cleaner energy sources require popular political support to publicly fund research into new technologies and they also require people to make the lifestyle and social changes necessary to incorporate the newly developed technologies into their daily lives. Also, there is the insatiable and increasing demand for more and more energy, especially more oil. Currently there are 1000s of oil rigs in the world’s oceans. A similar spill could happen anywhere at any time. We can also be sure the terrorists are watching the oil spill closely.

Increasing numbers of people realize that we must eventually wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels. Nonetheless the amount of investment necessary to develop widespread use of solar, wind, wave, and geothermal power hasn’t been made. Some people are suggesting that we move towards the increasing use of nuclear power; they fail to realize and acknowledge that as nuclear plants and waste proliferate, the risks for accidents increase, and the nature of such accidents become catastrophic. As I write there is nuclear waste water leaking into the NJ aquifer from a nuclear plant. With thousands of nuclear facilities on the world’s rivers are we prepared to replace oil slicks with radioactive water spilling from nuclear plants circling the Earth’s oceans?

As a direct result of the BP oil spill, an increasing number of people are becoming aware of how dependent we are upon oil and technology and how helpless we are when things go terribly wrong. It was only a few generations ago when most people had to make their own products or trade for them with people who could. Today most of us would be unable to fix our cars, appliances, or computers if they broke down. The world is becoming increasingly complex and the activities and technologies supporting our infrastructure – those things which enable our modern lives to go on smoothly - are increasingly distant from our ability to understand, build, or fix them. Consequently when disaster strikes, we are less and less able to figure out how to deal with the ensuing chaos.

We are helpless when tasked with fixing things ourselves. The combination of the increasing complexity of the technological world necessary to sustain life, the increasing rarity of natural resources, and the consequent need to search ever farther afield for the resources we need form a perfect storm of problems for us when things go awry. Now, in order to sustain our societies we must reach out to the most inaccessible regions of the Earth to meet our needs. When disaster strikes we are unprepared for it and will be unable to make quick fixes when advanced technologies in remote areas are required to repair the damage. Consequently, accidents will get worse and more frequent and our ability to fix them will be strained to the limit.

This spill is an example of something that humanity will experience more and more. Our dependence on dirty energy, dirty technologies, and polluting products (like plastic bags and bottles) will increasingly risk the destruction of our natural environments and make their clean up less easy and less likely. We are suffocating ourselves. Our modern world is living the Black Sabbath song “Killing Yourself to Live.” Our increasing demand for energy and environmental resources will begin running into the consequences of the increasing decimation of our environment necessary to sustain the continuity of our mass consumption, mass destruction lifestyles. Without serious social commitments to new ways of thinking, acting, living, and the development of new, cleaner technologies and products, we will continue down the path towards increasing pollution, large scale disasters, an inability to repair the damage we cause, the destruction of the worlds resources, and the consequent poisoning of our planet. The BP oil spill should be a wake-up call! We need to make some major changes, and we better get started soon, before things are too far gone and we turn our planet into another “Dead Sea.”

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

Why is Right Wing Conservatism so Mean?

One of the things people in a Democracy need to concern themselves about from time to time is the development of mass psychosis. Sometimes the welfare of the public comes under threats from political movements that hold positions that fly in the face of facts, ask people to do things that normal conscience would preclude, and support policies which result in the ill health, oppression, or expiration of others - and in particular, the marginalization and brutalization of minorities and the poor.

This problem of mass psychosis rears its ugly head repeatedly throughout history – in different forms, with different people, using different symbols, and sometimes different issues. When this happens, it is necessary for the voices of freedom, tolerance, and social justice to point out what is occurring. There is a recurrent danger from the unscrupulous in right wing movements to use propaganda to induce mass psychosis – that is to create policies, laws, and regimes that are intolerant and oppressive. Be they in World War II Germany, the KKK, modern racial hate groups, Right Wing Conservative religious extremists, or even some of those in today's Tea Party – the movements are different, but their mentality is similar. What drives such anger, fear, and hate based movements and what makes the believers in such movements think the way they do? They base their authority on different sources, but they all appear to have a common denominator – they are willing to support values, policies, laws, attitudes, and individual and social behavior all of which lack compassion for others. In other words, their common denominator is a lack of empathy - they are mean.

The old Conservatism is gone. It is history. The old Chamber of Commerce Republican Party has been replaced by the Tea Party. The old Eisenhower Republicans have become Democrats. When Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater got together one of the last times, Reagan joked that they were the last two Liberals in the Republican Party. Conservatism has been replaced by extremism - a coalition of religious zealots, racists, and gangster capitalists who oppose social justice and any market regulations. Now the Republican Party has a new face, the Right Wing Conservatives.

That the Right Wing Conservative mind set is basically mean is revealed by the harsh policies and authoritarian laws supported by right wing ideologies. In fact, historically in the U.S., Right Wing Conservatism as a political movement has opposed every progressive effort by Americans to improve our lives. Luckily Right Wing Conservatism has been on the wrong side of history and, up until now, has consistently lost in its opposition to many progressive issues like abolition, the voting rights of women, workers' rights, Civil Rights, environmental regulation, human rights, and product safety. It must be remembered that people worked hard for decades, people fought and died to bring these rights to us. This progress of our society should not be so easily thrown away. Now the forces of Right Wing Conservatism are rallying to unleash the greatest assault on progressive society in history, with the most funding, activist organizations, and media pundits that have ever been mustered in a “culture war.” It is important for us to remember that the decent lives we live today are owed to the benefits of the progressive social development - the very ones opposed by the ideologies of meanness. Now each successive generation is poised to have to fight for the same benefits and rights that have been gained by the sacrifices of so many in the past – all over again!

It is important to come to an understanding of what these forces of Right Wing Conservatism are, and where they come from. Those supporting Right Wing Conservatism, such as the media demagogues Beck and Limbaugh are tellers of “the Big Lie” and use propaganda irrespective of facts. The Right Wing Conservative forces will use big money, talk radio, and the Tea Party to try to whip up mass psychosis. They are following an old playbook from the first half of the 20^th Century. All those who oppose Right Wing Conservatism should wake up are become aware of the very real threats to their way of life posed by these right wing extremists. If they are not successfully resisted, they will institute a rollback of progressive society, the abolition of social justice, the imposition of the “company town” lifestyle of wage slave labor, and the institution of authoritarian Right Wing Conservative rule. It is no joke.

Let’s take a quick survey of issue areas that reveal with clarity what some Right Wing Conservative policy positions entail:

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose things like universal health care, Medicare, and Medicaid?

The opposite is to let people die without adequate health care. Right Wing Conservative policies equate to telling people that can’t afford their own health care, they should just die. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose financial and business regulations?

Having an economy based upon unbridled, unregulated businesses only guarantees financial swindles of unsuspecting people and dangerous products sold to consumers. This is business based upon the notion of Caveat Emptor” – “Let the buyer beware.” Such business practices take the attitude that the consumers are idiots who deserve to be swindled out of their money. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose Civil Rights, Equal Rights, and Gay Rights?

The existence of an unjust society where people are not entitled to equal and civil rights creates a civilization based upon differing classes of citizenship under the law. This is nothing short of slavery. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose things like Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, and subsidized housing for the poor?

What are the poor supposed to do – starve and / or be homeless? Not taking care of the least among us is mean and the social policies of Right Wing Conservatism would create results that, as Scrooge would say, “if the poor were going to die, they had better hurry up and do it to decrease the surplus population” This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose public education?

Having large numbers of people under educated and unable to provide decent lives for themselves in a global Knowledge Age is a formula for social disaster. Whether it is the proliferation of crime, the election of demagogues, poor public health, social disruption, broken families, multi-generational poverty - - all of these are the legacy of a lack of adequate support for public education. This only keeps the poor uneducated and poor. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose governmental regulation of product safety?

Without product safety regulation we would not be able to be sure of the safety of our cars, toasters, electrical sockets, nor anything else we purchase. We wouldn’t be able to return faulty products. Opposing safety standards is an attempt to offer the public dangerous and sub-standard products. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose environmental regulation?

Obviously, now with the BP Gulf oil spill disaster, the lack of environmental regulation results in a poisoned environment if its care is only entrusted to the goodwill of corporations. Opposing strong environmental regulations results in damaged ecosystems, health problems, and destroys lives. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose taxation?

When those with a great concentration of wealth and resources do not have the conscience to take care of the least among us, in a just society, they must be made to do so. After all, the people who get rich are doing so upon the labor and consumption of others. Taxes enable us to have roads, bridges, police and fire departments, schools, hospitals, a military defense, product safety, environmental safeguards… all of which are necessary infrastructure for the wealthy to make their money. We need taxation of the wealthy to provide for the needs of the poor who are being used to generate the wealth. Furthermore keeping people at slave labor wages that are not enough to subsidize a decent quality of life – compensation for labor that is not a living wage – is actual slavery. A living wage provides for food, housing, transportation, child care, health care, entertainment, and continuing education. Anything less than a living wage is an insult, is slavery, and relies upon the rest of society to pick up the tab to cover the difference between the actual costs of living and the wages paid. It is cheaper to keep one as a wage slave than it is to pay to keep them as an actual slave. This is mean.

Why does Right Wing Conservatism oppose the rights of organized labor?

The Middle Class owes its existence to organized labor. Without it, we wouldn’t have the working conditions we have today. Many people fought and died for labor rights, which too few of us remember. If it weren’t for organized labor, businesses would not have been forced to improve the working conditions of their workers, and as is obvious from the behavior of big business (which is more than happy to use slave labor in places like China and Vietnam because it is cheaper and there are few, if any, health, safety, and environmental regulations) that working conditions would not have changed. If it were left to some businesses, workers would still be slaving away in the working conditions of Dickensian sweatshops – even in the U.S. Many people still are working in such conditions around the world. Many of them work for American companies. Without organized labor, we would still have child labor, no minimum wage, no 40 hour work week, no weekend, no worker’s compensation, no unemployment insurance, no occupational health and safety standards, and no collective bargaining. Right Wing Conservatism opposed all of these, and this is mean.

New forms of Right Wing Conservatism emerge from old roots in reactionary, abusive right wing ideologies and the warped mentalities that foster them. Throughout history, these right wing ideologies have often manifested in movements of mass psychosis that have done great damage to the welfare of many others. Right Wing Conservatism is mean – as we can clearly see from the progressive developments of humanity that Right Wing Conservative ideology opposes. So what is the the philosophical basis of this meanness called Right Wing Conservatism? Does it actually have any foundation other than selfishness? Upon what authority and reason do the policies of Right Wing Conservatism rest - the Divine Right of Kings, Social Darwinism, or a Religion of greed, discrimination, and social oppression? In actuality Right Wing Conservatism has no reasonable philosophical foundation. Just think – who in their right mind would want to embrace a world view, a mind set, an ideology - that projects strength and moral superiority but is essentially based on fear and a sense of inadequacy; an ideology that is essentially mean, greedy, selfish, authoritarian, intolerant, closed minded, hateful, oppressive, and that opposes any progressive reforms that improve the welfare of humanity?

We have taken a look at what the Right Wing Conservatives oppose - let’s take a look at some of what they believe:

Lift Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps:

This only applies to you, however. Right Wing Conservatives will be the first in line to receive benefits if their own property or businesses are damaged by a flood, hurricane, meteor, oil spill, chemical spill, military or terrorist action, bad financial investment, someone else, or even themselves! This is selfish.

I’ll Get Mine, You Get Yours:

Another way of saying this is “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” Right Wing Conservatives want to make as much as possible and pay as little as possible. This is similar to the idea of “buy low, sell high” – but applied to society. They want the benefits, of roads, highways, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. but feel that they owe little or nothing to contribute to the upkeep of such things. They want to make as much money as possible from everyone, but pay people as little as possible. They want the benefits of living in the U.S. but they don’t want to pay taxes. They want to become rich, but begrudge the poor food and shelter. This is greedy.

Nature is Harsh:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that nature is cruel, harsh, bad, and punishing. They forget that the lion does kill to eat, but it doesn’t kill every antelope in the herd – it only takes what it needs, when it must. In fact, nature and the universe are the ultimate free lunch, we only charge for things in human societies. Hitler couldn’t understand why “man shouldn’t be as cruel as nature?” The problem is that it is not nature that is cruel, it was Hitler. This is just a projection of their meanness.

Human Nature is Bad:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that people are inherently bad. They believe that we are inherently prone to all manner of sin, vice, cruelty, crime, and horror. This is a very scary view of what people are. Actually, very few people commit the vast majority of crimes. Most people are decent folks who live their lives, raise their kids, work, and participate in society without victimizing their fellow humans. This belief that human nature is bad requires a hierarchical social system to keep people behaving properly. This is authoritarian.

People Must be Controlled:

This belief results in their desire to have tightly controlled people under their thumb – be it in the workplace or in society. They support harsh, punitive, and restrictive moral and legal systems. This is oppressive.

I Live in the Real World – You Don’t:

Just what is the “real world?” Is it the “real world” of a frog, a dolphin, a Stone Age human, St. Francis, a peasant in China, a Mid Western Suburbanite, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin? Just which “real world” is the correct one – certainly each of the above think theirs is the proper one! In actuality, the “real world is subjective – it is relative to the experience of the individual in question. Right Wing Conservatives believe that they have the corner on the market of “reality” – they believe they truly understand everything they need to know about the universe, what it is to be human, religious teachings, and society. This is closed – minded.

People Different than I am are Threats:

This belief that “my kind is the right kind” gives rise to all kinds of injustices. It is Xenophobic, and rests on an inability to be accommodating of surface differences between people irrespective of our common humanity. It is this belief that gives rise to racism. This is hateful.

My Interpretation of Religion is the Ultimate Truth - Yours Is NOT:

Right Wing Conservatives believe that their interpretations of religious teachings are the only true ones. They believe in literal interpretations of religious teachings that were written by people thousands of years ago for different people from different cultures with different languages and with different needs. Often these teachings were written in allegorical, metaphorical, and aphoristic styles that require reading between the lines to get to the essence or spirit of their intent. Right Wing Conservatives who believe that they are “divinely appointed” to interpret such teachings and who allow for no other discussions on the meanings involved are beyond reasonable discussion with those of beliefs other to theirs. This is intolerant.

I am Better than You:

The belief in an inherent inequality of people is anathema to Democracy. The world view that Right Wing Conservatives adhere to is one in which wealth and might make right. They believe that other lifestyles and religions are bad, sinful, and criminal. This breeds intolerance and hatefulness, including spreading fear about those who are not like themselves. This is a belief in social, moral, and sometimes even genetic or racial superiority. It is not unlike the old idea of the “Divine Right” of kings, where they are the anointed ones who are entitled to make rules for everyone else and inflict harsh punishments for violations of their privileges. This is a sense of superiority.

I am Always Right, You Are NOT:

The Right Wing Conservative belief system, drawing on its sense of moral superiority and ownership of religious truth leads them to believe in the infallibility of their beliefs. And they also believe that extremism in the defense of their world view is acceptable, even when it comes to discrimination, the imposition of harsh rules, inequality under the law, and even violence. They are not unlike the extreme right wing Islamic extremists who believe that terror and murder in defense of their view of reality is acceptable and will be rewarded in Heaven. When it comes to clothing themselves in the flag and using the Bible as a hammer of injustice, they believe that the rules are made for everyone else. This is hypocritical.

Greed is Good:

The belief that one’s self worth is determined by possessions, property, wealth, and power. Right Wing Conservatism embraces a religion of greed and intolerance. This is a combination of Church and Mammon in a death grip. It is the belief in the religious value of wealth generation that leads to the kind of cynicism prevalent on Wall Street. The little guy is a sucker and deserves to be ripped off. When he is robbed, the thieves should be bailed out by the community of suckers if their gambles with the ill gotten gains of their swindles are squandered. Caveat Emptor – let the buyer beware, could be one of their convention banners. This is greedy.

Change is Bad, Stability is Good:

The belief that change is bad unless it is an increase of my wealth is another key facet of the Right Wing Conservative world view. Just let me keep on making money off the labor of others without regulation or interruption. Let me keep swindling others and getting bailed out by the community. Let me continue getting the best from my society while contributing as little as humanly possible. Let me oppose everything that could alter my equation of superiority. This is the justification for opposing any progressive reforms that improve the welfare of humanity – heck someone else might get ahead. This is regressive.

Only a Few Succeed:

This is a fear based approach to society that derives from a sense of inadequacy. It is a fear that if others succeed, if others get ahead, that reflects poorly on me because I didn’t do it. This compensation for the deep sense of inadequacy that surely must be felt by those embracing such a small world view – which is always under threat – must project power, strength, wealth, ambition, and well – being lest any chink in the armor becomes visible. This is selfish.

What are we to make of such an ugly mix of delusions? It is possible that some ideologies of hate, fear, etc. are actually manifestations of pathologies or even neurological damage to the brain. Right Wing Conservative ideologies that are cooked up by true believers who may actually be sociopaths - like Hitler, Jim Jones, or Bin Laden – sometimes get transferred to large numbers of others. How do sociopaths and sociopathic ideologies become popular, as seemingly reasonable reactions to environmental conditions in the lives of people; and wind up enabling otherwise normal people to do things and support policies that damage others? Some of these episodes in history where Right Wing Conservative ideologies have had their way seem to be like epidemics caused by sociopathic ideological viruses. They begin in the minds of truly twisted, sick individuals and spread by appealing to the demons in our nature. Then the talking points of these ideologies are repeated endlessly by Right Wing Conservative minions through the media regardless of other opinions, perspectives, or facts proving the contrary. It is possible that such ways of thinking, if indulged in, and often enough repeated, actually affect the brains of the believers, developing neural nets which serve to validate their interpretation of experience, and hence their sense of "reality" - irrespective of and over-riding empathy, compassion, kindness, love, truth, wisdom, facts, reason, or any experience to the contrary....

Why is Right Wing Conservatism so mean? Where does this impulse for oppression, discrimination, and treating others with a lack of compassion come from? To find the answer to this we don’t have to look any further than the playground bully – the anti-social personality that has a disorder based upon aggression, violence, and most importantly, a lack of concern for others. It is clear the value system of meanness and abuse rests its authority on violence in the name of self interest. One of the reasons why Right Wing Conservatism is mean is that Right Wing Conservative ideologies are the result of a world view, a mindset – although not necessarily shared by all those who call themselves political Right Wing Conservatives – that is essentially paranoid, anti-social, and neurotic. This is not healthy. Right Wing Conservatism is mean essentially because it is a value system derived from a lack of empathy for others – it is a spiritual illness caused by a lack of love and compassion in life.

Copyright 2010 B.E. Foley

Inject a Bit of Dinosaur in My Flu Shot, Please!

It was just announced that a new life form has been synthesized. Now humans are in the business of inventing life. Although not a true creation of life from scratch, this development is a major step in that direction. What the entrepreneur Craig Venter and his team of researchers have done is make a cell that functions as the result of a synthetic genome which was pasted together. His team has figured out how to put together a bacterial genome and transfer it between bacterium. Venter said, ""This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer."

This development has many ramifications. There is great potential for the creation of new organisms to serve specific functions, as for example, eating up oil slicks or generating fuel through organic processes. Venter says that this development is an important scientific and philosophical step. In this he is correct. He also says that "extensive bioethical review took place before the experiments were done."

This is a problem, for what ethical review has ever stopped the development of a technology once it is workable? Nuclear fission, the hydrogen bomb, cloning, and an endless string of other technological innovations are things that were developed irrespective of ethical considerations. Science is not preoccupied with ethics; it is driven to develop whatever technology is possible. There are other problems with medical and bio - ethics. Upon what philosophical ground are these fields of ethics based? On logic alone or in combination with a value system. The problem is, that in a scientific paradigm of a relativity of values, and in a secular humanistic value system, one cannot say why any particular set of values are any better than any others. Consequently, don't count on either medical or bio-ethics to come up with any substantive arguments against the development of whatever technologies scientists and entrepreneurs can think up.

These innovators may try to proceed into uncharted waters, and make sure that "science proceeds in an ethical fashion" (Venter) - and this says it all, they aren't considering whether they SHOULD be proceeding and why, they are only concerned with how. For example, a scientist may be careful not to use animal by-products in the development of a new organism, but not worry about whether it is a good idea to develop hundreds of new engineered organisms for generating fuel and what impact these organisms will have if there is a mutation creating a freakish organism when it evolves in the wild if (and when) it escapes. Letting scientists genetically engineer whatever organisms they can think up and produce without a complete understanding of life on Earth and the impacts of individual organisms and species on the whole of the web of life is like giving toddlers (without a knowledge of how to drive or even the rules of the road) the keys to Semi-trailer trucks and unleashing them in downtown New York.

As Michio Kaku says, "You cannot recall a life form"

There are many philosophical, ethical, and environmental ramifications to this development, raising questions, like:

Should we develop every technology possible?

Should there be any limits on genetic engineering?

Should there be any limits on life engineering?

Should corporations be able to own the genomes of living organisms?

Should we be able to patent whole life forms?

Should we clone extinct species, including ones like Neanderthal?

Should we make computers out of living organisms, cloned brain cells, for example?

Should corporations be able to own the human genome?

Should we be able to develop human / machine / animal hybrids?

Should we clone human body organs?

Should we be able to engineer or clone humans?

Should we be able to genetically modify children in the womb?

What do we do if there is an "accident?"

Can we control the natural mutations of engineered organisms?

And then there are the answers to the question "Why" as applied to the above....

So there are many unanswered questions regarding this new breakthrough and the whole areas of bio-engineering, bio-ethics, genetic engineering, and medical ethics. This brings up a quote by Isaac Asimov, "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."

According to Ray Kurzweil, human knowledge doubles every year now. Vernor Vinge, another futurist goes on to suggest a "post-human era" - coming soon - in which computers and artificial intelligence will combine to produce super-human intelligence. With the advances in genetic engineering, cellular biology, neurology, and brain science, we may well be able, like the Borg in Star Trek, to connect to what has been called the "World Wide Mind."

So all this futuristic technology is coming at us more frequently, faster, and harder. Cloning other creatures, inventing life forms, artificial intelligence, human knowledge doubling faster and faster, super-human intelligence - all of this is a tall order to ponder. Now, why is this important to me - how does it affect the everyday individual? Well, it will. As 21st Century post-industrial, Knowledge Based societies get increasingly dependent upon science, new knowledge, and technology successful individuals will also be inextricably connected to developments in these areas. In medicine, new treatments, organ regeneration, and life extension will all be things in which everyone will be interested. Better computers, access to the best information and professional practices and tools will be critical. This all raises a few more questions as we move towards playing God with life sciences and Superman with technological prowess.

I think there is a very serious issue here concerning the "horizontal" extension of human capacities without a corresponding "vertical" expansion of being, love, wisdom, consciousness, and conscience...

Will everyone have equal access to such technology and knowledge?

If not, then who or what decides who gets access, and what do you do with the people who don't?

Also, since wisdom may be defined as good judgment, will humanity develop the wisdom necessary to use our scientific and technological potential in a just and equitable manner within in the same timeframe?

And ultimately, how do we ensure the democratization of science, technology, knowledge, and wisdom?

I think there is a very serious issue here concerning the "horizontal" extension of human capacities without a corresponding "vertical" expansion of being, love, wisdom, consciousness, and conscience. Evolution only means that things change; it does not mean that creatures or conditions "improve." Increasingly we are circumventing the forces of natural evolution through our manipulations of the environment, intelligence, the conditions of life in our societies, and life itself. For us, there is no more mechanical evolution - our future is squarely in our own hands. How we deal with that, whether we create better, more just, progressive, and equitable futures or not will depend upon the decisions we make every day in our lives from here on out. If nothing else, this all suggests an increasingly great need for philosophical dialogue concerning the future of humanity. It’s coming one way or another. We can consciously build good futures for all, haphazardly develop decent futures only for a few, or even wreck the future for everyone through conflict, biological monsters, environmental destruction, or sheer ignorance. It’s up to us.

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

What Kind of a Future is in Store for Us?

What determines our future? Our future depends upon many things. Essentially what kind of futures we have depend upon the ways we think, what we think about, and how we think about ourselves as human beings. We also have to think about how we are going to run our civilizations in a fair and just manner. Our future depends upon what we think about nature, how we look at the Earth, and whether we find innovative ways to preserve the environment. It also involves what and how we think about the nature of the universe, theology, and spirituality.

These issues are all philosophical. What kind of a future is in store for us? It will be a philosophical one! The challenge to us is whether our philosophical differences will take precedence over our ability to combine our wisdom. If, instead of pooling our knowledge and understanding of life, we descend into a spiral of religious and ideological conflict, we will not be able to successfully address the mounting social, economic, environmental, political, medical, and educational issues shaping our future. On the other hand we can have a philosophy driven future that involves encouraging creativity, developing new means for invention, inventing new ways of thinking “outside the box,” and generating new interdisciplinary fields to help synthesize all of the mounting information generated by the Age of Knowledge in which we live.

Philosophy has a wide scope and is more popular than ever. All we have to do is look at all the books for sale in the bookstores with topics on everything from world religions, to alternative science and medicine, to Yoga, to the paranormal, to science fiction and cosmology (the study of the universe). The future of philosophy is not only a study of language, logic, and the science of the mind, it covers a much wider area. Political ideology, self improvement, the study of being, general systems, computer logic and artificial intelligence, strategic planning, ecology, and design science are all philosophical in nature.

When we think of philosophers the ones that come to mind are all dead – people like Socarates, Plato, and Aristotle. They were considered wise and brilliant thinkers to whom people listened and sought out for inspiration. Today we have to find our own Platos and Artistotles to help solve our problems. We still call them philosophers, for their knowledge must encompass a wide variety of areas, including those of the universe, current events, spirituality, politics, religion, culture, and the environment. In an age of increasing specialization, philosophers can help lead the way toward combining knowledge, making sense of the information chaos of daily life, and fostering interdisciplinary synthesis. Philosophers can help provide a meta-scientific perspective not available from each of the differing scientific fields.

Unfortunately the very resource that we as individuals need to empower ourselves to make sense of the world has fallen into disuse – in favor of mass consumption, escapism, the replacement of thinking and reading with entertainment, mindless conformity, and the blind acceptance of authority and whatever media sources are available. At the same time, the scope of the field of philosophy has been severely restricted in regards to its role as a professional discipline. It is pretty hard to find philosophers’ shingles hanging in front of their offices downtown or even listed in the telephone directory.Much has been lost in the domain of philosophy as it has become mainly the academic study of the intellectual history of dead thinkers, focusing on logic, the study of language, and the study of the mind. All of these areas are important, but fall short of the grand task of shaping our future.

Unfortunately the very aspects of philosophy that could prove critical for assisting individuals make better futures for themselves and each other have fallen by the wayside. This situation is sad, but things are changing. Philosophers have had quite a fall from the expansive universe of ideas of our truly great thinkers throughout world history. At this point in history we need these broad minded, freethinking students of life more than ever. Beyond merely serving as a tool for argumentation, deconstruction, or the intellectual vivisection of existence, nature, life, and consciousness, philosophy may also be an art of life. Philosophy involves a love of wisdom (good judgment), but it also includes the wisdom of love. Philosophy is also a source of imagination and inspiration, a spiritual technology for innovation and enlightenment. These are some of the directions the field of philosophy must take as avenues for development if it is to be a meaningful field at all or relevant to anyone in the 21st century. Luckily there are philosophers out there who understand this emerging from fields as diverse as design, music, art, ecology, future studies, social theory, psychology, and physics.

Perhaps we are still at the dawn of philosophy - after all, we hardly grasp what a human being may be, what the universe is, or what potentials there may be with life and consciousness. Perhaps philosophy is a field that has languished too long and needs its own Renaissance of Creativity - and maybe this is exactly what humanity needs to successfully address the mounting challenges facing the future survival of our species. It just may be that we need a Philosophical Revolution in thought to take us beyond the agricultural, industrial, and digital revolutions and thereby shape a better future for our children and their descendants - for many of our old ways of doing and thinking are now obsolete and don't work so well in successfully dealing with an increasingly complex world.

There is an emerging realization by people all over the world that human beings are unique geniuses with invaluable artistic possibilities of limitless potential. We must share our genius with each other if we are to develop sustainable methods for the continuity of human civilization on Earth. For the first time in history all of the peoples on the planet are connected through some type of communication. We are now in a position to develop interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and interfaith dialogues to re-evaluate all of the old myths, world views, and primary assumptions upon which we still base our individual and collective realities. We are in a position to share scientific knowledge and spiritual wisdom that was never possible before. For this sort of activity, philosophy is an ideal resource.

Now there are more specialists, scientists, and thinkers at this time in history than ever before - and yet people seem less and less satisfied about their solutions for living life. Humanity has a great need for advances in the ways that the fields of philosophy and spirituality can evolve our consciousnesses, expand our creative horizons, deepen our wisdom and understanding, and increase our enlightenment. We need a new generation of generalists – philosophers – to facilitate a coming together of the understandings from all of the diverse scientific fields in a way that makes sense to everyday people.Finally we have enough new historical evidence and discovered scientific knowledge available to us to say entirely new things about humanity and the world in which we live. What is missing is a coming together of all of our new information and knowledge about ourselves and the universe. Novel ways of thinking must be developed for us as individuals to translate all of our new knowledge generated by modern society into personal action in our daily lives. Globally, each of us is individually undergoing paradigm shifts in our world views and understandings of what we are as human beings. This is a necessary process for humanity in order to embrace a shared future and to prepare ourselves for incorporating all our new understandings in science, art, and spirituality.

Together, the people of the world can come together through global communications and social networking to invent new approaches to philosophy and replace outdated world views and inspire each other to develop new insights. With help from the professional philosophers to pilot through the information chaos of the modern world, everyone can begin to explore their own unique philosophical and creative genius. We are now all able to be philosophers and combine our diverse artistic, scientific, spiritual, understandings of life, and cultural wisdoms and traditions. Otherwise, if we do not engage in this dialogue of wisdom between people of differing faiths and cultures, we risk falling into a chaos of ideological conflict as old ways of thinking and acting slam headlong into the problems facing our continued existence. The challenges facing the sustainability of global civilization will not be successfully addressed using obsolete ways of thinking and acting. The world is far too interconnected and complex for old fashioned simplistic solutions to work in solving today’s problems. The future of humanity hangs in the balance of whether the world moves towards philosophical collaboration and creative dialogue, cultivating a Renaissance of Creativity - or devolves into conflicts between people unable to rise to the occasion of the challenges facing us, basing their decisions and actions upon outmoded world views. The future of philosophy is that of the development of our shared imagination, creativity, and vision working together towards the co-creation of positive futures for all the citizens of our planet. Our continued existence depends upon it!

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley

The Future of Philosophy

The future of philosophy not only involves the future of the ways we think, but what we think about ourselves as humans and what we think about the nature of the universe, theology, and spirituality. The future of philosophy involves how we go about running global and national societies, fostering creativity, developing new means of invention, shaping the future of civilization, and whether or not we preserve life on our planet.

Unlike Heidegger, I don't think metaphysics is dead, and I don't believe that the future of philosophy is only a study of linguistics and cognitive science! Unfortunately the very resource that we as individuals need to empower ourselves to make sense of the world has fallen into disuse – in favor of mass consumption, escapism, the replacement of thinking and reading with entertainment, mindless conformity, and the blind acceptance of authority and whatever media sources are available. At the same time, the scope of the field of philosophy has been severely restricted in regards to its role as a professional discipline. It is pretty hard to find philosophers’ shingles hanging in front of their offices downtown or even listed in the telephone directory.

I think that much has been lost in the domain of philosophy as it has become mainly the academic study of the intellectual history of dead thinkers, logic, linguistics, cognitive science, and / or sophistry. This is quite a fall from the expansive universe of ideas of our truly great thinkers throughout world history. Beyond merely serving as a tool for argumentation, deconstruction, or the intellectual vivisection of existence, nature, life, and consciousness, philosophy may also be an art of life. Philosophy involves a love of wisdom (good judgment), but it also includes the wisdom of love. To me, philosophy is also a source of imagination and inspiration, a spiritual technology for innovation and enlightenment. I feel that these are the directions the field of philosophy must take as avenues for development if it is to be a meaningful field at all or relevant to anyone in the 21st century.

Perhaps we are still at the dawn of philosophy - after all, we hardly grasp what a human being may be, what the universe is, or what potentials there may be with life and consciousness. Perhaps philosophy is a field that has languished too long and needs its own Renaissance of Ceativity - and maybe this is exactly what humanity needs to successfully address the mounting challenges facing the future survival of our species. It just may be that we need a Philosophical Revolution in thought to take us beyond the agricultural, industrial, and digital revolutions and thereby shape a better future for our children and their descendants - for many of our old ways of doing and thinking are now obsolete and don't work so well in successfully dealing with an increasingly complex world.

There is an emerging realization by people all over the world that human beings are unique geniuses with invaluable artistic possibilities of limitless potential. We must share our genius with each other if we are to develop sustainable methods for the continuity of human civilization on Earth. For the first time in history all of the peoples on the planet are connected through some type of communication. We are now in a position to develop interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and interfaith dialogues to re-evaluate all of the old myths, world views, and primary assumptions upon which we still base our individual and collective realities. We are in a position to develop syntheses of scientific knowledge and synergies of spiritual wisdom that were never possible before. For this sort of activity, philosophy is an ideal resource.

Now there are more specialists, scientists, and thinkers at this time in history than ever before - and yet people seem less and less satisfied about their solutions for living life. Humanity has a great need for advances in the ways that the fields of philosophy and spirituality can evolve our consciousnesses, expand our creative horizons, deepen our wisdom and understanding, and increase our enlightenment.

Finally we have enough new historical evidence and discovered scientific knowledge available to us to say entirely novel things about humanity and the world in which we live. What is missing is a coming together of all of our new information and knowledge about ourselves and the universe. Novel ways of thinking must be developed for us as individuals to translate all of our new knowledge generated by modern society into personal action in our daily lives. Globally, each of us are individually undergoing paradigm shifts in our world views and understandings of what we are as human beings. This is a necessary process for humanity in order to embrace a shared future and to prepare ourselves for incorporating all our new understandings in science, art, and spirituality.

Encouraging round table dialogues with those of differing beliefs is a way to develop new understandings between people and generate new ways of shared learning and interaction. I call these Philosophy Jams – discussions where people respect each other as equals, acknowledge one another’s beliefs, and work together to combine their knowledge, experience, and understanding to generate new knowledge, invent new ways of thinking, and develop new ideas. Philosophy Jams can play a useful role in helping to invent future philosophies. They are a lot of fun - surprise, surprise. Philosophy can be fun and entertaining too!

Together, the people of the world, (by combining our diverse artistic, scientific, spiritual, and cultural wisdoms and traditions) must invent new approaches to philosophy to replace outdated metaphysical paradigms and inspire individuals to establish their own unique wisdom systems. Otherwise we risk falling into a chaos of ideological conflict as old ways of thinking and acting slam headlong into the problems facing our continued existence. The challenges facing the sustainability of global civilization will not be successfully addressed using obsolete ways of thinking and acting. The world is far too interconnected and complex for old fashioned simplistic solutions to work in solving today’s problems. The future of humanity hangs in the balance of whether the world moves towards philosophical collaboration and creative dialogue, cultivating a Renaissance of Creativity - or devolves into conflicts between people unable to rise to the occasion of the challenges facing us, basing their decisions and actions upon outmoded world views. The future of philosophy is that of the development of our shared imagination, creativity, and vision working together towards the co-creation of positive futures for all the citizens of our planet. Our continued existence depends upon it!

Copyright 2010, B.E. Foley