I don't think you investigated a resource based economy - web site is the Venus Project. https://www.thevenusproject.com/ or you can watch a YouTube video called Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

This is the only economic theory that truly addresses the finite nature of resources on this planet. And it uses the brilliance of science to assure that abundance is achieved by all at the most optimum levels of efficiency. And their would be no rich and powerful because there is no money in this system. So just going back to living like cave men isn't an alternative that people will accept... so why not use science under the guide of God's consciousness (love) to make the best world we can. Prosperous, free, and most importantly balanced.

Take care and good luck in the contest... and most important... God Bless!

Dear Mulugeta Wudu,

Thank you for your excellent discussion on existence of God. Your words...

..... "Reproduction - what is it? Why do organisms need to make a copy of themselves? By observing ourselves in teenage or young life in the wilderness, we can tell that we don't plan to make copies of ourselves, but we are drawn to the opposite sex of our kind by way of an inherent desire which is not the desire of self replication, and this attraction results in the replication of ourselves." ......

Hope you will have a look in my essay also, where I discussed about reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe.

I feel reproduction is a basic property of nature or Universe. I don't know the difference between God and Universe....

We can have discussion...

Best wishes to your essay...

=snp.gupta

Mulugeta,

I think it's great to have a wide range of views. Yours may interestingly be aligned with a 'mathematical universe' view as logically some greater intelligence is then implied. I find that a more detailed view of matter and evolution can explain much but still not exclude a god.

I also have sympathy for your views ref our effect on the planet. The problem I see which you may help with is, where was mankind supposed to stop? There weren't enough caves to stop back then so we had to build shelters, so we had to from and use tools to dig and cut wood, so came the log, wheel, and oil, all around long before Jesus. Once we had the wheel it seems to me that F1 (etc) may have been an unavoidable consequence.

So where do you think we should have stopped? How? and do you think we can get back there without wiping out billions of gods innocent children?

Also; do you think a 'purpose' may be to finally travel space and find new homes?

Well done for expressing the philosophy so unequivocally.

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear Mr. Peter Jackson,

    I am glad that you asked these very important questions. To answer your question, let me quote what the Book of Truth commands man to do with earth and please notice the part in upper case letters:

    'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to DRESS IT AND TO KEEP IT. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die' [Genesis 2:15]

    So man was given the earth to dress it and to keep it. Per the letters of the book, man is not allowed to pollute it, to deforest it, to factory fish it, to industrialize it, to engineer it, to asphalt it, to drive cars on it, to spill poison on or in it, to toast it by feaul etc. I was discussing indicators of time with Mr. Eckard Blumscheinv trying to show him when the earth truly started to be messed up. Of course I was not around to count world population before the industrial revolution, nor can I be sure the seven billion count we are being told today is true because I didn't count it myself. But if we take the publicly available population estimates for many hundred years before the advent of modern science, especially before the industrial revolution and do the conventional exponential growth projection to it, we find that the population size grew linearly and the figures would not be the way we see it now if there was no science. It would be less by close to six billion count. There was an exponential rise around the time of the industrial revolution. What that means is that science already messed up with the earth's natural circuitry (echo system to use science's parlance) that God put in place. It is clear. Either, as is claimed by many, science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases and therefore take responsibility for the population explosion (and for the near complete extinction of what science calls megafauna) or if anyone denies science's messy hand in the eighteenth century exponential population explosion then that someone must also deny that science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases etc. Which one is it? Men of science should choose one or the other, not both. As they say, 'science wants to have the cake and eat it too'.

    I must do justice to your pointedly purpose driven question and, with God's help, try to answer it as precisely as you asked it. When Francesco Petrarca of Italy climbed Mount Ventoux in France and declared that he accomplished that by himself and took pride in his accomplishment and when he introduced the need to turn to the self and when humanity became the center of interest, that is when the philosophy of humanism should have been stopped. The renaissance philosophy of the 'self' gave rise to the credo known as the "pursuit of happiness." Men became pleasure seeking animals and individual feats at excelling in the promotion of the self gained social currency. Extracting pleasure by destroying the natural surrounding earned celebrity and was given a prestigious name: "innovation." From there, for the pursuit of pleasure, destructive activities spread around the world like wild fire. The destruction never relented ever since. Secularism gave it a great boost too. So, the renaissance movement is what and where and when it should have been stopped. If everybody agrees to drop science and its products and, in its place, pledge allegiance to Christianity and its commandments alone - Christianity as it was before the middle ages - then I believe we will be able to regain natural conditions may be gradually. The key is moderate living, as prescribed by the bible but the question is: can a westerner agree to moderate living? He should.

    Regarding your question on finding new homes in space, my answer is no. Science cannot furnish anything at all, it only steals furniture furnished by God. But the Lord said in His Book that the earth would be befouled so bad by science [Dan, Rev.] that He will provide a new earth. I believe that will happen because the Lord's word is good and He does provide and He does furnish it too.

    Regards,

    Mulugeta

    Dear Mulugeta,

    I appreciate your points with respect to (as you say) the emerging 'culture of science'. I am not a scientist i am a philosopher. Unfortunately you are failing to distinguish between 'science' and the 'culture of science'. Science is absolutely none of the things you hold against it. It is merely to speak as correctly as one can about the causal nature of the world. That is all. Christianity may well be the best method for ethics and culture and the direction/purpose of mankind, and may well be better than any new age 'culture of science' (e.g. Sam Harris). But again, there is a difference between causes and purposes, science is only to recognise the former, any assigning of purpose to it - is not science.

    Your enemy isnt science - the simple correct observation of reality - for without it you couldnt write or think as well as you do.

    Best,

    Jack

    Malugeta,

    Well answered, though doubtless many would say cites may just be 'dressing' the earth.

    I agree that ours and ALL planets will indeed be renewed, and have (scientifically!) identified the evidence that a recycling process (also explaining re-ionization) has been undergone many times before and will likely continue. Penrose has an incomplete model similar to the 'big bounce'. I just posted a link under John Hodges essay to my joint published paper on the more consistent and complete model, also on DOI here;

    A Cyclic model of Galaxy (and universal) Evolution

    My essay is consistent with that. I hope you may read, score and comment on it.

    I'm sure you're realistic about the chances of western man giving up technology. I also agree we have a damaging homocentric view, which I wrote of here a few years ago. A New Yorker may answer 'where is the dog?' by saying "300yds to my left heading this way." An African or Asian may more likely say; "under the tall tree beside the bend in the river moving north."

    That may reveal a problem permeating present western science.

    Best wishes and thanks for your input.

    Peter

    4 days later

    An interesting essay and call to deal the mess we have made.

    In all my readings and dealings with people, I have never found a time or location where entire groups of humans lived without harming some part of nature &/or other humans. There might be short periods of time where the impact is minimal, but humans seem to have a desire to 'be more' than they are (I will not say 'better' as that requires a comparison against something few will agree on).

    I think you have placed a problem with humanity, in general, on one aspect of humanity, science. If we were to do as you suggest, I believe humans would again attempt to 'be more' and some different set of problems would occur and we would be facing devastation in another form.

    I think you are looking at a symptom of the problem and not the root cause.

    The chances of all humanity shifting to your solution is extremely small, so is there a different direction to consider with a higher chance of success?

    Best to us all addressing the mess we are in,

    Don

    Dear Mr. Donald Palmer,

    Modern Science is the root cause, not the symptom, of almost all of the major calamities the earth and its inhabitants are facing today. If a person is sick after taking poison, you don't give more of the poison to him to save him. Being the unfair beneficiary of the ways of science, the elite press for more of the poison. It is sad. The earth is expiring while we watch. There are two directions. What will save the earth is only an upright Christian life to the letters of the bible and moderation in consumption, which the Christian book commands. The other direction is science's, which is merciless and evil beyond a doubt. If what you have in mind is environmental protocols, ideas of solar panels, electric cars etc, that is too little too late. The earth is now in the hands of people who harm it. They are dark-hearted, extremely clever, powerful and dangerous. Life has no chance of not only thriving but also continuance in their hands. My part is to convey the message. Those who are wise will understand my story, but I am sorry for those who won't.

    Regards,

    Mulugeta

    a month later

    Dear Mr. Mulugeta Wudu,

    I very appreciate your words that

    "When I was a child in Ethiopia my friends and I used to go down to the rivers which were clean and used to drink from them. There were no factories, no chemicals, no deodorants, no lipsticks and no waste contaminating rivers or groundwater. ...

    It is clear that an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science and the earth is groaning of the wound it sustained and it doesn't have much longer to live."

    Albert Einstein said that

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". And also said that

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    Therefore I agree with you.

    I think that there is something interesting in your essay.

    After completely reading, I will more comments on your essay.

    Ch.Bayarsaikhan

    11 days later

    I hear your cries Mulugeta..

    Your essay deals with issues that are deeply personal to me. I see how everywhere the fruits of Science are put to use as tools of destruction, and as a means for the elite class to subjugate the common people. Indeed, it could be argued that Science has done more harm than good, and disproportionate levels of harm in places like Africa where folks are blameless of some of the excesses of Western society, but bear the brunt of our harsh edges as corporations come more and more to dominate the landscape. Yet even here; developers swoop in, and what used to be forest near my home is now denuded - leaving the wildlife displaced.

    I had a heart to heart talk about 10 years ago with Pete Seeger, the well-known and now departed Folk singer, about the subject of your essay! As it turns out; Charles Seeger, Pete's Dad, was a happy go lucky man most of his life, but later became terrified in later years by the horrifying destructive power that scientists were putting in the hands of the world's despots. He mounted a campaign to convince the scientists of the world to stop doing Science, with somewhat different motives from yours, but with every bit as much fervor and earnest intent. You can find a version of the story in Pete's book "Where Have Al the Flowers Gone?" on pages 282-283.

    Pete was lecturing me on getting scientists to be responsible for their creations, and the unintended consequences of scientific research, when I was headed to Australia to attend the 10th Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference. But Pete was much more optimistic about Science than his Dad. He argued that one can't put the genie back in the bottle, so the only solution is to learn more than the folks who created today's problems knew. He felt it was better for people to keep learning and growing, because that's how problems are solved.

    I'll continue below.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

      Regarding my personal beliefs..

      I hope you are not surprised that I was brought up as a believer in the Christian faith, a Lutheran to be more specific, and I continue to be shaped by those beliefs. I read extensively in the bible, and I also read the learned commentary of both believers and historians. I became a hard-core student of both the Old and New testaments, at one point, and I could likely teach you something about the scriptures. Did you know (for example) there were once two versions of the Torah, because the northern tribes believed in Elohim the Lord, and the southern tribes in YHWH the ineffable God?

      Over time; I also came to read the Bhagavad Gita, Tao te Ching and I Ching, the Analects of Confucius, Buddhist Sutras, the Koran, and so on. However; I don't think anyone should believe in God because of what somebody else wrote! I think people need to try to come to know God, and that if they apply the scientific method to their own experiences they will come to know God exists. I did this also, and learned how to visit where God resides.

      There are a lot of scientists who are believers in God Mulugeta. If you go to the website of Arnold Neumaier at the University of Vienna; you will find he has devoted several pages to scriptural references - citing how the handiwork of God shows up in the subject of Mathematics. The ancient Egyptians taught that the Divine had to fashion its own body first, and then the Cosmos. Over time; I have come to imagine as Peter does above, that the body of God is Mathematics, and that natural law on Earth is a consequence of heavenly law - which is how the Divine became embodied.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      For the record..

      I tried several times to respond to your concerns, after reading your essay, but it all fell short of explaining where I stand in a thoughtful way - and it felt hollow. I think there are several wrong-headed ideas in your essay. I also feel it fails to capture some of the most pressing reasons why people should consider stopping scientific research seriously. In addition; you also fail to remain on topic as to how goals and aims come to be, except to assert that they are somehow the gifts of God.

      However; I felt your pain so deeply it was hard to imagine that harsh criticism would do anything to help make things better. So while I don't think to stop doing Science is the answer, I feel your emotional plea in my heart and gut.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        By the way Mulugeta..

        Although you might miss it, because I never once mention God in my essay, I do talk about divine creation and the heavenly order right in the middle of page 6. The idea I present is that the higher order found in the heavenly creation inspires humans to take a longer view and do the right thing. That is; by emulating God and the way the Divine works in nature, we are inspired to delay gratification in favor of lasting fulfillment and more meaningful creations on the whole. This is one part of how I see the ways of divinity projected on the affairs of human beings. Do you agree with this assessment?

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Dear Mr. Jonathan Dickau,

        I was tied up at work and did not have a chance to visit here in the last few days. I just saw your comment. I can't give you feedback today as I am now exhausted after a long day work. God willing, I will get back to you tomorrow or Saturday.

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        Dear Mr. Jonathan Dickau,

        I just listened to Pete Seeger's song: 'Where Have all the Flowers Gone', but couldn't find an online version of his book. I will be surprised to find anyone in history who stood against science, because the book of wisdom tells us that it is a rarity. That is why I would like to know a little more about Charles Seeger's campaign that you mentioned. I also heard of this man they call Theodore John Kaczynski who opposed the industrial society. I could see that this man understood science pretty well but he did not understand the Lord God because he was as violent as science itself. So, considerations of meliorating science and its deadly venom are pointless without first considering the spirited path of the Majestic God.

        I also see that you trust more in man's knowledge and that you think applying "the scientific method" will lead to knowing God. The problem is, in the west, applying "the scientific method" did not lead to God. It led to death instead. Man is a created being like other animals, except that God bestowed on man the faculty to consider his Creator. So, by the nature of his creation, man is limited in knowledge as to understand the works of nature as animals have no intuition to the awareness that man has access to. Man's knowledge, as the good book tells us, is the Christ, because, in so doing, man understands all that is good to life. A self aggrandized expedition to knowledge is a vanity, and the proof is, as I have shown in my essay, in the mathematics itself which tells the story that knowledge is forbidden. I understand that the seeking of knowledge by the vain efforts of man is addictive and almost everyone is tempted by it. If knowledge of the nature of things be amenable to the toil of man, then every person on earth should be considered a "scientist" as everyone has a hunch - a plausible explanation - to it. Do you remember the 750 GeV bump the LHC reported? Almost immediately there were many hundreds of elaborate theoretical explanations offered in publications before it was reported the bump never existed. That right there answers all queries about science that it is a vanity and however much men labor to seek the knowledge of nature through their self-extolled intellectual abstractions, they will not find out what it is. Offers of plausible explanation are infinite but true knowledge is one. You don't have infinite time in your hands to find it out. That is why man must seek God as only He can tell us what is good to know or to live for. Also, the act of Christian life is different from western imaginings. Many dismiss Christianity by what abominable crimes the west committed in its name. What these people who dismiss it don't understand is that the west was not Christian but anti-Christian. The west only used Christianity as an instrument of gold digging while at the same time tarnishing its image. However, the west's use of science is different. Science is not something that was good that the west used for bad purposes. No, that is not the case. Science itself is an evil doctrine that inspires man to kill his brother in many ways. Science, the doctrine, imbues man with contempt and drives him towards cleverness and towards skepticism and arms him with derision. Science is a confusion, not a clarity.

        Does science lead to anything that is good? No! It only destroys life on earth. Death -global death - is the whole story about science. Men of science know it too. As reported by CNN, Mr. Stephen William Hawking recently stated that humanity has one thousand years left because of (what science did) 'climate change, nukes, robots'. As in his "black hole" conjecture, he is a liar here too. With science and the beast who wields it, man does not even have twenty five years. Of course there is this lazing in the delusion of 'setting up colonies elsewhere in other solar systems'. The recent euphoria that NASA caused by declaring a false hope of having found a new solar system with seven earths it named the "TRAPPIST-1" is one example. Forty light years away, it will take about twelve thousand years to get there with NASA's rockets. even if we say NASA improved the speed by making it twice as fast, it will take at least six thousand years to fly there. What is the point of salivating for the unobtainable? Man has no chance outside earth that God gave us. To come up with such a ridiculous false hope, science consumes huge recourses of the earth at the same time starving Africans to death. Earth is the sole pleasure and beauty that man has and it would be better for man to dress it and keep it by shutting down all science institutions, industries, nuclear stations, the manufacturing of poison, science thinking, greed and science cultures. Moderate living in the praising of the Lord God shall replace them all.

        An endeavor in the pursuit of science will not take you to any place better. I see that you have musical, mathematical and artistic talents. How pleased would the Lord be (as well as man in the end) if you had used this gift to free man from the damning yokes of science!

        Regards,

        Mulugeta

        Write a Reply...