Thursday, November 5, 2015

Some World Issues and Our Morals and Ethics



Some World Issues and Our Morals and Ethics

Morals and ethics change with time. Four thousand years ago it was quite ethical and moral to conquer your neighbors by force, enslave the conquered men and children, rape and enslave the women.  Ancient empires ruled by fear.  Punishments for perceived crimes were horrendous.  Crucifixions, burning and skinning alive were not uncommon.   Might was right and dictated what was moral and ethical.  Codes of conduct were dictated by the current ruler(s).

Hammurabi of Babylon in 1772 BCE produced a set of 282 rules and laws dictating human dealings with one another.  Whilst most of these rules were concerned with property, they did include some rules of human conduct.  Many of our Judeo/Christian rules emanate from Hammurabi’s work.  
Jesus gave us 50 commandments. 
Confucius and Buddha codified other laws and rules of living.

Ancient religions attached mystical/mythological reasons and created deities around natural and unexplained occurrences. Death, birth, fertility, weather, crops and seasons, and other local phenomena were treated mystically and with reverence. Rulers were equated with deities and were worshipped.  Rules and laws were made part of the mix and reflected the morals and ethics of the ruling class.  Most human beings in early civilizations were chattel, to be used for the enrichment and comfort of the oligarchic rulers.  They followed the rules or were tortured/killed, and knew very little of individual ethics/morals.

Thales of Miletus is credited, ca. 650 BCE, with being the first philosopher who tried to explain the world by scientific and rational means, rather than with mythology.  All of the great thinkers of the time, Democritus, Herodotus, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and more recent philosophers, owe their beginnings to Thales of Miletus.

            These two main themes, religion based on mystical/mythical beliefs, and philosophy/science, based on observable and measureable phenomena, continued to shape civilizations, sometimes in opposition, and sometimes in concert with one another.  A melding of these belief systems resulted in early forms of democracy in Greece and Rome, and hence expanded ethical and moral knowledge and practice.  It is to be noted that these early democracies were rudimentary in nature.  One was equal in the democracy so long as he was patrician, male and not a slave.  After a hiatus of several millennia our own American Republic was formed, based on democratic principles.  Again, it was more an expanded ruling oligarchy than a true democracy.  One was equal if he were white, male and not a slave.  Still, this early American democracy catered not only to white patricians, it also enfranchised the common man.  This was a major break-through.  “The great unwashed” finally had a voice in their own affairs.

            With time and a brutal civil war, slavery was abolished.  Finally in the 1920’s women were enfranchised.  One hundred years after the civil war ended, people of color attained some modicum of human equality.  Apparently we Americans (and other westerners) are loathe to change our inbred morals and ethics without a fight.

All of the above concerning ethics and morals worked reasonably well within a given social group, or tribe, or country, or alliance.  It broke down at wartime or with minorities within a social group when bigotry was allowed to flourish.  In an antagonistic mode differences in people were seized upon to dehumanize them and justify atrocities against them.  Many examples abound in modern times.

            Bob Dylan could have summarized all of the above with his lyric “the times they are a-changin’”.  Our concepts of right and wrong and what is permitted in society changes with time. Slavery and women’s suffrage are major examples, but legal use of opium, alcohol and other drugs in the past, monopolies/anti-trust, civil rights; workers’ rights, etc are other examples. 

                        History has taught us that in a representative democracy like the U.S., if enough people back or oppose an issue, Federal laws or judicial pronouncements will ultimately define it, and people in the states will respond to these Federal actions in their own right.  Examples are abortion (Roe vs. Wade), and drinking age laws across the country.  There are Federal laws and guidelines, but the various states have passed their own mitigating laws around these issues.  As a result, what is the law concerning abortion?  Can I legally buy alcohol at age 19?  It depends what state you’re in.  Legalized marijuana has gone the other way.  Several states have legalized marijuana for various uses, but the Federal government still considers marijuana use illegal.

            Where do we stand now with issues that test our morals and ethics?  This paper attempts to identify and discuss some of the issues that are currently considered to be important by our modern civilization.  All of our moral, ethical, religious, personal views notwithstanding, the unquestioned trend in the world has been from a more restricted to a less restricted society.  This trend has been in place for quite some time, with Europe leading the trend, but with the U.S. not too far behind (our Puritan ethic is slower to erode than Europe’s post WW2 mentality). 
One might argue that this trend is like entropy, which goes from an ordered to a less ordered state.  Some may say from order into chaos.
           
            This means less religion and decreased church attendance (can you identify?).  It means that in the short term, abortion, same sex marriage, legal marijuana and stem cell research will become common, if not ubiquitous.  It means that in the longer term, issues like polygamy, human euthanasia, cloning of humans, legalized gambling and prostitution, intelligent AI, will be seriously considered, along with other human activities that are more epicurean and hedonistic in nature.  This sounds like the reverse of Orwell’s “1984”.  It is however, what is happening in our world.

            IMHO, we can rail against these trends.  We can quote bible verses.  We can form and join spiritual, intellectual and activist groups against some of these trends, and we might slow them down, but we will not stop these trends, no matter what we do.  In fact, in this modern, fast paced world, we can expect these changes to happen more rapidly than more slowly.

 Ray Kurzweil, Michio Kaku and other futurists predict that the next phase in human evolution will not be strictly biological.  It will be a combination of biology and technology.  Human beings will in effect become cyborgs -, a mix of man and machine.  Is this science fiction?  Far out dreaming?  So were predictions a few years ago that we would carry access to all of the knowledge in the world in a small device we could carry on our hip or in our purses.  (There is but a short leap to interfacing these devices directly with our brains).  So was the far out prediction that satellites in orbit would be guiding our vehicles here on earth by “talking” to a small device in our cars.   These sorts of changes are not linear with time.  They are exponential.  In fact they can be an exponent of exponential.
This story relates to the work on defining the human genome in the 1990’s under the direction of Francis Collins.  Seven and a half years into the Human Genome Project, scientists announced they had decoded only 1% of our genetic code. The project was budgeted for only 15 years. Skeptics said it wouldn’t work; it would take a century to complete.  Ray Kurzweil—inventor, philosopher, futurist—had a different reaction. He said the genome was practically solved. And indeed the mapping was completed in another seven years. The amount of data sequenced each year practically doubled.  This is exponential, rather than linear progress.
 Ray Kurzweil has spoken for decades about this phenomenon and why he thinks it’s important for us to understand its implications for the future of humanity. We are hard wired to think linearly. This is our intuition about prediction. Whether predicting the speed and direction of a ball to make a catch, the time it will take for clothes to dry, or the number of years to save money for a project, or to pay off our mortgage, we assume a linear progression.  That works well with many things in the Newtonian physical world.
But information technology follows an exponential pace. Our assumption of linear progression won’t work. And we do live in the Information Age, so we require a different intuition to make meaningful predictions and sense of the world. When things double every two years, as they do with Moore’s law (that states the exponential growth of computing processing power), then we can’t assume that we will be interacting with the world in the same way now as we will five years from now. That means we have to make very dramatic extrapolations for the future—things that seem crazy now will become the norm not so long from now. Watching how in just the past 5 years our entire species has gone from walking with hands by our sides to walking with both hands clutching a small rectangular block of metal and glass is simply the most obvious example.
Kurzweil goes from this point of accelerating growth to talking about artificial intelligence and his prediction that by 2029 computers will outstrip human intelligence, that by 2049 nanomachines will “assemble” food, controlling its production at the molecular level, and that by 2099 all distinctions between humans and machines will cease to exist. We will, for all intents and purposes, become immortal.  Is this far out?  See above.
But now let’s go back to the present.  What do we do about that disturbing list of issues facing us?  We all have different opinions.  I will record my research, thoughts and opinions below.   I consider myself a conservative on most issues.  However, I also am a scientist, logician and pragmatist, so I do not slavishly follow strictly conservative thinking.  I do not believe that the bible is inerrant and I believe that large parts of it are allegorical or metaphorical.  I believe that the bible is a spiritual guide, not a record of history.  I also do not unquestioningly follow conservative pundits and politicians.  I read both conservative and liberal thinkers, and form my own conclusions.  However if logic and science permit, I tend toward conservatism, basically the belief that people are responsible for their own actions with a minimum of outside interference.
The List of Issues
1.)              Finding Balanced News

Before embarking on this survey, it would be prudent to examine the sources and political and ideological orientation of various news sources around the world.  This link is a good start with respect to world magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_magazines.
The Pew Research Group is a balanced non partisan organization that provides statistics on a wide variety of issues in the public interest.  http://www.pewresearch.org/about/.
Several other links explore the political/ideological orientation of other news sources.

Most astute consumers of the news know that CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC are slanted to the left and that MSNBC is decidedly left/liberal.  They also know that Fox network is primarily right/conservative.  They also know that the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times trend toward the liberal/progressive, while the Wall Street Journal trends conservative.

All the above being the case, where do we get balanced and unbiased news?  I don’t think that such is entirely possible, but after long experience, three sources come to mind that are pretty reasonably balanced on most issues concerning the U.S.  These are The Telegraph newspaper out of the U.K., the Thomson Reuters news agency, and the Pew Research group.

2.)  Abortion

A pretty comprehensive overall study of abortion laws and practices around the world has been done by the Pew Research Group.  This link refers.

Science has defined that life begins in that one second that it takes egg and sperm to unite to form a zygote, a single cell that is the combination of egg and sperm.  Life does not begin with syngamy, the first division of the zygote, or at some more recognizable form of an embryo.  Life begins with fertilization, the formation of a zygote.  A good scientific explanation of the beginning of life is given in this link.  When Does Human Life Begin? - Bioethics Defense Fund

This being the case, any attempt to stop or curtail life’s further development, through abortion or other means is killing life.  Is it ever justified?  Not in my opinion based on scientific fact.  The laws permit abortion.  Scientifically, abortion means killing a human being.  This is not a right wing or right to life position.  It is a scientific fact.  The decision around abortion is an ethical and moral dilemma for every person forced to make a choice whether to let life develop, or kill it.  A difficulty in the debate around abortion is relating to life at a molecular/zygote level.  If you can’t see it, how can it be life…? Etc.  And the rationalizations about the size of the embryo, which trimester, etc. all belie the major issue here.  Do you want to kill it or let it continue to develop into a complete human being?
3.)  Stem Cell and Fetal Research

But suppose embryos and fetal tissue exist because someone has taken the legal route and aborted life.  If the choice is discarding these tissues and throwing them into the trash, versus using them for research, the scientist in me would advocate using them for research.  Burying or cremating them with Christian rites would be salving to believers if it were possible, but it normally it is not possible.  Humanity is better served by the advances in science resulting from embryonic/fetal research, if the alternative is disposing of these in the trash.  These links refer.

4.)  Medical Testing – Animals & Humans – The animal research proponents claim they are saving humans babies, children and others by their research with animals. The animal rights activists appeal to our humanitarian instincts by showing photos of ostensibly tortured animals.  Clinical trials of drugs and other treatments with human subjects abound.  This is the Pew Research view. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-the-use-of-animals-in-research/
These links run the gamut of pros and cons and show the law. https://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits
The animal rights activists have raised the awareness around medical research with animals and as a result animals are treated more humanely than in the past. Visions of vivisectionists in the 1930’s come to mind.  Some distinctions are made between animals used for research in the Animal Welfare Act.  http://www.neavs.org/research/laws. The USDA is the enforcing agency around the AWA, but has limited resources.  Research with animals and human trials will continue in the interest of medicine and science, hopefully in a humanitarian way, since such research is largely self policing.



5.)  Equal Rights of the Sexes

The bible is rife with verses that deny or disparage the rights of women:  Some examples:

Exodus 20:17, Exodus 21:7, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, Numbers 31:17-18, Leviticus 15: 19-31, Leviticus 12: 1-8, Numbers 30:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2: 11-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-10, Revelation 14:3-4.

This list is just a sampling of the Bible verses that either instruct or illustrate proper relationships between men and women. In context, they often are mixed among passages that teach proper relationships with children, slaves and foreigners.  Unfortunately, these bible passages had set the tone for millennia concerning the rights and roles of women.
To this date there is no guarantee in the U.S. Constitution of equal rights of the sexes, and according to the Huffington Post, activist women’s groups have tried to get an equal rights amendment (ERA) passed since 1923.  These links refer:
Women themselves, (factions within the feminist movement), are responsible for this amendment not being passed.  The Wikipedia article summarizes as follows:
“The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. The ERA has always been highly controversial regarding the meaning of equality for women. It was "feminist against feminist," says historian Judith Sealander; the result was the eventual defeat of the ERA. Middle-class women generally were supportive. Those speaking for the working class were strongly opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and hours. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives and other women.
Congress had set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Five states later rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment and it died. Several feminist organizations continue to work for the adoption of the ERA.”
This web site and its sub sites elaborate fully on the background, history and current status of the ERA.  http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/index.htm.
It is evident from a somewhat cursory perusal of the dialog around the ERA that topics like women currently earning 80% of what men make, the “glass ceiling”, and many other issues will not be adequately addressed without further guarantees of equal rights (and responsibilities), (and not special rights), for the sexes.  Sex discrimination cases are now adjudicated without a guiding amendment in the constitution, other than the 14th amendment.  Pro ERA activists believe that our U.S. society remains somewhat misogynistic and it needs prodding into action on the equality of the sexes.  The subject has become obfuscated by trying to bring abortion and gay rights into the debate.  The pro ERA group says that the 14th amendment guarantees equal rights (to males) when it comes to race.  Why not an amendment that specifically guarantees equality as to sex?
The main reason that the ERA has failed thus far is that Phyllis Schlafly and other staunch traditionalists became outspoken opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, primarily during the 1970s as organizers of the "STOP ERA" campaign. STOP is an acronym for "Stop Taking Our Privileges." Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including "dependent wife" benefits under Social Security and the exemption from Selective Service registration.  Obviously this group feels that the traditional role of women in the family and in society is more important that having a definitive equal rights for the sexes amendment.  The debate continues.
6.)  The Vaccination Debate

One might ask what debate?  The efficacy of vaccination was proven one hundred years ago, and fear of the diseases addressed by vaccinations led to widespread compliance wherever vaccines were available. What started the debate and resistance to vaccination was almost anecdotal.  The idea first made headlines in 1998, when Andrew Wakefield, M.D., a British gastroenterologist, published a study of 12 children in The Lancet that linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) combination vaccine with intestinal problems that he believed led to autism.  The following year, the AAP issued a warning about thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative that was found in most vaccines. Though it didn't mention autism specifically, it suggested that the use of vaccines with thimerosal could theoretically push an infant's total exposure of mercury, a neurotoxin, above safe limits, and it recommended that the preservative be removed from shots. The vaccine-autism hypothesis was solidly in the mainstream by the time actress Jenny McCarthy went public with her belief that vaccines caused her son's autism, describing in heartbreaking detail how "the soul left his eyes" on a 2007 segment of the The Oprah Show.
However, at least seven large studies in major medical journals have now found no association between the MMR vaccine and ASD -- and this February, The Lancet officially retracted Dr. Wakefield's original paper. (Revelations that he had failed to disclose connections to lawyers involved in vaccine litigation also emerged.)  Some links: 

The situation with vaccinations illustrates how an almost anecdotal study of 12 subjects can be blown out of proportion by an uninformed media that appeals to emotions for profit, rather than to logic and fact.  Children and others have died of easily preventable diseases because of fears spread in the above fashion.  There are reports of measles in unvaccinated children and I just heard a TV commercial calling for vaccination against whooping cough, something that I literally have not seen in 75 years.  One also remembers Rachel Carson and “Silent Spring” and the millions in Africa who died because DDT had a negative effect on certain flora and fauna. (More later).

7.)  Pesticides and Rachel Carson

Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring” almost singly launched the environmental movement in the U.S. Some say it was responsible for millions of deaths, particularly in Africa, because it resulted in halting the use of DDT, which had virtually eradicated Malaria around the world.  The disease had a massive resurgence after use of DDT stopped.   The following links refer: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/05/rachel_carson_and_the_deaths_o.html
www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
 Obviously Miss Carson, who died of cancer in 1964, is not a mass murderer by choice, but the use of her graphic and anecdotal book fueled the banning of a substance that was proven by the scientific community to be harmless to humans.  This is somewhat simplistic, but essentially true. http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html  The fuel oil used to carry DDT was not harmless, but the DDT itself was.  Millions died because of the hysteria around pesticides produced by “big business”.  http://www.panna.org/resources/ddt-story.  This narrative is included here to again illustrate how well intentioned but scientifically flawed arguments can sway and affect large segments of our world.  Die hard environmentalists have mitigated the banning of DDT as a beneficial action, and argue against the use of many pesticides in agriculture.  They consider Rachel Carson as an iconic figure and have named buildings and streets after her.  The following section on GMO’s elaborates further.

8.)   GMO’s and Pesticides

There is a continuing debate about the use of GMO’s and pesticides in our agriculture, and an anti GMO movement, which again is largely anecdotal and without scientific foundation.  The Logical answer to these anti-GMO arguments is don’t use GMO’s if you don’t want to, but please don’t prevent their proven benevolent use to feed an increasingly hungry world.  Some links:
Look for the science in these links and not the anecdotal appeals to fear and bias.

9.)   Other Pseudo Science, Food Scares, etc.

Although science has postulated or proved otherwise, public perceptions of issues are many times affected by other factors such as information available in the media or on the internet.  http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

Various food scares pop up – non GMO, gluten free, red meat is carcinogenic, etc.  Some of these are valid in some instances.  For example, gluten free works well for people with celiac disease.  The point is that there is a tendency to publicize and generalize these scares to the point that they take on a life of their own without scientific backing.  Some of them become politicized rather than based in science or fact.  This link is a detailed and incisive study of food and health. http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/food-medicine/how-does-food-impact-health.

10.)         The Environment, Global Warming

One positive impact of the environmental movement is that we humans have become more responsible on what we spew into our air and water.  This responsibility is obviously a good thing, and even countries like China, India and Russia are become better citizens of the world concerning the environment by adopting some modicum of environmental controls.  Our atmosphere, rivers, lakes and oceans have become cleaner in the last 30 years.  Again, this is somewhat anecdotal, but the trend toward fewer pollutants has to be positive.

Unfortunately the environmental movement has gone way overboard on global warming and has instilled fear in concerned scientists that have developed data and conclusions that counter the loudly proclaimed contention that global warming is caused primarily by human generated emissions into the atmosphere. A figure bandied about by pundits and politicians, including Obama and Kerry in the U.S., is that 97% of the world’s scientists agree that global warming caused my human emission into the atmosphere is a mounting threat.  This assertion has been proven to be patently false.  These links support the “de-mythifying” of the 97% claim.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/  The following link presents what seems to be a balanced pro and con commentary of the global warming phenomenon.

A review of the data and conclusions of both the proponents and detractors of global warming (seemingly about equally in number, not 97% in either direction), is not definitive.  The studies are either incomplete, too anecdotal ,or political in nature, or the results and conclusions get lost in the scale and mass of the data.  These Pew Research studies add some significance.

The following link is to an in depth and comprehensive statistical analysis of the earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles and the effect of human activity on these cycles. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle.  It appears to be a valid scientific attempt to examine and isolate the variables affecting the earth’s temperature cycles.  The scales used visually skew the results but do not markedly detract from the conclusion, that there is a measurable effect on the earth’s normal temperature cycles due to human activities since 1750.  This measureable effect is on the order of a few tenths of a centigrade degree and almost gets lost in the scales used in the analyses.

The Open source Foundation, which has no political agenda reports as follows: “The data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. At this time in the natural cycle Earth should be slightly cooling on trend, leading into what would have been the next ice age. Instead Earth is warming. There is no valid evidence that can prove otherwise. False representations or facts out of context are not a proof of any kind, they are merely incorrect.”  http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths.

It comes to mind that the above study does not distinguish industrial activities from those resulting from the massive increase in human and animal populations since 1750, nor does it identify the effect of deforestation on global warming.  Human beings have increased from 790 million to roughly 10 times that to nearly 8 Billion during this time.  http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history1.aspx.  Estimates of animals that also breathe in oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide and produce methane through flatulence are estimated currently as 20 quintillion (20 billion billion).  http://animals.mom.me/number-animals-earth-3994.html.  If animals (farm animals, etc, have also increased by a factor of 10 since 1750 similar to humans, there should be a measureable effect on global temperatures by more humans and animals just being here on earth and breathing in and out with no burning of fossil fuels.

Quoting from the above link, “Forests are vital for life, home to millions of species, they protect soil from erosion, produce oxygen, store carbon dioxide, and help control climate. Forests are also vital for us to live as they provide us with food, shelter and medicines as well as many other useful things. They also purify the air we breathe and water that we need to survive. Deforestation by humans is causing all of these necessary functions to be lessened, and hence damaging the atmosphere even further.
Forests play a huge role in the carbon cycle on our planet. When forests are cut down, not only does carbon absorption cease, but also the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere as CO2 if the wood is burned or even if it is left to rot after the deforestation process.
Smaller crops e.g. plants and agricultural crops also draw in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, however forests store up to 100 times more carbon than agricultural fields of the same area.
Deforestation is an important factor in global climate change. Climate change is because of a build up of carbon dioxide in out atmosphere and if we carry on cutting down the main tool we have to diminish this CO2 build up, we can expect the climate of our planet to change dramatically over the next decades.
It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year.
Over 30 million acres of forests and woodlands are lost every year due to deforestation; causing a massive loss of income to poor people living in remote areas who depend on the forest to survive”.


To summarize, human activities have indeed contributed to measurable deviation in the normal temperature cycles of planet earth.  The extent and impact of this deviation has been exaggerated by alarmists pushing their own political agendas.  Efforts to reduce emissions and reduce our carbon footprint cannot fail to have an overall beneficial effect on our environment.  These efforts should be pragmatic and based on science rather than on anecdotal or emotional or politically driven appeals.


11.)                     Cloning Humans and Animals
Since Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996, there has been voluminous research in this field, and many species of mammals have been successfully cloned. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/reproduced-future-of-cloning/ 
Human cloning is currently illegal in virtually all parts of the world, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way.  Back in 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration on Human Cloning prohibiting all forms of human cloning "inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life." The ruling prohibits both therapeutic cloning, in which cells are cloned from a human for use in medicine and transplants, and reproductive cloning, the practice of creating a living, breathing genetic duplicate. Though many countries disagreed with the declaration, the resulting moratorium is respected around the globe.
To date, no human clone has ever been born. But back in 2008, researchers successfully created the first five mature human embryos using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) where the nucleus of a somatic cell was taken from a donor and transplanted into a vacant host egg cell. The embryos were only allowed to develop to the blastocyst stage, at which point they were studied and then destroyed.
Is producing a clone similar to the beginning of life?  No, according to the above Westchester definition.  Does generation of a cloned human embryo or live human baby by SCNT compromise the definition of when a life begins? No. Upon transfer of a somatic nucleus to an empty egg cell, a new cell is generated that has a material composition and a developmental trajectory different from those of either of the two cells that produced it.”

I believe that human cloning is just a matter of time and of the proper research.  That clone will be a baby that cries craps and acts like a normal baby.  How can it not be human?  With the advent of human cloning we will need to change our moral and ethical views on how to treat cloned human beings.  I feel that they should be given full human rights like normally conceived or “test tube babies” or any other humans, cyborgs, etc.
12.)                     Death Penalty

One can make the same moral and ethical argument here as in the abortion debate.  Is it ever justified to deliberately take a human life?  I have debated on both side of this issue.  The efficacy of capital punishment is contingent on whether it serves as a preventative and results in a decrease of murder and violent crime.  If it does indeed serve as a preventative, a case can be made for the use of the death penalty based on lives saved.  The taking of one life potentially saves other lives.  This study shows that the death penalty deters murders.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/.

Unfortunately, as in the case of many controversial societal issues, there are as many studies with findings against the death penalty as there are with findings that support it.  The issue has become politicized and unfortunately, data in bent to fit political views.

If, as some of the data shows, there is no clear preventative result from the death penalty, then the alternative of life imprisonment with no chance of parole seems appropriate for the most egregious killers.  The following links pertain:

The trend and thinking in our western society is clearly against the death penalty, so many studies reflect this view.

13.)                      Euthanasia (Doctor Assisted Suicide)

The ethical and moral issues are similar to the above.  Is taking a human life ever justified?  The trend is toward helping terminally ill and suffering people end their lives.  Laws in most states currently prevent the practice, but the societal trend exists.  It’s difficult to say that a doctor should not assist in ending a life if a person is in abject pain and there is no hope of recovery. Opponents point out that with modern palliative care, pain can be avoided entirely.

The Netherlands and Belgium permit end of life intervention.  Oregon has such a law and the California legislature just passed a similar bill which is awaiting signature by Governor Jerry Brown.  Experience in Belgium and The Netherlands shows that the reasons for end of life intervention has widened.  Patients with depression and other non-terminal illnesses are requesting euthanasia because it is available.

14.)                      Same Sex Marriage

Homosexuality has been a human condition since the beginning of time, with acceptance of homosexuals varying with the social, political and religious flavor of the times.  This link refers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.  Western Christianity has traditionally been homophobic, and this stems primarily from the bible passages that denounce homosexuality.  Leviticus 18:22,  Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27,  I Corinthians 6:9,  I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB), 1 Kings 22:46, etc.
On the physical side, if one acknowledges that the greater part of heterosexual sex activity has nothing to do with procreation, and heterosexual sex can and does use any and all parts of the body for pleasure, it follows logically that homosexual sex is as physically natural and acceptable as heterosexual sex.  On the emotional side, if two people of the same sex have an emotional attraction, love each other and are loyal to one another, this relationship seems to be as logically valid as the love between a man and a woman.  Gender should not matter. The issues are obfuscated in several ways – 1.) The emotional homophobia stemming from our past, as above; 2.) The stridency of gay rights activists who demand not only recognition and equality, but also special privileges for gays; 3.) The politicization of gay rights issues and resulting heated dialogs that replace logic with anecdotal commentary.
This is a pretty comprehensive review by the Pew Research group on the topic.  http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gay-marriage-and-homosexuality/
Insofar as same sex marriage is concerned, various countries and states have now decreed that same sex civil marriages or unions are increasingly legal.  These civil marriages legally define the partnership of a same sex couple.  Whether same sex marriages should be formalized in a church setting continues to be debated.  It would seem that churches should rely on their own traditions, homophobia notwithstanding, rather than echo civil law.  We do, after all, have (or had) separation of church and state.  It would be a far reach to see the Catholic Church, which considers marriage a sacrament, sanctify a same sex union.
I’m a product of the 1940’s and 50’s, raised a Catholic, and currently a Methodist.  I carry the homophobia I referenced above almost as part of my heritage.  Sexual relations with another man are anathema to me.  However I am a scientist and a logician.  I cannot logically condemn same sex civil marriages.  I believe that religious institutions should make their own decisions.  I normally do not agree with many of Alan Dershowitz’ positions, but I do agree with his following commentary on same sex marriage.
“The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage -- as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union -- from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.”
“In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.”
15.)                      Polygamy

Well, if same sex civil unions are OK, why not polygamy?  Why not ménages-a-trois or a-quatre?  The only thing that should be logically assured in modern times is that women have the same rights to multiple partners as men.  Would this be palatable in this misogynistic world?  Enough said.  I don’t see any great groundswell in society to legalize polygamy, so don’t ask, don’t tell.

16.)                     Gun Violence and Gun Control

As is the case with other controversial national issues our laws concerning firearms are all over the lot.  These laws vary from easily obtainable guns and relatively easily obtainable concealed carry permits in many southern tier states to repressive and confiscatory laws in some our more populous northern cities and states.  Laws notwithstanding, mass shootings, covered as spectacles by our news media have become ubiquitous in the public purview.
I received a BB gun at age eight and .22 rifle at age eleven.  I own about twenty handguns and rifles that I keep locked in a safe. I am a member of the NRA and I have competed in high power rifle championships in Camp Perry, Ohio in the 1980’s and 90’s, and rifle and pistol matches in many other locations. I am not a hunter of animals, but in many ways, I am the quintessential legal gun owner, so my views should be evident. Why should I be penalized with restrictive gun control laws because a criminal illegally obtains a firearm and commits a crime?  A gun is a tool, like a knife or a saw.  Should tools and cars be banned because a criminal or mentally disturbed person uses one to commit a crime or kill someone? Arguments like these abound.  A chap in Sweden just recently attacked a school and killed two people with a sword.  Fifty people were recently killed in China in a knife attack.  Should we start thinking about banning sharp edged tools?  Absurd!
Every time a nut or criminal goes on a rampage and kills people the anti gunners clamor for legislation against guns, as if the guns were doing the killing.  Well, if guns were more difficult to obtain and there were fewer of them, there would be less crime and fewer mass killings.  Nonsense!  These incidents are sad, and unfortunately are milked for every ounce of emotional content by the anti gun folks.
Firearms in the hands of the public is a fundamental right and was intended by our founders to be a counter to only the government having arms.  The second amendment was placed there for a reason and has been upheld many times, the latest by the Supreme Court in 2008.  We don’t need to belabor the fact that history is rife with examples where an unarmed population was exploited, or worse, by their government.  Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union are enough.
Americans have always legally owned firearms.  Our traditions are steeped in their use, from the Revolution to the Wild West, to guys like me shooting at paper.  So are we irresponsible, wild-assed cowboys shooting ourselves up?  A mass shooting in the U.S. every other week recently seems to point in that direction.  The mass shootings are tragic. Typically an armed individual with a disturbed mind walks into an unarmed crowd and kills and wounds multiple people.  It becomes a national event, and the anti-gunners howl.  One question quickly comes to mind.  What if someone in the crowd was armed and not afraid to use their weapon to protect themselves and others?  Fewer people would die.  Of course we can’t have everyone in the country walking around with a piece on their hip, and we can’t afford to have every gathering, like churches, guarded.  However, statistics show that on a per capita basis, cities with less restrictive firearms laws have fewer gun fatalities than cities with very restrictive gun laws.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_%282012%29
Also, on a per capita basis, the U.S. is well within the pack of western countries when it comes to rampage killings.  http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/.  Obviously Norway’s data is skewed by Anders Breivik’s killing of 77 people in 2011, but it’s clear that there are more rampage killings on a per capita basis in countries with more restrictive firearms laws than in the U.S. with less restrictive firearms laws.  Other links from Pew Research: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-rivet-national-attention-but-are-a-small-share-of-gun-violence/. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/
The U.S. simply has too many guns!  There are somewhere between 270 to 310 million firearms in the U.S.  Passing anti gun laws which make it more restrictive to purchase a gun simply will not cut it.  Registration?  Will criminals and the mentally ill register their weapons?  Restricted portability – same arguments.  Buyback and confiscation? – Simply too many guns.  Anti gunners point to Australia’s buyback program which seemed to be successful.  Firstly, Australia’s constitution already catered for confiscatory buybacks at a reasonable price.  They just tweaked existing legislation.  Secondly, The Aussies confiscated 660,000 firearms out of a population of 23 million.  The U.S. has 310 million firearms in a population of about 320 million. There are simply too many guns.
Recent statistics from Australia, several years after the massive confiscation of guns shows an increase in murders and other crimes in the country.  This seems to support the NRA position that crimes against unarmed civilians are easier than crimes against an armed public. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847.
This Snopes article belies some of the statistics and conclusions about the increase in crime in Australia.  http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp.
Another major point which is sometime forgotten.  States looking to save money have pared away both the community mental health services designed to keep people healthy, as well as the hospital care needed to help them heal after a crisis. “We have replaced the hospital bed with the jail cell, the homeless shelter and the coffin”.  States have been reducing hospital beds for decades, because of insurance pressures as well as a desire to provide more care outside institutions.  A larger number of mentally ill on the streets and illegal guns available on the streets is a devastatingly dangerous mix.
So can we do anything? The link below is a well considered article that addresses the issue. http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx.
 A brief summary:
Prevention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide.
The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.
Although it is important to recognize that most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun violence.
Prevention of violence occurs along a continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who are threatening violence.
Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence.
Two other older studies which seem reasonably balanced on the issues, and which present a lot of statistical information are given in the following links.
A pro gun article is referenced below to provide some balance.
We need better mental health, which is no surprise.  We need education and training around firearms.  We need to stress safety and security of the firearms we own. We need to ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of the mentally ill, depressed or ant-social.  These seem to be platitudes, but we absolutely need to take positive actions. IMHO these do not include penalizing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals and the mentally unbalanced.
17.)                     Immigration Issues

Let’s get the numbers right.  Who are the immigrants in the United States illegally? Where do they come from? In which states do they settle? What jobs do they hold?

As of 2012, the population of immigrants in the United States illegally is estimated to be approximately 11.4 million, roughly 3.7% of the entire US population.  6.7 million  or 59% of the immigrants in the country illegally are from Mexico, 23% are from other Latin American countries, 11% are from Asia, 4% are from Europe & Canada, and 3% are from African & and other countries.  25% of all immigrants in the country illegally reside in California. In 2008, approximately 31% of workers in the roofing industry and 27% of maids/housekeepers were immigrants living in the country illegally.
How did we get into a situation where we have 11-12 million people in our country illegally?  The quick answer is because our borders are porous and our immigration laws are not properly enforced.  Because of our freedoms and economic potential, the U.S. has always attracted immigrants and there has always been a procedure to get here and stay here legally.  Not always fair, but at least it was defined and enforced/  This apparently broke down about 30 or so years ago through lack of resolve on the part of the U.S. government to apply immigration law and keep our borders secure.  We are now faced with a fait-accompli, upwards of 12 million people here illegally.  This link refers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
All of us non-native Americans immigrated here or came from immigrants.  The Ellis Island immigration records show that my grandfather emigrated from Austria (really Galicia in Poland) in 1906 as a “non immigrant alien”.  Presumably he had a visa that allowed him to live and work in the U.S.  He was one of many in that corner of Massachusetts with a similar alien status.  I do not know what the legal requirements for them were or whether they fulfilled them.  I know that my grandfather bought land and farmed it, so he must have had appropriate legal status in Massachusetts.  The following link provides voluminous information on the history of U.S. immigration.
So does this link to Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/immigration/pages/2/
In 2006 George W. Bush (Bush 43) proposed an immigration policy that seemed to make sense to address this current immigration issue.  In part:
 "It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border," he said.  He also called for giving some of the long-time undocumented a path to U.S. citizenship, saying, "I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years."  President Bush felt people who met those conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, "but approval would not be automatic," and he said they'd have to "wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."
This proposal got ground up in the grist mill of Washington politics.  Since then, we’ve built walls, had raids, and on and on.  Nothing has been resolved.  The dialog has ranged all the way from calls for integration and special privileges for undocumented aliens to roundups and exfiltration by force.
Logically, the illegal aliens are here illegally.  Whether the laws were lax or not, they broke our laws to get here and stay here.  There are nearly 12 million people here illegally, certainly too many to deport, not to mention the economic impact this would have or our own economy.  Bush’s proposal seemed reasonable and logical, perhaps with some variation.  Make it voluntary.  Assess a small fine for breaking our laws.  $500 or $1000 should suffice, and apply some of this to providing ESL and immigration classes.  Much more than this might be prohibitive to someone making minimum wage and prevent their participation.  Still it needs to be a real monetary penalty similar to a traffic ticket and not handled as a criminal offense.  Issue green cards or temporary residency cards allowing the individual to stay and work in the country pending their application for citizenship.  Impose a five year waiting period for citizenship, and ensure that legal immigrants are addressed and admitted first.  Close our borders to illegal entry using whatever means are necessary.  The availability of drones and sophisticated surveillance techniques should aid in this process in addition to conventional means like added staff, barriers (and not Soviet style walls), etc.  Catch and diligently prosecute the coyotes that prey on poor Mexicans to provide entry into the U.S.  Again, some of these suggestions seem like platitudes. However what is required is the political, societal and enforcement fortitude to accomplish the reforms necessary to make this work.  In ten years we should have addressed at least 70-80% of the illegals in the country.  We need to do something!  We cannot continue to politicize and debate this issue ad infinitum with no definitive results.



18.)                     English as Official Language

The U.S. has no official national language.  There have been efforts to make American English the national language, but have failed to gain traction.  Spanish speakers now comprises over 12% of our population, but many of them also speak English.  French, German, Polish, Italian, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and other languages are also spoken.  This link pertains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States#States_that_are_de_facto_bilingual.

Having said that, we Americans are somewhat insular about our English.  An educated European will typically speak at least four languages well, and have some knowledge of several others.  These would include language of the country, English, German and French.  Russian, Spanish and Italian are also common.  This is because multi language education starts in elementary school for many Europeans and continues into high school and college.  It is thought that many Americans would benefit from such an approach.

19.)                     Bigotry, Tribalism, Racial Issues

From the beginnings of early civilization, we humans agglomerated into groups with common causes, backgrounds, identifying characteristics and thought processes.  Hunters formed groups to more efficiently bring down large animals as a source of food and other needed artifacts.  Gatherers formed groups to make the processing of food and other items necessary for survival more efficient.  These early groups formed into tribes, and the tribes into larger alliances.  Totems, signs, flags banners, sounds all identified early (and current) groups and fostered a spirit of identity and allegiance.  Eventually city states, nations and empires evolved from these rudimentary groups.  The concept of “us” and “them” evolved naturally.  “We” tolerated and traded with “them” when not fighting “them”.  We hated “them” and killed “them” when at war.  One truth was always constant “we”, and our habits and styles were always superior to “them” and theirs.  Thus, prejudice, bigotry and animosity toward others different from us, seems to be the legacy of civilizations and empires.  It is inherent in our competitive natures.  It pervades our leisure time sports and other activities.  Rooting for the Red Sox or Manchester United and hating The Yankees or Arsenal is a displaced outlet for more serious prejudices.  What Pew Research has found: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/discrimination-and-prejudice/
Most of the modern world legally eschews bigotry and overt prejudicial distinctions, at least within national bounds or major alliances and “on the books”, espouses human rights.  This does not entirely remove the natural human penchant for insularity, tribalism, prejudice and bigotry.  Ask nearly any average man in the street over a beer what he thinks of “them”, whoever “them” may be.  Likely as not you’ll get an earful, including slurs and derogatory epithets about “them”.  Equality and human rights and other progressive thoughts notwithstanding, there is still an undercurrent of prejudice and bigotry in our human psyche.  If there weren’t we would have stopped waging wars long ago, and would be truly “loving thy neighbor”.
Unfortunately this trend toward tribalism has not disappeared with the modern age.  One example is Kenya, which seemed to have incorporated the political system left by Britain and overcome its violent tribal past, but who have now once again reverted to tribal conflict.  Another example closer to home is the racial tensions between white Americans and persons of color in the U.S., which have resulted in riots, deaths and destruction of property recently in several locations.
Is there an answer?  Jesus had one “love thy neighbor as thyself”.  Confucius had one too - “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  All of our great spiritual leaders have shown us the way.  The directions have been there from time immemorial.  We humans just don’t follow them.
20.)                     Legalizing Marijuana and Other Drugs

Ever since humans first realized that drinking crushed grapes and other fermented material changed one’s mood and made them feel good, they have discovered and developed all manner of substances for that purpose.  It is interesting to see how mood altering drugs were treated in the past.
Particularly interesting is the use of opium in China and the Far East, and how Great Britain used opium to expand its empire.  These links pertain, and contain a lot of historical information.


It is also noteworthy that efforts to control the consumption of alcohol and narcotic drugs in the U.S. only date roughly from the beginning of the twentieth century.  Prior to that consumption of these substances was left to the good conscience of the population, and to the churches and other moral guiding bodies as a moderating force.  Would that this situation still obtain today.  Unfortunately, extensive abuse by the public has resulted in defining and curtailing the use of mind altering substances by law.  Part of this stems from the irresponsible behavior of human beings, and part from a “big brother” government knowing what’s better for us, and passing laws to that effect.

Concerning marijuana, the trend across the western world is to make marijuana legal, somewhat returning to the status quo.  It has been made legal in several U.S. states for medical use, and decriminalized in numerous other states.  It is also legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington. It has been decriminalized in most countries of the world.  It remains illegal in U.S. Federal law, creating conflicts in states where use is permitted or tolerated.  There are medically acknowledged benefits of marijuana and marijuana use has persisted whether or not it happened to be legal at any given time and place.  One harks back to prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. by constitutional amendment in 1920 and its repeal by another constitutional amendment in 1933.  The point is that people will continue to use substances in spite of what the then current law says.  One would think that from the lesson learned about alcohol in prohibition, we would have long ago legalized marijuana and taxed it like we do alcohol.  According to the medical profession, alcohol and tobacco use and abuse is much more destructive to human beings than use of marijuana.

Marijuana is pictured as an entry drug in more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.  It would seem so is alcohol, yet we consume vast quantities of it.  Again no matter what we think and what arguments we throw up, the public will continue to use marijuana and will eventually legalize it.  But what about other more potent and addicting drugs?  It seems that the public is not responsible enough to be able to use these drugs on their own and needs government passed and regulated laws to protect them.  That is a sad pass.  Alcohol is as debilitating a drug as any of the others, but it continues to be legal and heavily used.

21.)         Prostitution, Gambling, Other Vices

Prostitution and gambling have existed from the beginnings of civilization in spite of laws and rules against these vices. 
Prostitution is legal in 77 countries of the world.  This charts summarizes.
·         Number of countries prostitution is Illegal: 109
·         Number of countries prostitution is restricted: 11
·         Number of countries prostitution is Legal: 77
·         Number of countries with No laws for prostitution: 5
Cleromancy or casting of lots is mentioned 70 times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament.   Gambling or chance was used to make major decisions from time immemorial..
Gambling in modern times is readily available in virtually all parts of world, particularly with the advent of on line gambling, Also there literally thousands of physical gambling casinos throughout the world.
So the question is almost moot.  Both prostitution and gambling are readily available nearly everywhere, religious guidance, morals and warnings notwithstanding.  Churches and moral institutions notwithstanding, curtailing these activities is virtually impossible.  The societal trend is toward legalizing these vices, managing them and taxing them, rather than leaving them to the criminals.  This article pertains.
22.)                     Technology

As discussed in the introduction technology is advancing at an exponential pace, and even at an exponent of exponential.  Is this a good thing?  Are we moving too fast?  Luddites clamor for “the good old days” and say we are too glued to our smart phones, computers and other media devices.  They disparage the technology as detracting from human interaction.
Whilst there is some attraction to a simpler life, we should remember that it was also a more difficult and arduous life.  Life expectancy 100 years ago was about 50 years for men and slightly higher for women.  It is now about 76 for men and 81 for women.   Infant mortality rates, (under one year), have dropped from approximately 100 per thousand to 6 per thousand over the last 100 years. 
Our lives have improved in countless ways.  As I write this on a computer based word processor, the spell checker corrects me as I type away.  Not too many years ago, I would be typing on a piece of paper, would have to check my own spelling, and would need to erase and correct.  Not too many years prior to that, I would be manually writing this in cursive and carefully and manually manipulating it.  Such is the case in so many areas that it is impossible to mention them all.   See the introduction for a brief discussion of smart phones and GPS. See also:  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Ray Kurzweil and others have predicted that a singularity will occur shortly (Kurzweil predicts 2029), where all machine intelligence in the world will equal all human intelligence.  Someone asked in a meeting on Science and Religion, “Well if this intelligence becomes sentient, where will it get its values”.  I could not help responding that since this intelligence will have access to all of our human history and activities; it cannot fail to conclude that humanity is a virus and take steps to eliminate us.  The “Terminator” and “Matrix” series come to mind.  The following Pew Research study and addenda also refer.
There is a mounting fear amongst the world’s thinkers that “intelligent” artificial intelligence is a real possibility in the future, and also a real threat.  We cannot (yet) imbue emotions or “souls” into AI, and based on pure logic, we cannot be certain what intelligent, self reproducing and self enhancing machines will do.  This is not just fictional speculation.  It is fast becoming vividly real.


23.)                     “Decrease” in Religious Worship

We have all heard anecdotal comments like “Religious affiliation is decreasing around the world”, or “Muslims are increasing in Europe”.

The following are from Pew Research which as described in the introduction, is balanced and non partisan research group. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/


Quoting:  “The religious profile of the world is rapidly changing, driven primarily by differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the world’s major religions, as well as by people switching faiths. Over the next four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow faster than any other major religion. If current trends continue, by 2050 …
·         The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
·         Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.
·         The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.
·         In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
·         India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.
·         In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.
·         Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.
These are among the global religious trends highlighted in new demographic projections by the Pew Research Center. The projections take into account the current size and geographic distribution of the world’s major religions, age differences, fertility and mortality rates, international migration and patterns in conversion”.
So, based on a comprehensive study by the Pew Research Group, overall religious affiliation is not decreasing around the world.  The primary decrease is in Christianity, and primarily in Europe and the U.S.  Some of this can be explained by the higher birth rates of Muslims compared to Christians.  But this is not the full answer.  I believe that Christian numbers are decreasing because of a movement or drift away from Christian worship to more secular and more hedonistic pursuits.  For example, the Dallas Cowboys or Real Madrid are playing, and that takes precedence over church attendance; or “I’m time constrained in this fast paced world.  Sunday allows me to catch up or rest”.  There are numbers of excuses that place the worship of God in a secondary role.
An even more pertinent phenomenon is the fact that many educated younger people in the Christian West are in favor of the loosening of societal issues of the times that we are discussing in this paper, in opposition to the views of traditional churches that are generally more conservative on these issues.
The various denominations of Christianity are actively addressing this issue, as are individual churches.  Proselytizing and evangelizing is simply not reaching the intended audience.  No solutions to this phenomenon are obvious, other than to continue to proselytize and evangelize and hope to stem the flow.
This link comments on the decrease in Christian religious affiliation in the U.S.  It is mostly commentary, but is does present some rudimentary data.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/
24.)                     Middle East Refugees & the “Islamization” of Western Countries

This topic became of great interest as the war on terror identified Muslim radicals as being one of the major causes of terrorism in the world.  It has become even more relevant as literally millions of Muslims pour into Europe to escape the fighting in the Middle East and other parts of the world.  

Even before this latest influx of Muslims into Europe, several writers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, (“infidel”, “Heretic”), Geert Wilders (“Marked for Death”), Bruce Bawer (“While Europe Slept”), have warned that many Muslims are not normal immigrants who assimilate into their adopted countries.  They keep apart, educate their children in Wahabist schools and espouse Sharia law, rather than civil law in their adoptive countries.  Ali posits in her “Heretic” that Islam has never undergone a cleansing reformation like Christianity did in the fourteenth century, and still reverts to seventh century theological and societal principles for all.  Join the faith, pay jizya (poll-tax), or be put to death.  Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian, author and speaker on this topic.  Bawer is an American author living in Norway.  All three of the above authors have “fatwas” or contracts on their lives issued by Islamic fundamentalist radicals.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Whilst Christian adherents are decreasing in general around the world, Islam is increasing.



The already high birth rates amongst Muslims is being exacerbated by the influx of millions of additional Muslim escaping from Middle Eastern upheavals and entering Europe, and has led to increased strife and anti Muslim protests in Europe.  The EU is in a quandary as how to handle this tremendous migration of humanity and how to assimilate even more Muslims into Europe.  The U.S. has been virtually dormant in this respect, as in many other areas of foreign policy.   Some numbers facts & figures are as follows.

            Sept 21, 2015 Fortune
To date, the United States has given about $4 billion for relief efforts, but has only taken in 1,500 Syrian refugees, and granted temporary protected status to about 2,600 already in the country. On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama administration will increase the annual limit of refugees that America accepts from around the world over the next two years: In 2016, the current quota of 70,000 will be increased to 85,000, and in 2017, it will increase further to 100,000.
Sept 3. 2015 NYT
A Surge in Asylum Applications
Germany has received more applicants than any other European Union nation, with more than 154,000 migrants seeking asylum from January to June, up from 68,000 in the same period last year. When adjusted for population, Hungary and Sweden are among the top recipients.
Applicants Since 2011
Germany                     547,034          
France                         255,800
Sweden                       228,601
Turkey                         209,019
Italy                             155,536
Hungary                      129,203
United Kingdom         125,139
Austria                                    104,489
Switzerland                 98,102
Belgium                       79,209
Serbia and Kosovo      65,237
Netherlands                 63,889
Norway                       47,240
Greece                         42,800
Poland                         38,418
Denmark                     35,302
Bulgaria                       27,124
Spain                           21,112
Finland                        14,361
Montenegro                 9,158

Total                       ~ 2,295,000

Sources: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, World Bank

This study by the BBC presents a graphical view of the crisis.

It is noteworthy that little Lebanon, with a normal population of about 4 million people has absorbed over 1 million counted UN refugees and another half million not on the books.  Many of these refugees have been helped by Lebanese civilians in their homes.   Turkey has absorbed over 2 million. This graphic from the above link is quite instructive.

25.)                     Radical Fundamentalism

Perhaps the one most dangerous and corrosive movements of our modern world is the resurgence of radical religious fundamentalism.  This not just ISIS or ISIL or other forms of radical Islam, although this is currently the most easily identified. Unbalanced fundamentalism pervades nearly all of our major religions.  A definition of a radical fundamentalist: “Someone so confident in their own beliefs that they are unwilling to think reasonably and consider other perspectives. Usually in the form of some religious teaching that benefits them and their group”.


What is Isil?    An Islamic extremist group controlling territory in Syria and Iraq
What are its aims?    A worldwide Islamic caliphate - a religious government - without borders
How is the group funded?    Looting, extortion and the possession of oilfields providing £1.8m in revenue per day
How much territory does Isil control?    An area of the Middle East that is roughly the size of Belgium
Where is it based?    Isil's HQ is understood to be in the city of Raqqa, Syria
Obviously ISIS, who have established, or are establishing, a Islamic caliphate across large swaths of the Middle East, are a threat to the whole world because of their virulent views and violent actions, and their avowed goal of imposing universal Islamic Shania law.  One can pontificate on how such a cancerous and anti-civilization group was allowed to develop, but this is pointless.  ISIS needs to be stopped, and hopefully will be stopped if sufficient resolve can be generated by the world’s major powers. http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/islamic-extremism#  http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119259/isis-history-islamic-states-new-caliphate-syria-and-iraq
Radical Christian fundamentalism that harbors such organizations as the KKK, Aryan Nation, Army of God and others is also a corrosive influence on our society.  Closed minded bigotry, which is the watchword of such organizations, often hides behind more benevolent political and religious fronts.  Two obviously left wing links on the subject are given below.  http://www.sklatch.net/thoughtlets/pall.html  http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/americas-10-worst-terror-attacks-by-christian-fundamentalist-and-far-right-extremists/
Any belief system that espouses only their way to the violent exclusion of any other belief system has to be detrimental to society and civilization in general.  It may hide behind the Bible, or the Quran or some other holy book.  That doesn’t make it any less a terrorist organization.  A violent attack against an abortion clinic is to be condemned as rigorously as any other belief driven attack in the Middle East.
26.)                     Out of Balance Salaries – Entertainment, Sport, Finance

Is Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins worth $325,000,000 over 2015-27?
Is Alex Rodriguez on the New York Yankees worth $275,000,000 over 2008-17?
Similarly, in entertainment - Keanu Reeves made $156,000,000 (with royalties) for the “Matrix” series; Tom Cruise, $100,000,000 for “Mission Impossible 2”.
And then there’s finance.   In finance – We go to billions.  Here's what the top 10 hedge fund managers earned in 2014:
1.      Kenneth Griffin, Citadel ($1.3 billion)
2.      James Simons, Renaissance Technologies ($1.2 billion)
3.      Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates ($1.1 billion)
4.      Bill Ackman, Pershing Square Capital Management ($950 million)
5.      Israel Englander, Millennium Management ($900 million)
6.      Michael Platt, BlueCrest Capital Management ($800 million)
7.      Larry Robbins, Glenview Capital Management ($570 million)
8.      David Shaw, D.E. Shaw Group ($530 million)
9.      O. Andreas Halvorsen, Viking Global Investors ($450 million)
10.  Charles Coleman III, Tiger Global Management ($425 million)
Not to disparage Mr. Griffin, but one might ask is anyone in this world worth $1.3 billion per year, no matter what they do?  The answer often given is free market capitalism and competition.  If we don’t pay that much, someone else will and we will lose the expertise. 
Of course we reward proficiency in any field and strive for the big bucks.  But haven’t we gotten out of balance?  In a kinder gentler day I can remember a conversation in a barbershop in Boston in the 1950’s where Ted Williams’ salary of $100,000 per year was hotly contested.  Now that’s a few zeros less than A-Rod’s.  Ted Williams has the eighth highest batting average of all major leaguers and ranks with Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Tris Speaker and others among the greatest ballplayers of all time. This is despite his missing six of his potentially most prolific years by fighting in two wars as a marine fighter pilot. Of course we paid 50 cents to sit in the bleachers in Fenway Park to watch Williams and the Red Sox play, and drink 15 cent beers. I nearly caught one of Ted William’s home runs at one of those games.
Where do these massive payments to individuals come from?  The answer is from the public.  Current bleacher prices at Fenway are on the order of $30.  Beer most likely costs at least $5.00.  This is Fenway.  Other parks are most likely much higher.  We pay more and more for sports tickets, movie tickets and all manner of entertainment.  Someone has to pay the exorbitant salaries quoted above.
What about the hedge fund managers?  The only thing that can be said is if the firm and the firm’s client are making comparable profits, the hedge fund manager profits as well.  It seems way out of proportion and the 10 individuals above are all making massive yearly earnings.
So should something be done about these seemingly out of balance incomes?  Not without upsetting our capitalist apple cart.  Mao tried to equalize incomes in China, and look how that turned out.  It took another Communist, Deng Xiaopeng to pragmatically move China toward a market economy.  Now there are more billionaires in China than there are in the U.S.  http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/15/investing/china-us-billionaires/
 Also as individuals accumulate massive wealth, they turn philanthropist and fund benevolent causes with their excess wealth.  Even the progeny of the great “robber barons” Morgan, Astor, Rockefeller, et al, fund philanthropic causes, as do recent billionaires like Walton, Gates, Buffet and others.  This benevolent work is done on their own and hardly needs a government agency to extort through taxes and redistribute this wealth.
27.)                     Trillions of Dollars of Debt

The total debt in the U.S. is on the order of 60 trillion dollars.  That’s $60,000,000,000,000.  This consists of roughly $18 trillion of federal debt and $42 trillion of commercial, consumer and other debt.

Total world debt is estimated at $230 trillion.  The following link refers not only to this $230 trillion world debt, it also gives voluminous information on U.S. and world debt issues.

A graphical breakdown of world debt is as follows:


The first link above is RT, which is Russian funded.  However they are a valid factual source.  Quoting from the first link above, “America - its government, businesses, and people - are nearly $60 trillion in debt, according to the latest economic data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. And private debt - not government borrowing - is the biggest reason for the huge deficit. “Total US debt at the end of the first quarter of 2014, on March 31 totaled almost $59.4 trillion - up nearly $500 billion from the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, according to the data. Total debt (the combination of government, business, mortgage, and consumer debt) was $2.2 trillion 40 years ago.”

Who owns this $60 trillion in U.S. Debt?  An interesting interactive graphical look at the approximately $60 trillion total debt and the approximately $18 trillion U.S. Government portion of this debt is as follows:


There is a massive amount of information on the above graphic.
The following link explains who owns the $18 trillion national debt, and how the process works.  Contrary to popular belief, Chinese investors own but a fraction of this debt, nearly $1.3 trillion.  Japanese investors own just slightly less, about $1.25 trillion.  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-who/.
Some proposed solutions, Paul Ryan’s elevation to Speaker of the House notwithstanding, are given in the following links. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tombyrne/2011/09/19/how-to-fix-the-us-debt-crisis-the-proven-private-sector-way/.
28.)                     China’s Spectacular Progress

I went to China in June, 2015, and I’ll repeat part of my write-up on my personal impressions of the country.

 Some general comments on China.
The overwhelming feature of China is people, people, people and cars, cars, cars. (Other vehicles, too), in a seemingly chaotic mix.  There are 1.4 billion people in China.  That’s 500 million more people than the U.S and E.U. combined.  There are more cell phones in China than the U.S. has people, and they all seem glued to the ears or thumbs of the people in the cities.  There are over 150 cities in China with a population over 1 million.  Cities of 1-2 million people are called “towns”.  China is a massive, crowded country ruled by an ostensibly communist government with a market oriented philosophy.  That sounds like an oxymoron, but there it is.  Everyone in the cities is hell-bent toward capitalism and consumerism.  Marx and Lenin and Mao are rolling over in their graves, while Deng Xiaoping smiles in his grave and says “I told you so – just the way I orchestrated it”
The Chinese are rules oriented, and people obey the rules without too much complaint.  Dissension is allowed, as long as it is not too loud. The system is not our system, but it works for them.  The per capita GDP in China in 1985 was $600.  In 2015, it is estimated as $13,800.  This is across 1.4 billion people, and this is absolutely phenomenal growth.  Of course these GDP figures are averages, and the wealth is really concentrated in the large cities and professional classes.  The rural peasants (nearly a billion of them), really do not share too much in this wealth or in the social amenities that city residents get.  The goal of most rural Chinese is to get to a city and obtain city based identification.
This almost oligarchic social system must be anathema to hard line communists like Mao Zedong, but Mao tried to equalize the masses and nearly destroyed the country. Upwards of 30 million people died of famine during Mao’s “great leap forward”. And another 1.5 million died during his “cultural revolution”. We had several lectures and discussions during this trip by people who lived through these social upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s.  Our tour director’s (George’s) parents were among them, and George expounded on this at some length one afternoon on the Yangtze River.
Mao Zedong is still considered the founder of the present incarnation of the country.  His mummified body lies in Tiananmen Square.  His portrait appears on Chinese paper money.  People now say that he was “80 percent right and 20 percent wrong”.  Deng Xiaoping is acknowledged as the founder of modern China by instituting a market oriented economy in the late 70’s.  His technocrat successors have continued Deng’s policies and we can observe their efficacy by the growth of the Chinese economy over the last 30+ years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
Although there are no official estimates of the population of Beijing in 2012, unofficial estimates put the population at around 21-22 million.  Although Beijing is the capital city of China, there are larger cities in the country. Shanghai is home to 23 million people in 2013, and is considered to be China's largest city. Others, however, argue that Chongqing, a municipality of 28,846,200 in the center of China is technically China's largest city. This is because, although the urban population of Chongqing is only 6-7 million, under Chinese law a municipality is considered to be the equivalent of a city.  If we take Chongqing out of the equation, Beijing is the second largest country in China and the sixth largest city in the world, behind Shanghai, Istanbul, Karachi, Mumbai and Moscow.
The following is an excellent PhD level introspective of China’s recent history and current prospects.
China is flexing its muscles after a century of relative international dormancy and acquiescence.  It is taking its place on the international stage not only in terms of its economy and trade, but also its’ military.  It has recently literally built islands in the South China Sea that could challenge trade routes for 30% of the world’s sea trade.
What I like to say about the Chinese is that they’ve been in existence for millennia, and some millennia are good, and some millennia and centuries not so good.  The last couple of centuries were not so hot, but things are looking up once they reconciled Marxism with Capitalism (sic).
Quoting from the above paper, “
Prospects
China's spectacular recovery from the stagnant depth of the Maoist era in the 1945-1975 period is truly remarkable. A recent study by Goldman Sachs projects that China's economy will be bigger than America's by 2027, and nearly twice as large by 2050. Some futurologists predict that the world would by then live under a Pax Sinica with the dollar replaced by the renminbi as the world's reserve currency, and New York and London replaced by Shanghai as the centre of finance. Global citizens will use Mandarin as much, if not more, than English and the thoughts of Confucius will become as familiar as those of Plato. European countries will become quaint relics of a glorious past, like Athens and Rome today.

With the West in financial turmoil and its leaders seemingly desperate for cash-rich China to come to its rescue, Chinese leaders can see many strategic opportunities: to acquire assets at bargain prices and to exploit political vacuums in many international hot spots like the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now the Chinese who are doing the lecturing.
Simplistic political and economic extrapolations, however, do not take into account the many uncertainties and imponderables that can come into play. China, like many other countries, also faces the problem of an aging population, of expectations rising faster than the capacity of their system to deliver, of the destructive power of corruption and nepotism and the abuse of political power. The mere logistics of governing this vast country with its huge population pose gigantic challenges to whichever system of organization and management that is brought to the task. China is also heavily dependent on its collaboration with the West: its technology, its markets, its natural resources and its investments.
Optimistic expectations for the emergence of free, open constitutional democracy in China are wishful “thought bubbles”. China has never experienced an open pluralistic society. It has never developed neither the mindset of civic consciousness nor the associational community-based framework to serve as a foundation for a democratic infrastructure. Sporadic and isolated outbursts of discontent may occur, but a deep-rooted democratic transformation appears to be still decades, if not generations away.
In 2012 Xi Jinping emerged as China’s new party chief and state president. He is a “princeling” whose father took part in the “Long March” of 1934/1935 in the company of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. A better pedigree in China is hardly imaginable.
On several public occasions Xi Jinping has indicated that he considers current China at the cusp of momentous change and reform. Many foreign observers and commentators expect the third plenum of the 18th central committee of the Chinese Communist Party to be of seminal importance in determining the direction of China’s future development.
The main areas of reform that are expected to be focussed on are, firstly, the improvement of the management efficiency and accountability of the remaining part of the economy still under control of state economic enterprises (SOEs) and, secondly, land reform in the countryside to modernise the parts of the rural economy still under collective control of local party bosses. It remains to be seen if Mr Xi Jinping will go down in Chinese history as a worthy successor to the trailblazing work that was done by Deng Xiaoping in the period 1978-1994.”

Will we go to war with China? The recent posturing over the artificial islands that China has created in the South China Sea has increased tension between the U.S. and China.  This article by “The Guardian” is not surprisingly somewhat pro Chinese.

Here is a “Foreign Policy” article that posits that the U.S. and China are preparing for war.

It’s difficult to imagine that the Obama administration is doing much along these lines, but China may be surprised if someone like Trump is elected.

29.)         The World’s Wealth and Debt

Most of the world’s wealth and debt are kept as electronic data by governments and by the world’s financial institutions.  Some wealth is actually physical as described in this Forbes article.

The following articles on money and how money works give some insight into the history and current situation regarding wealth and debt.

In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy at a specific time.[1] There are several ways to define "money," but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits (depositors' easily accessed assets on the books of financial institutions).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply. 
It comes to mind that in future wars, attacks on countries’ money supplies will not be physical.  They will be electronic cyber attacks to break the encryption around electronic funds.


30.)                     Computer Security

All computers that are connected to the internet are susceptible to pollution by unwanted programs, some relatively benign, and some, downright destructive.  Where do these unwanted programs come from?  Mostly from juveniles showing off their prowess with computer code, but recently from more sophisticated programmers and even from government sponsored hackers.  Microsoft Windows Operating systems account for about 90% of all computer usage and are also the most susceptible to viruses, spyware and other malware attacks.  Apple, Linux and Android systems are much less susceptible.

Most home users use Microsoft Windows, so the above attacks are common.  What do we do to mitigate them?  A full exposition is beyond the scope of this piece, but a few simple things can be done. 

A new Windows computer normally comes with a 30 or 60 day trial version of antivirus and anti spyware installed.  You can buy the software when it expires, normally for about $30-50 per year.  If you don’t mind spending the money every year, this should provide some measure of protection.  Most people, however, let the trial version expire, or are not very diligent about keeping software up to date or renewing the software.  Several things can happen.  The computer will crash or exhibit symptoms that prevent the user from normal activity.  The computer will slow down to the point that it is onerous to use it.

Inconvenience is but one of the effects of viruses, malware, Trojans, worms, etc.  Some of these malicious programs are aimed at identity theft and accessing users’ accounts.  One called Cryptolocker will encrypt a machine and demand a ransom to allow access.  There all manner of nefarious schemes to defraud users.  Not all malware is destructive and most of it is just annoying.  But some can cause great harm.

There are several free programs in addition to the above mentioned paid ones that will alleviate or prevent the above from happening.  Avast and AVG still have free versions of their antivirus programs available.  Use caution when downloading and installing these because both will try to steer you toward the paid versions.  Also go slowly and read carefully when downloading and installing any “free” programs, because many such programs try to associate other programs that you probably will not want.  Malwarebytes and Ccleaner are two anti spyware programs that are also “free”.  The same caveats as above apply.  If you use these three free programs diligently, you can keep your computer free from unwanted programs and operating properly.  Another excellent but somewhat technical antivirus/spyware suite of programs are by Kaspersky, Russian based, but excellent programs to remove very difficult viruses and spyware.

Another very good idea for modern computer users is to install and use a VPN (Virtual Private Network).  A VPN creates a “tunnel” which essentially isolates the internet user from prying eyes and keeps their usage private.  There are some free ones out there, but these may be of dubious efficacy, particularly if you are user of Torrents.  One very good paid one is VyPrVPN.

An alternative to a VPN is to use a proxy server directly if you are sufficiently versed in how networks and the internet works.



Ray Gruszecki
October 30, 2015

No comments:

Post a Comment