Because they promote Absolute Truth
Because absolute truth mean absolute arrogance
Because absolute truth means absolute deafness
Because they promote blind belief
Because blind belief means blindness
Because absolute truth justifies absolute actions
Because it disencourages critical thought
Because has always been a great excuse for war
Because it allows the demonizing of enemies
... and demonizing is the first step into deshumanizing
... and deshumanizing eases killing: not human -> can be killed without remorse
Because, many times, it promises some better life after life on Earth
Because it makes life on Earth less valuable
Because it's easier to kill someone if you think he is going to a better place.
Because it's easier to kill oneself because one thinks there is a better place.
Yes, there is another life, that has nothing to do with oneself. There is worms, plants, fungi, microbes, which can happily grow among our rotten flesh.
martes, 12 de junio de 2007
Oh your god!
I am so so so tired of all the stupidness and blindness that religions stuff
into the head of people. But as true as it is that gods (not God, but any and every god) do not exist, that they are a common phenomenon in human societies, it is also true that this phenomenon (which drives people to NEED to believe so badly) will be around for a while. Only common sense, critical thought will get us out of this.
I say this because what it hurts me more is to see very intelligent scientists who believe in some god. Here in the UMN I happen to have a young friend who is really really good at math and physics. He's catholic. Another friend she is a postdoc in applied math. She is jewish and very religious.
Once we were talking during lunch time at the University student center here in University of Minnesota. It was me, another atheist chinese friend and these two guys.
I was telling them things like "not only I do not believe but I think all religions are just wrong". Talking about the existence of her god, The jewish friend tells
me "ohh, it's too complex! I can't understand it is soooo complex". Then she tells me "I am not sure but ... I think there is a phylosophical proof (that god exists)".
Then I tell her that "there is no such thing as a phylosophical proof, or else, phylosophical proofs are by definition mathematical proofs. It was phylosophers who invented formal proofs, not mathematicians".
Talking a little more she comes up with the popular "maybe he lives in some other dimension", which of course is ridiculous, as if more dimensions meant "some sort of room where things can hide away from the view of simple beings like us". But more ridiculous was the answer of my catholic friend, who as I said knows a lot of physics, he's a close follower of all the latest physics theories, and tells me (smiling as if he just drew a card from his sleeve) "do you know that Stephen Hawking has proven the existence of at least 7 dimensions??". That really destroyed me, I mean, it depressed me so much I barely could answer, and since then (more than a month ago) I cannot stop thinking about it. How can a guy, a so clever guy (he's very brilliant) tell me something SO stupid and coward, not coward towards me, but towards himself. It's so obvious he has the analytical power to rule that argument out immediatly.
But I know what's the real problem of these people. They have a "switch" in their minds. They just won't use their analytical power when dealing with their own beliefs because they FEAR they could destroy their beliefs, and from there they will just stop seeing the promised land, they would understand how close they are to nothing, how there is nothing more about us as very sophisticated automata.
into the head of people. But as true as it is that gods (not God, but any and every god) do not exist, that they are a common phenomenon in human societies, it is also true that this phenomenon (which drives people to NEED to believe so badly) will be around for a while. Only common sense, critical thought will get us out of this.
I say this because what it hurts me more is to see very intelligent scientists who believe in some god. Here in the UMN I happen to have a young friend who is really really good at math and physics. He's catholic. Another friend she is a postdoc in applied math. She is jewish and very religious.
Once we were talking during lunch time at the University student center here in University of Minnesota. It was me, another atheist chinese friend and these two guys.
I was telling them things like "not only I do not believe but I think all religions are just wrong". Talking about the existence of her god, The jewish friend tells
me "ohh, it's too complex! I can't understand it is soooo complex". Then she tells me "I am not sure but ... I think there is a phylosophical proof (that god exists)".
Then I tell her that "there is no such thing as a phylosophical proof, or else, phylosophical proofs are by definition mathematical proofs. It was phylosophers who invented formal proofs, not mathematicians".
Talking a little more she comes up with the popular "maybe he lives in some other dimension", which of course is ridiculous, as if more dimensions meant "some sort of room where things can hide away from the view of simple beings like us". But more ridiculous was the answer of my catholic friend, who as I said knows a lot of physics, he's a close follower of all the latest physics theories, and tells me (smiling as if he just drew a card from his sleeve) "do you know that Stephen Hawking has proven the existence of at least 7 dimensions??". That really destroyed me, I mean, it depressed me so much I barely could answer, and since then (more than a month ago) I cannot stop thinking about it. How can a guy, a so clever guy (he's very brilliant) tell me something SO stupid and coward, not coward towards me, but towards himself. It's so obvious he has the analytical power to rule that argument out immediatly.
But I know what's the real problem of these people. They have a "switch" in their minds. They just won't use their analytical power when dealing with their own beliefs because they FEAR they could destroy their beliefs, and from there they will just stop seeing the promised land, they would understand how close they are to nothing, how there is nothing more about us as very sophisticated automata.
domingo, 22 de abril de 2007
Why do school shootings happen?
I am writing this entry in english since I think it could (not that I believe it really is) useful to the people who suffer this problem: the US citizens.
Following the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, the media and the people in it theorized about the many reasons why this is becoming a kind of chronological social disorder in this country (where I am now staying for some months, in another university).
My opinion is not radically different from many of the ones I have heard so far. For me, the main reasons include the "classical" "guns", and the lack of adequate attention offered to the mentally ill, and to a certain amount the dynamics of the anglosaxon society.
The part on the society is not easy to change, and I don't know if it would ever change. I do believe that the excess of competition and the way that people is under stress to be a "leader" or a "looser" can only cause frustration and marginalization. Frustration turns into anger, and marginalization turns into alienation and could turn into psychosis.
But no, this is unrealistic. What can be done is to improve laws on restricting guns and enhancing the ability of the society to diagnose and treat the mentally ill.
I could go radical and say that guns should be banned to civilians. I, in fact, thing that would be the ultimate solution not only to avoid these problems but also the "domestic" shootings and to reduce the armed assaults. Let's face it: it's *way* easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife. Nobody can deny it. Also, access to explosives or chemicals involved in their production is *heavily* restricted. Maybe because they are strictily offensive weapons?
But no, that won't happen. This country has a strong will in favour of the right to carry guns. It's even in their constitution. Alas, it is also true that many countries have a lot of guns per habitant. MY country (Uruguay) is one of those cases: I think it is even worse than here. It also manifests itself in the very fact that the country won't dismantle its huge arsenal of atomic bombs.
OK, so what's the solution? There is a very reasonable solution, and it should not take that much to implement: have stricter and tighter weapon carrying licences.
Why is it so natural that having a car requires a strict licence for which one has to study and pass rigorous health, theoretical and practical exams? They also have to be renewed. At least in my country, the renovation is subject to adequate phisical conditions (sight, listening, reflexes).
So why don't they do that when they sell you a gun?
If a mental health study was required to purchase a gun (and revised every , say , two years), this shooting could have been avoided. The guy was clearly out of his mind, everyone around him knew that. And that didn't keep him from buying not one but two guns and a lot of ammunition with no hassle.
Also, a weapon license should require a theoretical and practical exam to be passed. The reasons, again, are obvious.
Weapon licenses should also have different category, just like driving licences do. For example, an regular licence should allow people to carry only small caliber, non automatic hand guns. A tighter licence for rifles and semi automatic, and finally special licences for people who work with them (riot guns, automatic rifles, etc.)
The other main thing that has to be changed is the mental treatment. I have heard people in the TV these days, some of them relatives to people involved in shootings, saying that their relatives were cleary ill, and that the mental institutions won't allow them until they actually did something really bad (like trying to kill themselves or other people). That's ridiculous. If you see a lion in the street you won't just let him go because he still didn't kill anyone. You must try to grab him and send him where he can do no harm.
I see guys like this korean guy as victims much as I see the ones he killed before killing himself. There is no point in demonizing. Of course, if I were the parent of one of those poor guys who died, I'd hate him forever. I am lucky just to be able to think in this way.
What I mean is: this guy was clearly suffering, and a lot, and has been torturing himself. He was not some wicked guy who wanted to wanted to show off. He was really tortured. It is evidented from the videos and from what people around him said of his attitude. He hated everyone, and he hated himself also. It could be that he was too afraid of the society, that he felt diminished, and that he fell into a spiral of marginalization and anger that ultimately led him to do what he did.
They say that 37% of grad students get into deep depressions during their careers. So why not have mental health centers in the Universities? why not admitting a guy like this that was pointed out by more than one teacher as a troubled and inherently violent person? I've heard the more cinics saying it is a problem of budget. Saying that having a person in jail is much cheaper than having him in a hospital. OK, that might be the case, but I don't think it traduces to explicit policies in the subject. I think it's one more of the consequences of having a small budget for public health, and that is of course due in part to the ridiculous amount of money spent in defense and warfare.
Following the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, the media and the people in it theorized about the many reasons why this is becoming a kind of chronological social disorder in this country (where I am now staying for some months, in another university).
My opinion is not radically different from many of the ones I have heard so far. For me, the main reasons include the "classical" "guns", and the lack of adequate attention offered to the mentally ill, and to a certain amount the dynamics of the anglosaxon society.
The part on the society is not easy to change, and I don't know if it would ever change. I do believe that the excess of competition and the way that people is under stress to be a "leader" or a "looser" can only cause frustration and marginalization. Frustration turns into anger, and marginalization turns into alienation and could turn into psychosis.
But no, this is unrealistic. What can be done is to improve laws on restricting guns and enhancing the ability of the society to diagnose and treat the mentally ill.
I could go radical and say that guns should be banned to civilians. I, in fact, thing that would be the ultimate solution not only to avoid these problems but also the "domestic" shootings and to reduce the armed assaults. Let's face it: it's *way* easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife. Nobody can deny it. Also, access to explosives or chemicals involved in their production is *heavily* restricted. Maybe because they are strictily offensive weapons?
But no, that won't happen. This country has a strong will in favour of the right to carry guns. It's even in their constitution. Alas, it is also true that many countries have a lot of guns per habitant. MY country (Uruguay) is one of those cases: I think it is even worse than here. It also manifests itself in the very fact that the country won't dismantle its huge arsenal of atomic bombs.
OK, so what's the solution? There is a very reasonable solution, and it should not take that much to implement: have stricter and tighter weapon carrying licences.
Why is it so natural that having a car requires a strict licence for which one has to study and pass rigorous health, theoretical and practical exams? They also have to be renewed. At least in my country, the renovation is subject to adequate phisical conditions (sight, listening, reflexes).
So why don't they do that when they sell you a gun?
If a mental health study was required to purchase a gun (and revised every , say , two years), this shooting could have been avoided. The guy was clearly out of his mind, everyone around him knew that. And that didn't keep him from buying not one but two guns and a lot of ammunition with no hassle.
Also, a weapon license should require a theoretical and practical exam to be passed. The reasons, again, are obvious.
Weapon licenses should also have different category, just like driving licences do. For example, an regular licence should allow people to carry only small caliber, non automatic hand guns. A tighter licence for rifles and semi automatic, and finally special licences for people who work with them (riot guns, automatic rifles, etc.)
The other main thing that has to be changed is the mental treatment. I have heard people in the TV these days, some of them relatives to people involved in shootings, saying that their relatives were cleary ill, and that the mental institutions won't allow them until they actually did something really bad (like trying to kill themselves or other people). That's ridiculous. If you see a lion in the street you won't just let him go because he still didn't kill anyone. You must try to grab him and send him where he can do no harm.
I see guys like this korean guy as victims much as I see the ones he killed before killing himself. There is no point in demonizing. Of course, if I were the parent of one of those poor guys who died, I'd hate him forever. I am lucky just to be able to think in this way.
What I mean is: this guy was clearly suffering, and a lot, and has been torturing himself. He was not some wicked guy who wanted to wanted to show off. He was really tortured. It is evidented from the videos and from what people around him said of his attitude. He hated everyone, and he hated himself also. It could be that he was too afraid of the society, that he felt diminished, and that he fell into a spiral of marginalization and anger that ultimately led him to do what he did.
They say that 37% of grad students get into deep depressions during their careers. So why not have mental health centers in the Universities? why not admitting a guy like this that was pointed out by more than one teacher as a troubled and inherently violent person? I've heard the more cinics saying it is a problem of budget. Saying that having a person in jail is much cheaper than having him in a hospital. OK, that might be the case, but I don't think it traduces to explicit policies in the subject. I think it's one more of the consequences of having a small budget for public health, and that is of course due in part to the ridiculous amount of money spent in defense and warfare.
miércoles, 7 de marzo de 2007
Grandes Verdades
No Intente Ser Ordenado: El Segundo Principio de La Termodinámica Demostró Que Es Inútil
Visita de Bush al Uruguay
Hay un debate actual en mi país acerca de la visita del presidente de EEUU, el señor Jorge Arbusto.
El tema es claro: por un lado es correcto tratar con él desde el punto de vista de la relación comercial con ese país, después de todo es uno de los mayores compradores. El problema es, y es muy legítimo, que la gran mayoría de la gente está más que indignada con las bestialidades, atrocidades que este país está cometiendo en nombre de SU libertad.
Y yo estoy de acuerdo con esto último.
Pero creo que hay mucha gente equivocada de los dos lados: están equivocados los que piensan bajo la lógica de "conmigo se porta bien". Eso es reaccionario y torpe. Cria cuervos dicen. También están equivocados quienes piensan que no hay que tratar bajo ningún concepto con este personaje y el país que representa.
Lo correcto, creo yo, es tratar a nivel protocolar, comercial, político, de acuerdo a la relación que existe entre ambos países y nada más. No creo que haya que festejarle, ni adularle. Es más, creo perfectamente válido y correcto que se proteste y se deje claro que este país y su gente desaprueba vehementemente lo que su país está haciendo y su concepto de "propagar la libertad".
Se puede hacer las dos cosas y ser perfectamente coherente.
Por poner un ejemplo burdo: yo puedo pensar que mi vecino es mala persona, pero eso no quita que tenga relación, aunque sea fría, con él, y que incluso trabajemos juntos si se rompe un caño o pasa algo de interés común. Eso sí, nunca diría que es mi amigo. Eso es ser hipócrita.
El tema es claro: por un lado es correcto tratar con él desde el punto de vista de la relación comercial con ese país, después de todo es uno de los mayores compradores. El problema es, y es muy legítimo, que la gran mayoría de la gente está más que indignada con las bestialidades, atrocidades que este país está cometiendo en nombre de SU libertad.
Y yo estoy de acuerdo con esto último.
Pero creo que hay mucha gente equivocada de los dos lados: están equivocados los que piensan bajo la lógica de "conmigo se porta bien". Eso es reaccionario y torpe. Cria cuervos dicen. También están equivocados quienes piensan que no hay que tratar bajo ningún concepto con este personaje y el país que representa.
Lo correcto, creo yo, es tratar a nivel protocolar, comercial, político, de acuerdo a la relación que existe entre ambos países y nada más. No creo que haya que festejarle, ni adularle. Es más, creo perfectamente válido y correcto que se proteste y se deje claro que este país y su gente desaprueba vehementemente lo que su país está haciendo y su concepto de "propagar la libertad".
Se puede hacer las dos cosas y ser perfectamente coherente.
Por poner un ejemplo burdo: yo puedo pensar que mi vecino es mala persona, pero eso no quita que tenga relación, aunque sea fría, con él, y que incluso trabajemos juntos si se rompe un caño o pasa algo de interés común. Eso sí, nunca diría que es mi amigo. Eso es ser hipócrita.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)
