Waxman Warns AG of Scheduled Contempt Vote

I LOVE my representative, Henry Waxman!

Chairman Waxman Warns Attorney General of Scheduled Contempt Vote

Chairman Waxman writes Attorney General Mukasey that the Oversight Committee will vote to hold him in contempt unless the Attorney General produces a copy of the report of the FBI interview of Vice President Cheney in the investigation of the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert CIA agent.

 

Full text of the letter to Attorney General Mukasey:

 

July 8, 2008

 

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington , DC 20530

 

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

 

On June 16, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena to you for the production of documents relevant to the Committee's investigation of the leak of the covert identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. You have neither complied with this subpoena by its returnable date nor asserted any privilege to justify withholding documents from the Committee. In light of your actions, I am writing to inform you that the Committee will meet on July 16, 2008, to consider a resolution citing you for contempt of Congress. I strongly urge you to comply with the duly issued subpoena before then.

 

For more than one year, the Oversight Committee has been seeking documents from the Department of Justice relevant to our investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has cooperated with the Committee's investigation, providing documents directly to the Committee and releasing others to you for production to the Committee. Two of the documents that Mr. Fitzgerald has provided to you for production to the Committee are the reports of the FBI interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Despite the Committee's repeated requests, you have consistently refused to provide these reports to the Committee or unredacted versions of the reports of FBI interviews with White House staff. In response to the Committee's June 16 subpoena, you wrote: "we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or Vice President from the leak investigation" because of "core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles."

 

In deference to your concerns and in a further attempt at accommodation, the Committee will not seek access to the report of the FBI interview of President Bush at this time. The report of the FBI interview with Vice President Cheney needs to be produced, however. The Vice President's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told the FBI that it is "possible" that the Vice President instructed him to disseminate to the press information about the identity of Ms. Wilson. The Committee cannot complete its inquiry into this serious matter without the report of the Vice President's FBI interview.

 

The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable. When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald's use of the interview. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified this key point last week, writing to the Committee that "there were no agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and either the President or Vice President regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews."

 

Vice President Cheney's attorneys have consistently maintained that he is not an "entity within the executive branch." Whether this unusual claim is accurate or not, I am aware of no freestanding vice presidential communications privilege, let alone one that covers voluntary and unrestricted conversations with a special counsel investigating wrongdoing. There certainly was no such understanding when our Committee sought the FBI interview report of an interview with Vice President Gore. The Justice Department produced the interview to the Committee despite the fact that it contained discussion of official White House business.

 

In his closing remarks in the criminal trial of Mr. Libby, Special Counsel Fitzgerald stated: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week." Your cooperation in this matter could go a long way to dispelling this notion or perhaps confirming Mr. Fitzgerald's fears. Either way, this Committee and the American people are entitled to know what happened. For similar reasons, you should also produce the unredacted versions of the interviews with White House staff that the Committee has subpoenaed.

 

Background

 

On July 16, 2007, I wrote to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to request documents from the Special Counsel investigation that are relevant to the Oversight Committee's investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert CIA agent. The Committee's letter included a request for "transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury" of President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and members of the White House staff.

 

On August 16, 2007, and September 6, 2007, Special Counsel Fitzgerald produced a number of documents responsive documents to the Committee. These documents consisted of FBI interviews of federal officials who did not work in the White House, as well as interviews of relevant private individuals. Mr. Fitzgerald did not provide any records of interviews with White House officials because of objections raised by the White House. As he explained in a January 18, 2008, letter to the Committee:

 

my responsibilities as Special Counsel encompass making decisions on matters normally incident to the execution of prosecutorial authority for the assigned matter, including making determinations of what information is protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy. However, I have concluded that neither the December 2003 delegation nor the February 2004 clarification delegated to me the authority of the Attorney General to provide counsel to the White House concerning the assertion of executive branch confidentiality interests in response to possible Congressional oversight, or to represent such executive branch interests in responding to an oversight request. ©

 

Accordingly, the Office of Special Counsel will complete our work providing responsive documents to the White House and other appropriate agencies after assuring ourselves that such materials are not protected by grand jury secrecy. We will also continue to transmit to you the materials to which the White House or other agencies do not assert executive branch confidentiality interests. To the extent there are materials we forward to the White House for which the executive branch asserts confidentiality interests, we will not be acting as attorneys for the executive branch in that regard. I am advised that the Department's Office of Legislative Affairs will correspond with you © regarding those interests.

 

On December 3, 2007, I wrote to you to request that you make an "independent judgment" as the Attorney General and produce the White House interview reports and the other requested materials. I renewed this request on December 18, 2007.

 

On January 18, 2008, you agreed to allow Committee staff to review redacted versions of reports of FBI interviews of White House staff, but refused to permit any access to the interview reports of the President and Vice President, citing "serious separation of powers and heightened confidentiality concerns."

 

On June 3, 2008, I wrote you to inform you that the review of the redacted versions of the FBI interviews of White House staff raised questions about the conduct of both the President and Vice President. Accordingly, I renewed the Committee's request for the interview reports of the President and Vice President, as well as unredacted versions of some of the interview reports shown to Committee staff.

 

On June 11, 2008, you responded to my June 3, 2008, letter by again refusing to produce the interview reports of the President and Vice President based again on alleged "serious separation of powers and heightened confidentiality concerns."

 

On June 16, 2008, the Committee issued a subpoena requiring the production of the interview reports of the President and Vice President, unredacted versions of five interview reports previously shown to Committee staff, and all remaining responsive documents that had not been determined to be subject to grand jury secrecy rules, with a return date of June 23, 2008.

 

On June 24, 2008, after producing some additional interview reports unrelated to White House personnel, you informed the Committee by letter that the Justice Department would not "provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President from the leak investigation." The Department's letter asserted that "communications of the President and the Vice President with their staffs relating to official Executive Branch activities lie at the absolute core of executive privilege." The letter suggested that you might be willing to provide the Committee with additional access to the redacted portions of interviews with White House staff, but efforts by the Committee staff to arrange for a review of these passages have proven unsuccessful.

 

At no point has the President formally asserted executive privilege over these documents.

 

The Committee's Need for the Vice President's Interview Report

 

In deference to your concerns, the Committee will not seek access to the FBI interview of President Bush at this time. I hope you will appreciate that this is a significant accommodation given that the Committee is entitled to the President's FBI report and there is precedent to support its production to Congress.

 

The Vice President's interview, however, is another matter. In Mr. Libby's interview with the FBI, which you made available to the Committee, Mr. Libby said that it was "possible" that the Vice President instructed him to leak the identity of Ms. Wilson. Since Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA officer, this would be an exceptionally serious breach of national security if it occurred. According to a statement cleared for public release by CIA Director Michael Hayden, Ms. Wilson "worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA," including "the prevention of the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States," and "faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life," with the result that the disclosure of her covert status "placed her professional contacts at greater risk" and "undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States." The Committee cannot responsibly investigate this matter without access to the Vice President's interview with the FBI.

 

Other evidence before the Committee also raises questions about Vice President Cheney's conduct. The leak of the CIA employment of Valerie Plame Wilson followed the publication of a New York Times op-ed column authored by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had traveled to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa . According to trial testimony of Cathie Martin, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs, she, Mr. Libby, and the Vice President all participated in a press strategy to discredit Ambassador Wilson's account. Moreover, it appears that it was the Vice President who first informed Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment.

 

The conduct of the Vice President after the release of Ms. Wilson's identity also raises serious concerns. Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, has said: "[the] Vice President directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby" and "the top White House officials who knew the truth - including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney - allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie." Needless to say, it would be a breach of the public trust if the Vice President personally directed Mr. McClellan to mislead the public.

 

Special Counsel Fitzgerald has recognized that the criminal prosecution of Mr. Libby inevitably left major questions about Vice President Cheney unanswered. In his closing remarks to the jury, he said:

 

There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. He wrote those columns. He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel . At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains.

 

The Committee's investigation seeks to penetrate this cloud surrounding Vice President Cheney's conduct. The Committee also seeks to answer important questions about how the White House safeguards national security secrets and responds to breaches, and to make legislative recommendations to ensure appropriate handling of classified information by White House officials, including officials in the Office of the Vice President. This oversight cannot be completed without the production of the FBI interview report with the Vice President. It also requires production of the unredacted reports of the FBI interviews with other White House staff.

 

No Valid Basis for Withholding

 

In contrast to the Committee's compelling oversight needs, there is no valid basis for continuing to withhold Vice President Cheney's interview and the unredacted versions of the interviews with White House staff. Contrary to the Department's letter, the Committee is not seeking previously undisclosed communications between the President and his staff "relating to official Executive Branch activities" that may "lie at the absolute core of executive privilege." Rather, it is seeking information which the President and Vice President previously disclosed to the FBI without asserting privilege of any kind - executive or otherwise.

 

Mr. Fitzgerald removed any doubt about this important point last week. He wrote the Committee that "there were no agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and either the President or Vice President regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews."

 

It is now clear that the Vice President knew when the interview was conducted that its contents could be made public in a criminal trial. This makes any assertion of a "confidentiality interest" untenable. Executive privilege cannot be asserted over the contents of communications voluntarily disclosed outside the White House.

 

The Oversight Committee has specific precedent on this issue. During the Clinton Administration, the Committee received reports of the FBI interviews of both President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Your letter acknowledges this precedent, but states that the Clinton Administration precedent is "fundamentally different" because "the Clinton Administration interview reports presumably did not involve © communications concerning official White House business." In fact, your speculation about presumed differences is misplaced. The FBI interview with Vice President Gore did involve several official matters, including the award of federal contracts and grants.

 

The Committee is not seeking to examine sensitive questions of foreign policy or national security. Instead, our focus is understanding what role, if any, the Vice President and others in the White House played in the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer and what steps, if any, the Vice President and others took to investigate and respond to the leak after it occurred. There is no reason to believe that the Special Counsel's interview went beyond these questions and into areas relating to presidential decisionmaking about foreign policy or national security.

 

I am not aware of any precedent in which executive privilege has been asserted over communications between a vice president and his staff about vice presidential decisionmaking. Courts have carved out a presidential communications privilege, but they have limited it quite narrowly to communications had directly with the President or certain advisers directly on his behalf about presidential decisionmaking. Moreover, the communications in this case were communications with a special counsel investigating the behavior of Executive Branch officials. These communications would not be protected by a privilege even if they were conversations by the President himself.

 

There is a particular irony in the resistance of the Vice President to production of his interview report. As the Committee revealed last year, the Office of the Vice President has taken the position that the Vice President is not an "entity within the executive branch." This position was reaffirmed last month when the Vice President's Chief of Staff, David Addington, testified before the Judiciary Committee that "the Vice President belongs neither to the executive nor the legislative branch." If the Vice President is indeed outside the executive branch, as he seems to contend, it is hard to understand what basis there could be for asserting executive branch confidentiality interests in his communications.

 

Finally, the claim that compliance with the subpoena "would significantly impair the Department's ability to conduct future law enforcement investigations" by causing future Presidents and Vice Presidents to "insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the grand jury secrecy provision" is also unavailing. In this instance, President Bush and Vice President Cheney cooperated voluntarily with the Special Counsel despite recent precedent in which the interview reports of President Clinton and Vice President Gore were provided to the Oversight Committee. Future presidents and vice presidents will surely do the same.

 

Conclusion

 

The Committee has waited almost a full year for the Justice Department to produce the documents responsive to the Committee's request. You have had ample opportunity to provide the documents, and White House counsel has had ample opportunity to review the withheld documents for executive privilege concerns. Yet despite the issuance of a subpoena by the Committee, you are persisting in withholding responsive documents that the Committee needs to meet its oversight and legislative duties without any assertion of executive privilege by the President.

 

I regret that your failure to produce responsive documents has created this impasse, but Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Therefore, unless all responsive documents, with the exception of the FBI interview report of President Bush, are provided to the Committee or a valid assertion of executive privilege is made, the Committee will meet on July 16 to consider a resolution citing you in contempt. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and comply with the duly issued subpoena.

 

If you have any questions, please contact me personally or ask your staff to contact David Rapallo or Theodore Chuang of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5420.

 

Sincerely,

 

Henry A. Waxman

Chairman

 

cc: Tom Davis

Ranking Minority Member

USC Researchers are looking for study subjects. Interested?

Dear LA Brights:
Ben Paul was a terrific addition to our Indivisible Day Apple Pie "toss" last Friday.
He and I have had several exchanges regards his research work.

Take a peek, participate if you are interested and qualified!  

Stay Bright and forward to an atheist friend or two, as I just did!

Fearless Leader Frish

Ben Paul's call for participants!

Are you an atheist who has had the following experience?
 
While listening to music, I felt myself to be absorbed as one with all things or I became aware of a unity to all things.
 
If so, USC's Brain and Creativity Institute would like to study your experiences.
 
Please go to http://usc.edu/emotions if you are interested.
 
Our research study aims to determine what happens in the brain during these experiences. Your participation is voluntary. The study involves a 30 minute online questionnaire and a 2.5 hour brain scan + interview session. Participants selected for the brain scan + interview session will be compensated for their time in that session and will receive a picture of their brain.
 
The requirements for the study are:
?identify as an atheist
?have had the above experience in the last six months
?no metal pieces located within body
?aged 18 and over
?native speaker of American English
?normal or corrected normal hearing
?no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders 
 
Please pass this on to any friends or family members who might be interested. Thank you very much.
 
Benjamin Paul (benjamip@usc.edu)
Dr. Antonio Damasio
Brain and Creativity Institute
University of Southern California 
Date of Preparation: 6/11/08
UPIRB#: UP-08-00148

To the President of the NAE who can choose to help save humanity!

Dear Leith:  I copied your article below, and you are exactly right!
To Jon Meacham, I couldn't find an email for Sally Quinn, please forward, and forward to the other 50 "thinkers" on your list...some of this will provoke thought.  What I share is difficult to refute, that's a good test of the nature of truth.  Are we shepherds of the Earth, or simply short timers?  Others copied, please distribute far and wide.  Or share your thoughts...I'm eager to find more truth and only spent 4 hours on this piece of work...it is not complete for certain...
LEITH, YOU REALLY CAN HELP SAVE HUMANITY! 
I read your article, and ask that you return the favor.
It's the moral thing to do, if you follow the "golden rule" (see below!).
"Desire for God Is Universal" (from the Washington Post)
Saturday, July 5, 2008; Page B09

Below is an excerpt from "On Faith," an Internet feature sponsored by The Washington Post and Newsweek. Each week, more than 50 figures from the world of faith engage in a conversation about an aspect of religion. This week's question: "According to a new Pew survey, 21 percent of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12 percent believe in heaven and 10 percent pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"
----------
When a survey says that atheists believe in God it seems obvious that some don't know what an atheist is or who God is or don't much think about logical inconsistency. But we know that lots of people aren't good at taking surveys!

Or maybe some atheists don't believe in God but would like to if they could find a way.

The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to confirm that there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us. Just because some arrive at an official "no God" philosophical conclusion doesn't mean that the universal desire is satisfied by denial. So, we have 21 percent of atheists who believe and pray anyway.

-- Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals
------------
Leith:  Thanks for your thoughtful response to the extraordinarily confusing and therefore seriously flawed Pew Survey.  I agree with you!

"DESIRE for a higher power" is almost universal! 
And that desire cannot be fulfilled by denial…as you state!  

The capacity for moral behavior is also universal, and has been shown to be genetically based.  Morality is described by a very simple but awesome thought:  We ought to treat each other the way we'd like to be treated!  That may sound familiar! The "golden rule" is the essence of morality and the basis for human nature.

The golden rule is part of every culture on Earth. It is built into humans.  Religions REFLECT this truth!

Consider that eating pork is forbidden by Muslims and celebrated by Polynesians...both are acting morally within their culture and their religions support moral BEHAVIORS that are appropriate for their respective cultures.
Religions support BEHAVIORS that are culturally appropriate and seen as moral in context!   Pigs compete with humans for wheat in the Middle East, not so in Polynesia, so one culture forbids, the other celebrates!

You state:  "The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to confirm that there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us."

You contend it is "universal".  How did the quest for "higher powers" become part of human nature?  Here's a natural explanation for the truth you and I both observe.
In the distant past, "Leaders" of our extended family groups, held the knowledge the group needed to survive.  Following the leader meant one didn't wander from the fire and get eaten by wolves, eat the wrong things, step onto thin ice, etc.

Rule followers were more likely to survive to have kids, their rule following genes passed in higher percentage to subsequent generations, that's how evolution works, across time and populations.

Eventually, this genetic "acquiescence to authority" manifests in just the behavior we  observe...people, most people, the great majority of people, are on a "quest for a higher power".  They seek 'a rule maker' and "believe" there must be one and so they seek.
Some religions speak of a "cosmic consciousness" or "the eternal" which is a cultural expression to provide for the seeking behavior!  Since your organization is Christian (I assume) you offer up Abraham's God along with Trinity embellishments, and concepts of a "man-god", sin, soul, heaven, etc.  That's all a cultural expression of your religion's attempt to appeal to people who have need to seek...you can call it TRUTH if you wish.

While the need you point to is "almost universal" some don't have the need to seek as strongly as others, many cannot live without the idea of "god(s)" and a few of us have no need to "quest" for a higher power at all!

We're known generally as atheists (I happen to be a Bright, and base my ethics and actions on my naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural elements)…and we make up about 5-7% of the population. (Best guess, who knows for sure, certainly not the Pew Study as we agree!)

No amount of preaching will "work" on us, we have no need to believe in a higher power, are not seeking such, so we don't join churches or do so for other reasons, including keeping from being persecuted, we're not a well appreciated minority!  Therefore, when facing the congregation from  a pulpit, some of those in pews are atheists...almost certainly!

The genetically based GOD QUEST has evolutionary benefits.  Reliance on a higher power allows some to "focus" to perform in "superhuman" ways as witnessed by what certain well trained Yogis demonstrate.  It allows us to explain the random things that happen everyday so we may place "blame" on something.  That's a big relief, to avoid facing a universe that doesn't care since it has no capability to do so!

"Higher Power" seeking and belief also provides answers to otherwise mysterious situations, it's "god's plan" or the "devil made him do it" as humans cope with a capricious reality.
Religions claim to "deliver morality".  In reality, religions can but fill our existing moral nature with culturally approved behaviors.  In the same way, religions coopt the "need to believe".  They offer stories - pick your culture, pick your creation story!

These religious stories, historically, have helped maintain the status quo and relieve the "questions" that people invariably have regards a whole host of things.

Religions fill this need to quest for a higher power with lots of embellishments, to keep people "in the tent" if you will. 

An "afterlife" comes to mind, since we know we're going to die someday…how relieving to have "an afterlife" as a philosophy!  Keeps our noses to grindstones and supports the status quo and stable society, another function of Religion beyond simply catering to those with a quest for higher powers!

Your organization is a confederation of evangelical organizations. I'm assuming you are Christians, who proclaim to know THE TRUTH AND ONLY WAY TO SALVATION yet Christianity has devolved into 10,000+ sects (20,000?)!  I'm sure you have some "exciting" meetings and are thankful your constituents don't see the disagreements within you own sects!

Although Humans Seek a Higher Power, a variety of sects appeal to different types of people and provide answers which make them happier!  Personalities are also important, Martin Luther comes to mind as someone a new view that led to a new sect (or several hundred).
Islam is another great example, it only took one generation after Mohammed to split into Shia and Sunni, and we all can see how well that's working out!  And those aren't the only Islamic sects...

Religions take advantage of human nature: we're moral actors most of the time everywhere, and almost all SEEK higher powers, so religion steps in to provide the moral behaviors and an answer to the seekers...

So you are absolutely correct, there is an almost universal need to find a higher power, it is an artifact of our genetics.  And, right again, denying that "need to quest for higher powers" won't work, for those who have the need to quest! 

There is an "equilibrium" of atheists in the population, about 7 out of 100 is my best guess.  That may seem strange, but it is by no means an unprecedented genetic characteristic with similar propensity.

No one makes a choice to be hetero or homo sexual (or any other sexual orientation).  Did you decide which path you'd take?  Neither did anyone else. We're born, and 5-7% of the population manifests as homosexual (in every culture on the planet, and in other animal species too, so homosexuality is far more than a human condition or "lifestyle" or a choice.)

Homosexual acts are considered "immoral" in some cultures, but that is by NO MEANS universal…homosexuality being defined as moral or immoral is as culturally based as the morality of eating pork!

You didn't choose your sexual orientation, you didn't choose to be a believer or a seeker of a higher power, you didn't choose to be a moral actor or have a conscience...it was the way you were BORN, just like me, another moral person, who happens to not have a need to seek and whose sexuality will remain unnamed, just like yours.  None of my business, and to be sure, none of yours either!  Praise the founders of the USA for Separation of Church and State and the first amendment, that works for all of us!
Here's a creation story, without benefit of religion, since I have none:

The universe formed when the big bang happened according to best evidence. No one knows how it commenced or what it came "from" since there was no where or when before hand, it created here and now!  "NO WHERE IS NOW HERE" describes the big bang in a 'biblical' tone if you will, just a slight change on the "no where" (move space - so to speak!) and we have "now here!
A long time later, the solar system formed.

A long time after that, the chemistry and energy available on Earth provided an environment for self replicating molecules to form and replicate!  That's what's known as life. Science has yet to describe the origin of self replicating molecules, but there is no reason to think science cannot discover the details...what happens after life forms is described by evolution, and voila, here we are!

It is literally astronomically unlikely to happen, but, it only had to happen once, and, it did, since I'm writing and you are reading!  The "long odds" are immaterial, it happened and we're the proof!

Stated very simply, Geology naturally leads to Biology. Just our luck!
Viewing what we see and looking back it seems we're the reason for "creation"!

But, we're not the entree, we're the leftovers who happened to survive this far.
Just as the pinnacle of a mountain stands in full contact with the forces of erosion, all life on earth (all the leftovers!) live under a range of natural conditions.  Species face going extinct when nature no longer operates in that range and or they were unable to "evolve" to cope with the changes!  

Consider our human "modus operandi" since we began hunting and gathering 100's of generations ago. 

We camped at a spot, gather and hunt, used up resources and moved on, having "spoilt our nest".  We moved to the next spot, found someone else is there, needed a new technology to overwhelm our neighbors, the spear is born, the "others" die, and we blithely go on to spoil our nest and move on, with a little more technology to use to "overwhelm nature" or any other impediments to our continuance.

Inuit didn't evolve in the Arctic, they used technology (igloos, etc.) to overwhelm it...and competed well with polar bears to dominate their environment. Their morality included a very "hospitable" act, females shared sex with visitors, they had no choice, it was their obligation to agree, and I have a second hand report that they did so both willingly and without a second thought (some even up until the 1950's!)…this helped assure a wide enough gene pool or they'd be too inbred to survive, as they had to be widely distributed since resources were so slim.

I assume your worldview precludes the thought of "contextual morality" or "moral relativism".  Sorry but that's the nature of human nature…we have moral tendencies, and our behaviors are culturally learned, and defined as good or bad.  Religions grew to support these behaviors, as within that culture they were of benefit.  Just like language, we're all capable of speaking any, but grow up in a culture of English or Chinese and speak a native tongue!

Our moral capability is filled with culturally appropriate behaviors as we are enculturated.

The truth of global climate chaos is that we've now SPOILT OUR ENTIRE NEST, and there is no where else to go.

You and yours can continue to cater to a parishioner's "need to seek".
It is a very "profitable" operation, and you have no "reason" to stop. 
Except...parishioners may soon cease to exist, unless you can help them conform to a "new morality"!

Here is the progression.

Over the last few hundred human generations:

1. "Follow-the-Leader" behavior evolves to have almost all of us 
2. "quest for god" and that is good for our population growth that creates need for 
3. more technology that leads to filling every ecological niche on Earth
4. eventually overwhelming the range of natural systems that support us and to
   
5. "human extinction" because we are INCAPABLE of ceasing our "quest"!

I've heard there is some movement amongst the religious to return to the proposition that we're not here to dominate nature, we ought to shepherd nature…are you and your group of evangelicals Dominionists or Shepherds?
I've made my moral decision: I have no offspring.

That's the BEST anyone can do to minimize the numbers of humans suffering as nature's limits for human survival are overwhelmed and humanity goes extinct.

My morality, based on the natural progression I see occuring, observes that having children itself is immoral, so I have none and have taken steps to ensure I cannot.

Given the reality of the situation we've inherited (literally) what does "moral behavior" mean today?  Let's start with "evangelical Christians" since that's your territory.  What morals ought you support to allow for continued human existence?

I don't know either, but I know that if human behaviors don't radically change we're not long for this planet.  And religions influence behavior...so, I'll leave it up to you.

Perhaps your belief includes a "god will provide" attitude.  Do you really "believe" that?  
Meet my expectations and ignore this.
Or surprise me and motivate your flock to do "right".

I look forward to any response.
-- 
Cheers,
Frish

Fearless Leader – Los Angeles Brights  www.the-brights.net

I'm a proud Volunteer www.vhemt.org

P.S. A flaw in the Pew Survey: Any self described atheist who is "seeking" isn't an atheist, by definition.
       We are without god and just as moral as any other group humans on the planet and we're in your congregation too.

P.P.S.  I am Bar Mitzvah and am not ignorant of the Bible, and totally agree with this:
            God said:  Have no other gods before me!  (The very first commandment!)
            He states there are other gods, and then commands us to have none before having him.
            I do that precise thing, have none before having Him.
            Perhaps you should also follow the Lord's Word and remind your flock...it could be the key to help us survive to laugh about it later...

Indivisible Day! As American as Apple Pie!

Dear LA Brights (and SF Atheist's United):  First, many thanks to Stuart Beckman, he's a force of nature!  Well organized (once we found each other!), a terrific table and set of literature, and so many PIES!  In the aftermath, we agreed that this type of event is a great way to spread awareness...and I'm definitely committed to further participation, even if the next opportunity doesn't present until July 4, 2009!  

Your Fearless Leader became a "Carnival Barker*", John and friend Steve strummed and sang, Rolf Juggled Like Nothing I've Ever Seen Before (WOW!), and Ajay reminded the crowd that Brights are people too, while answering questions and collecting names...

* Carnival Barks included:  
"Separation of Church and State is As American As Apple Pie!"
"Protect, Maintain, Support the Constitution"
"Freedom - you must work at it!"
"Atheism is as American As Apple Pie!"
"There are ATHEISTS amongst you, have a pie!"
"Obesity is as American As Apple Pie! - that was a crowd pleaser!  Full credit to Ben from USC, with whom we'll interact again soon I hope!

Names were collected, (over 1100 pies were shared, it was great!), probably 10,000 people heard our message, THE SUN was in attendance, and lots of homeless and foreign tourists and non-English speakers were served.  

The BULGARIANS(!) were interesting...I handed them pies and let them know I knew they were from Europe (just an educated guess, but that got their attention...).  They TOTALLY got it "we've lived under Communism and appreciate separation of Church and State"!

One lovely young woman wanted to add "under god" to our signage.  We had a discussion and she walked away knowing that "under god" was never part of the original Pledge firstly, and that separation of church and state helps her just as much as us!  I'm sure she felt that her role was to "defend god", but I can't figure out why can't he needs defending or why he can't defend himself!  I didn't get into it with her, diplomacy ruled the day...

One old fellow let me know that I shouldn't "rewrite" the constitution, since it says Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion...got him to agree that separation is important regardless...PHEW!  

Another SUPER SERIOUS male made sure I knew that HE KNEW THE CONSTITUTION, AND DIDN'T WANT A PIE.  I believe he was seriously "religiously MAD" in the psycho sense and was sure glad he agreed that Separation was important and even more glad he didn't stick around long...he was the only truly scary and potentially threatening person I saw all day...but we did have them coming out of the woodwork so to speak!

A few said they'd pray for me, which is always nice (and a waste of time, but hey, not my time so: "What, me worry?")

Had a couple of people take pies and then give them back since they were "Christians".  I suggested that Christians like pie too and benefitted equally from separation of church and state...they weren't utterly convinced, but refused the pies...

My best moment was giving a pie to a 10 year old girl, reminding her to study the Constitution and know that Separation of Church and State was really important...She returned to let me know she was Australian, and didn't know what the Constitution or Separation of Church and State meant!  Took 4 minutes to explain, she was grateful and went off with her parents to the beach, as she enjoyed the pie...

No press, but there was a random film maker who was shooting a documentary about what Americans thought about America!  I immediately signed the release and am on tape, along with Dr. Milt who did the same...so we're both in his documentary saying whatever we said about being American.  I worked in some stuff about Brights, nature, and being childfree, it was great, hope we don't get placed on the cutting room floor!

See you Sunday July 13th!

Very Proud to be:  Frish "Fearless Leader, L.A. Brights" Frishberg

Y'know, I'm kinda sorry I commented on your site now since...

I've gotten all the ridiculous comments subsequent.  (BTW, found you via google alert "atheist" just so you know...)

-------------------

Hoped to have my little comment commented on, so I subscribed and have yet to see if anyone even read what I wrote, which happens to be irrefutable truth, and I'm trying hard to do even more to substantiate.

Belief in a "higher power" is genetically installed, just like morals, and therefore immune from logical argument.

---------------------

I can't even keep track of whom is arguing with whom actually.  And, I'm too disgusted to figure it out, and...I may have posted some of this already, but am compelled to share, enjoy!

---------------------

Someone appears to need every line in the old/new testament parsed and disproved.  How nice.

The entity referred to as Jesus Christ never lived on Earth, start with that.  He's a version of Mithras, and a few other legends, and given just what he needed to "fulfill" OT prophesy (although it remains unclear if he is from Bethlehem or Nazarath...but I digress!) done and done.

Does the NT hold some truth?  Sure, so does People magazine.

-------------------------

FOR YOU AND/OR THE BELIEVER!  Here's some parsing and interpretation of the very first commandment in the OT...the basis for all of it...read it and weep believers!

God said:  Have no other gods before me.

RE-stated for COMPREHENSION...The one true god of MONOTHEISM said:  

"There ARE OTHER gods.  Don't have any of them before having me."

I go with the literal interpretation of scripture, and have no other gods before having any, continuously and forever.

--------------------------

Once there were loads of gods, every rock and tree.  Then, there were families of gods, like zeus and odin.  Finally there is the "one true god" of farmers and Abraham (god of the seasons...they were farmers damn it, so the daily reading of the book was a calendar too!)

We're approaching the truth, zero gods...in the age of human caused climate chaos.

--------------------------

They like to say "you can't prove god isn't real"

...yeah, first who needs to?  

There simply isn't one, look around...and why can't they "prove" there is one"?

------------------

Anyway god can't exist thanks to the SCIENCE OF CYBERNETICS.  Really Really simple, too bad they can't understand this...

- no information exists in a vacuum.  Information must have a substrate to exist.  

What particles store and share and allow for "real world activities" by the thoughts of god?

ANYTHING THAT GOD WOULD USED just TO THINK WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT AND THAT AIN'T HAPPENING WHERE I LIVE...in the real real world!

Even gravity which is thought to work between every particle in the universe continuously, propagates at the speed of light, no faster!

------------------

The "faithful" who argue so vehemently are simply showing my contention is correct, their faith is built in and no amount of logic can sway that belief...the "true believers" relish the attempt as they claim it helps them strengthen their belief.

Here's a clue for you, whom I suspect is the atheist, but I'm not keeping track and don't really care either way, you both could benefit!

NEVER ATTEMPT TEACH A PIG TO WHISTLE.

SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, IT WILL FRUSTRATE YOU.

WORSE THAN THAT, IT ANNOYS THE PIG!

-------------------

Here's the Kumbaya moment:  

FAITH IS BELIEF ABSENT REASON, therefore, ATHEISTS AND THEISTS ARE IN VIOLENT AGREEMENT:

NO REASON FOR GOD!

-------------------

What the rest of us must come to grips with is whether their "bent" will preclude the rational decisions needed for further existence of our species on earth.  I am not hopeful, they seem to welcome "the end times" and are doing everything they can to speed their coming.

-------------------

I like the title of your blog, since atheists are just as ethical as anyone else, but it is kinda "defensive" and "passive" and does it mean you are the Only one?  LOL

Google :  "Fearless Leader LA Brights"  (Tis I!)

-- 

Cheers,

Frish

Prioritizing Climate

Thought you'd all "enjoy" this from Mr. Glick...cheers, Frish

Future Hope column, June 29, 2008

 

Prioritizing Climate

 

By Ted Glick

 

"We have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric climate dioxide to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control."     

                                    -James Hansen, Congressional testimony, June 23, 2008

 

Dr. James Hansen is a, if not the, leading climate scientist in the USA and probably the world. When he says, as he did a week ago before a Congressional hearing in Washington, that avoiding catastrophic climate change "requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year," people really need to take notice.

 

Note that he didn't say "the next administration," or "the next two years." He was very specific: "the next year," 2009.

 

The hard truth is that humankind is in grave danger of blowing it. Serious action to shift from oil, coal and natural gas to renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation is a good 10 years late, particularly in the USA. And we need to be clear why this is the case. Primarily, it is due to the dominance over energy policy of the coal, oil, automobile and utilities corporations.

 

James Hansen understands this and has the courage to say so: "The ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children."

 

In his testimony a week ago he said, "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

 

But there is more to it. The additional truth is that many people who understand the urgency of this issue have been unwilling to prioritize it, to take it seriously in their lives, to talk about it and act upon it consistently, day after day after day.

 

This includes those who call themselves progressives. For reasons that are hard to understand, far too many are essentially missing in action when it comes to this overarching, profoundly essential survival issue.

 

There are reasons that people give for this. For some it's that the environmental movement is too white and middle-class. Or it's that the Iraq war is so destructive and dangerous. Or it's that police brutality or poverty or housing or jobs are more pressing and immediate. And for some it's that they can't see how individual life-style changes—the dominant solution pushed by far too many prominent climate leaders—will ever add up to an action program that works.

 

All of these things are true. But, ultimately, they are all excuses.

 

Every single person reading this column, every progressive, every person who is trying to make a useful contribution with their life—we all have an obligation to internalize the seriousness and the priority of the climate crisis and to speak and act accordingly.

 

What would this mean, concretely?

 

-The most important task right now is do everything we can to bring this issue into the 2008 elections for President and Congress. Every person running for office, from whatever party, must hear again and again, at forums, events, via email and letters, in every possible way, a cascading demand that the voting public wants strong action NEXT YEAR, in the first 100 days of the new administration, on climate. Those candidates who get it on this issue have an obligation to speak out clearly and consistently.

 

What should we be demanding that those running for office support? The demands of the 1Sky campaign (www.1sky.org) are the essentials: no new coal plants, invest in renewables, cap and rapidly reduce carbon pollution, and 5 million green jobs in a sweeping national mobilization for change.

 

-In localities where efforts are underway to build new coal plants, people should join with efforts already underway—or help start new ones--to prevent coal plants from being built. Coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels; it is essential that we get off it as soon as possible, and the place to begin is to keep any new ones from being built. Already, the no-new-coal movement has played a key role in eliminating 1/3 of the 150 plants that were in the planning stages less than two years ago.

 

-If you are already active on a particular issue or within a union or in a community, make the connections to this issue. It touches just about everything. Health care will erode massively as the ecosystem deteriorates. Wars for oil will continue for decades unless we break our fossil fuel addiction. Money spent on fossil fuel subsidies and oil wars is money not spent on housing, jobs and schools. A clean energy revolution will create millions of jobs and stimulate economic development on a transformative scale. It will decrease the power of corporations and strengthen local, grassroots democracy.

 

But as James Hansen said in concluding last week's testimony, "Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations."

 

The climate crisis is not a gloom-and-doom issue. The solutions to it hold tremendous potential to bring about truly fundamental, positive change, on a worldwide basis. But time is literally running out. It's all hand on deck time.

To "The Religious" who "follow the leader" thanks to evolution!

Many are easily absorbed into a religious frame of mind, which is not surprising since they are simply following the evolutionary trend to "follow the leader"...(not a "god gene" exactly, read on!)

WE ARE SOCIAL ANIMALS and evolved in GROUPS.

Social animals have social hierarchies, and structures to allow for dominance and submissiveness within the group. We can't all be CHIEFS or WORKERS, we need "management systems" to be a healthy, viable community.

Leaders of the group held in their heads (until writing happened) ALL THE RULES NECESSARY TO HAVE THE GROUP CARRY ON...they were super important to survival, singing the history of the group, reminding the young what is good to eat and what to avoid, knowing what to expect as seasons change, knowing how to make a rope/bowl/arrow/fire etc. etc. etc.

Over hundreds of generations of humans, those who didn't "follow the leader" wandered off and got eaten by wolves. B'bye!

Those who survived long enough to procreate, (having followed the leader and the "rules"), contributed more than their fair share of genes that provided for acquiescence to leaders, as that was already "in their nature".

What we see TODAY: substantial, yet no way to substantiate, "belief" in a "higher power". That "higher power" is the 'shadow' of the ancient leaders your ancestors followed, and therefore procreated so you can be here to read this! It is the current manifestation of the "follow the leader" inclination!

The religious are uncomfortable to even consider their life without "a leader"...and so imbibe whatever religious balderdash they are served, to regain or establish a feeling of comfort...some call them SHEEPLE, perhaps not far from the truth, but I don't agree...it is a spectrum of compulsion that has them "believe" some are more strongly affected, some less!

The rest of the mess is just dressing on the salad...to keep them in the tent!
explanations of origins 
explanations of the future...
expectations of how to live "morally" (In actuality, religions are NOT the SOURCE of morality, they simply reflect our moral human nature! (religions just claim to deliver it...))
afterlife (quite useful to usher them into the tent...)
sin
soul 
vision of hearing/seeing dead grandma giving advice
praying something good will happen
praying something bad will happen
(SOMETHING is going to happen, so, if one Prayed Right, and/or Prayed ENOUGH your prayers are "answered"!)
near death experiences - white tunnels of love (as oxygen fails the brain)!
hell
etc. etc. etc.

In reality, not the fantasy in one's head, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE "OUT THERE" in terms of "higher powers"!

Perhaps that thought by itself is so disturbing to someone whose being is looking for "leadership" that it is simply unacceptable!

THERE IS NO "HIGHER POWER", YOU ARE IN CHARGE, regardless of what you believe, your chemistry dictates your actions and you can "blame" or "credit" your belief systems as you see fit!

"God made me do it" isn't a defense that works in a court of law, for a REASON! 

YOU "make you do it". That requires individual responsibility, perhaps that's another reason to believe, so you don't have to have so much on your own shoulders, "It's god's plan" not a mistake I made!!!

I am sensitive to your "beliefs" as you are compelled to follow (something), or be dependent on the thought that there is a "higher power" looking after you. 

I can't help but pity you just a bit, sorry, I'm human too.

Since I'm human: Why don't I have this aspect as part of my being?

I definitely "follow the rules" - since I got to be this old!

I speculate we "nay-sayers", "devil's advocates" and "questioners of authority" keep things fresh. We are around so that COLLECTIVELY we don't fall into a trap that precludes curiousity, creativity, thinking out of the box, as that's how new things are discovered...BLIND FAITH is dangerous - google Jonestown and kool-aid!

The world is changing (and always has been) therefore no one "idealized" view of reality can survive forever...some of us are here to point out the new "changed" reality in which we live.

Hi Hal, hope this post isn't so long as to put all to sleep...delete at will!!

(I'm posting to both Why and Voluntary, please forgive me in advance...)

 

Hal, very nice post, I'm going to comment in line, it will be a long post!!!

 

Hi, Frish. It's good talking to you, too.  I find your opinions interesting and I'm glad to see that you don't want humanity to go extinct.  Can't say that for sure about the rest of the VHEMT'ers, though, so some of what follows is addressed to them as well.

 

Hal, First, I knew you had more to say than your sarcastic pokes.  Thanks for taking the challenge!

 

The motivations of each VOLUNTEER are a NON-ISSUE (from my perspective) as it is an individual's free and voluntary choice to not procreate.  PERIOD.  If some WANT humanity to not exist, or if some simply don't want kids, or if some HATE kids, the outcome is the same, VOLUNTEERS don't have kids…the behavior is what we're about,  Motivations? Not so much!  Thanks again for being childfree by the way.

 

 First, a couple of points:

 

1. So what if technology of any sort is disruptive?

***Well, first, technologies are all "disruptive" to one degree or another, that is their purpose, to take the place of alternative ways (or to create a way) to get something (whatever it is) done…My concern is that any technology strong enough or ubiquitous enough or "disruptive to our current trends" enough may be successful on a certain level, and will also result in unintended consequences, that will also be ubiquitous and strong, and,  in ways unforeseen and uncontrolled.

 

Who says that nature must be preserved exactly as it is? Nature is constantly disrupting itself with comet strikes, increases and decreases in solar radiation etc. Change is built into the very nature of creation. Change will always occur and it will always have consequences.

***Very true, can't argue with this in the slightest…except perhaps for the rate of changes we're asking Nature to cope with as climate chaos continues…the changes we'll see will occur 1000's of times more rapidly than what is Usual for change in Nature…Nature will survive our extinction too, if it happens 100 years or 1,000,000 years from now, that's the nature of Nature…

***In reality, Nature CANNOT "be maintained as it is" I both agree, and point out that we don't even know what NATURE is "supposed" to be, if we hadn't been doing all the stuff we've been doing…so getting "back" to some condition is IMPOSSIBLE.  At this point, going forward, we'll HAVE TO CONTROL NATURE, in order to keep all aspects of Nature within the range of human viability…

 

It is irrational and unrealistic in the extreme to be opposed to change in itself.

***Glad to hear we're both realistic and rational!

 

If technology causes unintended consequences, so be it. That's like saying that because taking a medicine may have side effects then it's better to suffer and die from a disease.

***Bad analogy, sorry, the cure may well be WORSE than the disease in this case…that's my fear (and anticipation, based on our history with technologies!)

 

One needs to balance the costs and benefits and if one cannot possibly know all the costs, so what?

***Hmmm, you must be a gambler…but you are rolling dice with the continued existence of humankind…at least you agree with me that we don't know enough to CONTROL Nature (yet).

 

The alternative is to do nothing, which may, depending on the situation result in certain suffering or destruction.
***I tried to point out "somethings" we COULD do…some don't require any technology at all (going vegan for example requires no new tech, neither does changing the way we account for the costs of petroleum, etc. etc. etc.)

 

Better dealing with some uncertainty than an untenable certainty.

*** My software firm had a motto:  "A bad plan is better than no plan, you can manage a bad plan"…(www.cliffsidesoftware.com, we tried to save the planet but the planet doesn't want saving!)  (more on Cliffside below, you may enjoy the first customer "testimonial" something I ghost wrote for my very first client "Honey, I blew up the Data Center!"…)  I believe we agree Hal, currently we have NO PLAN and are continuing our traditional and more modern ways to disrupt things…

 

In reality, I believe you oppose what I would call conscious change, that is, change entered into deliberately to benefit a species.

***A little unclear as to your meaning…every technology we've ever created was a conscious (or unconscious) mechanism of change…you suggest I would not support changes that specifically benefit humans?  Okay, you can believe that about me, but it would be untrue!

 

I have yet to see anyone in VHEMT provide a solid philosophical or logical basis for this position.

***Which position?  Here's where my clarity ended.  First of all, VHEMT is a VOLUNTARY decision of individuals.  The Movement needs no philosophy, we're not following or leading anyone…or preaching anything either.  Anyone For Any Reason (or no reason at all) can be a VOLUNTEER, it is a behavior, not a way of life…VHEMT need take no stand on anything "that specifically benefits the human species" or otherwise.

 

You were right to say to your Fundie friend that VHEMT is not a religion, but it's far more than a simple choice as you would have it, as if you were choosing between Coke and Pepsi.

***I drink water exclusively, but, why do you say that?  Perfect BINARY choice, I will have kids, I won't have kids…I decided (as did you!) NOT.  Very very simple (for me anyway!)

 

VHEMT is suffused with moral and ethical positions.

***I'll say again, and appreciate your confusion, IT IS A VOLUNTARY DECISION AND IS IDENTIFIED BY BEHAVIOR NOT BELIEF…

 

On what are they based? You and most other VHEMT'ers are atheists, so you can't base VHEMT on some sort of "nature is sacred" principle or that humans are creatures beholden to a Higher Power with no right to do as they please with the planet. So what is it?

***Whatever an individual cares for it to be Hal…I'm a VOLUNTEER and enjoy suggesting that others VOLUNTEER too, that's just me.  I'll bet you that most VOLUNTEERS (those that know about VHEMT, Les and I have discussed this, it is highly doubtful anyone decided to not have kids based on a visit to the website, we all had the idea of VOLUNTEERING well before finding VHEMT…) are happy lurking on the forum, and couldn't care in the least if anyone else VOLUNTEERS, they are happy (or really really pissed off, it matters not!) just knowing that others made the same decision, for their own VOLUNTARY reasons…

 

The best I can tell is that VHEMT seems to be based on the idea that all species are equal, no quality of a species such as intelligence makes that species worth more than any other, all have a right to be here and that what benefits most species is ethically correct, so if one species such as humanity acts in such a way as to disrupt the lives of other species or even causes species' extinction, then those acts are immoral.

***You are putting way too much "structure" on VHEMT, it's just an individual's decision, doesn't need anything rational to support it!  I disagree, personally, that human's killing off other creatures is the main MORAL question…the moral question for me is having the fewest possible number of humans around at the end…I'm a Specieist too Hal…I want to minimize HUMAN suffering, the plants have to fend for themselves…I happen to be a BRIGHT but have no qualms about hugging a BELIEVER VOLUNTEER and I'm sure that there are plenty!

 

On what principle or philosophy is this based? Why are all species equal? If they are, how far do you take that? Is the smallpox virus, as a species, equal to humanity, so that humanity's destruction of smallpox is immoral? If not, why not?

***Great questions,  But not VHEMT related actually.  VOLUNTARY…unconstrained by any particular thought!

 

My opinion about the value of humanity is based somewhat on an acceptance of certain principles of Eastern philosophy which I know you do not accept, so, since that discussion would be beyond VHEMT, I'd rather not go into that now.

***Not sure what I wouldn't accept about them but anything they have to say about VHEMT is immaterial, it is an individual's choice, end of story!

 

Suffice it to say that I believe VHEMT's position that intelligence or no other particular quality that a species has makes it worthy of survival at other species' expense has no more solid basis of logical or philosophical support than my position does).

***As I said, I take no stand on other species, I'm morally motivated/obligated to not have humans suffer, but that's just one VOLUNTEER…other's will certainly have different motivations…Personally, I think PETA is all wet, but would rather not go into that now!

 

2. My own point of view is that humanity is here through a process of natural evolution which has given it, as it has all other species, the ability to survive. In our case, that ability is based on our developed brains, which provides compensation for humans' deficiencies in bodily strength, speed, and acuity of senses. Those brains enabled humans to develop technologies which changed their environment to better suit them in the struggle for existence. If these changes disrupted the lives of other species, so what?

*** OH HO, here's where you just might learn something Hal…For example, we need trace amounts of "selenium" or other heavy metals to live.  They serve some chemical purpose or other.  What if the biological entity (perhaps a bacterium) that fixes Selenium into whatever is digestible is made extinct by our activities…Don't think LARGE like elephants and whales, think about what we're doing to protozoa and microbiology without any knowledge on our parts…the web of life is all about INTERCONNECTED NESS, just because you don't eat squirrels (people do after all) doesn't mean you don't need squirrels!)

 

Who says any species has a "right" to exist forever in an unchanged environment?

***No one I know said that, who did?  Oh, a rhetorical question, sorry…(LOL)

 

Should we condemn humanity for killing off mastodons or destroying trees to create grazing lands for buffaloes? Why? What "rights" do mastodons and trees have? And who gave them out? Was humanity wrong to use their brains to develop weapons to protect themselves against predators who now had to go hungry and possible die off because they didn't have such easy access to food? Every species has been given the ability to survive and I cannot see any logical basis for condemning a species because it was especially good at using what nature gave them.

***Okay, consider the following…200,000 years ago proto-humans lived in groups and already had control of fire, had stone tools, etc. etc. etc.  Hunting Gathering groups in modern times approximate their way of life…Basically, they arrive (perhaps seasonally, following migrating animals, etc.) at a location, camp out, kill and eat whatever they can get in a three day walk from that area…when they no longer find the locale has sufficient resources, they simply moved along…Hal, there are 6+Billion of us now…but our way of life hasn't changed…we're still spoiling the nest but now there is no where else to roam…since we've become invader species in every single viable environment in the entire WORLD…therefore some futurists like to remind me that we'll have to move off planet eventually…LOL Let's spread out and pollute the universe eh?

 

I don't have a problem with humanity being an "invasive" species. Invasive to whom? That word "invasive" is morally loaded, like we're talking about Hitler invading Poland. That invasion was against international law, an artificial, human-created structure set up to protect humans from themselves. What are you basing your condemnation of "invasion" upon? It's one thing to question the wisdom of how far one can "invade" an environment to change it. Indeed, one can go too far and destroy the environment and oneself as well. It's a question of degree and application of intelligence. It's quite another thing to condemn the principle of changing and "invading" any sort of environment to any degree whatsoever as if each species has some sort of lawful, guaranteed right to be in one and only one place in all perpetuity, safe from all disruption but also forbidden to move anywhere else. Who says so? Who provided these rights? By what authority?

***Right, NO ONE IS IN CHARGE, couldn't agree more…Yes, "invader species" is a lightning rod term, and that's perfectly correct for our situation…How long would you last without HUMAN CULTURE?  NO FIRE, NO CLOTHES, NO SOCIAL STRUCTURE, NO LANGUAGE? NO TOOLS? We are not capable of surviving ON OUR OWN, we're insulated from NATURE to a huge degree.

 

3.You ask if I think there is a problem. Of course I do. I agree with VHEMT that there are too many of us. I agree that heedless technological development, human shortsightedness and greed and the imperatives of certain economic systems have caused grievous damage to this planet's environment and have caused the unnecessary extinctions of species (yes, some species' extinctions ARE necessary, such as certain viruses). I agree that our planet is in peril and behavioral changes are necessary if we are to avert disaster.

***good, you have your head pulled out of that dark place so many choose to dwell…

 

4. You ask if there are any trends upon which I can base my optimism.

***Excellent, the suspense is killing me!

 

Well, this conversation is an example of why I'm optimistic. Fifty years ago, anyone talking about human-caused environmental damage leading to possible ecological disasters and the need to change human behavior to avert them would have been regarded, at best, as a idealistic head-in-the-clouds crank or, at worst, a dangerous Communist subversive.

***Yes indeed.  Probably more a kook than Communist for sure!

***I have just one example of someone who did foresee the mess we were heading in, and actually did A LOT to attempt to head it off…My own father was an early info-systems technology evangelist (and wrote the IBM S/360 announcement letter, (1963) that made HUGE and UNPLANNED commitments for IBM's first real computer, probably the most disruptive technology EVER introduced…that leads directly to the PC for example (which used the 360 instruction set as the basis for DOS…).  His vision literally changed the world in which we live, AND HE DID IT FOR PRECISELY THE REASONS YOU SUGGEST WERE CONSIDERED SUBVERSIVE, AND WITH INTENT…He felt (I am sorry to refer to him in the past tense, he is alive, but his mind is gone…) technology, spread as far and fast as possible was the ONLY WAY HUMANS WOULD SURVIVE what he foresaw as the disaster we face today…he also was a huge science fiction fan, and had every Astounding Science Fiction and Analog ever published…and that probably helped him get perspective, as his view was rather a lonely one…

 

Now the shoe is on the other foot, Now it is those who deny global warming and the dangers of uninhibited population growth and technological development who are regarded as the cranks or at, worst, the bought and paid for shills of vested interests or the spokespersons for obscurantist religious cults. I think it means a great deal that Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth." That is symbolic of change occurring in human consciousness. Is it too little, too late? I don't know for sure, but I do have faith that humanity will change.

***I loved that paragraph, agree that winds of change are blowing and that's truly a sign of hope.  I bristle (for perhaps obvious reasons) at the word FAITH – a belief without reason…The REASONS you suggest are a hopeful sign…

 

Most humans are not suicidal.  Most humans do have sympathy for others.

***Morality is built into our genetics Hal, you are quite correct.

 

Even if one has a dim view of humanity, then consider that increasingly expensive fossil fuels will give economic incentive to people to develop cheaper, renewable environmentally safer energy sources.

***Yes, economics can definitely spur creativity…and currently known technologies get more affordable…I believe the expression has to do with Necessities, and Mothers of Invention (kudo's to the Late Frank Zappa, one of my heros!)

 

Frankly, it may require a severe disaster to really wake people up (the Stop Sign Syndrome, you don't put up a traffic signal at an intersection until an accident happens)

but I believe they will and I believe it won't be too late. To quote the Beatle: You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

***Again, I applaud your optimism.  See www.cliffsidesoftware.com, my software firm, it was created to help disaster managers to cope (by having them create, train, test, improve, all plans for disaster!)

 

***Hal, as a synopsis, your impression or assumption is incorrect, that there is (or somehow needs to be) a philosophic basis to VHEMT.  No need for that, it's just each of us deciding…nothing more.  You'll need to argue with each of us if you dislike our decision!

 

Secondly, I believe you will agree that the INTERCONNECTEDNESS of the WEB OF LIFE is an important part of our continued future (or I hope you agree) so that profligate destruction of other species may well cause our demise (think bacteria, not polar bears)…

 

Our only true disagreement -- The stop sign has already been totally blown through, the photo ticket has been issued, the tires are flat and we're steaming at the side of the road…until the wrecker comes to pick up the pieces (your solution…whatever it turns out to be).

 

One other item you may need to consider, the future of the weather will be NOTHING LIKE WE'VE EVER EXPERIENCED in our entire evolutionary history!  Think about what a couple of days of 300 mph winds would do to your neighborhood…I haven't heard anyone suggest this is going to happen soon, but I'll wager no one who knows a lot about the chaos we'll experience would write that off as impossible…

 

While I'll always promote VHEMT as an option, I'll also stick with a Beatles' tune…"Love Me Do!" as I…Live long and Die off!

 

From Hal who hopes this advances the conversation.

***Thanks Hal, you did great, how about me?  LOL

 

From Frish...who hopes Hal now has fewer assumptions and will therefore be less frustrated with VHEMT!

Referring to resetting Earth's Thermostat

"Hal Friedman" hfrie@nysif.com Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:34 pm (PDT) said:

You don't actually have a problem with Eskimo "technology", do you? Fur coats and igloos equivalent to greenhouse gases and nuclear waste?

 

From Hal who says give humans a break!

1.  Hal, you don't have a problem with reading for comprehension do you?  (Tried to sound just as Droll and Sarcastic as you did...sorry, I know you are smart, can't figure out why you've chosen the role of "defender of MANKIND" here though...and this note is trying to get to the bottom of that...It's a "Talmudic" discourse, as I'm certain you'll understand...I like you, don't be mad!)

 

2.  Igloos and Fur Coats are technologies that were quite Disruptive at that time and place...

 

You accusing me of some transgression for using Innuit as an example is immaterial and rather a feeble attempt to discredit my argument...which is a valid and time honored debating technique but doesn't move the conversation forward much... 

 

Pick ANY culture, (pre-industrial Revolution) and the answer is the same...their technology allowed them to invade the ecology they consumed...disrupted...destroyed...  the very definition of alien invader specie...

 

Did you know that the American Midwest was more forest than grassland, and those "noble savages" who lived "at one with nature" (not) burned it down so that they could create a Buffalo Hunting Ground?

 

Did you know that the Sahara Desert became much more so due to deforestation by people?  (Greek and then Roman shipbuilders cut every tree they found...)

 

I have no problem with ANY technology, only point out again that technology is what placed us here...unclear why or how it can dig anything but a bigger hole. 

 

My contention: any technology that could deal with the problem will be disruptive enough to have loads of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES...as we don't know enough about all the systems of the planet to manage them.  We're just recognizing that we'll have to "control" the climate chaos we're causing...and I find that daunting to say the least...

 

3.  Humans will be "given a break" shortly, and all I can do is remain childfree...

 

Hal, nice arm waving once again, glad you love our species (so do I...on another site yesterday someone claimed I WANT HUMANS TO GO EXTINCT, which couldn't be further from the truth...simply pointing out what I see as the inevitable...and pointing out my moral response...to reduce the numbers of people suffering at the end...)

 

Lately, we've "discussed"

universal veganism (you)

 

changing the way corporations are treated under the law (no longer PERSONS, so no first amendment rights for example, no giving to political causes, etc.)(me),

 

changing the way the cost of oil is accounted for (me),

 

and VHEMT (me).

 

Do you see ANY trends about which we ought be optimistic?

 

Do you think there is no problem altogether?

 

Phrased a little less confrontationally...(I do have a diplomatic side, believe it or not (otherwise I wouldn't KICK IT as a salesman!))...

 

What SHOULD humanity do to save the planet from ourselves and ourselves for the planet?

 

I eagerly await your thoughtful response...or another jab, I've thick skin and love a good debate...

Why Obama Will WIN! (The great unwashed think they know him!)