Page 15
E S S A Y S
By The Number
Credit: www.nationsencyclopedia.com
e58
The U.S. CONSTITUTION
A Primer on America's Founding Document
Fig. 1.
The U.S. Constitution is a very easy thing to understand. Basically it says the following:
A bunch of sovereign states, loosely connected by dirt roads and trails, need a small, central office to coordinate
the soldiers whose job it is to ward off foreign bullies and troublemakers if they cross our borders and try to take stuff.
A bunch of sovereign states, loosely connected by dirt roads and trails, need a small, central office to coordinate
the soldiers whose job it is to ward off foreign bullies and troublemakers if they cross our borders and try to take stuff.
That's about it, in a nutshell. All that's left is the "fine print" about what wig to wear on what occasion. That and a bunch more Rights they forgot to put in the first time. Plus a lot of additional limitations on that centralized big government thing. Pretty much a list of all the things that it can't or shouldn't do. And much less a list of anything else.
The cooperation among the states, referred to as "The Union of American States" is then shortened to "The United States of America". Then "America" or the "United States" if you like the really short version. And finally the "U.S." if you're really into brevity.
I told you our Constitution was easy to grasp. I don't see any real need for changes, unless we substitute highways for trails, but that's about it. Otherwise it looks okay to me. So what's the problem again?
The cooperation among the states, referred to as "The Union of American States" is then shortened to "The United States of America". Then "America" or the "United States" if you like the really short version. And finally the "U.S." if you're really into brevity.
I told you our Constitution was easy to grasp. I don't see any real need for changes, unless we substitute highways for trails, but that's about it. Otherwise it looks okay to me. So what's the problem again?
e58a
The U.S. Constitution
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments, and what may be America's last chance to save itself.
In case you might be wondering what this is all about, there exists a direct connection between the five books displayed below, and the reciting of Article Five of the U.S. Constitution presented above. Mark is a constitutional scholar, a conservative, and one of the most popular political commentators on radio today. His daily marklevinshow.com broadcasts differ significantly, however, from the shows of his friend, Rush Limbaugh, who is considered to be the best in the business. Mark is less entertainment and more education focused. If that sounds boring, trust me; it isn't. Levin's version of educating his audience is nothing less than great entertainment.
The reason all of Mark's books are shown here, each a link to the main Amazon.com page where they can be purchased, is not because there's anything in it for me monetarily or otherwise. The sole purpose is to introduce this man to those who, like so many of us, see a similarity between America and the Titanic. There's an iceberg looming just ahead and although we still have time to steer clear, the night grows late while Congress continues to be asleep at the wheel.
Mark has a mission with a positive message, and he's looking for volunteers -- those he calls "Paul and Paulette Reveres" -- to help spread the word. His latest best-selling book, The Liberty Amendments, puts that message in concrete, unambiguous terms that describe the "fix" needed to restore integrity and competency to Washington D.C., including a return to the constitutional form of government originally envisioned by the framers.
"Washington cannot, and will not -- by itself -- put its affairs in order and repair the damage done by decades of neglect, graft, corruption, incompetence, and a dangerous departure from the guidelines set forth by the constitution. Nor will the future election of conservatives throw the Ship of State's engines in reverse. The best we can hope for is a slowing-down of our forward momentum which brings us ever closer to that iceberg."
The foregoing quote is my own paraphrasing of Mark's oft-stated words, and begs the question as to what, then, can people do that will jar awake the ship's crew in time to grab the wheel and steer clear of the impending catastrophe that awaits us otherwise. A calamity that Ronald Reagan referred to as "a thousand years of darkness."
The genius of the founding fathers provided us with just such an answer, which is spelled-out plainly and found in Article Five. No mystery, no complex language that requires interpretation. It's right there, short and sweet, and requires nothing more than the will to evoke its power to change our current course.
The framers, who were familiar with the terrors of tyranny, anticipated the possibility of a president, a congress, or both, becoming despotic regardless of the built-in safeguards of checks and balances, and the separation of powers. In such an eventuality, the federal government -- itself an unlawful entity at that point -- could no longer be trusted to re-form and undo a post-constitutional condition that had fundamentally transformed America into an unrecognizable non-republic. Sound familiar?
As a last-ditch-effort that might prevent the potential violence that could easily erupt amid the oppression of a totalitarian America, Article Five allows the states themselves to save-the-day, so to speak. A process that completely bypasses the federal government and has the ability to institute new, wholly constitutional amendments, each of which is capable of undoing, redoing, or adding entirely new provisions -- the sole purpose of which is to reinforce and strengthen the basic tenets of the constitution itself.
The chief argument against such a "convention of the states" as Article Five refers to it, is a concern that once the constitution is thrown open to revision, that any number of unjust or injurious amendments might be forthcoming as a result. Or that one or more such amendments, heavily biased on the side of either liberals or conservatives, may forever alter -- for the worse -- the inherent qualities of the constitution as originally written. Referred to as a "con-con", short for constitutional convention, such a convention is strictly the purview of the federal government, which proposes its own amendments and then seeks ratification by the states. A convention of the states, however, is controlled by the states themselves and carries little if any risk of harming the actual constitution.
Whether presented to the states by the federal government, for ratification, or presented to the nation by a convention of the states, for ratification, the same 3/4 (three-quarters) approval is required for passage and adoption of any amendment. Given that the states would possess an extensive degree of control over the process, when convening as states for the purpose of proposing amendments, the idea that some radical, anti-American, offensive or unthinkable amendment might somehow pass muster and be approved by 38 out of 50 states is so unlikely and improbable, as to be absurd on its face.
As Mark himself is wont to say, a despotic, lawless, out-of-control government is already writing its own amendments to the constitution, on a near daily basis. Tyranny in America is little more than a ceaseless, ongoing constitutional convention, minus all ratification, and subject to no higher authority than its own lust for unquenchable power.
So if you're one of those who ask, "What can I do?" Or, "What can we do to get the country back on course?" -- try listening to one or two of Mark's radio shows. Give him a chance, and then pick up a copy of The Liberty Amendments. Remember, too, that this isn't one man's solution to anything. Mark is only the messenger who's reminding people that the framers gave us a way out of the mess we're in. How collision with that iceberg doesn't have to be inevitable or unavoidable. Let's pray that in this particular instance, history doesn't repeat itself.
The reason all of Mark's books are shown here, each a link to the main Amazon.com page where they can be purchased, is not because there's anything in it for me monetarily or otherwise. The sole purpose is to introduce this man to those who, like so many of us, see a similarity between America and the Titanic. There's an iceberg looming just ahead and although we still have time to steer clear, the night grows late while Congress continues to be asleep at the wheel.
Mark has a mission with a positive message, and he's looking for volunteers -- those he calls "Paul and Paulette Reveres" -- to help spread the word. His latest best-selling book, The Liberty Amendments, puts that message in concrete, unambiguous terms that describe the "fix" needed to restore integrity and competency to Washington D.C., including a return to the constitutional form of government originally envisioned by the framers.
"Washington cannot, and will not -- by itself -- put its affairs in order and repair the damage done by decades of neglect, graft, corruption, incompetence, and a dangerous departure from the guidelines set forth by the constitution. Nor will the future election of conservatives throw the Ship of State's engines in reverse. The best we can hope for is a slowing-down of our forward momentum which brings us ever closer to that iceberg."
The foregoing quote is my own paraphrasing of Mark's oft-stated words, and begs the question as to what, then, can people do that will jar awake the ship's crew in time to grab the wheel and steer clear of the impending catastrophe that awaits us otherwise. A calamity that Ronald Reagan referred to as "a thousand years of darkness."
The genius of the founding fathers provided us with just such an answer, which is spelled-out plainly and found in Article Five. No mystery, no complex language that requires interpretation. It's right there, short and sweet, and requires nothing more than the will to evoke its power to change our current course.
The framers, who were familiar with the terrors of tyranny, anticipated the possibility of a president, a congress, or both, becoming despotic regardless of the built-in safeguards of checks and balances, and the separation of powers. In such an eventuality, the federal government -- itself an unlawful entity at that point -- could no longer be trusted to re-form and undo a post-constitutional condition that had fundamentally transformed America into an unrecognizable non-republic. Sound familiar?
As a last-ditch-effort that might prevent the potential violence that could easily erupt amid the oppression of a totalitarian America, Article Five allows the states themselves to save-the-day, so to speak. A process that completely bypasses the federal government and has the ability to institute new, wholly constitutional amendments, each of which is capable of undoing, redoing, or adding entirely new provisions -- the sole purpose of which is to reinforce and strengthen the basic tenets of the constitution itself.
The chief argument against such a "convention of the states" as Article Five refers to it, is a concern that once the constitution is thrown open to revision, that any number of unjust or injurious amendments might be forthcoming as a result. Or that one or more such amendments, heavily biased on the side of either liberals or conservatives, may forever alter -- for the worse -- the inherent qualities of the constitution as originally written. Referred to as a "con-con", short for constitutional convention, such a convention is strictly the purview of the federal government, which proposes its own amendments and then seeks ratification by the states. A convention of the states, however, is controlled by the states themselves and carries little if any risk of harming the actual constitution.
Whether presented to the states by the federal government, for ratification, or presented to the nation by a convention of the states, for ratification, the same 3/4 (three-quarters) approval is required for passage and adoption of any amendment. Given that the states would possess an extensive degree of control over the process, when convening as states for the purpose of proposing amendments, the idea that some radical, anti-American, offensive or unthinkable amendment might somehow pass muster and be approved by 38 out of 50 states is so unlikely and improbable, as to be absurd on its face.
As Mark himself is wont to say, a despotic, lawless, out-of-control government is already writing its own amendments to the constitution, on a near daily basis. Tyranny in America is little more than a ceaseless, ongoing constitutional convention, minus all ratification, and subject to no higher authority than its own lust for unquenchable power.
So if you're one of those who ask, "What can I do?" Or, "What can we do to get the country back on course?" -- try listening to one or two of Mark's radio shows. Give him a chance, and then pick up a copy of The Liberty Amendments. Remember, too, that this isn't one man's solution to anything. Mark is only the messenger who's reminding people that the framers gave us a way out of the mess we're in. How collision with that iceberg doesn't have to be inevitable or unavoidable. Let's pray that in this particular instance, history doesn't repeat itself.
PS: For the purists in the crowd, here's my disclaimer:
Please note that the use of Mark's likeness, images of his books, and links to his show, should not be construed in any manner whatsoever, as a personal endorsement -- by him, his associates or affiliates -- of this website. Nor is approval of the site's content, either pictorial or written, implied or to be inferred. Dragonopolis is a not-for-profit entity and the views and opinions expressed herein are exclusively those of the owner, Robert W. Anton.
Best-selling books by Mark Levin
|
|
|
|
|
Books by Mark Levin's father, Jack E. Levin
|
|
|
Mark's Website
Fig. 2. Poor Lisa hadn't even got to the milk yet.
e59
THE INCONTESTABLE CASE for VEGETARIANISM
Confessions of a Recalcitrant Omnivore
First of all, I have to make a few things crystal clear as to "where I'm coming from" as they used to say (and I obviously still do). This essay is not about the health benefits associated with eating a strictly vegetarian diet. For one, I'm not qualified to speak to that side of the issue, which is better left to those far more informed about nutrition and the alleged toxic effects of eating meat, than I am. Nor am I equipped with what is no doubt a wealth of data in opposition to a strictly vegetarian lifestyle. So I'll leave all that to the experts to iron out. Or stew over, pun intended.
Nope, my argument is concerned solely with the moral and ethical justifications -- and rationalizations both pro and con -- for either willfully refusing to eat meat, or continuing to do so despite overwhelming evidence for ceasing the practice.
Epiphanies are not always life changing, although some would argue that if one's life is not altered in some dramatic fashion, then one didn't experience an authentic event. It is with great regret and sorrow, however, that I never turned to vegetarianism at a time when I learned better -- and subsequently knew better. In this respect, my life has not been the same since, and the guilt that has always haunted me -- albeit in the form of a low-grade depression -- is both easily denied and habitually dismissed.
Furthermore, the matter of choice is critical to this discussion. No rational person would suggest that a starving human in desperate need of food should avoid killing and eating an animal -- any animal -- because doing so would somehow violate their vegetarian principles. The old saying about "principles be damned" would certainly apply in such an instance. So no one is more in favor than I, that when it comes to matters of survival, all bets are off.
Again with respect to choices, one's decision to be a vegan as opposed to a typical vegetarian is a matter of preference based on very personal, sometimes very private reasons. Veganism is the more austere or militant form of vegetarianism whereby not only do vegans not eat meat of any kind, but neither do they (as much as possible) use any products (including a wide variety of other foods) that are derived from animals. For the purposes of this essay, however, the focus is primarily on the breeding, imprisonment, and slaughtering of animals as mass-marketed food items.
In an earlier essay, I addressed the immorality of sport hunting for fun and pleasure, so I won't dwell any further on that particular aspect of things. Having dispensed with any and all nutritional or health considerations, we are thus left with an examination of the topic in question purely from the standpoint of both moral and ethical assessments.
Ethics:
1. The philosophical (secular) study of moral values and rules.
2. Cultural/Societal beliefs and behaviors based on commonly accepted ideas of right and wrong.
3. Standards of principle and decency as prescribed by concepts of morality.
Morals:
1. Motivations based on philosophical or religious ideas of good and evil.
2. Standards of principle and decency based on one's philosophical or religious beliefs.
3. Virtues and rules of behavior at the societal/cultural levels.
As concerns all vegetarians who make their choice based on other-than-health-related-issues, the definitions listed above play a role in their decision, regardless of whether a person thinks of things in the exact manner as I've outlined (and defined). Sometimes a vegetarian lifestyle is the result of both health concerns and moral convictions. I'm more interested, however, in one's unshakable belief that the wholesale harvesting of almost any animal life as "food" is -- by definition -- immoral and unethical. And it is only such convictions with which this essay is designed to deconstruct and subsequently validate. All of this coming from yours truly, a hopelessly addicted omnivore who nonetheless confesses to leading an admittedly sinful life -- but especially as regards my dietary choices.
Unfortunately the subject is not a laughing matter. I find no humor in this topic whatsoever which represents the second of my two greatest regrets as a human being who briefly occupied planet Earth. The first is that I did so little to help the less fortunate around me. Both at the neighborhood level, but on a global scale as well. Granted the latter was far more limiting than the former. I should have done more and could have, but chose not to. I exercised a thousand excuses to avoid a single humanitarian task. Which was never a task at all, but should have been thought of as a privilege. Secondly was my lazy and lame refusal to stop eating the flesh of once-living animals. Creatures that not only possessed an autonomous sovereignty of being, of spirit, but could just as easily have been someone's personal pet or pal. Who could just as easily have been my own companion.
In the sci-fi movie, Soylent Green, Charlton Heston -- while being carried off by the police -- shouts out that "Soylent Green is made from people!" Once converted, a true vegetarian might well want to shout out with equal outrage and indignation that steaks and burgers are made from animals. And a hundred other products not so easily recognized. Most people probably already figured out that fish is fish. But even then, the minor joke is not that much of a stretch. In many ways similar to the aforementioned film where a cookie, so innocent in its appearance, was derived from the most sinister of sources, so is it much the same today where a hot dog bears little resemblance to a dog, let alone the pig, cow, or both from which it was derived. Palatability plays such a vital role in American society, that food producers go to great lengths to disassociate as much as possible, what we eat from who we eat. And this is obviously done for good reasons.
Not that human and animal rights are directly comparable, I think it's fair to say that when slavery was legal, many if not most people knew, deep down in their heart of hearts, that the practice of humans owning other humans was cruel at best, and morally reprehensible at worst. I think lots of folks also instinctively sense that killing animals for burgers, hot dogs, and chops is also a great wrong. But we've all sort of fallen into a trap of traditionality where what would otherwise be considered extraordinarily grotesque has, over the decades of our youth and adult years, become so commonplace that the situation is rarely even questioned. Beyond the activist groups who do so. And those who choose vegetarianism as a matter of conscience.
Unfortunately most religious faiths are concerned solely with human affairs where the role of animals, and considerations of their welfare, occupy rungs low on the ladder of important priorities. In religion the distinction between humans and animals is so clearly defined, meaning animals are little more than a different kind of plant life, that the question of rights, responsibilities, and privileges as relates to animals is not even up for discussion. Such things are generally reserved for people and only people. Otherwise too little would separate the two and the idea that animals don't go to Heaven might seem unthinkable. Try telling a dog or cat lover (even those who are religious) that there's no place in Heaven for their little friend, and few will accede to such a disturbing proposition.
Thus in general terms, "animal rights" as many of us like to think of them, come to the discussion from positions of a philosophical, ethical nature, rather than religious sensitivity. Regardless of how one defines the exact abuses animals suffer that results in one's personal discomfiture, whether it's the harpooning of whales or the crowded confinement of chickens, the brutal treatment of cattle or pigs and their subsequent slaughter, the decision to eat vegetarian is rarely an expression of overt activism.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." While Eldridge Cleaver is often cited as having coined this phrase in a 1968 speech, Charles Rosner, a famous advertiser and marketeer from the 60s through the 90s, actually wrote what has become the mantra for any number of causes. He wrote the words for VISTA as a recruitment slogan in 1967. I mention this bit of history because it so aptly describes the passive, righteous resignation of most vegetarians. If one can have little or no impact on a massively entrenched industry of meat consumption, with no hope whatsoever of changing the status quo, then the least that we can do is refuse our participation in, contribution to, and perpetuation of, systematized evil on a scale second only to human genocide. And given that humans often and unhesitatingly consume animals to the point of extinction, such a comparison is not much of an exaggeration.
In this context it is not necessary for me to spew forth a diatribe of accusations and condemnations of the meat processing industry. It's not my intention to launch into a litany of graphic, horrific examples that typify the animal abuses to which this essay alludes. Those who know don't need my personal reminders, and for those who remain unaware if not oblivious to the abysmal conditions and treatment of our "fellow travelers", probably no amount of facts will matter. Either such information will be ignored or simply dismissed as untrue. And when presented with photographic evidence? I don't -- I can't -- look at it.
Two final points need to be addressed. The first concerns itself with the absurd schizophrenic approach Americans make when it comes to which animals are deemed suitable for consumption as food, and those who are perceived as adorable, loving, often lifelong friends often regarded more as children than beasts. It should be noted that the neurosis ( if not psychosis) involved is not exclusive to American culture by any means, but represents a phenomenon shared globally. Although the United States is probably more manic and illogical in this regard, than most other countries.
I apologize beforehand for the following, awkward comparison, but the analogy seems unavoidably apropos: which animals are kept as pets and which go to the slaughterhouse is frighteningly reminiscent of when, during the Holocaust, the Nazis decided which prisoners would live and who would die. The comparison stops there as it should, but for real animal lovers, I can't help but think the similarities are, in their own way, eerily analogous.
While it's true that from a historical perspective, every culture develops its own rationale for which animals are revered and which are eaten, the haphazard results possess no real rhyme or reason. The system is chaotic, random, and utterly illogical. Especially in westernized countries. It is also true that in some cultures, the same animals are both admired, kept as pets, and still eaten as food. Even in the U.S., 4-h club members raise cows with loving kindness, only to sell them to the highest bidder either as meat-on-the-hoof or as breeding stock. The whole matter is nonsensical and borderline psychotic in nature. I think the truth of this is well known and well understood -- so much so that it is rarely if ever talked about. As a consequence, the underlying guilt and denial that most of us carry around as one of those "unmentionable" topics may well have implications far deeper than touched upon in this all-too-brief an overview.
So powerful and effective is our ability to justify, rationalize, and live in a quagmire of "denial", that despite my extensive knowledge of the subject under review, I continue to eat meat and will likely do so the rest of my life. I make no excuses. It is a profound weakness of character on my part for which I feel ashamed yet strangely unrepentant. Speaking out in this minor essay is my pitifully small way, I suppose, of apologizing for what I consider are misdeeds and maybe -- just maybe -- causing someone stronger than I am, to reconsider their dietary choices.
This topic would be incomplete without a brief acknowledgement of how the American Indians are reputed to have "thanked" the animals they killed, for providing the Indians with much needed -- and appreciated -- nourishment and all manner of other utilitarian gifts. I think such gratitude was extended to trees and other things as well, but suffice it to say that native Americans didn't take their food for granted. Rather it was apparently partaken with religious reverence. Modern Americans have deviated far from such insightful attitudes and thinking. Most kids today who eat a fast-food burger rarely, if ever, give a single thought to where that meat in their sandwich came from. I can hardly look at a fried chicken leg anymore and not picture the living, breathing, feathery creature to whom it once belonged. A small being I might just as easily have held to my chest as the dearest of friends. A maudlin, mawkish thought to be sure, but one with which untold numbers would mutually commiserate.
Two last points deserve mention before this essay can be concluded once and for all. The first is that I want it understood that human life trumps animal life every time. Although I have to make this pronouncement in the most general of terms, it is meant to be distinguished from other philosophies and beliefs proffered by activist organizations who are wont to argue that animals possess innate rights similar if not equal to those of human beings. Not only do I not share in such thinking, but believe it to be entirely false and indefensible. Just so you know.
My final comment harkens back to an earlier essay, number thirty-one entitled "The Involuntary Guest". This particular essay deals with the notion that all of us are guests on planet Earth, that no part of it is our personal possession (except our own bodies) and that we necessarily owe the same courtesy and respect to everyone and everything accordingly. In the composition, I make brief mention of our role and responsibilities with respect to animals, and I think my observations are appropriately repeated here. Which is to say that nothing in this world belongs to us. Nothing but our autonomy, our own skin. And even that can be debated, but I won't. While I state it in jest, the law that says "Thou shalt not slay the king's deer" is not without significant relevance.
No single blade of grass, not a solitary pebble nor grain of sand is something to which we can claim (or prove) ownership. There is no moral or ethical basis that permits or allows or grants any person to harm or destroy, in any way, anything that is not their personal possession. It is as if we are all guests who find ourselves living in a place that is not of our making, our doing, and must be presumed as being the property of someone unknown. That being the case, the rules of conduct and behavior -- as guests -- are clear and unambiguous. This is particularly relevant and true as concerns our relationships with the other living things that (who) inhabit the planet. Note I did not say "our" planet. There are also many exceptions, of course, when rules might be legitimately overlooked or broken altogether. The survival of oneself, especially one's family are certainly the most obvious. So it is only in the most general of terms that the guest principles should guide us, but even then, their applications are numerous and meaningful.
The fact that I have seen evidence enough to convince me that the manner in which we manage animals as a food resource is cruel, savage, and barbaric, prompts me to encourage anyone who's willing, to seriously reconsider their consumption of meat. And become a vegetarian if at all possible. Even fisheries are not without their problems and I would reluctantly advise against eating commercially caught fish as well. Porpoises tangled in fishing nets was enough for me.
To sum up, the current methods employed in the handling, accommodating, slaughtering and rendering of animals violates every conceivable (and conscionable) act of minimal decency required of a guest. And since the foregoing is true on a near epic, epochal scale of both misconduct and mistreatment, vegetarianism should be considered less as a lifestyle choice, and more as a salvation of one's sanity.
Postscript:
You may have noticed how I failed to bring bugs and plants into the discussion. That was not an oversight on my part, but rather a topic deserving of its own little essay which I hope to get to one day. Suffice it to say that for me, bugs are God's little computers who function on extremely basic albeit sophisticated levels of both autonomy and mutual cooperation. I do not believe bugs or insects suffer pain, but I can't prove it. I just strongly suspect it's true. Plants on the other leaf, are so different a life form from animals, including bugs, as to be something outside the very definition of "life" itself. I think plants are somewhere in the middle between a rock and a cricket, but like I said, that commentary is definitely for another day and time. Thanks for listening.
Nope, my argument is concerned solely with the moral and ethical justifications -- and rationalizations both pro and con -- for either willfully refusing to eat meat, or continuing to do so despite overwhelming evidence for ceasing the practice.
Epiphanies are not always life changing, although some would argue that if one's life is not altered in some dramatic fashion, then one didn't experience an authentic event. It is with great regret and sorrow, however, that I never turned to vegetarianism at a time when I learned better -- and subsequently knew better. In this respect, my life has not been the same since, and the guilt that has always haunted me -- albeit in the form of a low-grade depression -- is both easily denied and habitually dismissed.
Furthermore, the matter of choice is critical to this discussion. No rational person would suggest that a starving human in desperate need of food should avoid killing and eating an animal -- any animal -- because doing so would somehow violate their vegetarian principles. The old saying about "principles be damned" would certainly apply in such an instance. So no one is more in favor than I, that when it comes to matters of survival, all bets are off.
Again with respect to choices, one's decision to be a vegan as opposed to a typical vegetarian is a matter of preference based on very personal, sometimes very private reasons. Veganism is the more austere or militant form of vegetarianism whereby not only do vegans not eat meat of any kind, but neither do they (as much as possible) use any products (including a wide variety of other foods) that are derived from animals. For the purposes of this essay, however, the focus is primarily on the breeding, imprisonment, and slaughtering of animals as mass-marketed food items.
In an earlier essay, I addressed the immorality of sport hunting for fun and pleasure, so I won't dwell any further on that particular aspect of things. Having dispensed with any and all nutritional or health considerations, we are thus left with an examination of the topic in question purely from the standpoint of both moral and ethical assessments.
Ethics:
1. The philosophical (secular) study of moral values and rules.
2. Cultural/Societal beliefs and behaviors based on commonly accepted ideas of right and wrong.
3. Standards of principle and decency as prescribed by concepts of morality.
Morals:
1. Motivations based on philosophical or religious ideas of good and evil.
2. Standards of principle and decency based on one's philosophical or religious beliefs.
3. Virtues and rules of behavior at the societal/cultural levels.
As concerns all vegetarians who make their choice based on other-than-health-related-issues, the definitions listed above play a role in their decision, regardless of whether a person thinks of things in the exact manner as I've outlined (and defined). Sometimes a vegetarian lifestyle is the result of both health concerns and moral convictions. I'm more interested, however, in one's unshakable belief that the wholesale harvesting of almost any animal life as "food" is -- by definition -- immoral and unethical. And it is only such convictions with which this essay is designed to deconstruct and subsequently validate. All of this coming from yours truly, a hopelessly addicted omnivore who nonetheless confesses to leading an admittedly sinful life -- but especially as regards my dietary choices.
Unfortunately the subject is not a laughing matter. I find no humor in this topic whatsoever which represents the second of my two greatest regrets as a human being who briefly occupied planet Earth. The first is that I did so little to help the less fortunate around me. Both at the neighborhood level, but on a global scale as well. Granted the latter was far more limiting than the former. I should have done more and could have, but chose not to. I exercised a thousand excuses to avoid a single humanitarian task. Which was never a task at all, but should have been thought of as a privilege. Secondly was my lazy and lame refusal to stop eating the flesh of once-living animals. Creatures that not only possessed an autonomous sovereignty of being, of spirit, but could just as easily have been someone's personal pet or pal. Who could just as easily have been my own companion.
In the sci-fi movie, Soylent Green, Charlton Heston -- while being carried off by the police -- shouts out that "Soylent Green is made from people!" Once converted, a true vegetarian might well want to shout out with equal outrage and indignation that steaks and burgers are made from animals. And a hundred other products not so easily recognized. Most people probably already figured out that fish is fish. But even then, the minor joke is not that much of a stretch. In many ways similar to the aforementioned film where a cookie, so innocent in its appearance, was derived from the most sinister of sources, so is it much the same today where a hot dog bears little resemblance to a dog, let alone the pig, cow, or both from which it was derived. Palatability plays such a vital role in American society, that food producers go to great lengths to disassociate as much as possible, what we eat from who we eat. And this is obviously done for good reasons.
Not that human and animal rights are directly comparable, I think it's fair to say that when slavery was legal, many if not most people knew, deep down in their heart of hearts, that the practice of humans owning other humans was cruel at best, and morally reprehensible at worst. I think lots of folks also instinctively sense that killing animals for burgers, hot dogs, and chops is also a great wrong. But we've all sort of fallen into a trap of traditionality where what would otherwise be considered extraordinarily grotesque has, over the decades of our youth and adult years, become so commonplace that the situation is rarely even questioned. Beyond the activist groups who do so. And those who choose vegetarianism as a matter of conscience.
Unfortunately most religious faiths are concerned solely with human affairs where the role of animals, and considerations of their welfare, occupy rungs low on the ladder of important priorities. In religion the distinction between humans and animals is so clearly defined, meaning animals are little more than a different kind of plant life, that the question of rights, responsibilities, and privileges as relates to animals is not even up for discussion. Such things are generally reserved for people and only people. Otherwise too little would separate the two and the idea that animals don't go to Heaven might seem unthinkable. Try telling a dog or cat lover (even those who are religious) that there's no place in Heaven for their little friend, and few will accede to such a disturbing proposition.
Thus in general terms, "animal rights" as many of us like to think of them, come to the discussion from positions of a philosophical, ethical nature, rather than religious sensitivity. Regardless of how one defines the exact abuses animals suffer that results in one's personal discomfiture, whether it's the harpooning of whales or the crowded confinement of chickens, the brutal treatment of cattle or pigs and their subsequent slaughter, the decision to eat vegetarian is rarely an expression of overt activism.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." While Eldridge Cleaver is often cited as having coined this phrase in a 1968 speech, Charles Rosner, a famous advertiser and marketeer from the 60s through the 90s, actually wrote what has become the mantra for any number of causes. He wrote the words for VISTA as a recruitment slogan in 1967. I mention this bit of history because it so aptly describes the passive, righteous resignation of most vegetarians. If one can have little or no impact on a massively entrenched industry of meat consumption, with no hope whatsoever of changing the status quo, then the least that we can do is refuse our participation in, contribution to, and perpetuation of, systematized evil on a scale second only to human genocide. And given that humans often and unhesitatingly consume animals to the point of extinction, such a comparison is not much of an exaggeration.
In this context it is not necessary for me to spew forth a diatribe of accusations and condemnations of the meat processing industry. It's not my intention to launch into a litany of graphic, horrific examples that typify the animal abuses to which this essay alludes. Those who know don't need my personal reminders, and for those who remain unaware if not oblivious to the abysmal conditions and treatment of our "fellow travelers", probably no amount of facts will matter. Either such information will be ignored or simply dismissed as untrue. And when presented with photographic evidence? I don't -- I can't -- look at it.
Two final points need to be addressed. The first concerns itself with the absurd schizophrenic approach Americans make when it comes to which animals are deemed suitable for consumption as food, and those who are perceived as adorable, loving, often lifelong friends often regarded more as children than beasts. It should be noted that the neurosis ( if not psychosis) involved is not exclusive to American culture by any means, but represents a phenomenon shared globally. Although the United States is probably more manic and illogical in this regard, than most other countries.
I apologize beforehand for the following, awkward comparison, but the analogy seems unavoidably apropos: which animals are kept as pets and which go to the slaughterhouse is frighteningly reminiscent of when, during the Holocaust, the Nazis decided which prisoners would live and who would die. The comparison stops there as it should, but for real animal lovers, I can't help but think the similarities are, in their own way, eerily analogous.
While it's true that from a historical perspective, every culture develops its own rationale for which animals are revered and which are eaten, the haphazard results possess no real rhyme or reason. The system is chaotic, random, and utterly illogical. Especially in westernized countries. It is also true that in some cultures, the same animals are both admired, kept as pets, and still eaten as food. Even in the U.S., 4-h club members raise cows with loving kindness, only to sell them to the highest bidder either as meat-on-the-hoof or as breeding stock. The whole matter is nonsensical and borderline psychotic in nature. I think the truth of this is well known and well understood -- so much so that it is rarely if ever talked about. As a consequence, the underlying guilt and denial that most of us carry around as one of those "unmentionable" topics may well have implications far deeper than touched upon in this all-too-brief an overview.
So powerful and effective is our ability to justify, rationalize, and live in a quagmire of "denial", that despite my extensive knowledge of the subject under review, I continue to eat meat and will likely do so the rest of my life. I make no excuses. It is a profound weakness of character on my part for which I feel ashamed yet strangely unrepentant. Speaking out in this minor essay is my pitifully small way, I suppose, of apologizing for what I consider are misdeeds and maybe -- just maybe -- causing someone stronger than I am, to reconsider their dietary choices.
This topic would be incomplete without a brief acknowledgement of how the American Indians are reputed to have "thanked" the animals they killed, for providing the Indians with much needed -- and appreciated -- nourishment and all manner of other utilitarian gifts. I think such gratitude was extended to trees and other things as well, but suffice it to say that native Americans didn't take their food for granted. Rather it was apparently partaken with religious reverence. Modern Americans have deviated far from such insightful attitudes and thinking. Most kids today who eat a fast-food burger rarely, if ever, give a single thought to where that meat in their sandwich came from. I can hardly look at a fried chicken leg anymore and not picture the living, breathing, feathery creature to whom it once belonged. A small being I might just as easily have held to my chest as the dearest of friends. A maudlin, mawkish thought to be sure, but one with which untold numbers would mutually commiserate.
Two last points deserve mention before this essay can be concluded once and for all. The first is that I want it understood that human life trumps animal life every time. Although I have to make this pronouncement in the most general of terms, it is meant to be distinguished from other philosophies and beliefs proffered by activist organizations who are wont to argue that animals possess innate rights similar if not equal to those of human beings. Not only do I not share in such thinking, but believe it to be entirely false and indefensible. Just so you know.
My final comment harkens back to an earlier essay, number thirty-one entitled "The Involuntary Guest". This particular essay deals with the notion that all of us are guests on planet Earth, that no part of it is our personal possession (except our own bodies) and that we necessarily owe the same courtesy and respect to everyone and everything accordingly. In the composition, I make brief mention of our role and responsibilities with respect to animals, and I think my observations are appropriately repeated here. Which is to say that nothing in this world belongs to us. Nothing but our autonomy, our own skin. And even that can be debated, but I won't. While I state it in jest, the law that says "Thou shalt not slay the king's deer" is not without significant relevance.
No single blade of grass, not a solitary pebble nor grain of sand is something to which we can claim (or prove) ownership. There is no moral or ethical basis that permits or allows or grants any person to harm or destroy, in any way, anything that is not their personal possession. It is as if we are all guests who find ourselves living in a place that is not of our making, our doing, and must be presumed as being the property of someone unknown. That being the case, the rules of conduct and behavior -- as guests -- are clear and unambiguous. This is particularly relevant and true as concerns our relationships with the other living things that (who) inhabit the planet. Note I did not say "our" planet. There are also many exceptions, of course, when rules might be legitimately overlooked or broken altogether. The survival of oneself, especially one's family are certainly the most obvious. So it is only in the most general of terms that the guest principles should guide us, but even then, their applications are numerous and meaningful.
The fact that I have seen evidence enough to convince me that the manner in which we manage animals as a food resource is cruel, savage, and barbaric, prompts me to encourage anyone who's willing, to seriously reconsider their consumption of meat. And become a vegetarian if at all possible. Even fisheries are not without their problems and I would reluctantly advise against eating commercially caught fish as well. Porpoises tangled in fishing nets was enough for me.
To sum up, the current methods employed in the handling, accommodating, slaughtering and rendering of animals violates every conceivable (and conscionable) act of minimal decency required of a guest. And since the foregoing is true on a near epic, epochal scale of both misconduct and mistreatment, vegetarianism should be considered less as a lifestyle choice, and more as a salvation of one's sanity.
Postscript:
You may have noticed how I failed to bring bugs and plants into the discussion. That was not an oversight on my part, but rather a topic deserving of its own little essay which I hope to get to one day. Suffice it to say that for me, bugs are God's little computers who function on extremely basic albeit sophisticated levels of both autonomy and mutual cooperation. I do not believe bugs or insects suffer pain, but I can't prove it. I just strongly suspect it's true. Plants on the other leaf, are so different a life form from animals, including bugs, as to be something outside the very definition of "life" itself. I think plants are somewhere in the middle between a rock and a cricket, but like I said, that commentary is definitely for another day and time. Thanks for listening.
Fig. 3. Casings are the propellant itself and vaporize when fired.
e60
Guns Don't Kill People; Bullets Do
Without bullets, most guns are little more than unwieldy clubs where a bat or shovel would likely prove equally effective. With the advent of 3-D printing technology, the gun itself -- the mechanism used to shoot a bullet -- is rapidly ceasing to be the issue. In the not-too-distant future, the proliferation of such weapons may cease to be of concern altogether. The availability of ammunition, however, typically taken for granted, will eventually become like illicit drugs, where other than black-market purchases, the acquisition of bullets may be largely prohibited. An assault rifle without ammunition is indeed a relatively useless hunk of metal, plastic, or some form of composite material.
Thus it is that ammunition will always remain the chief concern for either an individual hunter or the army of an entire nation. Need a gun? Kill an enemy soldier and take his. Run out of ammo at the wrong time; you're dead meat, as they say.
Compared to a gun, a bullet may seem like a relatively simple device. The truth, however, is just the opposite. The somewhat complex assembly of a single round is easily discharged with nothing more than a small tube and a nail. Referred to by its slang name of "zip gun", such a simple device -- when loaded -- is as potentially lethal as the most sophisticated, state-of-the-art rifle or pistol. Without bullets, whole populations might be oppressed by governments or other entities who possess and use them to maintain power and control. With enough zip guns -- but lots of ammo -- those same multitudes should instead rise up and conquer any despot, vanquish tyranny however manifested. Okay, we get it. It's the bullet and not the gun. But so what? Unless ammo was as easy to make as a synthetic gun, what's the point?
Precisely. What if ammunition, in all its types, were as easy (relatively speaking) to create as so-called "3-D" guns? Such weapons will likely have their own name in the near future, but for now, I'll just refer to them as 3-D guns. As I was saying, imagine a type of 3-D bullet which is "printed" either as a fully complete round, or in cartridge form only, where the "ball" or bullet itself is attached or inserted afterward -- similar to how real ammunition is assembled. Sound preposterous? Maybe. Maybe not.
A computer could easily control a machine or "printer" that was capable of mixing together simple chemicals in such a way that the result was an explosive blend similar to modern gunpowder. The key factor would lie in a coagulating process that would produce a "solid" shape -- presumably in the form of a cartridge -- that would not require an external shell or casing, such as the typical brass housing of a standard cartridge. In this example, the cartridge itself is the propellant that when discharged, is vaporized in the process. In essence, the bullet is "self-contained" whereby no empty, leftover cartridges need to be ejected or otherwise dealt with. However, the "blow-back" effect, as it's called, which normally ejects the spent round and loads another into the chamber, ready for firing, would remain the same. The only difference is the absence of an empty casing itself.
While it is no doubt true that such technology does not yet exist, the principles involved seem sound enough and just a matter of time before synthetic, 3-D ammunition becomes available. Likely crude at first, once that particular genie is loosed from its bottle, there would be no turning back. So how would governments fight back? Probably with bans on certain equipment, licensing of other stuff similar to how guns themselves are currently regulated. Making illegal the purchase or ownership of specific chemicals or compounds. Sounds familiar doesn't it. The more things change, the more they remain the same? It would seem so.
So what kind of world would it be where there was virtually no limit on the availability of either guns or ammo? An increased focus on body armor? Maybe everyone in twenty years will don their protective vest and headgear in addition to socks and underwear. I seriously doubt it will come to that. Which means "lethal force" will remain just as deadly in fifty years as it is today. We can be sure of one thing, I'm willing to bet: if we all have to start wearing some kind of bulletproof outer garments, they'll probably be printed in one form or another. In the sci-fi movie "Dune", people wore devices which when activated, erected a protective shield around their bodies. Women should likely appreciate such an innovation even more so than men would.
In any event, once the laser pistols, beam rifles, and microwave shot-guns hit the streets, all of these issues may, in the end, become entirely moot and meaningless. Until then, however, 3-D printing technology is merely the beginning of an unlimited range of possibilities, none the least of which is the production of weaponry. But that seems obvious in retrospect. A total given that guns would come first. Then ammo. But if a computer could mix chemicals into gunpowder, could it not also "print" drugs based on different chemical formulas? Assuming the "raw" ingredients were provided, virtually any compound is theoretically feasible. Even those so-called raw ingredients themselves are, in theory, producible.
So where does it all end? I suspect it will ultimately result in the elimination of test-tube babies and cloning in general. With our attention more likely focused on questions of resolution and dpi.
Thus it is that ammunition will always remain the chief concern for either an individual hunter or the army of an entire nation. Need a gun? Kill an enemy soldier and take his. Run out of ammo at the wrong time; you're dead meat, as they say.
Compared to a gun, a bullet may seem like a relatively simple device. The truth, however, is just the opposite. The somewhat complex assembly of a single round is easily discharged with nothing more than a small tube and a nail. Referred to by its slang name of "zip gun", such a simple device -- when loaded -- is as potentially lethal as the most sophisticated, state-of-the-art rifle or pistol. Without bullets, whole populations might be oppressed by governments or other entities who possess and use them to maintain power and control. With enough zip guns -- but lots of ammo -- those same multitudes should instead rise up and conquer any despot, vanquish tyranny however manifested. Okay, we get it. It's the bullet and not the gun. But so what? Unless ammo was as easy to make as a synthetic gun, what's the point?
Precisely. What if ammunition, in all its types, were as easy (relatively speaking) to create as so-called "3-D" guns? Such weapons will likely have their own name in the near future, but for now, I'll just refer to them as 3-D guns. As I was saying, imagine a type of 3-D bullet which is "printed" either as a fully complete round, or in cartridge form only, where the "ball" or bullet itself is attached or inserted afterward -- similar to how real ammunition is assembled. Sound preposterous? Maybe. Maybe not.
A computer could easily control a machine or "printer" that was capable of mixing together simple chemicals in such a way that the result was an explosive blend similar to modern gunpowder. The key factor would lie in a coagulating process that would produce a "solid" shape -- presumably in the form of a cartridge -- that would not require an external shell or casing, such as the typical brass housing of a standard cartridge. In this example, the cartridge itself is the propellant that when discharged, is vaporized in the process. In essence, the bullet is "self-contained" whereby no empty, leftover cartridges need to be ejected or otherwise dealt with. However, the "blow-back" effect, as it's called, which normally ejects the spent round and loads another into the chamber, ready for firing, would remain the same. The only difference is the absence of an empty casing itself.
While it is no doubt true that such technology does not yet exist, the principles involved seem sound enough and just a matter of time before synthetic, 3-D ammunition becomes available. Likely crude at first, once that particular genie is loosed from its bottle, there would be no turning back. So how would governments fight back? Probably with bans on certain equipment, licensing of other stuff similar to how guns themselves are currently regulated. Making illegal the purchase or ownership of specific chemicals or compounds. Sounds familiar doesn't it. The more things change, the more they remain the same? It would seem so.
So what kind of world would it be where there was virtually no limit on the availability of either guns or ammo? An increased focus on body armor? Maybe everyone in twenty years will don their protective vest and headgear in addition to socks and underwear. I seriously doubt it will come to that. Which means "lethal force" will remain just as deadly in fifty years as it is today. We can be sure of one thing, I'm willing to bet: if we all have to start wearing some kind of bulletproof outer garments, they'll probably be printed in one form or another. In the sci-fi movie "Dune", people wore devices which when activated, erected a protective shield around their bodies. Women should likely appreciate such an innovation even more so than men would.
In any event, once the laser pistols, beam rifles, and microwave shot-guns hit the streets, all of these issues may, in the end, become entirely moot and meaningless. Until then, however, 3-D printing technology is merely the beginning of an unlimited range of possibilities, none the least of which is the production of weaponry. But that seems obvious in retrospect. A total given that guns would come first. Then ammo. But if a computer could mix chemicals into gunpowder, could it not also "print" drugs based on different chemical formulas? Assuming the "raw" ingredients were provided, virtually any compound is theoretically feasible. Even those so-called raw ingredients themselves are, in theory, producible.
So where does it all end? I suspect it will ultimately result in the elimination of test-tube babies and cloning in general. With our attention more likely focused on questions of resolution and dpi.
Fig. 4. Shaken long enough, a magnetic puzzle will self-assemble.
e61
The AUTONOMOUS Universe
Imagine if you might, a giant jigsaw puzzle, the million or so pieces of which fit together magnetically. Each of the individual parts of the game are unique and exist in such a way that all mated pieces will only "mesh" together in a single, correctly matched manner. Okay, let's open the rather large box and dump the entire contents into an even bigger, but shallow tray that allows all the pieces to lie flat without any overlapping. Stay with me now; this gets interesting (I think). The giant tray sits atop a vibrating machine that can tilt, shake, do the hokey pokey and turn itself around; that's what it's all about. Sorry, I couldn't resist the relapse into my childhood days. But you get the idea. That the tray is gyrating, jerking to and fro in all directions, literally shaking itself to pieces. Or rather just the opposite. In this scenario, and after some amount of undesignated time has elapsed, the puzzle sits within the stopped tray -- completely and perfectly assembled. How amazing was that? Very, right? But such a thing could never happen, either, correct? Uh, wrong, puzzle puss.
So what does this finished puzzle look like? Probably a galaxy -- maybe a nice spiral one like the Milky Way. Or maybe a single strand of DNA? I can see the smile on your face, however, because you're ready to pounce on my metaphorical analogy and unmercifully tear it to shreds with a single question. Which I'll go ahead and state because I already know what it is. Which is to say, "So, Mr. Smarty Pants, even if all those pieces could eventually all fit together in just the right way, where did all those pieces come from in the first place, huh?" That's a great question which certainly deserves a serious answer; I'll therefore do my best.
In the somewhat playful example above, I've described how everything within a cosmological game room might come together and create material bodies, whether in the form of galaxies, planets, comets, human beings, or an entire universe itself -- if shaken and stirred enough. Apologies to James Bond who preferred shaken and not stirred. Or was the other way around? The so-called Big Bang was the definitive, one might say, shake-up. But that still leaves the awkward quandary as to where did all that stuff come from, all the building blocks -- all those magnetic puzzle pieces -- to begin with? Something must have existed prior to the Big Bang in order for it to have banged at all. Makes sense to me. Although, in a way, and to be fair, it is a little like asking where did God come from? There must have been something floating around before God came into Being and decided to make the universe, right? No? God just always existed, you say? I see. So if scientists tell us the universe is about 13 billion-years-old, then God had a lot of time on his hands, I would think, prior to deciding one day to make all those stars and planets. And people and stuff. Hey, I'm just sayin'. No need to resort to name-calling.
You do have to admit that people-of-faith -- those who find my propositions laughable -- do enjoy mocking the idea that even a tray full of puzzle pieces might ever "self-assemble" despite a whole-lotta-shakin'-goin'-on as Jerry E. Lewis might have sang. Still, though, there's no denying the basic question, even if all parties on either side of the issue were willing to accept the notion that given enough time and enough jostling of chemicals and soups and the like -- where the Holy Hell (excuse my Scriptural tone) did all the sub-atomic crackers come from that soaked up the soup? So to speak. Notice how long it's taking for me to get around to answering. Hey, it's a tough query. Besought by an even tougher crowd. So give me a minute, already. Or 13 billion years give or take a second or two.
If you'll pardon one last momentary digression, I'd like to offer one quick explanation that, while not accepted as gospel (no pun intended) does address the question in question. Some pretty well respected astrophysicists believe in what's called String Theory, as it pertains to how the universe banged into being. My cats believe in string theory, but that's a whole other discussion. String Theory in its latest incarnation, deals with what are thought to be about eleven different dimensions of existence. Give or take. Yeah, that's right -- multiple dimensions -- that whole multiverse business. Don't ask me because I don't pretend to understand hardly any of it; I'm just the messenger as they say. In any event, they believe there's these individual universes that float around in a really big area of empty space. Or is that a space which covers a lot of area? Don't get me started. No matter, our universe is just one of these things, each one of which is unique unto itself and the totality of which involve all those different dimensions. The whole slew of them are probably infinite in number, which adds a whole new meaning to word, slew.
These same egghead scientists (some of whom have hair) then go on to tell us how these separate cosmopolises (yes, I just made that word up) are sort of like huge, self-contained membranes -- hence what's been called, "membrane" or "brane" theory. Well, duhhh. No, we don't know if the skins of these membranes are semi-permeable or not. Anyway, if one were to pass through the outer "shell" of say, our own universe, one would find themselves in some other, really weird place. Or it could be another version of somewhere more familiar -- like another Earth. Once you get on board, these whacky dimension things can get pretty strange. You think? I'll end this by bringing us back to the beginning. Back to the Big Bang itself. Which is what membrane theory predicts in the way of an explanation for the Bang part. They propose that when two membranes collide, bump into each other, scrape, or otherwise engage in the mother of all fender-benders, that the resulting "explosion" creates a new universe whose very beginning is what we describe as the Big Bang. More accurately, perhaps, the Big Bump.
You'll be happy to know I'm done with all that membrane stuff; I just wanted to bring it to your attention that the theory does exist and does have its believers. Other than some thoughts about how time might be affected one way or another, pre-Big Bump or post, I don't have much else. By that, I mean to say your guess (or your faith) is as good as mine when it comes to the rest of it. I sure don't have any answers that are more than pure, less-than-expert opinions, conjecture, and speculation. And in that game, we're all experts. There is one last point to made, however, that concerns an observation made by the late astronomer, Carl Sagan.
As part of his famous Cosmos series, Dr. Sagan expressed, in more ways than one, his humility and awe with respect to a universe that he perceived as largely or wholly autonomous in nature. He (and the many who share his view) regarded the intricate and elegant mechanisms of a cosmos which, while obeying sets of wondrous laws and mathematical formulae, could spawn endless miracles of self-creation, as nothing less than a kind of natural, magnificent poetry all its own. I'm not sure whether he put it in the following words, exactly, but it was if to say that the underlying principles of how our universe operates, as explained and understood by science alone, was every bit as glorious, profound, and awe-inspiring as any Biblical notion could describe or have us believe. That a cosmos created by a God was no more grand a notion of existence, than one capable of self-generation, and in no need of a Creator. Both ideas are at one and the same time synonymous and diametrically opposed. Either beg us to accept counter-intuitive concepts that strain the limits of comprehensibility, while neither feels wholly satisfactory to the rationalistic, skeptical mind. I have my own preference which is in evidence throughout my essays, yet I'm in possession of no more proof of my beliefs than is the most religious zealot. But I think such a comparison is to miss the true, romantic beauty of what Dr. Sagan was talking about. I think he felt there was a certain compatibility between the two views of the universe. That because both relegate humans to simultaneous roles of insignificance and possibly the only way for the cosmos to ever know itself, to become self-aware, if you will, the truths yet to be revealed will make moot our minor differences and petty disagreements.
So what does this finished puzzle look like? Probably a galaxy -- maybe a nice spiral one like the Milky Way. Or maybe a single strand of DNA? I can see the smile on your face, however, because you're ready to pounce on my metaphorical analogy and unmercifully tear it to shreds with a single question. Which I'll go ahead and state because I already know what it is. Which is to say, "So, Mr. Smarty Pants, even if all those pieces could eventually all fit together in just the right way, where did all those pieces come from in the first place, huh?" That's a great question which certainly deserves a serious answer; I'll therefore do my best.
In the somewhat playful example above, I've described how everything within a cosmological game room might come together and create material bodies, whether in the form of galaxies, planets, comets, human beings, or an entire universe itself -- if shaken and stirred enough. Apologies to James Bond who preferred shaken and not stirred. Or was the other way around? The so-called Big Bang was the definitive, one might say, shake-up. But that still leaves the awkward quandary as to where did all that stuff come from, all the building blocks -- all those magnetic puzzle pieces -- to begin with? Something must have existed prior to the Big Bang in order for it to have banged at all. Makes sense to me. Although, in a way, and to be fair, it is a little like asking where did God come from? There must have been something floating around before God came into Being and decided to make the universe, right? No? God just always existed, you say? I see. So if scientists tell us the universe is about 13 billion-years-old, then God had a lot of time on his hands, I would think, prior to deciding one day to make all those stars and planets. And people and stuff. Hey, I'm just sayin'. No need to resort to name-calling.
You do have to admit that people-of-faith -- those who find my propositions laughable -- do enjoy mocking the idea that even a tray full of puzzle pieces might ever "self-assemble" despite a whole-lotta-shakin'-goin'-on as Jerry E. Lewis might have sang. Still, though, there's no denying the basic question, even if all parties on either side of the issue were willing to accept the notion that given enough time and enough jostling of chemicals and soups and the like -- where the Holy Hell (excuse my Scriptural tone) did all the sub-atomic crackers come from that soaked up the soup? So to speak. Notice how long it's taking for me to get around to answering. Hey, it's a tough query. Besought by an even tougher crowd. So give me a minute, already. Or 13 billion years give or take a second or two.
If you'll pardon one last momentary digression, I'd like to offer one quick explanation that, while not accepted as gospel (no pun intended) does address the question in question. Some pretty well respected astrophysicists believe in what's called String Theory, as it pertains to how the universe banged into being. My cats believe in string theory, but that's a whole other discussion. String Theory in its latest incarnation, deals with what are thought to be about eleven different dimensions of existence. Give or take. Yeah, that's right -- multiple dimensions -- that whole multiverse business. Don't ask me because I don't pretend to understand hardly any of it; I'm just the messenger as they say. In any event, they believe there's these individual universes that float around in a really big area of empty space. Or is that a space which covers a lot of area? Don't get me started. No matter, our universe is just one of these things, each one of which is unique unto itself and the totality of which involve all those different dimensions. The whole slew of them are probably infinite in number, which adds a whole new meaning to word, slew.
These same egghead scientists (some of whom have hair) then go on to tell us how these separate cosmopolises (yes, I just made that word up) are sort of like huge, self-contained membranes -- hence what's been called, "membrane" or "brane" theory. Well, duhhh. No, we don't know if the skins of these membranes are semi-permeable or not. Anyway, if one were to pass through the outer "shell" of say, our own universe, one would find themselves in some other, really weird place. Or it could be another version of somewhere more familiar -- like another Earth. Once you get on board, these whacky dimension things can get pretty strange. You think? I'll end this by bringing us back to the beginning. Back to the Big Bang itself. Which is what membrane theory predicts in the way of an explanation for the Bang part. They propose that when two membranes collide, bump into each other, scrape, or otherwise engage in the mother of all fender-benders, that the resulting "explosion" creates a new universe whose very beginning is what we describe as the Big Bang. More accurately, perhaps, the Big Bump.
You'll be happy to know I'm done with all that membrane stuff; I just wanted to bring it to your attention that the theory does exist and does have its believers. Other than some thoughts about how time might be affected one way or another, pre-Big Bump or post, I don't have much else. By that, I mean to say your guess (or your faith) is as good as mine when it comes to the rest of it. I sure don't have any answers that are more than pure, less-than-expert opinions, conjecture, and speculation. And in that game, we're all experts. There is one last point to made, however, that concerns an observation made by the late astronomer, Carl Sagan.
As part of his famous Cosmos series, Dr. Sagan expressed, in more ways than one, his humility and awe with respect to a universe that he perceived as largely or wholly autonomous in nature. He (and the many who share his view) regarded the intricate and elegant mechanisms of a cosmos which, while obeying sets of wondrous laws and mathematical formulae, could spawn endless miracles of self-creation, as nothing less than a kind of natural, magnificent poetry all its own. I'm not sure whether he put it in the following words, exactly, but it was if to say that the underlying principles of how our universe operates, as explained and understood by science alone, was every bit as glorious, profound, and awe-inspiring as any Biblical notion could describe or have us believe. That a cosmos created by a God was no more grand a notion of existence, than one capable of self-generation, and in no need of a Creator. Both ideas are at one and the same time synonymous and diametrically opposed. Either beg us to accept counter-intuitive concepts that strain the limits of comprehensibility, while neither feels wholly satisfactory to the rationalistic, skeptical mind. I have my own preference which is in evidence throughout my essays, yet I'm in possession of no more proof of my beliefs than is the most religious zealot. But I think such a comparison is to miss the true, romantic beauty of what Dr. Sagan was talking about. I think he felt there was a certain compatibility between the two views of the universe. That because both relegate humans to simultaneous roles of insignificance and possibly the only way for the cosmos to ever know itself, to become self-aware, if you will, the truths yet to be revealed will make moot our minor differences and petty disagreements.
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU15
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
