Category Archives: Society

Earth’s worst Enemy: Our Delusions of Grandeur

Earth Day: April 22, 2017

This year Earth Day is especially meaningful I think. The reason for this is not simply because the Earth is beautiful and universal to all living things but because we have signifticant threats to both the beauty of Earth, and to its living organisms.

This year has seen a number of bad trends getting worse and seemingly coming to a climax. But all the while there is this dellusion of grandeur and the air of invincibility among the ruling powers that spells the almost certain destruction of our planet(at least as far as human life is concerned-though the Earth itself would go on fine no matter what we did. It could easily recover in a few hundred million years…a blink of an eye for her, unimaginable for us.)

There are three issues which I feel are most important to note, even if we should instead be celebrating the beauty of this planet only on this day-and not complaining about it all, still some serious warnings need to be aired.

World War III is in the Air

The first of these must be the present state of strategic affairs around the globe. We are seeing today a rising danger among the world’s super powers as they begin to confront each other in earnest. The issues of Ukraine, of Syria, of Africa and Asia where the United States and Europe are finding themselves pitted against the powers of Russia and China are quite alarming. There is little doubt that the situation is getting worse and should be addressed soon if we are to avoid all out conflict. Yet there are delusions on all sides that somehow the game can be played because we have developed weapons systems that allow for potential winners and losers.

We hear now of missile defense systems and the like, and how even if there were a nuclear war, it would be uncomfortable, quick, but survivable. The delusion of invincibility at its very worst.

There is no chance of surviving an all out confrontation, there is really no chance of preventing nuclear strikes in general except in a very limited capacity in a very limited theatre of war with a very limited range of weapons. What I mean is that maybe we can prevent a North Korea from completely obliterating one of its neighbors through some form of anti-missle system, but this is not going to be the case if a nation like Russia or China is fully involved. These systems have very limited capabilities inherently, no matter how they may be marketed. Worse yet, the demons of war once unleashed always create uncertainties and these uncertainties almost always defeat whatever strategy was estabished before the start of battles. Therefore we can say that what looks good on paper, or in a computer simulation is not likely to hold up in the broil of a real war. Yet the delusions go on…as if there were a way to come out on top.

This mindset is a danger to not only to the combatants but to the entire world community. The entire planet’s eco system. The end result of such a war involving Nuclear weapons would be the likely end of our species-and many others to boot. It would result in massive radiation sickness and disease and the complete collapse of all but the most primitive, most disfigured social systems and then only for a very short while. Life under such circumstances might not be worth living for anyone who is unlucky enough to survive.

What few people want to believe is how truly vulnerable our civilization is to sudden shocks and instability. I believe that in general, the more complex the society, the more vulnerable it is to instability of any kind. Whether it is societal instability, or climatic change, or Geological. Even a relatively minor confrontation could be enough to destabilize our society to a terminal level.
Much of the earth would probably become uninhabitable considering the spread of radioactivity into the food and water resources. Unless we were to evolve quickly into mutant ninja turtles, the outlook would be bleak, even after a very limited war involving nukes.

Let’s all go “Green”, then Blue, then Red, Purple, and Black

There is also another great delusion which threatens our world today. This one is more closely related to the original concept of Earth Day. We have all heard of going “green” and it seems to imply that there is some way for all of us to create an alternative to our present way of fueling the world community and economy. But in reality this notion of a clean energy alternative is little more than self-deception, and grand illusion.

The reasons for this are many and have been discussed before. We say for example that the climate is changing. But in reality we do not know its natural limits to begin with. There are claims of meteorological records going back hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. But what we are not told is that these records were shoddy, spurious at best. Measurements of sea temperature and land temperature were really not reliable until a few decades ago, and even then minimally available. We simply did not have the technological ability to measure temperatures around the world until very recently. Even the sophisticated technique of ice core sampling of the paleo climate is in the end only an approximate reading of very general conditions.

So we often hear of records being broken or set in recent times, and these are paraded around as if fact. But they are very probably much less than that.

The point is that we really cannot even be certain that the changes we are seeing now are valid beyond our small scale time-and yes these particular changes of our particular time do seem significant-to us, a delicate species with a very limited vision of Time, there is some kind of change in temperature and vehemence of storm activity. But we do not know that these are in any way out of the normal for our meteorological epoch. They may be, but we cannot really be certain. This because we exist on a tiny timescale, and no matter how clever we get, it is hard for us to truly understand the Titanic time scales of Geology and Climate.

Now we will not go into the climate change argument again, we’ve done that before but we should understand that even if we have changed our climate in reality which frankly is quite possible to be quite honest, we cannot know exactly how, or what the outcome will actually be. We do not for example know if the Earth’s climate will continue warming, or if some virulent and destructive antithetical oscillation occurs instead.

The fact is that even if the climate were steadily warming we could probably survive. If the change is slow. But one little known truth that is rarely mentioned if ever is that as the climate becomes warmer, the Earth will attempt to dissipate this heat with extreme climatic violence. That is to say each time a storm forms, it tends to dissipate heat and to radiate it into space. Therefore the warmer the climate gets, the more unstable, and violent violent the climate it gets. This instability may not merely be evident for a few days as in the duration of a particular storm, but may last for decades and even centuries. Therefore the climate may warm violently, then cool violently as well as produce violent destructive storms within these larger cyclical variations. Kind of like the volotility one sees in the stock market when a particular economic event creates uncertainty. The volotility itself is one of the chief mechanisms by which the climate would disperse infrared radiation into space, and thus allow for cooling.

We should never assume that we know when or wherefore the great changes will arise. The Little Ice Age proves that climate can change for long periods on the human scale. One hundred two hundred years cycles may well be the norm. We have little science that instruct us as the actual historical dynamics of such relatively long term changes in temperature. There will be those who attribute the Little Ice Age to sunspot activity, but once again, the science back then was for intent and purpose non-existent. We really dont know what caused it, but we cannot guarantee that it will not happen again, or for that matter that a similarly long term warming trend instead. The great ice ages, and warming trends probably come in much smaller waves… just like the tide, and like everything else in the universe as far as we can see.

Still we are polluting at a reprehensible, truly irresponsible pace. So in the end we really dont know exactly what the long term outcome of all this pollution will be. How this man made pollution will interact with the Earth’s natural order. The only thing we can be certain of is that it will create instability and uncertainty and make it harder for us to predict the climate. I think there is just about enough evidence to conclude this outcome at least.

Our knowledge of the Earth’s systems are limited. We cannot really predict what the Earth will do, especially if it is agitated short term by human activity. And therein lies the danger of delusion.

What we do not know can hurt us. Yet, there is almost no policy change anywhere to be found that even dares mention conservation. All we hear is that we need growth, but of course we are never told that this “growth” is going to cause monstrous amounts of pollution. Only that if we go “Green” alas we can our cake and eat it too!

We have the Solutions..Really?

We have crossed into the delusion that we “have an answer” to all this climate change. This delusion by itself is even more dangerous than our lack of knowledge concerning the climate.

We assume here that we know what the Earth’s climate is really doing, and in fact we do not. We assume we know what the Earth’s climate is going to do, and we almost definitely do not. But then we assume that there are specific “solutions” to this problem, but in reality there probably are not.

We are constantly bombarded with the idea that going “Green” will save the day. That we can substitute new forms of “Alternative” energy to power our world, and that by so doing we might be able to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere, and that once done things will begin to return to normal. That we can save our world only by polluting it in a less intense manner. But this is nowhere near as simple as all that. It is not an accurate expectation.

Aside from the economic impact of trying to go “Green”, which would be quite substantial, there will also be environmental damage. Significant in many cases, and even then we cannot know the full extent. We dont know what happens to the Earth’s climate if we begin to capture large volumes of solar energy, or begin to disturb wind flows, or tidal flows. We do not know what sort of possible damage this can do if we really used these alternative energy sources to the degree that we are using oil and gas today. There could be significant damage done to the environment anyway. We dont know what happens if we start building nuclear reactors all over the planet. Fukushima should warn us of potential environmental damage that at least rivals any from the supposed human induced Climate Change we are seeing today.

Maybe “Green” Means Nuclear?

There is today this nascent idea that maybe Nuclear power can be a reasonable alternative to our present problems. However the fundamental problem of Nuclear waste is the same as it was fifty years ago. There is no place to put the reactor waste that is actually going to be safe in the long run. And the more we use this form of power the greater the risks will be for absolute catastrophe making even global climate change seem not so bad. We dont even want to know what would happen if a major disposal site began to leak into the water table.

We have seen with Fukushima an unusual set of circumstances. After all Tsunamis dont happen everyday, and besides we can work around the particular failure of the Fukushima reactor. At great expense of course, but still we might manage it. The problem still remains however. Tons of nuclear waste will have to sit somewhere, and if for any reason those should leak, even if terrorism for example were involved, the outcome would be catastrophic. There is no solution to the problem of Nuclear waste. And a significant leak of radioactive material would make all our efforts a horrific failure. I cannot say with certainty, I am not an expert here, but from what I have heard it is only a matter of time before such dumps begin to leak.

Going “Green” in this way, might lead to going blue.

Agricultural Pollution

Moreover, no matter what we did with energy, agriculture would still be a massive contributor to green house emissions.

Recently there has been an increased awareness of how much pollution we produce merely to feed ourselves. We are destroying vast swaths of forest all over the world simply to clear the land for harvest. Those trees which we destroy moderate both CO2 emissions, as well as water vapor and heat emissions. As we continue to devour our forests we contribute mightily to the green house problem. There are some who are quietly convinced that this agricultural pollution may well be the real culprit behind the observed changes in climate. There is also the release of Methane, another virulent by product of Agriculture. Methane is many times more potent a Green House gas than is CO2.

But what to do? Seven billion people need to be fed. Oh yeah, Im sure we can theoretically feed them all soy beans, and cut the production of cattle, but would we really do it? Does anyone see the Earth’s population as becoming fully reliant on soy beans and Lima Beans and peas?

In the end the agricultural raping of the Earth’s forest will continue no matter what we dream. Tell some people they will not be able to eat steak, or pork sausage and they could actually become homicidal.

Water Vapor

So even if we did manage to lower our carbon footprint as they say, unless we found “green” ways to feed ourselves, it really would not much matter. We would still emit a great amount of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. And the general release of heat through industrial combustion which all civilization causes would also continue to cause CO2 gas build up in the atmosphere anyway, as well as water vapor.

The reality is that probably the greatest contributor to green house gases is simple water vapor. Every engine we use will emit water vapor, a green house gas many times more powerful than CO2. There is no way that I know of to avoid this. Even wind mills will at some point warm up the air around them and this will increase water vapor; and the increase in water vapor will add to the greenhouse effect, especially if heavily used. Any machine that generates heat in any way will of necessity add to the green house effect. Any city that warms the atmosphere will add to the green house effect(which the reason that New York City is usually an average of five to the ten degrees warmer than the surrounding area.)

All of this says absolutely nothing about the tremendous increase in fossil fuel required to actually go “Green”. Building wind mills, and solar panels, and electric generators and batteries will require an immense increase in the use of fossil fuels to begin with. By the time we have a substantial “Green” energy industry we will have increased our use of fossil fuels by a significant amount.

The great deception : More “Green” means even more “Black”

Nor is it likely that oil and natural gas would simply be done away with. And this is the greatest of all delusions, and the biggest of all lies. Should we manage to go green, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we would in reality stop using oil and gas since that would by its nature be the cheaper quicker fuel to burn. And if we continue to expand world consumption, there would be nothing to indicate that we would not use an available fuel. This is very critical to note. Those who say that alternative energy would decrease our use of oil and gas are wrong, or disingenuous. Rather the larger the economy the more likely would require greater amounts of oil and gas(at least as long as those last.) And when the easy wells begin to run dry, we would probably start going after the more remote sources, which would of course require even greater up front expenditures, and cause even more pollution and harm to the environment.

As the global economy grows, it will use whatever fuel sources are available. Oh yeah we would go green, but this would only add to the consumption! Those who say that “Green” energy would be a replacement for oil and gas either do not understand the economy, or are not, frankly, being honest. The increase in industrial production would of necessity involve an increase in the use of all available fuels. It is not a matter of “Green Energy” or “Black Energy”, it is, and always was a case of “Green Energy” plus “Black Energy”! It would only make it worse! And that’s the pun here. That’s the joke. And this is perhaps the greatest of all deceptions in the Alternative Energy saga. There is absolutely no intent of doing away with oil and gas, and coal. Anyone who understands the economy would very quickly see, that is an absolute impossibility! The larger the economy the more dependent it would become on the cheaper energy source, and that is going to continue being fossil fuel. Those are the dynamics of the economy and they will not change no matter what anyone says.

We are given the illusion that somehow going green is going to save us from our ultimate fate, but in reality this is the biggest lie of all. Going green would only increase consumption, increase energy use, and increase global pollution.


The only step we can take to avoid our fate is Conservation. It is to stop wasting, stop expending so much energy. Control our numbers, control ourselves! Yet no one is talking about that. Indeed our third major delusion is just that…that we can create a Global Economy that is actually sustainable! This is the greatest of all present delusions, and is the chief cause of the two above!

Our Known Limitations have been Replaced with Delusions

Back in the seventies it was clear to anyone who might want to look that both the right and left political wings were actually far more conservative than they are today. An odd truth, but true nonetheless.

The Left back then was deeply concerned about the impact of human “rules” on the natural order. There was deep concern over just how much we could do to the natural world before it reacted destructively. Before it killed us. The Left seemed to be aware that there was some reason to pull back, some reason to re-consider the basic biblical assumptions made by the right. Therefore that God gave man dominion over the Earth, so to speak. To the Left, influenced to some degree by communist dialectic no doubt, questioned very seriously the wisdom of assuming our divine authority over the Earth and its creatures. It was in many ways conservationism of sorts. That is there was an inclination to conserve our interactions with nature, and to conserve our actions upon the general environment because we might not really know the consequences. This same concern was often to do with social order as well. There was concern over the assumptions of the superiority and authority of one group of people over another.

The Right on the other hand felt that Ideological conservation was necessary. They in their own turn argued that the society that we lived in was founded upon certain principles, and that disregarding those principles, be they pretty or ugly could return us to a degenerative social order. They were not fond of Hippie love ins, or racial integration, or power struggles or socialist doctrines of re-distribution, but mostly they were not fond of overly liberal changes to their basic society as they had come to build it. Religion was still deeply embedded in their views, and so were the Ideological foundations of Capitalism. They may have been given dominion over the earth, but they were not necessarily given total dominion over their own existence. They may have been capitalists, but they adhered as much as possible to the limiting Darwinist principles underlying their views. They believed firmly that the strong will survive, and the weak must either die, or accept guidance, and a lower standard of living. Harsh, no doubt, but it was a form of conservation. They also believed in some austerity, and self-preservation. They tended to conserve their doctrines, and if changes were to happen, they would happen very slowly and only when proven to be necessary in the rigor of the Ideological process.
Their own authority, had at least some built in limits.

Both of these movements had exception, distortions, and corruption, and both were deeply entwined to the power structure. However, in the end both were relatively careful(compared at least to the present world-view.) Their objectives were almost always limited. They were both aware of their limitations. This perhaps was nescessitated due to the “balance of power” between the Soviets and the West. One mistake, and poof…it could all be gone, and both sides understood this and to a large degree respected this one great limitation to their dreaming, and/or their greed.

With the fall of the Soviet Union all that changed forever.

When we look today at either side, Left or Right, West or East, what we see are liberal delusions on a grand scale. Both the progressive liberals and the Neoconservatives have begun to assume that there are no limits to their objectives. There are no potential obstacles save but the opposing side. The West, convinced of its victory over the dark powers of Communism assumed that there were no longer any limits, anything was possible, nothing was beyond accomplishment. This was of course, absurd.

The East now ressurgent, sees only the sky, but not as a limit, just as the new frontier. Forgetting at times I think that to leap into the sky, we must first pounce on the Earth.

Worse yet both sides seem keen to usurp the economy to get what they want. Both sides are willing to take liberalities with the underlying economic system, and with whatever ideological system they loosely profess to be bound to. To be sure back in the seventies the economic argument was front and center, but there was an understanding that only certain very specific limited steps could be taken. There was in general an understanding of the limitations of human ingenuity, and human being. They were aware of the tragedies of history.

But today no such understanding exists, and if the Democrats and Republicans, for example, agree on one thing, its how easy it is for them to print money as needed in promoting their own modus operandi. Truth be told they are both on massive welfare funded by nearly infinite amounts of credit, and endless unrestricted promises. Promises that are highly unlikely to ever be kept.

The one thing both sides can agree on is the massive amounts of debt we have, and the general dissatisfaction of the world’s public. And to blame the other exclusively.

Yet, in general they are both convinced that one day, very soon, we will all learn the secrets of “Black Hole” technology and live forever even if far apart. There’s not even an intellectual conservation it seems at times.

Extinction : A New Virtual Reality Game

As we have seen over the past year, as with any bad idea reality will eventually catch up with it. And so we have the present global reality to deal with. World War 3 is waiting on our front porch. Even a minor incident can start the end of our world. The only way to pay back our existing debt is to borrow more, and every year we go through the same drama, the same theater that always has the same tragic ending, just borrow more.

All the while divisions are becoming ever greater, and fundamental anger and frustration is rising on all sides. If everything were just fine, why then are we seeing the same tragic play year after year? Do we even care anymore how this tragedy plays out? The makers of “Fallout Four” have had a hit in the game industry for a decade…and every time they put out a new version of this tragic game of a post apocalyptic nuclear holocaust their sales rise ever higher! Its clear that the Millenials have all but become resigned to the end of the world, and total human failure. Just how prophetic is that?

Our only hope is to come back down to Earth. Respect those limitations which define our lives, and begin to realize that our options really are limited.

We cannot continue to pollute the Earth in the way we have done over the past forty years. Notice that the global climate began warming around the late seventies as industrialization began to make its way all over the world. It actually became worse during the late eighties and early nineties with the fall of the soviet union, the rise of the internet, and massive economic expansion all over the world. Could the increase of industrial output account for the sudden warming of the climate? Could this sudden global industrial expansion account for the sudden warming trend? There’s a good chance it did.

But it may also be temporary. If we begin to limit this expansion, it may well result in a cooling trend as less combustion, less agriculture and less pollution give the Earth a chance to clean up our mess.

If we fail to heed these warnings, I believe that the Earth will react, and its reaction will probably be in the form of terminating a rather troublesome , rather delicate species that seems to have an overabundance of audacity and and a severe tendency to extreme delusions of grandeur. Not everything is possible under the given set of circumstances. Yet it seems like this age old truth no longer applies to our way of thinking these days.

Biologists tell us that there is now a mass extinction under way because of human activity and its associated pollution. How long will it be before we join the trend?

It should be noted that in our presently overpopulated wasteful state that even a relatively minor Volcanic eruption, say a little larger than the 1815 eruption of Tambora would put so much pressure on our food and water resources as to probably cause a severe societal degeneration which might easily become interminable.

We need to become more efficient economically, more politically stable, and choose to honor the sovereign nature of nations so as to promote local stability and efficiency. Our present Neo-colonial expansionism will only lead to ever greater waste of resources, greater overpopulation, greater economic inefficiency, greater political instability and greater social instability the result of all these is likely to be highly destructive, and terribly disfiguring to our earthly environment. We must begin an earnest attempt to conserve our resources so that we can create a sustainable civilization that is in harmony with our natural environment-if we hope to go on much longer.

We must conserve our Earthly environment or face possible extinction…so much is clear on this Earth day in the year two thousand and seventeen.

Eugenics and Culture

A New Global Society uproots old cultures, but is there a danger of creating permanently isolated communities?


Are we creating an Elitist Society?

We are today experiencing a time when those with the greatest wealth and privilege are accelerating towards an isolated elitism, while those who are in poverty are being pushed ever further into isolation and ideological neglect. The danger is that if this continues to the degree that we see today, this separation between those who have everything and those who have nothing may become reinforced by the natural principle of selection. After awhile nature will reinforce the cultural axiology, the values contained within a given society with what may be a genetic predisposition. At least we should pay some attention to the possibility if we are to keep democracy vital and meaningful for posterity.

In the past we have all heard of the so called science of Eugenics. Simply put, it is the art of breeding a superior human specimen. The basic idea of breeding certain desirable qualities in any organism is simple enough, take two animals with desirable attributes, mate them, and their progeny will have those qualities, and a new better breed will evolve. At least the idea is simple, though in practice it may not work out that way exactly.

Still it’s a simple idea with a very long human history. We have applied this principle to just about everything and anything we have been able to breed, including but not limited to cats, dogs, sheep, plants, cattle and even human beings. The results have at times been beneficial, at times there were the proverbial bugs to deal with. The less than aspired to results of our attempts to engineer a new breed for a given purpose. Yet, the truth is, as we have all been made aware of through Darwin’s monumental work, nature herself is the real breeder, and breeder par excellence. She breeds what she needs for the purpose of perpetuating a more enduring life form. However, nature is not limited to the wild as we often tend to believe. Nature is everywhere, even in each of us. Her laws don’t stop at our cities’ gates. They are indeed the animating principle behind all our “man-made reality”.  She is the queen from whose fundamental order we can never escape.

The fact is that breeding takes place in our own human world. We live by her laws, whether we like it, or not. In effect our culture breeds what it needs to perpetuate its own modus operandi.  Our civilizations are in part due to our breeding for as in “Wild” nature, if we must distinguish between human and natural, our cultures breed according to what we come to value as desirable qualities. Natural laws, we should say again, don’t  stop at the city gates;  they are the fundamental force behind all human society.

Individual Freedom of Choice

In the past it has been often suggested that we can systematically choose our mates in order to better the human stock. But of course most of the time our conscious efforts create buggy people. As is the case with “pure bred” dogs or cats. There is a price to be paid for selection. An enhanced quality here, often means a detriment somewhere else. Today we hear of DNA technology and how this will change our human form. This is very doubtful. In the end, the product will have biological debts, and these debts may not be affordable. So it’s very unlikely that any systematic way of breeding is going to work and its certainly not the way we have evolved so far.

Rather what determines how we breed most of the time-aside from the fundamental law of nature-  is our culture.  But before we go on, we should pre-empt some arguments and ask this question: how in a true democracy can we really choose how we should breed? If we listen to the DNA enthusiasts, we should go to a professional and have him or her tell us who our mate for procreation should be. But this is dubious at best. They may breed the right genetic material as they see fit, but the human being is awfully complex, and there will be bugs to deal with of that we should be certain. And no amount of screening is going to weed out the problems. Besides, it may well turn out that we are ourselves far better at choosing our mates than any system ever could be, assuming we make a real effort.

For one thing, we can’t ask the government to choose our mate for us, since we are after all a Free People, we are Free to Choose who we want to be our progeny’s parent. Asking the government would be counterproductive to anything like a democratic principle. And if we are concerned about our progeny, we should also be concerned about their chances of living in a free world as well.

Therefore, we should understand, even before going any further, that individual freedom demands that an individual choose their mate, and make the final estimation of what that mate might parent from each of us. Should freedom of choice ever be compromised in this respect, democracy will almost certainly fail. Free people will probably believe that their children too should be free as well.

Freedom of Choice is a necessity and an unimpeachable right of a free individual, but it must be tended to carefully.

Race Myth

We should consider another matter before going on: whether there is some truth to the statements of some that Race is in effect the natural selection process in action. Again, there is little point in stirring the putrid stew, we all know of racist claims that some races are simply superior to others and that nature has chosen one race to be master and another slave. We have heard the arguments countless times, one builds a conquering civilization, the other a slave civilization ripe for conquering. We have all heard the arguments of Hitler, and Himmler for example that some are born out of certain harsh necessities and this builds strength and power etc etc etc while others are bred for slavery and serfdom etc etc etc.  But of course these arguments are ancient, and the Romans, the Greeks , and countless other elitists all around the world and on every continent and of every “race”, Black, White, Asian, American, or even Aboriginal has at one time in history used some such argument to justify their superiority over another, and to justify their rule over another. But the ultimate truth is that there really doesn’t seem to be anything like a “race” in the real world, save but a few general and superficial qualities like general skin color, or hair texture.

Like all formal doctrines taken too far, this doctrine of race too fades to nonsense when pushed to all powerful nature’s limits(as far as they apply to human beings.) The fact is that though it is true that terrain, and climate will favor certain human traits over others, and it is true that privation of one sort or other will tend to weed out those not suited to competition for a given resource, the reality is that those traits are rarely that well isolated. Those racial traits are never “pure” as the political ideologue is often prone to assert.  Rather any given trait, in any culture, is usually balanced with another. Moreover, there is no “pure” race. Even the most isolated of peoples such as Inuit, or some of the more remote tribes of New Guinea are really just mixtures and admixtures of various human migrations. Even the Aboriginals of Australia are the result of historical migrations from southeast Asia and over time they have developed certain traits suited to their existence in a harsh, hot, dry climate.

There are no “pure” races as once believed. There is no “Black” race, or “White” race, or “Asian” etc. All these are mixtures and admixtures over of migrations which have occurred over tens of thousands of years.

Culture and Axiology

Rather what there does seem to be is culture, and this tends to be ephemeral, and always evolving, or devolving. And this is most likely the primary “breeder” inclusive of all natural necessity and privation. As we have come to realize today, even the most isolated of species will eventually evolve into something different given natural necessity.  But human beings especially are never sedentary. It seems to be in our blood to occasionally ramble, to change locale, to move, to expand into a new world. A species like this will mix well no matter what it’s given state might be at any given moment. And this is more likely the true impetus behind our civilizations and their endless expansions, and “natural” selection. Why build a city where the toilet is five feet from the dining table unless there is  a need to keep someone out? But cities never last if all they do is try to keep people out.

So even if environment will be a factor in breeding a particular group of people, the stronger factor is usually the process by which a given culture acclimates itself to a given set of circumstances.  Culture is perhaps the most dominant force behind the particular traits that we choose to foster in our progeny, and this is natural and reasonable to assume.

The truth is that each individual in any given group, or society is made of many individuals, a genealogy thousands of generations long, and this is usually inclusive of most all human groupings. Each culture is usually an amalgam of groups and what traits may seem prominent, are almost always accidental, and ephemeral and would quickly disappear or redirect given any change of fundamental circumstance. Yet each culture has a set of values and its these values, these ideals that tend to create a society. These ideals, or principles, in most structured societies tend also to be one of the main factors for breeding.

Who is pretty, who is ugly, who is good, who is not, who is talented, who is smart, who is sane, who is not, who is rich, who is not, who fits, who doesn’t. All these are determined by the evolution of cultural values, and these have as their foundation the necessity of living in some harmony with the given environment. These are the determinants of human breeding over time.

Why Consider this at all?

Even if “Race” really is an ephemeral classification in the natural scheme of things(certainly it is not equal to the definitions of specie, and so biologically pretty insignificant) we can still consider the natural process of breeding. For though racism is not founded on much reality, natural, or even human selection is. There is a genetic factor at play in any given civilization. We really don’t have to look far to see this.

Consider that the Japanese are usually of a slight smaller build. This was probably necessary due to the difficult terrain of the Islands they inhabit. Japan is not the heart of Europe which can produce much more food than the rocky volcanic islands of Japan can, and so a smaller frame is probably needed in order to conserve the available food. It may also have been necessary to be small in order to negotiate the steep mountainous regions of the Japanese Islands.

Yet when we look at the Sumo wrestler we see a giant. We see a primed athlete that is much larger than the average Japanese and of course much stronger. Moreover, these people are to some extent bred as such in that they are families which tend to marry between themselves. It’s a profession, an honorable profession and Japanese culture has chosen to develop it. But even in what happens to be a very simple example we can get a sense of how culture and axiology can choose to breed certain types of people with certain attributes.

Consider also the two NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning. We know that they come from “football” families. Their father Archie Manning was also a Quarterback. His two sons were apparently skilled enough to become NFL quality players. His first son, Peyton Manning is often considered one of the best ever to play the position. There is also the case of the “prodigy” Andrew Luck, who is today fast on course to becoming the next great quarterback of the National Football League. His father too was an NFL Quarterback. The same was true of Bob Giese, and his son , Brian.

Even in coaching we see the father former defensive coach for the Chicago Bears, Buddy Ryan whose two sons, Rex and Rob Ryan are now prominent coaches in the NFL also.

And there are many other examples in the NFL as well as other sports leagues.

The same is seemingly true of baseball player Bobby Bonds, and his son, now the home run king Barry Bonds.

There will be arguments here that all these talents are merely taught and not genetic. But there is a much better truth available, and which is critical here in that these people likely inherited some proclivity that made them learn a particular skill much faster and much better than most because their parents had that same proclivity. This is not to say that someone better might not come along without a notable parent having the same skill, but rather that there is a factor here, and it is “real”. Whether its vocal chords or the length of ones’ finger’s, as might be useful to a Quarterback, there is probably a natural tendency, or availability of certain traits conducive to a particular mode of existence. As long as the culture recognizes this, it can in some cases isolate it. Football families sometimes stick together for example. But even if they didn’t the notion and values may well help to create a reason for being with someone.

It is interesting to note that the Bach family too was a “musical” family. They tended, as a group of trade musicians to mingle, and marry. Whether this was intended or not is unclear, but the family did manage to produce one of the greatest of composers. Beethoven too had a parent who was a musician. Again, education is crucial, but aptitude and predisposition for given subjects may also be influenced by the parents. This has often been maintained by the science of psychology which will often attribute as much as 70 percent of a given aptitude to some innate predisposition as opposed to environmental influences. But environment may initiate the main selective process behind those individual predispositions.

Although there is much debate here, and it’s easy to see why, there are reasons why this may be a subject we should all concern ourselves with.

The fact is that environment, family, community, and culture act to in some way determine, modify and direct certain innate human traits over time. Even traits which are often considered abnormal, or aberrant behaviors can often be redirected and applied successfully in a well ordered community. What is not usually successful however, is when certain traits are reproduced without any cultural or behavioral modification or intervention.

Every nation on Earth has depressed sectors. They comprise every , “race”, creed and color of ethnic flag,  and the consequences are usually the same for all of them. They show signs of poverty, crime, lack of mobility. Quite often they are that way for decades. Is part of the reason selective reinforcement and complete neglect?

The question is unsavory, and often those who might bring it up will be attacked as being racists, but the truth is that breeding even in human beings can be a natural force. And a community that loses its cultural cohesion and fundamental axiology will not have any of those orienting tools to deal with aberrant tendencies. We can argue these points forever, but no one should believe that genetic proclivities do not in some manner or form result in the existence of particular tendencies. Nor is it unnatural to assume that if all there is crime, and isolation, that the people who will be “successful” in those cases will be those most naturally suited for those activities. Again we can take a liberal way out of these possibilities and say that only education, and money make successful people or successful communities, but this would be wrong. Like all other creatures we tend to breed what we need. And if we are not careful, or if there is not enough social order to judge the outcome of pairings, the results could over time become catastrophic.

We have seen claims of malnutrition, or familial abuse, or crime running rampant, but quite often these reasons cannot explain the full scope of observed problems. Nor are these problems to be found in any one particular group. This is crucial, for the problem may be widespread and not merely limited to certain areas, or particular groups of people.

Again we should be careful here. We are not implying that everyone in a depressed, or socially isolated neighborhood anywhere in the world is condemned to being a criminal genetically. That is nonsense. But overtime certain “eccentric” or anti-social behavior can be established or reinforced by the choices made by individuals living in such communities.

It’s enough to say that poverty and social isolation of depressed communities can by itself cause psychological extremes to arise, but it is also true that if there are natural psychological eccentricities and these are not identified or processed by the culture eventually those eccentricities will propagate throughout the community and this may result in education and intervention becoming ever harder to apply. We can again say “this can’t possibly be true” but natural law would not confirm our claims. We are not very much different than other animals in this respect, save but that our “rationality” is a major component of the attributes that can be selected and passed on. Darwin’s revelations are probably just as applicable to human beings, as they are to any other species.

Society Seeks Order on all Levels

The key here is not genetics or breeding alone. The key is culture. Culture determines who we are more often than not. We are made of many souls, and we are taught from a young age the ways of perception and judgment. But over time these perceptions can lead to choices which can either help a community or hurt it.  Our “rationality” can actually select the attributes it most values and can amplify these attributes through special selection,  assuming rationale is in some way applied.

Though the early Europeans were often prone to judge so called “primitive” cultures as being weak or unprincipled, the truth is that many of those cultures encountered by the European explorers were actually quite advanced. Many took thousands of years to form and stabilize. During these great stretches of time a culture orders its ceremonies and hones its axiology and reinforces those attributes it most values. For one’s daughter to marry someone a certain set of criteria were necessary, and as these criteria were repeated throughout the ages, certain proclivities were prone to develop. Over time it would be natural to think that those who had certain talents that were viewed as valuable to the society at large, would tend would be enhanced through selective marriage and pro-creation.

This is not to say that all of this was just or good. It is true that some segments of the population were shut out. We need not look beyond England in the late eighteen hundreds to see what Charles Dickens had seen and what Lord John Russell had tried to change. Groups of depressed communities shut out from the mainstream and forced to live in perpetual poverty. This isolation is usually not going to produce good tendencies. Any instability would tend to propagate through the genetic pool and be reinforced, especially if the underlying culture was in some way compromised. Culture may take thousands of years to form, but it can be destroyed overnight. This was in fact the case with the Industrial era as many people flocked to the large cities for work.

The point is simply that a well developed culture will influence the development of talent even before conception.

Democracy and Principled Individuals

We have a culture in the global community which though strong is relatively young. The dynamism of the past few centuries has caused various fundamental changes in perception, customs and traditions. We have in many cases throughout the world corrupted the old cultures in favor of the new. Though there is some real good in this change, there is also potentially a great danger. The social norms and customs that are usually needed for the procreation of a new generation may no longer exist.  There is a larger, very structured community, but often this community is presented to people as mass produced goods or form of behavior meant for mass consumption with too little care given to the details. More often than not we are being sold a new way of being with little concern over what this might ultimately produce. Often this can result in children coming into the world with little prior thought for their ultimate disposition. Again this is a touchy subject, and I know, but if there is no care given to the potential outcome, over time we may produce children that will have a difficult time adjusting to an ever more complex world. It is no accident that cultures which have been razed by conquest often degenerate to depressed levels only a few generations later. Without a certain degree of cultured order, whatever eccentric tendencies exist will eventually be propagated to a significant degree especially in communities isolated in poverty for long periods. This has happened many times before to many an empire.

Though we all support freedom, and government that serves and responds to the needs of individuals, we often do not pay attention to the details. That a democracy can only stand strong if the individuals who support it are themselves highly educated, and highly principled. A Democracy can easily degenerate if those who support it tend towards degeneration. We need not look too far or too long in history to see this. A Democracy that isolates large groups of people in perpetual, generational poverty   eventually will degenerate and succumb.

Simply put, if isolation, poverty and crime are to become the norm for any given community anywhere in the world, nature will in time intervene and begin to create those individuals most suited to that existence. At least we should say that there will be a powerful natural impetus towards perpetuating this state. In such a state children may not be able to overcome no matter how much education is applied. This danger is of the worst kind and should not be ignored. If we continue to isolate communities in long term multi-generational poverty we will create a faltering democracy that ultimately degenerates to a severe loss of personal freedom. If a degenerative process of this nature continues, it could result in the return of some form of slavery.

Beyond that, we should not believe that this effect will remain in any given depressed and isolated community. If a strong principled culture does not exist, or is not reinforced in the larger community, the effects will propagate throughout the entire national entity.  We would then have a Democracy suited for the elite, while the majority are doomed by nature and circumstance to a permanent lower rung.

What can be done?

The first thing that probably needs to be done is for a society to recognize and reaffirm its principles. By reaffirming those fundamental principles upon which a democratic society is based , a spiritual reanimation and revitalization of that society can begin. Quite often it is not a matter of economics, but of an ideological movement. Too often people think that the only way to energize communities is by throwing money at them. But more often than not this fails since the fundamental principles of Democracy are not based on Capitalism but on fundamental principles of individual freedom, and principled existence. Although freedom of expression and evolution of a liberal nature can be beneficial to a society it must be well balanced with a strong conservatism that maintains and reinforces the fundamental precepts of the democracy. In essence all things in good measure are what will breed excellence. An ideological regeneration is really what is needed in the nation at large, and then once the nation itself has regained its own integrity it can begin to impart that integrity on all the various communities which comprise the nation at large.

Today we have absurd models for the procreation of children. In some places it looks fashionable for an unwed mother to have a circumstance baby. As if there’s something cool in being an unwed mother. The media has little helped with this. It has often happily broadcast the accidental baby to a famous person as if to say  being famous means you can have a child out of wedlock, and out of any commitment. This tends to reinforce common cultural trends and many are bound to replicate the behavior. But this is destructive, and it begs nature’s awful wrath. Like any cultivated plant, or flower, a child will only grow well if cared for, and if its inception was well planned and the planting well executed. Children are serious business, and culture, and the consideration of culture and community should be a “data point” from which all families form. Having children as a fashion statement is not going to result in anything good in the long run, most especially as nations grow ever larger, and ever more complex.

As a Democratic nation becomes larger and more complex there will be an increasing danger of creating isolated pockets of perpetually poverty stricken communities. For this reason a strong ideological foundation is required that is free of political incentives and biases. Though practical solutions are always necessary, most of the time it’s the assumption of principles that will have the desired effect. It is ideas that motivate people, it is ideas that get people to construct well functioning communities, it is ideas that build strong family units,  it is ideas that build individual character. Industry alone is not going to be enough. To prevent a self reinforcing cycle of endless social degeneration a powerful reanimation of the fundamental democratic ideology must be undertaken, and if this fails, it is very unlikely that consumerism, or capitalism alone are going to prevent the complete degeneration of our society.

A note about Racism

Racist ideologues have in the past used notions of Eugenics and breeding to justify their views. But as we have pointed out, there is really no such thing as a race. In all continents we see vast differentiation of peoples to the point where its really very hard to say that any two people are from the same district much less are of the same “Race”. But even if this is so, and even if racists have at times misused these ideas, we should not ever think that natural law stops at anyone’s door. It just doesn’t. Having children is serious business, and it really should not be so haphazard as it seems to have become in some areas. Culture breeds what it needs, and a degenerating culture will do the same as a revitalized culture. Some awareness of this should be part of the calculus of any or all Democracies.

As for the racist ideologues, we can say with some certainty that in all things there is some truth, and a lot less than that as well.

Post Script

Though some of what is being said here is ugly, this post is a warning really. If what we want to build is an elitist society nature will eventually oblige us and may predispose our democracies to oligarchy through natural selection. If we continue to isolate groups of people,  nature might affirm that this is really what we want to do and finish the process through selection;  but once done we may not be able to change our direction all that easily and our collective fate may be sealed. Our natural predispositions are very much a part of our society.

A true democracy must depend on all its people, and must culture and cultivate the talents of all its people, or it eventually stops being a true democracy. We must reawaken the fundamental ideology at the foundations of our democracies and apply these everywhere within in order to avoid creating a natural predisposition to oligarchy.

There is a price for everything, and we should be careful what we buy into. We may not be able to afford the final cost.