This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
There are no non-radical futures
We are in global ecological overshoot. Collectively, we use more of Earth’s resources than our living systems can generate. That means erosion of ecosystem, loss of species, climate disruptions, rising ocean levels, toxins in our bodies, and much more. It can’t last.
The problem is not something we can fix by tweaking our systems here and there. The problem is at the core of our civilization. It’s the idea of separation and infinite Earth.
Our civilization operates on the essential assumption that we are separate from ecosystems and Earth, and that Earth has infinite capacity to supply us with what we need and infinite capacity to absorb our waste. Rationally, we know that’s not true. But viscerally and in how our systems work, that’s what we operate on.
That means there are no non-radical futures. Realistically, we have two futures.
One is where we continue on our path which leads to continued unraveling of the living systems we are part of. If we collectively don’t learn and change, most humans will die.
Another is where we collectively decide to profoundly change our civilization to operate on ecologically informed assumptions – of interconnectedness and a finite Earth. This will change how we organize ourselves in all areas of life. It may also require us to take a more conscious role as temporary expressions of this living and evolving system we call Earth.
Both of these are radical. One is radical unraveling. The other is radical transformation.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
I TOLD YOU SO
We all have a large number of views and sometimes predictions, and it’s all mostly from conditioning. It reflects the influences we grew up with and now expose ourselves to.
We are also all sometimes right and sometimes wrong in our views and predictions. And many of us are inclined to remember and emphasize the times we (think we) we are right, and dismiss or explain away the times we were wrong. We also tend to pick out data that makes it seem we were right, and ignore the rest.
That said, there are many “I told you so” moments in my life, including when I have written about politics and society as I do in these posts.
Back then, I wrote about much the same as today – global ecological overshoot, misguided wars, neo-liberalism and erosion of democracy, and so on.
For instance, it was clear that the US lied about the reason for the Iraq war, and that was later confirmed. Already then, the information was readily available. Today, the information needed to see that any war with Iran is misguided is also readily available.
All empires fall, and since the ’90s, it seemed clear that the erosion of the US empire likely would happen within a couple of decades. For instance, Johan Galtung studied the fall of empires, saw the signs of it happening with the US, and that it would become obvious in the 2020s. I wrote about that too, and it’s happening. The status of the US as a global superpower is eroding, hastened by Trump.
Trump 2.0 was always likely to start wars, as I wrote about in November 2024 before his second term: “We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.”
Since middle school in the ’80s, I have been aware of global ecological overshoot. We are collectively using far more resources than Earth can replenish. We are metaphorically living on a draining savings account. As it continues to deplete, we see the unraveling of ecosystems and eventually an ecological and civizational collapse. We have a civilization that operates on the assumption of unlimited Earth, and that is out of alignment with ecological realities. That leads to overshoot and, if not corrected, collapse. Our civilization is ecocidal and suicidal. That too is easy to see and understand.
It’s also easy to see why global ecological overshot is by far the most serious issue facing us today. If you care about anything, you also have to care about global ecological overshoot. This living system we call Earth is what supports and makes everything we care about possible, including our own lives. With an ecological collapse, all we care about collapses. A mature and sane civilization will have ecological health as a priority since everything else depends on it. It’s the context for everything else.
Organic food is often presented as a luxury for a few, and unrealistic for the many. To me, it seems reverse. What’s unrealistic is to continue growing our food with poison, and poisoning ourselves, the land, and our ecosystems in the process. That cannot last.
When the US elected Trump for president the first time, it seemed equally clear that it would lead to an erosion of US democracy. Back then, I wrote about that as the main danger of his presidency. That has become even more clear now in his second period. We also know that he planned to implement Project 2025 in his second period, and that’s what we are seeing. And we know that his policies will hurt most of the people who voted for him, and they still voted for him.
Norwegian politicians seem to assume that when Trump is gone, our relationship with the US will return to normal. That seems naive and misguided. The dynamics in the US that brought Trump to power will not go away. Someone like him is likely to return, and likely one who is smarter and more competent. The US cannot be trusted or relied upon. We need to deepen our ties with Europe, Canada, and other more reliable and aligned countries.
As I wrote in a previous post, we know that nuclear energy in Norway is misguided. It will be too expensive and is not needed. Still, many political parties support it and want nuclear energy development, including parties that pride themselves on being fiscally responsible.
From the ’80s, it’s been clear to me that taking a significant portion of our abundant resources in Norway and investing in renewable energy research and technology is the wise way forward. If we did, Norway would be at the forefront of the inevitable renewable energy revolution, and we could have built a thriving research community and technology around it. It would go hand-in-hand with the current petroleum industry and be fueled by it. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. Norway is very much dragging its feet when it comes to renewable energy, and it has left the leading edge research and technology to other countries.
In most of these cases, I feel that reality spoke clearly. We just need to be slightly more attuned to reality than our ideologies to see it.
Why do some tend to be more often accurate than others? Partly, it has to do with basic knowledge about history (patterns repeat), society, and psychology. Partly, it may be that reality has a “left leaning bias” as Stephen Colbert said, slightly tongue in cheek but also with some truth to it. Partly, and perhaps most importantly, it has to do with whether we seek reality and truth over ideologies.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
IRAN WAR
The US and Israel has started an illegal war against Iran. It’s illegal according to international law, and also US law. It cannot in any way be justified as self-defense.
As usual, they get away with it because of the US position in the world, and Israel still riding a wave of sympathy from the horrors of WW2 – in spite of years and decades of genocidal actions from their side.
Most commentators leave out that the Iranian regime came about through another US intervention, aimed at toppling the Iranian democratic government. The reason was that this democratic government wanted to nationalize the oil industry, to the benefit of the Iranian people.
These kinds of interventions have inherently unpredictable consequences. Iran got a strongly authoritarian anti-Western government following the US intervention decades ago. And who knows what this current war may lead to. It can go in a large number of very different directions. The wast majority of these are not good for the people in Iran, neighboring countries, or the world.
History shows that these kinds of interventions and wars rarely go to plan. It risks destabilizing the country and the region for years and decades. There is also a risk that any future governments may be worse than the previous/current one.
In this case, Iran has prepared for this war for decades. They have plans in place to replace killed leaders, and it will likely be someone more extreme. They have warned about making the war regional. Iran is a notoriously difficult country to invade, purely based on geography. (It’s huge and mountainous.)
Also, air wars don’t lead to regime change. (Other than making the regimes more extreme.) Any ground war will easily become yet another quagmire. And these kinds of interventions only create more hatred towards the aggressor, in this case the US and Israel.
Of the many possibilities for how this unfolds, let’s look at two extremes.
One is that it’s a brief war. Trump pulls out relatively quickly and declares victory. Most goes back to how it was, apart from increased repression and entrenchment from the Iranian regime. Trump seems to receive his orders from Israel in this situation, and a brief war that maintains status quo is not in Israel’s interest. Still, Trump may eventually – within weeks or a few months – decide to declare victory and leave devastation in his wake.
The other is a long war. If the US and Israel want regime change, it has to be a land war. And it has to, eventually, involve US and Israeli troops on the ground. This can last for a very long time, considering the geography of Iran. It will involve neighboring countries. And it will be accompanied by Iranian terrorism around the world. There is no guarantee that even this will lead to a regime change, or that a future regime will be any more democratic or friendly towards Israel and the West. There is also the possibility of an eventual civil war within Iran.
Trump in his hubris likely assumes the situation is simple and will go according to plan. (If he has one, which it doesn’t look like he has apart from a vague idea of “success”.) And just about everyone else in the world knows it very likely won’t. We know that life is far more complex, and people have their own minds. (In this case, Iran has prepared for decades for this war, the opposition is weak and disorganized, air strikes alone will not lead to regime change, and Iran has the means to drag it out indefinitely.)
Although Trump didn’t start any big wars during his first period, his rhetoric and orientation changed dramatically before the second period, so what we are seeing now is no surprise.
The name of this war, “Epic Fury”, sounds like it was created by someone with the emotional maturity of a five year old, and little to no empathy or understanding of the seriousness and tragedy or war.
Of course, these kinds of unnecessary and optional wars is what empires do. In this case, it’s a way for Trump to distract from poor ratings, terrible predictions for Republicans for the midterm elections this fall, and the Epstein files. In his deluded mind, the war may also appear as an easy win.
To me, right now, this looks like Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin thought it would be easy, just like Trump likely sees this war as easy. In each case, it will be anything but.
Also, in both cases, informed ordinary people – at least in Norway and Europe in general – seem to have a more accurate picture of the situation than the leaders. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was seen as meaningless and unnecessary, and an inevitable quagmire for Russia no matter how the war itself went. (The Ukrainians would never stop fighting an occupation, and they would eventually win even if it would take decades.) Trump’s invasion of Iran is seen as an equally meaningless and unnecessary war. If he persists, it will very likely be another quagmire.
To some extent, some leaders may want a quagmire since it gives a lasting external enemy and distraction, but it leads to nowhere good in the long run. In some cases, it leads to the end of the attacking empire. Quagmire wars drains huge amounts of resources, leads to internal unrest and dissatisfaction, makes them lose sympathy and support internationally, and is often both an expression of declining empires and contributing cause of their disintegration.
All of this is an expression of a strong domination orientation and culture. The unnecessary wars. The assumptions that it will go according to plan and be easy. The want to dominate. The assumption you have the right to decide the internal affairs of other countries. The desire for control.
From a legal point of view, the war is unjustified and illegal. From a practical point of view, it’s profoundly misguided. From a distraction point of view, it works.
P.S. When it comes to Israel, initiating this war seems like a trauma response, just like their ongoing genocide. They choose strategies that increase regional hatred against them, make them lose international sympathy, and ultimately make them less safe.
UPDATES / ADDITIONS
MARCH 2026
The US/Israel killed the previous head of state in Iran, and he is now – some days later – replaced by his son. He is likely to be more extreme than his father, not the least because most of his close family was killed in the attack. He has nothing to lose. That he would be replaced by someone as or more extreme was predicted and close to inevitable.
Iran is using relatively inexpensive drones to attack US bases and US allies in the region. This drains the US anti-missile/anti-drone rocket supply, and is an excellent tactic to eventually bring the US into a situation where they have to pull out. (Or escalate, which would create a long and terrible war.)
A few more days in, and Iran has now made the Hormuz strait unsafe for tankers. This was also predicted and close to inevitable. It means higher oil prices in the world and a huge boost for the Russian economy. As usual, Trump seems to intentionally and sometimes unintentionally (?) act in ways that benefit Putin. He also clearly doesn’t care about the finances and well being of ordinary people, including the citizens of the US.
The media is largely ignoring the main issue of this war – that it’s clearly illegal according to international law. If I was an editor or journalist, that’s something I would put at the forefront of most or all reporting on this war.
Who benefits from this war? Putin, obviously, since it drains US resources and improves Russian economy. Also, it benefits China. They may be a ruthless authoritarian regime, but they are at least smart about it. They focus on what matters, not unneccesary wars. So they will continue to strengthen, while the US weakens itself and continues to erode its empire.
Over two weeks in, and we are in a current energy crisis that was avoidable. Most countries in the world have chosen – and it is a choice – to continue to rely on fossil fuels. That makes them and their energy situation very vulnerable. If we collectively had transitioned to renewable energy, we would not have an energy crisis now.
It’s now three weeks since the war started. It seems increasingly likely that this will be a long war with a ground invasion, which means likely disaster for just about everyone involved and for the global economy. Trump is in the predicted and forecasted escalation trap.
Mainstream Western media, including CNN and BBC, now seem to blame Iran for fighting back. Who started this war? Are they not allowed to defend themselves?
Someone commented that authoritarians don’t understand that people have agency. They surround themselves with people who fear speaking up to them, and assume the rest of the world is like that too. Putin thought Ukrainians would welcome the Russian invasion and occupation. Trump thought the Iranian government would fold. Just about everyone else knows that the world is not that simple and people have their own mind and motivations.
I AM BAFFLED, AND NOT
As so often, I am partly baffled by this. History shows that these kinds of operations rarely if ever go to plan. An air war won’t give regime change. The opposition in Iran is weak and disorganized and will not be able to create a regime change. A ground war will be an immensely costly and drawn out quagmire. (Because of the mountainous geography and huge distances, the huge number of US/Israeli soldiers required to fight and win over a million Iranian soldiers, and a regime fighting a religious war and for their survival.)
So why does anyone think this is a good idea? Why do 40 percent of the population in the US still support it? Are they complete idiots? The answer is likely and sadly “yes”, in the sense that they are uninformed and easily misled.
APRIL 2026 – ILLEGAL, MISGUIDED, COSTLY
It’s now the first week of April, one month after the initial attacks by the US and Israel on Iran. I see that European media overwhelmingly (?) and accurately depict this war as illegal, misguided, and profoundly costly for the Iranian people, West Asia, and the world. And the mainstream US media, for whatever reason and in their usual lack of integrity, tend to lean more towards the Trump view.
I also notice that the US media seem to focus on the handful of US citizens killed so far, and much less on the thousands of Iranian killed. That is an expression of the dehumanization of empire, and I am surprised that editors and reporters go along with it. Are they in service of empire, or humanity? I guess the answer is, as it usually is, empire.
In terms of the Hormuz strait, Trump seems to want NATO countries to clean up his mess. Having someone clean up his mess is what he is used to, and he again brings his personal life to the world stage.
Also, I see Trump and others in the US advocate for a ground invasion of Kharg island, which also seems profoundly misguided. It can easily become a death trap, and it won’t impact Iran that much. (See, for instance, this video from CBC.)
PURGING OF THE US MILITARY
The Trump administration are firing competent top military leaders to replace them with less competent loyalists, and are gradually weeding out black and female leaders. This is obviously a recipe for disaster. Replacing people with less competent yes-men does not end well.
US MILITARY IS COMPLICIT IN ILLEGAL ACTIONS
It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of the US military – from top to bottom – go along with this war. They do so knowing it’s illegal, that they are actively taking part in a crime, that it’s profoundly misguided, and that a ground invasion will be a costly death trap. Why? Are they not trained to set international law and ethics above orders? My guess is they are not. They are trained in an authoritarian system that sets loyalty above anything else. (As far as I understand, in the Norwegian military, they are trained and encouraged to disobey clearly illegal and unethical orders.)
WITHDRAWING FROM NATO
The Trump administration is getting closer to withdrawing from NATO. That has been Trump’s inclination and aim for years now, and it’s is yet another reason why Europe and European countries cannot rely on the US. They need to forge strong alliances among themselves and with other countries around the world, and detach from reliance on US military support, technology, and so on. Even if Trump will be gone, the dynamics that brought him to power will not. The US cannot be relied on anymore.
THE DYNAMICS THAT LED TO TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY
The Iran debacle is not really about Trump. It’s about the many in the US population who voted for him, knowing very well he is a con man and has no real interest in the well-being of the US population or anyone besides himself. He is a symptom of much deeper dynamics and problems in the US, created by decades of neo-liberal policies aimed at funneling money and resources to the already very wealthy and away from the general population. This has created an understandable and profound mistrust in mainstream politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Combine this with poor education, a flawed two-party system, and an empire in decline, and you get trouble.
NO REGIME CHANGE THROUGH AIR STRIKES ALONE
Back to the Iran situation, anyone with a basic knowledge of history and the situation would know that… (a) You can’t get regime change through air strikes, it has never happened. (b) The Iranian regime has prepared for this for decades and have a large number of people ready to take over if or when leaders are taken out. (c) Iran can easily make the Hormuz Strait unsafe for traffic and effectively control it. (d) It’s almost impossible to make passage through the Hormuz Strait safe if Iran decides to make it unsafe. (e) This situation gives Iran a massive advantage and leverage. (f) A regime change requires ground invasion, which will be disastrous and immensely costly in terms of lives and resources. (g) There is no simple win here for the US. (h) Which is why no previous US president has been misguided enough to try it.
PAINTED HIMSELF INTO A CORNER
Still in the first week of April, it seems clear that Trump has painted himself into a corner, against the advice of just about anyone who knows the situation. There are no easy solutions. He may well choose a ground invasion, another step of the escalation trap, and this too has no simple or easy resolution. They will face a million soldiers, a country that has prepared for such an invasion for decades, and a massive and challenging geography. History shows that it’s not a good idea to invade Persia or Iran. It rarely if ever goes well for those who try to do so.
GENOCIDAL INTENT
It’s April 7, and Trump is threatening massive attacks on Iranian infrastructure. That is clearly illegal according to international law. It’s a war crime. By saying he will destroy the Iranian/Persian civilization, he displays genocidal intent, which is also a crime. Anyone who participates in this is a war criminal (the Rome Statute), including the soldiers. As so often, much of mainstream media ignores that side of it. For instance, Michael Clarke in this Sky News commentary only focuses on the feasibility of this war crime.
THE OUTCOME SO FAR
April 9 with a tenuous ceasefire and clearly different views of what it entails. What’s clear is the outcome so far: (a) Iran has a more extreme leadership, and one that’s more likely to want nuclear weapons. (The former leaders were far less inclined to want it.) (b) Iran has played their Strait of Hormuz card, which everyone knew they had, and has control over a significant part of the world economy. (c) The US and Israel has weakened support internationally, and deepened the (understandable) hatred many in the region has towards them. (d) Iran is more motivated to seek and deepen alliances with other enemies of the US and/or Israel. And, as we also knew before this started, (e) regime change cannot happen through air strikes alone, and (f) a ground invasion will be enormously costly in terms of resources, human lives, and damage to the US/Israeli international relations.
NO EASY WINS
April 11. Trump has and will continue to fail in Iran. There are no easy ways out for him. So he needs – psychologically and politically – an easy win somewhere else. That makes him even more dangerous on the international scene. He may, in his derangement, take it out on Greenland, Cuba, or another country he thinks he can easily dominate.
IRAN GAINS STRENGTH AND MONEY
April 12. Predictably, the negotiations failed. Iran is in a much stronger position now than before the war, largely through demonstrating that they can easily close the Strait of Hormuz. That means they can demand more, and that’s not acceptable for Trump’s ego. Trump has now closed the strait (!), which seems another childish move. “You are not closing it, I am closing it!”. As before, there is no easy way out of this for Trump and the US. That’s why no previous US president has been stupid enough to go to war against Iran. It’s a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.
As a reminder, beforethe US/Israeli war against Iran, Iran… Was not interested in developing nuclear weapons, for religious reasons. (Now, they are far more motivated to develop nuclear weapons.) Was open for nuclear inspectors. Did not block the Strait of Hormuz. Had more moderate politicians at the top. (Now killed by the US/Israel.) Had agreed to a plan with Biden, which Trump tore up.
In short, this debacle is all created by Trump and Netanyahu. It has worsened the situation dramatically for all parties and the world in general, and there is no easy way out. Both were predicted, and has been predicted for years and even decades. Trump finds himself in the escalation trap. Even if he somehow would declare victory and pull out, the situation will be worse than before. In either case, he may be motivated to seek a more easy “win” somewhere else – for instance, by invading Cuba.
THE ESCALATION TRAP
It’s April 15, and Robert Pape again speaks about the escalation trap based on his three decades of studies. Iran is only getting stronger (they have shown they can block the Strait of Hormuz), more motivated to have nuclear weapons (the moderates were killed), and is deepening its ties with China, Russia, and other enemies of the US. Trump has a choice between (a) making concessions and allowing Iran to become a stronger power in the world, and (b) tanking the world economy through continued blockades. (Short term.)
OBAMA’S AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
Obama’s agreement with Iran could have and did prevent all this. Trump tore it up (his fragile sense of self-worth was too threatened by a smart black man) and instead started a doomed war which will either (a) make Iran far more powerful or (b) lead to an immensely costly and drawn out ground war with no guaranteed outcomes. (Long term.)
A LARGE SCALE GROUND WAR WILL BE IMMENSELY COSTLY
When it comes to a large scale ground war, Iran has roughly 1 million soldiers, which means a successful large scale successful ground invasion will require a huge number of US/Israeli soldiers. (Likely at least the same number, ideally 3-4 times that.) That seems unlikely, so a ground war will probably be smaller scale and won’t achieve much.
THE US CANNOT BE TRUSTED
Another long term outcome of this is that the world sees two things. (a) The US cannot be trusted. Nobody can trust the US, not even its traditional allies. Trump is not the problem here, deeper dynamics in the US are and they won’t go away. (b) If you have nuclear weapons, you are relatively safe. If you don’t – like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland/Denmark, and so on – you are not safe. By tearing up agreements and starting unprovoked wars, the US has shown it cannot be trusted, and nuclear weapons is the way to go if you want to prevent an attack.
ISRAEL LOSES ALLIES AND CREATES ENEMIES
When it comes to Israel, it’s difficult to understand how (a) an ongoing UN defined genocide and (b) an unprovoked, illegal, and doomed attack on Iran are going to help them. It will only turn the international community away from and against them. As described above, this attack on Iran will only strengthen Iran and encourage them to develop nuclear weapons. The alternative is an enormously costly and drawn out ground invasion, which may even fail – or lead to a further destabilized West Asia.
Before this war, the leadership in Iran was against developing nuclear weapons for religious and practical reasons. Now, they have every incentive to develop nuclear weapons. How is that going to help Israel? It seems suicidal, and it seems like a misguided and harmful trauma response. Hurt people (sometimes) hurt people, and in the process hurt themselves.
WIN-WIN VS ZERO-SUM
April 19. In general, all of this – the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – seems profoundly misguided to most Europeans and many around the world. There main reason may be a difference between a win-win versus zero-sum mindset.
Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin all come from a zero-sum and authoritarian mindset. They see alliances as weak. They want sole power. They want yes-men around them. They don’t listen to actual experts. That’s the reason for their decisions and behavior, and it leads to misguided actions – including the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, the Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe in general has more of a win-win mindset. We seek alliances. We know we are stronger together. We seek to strengthen bonds and ties. We seek diplomatic solutions.
To be fair, we have to seek alliances since we are small alone. That’s the gift in being relatively small. The curse of large countries is that the leaders, and sometimes the population, can get into the illusion that they are more powerful than they are. They think they can go alone and others will fold. And that’s not how the world works.
WITH TRUMP, WE ALL LOSE
Trump likely wants to get out of the Iran war, although it’s difficult to see how he can get out of it. Iran can demand far more than they could before this war, and that may be difficult for Trump to swallow.
If Trump can get out while maintaining the illusion of victory and control, he will leave Iran in a much stronger position. Also, it may lead to Trump wanting an “easy” win somewhere else – likely Cuba first, then possibly Greenland, or other countries. In any case, the world loses.
NUANCE
This writing is in the form of journal entries. I don’t try to make it very nuanced, and I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything. It’s more just how it comes out at a very human and personal level, and it reflects my own background, views, and biases. At the same time, I think that much, if not most, will hold up in hindsight.
THE WAR PRESIDENT
Trump 1.0 wasn’t exactly a peace president, but he didn’t start foreign wars. Trump 2.0 was always going to be different. He changed a lot in the years between. In November 2024, after he was elected and before he started his second term, I wrote this in Trump’s victory: the empire strikes back:
“We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.”
The likelihood of Trump-initiated wars was clear during his campaign for the second term, so I don’t know why some still saw him as a peace president, or now seem surprised by the Iran war and his threats against traditional allies like Canada and Greenland/Denmark. I guess they haven’t paid attention.
INSIDER TRADING
April 20. There has been a pretty clear pattern of insider trading over the last few weeks. Minutes before Trump announces yet another reversal, there is a flurry of trade in petroleum stocks and someone makes a windfall. It is mentioned in mainstream media, as in the BBC story I linked to above. At the same time, it’s not getting the attention it deserves, likely because it’s just one more example of systematic corruption and crimes committed by Trump and his associates. It’s what we have come to expect.
SANEWASHING
I have been slightly baffled by the sanewashing of Trump by mainstream media, especially during his first term. He is clearly unhinged and has major mental problems, and the media seems to have seen it as their job to make him look more coherent and sane than he is.
I am not sure why. If I was a reporter, I would make it my job to present it clearly since it is a major public concern, both within the US and for the rest of the world. It impacts all of us.
That mostly continued for the first year of his second term (last year), and now, there seems to be more stories in mainstream media calling out his unhinged behavior. For instance, ABC News (Australia) has this story: Trump’s erratic actions spark speculation on cognitive decline.
What’s slightly odd about this is that his bizarre behavior has been on display the whole time, and now they are talking about cognitive decline, as if that’s the main story.
OPPOSED TO THE US – OR EMPIRE, AUTHORITARIANISM, AND OLIGARCHY?
I see that more people seem to side with Iran and China over the last few weeks. That’s also slightly baffling to me. Yes, Trump and the US are committing crimes, Trump has stated genocidal intent, the war is profoundly misguided even from a practical point of view, Israel is committing systematic genocide and very likely convinced Trump to start the Iran war, and so on. That’s all terrible.
That doesn’t make Iran or China the “good guys” or someone to side with. They are doing much of the same, and sometimes worse. They are oppressive regimes with a history of major human rights violations, and they are both far more undemocratic than the US currently is. (Of course, Trump would like the US to be more authoritarian.)
Personally, I am for democracy, human rights, social justice, and so on. And I don’t care much for oligarchies, authoritarian regimes, human rights violations, and similar.
If you side with Iran and China (or Putin’s Russia), you are in effect saying: I am fine with human rights violations and authoritarian and oppressive regimes, as long as it’s not the US. That doesn’t make much sense to me.
*** MY OWN BIAS & THE BIGGER PICTURE ***
I am acutely aware that all of this reflects my own bias and my own culture. I am typical Norwegian in these views – at least, typical for a university educated Norwegian who cares about people and the world. My views are typical for an educated liberal person alive in the late 1900s and early 2000s.
I have intentionally written this from my more unfiltered humanity, to acknowledge that side of me too.
And I also know that this – what I write about – is all part of the human experiment. It’s part of the unfolding of this living planet. It’s an expression of Existence as a whole. These too are local and temporary expressions of the dynamics of the whole of Existence. It’s all life, the universe, existence, the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
It’s one chapter in the unfolding of humanity and this living planet. Humanity itself is one chapter of the unfolding of this seamless living system we call Earth. Earth itself is one chapter in the unfolding of this seamless system we call the Universe.
THE UPSIDES & FUNCTION OF DOMINATION CULTURE
In the bigger picture, there is clearly a function to domination culture and empire. The dominance of domination culture is a phase in the unfolding of human culture. It comes with many downsides, and also many upsides – in terms of developing art, science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
Is this the chapter that brings about the end of human culture or humanity itself? If so, it’s just still one of many chapters in the history of this living planet, and there will be many more chapters to come – likely with amazing things we cannot even begin to imagine.
Or will there be more chapters in human civilization? If so, will the next be more of a balance between partnership and domination orientation? Will it be one of a deep partnership with life, and with our past history of partnership and domination – taking the best from both and creating something new?
MAY
It’s now May, and the situation is unfolding much as experts predicted. Iran has prepared for this for decades. That means they have people ready to replace leaders, they are able to secure weapons and nuclear production from strikes, and they are able to strike back at US bases in the region. The US rapidly depleted their weapons supply. A large scale ground war is doomed to fail and/or become a long and terrible quagmire. The Hormuz Strait has become a Mexican standoff with no solution in sight.
From all of this, Iran is emerging stronger, and the shortcomings of military might in complex situations is becoming evident. Trump is flailing since there are no good solutions for him.
This is still the essence of the situation: (a) Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and, with it, petroleum-derived chemicals needed for artificial fertilizers (which impacts the world’s food production since it’s made dependent on those fertilizers) and 20% of the world’s petroleum. (b) There is no reason to assume that will change. The US does not have the capacity to prevent Iran from attacking ships in the strait. (c) Iran sits with the strongest hand at the negotiating table, and even if the demands they make are reasonable, Trump’s fragile ego is unable to accept it. (d) Even if Trump pulled out while declaring victory, this will not change Iran’s control of the strait. (e) Only a massive ground invasion will have a chance of stopping Iran’s control of the strait, and it will be immensely costly and drawn out, and not even be certain to succeed. (f) This was all known and predicted before the war, which is why no US president has done it before.
VIDEOS
These videos are obviously biased against the war. At the same time, they are grounded in an understanding of history and social dynamics. I am mostly including them to show that what likely happens in the coming weeks, months, and years was predicted at the beginning of this war, and even before. Some are interviews with Robert Pape who has studied the escalation trap for three decades.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
TRUMP, GREENLAND, ETC.
I have taken a break from these posts, but thought I would add something brief about the Trump situation.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
MOSKOW VS WASHINGTON DC, 1434
I saw this meme with an image of Moskow and Washington DC in the early 1400s. Moskow has churches and big buildings. Washington, D.C. has native American tents. There is no commentary, but I suspect the idea is to show that Russia had civilization back then and North America did not.
That’s misguided at so many levels.
NORTH AMERICA AND RUSSIA ARE BOTH EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONS
The current North American civilization and Russia are both European civilizations.
What we see in North America today is not the civilization of the indigenous people. (Some of us wish it were.)
NATIVE AMERICAN CIVILIZATIONS
The image combination may suggest that the Native American civilization was somehow primitive or inferior to the Russian civilization at the time.
If so, that’s a questionable view.
The indigenous people in the Americas had their own civilizations.
Even from a conventional European view, many of these were sophisticated and advanced. For example, we can find democracy, equality between the genders, sustainable agriculture, sophisticated architecture, advanced languages and mathematics, large buildings and cities, and so on.
INDIGENOUS CULTURES CAN BE SEEN AS MORE ADVANCED
If we want to compare civilizations, the way we do it obviously depends on our own views and what we value. If we use the filter of traditional European values, then the European civilization will necessarily appear superior. But those are not the only valid and valuable views and values. Other values may be more essential and important, especially today.
European culture and civilization is, in many ways, unhealthy and damaging to nature and people. It sees humans as separate from the rest of nature. It has an idea of a remote sky-god. It sees nature as infinite and here for humans. It sees humans as superior to other beings. It values intellect over heart and the wisdom of the body. It’s traditionally racist and sexist. It has often been colonialist. It has an extractive mindset.
In contrast, many indigenous cultures see humans as part of the web of life. The divine is right here in and around us, which is more conducive to reverence for life. They often have a more ecological mindset and a more ecologically sustainable way of life.
The first is ecocidal and suicidal. The second is more life-centered.
Of course, is not always that simple. There is much value in European culture, and many indigenous cultures have views and habits that most of us wouldn’t like to be exposed to. But in general, European culture is profoundly misguided on some essential and basic things, and many indigenous cultures were and are not.
NOT MEANT TO BE SCRUTINIZED
I understand that these memes are not meant to be scrutinized like this. The people posting them do it for emotional reasons. In this case, the meme only works if you don’t think about it and follow racist logic.
Some pro-Russian propaganda can be surprisingly naive. Still, it’s sometimes adopted by some Western folks on the left.
Why? It’s likely because Putin and some Westerners on the left both like to criticise the US and Western Europe for their policies and how they sometimes treat the rest of the world. They use a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic.
I am also no fan of much of what the US and Western Europe have done and are doing. That doesn’t mean I leave my brain at the door and adopt the views of Russian propaganda.
A MORE SANE VIEW
For me, there is a more grounded and sane approach.
European culture – whether it’s in the US or Russia or anywhere else – is profoundly misguided on several essentials. It has a power-over orientation, an extractive mindset, it sees nature as infinite and primarily existing for human use, the sacred is separate and “out there” somewhere, and so on. That’s found equally in the US and in Russia, and it’s ecocidal and ultimately suicidal.
Indigenous cultures often have views and orientations that are more sane and ecological. These are one piece of the puzzle in transforming into a more ecologically sustainable civilization.
That’s far more fundamental and essential than any US vs Russia debate. And if I wanted to go into that particular discussion, I would certainly not adopt a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” orientation.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI
When I lived in Oregon in the 2000s, I was aware that we were roughly due for another major (8 or 9) earthquake. If I remember correctly, they seem to happen about every three or four hundred years and it is about that time since the last one.
I made sure to have earthquake insurance on the house and was surprised when the insurance agent said it was very unusual.
This is another example of people not taking science seriously. There will be another major earthquake in the Pacific Northwest. It’s roughly due, although it’s difficult to say exactly when. It could be within our time or in one, two, or three generations.
For me, that’s all I need to take precautions and be prepared. And it seems that for many, it’s a reason to not do much and hope for the best.
For instance, in Japan where they have more of a living memory of tsunamis, they build tsunami towers where people can go to be safe. In the US, they only have three (!) so far.
If Europeans had lived in the Pacific Northwest when the last major earthquake and tsunami happened, they too would have a memory of it, and they would be more likely to do something about it.
As it is, there is only the information from the scientists, and that does not seem to be enough.
Image by me and Midjourney
MASTERS OF THE AIR
I have watched the three first episodes of the Spielberg/Hanks production Masters of the Air which follows Band of Brothers and The Pacific. I remember I thought The Pacific was exceptionally good and I also liked Band of Brothers. With this one, I am not so sure. I’ll watch it to the end, but I am somehow less invested in it.
I get the sense that the storytelling is not aimed at making the audience care about the characters. The interactions seem superficial and I haven’t learned much about any of them so far. I know next to nothing about their background, their relationships with people at home, their hopes, dreams, and passions. I have seen short movies that have made me care far more about someone within a minute than I care about any of these characters after three hours.
With Spielberg and Hanks involved, it’s difficult to understand why this is so. Was it an intentional choice? Did they hire writers who are not good at making people care about the characters? Did they get distracted by the technical challenges?
Update: I have seen a couple of more episodes, and although I find it worthwhile to watch, I am not very invested in the series. For me, it would have been more interesting if I got to know the main characters more as humans – with relationships, dreams, hopes, fears, talents, passions, and so on. It would also have been interesting if the series followed both Allied and Axis airmen, humanizing both sides.
Update: I am now watching episode 6, and it seems they are slowing down the pace a bit and making it more personal.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
ONE OF THE FLAWS OF MANY CONSPIRACY THEORIES: OVERLOOKING THE OBVIOUS
Yes, it seems that many who are into conspiracy theories don’t know much about history or society. They seem to overlook the well-known and obvious, or they present it as if it weren’t universally known. (Likely because they didn’t know about it before so it looks new to them.) And they often overlook far more serious things than what they are focused on. For instance, they may think that the problem is some group of people or corporations, while the actual problem is in the system as a whole. The system that we all are part of. We all participate in it. We are all part of the problem. It’s not just someone else.
There is something real and well-known that’s far more serious than what just about any conspiracy theory is about, and that is our ecocidal and suicidal civilization. We have lived in global ecological overshoot for decades, and at some point, we’ll hit the end of the metaphorical savings account and it will all come crashing down. Nothing is more serious than that. It’s well-known and out in the open. Why not be focused on that instead?
PEACE -> LESS RELIGIOUS
I see some folks on social media posting this and implying or assuming that the directionality goes less religion -> peace. To me, that seems a bit simplistic. Getting rid of religion is not only impossible, but it’s very unlikely to bring more peace. Most conflicts that go along religious lines have little to do with religion and everything to do with ordinary politics and history. For instance, the conflicts in Northern Ireland are not about religion, it’s about the Irish wanting their country back from English occupiers, and they just happen to have different religions. Similarly, when you see Islamic extremist groups, it has little to do with religion and a lot to do with understandable desperation and anger due to the effects of Western imperialism. (I am sure there are some examples where religion is more at the core as well, but they are not so common and even there, it’s often really about politics and history.)
To me, the other directionality makes a lot more sense. Peace -> less religion. In more peaceful countries with better education, less poverty, and better social safety nets, there is less need for religion. People tend to be less religious because they don’t need it so much in their lives. They are doing fine without it.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
ISRAEL & PALESTINE
I posted this quote on social media without any comments and (unsurprisingly) received a comment about what’s happening between Israel and Palestine now. The question was: What would you do if you were the prime minister of Israel?
Here is my response:
There are many layers here.
First, I have posted this quote before (years ago, I think), because I love it and it’s a helpful pointer for me. I initially posted it again for that reason, then realized some may take it as an indirect commentary on what’s happening in the Middle East, so I unposted it, and then posted it again because I am not responsible for how other people interpret things.
As for your question, I would not be prime minister there for many reasons, including that my views are too far removed from those of the majority living in Israel. If I – through a miracle and against my will – was prime minister there, my first move would be to respect international law and human rights, and remove some of the reasons for the current hatred against Israel and the Israeli people. I would work on prevention, first of all, by trying to improve the lives of people both within Israel and also Palestinians and those in Gaza.
If I woke up today as the prime minister there, what would I say to those who want revenge? Probably, go screw yourself You won’t get it from me. (In the form of: “I understand your anger and pain, I am also angry and in pain from what happened, but more violence is not the answer”.)
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SUPPORTING MILLIONS OF BEINGS
My wife and I have land in the Andes mountains, and we are in the process of helping the land become as vibrant as possible. We are planting native flowers, bushes, cactuses, trees, and more. We are creating a food forest that will provide food for birds, animals, and humans. And we are doing some very limited landscaping to collect water and prevent soil runoff.
On these fifteen hectares, millions of being live, and many more will live there in the future. To me, supporting all those lives is immensely meaningful. I cannot imagine much that’s more meaningful.
That, in itself, will make my life more than worth it.
DEATH IS BAD?
I saw a video with Tom Scott where he says that “death is bad” and he implies that (scientifically) striving for eternal life for humans is a good thing.
I can understand that from the perspective of your own life or those close to you.
But in the bigger picture, it’s different. Death is why we are here. Without death, we would soon run out of space on this already overcrowded planet, and we would run out of resources even more quickly than we already are. Death is what allows for new generations, new species, and new life. We wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the death of past species, past generations, and – going even further back – the death of early stars in our area of the galaxy and universe.
We are made up of dead stars. The death of previous species gave space for new species, including our own and those leading to our own. The death of individuals gives space for us. Our individual death gives space for new individuals, the death of our species will give space for new species, and so on.
Without death, no evolution and no life.
Even more essentially, without the metaphorical death of this moment, there wouldn’t be the next moment. What’s here dies and allows for something fresh and new. That’s happening always.
(How do I know this moment dies and is reborn as something else? It’s because I notice what’s here in. my sense fields, make a mental image of it, and compare that mental image with another mental image I call “previous moment” or “recent past”. And there is no “I” here apart from in other mental representations, it’s just happening.)
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
OUR MANY ANCESTORS
And imagine the many non-human ancestors going much further back… to the first one-celled organisms. Our earliest ancestors are the ancestors of all of us alive today of all different species. We are all intimately connected.
PRIDE MONTH
June was Pride Month, and there were lots of rainbow flags outside of stores, government buildings, and homes.
I overheard a conversation where they said things along the line of: “It’s a bit too much”, “Why make such a big deal about it”, and so on. It was not directly queer-phobic, but obviously disapproving of pride month and the limited way it’s been marked in Norway.
To them, as heterosexuals in Norway, it seems like it’s too much. It shouldn’t be such a big deal.
To me, it looks very different. Historically, queer people have been oppressed and even killed, so having pride month is the least we can do to show that they now are included and accepted. Around the world, queer people are still oppressed and killed in many places.
From a sheltered Norwegian perspective, perhaps it seems a little much. But from a historical and global view, it’s the least we can do.
I love living in a country that’s inclusive and accepting in this way, and I love Pride Month and people putting up rainbow flags.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
A FEW IMPRESSIONS FROM RETURNING TO NORWAY
I am just back in Norway, and a few things strike me.
I love being here. It’s quiet, safe, and civilized. The nature is beautiful, as is spring. The public transportation is great, at least where I am. (Oslo area.) I am looking forward to spending time at some of my favorite areas here. (The forest near where I am. The harbor in Oslo, Frognerparken, the botanical garden, the museums, Hovedøya and other islands, Bygdøy, and to go swimming in the ocean.) I am also very much looking forward to going to spend time at the cabin which is at a lake southeast of Oslo. (Østmarka.)
I also notice…
The abundance of insects, birds, and wildflower fields from my childhood is gone, along with the wild edges that used to be in people’s gardens. Now, people have lawns, few flowers, no wild edges, and they seem to love a manicured desert. I rarely see any insects, apart from a few bumblebees. The flowers I see have very few insects on them. And the swallows and many other birds are gone. There are probably many reasons for the dramatic loss of insects over the last couple of decades: industrial agriculture and insecticides, loss of nature, loss of meadows and flowers, and more.
This loss of insects is hugely concerning. It’s part of a continued and increasingly dramatic unraveling of our ecosystems and our own life-support system. So it’s baffling to me that so many seem oblivious to it, that there is not more focus on it in the media, and that it’s not one of the main priorities in politics and for the voters. (I have written about this in other articles.)
The food is noticeably more expensive, as I knew it would be. Also, there is still very little organic food in the grocery stores, and it’s more expensive than chemically produced food. Considering the dramatic loss of insects, and that insecticide use in agriculture likely plays a big role, it would make sense for the government to subsidize organic food and organic food production. Why are they not doing it? I am not sure.
As an aside, I also took a look at some popular history magazines read by a couple of family members. Ironically, these magazines seem out of touch with history. They largely focus on the history of Western Europe, war, technology, and famous men. And they leave out just about everything in history I find important and interesting: The history of ordinary people and the marginalized. The “green” history of the world and human interactions with ecosystems. The history of worldviews and orientations. The history of other cultures. And so on.
Of course, these magazines reflect and are aimed at more folks with a conservative mindset, and I am coming from a more progressive mindset, so it’s predictable that I would have that reaction. And it’s still a bit surprising to me that they take such an old-fashioned approach to history.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
WE ARE GOOD, THEY ARE BAD
I saw one of the old-fashioned stone age stereotypes this morning and was reminded of the “we are good, they are bad” or “we are superior, they are inferior” attitude.
Of course, stone age people were just like us. They were as smart, kind, sensitive, stupid, cruel, and so on as we are. They just had different technology and different understanding of the world. They lived within their own culture, just as we live within ours.
COMMON FORMS OF STUPIDITY
I definitely have a judgmental part in me.
I saw people supporting Brexit for somewhat absurd reasons, ignoring what we knew would very likely be the outcome. (UK businesses moving to the EU, weaker bargaining position with other countries, trade barriers of several kinds, loss of subsidies from the EU, problems with the Irish border, still having to align with EU regulations to facilitate trade, and so on.) And now, when what was predicted is happening, a majority in the UK wants to join the EU again. To me, that whole process seems like stupidity. A waste of time, attention, and resources, and something that was brainless from the beginning.
I see people wanting Ukraine to accept Russian occupation so we can avoid a nuclear war. Who are you to decide that? That’s only for Ukraine to decide. And would you accept an occupation and foreign authoritarian leadership without a fight? Very likely not. And judging from Putin’s words and actions, it’s very unlikely that he will stop with Ukraine. If he is not stopped, there is no reason for him to not continue invasions of former Soviet countries. He is trying to recreate a Russian empire from the past. To me, the appeasement attitude in this case seems incredibly short-sighted and naive.
Most importantly, I see people operate on a business-as-usual mindset, knowing full well that just about every climate scientist is saying we are heading full speed into an almost unimaginable ecological disaster. A disaster that will be the end of our civilization as we know it. How can they do that? How can they continue to vote for politicians who don’t take this seriously? How can they continue to live their lives as if nothing is happening? How can they keep prioritizing as if this is not happening?
TRANSGENDER ETC.
I love that the younger generation seems more flexible and open when it comes to gender identities and sexual orientations. They allow themselves to explore and be more fluid and less restricted by labels and tradition. That seems very healthy.
I also just had a conversation that touched on transgender issues. A friend of my wife is a writer who explored what it means to be a woman in her writings, and apparently some of that has triggered some in the transgender community. I don’t know more about that situation so cannot say much more about it, and I’ll certainly not take sides. (I suspect the author may have been a bit insensitive in her language, and that the reaction may be a bit over the top, but even that may be wrong.)
Here are a few of my own thoughts on the transgender topic.
First, it’s not something I have first-hand experience in so these are obviously, in some sense, an uninformed outsider perspective. I’ll be the first to admit that, and leave the insider perspective to those who have that experience.
And as a member of society, and someone who has explored my inner world, I have a few things I can share.
We all have what we label feminine and masculine characteristics, and they are labels. The wholeness we are seeks to know itself as that wholeness, and that includes embracing and getting to know and live from our feminine and masculine characteristics. This is something far more universal than any of the labels we may use. For all of us, no matter labels or age or whether we feel we are biologically man or woman, it can be very healing and freeing to get to know and embrace both our feminine and masculine characteristics.
We can also embrace and express whatever gender we like, independent of our biological sex, and this may change over time and situations and phases in life.
And if someone wants to change their biological sex, that’s up to them. Although I also think that such a relatively profound change needs both support and a few restrictions. For instance, it makes sense if someone has to be legally an adult before doing it. And it makes sense that there is a process in place where people get to explore more in-depth their desire and find what it’s really about before they go through with the change. Clarifying can only help. It will either strengthen their clarity and resolve for the change. Or they may find they can better meet their need in a different way, or that it’s really about something else. And sometimes, the genuinely best strategy to meet that need may be to change their biological sex.
Why such a process? Because doing it on an impulse may lead to regrets later. And because it’s always good to clarify our intention and needs before doing anything that involves a major and lasting change.
This is also a situation where there is a lot of cultural baggage, much of it unhelpful. There will be a lot of opinions from friends, family, and inside our own minds. And there are money interests. All of this muddles the water. So it’s good to go through a process where we clarify our intention, motivation, and needs, and how to best meet our needs.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
MAKING A HORRIBLE COMPROMISE?
I saw a Western commentator saying that we’ll need to make a “horrible compromise” so Putin won’t escalate the war, and with a horrible compromise, he means giving parts of Ukraine to Putin. I understand the concern about Putin resorting to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in desperation. Especially since his army is weak, disorganized, and lacks modern equipment. And I also see it as a somewhat absurd comment for several reasons.
According to most sober military analysts, Ukraine can win if they continue to receive support from the West. And especially if they receive what they ask for. They may well push Russia out of the newly occupied areas, and even Crimea. (For some reason, many seem hesitant to give Ukraine what they need to end the war quickly. They say it is because they don’t want to escalate the war, but that seems short-sighted. It will only drag the war out and give Russia a better chance of eventually winning. It seems far better to give the Ukrainians what they need and ask for.)
It’s up to Ukraine to decide whether or not they want to compromise. (And they clearly don’t.) It’s not up to the commentator or anyone else.
Putin will likely not accept a partial victory. And even if he would agree to a deal where Russia takes parts of Ukraine, there is no guarantee he won’t go for the rest later. He very likely will.
In general, a good guideline is to never give in to bullies. It only encourages them and other bullies and leads to worse things in the future. The West has allowed far too many horrors from Putin already, both internally in Russia (oppression) and externally (invasions).
Yes, war is terrible and awful beyond imagination. But in this case, it’s necessary if Ukraine is to maintain its independence.
And yes, the West often makes buddies with dictatorships, especially when money and oil are in the picture. There is no lack of horrors committed by the US and its allies. And that doesn’t mean we can’t do the right thing now, and that we can’t support and encourage it.
In general, this situation is similar to Europe in the 1930s, before WW2. Great Britain and others wanted to appease Hitler instead of standing up to him, and Hitler started invading and occupying Germany’s neighbors. Hopefully, we have learned something from history.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
JUSTIFYING INJUSTICE WITH SPIRITUALITY
Religion and spirituality have always been used to justify injustice.
The most recent one I heard was from a wealthy woman in a country with many living in poverty. She justified her wealth, and her inaction and support of conservative politicians that wants to keep people in poverty, with karma. The poor are just reaping what they sowed in past lives. And she also added that they chose that life to learn something. So she doesn’t have to do anything to help or to righten the injustice.
To me, it’s very different. Yes, it’s possible there is something like karma that continues across lives, but it’s more about mind patterns, and if there is some kind of karma as she talked about, it would mean we all have infinite amounts of an infinite variety of karma.
And what it comes down it is how I relate to the lives of others. I don’t justify my own relative wealth and I certainly don’t justify poverty. I know it all comes from what we happen to be born into in an unjust system. And I do what I can to change that system, including by supporting policies and politicians working for that change.
ADOPTING THE MINDSET OF THE COLONIZERS
Some modern societies pat themselves on the back for giving indigenous people some autonomy and for honoring, to some degree, their culture.
That is, of course, a step in the right direction. But it’s good to keep the larger picture in mind.
The larger picture is that colonizers and the mainstream Western culture have oppressed the indigenous culture for centuries – through genocide and violence, and by banning their religion, forcing Christianity on them, separating children from parents, and so on.
Now, they have lost so much of their original culture that the little that’s left is not a threat anymore. So it costs almost nothing to allow them some autonomy and allow them to have the little that’s left of their culture.
The oppressed have adopted the mindset of the oppressor. They have internalized the Western culture sufficiently to no longer be a threat.
DISTRACTIONS AT A CRUCIAL TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY
We are in the middle of a huge ecological crisis that will – and already is – impacting the whole of humanity, and especially the ones with the least resources. This crisis is created by human systems that don’t take ecological realities into account, and this especially applies to our economic and related (production, transportation, etc.) systems. And the solution is either a profound systems change brought about by a collective realization of what’s going on and a will to change, or a massive die-off of humans along with many other species.
This is undeniable. We have know for decades that this would happen. We know this is without comparison the major issue of our time.
And yet, it’s not prioritized. Media have occasional stories on this topic, but don’t weave it into just about every single story as they should considering its importance. People still vote for politicians and policies that don’t prioritize this shift. Most continue to live their life as if nothing is happening. (Partly because they may now know what to do.)
And some actively chose distractions and try to get others involved in the same distractions. One of these meaningless distractions is conspiracy theories and anti-science views. Why on Earth spend time and energy on this what we KNOW is happening is far worse and more dramatic than any conspiracy theory? Why spend time on it when we know that the major challenges in our time – ecology, poverty, and so on – are systemic and the consequences of systems that made sense, to some extent, when they were created and now absolutely don’t anymore.
When I see this lack of action, and the active distractions by some, I have to admit I feel less encouraged. Will enough of us come to our senses in time? Will we identify the systemic causes and what needs to be done? Will we take the actions needed?
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND LACK OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
It’s no surprise that the conspiracy world is riddled with a lack of intellectual honesty.
For instance, when it comes to the covid vaccine some take the inevitable examples of a few who have a serious reaction to the vaccine and use that to discredit the vaccine in general. We know some bodies react to certain vaccines strongly, that’s not a secret. This is about the bigger picture.
They pretend that vaccines should prevent illness and say they don’t work since they don’t, and dismiss the real reason for taking the vaccine which is to prevent serious illness and death. (Which it does well.)
They talk as if vaccines are mandatory while they obviously are not. You are perfectly free to not take them.
They pretend that since masks don’t work 100% it means we shouldn’t use them. And I am sure they too know perfectly well that here too, life is imperfect. Nobody says masks should work 100%. That’s not their purpose. Their purpose is to reduce viral load, which they do well and which is crucial for how severe the illness becomes. Also, they obviously reduce transmission from the inevitable spit that comes out of our mouths when we talk. And the good ones do prevent transmission well. (I use the best ones from 3M.)
They pretend that the common-sense pandemic measures taken by many democratic countries not only unduly restrict their freedom, but is a step in some conspiracy to keep restricting their freedom. To me, this seems childish to the point that I am baffled that adults would want to appear so stupid. We already live with a large number of restrictions and responsibilities that helps society function, and most people are happy with it because we are used to it and we know it works. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that this is a step in keeping restricting freedom. When it comes to pandemics, we know what works and what doesn’t from history and epidemiology. And the vast majority of the measures we see in democratic countries follow what we know works. And to me, responsibility is as or more important, especially in these types of situations. I am happy to change my life if that means the more vulnerable among us are more protected. This is not about me, it’s about the more vulnerable.
We know that harebrained conspiracy theories flourish in pandemics. So why repeat history? The conspiracy theorists in pandemics in the past now look pretty stupid to us. Or, rather, uninformed and scared and reacting to their fears by trying to find safety through conspiracy theories. (By going into these conspiracy theories, they feel they know, they have human scapegoats instead of living with the inherent unpredictability of life, they have something to distract themselves from their discomfort, and so on.) So why do these people willingly mimic the people of the past? Probably because their need to escape into a sense of knowing and having someone to blame is greater than their interest in intellectual honesty.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
THE ZEAL AND IMMATURITY OF THE NEWLY CONVERTED I: CONSPIRACY THEORIES
When I see conspiracy theorists, I often see the zeal and immaturity of the newly converted.
Often, these are people who may have discovered some grains of truth that are public knowledge but they were not aware of before. And they go overboard with it without understanding much of the history, context, or how to use this information in a more nuanced and reasoned manner.
And then they want to educate others about it. They become self-appointed missionaries.
This is the zeal and immaturity of the newly converted.
It’s not wrong or bad. It’s understandable and most of us have done it at some point with something we discovered that was amazing or shocking to us. But it is good to have some perspective on it and know that it is the zeal of the newly converted, and there is a more mature way to relate to it.
THE ZEAL AND IMMATURITY OF THE NEWLY CONVERTED II: HEALING & SPIRITUAL PRACTICES
This can obviously also happen when we find healing modalities and approaches to spirituality that works for us.
In my case, I tend to not do it since I know there are lots of approaches out there and what works is often individual. But I do fall into this pattern in the reverse: I tend to not talk about things that are relevant, interesting, or even useful just because I don’t want to proselytize. (This also ties into a pattern of wanting to hide, even if what I hide could be interesting or useful to others.)
STORY ARCS
Stories, at least in our European-influenced world, have a certain format. We have a beginning, middle, and end. We get to know the characters and setting, there is struggle and conflict in some form, and then resolution. And so on.
Most stories in our mainstream culture follow this format.
And I understand why. These types of stories feel satisfying. They feel complete. And they mirror inner processes when they reach a kind of completion. (Which is always temporary and part of larger processes.)
At the same time, it gets boring when most stories have to tie up loose ends and reach a kind of resolution and completion. Why not leave some mystery? Why not leave it more open-ended?
This comes to mind since we are in the next-to-final season of Stranger Things. (Which I love.) I suspect the story is reaching a kind of resolution with more and more loose ends tied up. That’s fine. But I suspect I would have enjoyed it even more if they left more unresolved.
When they want to give the readers or audience a neat ending, the resolution is often a bit disappointing. Leaving it open leaves more room for imagination. And it’s also closer to real life where a lot is not tied up in this way.
CIVILIZED AND BARBARIANS
This is an old classic and sometimes worth repeating.
If we see ourselves as civilized and others as barbarians, it’s often so we can dehumanize them and do terrible things to them – rape, pillaging, genocide, theft of land and natural resources, and so on.
In that case, who are the real barbarians?
Calling someone a barbarian is clearly a projection. We call others barbarians to dehumanize them and justify injustice, and we are the ones acting in barbaric ways.
There are many synonyms for barbarians in this context: uncivilized, brutes, heathens, non-Christians, poor, foreigners, and so on.
Today, this is especially relevant to how we treat non-human beings. We call them animals, make a strong mental division between humans and animals, and justify treating them terribly through that mental division and by seeing them as less than us.
JUDGING A SYSTEM BASED ON THE LEAST FORTUNATE
This is another classic that is sometimes worth repeating.
How do we judge a society or political system?
I judge it based on how the least fortunate are treated and live.
If a system mainly works to the benefit of those who already have what they need, and leaves the rest to live in poverty and struggle, it has already failed.
And if it provides good safety nets and real opportunities for the least fortunate, then it has some merit.
LONG COVID
Like many others in the CFS world, I thought one of the worst consequences of the covid pandemic would be post-viral syndromes, now known as long covid.
I assume this will keep getting attention as we are more aware of its prevalence and seriousness.
There are several reasons to be cautious here. For instance, it seems that even with vaccines and having had covid and recovered, it’s still possible to get long covid from a new infection. And there is always a chance of new mutations that increases this risk.
Personally, I have been relatively lucky. I had covid in February (four months ago), and still have Covid brain – especially when it comes to memory. Of course, most recover fine. And I also know a couple who still struggle with relatively serious and debilitating after-effects of their covid infection at the beginning of the pandemic (almost two-and-a-half years ago).
BROTHARIAN?
I find that when I have bone broth regularly, I feel deeply nourished and my cravings in general are diminished or fall away. I have a much-reduced craving for sugar and often feel a slight aversion to it. And the same for meat.
It seems that my ideal diet may be bone broth with otherwise mostly vegetarian food.
What should I call this? Maybe brotharian?
JUNE 18, 2022
VOTING ON BEHALF OF THE NON-HUMAN SPECIES
There was just a presidential election where I am, and the one elected has the interest of the less privileged at heart.
For me, when I vote, I vote on behalf of the less privileged. (Who often vote against their own interests based on identity.) And I especially vote on behalf of non-human species and future generations.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
REGENERATION AND CULTURE
My wife and I became stewards of some beautiful land in the Andes mountains. It’s been heavily grazed in some areas, so we wish to help the land return to a flourishing and vibrant state. And that includes allowing a natural succession of native plants until – over some decades – the ecosystem reaches more maturity.
We hired some locals to clear paths through the land and gave them very clear instructions of only clear walking paths, wide enough for one person to pass. What they instead did was to clear-cut one large area, leaving only the more mature trees. This is apparently what the locals do, and our instructions probably didn’t make much sense to them.
Although it was a painful lesson, we also learned that we need to be present to oversee these kinds of projects. And we need to find local people to work with who understand what we wish to do with the land. (This happened back in February or March this year.)
PUTIN AS VICTIM AND SAVIOR
Since Putin is in the public eye these days, he is a good mirror for all of us.
Putin seems to identify with two particular archetypes: victim and savior.
He sees himself – and Russia – as a victim of historical events (e.g. the dissolution of the Soviet Union), of the West and NATO, and a possible victim of just about anyone around him.
He also sees himself as a kind of savior, as the new great leader of Russia and a new Russian empire.
Victims can be reactive and violent. And saviors can be ruthless. (Including through invading and occupying neighbors.) In his case, it’s a dangerous combination.
And the question here is: How does this mirror me? If I take my stories about Putin and turn them to myself, what do I find? How am I a victim in how I see him? (I see myself, Ukraine, the people in Russia, and the world as a victim of Putin’s actions.) How am I a savior in how I see him? (I see myself as taking a more sane and sober approach, which is better than his.) How does this play itself out in other situations in my life? It may not look as extreme or obvious as with Putin, but it’s likely here.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SURVIVOR BIAS
I listened to an old interview with a Norwegian saboteur from WW2 and his story was of one amazing lucky escape after another. I have heard similar stories from other surviving saboteurs from WW2.
Why this apparently amazing series of lucky turns?
It’s an example of survivor bias. The ones who survived did so because they were lucky in all the situations that mattered, and they told their stories. Those who died were not so lucky when it mattered, and cannot tell their stories.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE WORLD
If we put pressure on someone to get a particular result, they will typically push back – either right away or after a while – and we end up with the opposite outcome.
This is something most of us learn early in life, although Putin may not have gotten the memo.
For instance, due to Putin’s invasion, the public support for NATO membership in Sweden and Finland has gone from weak (20% in Finland) to a clear majority. That shift happened in less than a week and it’s not likely to revert any time soon.
A predictable and almost inevitable consequence of Putin’s current aggression towards a neighboring country is that more of Russia’s neighbors will want to join the EU and NATO for their own protection.
Putin has not only created a situation where more countries are far more motivated to join NATO for their own protection. His invasion of Ukraine has also created the perfect window of opportunity for more countries to join. The Russian military is caught up in a bungled invasion and does not have the capacity to invade any other country in the period between they start a membership process and they actually become members.
This is also why former Soviet republics have joined NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union. They know that Russia has a history of invading and occupying their neighbors and wants to protect themselves. They do the sane thing. (And, yes, I know there are lots of problems with NATO but that’s separate from this and another discussion.)
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
OPINIONS AND WHAT THEY ARE ROOTED IN
Some people like to pretend that their opinions about something are equal to the views of others.
One person’s opinion is equally valid as someone else’s, right?
Wrong. This is obviously wrong even on the surface.
Yes, we have views, orientations, and opinions. Yes, none of us can know for certain our view is absolutely true. Yes, our views are always provisional and up for revision.
And no, they are not equal.
They are more or less rooted in solid data and theory.
The more it’s rooted in solid data and theory, and the more it has been examined and tested and found to hold up, the more weight a view holds.
For instance, one outlier academic study that goes against innumerable solid studies does not hold much weight. It can be interesting. It may be worth looking into it further and doing more research. And, in itself, it’s not worth much.
We also know this from daily life. If a group of people sees and touch a tree, and one insists that the tree is not there, it’s pretty safe to assume we can disregard the outlier view. There is always a very small chance the person is right, one way or another, but for practical purposes, we can set it aside.
This is basic common sense that some seem to disregard these days.
QUESTIONING THE MAINSTREAM VIEW?
Someone on social media wrote: I love Joe Rogan because the dares to question the mainstream view.
My response is: Anyone can – and often do – question the mainstream view. And if it’s rooted in bad logic and bad data, as is the case of Joe Rogan, then it’s not worth much. It’s just more noise and distraction.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
WHY DO PEOPLE IN THE WELLNESS WORLD SO EASILY MISLEAD THEMSELVES?
Quite a few people in the wellness world buy into anti-pandemic measures views and conspiracy theories in general.
Why? Why do they seem so gullible?
I suspect it may be connected with several things.
They may not have a very solid education. They may not be trained in the history of science, logical fallacies, media literacy, and so on.
They may be a bit naive about the world. They may not previously have known about the many flaws inherent in just about anything humans do. And they don’t have a more nuanced and mature view which leads to discernment and knowing that we don’t always have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
They may have an outsider identity and they may be suspicious of the mainstream. So they automatically gravitate to any view opposed to the mainstream medical views.
They have found their own “alternative mainstream” and absorb the views held in that subculture. They want to belong. They want to assume they got it.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
THE TRUTH IN THE SEEDS OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES
There are several relatively obvious truths in the seed of many conspiracy theories.
The medical industry is in it for profit. (Obviously, since we live in a capitalist world and generating profit for the shareholders is the main aim of any business.) The medical industry is corrupt. (Of course, since they are powerful and in it for the profit.) Multinational corporations influence and partly control politicians and media. (Again, obviously, since they can and it helps them in generating profit.) When power is removed from people, and the bottom-up vs top-down balance is too far in the latter direction, it’s obviously not good. (And it happens because there is always a shift between the two.) The current system is rigged to benefit the already powerful. (It was set up that way, so it obviously works that way.)
All of this is obvious. It’s what any moderately informed young teenager knows.
I easily agree with all of this and more. I have known about it for almost my whole life, apart from the very first years.
And yet, I don’t agree with the conclusions of conspiracy theorists.
I know all of this and more, and I still agree with the pandemic measures. They are common-sense measures that history shows works. They are what epidemiologists have studied and found works for decades. They are not something anyone made up now.
I know this and more, and see it as systemic and not something that requires sinister scheming from any one group of people.
WILLING TO SACRIFICE OTHERS TO BE A REBELLIOUS TEENAGER
When I see people who have anti-mask and anti-vaccination views, I often see people willing to sacrifice others in order to make a point. They are willing to sacrifice others so they can be rebellious teenagers.
Yes, I agree with a lot of their reasons. (The ones grounded in reality, not the conspiracy theories). And I don’t agree at all with their conclusion.
I know the medical industry is corrupt. Media is owned by multinational corporations. Politicians are influenced by the interests of big money. Even a moderately well-informed teenager knows that.
At the same time, I know the history of pandemics. I know what history shows us is working and not working in terms of limiting the impact of pandemics. I know something about epidemiology. I know that the pandemic measures we see today are not at all invented now. They are well tested, make sense, and are aimed at limiting the impact of the pandemics. I know that in a time of crisis, the government – which is not “other” but us collectively – needs to take stronger control.
So even knowing all the things I know about the system we live within, I chose to wear a mask and take the vaccine and do the other things. I do it because it’s the responsible thing to do. I do it to protect the most vulnerable among us. I do it because not doing it is not going to help the situation in any way at all.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
THE BIGGER PICTURE ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES
There is a relatively obvious (?) bigger picture on conspiracy theories.
And that is the life, the universe, existence, the divine seems to wish to express, explore, and experience itself in always new ways and in as many ways possible.
All beings live in their own world, and often these worlds intersect to some degree. Especially within the same species and community, beings tend to experience the world in similar ways.
In our age of online echo chambers, a huge amount of smaller global communities are formed. Some of these are formed around a shared passion for something within culture or nature. Some are learning communities. And some are conspiracy communities.
Conspiracy theories are one of many ways life or the divine explores, expresses, and experiences itself.
It’s part of the diversity of perception and mental guidelines for life within humanity right now.
It doesn’t mean the views are grounded in reality. It doesn’t mean they are logically very sound. And it doesn’t mean these folks are not sometimes a danger to democracy.
But it does mean it’s all happening within a bigger picture.
PUBLISHED SCIENCE ARTICLES – ON VACCINES, MASKS, THE PANDEMIC ETC.
A friend on social media referred to very weak articles published in less than reputable journals online.
Here is my response:
In any area of science, there are published articles that don’t fit the mainstream view. In most cases, the findings are not grounded in reality. This is just part of science, and – as I said – you’ll find this in any science and on just about any topic. Just because something is published doesn’t make it valid or something that reflects reality.
Especially these days, there are lots of online journals that, at first glance, look serious and scientific. They use the language and format of reputable publications. But the content is very weak and would likely never be published in serious and respected journals.
Personally, I have seen several articles on pandemic-related topics, published in these types of journals, that are almost laughably bad in terms of data and logic. And, often, the articles are written by people with some sort of credentials, just not in the area they are writing about. Which means they have no credentials at all. They have close to zero credibility.
For the findings and views to be taken seriously, it has to be published in reputable journals, the findings have to be replicated several times, there has to be a sound theory behind it, and competing theories and approaches have to be thoroughly disproven.
This is science 101 and I assume just about anyone learns about this in school.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
FREEDOM & RESPONSIBILITY
Some countries require proof of vaccine for entering public spaces like restaurants and movie theaters. In response, some vaccine skeptics say: “I am in control over my own body. Nobody can tell me I can’t do certain things just because I chose to be unvaccinated. It’s a violation of human rights.”
To me, it’s a weak and partly nonsensical argument.
We live in a society, and in a society, we have certain freedoms and responsibilities. That’s required for society to work reasonably well for as many as possible.
We already accept a lot of restrictions to our freedom. We accept that we shouldn’t drive drunk. Kill people. Steal. Damage other people’s property. And so on.
Requiring a proof of vaccine is just one of many restrictions. It’s temporary. And it clearly helps society as a whole, including us as individuals.
We know that those vaccinated are less likely to be infected and seriously ill. That means they are less likely to pass it on to others, and they are less likely to end up in a hospital, take up valuable spaces there, and cost society money. The more people are vaccinated, the sooner we can get through the pandemic, and the less risk there is of new and more transmittable mutations.
For me, requiring proof of vaccine for travel, entry to restaurants, and so on, is among the least we can do to limit the impact of the pandemic.
Personally, I am very happy to accept a limited (very small) personal risk by taking the vaccine, if this can help society as a whole. It’s the least I can do.
Note: It’s almost not worth mentioning, but it’s not a “human right” to enter restaurants and movie theaters. And it’s not a “violation of my body” if someone requires me to be vaccinated to enter those places.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
ART HISTORY
In the early ’90s, I studied art history for a year (full time) at the University of Oslo. Since they called it “art history”, and since I was young and naive, I was looking forward to WORLD art history. The history of art from the earliest times and across all cultures. That was what I expected, hoped for, and wanted.
To my surprise and disappointment, the course turned out to be the history of WESTERN art, and really just the art of Western Europe and the European culture in North America.
I was left with several puzzling questions:
Why didn’t they have a course for WORLD art?
Why did they call a course that had such a limited scope “art history” without any qualifiers?
Why didn’t they address or acknowledge this obvious discrepancy?
The answer is probably a kind of ethnocentrism. They – consciously or not – may have seen “real” art as the art of western Europe and the European culture in North America.
I imagine that now, 30 years later, they are a little less provincial and more conscious of this. Hopefully, they include the art of the world and not just a small section of the world. Or, at the very least, they label the course accurately.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
AN ATTITUDE AMONG THE PRIVILEGED TOWARDS THE MARGINALIZED
One attitude among the privileged towards the marginalized is that they are lazy, could work and make more money if they wanted, and so on. If they don’t have more money, it’s their fault.
This is obviously wrong in most cases. The privileged are mostly privileged they are because they were born into that situation. They had role models. Money. Resources. A good education. A network. And so on. All creating and supporting their privilege. And the marginalized typically have none of that.
So why do some among the privileged maintain this attitude?
There may be several reasons.
They are parroting what they have heard from others.
In their own privileged life, it holds true. If they themselves – with all their privileges – don’t have a relatively carefree financial life, it would be because they were lazy and didn’t want to work, and they could work and make good money.
They want to justify the current social situation, their own privilege, and that they are not doing more to improve the lives of the marginalized. Assuming the marginalized are lazy etc. is an easy (and lazy!) way of doing just that.
They don’t know anyone marginalized. They don’t have the inside view or information. Or they know some and see them as the exception.
They are not motivated to seek out contradictory and more accurate information. They have a good life. They see the current social structure as justified. They may feel they can’t do anything about it anyway. They don’t want the distress of learning more about how others live.
Any system seeks to maintain itself, and this is one of the ways our social system – with wast inequality between people and nations – is maintained.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SUDDEN SYSTEMS CHANGES
Earth is an immensely complex system, and its behavior is similar to any system.
It stays mostly (dynamically) stable within certain limits. It accommodates human inputs up to a certain extent within its usual state, and if or when these inputs build up sufficiently, the Earth systems will shift more dramatically to continue to adjust to and accommodate these inputs.
And since we – as a species and society – are adapted to the previous state, this will be challenging to us. We’ll have to adapt to these new states, and the transition won’t be easy or comfortable.
Most likely, it will involve a lot of human suffering, especially among those who already are marginalized, and it will also involve loss of life of both humans and other species and loss of species.
We are already seeing this and in the middle of it, and it will get worse.
It also means that we can expect sudden, and to some extent unexpected, changes in climate and ecosystems. Right now, we are seeing it in a dramatic heatwave in the Pacific Northwest of North America, beyond what climatologists and meteorologists expected. This is just a small taste of what’s very likely ahead.
When I got into system views in my teens, in the ‘80s, this was already predicted within the systems world, even if the mainstream didn’t take it seriously. Now, those predictions are coming true.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SCIENCE LITERACY & THEORIES
I saw a social media post stating that a theory in science is not “just a theory”, it’s proven by scientists and has become a “fact”. These types of statements make me cringe.
A theory in science is a question about the world. If it’s supported by data, it’s a question that scientists may explore further, build on, and so on. And as we get more data, the theory may be refined or replaced by another one.
It can never be “proven”. It’s never a “fact”. It just fits the data more or less well.
Theories live in an ecosystem. They live within an accepted general worldview. They fit in with a number of other theories. And so on.
There is also an informal hierarchy of theories. Some fit well the general worldview and the ecosystems of related theories, and they have been thoroughly tested through research and practical applications. These are widely accepted as fitting the data and what we know about how the world works. (Einsteins relativity theories are in this category.)
Some theories may not fit the data and are abandoned. And some may not fit the wider ecosystem so well, or there may be less or no solid data supporting it, so it’s on the sidelines for now. (Exemplified by Rupert Sheldrake’s research and ideas.)
That’s how science works these days. A widely accepted theory is widely accepted because it fits a huge amount of data and practical experience. It’s not “just” a theory, and it’s also very far from a “fact”. It’s a formalized question about the world that fits the data.
Of course, in real life, it’s not so clean. Scientists are people with their own worldviews, biases, and so on, so not everything going on in science is a hundred percent rational. But mostly, it works well.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SPACE BUGS?
I am rewatching the Andromeda Strain where a crashed satellite (!) infects humanity with a space bug. And I am also familiar with how NASA took precautions to prevent possible moon bugs from infecting humanity after the Apollo astronauts returned from the moon, and how they are doing their best to prevent Earth bugs from contaminating mars when they send landers there.
One thing that’s often left out when this is discussed is perhaps the most obvious question: If there are space bugs, why would they be adapted to human and Earth biology? How could they possibly infect us if they evolved from a different origin and in a different environment?
The answer is that they almost certainly can’t if they evolved from a different origin and a different environment. There is a small chance they did evolve from the same origin – if there is something to the panspermia idea, although it’s difficult to see that they would be able to infect us since they most likely co-evolved with a very different environment from ours and with very different organisms to us. Another possibility is that Earth bugs got flung into space when a meteor hit, and miraculously survived, reproduced (without host organisms?), changed, and are still able to infect humans or Earth organisms.
There are a lot of ifs here, and it seems unlikely bordering on impossible that it could happen. Of course, NASA wants to take precautions, and they wanted to be seen as taking it seriously, which is why they quarantined the Apollo astronauts.
It makes more sense to decontaminate Earth crafts before they land on Mars and other planets. If there is native life on Mars, we don’t want it mixed in with Earth bugs and we don’t want to have Earth bugs take over the environment – even if that too is very unlikely. There is also a very small chance that Earth bugs arrived on Mars due to a meteor impact, or the other way around, and Mars bugs are still similar to Earth bugs, so it’s good to not have them mixed up.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
MOON LANDING
I watched Armstrong (2019) and was happy to see that they, through Armstrong in his own words, touched on some of the themes I see as most important with the lunar missions. (Yes, I have been a space enthusiast since childhood!)
A huge number of people worked on the missions and made them happen, and they – in turn – wouldn’t have been able to do it without the work of innumerable people living then and in previous generations. We see the astronauts on the screen and in the media, but they are just the very tiny tip of the iceberg. That’s how it often is. We stand on the shoulders of not only giants but innumerable people and beings and all past generations.
One of the great benefits of space missions, in general, is that we get to see Earth from the outside as one seamless living whole. And we get to hear the testimonies of people who experienced it themselves and how it changed them. This is the overview effect and it shifts, in a small but significant way, how we see ourselves.
We can say that the space missions are a product of the Earth locally transforming itself into humans, technology, and a desire for exploration. In this case, we are the sensory organs of Earth seeing itself as a whole and from the outside for the first time. (Armstrong didn’t mention this, obviously.)
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
VALUES, STRATEGIES, AND POLITICS
Most humans have shared values, at least when we drill down to find the most basic expression of our values. The conflicts are often more rooted in how inclusive or exclusive our sense of “we” is and differences in strategies.
So in politics, as in the rest of life, it’s often helpful to differentiate values and strategies. We can identify our respective values. See how similar or different they are, and they tend to be more similar the more we drill down to find their essence. And then explore collective strategies that fit those values.
It’s of course not quite that simple. Sometimes, we may be too invested in a particular strategy to be open to this type of exploration. And it may be difficult to get people on board with this exploration on a larger scale. But it’s a good starting point and general guideline for ourselves and we can bring it into whatever groups we are part of.
If we find ourselves invested in a particular strategy, it helps to take a step back and identify our values and the essence of these values. This, in turn, may help us be more flexible and explore a range of possible strategies that all fit the deeper values.
As mentioned above, there is also the question of how wide our circle of “us” is. Does it include all of life, future generations, and non-human species? Or is it more exclusive? Whether it’s wide or narrow, the deeper values may be the same, for instance, to support life. A more narrow circle of “us” may reflect cognitive limitations, seeing a wider circle as unfeasible, or investment in a view of life as a zero-sum game. Differentiating values and strategies may also here help us open our minds to find win-win strategies, at least sometimes.
This topic came to mind since it seems that some who get into conspiracy theories – like QAnon – seem to share values with people outside of the conspiracy world. They just have (very) different strategies, based on a very different set of information and ideas about how the world works. Although the values may be shared, it doesn’t mean the info and ideas about how the world works are equal. One is based on verifiable information and the other on flimsy disinformation. But identifying and emphasizing the shared values may be a starting point for dialogue.
Thanks to Marshall Rosenberg and Non-Violent Communication for pointing out the difference in needs and strategies, or – as I wrote about it here – values and strategies.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
SOME LAYERS I USE WHEN I LOOK AT SOCIETY
When I write posts here, I write from one or a few perspectives.
These perspectives reflect my biases and conditioning as a male from a northern European country, university educated, and so on. And they reflect my own hangups, wounds, emotional issues, beliefs, identifications, and perceived lack.
There are many perspectives out there that are equally valid and important, and I leave them out to make it simpler (and easier for myself), and also because I am aware of only a small subset of all the existing and possible perspectives.
So what’s the bigger and more general picture for social issues?
My world – the world as it appears to me – happens within and as what I am. All my experiences happen within and as what I am.
The world appears the way it does to me because of my own mental overlay. This overlay consists of mental images and words, and it puts labels, meaning, and stories on my world. I am responsible for my own stories about the world, including the most basic assumptions about the world, others, and myself.
The stories I have about the world reflect me as a human being. Whatever stories I have about the world or others also fit me, and I can find very specific examples of how each one fits me.
Each person perceives and acts from their own filters and biases, including me. We cannot escape this but we can be a little more aware of this happening and some of the specific filters and biases.
Each person has valuable perspectives and views, especially when we drill down to the essence of what these are about.
Everything is a whole and part. What we see happening here and now are expressions of movements within the whole – going back to beginning of time and stretching out to the widest extent of existence.
It’s all lila. The world as it appears to me is the play of this consciousness. Or, we can say it’s the play of life – or the divine. It’s consciousness, life, or the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
I cannot know anything for certain. I am operating from a huge number of questioned and unquestioned assumptions.
When I write, I typically highlight one or a few of these even if all of them are there in the background.
A SAD IRONY OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES
There is a sad irony in the conspiracy theory world.
I suspect some – or many? – who get into conspiracy theories do partly to feel they know something others don’t and to feel special, smart, and perhaps even powerful. They may try to compensate for feeling like an outsider, a failure, rejected, and powerless.
Although they may find a sense of belonging in the conspiracy subculture, they may also separate themselves from friends and relatives. To the extent they get identified with the conspiracy world, they may isolate themselves from those who are not into it. In that way, they create for themselves even more of what they try to escape.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
POLITICAL DIMENSIONS I FIND USEFUL
There are some political dimensions I find as useful as the conventional ones.
The main one may be inclusiveness. Is this policy aimed at benefiting all life, as far as possible? Or is it aimed at benefiting one particular group at the expense of others? Of course, we may not be able to find policies that always benefit everyone, but we can do our best. And when I say all life, I mean all life – including non-human species and future generations.
Another is reality orientation. Is this view or policy grounded in reality? Is it grounded in science? Or is it based on ideology, logical fallacies, misinformation, or conspiracy theories?
And yet another is democracy. Does this policy, party, or politician aim to deepen and strengthen democracy? Or does it aim to undermine it?
The first one has been important to me since my mid-teens. The second has become more salient and relevant in our post-truth era. And the third has similarly become relevant due to anti-democracy forces that are both unintentional (social media, echo chambers) and intentional (weaponized fake news, conspiracy theories, troll farms), and leaders of democracies that actively undermine these democracies like Trump and Putin.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
A CONSPIRACY TO USE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
I love this, although I would rephrase it slightly: “Just wait till conspiracy theorists discover they’re part of a conspiracy to use conspiracy theories to spread disinformation.”
If there is a real conspiracy out there, it’s that some intentionally use conspiracy theories – and conspiracy theorists – to spread disinformation.
And through that, influence politics (e.g. QAnon with Trump support), sow confusion and doubt around certain topics (petroleum industry with climate change), and generally create chaos and polarization (Russia with the US and Europe).
Conspiracy theorists are being used, and they often don’t realize it.
I love this one too. It’s true we are all the universe and Earth and – if we see it that way – Spirit. Our experiences are the experiences Spirit wants to have through and as us. At the same time, if I lived in the US, I would do anything I could – through voting and getting out the votes – to prevent a second Trump presidency.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
WHAT DO CONSERVATIVES CONSERVE?
Politics doesn’t interest you because you have no interest in changing a world that suits you so well
– Edith to Sherlock Holmes in Enola Holmes
A question I often ask myself is: what do conservatives want to conserve?
It’s of course many things depending on the person and the brand of conservatism.
Some of which I personally wholeheartedly agree with: Conserving nature and God’s creation. Conserving our world so future generations can have a good life. Conserving some traditional elements of our culture. (Which doesn’t mean to exclude anything else.) Conserving freedom of speech and religion. Conserving – and ideally improving – our democracy. And so on.
And some of which I don’t at all support. Mainly, anything that has to do with conserving privilege for the few at the cost of other groups.
This includes different variations of overt or subtle racism, bigotry, and prejudice, and also preserving unjust economic, political, and social structures.
And it includes preserving the privilege of humans at the cost of ecosystems and other species, and preserving the privilege of the current generation at the cost of future generations.
From my perspective, policies that don’t take the big picture into account – and the interests of all life – seem profoundly and inherently flawed.
THE 2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FORECAST WAS WRONG?
I have written about this in 2016 and earlier this year, but it feels worth mentioning again: Some folks still say that the polling or forecast for the 2016 US presidential election was wrong.
I mostly listened to the 538 podcast in the lead-up to that election, and I usually avoid US mainstream media, so I don’t know what they all wrote and said.
But when it comes to what I have seen, it seems that the problem has to do with people not understanding even the basics of statistics more than the polling itself.
538 said (as far as I remember) that there was a 1 to 4 or 1 to 5 chance of Trump winning the election (25-20 percent). Those are not bad odds at all. It means that 1 out of 4 or 5 times the polling numbers looks like this, Trump will win. Nobody should be surprised that he won the presidency.
This year, most – two weeks before the election – say there is a 90% chance Biden will win, which means there is a 1 to 10 chance Trump will win. Out of ten times the polling looks like this, Trump will win once. Even that’s not terrible odds. (Nate Silver at 538 says Trump has between 1 to 5 and 1 to 20 chance.)
How can you be surprised when Trump’s odds are in a reasonably good range? Again, I assume it has to do with reporters and other people not understanding even the most basic statistics – the type of thing everyone should have learned the first few years in school.
And that, in turn, may say something about the US education system.
There is also an over-arching question here: Why are polls important? Why not wait and see the result after the election. I understand polls are important for the candidates to target their campaigns, but why is it important for regular folks? To me, it seems more like entertainment than anything very useful.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
DISREGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES
I am watching Enola Holmes and enjoy it very much.
I especially enjoy that they are highlighting an inherent problem with Sherlock Holmes: He investigated individual crimes, was on the side of the establishment, and never questioned the crimes inherent in the social structures at the time.
These are not crimes according to the law and the courts, but they are crimes against humanity. Crimes of – at the time – not allowing large portions of the population to vote, keeping large portions in poverty, structural racism, and much more.
Of course, it’s much easier to see these problems with the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight and changes in social norms and values.
At the same time, this is happening today. We know of a large number of injustices and crimes against humanity – and life – and we don’t do nearly enough about it. What are some of these crimes? As I see it, it’s in an economic system that is not aligned with ecological realities. It’s in allowing the massive destruction of nature to continue. It’s in creating huge problems for future generations. It’s in ignoring the right to life of all species. It’s in supporting policies that allows huge gaps between the few wealth and the many poor. It’s in systemic racism. And much more.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
From 2001: A Space Odyssey
AN ALIEN INTELLIGENCE WILL BE ALIEN TO US
I saw someone commenting that he doesn’t like the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey much because he doesn’t understand the alien aspect of the story. For me, that’s one of the brilliant things about the movie. The story is shrouded in mystery.
An alien intelligence will be alien to us. It will be mysterious. We won’t be able to make sense of it based on our own experiences, and our own experiences is all we have. It’s easy to imagine an initial alien encounter that’s a complete mystery and completely baffling to us. And even if we gather more information and think we understand more, we may discover we don’t understand it as well as we thought.
In most sci-fi, the aliens are us in another form. They have human drives and motivations, and they represent sides of us and are mirrors for us. Since that’s the explicit intention of most sci-fi, that’s completely appropriate.
If we want more realistic sci-fi stories, then we have movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Arrival. The alien intelligence here is alien to us. It’s mysterious, baffling, and confusing. It doesn’t quite make sense to us.
This is also one of the problems I have with some of the traditional alien-encounter stories. The aliens are too often just us in another disguise. They are scientists traveling through space to probe and examine us and tell us we need to take better care of Earth. In other stories, and especially the more shamanic or fairy-tale like ones, the encounters are truly mysterious and inexplicable, as I imagine is closer to how it may be in reality.
Click READ MORE to see more posts on these topics.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
POST-COVID ILLNESS & CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME
Mainstream doctors and media seem to acknowledge occasional long term effects of C19 infection, including fatigue, brain fog, post-exertion malaise (PEM), and damage to lungs and other organs.
These core symptoms of fatigue, brain fog, and PEM are the usual symptoms of post-viral syndrome or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The physical damage to lungs and other organs seem more specific to C19.
Since CFS is a marginalized and often misunderstood illness, the C19 pandemic has the potential of being a turning point for CFS patients. The patients may be taken more seriously. CFS may be recognized as a mainly physical illness. And there may be more research into what causes CFS, what prevents recovery, and possible treatments.
It all depends on how mainstream doctors and media present it. Will they see the post-C19 problems as a subcategory of post-viral syndrome and CFS? Or will they see the two as separate and attribute the post-C19 challenges to damage to lungs, heart, and so on?
To me, it’s seems most reasonable to put it in the general category of post-viral syndrome and CFS, with some possibly unique problems like damage to organs. That’s also what will help the CFS situation the most.
BREXIT WOULDN’T BE DIFFICULT?
In a Norwegian article about Brexit, one of the experts interviewed said: nobody knew it would be this difficult.
Nobody could have guessed the specifics of what happened, but one of the supporting arguments against Brexit was exactly that it would be immensely difficult.
The EU rules are deeply interwoven with the British rules and regulations at all levels of government. It will take a long time to disentangle it all and redo it as they wish it to be.
Negotiating separate deals with – in theory – just about every single country in the world will be difficult and time consuming and will take years. (And they will be in a much weaker negotiating position than they were as members of the EU.)
And finally, as they have discovered, EU protects its own interests and they are not interested in making leaving EU easy or attractive.
The problems we have seen with Brexit isn’t so much from incompetence or political squabbles. It’s inherent in Brexit itself.
So far, they have mostly dealt just with the third of these points. After that’s done, they’ll still have the first and second to deal with.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
The only white people in the Bible are the ones who executed Jesus.
For Christians who hold racist views, there must be some cognitive dissonance. And perhaps especially for white Christians, as John Fuglesang points out in that quote.
One dissonance comes from the content of the teachings of Jesus where he – in words and actions – clearly spoke about love for everyone and actively supported the minorities, outcasts, and oppressed.
The other is that Jesus was obviously a dark skinned Jew, and the only Europeans in the Bible are the ones who executed Jesus, in addition to oppressing the Jews and other people in the area, stealing their resources, and occupying their land.
As usual, the question is how this applies to me. Where in me do I find this type of cognitive dissonance? Where do I generalize to whole groups of people and subtly – or overtly – dehumanize them?
Perhaps I am doing it towards the ones I see as racists and bigots? Perhaps I am overlooking the trauma it may come from? That their views may be a way for them to cope with their own pain? Or that they just adopted views from those around them without questioning these views or having life experiences that helped them question these views?
None of that justifies racism and bigotry. None of it makes the harm from it any less real. But it helps me see them as humans as you and me. It helps me see how we are all in the same boat.
AUGUST 22, 2020
IDEALISTIC VS PRAGMATIC IN US VOTING
One of the oldest polarities in politics is probably pragmatism versus idealism. And this is heightened in an odd way in the US with its two-party system. Instead of voting for the Democratic candidate, some progressives chose to not vote or vote for a third-party candidate.
As some say, this is a way to display ones privilege and disregard for the most vulnerable in society. People who vote this way, in reality, says that they would rather have a Republican president than have to vote for a less-than-ideal Democratic candidate, and they don’t care much for the people who will be impacted by the policies of a Republican president. (With Trump, the deaths and cruelty coming from his presidency is very real – through putting immigrants in cages, separating children from their families, mishandling the pandemic, attempting to do away with social safety nets etc.)
Another way to talk about this is to say that voting is less like a marriage and more like taking the bus. You can vote for someone without loving that person or their policies. As long as you go in a better direction than where you are, or a better direction than the alternative, that’s good enough. That is, in fact, very good.
The main problem here is the weird and less-than-democratic two-party system in the US. In most other democracies, we have the choice among a wide rang of political parties. There is always one or a few that fit our own views and values relatively closely, and these – most often – have a very real possibility of being included in a coalition government.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
NORWAY’S REASON FOR NOT RECOMMENDING FACE MASKS
In the beginning of the pandemic, the Norwegian government decided to not recommend face masks to reduce the spread of the virus.
If they had said we don’t have enough high-grade masks for everyone, and they are needed for people in the health profession, that would have made somewhat sense. (Although even lower grade masks lower the viral load, which is important.)
If they had said there isn’t enough research to show their effectiveness, that would also have made sense if it was true, but it wasn’t and isn’t. Masks either protect against infection or reduce the viral load, and that reduction can make the difference between a severe infection or a moderate or mild infection.
Instead, they said they won’t recommend it because people won’t know how to use masks properly. Even on the surface, this seems a deeply idiotic flawed reason.
Let’s see how this looks if we apply that argument to other things in life. For instance, does it mean we shouldn’t take medicines since we can risk taking them wrong? Or that people shouldn’t drive cars because they may not operate them properly? Or that people shouldn’t use electricity since they may stick knitting needles in the electric outlet?
In all other areas of life, we use a simple solution: education. We educate people in how to do certain things. So why not do the same with mask wearing? People have learned all the other things, so why not also something as relatively simple as wearing a face mask?
I suspect the real reason was lack of preparedness and lack of high-grade face masks for health professionals. And instead of admitting their lack of preparedness, they instead gave a flawed reason. In some ways, I secretly admire people who are willing to look stupid in public, but in this case, it also puts people at unnecessary risk, and especially those already vulnerable.
At the very least, they could have recommended face masks for certain groups of people, for instance those at high risk if they should get infected, and those who – for whatever reason – are in contact with a lot of people.
WHAT CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS FEAR
What do liberals fear? And is it different from what conservatives fear?
It seems that traditional conservatives often fear too much change. They want to keep things mostly as they are because its familiar. Change requires adjustment and it comes with unintentional and unforeseen consequences. It’s good to be a bit conservative in this way.
Another thing conservatives often fear is to lose their privelege. They don’t want others to have a bite of the cake life happened to give them.
What do liberals fear? The essence may be a fear that some people and groups are seen as out-groups and their needs are not being taken care of. For this reason, they may fear bigotry, racism, intolerance, poverty, lack of education and universal healthcare, destruction of ecosystems, loss of species, and loss of opportunities for a good life for future generations.
Another difference is that conservatives tend to take care of “their” group and think others should do the same, and liberals tend to wish to take care of everyone – often including nonhumans and future generations.
Of course, it’s not always that simple. Sometimes, conservatives see all of life as their in-group, and liberals can have their own out-groups. And there are different types of conservatives and liberals. But for traditional conservatives and liberals, there may be some general truth to this.
I have my own bias which I am sure colors how I see this, but I also see the value in both general orientations. In their sane and healthy forms, they are both needed and they complement each other.
JULY 31, 2020
ADOPTING THE RELIGION OF THE OPPRESSOR
I know this is a sensitive subject and I am not the right person to talk about it when it comes to other groups, but the general topic is worth addressing.
One of the effects of colonialism – apart from slavery, extraction of resources, oppression and so on – is that the oppressed took on the religion and often general worldview of the oppressor.
We see this clearly in Africa where most now are Christians, and African-Americans in North-America who also have embraced Christianity.
Historically, it makes sense. They initially took on Christianity to survive, and then their descendants took it on because it had become normal to them. And I don’t question the sincerity of their faith today.
Still, perhaps this is something to look at. Although it was a very different situation, my ancestors took on Christianity because it was more or less forced on them, sometimes even violently. So is that a reason for me to take on Christianity?
Why should I, just because it’s part of my culture and my ancestors at some point were converted, often in very questionable circumstances?
When I decided in elementary school to call myself an atheist, this was one of the reasons. Why should I take on the religion in the culture I happened to be born into? It didn’t make sense to me.
It doesn’t make sense to assume that the religion I happened to be born into should happen to be the one right one, or even the one that was the best fit for me, or the one that would make the most sense to me.
I know there are many reasons for people to take on the religion of their community. For us, as social animals, it’s often genuinely more important to fit in and belong than examining and questioning religions more throughly. It’s natural and understandable. And yet, it’s good to be honest about it.
Click READ MORE for more brief articles on society and politics.
You won’t get it from me. (In the form of: “I understand your anger and pain, I am also angry and in pain from what happened, but more violence is not the answer”.)
