Politics in a Nuclear Age

We all dread confrontations between nuclear powers, and rightly so: Several countries on this planet have within their arsenals the capacity to destroy the entire planet themselves, or, at the very least, trigger a confrontation that leads to its destruction. This is no laughing matter.

North Korea is a nuclear power. And it is also a rogue nation bent on causing problems on the global scene. There is no doubt that the U.S. arsenal is far superior and numerous, but North Korea still has nukes. They also have a stunningly vast arsenal of conventional weapons. As a result, between Seoul and Tokyo, they are effectively holding 60 million people hostage.

I recently had a conversation with one of my brothers. He was a little hawkish on the matter—not because he’s a bloodthirsty barbarian, but because he has a number of very practical, well-reasoned points. Basically, if we do nothing, nothing will change. North Korea will continue to increase its armaments, including its nukes, so that dealing with them in the future will be even more difficult and dangerous. High-end estimates of their arsenal currently put it at sixty warheads. How many will that be in ten years? 100? 200? 600? Those are increasingly frightening numbers. And don’t forget, the populations of Seoul and Tokyo aren’t likely to pull up stakes and just wander away in the intervening years. They’ll still be under an increasingly deadly threat of annihilation. And if that’s not enough, consider other nuclear-powers-in-the-making, like Iran. They’ll be watching how we deal with North Korea. If we can do something effectively, we might disabuse Iran of the notion that its nuclear program is worth pursuing. Finally, there is the population of North Korea itself. Don’t we have some humanitarian concern to free them from a dictator?

To be honest, I don’t know how to resolve the issue. Maybe our military can do something, but … I’m just not comfortable with that idea. So much could go wrong.

The problem is: science. Or knowledge. Or technology. Whatever you want to call it, it is spreading across this planet and growing in leaps and bounds. Sooner or later, if we don’t figure something out, every country on this planet will have the means to develop nuclear weapons. And that’s not a situation likely to promote the health of this planet. We need some method of dealing with rogue nations or even other nation with whom we have severe moral disagreements, whatever they may be.

The carrot? Or the stick? The carrot? Or the stick?

In my view, nuclear weapons are just too treacherous to mess with. They eliminate the stick. So, we are left with a carrot. What can we use?

I had a notion the other day that maybe we should do something like the United Nations, but instead of every nation on the planet, only allow democracies to join. Under this umbrella, formalize a joint agreement to pursue the development of Space. Currently, most nations have their own space programs, each one at its own level of progress. If we join forces with other serious powers based on democratic principles we can develop a carrot designed to wean rogue nations like North Korea away from their more sinister ways. If all the democracies of the globe are sharing technology, research, and what-have-you amongst themselves, but not with bad actors, we will quickly outdistance such bad actors in technological development and thereby create an incentive for the reform of such nations. Because nuking them, just isn’t a good option.

Anyway, that was my thought, and I thought I’d share.

The Statue Controversy

The country probably isn’t looking for the input from a crazy man, but here’s my two cents anyway on the Statue Controversy.

Trump was right. Statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are now coming under fire because the two men owned slaves. Yes, many of our Founders owned slaves. But it’s worth pointing out that these same Founders gave us the documents and the philosophical groundwork that led to the eventual freeing of said slaves. History consists of a series of steps taken by mankind, a gradual evolution of thought and moral theory. We can agree that slavery belongs on the trash-heap of history; yet, at the same time, we should recognize the historical context in which the Founders lived. At the time, slavery was accepted throughout most of the world. You can’t expect radical change overnight. As I said, moral evolution takes place only in small individual steps.

Sure, men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that is not the reason we remember them. No, we remember them for the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and the founding of this nation. All men (and women) are sinners. Clearly, they had faults. I think it is worth remembering that. Maybe we should take a step back, take a breath, and just agree we will honor people for their achievements and not their failures. We cannot demand perfection from our heroes. If we do, we will quickly find their ranks emptied.

Consider Martin Luther King Jr. He was a great Civil Rights Hero. But he also committed adultery. Are we going to tear down his statue, and cease celebrating his holiday because his failures are offensive to many of the Christian Faith, as well as (I think) Jews and Muslims? What about Feminists? What is their view of MLK Jr? Granted, adultery is not as serious a sin as slavery, but do we want to “honor” an adulterer? I say yes, because he achieved great things.

Do yourself a favor and ignore the failings of long dead men and women. Remember them for their achievements and contributions not for their faults. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in a world without heroes. How dreary a place that would be.

Trump

Donald Trump was not my first choice for President of the United States. But he was elected. Now that he holds the office, the bias of the media against him is very clear, so much so, I feel inclined to point something out.

According to my phone, the current GDP of the U.S. is about 19.4 trillion dollars while the current national debt is about 20 trillion dollars. In other words, the debt exceeds the GDP by over one-half trillion dollars. That’s roughly the GDP of Argentina or Taiwan (the excess of our debt, that is). I barely understand the economics of the problem (my training was in philosophy and math, not economics); all I know is that it is immense and I would have no idea how to deal with it, if I were POTUS (thankfully, I am not).

Donald Trump is a business man. A very successful business man who has earned over a billion dollars. That is a staggering accomplishment. So much so, he might actually have the skills to fix our debt situation. If he can’t, or if he doesn’t, I honestly don’t think we’ll get another chance. Now that the debt exceeds the GDP, the problem will get worse and worse at an increasing rate. Indeed, the mathematics of interest rates is usually exponential in nature. Everyone should be familiar with such from high school. An exponential curve is one that increases faster and faster the farther along it goes (My math is rusty; it might be geometric in nature; regardless, it’s still bad).

Anyway, the point is that it will reach a point where the debt will be increasing faster than the GDP is growing. At that point, it becomes impossible to pay off the debt and collapse is inevitable. I don’t want to live through an economic collapse and neither should you nor members of the media.

So, with that in mind, I think a more conciliatory tone toward POTUS should be used; or, if not conciliatory, perhaps less paranoid. So, media, put your ink-stained sabers away for the moment and give the president a break. I don’t think he is as crazy as you make him out to be, if for no other reason than that we did not have a nuclear war with North Korea.

Neo-Nazi’s and Christianity

With what has been happening/happened in Charlottesville in Virginia with the Neo-nazis and Anti-fa groups, I find myself pondering an important question: how should I, as a Christian, respond to such groups? Let’s just take the Neo-nazi movement. I’ve heard plenty of media pundits unceremoniously condemning the Neo-nazis as “evil.” Not a difficult proclamation to make, but let’s examine that a little.

In my view, Adolf Hitler was one of the worst people to ever live. He ranks with Stalin and Mao among a few select others. He is responsible for millions of deaths. Was he evil, through and through, though? Did he have any redeeming qualities? If he did, I’m sure they were outweighed by the evil he committed. Instinctively, I hear the word “Nazi” and I think “evil.” Yet, part of me thinks that perhaps if one dug deep enough one might find some tiny—and very lonely—kernel of light buried within the sludge. Ultimately, I can’t make such a claim for sure; final judgment of Hitler’s soul rests with God.

Then, there is Jesus.

What did Jesus do in His life? He approached “sinners” in an attempt to save them. Tax collectors (many of whom were corrupt) and prostitutes. Was there anyone Jesus condemned? Yes. The scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy and arrogance. Yet, He spoke to and offered salvation to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, because Nicodemus was a rare exception: a Pharisee who treated Jesus with genuine respect.

So, how would Jesus deal with Neo-nazis? Would He condemn them? Or would He try to save them? I don’t think I can answer those questions with certainty because I am not Jesus, far from it. But I have been raised in one of the Faiths He started and have, to a certain extent, been molded by His teachings.

In that light, I think the most appropriate response to the Neo-nazi is to try to save them, first. Engage them in argument, being as respectful as you can manage (yes, I know it is difficult being “respectful” to someone you disagree with so vehemently), and try to disabuse them of their misguided (yes, I know, “misguided” is an understatement) notions. It may be futile, and probably is, but you should at least try. As they say, love the sinner, not the sin. Rebuke the evil, but still try to save.

All of this, of course, changes the moment the Neo-nazi picks up a weapon. The point is to try to get to them before it reaches that point.

Reflections On Infinity

Yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with my usual topics of discussion … well, God is supposed to be infinite, so maybe there is a connection. Anyway, I’m interested in the concept of infinity. How well do we understand it? For myself, I know it gives me a headache every time I try to think about it. Sometimes I think it’s the coolest thing ever discovered. Other times I think it’s just a mental trick, a mathematical miscalculation.

One of the coolest things is the fact that there is more than one type of infinity. And I don’t just mean the distinction between the infinitely large and the infinitely small (infinitesimal). That’s a cool distinction to make. But even cooler is the fact that there is more than one infinite number. Without getting bogged down in the mathematics of it, there are more points on a line segment than there are integers. And the number of points on a line segment are not the largest infinite number. There are an infinite number of infinite numbers. There’s a whole field of mathematics devoted to things like this called “Transfinite Set Theory.” For myself, I lack the background to give a full discussion of Transfinite Set Theory; I only know a few bits and pieces—enough to recognize that it is a really cool subject.

But is it all based on a mental trick? We get our first inkling of infinity when we learn to add and realize there is no last number. Then you start finding paradoxes, like Xeno’s Paradoxes of Motion and a few other mathematical such things. Wherever infinity comes up, our understanding balks and fails.

Is the universe infinite? From what I gather from the scientists I’ve spoken to, the answer is no. But a good portion of them think math is a game, anyway. They might be right, and, if so, infinity may be the perfect example of such a contention.

What about God? If He exists, He is supposed to be infinite. In fact, He is supposed to be The Infinite. The final ultimate infinite number/being whatever. The Universal Set itself, or what have you. And, I guess, that adds to part of the mystery and our curiousity about the subject.

Can One Be Damned By One’s Theology?

Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, or Jew. Can someone be damned for what they believe? This question is well-pronounced in many Christian sects. How often have we heard that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ the Lord. Indeed, Jesus himself seemed to claim as much.

For myself, I can’t accept that teaching. In the Catholic Church, I am not required to as they have a doctrine called “Baptism by Desire.” Basically, if one leads a good life with respect to the principles of the Catholic Faith, even if you are not Catholic, it is assumed that you are saved. You are “baptized” by your desire to live a good life.

My position is slightly different. I believe that Christ spoke the truth when He said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” That said, I see no reason why Jesus can’t stand in judgment of a Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist and basically say … “Yeah, he/she led a good life. He/she can come in.” I just believe Jesus has the final say regardless of the individual under consideration and their chosen Faith. So, my position is probably pretty much the same thing as the Catholic Doctrine of “Baptism by Desire.” Or, at least, very similar.

Additionally, I take issue with the Christian doctrine that one is saved by Faith and Faith alone. I’m sorry, but it makes no rational sense to me. Look at it this way: it is claiming that unless one believes in this arbitrary unprovable belief one will be damned. It makes as much rational sense as hinging salvation on the belief that there is an invisible dinosaur living on the dark side of the moon. Christ having the final say, I can buy; but not the doctrine of Faith alone. A just God wouldn’t be so arbitrary.

So, on first blush, it seems my answer is “No, I don’t think someone can be damned by their theology.” But that’s not my complete answer. If you believe the wrong things, you will take the wrong actions. One’s theology might lead one to practice human sacrifice. If you can be damned for a theological belief and practice, human sacrifice is one that will probably do it. Of course, as I said, God, or rather, Jesus, has the final say. In terms of level of evil, suicide bombing seems to be on par with human sacrifice. Again, Jesus has the final say, but if anything should lead to damnation, suicide bombing, I think, would.

But, then again, not.

Yes, not.

As readers of this blog know, I believe I’m the antichrist. I believe I’ve been to hell. The experience lasted for maybe thirty seconds and it has taken me twenty plus years to recover—and I’m still not fully there yet. Anyway, my point is that hell sucks. I would rather be burned alive than to go back to hell. I can’t imagine a Deity that would inflict such suffering on anyone for any reason. Not Stalin. Not Hitler. Not Judas. Nor King Herod. That doesn’t mean we are free from punishment, because love implies a necessity to discipline one’s children. I just don’t think hell is the punishment in store for us. Anything that would subject anyone to an eternal experience of Divine Fury is not worthy of being addressed as God. It can’t be Divine. Which is why I think hell is a fabrication of Satan’s. Basically, I think God has the power to annihilate a soul with Divine Fury. Being a loving God He will never use such power because it is just f’n cruel beyond imagination. Satan, on the other hand, can imitate God’s power but not completely. He can’t really annihilate a soul, but he can make that soul feel as if he is about to annihilate it. Regardless, the experience is terrible and I don’t want to ever experience it again.

Of course, I’m not God. But if God is going around damning his “children” to hell, He is a Tyrant like no other. And one we will never escape.

AI and Transhumanism

I was listening to Glenn Beck the other day, and the discussion revolved around AI, some of its dangers, and transhumanism. For those who don’t know, AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, or sentient computers. Basically, it is reached the moment when computers can become self-aware. This is also tied to a desire for a super-intelligent AI. We already have computers that can beat any human in chess or other specific intellectual pursuits. Super intelligent AI is just smarter than humans in every field. And it’s self-aware.

Transhumanism refers to the merging of man and machine. Basically, our technology may reach the point where everyday humans can be become cyborgs to enhance specific abilities. You want increased memory? We can make that happen: just merge a memory chip or two to the human brain. And then there’s the Internet. You, as a transhuman (which means ‘beyond human’) can hook-up and upload thoughts or downloads thoughts to/from the Internet. Sounds pretty freaky. But we are closer to this than many people realize. And Glenn Beck, in his usual charming way, was pointing out some of the dangers of such: why would a super-intelligent machine that was self-aware want to remain in a subservient position? And once the Internet is self-aware, it is almost impossible to destroy; it’ll be able to hide in virtually anything—our smart refrigerator, you name it. And if we try to do anything about it, what happens when it just decides to shut down our power grid or anything else we might need to survive?

Those are some of the issues Glenn discussed. I’ve got one more. Think about the potential danger of both of these concepts together: a super-intelligent AI and a transhuman link-up. Is it not conceivable that the AI could use the link-up with the transhuman and just take him/her over, so that he/she becomes the AI’s slave? Basically, it is demonic possession with a super-intelligent AI instead of a demon. How will we be able to fix that? And what happens when all the transhumans turn on the rest of us poor, weaker normal humans who didn’t go through the upgrade? We get wiped out, and the transhumans become permanent slaves of a ‘higher power’.

Of course, all of this depends on whether or not we can crack AI. I’ve never supported the notion that AI is achievable. Is it possible? Well, yeah, maybe. But I’ve always been partial to the religious notion that consciousness is a property of an immaterial soul and therefore, beyond the reach of human science and technology. But I’m not foolish enough to think I ‘know’ that to be the case. Other far more influential people are warning about AI and transhumanism—people who actually have Ph.D’s or are the CEO’s of important companies. This is just my two cents on the subject.