Money – Page 2 – Harmonia Philosophica

The hypocrisy of Ecology.

In the news today, the following made headlines:

Legendary teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg is causing waves again. This time, literally. She is currently sailing from Plymouth in England to the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on a carbon-neutral, zero-emissions racing yacht. The trip should take about two weeks, so the schoolgirl hopes to make it in time for the climate change conference which starts on September 23. (source)

This gives me a great opportunity to talk about a very important subject.

Harmonia Philosophica has written long ago about the coercion of ecology. (search for the keyword “ecology” or “against ecology”) However it seems that propaganda of this new religion is spreading fast, so a new article is needed to get things straight.

But wait a minute!

Ecology is a religion?

You bet it is.

And the worst kind: a dogmatic and aggressive one! (No, Christianity is not dogmatic in the bad sense, again read Harmonia Philosophica for more on that)

Ecology uses fear to spread the message. “If we don’t do nothing we will die in ten years/ a generation/ 100 years” is a motto often used to make people aware that they should start believing now instead of tomorrow. Because tomorrow is too late. Of course such grave messages of destruction are spread for decades now and they constantly fail to deliver: the world hasn’t ended. In the beginning we had the threat of “global freezing”. (Really, check it out) When this didn’t manifest we went to the danger of “global warming”. And since this isn’t catchy anymore we are now in the phase of “climate change”. Which is nice and catchy. Oh, and without any danger of failing since – guess what – climate as anything else (including yourself as you read this) is changing!

What could go wrong, right?

And yet, many things are going wrong. The new religion isn’t gaining traction as the priests of ecology wish so. So more things need to be done.

Next technique any bad religion uses: guilt! Load people with guilt! And when you are over, load them with more guilt!

Who is responsible for the demise of the climate? Who else? YOU!

YOU destroyed the ice glaciers. Not the big companies who enjoy emitting thousands of tons of CO2 every second you try to think how to recycle better.

YOU destroyed the oceans. Not the big corporations which spill thousands of tons of waste every second you think about taking a cold shower so as not to spend energy and “save the planet”.

YOU destroyed the atmosphere. Not the thousands of nuclear weapons tests from all the great – now “ecological” – powers. Haven’t you heard the news? You destroyed the ozone layer with your refrigerator! The thousands of nuclear tests of the US, Russia and China just happened to be conducted around the same time.

Are you getting the message?

The whole conglomerates world is destroying the environment, but the priests of ecology want you to believe that you are the bad guy because you made a mistake and threw away paper in the metals recycle bin.

All in all: It is good to recycle. It is good to not throw away plastic in the ocean. But not because Ecology tells you so! But because humans should be living in harmony with the environment! The ecological movement has nothing to do with this as a philosophy, but more with the things I mentioned above. Trying to push you to do things which will at the end – surprise, surprise – will give these conglomerates more money!

More money by not pushing too much the companies be more ecological. After all, it is YOU who destroyed the environment, remember? Every company now tries to be ecological mainly by using its customers – “Bring us back your laptop and we will give you a new cheaper” (while we take all the parts from it, reuse them and make even more money without caring about the environment in our plant in China). More money by buying and selling CO2 rights. They even made a stock market for that! The possibilities are endless! (For the companies, you just have to take a cold shower, don’t forget)

It is a perfect plan.

A perfect scheme.

But who will be the front man?

In the beginning the conglomerates tried to use a man of their “own”. And failed. Al Gore was not the right person to convince people for the new religion of ecology. After all, he was a millionaire and obviously made more money with ecology that they could account for. So another solution was needed.

What’s best than a teenage girl?

So here we are today. Right when I thought propaganda had limits, I saw the article about the “legendary” teenager. This phase is so wrong and self-contradicting that if you don’t see it then you can stop reading right now.

And what does this teenager do? Traveling for two weeks on a boat to speak to clueless grown ups and enlighten them. (Guess what is the third tool of religions: Prophets) Get it? A teenage girl having money and resources to spend two weeks doing nothing (while other “not legendary” teenage girls and boys just read). A teenage girl having a boat to travel for two weeks. (while other “non legendary” girls and boys don’t have money to buy a book)

Do you see now?

The worse intentions can have the most noble of faces. Even if Greta is a great girl (and we have no reason to assume she is not) and has the best intentions (again, we have no reason to assume that she doesn’t), she is not the point of interest here! The system behind her is! (A system which potentially exploits her for all the reasons mentioned above)

Yes, I recycle!

Yes, I respect the environment!

But no, I am not an ecologist!

I just don’t have a boat…

Stem cells therapies. Stem cells marketing stunts.

An injured knee can cost a pro football player millions of dollars, or even an entire career. MIT Technology Review reports that, in an effort to regrow cartilage and heal injured tissue quickly, hundreds of players are injecting bone marrow cells into their knees and hips. Evidence is weak that the procedure actually works and, as with all unproven stem cell therapies, there could be risks involved. Just ask the lady who grew a bone in her eyelid after getting (illegal) cosmetic stem cell injections.

“We don’t really know exactly what it does, biologically”, orthopedic surgeon Freddie Fu told Tech Review. (1)

Science uses stem cells therapies as a promo for more research funding.
But on the other hand warns against stem cell therapies.
Marketing is good. As long as people do not die.
But how can you advocate for something if you do not believe in it? What kind of religion warns against practicing its own practices for fear of death?
Practices that are funded by the very same people (a.k.a. “taxes”) who are willing to take a chance and try these new therapies?
There was a time when science and religion was one thing.
There was a time when people believed in themselves.
Now we only believe in money.
And we just do not care about people.
As long as they are alive.
As long as they give us their money…

Scottish Independence: Buzz off William Wallace! We have… Cameron! Huh?!? [or “Why money cannot be the reason for independence”]

Scotland has voted against independence. (1)

Welcome to the new age of Money.

Where countries decide on their independence based on their economic prospects.

Where countries decide on their non-independence based on their economic prospects.

Where people do not have the sense of “nation” but have a strong sense of business.

There was a time when nations wanted to be independent EVEN THOUGH they knew their situation would be FAR worse in the beginning! (I suppose Greeks should not rise against the Turks in 1821 because in the beginning we really had huge economic problems, right?)

Now that time has passed.

Now you have to ask Moody’s and RBS first…

Well done Scots! You have shown your priorities. There you are in “union” with ANOTHER nation just because you want to keep your currency, your stability, your peace of mind.

I suppose William Wallace had his economic advisers give the “ok” before he started his campaign…

“Philanthropists”, science funding, love, care…

Last April, President Obama assembled some of the nation’s most august scientific dignitaries in the East Room of the White House. He spoke of using technological innovation “to grow our economy” and unveiled “the next great American project”: a $100 million initiative to probe the mysteries of the human brain. Along the way, he invoked the government’s leading role in a history of scientific glories, from putting a man on the moon to creating the Internet. The Brain initiative, as he described it, would be a continuation of that grand tradition, an ambitious rebuttal to deep cuts in federal financing for scientific research. “We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races ahead,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to seize them. I don’t want the next job-creating discoveries to happen in China or India or Germany. I want them to happen right here.”

Absent from his narrative, though, was the back story, one that underscores a profound change taking place in the way science is paid for and practiced in America. In fact, the government initiative grew out of richly financed private research: A decade before, Paul G. Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, had set up a brain science institute in Seattle, to which he donated $500 million, and Fred Kavli, a technology and real estate billionaire, had then established brain institutes at Yale, Columbia and the University of California. Scientists from those philanthropies, in turn, had helped devise the Obama administration’s plan. (1)

Some people call these billionaires “philanthropists”.
But how can someone caring for science be a “philanthropist” and not a “philoscientist”?

Sure some people believe science serve humans after all. But how many example have you seen of particle discoveries that help you? How many exotic invisible field discoveries improved your life? How many new cosmological theories helped you live a happier life?

We often confuse science (creation of prediction models) with philosophy (seeking the “truth”), with inventions (creation of things that help us in our lives by people who are usually not scientists and do not even understand how and why the things they make work) and with human happiness (are you happy because you have a computer? Have all your human problems been solved with the new 3G network?). Scientism-lovers love to feed this confusion for their sake. It is the duty of honest clearly-thinking men (and women of course) to destroy such illusions.

If all people had love, then they would be happy.

They would live happy. They would die happy.

Love is the best invention of them all. And it needs no funding at all.
Love humans by loving humans. Not by loving something else.
Simple truths, difficult to understand…

Measuring earnings. Measuring happiness (?)

It seems that people want to earn more, even though they cannot consume it or use it. (1) The scientists believe that this is because we can measure how much we earn, but we cannot measure how “happy” we are (or how much unhappy we become when we work more and more for things we do not need).

Really?

If you work less and spend time with your family doesn’t that amount to something you can understand and measure?

This is one hour more with your son you idiot!
These are two hours more with your daughter you fool!
These are three hours with your wife you… #@@#@$#@!

Need I count more?