Coronavirus: Selecting who will die. Playing God. Hubris. Punishment.

Advertisements
Photo by Octopus soul from Pexels

Many talk about the coronavirus. Many have opinions. Many theories. And one theory that is starting to gain a lot of followers is the one that England has decided to apply: Let’s sacrifice some to save others. Let the vulnerable groups and old men die and let the rest live. If we don’t do it, everyone will be destroyed. (1)

A very progressive view. A very advanced view. A very scientific point of view (yes, scientists were consulted on this decision – see more on herd immunity theories, impact analysis on the economy, etc).

A view – as cliché as it sounds – full of malice and evil. Malice for the fellow who dies. But what do I care for that? I will survive. Malice for those who will suffer. But what do I care about that? The economy will still be standing!

Religion has been saying it again and again but nobody wants to hear it: The biggest trick of the devil is to convince man that he does not exist. In the past, human life was priceless. Every man was a son of God. Now human life is measured in economic terms and sacrificed in front of the needs of the… fit for survival. Darwin would be very proud of England today, which puts into practice the Theory of Evolution in the most gruesome way.

Source (still trying to locate the original artist to obtain his/ her approval to use this here, hope this is OK)

But for Christianity, every human being is potentially God. We are all part of Him. And with proper preparation we can become one with Him. As Nietzsche had said, now man has killed God. And now we are just counting dollars and calculating cost-benefit differences. If the equation is solved, then it is easy for us to kill our grandfather and grandmother because this will save “businesses” or the “GDP”.

At the end, England’s policy may succeed and those who live may gain immunity and their economy potentially will not be destroyed. But it will be an economy built on death and blood. At the end, those most capable for survival may survive. But they will no longer be able to taste the fruits of their victory.

And when the noise subsides and the night comes…

The greatest punishment will not be from cries and vengeance…

But from the sweet gentle touch of your grandmother when she put you to sleep. And from the sweet goodnight she whispered to you…

Right before you killed her.

Update 2020-03-17: The UK government seems to be changing or reconsidering this policy. (source)

Italy, coronavirus, saving the younger ones: Civilization dying.

Advertisements

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it is reported that in Italy there is a shortage in medical supplies and doctors are now making choices about who to save and who to leave unattended to die. There are reports that the selection doctors make are in favor of the younger ones. (Source)

If this is the case, then we are dealing with something worse than the death of some people. We are dealing with the death of civilization per se.

Because there is nothing worse than arrogance. Arrogance that man can ride at the level of God and play God’s role. Arrogance that someone can decide who lives and who dies.

It is such arrogance that made crimes as the Holocaust possible. Don’t be fooled. The devil always comes disguised as an angel.

Sure, there is logic in selecting the younger ones for survival. But a wrong logic altogether. What if that young person is someone terrible who commits crimes? What if the older person who is left to die is an honorable person who had devoted his life to saving others? What if that younger person you saved went on to rape children? What if that old person you killed was an experienced heart surgeon who was going to save the life of a prime minister who would in turn save the world from the next world war? What if that older person was you?

Any logic applied in selecting who lives and who dies, at the end, promotes death. Not life. Death of the ones not selected. Death of a civilization that once upon a time called for saving the weak not because they could survive, but especially because they couldn’t!

Look around.

And in the faces of the people you will not see men and women dying.

But a whole civilization crying…

PS 1. But what should we do? could someone still ask. Shouldn’t we decide something? The answer is simple and already given: we should do nothing! In the case of such life or death dilemmas men should not decide! We cannot play God. Treat people with a “first come first served” priority (and no, no two people arrive simultaneously, simultaneous events do not exist even in theoretical physics). So simple. So “irrational” with regards to our death-loving distorted logic. These dilemmas have been solved a long time ago in modern European law tradition. We are here not to play the role of fate. We are here to suffer it.

PS 2. Yes, you guessed correctly. There is no “trolley problem” as such. In such cases, one should not do anything, i.e. one should not try to play God. The solution to such infamous problems is that you try for the best, without playing the role of fate as we so much like to do these days…

“Cell phones do not cause cancer” and other Science-Money fairy tales. (as in “Smoking does not cause cancer”)

Advertisements
Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

According to studies, cell phones do not cause cancer. (1)

So reassuring.

In the same way the old days science was not sure whether smoking caused cancer, or was even convinced that in some cases it was even beneficial! (2)

On one side, there is the ridiculously slow pace at which science crawled towards the obvious (yes, if you put smoke in you something bad will happen). Even though smoking was around for years, official science starting to realize the connection between smoking and cancer only in the 1950’s. (3) (6) Surely science tries to reach a certain degree of certainty to say something, but this should never conflict with common sense.

“Putting tar inside your organism causes nothing”.

Does that make sense?

“Putting radiation inside your brain causes nothing”.

Does that make sense?

Scientists should be clear when making statements and they should clarify what the lack of evidence for correlation does not necessarily mean that there is no correlation. Not clarifying this is certainly not a result of stupidity. After all, scientists should know better right?

And now we come to the other interesting point: How science and scientists can be manipulated by money. It had happened before with smoking. (4) Scientists of respectable positions we also part of a specific “council” for research on the subject of smoking with clean instructions not to actually find any connections with cancer. (5) (7)

You may say that these scientists did not represent science.

But what is science except the scientists who practice it?

Would you say that Pope does not represent Catholicism?

Many claim that science is all about methodologically and systematically analyzing something. Any errors related to its practice do not relate to science per se. It is a beautiful childish opinion. And as all childish opinions, it is very appealing. But it is wrong.

Not because a bad scientist represents science.

This is indeed false.

But exactly because science is all about the systematic analysis of things. This makes it void of any ethical obligation to follow any common sense outside its own methodological constraints, thus leaving room for research which claims that “we do not know” even in the face of the obvious. And there is where money comes in.

You see, no scientist will even admit that he is doing wrong or insufficient research. But what he will never admit is that given the proper statistics, almost anything can be supported. Give some funds on top of those inherent limitations of science and statistics and you will get this research paper stating “No evidence for cell phones related to cancer”.

At the end, a slight connection will be found.

Then some more serious evidence will ‘arise’.

And at the end, scientists will be certain that cell phones are dangerous.

Not sure it will be like that?

Well, you may be right.

Like the scientists who claimed that things heavier than air will never fly. (8) Now we laugh at those scientists. But their analysis and conclusions were not to be laughed at.

At the end, you are allowed to believe what you wish.

Put a cell phone next to your head and speak for hours.

Are you willing to testify for what you believe?

Do you believe that science puts anything in the line for you? And yet, you believe in science and not in those who did actually put everything in line for you. (who are they? find out yourself)

Science today is cut from ethics and the obvious ever since it claimed was against religion. Because religion is the art of the obvious and the ethical. You can read Harmonia Philosophica for more on that, but in any case it is easy to see that in the case of smoking science feel in the trap of its own convictions. Seeking certainty is not always the way to go when lives are at stake. And taking money while doing it does not make it look prettier. It happened with smoking. It had happen before (yes, science has been about money and corruption for many years now). And the same story seems to be repeated now with cell phones. Radiation had been constantly seen as a source of problems when it comes to mutations, but now for a magical reason there seem to be “no evidence” for problems.

Yes, science continually questions itself. And that is a good thing. For science.

But life and common sense cannot question themselves.

Yes science needs and seeks certainty.

But life does not offer certainty. (let alone the fact that science has anyway proved that it will never find it)

Yes science is not the experiments done by Mengele.

But he did make those experiments in the context of science. (and papers were published and research – from which you may even benefit today – was conducted based on them)

And humanity cannot accept that.

Yes scientists are just humans.

So why not admit that instead of playing God?

Yes science is cold and systemic.

But life should not be anything like that.

Yes, you can “prove” with proper assumptions and statistics that infinite parallel universe exist.

But smoking killed people down here, in this universe.

Hang up the phone.

Wait for science to decide.

Take a walk.

Do you need science to tell you that?

PS. And yes, there is research which shows that cell phones are linked to cancer. See here for one recent example.

Small little insects… Making the ocean move… Modern science… Shrimps laughing…

Advertisements
Photo by Simon Clayton from Pexels

Scientists have demonstrated how some of the smallest creatures in the ocean could have the same outsized impact under the waves – with swarms of marine organisms inadvertently producing powerful currents that mix and churn a turbulent undersea environment.

“Right now a lot of our ocean climate models don’t include the effect of animals, or if they do it’s as passive participants in the process”. Strength in numbers, it turns out, as swarms of the creatures migrate daily in vertical columns, feeding at the ocean surface by night, before retreating hundreds of metres deep by day.

“You have this massive migration vertically every day of literally trillions of organisms”, Dabiri told NPR. “As they start swimming upward, each of them kicks a little bit of fluid backward”. The team discovered the animals’ passing didn’t just distribute water in small, localised regions, but churned significant volumes of proxy ocean pretty much everywhere they went.

So far, these effects have only been demonstrated in the lab, but if the same thing is taking place out in the real world, biologists and oceanographers will need to rethink how marine life contributes to ocean turbulence – especially since the same thing could be happening with bigger animals, such as jellyfish, squid, fish, and even large mammals. (1)

Ancient civilizations thought of the cosmos as something alive.

Then came Descartes, Galileo and modern science.

And we “discovered” the “objective” world of phenomena…

We suddenly “knew” we lived in a cold lifeless cosmos.

And we developed great science…

While shrimps were laughing at us…

The cosmos is still alive.

It always was.

It is just us who died.

Watch that shrimp you are cooking. It is not a shrimp.

It is the universe itself. Boiling with fierce power.

Just… add a pinch of salt.

Yes. Now it’s better.

Now come on.

Let’s eat my daughter…

Unpredictable love. Unpredictable cosmos.

Advertisements

Here’s some heartbreaking news for people pinning their hopes on online matchmaking sites: It’s virtually impossible to forecast a love connection.

Maybe that’s not so shocking to survivors of the dating wars. But now science is weighing in. Extensive background data on two individuals — comparable to that collected by digital dating services — can’t predict whether that pair will romantically click during a four-minute, face-to-face speed date, say psychologist Samantha Joel of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and colleagues. (1)

Love is unpredictable.

Hate is unpredictable.

Life is unpredictable.

Even predictable things are unpredictable.

No, no. The planets do not move in constant trajectories.

Ina galaxy far far away…

There was a princess once.

And a boy she loved.

That boy grew dark.

And at the end, whole planets were destroyed.

And because life is unpredictable.

Because hate is unpredictable.

Because love is unpredictable.

Everything is unpredictable…