Against stupidity: A lost cause [On the irrationality of terror for a ‘nuclear’ war]

Harmonia Philosophica has for a long time fought against stupidity at all levels. The recent cries of terror from scientists regarding the gruesome effects of a nuclear war are yet another example of sheer stupidity which once more needs to be dealt with if we want to keep our sanity within this insane world.

Due to recent tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers, the Internet was swarmed with grave warnings of how the planet would be destroyed and the climate would be affected to such an extent that the planet would essentially be inhabitable in a matter of years.

Reading from a ScienceAlert article: “For that reason, climate scientists have modelled how an exchange of nuclear weapons between the two countries – what is technically called a limited regional nuclear war – might affect the world. Though the explosions would be local, the ramifications would be global, that research concluded. The ozone layer could be crippled and Earth’s climate may cool for years, triggering crop and fishery losses that would result in what the researchers called a “global nuclear famine” (source)

Now let’s get real and start to dismantle everything this statement of terror tries to tell us: According to the article, a war between two countries possessing about 140-150 nuclear weapons (both) would result in the destruction of the ozone layer and would create global famine. Really?

Or better: REALLY?!?

Harmonia Philosophica has reminded people over and over again of a “small” little fact that the “global thermonuclear war” we are all so anxious of happening has ALREADY happened. Check out the article “Global Thermonuclear War: It has ALREADY happened! (tip: it was called “testing”)”.

In summary: During the Cold War all the superpowers (and the lesser powers) detonated about 2,400 (that is TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED) nuclear weapons on the surface of the Earth, in the sea, below the surface of the Earth or (that’s even better) on the upper levels of the atmosphere. (so as to make sure that the ozone layer is destroyed).

The result?


Or so we are told… According to the most widespread ‘theory’ the ozone layer which was destroyed about the time those nuclear tests ended was not because of these nuclear tests but because of you (yes, YOU!) who owned a refrigerator with chemicals which were ‘bad for the ozone’. Yes, your refrigerator is more powerful than 2,400 nuclear bombs detonated on the planet… And now we believe that theory because… why would the government lie to us? Right?

I am not a conspiracy lover, but this goes well beyond being a conspiracy. It is more at the borders of ridiculousness.

But even after 2,400 nuclear bombs there was no global famine. No global disaster. (or it there? could the widespread increase of cancer be attributed to this or did the ancient people also died like flies because of that disease? Let’s see what the official medicine has to say about that; yet, that medicine which until recently claimed that smoking is not bad for your health and which now swears that cell phones are OK and affect not your brain)
Science has reached to a point of being a global religion. And religion, in its bad version, always needs terror to impose itself on people. This terror is what we see everyday in the news when ‘scientists’ (as if this attribute alone means anything) warn us about how we are all going to die if we don’t stop using straws while at the same time they accept grants from companies potentially making those straws. And this terror has the same foundations as all other types of terror used in the past to control people: Stupidity.
One must be really stupid to claim that world disaster will strike Earth is India and Pakistan will go to war.

Because as I said above: The nuclear bombs matter not.
It is your refrigerator you must be concerned about…

I believe in science! What?!?

It is the year 2016 and Hillary Clinton’s nomination acceptance speech contained the simple phrase: “I believe in science”. She punctuated it with a chuckle while the audience roared its support. “I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.” She had to laugh quietly to herself because the reaction was so startlingly positive. [1]

This is the new era of scientific religion.

One must believe in it.

It is so clear that people now clearly say so, openly.

It does not matter whether you understand it or not.

It only matters that the priests (scientists) said so.

Once upon a time we had a religion which was proved day and night into our hearts. Now we have bosons and dark matter and elusive parallel universes which can never touch us in any tangible way.

Once upon a time we had true science.

Now we have religion.

Science, money and politics: An unholy bond.

Science and politics…

A group of the world’s leading experts in science, medicine and economics threw their support behind Hillary Clinton in the recent elections. [1] After Trump was elected, almost all known scientific magazines started publishing articles about how everything will be… destroyed because the republican nominee was elected. All of these catastrophy scenarios were mainly related to issues of high poltical tensions like climate change and abortions, where mainstream science has decided to take a stance against the republican and in favor the liberal way of thinking. [2, 3, 4, 5, 8] After all, as Popular Science said in an article before the election, the most important speech of Hilary Clinton was the one where she stated the impressive “I believe in science” motto. [6] Even philosophy pages and sites started bashing the President-elect for his… irrationality. [7] As if they have a specific objective magical way of defining what is logical and what not. As if the one thing thousands of years of philosophy has taught us is not the simple fact that logic is subjective. Scientific pages warn us how easily we accept wrong information without thinking first. [9] Of course “wrong” information about illegal immigrants is on top of the list. Because science today is not science. It is a weapon used by politics for specific agendas. No, Trump will not be “horrible” for the planet. [10]

Let’s not forget that the most cited scientific paper for 2016 was a paper written by… liberal president Obama! A paper which was published in a peer reviewed journal without being… peer reviewed. [11] Science and politics are not just linked together. They literally feed from one another.

Examples of other cases science interferes with politics

  • Scientists call for Trump to abide by Iran nuclear deal. (source) [2017-01-05]: Why and how could scientists have an opinion on such a hot political issue? What is their case? Why should they even care?
  • Bill Nye speaking about why the Science March and science in general should be political (against right-wing ideas of course) (source) [2017-04-19]
  • Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking against the conservatives (while trying to conceal the fact that he speaks against conservatives) (source) [+ why leftists are cherry picking science to support their arguments] [2017-04-21]
  • Why it’s not partisan to march for science. (source) [28/4/2017]
  • Climate change may be upping your risk of diabetes. (source) [28/4/2017]


Science and money…

At the same time the party of scientific projects funding continues. The examples are numerous and all have similar characteristics: A grand scientific goal, usually paired with grand project cost and effort overruns and grand delays. Of course such details matter not since the owner of the project is… “Science”. Take a look at the Webb telescope case. [11] From an initially projected cost of $500 million, it has now reached… $8.7 billion after 20 years in the making. Or take a look at CERN, which costs billions of dollars only to work for some months and then… close again for maintenance. [12] Cost and effort overruns and delays which would be more than enough to end any serious project. But not a “science” project. Not a project shielded by the dominant religion of our times. And of course who can forget the other great fashion of our times… ecology! Billions of dollars spent for solid and well-defined goals such as “The salvation of the planet”, which most of the times means funding small unknown “non-profit” (this is where you laugh) organizations in order to plant 10 trees somewhere and feed their army of employees for ever. (example)

Science and the ruling class…

Two phenomenally irrelevant cases: One for the relationship of science with politics and one for the relationship of science with money. But are they irrelevant? Actually no. They are not. They are actually highly relevant. Science, money and politics make the triangle which is at the core of ruling the world today.

And how could it be otherwise? Politics is built on money. And money is built on whatever controls the masses. Science has for along time been at the forefront of modern civilization as the method to reach “truth”, despite the warnings of philosophy that such a notion is not only elusive but also may not even exist at all (at least not in the objective way we believe). A byproduct of modern philosophically uneducated human arrogance and ignorance, faith in science has been the perfect way to manipulate the masses into what the ruling class thinks is important.

“The scientists say so”…

“Science says so”…

Anyone not adhering to the new religion of science (a.k.a. “scientism”) is automatically tagged as irrational, uneducated, illogical and so on. It takes little education in the actual nature of philosophy and science in order to discover the irrelevance of the latter with the notion of “truth” whatsoever. And it takes minimum education in real world politics in order to understand that science has diminished from a tool to model reality (as it was before the advent of the infamous “war” between religion and science in the 18th century) to a primitive tool of controlling people.

Take not my word for it…

Just follow the billions…

Harmonia Philosophica said so.

Related articles

Vostok, bacteria and personal agendas in Science: A sad tale…

A Russian scientist over the weekend dismissed the claims of his colleagues that water pulled from a lake buried for millions of years beneath Antarctica contained a strange new form of microbial life. But on Monday, those colleagues insisted that the bacterium they have discovered doesn’t fall into any known categories. The tiny creature in question came from a sample of water pulled by a team of Russian scientists from lake Vostok in February, 2012, after more than two decades of drilling. (1, 2)

“After excluding all known contaminants … we discovered bacterial DNA that does not match any known species listed in global databanks. We call it unidentified and ‘unclassified’ life,” Sergei Bulat (a researcher at the Laboratory of Eukaryote Genetics at the St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute) said.

But on Saturday, Vladimir Korolyov (Eukaryote genetics laboratory head) told the Interfax news agency that they did not find any life forms — just contaminants that remained from the drilling process. “We found certain specimen, although not many, but all of them belonged to contaminants (microorganisms from the bore-hole kerosene, human bodies or the lab). There was one strain of bacteria which we did not find in drilling liquid, but the bacteria could in principal use kerosene as an energy source,” Korolyov said. “That is why we can’t say that a previously-unknown bacteria was found,” he added.

I am really lost here.

Korolyov does not refute the claim that the bacteria DNA found has not been identified. So what is that “all of them belonged to contaminants” claim? And how can you know that the bacteria in the drilling liquid did not enter the liquid FROM the lake? And even if it didn’t, then we have STILL discovered a new form of life (even not in the lake, but in the drilling liquid). And how does a denial of this magnitude stand on “could”?

Even if I do not know what happened (as is the case with the scientists there too), I understand one sad thing: That politics play a MAJOR role in modern science. Don’t be surprised if after 100 years we learn that this is one more case of the head of a lab being hostile to one of his colleagues just because he wants to deny him of a discovery…

Exit mobile version