Human enhancements. Society.

Advertisements
Photo by Keenan Constance from Pexels

Human enhancement technologies are opening up tremendous new possibilities. But they’re also raising important questions about what it means to be human. These technologies are currently geared towards upgrading or restoring physical and psychological abilities for medical purposes. An application is surfacing, however, that is designed with another goal in mind: embellishing performance. An international team of researchers has been examining the ethical issues arising from these experiments. (1)

Society is based on humans getting together.

But humans want to improve.

And, thus, they believe society will do too.

Society is based on humans and humans are based on society. But this was not always the case. Society is a very recent construct. We used to be alone. And only at some point did we start realizing the potential in cooperating with others. It seems like a noble cause. But it is not. Humans have always looked towards their personal interest. They wish they could cooperate with others to serve that interest, through society. They wish they could enhance themselves to serve that interest.

But there is another way of seeing things.

A Man tried to teach that way once.

But we killed Him. Because it is not easy to kill one’s self.

That there is no us. That there are no others. There can be a society based on these premises. But not a society with other people.

But a society with the only One who matters…

Forget about society.

Let go of you.

And you will see.

That we are already all together…

Give. And you shall receive…

Advertisements

Generosity makes people happier, even if they are only a little generous. People who act solely out of self-interest are less happy. Merely promising to be more generous is enough to trigger a change in our brains that makes us happier. This is what UZH neuroeconomists found in a recent study. (1)

Religion teachings are always fascinating.

Give and you shall receive, said Jesus.

Because we are not different that the other man.

We are the other man.

We are not different than the bee.

We are that bee.

We are not different than the river.

We ARE the river…

Monogamy. STIs… [What is science?]

Advertisements

Opening ceremony of Woodstock, 1969

Prehistoric humans may have developed social norms that favor monogamy and punish polygamy thanks to the presence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and peer pressure, according to new research. As hunter-gatherers began living in larger populations of early settled agriculturalists, the spread of STIs could explain a shift towards the emergence of social norms that favored one sexual partner over many. (1)

Science starts to understand what religion has been saying for thousands of years: that monogamy is good for the health. But are those reasons mentioned above the true reasons of why we should be monogamous?

I remember of some other research stating that stable relationships are better than having multiple sexual partners. I remember of other researches showing how waiting for sex after marriage was good for your emotional health.

We should then start worrying about whether our prejudice has overcome our way of thinking. We should start pondering about what science truly is. Is it science when you fail to see something obvious for lack of “proof”? Is it religion when you trust your common logic and sense?

Modern science lacks religion.

Modern religion lacks science.

All we need is a fresh start.

I remember a time when people did not distinguish between religion and science. I remember a time when people just thought. I remember a time when people favored monogamy with philosophy. I remember a time without Science Transmitted Infections…

Religion: Its contribution to society (and other subjects)

Advertisements

In my discussions on the subject of religion, I noticed with regret that most of the people with a negative opinion about religion have this view because they consider religion having a negative impact on society. Religion is considered, especially by young people, as an oppressive institution that “tells you what to do” and “exploits people”. This view is supported by the image that most people have in their mind for the “dark” medieval era versus the modern “enlightened and progressed” age of science in which we live.

This view is simply wrong for a variety of reasons that I will analyze immediately.

1. The Middle Ages was not a dark period. This characterization has been invented by a particular person and then its use was spread as part of the anti-Christian rage which engulfed people after the enlightenment. To totally characterize an era of 1,000 years as “dark” is at least arrogant and shows a highly suspicious oversimplification effort. In the Middle Ages the “exact” sciences did not really progress much as compared for example to the ancient Greece era, but there has been huge developments in the “humane” sciences. Never had man dealt so strongly with who he is, why he exists, what is moral, what is good, what is bad. As for whether this period was religious, one must have in mind that there was no separation of religion and science back then! Any bad things we see happening at this time mostly happened because society was 1,000 years before our own and not necessarily because religion prevailed. And it would be important to say that if Christianity did not dominate back then things would be even worse and more brutal – just imagine what would happen if the church with the authority it had did not come out to say that killing is a sin and that if you kill someone you will punished eternally in hell. The church made mistakes, that is for sure. But even these mistakes are exaggerated. For example, the Inquisition did not kill millions (total deaths amounted to a few thousand victims) nor did it without reason. Whatever it did, it did so under specific political conditions, the knowledge of which could change the mind of people who speak so harshly against this institution. (No! This is not to justify killing! Any killing is wrong and un-christianic! I am just stating the facts in order to show that such an “evil” church did not differ much than any modern state which kills people in the name of its interests) Bruno was burned because of beliefs that today someone who likes science would classify as highly religious. Galileo was a petty fraud who played with his friend the pope to an extreme and who ended where he ended because of his arrogance and not because of the evil religion. (Galileo’s fraud case, as the relevant case of Hypatia – was used fraudulently by opponents of religion to invent the infamous “war” between religion and science that exists only in their minds) The burning of whiches had resulted in a few thousand dead (instead of the “millions” usually assert by hardened atheists in their claims against Christianity) who even more often were men and not women and who were not condemned by the church but by the state. The religion was often used as an excuse for political decisions or political acts and to collectively blame religion for all the evils of the time is equivalent to blaming science for everything bad that people did in the name of science during the 21st century. The Middle Ages gave us Humanism (yes Humanism began to “dark” and “oppressive” Christian Europe) and then the Enlightenment – which in any case could not exists in a really dark and oppressive region such as the Middle East. The “religious” Byzantium had two “Renaissance” periods long before the West had any. Universities started from monasteries (and Dawkins teaches at such a university). People were looking into how the world works because they believed that they can understand the mind of God made him (the ideological basis of science).

Relevant Articles

2. The modern era we live in is considered “enlightened” and “progressed”. But in how many areas are we really progressed? In technology we certainly are. But this does not mean anything per se. More than 1000 years from now people will consider us almost “barbarians” with our poor technology of today. The technology has not much to do with science as some would like to believe. Invention is one thing and science that leads to the explanation of how and why the invention works is another (many inventors did not even know why their inventions worked, something which we “learned” after many years – the word “learned” in quotes because with science we can never really know something but only express theories). Moreover, the technology has a dark side that few want of us want to refer to (alienation, dehumanization, loss of skills, etc.) In medicine we are also progressed, but we should be careful to examine in which areas and why. Modern medicine successes are more related to technology than science today. And not forget that medicine relates to many things that most people people would characterize as purely “religious” in nature, such as faith (see the “unexplained” phenomenon of placebo) or love (if it the logic of cold science had prevailed, we should kill the weak and not help them – the first hospitals were launched in the “dark” Middle Ages as sites of charity to the poor). But how progressed are we in other areas such as personal happiness, personal psychology, ethics? In an era where depression is the No. 1 disease, how easily can we talk about “progress”? In an era where parents give up their children, where killing babies is considered a “right” and where the killing of civilians is considered “collateral damage” (let’s compare it to the rules of war between knights in the “dark” Middle Ages) how easily can we talk about humanity? At a time when cold science can sterilize some people in the name of eugenics (which was for years practiced in the US and other countries long before the evil Hitler), and which attributes everything to bad genes, how easily can you speak of “progress”? (Let us compare this with the Christian philosophy of free will) At a time when millions die either in world wars (as compare to the… zero world wars during the “dark” Middle Ages) or by some… atheist (see Stalin) how impertinent you need to be in order to speak for the dead of the “dark” Middle Ages? At a time where we tag as racists those who speak in favor of what is normal, how can we have the nerve to talk about logic? At a time when cold science has made everything in the universe look like lifeless machines made up of electrons and dark matter wondering in a cold dark cosmos, how can we dare talk about the era of “enlightenment”? At a time when our thought is so impregnated with philosophical doctrines (e.g. materialism, mechanistic view of life, etc.) how can we dare speak about dogmatism? (especially if the dogmatism to which we refer to has to do with things like love and forgiveness) At a time when science claims that it can do everything (even… resurrect people) how can we be so sure that the same things did not happen once before? At a time when science itself has proven that he can not prove everything, how hypocritical are we to talk about science that will lead us to the Truth? In a world which has been lost in nihilism and materialism, religion seems needed more than ever.

Relevant Articles

3. Religion actually does tells you what to do. But as an advice. But why is this a bad thing? Parents tell their children what to do, out of love and concern. It is then up to the child’s own free will whether to listen to them or not. We have so much belief in the “everyone does what he wants” philosophy that we do not even want to hear any prompts whatsoever. But one trip made without any compass is doomed to fail… Who disagrees with the “Thou shalt not kill” advice? Is is bad because religion says so? While if the same thing is said by… Sociology it is automatically tagged as good advice? If God says something it is “a tale built to exploit people” but if the same thing is said by a particular theory (which based on other axioms or on other data could give a different result) it is correct and one should listen to it?

Relevant Articles

4. Behind every discussion about religion as a secular institution there lies the controversy whether God exists or not. Because ultimately if God exists, then how can religion be bad for just telling the truth? Whatever way you analyze it, the whole discussion is ultimately reduced to this simple question: Do you believe in God? This issue requires greater analysis and I have written several related articles. Arguments in favor of His existence are many and strong – clearly stronger than the arguments against His existence. The basic position of atheism that the universe exists by chance and without reason is simply absurd and strongly unscientific. The basic position of the anti-Christians that man is simply a set of meat and bones moving like robots obeying to whatever their genes dictate is so childish as a worldview that everyone can recognize how wrong it is based what he experiences, understands and feels during a normal day. In a universe without God and without sense … what is the point of talking about good and bad (i.e. for bad religion and good science)?

Relevant Articles

~ Spiros Kakos, August 2016, Athens, Greece

Fasting. Ancient knowledge. Precious religion.

Advertisements

Fasting for as little as three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as “remarkable”. Although fasting diets have been criticized by nutritionists for being unhealthy, new research suggests starving the body kick-starts stem cells into producing new white blood cells, which fight off infection. (1)

What we laugh at could be wise.

What we detest could be loving.

What seems stupid could have some important things to say.

Revisit religion.

As science.