MY ESSAYS: VOL. IX

Alton C. Thompson

55 + 61 + 64 + 78 + 69 + 73 + 66 + 80 + 58 = 605 Essays

June 28, 2015 – December 22, 2015

Intellectual Adventuring (source of above)!

Table of Contents

My Email to Jackie Joiner (associate of Naomi Klein)...................................................................5

Two Models of Society....................................................................................................................6

First Model.......................................................................................................................................6

Second Model................................................................................................................................12

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................14

Degrees of Cluelessness?...............................................................................................................16

On Some Absurdities.....................................................................................................................18

Trivializing Global Warming.........................................................................................................20

Do We Have the Wrong Focus?.....................................................................................................22

History is Against Our Species!.....................................................................................................29

Global Warming: What Should I Know?......................................................................................38

Welcome to the 400 Club!.............................................................................................................43

Correspondence with Paul Piff and Matthew Feinberg.................................................................48

Is a Puppet Master in Control?......................................................................................................50

Is a Puppet Master in Charge?.......................................................................................................58

Is it Capitalism That’s the Problem?..............................................................................................69

A Danger of Blindness...................................................................................................................72

Narcissism and the Bible...............................................................................................................74

Why is Being First Best?...............................................................................................................79

Today I...........................................................................................................................................83

Is Our Religion the Basic Problem?...............................................................................................84

We Are Doomed! An Historical Explanation...............................................................................88

Which is Worse?............................................................................................................................93

Sport Hunting As Ominous Symbol..............................................................................................98

APPENDIX: Narcissism and Authoritarianism..........................................................................100

Authoritarianism and Narcissism................................................................................................104

My Rationale for NeWFism........................................................................................................106

How NeWFism Came to Be........................................................................................................110

2

The Other Type of Abortion?.......................................................................................................114

Justifying NeWFism....................................................................................................................117

Addendum....................................................................................................................................126

Responding to Mack’s Challenge................................................................................................129

The Journey Through Life...........................................................................................................135

Endangered Species.....................................................................................................................139

What Shall I Do?.........................................................................................................................141

Some Childhood Memories.........................................................................................................142

“The End is Near”........................................................................................................................148

An Email to Dr. James Hansen....................................................................................................150

A Message to Team Rubicon.......................................................................................................151

Is James Hansen Getting Senile?.................................................................................................152

On Being Religious......................................................................................................................155

A Commentary on Two Graphs...................................................................................................159

The Pope’s Climate Encyclical....................................................................................................161

Reflections on the Pope’s Recent Visit........................................................................................165

What the Pope Should Have Said................................................................................................169

The Blasphemy of Christianity....................................................................................................170

Understanding Global Warming..................................................................................................178

Dissecting “Do You Believe in God?”.........................................................................................184

Cartoon........................................................................................................................................186

Another Reason for Pessimism Regarding the Future.................................................................187

Is the Good Society Possible?......................................................................................................192

A Communication From Herbert N. Schneidau..........................................................................197

Avoiding a Potential Problem......................................................................................................199

The Good/Sustainable Society.....................................................................................................201

God: A Story of Discovery or of Invention?...............................................................................205

Comments on Sacred Discontent.................................................................................................209

Correspondence With David Barash............................................................................................212

Do We See What Is?....................................................................................................................213

President Obama in Alaska..........................................................................................................216

3

4

My Email to Jackie Joiner (associate of Naomi Klein)

June 28, 2015

Jackie,

I have not read Klein’s This Changes Everything yet (but have it on order), but from what I’ve read about the book, like the fact that she evidently calls for substantial societal system change.

In 1984—before global warming was on the radar of most, including me!—I published an articlethat proposed a 5-“wave” strategy for the “creative subversion” of the Existing Order in favor of a communitarian society. (It’s described in a short eBook that I wrote last year, .)

Since then, I have come to conclude, with Arctic climate scientist , that “runaway” has begun, so that we are now headed for extinction—by 2040 per Davies, as early as .

I just completed an eBook, and in Chapter VII (attached) first comment on a summary of the pope’s new encyclical, and then present a reasoned argument presenting the basis for my conclusion that our species is doomed. If Klein can detect any flaws in that argument, I would like to learn of them.

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson, Ph. D. (1970), Urban Economic GeographyGreendale, WI (SW suburb of Milwaukee)

After sending this, I received this email from Jackie:

Thank you for your email. Your request will be carefully considered. Due to the high volume of requests received daily, I appreciate your patience in waiting for a response.

Please visit our website for more information: thischangeseverything.org

Many thanks,Jackie Joiner

5

Alton C. Thompson

My purpose here is to compare two models of society, the first of which is rather well-known, the latter of which is known to a lesser degree. Although each model is embedded in a larger work, I will treat each here as a “stand-alone” item—recognizing the possibility thereby of misinterpretation.

Two qualifications:

Each model has a different orientation. They are, however, capable of being compared, and in comparing them I will make note of their different orientations.

The second model was not intended as a model of society, but lends itself to such an interpretation, and I will so interpret it, while noting its original intention.

First Model

The first model is extracted from ’s The Wealth of Nations (1776)—two parts of 2:.

IV.2.4: Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.

IV.2.9: By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes thatof the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

From these two passages we can deduce the following model, stated as an argument:

1. The individual members of a society are aware of what their (economic) interests are.

2. In being so aware, they do actually pursue “their own interests.” (In the first passage Smith refers to one’s doing so in choosing a type of employment, but one can assume here

6

that he intended to say that one will pursue one’s interests in other realms of one’s life as well—e.g., in one’s consumption decisions.)1

3. The individuals who comprise a society are also similar—it’s tacitly assumed here—in that they have similar levels of ability. (Presumably, individuals vary in what they are interested in, though, which “fact” helps explain why individuals enter different occupations. However, Smith seems to assume that each individual in a given occupationperforms the work involved with that occupation “well.”)

4. A given society is associated with a certain geographical area, but is a “society” in the sense only of being a simple collection of individuals (organized into families, one can assume). That is, an atomistic concept of “society” is assumed by the model.

5. Given that fact, the nature of the society within which one lives—i.e., the fact that it is not a “real” unit—has no influence on an individual’s behavior. More broadly, variables play no role in affecting individual behavior.

6. The actions engaged in by individuals as they pursue their interests will also be affected by some sort of invisible force (an “invisible hand”), and these two factors operating simultaneously will “frequently” result in the “public good” being served.

This model has serious problems, and to identify them I will comment on each of the above six points:

1. So far as “interests” are concerned:

a. The model is ambiguous regarding the meaning of “interests”: Does one “naturally” tend to pursue money? Influence? Well-being?

b. The assumption that one knows what is to one’s interests is unrealistic, as often individuals make decisions on the basis, e.g., of an ideology that “possesses” them—economic, religious, political, etc.

2. Because “interests” is ambiguous in meaning, and people often don’t know their interests,how is one to even know that they pursue their “interests”?!

3. Not only do individuals differ in how they define “interests,” and in knowing their “interests,” they differ in that in which they are interested, in intelligence, in education, physical skills, etc. All of which factors play a role in real-world behavior.

1 I should perhaps add here that sellers and buyers are assumed to act in a “free” market, and because of that fact what one receives (as a seller, specifically) is what one deserves. See by Robert Reich. As to “markets,” argues—correctly!—that (free) “markets are like unicorns in that they don’t exist!

7

4. Societies are not, it’s true, “real” in the sense that individuals, buildings, automobiles, etc., are—i.e., societies are not tangible units. They are, nonetheless, “real.” We know this using our ability to engage in inferential reasoning.

5. Because they are “real,” a variety of factors do, in fact, influence one’s behavior—the nature of one’s upbringing, one’s parents (e.g., their social class), the friends that one makes and others with whom one associates, the environment within which one grows up(e.g., urban, rural), one’s life experiences, the level of technological development of the society within which one lives, the sort of government of that society, etc. In short, the nature of the society within which one is brought up, and within which one lives, is a factor that influences one’s behavior, along with various other factors.

6. The assumption that two, and only (?) two, factors operate in a society—individuals acting to further their “interests” and an “invisible hand”—and that jointly their operationwill “frequently” (but not always!) result in a society within which the “public good” willbe served is problematic for a variety of reasons:

a. The nature of the “invisible hand” is ambiguous. (By the way, this concept was not invented by Smith, but has .)

1) Was this “invisible hand” —or at least something analogous to gravity?

2) If it was something analogous to gravity, was it of the variety?

3) Was “invisible hand” merely metaphor for Smith?

4) Was the “hand” , rather?

b. The nature of the “public good” referred to by Smith is ambiguous in the extreme.From what Smith says, one is unable to gain clear “picture” of what this “good” society looks like. One is given, by Smith, an abstraction only!

c. It asserts that the “public good” will be served by the two factors identified under point 6 above, but as no empirical evidence is offered in support of that claim, themodel must be labeled a “” one!

d. The assumptions used by the model (identified above) all lack in realism.

has said regarding the “invisible hand,” for example:

No such physical laws have yet been shown in regard of ‘an invisible hand’. In fact, there has not been shown to be a term for the “invisible hand” in any equation in economics, purporting to explain its presence. Nor can there be–it does not exist.

8

And :

The reference to the alleged similarity, even an analogous property, between gravity andmarket forces is so often quoted that I find it incredible that obviously literate and numerate senior economists can find grounds to argue about it. There is no gravitational force analogously operating in markets.

Jonathan Schlefer

One of the best-kept secrets in economics is that there is no case for the invisible hand. After more than a century trying to prove the opposite, economic theorists investigating the matter finally concluded in the 1970s that there is no reason to believe markets are led, as if by an invisible hand, to an optimal equilibrium—or any equilibrium at all. But the message never got through to their supposedly practical colleagues who so eagerly push advice about almost anything. Most never even heard what the theorists said, or else resolutely ignored it.

And as by Robyn J. Morrison:

Note especially the “continue to” in this last quotation: If we lived in a rational society, one might not expect this!

Also, regarding the “invisible hand” concept, one might argue, on the one hand, that it was not an important concept for Smith, : “The invisible hand appears once, several hundred pages into the work [i.e., The Wealth of Nations] during a discussion of trade policy. On the other hand, however, the term may have been placed in the middle of the book precisely because Smith extreme importance!

e. Were realistic assumptions “plugged into” the model, it’s uncertain what the model would “predict;” however, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that that prediction would be one where the “public good” was served well!

Given the above, although Smith may not have intended this model to be ideological, the facts that (a) it has been embraced over the years (by economists especially), and (b) is based on unrealistic assumptions, has made it . That is, rather than actually describing the world “as it (supposedly) works,” it describes a (a) non-existent world, and does so in a fashion that, as an ideology, (b) serves the interests of some relative to others.

Kavous Ardalan has :

According to the "invisible hand," the individuals' selfish interest automatically results in the improvement for society as a whole. The "invisible hand," therefore, focuses on individual behavior and recommends abstraction from the social consequences of individual behavior. This

9

atomistic view, together with its attendant abstraction from society as a whole, constitutes the foundation of the ideological character of the "invisible hand." This is because it conceals the actual social consequences of what it supports.

Given the problems with the concept of an “invisible hand” in particular—including the fact that it is a virtually vacuous concept!—in a rational world it would have been abandoned long ago.2 , “

a. It has enabled economists to create a discipline that looks, to those not “in the know,” likea “real” science.

b. Economists have been unable to come up with anything better (!).

c. It has proved useful for ideological purposes—for, that is, serving the interests of the elite.

A point that should be kept in mind about The Wealth of Nations is that it presumably was not written as an “objective” treatise (although Smith might have so perceived it) but, rather, as a (a) treatise intended for leaders of his time and (b) written in reaction to the . Once one recognizes both of these strong possibilities, one will reasonably conclude—on the basis of these two facts alone—that Smith’s model should have been abandoned 250 years ago!

Although Smith’s primary focus in Wealth was on economic matters, Smith recognized the obvious fact that societies had governments, and went on to specify role that government should play:

1. “The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.”

2. “The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member ofthe society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, . . .”

3. “The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain.”

2 Explanations that use “the market” as a/the causative factor are glib—given that “market” is a mere fiction—even as involving “,” one might say! See, e.g., of Thomas Piketty’s (2013—published in English in 2014; summarized in four paragraphs (!) ), and also Harvey’s (2014).

10

So far as “the market” was concerned, the third point above seemingly suggests that Smith believed that governments should basically “let it alone” (the meaning of ).3 However, provides evidence to the effect that Smith did see an important role for government in the economy beyond the above three points.

How should we assess the Smith societal model? As a societal model it is rather strange in that its focus is on the means for achieving the “good society”—individuals pursuing their interests, combined with an “invisible hand—but neither of those factors actually operates in the real world! In making assumptions about the real world it assumes that both factors not only exist, but are good—the latter being a tacit assumption. Thus, the model is simultaneously descriptive and prescriptive. From the standpoint of the end supposedly achieved by the operation of the two causative factors, it is not descriptive, however, but prescriptive: However, one is presented with no clear “picture” of what this end would look like in its specifics.

A point of importance that I feel obligated to add here is that Smith in advocating (in effect) that individuals act on the basis of their interests was not, thereby, advocating selfishness—as passage might seem to suggest:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

What must be kept in mind here is that Smith was (a) a moral philosopher, not an economist; that (b) earlier (1759) he had written ; and (c) that Smith did not abandon the ideas presented in that book when he wrote his The Wealth of Nations later.

Despite the fact that Smith was not himself an economist, his The Wealth of Nations came to be embraced—unsurprisingly—especially by those for whom Economics (rather than philosophy—moral or otherwise) was their profession. Given that fact, is it surprising that it was the prescriptive feature of Smith’s model that has especially been “taken to heart”—the claim that it is desirable for individuals to pursue their interests?

Frankly, I’m not sure if it is or is not. But it has been the case that economists have tended to follow Smith in building their models on a foundation of unrealistic assumptions; and insofar as that’s been the case, and those models have provided a basis for decision-making in this society, they have played an important role in creating the (!) society of which we are now “inmates”!

Not only that; as recently, the fact that we have a (quasi-) capitalistic society goes a long way in explaining why we currently have a global warming problem—a problem that may very well “do

3 With the growth of large corporations, corporate leaders (such as the ) have gained more control over the national government (in particular), and !

11

our species in.” For as Arctic climate scientist , in 2013: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.”

Second Model

If the Smith societal model is a descriptive-prescriptive one, the societal model presented by centuries earlier is just prescriptive in nature. In addition, it gives no attention whatsoever to means.

Here is what I’m referring to now, these passages from :

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

20. . . the body is not made up of one part but of many.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the partsthat lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

(Note that I placed verse 27 before verses 20 – 26—because I perceive it as logically a verse that precedes the other verses. Also, to make this relevant as a societal model, for “body of Christ” here, read “society.”)

Read as such, what we have here is a description of a society as it should be; that is, we have here a normative model of society, based on an analogy with something that is definitely tangible (which “society” is not.) Smith’s model was prescriptive as well, but Smith’s “good society” was:

The logical conclusion, supposedly, from a set of assumptions (all of which lacked sadly in realism!).

That “conclusion” being by no means clear, as to its content—except that it was said to be a society within which the “public good” was realized.

As to the features that Paul associated with his “good society” (interpreting it as a societal model, that is):

No member of the society perceives oneself as being superior to any other member of thesociety.

12

All members of the society perceive each other member as being of equal importance to oneself.

All members of the society have an interest in, and concern for, the well-being of all othermembers of the society. Because of the fact that all members of the society act accordingly, all members of the society have at least an “adequate” level of well-being.

The members of the society are perceived as connected one to another; i.e., society is not atomistic. (Of course, Smith recognized that the members of a society were connected, but just in terms of their economic relationships.)

Not only connected, but connected of necessity. That is, by comparing society to a human body—an entity whose parts are integrally connected, such all (or at least most) of those parts must be present, and functioning, for the body to survive—Paul was in effect asserting that unless the individuals in a society are (a) connected, and (b) connected in a harmonious (and cooperative) manner, the society will collapse. Perhaps not “immediately,” as with a human body, but at some time in the future—of necessity.

Members of the society perceive themselves as cooperators with, rather than competitorsagainst, one another.4

Conclusions

If it’s clear that our society, as we know it today, is largely the product of decisions stemming from the Smithian model of society, it’s also clear that contemporary society resembles Paul’s “good society” to but a slight degree! Cooperative behavior is not, it’s true, absent from our society,5 but is found primarily at the “lower” levels of the society: Those who dominate our society, it seems evident, are guided primarily by the Smithian model.6

Over the centuries “pictures” of the “good society” have been developed, ones with more detail than what was offered by Paul, these usually presented as “utopias” (see pp. 38 – 39 in my

4 What’s interesting about this normative assumption is that cooperative behavior is actually for us humans! The reason that cooperative behavior is not the norm in this society is that the sort of society that has developed under the “reign” of the Smithian model conduces competitive, at the expense of cooperative, behavior. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that following the Smithian model has made our society terribly “out of whack”! The tragedy of this fact is that so many “inmates” of our society have become so acclimatized to the society that they are simply unable to comprehend (a) the “out of whackness” of our society, (b) which fact does not bode well for our future as a species! Although, e.g., Naomi Klein, in her (2014) holds out some hope for the human future, I see little reason for hope.

5 It is, for example, in the form of “.”

6 I would like to think that this is not true for their family lives, however.

13

For ?), but these “utopian pictures” have typically avoided the matter of “how to get there.” However, my gives some attention to this matter.

Needless to say, it’s unfortunate that the Smithian societal model—assuming that it warrants such a designation!—has been our guide the past 250 years instead, e.g., of the societal model provided by Paul of Tarsus. If a Paulian sort of model had been our guide instead over that period of time, it’s unlikely that our species would now face the prospect of extinction within a matter of decades, if not years. (Regarding the latter, Guy McPherson, e.g., : “As I , I concludedin 2002 that we had set into motion climate-change processes likely to cause our own extinction by 2030.”)

As I noted earlier, the Smithian model became an ideology, and in becoming such--given that ideologies per se are out of touch with Reality—actions based on them are likely to lead to disaster—and this seems to be the case today, given the strong possibility that our species will “soon” go the way of the dinosaurs, but for a different set of reasons.

Today (June 28, 2015) I sent the above essay to Bruce Robinson (), at the web site (and copied Brad van Fossen). Finally got posted on July 11, 2015!

Bruce,

The attached compares two models of society, the first drawn from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the second from I Corinthians 12 (Paul’s body analogy).

I give most attention to Smith’s model—not because it is a “good” model, but because it has played an important role in our society (among others), and has received a great deal of commentary. (It’s specifically because of the latter fact that my discussion of the Smith model must be lengthy.)

I conclude that it’s extremely unfortunate that the Paulian model hasn’t, rather, been our guide, asthe Smithian model seems to be leading to the demise of our species!

Al Thompson

14

of Cluelessness?

Alton C. Thompson

While “surfing” the internet yesterday (June 27, 2015) I came across an article—a review article, specifically—that I found of considerable interest. The article—“This Changes Everything”—appeared in the February 2015 issue of the Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine (with which I have no familiarity), and was authored by John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark. Bellamy is the editor of the Monthly Review, and also a Professor of Sociology; Clark is an Associate Professor of Sociology.

The article not only reviews Naomi Klein’s recent (2014) , but comments on a large number of reviews of the book (!)—by, specifically, Rob Nixon, Dave Pruett, Elizabeth Kolbert (author of ),David Ulin, Michael Signer, Mark Jaccard, Will Boisvert, and Erle Ellis.

As I read this review article, I asked myself: “Do not the Klein book, the comments on the book by Foster and Clark, and the eight reviewers that they comment on represent varying degrees of cluelessness?! Why is it that none of them seems to realize the utter seriousness of the problem of global warming? Are all of them such “captives” of conventional thinking that none is able to“think outside the box”? Or, rather, is each so oriented to what is, and is not, “acceptable” to peers that none is willing to “think outside the box”? (Perhaps not even being conscious of beingruled by what their peers think.)

Frankly, I don’t know what explains their cluelessness, but for one thing it seems clear—to those of us in Guy McPherson’s “camp,” at least—that cluelessness pervades our society.8 Perhaps notjust regarding global warming, of course, but it’s that cluelessness that’s of especial importance, for it has been leading us in the wrong direction—toward the demise of our species!

What so many who comment on global warming seemingly fail to realize is that unless one chooses the proper starting point for their discussion, whatever they write is little more than “hotair.”

What is the “proper” starting point? Recognition of the (highly probable) facts that (a) it’s likely that we’ve already entered a period of “,” that (b) because of that strong possibility, change (i.e., an increase in the global mean and its correlates—such as increased storminess) is likely to accelerate (another way of saying that global warming is a process that tends to “”), (c) there

8 I would guess, though, that this is the case ultimately because “faith-based [!} belief in the invisible hand of the market as a natural law, or form of Providence” that has played such an important role in this country’s history—and has so “muddled” the thinking of so many in our society that cluelessness comes natural to many in our society!

15

being no possibility of halting the process, so that (d) the phenomena associated with global warming will, at some point in time (? ?) cause the demise of our species.

Some have argued that .” However, my view is that because the mentality that advocates geo-engineering is the same sort of mentality that has brought us to the brink (!), I have little reason to have confidence in geo-engineering. Besides, many scientists are of geo-engineering, with AlGore even terming the idea “”!

Now if “our days are numbered” (the subtitle of Guy McPherson’s “” web site), what better response to that strong possibility than “passionately pursue a life of excellence” (the remaining part of the subtitle to “Nature Bats Last”?!).

The beauty of this advice is that it lacks specificity—enabling each individual to interpret the advice in a manner that “fits” that person—in terms of abilities, interests, financial resources, etc.

The problem with that advice, of course, is that following it will not “save” our species. But, then, nothing will, evidently, so that working to make this world a “better place” while waiting for the inevitable is about the best advice that I, at least, can imagine!

16

On Some Absurdities

Alton C. Thompson

“was first contacted telepathically by his in January 1959, who asked him to make tape recordings of his messages to Creme. He first began to speak publicly of his mission on 30 May 1975, at the Friends Meeting House on in London, England. His central messageannounced the emergence of a group of enlightened spiritual teachers who could guide humanity forward into the new of peace and brotherhood based on the principles of love and sharing. At the head of this group was would be a great , Maitreya, the , expected by all the major religions at this time as their “Awaited One”—the Christ to the Christians, the to the , the for , and the () for .

While on the Truthdig site today (June 30, 2015), and reading about Bernie Sanders “closing in” on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, I noticed a heading, on the upper right side that read, “How Do We Fix Our Broken World?” And under a picture of a literally broken globe were the words: “We need HOPE. We need SHARING. We need JUSTICE. We need CHANGE. [But] We [do] have HELP! Maitreya, the World Teacher, is here! Are you ready?”

In clicking on the “Read more . . .” link, I found that was the sponsor of those words. And in “googling” , I found this:

According to tradition, Maitreya is a who will appear on Earth in the future, achieve complete , and teach the pure . According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor to the present Buddha, (also known as Śākyamuni Buddha). The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya refers to a time in the future when the dharma will have been forgotten by most on the . This prophecy is found in the canonical literature of all major .

In other words, Maitreya is what Christians might term a “savior,” in the sense of “.” However, although Maitreya is associated with enlightenment, the Christian “redeemer” has been thought of as Jesus, who “.” And an absurd idea because:

It views Jesus’s death from a teleological perspective rather than a (much more reasonable) causal one.

It makes the asinine claim that Jesus’s death was not only planned by him, but viewed by him as a that would somehow “wash away” our sins. For the modern person, sacrifice was a misguided practice practiced in the past—so that to think of Jesus’s death as a

17

sacrifice—whether or not Jesus thought of his death that way—is to engage in a sort of thinking that has long been passé.

Besides, the concept of a savior was common in the “pagan” religions of Jesus’s time, there wereat least in Jesus’s time and before! And the notion that one’s sins can be “washed away”—whether by Jesus’s death centuries ago, or by today—is one that makes no sense to the modern person.

Many religions—today, and through time—share a number of problems:

Acceptance of esoteric ideas as having truth-value.

The belief that our current problems can be “fixed,” but not by human activity but, rather,by the arrival on Earth of a divine “savior.”

And if that doesn’t occur, when one dies one will, nevertheless, be “saved” in a different sense—saved from an afterlife in a very warm and unpleasant place and enabled, instead, to spend an eternity in a very pleasant place.

The problems with holding such unsubstantiated—and unsubstantiable!—ideas now are that:

It is foolish to look “heavenward” for the solution to our current problems.

It’s even foolish now to think that our problems have a solution!

It’s likely that a “tipping point” has been reached, and crossed, so that we are now living in a period of “runaway.” That means that as the global temperature mean trends upward and that its correlates (e.g., increased storminess) increase in severity, not only will extinctions continue to occur in this time of the , but the world’s human population will become culled—until our species per se is no longer.

Those who look to esotericism seem to sense that we are living in the “last days,” but also seem to lack specific knowledge as to why this is so. They may think that their attachment to esoteric ideas will “save” them in some sense, but what it mainly does is enable them to cope. Thus, it is an individualistic “solution.” Were these people fully aware of our current predicament, they might react in a more meaningful way—by doing what they could to contribute to the well-being of others during this “waiting game” period.

[Not a good enough essay to send out for posting!]

18

Alton C. Thompson

The current (July 6 – 13) issue of magazine includes “53 pages of answers,” divided into eight categories, one which is titled “Questions we should be asking.” In that section we find the following questions:

What is the best job in America?

Why don’t we have a cure for the common cold?

What are my risk factors?

What could America’s $18 trillion debt buy?

What should I order?

How does art work?

Oh, and there is also this question:

Am I hurting the planet?

The page on the “planet” question offers some useful facts regarding the number of pounds of CO2 associated with various activities (per year in the U. S.):

412.7 Having a beer (“the ingredients, electricity and transportation”).

379 Running the dishwasher.

297.6 Answering email.

Etc.

However, I suspect that any reader of Nature Bats Last will regard all seven of the above questions as trivial, and will especially wonder why there is not a question about global warming. Time, in an , discussed Pope Francis’s recent encyclical on the environment. That article had said, for example:

Francis’ vision for change is comprehensive. He addresses the challenges of food production dueto uncontrolled fishing. He reminds readers that migrants are forced to flee poverty induced by environmental degradation but are not recognized internationally as refugees. He offers a corrective to past theological interpretations that say that God gave humanity dominion over theearth and challenges the idea that humanity should be the center of concern when it comes to the Earth’s future. He calls out the failures big business, politicians, and international summits.

19

Thus, it is rather surprising that the current issue of the magazine makes no reference to global warming—especially given that nothing that is occurring at present is as important as global warming!

Of course, the question about “hurting the planet” implies that global warming is occurring. It also implies, though, that:

Because human actions (such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities) are, and have been, “hurting the planet” (by causing global warming), then a reduction in those human activities will solve the problem.

Our “hurting of the planet” is just that, and has no relevance for our well-being (or survival, for that matter!).

By “talking around the edges of” global warming it trivializes global warming; and in doing that,it fails to inform the reader that:

Global warming is an extremely serious problem.9

So serious a problem, in fact, that it is likely to lead to the extinction of our species “soon” (by, e.g., ?).

Given the strong possibility that our species may not be much longer, rather than one answering the trivial question “Am I hurting the planet?,” one should (a) “face the music” about the future, and (b) ask oneself: “What, that would be worthwhile, should I do with the rest of my life?

The fact that Time does not take seriously is not surprising: It’s a business (like the energy production business), and doesn’t want to confront the future in any meaningful way; as a business, making money in the short-term is what it’s all “about”! End of story!

[I withdrew this essay this morning—July 8, 2015; see footnote 10 for reason. It has somegood stuff in it, but . . . .]

Do We Have the Wrong Focus?

Alton C. Thompson

There is widespread agreement today that there has been a trend in increase of the global mean temperature (claims that there has been a hiatus of late having ). The main controversy relative

9 Noted British climate scientist (Deputy Director of the ), In a “at the University of Bristol Tuesday November 6th, 2012, accused too many climate scientists of keeping quiet about the unrealistic assessments put out by governments, and our awful odds of reaching global warming far above the proposed 2 degree safe point.” The media must also, however, be blamed for failing to report on the research done by climate scientists.

20

to “global warming” has been—and is—whether the warming that has been occurring is anthropogenic (i.e., human caused) [1] or, rather, is “natural” in causation. [2]

Two graphs (from ) of relevance for this debate are . They show that:

1. Over the past 400,000 years there has been a relatively strongpositive correlation between the CO2 level and temperature. (This old “saw” is still relevant, of course: “.”

2. There has been a pattern of change with both CO2 and temperature—a more-or-less abrupt increase (to about the same high point), followed by a less abrupt decrease (again, to about the same low point).

3. Of especial note about the changes depicted above is that the important increases in temperature have been rather abrupt. ( comments on the bottom panel of the above graph.)

4. Also of significance here—something not depicted on the graph, however—is that duringthis time period, most of the variation in CO2 level (and consequent (?) temperature change) was not anthropogenic. It could not have been—for the simple reason that humans have been playing a role in affecting the CO2 level in the lower atmosphere only since about 1850 CE.

This latter fact gives those who deny that global warming is anthropogenic some ammunition, ofcourse.

Lately, I have come to conclude that what’s truly important about global warming is not so much whether or not global warming is human-caused or natural but, rather, just the fact that global warming is occurring. How one perceives the causation of global warming does, of course, have implications, of course:

1. If one believes that the global warming occurring now is anthropogenic, one will easily conclude that the solution to the problem lies in reducing our burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities. (An implicit assumption here—and an important one—is that “” has not yet begun, so that it is still possible to eliminate the threat of global warming. [4])

21

2. If, rather, one believes that it is natural factors that are primarily responsible for the global warming now occurring, one will conclude that because global warming is “out of our hands,” the best that we can do now is to “tough it out” as best we can (by trying to adapt to the changes that are—and will be—inevitably occurring).

The graph below ()—for the much shorter period 1880 – 2012—provides an interesting contrast with the earlier graph (which covered 400,000 years). (Note that the horizontal line here

represents the “long-term average,” with thered representing above average, and the blue below average.”)

Whereas the earlier graph shows a fairly strong positive correlation between temperature and the CO2 level, the relationship between these two variables is obviously much weaker for the time period 1880 – 2012.10 Whereas there is a clear upward trend with CO2 from 1880 to 2012, and there is a similar trend, at least, with temperature, for this time period the

temperature variability from year to year is far greater than is the comparable CO2 variability. The explanation offered on the site from which this graph was derived is that: “These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and volcanic eruptions.”

What the above graph means to me, though, is that the claim that our burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities are the fundamental causes the global warming now occurring is an overstatement. And when I look at the earlier graph, and (a) notice the pattern that exists, over the 400,000 year period, for both CO2 and temperature, and (b) also consider the fact that humans played virtually no role in affecting the carbon content of the atmosphere during that period, I find myself (reluctantly!) concluding that the natural pattern that dominates that graph could very well continue! So that even if it’s indisputable (is it?!) that humans have been (since about 1880) contributing to the global warming now occurring, the earlier graph “tells” me that it’s reasonable to conclude that because natural factors have been the important (the only, in fact!) factors causing temperature changes in the past, there is no reason to expect that those factors will not continue to be the most important factors causing warming. (Given that I have long swallowed the official “line,” I have surprised myself in reaching this conclusion!)

The argument that the global warming now occurring is primarily anthropogenic seems to have a good basis (Pope Francis, for example, !). However, I have recently come to conclude that:

10 Several days later I noticed that the Y axis shows only 2 degrees F. of variation, so that I had misinterpreted the graph. I then sent an email to Dissident Voice urging them NOT to post this.

22

The wisest position to take at present is that (a) global warming is occurring, and (b) is likely to accelerate (with the possibility that acceleration has already begun).

So that although the matter of what is causing global warming may continue to occupy scientists, that is no reason for the rest of us to do so. What the rest of us should do, rather, is to:

a. Assume that global warming (1) will continue, (2) is likely to begin to accelerate (if it has not already), (3) at least to the high points indicated on the first graph above (so that once that level were reached, human life would be very difficult—for several reasons—if not actually impossible!).

b. Respond with actions to those assumptions/beliefs.

In responding, I suggest that one keep in mind that as global warming continues, various “negatives” will occur, including the fact that producing food will become ever more difficult:

1. The growing of crops will become increasingly difficult, not only because of the warmingper se, but because of the correlates of global warming:

a. An increased of storms.

b. An increase in their size (thereby affecting a larger area) (resulting in excessive rain (and therefore flooding), hail/wind damage, etc.

c. An increase in , and hence unpredictability (making it difficult for farmers to know what to plant).

2. The oceans will be producing less and less seafood because of .

As food production decreases, not only will food prices increase, but we can also expect:

1. An increase in diseases.

2. An increase in .

3. An increase in , with .

Once one is aware of the facts that global warming is occurring, and is likely to accelerate, one may respond in a variety of ways, including:

1. Lobbying politicians, encouraging them to fund efforts.

2. Beginning to with one’s family (if one has one).

3. Creating, with others, a “”—an idea promoted by the late [1888 – 1977] di.

23

4. Creating, with others, an [5] to live in.

Of these three possibilities (my list above not being exhaustive!), government would be involvedonly with the first. Relative to this, I should add at this point that ’s “garden city” idea was implemented in this country to a limited degree during Franklin D. (most notably the creation of, Maryland; , Ohio; and , Wisconsin—where I live) [6]

But, (a) the three communities mentioned here were—and are—not intentional communities; and(b) I have no expectation whatsoever that the national government would become involved in even a similar program today—given that we are living in a plutocracy, within which the rich (such as the ) and rich corporations “own” our politicians. Given that the rich, and the managers of large corporations, tend to have a fixation on next quarter’s “bottom line, and to have virtuallyno interest in the future of our species, I expect nothing of consequence from our “bought” politicians.

As to the three possibilities listed above:

1. With there’s no guarantee that the measures used would “work,” with the possibility, even, that their implementation would actually add to our problems (e.g., hasten the demise of our species)!

2. Of the other two possibilities, the third one seems preferable to me, given that our speciesis a social one.

Adopting the third option would in effect involve starting the process of creating a New Society. In fact, in 1984—when global warming was “on the radar” of few people, including me!—and believing that trying to “fix” the Existing Order was not “the way to go”—I developed for converting our society into one of eco-communities. [7] Needless to say, that plan never “got off the ground;” however, I continue to believe that that “plan” has merit—and believe that althoughit’s possible that global warming will “do our species in” [8] before much progress is made in implementing it, that work at implementing it should proceed anyway. Certainly—for one thing—one’s chances of survival would be greater if one lived in a small eco-community than if one remained in the Existing Order. [9]

A further advantage, I believe, offered by a society of small eco-communities is that it could be relatively problem-free as compared with the Existing Order. I agree with geographer Jared Diamond that the fundamental reason why modern societies are plagued with problems is that weare “children” of the Agricultural Revolution—the “.” Diamond lists a number of current problems which he attributes to the Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 years ago, and I would addto Diamond’s discussion that the reason that that Revolution has spawned so many problems is The Discrepancy.

24

Here’s a brief explanation: [10] The fact that the (gatherer-hunter) way of life for which humans had become “designed” (through the operation of evolutionary processes, such as and female-choice ) came to be replaced, for some, by other ways of life—ones for which humans were not “designed.” Thus, for those affected by the Agricultural Revolution, there was a growing discrepancy between (a) the way of life for which they had become designed and (b) the ways of life that they actually had (were forced to adopt, in most cases)—which discrepancy then becamethe ultimate cause of most human problems thereafter. (David Barash wrote a book on this— (1986)—the “hare” being cultural change, the “tortoise” being biological change, but I find this book rather unsatisfactory.)

My reason for mentioning this “discrepancy” is that the designers of an eco-community should not only plan for global warming, but also plan so as to avoid the development of the various problems that plague “civilized” societies. In keeping the “discrepancy,” specifically, in mind, they should plan with human “design specifications” in mind (discussed, e.g., on pp. 38 – 117 of my For ? )

Given that—as that discussion indicates—there are a variety of viewpoints regarding human design specifications, those planning an eco-community would need to discuss the matter thoroughly, and then jointly decide regarding what to accept regarding design specifications. In engaging in such discussions, I recommend use of the Structured Interaction Group (SIG), discussed on pp. 149 – 154 of For ? Once an eco-community has been created, the SIG could, ofcourse, continue to play an important role in decision-making, etc.

In concluding this presentation, I would reiterate the fact that most climate scientists believe not only that global warming is occurring, but that it is anthropogenic. I have come to believe, however, that because past changes in, e.g., temperature (with consequent ) were all “natural” in causation, there is good reason to assume that Nature will continue to play an important role in “climate change.” But regardless of why climate change is occurring, what’s important is that it IS—with the prospect of accelerating change. The latter possibility suggests that it would be pointless to try to halt further warming, and that it makes more sense to try to adapt to the changes that are forthcoming. In the above presentation I have offered my ideas regarding what might do (ideas that I have not been able to act upon, unfortunately—and am now too old to takethe advice that I offered in 1984), but I am most certainly not suggesting here that the reader takewhat I have written here as “gospel.” Rather, one should decide what best “fits” oneself.

Ecologist —who has the web site—suggests (in the subtitle of his site’s name—that one “passionately pursue a life of excellence.” But that’s just one suggestion. Rather than looking toothers (including me!) for suggestions, I recommend that one decide for oneself the best course of action to take. But make a decision soon; for if climate change is now in the early stages of acceleration (we will only know this for sure in hindsight), there may be little time left to make ameaningful decision.

25

Endnotes

1. : “Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 () found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.” By the way, Pope Francis recently his support to this conclusion as well!

2. —“Principal Research Scientist at the , and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's ”—is in this category. In his (2010) states (p. viii), e.g., that: “We now have satellite-measured evidence of . . . self-induced climate change: a natural mode of climate variability called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO.” Spencer’s “great blunder” (!), in turn, is discussed in .As to the matter of “peer review” mentioned in the first endnote, Spencer offers some interesting—and, to a degree, meritorious—comments on pp. vii – xvii of his book.

3. I say this because there are no signs at present that it will cease occurring.

4. That is, the negative feedback mechanisms that have been “fighting” warming, “give up,” and are then replaced by positive feedback mechanisms—which “work,” rather, to accelerate the warming trend.

5. The Fellowship for Intentional Community produces a of such communities.

6. There is on the subject.

7. Summarized in my .

8. Arctic climate scientist : “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.”

9. The major problem with being a part of the Existing Order is that, in not producing for one’s ownneeds, one is dependent on others—meaning that if others charge outrageous prices, or even stop producing, one’s continued survival may be threatened.

10. In my For ?, pp. 40 – 46.

26

Against Our Species!

Alton C. Thompson

Historical development is most commonly thought of as involving “progress”—e.g., from “savagery” to “civilization” (except for certain periods, such as the “”). Because technology tends to become ever more highly developed, it is easy for most to accept the conclusion that history “advances” as well. In this essay, however, I will argue that those who accept this conclusion are deceiving themselves—for a more reasonable conclusion would be that history has been anything but that.

An advantage—if it can be called that!—of adopting such a perspective is that it helps one understand why we “civilized” humans have become so saddled with problems, including what may be the most important one facing us currently, that of global warming.

Below, I present a brief history of the world (from a Western perspective), doing so as a series of points. This history was inspired by my reading, several years ago, of Eugene Linden’s (1979); and toward the middle of this essay in particular I use statements from that book as a part of my “story”:

1. Our ancestors originated in Africa, with some of them beginning to 125,000 – 60,000 years ago (perhaps ). The map to the left depicts possible routes taken. (It’s been discovered recently that we are also , however!)

2. As our ancestors entered areas having an environment

different from their area of origin, there may have been a need for their bodies to adapt tothe new area. If this were necessary, those pre-adapted, to an important degree, to the new area would have the best chance to survive, and then produce progeny—with those progeny who were then also pre-adapted to the new area then also surviving and producing progeny, etc. (“” adaptation, that is, would not have been involved with the adaptation that occurred!)

27

3. In migrating, humans continued to gain their sustenance from , their specific activities varying, of course, from place to place in response to geographical variations in the specific resources available. (I have listed “gathering” before “hunting” because it was likely (as has argued) a more important means for acquiring food than was hunting. To put “hunting” before “gathering” is to demonstrate male chauvinism—given that hunting was primarily a male activity, gathering a female one.

4. Humans also continued to live in small groups. This occurred because (a) humans are cooperative; (b) where existed, those humans living in groups would have had the greatest probability of surviving, and then producing progeny—i.e., the resulting pressures on humans favored the learning of cooperative tendencies ; (c) and such tendencies began having a biological basis by virtue of the likelihood that our ancestors practiced female-choice . The significance of this is that females likely mated only (or at least primarily) with those males who demonstrated cooperative/protective tendencies—those tendencies likely having a biological basis. Thus, progeny produced would have a natural tendency to engage in cooperative behavior.

5. The consensus with anthropologists seems to be that the “primitives” had a “good life” (and, therefore, had, e.g., no need for curse words!)—one that was lacking in technological gadgets, true, but “good” in senses that truly matter. Here is what , e.g., has written about the matter in (pp. 21 – 22) (1983) :

There are many who say that for the primitive, life was and is, in [] Hobbesian terms, nasty, brutish, and short. On the whole, [however,] anthropologists have found otherwise, and over the years have accumulated an enormous mass of data to support their view. This evidence is based on years of living within such societies, suffering the same deprivations, including sickness and, sometimes, premature death. If we measure a culture’s worth by the longevity of its population, the sophistication of its technology, the material comforts it offers, then many primitive cultures have little to offer us, that istrue. But . . . in terms of a conscious dedication to human relationships that are both affective and effective, the primitive is ahead of us all the way. He is working at it at every stage of his life, from infancy to death, while playing just as much as while praying;whether at work or at home his life is governed by his conscious quest for social order. Each individual learns this social consciousness as he grows up, and the lesson is constantly reinforced until the day he dies, and because of that social consciousness each individual is a person of worth and value and importance to society, also from the day of birth to the day of death.

(To be fair here, however, I should note that Turnbull has been by , for example. Also, Lawrence Keeley has written a book, published in1997, on the “” ( being an example of afavorable review of the book). The point that I would make relative to this, though, is

28

that from the fact that the “primitives” were cooperative within their groups, it does not follow that they may not have been aggressive relative to other groups. It is important not to mix these two phenomena—but not like apples and oranges, which are actually !)

6. Down to the time of the Agricultural Revolution of about 10,000 years ago, the human groups that existed varied in characteristics/activity patterns (in large part because of geographical variations in resources and climate), but were rather similar in that their groups (a) were all small, and (b) their residents tended to be cooperative—so that each group formed a definite sociological unit. With the Agricultural Revolution, however, an important change began to occur: A (see pp. 37 – 46) began to develop between (a) the way of life for which humans had become “designed” by evolutionary forces (i.e., environmental variation and change, predation, female-choice sexual selection—with Darwinian “natural selection” playing no role whatsoever in human evolution!; see , p. 67ff.), and (b) the way of life that those involved with that Revolution were increasingly living. This meant directly that those involved in this Revolution were increasingly:

a. Being exposed to stimuli for which they had not become “designed.”

b. Engaging in behaviors for which their bodies had not become “designed.”

c. Using their brains in a manner for which they had not become “designed.” Previously, (a) their minds had been absorbed in the natural surround much of the time, (b) their brains had become filled with particular facts useful to them for their continued survival, (c) they had developed classifications of things useful to them (e.g., what was, and was not, edible), and (d) had developed generalizations based on their observations (of, e.g., animal behavior, what edible plants could be obtained where and when, etc.).

With the “progress” (a term that I use loosely here!) of the Agricultural Revolution, however, they tended to lose the knowledge that they had gained previously (via direct observation and being explicitly taught), and to begin to usetheir brains differently—now focusing their minds on different things (less surround-oriented), and thinking in increasingly abstract terms. In short, they were in the process of coping, intellectually, with the new way of life that was developing, and that coping involved some degree of stress, of course.

7. (I should add here that another discussion of the impacts of the Agricultural Revolution on humans is provided in ’s “,” 1987. ’s “most recent book, , published in 2012, asks what the western world can learn from . It surveys 39 traditional small-scale societies of

29

farmers and hunter/gatherers with respect to how they deal with universal human problems.”)

8. An extremely important—the most important?—facet of the change in way of life involved with the Agricultural Revolution was that the cooperative groups that had existed previously began to “erode,” with the family emerging as the basic societal unit—and the itself , as an institution, changing greatly over time, of course. (In an I attributedthe economic inequality that currently exists in this country to this development—although I used the term “household” rather than “family” in that essay.)

9. That development—although likely not occurring “by design” (rather, it likely “just happened”!)—enabled the development of class/caste systems, with a somewhat separate way of life developing within each of these new subgroups.

10. Given that the relationships that develop in a society with a class/caste system tend, virtually invariably, to be of an exploitative nature, with the upper class(es) becoming parasites relative to the lower class(es), we have, with the Agricultural Revolution, the beginning of pathological personalities, misery, resentment, psychological problems, etc.—and intra-societal disturbances for the first time.

11. These early (misnamed!) “” societies tended to grow in population size, and to develop a new geographical pattern of living—one that was (a) sedentary, and (b) divided into urban and rural subsocieties.

12. Whereas previously everyone’s mind was absorbed in the natural surround much of the time, now even for those living in rural areas—because their way of life differed rather substantially from the old gatherer-hunter way of life—this was no longer true. One implication of this “mental removal” from the natural surround is that the inhabitants of these new societies became less and less aware of the impact of their activities on the natural surround—and, therefore, the implications of that impact for their own lives. Thisgeneral lack of awareness today may very well spell the end of our species within a matter of decades, if not years!

13. Linden (op. cit., p. 75) would add that the forces of (p. 75) “evolution elaborated our propositional skills, and in turn loosened some of the anatomical impediments to their use, [while also] . . . simultaneously [they] established a series of cultural controls which attempted to curtail sharply the areas in which our propositional skills might be employed.” That is, as our evolution proceeded—once we had left the rain forest—our analytical abilities and propositional skills began to develop rapidly, but evolutionary

30

forces (the environment, rather?! [1]) also caused cultural controls to develop, and those controls had the effect of exerting a “brake” on those analytical abilities and propositionalskills. Religion (p. 80), by the way, was the first of those cultural controls.

14. Linden also noted that the early religions involved deity, but with deity initially conceived (in rather amorphous terms) as immanent, and only later as transcendent—as aseries of gods (i.e., polytheism). With the ancient Jews, however, monotheism developed—and was touted by many as an “obvious” advance. However (p. 84), “Monotheism effectively decontrolled nature, clearing the way for the identification and exploitation of resources that had previously been protected by the sacred mantle of animism.” This is, therefore, a damning comment on not only Judaism, but Christianity and Islam as well! (Note here that the very use of the word “resource” implies that one unconsciously perceives Earth as an exploitable thing—rather than as something too sacred to “violate.”)

15. Linden (op. cit.) observed (p. 87) regarding this: “Just as monotheism allowed the Hebrews to turn the intellect on nature, so this retreat [from nature] cleared the Athenian mind for reason to offer up its account of the marvels of the universe.” Unfortunately, (p.88), “the shift from [an] animistic to [a] rational world view [also] turned us [humans] into strangers on our own planet. It has also saddled us with deep-seated psychic disorders: alienation, schizophrenia, and anomie.”

16. The development of alphabetic languages further removed humans, mentally, from their surround. Linden noted, relative to this, regarding the Chinese language, which uses ideograms rather than letters, that (p. 89) “outfitted with a Western education, a Chinese might design a nuclear reactor; while this same individual, given a traditional Chinese education, might see the world as a series of living analogies and harmonies which wouldprohibit him from understanding, much less designing, a nuclear reactor.” And: (p. 90): “Chinese culture would rather accomplish something than explain it.” “It lacked an abstract, logical language, such as math[ematics] is for Western science, and which permitted the scientific efflorescence of the West.” (p. 91) Claimed Ezra Pound and Ernest Fenollosa (in , 1919), noted Linden, “the world of the ancient ideogram was a forthright, engaged, and processional world with no filter such as the copula which might mediate between the perceiver and his experience.” Such is not the case with English andother Western languages, Linden added.

17. Because (Linden, op. cit., p. 91) “the language of the West permits the description of a world having enduring qualities separate from the act of perception,” “it permitted the West to take a posture toward nature in which technology and science might flourish.” Which they did, of course!

31

18. The development of class/caste systems, in conjunction with the language and intellectualdevelopments that have occurred, has provided the “soil” for ideologies to develop—i.e., modes of thought which divorce one’s mind from the real-world, and are therefore potentially dangerous:

a. Religious ones—which assert that the beliefs associated with one’s particular belief system are the only correct, and therefore acceptable, ones, so that one is justified in persecuting those others who hold other beliefs (“heretics”)—even to the point of death (e.g., the ! Naïve me! Here I thought that Jesus taught that one should love the neighbor, not kill him or her—the latter in the case of “witches). There is also here, of course, the case of strange belief systems that seemingly have no basis whatsoever in Reality!

b. Political ones—especially those that espouse the “” view that “society” is not a real unit, being merely a who happen to be living in a certain delimited territory, and who are only connected by an implicit contract. This is an individualistic perspective, involving an concept of society , one that assumes (tacitly, at least) that individual behavior is the result, and only the result, of individual choice-making. “Societal factors” cannot enter the picture as explanatory factors, of course—for the simple reason that societies are mere fictions! A major problem associated with this ideology is that it easily leads to a “” stance—enabling one to do anything but “love the neighbor” in good conscience!

c. Economic ones—and specifically “” ideology. This ideology—initially developedespecially by —is very similar to the previous one in that it “houses” an atomistic concept of society and assumes that one’s behavior is solely a matter of free choice. What this ideology focuses on, however, is economic activities—e.g., the types of “markets” that can exist, how prices are set, etc. Insofar as individuals are involved in this ideology, it is held, e.g., that one will purchase a given good atthe lowest price obtainable, and will receive as one’s income what, and only what,one deserves. Meaning that societies, insofar as they exist, that is, are (a assumption, of course). Given that those who receive little deserve little, one has no obligation to help those in need. In fact, doing so might very well put the Natural Order “out of whack, so that one should avoid helping others!

(Were it now December, rather than July, with Christmas “just around the corner,”the above comments would likely strike one as ironic, given that the three ideologies identified and discussed above—all of them notably present in this society—are directly contrary to the “love of neighbor” principle of the person whose many would be celebrating in a matter of days!)

32

19. Intellectual developments that occurred during the (so-called) “Reformation” (with beingan especially important figure during that period) encouraged the development of an “entrepreneurial spirit.” They also led to the notion that one best serves the common good by pursing one’s own interests, yielding (Linden, op. cit., p. 97) the “‘screw your buddy’ ethics of the West.” (So John Calvin was a religious leader?! A supposedly Christian one at that?!) Associated with this, the development and implementation of thisnotion of how to “promote the general welfare” served to loosen, and even destroy, the bonds that had connected people previously, making individuals feel increasingly more isolated—psychologically, if not physically—from their fellows.

(The following three points have particular relevance for the development of global warming as a problem.)

20. The development of the above-stated notion (regarding serving the common good), in conjunction with developments in technology and (to a lesser extent) science, caused people to search for happiness in areas other than, e.g., human relationships, and they chose (or were they virtually forced, by the New Order that was developing?!) the acquisition of material goods as that which would—they became convinced (!)—give them satisfaction/pleasure.

21. That development caused, in turn, an increase in the demand for consumer products, which demand, in turn, resulted in an increase in the production of such products. The growing importance of production, in turn, encouraged a search for energy sources for use in the production process, and coal was discovered to “fill the bill” rather well. The increased burning of coal, and, then, later, petroleum products, resulted in an intensified “.” Nature, being a system, has “tried” to fight the changes in Earth System that this intensification entailed, but that fighting may very well turn out to be a losing battle (withour species in a matter of decades, if not years).

22. The ways of life that have been developing over the centuries—involving, e.g., (a) growing interdependencies between firms and people, and (b) a highly concentrated settlement pattern—have been such as to make societal system change in a “better” direction virtually impossible—a fact that should not be taken lightly! Our current societal situation here in the United States is such that I believe (but make no effort to demonstrate here) that virtually all of our current problems—not only as a society, but as a species—are attributable to existing societal institutions and practices (many of the latter being ideology-driven). These have not developed “overnight,” of course, but, rather, have developed over a long period of time—going back to the Agricultural Revolution.

33

Naomi Klein, in her recent (2014) states (p. 21) that “our economic system and our planetary system are at war;: and (p. 22) refers to “a battle between capitalism and the planet . . . “ At a superficial level, I agree with Klein that our quasi-capitalistic economic system is not a friend of Earth. I’m convinced, however, that our problems have a more fundamental cause, the nature of our historical development (as outlined above). Because of that more basic factor:

We in the West (the United States in particular) have, over the centuries, become “addicted” to various ideologies, making difficult the recognition by many, at present, of the fact that our species is in deep trouble (with some, of course, being mired in denialism—some of them as a result of what they at least perceive (but do so wrongly!) as to their “self-interest”).

We have developed institutional situations such that making the sort of change that wouldbe needed to “save” us would be virtually impossible—even, I would add, if we did have the necessary recognition of the problems that we humans face!

Although some , even those are likely insufficiently pessimistic, in my judgment—overly optimistic regarding the possibility of “fixing” the problem. What seems clear, rather, is that we humans have “.” Inadvertently, of course, rather than deliberately—but that fact is by no means comforting. (Naomi Klein, for one, how serious the global warming problem really is.)

As we continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere (increasing the greenhouse effect) and continue with deforestation activities (thereby reducing the carbon “sink”), we initiate changes that themselves result in further warming—a fact often expressed by saying that global warming is process that “.” Some climate scientists believe that we already entered a period of “” change—the implication of which is that “our days, as a species, are numbered.”

My perspective on Western history, in conjunction with what is known to be occurring with global warming, leads me to believe that our species is doomed. In that disaster could be averted—via the “creative subversion” of the that we are living in, and its replacement by a Better Order. But research findings that have been published since that time have convinced me that we are ,” with little, if any, possibility of “turning things around.” [2]

Given the importance that technology has assumed in our society, it’s not surprising that some have put their faith in geo-engineering for “salvation.” It might be wise, however, to perceive such suggestions as simply a continuation of the for which we are notorious—for such measurescould very well to our problems, rather than solve them. In fact, they might simply speed up ourdate with the “grim reaper”!

Endnotes

34

1. In that if one changes—by migrating—the environment within which one lives, one will need to adapt one’s way of living to that new environment, and that adaptation process might involve the emergence of the “cultural controls” to which Linden referred.

2. Giving people hope—as Naomi Klein does—when there is little reason for hope, is cruel, even “criminal,” in my opinion!

35

Global Warming: What Should I Know?

Alton C. Thompson

I am currently reading Naomi Klein’s (2014), [1] and while reading it tonight (July 8, 2015) this question occurred to me: Is it really necessary to write a book of this length (566 pages!) to say what a concerned person should know about global warming?

Needless to say, that question is a rhetorical one, for my candid opinion about the book so far (after reading 63 pages) is that it contains a great deal of “,” [2] while failing to be entirely consistent, and also—most importantly—failing to focus on what’s truly important—i.e., that which is especially relevant for one to know.

In this essay, I attempt to correct the problems that I perceive in Klein’s book—especially that of excessive length! I don’t, of course, claim here that my views regarding what’s important to know—what’s of special relevance—are of a definitive nature. Rather, the views expressed below are simply my current views of what’s important to know about global warming—views that are subject to change as I give more thought to the subject, read more in the literature, etc. [3]

1. First, let me clarify what is meant by “global warming.” Usually, when people think about “global warming,” they think of the atmosphere being warmed. The , however, indicates that it is especially the oceans that are being warmed. [4] (That warming does,

though, does have for us humans.)

2. The second point that I would make is that global warming has been occurring. The shows the global mean temperature from 1880 to 2014 in degrees Fahrenheit (in termsof departures from the long-term average). The line that

represents temperature is a “squiggly,” rather than a smooth, one, indicating that (a) factors other than human activities play a role in causing global warming, [5], and that a changing economic and/or political situation can change the degree to which humans engage in those activities (i.e., the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities) thataffect the CO2 level in the atmosphere and, therefore, global warming.

36

Although the line is “squiggly,” it shows a clear upward trend from about 1950 to 2014

3. Third, the warming trend thathas existed since about 1950 can be expected to continue (for reasons that I will discuss shortly).

4. Fourth, the increased heat energy associated with a warming trend also causes (a) an increase in the of storms, (b) an increase in their physical size, (c) an increase in their, and (d) increased in weather conditions at any given location (with than others, of

course).

5. The phenomena listed under point 4—which have become noticeable the past few years—make it clear that global warming is not a “good thing.” And because it is not, it seemsobvious that actions should be taken to halt, or at least slow down, further warming. However, it’s unlikely that such actions will occur:

a. The provide the public with little information about global warming; as a consequence, few members of the public are trying to convince their politicians toact.

b. Many in our society are “possessed” by (religious, economic, etc.), so that even were they being informed by the media, the information purveyed would not “sinkin.”

c. Many of our politicians are “” by the fossil fuel interests, etc., and, therefore, cannot be expected to go against the wishes of their “masters.”

d. Those who deny that global warming is occurring are , and therefore have considerable influence over the thinking of many.

e. Most importantly: There is little time left to act. An said this:

37

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all—the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations. [IEA is .]

6. Two reasons in particular can be cited for why there is so little time left—2017 being just 2 years off!

a. The warming that has been occurring has been , thereby exposing more and more bare ground. As bare ground tends to absorb the sun’s rays, whereas snow and ice tend to reflect them, more warming of the lower atmosphere occurs.

b. The melting of snow and ice also exposes which, in melting, releases —a gas as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. (I should add that the “” that is occurring is of this gas.)

Given the unlikelihood of any significant actions by government between now and 2017, what’s likely is that not only will warming continue, but will accelerate. That is, “” will begin. In fact, in 2013 Arctic climate scientist that he believes that runaway is now under way, and went on to say: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.” (!)

Now if runaway begins (has already started!), the implication is that we humans are doomed. At some point governments, in “waking up,” may start engaging in geoengineering efforts in an attempt to halt, and even reverse, the warming trend. But it’squite possible that such .”

As I note in endnote 5, there has been great variation in Earth’s temperature in the geological past, and all of that variation can be explained—obviously!—on the basis of natural factors. Natural factors still play a role in “climate change,” but it’s unlikely that such factors will be able to “cancel out” the warming that we can anticipate in the future—a warming that, in fact, can be expected to accelerate (which may be occurring now!).

7. Although it’s certainly possible (probable, rather?) that we humans are doomed, given that we cannot know the future with certainty, and given that it would be foolish to look to governments for “salvation,” individuals are advised to try to “save” themselves. This could take three forms:

a. Acquiring a parcel of land at a location judged to be reasonably “safe” from the ravages of global warming, and beginning to .

b. Creating, with others, a “” (p. 26)—an idea promoted by the late [1888 – 1977] di.(Also see Borsodi’s y, 1933.)

38

c. Joining with others to create an “” in a “safe” location. [6] (In fact, by the 1980s Ihad concluded that our various problems could be solved, but only via societal system change—in a communitarian direction. [7])

Whichever choice one makes, there would be no guarantee that one would be able to survive for very long. But by not choosing one of those options one will certainly lessen the probability thatone will be able to survive.

Endnotes

1. , but with different pagination than the paper book from which I will be quoting in this essay.

2. While an undergraduate, I minored in Geology; “guff” was one of the favorite words of the professor I had—by which he seemed to mean “useless facts”!

3. For example, I recently felt a need to read a book by a climate scientist whose views differ rather substantially from those of most climate scientists, and therefore read Prof. ’s (2010). I couldn’t resist purchasing a copy of the book, as I found a buyer on the Amazon web site willing to sell me a copy for $0.01 (plus $3.99 for postage and handling)! Spencer is referred to as a “climate misinformer” on , with his book described as a “great blunder” on !

4. The numbers on the chart refer to the time period 1993 – 2003.

5. The graph on this web site shows, for the past 400,000 years, change in the CO2 level (upper panel) and change in temperature (lower panel). Note on this graph that the patterns of change are very similar, and that all of the change during this period was—obviously!—a result of natural, rather than human, causes.

6. There is a .

7. My ideas were published in (!), and are .

39

Welcome to the 400 Club!

Alton C. Thompson

Whether we want to be or not, we are all now members of the 400 Club. What I’m referring to here, of course, is the CO2 level in Earth’s atmosphere—which was on July 8, 2015.

What does a rising CO2 level mean for us humans? Climate scientists have created models projecting temperature change from now until, e.g., 2100 CE, this (to the left) being a of model

results (“” stands for “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”). Note, regarding the graph, that:

1. Actual temperatures are depicted from 1850 to 1999.

2. Considerable variation in actual temperatures occurred during that time period, because both natural and human factors were operating during that time period.

3. The lines indicating projections are all smooth—indicating that natural causative factors were ignored in making the projections. [1]

4. Each of the four models involved here used different assumptions, giving variation from 16.2° C to 20° C by 2100 CE, with even the two “best” estimates being, respectively, 17.4° C and 17.8° C.

What is to be especially noted about these models is that even the model producing the lowest increase produces a HUGE change in the mean temperature of the atmosphere from 1999 to 2100!

A basic assumption of all of these models is that those human activities causing CO2 levels to increase—i.e., our burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities—will continue, and that that fact, in conjunction with that will be “kicking in,” will not only cause the global mean temperature to rise, but to accelerate.

This is, of course, a disturbing prospect!

40

As some people are suspicious of model projections, there is another way of thinking about the future, and that is to examine the past for clues regarding how the future might be. Given that the last time Earth’s CO2 level was comparable to the current level was the of the , it might be helpful to examine that period of time for clues on what to expect in the future. [2] (The Pliocenebegan about 5.3 million years ago and ended about 2.6 years ago.)

In terms of the totality of geological time, the Pliocene wasjust a “blip.” In fact, it was such a short period that it doesn’t even warrant a “slice” on the geological “pie” depicted to the left! (The Cenozoic Era is, however, depicted in light green on the upper portion of this graph.)

The question at hand here, however, is not how long the Pliocene lasted but, rather, what the Pliocene was like. Here is a : :

Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much

as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between fiveand 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.

And also :

During the Pliocene, the Panamanian land bridge linked North and South America, allowing terrestrial species to migrate between the two continents. This event is called the Great American Faunal Interchange, a time when two long-isolated faunas came into contact. Sixteen native southern genera moved to the north, including armadillos, giant ground sloths, flightless

41

predatory birds, marsupials (including opossums), and porcupines. At the same time, 23 native northern genera moved south, including cats, dogs, bears, tapirs, camels, and certain rodents. The exchange was not a balanced one, however. Many more South American immigrant species became extinct, perhaps as a result of competition and the inability to adapt to new conditions. As a result, many North American species now live in South America, but few South American imports still survive in the north.

Migrations also continued between Asia and North America via the Bering land bridge. Mastodons and true horses (Equus) were among these migrating mammals. Rodents appear to have reached Australia from the Indonesian archipelago at this time. The one-toed horse Equus was common in North America, along with armored glyptodonts and many species of camels. The once-common oreodonts had dwindled in number, and North American rhinos became extinct.

Also during the Pliocene, several early bipedal ancestors of humans co-existed in the African landscape. Early evidence of human ancestors comes from East African fossil localities in the rift valley sites of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. The well-known fossil "Lucy" was discovered in 1974 in Hadar, Ethiopia. This member of the hominid lineage, named Australopithecus afarensis, was found in sediments dating to over 3 million years ago. Meanwhile, at Laetoli, Tanzania, human-like footprints were left by two individuals in a volcanic deposit over 3 million years ago. These discoveries indicate that human bipedalism must be even older, and new evidence suggests it may be as old as 6 to 7 million years

What I find of especial relevance in these descriptions are the facts that:

Our human ancestors were living during this epoch.

Sea level was as much as 131 feet higher than it is now!

The latter fact implies that were the current CO2 level maintained (rather, it will increase, of course!), sea level could rise 100 or more feet above what it is now. This in itself would spell disaster for us humans, given that so much of the world’s population at present lives near sea level. Thus, as , people will be forced to migrate (!), and this is likely to lead to conflict.

A more important question, however, is: Would humans be able to live under Pliocene conditions? I would make two comments relative to this question:

1. Although our distant ancestors were living during the Pliocene, their way of life was vastly different from ours, and it is doubtful that many modern humans would be “willing, or even able” to abandon their existing way of life for one similar to our distant ancestors.

42

2. Also relevant for human survival in the future is the living conditions likely to exist during the transition period between now and when a Pliocene situation is “achieved.” [3]

This second point is of extreme importance, for the heat energy being added to the atmosphere asthe CO2 level increases, has repercussions beyond just heating:

1. An increased of storms.

2. An increase in their size (thereby affecting a larger area) (resulting in excessive rain (andtherefore flooding), hail/wind damage, etc.

3. An increase in , and hence unpredictability (making it difficult for farmers to know what to plant).

These facts, combined with that fact that the oceans are becoming , are likely to mean that:

1. Food is likely to become increasingly scarce, causing not only an increase in prices, but an increase in , , and (including ).

2. Storms will cause (including to food crops—via wind, hail, and flooding).

3. Droughts will become more common, and more prolonged, affecting the growing of crops, and making human life more difficult (as the potable water necessary for continuedexistence becomes scarce).

4. Etc.

In short, life may become so difficult for humans during the transition to Pliocene conditions thata severe culling of the human population will occur before such conditions are “achieved”! In fact, Arctic climate scientist , declared: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.” That’s the sort of projection that we certainly don’t want to hear, of course, but given that the ,” it is a projection that needs to be given serious consideration.

In discussing the geological past above, I have used the Pliocene Epoch to compare what did exist in the past with what could exist in our future. I quoted a source that indicated that the ppmlevel during the Pliocene was as high as 415 ppm, but because that level is exceeded in the future(as is indicated on the graph below [4]), the future can be expected to be worse than the Pliocene!

43

In addition, if this is not ominous enough, the release of methane gas into the atmosphere is expected to accelerate, and as this gas is potent asa greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide, this graph can be thought of as underestimating the amount of increase in in the lower atmosphere between now and 2100 CE!

Thus, as the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accelerates, so is temperature increase likely also to accelerate (with its correlates,

mentioned above, such as increasing storminess, also accelerating)!

If the been implemented in the 1980s, our future might look rather different than it does at present. But it wasn’t, and so . . . .

Endnotes

1. Had natural factors been included in the models, the lines would be more “squiggly,” but still would show a .

2. Here is a : “Scientists have come to regard it [the Pliocene] as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.”

3. Of course, given that the CO2 level is likely to continue upward (an assumption of the projectionson the graph presented above), it’s highly likely that Pliocene conditions will be exceeded!

4. Using the “eyeball” method, by 2060 the graph shows a low of about 440 ppm, and a high of about 640 ppm!

44

Correspondence with Paul Piff and Matthew Feinberg

On July 12, 2015, I sent the following to Prof. Paul K. Piff; his response follows:

Dear Dr. Piff,

Given that global warming is of such importance as a problem, I find it surprising that it’s on the mind of so few (but more now, thanks to Pope Francis!). I suspect that a variety of factors are responsible for this, but that psychological factors also play a role.

Because the rich tend to be “full of themselves” (although Trump is full of you know what!), it’s perhaps understandable why global warming is not on their minds. But is it not also possible that(a) many of the poor are “deniers,” in part because of the anti-intellectualism that has characterized our country (Hofstadter), with (b) some of their denial orientation being diverted elsewhere (e.g., to racism)?

If you have done any research I why people ignore/deny the global warming that’s occurring, would you please email copies to me?

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson, Greendale, WI

In case you might be interested: This essay of mine was just posted: This essay of mine was just posted: It discusses another reason why we ignore the global warming problem

Paul Piff <paulpiff@gmail.com>

Hi Alton,

I have not done any work in this vein, but some folks in my lab recently conducted some work that might be relevant: http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Feinberg_Apocalypse%20Soon.pdf

All best,

Paul

45

On July 16, 2015, I then sent this to Dr. Feinberg:

Dear Dr. Feinberg,

In response to an inquiry I made of Paul Piff, he sent me a link to your “” article. It presents an interesting thesis, one that complements the work of deniers—that the claim of global warming is a .

My concern, however, is that for a variety of reasons, including the novel one that you have brought to our attention, we humans have delayed so long in addressing this problem (one that we’ve known about since the late 1930s, via ), that we’ve now reached, and crossed, a critical “tipping point,” so that “runaway” is now occurring. Arctic climate scientist , in fact, writing in 2013, wrote: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.”

Interestingly, Davies makes no reference to the release of methane gas in Arctic regions—a gas far more than CO2—which makes his prediction all the more ominous.

At some point our “leaders” may awaken to the threat posed by global warming, and may initiategeoengineering measures. However, many scientists believe that this would amount to “,” thereby speeding our demise as a species.

I’m glad that I’m old (75), but I have children and grandchildren, and fear mightily for their future!

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson, Ph.D. (1970) Urban Economic Geography, U. of CincinnatiGreendale, WI

P.S. I live in the state that Scott Walker is “governing”—i.e., driving into the ground (including our great university in Madison: “moans and curses”!

46

[Initial draft of the following essay, completed July 15, 2015]

Is a Puppet Master in Control? [1]

Alton C. Thompson

I’ll explain my title here at a later point.

(In this essay I argue—or at these hypothesize—that it seems like human actions, in the grand scheme of things, are, and have been, controlled by a puppet master up there some place; with the intention of that puppet master being to rid Earth of that cancer, the human species!)

As the discussion is oriented, to a degree, to the chart below, let me begin here by commenting on the chart per se.

Starting on the upper left, Ideas are identified as a causative factor, causing both Actions and Inaction (this phenomenon commented upon shortly). The specific Actions of interest here are ones commonly thought of as resulting in “progress,” with the inactions having the effect of maintaining the status quo.

Actions can have various consequences, but theones of interest here are those actions that affectthe Way of Life of a society. “Way of Life” is ageneralized way of describing life in a given society, so that “primitive” peoples had (and still have) a way of life, for example, while we have a way of life that features not only

“primary” activities” (such as agriculture and the extraction of oil), but “secondary” activities (such as manufacturing), and especially “” activities (such as retail, professional, and governmental “services”). In addition, our way of life is highly urban (with urban areas forming a hierarchy, described by geographer , in his ). [2]

The individuals living in a society having a given way of life will have different lifestyles; i.e., individuals can be grouped on the basis of different activity patterns, income differences playing a huge role in causing these differences. The of a society is both a cause and an effect of incomedifferences.

In the figure above I have identified four lifestyles, but that has been done just for illustrative purposes. In actuality, depending on the methodology one uses to identify lifestyle groups, one

47

(In)Action(s)Ideas

Way of Life

lifestyle1 lifestyle2

lifestyle3 lifestylen

may be able to identify any number of such groups. As a way of life develops, the existing lifestyles within the society will change, with the possibility that new lifestyles will be added.

Note that the arrow that I have drawn between (In)Actions and Way of Life points both ways—meaning that actions can result in changes in way of life, but that also one’s way of life has implications for one’s actions. More specifically (a point not illustrated by the figure), one’s lifestyle can be thought of as basically consisting of a certain range of actions, with the income associated with a given lifestyle playing a huge role in affecting one’s actions (e.g., the higher one’s income, the greater the range of activities that one can engage in.

The reason that I have created two arrows emanating from the Way of Life oval to Ideas, each having as its starting point a different lifestyle, is that there are two sorts of ideas of interest for this essay. Let us think of the arrow emanating from Lifestyle1 as representing ideas coming from a person with a certain Lifestyle, with those ideas, in being acted on, resulting in “progressive” change(s). The actions causing the change(s) are, however, likely to be engaged inby a person(s) having a different lifestyle. (There are thinkers, and then there are actors!)

The ideas emanating from a person with Lifestyle3 are assumed to be of a very different nature. Rather than these ideas resulting in actions of a “progressive” nature, they are ideas supportive ofthe status quo. Such ideas may result either in Inaction, or in Action(s) with the intent of preventing change in the status quo. In addition, such ideas are likely to emanate especially fromthose individuals thoroughly “embedded” in the Existing Order, and with a substantial stake in the Existing Order.

Interestingly, just as those who develop “progressive” ideas usually have no idea of the future implications of those ideas, in being acted upon, so those who initiate and/or support ideas of a status quo nature likely are often (usually?!) unaware of the fact that they are supporting inactionbecause change would affect them adversely.

Next, I will identify and discuss some ideas that have commonly been viewed as representing “advances,” but which can be given an entirely different interpretation—as ideas, in being acted on, have been leading our species to the brink. A part of my reason for asking whether human intellectual developments and actions can be perceived as controlled by a puppet master with evilintentions!

Some Intellectual “Advances”

I will state these as a series of points (for a fuller discussion, see pp. 8 – 15 in ):

1. The early religions involved deity, but with deity initially conceived (in rather amorphousterms) as immanent, and only later as transcendent—as a collection of gods (i.e., polytheism). With the ancient Jews, however, monotheism developed—and was touted by many as an “obvious” advance. However, as Eugene Linden has noted in his (1979,

48

p. 84), “Monotheism effectively decontrolled nature, clearing the way for the identification and exploitation of resources that had previously been protected by the sacred mantle of animism.” (Note here that the very use of the word “resource” implies that one unconsciously perceives Earth as an exploitable thing—rather than as something too sacred to “violate.”)

2. The development of alphabetic languages further removed humans, mentally, from their surround. Linden has noted, relative to this, regarding the Chinese language, which uses ideograms rather than letters, that (p. 89) “outfitted with a Western education, a Chinese might design a nuclear reactor; while this same individual, given a traditional Chinese education, might see the world as a series of living analogies and harmonies which wouldprohibit him from understanding, much less designing, a nuclear reactor.” And: (p. 90): “Chinese culture would rather accomplish something than explain it.” “It lacked an abstract, logical language, such as math[ematics] is for Western science, and which permitted the scientific efflorescence of the West.” (p. 91) Claimed Ezra Pound and Ernest Fenollosa (in , 1919), noted Linden, “the world of the ancient ideogram was a forthright, engaged, and processional world with no filter such as the copula which might mediate between the perceiver and his experience.” Such is not the case with English andother Western languages, Linden added.

3. In ’s [1561 - 1626] highly influential (1627), (p. 125) “the conquest of nature is the project of their kingdom.” “has been called the major prophet of the Scientific Revolution,” and this is usually interpreted in a positive light. A that “the project for the domination of nature [promoted by Bacon] is nearing completion. The four-hundred yeartrajectory of the new sciences was launched with studies on the forces and materials that make up the external environment—metals, minerals, energy, and organic compounds. Chemistry was the lead science; by the late eighteenth century its industrial applications were already established, and by the mid-nineteenth century products made using synthetic compounds, for example dyes, were pouring from the factories. Then it was theturn of physics, which dominated the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth; the signature of its mastery is in the discovery and use of atomic energy.”

In short, Bacon’s motive for understanding nature was to gain the ability to dominate, control it. Our modern world would be very different had scientific development not occurred, that development owing much to Bacon’s encouragement. The question of whether or not this was a “good thing” will be answered shortly—in the negative!

4. The development of class/caste systems, in conjunction with the language and intellectualdevelopments that have occurred, have provided the “soil” for ideologies to develop—i.e., modes of thought which divorce one’s mind from the real-world, and are therefore potentially dangerous:

49

a. Religious ones—which assert that the beliefs associated with one’s particular belief system are the only correct, and therefore acceptable, ones, so that one is justified in persecuting those others who hold other beliefs (“heretics”)—even to the point of death (e.g., the ! Naïve me! Here I thought that Jesus taught that one should love the neighbor, not kill him or her—the latter in the case of “witches). There is also here, of course, the case of strange belief systems that seemingly have no basis whatsoever in Reality!

b. Political ones—especially those that espouse the “” view that “society” is not a real unit, being merely a who happen to be living in a certain delimited territory, and who are only connected by an implicit contract. This is an individualistic perspective, involving an concept of society , one that assumes (tacitly, at least) that individual behavior is the result, and only the result, of individual choice-making. “Societal factors” cannot enter the picture as explanatory factors, of course—for the simple reason that societies are mere fictions! A major problem associated with this ideology is that it easily leads to a “” stance—enabling one to do anything but “love the neighbor” in good conscience!

c. Economic ones—and specifically “” ideology. This ideology—initially developedespecially by —is very similar to the previous one in that it “houses” an atomistic concept of society [3] and assumes that one’s behavior is solely a matter of free choice. What this ideology focuses on, however, is economic activities—e.g., the types of “markets” that can exist, how prices are set, etc. Insofar as individuals are involved in this ideology, it is held, e.g., that one will purchase a given good atthe lowest price obtainable, and will receive as one’s income what, and only what,one deserves. Meaning that societies, insofar as they exist, that is, are (a assumption, of course). Given that those who receive little deserve little, one has no obligation to help those in need. In fact, doing so might very well put the Natural Order “out of whack, so that one should avoid helping others!

Members of the lower-middle and lower classes are most often “infected” with a religious ideology, the other two ideologies tending to affect especially those in the upper middle and upper classes.

And Other “Advances”

5. The development of the above-stated notion (regarding serving the common good), in conjunction with developments in technology and (to a lesser extent) science, caused people to search for happiness in areas other than, e.g., human relationships, and they chose (or were they virtually forced, by the New Order that was developing?!) the

50

acquisition of material goods as that which would—they became convinced (!)—give them satisfaction/pleasure.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have written this (in their , 2014, p. xv) [4]:

In a fragmented and atomised society, with status differences augmented by bigger material differences between people, we are inevitably more prone to status anxieties and worries about the impression we create in the minds of others. This feeds directly into consumerism as we try to communicate our ‘worth’ to each other by cloaking ourselves in the symbols of money, status and success. Inequality makes money even more important as a marker of what you are ‘worth’.

Related to this, there is : “Inequality fuels status competition, individualism and consumerism. It makes it harder to gain public support for policies to reduce global warming.” [5]

6. The search for happiness in the consumption of material things caused, in turn, an increase in the demand for consumer products, which demand, in turn, resulted, of course, in an increase in the production of such products. The growing importance of production, in turn, encouraged a search for energy sources for use in the production process, and coal was discovered to “fill the bill” rather well. [6] The increased burning of coal, and, then, later, petroleum products, resulted in an intensified “.” Nature, being a system, has “tried” to fight the changes in Earth System that this intensification entailed, but that fighting may very well turn out to be a losing battle (with our species in a matter of decades, if not years).

7. The ways of life that have been developing over the centuries—involving, e.g., (a) growing interdependencies between firms and people, and (b) a highly concentrated settlement pattern—have been such as to make societal system change in a “better” direction virtually impossible—a fact that should not be taken lightly! Our current societal situation here in the United States is such that I believe (but make no effort to demonstrate here) that virtually all of our current problems—not only as a society, but as a species—are attributable to existing societal institutions and practices (many of the latter being ideology-driven). These have not developed “overnight,” of course, but, rather, have developed over a long period of time—going back to the Agricultural Revolution.

In short, it appears that humans have been inadvertently “digging their own grave”!

Conclusions

To return now to the figure that I introduced at the beginning, various ideas have developed over the centuries (only some of the relevant ones being identified and discussed above) which, in being acted upon have resulted in technological and other developments that have resulted in the introduction of more “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere (our burning of fossil fuels) and

51

reduced the carbon “sink” (deforestation activities), and that concentration has reached a dangerous level—there being only the prospect of an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (with methane increasingly joining carbon dioxide).

Those benefitting from the Existing Order are too short-sighted to recognize the dangers that lie ahead, with many of them engaging in “battle” with those who are “sounding the alarm.” That “battle” consists especially of engaging “scientists” to promote denial. As a result, many members of the public are either ignorant of global warming [7] or have been convinced by the promoters of denial. [8] Thus, there is, and had been, no “groundswell” of support for measures

to combat global warming.

More importantly, perhaps, our leaders () have not been pursuing meaningful solutions for two reasons: [9]

1. Many are puppets of the rich—including those representing the fossil fuel industries—and because of the in this plutocratic country, always decide in favor of the rich and the fossil fuel interests.

2. More subtly, many of them are in thrall to the “free market” ideology,with its “invisible hand” mythology(like the mythical , left). So “possessed” are they by this ideology that they are reluctant to take a firm stand against the fossil fuel interests.We are living in a crazy world, where those most responsible for the plight that we humans are in at

present—along with the fact that our leaders are “gutless” and/or prisoners of mythological ideas—means that those who do have the means to address this problem arenot doing so. And if that’s not bad enough, some are hiring scientists willing to prostitutetheir talents, “proving, beyond question,” that global warming is not occurring!

Those of us not in positions of power or influence, but aware of the threat that global warming poses to our continued existence as a species, are understandably frustrated.

52

Not only do we wonder what we could do—if anything!—to respond to this problem; we, in pondering the question of why our leaders—governmental and corporate—have not been responding to this problem in decisive and meaningful ways difficult, if not impossible, to fathom.

That’s the basis for my stating at the beginning of this essay that “it seems like human actions, in the grand scheme of things, are, and have been, controlled by a puppet master up there some place; with the intention of that puppet master being to rid Earth of that cancer, the human species!”

If you can think of a better explanation, I’d like to know about it! Contact me at: .

Endnotes

1. Dedicated to my friend Mark McKillip—who is a puppet master!

2. Some would identify more than three sectors; e.g., identifies and discusses four.

3. “Liberty!” is the motto of an atomistic society.

4. Alluding here, of course, to Al Gore’s (2006).

5. The authors go on to say: “Rather than believing that consumerism is an unavoidable expressionof human nature which will inevitably prevent us from responding adequately to global warming, we need to recognise that it is a reflection of the social environment created by great inequality and which can be countered by reducing inequality.” I agree!

6. The invention, and then use, of the was highly important here, of course.

7. After all, in reading a newspaper or popular magazine, or in watching television, one learns virtually nothing about global warming—even from those who report the weather!

8. I suspect that the quotation by Wilkinson and Pickett has relevance here, in that those led by ourinegalitarian society to feel “worthless” may gain some measure of self-esteem by “latching on” to, and then asserting to others, that “.”

9. Naomi Klein has referred to as being of an “all of the above” variety! As, that is, lacking in decisiveness. So true!

53

Is a Puppet Master in Charge?11

Alton C. Thompson

When my children are born, I want them to be born into a world where hope and transformation are possible. I want them to be born into a world where stories still havepower. I want them to grow up able to be Heiltsuk in every sense of the word. To practice the customs and understand the identity that has made our people strong for hundreds of generations.

That cannot happen if we do not sustain the integrity of our territory, the lands and waters, and the stewardship practices that link our people to the landscape. On behalf of the young people in my community, I respectfully disagree with the notion that there is any compensation to be made for the loss of our identity, for the loss of our right to beHeiltsuk.12

Can this dream be realized? This essay addresses that question.

(I will explain my title at the end of this essay; please don’t “cheat” by going to the end of the essay now to find out that explanation!)

My purpose in this essay is to offer an explanation of why we humans currently have a problem—a purpose based, of course, on the assumption that we do have such a problem. An assumption, by the way, that I feel no need to defend, : “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 [13] show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities [i.e., are ].”

A useful starting point here is to present quotations that deal with global warming in a sense inverse from my purpose here (which is why the problem is a “hard nut to crack”). The first quotation here provides background to the second:

In a fragmented and atomised society, with status differences augmented by bigger material differences between people, we are inevitably more prone to status anxieties and worries about the impression we create in the minds of others. This feeds directly into consumerism as we try

11 Dedicated to my friend Mark McKillip, who is a puppet master!

12 The words of Jess Housty, quoted in (p. 295) Naomi Klein’s (2014).

13 Here is the footnote from the article: “J. Cook, et al, "," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); .”

54

to communicate our ‘worth’ to each other by cloaking ourselves in the symbols of money, status and success. Inequality makes money even more important as a marker of what you are ‘worth’.14

The :

Inequality fuels status competition, individualism and consumerism. It makes it harder to gain public support for policies to reduce global warming.15

Although the focus of both of these quotations is on the deleterious effects of societal inequality, with the second quotation listing reasons why it is difficult to obtain support for “public policies to reduce” global warming specifically, in effect, at least, the latter quotation in effect asserts thatthe causes of global warming are (a) “status competition,” (b) “individualism, and (c) “consumerism.”

I agree with this list, but regard it as a rather superficial explanation. Granted that the intention of the author(s) was not to discuss global warming per se in detail. Still, given the seriousness ofthe global warming problem, that problem warrants a more detailed explanation, and what I do below is offer an explanation that at least “hits” the major factors (as I see them, at least!) that help us explain why we are faced, today, with the problem of global warming.

Given that a major assumption lying behind the discussion that follows is the interrelatedness of the factors associated with global warming, I begin here with a figure that (1) identifies the majorfactors involved with global warming, and (2) indicates (with arrows) the directions of causation that I perceive. Here, then, is that figure (below):

What this figure “says,” briefly, is that:

1. Some ideas lead to actions, other ideas to inaction (!). The important point here, though, is that ideas do have consequences. For example, Naomi Klein (Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014), in discussing Sir Francis Bacon [1561 – 1626] makes the interesting comment that (p. 149): “These ideas of a completely knowable and controllable earth animated not only the Scientific Revolution but, critically, the colonial project as well, which sent ships crisscrossing the globe to poke and prod and bring the secrets, and wealth, back to their

14 Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, (2014, p. xv). I had made an email inquiry of Dr. Pickett, and she graciously provided me with a link to this work. (The work’s title, of course, alludes, to Al Gore’s , 2006).Wilkinson and Pickett are the authors of (2009, 2010).

15 The authors go on to say: “Rather than believing that consumerism is an unavoidable expression of human nature which will inevitably prevent us from responding adequately to global warming, we need to recognise that it is a reflection of the social environment created by great inequality and which can be countered by reducing inequality.” I agree!—that opinion being given empirical support by the scholars associated with Berkeley’s .

55

respective crowns. The mood of human invincibility that governed this epoch was neatly encapsulatedin the words of clergyman and philosopher [1657 – 1735] in his 1713 book Physico-Theology: ‘Wecan, if need be, ransack the whole globe, penetrate into the bowels ofthe earth, descend to the bottom ofthe deep, travel to the farthest regions of this world, to acquire wealth.’”24

It’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals directly involved

in the Scientific Revolution foresaw their ideas leading to a “colonial project,” but those ideas did so. (I added Derham’s dates, and the link to a discussion of him.)

2. Some actions (but not inactions, of course) result in societal system change, with way-of-life change being an important aspect of societal system change.

I should perhaps note here that “way of life” is a generalized way of describing life in a given society, so that “primitive” peoples had (and still have—where we haven’t yet killed them!) a way of life, for example, while we16 have a way of life that features not only “primary” activities” (such as agriculture and the extraction of oil), but “secondary” activities (such as manufacturing), and especially “” activities (such as retail, professional, and governmental “services”).17 In addition, our way of life is highly urban,with urban areas forming a hierarchy of sorts (described by geographer , in his famous (tosome of us, at least!) ).

3. Finally, the oval for “Way of Life” has within it a series of lifestyles—to indicate the fact that within any given society there are many lifestyles—in a sense, as many as there are (adult) individuals! Realistically, however, groups of lifestyles can be identified in any society,18 the fundamental basis for these groups being the society’s —which is both a cause and an effect of income differences

16 My primary interest in this essay is the United States.

17 Some would identify more than three sectors; e.g., identifies and discusses four.

18 Using an .

56

(In)Action(s)Ideas

Way of Life

lifestyle1 lifestyle2

lifestyle3 lifestylen

Note that two arrows emanate from the way of life oval, one from lifestyle1, the other from lifestyle3. The intent behind this is to “say” that some ideas that are created, and publicized (e.g., those emanating from those in lifestyle1), are found attractive by some members of a society (e.g., the elite, or an emerging elite19), and in being adopted are likely to move the society in a “progressive” direction.

With members of other lifestyle groups, however (ones likely to be more thoroughly “embedded” in the Existing Order than those in the first category—assume those in lifestyle3), the fact of their greater “embeddedness” makes it likely that they will produce “conservative” ideas, such ideas leading to inaction—thereby hindering change away from the status quo. Such ideas are likely to serve the interests of those creating them, with the possibility, though, that those creating and/or adopting them are not consciously aware of that fact.

From time to time I will refer to the above graph, but my primary purpose in presenting it is to convey to the reader the fact of the interrelatedness of phenomena, that interrelatedness being—as we shall see in this essay—an important barrier to addressing the global warming problem.

I have become convinced that an understanding of why we now have a global warming problem is best gained by taking an historical approach. I therefore begin below—expressing my views as a series of points—by identifying, and briefly discussing, some idea developments that have played (I believe) a causal role in the development of the global warming problem:

4. The early religions involved deity, but with deity initially conceived (in rather amorphousterms) as immanent, and only later as transcendent—as a collection of gods (i.e., polytheism). With the ancient Jews, however, monotheism developed—and was touted by many as an “obvious” advance. However, as Eugene Linden has noted in his (1979, p. 84), “Monotheism effectively decontrolled nature, clearing the way for the identification and exploitation of resources that had previously been protected by the sacred mantle of animism.” (Note here that the very use of the word “resource” implies that one unconsciously perceives Earth as an exploitable thing—rather than as something too sacred to “violate.”)

5. The development of alphabetic languages further removed humans, mentally, from their surround. Linden has noted, relative to this, regarding the Chinese language, which uses ideograms rather than letters, that (op. cit., p. 89) “outfitted with a Western education, a Chinese might design a nuclear reactor; while this same individual, given a traditional Chinese education, might see the world as a series of living analogies and harmonies which would prohibit him from understanding, much less designing, a nuclear reactor.”

19 And, therefore, likely to replace the existing elite at some future point in time.

57

And: (p. 90): “Chinese culture would rather accomplish something than explain it.” “It lacked an abstract, logical language, such as math[ematics] is for Western science, and which permitted the scientific efflorescence of the West.” (p. 91) Claimed Ezra Pound and Ernest Fenollosa (in , 1919), noted Linden, “the world of the ancient ideogram was a forthright, engaged, and processional world with no filter such as the copula which might mediate between the perceiver and his experience.” Such is not the case with English andother Western languages, Linden added.

6. In ’s [1561 - 1626] highly influential (1627), (p. 125) “the conquest of nature is the project of their kingdom.” “has been called the major prophet of the Scientific Revolution,” and this is usually interpreted in a positive light. A , however, that “the project for the domination of nature [promoted by Bacon] is nearing completion. The four-hundred year trajectory of the new sciences was launched with studies on the forces and materials that make up the external environment—metals, minerals, energy, and organic compounds. Chemistry was the lead science; by the late eighteenth century its industrial applications were already established, and by the mid-nineteenth century products made using synthetic compounds, for example dyes, were pouring from the factories. Then it was the turn of physics, which dominated the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth; the signature of its mastery is in the discovery and use of atomic energy.”

In short, Bacon’s motive for understanding nature was to gain the ability to dominate, to control it. Our modern world would be very different had scientific development not occurred, that development owing much to Bacon’s encouragement. The question of whether or not this was/is a “good thing” will be answered shortly.

7. If the development and adoption of certain ideas resulted in an intellectual separation of people from their environment, it also resulted in the same sort of separation from other members of the society. This promoted the development of class/caste systems; and this development promoted an increase in societal size (in population terms). In addition, the development of class/caste systems (which involve, of course (!), the exploitation of some by others), in conjunction with the language and intellectual developments that have occurred, provided the “soil” for ideologies to develop—i.e., modes of thought that divorce one’s mind from the real-world, and are, therefore, potentially dangerous when acted upon:

a. Religious ones—which assert that the beliefs associated with one’s particular belief system are the only correct, and therefore acceptable, ones, so that one is justified in persecuting those others who hold other beliefs (“heretics”)—even to the point of death (e.g., the ! Naïve me! Here I thought that Jesus taught that one should the neighbor, not kill him or her—the latter in the case of “witches).

58

There is also here, of course, the case of strange belief systems that seemingly have no basis whatsoever in Reality!

b. Political ones—especially those that espouse the “” view that “society” is not a real unit, being merely a who happen to be living in a certain delimited territory, and who are only connected by an implicit contract. This is an individualistic perspective, involving an concept of society , one that assumes (tacitly, at least) that individual behavior is the result, and only the result, of individual choice-making. “Societal factors” cannot enter the picture as explanatory factors, of course—for the simple reason that societies are mere fictions! A major problem associated with this ideology is that it easily leads to a “” stance—enabling one to do anything but “love the neighbor” in good conscience!

c. Economic ones—and specifically “” ideology. This ideology—initially developedespecially by —is very similar to the previous one in that it “houses” an atomistic concept of society and assumes that one’s behavior is solely a matter of free choice. What this ideology focuses on, however, is economic activities—e.g., the types of “markets” that can exist, how prices are set, etc. Insofar as individuals are involved in this ideology, it is held, e.g., that one will purchase a given good atthe lowest price obtainable, and will receive as one’s income what, and only what,one deserves.20 Meaning that societies, insofar as they exist, that is, (!) are (a assumption, of course). Given that those who receive little deserve little, one has no obligation to help those in need. In fact, doing so might very well put the Natural Order “out of whack, so that one should avoid helping others!

Members of the lower-middle and lower classes are most often “infected” with a religious ideology, the other two ideologies tending to affect especially those in the upper-middle and upper classes.

The important aspect of ideology development, however, is that it reduced —bothfor other humans, and for Earth. This reduction had behavioral implications, of course—both with reference to other humans (and other lifeforms, in fact), and Earth.

8. The above-mentioned intellectual developments (perhaps in conjunction with the development of class/caste social systems) provided a “soil” for technological developments. Especially notable were energy developments that served to reduce the need to use humans and animals as sources of power. The initial developments of this sort were the harnessing of water and wind as energy sources, with the development of being an especially significant development, because it provided a mobile source of energy—’s [1736 – 1819] innovations being of particular importance. Steam engines

20 I should add that Smith’s “” concept .

59

came to be used in factories, on land transportation vehicles (railways especially), and on ships, and changed the physical structure and flow patterns of the world significantly. Not the least of its “accomplishments” was that it produced in people’s minds an “illusionof control,” as (p. 340).

9. When coal came to be used to fuel steam engines, and petroleum later came to be used in a wide variety of applications, the burning of these fossil fuels resulted in the transfer of carbon locked safely below Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, in the form of carbon dioxide, CO2. Because CO2 is a “” gas, this transfer has resulted in an increase in the CO2

content of the atmosphere from about 280 ppm (before the began) to the 402.80 ppm. The result has been global warming; the showing temperature change, for the globe, from 1000 CE to 2000 CE:

Note that the change during this time periodwas rather uneven (with natural factors explaining all of the change until about 1850 CE, of course), but the trend—this being what’s of most importance—now being upward.

The shows global temperature change for a much shorter period—since 1960—so that the recent change in temperature, as depicted on this graph, is much “flatter” than the previous graph. The graph is of especial interest because it makes the point that the “extra” heat energy associated with

global warming has entered not only the land-ice-atmosphere, but the oceans—from the surface to a depth of 700 meters, and from 700 to 2000 meters.

The article from which the latter graph was extracted makes two important points:

a. “, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.”

b. “Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is

60

the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximately 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.”

(Note here the fact that warming is region. This fact is important because the Arctic is .”)

Not only are our burning of fossil fuels and (which are “ reducing”) causing global warming—which in itself is driving us to potential catastrophe—but two factors make our addressing the problem seemingly unlikely—a matter that is also of great importance, of course:

a. The physical structures that our society has acquired in response to the above-listed/discussed causal factors—along with the mentality that supports that structure.

b. Other aspects of the “people” situation.

Because, however, the claim has been made by some that our dependence on fossil fuels could “evaporate” rather quickly, that claim must be given attention first—because of its relevance for point (a.) above.

Naomi Klein (p. 89), for example:

it is now clear that—at least from a technical perspective—it is entirely possible to rapidly switch our energy systems to 100 percent renewables. In 2009, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and Mark A. Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, authored a groundbreaking, detailed road map for “how 100 percent of the world’s energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030.” The plan includes not only power generation but also transportation as well as heating and cooling. Later published in the journalEnergy Policy, the road map is one of several credible studies that have come out in recent years that show how wealthy countries and regions can shift all, or almost all, of their energy infrastructure to renewables within a twenty-to-forty-year time frame.18

And a related argument has been made at length in .

I have two problems with this argument, however:

a. The in this country is not such as to expect any significant actions on the ideas regarding renewables being developed by scientists and technical experts.

b. There’s the ominous possibility that it’s now too late to act—even were the political climate to suddenly become favorable (unlikely!). For example, Arctic climate scientist , said:

61

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

10. Turning now to my claim above that there are two factors that “make our addressing the problem seemingly unlikely: First, the physical structure of societies (such as ours), along with the mentality that supports it—and given the unlikelihood of a quick switchover to renewables occurring—is such that high energy use is a virtual requirementof our modern way of life. This is principally because of the high transportation requirements associated with our way of life:

a. Most of the goods that we consume—and we do consume!—are shipped over long distances, the operation of the transportation vehicles used involving carbon emissions.

b. The housing pattern in many societies—ours most certainly!—is such that owningan automobile or two is a virtual necessity—for going to and from work, for one’sshopping, etc.

c. Finally, the prevailing mentality in this society is such as to strongly resist change in a less energy-intensive direction.

11. Second, there are at least four other “people” problems:

a. Most scientists are rather “conservative,” and not overly willing to share their research findings with the public—especially if they from those unwilling to recognize the severity of the global warming problem! One scientist (—referred to here as a “”!)) even gives Chapter 7 in his book the title “CO2: Dangerous Pollutant or Elixir of Life?” The latter is his answer!

b. The mass media—themselves being large (many of them) corporations— about the global warming threat. (For example, when is the last time the weather reporter who you listen to made mention of global warming?!)

c. Insofar as people do learn about global warming, it is often from “deniers”—someof whom assert that “.”

d. Our “leaders”—political and corporate—have failed to lead because:

62

1) Some are deniers—often because of huge sums of money that they . In addition, if one is an executive in a fossil fuel firm, the fact that one’s livelihood depends on working for such a firm, one will be inclined to defend the activities of fossil fuel firms—a variation of the “.”21

1) The thinking (insofar as any occurs, that is!) of many of them is controlledby “, which cause them to believe that government can only “interfere” (except when are involved!). Naomi Klein seems to have had this in mind (p. 20) “‘all of the above energy’ programs, as U.S. President Barack Obama describes his approach, has about as much chance of success as an all of the above diet, and the firm deadlines imposed by science require that we get very worked up indeed.”

12. Given what I’ve written above, it seems difficult (to me!) to not conclude that human ideas and actions have been guided by a puppet master “out there some place.” A puppet master with evil intentions—that of controlling our thoughts and behavior in a way that will lead to our demise as a species22—thereby ridding Earth of that cancer, the human species!

Personally, I can’t think of a more reasonable explanation—one that explains all of the above facts!

13. Finally, this bit of information from supplied to me recently by Dr. (in response to an email inquiry I made to him):

Though scientific evidence for the existence of global warming continues to mount, in the United States and other countries belief in global warming has stagnated or even decreased in recent years. One possible explanation for this pattern is that information about the potentially dire consequences of global warming threatens deeply held beliefsthat the world is just, orderly, and stable. Individuals overcome this threat by denying ordiscounting the existence of global warming, and this process ultimately results in decreased willingness to counteract climate change.

Is there, then, any basis for hope for the future of our species? What further proof does one needto become convinced that a puppet master is in charge of the strings that control our thoughts andactions—with the purpose of getting rid of our species?!

21 In addition, see by William Rivers Pitt.22 So that we are in the process, in effect, of committing “specieacide”!

63

Activism (discussed, e.g., in ’s Chapter 9, “Blockadia”) may result in halting/preventing extraction activities, but . . . . I would like to believe that we are “built to survive” (Klein, op. cit., p. 381), but . . . .

AUTHOR NOTE: Al, a native Wisconsinite (“Go to Hell, . !”), has a Ph. D. in Urban Economic Geography from the University of Cincinnati, but has been out of academia since 1976. Most recently he was (until July of 2014) employed by an avionics firm in Milwaukee. He may be contacted at .

64

Capitalism That’s the Problem?

Alton C. Thompson

In her (2014), Naomi Klein states:

What is really preventing us from putting out the fire that is threatening to burn down our collective house? I think the answer is far more simple than many have led us to believe: we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis. (p. 16)

By posing climate change as a battle between capitalism and the planet, I am not saying anythingthat we don’t already know. The battle is already under way, but right now capitalism is winning hands down. It wins every time the need for economic growth is used as the excuse for putting off climate action yet again, or for breaking emission reduction commitments already made. (p. 20)

The assertion here that there is a battle “under way” between “capitalism” and “the planet” raisesseveral questions, the first one of which is: What is “capitalism”? Here is :

Capitalism is an and a in which , , and the are largely or entirely . Private firms and proprietorships usually operate in order to generate . . . .

Note here that “capitalism” is an abstract concept; that is, it refers to an “ideal,” one which would be realized to varying degrees of perfection by the real-world societies that adopted it. The reason?: Any given society has a history, with each society developing its own particular culture. That culture would play a key role in shaping how “capitalism,” in a society that decided to adopt it, did so. More accurately, how the society’s elite decided to shape the economy.

That latter fact—that all “civilized” societies are governed by an elite, despite the nominal sort ofgovernance that exists—is highly important, for, e.g., the definitional claim that property in a “capitalist” society is “privately-owned” masks the fact that in any “civilized” society, some individuals will own more than others—with many of those “others” being forced to sell their labor to survive. In addition, groups will form (e.g., corporations in this country) that have far more influence/power than most individuals will have.

Given this fact, the abstract concept of “capitalism” must be judged as ideological; as, that is, favoring the interests of some (those with property) over others (those lacking in property). Because the concept is an ideological one, it is reasonable to conclude that propagation of the

65

concept—whether as “patriotic” or on some other basis—will tend to cause most members of thesociety to accept, and then act upon, the concept—having the result of making the society even more inegalitarian than it was before (as is )! Put another way, the thought control—“”—involved with the capitalist ideology tends to cause many in an ostensibly “capitalist” society to act against their interests, and in favor of members of the elite.

Given that the United States does not have a “capitalist” society, to write—as Klein did—that “right now capitalism is winning hands down,” is to make a literally nonsensical statement.

What Klein should have done is to identify the causal factors that have been, and are, operating within the United States, and then demonstrate their relevance in bringing not only us USans, butus humans, to the brink—because of global warming. Instead, Klein succumbs to glibness. Beyond that, Klein:

1. Never provides any substantial evidence that a “battle” is occurring between (the abstraction) “capitalism” and the planet. The “fact” stated in her subtitle is never developed, and demonstrated, adequately.

2. Her claim that “the answer [to the problem of global warming] is far more simple than many have led us to believe” is one that some scientists would question. For example, Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies would reject such a claim out of hand, given that he : “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.”

What’s notable about Davies’s claim is that it does not identify “capitalism” as a direct cause—or even indirect cause, for that matter—of global warming. Rather, Davies wouldargue that the main reason the human future looks bleak is that humans—Western humans in particular, so far (but now “leads the pack”)—have been burning fossil fuels, thereby increasing the “greenhouse effect,” and thereby causing global warming.

It’s true that there has been less “state” involvement in the economy in the United States than in e.g., China, but that fact does not prove that the U.S. economy is “capitalistic.” After all, the national government does play an important role in the U.S.—and not as a “leveler” but, rather, to !

Insofar, then, as the United States has—relative to other countries in the world—a major responsibility for the “global warming problem,” this is not so much because this country has a (mythical!) capitalistic economy but, rather, because:

1. The country has a class system, with the rich in control of the country: Our country is a plutocracy, and a “republic” only in name.

2. The rich—symbolized well by !—are (as ): “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” They tend to be more than the rest of us, and their control over the economy—along with their lavish spending—makes them far more

66

responsible for the carbon dioxide that the U. S. generates than anyone else in the society.And, given that they seem to have more interest in next quarter’s “bottom line” than the human future, if our species “goes the way of the dinosaurs soon,” the rich in the world—in the U.S. in particular—will be most responsible for this unhappy “event.”

What’s so ironic about the ideological claim that ours is a “capitalistic” society is that it gives capitalism a bad name—implicitly suggesting that it is our (non-existent) capitalism that is “leading us to the brink,” rather than thinking processes and actions of those individuals who runthis—and other—countries!

I, for one, can easily imagine a relatively egalitarian society whose members adopted “capitalistic” principles to “operate” their economy; but because they were motivated by nature (also ), rather than an acquired “nature,” were able to create a society more similar to the second,than the first, model described in my “”—and than the one now existing in the U.S. The sort of society, I might add, that would not be likely to be leading us toward the abyss!

67

A Danger of Blindness

Alton C. Thompson

In referring here to an inability to “see,” I do not mean literal blindness but, rather, the “blindness” associated with one’s perception of reality. For example, “possession” by an ideology tends to make one “blind” in this sense—an “” being:

a set of conscious and which make up one's goals, , and . An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision, meaning that it is a set of standards that are followed by people, government, and/or other groups that is considered the “norm”.

There are political, economic, religious, etc., ideologies, and ideologies have, of course, played an important role in world history.

With Donald Trump dominating the news recently, it has also occurred to me that narcissism—a phenomenon —is another important factor that causes blindness. However, not only is our society becoming increasingly narcissistic; more importantly, the blindness associated with narcissism is likely to be a contributing factor in our demise as a species in a matter of decades, if not years.

Recognition that ours is a narcissistic society goes back at least to (as Prof. Stjepan Mestrovic argues in his (2003). In fact, a section of his Introduction (pp. 3 – 5) is titled “Veblen and the Culture of Narcissism.” Mestrovic argues that (p. 7) Veblen claimed, e.g., that “the self-made man (or woman) [prized as a highly important part of our mythology] is a narcissist, and is compelled to become a narcissist by institutional forces beyond his or her control.” (Note the “compelled.”)

Although Veblen himself never used the word “narcissism,” did in his (1979), of which it has been said:

The book proposes that since , post-war America has produced a consistent with clinical definitions of “pathological narcissism.” This pathology is not akin to everyday —a hedonistic egoism—but rather a very weak sense of self requiring constant external validation. For Lasch, “pathology represents a heightened version of normality.”[3] Lasch locates symptoms of this personality-disorder in the radical political movements of the 1960s (such as the ), as well as in the and movements of the 1970s, from to . Behaviors such as , theatrical illusion in contemporary drama, and a fascination with are evidence of long-term personality disintegration.[4]

The more recent (2010) , states (in a by its authors), first, in characterizing narcissism:

68

Narcissism means having an inflated or grandiose sense of self. A narcissist thinks she is special, unique, and entitled to better treatment than others. Narcissists aren’t particularly interested in warmth and caring in their relationships. They might enjoy being around people—and certainly can be charming, flattering, exciting and likable—but they are in relationships for their own narcissistic needs. Narcissists also spend a good deal of their time and energy doing things to make themselves look and feel good and pumping up their egos. A narcissist might brag, turn allconversations back to himself, try to associate only with important people, want to have the bestand newest of everything, or steal credit from others. When things don't go his way, the narcissist might get angry or even violent. Narcissists can be fun to be around in the short term, but awful to work for or be in a close relationship with in the long term.

They state that their book:

covers a broad range of cultural symptoms, including increases in materialism, entitlement, public violence and aggression, self-promotion, and the desire for uniqueness.

And also assert that “Some degree of self-promotion is more necessary now than it was in the past.” And that “narcissism is fairly resistant to change.” (Note this latter point!)

A states (p. 366) that “Parental coldness may contribute to an insecure sense of self.” And additional causes of narcissism are . What I find of particular interest, however, is the insidious nature of some of the causation—discussed well by Dr. Jim Taylor in . Dr. Taylor state, for example:

It's not surprising to see a rise in narcissism in this generation given that young people are being bombarded by these messages through every form of media including recent technological advancements such as celebrity web sites and social networking sites. suggests that social media websites, such as Facebook, are receptacles of narcissism because it gives young people outlets for sharing the trivial and gaining attention. Additionally, simply the time spent immersed in technology has likely done its part to promote narcissism.

Talk about unintended consequences!

Narcissism blinds the individual afflicted with it, and is blinding an increasing number of our youth. This blindness has a number of undesirable consequences, but the one that I would emphasize is that (a) it is blinding not just narcissists such as Donald Trump, but (b) an increasing portion of our population—a (c) result being that so many in our society are so preoccupied with their own lives that they have no “clue” regarding the fact that our actions, as they impact Earth, are likely to have the important consequence of terminating our species “shortly.” I am now inclined to believe that narcissism—being “resistant to change”—may be playing an even more important role than ideology in bringing about the demise of our species!

Alton C. Thompson

69

An important phenomenon today is the growth of narcissism. As one writer :

found that 30 percent of young people were classified as narcissistic according to a widely used psychological test. That number has doubled in the last 30 years. reported a 40-percent declineamong young people in empathy, a personality attribute inversely related to narcissism, since the 1980s.

And:

that was just published explored the changes in music lyrics over the past three decades. The researchers found a significant shift toward lyrics that reflect narcissism ("I" and "me" appear more often "we" and "us") and hostility (change from positive to angry words and emotions). And these findings aren't just due to the increased popularity and influence of hip-hop music (which is known for its aggrandizement of the artists and its venom), but rather are evident across musical genres.

And you don't need to go far to collect your own data on narcissism. Do these names ring a bell:Charlie Sheen, Terrell Owens and Kanye West? [Today, I would add ’s name to the list!]

What is narcissism? Here are :

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a form of pathological narcissism, first diagnosed by thepsychoanalyst , in 1968. A rigid pattern of behaviour that drives a lifelong quest for self-gratification, NPD is characterised by a grandiose sense of self-importance, an insatiable need forattention and a chronic lack of empathy. [Link added.]

Today, experts believe disproportionate numbers of pathological narcissists are at work in the most influential reaches of society. As Sam Vaknin, author of , a bestselling study of narcissism, says: “Narcissists gravitate towards professions where they can control people and elicit adulation. They are more likely to work in politics, finance or medicine than in shoemaking.” [Link added.]

[Narcissism] is not easily discernible to the untrained eye, partly because a degree of self-love is essentially healthy: it protects us from self-harm; it enables us to form support networks, to finda mate and procreate. NPD, however, is not simply a healthy self-regard gone astray.

A more comprehensive list of possible traits of a narcissist is :

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance.

2. A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. A belief that he or she is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

70

4. A requirement for excessive admiration.

5. A sense of entitlement – unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

6. Interpersonal exploitativeness–taking advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

7. A lack of empathy and an unwillingness to recognise or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

8. Enviousness of others–along with the belief that others are envious of him or her.

9. A tendency to arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes.

Why does one become a narcissist (i.e., have at least five of the above traits)? Following is :

Narcissistic traits are quite common in adolescence but this does not necessarily mean that the child will go on to become a narcissist. Research has found the diagnosis of narcissism to be significantly more common among men. Faulty or inadequate parenting, for example a lack of limit setting, is believed to be a major cause, and both permissive and authoritarian styles of parenting have been found to promote narcissistic symptoms. The following parenting behaviorsmay result in a child becoming a narcissist in adulthood:

Permissive parents who give excessive praise to the child, thus fostering an unrealistic view of themselves.

Overindulgence and spoiling by parents.

Failing to impose adequate discipline.

Idealization of the child.

The same author adds:

Many people, including many psychologists, believe that narcissism is a product of our times andour system of values. In the western world in particular, we are constantly bombarded by images of the ideal through the media, this may contribute to the rapid growth of narcissism in society.

Certainly NPD is thriving in western societies. Increased materialism, the decline of community life and a fascination with image afford perfect conditions for its growth. Similarly, our culture increasingly celebrates attention-seeking behaviours.

Related to this, :

71

One obvious place where young people are learning about narcissism is from popular culture. A by the celebrity psychiatrist Dr. , in which 200 “celebrities” (I put the word in quotes because the bar for being considered a celebrity is set very low these days) completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, found that they were significantly more narcissistic than the general population. Interestingly, the celebrities who actually had a talent, such as musicians, tended to be less narcissistic. Guess who were the most self-absorbed celebrities? Female reality TV stars!Not surprising that those celebrities who were famous for being famous were the most narcissistic; their narcissism drove them to become celebrities. [Link added.]

And:

suggests that social media websites, such as Facebook, are receptacles of narcissism because it gives young people outlets for sharing the trivial and gaining attention. Additionally, simply the time spent immersed in technology has likely done its part to promote narcissism.

Thus, it appears that one’s upbringing plays a role, with societal developments playing an increasing role.

* * * * * * * *

The question in effect posed by my title is: Does the Bible support narcissistic behavior? And it is now time to “get down to the business” that prompted this essay in the first place. In doing so,I have chosen to use verses 4 – 7 of I Corinthians 13 (written by ) as my “baseline” for commenting on narcissism:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Lovedoes not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

This brief passage lists 15 traits that Paul regarded as desirable (or undesirable), with my comments relative to each following below. I have created four categories from this passage by Paul:

1. Love is:a. Patient—A narcissist is unlikely to be relaxed enough

b. Kind—If a narcissist engages in kind behavior, it is likely to not be out of a feeling of empathy for the person on whom kindness is bestowed but, rather, with the purpose of causing others to admire him or her, and make this admiration known to him/her.

2. Love:

72

c. Rejoices with the Truth—A narcissist tends to have no commitment to truth; the “facts” that s/he uses for self-promotion purposes are as likely to be falsifications as genuine truths.

d. Protects—What the narcissist seeks to protect is his or her own ego!

e. Trusts—The narcissist tends to be distrustful of others, seeing others as competitors rather than live human beings.

f. Hopes—The narcissist mainly hopes for his or her advancement, but not only hopes for it but actively works to achieve it.

g. Perseveres—The narcissist perseveres in trying to reach the top of the ladder (or totem pole, if you wish). Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is an example! Fortunately, “has his number”!

3. Love is not:

h. Envious—Envy is perhaps the key motivating factor for a narcissist!

i. Boastful—The narcissist tends to be boastful—as a result of !

j. Prideful—Insofar as the narcissist feels pride, this stems from a sense of inferiority!

k. Self-seeking—If the narcissist is anything, it is being self-seeking! The problem withthis behavior, however, is that the narcissist is so little “in touch” with himself/herself,that s/he doesn’t really know what would be best for him or her!

l. Easily angered—The narcissist may not express anger, but his/her negative emotions are always “just below the surface.”

4. Love does not:

m. Dishonor others—In advancing himself or herself, he narcissist may very well “tear others down” as a means of “building himself/herself up.”

n. Keep a record of wrongs done to one—The narcissist is likely to be sensitive to perceived wrongs directed his/her way, and may remember them—with the intention of “getting back” at the offending party at a later date.

o. Delight in evil—In striving to climb “to the top of the heap,” the narcissist may very well “step on the toes of others,” at times actually destroying the reputations of others, for example.

73

From the above discussion, it should be clear that narcissism is in no way supported by the Bible! What makes this fact so ironic is that many in our society claim that the United States is, and has always been, a “Christian” nation.

Our past genocide committed against Native Americans, involvement with slavery, meddling in the affairs of other societies (chronicled well by ), and our increasing movement in the direction of narcissism, however, make a lie of that (ridiculous) claim!

Of course, if one thinks of Christianity in terms (which I certainly don’t!), one may very well reach different conclusions regarding the question of whether narcissism is, or is not, consistent with the Bible!

74

Why is Being First Best?

Alton C. Thompson

We want everyone to know immediately that the Ebionites are not Christians or messianics. Jesus of Nazareth is/was not the messiah, a savior, or part of a godhead. Thinking so is evil and blasphemy. His teachings do not constitute a new or different wayto God. It is our goal to show that Judaism is the religion of God, and that worshiping Jesus is a grave sin, but also there is no historically legitimate reason for Christianity. Christian religion was never the intention of Jesus. We see Christianity as a horribly evil religion. We are not a “church” or competing movement within Judaism. Contact a localnon-messianic synagogue for regular guidance and worship. Our view regarding theology is based on historical Jesus studies. Jesus is dead.

The above is taken from this web site: . On the home page of another Ebionite web site () we find this: “Unless you are an Ebionite (A Poor One To The Way Of This World) You Cannot be aDisciple of Yeshua/Jesus.” Just above that statement we find this: “The Ebionites are the Original And Genuine People of the New Covenant.”

The second site in particular asserts that the Ebionites were the original disciples of Jesus, implying, thereby, that only those today who are Ebionites can claim to be the “true” followers ofJesus. The first site adds that “there is no historically legitimate reason for Christianity. Christian religion was never the intention of Jesus. We see Christianity as a horribly evil religion.”

How should those of us raised in Christianity respond to the above statements?

My first response is that Lutheran pastor ü tz, in his (2005) refers (p. 131) to the book (1973), edited by A. F. J. Klijn, which lists five Jewish-Christian groups: , , (also ), , and Symmachians. Given that there were at least five Jewish-Christian groups in the early years after Jesus’s departure, what basis do today’s Ebionites have to claim that their version of “Jesuanism” is the one and only authentic one? (I used “Jesuanism” rather than “Christianity” in recognition of the fact that not all of the early followers of Jesus perceived him as the —i.e., the .)

Today’s Ebionites are not the only people to insist that original “Jesuanism” is the only authentic“Jesuanism”—so that those today who call themselves “Christians,” but are not Ebionites, are in effect “.” , a professor at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, authored in 2008, about which book it has been said:

75

Restoring Abrahamic Faith attempts to set forth in a clear and engaging style an exposition of the ancient Hebrew Faith as revealed in the Hebrew Bible, with a particularemphasis on Abraham, Moses, the Torah, and the Prophets. Restoring Abrahamic Faith offers a compelling proposal for the 21st century, namely a return to the “ancient paths” of the Hebrew faith with Abraham, the first Hebrew, as a prime model

I should add that Tabor’s orientation to origins is also indicated by the fact that he is the leader ofthe .

The question that I have (and it is a rhetorical one!) is: In religion (as but one example), why must we be guided by—governed by, in fact!—origins?

I have two problems in particular with such “governance”:

1. Origins may be difficult to know with any degree of certainty. In the case of Jesus, for example, the about Jesus helps explain the vast number of , each presenting a different perspective on Jesus. Given the lack of solid information regarding Jesus—including the matter of non -existence!—any religion that declares that it is based on “facts” about Jesusbases it on quicksand!

2. My title here—“Why is Being First Best?—is also a rhetorical question! After all:

a. Did not the (and in the process, did not the of God also evolve!)? And as this occurred, is it not likely that with each new development there was resistance—with some in effect regarding the new development as “heretical”? But that eventually, the new development became accepted, and became the new “orthodoxy”?!

b. Jesus grew up in a Jewish society, but the canonical gospels portray him as havingproblems with the Judaism of his time and place (the being an example). In effect, then, Jesus became a “heretic” so far as the Jewish leaders of his society were concerned—but modern Christians do not so regard him!

c. Of Jesus’s early followers, one was Paul of Tarsus. And although some regard Paul as the “ (!) within the emerging Christianity, Christianity as we know it today(all of it having descended from the “) owes more to Paul’s ideas than to those of Jesus (!); and the of Paul dominate the Christian New Testament.

d. Etc.

My point here is—and not just in religion—that “yesterday’s heresy is often today’s orthodoxy.” When new ideas are generated and proclaimed, they are often resisted—but eventually may be adopted, to become the new orthodoxy. This is a point that one should keep in mind when one

76

learns of efforts to restore “the good old days”—whether on the basis of supposed authenticity (Ebionism), Abrahamic Faith (Dr. Tabor), or some other criterion.

When exposed to claims that restoration is necessary (to be “true” to something in the past), I recommend that one recognize that the old is not necessarily the best. Rather, I would argue, what’s “best” is what:

Has continuity with the past, while

Interpreting the past in a way that has relevance—for today.

I agree with those others who have been raised in Christianity, and who perceive problems in Christianity—such as its reliance on “facts” about Jesus that lack a solid empirical basis. My solution to this problem—as one for whom the Christian Bible has always been an important book—is to regard it as a work of literature rather than as a book that reports historical facts (among other possibilities—such as poetry, proverbs, etc.). Specifically, I have learned to perceive the Bible as a source of important ideas, and I identify and discuss what I regard as the Bible’s important ideas in (pp. 8 – 37) my For ?)

I have then used those ideas, in conjunction with my perceptions of what is needed in a religion at present, to create a new religion, NeWFism, discussed, from different perspectives, in the following:

ture

For details about NeWFism, see one or more of the above eBooks; briefly, NeWFism has two primary distinguishing characteristics:

1. It has no theology.23

2. It has no clergy—and, therefore, no !

3. Its orientation is to discussion rather than lecturing/listening to lectures.

For those of us raised in Christianity—or any of the “Abrahamic” religions, for that matter!—NeWFism is, therefore, a peculiar religion, I will admit. I, however, perceive it as a part of the Tradition in which both Judaism and Christianity (and perhaps Islam, as well) can be located, for:

Its values have a Biblical basis.

23 I does not follow from this that individual NeWFians can’t have theologies, only that NeWFism per se has none. The reason: Theologies create barriers, and the “” command in the Bible demands that one establish no barriers between oneself and “the neighbor.”

77

Given that those of us living in the United States (and some other societies) supposedly live in a democratic society (actually, one with a governmental system)—but one that iscratic—the NeWF (for New Word Fellowship) provides members with an opportunity to “speak one’s mind” and engage in true democratic decision-making.

Given NeWFism’s underlying assumption that everyone is important, that everyone has “something to say,” NeWFism is a religion that views clergy as an obstacle, rather than asa source of enlightenment!

Unfortunately, NeWFism exists so far—so far as I am aware, that is—only “on paper”: “circumstances”—such as my personality!—have militated against me initiating the religion. If, however, any reader of this essay finds the new religion attractive, to the point of wanting to initiate a NeWF, that person is welcome to do so.

If someone(s) does do so, please keep me informed regarding how your efforts are “going,” however. My email address is .

78

Today I (July 28, 2015), I received this email from Bill Sharp:

Hi Al

Pardon the delay in getting back to you, it’s been a busy month and I've just gotten a chance to take a quick read of your attached paper. I see we have covered a lot of the same ground. [I had made a comment on the School of Living web site—and had attached one of my essays, but don’t now know which one.]

The School of Living board just voted to grant me expenses to visit the Borsodiarchives in New Hampshire so next year I plan to start another series of articles about Borsodi and getting into some practical issues. I also hope to visit another set of archives, from Mildred Loomis' School of Living project in Ohio that are stored at the University of Illinois.

Are you familiar with Clifford Simak who grew up in Grant County WI and wrote, invented, a pastorial science fiction? I have always found his stories a compelling model of life on the land. Of course he solved many of the galaxy'sproblems in that remote corner of Wisconsin, a tiny place (which he greatly fictionalized) call Millville.

After I get to the Chicago archives I will be headed for Taliesen and Millville. Ireally love that stretch along the Wisconsin River.

I would love to hear more from you. My personal email is .

Bill

I then sent Bill this:

No, I have not heard of him.

I should admit that my primary interest is religion, and the attached (which I just sent off for possible posting) not only illustrates that fact, but contains links to sever of my eBooks on religion.

Please keep in touch!

Al Thompson

and attached my “Why is Being First Best?,” which I had just sent to Bruce at the Religious Tolerance web site for possible posting.

79

Religion the Basic Problem?

Alton C. Thompson

If this earth should ever be destroyed, it will be by desire, by the lust of pleasure and self-gratification, by greed of the green frog skin [i.e., money], by people who are mindful of their own self, forgetting about the wants of others.

This [1903 – 1976], a , was amazingly prescient. For we humans are currently in deep trouble—because of the global warming that is occurring. The direct reasons for why this problem exists are:

The fact that the level of concentration in the atmosphere parts per million (ppm—the !)—as compared with prior to the Industrial Revolution. Two factors explain this rise:

Our burning of fossil fuels—which involves the transfer of carbon from below theearth’s surface to the lower atmosphere, where it then increases the “”—resulting, thereby, in the warming of the lower atmosphere.

Deforestation activities—which reduce the “” (trees being an important absorber of the CO2 emitted by human activities.

Peter Gleick has made these about the 400 ppm level:

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).

Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).

The Arctic was ice free.

Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.

Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

And much more: As : “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

80

As warming has been occurring, has been melting, releasing methane gas—which is .

Warming also causes the melting of ice and snow, thereby exposing surfaces that will absorb, rather than reflect, solar rays, thereby heating the ground and, thereby, the lower atmosphere! That’s a reason why it is said, by some, that global warming is a “process that feeds on itself”!

There are no signs that the human activities that are causing global warming will cease in the foreseeable future.

Even if those activities did cease “soon,” warming would continue for a long period, because the “excess” greenhouse gas level in the atmosphere .

There is the danger of reaching, and then crossing, a “,” after which there is r“” (i.e., a rapid increase). This possibility presents humans with at least two problems:

The change is likely to be so rapid that we will not be able to halt it—via .

There’s the possibility that it’s now too late to halt further warming. In fact, Arctic climate scientist :

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

Given that the Arctic is today’s “,” this statement should be given serious consideration.

Now if Dr. Davies is correct, and our species is doomed, there would seem to be little point in asking—and then providing an answer to—the question: “What did we do wrong to reach this sad point in time?” In fact, it would seem that most questions that we might ask—to say nothing of the activities that we should, or should not, engage in—are pointless! However, for those whoare, nevertheless, curious about the matter, I offer the following explanation.

Briefly: We have a faulty religion—referring here specifically to Christianity, in its various forms—and our acting on the basis of that religion has led us to our current dangerous—deadly?!—situation. (By “acting” I am referring not only to physical actions, but the development of ideas, ideologies, etc.)

81

It will be useful to begin here with a concept of religion much better than Christianity—“better” in that acting on this concept is likely to result in better inter-personal relationships, and a better relationship with Earth. Because of the latter, it is not—like Christianity—a dangerous religion!

The concept that I quote below is one authored by , an important Native American. The quote is from his [2008]. Here’s (The “wetiko” psychosis is e):

Religion is, in reality, living. Our religion is not what we profess, or what we say, or what we proclaim; our religion is what we do, what we desire, what we seek, what we dream about, whatwe fantasize, what we think—all these things—twenty-four hours a day. One’s religion, then, is one’s life, not merely the ideal life[,] but the life as it is actually lived.

Religion is not prayer, it is not a church, it is not theistic, it is not atheistic, it has little to do with what white people call “religion.” It is our every act. If we tromp on a bug, that is our religion; if we experiment on living animals, that is our religion; if we cheat at cards, that is our religion; if we dream of being famous, that is our religion; if we are rude and aggressive, that is our religion.All that we do, and are, is our religion.

When I read the above passage, what came to my mind was the canonical gospels—Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John—which, in turn, reminded me of the fact that Christianity is a really strange religion: Strange in that the gospels seemingly suggest that Jesus:

Had as his primary goal telling people—e.g., via parables—that what “being religious” should mean is being a “good” person—following the love command, in particular.

Didn’t believe in “religions” (!), and had no desire that a “religion” be created in his name.

It has been said—with accuracy—that the religion of Jesus became a religion about him. That is,for the Jesus of the canonical gospels “religion” was about living a certain way, not creating institutions, buildings for meetings, with meetings consisting of a sermon, rituals, etc. It is perfectly understandable, then, why Richard Hagenston recently (2014) published a book titled . (This is not to say, however, that I agree with Hagenston’s view of Jesus.)

Although for many who attend Christian churches, proper behavior (i.e., orthopraxy) is important, the dominant thrust of most branches of Christianity is, and has been, proper belief (i.e., orthodoxy). This orientation to belief has:

Created barriers between those with one set of beliefs and others with another—and different—set of beliefs. As a consequence of this emphasis on proper belief, “Christians” have felt duty-bound to persecute—even to the point of death!—those having beliefs not conforming to those regarded as “acceptable.” In the process, the “love” command has “gone out the window”!

82

Resulted in the creation of societies with ways of life in which some are able to exploit others in good conscience, which ways of life, as they become increasingly removed from Nature, result in the exploitation of Nature as well.

Tragically, we humans—led especially by residents of the United States—have “exploited” Nature, and Nature may soon get its revenge. If the elements in the Lame Deer list in my epigraph become the direct causes of our demise as a species, those causes may very well have their basis in Christianity. Had Christianity developed using the canonical gospels as its “Bible” (!), our situation today would likely be very different!! But it didn’t, and so . . . .

83

We Are Doomed! An Historical Explanation

Alton C. Thompson

The “theory” presented below has the purpose of explaining why our species is doomed (as a “victim” of global warming, specifically), using an historical argument—the sort of argument that I deem most appropriate for my subject matter. A basic assumption underlying the theory is that occurrences in the West—in the United States in particular—have been most important as causes of our demise as a species.

I present my “theory” as a series of points, the points themselves referring to just those developments that I regard as key:

1. As a society becomes more urban and industrial (in response to ,24 for example), the society’s individuals become more isolated, with the household become the society’s basic social unit.

2. As a society’s individuals become increasingly isolated, they become increasingly individualistic; that is, they become increasingly concerned with their own welfare (and that of the members of their household), and increasingly less concerned about the welfare of non-household members.

3. With the arrival in the society of a () “” concept,25 if one were aware of the “theory,” and were “successful,” the “theory” made one feel special, because “fit.” One also perceives a natural operating such that, within a society, the “successful” are necessarily “fit,” because the operation of the “law” guarantees that the “fit,” and only them, will be successful.

4. From this “law” one can also infer26 not only that the unsuccessful are not fit, but that (a) one has no obligation to help those who are unsuccessful, and that, because a “law” is governing human affairs, for the societal system’s sake one should not help the unsuccessful: Doing so might not only (!), but might .

24 Once technological developments begin, a process seems to be set in motion such that further refinements, and the development of new technologies, become virtually inevitable. And as technological changes/developments occur, societal changes tend to follow, again, virtually inevitably.

25 The concept “survival of the fittest” has its basis in ’s “” concept. However, the term did not appear inDarwin’s On the Origin of Species until the of that book. (See p. I in for further information about this.)

26 In, specifically, what came to be called “.”

84

5. The survival of the fittest “philosophy” promotes narcissism27 in the “successful,” one result of that being that the “successful” become even less likely to engage in help for theunsuccessful.

6. Over time, the proportion of the population “unfit”/unsuccessful grows, and also becomesmore concentrated geographically.

7. Within some in that group there grows a desire for a “savior.”

8. Given that (per Richard Altemeyer28) potential followers must exist before leaders can arise to “lead” them, there is now a human situation that is conducive to the emergence ofleaders of that group.29

9. The institutional situation then existing—the presence of many organizations, and hierarchies of organizations—is also conducive for the rise of “leaders” of this group.

(I should add here that societal factors other than the institutional situation also contributeto increasing narcissism in our society: Here is an of relevance:

27 Some : “Narcissism means having an inflated or grandiose sense of self. A narcissist thinks she is special, unique, and entitled to better treatment than others. Narcissists aren’t particularly interested in warmth and caring in their relationships. They might enjoy being around people—and certainly can be charming, flattering, exciting and likable—but they are in relationships for their own narcissistic needs. Narcissists also spend a good deal of their time and energy doing things to make themselves look and feel good and pumping up their egos. A narcissist might brag, turn all conversations back to himself, try to associate only with important people, want to have the best and newest of everything, or steal credit from others. When things don't go his way, the narcissist might get angry or even violent. Narcissists can be fun to be around in the short term, but awful to work for or be in a close relationship with in the long term.” A narcissist may be “nice,” but is rarely “good.” For an excellent discussion of the difference.

I should add this : “a prime characteristic of narcissists is believing that they are always right no matter what, [so that] narcissists are extremely resistant to change and, unfortunately, tend to get worseas they get older.” And: “In their imaginations, they are complete unto themselves, perfect and not in need of anything anyone else can give them.”

28 See his (2006). This eBook was written at the , of fame.

29 A point that needs to be made is that all those who obtain power abuse it: “It’s clear that having the power to tell others what to do, to be in a position that automatically commands respect, is addictive. So it’s no surprise that sometimes, it can get to people’s heads. This doesn’t mean that power corrupts absolutely [alluding here to ], but it can mean very different things to different people.” Also : “This isn’tto say that everyone is bound to let power get to their head. There are several historical leaders who, when given a position of authority, were able to accomplish what many view as great strides. Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Queen Elizabeth I, and so on. Then there are the oneswho lived up to the infamy of tyranny–who used their influence to the advancement of their own desires, often to the detriment of others.”

85

It's not surprising to see a rise in narcissism in this generation given that young people are being bombarded by these messages through every form of media including recent technological advancements such as celebrity web sites and social networking sites. suggests that social media websites, such as Facebook, are receptacles of narcissism because it gives young people outlets for sharing the trivial and gaining attention. Additionally, simply the time spent immersed in technology has likely done its part to promote narcissism. All of the time absorbed in screens has reduced the amount of actual human (i.e., face-to-face) contact that children have, thus depriving them of the experiences needed to develop essential social skills, such as empathy, compassion, and consideration for others, which counter narcissism.

Here's the truly disturbing part: How can children these days avoid being infected with this "disease" when, thanks to the wired world they live in, the majority of messages they receive venerate and encourage narcissism?

The self-esteem movement and the recent shift toward "hyper-parenting" have also likely contributed to this increase in self-adoration. Though the specific causes of narcissism have not been confirmed, have identified a number of child-rearing risk factors including: 1) being praisedfor innate qualities such as physical appearance, intelligence, or other abilities; 2) praise that is inconsistent with reality; 3) extreme rewards for good behavior and undue criticism or punishment for bad behavior; 4) being spoiled and excessively indulged by parents; and 5) parents whose self-esteem is overly invested in their children achievements. Additionally, children who are born with a sensitive temperament are more vulnerable to these parenting approaches.

In addition to the unsettling rise in narcissism among our children, perhaps a greater concern is that our culture now seems to not only accept, but also promote narcissism as the norm. Certainly, the shift in societal values away from collectivism and toward individualism, away fromcivic responsibility and toward self-gratification, and away from meaningful contributions to society and toward personal success (as defined by wealth, power, celebrity, and status) have also contributed to the cultural messages of narcissism in which children are presently immersed.)

I would only add to this presentation that the aspects of “bad parenting” listed above may themselves be a result of the societal trend that seems now to be occurring in an increasingly narcissistic direction.

10. The leaders that do arise are likely to be narcissistic authoritarians.30

11. Those with the most intelligence, favorable personalities, etc. (and “connections”!) are most likely to rise the “highest” in the society’s institutional structure.

30 The late (d. 2009) Joanna M. Ashmun had stated (in a highly detailed discussion of narcissism) that “Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian.” Although I am by no means a psychologist, a more reasonable position, it seems to me, is that although authoritarians are always narcissists, not all narcissists are authoritarians. (Perhaps some in the latter category would like to be authoritarians, but are unable to become so because of lacking “connections,” having the “wrong” other personality characteristics, etc.

86

12. In a world within which global warming is a growing threat, this is a dangerous situation:

The narcissistic part of a leader makes the person uninterested in either other people or in Earth. Thus, the person tends to pay little or no attention to those views of experts (such as Dr. ) of which s/he might be aware.

The authoritarian part of a leader makes the person over-confident. Thus, even ifthe person does become aware of implications of human activities as they impact Earth (which impacts may then, in turn, have implications for humans), the leader is so over-confident that s/he can “fix” things that s/he:

Ignores the suggestions of experts; or

May fail to realize that it might be too late to act against the global warming that is occurring.

13. As a consequence, the leader may:

Simply not act (believing that action is not necessary).

May act, but:

Do so foolishly (e.g., initiate ).

Act, but too late. (After all, Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, : “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because ofa massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly.” And ecologist Guy R. McPherson, writing even earlier (2012), : “As I , I concluded in 2002 that we had set into motion climate-change processes likely to cause our own extinction by 2030.”

It appears, then, that our continued survival, as humans, is “not in the cards”!31 With this situation being different only had urbanization-industrialization not occurred! (I recognize that this last statement is simplistic, but do believe that urban-industrial development is a major,32 if not sole, reason that our species is doomed.

31 A concluded by saying: “[The] findings [of the research reported here] suggest that more attention needs to be given to the social and psychological motivations as to why individuals erect barriers to their personal commitment to climate change mitigation, even when professing anxiety over climate futures.” My (rhetorical!) question: “What would be the point of such research, given that our species is on the road to extinction? How would such research contribute to the survival of our species (by somehow resulting in global warming being halted?”!

87

Besides, although I have written a number of eBooks, I (a) rarely get the inspiration to write one,and (b) had I developed this essay into an eBook, Guy would not have posted it, because he doesn’t post eBooks on his web site!

The title of my essay has “an Historical Explanation” for a reason: I had no intention to give the historical explanation!

32 Yesterday I wrote an essay—“Is Our Religion the Basic Problem?—in which I argued that the rise of Christianity as a major religion was the main reason why we humans are now doomed! I have sent if off to the web site (on which a number of my essays are posted—e.g., ) for possible posting, but won’t know for a while if it will be. You may ask—“Why can’t you make up your mind about why we are ultimately doomed?”—but I don’t know how to answer that question. Perhaps, though, the explanation is that I have a —or simply lack a mind!

88

Alton C. Thompson

To continue with the question posed by my title:

1. Recognizing Problem X, but not recognizing the problem’s degree of seriousness, and making announcements of one’s knowledge/research findings that lull those who hear or read them into a sense of complacency.

2. Recognizing Problem X, even recognizing its seriousness, but being unwilling to convey what one knows about the problem to others.

3. Not recognizing Problem X.

The problem to which I am referring here is, of course, global warming (which some prefer to call “climate change”—and I once termed “ (TAD),” but have since abandoned, as a term that is a tad cumbersome). And what motivated this essay is my reaction to environmental organizations, along with weather reporting on television.

Let me begin here with some statements from environmental organizations:

KA‘ANAPALI, MAUI — In a galvanizing call-to-action, hundreds gathered yesterday outside of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to put out a global kahea (call) to stop the corporate assault on people and planet. The TPP is part of the TPP-TISA-TTIP mega-treaty package, which aim to lock-in international rules designed for andby the largest corporations and banks. At least four hundred people took part in a unified sounding of the pū (Hawaiian conch shell), setting a new world record that will be officially submitted to Guinness Records. Event organizer Trinette Furtado said that inblowing the pū, “we are putting out a mighty kahea (call), past the shorelines of Maui, toconnect with others standing up for their 'āina (land) and people.

The Obama administration recently gave conditional approval to Shell's plans to drill in Arctic waters despite overwhelming risks to Arctic communities, wildlife and our climate.

It’s not too late. But we need to make our voices heard now.

After a public outcry, President Obama showed climate leadership in vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline bill. Now, we need to make sure he hears us again — loud and clear: No Arctic Drilling!

89

Ask President Obama and the Department of the Interior to show climate leadership and protect the Arctic by rescinding Shell's Arctic drilling lease.

On June 18th, Pope Francis joined the moral call in the by saying:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels … needs to be progressively replaced without delay”

Pope Francis is crystal clear that the current development model based on the intensive use of coal, oil and even natural gas, must end. In its place we need renewable energy options and new modes of production and consumption that combat global warming. This is precisely what a growing movement of students, faith communities, socially responsible investors and everydaycitizens are calling on individuals and private and public institutions to do: Divest their money from fossil fuels and invest it in climate solutions like wind, solar, and energy efficiency.

In the words of the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, “Investing in fossil fuel companies and in eco-destructive projects is synonymous with supporting the destruction of our future. Divestment provides the means to change this status quo–to shift towards a system that will prioritize the welfare of the people and of nature over the relentless pursuit of profit.”

Many leaders have responded, with institutions like the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, The Church of England, the World Council of Churches and recently the World Lutheran Federation committing to fossil fuel divestment. In June, the University of Dayton became the first Catholic University to divest.

The tide is turning. Now it’s time to divest the Vatican.

Let’s ask Pope Francis to make divestment part of his moral argument.

Sign the petition

As indispensable to The Nature Conservancy’s success as our unifying mission, vision, goals and measures are our unique values—the distinguishing attributes that characterize how we conductourselves in our drive for tangible, lasting results. These attributes are not mere platitudes but deeply held convictions universally manifested by all who represent The Nature Conservancy.

Integrity Beyond Reproach:We will meet the highest ethical and professional standards in all of our organizational endeavors and, in doing so, we hold ourselves accountable to our mission and to the public.

Be honest at all times

Be accountable to each other, to the mission, to our donors, members, partners, and to the public ()

90

Earn trust by building relationships, being competent, and following through on all of our commitments

Respect for People, Communities, and Cultures:Enduring conservation success depends on the and partners whose lives and livelihoods are linked to the natural systems we seek to conserve. We respect the needs, values and traditions of local communities and cultures, and we forge relationships based on mutual benefit and trust.

Demonstrate respect by committing to local, on the ground involvement with people, communities and cultures, and with awareness and sensitivity to their economic realities

Treat our partners and colleagues with fairness and honesty

Work collaboratively with all sectors of society, including indigenous people, to develop practical conservation solutions.

Commitment to Diversity:We recognize that conservation is best advanced by the leadership and contributions of men andwomen of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and cultures. We will recruit and mentor staff to create an inclusive organization that reflects our global character.

Respect and be open to a variety of viewpoints and diversity of thought

Work in an environment that encourages each of us to achieve our potential and values the contributions of all

Expand and strengthen the diversity of our workforce, trustee base, and boardy

I chose the above quotations at random, and would therefore assume that each represents its “home” organization reasonably fairly. In commenting on the quotations I would say:

Although each of the four organizations is an environmental one, none of the quotations makes reference to the most important environmental problem facing us today, global warming (except that global warming is implicit in “.350.org” per se, and in the quotation’s reference to the pope’s encyclical).

I ask: Of what significance is it that “At least four hundred people took part in a unified sounding of the pū (Hawaiian conch shell) . . . .”? Also, does not the fact that this sets “a new world record that will be officially submitted to Guinness Records” indicate that the values of those engaged in this “sounding” are basically the same as those against whom they were protesting?!. How is that good?!

91

Granted that drilling oil in the Arctic would be tragic. But how will letting “our voices heard now” about this matter help anything? Is wrong in declaring as probable that our species will be extinct by 2030 CE? If you believe he is wrong, present me with a reasoned argument that demonstrates that he is!

If the Vatican has not divested, as requested by the .350.org organization (presumably it hasn’t), that makes Pope Francis a hypocrite—given that he has the authority to do so, I assume.

The Nature Conservancy trumpets its integrity; respect for people, communities, and cultures; and its commitment to diversity. The quotation gives no recognition, however, to the fact that our species is “going down the tubes;” given this, what is the value of theirintegrity, etc.? (A rhetorical question, obviously!)

What we have, then, with these four quotations (and the organizations that created them?!) is:

Actions of an inconsequential nature.

A claim that it’s not “too late” to act—when it probably is!

An effort to change the actions of some others.

A pile of “fluff”—!

One gains no sense, from any of the above four quotations, that the organizations involved are aware of the seriousness of global warming—the (a) likelihood that it’s now too late to halt, or even slow down, global warming; the (b) likelihood that if geoengineering measures are initiated,their unintended consequences may be disastrous; and (c) the high probability that extinction appears to be what’s “in the cards” for us humans in a matter of decades, even years.

As to those who report the weather on television, I assume that most of them have degrees in Meteorology (and in their course work learned about global warming), and have done some “outside” reading in the global warming literature as well—enough such reading to know, e.g., that extinctions are occurring at t rapid rate now (i.e., we are now in a period of the “”). Given that our continued existence as a species is dependent on the existence of other species (along with atmospheric conditions favorable to our continued survival), those who report on the weather on television should know not only that global warming is occurring, but threatens our continued existence as a species.

Yet here in Milwaukee (I live in a Milwaukee suburb), I don’t recall hearing a reporter of the weather ever—i.e., EVER!—making a reference to global warming—and I assume that the sameis true in other parts of the country.

To return now to the three questions that I posed at the beginning of this essay:

92

I assume that virtually all environmental organizations recognize that global warming is occurring. None of them, however, seems to recognize the seriousness of the problem. Isthere a psychological explanation of this? If they are denial about this, why is that so?

Insofar as reporters of the weather are aware of the fact that global warming is occurring, and even (in some cases, at least) aware of its seriousness, in not reporting on global warming they make themselves intellectual prostitutes!

Because television stations are businesses, dependent on advertising for their existence, it’s possible that station managers have ordered their weather reporters not to mention global warming—fearing that doing so would result in them losing advertisers. But if that’s the case—and a given weather reporter knows about global warming and still does not report about it—that reporter lacks in integrity—for anyone with integrity would quit such a job.

As a consequence of the mass media failing to report about global warming, a large portion of the population either (a) has not heard about global warming or (b) has heard about it, but (c) in some cases has become convinced that .”

What we have, then, is a situation where:

Most environmental organizations lack an awareness of the seriousness of global warming.

People learn little or nothing about global warming from the mass media.

What one may learn about global warming (that it’s a scam) is wrong.

Needless to say, this is not a good situation to be in! In a sense, though, none of this matters because it is reasonably clear that our species is on the road to extinction, and nothing can be done to prevent this from happening! It’s just too late to do anything of significance.

93

Sport Hunting As Ominous Symbol

Alton C. Thompson

Sport hunting (as well as sport fishing, of course) is a symbol of why our species is in deep trouble at present. I would add that the reactions of many people to the that has been reported on recently indicates the pitiful level of relevant thinking occurring at present—with both the media and “ordinary” individuals here in the United States (with, however, ).

The killing of animals by our distant ancestors—prior to the Agricultural Revolution (the , per one scholar)—was for the purpose of obtaining food for survival. Typically, the killing was (so far as we are able to know) was accompanied by feelings of guilt, and those feelings prompted our ancestors to create, and engage in, rituals designed to purge, from their minds, the sense that they had committed a “sin.”

What underlay the sense that a “sin” had been committed was the conviction—held tacitly—that Earth, and all for which it was “home,” was sacred. Being sacred, the implication was that any human activities that changed Earth (except in a “minor” way) had desecrated Earth (e.g., the carvings on the Black Hills), and, therefore, needed to be atoned for.

Thus, anyone raised in a group holding (tacitly) such beliefs grew up “knowing” that one does not harm Earth, except out of necessity; and when one does any harm to Earth (e.g., by killing ananimal for food), one must then atone for that “sin.”

Evidently it was during the course of the Agricultural Revolution that those involved in that Revolution began to lose their sense that Earth was sacred. This occurred especially with those in the urban areas that were developing—because one’s residence, as well as one’s activities, increasingly removed one physically and mentally from Earth. And although rural dwellers had close physical contact with Earth residentially, their activities—differing from their previous activities of gathering and hunting—tended, increasingly, to remove them mentally from their surround, thereby also alienating them, mentally, from the surround. For both urban and rural dwellers, then, Earth became, increasingly, something alien, a mere thing.

Our distant ancestors could not have understood this (except implicitly), but their thought patterns and activities protected them from Earth! What do I mean in asserting this?

In the baseball game that we humans have been playing over the millennia, one fact stands out asof decisive importance: Nature Bats Last, as . This is a fact that one ignores at one’s peril! There exists the ominous possibility that it’s now the bottom half of the 9th inning, the bases are loaded, and Nature hits a game-winning home run!

94

After all, we are living in the period of the , 150 – 200 species , with the strong possibility that .

Unfortunately, we humans—in the West particularly (led by us USans)—have, for some time now—and especially since the Industrial Revolution—been ignoring this basic principle. As —in the mind of USan diplomat and philologist [1801 – 1882]—some Westerners have sensed thatour disrespect for Earth would bring us trouble eventually. And since then—especially in recent decades—research findings have been accumulating regarding the facts that (a) global warming is occurring, and that (b) it has, and will be, increasingly, causing problems for us humans. But Marsh’s thoughts, and research findings of relevance by climate scientists, have received little notice. As a result, many have failed to realize that although at least some actions by humans result from conscious decision-making, the “actions” of Earth are governed . . . by physical laws.

Ironically, Earth’s lawful responses to our activities can be, from our standpoint, awful—both in the sense of awe-full (i.e., awe-inspiring) and terrible! In fact, Arctic climate scientist that: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.”

Sport hunting is disrespectful of Earth and its “children,” but is just one example of disrespectfulness relative to Earth on our part. It is, however, an excellent symbol of what’s wrong with our civilization.

Beginning with the Industrial Revolution—with its raping of Earth via coal and iron mining, etc.—a process was initiated that has now “gifted” us with our current problem of global warming. And because developments over the centuries have increasingly alienated us from Earth mentally, we became—until recently— increasingly oblivious to the fact that our species is in danger . . . from Earth!

Many have now awakened to this danger. What’s truly unfortunate, however, is that this awakening may be “too little, too late”—so that it may now be impossible to “save” ourselves.

Let us hope, though, that that’s not the case, and that actions will be undertaken soon—by both public and private parties—that will result in our “salvation”!

95

APPENDIX: Narcissism and AuthoritarianismLet me begin here by listing the sources that I used in creating the chart below. Where I believe that a trait of narcissism is identical—or virtually so—to a trait of authoritarianism, I have placedthe two bits of information in the same row. (I may have made a few errors in doing so.)

A question that I have is: How many of the traits listed below does one need to have to be considered a narcissist or authoritarian? Not being a psychologist, I will not hazard a guess as to what the correct answer might be. It should be obvious, however, that real-world individuals vary in the (a) degree to which they are either narcissistic or authoritarian, as well as the (b) degree to which they have both traits.

For Narcissism:

(The author of this article, the late Joanna M. Ashmun, 1948 – 2009, stated in another article that “Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian. In other words, they are suck-ups.” Sheseemed, therefore, to define “authoritarian” especially in terms of point 9 in the second column below. More generally, however, the two traits have little in common—a fact that Ashmun did not seem to realize.)

For Authoritarianism:

Narcissism Authoritarianism1. Strives for security and dominance in

social hierarchies (the latter in particular)

2. Opposes societal equality3. Is intimidating to others, including

followers4. Demands absolute obedience from

others (followers in particular)1. Is argumentative 5. Is bullying

6. Is mean-spirited, pitiless7. Is vengeful8. Is manipulative9. Will tell others what they want to hear

2. Their “ideas of themselves and the world don't change with experience”

10. Is not open to experience

3. Is resistant to change—a tendency that 11. Is resistant to change

96

worsens with age12. Creates a false image of self to “sell”

oneself to others (e.g., potential followers)

4. “They're pretty good at maintaining a conventional persona in superficial associations with people who mean absolutely nothing to them, and they'll flatter the hell out of you if you have something they can use or if, for some reason, they perceive you as an authority figure. That is, as long as theythink you don't count or they're afraid of you, they'll treat you well enough that you may mistake it for love.” “. Once they know you are emotionally attached to them, they expect to be able to use you like an appliance and shove you around like a piece of furniture.”

13. Will not hesitate to take advantage of “suckers” (which is how followers are perceived)

14. Is somewhat hedonistic15. Is amoral

5. They “feel that the rules (of anything) don't apply to them, and they will always cut corners and cheat wherever they think they can get away with it, notto mention alienating co-workers, clients, and customers by their arrogance, lies, malice, and off-the-wallgriping.”

16. As an example: Is dishonest—e.g., willcheat to win in a competition with others

17. Is prejudiced (racist, sexist, and/or homophobic)

18. Tends to be “aggressive toward sanctioned targeted minority groups”

19. Is militant20. Is nationalistic

6. Tends to believe s/he is always right7. Tends to be arrogant, conceited8. Is selfish9. Tends to lack empathy10. Tends to be out of touch11. Has an inability to pay attention when

others are talking12. Tend to borrow “facts” about their lives

from others perceived as authorities (people they know, or have known)

13. Tend to be (like ) transfixed by a static

97

fantasy image of themselves—which produces “an odd kind of stillness and passivity”

14. They don’t talk about their inner life15. “They don't share their thoughts or

feelings or dreams”16. “They seem not to make typical

memory associations” (i.e. “this reminds me . . . .”)

17. They “are unable or unwilling to trust either the world or other people to meet their needs”

18. Their chronic “depression gets to be obvious at least by their forties but may have always been present. Depressed narcissists blame the world, of course, and not themselves for their personal disappointments.”

19. Narcissists “have made the terrible choice33 not to love. In their imaginations, they are complete unto themselves, perfect and not in need of anything anyone else can give them.”

20. “Their lives are impoverished and sterile; the price they pay for their golden fantasies is high: they'll never share a dream for two.”

21. You “can get along with narcissists by treating them as infants: you give them whatever they want or need whenever they ask and do not expect any reciprocation at all, do not expect them to show the slightest interest in you or your life (or even in why you're bothering with them at all), do not expect them to be able to do anything that you need or want, do not expect them to apologize or make amends or show any consideration for your feelings, do not expect them to take ordinary responsibility in any way.”

22. Narcissists “never outgrow their demands for dedicated attention to theirinfantile needs 168 hours a week.”

23. “Babies love you back, but adult

33 Has it actually been a choice? I doubt it!

98

narcissists are like vampires: they will take all you can give while giving nothing back, then curse you for running dry and discard you as a waste of their precious time.”

24. “In their hearts, they know they can't think well, have no judgment about what matters, are not connected with the world they inhabit, so they cling fanatically to the opinions of people they regard as authority figures—such as their parents, teachers, doctors, ministers.” “If they get in trouble over some or another opinion they've put forth, they'll blame the source . . . .”

25. Their “personalities aren’t organized in a way that makes sense to most people .. . .”

99

Authoritarianism and NarcissismAlton C. Thompson

Following is a briefer discussion than is given in the previous essay; again, it will not be sent out for possible posting.

Authoritarianism

A. What the authoritarian seeks (but not necessarily consciously):

1. Personal power!

B. Personal traits:

1. Is against equality (of course!). Wants to live in a hierarchical society, one that provides opportunities for exercising personal power.

2. Is amoral/dishonest. For example, will cheat to “get ahead.”

3. Will tell others what he thinks they want to hear (as another means of “getting ahead”).

4. Is prejudiced (regarding race, sexual orientation, etc.): By putting others down, one rises above them!

5. Is somewhat hedonistic.

6. Is militant—likes order.

7. Is nationalistic (militaristic as well?).

C. How s/he relates to others:

1. Is oriented to dominating others:

a. Given that s/he tends to be mean-spirited, will try to intimidate, bully others.

b. Will “use” others, regarding those “used” as “suckers.”

c. If “crossed,” will seek vengeance—and can be pitiless in doing so.

2. May, rather—or in addition—present a false self to others as a means of “getting ahead.” This is related to point (B.3.) above, of course.

100

Narcissism

A. Personal traits:

1. Has an inflated sense of self-importance.

2. Has a sense of entitlement.

3. Tends to be envious of others.

B. How s/he relates to others:

1. Seeks attention (the “limelight”).

2. Tends to lack empathy for others.

3. Tends to be arrogant.

4. Tends to be exploitative.

5. May spend a great deal of time on social media, so that s/he has minimal contact with others (which helps explain his/her lack of empathy for others. Point B.2.).

101

My Rationale for NeWFism

Alton C. Thompson

[After writing the first draft of this essay, I happened to be in our living room, and our younger daughter had just turned Netflix on, and was looking for a movie to watch. I noticed, on the television screen, a movie (a documentary, it turned out: ) that featured Italian cyclist (1914 – 2000), and I suggested that we watch it—which we then did.

Bartali was part of the during World War II, and—along with others (especially priests, nuns, bishops, etc., of the in Italy)—helped save numerous (perhaps 00!) Jews, although the Italian record regarding this appears to be somewhat of a “.”

Watching this documentary was not a pleasant experience, and I often found tears welling up in my eyes. But not so much as a result of the monstrous actions engaged in by the German Nazis (and Italian Fascists) against Italian Jews, as a result of the risky, heroic actions to save Jews engaged in by Bartali and others.

“” has seemingly been—ironically—ceaseless since the beginning of “civilized” living, and it’s highly likely that a variety of factors explain it. One would like to think that Western religions would have been able to—and would have—countered the forces causing that inhumanity to man, but this has not occurred to any important degree. Why not? My answer is that Western religions have developed an orientation to proper belief (orthodoxy), rather than proper behavior (orthopraxy), and such an orientation has allowed—and even encouraged?!—the exploitation and killing that has occurred over the centuries. In addition, the structure of Western religions has been a contributing factor.

NeWFism,34 I believe, is a religion that avoids the problems associated with most Western religions. It has:

1. No theology—which tends to act as a barrier and, thus, a cause of conflict. In not having a theology, a NeWFian is free to believe in (or not) God, and afterlife, etc.

2. No clergy—and, therefore, no clergy abuse!

3. No sacred book (i.e., Scripture—because it is a forward- rather than backward-looking religion.

34 For a rather thorough discussion, see my (2013).

102

My purpose in this essay is not so much to describe NeWFism (which is done in the eBook to which a link is provided in footnote 1) as to try to indicate how it came to be and how I would justify it. I do so as a series of points, below.]

1. My creation of NeWFism resulted, I believe, from:

a. The fact that I was raised in Christianity—two denominations of it,35 in fact.

b. In the process, the Bible became an important book for me.

c. Recognizing, as I was growing up, that one’s denominational affiliation was not correlated significantly with the kind of person one was.

d. My reading in the religious literature—regarding Christianity in particular. ElainePagels’s (1979) was of especial importance.

e. A growing conviction that what’s needed is a religion that is relevant—for our time and our society.

f. Processes occurring in my unconscious mind “worked” on the above, and the result was NeWFism (whose central institution was first called a Kingdom of GodFellowship, then New Word Fellowship, then Structured Interaction Group, with areturn, then, to New Word Fellowship, NeWF).

2. For whatever reasons,36 I came to perceive the Bible as primarily espousing rules for rightliving.

3. Given that I (along with , and ) came to perceive the “love of neighbor” command as the central one,37 in reading the Bible I paid attention primarily to those passages that stated this directly or indirectly (the parable, the story of the ), and “passed over” other commands.

35 Assembly of God and Conservative Baptist—my parents having both been raised in a Lutheran church that my ancestors had helped establish in .

36 Because of being “in touch” with my nature as a human being?

37 Likely because, as I learned several years ago, we humans, qua humans, are “. Also, see the work of the , such as Dacher Keltner’s (2009).

103

4. I have come to perceive the Bible not as a source of historical facts, but as a work of literature38—for the former orientation:

a. Implies that beliefs are what is important (rather than behavior).

b. The fact that people will vary in their beliefs will lead to conflict between “believers.”

c. That conflict violates the love of neighbor command.

5. Because the books in the Bible developed over a long period of time, many of the ideas contained in the book are out of date and inappropriate for today. Therefore, it should notbe used as Scripture. In fact, no book should be used as Scripture! Our own minds, collectively, should be our authority.39

6. Given that respect for others—all of whom are initially strangers—must precede love for others (people one knows, necessarily), and that meeting and interacting with others is necessary for getting to know them:

a. One way of getting to know others is through formal meetings.

b. Meetings established in accordance with the law of love must be open to all; an invitation to attend must be made to all, so that those who do attend have chosen so to do.

c. To maximize attendance, it must be made clear that there are no belief or other requirements for attendance. That, rather, the only requirement is that one follow the rules that have been established for meetings.

For example, one can, if one wishes, as a NeWFian, believe that Jesus was “, but one need not do so.

d. Meetings must feature discussions rather than lectures, for only discussions will help attendees get to know one another.

e. Any given meeting will have a leader, that leader chosen at random from among attendees. This means that the leader will, of necessity, be “unprepared;” s/he is encouraged to say whatever is one her or his mind—which is likely to be some sort of problem being faced by the leader, or by an acquaintance of the leader.

38 However, I am not interested in studying it as literature—in the manner of, e.g., Leonard L. Thompson’s (1978).

39 After all, the individuals who created the books which comprise the Bible, for example, produced those books using their minds (but often received inspiration in writing what they did).

104

The discussion that ensues, then, may result in resolution of that problem—and have as a side effect increased bonding among those present.

f. It is expected that as people get to know one another, they will not only respect the others attending, but get to love them—and that the loving disposition that they develop as a consequence of attending meetings will “spill over” to their relationships with everyone with whom they come in contact.

7. The only justification for a religious organization is that is designed to help people become, and become more, loving. I believe that the design of the NeWF is consistent with that principle.

In brief, then, the above is what NeWFism is “about,” and how it came into being. Peace!

105

How NeWFism Came to Be

Alton C. Thompson

As I reflect on how NeWFism came to be born in my mind, I realize that I likely cannot identify all of the factors that were involved. The following three factors all seem, however, to have beenimportant factors.

First, I was raised in Christianity,40 and cannot imagine that I would have created NeWFism had that not been the case. Especially while in my teen years, however, I began to sense a “disconnect” between what I read in the Bible and what I observed during church meetings—but was not able to articulate what I was sensing. In later years, however, I encountered the following statements:

of Jesus became, with Christianity a religion (merely) about him.

Christianity conquered the world, and in the process world conquered Christianity.41

“Is Christianity, as it has come to be practiced for close to two millennia, in fact based on a heresy? And is the ‘heresy’ of Jewish Christianity in fact the original orthodoxy?”42

Statements like these helped me recognize that modern Christianity departs substantially from the original Christianity—that of the various Jewish Christian groups. In coming to realize this Iwas not drawn to (also ), for example, any more than I was drawn to modern Christianity (exceptfor Quakerism—see eBook 8 in the above list of my eBooks); elements of the Bible continued tohave strong appeal for me, though (see pp. 8 – 37 in my For?).

I must add here, however, that although my being raised in Christianity was decisive for me creating NeWFism, and that much of the discussion that follows here makes reference to Christianity, NeWFism itself is not a new denomination of Christianity but is, rather, a new

40 When I was born, my parents (who had both been raised in a Norwegian Lutheran church that my ancestors had helped establish) were members of an Assembly of God church. When I reached my teen years, my parents (for reasons of which I am not aware) left that church for a Conservative Baptist churchin a nearby community. Thus, I was raised in these two churches.

41 Peter Eckler, in his Publisher’s Preface to Edward Gibbon’s (1883) stated (p. xvi): “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Paganism corrupted Christianity.”

42 Jeffrey J. Bütz, (2005), p. 139. For Bütz (an ordained Lutheran pastor), these are rhetorical questions!Earlier in the book (p. 131), Bütz listed five Jewish Christian groups: , , (also ), , and Symmachians (pp 52 – 54).

106

religion. In that I perceive NeWFism as continuing a Tradition, however (see, e.g., items 6 and 9on the above list of eBooks), one can, if one wishes, think of NeWFism as superseding Christianity! As being more authentically a part of that Tradition than Christianity has been!

Second, in learning about , I felt a strong affinity for it—these statements by , for example:

We all come from the same root, but the leaves are all different.

Listen to the air. You can hear it, feel it, smell it, taste it. Woniya wakan, the holy air, which renews all by its breath. Woniya wakan, spirit, life, breath, renewal, it means all that. We sit together, don’t touch, but something is there, we feel it between us as a presence. A good way to start thinking about nature is to talk to it, talk to the rivers, to the lakes, to the winds, as to our relatives.

To our way of thinking the Indians' symbol is the circle, the hoop. Nature wants to be round. The bodies of human beings and animals have no corners. With us, the circle stands for togetherness of people who sit with one another around the campfire, relatives and friends united in peace while the sacred pipe passes from hand to hand. To us this is beautiful and fitting, symbol and reality at the same time, expressing the harmony of life and nature.

Also, this statement by , an important Native American. The quote is from his [2008]. Here’s (The “wetiko” psychosis referred to in his subtitle is e):

Religion is, in reality, living. Our religion is not what we profess, or what we say, or what we proclaim; our religion is what we do, what we desire, what we seek, what we dream about, whatwe fantasize, what we think—all these things—twenty-four hours a day. One’s religion, then, is one’s life, not merely the ideal life[,] but the life as it is actually lived.

Religion is not prayer, it is not a church, it is not theistic, it is not atheistic, it has little to do with what white people call “religion.” It is our every act. If we tromp on a bug, that is our religion; if we experiment on living animals, that is our religion; if we cheat at cards, that is our religion; if

107

we dream of being famous, that is our religion; if we are rude and aggressive, that is our religion.All that we do, and are, is our religion.

I suspect that the reason that I felt this strong affinity to the thoughts of Native Americans is that I was raised in a rural/small-town environment in south-central Wisconsin ( and ), and in my childhood had a great deal of close contact with Nature.

Third, my reading of Elaine Pagels’s (1979) led me to an encounter with a Marcus, a student of (c100 – c160). On pp. 41 -42 of her book we find this:

If Christians criticized the development of church hierarchy, how could they themselves form a social organization? If they rejected the principle of rank, insisting that all are equal, how could they even hold a meeting? Irenaeus tells us about the practice of one group that he knows from his own congregation in —the group led by Marcus, a disciple of Valentinus'. Every member of the group had been initiated: this meant that everyone had been "released" from the 's power. For this reason, they dared to meet without the authority of the bishop, whom they regarded as the demiurge's spokesman— himself! Second, every initiate was assumed to have received, through the initiation ritual, the charismatic gift of direct inspiration through the Holy Spirit. How did members of this circle of "pneumatics" (literally, "those who are spiritual") conduct their meetings? Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of priest; another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction.

The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually. This practice effectively created a very different structure of authority. At atime when the orthodox Christians increasingly discriminated between clergy and laity, this group of gnostic Christians demonstrated that, among themselves, they refused to acknowledge such distinctions. Instead of ranking their members into superior and inferior "orders" within a hierarchy, they followed the principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as priest, bishop, or prophet. Furthermore, because they cast lots at each meeting, even the distinctions established by lot could never become permanent "ranks." Finally— most important—they intended, through this practice, to remove the element of human choice. A twentieth-century observer might assume that the gnostics left these matters to random chance, but the gnostics saw it differently. They believed that since God directs everything in the universe, the way the lots fell expressed his choice.

(I added the links in the above.)

I was so impressed by this passage that I was motivated to create NeWFism—which involves just a slight modification of the practices introduced centuries ago by a Marcus!

Thus, to say that I created NeWFism is to claim far too much, I freely admit!

108

109

The Other Type of Abortion?Alton C. Thompson

abortion involves, according to a dictionary, “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.” Stated more generally, however, it can be said that abortion involves the voluntary termination of a potential life—a potential human life, in particular.

This here-and-now concept of abortion is not the only possible concept of abortion, however. As we peer into the future, and recognize that it’s unlikely that there will be any live humans on Earth by 2050, for example, there arises the possibility that abortion is occurring on a specietal scale right now.

That is, at present, and for decades (if not more) now, we humans have been engaging in certain activities that virtually guarantee our extinction as a species by 2050 CE—or even , asserts Guy McPherson!

Ignoring here the possibility of thermonuclear destruction (and other unpleasant possibilities that we cannot foresee at present), the following three activities pose a threat to our continued existence as a species:

1. Our continued burning of fossil fuels (which have been increasing the “greenhouse gas” content of the atmosphere—).

2. Our deforestation activities (which reduce the amount of available).

3. A reproduction rate greater than a “replacement” one. (The current—i.e., for the period 2010–15—estimate for the “under the UN’s medium variant model is 1.1 daughters per woman.” That is, the NRR is slightly higher than the replacement rate at present.44

Does this mean that we humans are, and have been, engaging voluntary abortion on a species-wide scale?

My short answer: NO!

Why not? The above three activities have not necessarily been engaged in on a voluntary basis:

1. We humans have developed societal systems that, to an important degree, have a life of their own. That is, once you start burning fossils fuels you start finding more and more uses for them, societal changes result, those changes themselves create a demand for increased fossil fuel usage, etc., etc. Thus, people find themselves having a way of life

44 “” is a related problem. For an extended, if somewhat old (1982), discussion of the subject, see William R. Catton, Jr.’s .

110

that requires them to become direct and indirect fossil fuel users (and “sink” removers)—so that to refer to their activities as voluntary is to show ignorance of the total situation within which people exist.

2. Reproduction rates are probably attributable more to involuntary passion than to conscious choice.

Should learning that our current predicament is not one that we chose (basically) make us happy?Of course not!

Why, then, are most not walking around with long faces? Why isn’t the suicide rate far higher than it is? Etc.?

The answer, of course, is that few in the world are aware of the strong possibility that our speciesis headed for oblivion:

1. Here in Milwaukee the Bucks professional basketball team is —which will be the “centerpiece of vibrant sports and entertainment district” that will provide entertainment for locals far into the future, its owners claim—showing no awareness whatsoever of our current precarious situation as a species.

2. This type of phenomenon is repeated over and over again throughout the country—the names change, but the same obliviousness remains.

3. In watching television, reading the local newspaper or mass magazine, etc., one rarely hear any mention of global warming/climate change. For example, those who report the weather talk about the wild fire phenomenon in the U. S. West, but never attribute unusual weather conditions, and their consequences (such as wild fires) to global warming.

It’s been said that “ignorance is bliss,” and in the short-run that may be true. But he who lives byclichés will surely die by them as well—in the long run.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, what we humans are doing now does not warrant the label “specietal abortion”—for conscious choice is involved in our imminent demise to just a slight degree.

I wish, however, that those who claim to value life, but only mean by this that they oppose abortion in the conventional sense, would adopt a broader view, and realize that just as the killingof one lion is rather inconsequential in the larger scheme of things (see !), so is abortion in the conventional sense.

111

In my student days I learned that ours is the most intelligent of all species. As I’ve grown older (I’m now 75), however, I’ve come to realize that the direction in which we have developed our intelligence is a major factor explaining why the days of our species are numbered.

One can make the seemingly reasonable argument that had our leaders recognized where our species was headed no later than the 1980s, and then acted decisively to avert future catastrophe, our species would not be in trouble now. Looking back, however, it’s foolish to accept the “had”in the previous sentence as having any degree of realism.

In other words, my perspective on world history is such that I see our demise, as a species, as inevitable. (:

112

NeWFism

Alton C. Thompson

In a number of eBooks I have described NeWFism from different perspectives:

1. (2007)

2. (2011)

3. (2011)

4. (2013)

5. (2014)

6. (2014)

7. (2014)

8. (2014)

9. (2015)

In the present essay, however, my focus is on justifying, providing a rationale for, the fundamental features of NeWFism. Before doing so, though, I would like to make four points:

1. I believe that a religion should be relevant for its time and place.

2. I believe that a religion should help its adherents become increasingly mature. (See , for example.)

3.

4. As a consequence of that belief, we need to recognize the threat posed to our species by global warming—so that the “salvation” of special relevance today is salvation from extinction46 caused by global warming (which, in turn, is caused by us!—i.e., is ). (Giventhe seriousness of this threat, I make some brief comments about global warming in the second section.)

46 Whether this is even possible is open to question—a point given attention in the “Global Warming” section below.

113

5. Of necessity, I think as a modern Westerner. As Keith Hopkins noted several years ago, “We read ancient sources [such as the Bible] with modern minds.”47 In addition, however, I am a modern Westerner who has been strongly influenced by my exposure to Christianity, the Christian Bible, and scholarly work pertaining to both.

6. An aspect of my thinking as a modern Westerner (relative to my exposure to Christianity and the Christian Bible) is that a number of years ago I learned, from Theodore Gerald Soares’s old (1915) The Social Institutions and Ideals of the Bible, to see the Bible in Tradition terms;48 a Tradition that should not only be studied and learned about, but should be continued, carried forward. I see NeWFism as doing precisely that.49

In the first section below, then, I identify and briefly justify the fundamental features of NeWFism.

NeWFism’s Fundamental Features

First, a classification:

A. Positive Principles

1. Love of neighbor

2. Personal transcendence (i.e., altered state of consciousness)

B. “Negative” Principles

3. No theology

4. No scripture

5. No clergy

6. No fixation on some given historical figure

Love of Neighbor

“Love of neighbor” is a command that appears frequently in the Bible, implicitly especially (in the , for example). This is not surprising: In a post- society, wherein a

47 (1999), p. 2.

48 See the Introduction and Chapter 1 in Item 3 on the above list of eBooks.

49 Given this, its differences relative to Christianity as it exists currently might be attributable to Christianity’s failure to become a part of the Biblical Tradition!

114

“discrepancy”50 exists between (a) the way of life for which humans had become “designed” by evolutionary forces,51 and (b) their actual way of life (for most, that is), thenatural tendency that people possess to follow this principle52 is frustrated by the societal situation—which rewards not following the principle.

Given that early Israel53 was a post-Agricultural Revolution society, some sensitive ones within the society “recognized” that this natural tendency was insufficiently present in thesociety; and that given the principle’s “obvious” merit, these individuals then created laws and teachings to encourage loving behavior (at least in the sense of being kind, considerate, etc.)54 in spite of the fact that the societal structure discouraged such behavior.

“Love of neighbor” is a part of NeWFism in part because it is a principle that is central tothe Bible—but especially because it is a principle that has a solid scientific basis. I wouldadd, however, that that principle is best achieved in the right sort of society. (At a later point I will make passing reference to a “plan” for societal system change that I publishedin 1984.)

Personal Transcendence

The “holy spirit” plays an of Tarsus. The existence of such an entity was, of course, inferred by him on the basis of his own experiences. In somehow attaining an , Paul, living in a pre-scientific age, “naturally” attributed what he was experiencing to an external source—in his case a sort of divine Being.

The claim has been made that (referring specifically to belief): “The divinity within each human can be awakened and discovered only through a process of contemplation and self-knowledge.”55 I would argue, however, that the design of the NeWF is

50 See Chapter 2 in my Item 3 eBook in the list above.

51 Specifically, and female-choice sexual selection—and not ”!

52 This assertion first received support in the writings of Russian geographer—and prince— [1842 – 1921]—e.g., in his (1902). More recently, the such as , and work at the (such as that by ) have providedvaluable support for this assertion.

53 See, e.g., this , this , and also .

54 Societal system change would have been a better answer to the problem, but is difficult to “pull off.” However, see my Explanations: Useless and Otherwise eBook, cited just before the Conclusions section.55 Keith Hopkins, op. cit., p. 250.

115

conducive to the achievement of personal transcendence for participants56; that, specifically, the controlled discussion involved with a NeWF can conduce the achievement of a “natural high”57 by one or more participants in a NeWF discussion. Granted that this is a “mere” hypothesis; I “know in my bones,” however, that this claim has merit.58

I see the achievement of an altered state of consciousness (via natural means, that is59) as desirable for several reasons. At a personal level such a state can result in creative ideas, a clear mind, a feeling of energy, a feeling of confidence, etc. Perhaps of most importance, though: If one has a “natural high,” one will tend to see others as spirits and,therefore, as sacred. In so perceiving others one will tend—automatically—to treat others in a respectful, kind, loving, etc., manner.60

So far as perceiving others as “spirits” is concerned, one way of thinking about this is to imagine that one is camping with a group of friends, and sitting around a campfire at night. The fire does not supply enough light to see the others clearly, but one knows fromthe voices that one hears that it is one’s friends who are sitting around the campfire. In effect, then, one is perceiving the others around the campfire as (nearly) disembodied spirits, each with a distinct personality.

At a group level the achievement of a “natural high” by some members of the group, during a given NeWF session, can lead to closer bonding among the group members. And if, during the course of a session, creative ideas emerge that can, and should, be acted upon, the close bonding achieved can result in energetic, focused, decisive, expeditious actions being taken by the group on those ideas.

No Theology

56 A ”resurrection” (“spiritual,” that is) of sorts, if you will. Another term of relevance here is being “born again.” Unfortunately, that term suggests that when one achieves a natural high, one will remain “high,” which is unlikely. What’s likely, rather, is that one’s degree of “highness” will vary over time from absent to intense to something in between.

57 The concept of being “” is also relevant here.

58 Based on my experience, over a 28-year period, with an adult class at a United Methodist church.

59 Such as through a discussion process—especially such a process?

60 One’s perception of other people as sacred may very well have “carry over” value—in that one also sees, e.g., animals in that way as well (as many have done, and do).

116

As a religion, NeWFism is unusual among Western religions in having no theology. This does not mean that an individual NeWFian cannot hold certain theological ideas but, rather, that NeWFism per se has no theology.

The reasons: First, a theology consists of a series of statements that “believers” are expected to accept as “true.” Given that many—perhaps all!—of these statements may lack firm empirical support, many in this Age of Science will not be able to accept those statements—thus must either turn away from the religion in question, or (dishonestly) pretend that they accept the theological statements. This is unacceptable!

Second, as the theology of one religion is likely to be in conflict with that of all other religions, the fact that the existence of theologies creates barriers between people, means that their existence promotes conflict—which can get ugly. Because, then, having a theology is contrary to the love command (!), NeWFism declinesto have a theology.

It is entirely conceivable that the members of a given NeWFian “ congregation” will varyin their theological beliefs, from none to any number of different theologies. This varietywill not, however, present a problem because the discussion that occurs during NeWFian sessions is controlled. In fact, as members encounter ideas contrary to the ones that they themselves hold, this will help them understand and (one would hope!) appreciate where others in the group are “coming from”—a possible consequence of this being that one’s own idea/belief system will develop further!

No Scripture

A scripture—and thinking here specifically of the Christian Bible—tends to consist of books written at different points of time, therefore representing an evolution of thought. However, because a scripture is commonly thought of as divinely inspired (e.g., the “Word of God”), each portion of scripture tends to be thought as of equal in value to any other portion. Because of the variation that exists in a scripture, some people are likely tobe attracted to certain portions of the scripture, other people to other (conflicting) portions. Thus, a scripture, merely by being a scripture tends to promote conflict. Put another way: Scriptures per se violate the love command that they may promote!

Given that some portions may be consistent with the love command, but other portions may not be, if one regards the love command as central, one will not have a scripture. This is why NeWFism does not have a scripture.

No Clergy

117

The conventional church meeting—I was about to say “service”61—involves an “expert,” a member of the clergy, lecturing those attending, and leading various other activities (such as the). The underlying assumptions here are that (a) knowledge is to be imparted to those in attendance during the course of the meeting—because correct knowledge is a prerequisite for correct behavior; and (b) certain other activities (again, such as participating in the eucharist) will, upon participation by those in attendance, (1) somehow also help one engage in correct behavior while in the “world,” and (2) for thoseactivities to be administered properly, an expert—i.e., the clergy person—must do, or direct, the administration.

The NeWFian position is that having a clergy which engages in the above sort of activities is an utter waste of time—and tends to infantilize members of the congregation.Given NeWFisms two cardinal positive principles (that one is to love others, and that having an altered state of consciousness can help one do so, among other things), having a clergy makes only a negative contribution to both of those principles!

Learning to love others results not from being lectured to (etc.) but, rather, from interacting with others. The NeWF provides one with an opportunity not only to interactwith others, but do so in a manner (i.e., structured discussion) designed not only to createbonding among those in attendance, but to conduce attainment of an altered state of consciousness—which one will then carry into the “world,” enabling one to do good things in the world, and even to attract others to NeWFism.

As I note in my eBooks on NeWFism, instead of NeWFism having a clergy, it in effect treats all participants as clergy—in that the orientation is to discussion, in which all are invited to participate. So far as the value that discussions can have, I like this statement by :

To our way of thinking the Indians' symbol is the circle, the hoop. Nature wants to be round. The bodies of human beings and animals have no corners. With us, the circle stands for togetherness of people who sit with one another around the campfire, relatives and friends united in peace while the sacred pipe passes from hand to hand. Tous this is beautiful and fitting, symbol and reality at the same time, expressing the harmony of life and nature.

No Fixation on an (Allegedly) Historical Person

61 Several years ago I attended, with a friend, a Quaker meeting, and while talking with a female member after the meeting, happened to refer to the meeting as a “service.” I was quickly corrected: “Service is what we Quakers do after our meetings”!

118

In the early years after Jesus’s death,62 (such as the ), all of them having their roots in the Judaism of that time—as it existed in Jerusalem, that is. The odd thing about the fact thatthese groups were all “children” of Judaism is that although numerous individuals were important within Judaism, all of the “Jesuan” groups that emerged had a fixation on just one person, Jesus. Christianity, in all of its diversity, was, then a rather strange child (family of children, rather).

Now if the central principles of a religion are to be love of others and the desirability of an altered state of consciousness, featuring some individual, rather, as central diverts attention away from those two principles. NeWFism, thus, although a “child” of Christianity, in a sense, interprets the Christian Bible as emphasizing the love and consciousness principles, and therefore ignores as diversionary everything else in the Bible. In short, NeWFism perceives the Bible as a literature, and as such as having value. On the other hand, it recognizes numerous other books as also having value,63 and sees as potentially dangerous having a fixation on some given person.

Global Warming

The concept of “salvation” has been important in some religions (e.g., Christianity), but to this point in time the concept has been interpreted in an afterlife sense: One is somehow to be “saved” from an unpleasant afterlife in a very warm place.

NeWFism neither affirms nor denies that there is an afterlife (a NeWFian being free to believe whatever s/he wishes to believe on this matter), but does insist that our species needs to be “saved” from extinction—if possible—the threat posed by global warming being of especial importance. It is to be expected, then, that at least some NeWFian sessions would be devoted to discussing this problem, and what might be done to address the problem.64

Given this expectation, in this section I would like to make a few brief comments about global warming:

If the reader has some knowledge about global warming, s/he will know that the term refers not just to warming in the lower atmosphere, but to that plus the land and earth’s water bodies. The illustrates that point:

62 Assuming, that is, that Jesus ever existed! Some scholars note that the is rather minimal.

63 My favorite books are the ones authored by [1857 – 1920]. One reason I admire him is that he, like me, had a Norwegian heritage and grew up in Wisconsin. Also, I graduated from secondary school almost exactly 100 years after his birth.

64 As I emphasize in my eBooks, however, the leader of any given session must feel free to talk about that which s/he feels “led” to talk about.

119

This shows, for the period 1962 – 2008, changes in earth’s total heat content; what stands out on the graph is the fact that mostof the change (increase) has occurred in theoceans (a significant fact, but one which I will not pursue here).

There are a number of well-financed “climate change ” out there, but this graph clearly demonstrates that for the period in question (1962 – 2008) it’s absolutely clearthat global warming has been occurring.

Granted that the heating of land – atmosphere – ice has been rather minor when compared with oceanic heating, but my point here is that global warming is real, not a “.”65

Not only is global warming occurring, but this fact must be recognized for its seriousness. For example, we are now living in the period of the “” (when 150 – 200 species go extinct every day!). Plus, we find these ominous statements:

Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, :

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

(Given that the Arctic is ,” this is an assertion that we ignore at our peril.66)

And ecologist Guy R. McPherson, (2012) stated:

As I , I concluded in 2002 that we had set into motion climate-change processes likely to cause our own extinction by 2030. I mourned for months, to the bewilderment of the three people who noticed.

One important concept in the global warming literature is that of a “.” That is, because global warming is a process that “,” a point is likely to be reached when change (heating and its correlates) will begin to accelerate. Put another way, “” will begin, and it will be impossible (it would seem, at least) to halt this process. (Note that Davies, above, asserts that “runaway” is now under way!)

65 Here is a good web site that .

66 For a brief argument to the effect that “our days may be numbered,” see my

120

I gain some measure of optimism, however, from this recent statement in the periodical:

While we may not yet have reached the “point of no return”—when no amount of cutbacks on greenhouse gas emissions will save us from potentially catastrophic global warming—climate scientists warn we may be getting awfully close.

Given that that there is, I believe, some reason to believe that it is not yet too late to act, I remain hopeful that NeWFian “cells” will form in the near future, and that NeWFians will devote at least some of their time and effort in addressing this problem.67 If nothing else, I believe that doing so would help those doing so gain a meaning in their lives—something difficult to achieve in our society!

Although measures have been suggested, my preference is for a sociological approach, and in my I offer some ideas of that sort. NeWFians are most welcome to consider those ideas!

Conclusions

As should be clear from the discussion in the first section, although NeWFism has roots in the Abrahamic religions, it is rather unusual as a religion—but is somewhat related to both Unitarianism and Quakerism (for the latter, see Item 8 in the above list of my eBooks).

NeWFism reflects the thinking of one (me!) exposed to Christianity and the Bible, but as one living in an Age of Science. It also reflects the fact that we live in a world where people need to be brought together (rather than being in conflict one with another), and a world where people need to recognize, and address, the threat to our species posed by global warming. NeWFism is a religion (or not69) that does this!

Addendum

I just (December 8, 2015) statement of great relevance:

Ben Franklin, the founding father of many important institutions in Philadelphia, a key diplomat and a framer of the US Constitution, wrote in his Autobiography concerning a non-denominational place of public preaching he helped found “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” Here is the whole quote:

67 However, for a brief argument to the effect that “our days may be numbered,” see my

69 To be a NeWFian, one need not perceive it as a religion if one dislikes such a label!

121

‘And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos’d, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv’d to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the peopleat Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.’

Not only did Ben Franklin not want to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, he wantedto invite them!

[There is also : “ . . . Franklin decides there should also be a religious sect united in the pursuit of virtue and the belief in one God, not divided by small differences. But even though he has lotsof great ideas about it, it never gets off the ground.”

And :

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Benjamin Franklin

You will find a mixed bag of beliefs when it comes to Benjamin Franklin and his religion. He believed in God and His supremacy. Although he grew up under Calvinist teaching, he later came under the influence of British Deistic thought and he eventually became a prominent Deist,but rejected the more radical Deism. Yet, mixed in with his Deist belief was Calvinistic doctrine.One could say that Franklin became a new and prudent Deist.

Benjamin Franklin’s character demonstrates that from early youth he became independent in thought and actions. Enrolled in the Boston Latin School at the age of eight his father had to withdraw him after the first year. The Boston Latin School was well known for many of the famous Puritan divines, a future Franklin apparently did not want to follow. One author stated that while a youth he was reported not as pious or faithful, but as “skeptical, puckish . . . irreverent.”(1) He went to another school but soon educated himself from the age 10 and on.

Many would argue that because Franklin was a known Deist, our country could not have a Christian foundation. That argument ultimately denies the sovereignty of God to work through all of His creation. It also is an argument that clearly objects to and denies the true God of Christianity. They may say ‘not so;’ why then do they protest so much against Christianity? Benjamin Franklin held a firm belief and faith in God. He also believed in Divine intervention and God’s sovereignty. Although he did not conform to the traditional Christian faith, he embraced a firm and unmovable faith in God and His works in the founding of America. Read what he spoke when after four to five weeks the Constitutional Convention was stalled:

122

“In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer inthis room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without hisnotice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this;and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, andits blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”(2)

Franklin’s belief in God was firm. He was fully convicted of His existence and sovereignty and he firmly believed that without the blessings and guidance of God they would not succeed. One can imagine that Franklin, who broke with traditional Christianity, is the one to stand before the Convention delegates and rebuke them for not seeking God’s guidance. The irony of it is humorous. God’s providence truly does work through all of humanity. That day the Constitutional Convention moved on and brought forth the foundation of America.

Franklin wrote a paper in 1732 entitled On the Providence of God in the Government of the World. He proceeds to “. . . go about to prove this first Principle, the Existence of a Deity and that he is the Creator of the Universe. . .”. He continues to make two more points of God giving life, sustenance, and His sovereignty over all of creation. After completing these arguments, Franklin then establishes his theme on the providence of God in the government of the world. He directly states that God “sometimes interferes by His particular providence and sets aside theeffects which would otherwise have been produced by . . . causes.”(3) He did not quote scripture, but many of his statements were built on specific scriptures he learned in his youth.

When Benjamin Franklin died on April 17, 1790, there was a picture of the Day of Judgment by his bedside. There is no question that Benjamin Franklin not only played a critical role in the founding of our country, he boldly declared that the United States of America was formed through the sovereignty of God.

123

1. Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003), page 10.

2. The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia. Ed. by Gaillard Hund and James Brown Scott, Oxford University Press, 1920.

3. Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World”, The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, eds. Leonard W. Labaree, et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959-), 1:264; or online at http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp Volume 1: 1706-34.

Bibliography: The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, David L. Holmes, © David L. Holmes 2006; Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY; The Religious Views of Benjamin Franklin, Chapter 5, Pages 53-57.

Tags:

This entry was posted on Friday, October 29th, 2010 at 12:05 am and is filed under , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.]

Alton C. Thompson

. . . the forum America now needs might become a quest for a social vision adequate to address the social histories and circumstances of our time. If the quest . . . sought to imagine how truly satisfying it might be for everyone to realize equality, justice, well-being, and honor in a world in which they are available for all peoples, I would say that the study of religion in our time may finally be worthwhile.70

In the above statement Dr. Burton L. Mack refers to:

The desirability of a “forum” in America (i.e., the United States).

Within which there would exist “a quest for a social vision adequate to address the social histories and circumstances of our time.”

That quest helping those involved becoming aware of “how truly satisfying it might be for everyone [involved in the quest] to realize equality, justice, well-being, and honor in aworld in which they are available for all peoples.”

This quest making “the study of religion in our time . . . worthwhile.”

70 , (2001), p. 199.

124

Insofar as Dr. Mack was suggesting, in this statement, that religion should be useful, I agree with him! Such a conclusion might seem to be “radical,” even blasphemous (!), but when one views the Bible in Tradition terms,71 one realizes that most of the personages in the (Christian) Bible either advocated activism, themselves engaged in activism, or both.

I came to perceive the Bible in Tradition terms by my acquisition (in 1975), and subsequent reading, of an old book by Theodore Gerald Soares.72 And in recent years I have developed “Tradition” ideas, and expressed them in a series of eBooks:

1. (2007)2. (2011)

3. (2011)

4. (2013)

5. (2014)

6. (2014)

7. (2014)

8. (2014)

9. (2015)

The Tradition as I See It

The Tradition that I have learned to perceive in the Christian Bible has a very humanistic flavor—by which I mean that its orientation is to human well-being:

Recognizing the existence of ill-being in one’s society.

Sensing that this should not exist.

Making suggestions regarding how to correct that problem.

Acting to implement those suggestions.

Taking direct action to improve the well-being of others.

71 See the Introduction and Chapter 1 in my For ? (2011).

72 (1925). Originally published in 1915. His Chapter XXXVII in particular.

125

In perceiving a Tradition in the Bible, and in discerning the nature of that Tradition, it became obvious to me that our task, at any given time and place, was to emulate, as best we could, those personages in the Bible who were clearly Tradition members. That is, our task is not so much to learn about the Tradition, but to continue it, to carry it forward. Put another way, our task is to become “players” in the Tradition

The “players” in the Bible all differed one from another in their personalities, interests, abilities, etc., and so do we. Given this fact about us, what each of us who wishes to be a “player” in the Tradition today needs to determine is:

What, in terms of what one knows and believes, needs attention today.

What one oneself can do to further the Tradition.

As I have pondered these two matters, I have come to conclude not only that ill-being is far too prevalent in our society—this world, in fact—but that our species is now threatened by global warming.74

In the early 1980s—while the subject of global warming was not yet on my mind—I concluded that the ill-being problem that existed in our country could only be solved via societal system change. As a consequence, I developed, and in 1984 got published, an article in which I presented a 5-“wave” strategy for changing U.S. society in a communitarian direction.75 Although I still strongly “believe in” this strategy, I have, unfortunately, lacked the financial means to act on it.

In part, I suppose, because of my inability to realize the above-mentioned “plan,” I started to turnmy attention to religion—as revealed by the nine (9) eBooks listed at the beginning of this essay. In particular, I developed an institution—the New Word Fellowship (NeWF) that I perceived as having the capability not only of contributing to the well-being of participants (who would, in turn, contribute to the well-being of others), but acting as a vehicle for societal system change—in a direction that might prevent the extinction of our species as a result of global warming.

The inspiration for the creation of this institution came from my reading of Elaine Pagels’s (1979), for it led me to an encounter with a Marcus, a student of (c100 – c160). On pp. 41 -42 of her book we find this:

If Christians criticized the development of church hierarchy, how could they themselves form a social organization? If they rejected the principle of rank, insisting that all are equal, how could they even hold a meeting? Irenaeus tells us about the practice of one group that he knows from his own congregation in —the group led by Marcus, a disciple of Valentinus'. Every member of

74 See, e.g., my Religion the Basic Problem ?

75 In my I summarize the article, and also provide a link to it.

126

the group had been initiated: this meant that everyone had been "released" from the 's power. For this reason, they dared to meet without the authority of the bishop, whom they regarded as the demiurge's spokesman— himself! Second, every initiate was assumed to have received, through the initiation ritual, the charismatic gift of direct inspiration through the Holy Spirit. How did members of this circle of "pneumatics" (literally, "those who are spiritual") conduct their meetings? Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of priest; another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction.

The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually. This practice effectively created a very different structure of authority. At atime when the orthodox Christians increasingly discriminated between clergy and laity, this group of gnostic Christians demonstrated that, among themselves, they refused to acknowledge such distinctions. Instead of ranking their members into superior and inferior "orders" within a hierarchy, they followed the principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as priest, bishop, or prophet. Furthermore, because they cast lots at each meeting, even the distinctions established by lot could never become permanent "ranks." Finally— most important—they intended, through this practice, to remove the element of human choice. A twentieth-century observer might assume that the gnostics left these matters to random chance, but the gnostics saw it differently. They believed that since God directs everything in the universe, the way the lots fell expressed his choice.

(I added the links in the above.)

Again, the NeWF exists only “on paper” so far. I believe, however, that were it to come into existence, it would represent a response to the challenge that I perceive in the Mack statement that forms my epigraph.

A question that one might very well ask is: “But is NeWFism actually a religion?

Here is one definition of “religion”—from the Bible ():

27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

(That is, a “religious” person is one who is concerned about others, and does what s/he can to contribute to the well-being of others.

Note how this differs from “religion” in our society:

A religion is an organized collection of , , and that relate to an order of existence. Many religions have , , and that aim to explain the , the , or the . From their beliefs about the and , people may derive , , or a preferred .

127

Finally, there is this statement by , an important Native American. The quote is from his [2008].Here’s (The “wetiko” psychosis referred to in his subtitle is e):

Religion is, in reality, living. Our religion is not what we profess, or what we say, or what we proclaim; our religion is what we do, what we desire, what we seek, what we dream about, whatwe fantasize, what we think—all these things—twenty-four hours a day. One’s religion, then, is one’s life, not merely the ideal life[,] but the life as it is actually lived.

Religion is not prayer, it is not a church, it is not theistic, it is not atheistic, it has little to do with what white people call “religion.” It is our every act. If we tromp on a bug, that is our religion; if we experiment on living animals, that is our religion; if we cheat at cards, that is our religion; if we dream of being famous, that is our religion; if we are rude and aggressive, that is our religion.All that we do, and are, is our religion.

(I suspect that the reason that I feel this strong affinity to the thoughts of Native Americans is that I was raised in a rural/small-town environment in south-central Wisconsin ( and ), and in my childhood had a great deal of close contact with Nature.)

My concept of “religion” might be thought of as Native American (!)—as influenced by a lifetime of exposure to Christianity, reading the Bible, and reading scholarly literature pertaining to religion in general and early Christianity. “That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it”!

Conclusions

It’s a truism that—since the economic realm became the dominant societal realm, at least—religions have tended to reflect the societies they are in; not merely to reflect, in fact, but to support the societal status quo!

As has been said of [1818 – 1883]:

Marx’s theory of religion must be viewed as an aspect of his general theory of society. Like manyothers in his era, Marx too was critical of religion. Unlike them, however, Marx did not seek to criticize the logic of religion as a set of beliefs. Rather, he proposed that religion reflects society, therefore any criticism of religion must ipso facto be a criticism of society itself.77

I see hope, however, in the fact that although societies are , class systems in particular rarely operate in a machine-like manner. Early in the last century, for example, [1857 – 1929] noted that the economy consisted of two types of employment, “.” Given that those engaged in “industrial” employments do the society’s productive work whereas those engaged in “pecuniary” work are mere parasites, it is to be expected that those in the former group will harbor resentment.

77 William H. Swatos, Jr. (editor), (1998), p. 287.

128

Veblen’s categories have less relevance today, of course, than they did in 1901, but they raise the possibility that there are elements in our population today who are at least somewhat detached from the Existing Order—enough so that they could be recruited into a new religion—NeWFism—that (a) recognizes the predicament that we humans are in at present, and that (b) is aware of a “plan” (one that I created in 1984!) for societal “conversion” that, if implemented to at least some degree, might enable at least some humans survive the trials of the future—so that our species avoids extinction.

Given that the mainline Protestant , “lost between one-fifth and one-third of the membership theyclaimed in 1965,” dropouts from these churches78 might be good prospects for NeWFism—especially given that such people are likely to be more educated and intelligent than the average churchgoer. It’s likely that there are other categories of people as well in our society who could be drawn to NeWFism.

78 For a discussion of the phenomenon, , for example.

129

The Journey Through Life

Alton C. Thompson

In my I argued that the trajectory of Western history had placed our species on a path leading to our imminent extinction (by about 2040 CE, per ). As the path that our species is taking has a counterpart in the lives of individuals, I use this essay to develop that point.

The Journey

The pre-school child grows up in a world—a small one, that is!—dominating by people: family members, friends of the family, neighbors, etc. In addition, there are toys—and the ever-present television! The child may come in contact with Nature with the parents’ lawn or a nearby playground—but both are artificial environments, and in the playground the child is mainly interested in the play equipment present. The physical environment is “there” for the child, but the child is exposed to little of it, what s/he is exposed to is basically artificial—and even that is not noticed by the child.

During the early years the child becomes potty-trained, learns to walk, learns to talk, learns (to a degree, at least) to interact with others, etc. Watching television exposes the child to the larger world, and the child, while being entertained, also does some learning, some of which (from watching , e.g.) may be of value, as well as going to a local zoo from time to time. In growing up in a home, the child learns unconsciously that s/he must adjust her/his behavior to the behavioral requirements established by the parents.

Upon entering school, the child encounters other children his or her age, and is likely to make some new friends. In the classes attended, the child expands his or her language skills, learns (more) about numbers, learns some facts about the wider world, etc. From a behavioral standpoint, the child learns that there are certain rules to follow while in school, these supplementing the behavioral expectations the parents have imposed on the child.

The child begins to learn some abstractions, and learns unconsciously that abstractions are more important than particular fact. The child is not aware of this, but this latter learning tends to remove the child mentally from the natural surround. Thus, a mental alienation from Nature begins at an early age! The child carries this mental alienation into his/her later life, so that even if, at later points in life, the child finds herself/himself in wilderness, s/he finds it difficult to feel a part of Nature: Feeling apart from prevails over feeling a part of.

Through one’s school years one learns implicitly that how things are is how things should be. That is, one acquires an important value without even become aware of doing so. This value

130

sticks with one as one grows older, so that one tends to accept the status quo is simply a “given.”As a consequence of this, if one is led to question the “is-ness” of things, one will not be able to go beyond thinking of “reforming” what exists; one will not even be able to conceive the possibility of societal system change—and that deficiency will turn out to be extremely important.

Having learned to adjust to one’s home and the schools one attended, it will be “natural” for the person to perceive that s/he must adjust to the Larger Society upon leaving the nest, and will—if the finances permit it—train for a position in the Larger Society. Usually this will involve training to become an employee, but after being an employee for a time, one may start one’s own business. If one has grown up as the member of an “elite” family (with a “silver spoon” in one’s mouth), one may, of course, start out in a managerial position. Females, of course, have traditionally simply sought to marry “well”—although this has been changing.

In the process of growing up, to this point, one has learned to perceive life as a series of steps, so that once one enters the world of work, one perceives one’s “task” as being to “move ahead.” This implies that one has become a self-oriented person (in this supposedly “Christian” society!),which means in turn that one learns to develop superficial relationships with most others: Othersare not to be loved but, rather, to be used—as stepping stones.

Not only does on perceive one’s personal goal as “getting ahead,” insofar as one adopts a societal perspective—and because one observes the “obvious” fact that technology is ever “improving,” one sees the world as “progressing.”79 As a consequence, one finds the idea of societal system change not only unthinkable, but—if thinkable—undesirable (because it would involve regression).

A major consequence of this orientation to self and advancement of the self is that one is basically unable to think in societal terms. Thus, although those in positions of public responsibility are supposed to make their decisions on the basis of the “” or “,” they have learnedfrom their life experiences—and from !—either to lack such a concern, or to believe sincerely that one serves the common good by pursuing one’s own interest (the “,” you know80)!

If one is not in a position of public responsibility, one tends not to have much interest in public concerns—occupied as one is by one’s private life; and insofar as one has some slight interest in public affairs, one tends to assume that political leaders have a job like everyone else, and will do their job. What they have a difficult time understanding is that those in political positions (a) grew up with mentalities similar to their own, and (b) may tend to be even more than they are! Thus, to expect good—i.e., public-serving—decisions from our “leaders” is to be naïve. (It would be more realistic to assume that they are “on the take”!)

79 Underlying this concept is the fact that we moderns think of time in linear terms rather than (as with indigenous peoples) cyclic.

80 Also see my .

131

Consequences

With most people in a society (such as ours) developing an alienated mentality relative to Earth, that factor, combined with technological developments,81 it’s not surprising that the society that develops is one that provides its “inmates” an increasing lack of physical contact with Earth—which compounds the alienated mentality that exists.

In any given society the behaviors that one engages in tend to be primarily ones that one’s society requires—so that asking whether behavior is a result of genetics vs. free will is to be so embedded in one’s society that one is only able to take it as a “given.” Only when one becomes aware of the fact that societies can—and do—differ one from another—and differ greatly82—can one come to recognize this point.

If one (a) is not aware of this fact (true of most people in our society!), and (b) given one’s tendency to be self-oriented, and (c) mentally alienated from Nature, one is unlikely to be aware of how one’s activities are, and have been, impacting Earth—and how, in turn, Earth’s responses to our activities are creating an environment that is resulting in numerous extinctions.83

That is:

1. Although some of Earth’s “resources”84 are renewable, others are not, and we humans have been reproducing at a rate greater than the Earth can support—i.e., “” has been occurring.

2. Our burning of fossil fuels has increased the lower atmosphere’s “greenhouse effect,” thereby resulting in a warming trend (and its correlates—such as increased storminess).

3. Our deforestation activities have reduced the area of “sink”—areas that can absorb the “excess” carbon dioxide that we have been producing, resulting, thereby, in increased warming.

The danger that global warming presents to us humans, specifically, is that it is a process that “feeds on itself,”85 meaning that at some point it will begin to accelerate. That is, a “tipping

81 Are those developments also a product of this mentality?!

82 For example, indigenous societies—of interest to the late Paul Shepard, for example—differ substantially from modern U. S. society.

83 Perhaps ! After all, we are now living in the period of the “”!

84 Note that this term involves a utilitarian view of Nature—not a good one to have!

85 That is, there are .

132

point” will be reached, after which there will be “runaway.” Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, writing in 2013, declared, in fact, that “runaway” is occurring now!86

In part because of our mental alienation from Nature, we have created for ourselves a society thatalso alienates (in the sense of removes) us physically from Nature. Unwittingly, then, we have—led by the U.S.—“digging our own grave”! Some of those aware of our current predicament are ( being an example) advocating geoengineering measures, but:

1. It may now be too late for our “salvation.”

2. Given the nature of our “leaders,” it’s unlikely that they will act on such a suggestion.

3. If they do, it’s likely that it will be way too late!

4. And their actions may simply speed our demise—make it even more “imminent” than it already is.

And in conclusion: “”!

86 Also, by Dr. .

133

Endangered Species

Alton C. Thompson

Here is a partial list of :

Huachuca Springsnail

Huahachuco Water Frog

Hualapai Mexican Vole

Huanuco Water Frog

Huila Stubfoot Toad

Humbali Village Toad

Humboldt Penguin

Hume’s Pheasant

Hume’s Rat

Hummelinck’s Vesper Mouse

I would add, regarding species, that:

1. We are currently in a period of the “,” losing every day!

2. Our own species should be on such a list (right after “!”).

Regarding the second point, here are two statements from a relevant, and (with 9 figures and 1 table) by Malcolm P. R. Light (2012):

[The] process of methane release [now occurring] will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.

Developed (and some developing) countries must cut back their carbon dioxide emissions by a very large percentage (50% to 90%) by 2020 to immediately precipitate a cooling of the Earth and its crust. If this is not done the earthquake frequency and methane emissions in the Arctic will continue to grow exponentially leading to our inexorable demise between 2031 to 2051.

In short:

134

1. Processes now occurring will begin to accelerate, and end all life on earth (including the human species, of course) “before the middle of this century.”

2. Unless, that is, countries “cut back their carbon dioxide emissions by a very large percentage (50% to 90%) by 2020.”

The latter is, of course, unlikely, for at least three reasons:

1. Western societies—ours especially—are highly dependent on the use of fossil fuels, and it’s highly unlikely that we could be “weaned” from the use of such fuels by 2020.

2. The producers of fossil fuels seem to have no interest in reducing output—this despite the fact that their chances of escaping extinction are the same as those of the rest of us (i.e., virtually nil).

3. Our politicians—and even some non-politicians, such as the osaurus—seem to have survived the . (The Walkeonodon might seem to be another example, but he is a creature from Hell, currently occupying a governorship!) As a consequence of that (apparent) fact, along with the fact that most of them seem to be “the best politicians that money canbuy,” it’s extremely unlikely that they will follow Light’s advice.

As other species become extinct, our own species will become increasingly vulnerable (because of our dependence on other species), so that it’s highly probable that our species—along with all other species—will be extinct by 2050 (or even earlier—e.g., ).

Had our leaders—in this country and elsewhere—awakened to the dangers to species in general in the 1970s, it’s at least conceivable that many species, including ours, would not now be endangered. Richard M. Nixon—president from 1969 to 1974—did a , e.g., the !—but not enough, of course. However, the probability of anything significant being done during the 1970sis 0.00!

The trajectory of world history—our history most certainly included!—has been one such that it appearsvirtually inevitable that our species would come to “” at some point—and that point appears to be very near!

( of illustration.)

135

What Shall I Do?

Alton C. Thompson

Given our imminent demise as a species, a question that arises (for, that is, one who is aware of that strong possibility) is: What shall I do with the rest of my life?

Guy McPherson’s response to this question is well-known for those who frequent his web site: “Passionately pursue a life of excellence.”

One can also (or instead), however, answer this question from a different perspective—one that recognizes the fact that few in our society seem to be aware of this possibility (in large part because the mass media are either also ignorant of this possibility, or are aware of it but their advertisers insist that they stay quiet about it).

The question:

Shall I do my best to publicize this “fact” or, rather, should I “keep my mouth shut”?

What “publicizing” could involve is:

1. Seeking speaking engagements (as Guy does).

2. Writing short articles, and offering them to local media outlets (free such outlets—such asthe —might especially be “takers”).

3. Speaking with relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.

Although point 1 is not “my thing,” and in writing I tend to include many links (which could not be activated in print media), I have attempted point 3 to a degree—but have found that no one wants to take the possibility of our imminent extinction seriously: I tend to simply get blank stares—and get the impression that the person to whom I am speaking thinks “I’m off my rocker.”

My own experience, then, has led me to conclude that I should simply keep my mouth shut—so that I’m not hauled off to a “loony farm.” If, though, one has more positive experiences, I say “go for it”!

136

Some Childhood Memories

Alton C. Thompson

While reading Peter Nabokov’s (2008) yesterday (August 30, 2015), while at work (FedEx), it occurred to me that places—Earth, more generally—have/has played an important role in my

life. Here I had thought that my ethnic heritage was Norwegian (with a little Swede), but perhaps I’m also part Native American!

1. While I was still in the womb, I was living in a small house in , Wisconsin(see left). However, shortly before I was born—and just before Christmas!—my parents’ house burned down while they were away (Ibelieve that my dad was giving a “chalk talk” somewhere), and my parents ( and ) and sister, Greta,

moved into a friend’s place (the ’) east of (see above). I was born there on January 6, 1940.

2. It was while staying with the Wilders (I believe), that my dad—a carpenter—started building a small house to the south of the and farm, where mom had grown up (B onthe map, left). The house(at location C on the mapto the left) was across a creek (a tributary of )

from my grandparents’ place.89 (Dad had grown up on a farm at location A.) Although I have seen a picture of Greta and I with our dog Blackie at that place, I have no memories of that dog.

89 These were the only grandparents that I knew, as dad’s parents had died in San Bernardino, CA, long before I was born. (Dad went to high school in San Bernardino—and almost finished.)

137

I do, however, remember that our place was about 20 – 25 feet above the stream, and that there was a spring in the stream, just down the hill from our place. Dad had built a wooden box around the spring, which then became a cooler—in which he would place bottles of root beer, for example.

3. At some point we moved from that place to the “Winge” place (D on the map above), which was a short distance from where dad grew up. When dad’s family moved to , CA,90 the farm was sold to the Williams family (related to us through the wife, I believe), and when we moved to the Winge place, it was occupied by the Rob and Mabel Williams family. This place was located on the lower slope of Mt. Morris, and I used to play on the “mountain” side. I remember dad pointing out some Indian trails onthe “mountain,” and this was exciting for me to learn as a young boy.

On the hillside were (glacial) erratic boulders of varying sizes, and one night, in my dream, I was sitting on one of these large boulders, and suddenly it began to grow! As it grew, it began to wobble, and at some point tipped, sending me to the ground. Beforethat happened, I woke up, however!

Greta and I attended the Mt. Morris country school while we lived here (first and second grade for me)—walking to and from school every day. Last Thursday (August 20, 2015) I went up to Mt. Morris to visit my uncle (and mom’s brother) Don Hasselquist (now 82, who lives on his parents’ land, B on the map), and in driving past the location where the school was, saw that it was no longer there—having been torn down long ago. I have a picture somewhere of the inside of the school, showing the teacher, Greta and I, Boyd and Leslie Simonson, uncle Don, Douglas Thorstad, Weston and Garlon Peterson, Dennis Thompson (not related), Otis Bittorf, etc.

4. While we were living on the Winge place in Mt. Morris, dad and his partner () built a log place91 for us east of Wautoma at location E on the map below. Greta and I started attending the Waushara County Normal School in Wautoma, and I completed grade school while we were living there. We were still living there when I attended Wautoma

90 The move was precipitated by the fact that dad’s father had developed tuberculosis. San Bernardino was chosen as the destination because grandmother, prior to her marriage, had worked in Chicago in thehome of , founder of the . While working for the family, she traveled with them, one place visited being San Bernardino, evidently. Dad’s brother Ray (he had two sisters, Ruby and Marjorie) was named Otto Raymond, after Mr. Schnering, but in disliking “Otto,” always went by “Ray.”

91 My dad designed, and drew up the plans for, this house. (After leaving high school, he had worked as a draftsman for a while in California, just before returning to Wisconsin—his other family members remaining in California.)

138

High School as a freshman (in 1953).

A memory from Normal School days: Of the books that I read while attending

that school, only two books stick in my memory: A large, but short, book of Indian chiefs—having a large picture—in color—of a chief on a page, with some explanatory text underneath; in the “occupational” collection, a book on the hobo. I guess that I was somewhat of a rebel even then!

What I remember especially while living at this place east of Wautoma was that during the winter we would slide down the north side of the cemetery hill (F on above map), and skate on a pond that always formed, and froze, directly across from the road from where we lived. Speaking of winter, I remember once walking (about 1 ½ miles) to the Normal school with Greta when it was about -40° F.! In reaching school, it took a while before I could focus my eyes properly!

We had a 2-acre parcel of land that was treeless92 except for two large hickory trees a short distance behind our house. I remember once climbing one of the trees to avoid going to a birthday party at the Caswells’, who lived next door to our east. Dick Caswell was (later) in my high school class, but I disliked both Dick and his brother, Jim—they were rather foul-mouthed, for one thing. My friend at this time was Danny Scorgie, who lived to the east about a half mile.

Our neighbors to the west were Ben Bond and wife, Jennie. Ben—who raised goats—had been out west for quite a while when he was younger, and had interesting stories to tell (about the , etc.)—stories that we children listened to with rapt attention.Most of the 2-acre parcel of land that we had was under cultivation, plowed by my dad by a homemade tractor that he had purchased. Year after year a would build its nest onthe ground behind our house, and dad was careful to plow around the bird’s nest—something I still remember with pride: Birds have their rights too, you know!

Another bird story: At each corner of our house, every other log protruded about 8 inches from the corner. Every year a robin couple would build a nest on one of the upper protrusions (too high to see into), and it was fun to watch the birds doing their

92 We planted pine trees around the edge of the property. When I passed the house in coming home from Don’s last week, I could see that those trees had grown considerably.

139

construction work. Then, after the eggs had hatched, we would watch the birds hunt forearthworms—moving on the ground a couple feet, cocking their heads to listen for movement just below the surface, and then pecking furiously once an earthworm had been detected. They then carried the earthworm between their jaws to the nest, and the hatchlings would then crane their skinny necks, and noisily demand to be fed. Watching this ritual sure beat listening to the radio (we didn’t have a television yet)!

5. Sometime in the spring of my freshman year, dad sold our place to the high school football coach, , and we moved back to Mt. Morris that summer to an older place (pointG on map, left). It was on 4 acres of land, and on a “private” road, with the Lyle

Simonsons93 to our west and the Jack Thorstads to our east. (The small lake to the east of the G is a glacial lake named (surprise! Surprise!) “Little Lake—small in diameter, but very deep. We never swam or fished in that lake.)

My first cousin once removed Lloyd Simonson (6 months younger than, and a

grade behind, me) lived with his parents, and Catherine (“Kate”), just to the NW of the “M” in “Morris” (left)—the “T” formed by highway 152 meeting county W). He and I used to “chum around” a lot, especially during the summer.

Lloyd and I used to go swimming together in Lake Morris, using the beach of a Lutheran retreat center on the south side of the lake. Occasionally, we also went fishing—although we never the fishermen of my uncle Don and his brother Allen.

My uncles Don an Allen were trout fishermen and pheasant/deer hunters. Lloyd and I did some hunting, but not much. I do, however, remember a time when Lloyd and I were out hunting rabbits, were near a stream (an unlikely place to find rabbits!), and something suddenly whizzed past us. We found out later that it was likely a lynx. If it had attacked us, we would have had no chance!

93 Lyle was a brother of my grandmother Martha.

140

All of our land was in cultivation (vegetables that mom canned in the fall, and a large patch of cucumbers that we children would pick, and then take to a cucumber receiving station (for money—to buy clothes, especially) that the dad of one of my friends owned. During the summer I would hoe in the garden especially, and once unearthed a copper spear head from the old . I attached it to the end of a stick, and used to toss it around—so that the tip got bent. I straightened it, and still have it in my possession.

6. We were still living at this place while I was in college—at Wisconsin State College-Oshkosh. I minored in Geology, and still have fond memories not only of the course

(taught by ), but the field trip that we took to the (see below).

Oshkosh has an excellent museum, and I especially remember the Indian section, where there is a reproduction of an Indian playing a drum.

7. Baraboois an .

This is also a (below).

In

addition, here’s(below left) a within the

Baraboo Range:

141

8. After graduating from Oshkosh in 1962, I was asked to stay on to teach Geology and Physical Geography labs, after which I went to the University of North Carolina for an M.A. in Geography (received in 1965). Etc. In moving away from home95 I lost the

close contact that I had had with Earth in growing up, which is something that Iregret. However, I should add that my favorite movie is Earth-oriented: !

95 My parents’ home in Mt. Morris burned while I was in North Carolina, and they then moved to nearby .

142

“The End is Near”

Alton C. Thompson

There is no doubt that global warming (also referred to as “climate change”) is occurring. Our senses of sight, etc., may not be “telling” us this, but measurements are. And what’s of particular importance regarding what those measurements “say” is that it is oceans that are

warming. Why that’s of special importance is something beyond the scope of this essay,my starting point here being, rather, the simple fact that global warming is occurring.

In of noted climate scientist James Hansen,Hansen asserts that the widely-accepted limit (of temperature increase from the pre-industrial global mean temperature) of 2° Cwould be “too much,” an increase of 1° C being more reasonable. However, given that there has already been an ° C, not “achieving” an increase of 1° C would seemto be extremely difficult. In fact, given the

current political situation in this country, avoiding an increase of 1° C or more would seem impossible. Our country is not, of course, the only country “contributing” to this problem ( may now be the leader), but my second assumption here is that within a few decades, if not years, the 1° C “ceiling” will be reached, and crossed, and that “runaway” will begin (assuming already!).

Given that “runaway” means that change will accelerate, and that that change will involve not just an increase in the global mean temperature, but increased storminess, weather variability, etc., it’s clear that our species will be “soon” joining the each day !

Once one has reached the conclusion that there is no hope for our species, one question only has relevance for any given individual:

What shall I do with the rest of my life?

For various reasons, few in our society—and elsewhere—are aware of the precarious nature of our existence at present. Which raises the further question:

Should I as a “knowing” person:

143

1. Do my best to inform others of the dangers that lie ahead; or, rather,

2. Should I keep my mouth shut and simply go my own way “preparing for the end”?

Each of the “knowing ones” will, of course, need to answer this question for himself or herself.

It’s strange, isn’t it, that some are concerned about , as a result of “climate change,” but these same people can’t seem to recognize the more important fact that their own species is also on theroad to extinction! Also, the growing inequality in our society is definitely ), but surely it is not as “perilous” to our survival as a species as is global warming! Etc.

In short, why are so many intelligent people in our society living “with their heads in the sand”?!Do they have a specietal “”? (Must be! What else could it be?!)

144

An Email to Dr. James Hansen (September 7, 2015

Dear Dr. Hansen,

You stated earlier this year [in ] that it would be dangerous for the global mean to increase by 1° C. Given that it has already increased by 0.85° C. over preindustrial levels (with measurable effects), you seem to be saying that “runaway” would begin after an increase of 1° C. I have these two comments:

Given the political leadership that exists in this country and elsewhere, it seems to be inevitable that 1° C will be reached, and crossed, at some point in the future.

Arctic climate scientist : “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of amassive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly.”

I suspect that you know that our species is doomed (because actions that might “save” us are unlikely to occur), and therefore wish that you would say so publicly: A man of your stature would be listened to—conceivably, then, resulting in actions that would “save” our species.

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson, Ph. D. (1970), Greendale, WI

P.S. As I grow older (I’m going on 76), I realize how precious a thing life is. For example, last night a doe and her two fawns crossed the road in front of me, and it made my day—my week, infact!—as they are such beautiful, graceful creatures. As you know, numerous extinctions are occurring every day, and the prospect of losing my 3 children and 5 grandchildren to global warming saddens me deeply.

I am attaching a paper that gives my perspective on this problem. [I attached my .]

Hansen’s (disappointing!) response, received September 8, 2015:

There is no runaway on the horizon. It will be difficult, but if world emissions begin to decline soon it is still feasible to keep global warming to 1.X at maximum and then decline. See our PLOS One paper published in December 2013. You can find my papers via

My immediate answer:

The key word in your response is "if." The important question is, PROBABILITY, LIKELIHOOD, and I can foresee no likelihood that this problem will be addressed in a manner that prevents our imminent extinction.

145

A Message to Team Rubicon (September 8, 2015)

[I just sent the following to the above organization.]

Our daughter’s “On Wisconsin” came today in the mail, and I want to congratulate you folks for the great work you are doing.

My specific concern, however, is the fact that we humans are now living during “the sixth extinction,” with 150 – 200 species going extinct EVERY DAY! What this portends is our own fate; in fact, Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, writing in 2013, stated that he expected our species to be extinct around 2040. Given that the Arctic is today’s “canary in the coal mine,” his words should be heeded.

Given that our politicians seem to be survivors from the dinosaur era, I have been developing ideas that would involve private citizens rather than bureaucrats, and this short eBook provides a good introduction to them:

In reading the article about your organization, what struck me is that YOUR disaster organizationmight be best equipped for addressing the possible (probable?) disaster that lies in our future. This could be a wonderful project for veterans!!

146

Is James Hansen Getting Senile?

Alton C. Thompson

A 2° C. “limit” has been with us for several decades now (regarding global warming), having been (surprisingly!) of all people, Yale’s (in 1975 and1977!):

According to most sources the range of variation between distinct climatic regimes is on the order of ±5° C, and at present time the global climate is at the high end of this range. If there were global temperatures more than 2° of 3° above the current average temperature, this wouldtake the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.96

Nordhaus’s 1977 article included this graph97:

(Note that the dashed line crosses the “Estimated maximum . . .” line in about 2035 CE.)

96 This statement occurs on p. 23 of his 1975 “

97 This appears on p. 342 of his 1977 “.”

147

Although the concepts of “” and “” played no role in Nordhaus’s articles (his orientation being, rather, to the geological past), those concepts do play a role in the thinking of climate scientists. A Scientific American article, for example, begins this way:

While we may not yet have reached the “point of no return”—when no amount of cutbacks on greenhouse gas emissions will save us from potentially catastrophic global warming—climate scientists warn we may be getting awfully close. Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution a century ago, the average global temperature has risen some 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Most climatologists agree that, while the warming to date is already causing environmental problems, another 0.4 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, representing a global average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) of 450 parts per million (ppm), could set in motion unprecedented changes in global climate and a significant increase in the severity of natural disasters—and as such could represent the dreaded point of no return.

By “unprecedented changes” the author presumably means that “runaway” would begin—i.e., the rise in the global mean temperature would begin to accelerate, and the correlates of that increase (i.e., more storminess and greater weather variability) would begin to intensify.

Regarding the 2° C. limit, there are at least two problems, one of which was identified by Naomi Klein (p. 12):

In Copenhagen [in ], the major polluting governments—including the United States and China—signed a nonbinding agreement pledging to keep temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above where they were before we started powering our economies with coal. (That converts to an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.) This well-known target, which supposedly represents the “safe” limit of climate change, has always been a highly political choice that has more to do with minimizing economic disruption than with protecting the greatest number of people.

That is, although climate scientists have been involved in meetings such as the one held in Copenhagen in 2009, their voices have been drowned out by those of political leaders. As a result, the 2° C. limit is, second, not a meaningful limit scientifically.

It is not surprising, then, that noted climate scientist that the 2° C. limit is “a prescription for disaster.” Rather than thinking in terms of a 2° C. limit, we should be regarding an ° C. as the limit, he has argued. (Also, see .)

Now if the limit beyond which we humans should not pass is an increase of 1° C., and given that already been an increase of 0.85 ° C. (from 1880 to 2012), my question to Dr. Hansen is:

How will it be possible to avoid an additional increase of 0.15° C.?!

For two reasons, I see this as impossible:

148

1. Any given economic system has inertia—the amount of inertia increasing with the level of development of the economy. Thus, even if decision-makers were to decide to cut carbon emissions drastically, they would unable to do so quickly.

2. No will is discernable on the part of decision-makers to cut emissions quickly—in large part because of their being mere puppets for fossil fuel interests. In addition, given that global warming is a global problem (!), unless all nations (the large-developed ones in particular) are willing to cut back on emissions drastically and quickly, the 1 degree “target” cannot be met. I see no signs of the cooperation necessary to accomplish this end.

I recently sent an email to Dr. Hansen, asking him how he could regard his 1 degree limit as realistic. Here’s the response I received:

There is no runaway on the horizon. It will be difficult, but if world emissions begin to decline soon it is still feasible to keep global warming to 1.X at maximum and then decline. See our PLOS One paper published in December 2013. You can find my papers via

I was flabbergasted to learn that Hansen sees “no runaway on the horizon”! Presumably, Hansensees the 1 degree limit as the point where “runaway” would begin; given the “fact” that we are soclose to runaway occurring (only 0.15 degree C. away!), how can he not see that reaching, and then crossing, the 1 degree mark is virtually inevitable!

And why—given that he is a scientist—his use of the word “if” rather than the language of probability? Is he actually that naïve regarding what is, and is not, possible politically? Or, rather, is he getting senile?!

Those of us who read articles on the Nature Bats Last web site tend to agree with, e.g., Arctic who—writing in 2013—asserted that runaway has already begun; and that our days as a species “are numbered.”

By no means is this a pleasant prospect to contemplate; it is, however, a prospect that appears to have substantial scientific merit. (:

What’s sad is that the Prudential Insurance Company, e.g., that states “Let’s plan on whatever the future will bring”—when it’s relatively clear that there will be no future to plan for!

149

On Being Religious

Alton C. Thompson

Given that a religious person is one who adheres to the tenets of some given religion, our first task here is define “religion.”

Here is a ”:

A religion is an organized collection of , , and that relate to an order of existence. Many religions have , , and that aim to explain the , the , or the . From their beliefs about the and , people may derive , , or a preferred .

Note that this definition is a descriptive one; i.e., it represents a summary of those organizations in the world that are thought of as religions—by their adherents, others, or both.

Here is another definition of religion, this one being (a) a simpler definition, (b) one that is normative (rather than descriptive), and (c) one derived from the Christian Bible (the specifically):

27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. [98]

Whereas the first definition above makes no explicit reference to Deity, the second one does (“God our Father”). The role given “God” in this second definition is, however, somewhat ambiguous: “God” in this passage is not an active agent but, rather, it is a Being that approves certain actions by humans, and disapproves others.

What’s ironic about this second (normative) definition is that, although drawn from the Christian Bible, it is given little, or no (!), attention by most Christian denominations—whose orientation, rather, tends to be more to proper belief (i.e., orthodoxy) rather than the proper behavior (i.e., orthopraxy). (This is the basis for the assertion that the religion of Jesus became, with Christianity, a religion that was merely about him.99)

Given that my interest here is in presenting my ideas of what “being religious” should mean (i.e.,it is normative), and that I regard the definition given in the Epistle of James as a good starting point, it is useful to begin here by “fleshing out” the definition given in that epistle:

98 One might argue that my summary of the Bible in my For ? (PP. 12 – 37) was written from a “Jamesian” perspective!

99 See , and also , for example.

150

A “religious” person, according to the definition given in James, is one who engages only (or at least primarily100) in actions of which “God” would approve. The author of James lists three such actions:

1. Looking after orphans (in their distress).

2. Looking after widows (in their distress).

3. Keeping oneself “polluted” by the world.

The first two points above are rather straightforward, but what does keeping oneself “from being polluted by the world” mean? Here is a James:

the term behind polluted is aspilon, literally meaning "without blemish" or "spotless." Like otherterms and concepts in James, it is a term familiar to Peter, as in 1 Peter 1:19 (referring to Christ as a lamb without blemish) and 2 Peter 3:14 (referring to Christians' striving to be spotless). We can see the term, therefore, being used in the church of James's time [101] in a literal way that drew upon the Old Testament sacrifices of lambs without blemish and in a figurative way appliedto Christians' moral purity.

Unfortunately, this “elaboration” of the term “pollution” is not particularly enlightening: The author refers to the absence of physical blemishes, but surely the author of James—given the “fact” that it is “the world” that would “pollute” one—meant something different: That within any given society a certain value system exists (such as ), and one should avoid being controlled by that value system—insofar as it is in conflict with one’s duty to “look after” orphans and widows (“in their distress”).

The Epistle of James was written nearly 2 millennia ago, and given that fact two questions arise for us moderns:

1. How should the definition of “religion” given in the above passage be “modernized”—so that it has particular relevance for today (and citizens of the United States in particular)?

2. How should that concept be operationalized (i.e., be “translated” in a way capable of being put into practice)?

100 A tacit assumption here is that the actions referred to are a result of conscious decision-making. Given that not all of one’s actions result from thoughtful, considered decision-making (some are made during moments of passion, for example), a “religious” person (according to James) can be thought of as one who makes a concerted effort to keep non-approved actions to a minimum.

101 The author’s use of the word “church” here suggests that a single religious organization formed afterthe death of Jesus. This was by no means the actual case! For example, Lutheran pastor ü tz, in his (2005) refers (p. 131) to the book (1973), edited by A. F. J. Klijn, which lists five Jewish-Christian groups: , , (also ), , and Symmachians.

151

As to the first of the above two questions, I would first note that at the time and place of the writing of James, those needing help (in “distress”) were thought of by the author as orphans andwidows.103 From this identification we can infer, though, that “approved” (religious) behavior would include helping anyone in “distress”—anyone lacking in physical/mental well-being. Thus, adherence to—and acting on—a “swim or sink” philosophy104 would be irreligious to the writer of James.

Second, note that James’s advice pertains only to the here-and-now, but that today although that continues to be important, the future is “creeping up on us.” What I mean by that is that global warming is rearing its ugly head. As put presciently by Jean Liedloff in 1975 (in her (pp. 21 – 22):

For some two million years, despite being the same species of animal as ourselves, man was a success. He had evolved from apehood to manhood as a hunter-gatherer with an efficient lifestyle, which, had it continued, might have seen him through a million-year anniversary. As it is, most ecologists [105] agree, his chances of surviving even another century are diminished with each day’s activities.

During the brief few thousand years since he strayed from the way of life to which evolution [had] adapted him, he has not only wreaked havoc upon the natural order of the entire planet, but he has also managed to bring into disrepute the highly evolved good sense that guided his behavior throughout all those aeons.

Put another way, since the (the ), there has developed a growing “discrepancy” between the ways of life that people actually live, and the way of life for which they had become “designed” (by evolutionary factors), and one manifestation of this growing “discrepancy” is that the scienceand technology that we have developed have enabled global warming to become a problem—the irony here being that we know this through the efforts of scientists!

This is not the place to discuss global warming in detail; suffice it to say that Liedloff, writing in 1975, was right: We humans seem to be on the road to extinction (by around 2040 CE, per Arctic climate scientist ).

What is the relevance of this strong possibility (likelihood?) for the religious person (as defined here, normatively)?

103 It is somewhat surprising that this “list” in James makes no reference to slaves. It is useful to recognize, however, “Paul was not opposed to the freedom of slaves if the opportunity arose (1 Cor 7 v21) but believed that God had called people to different stations in life and they were to live out the Christian life in the situation in which they were called (1 Cor 7).”

104 Associated with, e.g., .

105 “Climate scientists” would be a more appropriate term here.

152

From a here-and-now standpoint there are numerous possibilities—because individuals differ in their abilities, personalities, resources, interests, liveliness, etc., characteristics (the APRIL factor). In looking into the future, however, it would seem that there is just one path to follow—working for societal system change (given that the societies that we humans have developed since the Agricultural Revolution have provided their inmates with “discrepant” ways of life.106 The problem with this “solution,” however, is that there may be little future left!

My position, however, is that given that the future cannot be known with certainty, we should assume that our species can be “saved,” and should act accordingly (by working for societal system change). An advantage in doing so, in fact, is that it would allow us to “kill two birds with one stone.” That is, efforts to achieve societal system change would likely contribute to the well-being of those engaged in such efforts—and their efforts just might result in the “salvation” of our species! If such a possibility interests you, you might profit from reading several of my eBooks:

1. (2013)

2. (2014)

3. (2014)

4. (2014)

5. (2015)

My concept of “being religious” differs substantially from that of most of my fellows, but it is Biblically-based and, I believe, justified on that basis alone. A question that may arise with some: Why does not such a religion prevail? The answer: A society has the sort of religion(s) that it needs—for its proper functioning. That is in conflict with “true religion”! Religions tend to be supportive of the societies that house them. This support tends to be tacit, but is, nonetheless, real.

A Commentary on Two Graphs

Alton C. Thompson

The two graphs below illustrate the fact that global warming is a process that “feeds on itself”—meaning that as warming occurs, it causes changes (e.g., the melting of snow/ice, the thawing of permafrost with consequent release of methane gas) that result in increased warming, an acceleration of warming, in fact. (Along with an intensification of the correlates of warming—

106 For some ideas regarding this, see my .

153

such as increased weather variability, an increase in the number of storms, an increase in the sizeof storms, and an increase in their severity.)

Global MeanTemperature

Time

Global MeanTemperature

TimeA

The first graph assumes that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere continues on a “business as usual” basis. The second graph, however, assumes a cessation of that release—worldwide—beginning at point in time A. (The “dashed” line represents the mean global temperature which, upon being reached, would mean the end of all human life.)

In the second case the rate of increase is smaller after Time A than before, so that the global mean temperature continues to increase, but more slowly than in the case of the first graph. The reason warming continues is that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are still present and, therefore, still affecting the global mean temperature (and its correlates). Their degree of presence in the atmosphere (in terms of parts per million—ppm) will decline over time; but it will take thousands of years before that level reaches the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm.

Although the rate of increase is less after Time A with the second graph than is the rate of increase with the first graph, in both cases there is acceleration. That is, in both cases a “tipping point” had been reached and crossed, after which “runaway” began.

A question that arises here is when the “tipping point” was reached/crossed. The answer is that we cannot know from the graphs! It could have occurred at some point prior to Time A—but

154

also could have occurred at a point after Time A.

The point that I would like to make here is that because it’s not possible to pinpoint exactly whenthe tipping point will occur, once one recognizes that the pouring of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not a “good thing,” one should abandon those activities that are contributing to theincreased “greenhouse effect” as quickly as possible.

Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, writing in 2013, asserted that runaway was already “in progress” as of 2013. Despite James Hansen’s claim (in an email to me) that “There is no runaway on the horizon,” I find Davies’s statement of 2013 much more reasonable.

Today (September 22, 2015) Pope Francis—author of a relevant —will enter the United States. My reaction: It’s unfortunate that a pope didn’t write this sort of encyclical in the 1970s—or the 1980s at latest—so that our prospects, as humans, now wouldn’t appear to be so dim.

As it is, I’m convinced, with Davies, that “runaway” is now underway, and that at some point in the near future (around 2040, per Davies) our species will join the 150 – 200 species that each day are going extinct!

155

The Pope’s Climate Encyclical

Alton C. Thompson

Given that Pope Francis is in the United States as I write these words today (September 23, 2015107), I feel an obligation to offer, in this essay, my comments on his climate change encyclical, issued earlier this year (May 24, 2015)— (). I offer no detailed critique of the encyclical in this essay, focusing, rather, on my principal criticisms of the document.

My basic criticisms are twofold:

1. It is the sort of document that should have been issued in the 1970s—or the 1980s at the latest.

2. It fails to focus on the fundamental environmental issue facing us today.

Let me next, then, expand on each of the above two points.

The Timing is Off

Jean Liedloff—a non-climate scientist!—in her 1975 (pp. 21 – 22) stated:

For some two million years, despite being the same species of animal as ourselves, man was a success. He had evolved from apehood to manhood as a hunter-gatherer with an efficient lifestyle, which, had it continued, might have seen him through a million-year anniversary. As it is, most ecologists [108] agree, his chances of surviving even another century are diminished with each day’s activities.

During the brief few thousand years since he strayed from the way of life to which evolution [had] adapted him, he has not only wreaked havoc upon the natural order of the entire planet, but he has also managed to bring into disrepute the highly evolved good sense that guided his behavior throughout all those aeons.

Global warming has been known about at least since the 1840s:

As —and in the mind specifically of USan diplomat and philologist [1801 – 1882]—some Westerners have sensed that our disrespect for Earth would bring us trouble eventually.

107 He on the subject at the White House.

108 “Climate scientists” would be a more appropriate term here.

156

Swedish scientist enius [1859 – 1927] “in 1896 . . . was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the .” (Here’s .)

[1898 – 1964] “In 1938 . . . compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, and correlated these measurements with old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.[1] He concluded that over the previous fifty years the global land temperatures had increased, and proposed that this increase could be explained as an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide.[3] These estimates have now been shown to be remarkably accurate,[4] especially as they were performed without the aid of a computer.[5]

Granted that in the 1970s the topic of global warming was not a “front page” affair (it still isn’t!!). However, despite that fact, given that the pope in the 1970s (, pope from 1963 to 1978) had a direct “pipeline to God,” either God was not speaking to him about global warming—or hewasn’t listening!

The reason it would have been important to address the problem of global warming in the 1970s is that had it been addressed then, we humans might not now be “looking down the barrel” of extinction by way of global warming! This brings me to my second comment:

The Encyclical’s Failure to Address What’s Truly Important

In Chapter One (“WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COMMON HOME”) of the encyclical, Pope Francis presents discussions under the following headings:

I. POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (section 20 – 26—out of a total of 246 sections)

II. THE ISSUE OF WATER (sections 27 – 31)

III. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY (sections 32 – 42)

IV. DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND THE BREAKDOWN OF SOCIETY (sections 43 – 47)

V. GLOBAL INEQUALITY (sections 48 – 52)

VI. WEAK RESPONSES (sections 53 – 59)

VII. A VARIETY OF OPINIONS (sections 60 – 61)

What is NEVER addressed in the encyclical is the possibility (probability?!) that our species is on the road to extinction—thereby joining the each day! So serious is the extinction problem today that some are saying that we are now living during the period of ! Why do we humans think we are so special that we can, though, avoid the fate of so many other species?!

157

The word “extinction” does occur five times in the encyclical, but never with reference to our species:

24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.

34. It may well disturb us to learn of the extinction of mammals or birds, since they are more visible. But the good functioning of ecosystems also requires fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumerable variety of microorganisms.

35. In assessing the environmental impact of any project, concern is usually shown for its effects on soil, water and air, yet few careful studies are made of its impact on biodiversity, as if the loss of species or animals and plant groups were of little importance. Highways, new plantations, the fencing-off of certain areas, the damming of water sources, and similar developments, crowd outnatural habitats and, at times, break them up in such a way that animal populations can no longer migrate or roam freely. As a result, some species face extinction.

42. Greater investment needs to be made in research aimed at understanding more fully the functioning of ecosystems and adequately analyzing the different variables associated with any significant modification of the environment. Because all creatures are connected, each must be cherished with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another. Each area is responsible for the care of this family. This will require undertaking a careful inventory of the species which it hosts, with a view to developing programmes and strategies of protection with particular care for safeguarding species heading towards extinction.

89. The created things of this world are not free of ownership: “For they are yours, O Lord, who love the living” (Wis 11:26). This is the basis of our conviction that, as part of the universe, called into being by one Father, all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect. Here I would reiterate that “God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement”.[67]

Does the absence of any discussion of the possibility that our species will escape extinction mean that it won’t? Has, e.g., God told Pope Francis that our species does not have extinction inits future? If so, why hasn’t God also told climate scientists this wonderful news?!

Was, e.g., Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies wrong in :

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing

158

Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

And what about Malcolm P. R. Light, who (2014):

We are now facing a devastating final show down with Mother Nature, which is being massively accelerated by the filthy extraction of fossil fuels by US and Canada by gas fracking, coal and tar sand mining and continent wide bitumen transport. The United States and other developed nations made a fatal mistake by refusing to sign the original Kyoto protocols. The United States and Canada must now cease all their fossil fuel extraction and go entirely onto renewable energyin the next 10 to 15 years otherwise they will be guilty of planetary ecocide - genocide by the 2050's.

(Given that the cessation called for by Dr. Light is unlikely to occur, Dr. Light was in effect writing that our species will go the way of the dinosaurs (but for a different set of reasons) no later than the 2050s.)

Global warming is a serious matter, and one gains little sense of that seriousness from the pope’s encyclical.

In the early 1980s I reached the conclusion that our various problems as humans were rooted in our societal systems, so that the answer to our problems was societal system change. In 1984 I then published a 5-“wave” strategy for achieving the necessary change—a strategy which has not, of course, been acted upon. (It is summarized, with background provided, in my erwise.)

It may be too late now to “save” our species; but given that the future cannot be known with certainty, I advocate acting on the “plan” contained in my 1984 article. Our tendency, of course, is to assume—tacitly—that the solution lies with science and technology. Given, though, that scientific and technological developments have played a huge role in bringing about our current global warming problem, any efforts to solve this problem with science and technology are likelyto simply hasten our demise as a species.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that it’s now too late for ANY solution to solve this problem! As one with three children and five grandchildren, this is NOT a conclusion that I want to make. But . . . .

159

[Not an essay to be proud of, but . . . .]

Reflections on the Pope’s Recent Visit

Alton C. Thompson

The outpouring of enthusiasm, joy, etc., prompted by the recent visit, to the United States, may generate hope in some that religious/spiritual forces have been unleashed that will motivate many to “turn their lives around”—in a good way. To a degree, this likely to occur—Speaker of the House John Boehner’s recent being a possible example.

At least two questions arise, however, regarding the ultimate value of the pope’s trip to the United States:

1. Were his statements cogent, and likely to be acted upon?

2. In the larger scheme of things, did it matter whether or not he visited this country?

What motivates the second question is the fact that most in our society are so focused on the here-and-now that the “big picture” eludes them.

Were His Statements Cogent/Likely to Be Acted Upon?

In speaking to Congress, Pope Francis ), “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental change we are undergoing, and its human roots, concerns and affects us all.” But:

1. Who would be involved in that “conversation”?

2. What, specifically, would that “conversation” accomplish?

3. What recommendations do you have for specific actions to take to address this growing problem?

4. What is the likelihood that any recommendations for action that you might make would actually be acted upon?

5. In being acted upon, what is the likelihood that they would “work” (i.e., prevent catastrophe from occurring)?

Given that the pope’s remarks included no answers to any of the above five questions, his statement regarding global warming (quoted above) must be regarded as vacuous. As such, it does not easily lend itself to being acted upon.

160

columnist , , Senior Editor of the , stated that Pope Francis “has named the excesses and distortions of unfettered capitalism and the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, but neither he nor thechurch has said what should take its place;” “nowhere does he critique the system itself.”

Insofar as ours is a capitalistic society, and that fact is a cause of the global warming problem currently facing us, the pope’s failure to offer a realistic alternative to our current economic system amounts to tacit acceptance of that system. In effect, then, what the pope said regarding global warming was mere “fluff.”

Do His Statements Even Matter, Ultimately?

The fact that religion per se receives a great deal of attention in our society tends to give one the impression that religion plays an important role in our society—but it doesn’t. To understand why that is so, I need first to present some background information.

Since the Agricultural Revolution (the “”), there has been (a) societal development, and that development has occurred largely (b) in response to technological and intellectual developments—with religion playing but a servant role in that development, primarily.

Here’s what was involved in that Revolution that has relevance for the pope’s recent visit:

Although the societal development that has occurred since the Agricultural Revolution has usually been thought of as progressive in nature, it has actually tended to have an important dark side:

1. The new ways of life that have developed have tended to involve (a) exposure to new stimuli, (b) new behaviors, and (c) new ways to use the brain.

2. The problem with those changes is that prior to the changes, humans had become “designed” (via the operation of evolutionary forces109) for the way of life that had existed before the change in way of life had occurred.

3. Departure from that earlier way of life represented a discrepancy—between (a) prior and (b) current ways of life.

4. That discrepancy itself became a causal factor—with most of its effects being of a negative nature (the most notable one at present being global warming—which threatens to “do in” our species in the near future).

In terms of recent years, the importance of a growing discrepancy has been a cause of the development of a social class structure; and given that “civilization” involves exploitation of some by others, in addition to those sectors of the economy engaged in a society’s “business,”

109 See pp. 38 – 46 in , with a related discussion of “human design specifications” presented on pp. 47 – 117.

161

there are two other sectors, both of which represent responses to the threat of rebellion induced by societal inequality: A sector whose function is to address whatever “rebellion” occurs, and another sector whose function is to prevent rebellion from occurring.

Put another way, some of the institutions/practices that have arisen in response to this growing discrepancy—in what Jean Liedloff would term societies—rather than contributing to societal development, have been of the “mopping up” variety.

(An underlying assumption here is that a modern society has sets of laws at various levels—national, state, etc.).110

Addressing “Rebellion”

1. Those charged with the responsibility of apprehending possible offenders (e.g., police officers).

2. Those with the responsibility of trying those accused of committing crimes (e.g., lawyers and judges).

3. Institutions given the responsibility of detaining (i.e., incarcerating) or, possibly, rehabilitating, those convicted of criminal behavior (jails/prisons, and those who “operate” them).

Preventing “Rebellion”

1. Organizations that function to divert one’s attention from the operations of the society (entertainments such as television, movies, sports).

2. Organizations that help one cope (bars—which not only provide patrons with alcoholic products, but an opportunity to socialize with others).111

3. Churches—which help people cope by several means:112

a. Providing some opportunity for socialization—satisfying one’s need to interact with other human beings on other than a “boss-grunt” basis.

b. Rituals—which help one focus one’s mind on the present, thereby enabling one toforget, at least temporarily, one’s troubles.

110 In addition to the sectors mentioned below, there is a medical sector (physicians, hospitals, etc.)—for addressing the “” (while lining the pockets of practitioners!).

111 Drug dealers also play a role here, but their activities are illicit.

112 Churches with a “success” orientation let their parishioners know that it is OK to live by the society’s dominant values—individualism, competition, materialism, etc.

162

c. Impressive temples—which, upon entering, tend to give one a sense of comfort and security. They do this because entering an impressive religious building is equivalent to re-entering the womb!113

Insofar as religions help people cope, they are supportive, rather than subversive, of the Existing Order. Religious leaders may “mouth” support for positive change, but deep down are satisfied with the status quo, and do not want such change. They are content to remain servants of the Existing Order.

Although many in our midst may sense the fact that their lives are discrepant, few are consciously aware of this state of being. Therefore, not only are they unable to gain a clear perspective on their own lives, but are unable to understand the fact that the pope’s visit to the United States had little value—for it was not salvific.

In fact, it could not have been—for it’s too late for that! Our destiny appears to be extinction, as a species. Not only the pope, but most others as well, are unaware of this fact.

113 Liedloff’s (op. cit.) emphasis on the importance of “in-arms” experience fails to recognize that growth in size of the human brain (and head, therefore) required that all humans be born prematurely. For a human to develop properly, then, the early months after birth need to be treated as continuing the womb experience. For many ”primitive” peoples this occurred (and does occur), but as “civilization” developed, this practice tended to fall by the wayside—and itself, then, became a major cause of human problems.

163

What the Pope Should Have Said

Alton C. Thompson

When Pope Francis on September 24, 2015, he should have said the following:

My message today is not just to the members of Congress assembled here today, not just to the American people, but to all people everywhere:

Our days as a species are numbered; our species is likely to go the way of the dinosaurs—but for a different set of reasons, of course—between 2030 and 2050. Because of that highly probable fact, I have two recommendations for you:

1. Cease having children—using whatever birth control means available, so that there is no need to abort fetuses. Given that the children who do exist today will have no future, it would be irresponsible—cruel, in fact—to bring any more children into this world.

2. The Great Principle of Christianity—of many religions, in fact—is to love others. Jesus said, in fact (in ): 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Our time on earth is short; thus, use it wisely—by devoting the rest of your life to this central command of Jesus.

That’s’ all I have to say to you.

The pope is not ignorant about global warming—having devoted . But although the word “extinction” occurs 5 times in that encyclical (in sections 24, 34, 35, 42, and 89), that word neveroccurs with reference to humans!

Either the pope is not aware of the imminent danger that our species is in, or is aware, but refusesto accept that fact.

Either way, it is terribly unfortunate that the pope did not use his “bully pulpit” to say what needed to be said. Had he done so our species would not be spared, of course, but our “last days” might at least have been made a little more pleasant than they are likely to be otherwise.

[I sent a copy of this to Dan Maguire, and received this email response on September 29, 2015:

Right to the point, Pope Al! Professor Daniel C. Maguire. Marquette University ]

164

The Blasphemy of Christianity

Alton C. Thompson

What Christianity should be “about” can be inferred from Chapter 13 of , where Jesus is quoted thusly:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love oneanother.”

In this particular passage Jesus was speaking to his disciples—so that his “love one another” might suggest that Jesus was commanding only his disciples that they were love one another; thatis, this command in John appears to be intended to have in-group relevance only.

However, the Good Samaritan parable (in ) attributed to Jesus expands the meaning of the John passage:

30 . . . “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. Theystripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happenedto be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32

So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

This parable, in addition to presenting a subtle attack on the Judaism of his day (by implicitly criticizing a and ), makes clear that Jesus intended “loving the neighbor” as involving:

Doing things for others, and

Doing things not just for those others who happen, also, to be disciples of Jesus, and otherwise like oneself (in religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, education, etc.), but all others—to the extent of one’s ability, of course.

165

This “doing” includes interacting with others, and doing so in a loving—i.e., courteous, respectful, friendly, etc.—manner.

What Jesus—a Jew—was advocating, then, in effect, if not actually, was a new religion, one that had love as its central principle. In doing so, it must also be added that Jesus was in effect asserting that that new religion be a living one. One oriented to a principle, rather than, e.g., a “sacred” book (such as the Bible). A principle, in addition, that in being an abstract one would require “.” That is, it is a principle that must be “fleshed out,” “concretized”—in a manner appropriate for each time and each place.

In summary, then, from the standpoint of Jesus—the putative founder of Christianity—a “Christian” is one who:

Makes a conscious choice to be a disciple of Jesus; and as such

Takes on as one’s life task actively serving others to the best of one’s ability.

One implication of discipleship is that one not make an idol of the Bible (as do so-called “Bible churches)—a point recognized byTheodore Gerald Soares in in his old (1915) (1915). In his Chapter XXXVII, “The Social Teachings of Jesus and the Prophets in the Modern World” (p. 369ff.) Soares says this about the Christian Bible (p. 371):

not only is literalism inadequate, it is also misleading. There are, to be sure, certain teachings of the prophets and of Jesus which could be transferred bodily to modern conditions, but lifted out of their original social situations they become strangely unfitted to our life.

and

The words and deeds of Jesus and of the prophets give us very little to obey. But is obedience the prime need of a free spirit? They give us little to copy in slavish imitation. But is the mechanical reproduction of the acts of another the best means for the development of vigorous personality? We are not in need of directions but of inspiration.

The conclusion that can be gleaned from these statements is that:

The Bible is best viewed as a record of a Tradition, one that developed over time—with Jesus and Paul being its last (Biblical) members. Our task today, then, is not so much to “know the Bible backward and forward” (something emphasized in those churches that claim, presumptuously, to be “Bible churches”) but, rather, to enter that Tradition, and further develop it—thereby making the religion a living one. That is, our task is to continue that Tradition, but in the sense of extending it—the fundamental idea in that Tradition being that one should love the neighbor. This was explicit in the “ministry” of Jesus, but is a “message” that is present not only in the canonical gospels, but the Bible as a whole—as I try to make clear on pp. 5 - 36 of my For ?

166

Behavior does not occur in a vacuum, of course, so given that some institutional settings are more conducive to loving behavior than others, an additional task of the disciple of Jesus114 is to work for the best possible “institutional furniture.”115 Not only in one’s own society, but others as well (but not, in the case of other societies, until one has become knowledgeable enough aboutother societies to enable one to avoid doing more harm than good).

This point was recognized long ago by [1852 – 1902] (in his “Moral Theory and Moral Practice,” 1900), who noted (pp. 229 – 230):116

The remarkable discrepancy between the Christian code of morals and the actual practice of Christian communities. The discrepancy can hardly be denied, but it may be explained by insisting that the Christian teaching relates primarily to the formation of character; that it inculcates dispositions from which, if due opportunity be furnished, the duly conforming type of action would follow. It need hardly be pointed out how wide a field this explanation, if accepted,would yield for that most common weakness of human nature, self-deception. To suppose it possible that a human character can be moulded into the Christian dispositions and excellences of character, while it develops in and among institutions of life admittedly not framed upon the Christian model or adjusted to it, is to put at defiance all that we know of theinterdependence of character and circumstance. Dispositions, and the objective counterparts of them, acknowledged modes of life, must always go together, and neither can be understoodin separation from the other.

[I have added the bolding to this paragraph.]

Thus, a living Christianity would recognize that:

Its central principle should be loving the neighbor.

Given that that principle is an abstract one, the principle needs to be “concretized.” In addition, it must recognize that the institutional setting within which one lives plays an

important role in affecting one’s behavior, so that a sincere attempt must be made to work

114 One not mentioned in the Bible, true, but that fact is irrelevant for a living religion—the sort of religion that Jesus obviously desired to initiate.

115 This term was used by in the final paragraph of Chapter Eight (“Industrial Exemption and Conservatism”) of his classic book (1899): “The effect of the pecuniary interest and the pecuniary habit of mind upon the growth of institutions is seen in those enactments and conventions that make for security of property, enforcement of contracts, facility of pecuniary transactions, vested interests. Of such bearing are changes affecting bankruptcy and receiverships, limited liability, banking and currency, coalitions of laborers or employers, trusts and pools. The community's institutional furniture of this kind is of immediate consequence only to the propertied classes, and in proportion as they are propertied; that is to say, in proportion as they are to be ranked with the leisure class.”

116 In , edited by Stanton Coit (London: 1900).

167

—in one’s own society, and other societies—to create that “institutional furniture” which will most conduce loving behavior.

Is this what Christianity is actually “about,” however? The answer to this question—it goes without saying!—is CLEARLY NOT! For that reason, one has a right—a duty, indeed!—to label Christianity a blasphemous religion. A more appropriate name for a religion actually basedon the teachings of Jesus would be “Jesuanism,” of course, rather than “Christianity.”

The orientation that Christianity should have, then, is a behavioral one, specifically an orientation to loving the neighbor. Instead—and reflecting, in part, the fact that it has made an of the Bible 117—it has developed—and still has—an orientation to belief (and ritual)—to orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy.118 As someone119 has put this, cogently:

The religion of Jesus became, with Christianity, merely a religion about him.

Also, in the Publisher’s Preface to History of Christianity (1893) there is this (p. xvi):

If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason,as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!

Given that a religion that is merely about Jesus is ANYTHING BUT the religion of Jesus, Christianity is clearly a blasphemous religion. If Jesus knew about this, he would, obviously, reject it!

In addition, there are several more specific reasons for labeling Christianity a blasphemous religion.

First, the very name of the religion—“Christianity”—suggests that the religion is a blasphemousone—in that in referring to Jesus, it uses the term “Christ.” Here is the :

117 I strongly disagree, however, with the author’s claim that the Bible “should help us seek the One worthy of worship.” In fact, that claim is itself blasphemous! (In addition, the statement fails to recognize that Jesus—!—died 2000 years ago.)

118 “Christianity” consists of a number of different denominations, and this generalization applies more to some denominations than to others, of course.

119 I have been unable to identify who first said (or wrote) this.

168

Christ (; : , Christós, meaning "") is a translation of the ׁשיַח and the (Māšîaḥ) מש(M'shiha), the Messiah, and is used as a title for in the . In common usage, "Christ" is generally treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth. The followers of Jesus becameknown as (as in ) because they believed Jesus to be the Christós (from Greek, "Messiah") in the , for example in the .

“Christ,” then, is a title applied to Jesus. There is esus himself thought of himself as the Messiah,but whether he did or not:

1. He was not in fact, (Jesus’s religion!). :

Even though the eventual coming of the messiah is a strongly upheld idea in Judaism, trying to predict the actual time when the messiah will come is an act that is frowned upon. These kinds of actions are thought to weaken the faith the people have in the religion. This happened once when , from Smirna (now , Turkey), claimed that he was the messiah that the Jewish community have been waiting for. So in Judaism, there is no specific time when the messiah comes. Rather, is the act of the people that determines when the messiah comes. It is said that the messiah would come either when the world needs his coming the most (when the world is so sinful and in desperate need of saving by the messiah) or deserves it the most (when genuine goodness prevails in the world).[20]

2. Referring to Jesus by a title diverts attention away from what he was actually “about,” introducing (in effect, at least) a new religion, the thrust of that religion being love of neighbor. Diverting one’s attention that way is blasphemous—and would make Jesus “turn over in his grave” (were that possible)! This is but one example of Christianity having developed a belief (and ritual) orientation,120 whereas Jesus’s orientation was clearly to behavior. Put another way, Christianity should have developed as a religion oriented to orthopraxy, but instead developed as a religion oriented to orthodoxy (and ritual121).I should add here that , the earliest followers of Jesus were referred to as followers of the Way.122 This suggests that they thought of themselves as beginning to lead a new way of life, one guided by the love command.

120 For example, a part of the belief system of many denominations of Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected. Not only is this belief literally unbelievable, but is among those features of Christianity that was that existed in Christianity’s early years.

121 This tries to justify the existence of rituals in Christianity.

122 Currently there is a group that calls itself “.”

169

Second, the cross is the single most important symbol associated with Jesus. However, not only was this symbol , but its implications are blasphemous. Rather than simply referring to the (apparent) fact that Jesus was crucified—and, therefore, died on a cross—it implies that that fact has significance—e.g., something nonsensical, that Jesus “died for our sins.”123 What does have significance, rather, is strove to initiate a new religion, one that had love of neighbor as its basic principle.

Third, the blasphemous nature of Christianity is indicated by what they call their meetings: “worship services.” This labeling might be regarded as doubly blasphemous:

1. A disciple, per Jesus, is one who engages in loving behavior. The gospels provide no indication whatsoever that Jesus wanted people to worship him—then or now!

2. Given that loving others involves engaging in service to others,124 and that no such serviceoccurs during Christian meetings, it is blasphemous to refer to those meetings as “services”!125

What meetings should do is help those attending become (more) loving by providing them with support and ideas for helping others, and opportunities for doing so in terms ofjoint projects involving others in the meeting (and still others, too).126

Fourth, rather than Christians working to create—here and elsewhere—an institutional situationconducive to loving behavior, most Christians have simply accepted, at face value, the Existing Order. In fact, the establishment of numerous Christian (especially Protestant) denominations in large part represents an adaptation to the Existing Order!127 Of course, working to create an institutional situation conducive to loving behavior has little—if any—Biblical basis, but that fact should not have prevented Christians from doing so: Adherence to Biblical literalism is what has hindered Christians from making Christianity a living, creative religion.

123 in Jesus’s day, so that fact may be part of the explanation of the phrase’s origin. For a (feeble, one designed for the clueless!) attempt to elucidate the phrase, see , for example.

124 While interacting with others in a respectful, kind, etc. way.

125 Several years ago I attended a Quaker religious meeting, and after the meeting, while conversing with one of the attendees, referred to the meeting as a “service.” I was quickly corrected: “Service is what we do after our meetings!” Touché! See , for example, about Quakerism.

126 I have developed a new religion—NeWFism, which so far exists only “on paper,” though—that features proper meetings. It is discussed in my —which eBook also contains links to my other eBooks on NeWFism.

127 In that social class, ethnicity, education, etc., play an important role in one’s decision to select a Christian denomination. Of course, there is also pressure to remain in the same denomination as one’s parents and other relatives.

170

Our society, at least, has implemented the ideas of the likes of , , and —the agents of implementation being Christians! In fact, Christians have tended to interpret the Bible through the eyes of gentlemen such as Locke, Smith, and Spencer! Is it any wonder, then, that Adamson (quoted earlier) was able to refer to “The remarkable discrepancy between the Christian code of morals and the actual practice of Christian communities”?

Works by, e.g., (of the Center) and seemingly suggest that a society based on the love command could exist; but Andrew Bard Schmookler’s : The Problem of Power in Social Evolution presents a rather strong case to the effect that in the modern world getting such a society is a “pipe dream.”

It does not, however, follow from that fact that there are not millions of people in this society (and elsewhere) today for whom the love command is important— being just one example. But that does not mean that the values that guide our society—individualism, aggressiveness,128 materialism, selfishness, etc.—are likely to recede in importance.

But, the “fact” that societies such as ours cannot become Jesuan societies is not relevant for this essay—my point being, rather, that Christianity should not insult the memory of Jesus by claiming, falsely, that it is carrying forward the “ministry” of Jesus. Doing so is blasphemous!

If Jesus’s “new command” were followed by those who apply the label “Christian” to themselves, our society would be very different from the way it is! It would resemble the “body”discussed by in . That is, members of the society would identify and develop their abilities, and then use them for the good of all—and most members of the society would have good health, there would be no poverty, little, if any, crime, etc.

Also, our foreign policy would be oriented to helping other societies develop in a body-like manner, each in its own way.129 Thus, mission activity would be very different from what it has been (getting people to change their beliefs).

If Schmookler has identified power as the primary reason why the love command must be of secondary importance in the modern world, a more important reason is that our species is likely to go extinct in a few decades, if not years. For example, Arctic climate scientist , writing in 2013, stated:

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increasein the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly.

128 This is, however, more true of our national government than of individuals. See, e.g., the works of and .

129 Rather than having its current anti-body orientation!

171

The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

Immediately before the Industrial Revolution, in 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air which had been stable for millennia, the main Greenhouse gas, was 280 parts per million, but in 2013 it is likely to average 395 parts per million. It has been increasing at an increasing rate since 1750.

[The CO2 level in the atmosphere, as of September, 2015, was 397.64 parts per million (ppm). What Davies failed to mention is that the is even more serious than that from carbon dioxide].

If child-man Donald Trump becomes our next President, “all bets are off,” of course: Most species—including ours, most certainly—may quickly disappear during a “glorious” thermonuclear event!

I do not enjoy ending this essay on such an unpleasant note, but the reality is that our “days are numbered” as a species.

172

Understanding Global Warming

Alton C. Thompson

1. First, it is necessary to comment on the term “global warming” itself: Although the term seemingly suggests that the earth (i.e., the “globe”) is warming, that suggestion is misleading, for:

The part of the “globe” of relevance here is the lower atmosphere.

Although the term “global warming just suggests that a trend in warming is occurring, several phenomena are also associated with “global warming”:

An increase in the number of storms.

An increase in their size (i.e., the area a given storm affects).

An increase in their severity.

An increase in weather variability—i.e., in deviation from normal patterns. An implication of this is that weather conditions become less predictable.

2. “” (carbon dioxide, CO2, being the mainone) are associated with global warming—as a cause. The figure tothe left (source) illustrates the fact that the (short-wave) radiant energy from the sun reaches the earth, and is either, then, absorbed by earth or is reflected back

into space. The concept of relevance here is that of the “.”

173

It [the albedo] is the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Its nature lets it be expressed as a percentage and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflection of a perfectly black surface to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.

Bare earth has a low albedo (i.e., it tends to absorb the sun’s rays); snow and ice, in contrast, tend to have a high albedo (i.e., they tend to reflect the sun’s rays).

3. It is important to recognize that earth’s atmosphere is not heated directly by the short-wave energy from the sun. Rather, heat energy that is absorbed by areas of the earth withdark surfaces then re-radiates heat energy into the atmosphere, and it is that energy that heats the lower atmosphere.

4. Here is where greenhouse gases enter the picture: Whereas incoming short-wave energy easily passes through the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere “trap” some of the long-wave energy being re-radiated from earth, thereby heating the atmosphere.

5. Prior to the Industrial Revolution (which began around 1750 CE), the CO2 level in the lower atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm), but as the graph (left; )

indicates, for the hundreds of years that preceded 1750, the change, over time, was rather insignificantcompared to the changes that have occurred since then.

The fact that the ppm level of carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere has been rather stable over the past 1,000 years (until recently) means that:

The mean temperature of the lower atmosphere has remained rather stable over that period—the mean temperature on earth .

“The is one of the most important factors in making Earth habitable. The next closest planet to the sun, Venus, for example, is the hottest planet in the solar system. Temperatures there reach more than 750 F (400 C), while the average is minus 80 F (minus 60 C).”

The fact that the temperature of the earth has remained rather stable over the last1,000 years enables us humans to create—and then make meaningful—the concept of .

Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in , , , , , atmospheric particle count and

174

other variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from , in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

I should add here that the term “climate change” should not be used as a substitute for “global warming,” because it implies that only the boundaries of are changing over time.

What global warming is causing, therefore, is a rendering of the very concept of “climate” increasingly meaningless!

6. Over the past 400,000 years (see graph left; ), in contrast, there have been rather significant changes in the ppm level for carbon dioxide; but until recently those changes have been due to natural causes. The recent changes, however, arebelieved to be primarily

due to human causes—our burning of fossil fuels in particular.

7. It must be emphasized that the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a “goodthing,” for it allows humans (and other species) to exist. A problem arises, however, when the ppm level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is either too low or too high. At present, the ppm level is rising, and that is a potential problem!

8. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the ppm level has increased , and although this may seem minor, the unusual weather (and related) conditions that we have been experiencing in recent years—wildfires, flooding, mudslides, severe storms, excessive heat, etc.—can be attributed to the increase that has occurred so far.

175

9. Global warming is a process that tends to “,” and, therefore, to accelerate. That is, as warming occurs, and melts snow and ice, it exposes bare land (and shallow water), thereby increasing the area of earth being heated and, thereby, re-radiating heat energy into the atmosphere. Some of the bare land being exposed is , which contains methane gas. As permafrost thaws, it releases methane gas—a gas than carbon dioxide, causing heating (and the other phenomena associated with global warming) to accelerate.

10. “a 5-degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just 13 years, according to a in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near term, earth’s climate will change 10 times faster than during any other moment in the last 65 million years.” Thus, the (apparent) fact that earth’s temperature has increased drastically over an extremely short period of time means that such a drastic/rapid increasecould occur in our future! Sooner than we would like, in fact!

Given what’s occurring in the atmosphere, it appears that is “heading for Hell in a handbasket.” It would seem, then, that we humans should stop our burning of fossil fuels(and ) immediately—if we want to “save” ourselves.

11. However, Dr. , in his “,”130 states (with reference to a “Palloy”):

Palloy is overlooking the part that aerosols from industrial activity play in temporarily cooling the planet. James Hansen called this the :

…Human activity modifies the impact of the greenhouse effect by the release of airborne particulate pollutants known as aerosols. These include black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates, nitrates, as well as dust from smoke, manufacturing, wind storms, and other sources. Aerosols have a net cooling effect because they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground and they increase cloud cover. This is popularly known as “global dimming”, because the overall aerosol impact is to mask some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol “dimming” at 1.2 degrees (plus or minus 0.2°), much higher than previously figured. Aerosols are washed out of theatmosphere by rain on average every 10 days, so their cooling effect is only maintained because of continuing human pollution, the principal source of which is the burning of fossil fuels, which also cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming that lasts for many centuries.

130 Which is a post “in response to Systemic Disorder commenter Palloy. . . .”

176

The average global temperature rise thus far is about 0.85° C since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Once industrial activity ceases and its accompanying aerosols fall out of the atmosphere, the average global temperature will jump to about 2° C, but it won’t simply stop there because Palloy forgets that there is a . The effects we are feeling now were from our emissions 40 years ago:

…The estimate of 40 years for climate lag, the time between the cause (increased greenhouse gas emissions) and the effect (increased temperatures), has profound negative consequences for humanity. However, if governments can find the will to act, there are positive consequences as well.

With 40 years between cause and effect, it means that average temperatures of thelast decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s. It also means that the true impact of our emissions over the last decade will not be felt until the 2040’s. This thought should send a chill down your spine! [It does mine!!]

That is, if humans would—tomorrow—stop pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the reduction in aerosols that would occur would result in an increase in the global mean temperature—by perhaps 1.2° C.!

12. Wadhams continues:

This “committed warming” of past CO2 emissions whose effect will be manifested in the coming decades is about . Adding up the current warming of 0.85°C from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the loss of aerosols with global dimming at 1.2°C, and the “committed” temperature rise from the 40-year lag time of CO2 emissions equal to 0.6°C, we get a total of 2.65°C. If all industrial activity stopped right now, we would already be committed to 2.65°C, aglobal average temperature rise of three times what we are currently experiencing.With all the drought, flooding, hurricanes, landslides, fires, and other manifestations of climate change that we are undergoing now, I shudder to think what the world will be like in 2050 and yet humans continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels at breakneck speed.

That is, were we humans to cease industrial activities (and, thereby, our output of greenhouse gases), the global mean temperature is likely to increase by about 2.65° C over the pre-industrial period level. Wadhams does not specify when a 2.65° C increase might be “achieved.”

Humans seem, however, to be choosing the first option—that of continuing to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thereby continuing to increase the ppm level in the atmosphere.

177

It appears, then, the “we are doomed if we do, and doomed if we don’t”! Thus, it appears that there is no hope for our species!

Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies, writing in 2013:

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

Immediately before the Industrial Revolution, in 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in theair which had been stable for millennia, the main Greenhouse gas, was 280 parts per million, butin 2013 it is likely to average 395 parts per million. [131] It has been increasing at an increasing rate since 1750.

(Note that Davies made no reference to methane in this statement!)

Given that we humans seemingly have no future, what should one do “in the meantime” (i.e., as we wait for our species to extinguish itself)? seems to have the best answer:

131 In September 2015 it was . Here’s an : “This March, global levels of CO2 passed 400 parts per million.” And: “The last time CO2 levels were this high, humans did not exist. Our dependence on fossil fuels is fundamentally changing the nature of the planet—and it's time to act.” (Unfortunately, it’s too late for that!)

178

Dissecting “Do You Believe in God?”

Alton C. Thompson

Occasionally, one will be asked by someone (let us refer to this person as Person A), “Do you believe in God?” Because one may be caught off guard in being asked this question, one is not likely to notice that, in effect, one is actually being asked a question on the order of this: “Barack Obama; do you believe that he exists?”

The latter question starts by naming an individual who undoubtedly does exists, and asks whether one believes that he exists. Anyone asked the latter question would immediately recognize that the question being asked is too foolish a question to even consider answering—theperson asking the question being—obviously—a dolt.

If one is asked “Do you believe in God?,” one is really being asked: “God exists; do you believe that s/he exists?” That is, the question contains within itself the assertion that God does exist, and you are being asked whether or not you recognize this “fact”—the implication being that youare a fool for not recognizing the “fact” that God exists.

Once one understands that, in being asked if one believes that God exists, one is being asked a “trick” question, the question arises: How should one respond to that question?

One possible response (by someone we will refer to as Person B) is to ask the questioner: “Which God are you referring to?— or ,132 for example?”

Person A is likely to respond, indignantly: “Why are you being so flippant?! I’m referring to theGod of our Bible, of course!”

To which Person B might then respond: “Which ‘God’ in the Bible. As you may or may not know, 24 different concepts of ‘God’ in the Old Testament alone!”

The likely response to this, by Person A: “Miles was obviously not referring to 24 different Gods, rather he was referring to 24 different attributes of God.”

Person B: “But is there consistency in those concepts?” Here is listing of the attributes of God:

1. Wisdom 2. Infinitude3. Sovereignty 4. Holiness5. Trinity

132 My great-grandfather’s surname was Torjesen—the “Tor” making some reference to “Thor,” I assume.

179

6. Omniscience7. Faithfulness8. Love 9. Omnipotence 10. Self-existence 11. Self-sufficiency12. Justice13. Immutability 14. Mercy15. Eternal16. Goodness. 17. Gracious18. Omnipresence

“The author of this list,” continues Person B, “obviously used the Bible, rather than his (or her) head, in coming up with this list. Let us take attributes 6, 9, and 18—omniscience, omnipotence,and omnipresence—for example.”

“For the modern, ‘God,’ to be God, must have all three of those traits. This implies, then, that God not only knows about all of the evil that humans have engaged in relative to their fellows over the centuries, but has failed to prevent that evil from occurring. This means that God is an uncaring Being—is, in fact, a monster! So that it cannot be the case that attribute 8—love—is an attribute of God

“Thus,” continues Person B, “whether or not God exists, is not, for me, the relevant question. If God exists, and must—as God—be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, I can have no respect for God—for I cannot respect monsters, having acquired that attitude from my reading ofthe Bible!”

Person A may then respond by mumbling something—perhaps realizing, at least dimly, that therewas no good response to what Person B had just said.

Person B’s best response, then: “Friend, as the Bible says—and as common sense dictates—if we are to have a world worth living in, we must love one another—which means, in part, that I must love you, and you must love me.” This, despite our differences in beliefs and attitudes.

How might Person A respond to this? I will not try to answer that question!

180

Cartoon

I received this from Brad van Fossen on November 19, 2015. This alludes to the views of some that take in refugees from , etc.

181

Another Reason for Pessimism Regarding the Future

Alton C. Thompson

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.

The late [1900 – 1980] published, in 1955, a book with the ominous title (summarized )—a book that Fromm thought of as a continuation of his famous (1941). The reason I say that the title of Sane Society is “ominous” is that it implies (it seems to me) that the society that we are living in is not sane! Usually, the term “sane” is applied only to individuals; Fromm believed, however (as ), that the term could be applied to societies as well:

Is American society a healthy one, and are those having difficulties adjusting to it mentally ill? Or is American society an unhealthy one, and are many Americans with emotional difficulties simply alienated rather than ill? For [Erich] Fromm, "An unhealthy society is one which creates mutual hostility (and) distrust, which transforms man into an instrument of use and exploitation for others, which deprives him of a sense of self, except inasmuch as he submits to others or becomes an automaton." Fromm viewed American society as an increasingly unhealthy one, in which people routinely experience painful alienation that fuels emotional and behavioral difficulties.

I agree with Fromm that our society is “unhealthy,”133 but would add that the roots of it being so lie in the distant past—in The Discrepancy that developed as a consequence of the Agricultural Revolution that occurred millennia ago.134

Despite that fact, I feel it necessary to note here that the late [1925 – 1995] (in Nature and Madness,135 1982) held a position that was somewhat related to that of Fromm; in his Nature andMadness he :

133 Although Fromm believed that there were “roads to sanity” (the title of his Chapter 8), I have my doubts about that—a matter that I will comment on later here. The basis for my doubt is that the world situation in 2015 differs significantly from that in 1955 (when Fromm’s book was published): 60 years is a long time in recent history!

134 See my , and .

135 Also see .

182

Once, our species did live in stable harmony with the natural environment (and in some small groups it still does). This was not because people were incapable of changing their environment or lacked acumen; it was not simply on account of a holistic or reverent attitude; rather, there was some more enveloping and deeper reason. The change to a more hostile stance toward nature began between five and ten thousand years ago and became more destructive and less accountable with the progress of civilization. The economic and material demands of growing villages and towns are, I believe, not causes but results of this change. In concert with advancingknowledge and human organization it wrenched the ancient social machinery that had limited human births. It fostered a new sense of human mastery and the extirpation of nonhuman life. In hindsight this change has been explained in terms of necessity or as the decline of ancient gods. But more likely it was irrational (though not unlogical) and unconscious, a kind of failure insome fundamental dimension of human existence, an irrationality beyond mistakenness, a kind of madness.

What’s important about Shepard’s perspective is his concern (unlike Fromm) with the “hostile stance toward nature” that developed with those humans associated with the .136

For Shepard, the explanation that “hostile stance”—and its consequences (of an environmental nature, in particular)—lies specifically in the disturbed ontogeny precipitated by the Agricultural Revolution millennia ago—“ to “the developmental history of an organism within its own lifetime . . . .”

Shepard’s :

The culmination of individual ontogenesis, characterized by graciousness, tolerance, and forbearance, tradition-bound to accommodate a mostly nonhuman world, and given to long, indigent training of the young, may be inconsistent in some ways with the needs of "advanced" societies. In such societies—and I include ours—the persistence of certain infantile qualities might help the individual adapt better: fear of separation, fantasies of omnipotence, oral preoccupation, tremors of helplessness, and bodily incompetence and dependence. Biological evolution cannot meet the demands of these new societies. It works much too slowly to make adjustments in our species in these ten millennia since the archaic foraging cultures began to be destroyed by their hostile, aggressive, better-organized, civilized neighbors. Programmed for theslow development toward a special kind of sagacity, we live in a world where that humility and tender sense of human limitation is no longer rewarded. Yet we suffer for the want of that vanished world, a deep grief we learn to misconstrue.

In the civilized world the roles of authority—family heads and others in power—were filled increasingly with individuals in a sense incomplete, who would in turn select and coach underlings flawed like themselves. Perhaps no one would be aware of such a debilitating trend, which would advance by pragmatic success across the generations as society put its fingers gropingly on the right moments in child nurturing by taking mothers off to work, spreading their

136 For me, at least, the use of the word “revolution” here has positive connotations. Jared Diamond has argued, however—and I agree—that that “revolution” was “.”

183

attention and energy too thin with a houseful of babies, altering games and stories, manipulatinganxiety in the child in a hundred ways. The transitory and normally healthful features of adolescent narcissism, oedipal fears and loyalties, ambivalence and inconstancy, playing with words, the gang connection, might in time be pathologically extended into adulthood, where it would be honored in patriotic idiom and philosophical axiom. The primary impulses of infancy would be made to seem essential to belief and to moral superiority, their repressive nature masked by the psychological defenses of repression and projection. Over the centuries major institutions and metaphysics might finally celebrate attitudes and ideas originating in the normal context of immaturity, the speculative throes of adolescence, the Freudian psychosexual phases, or in even earlier neonatal or prenatal states.

(I quote Shepard at length here because of his importance as a thinker, and my desire to representhis views accurately.)

My position on this is that although a disturbed ontogeny might be the (or at least a) direct cause of our current problems, the more fundamental cause is The Discrepancy. 137 What I mean by “Discrepancy,” in brief, is that after the Agricultural Revolution there occurred—with those individuals who “participated” in that Revolution—a growing discrepancy between the (a) way of life (gatherer-hunter) for which they had become “designed” via the operation of evolutionary forces, and (b) the way of life that they began to live (were forced to live, in most cases). I see this growing Discrepancy as the ultimate cause of both societal and intellectual developments138 over the centuries down to now.

Thus, I do not so much reject Shepard’s thinking as subsume it under my umbrella. (Given that Shepard’s fits rather nicely under my umbrella, the latter might be thought of as representing a re-orientation of Shepard’s thinking. However, Coming Home was published after Paul Shepard’s death, in 1998, having been edited by his wife, Florence R. Shepard—so that whatever“re-orientation” is involved in Coming Home could be attributed to Florence, rather than Paul, it would seem.)

The principal point that I wish to make here, though, is that when Fromm’s Sane Society was published (in 1955)—and even when Shepard’s Nature and Madness was published (1982)—the subject of was “on the radar” of few in our society. And although the mass media have basicallyignored the subject, and continue to do so now, a great deal of scientific research has been done on the subject in recent years, with the major conclusions being that:

1. Global warming is occurring.139

137 See my , and .

138 I would add here that just as societal developments had an influence on intellectual developments, so did the latter developments influence the former ones.139 This was first established in 1938, by —who believed that global warming would be beneficial!

184

2. It’s likely to “do in” our species “soon.” For example, Arctic climate scientist , writing in2013, stated this:

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

Immediately before the Industrial Revolution, in 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air which had been stable for millennia, the main Greenhouse gas, was 280 parts per million, but in 2013 it is likely to average 395 parts per million. It has been increasing at an increasing rate since 1750.

[I would add that the CO2 level in the lower atmosphere as of October 2015 was (ppm).

In Section D of my I list reasons why our species is seemingly “on the road to extinction,” but would now add to that discussion the reason given by (in my epigraph)—a reason having close affinities with Paul Shepard’s discussion:

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives

Now if that’s the case—and if one examines the current “crop” of Republican presidential candidates—it is difficult not to agree with Paul Lennon!140

If Lennon identified a basic problem in our society (although the label “insane” for our “leaders” may be a bit too strong), Paul Shepard has identified what would seem to be the cause of that problem; to repeat an earlier quotation:

In the civilized world the roles of authority—family heads and others in power—were [over time]filled increasingly with individuals in a sense incomplete, who would in turn select and coach underlings flawed like themselves.

That is, in its early years (a) “civilized” societies produced141 “flawed” individuals, the (b) “flawed” nature of those individuals allowed them to gain positions of power/influence, 142 and (c) these individuals selected and “trained” other individuals like themselves to grow into positions of power/influence. (Presumably, those in this group included at least some of their own children. Thus, the family institution played a role here.)

140 Robert Reich has referred to the !141 The questions of how and why are beyond the scope of this paper.

142 Again, the questions of how and why are beyond the scope of this paper.

185

Because those in positions of power tend to be “flawed” psychologically (“insane,” per Lennon), they tend to be more interested in (a) their relationships to other individuals (categorized by themas either “superiors” or “inferiors”) than in (b) how their activities impact Earth—and (c) in how those impacts have relevance for their lives and the lives of others. Therefore, they are incurious about the phenomenon of global warming; and if they do learn about it, they tend to discount it (helped to do so by ).

Human beliefs, however, have no relevance for global warming per se: Global warming is occurring, and one’s denial of that fact does not change the fact that global warming is occurring.

A “head in the sand” approach to global warming is, therefore, potentially dangerous: Global warming is a process that “,” suggesting that at some point a “” will be reached, after which therewill be “.” Given that when that occurs, change is likely to be irreversible, if global warming is not halted soon enough, our species will “go the way of the dinosaurs.”

If Arctic climate scientist John B. Davies is correct in asserting that “runaway” is now underway,the implication is that our species is probably doomed. I hesitate to use the word “certainly” here because the future cannot be known, in advance, with certainty. However, the trends now occurring, in conjunction with known physical principles, do suggest strongly that our “days are numbered” as a species—so that one, in recognizing this probability, might very well ask oneself:“How, then, should I live in the meantime?”

186

Is the Good Society Possible?

Alton C. Thompson

In light of the recent (December 2, 2015) , California—the most recent of a in this country—onemay very well ask: “Is a Good Society even possible here in the United States?”

When mass killings143 occur in this country, our tendency—in placing blame—is either to “throwup our hands,” or to use an individualistic approach. That is, either we are “at a loss” to explain why these mass killings occur, or we argue that it is a certain type of individual—crazies, terrorists, etc.—who is responsible for these tragedies.144 But given that the United States is among those “advanced” countries that has this problem,145 what seems at least possible is that it is the societies themselves that are “producing” these mass killings.

Of course, societies vary in how “good” they are. If “happiness” is taken as a surrogate for “goodness,” the United States ranked No. 15 in (see chart at top of next page). Ironically, however, the three countries listed in footnote 2 below as having even more of a mass murder problem than the United States—Norway, Finland, and Switzerland—are all ahead of the UnitedStates on happiness scores: Switzerland (7.6), Norway (7.5), and Finland (7.4)—the score for the United States being 7.1. Does this mean that the happier a people in a country are, the more violent they are?! Of course, it’s not likely that it’s the happy people in a country who are the violent ones, but the (apparent) existence of a positive (but low?) correlation these two variables suggests that some sort of societal factor(s) is at work here.

(As to how the happiness scores were determined, there is this: “On a scale running from 0 to 10, people in over 150 countries, surveyed by over the period 2010-12, reveal a population-weighted average score of 5.1 (out of 10). Six key variables explain three-quarters of the variation in annual national average scores over time and among countries. These six factors

143 Given that , one could argue that our Middle Eastern actions have resulted in the “chickens coming home to roost.” However, most of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country have been unrelated to our foreign policy.

144 For example, regarding the San Bernardino tragedy referred to the motive of the couple involved.

145 states this: “At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000).” But then adds:“We’ll note that all of these countries had one or two particularly big attacks and have relatively small populations, which have pushed up their per-capita rates. In Norway, that single attack in 2011 [see ] left67 dead by gunfire (plus additional bomb casualties). Finland had two attacks, one that killed eight and one that killed 10. And Switzerland had one incident that killed 14.”

187

include: real , healthy , having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption, and generosity.[5]”)

The question raised by the lack of a strong negative correlation between masskillings and happiness is not only the validity of use of per capita rates of mass killings (see footnote 145), but the question of how well the six variables used to measure “happiness” actually do so.146 In addition, there is the question ofhow properly to interpret “.”

Let us here, however, “pass over” the methodological problems involved in measuring both mass killings and happiness, and focus on the question posed by my title above: Is the Good Society possible?

The first question to ask here, then, is constitutes the “good society”?—besidesthe fact that mass killings would certainly not characterize a Good Society! Robert N. Bellah and others ()

addressed this question in their , and the title of their Introduction—“We Live Through Institutions”—conveys their basic message. On p. 5 of their book they state this:

It is tempting to think that the problems that we face today, from the homeless in our streets and poverty in the Third World to ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect [and mass killings!], can be solved by technology and technical expertise alone. But even to begin to solve these daunting problems, let alone problems of emptiness and meaninglessness in our personal lives, requires that we greatly increase our capacity to think about our institutions. We need to understand how much of our lives is lived in and through institutions, and how better institutions are essential if we are to lead better lives. In surveying our present institutions we need to discern what is healthy in them and what needs to be altered, particularly where we have begun to destroy the non-renewable natural and nearly nonrenewable resources upon which all our institutions depend.

146 is a noted scholar in this area.

188

For Bellah and his fellow authors, then, to have a Good Society, it is essential that a society have good institutions.148 In their book, the authors then proceed to analyze American institutions, andmake recommendations as to how to improve them.

But, is it, in fact, possible to so change the institutions of our society that it will become a Good Society? Having a vision of the Good Society’s institutional structure, along with ideas regarding how to “get there” is one thing; actually implementing, or having implemented,149 one’sideas is, though, quite another thing!

There’s no question that substantial progress has been made, over the years, in expanding in thiscountry—and surely a part of the Good Society would be such rights for all members of the society. But there’s certainly more to the Good Society than having universal civil and political rights—and the question is: “What is that ‘more,’ and can it be achieved?

In answering that question it might be useful briefly to examine “primitive” societies—i.e., societies depending on gathering and hunting for sustenance. Here is a of such societies:

Hunter-Gatherers are people living in societies that sustain themselves by foraging, hunting, and fishing. They have few if any possessions. While there are a few dozen hunter-gatherer groups left on earth today, they represent the oldest and perhaps most successful human lifestyle ever, having been a lifestyle of humans continuously for two million years. It was only about 10,000 years ago that farming began, which led to the culture in which most humans are now a part. If we go back far enough, all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers.

There is much to be learned from hunter-gatherers, and much of it is surprising. Hunter-gatherers lived in egalitarian societies, in which everyone, male and female and old and young, were treated as equals. They were generally healthy, not afflicted with the chronic diseases of modern civilization, such as diabetes, obesity, dental decay, coronary heart disease, and high blood pressure. They lived surprisingly fulfilling lives and had far more leisure time than we do, having only to work an average of three or four hours a day. Most groups live in relatively peaceful societies.

What’s missing—and surprisingly so, in my opinion—from the above presentation is the fact thatsocieties dependent on gathering and hunting-fishing for their sustenance have tended to be very

148 asks whether our society is insane (à la Erich Fromm). When one is referring to a society, one is actually referring to its institutions, of course.

149 Through governmental means, for example.

189

small.150 The fact that they—in contrast to our society—“work,”151 and have “worked,” has its basis, I believe, in that fact.

Rather than elaborating on that fact, however, I will argue here that the brought about changes of a negative nature—changes that have been de-emphasized in our history books, but changes whose effects we are still experiencing;152 effects, in fact, that are likely to lead to our extinction as a species!153

Below I offer a brief argument in support of the above assertions:

1. As gatherer-hunter groups incorporated agricultural activities into their sustenance activities, not only did their diet change, but they became more sedentary in their living.

2. These two developments not only enabled these groups to expand in size but resulted in their expansion.

3. As societal expansion was occurring, the close social bonds that had connected members of the group began to loosen.

4. This loosening of bonds had psychological implications—in that the sense of security thatcharacterized all members of the group began to dissolve.

5. Given that people vary in their genetic makeup, personalities, experiences, etc., people varied in how they reacted to this weakening of a sense of security.

6. Some (those with certain personalities?) reacted by seeking power/influence over others, driven to do so by a unconsciously-held need to regain a sense of security.

7. This development led to the development of class/caste sociological systems.

8. Accompanying that sociological development was increasing differentiation of a functional nature. That is, whereas previously any given individual typically engaged in avariety of functions, with all154 individuals in a given group being similar in that respect, now there began to emerge what might be termed occupational differentiation.

150 adds that: “Native Americans lived in hunter-gatherer communities composed of bands of people through kinship and marriage.”

151 for an excellent discussion of this matter.

152 See my , for example.

153 See my , for example.

154 Except that the activities of adult males tended to differ fairly significantly from those of adult females.

190

9. Although some sense of solidarity might have developed within a given group (the elite group in particular, perhaps), a feeling of alienation likely developed (a) within some groups (the lowest group in particular), and between some groups (with, e.g., those in middle groups feeling alienated from those in the elite).

10. The development of ideologies likely occurred (by members of the elite) in an unconscious effort to keep “underlings” “in their place.”

Let me now skip forward many centuries to the “Modern Era,” and German sociologist . In his 1911 Michels presented his “.” According to Michels:

all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class" willinevitably grow to dominate the organization's rather than its membership. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues thatdemocratic attempts to hold leadership positions are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward , the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.[2]

There seems to be some (negative) correlation today (with the “advanced” countries, at least) between the size of a country’s population and its “goodness.” Insofar as (a) that’s the case, and given that (b) those in the “leadership class” seem to be characterized by a “need to dominate,” selfishness, etc., I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the United States can become another , for example.

Not only is it highly probable that there will continue to be mass killings in this country (most being of the “” nature?), but (even more significantly!) will our “leaders” continue their “head in the sand” stance toward the dangers of global warming. Given that Earth is a system—with, thus, the possibility that the negative feedback mechanisms with which is “equipped” will be replaced with positive feedback mechanisms as a consequence of our thoughtless activities—this “head in the sand” stance is likely to lead to the demise of our species. By 2030?! See !

A Communication From Herbert N. Schneidau

December 6, 2015

191

A number of years ago I read Schneidau’s Sacred Discontent, but have had no recollection of the contents of that book. Recently, however, I read a reference to the book, decided that it might be worth re-reading, and so ordered, and have received, a copy of the book. On December 3, 2015, I located an email address for Dr. Schneidau, and sent him a message—letting him know that I had read his book several years ago, and agreed with his thesis that the Bible had had a decisive influence on Western history. I added that it had been an important influence in my life, and to prove this point attached a copy of my What Are Churches For? and “The Blasphemy of Christianity”—both of which illustrate my belief that a religion should be a living one—i.e., should “change with the times.”

I don’t mean by that that a religion should simply reflect societal changes, try to stay “in tune” tosocietal changes; rather, it should remain a challenge to the status quo, so that its changes are in response to the current situation—both within the given society and the world. Given that the crucial situation today is the threat of global warming, with the strong possibility that it is now too late to solve this problem, I recommend that religions face this fact. NeWFism, by its very nature, would do so, I believe.

I received the following response from Dr. Schneidau two days ago, and find it very disappointing—for it indicates that of the time of its writing, at least, he had given no attention tothe materials I had sent him. Also, the fact that it focuses on his inability to get a book published, etc., tells me that he is self-absorbed, and not a good “listener”—attributes that disappoint me.

192

Avoiding a Potential Problem

[Since mid-June of this year I have had a part-time job with Andy Frain security, working at theFedEx SmartPost in New Berlin (12.3 miles from my place of residence in Greendale). Themassacre, on December 2, in New Berlin not only prompted me to write “Is the Good SocietyPossible?,” but this “memo” as well.]

Ms. Megan Baker December 8, 2015Account ManagerAndy Frain Security

Re: Avoiding a Potential Problem

The recent mass killing in San Bernardino, California, has resulted in a growth of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country155—evidenced by the fact that Donald Trump has widened the gap between himself and his nearest rival. The fact that a number of Muslims (women in particular) are employed at the SmartPost worries me, as a consequence: It’s likely that at least one worker there has strong anti-Muslim feelings, and could cause serious problems for those Muslims—while they are in the parking lot (at night, especially). (I assume that most—if not all—of them drive to and from the site, rather than take the bus.)

Of course, if someone causes a problem for these Muslims, this would be a problem for FedEx aswell.

To avoid such problems, I would make two recommendations:

1. Set aside a bloc of contiguous spaces in the parking lot for Muslims.

2. Have an armed guard present during shift changes (at night in particular) in an attempt to prevent problems from arising—and addressing any problems that do arise.

Granted that the “segregating” advocated in point 1 would be difficult to accomplish; if it were done, however, the guard’s job would be made easier. (I assume here that the guard would be a male.)

It is in the interests of FedEx, of course, that no problems do arise, for these two reasons at least; if a problem were to arise:

1. FedEx would receive a “black eye,” which could affect its business adversely.

155 See this excellent on the views of our Founding Fathers.

193

2. The Muslims now working at the SmartPost might all suddenly quit their jobs, thereby putting FedEx in a “bind.”

This is not to say that the above recommendations are the only ones possible—or even the best ones, for that matter. I do believe, however, that Andy Frain and FedEx need to work together to do what they can to avoid a San Bernardino-like incident here. (That city has particular importance for me because my dad attended high school in San Bernardino.)

Respectfully,

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson

194

The Good/Sustainable Society

Alton C. Thompson

The specific question at hand here is: Is it possible for a society whose economy is characterizedby a “high” degree of specialization to be a good—and sustainable—society as well?

By “good society” I mean a society that could be related to this quotation:

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But infact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat withspecial honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24

while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If onepart suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.156

156 This is a passage from , authored by . My reason for quoting this passage is decidedly not to make a theological point but, rather, to note that Paul recognized that the human body is a . The fact that earlierin this chapter (verse 7) Paul wrote “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” indicates that Paul also thought of a society as a system. What I would add to Paul’s contribution is that (given the name “” by ), consisting of numerous subsystems.

What’s important about a system is not only that it consists of interrelated parts, but that it is “equipped” with and mechanisms that “work” to maintain the system’s stability (“”). A system can, however, be stressed—to the point that it collapses. Some of our activities, as humans, are, and have been, stressing Earth—with the likelihood that Earth System will “soon” collapse, resulting in our extinction as a species (along with many other species, of course).

195

That is, what Paul of Tarsus said about the human body in this passage could also be said about the society—specifically in that:

1. The society consists of a large number of “parts”—by which I especially mean here economic activities.

2. Those activities would be carried on by individuals or by groups of individuals.

3. A harmonious relationship would exist within a given activity (i.e., group within an activity), as well as between activities.

4. The activities would be engaged in by humans, of course (with the aid of technological devices), with all of those humans having a high level of well-being.

5. The cause of that high level would be that the needs/design specifications of all would be met.

6. They would be met in part through the performance of economic activities, in part through the consumption of goods and services resulting from those economic activities, in part through interacting with others, in part through choosing courses of action to be engaged in during leisure time and then acting on those choices, etc.

7. The activities engaged in by a given individual would “fit” that individual’s interests and abilities (the latter being both innate and acquired), and would allow (but not force) the individual to “grow.”

8. The economic and other activities engaged in by the society’s members would not result in any significant “contribution” to “greenhouse” warming.

I assume that a society whose economy was characterized by numerous specialist activities would—from a geographical standpoint—necessarily have a “” occupance pattern. That is, it would have a hierarchy of settlements, varying in size—from single-family isolated dwellings to fairly large metropoli.

The fact that people would be living in different environmental situations (from both a physical and people standpoint) would, of course, have behavioral implications. And that fact raises these questions:

1. Would it even be possible to have the desired sort of behavior in this society?2. If so, how could it be achieved?

It seems to me that the geographical structure of the society would itself make getting “good” behavior in this society virtually impossible! However, although the Good Society’s geographical structure would be somewhat Christallerian, it would not be extremely so, for:

196

1. It would be more decentralized.

2. Given that the motives of status-seeking, materialism, etc., would be absent, many of the goods/services present in existing society would not be present in the Good Society, so that the need for large population centers would be diminished significantly.

Let me add here that it was the breakdown of living situations millennia ago that helped give riseto the current motivational structure; and that motivational structure, in turn, has played a huge role in giving us our current society—with its many economic activities and current geographicalstructure.

If the “good society” is to be achieved, it will not be, I’m convinced, by “reform” efforts. That is, I’m convinced that the Existing Order cannot become—cannot “morph” into—the Good Society. Rather, one must “start from scratch” within the framework of the Existing Order—using the strategy that I published in 1984 as the guide.

However, given that the Good Society must consist of individuals with the proper motivation, I advocate the creation of NeWFs:

The NeWF experience would, I’m convinced, “produce” the right sort of people (i.e., people with the right motivational structure); its (human) environment would be such as to conduce that development.

Participants in a NeWF would need to understand that their primary mission was to createa “building block” of the Good Society—one which would be communitarian.

This society might acquire a geographical structure157 much like that of today, but:

The items produced would primarily reflect the physical needs of people—which would not include a need for status.

That fact implies that the range of goods/services produced would be narrower than what is produced now.

Despite the changes in living environment that would occur, continued participation in a NeWF would keep individuals on “the straight and narrow,” so far as motivational structure is concerned.

Although change is likely in such a society, it is likely:

To proceed at a slower rate than now.

157 I expect, however, that the segregation on income and other bases that exists today would not exist in the Good Society. Individuals would recognize differences in skills/abilities, but be convinced that all were of equal worth, so that segregation would not exist.

197

To be less disruptive than change is now—i.e., “handled” better, to have less of a negative impact on the lives of those affected.

The problem is that it is now too late for a Good Society to be created. Our only option today is to do what we can to help those who need help. However, one way to help others is to recruit people to become a part of a New Society movement!

Who knows? Such a movement might help “save” our species after all!

198

God: A Story of Discovery or of Invention?158

Alton C. Thompson

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."159

At one point in movie160 (1958),161 Morgana (played by the late ), in talking with Einar (played by ), refers to the “ocean” that separates a pagan from a Christian. At the time when the movie was set—the “”162—most of those who applied the label “Christian” to themselves might163 have agreed with Morgana. And, I suspect that many “Christians” today would also do so—an ironic fact, given that the (putative) founder of Christianity—Jesus—: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” A statement that is by no means condones exclusiveness—i.e., that one should hate those who hold beliefs that differ from one’s own, should even use the pejorative term “pagan” for such people!

What I wish to argue, briefly, in this essay164 is that the view that the world can be divided into “Christians” and “pagans” is not only false, but ignorant and abhorrent as well. My principal concern here however, is the ignorance demonstrated by those who, e.g., contrast “Christians” with “pagans.”

What is the nature of that ignorance? A lack of understanding of how and why the Deity165 concept came into being—how and why it originated. Implicit in the presentation that follows is

158 My title reverses the order given in this statement by Herbert N. Schneidau: “some inventions have turned out to be discoveries.” (1976, p. 45).

159 See , for example.

160 The movie was based on , a novel by .

161 I watched this again last night (December 12, 2015).

162 See for a discussion of the meanings given the term “Viking” over time.

163 As I have not researched the matter, I cannot be definitive here.

164 As a verb, “ “to try to do, perform, or deal with . . . .” This meaning is very appropriate here for what I present here are “first thoughts” rather than definitive views.

165 I use this term because it includes a variety of ways of conceiving the supernatural—both polytheism and monotheism, for example.

199

that Deity was not discovered in any meaningful sense; rather, it was invented. What follows, then, is a quasi-historical discussion—hypothetical in nature, I candidly admit—which traces the development of the Deity concept. I do so using a series of logically-connected points:

1. After humans developed consciousness, they also developed language; these two developments together enabled communication among the members of a group. (Different groups developed different languages, of course.)

2. The development of consciousness and language were prods to thinking. That is, the verbal interactions that occurred among individuals within a given group stimulated thought processes on the part of those involved in the interchanges (with some being stimulated more to think than others, of course).

3. A part of this thinking included wondering (a) where tangible and intangible things came from (i.e., how they originated), as well (b) the nature of the “activities” of things (e.g., the sun moving—apparently—through the sky).

4. Given that (a) the activities that these individuals engaged in were obviously attributable to themselves, and (b) they lacked an ability to know with any degree of certainty the “how” and “why” that they were asking themselves, it’s not surprising that they invented a Deity “out there” as the answer to their questions. That is, they inferred a Deity from what they could see, hear, etc. They knew that their actions had consequences; they concluded from that fact that (what they perceived to be) the “consequences” that they could observe “must” be attributable to a Being(s) much like themselves, but not visible. Thus, it is not surprising that the unknown (and unknowable?) something “out there” came to be personified.

5. Once personification occurred, one was able to feel a certain degree of closeness to Deity—given that Deity was at least somewhat like oneself. And once one also came to perceive Deity as having such attributes as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence,one had a basis for attributing the good things that happened to one to Deity166—being in the favor of Deity. Doing so, however, would be irrational given that one would not also attribute the bad things that happened to one to Deity (assuming, that is, that one believesthat Deity plays a role in human lives); for if Deity is omniscient, etc., it follows, logically, that if Deity does play a role in human lives, Deity is responsible for both the good and the bad in one’s life.

If one brings “Satan” into the picture, to explain the bad things in one’s life, one thereby denies, in effect, that Deity is omniscient, etc.

166 If, that is, one does not oneself take credit for those good things!

200

6. Although the original creators of Deity were at least dimly aware of the fact that they were creating Deity, over time people learned—from being told by their elders—that Deity was something factual; having no reason to doubt their elders, they accepted as a “given” that Deity, as conceived by the members of their group, had an actual referent.

7. As a consequence, one could innocently ask another, e.g., “Do you believe in God?,” without recognizing that one’s very phraseology asserts that there is a God! After all, if one has a word for something, does it not follow that that word has a real-world referent—that it refers to something “out there” that actually exists?!

8. Different groups developed different Deities. What else would one expect?—given that Deity is a human invention!

9. Insofar as the members of a given group developed an attachment to the group’s Deity, when members of a given group encountered members of another group whose members had a similar attachment to their Deity, one’s learning about this difference was likely to cause “.”

10. Given that experiencing cognitive dissonance gives one an uncomfortable feeling, one way to rid oneself of that feeling is to act aggressively toward the other.167 Over the centuries religion has been—ostensibly, at any rate—a .

11. The creation of the idea of a single God (i.e., monotheism) seems to have been accompanied by the claim that this God was a creator. Including the claim that this God created humans, rather than the other way around!

12. The (apparent) fact that it was the realization of the existence of (as Eberhard Jüngel has put it) was that which had resulted in the creation of Deity became increasingly lost over time—the personification of mystery being the primary reason for that loss.

13. In short: The claim that an “ocean” separates the “pagan” from the Christian169 is not only false but utterly ignorant—and dangerous, resulting, as it has, in a tremendous amount of .

167 In real-world terms, however, it often seems that members of a given religion modify the religion so that over time it represents the founder’s intentions less and less, and instead is made to represent genetically- and societally-based tendencies. That is, over time people learn to “use” religion, and to justify their actions on ostensibly religious grounds that have little to do with the intentions of the religion’s founder. Certainly this is true of Christianity!—which bears little resemblance to the religion (oflove) apparently espoused by Jesus.

169 The term “pagan” is a term used by “Christians” as a label for all non-Christians. Not only is such labeling presumptuous, it is ignorant—for it “patches over” the fact that a great deal of diversity exists not only in the “pagan” group, but the “Christian” one as well.

201

It is also morbidly ironic, given that a most religions is that one is to love others!

As to the question asked in my title: It’s clear that the concept of Deity was invented, rather thandiscovered—which is not to say, however, that the concept of Deity was created “out of thin air”:It’s perfectly understandable why the concept was created.170

170 Also —which argues that it’s atheists that don’t exist!

202

Comments on Sacred Discontent

Alton C. Thompson

Given the subtitle of Herbert N. Schneidau’s (1976)—“The Bible and Western Tradition”—one should not be surprised to learn that Dr. Schneidau believes that (p. xi) “we [USans] are a far more Biblical society than we admit.” In his examination of the Bible, Schneidau’s emphasis is on the prophets who people the Bible, saying of them, for example:

“The prophets portray man [i.e., humans] in society as greedy, luxury-loving, puffed up with pride, and blind both to his exploitation of his neighbor and to his oncoming destruction.” (p. 7)171

“The prophets denounce the culture [of a society] and probe its ideology to the foundations.” (p. 10)

The “Hebrew prophets gave voice to a skeptical, often mocking [,] spirit that has long since pervaded the intellectual life of the Western world.” (p. 12)

Although Sacred Discontent is a brilliant book in many respects, my major problem with the book is its “pre-Discrepancy” nature (the Discrepancy concept being discussed in detail in my ). Briefly, the Discrepancy concept is that human physical and mental characteristics had developed under the influence of evolutionary forces (but not “”) over the centuries. With the , the (“nomadic”) way of life for which humans had become “designed” began to give way to a more sedentary way of life based on agriculture. As changes were occurring in way of life, human biology remained basically the same—resulting in an increasing discrepancy between (a) the way of life for which humans had become “designed” and (b) the way of life they actually had, increasingly. Put another way, humans became increasingly “out of their element”—like fish out of water. This growing “discrepancy” has had a number of consequences—most of a deleterious nature; for further discussion see my eBook cited above.

171 I am reminded here of [1857 – 1929], famous especially for his (1899). The term “” is named for him—such a good being a status item. “Veblen goods are types of , such as expensive , , fashion-designer , and , which are in demand because of the high prices asked for them. The high price makes the goods desirable as symbols of the buyer's high social-status, by way of and ; conversely, a decrease of the prices of Veblen goods would decrease demand for the products. [1]” Oddly, Schneidau makes no reference to Veblen.

203

Whereas Schneidau’s book gives us no insight into what motivated the prophets,173 in my For ? I argue that the prophets sensed174 the Discrepancy then existing in their society. But not only did they sense it; they articulated their understanding of The Discrepancy. Not in the way that we would today, of course, but in a way that was meaningful for their time and place.

These are speculative conclusions, of course, but ones that I find highly plausible—and enlightening!

Following is an argument that begins with the assertion—made by Schneidau that:

The history of our country has seemingly been shaped by the Bible.

One could then argue that seemingly it is that “fact” that motivated such scholars as ,175

,176 and to do the research that they have done, and to develop their ideas/hypotheses.

What their research/ideas suggest, however—that of Barash in particular178—is that it wasn’t the Bible, after all, that motivated scholars such as de Waal but, rather, The Discrepancy!

In fact, it was The Discrepancy that also motivated the prophets of old—not just current scholars such as de Waal, etc.

This means—interestingly!—that The Discrepancy not only motivated de Waal, etc., but also enabled them (Barash in particular) to discover The Discrepancy!

It appears, then, that the Bible did play a role in Western history, but that it was the Bible in conjunction with The Discrepancy itself that motivated the prophets; and scholars such as de

173 Schneidau points out (pp. 10 – 11) that for the prophets “the Divine is unknowable—except insofar as he chooses to give messages, through history, and through the prophets.” Schneidau seemingly suggests, thereby, that the prophets “prophesied” simply because they had received messages from Yahweh, and felt compelled to then make those messages public. The prophets may have thought that they were given messages from Yahweh, but it does not follow from that fact that they were.

174 Was it somehow a “remembrance” of the “good old days” of gatherer-hunter life?

175 "I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much,even though they're large ."[12]” De Waal is the author of (1997), etc.

176 The founding faculty director of the , author of (2009), etc.

178 De Waal and Keltner are, and have been, important “human nature” specialists. Unlike Barash, however, they seem unaware of The Discrepancy, and the extremely important role that it likely has played in human history.

204

Waal, Keltner, and (especially) Barash (among many other individuals—scholars and others) were motivated—unconsciously—both by the prophets and byThe Discrepancy!

The special significance of David Barash is that his thinking was not only motivated by The Discrepancy, I would argue, but led to his discovery of The Discrepancy!179 Unfortunately, Barash’s intellectual contribution has been insufficiently appreciated—perhaps because he did not develop the concept well.

For more on this, see my , referred to earlier in this essay.

I’m convinced that The Discrepancy has played a huge role in Western history. Unfortunately, however, I am aware of not a single work that argues this point to any degree of all! I have no interest in writing such a work—in part because of my conviction that .

179 I argue in For ? (pp. 41 – 46) that The Discrepancy concept goes at least back to Thorstein Veblen.

205

Correspondence With David Barash

[On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, I sent the following to Barash:]

Dr. Barash,

Thank you for your response to my eBook.

A criticism of your work, if I may: I wish that you would avoid using the term “natural selection.” As typically defined now—e.g., “differential survival and reproduction of individualsdue to differences in phenotype”—it is vacuous, because it contains no change mechanism.

Darwin’s concept of “natural selection” (as given in Origin) at least had the virtue of containing such a mechanism—intraspecific competition, resulting in the survival (and subsequent production of progeny) of those individuals able to “win” in the competition.

The unfortunate aspect of Darwin’s concept, however, is that it was merely speculative—based on Rev. Malthus’s speculations. It turns out that Darwin’s concept has virtually no real-world relevance. In the case of humans, for example, the relevant factors were (a) environmental change (Stanley), (b) predation (Sussman), and (c) female-choice sexual selection (Zihlman, Tanner).

Again, thanks for your kind response. A question: Why has the concept of a Discrepancy playedso little role in your subsequent work. For me, it is an extremely important concept—although one that is ill-developed so far.

Alton C. (“Al”) Thompson

[On December 17, I received this from him:]

Hello Al, I've pretty much stopped focusing on the biology/culture disparity largely because I've said what I have to say about it - although I come back to it regularly, most recently in a chapter of my forthcoming book, Out of Eden, to be published by Oxford Univ Press early next year. I respectfully disagree with much of what you said in your email, however, but that's another story! (e.g., Darwinian natural selection was and is much more than a speculative concept, the definition of ns that you cite isn't one that most biologists use, etc.) In any event, I look forward to what you end up doing with "the discrepancy."

best wishes,

David

206

Do We See What Is?

Alton C. Thompson

I live in , Wisconsin— being one of three “ in this country (inspired by the ideas of [1850 – 1928], founder of the “”). As a “garden city,” Greendale contains many parks, open areas, and wooded areas.

One of the routes that I commonly follow leads me past the public high school, and then a wooded area within which a few homes have been built. This fall (2015), when most of the leaves had fallen from the trees, I happened to drive through this area on a sunny day, and was astounded by the sheer beauty of that short stretch as I passed through it. However, while, about two months later, reading Herbert N. Schneidau’s (1976), I became disturbed by this quotation:

Even on into the early eighteenth century, “nature” meant [for people in the West] something far more comprehensive than the countryside, and mountains were not scenic but rather blemishes.

Mountains blemishes?!! Quite frankly, I was shocked to learn this! Given that my wife had also perceived the short stretch referred to above as beautiful during a short period in the fall, it may seem understandable that I thought that anyone passing through that stretch during that time period would also have perceived the area as beautiful.

What the Schneidau passage taught me, however, is that if people from other cultures now—and Americans of say, 1300 CE (i.e., Native Americans—the Potawatomi, ) were to travel through that area181 while they were alive, it’s entirely possible that neither would perceive it as “beautiful”! Realizing this possibility “shook me up”!

As I reflected on the Schneidau passage, and my reaction to it, it occurred to me that in general it’s likely that people from different cultures will perceive a given scene, for example, differently. I also began to wonder why I (along with my wife) had perceived the

above-mentioned “stretch” as “beautiful.” It occurred to me, of course, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”182—but I didn’t find that phrase very enlightening. What did occur to me, however, is the possibility that my recent perception of beauty along a stretch of road in Greendale involved an unconsciously-held memory of my early childhood.

181 I assume here (incorrectly, I suppose) that the area in 1300 looked similar to the way it looks today.182 Which has into “beauty is the eyes of the beerholder”! Wisconsin being famous as a beer-producing state, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a Wisconsinite had created this song.

207

My ancestors had settled in the area of Waushara County (see map to left; ) in Wisconsin in the 1850s, and I had spent all of my youth living in several different parts of that county, the Mt. Morris area in particular. The village of Mt. Morris is very small, as the indicates. The “mount” itself is just a

hill (between Bighorn Ave. on the north and County highways G and W to the south. Since I moved away from the area (in 1963), a county park has been created on the “mount,” as well as ski runs (“Nordic Mountain,” the name deriving from the fact that most of the earliest settlers in the area were Scandinavian).

While I attended grade school (in a one-room country school, my first two years), we lived on County W, east of the “mount”—a short distance from where my dad had been raised. The “mount” was a place for us children to play, and finding what appeared to be trails on the “mount” that had been created by Indians decades earlier was always exciting. The “mount” wasour place to explore, and we enjoyed our “explorations”!

The hill was—and still is—a special place for me, almost a holy hill, in fact—which reminds me of this Bible passage ():

Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his holy mountain, for the LORD our God is holy.

(By the way, to the north of Greendale—which is a suburb to the southwest of Milwaukee—thereis this (left)—which is the “.”)

208

I suspect, then, that the Greendale scene referred to earlier was perceived by me as beautiful because it unconsciously evoked pleasant memories from my youth. I should add that the Mt. Morris “mount” became even more meaningful to me when I took courses in Geology while attending college—learning that the “mount” was a , whose sides were covered with glacial debris. Thus, when I, at least, think of that “mount,” I think not only of my childhood,

but my studies in Geology as an undergraduate.

Recently, for a period of about six months, I had occasion to have some contact with some Moslems—some of them being recent arrivals from North Africa—and the passage quoted abovefrom Schneidau’s book causes me to wonder how they would have reacted to the “short stretch” in Greendale referred to above. The scene in question was a temporary one that no longer exists,of course; and that fact, along with the fact that my contact with those Moslems has ceased means that I’ll never know. I would guess, however, that their reaction would have been different from mine. How different I have no way of knowing.

reports that Jesus said:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

When one thinks of the world today, one recognizes that there is a paucity of love. Why? A major reason, I believe, is a fact that is extremely difficult for most of us to recognize: Members of different cultures perceive things differently. The states that one should treat others as one would, oneself, like to be treated. That requires that one be able to “put oneself in the shoes of another,” but the fact of the matter is that it is difficult to do so—when that “other” is from a culture that differs from one’s own.

What’s the answer to that problem? What’s your answer? I’d like to know! Email me at .

209

President Obama in Alaska

Alton C. Thompson

Last night (December 17, 2015) I watched Barrack Obama on a , and as I watched him on this program, I thought to myself: “This is the kind of person I would like as a neighbor; not only is he a great person, but a person with intelligence as well.”

Obama was in Alaska with Bear Grylls, a British man who hosts an adventurer’s reality show. He was in Alaska, he said, because of his concern for global warming. I admire him for that concern—a rare one among politicians (Republican ones in particular). I’m convinced, however,that he fails to realize how serious a problem it is. He mentioned the possibility of change accelerating, but gave no indication of knowing that, e.g., John B. Davies, writing two years ago,asserted that “runaway” had already begun.

Which is worse:

1. Being a “climate change” denier?

2. Recognizing that global warming is occurring, and represents a possible problem for the future, but not being aware of the fact that some scientists believe that it is now too late toprevent catastrophe.

I find it ironic that noted climate scientist the recent Paris meetings a “fraud,” while Secretary John Kerry “begs to differ”! As if what Kerry believes about global warming has any significance!

I wish Obama would read my The End is Near—but I have no way of getting it to him.

210

211