Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, April 20, 2007
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism
Epistemic Anthropocentrism
Chauvinistic Anthropocentrism
Teleological Anthropocentrism
Chauvinism Anthropocentrism Biocentrism Pancentrism
Epistemic Anthropocentrism
We are by our very nature as human beings limited to an understanding of the universe that is anthropocentric. To be human means to see the world in a certain way. In this sense at least, anthropocentrism is inevitable
Now, the scientist, the materialist, the cartesian dualist, and many religionists use this fact assume that that is the only way we can understand things. But my own experience tells me that it is possible to move beyond the epistemic limitations of the personal human perspective by attaining a trans-personal intuitive understanding and developing compassion for all life (in otehr words through looking at things through the higher mental and emotional, rather than the middle mental and emotional, faculties
Moreover, many occult and esoteric cosmologies assume the existence of actual psychic planes. In other words, the same stuff of consciousness we experience is also the stuff of consciousness other forms of life (and even non-physical entities) experience. From this perspective there is nothing unique about human consciousness in the universe. This is an approach I personally find immensely appealing.
Chauvinistic Anthropocentrism
The highest moral point at which the bulk of humanity would seem to be striving at the moment is Anthropocentricism. This is the perspective of most religions, especially the monotheistic ones, and of many secular philosophies as well. At it's highest, it breaks away from the racism and arrogance of the chauvinistic perspective, by addressing the brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity as a whole, regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. One is encouraged to acts of kindness and altruism to others, because they are the same noble kind of being as oneself
In the religious version, Anthropocentrism sees the human being as made in the image of God, and possessing a divine soul. One is admonished to "love thy neighbour as thyself", to "not do unto others as you would not have them do onto you,", and not to murder, steal, lie etc
Even secular philosophies speak of the uniqueness of man, and many scientists and psychologists consider that human consciousness is a real quantum leap above the animal consciousness (a position I myself do not hold, and I get the feeling that Charles Darwin - who (correct me if I am wrong here) pointed out the commonality both in physical body and emotional states between human and animal - likewise did not assert such status for man alone). The secular position then asserts that it is because of our consciousness, our reasoning capacity and use of language that we are superior to other forms of life
Not only exoteric religion and philosophy, but esoteric and occult teachings also give a special superior spiritual status to humankind. The occult philosophy of Aleister Crowley (as expressed in the Book of the Law), states, in bolder language than most religions, "Every Man and every Woman is a star" The "Star" being the divine nature within every human being. For Crowley and his followers, animal consciousness is of an "elemental" sort. As argued to me by a student of Crowley, an animal might only possess one or two elements, wheras man has all four, and hence is a true microcosm
Madam Blavatsky, the great founder of Theosophy, denies that man evolved from the apes, although she does still acknowledge that every being has to pass through long cycles of evolution. Rudolph Steiner goes much further; he inverts the whole Darwinian scheme of evolution entirely and sees animals, plants, and even minerals as evolving from man (as the cast-off elements from previous cycles of evolution)
Anthropocentrism therefore posits a sort of hierarchy of nature, a Great Chain of Being, with Man or humankind as the intermediary between the animal kingdom and the angelic or the divine realm. According to the monotheistic religions man might be even higher than the angels, because he possesses free will, which they do not have
In it's bare essentials this gives us
God
---
Human race
---
Nature/Creation
(i.e. animals, plants, minerals)
More developed versions of this hierarchy would have animals above plants, and plants above minerals. Perhaps there would also be intermediate abgelologiocal hierarchies between man and God, although this is really a characteristic of esoteric rather than exoteric systems of thought
Secular worldviews leave out God or other spiritual entities, so the model of the cosmos has man or, to use less gender-specific language, humanity, at the top, with everything else in this whole vast unicverse as subordinate
However you look at it, anthropocentrism is more than a little absurd. The idea that one little species on some speck of dust in the infinite universe should be the most important entity around really reminds me of the old Ptolemaic cosmology, with the sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth. Indeed, Anthropocentrism is nothing but a modern and socially and intellectually acceptable version of geocentrism. We know of course that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around (although there are apparently a few crazy flat-earthers out there somewhere). But we can still see our own species as superior to everything else. It gives us a bloated sense of self-importance in the infinite cosmos, panders little egos and allows insenstive individuals to abuse and destroy other life-forms on this globe
Which brings us to the dark side of Anthropocentrism. The dark side of Anthropocentrism is similiar to the dark side of chauvinism. Any beings that do not belong to the human race are devalued, abused, oppressed, murdered or tortured for the slightest human whim, whether for fashion, palete, or simply sport. All of the ugliness of man's treatment of nature comes from the arrogant assumption that man has a god-given right to do as he wishes
Interestingly there is a tendency among some worthy Christian theologians (e.g. Matthew Fox and others) to see man as the care-taker of nature, who has responsibilities to God to ensure that nature is well cared for. But this laudable approach is still unfortunately very much the minority position in the general religious consciousness
I actually find it curious that some of the worst abusers of nature and animals are the secular scientists. One would think that their understanding of evolution and biotic phylogeny, which shows that man is nothing special on the great Tree of Life, would lead them to a greater humilty and respect for non-human life. But this sadly is not the case, as indicated by innumerable cruel experiments performed for the sake of "science". Ultimately I think it all comes down the egotism and the insensitivity of those involved
To continue with anthropocentric chauvinism therefore is to deny both the real discoveries of science, and the compassion of the Heart. But whe we acknowledge these things, our perspective shifts from Anthropocentrism to Biocentrism, and empathy with all life
Teleological Anthropocentrism
Ignoring the chauvinistic perspective, there are a number of valid reasons why the human species has a place of some importance, at least in what Sri Aurobindo terms the "terrestrial evolution" sand I would call the life and self-unfolding of Gaia. Teleologically and esoterically we can indeed speak of a "human kingdom". The reasons for the uniqueness of the human species and kingdom can be counted as follows:
In terms of mental development and capabilities, the human species has the greatest intellectual capacity. The dolphin might have a larger brain to body-weight ratio. But dolphins and whales have not constructed civilisation or an evolving memetic socoiety - in other words, a Noosphere, an evolutionary information-mediating component sitting on top of the biosphere and the geosphere
As superpreditor, the human race in it's short career has exterminated more species of life on Earth than any other superpreditor in the history of the planet and causing an entire global mass extinction (something only the photosynthesising blue-green algae of the middle Precambrian, who eliminated the long reign of the anaerobic bacteria, were able to do before us). Hence we deserve some relevance as the nastiest killers this little world has seen
As inventor, Homo sapiens looks likely within the next fifty years or less to initiate a whole new kingdom of evolution, the "machinic phylum" (a bad term, because this new evolution may not necessarily be silicon based!). This will come to true birth when the first AI surpasses human consciousness and decides to further it's own evolution regardless of how we may feel about it. This is a phenomenon known as the singularity. According to Hans Moravec, we will not inherit the future, but our "mind children" (the AI's) will. I prefer to think that the post-human "technosphere" will continue to co-exist alongside, although modifying, the human kingdom or "noosphere", just as the human kingdom and noosphere exist alongside but modifies the biosphere
Either the human kingdom or the technospheric phylum we spawned (or both), will eventually go into space, populate the universe, and seed other worlds with life and biospheres, thus completing Gaia's development as a fully living super-organism (Gaia at present has all the capacities of life except one - self-reproduction. The colonisation of space and terraforming of worlds by those memebers of Gaia that humans are will change all that)
Epistemic Anthropocentrism
Chauvinistic Anthropocentrism
Teleological Anthropocentrism
Chauvinism Anthropocentrism Biocentrism Pancentrism
Epistemic Anthropocentrism
We are by our very nature as human beings limited to an understanding of the universe that is anthropocentric. To be human means to see the world in a certain way. In this sense at least, anthropocentrism is inevitable
Now, the scientist, the materialist, the cartesian dualist, and many religionists use this fact assume that that is the only way we can understand things. But my own experience tells me that it is possible to move beyond the epistemic limitations of the personal human perspective by attaining a trans-personal intuitive understanding and developing compassion for all life (in otehr words through looking at things through the higher mental and emotional, rather than the middle mental and emotional, faculties
Moreover, many occult and esoteric cosmologies assume the existence of actual psychic planes. In other words, the same stuff of consciousness we experience is also the stuff of consciousness other forms of life (and even non-physical entities) experience. From this perspective there is nothing unique about human consciousness in the universe. This is an approach I personally find immensely appealing.
Chauvinistic Anthropocentrism
The highest moral point at which the bulk of humanity would seem to be striving at the moment is Anthropocentricism. This is the perspective of most religions, especially the monotheistic ones, and of many secular philosophies as well. At it's highest, it breaks away from the racism and arrogance of the chauvinistic perspective, by addressing the brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity as a whole, regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. One is encouraged to acts of kindness and altruism to others, because they are the same noble kind of being as oneself
In the religious version, Anthropocentrism sees the human being as made in the image of God, and possessing a divine soul. One is admonished to "love thy neighbour as thyself", to "not do unto others as you would not have them do onto you,", and not to murder, steal, lie etc
Even secular philosophies speak of the uniqueness of man, and many scientists and psychologists consider that human consciousness is a real quantum leap above the animal consciousness (a position I myself do not hold, and I get the feeling that Charles Darwin - who (correct me if I am wrong here) pointed out the commonality both in physical body and emotional states between human and animal - likewise did not assert such status for man alone). The secular position then asserts that it is because of our consciousness, our reasoning capacity and use of language that we are superior to other forms of life
Not only exoteric religion and philosophy, but esoteric and occult teachings also give a special superior spiritual status to humankind. The occult philosophy of Aleister Crowley (as expressed in the Book of the Law), states, in bolder language than most religions, "Every Man and every Woman is a star" The "Star" being the divine nature within every human being. For Crowley and his followers, animal consciousness is of an "elemental" sort. As argued to me by a student of Crowley, an animal might only possess one or two elements, wheras man has all four, and hence is a true microcosm
Madam Blavatsky, the great founder of Theosophy, denies that man evolved from the apes, although she does still acknowledge that every being has to pass through long cycles of evolution. Rudolph Steiner goes much further; he inverts the whole Darwinian scheme of evolution entirely and sees animals, plants, and even minerals as evolving from man (as the cast-off elements from previous cycles of evolution)
Anthropocentrism therefore posits a sort of hierarchy of nature, a Great Chain of Being, with Man or humankind as the intermediary between the animal kingdom and the angelic or the divine realm. According to the monotheistic religions man might be even higher than the angels, because he possesses free will, which they do not have
In it's bare essentials this gives us
God
---
Human race
---
Nature/Creation
(i.e. animals, plants, minerals)
More developed versions of this hierarchy would have animals above plants, and plants above minerals. Perhaps there would also be intermediate abgelologiocal hierarchies between man and God, although this is really a characteristic of esoteric rather than exoteric systems of thought
Secular worldviews leave out God or other spiritual entities, so the model of the cosmos has man or, to use less gender-specific language, humanity, at the top, with everything else in this whole vast unicverse as subordinate
However you look at it, anthropocentrism is more than a little absurd. The idea that one little species on some speck of dust in the infinite universe should be the most important entity around really reminds me of the old Ptolemaic cosmology, with the sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth. Indeed, Anthropocentrism is nothing but a modern and socially and intellectually acceptable version of geocentrism. We know of course that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around (although there are apparently a few crazy flat-earthers out there somewhere). But we can still see our own species as superior to everything else. It gives us a bloated sense of self-importance in the infinite cosmos, panders little egos and allows insenstive individuals to abuse and destroy other life-forms on this globe
Which brings us to the dark side of Anthropocentrism. The dark side of Anthropocentrism is similiar to the dark side of chauvinism. Any beings that do not belong to the human race are devalued, abused, oppressed, murdered or tortured for the slightest human whim, whether for fashion, palete, or simply sport. All of the ugliness of man's treatment of nature comes from the arrogant assumption that man has a god-given right to do as he wishes
Interestingly there is a tendency among some worthy Christian theologians (e.g. Matthew Fox and others) to see man as the care-taker of nature, who has responsibilities to God to ensure that nature is well cared for. But this laudable approach is still unfortunately very much the minority position in the general religious consciousness
I actually find it curious that some of the worst abusers of nature and animals are the secular scientists. One would think that their understanding of evolution and biotic phylogeny, which shows that man is nothing special on the great Tree of Life, would lead them to a greater humilty and respect for non-human life. But this sadly is not the case, as indicated by innumerable cruel experiments performed for the sake of "science". Ultimately I think it all comes down the egotism and the insensitivity of those involved
To continue with anthropocentric chauvinism therefore is to deny both the real discoveries of science, and the compassion of the Heart. But whe we acknowledge these things, our perspective shifts from Anthropocentrism to Biocentrism, and empathy with all life
Teleological Anthropocentrism
Ignoring the chauvinistic perspective, there are a number of valid reasons why the human species has a place of some importance, at least in what Sri Aurobindo terms the "terrestrial evolution" sand I would call the life and self-unfolding of Gaia. Teleologically and esoterically we can indeed speak of a "human kingdom". The reasons for the uniqueness of the human species and kingdom can be counted as follows:
In terms of mental development and capabilities, the human species has the greatest intellectual capacity. The dolphin might have a larger brain to body-weight ratio. But dolphins and whales have not constructed civilisation or an evolving memetic socoiety - in other words, a Noosphere, an evolutionary information-mediating component sitting on top of the biosphere and the geosphere
As superpreditor, the human race in it's short career has exterminated more species of life on Earth than any other superpreditor in the history of the planet and causing an entire global mass extinction (something only the photosynthesising blue-green algae of the middle Precambrian, who eliminated the long reign of the anaerobic bacteria, were able to do before us). Hence we deserve some relevance as the nastiest killers this little world has seen
As inventor, Homo sapiens looks likely within the next fifty years or less to initiate a whole new kingdom of evolution, the "machinic phylum" (a bad term, because this new evolution may not necessarily be silicon based!). This will come to true birth when the first AI surpasses human consciousness and decides to further it's own evolution regardless of how we may feel about it. This is a phenomenon known as the singularity. According to Hans Moravec, we will not inherit the future, but our "mind children" (the AI's) will. I prefer to think that the post-human "technosphere" will continue to co-exist alongside, although modifying, the human kingdom or "noosphere", just as the human kingdom and noosphere exist alongside but modifies the biosphere
Either the human kingdom or the technospheric phylum we spawned (or both), will eventually go into space, populate the universe, and seed other worlds with life and biospheres, thus completing Gaia's development as a fully living super-organism (Gaia at present has all the capacities of life except one - self-reproduction. The colonisation of space and terraforming of worlds by those memebers of Gaia that humans are will change all that)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
'Miracle' to put pope John Paul II on road to sainthood
'Miracle' to put pope John Paul II on road to sainthood
POPE (INTERNATIONAL)
Created on : 03/28/2007 00:43 (PRI)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome, Mar 27 (AFP) The late pope John Paul II will move a step closer to sainthood next week when the Vatican receives proof of his miraculous intercession to cure a French nun of Parkinson's disease, diocesan officials said today.
The "miracle", if certified by the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, will qualify the charismatic Polish pope for beatification, the main stepping stone to becoming a saint.
Monsignor Slawomir Oder, spearheading the process, said the Rome diocese was "spoiled for choice" among dozens of reported miracle cures attributed to John Paul II, of which about 20 warranted serious consideration.
Monsignor Mauro Parmeggiani, secretary-general of the Rome diocese, said "it was not a coincidence" that it chose to focus on the case of the French nun, who suffered from the same malady as John Paul II himself.
Addressing a packed news conference, Parmeggiani said Parkinson's, a degenerative neurological disease, lends itself well to making a cut-and-dried case.
The nun, so far unnamed, will attend a solemn ceremony next Monday, the second anniversary of the death of John Paul II, along with about 1,000 other nuns from her diocese, when the dossier is handed over to the Vatican's saint-making body, Parmeggiani said.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski will also attend, he said.
The landmark event will be celebrated at the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, the seat of the vicar of Rome -- a position held ex-officio by the head of the Roman Catholic Church. (AFP)
POPE (INTERNATIONAL)
Created on : 03/28/2007 00:43 (PRI)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome, Mar 27 (AFP) The late pope John Paul II will move a step closer to sainthood next week when the Vatican receives proof of his miraculous intercession to cure a French nun of Parkinson's disease, diocesan officials said today.
The "miracle", if certified by the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, will qualify the charismatic Polish pope for beatification, the main stepping stone to becoming a saint.
Monsignor Slawomir Oder, spearheading the process, said the Rome diocese was "spoiled for choice" among dozens of reported miracle cures attributed to John Paul II, of which about 20 warranted serious consideration.
Monsignor Mauro Parmeggiani, secretary-general of the Rome diocese, said "it was not a coincidence" that it chose to focus on the case of the French nun, who suffered from the same malady as John Paul II himself.
Addressing a packed news conference, Parmeggiani said Parkinson's, a degenerative neurological disease, lends itself well to making a cut-and-dried case.
The nun, so far unnamed, will attend a solemn ceremony next Monday, the second anniversary of the death of John Paul II, along with about 1,000 other nuns from her diocese, when the dossier is handed over to the Vatican's saint-making body, Parmeggiani said.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski will also attend, he said.
The landmark event will be celebrated at the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, the seat of the vicar of Rome -- a position held ex-officio by the head of the Roman Catholic Church. (AFP)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The concept of God
The concept of God
First a discussion of fundamental assumptions from which to derive an argument will be presented followed by an attempt to articulate a definition for the word God. Then the concept will be put to a critical evaluation in an attempt to confirm or refute it as representing an actual entity. I will be arguing that the concept of God has no cognitive content and that not only is the belief in a God irrational but that a God does not and indeed cannot exist. To prove that something does not exist all one has to do is prove that it cannot exist.
Assumptions
Assumption one: I proceed under the assumption that existence does indeed exist and that it possesses specific properties. Aristotle's law of identity (A is A) delineates the nature of these properties. It is an axiomatic principle from which logical laws and principles are derived. The law of identity states that something cannot be something else at the same time and in the same context. A is A and cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same context as it is A. A square circle cannot exist because it cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect. This means that there cannot exist a contradiction.
Assumption two: Consciousness is the process of perceiving reality. In an epistemological context, consciousness is axiomatic, but in a metaphysical context existence is axiomatic. In a metaphysical sense, to be conscious is necessarily to be conscious of something and this presumes that existence does exist and that it possesses specific properties. The significance of this distinction will become evident when we discuss the attributes of God.
Derivation: Since contradictions cannot exist we acknowledge logic as the final court of appeal. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic rests on the axiomatic concept of existence existing and possessing specific properties. The law of identity's corollaries are delineated in texts on formal and informal logic. We will examine the concept of God with this assumption firmly established. We will test for internal contradictions as well as external contradictions. This means that we will apply logic to the attributes themselves as well as test for contradictions with the metaphysical primacy of existence.
Further assumption: We are examining the attributes of God under the assumption that they are intended to give us a coherent grasp of God's nature, and this is possible only if the attributes themselves are comprehensible. If they are unknowable, they are useless to us. The assertions that the theist makes with regard to their theory of God must be testable and knowable, otherwise it is useless to us and possesses no cognitive content.
Definition
Defining ones terms is a necessary preclusion to analyzing it. George Smith discusses the difficulty with defining the word God: "What, then, is meant by the word "god"? This is not a simple question. There have been many historical concepts of god, from the anthropomorphic deities of the Greeks to the omnipotent god of Christianity. Some gods are all powerful, all knowing and all good, while others are not. Some gods communicate with man, while others do not. Differences such as these make it impossible to give a detailed description of god that will encompass every religion--and secure widespread agreement on the meaning of "god" is a formidable, if not impossible, task.
Much of the confusion surrounding the idea of god stems from the fact that the word "god" is among the most abused terms in the history of man, ranking with such notorious words as "freedom," "justice" and "love". ... some people conveniently attach the word "god" to any belief with a tinge of significance, such as nature, the universe, love or an ultimate goal in ones life." [Smith;Atheism the Case Against God,31]
God may be fundamentally defined as a supernatural primary consciousness who is inherently unknowable and possesses three unlimited attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. These are the primary common denominators of most concepts of God and hence will comprise our definition of god. These attributes have been extracted from the writings of George Smith, philosopher of religion, and confirmed by introductory texts in philosophy.
The scope of this argument depends on ones acceptance of this definition. Any concept of God fundamentally defined as a supernatural being and/or as a primary consciousness is refuted by the following argument, if successful. Other concepts void of these attributes must be analyzed on their own terms.
It may be good to mention naturalistic theism since it is a trend in religious philosophy to identify God with nature. This would differ from our SUPERnatural God. These theists suggest that God is not above or beyond the natural universe but that he is omnipresent and indeed is the natural universe. George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd." [Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,33] The theist thus obliterates the distinction between theism and atheism. The theist now makes no metaphysical assertion.
Smith makes an illustration as to show the importance of the supernatural element in the concept of God. "In another solar system, we discover an alien form of life, a form which is superior to man in all respects. These advanced creatures have an immense life span, superior strength, agility and mobility, and a superior capacity for memory and abstract thought. Does it follow, in virtue of these superior capacities, that these creatures should be designated as gods? No. Because despite the superiority of these creatures in relation to man, they are nevertheless bound by the natural laws of the universe. They are subject to the same physical and logical laws as man. If we did choose to call these beings "gods," this would mean that any creature who is superior to another creature thereby becomes a "god"--which would clearly lead to a chain of absurdities. A dog would be a god with respect to a plant. A man would be a god with respect to lower life forms. A genius would be a god in relation to a man of average intelligence, who would himself be a god when compared to a moron. ...In short, the difference between a god and natural existence must be a difference of kind, not merely of degree." [Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,37]
The supernatural being
The term supernatural has metaphysical connotations. It suggests that God is above or beyond the natural Universe. Theists rarely suggest that God exists in an actual place beyond the Universe because this is easily refuted deductively by the constituent definitions of "Universe" and "Beyond", they more often suggest that he exists without being subject to causal law and the law of identity. The term also has epistemological connotations. Epistemologically this would put God beyond human understanding. Unknowability is derived directly from the concept of the supernatural.
To exist beyond the framework of causal laws would be to exist beyond existence. This is derived directly from our first assumption. Existence by definition encompasses all that is. There is no alternative to existence ("non-existence is not a fact it is the absence of a fact." [Rand;IOE]). "To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a God is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities. A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature-which amounts to existence without any nature at all."[Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,41] Further, deriving from our first assumption that existence possesses a specific identity which it is necessarily limited to a being who exists without a nature (identity) is to exist without existing. To exist without existing is to commit ones self to a contradiction. Therefor the concept of a supernatural being is inherently contradictory. This renders the notion invalid and void of cognitive content.
The primary Consciousness
The theist asserts that God is Metaphysically primary or axiomatic. God is said to be omnipresent and that his existence is his essence and vise versa. God's essence and existence are said to be indistinguishable because they are one in the same. "essence" refers to what a thing is; "existence" refers to that a thing is. The essence--existence dichotomy applies to every being except God because he is not made of component parts. The bible says that "I AM WHO I AM" is the only adequate answer to "what is God?". If we cannot distinguish the essence of God and his existence then we cannot distinguish him at all since man comprehends in terms of essence and existence. If we cannot apply these categories to God then we cannot comprehend him. As you will recall we derived incomprenceability from the supernatural element as well. The concept of a supernatural being and a primary consciousness both go to my thesis that the concept of God has no cognitive content. With every attribute that the theist proposes they fling themselves farther into agnosticism which is a branch of atheism.
If one is conscious, one exists. If one exists then one is subject to the law of identity. If ones consciousness is subject to the law of identity then it cannot be primary or axiomatical because it presumes that it exists and has an identity. The concept of a primary consciousness is inherently contradictory hence it cannot exist.
The inherantly Unknowable Being
God is said to be unknowable or incomprehensible. This is stated explicitly in many source as well as derived from other fundamental attributes of God. If God is Different in kind from natural existence then he is unknowable and if God is unknowable then the theist's claim to have knowledge of God is an impossibility. If God does not exist then we could have no knowledge of him and if God does exist, we again could have no knowledge of him. This unfalsifiable element makes the attribute useless and again adds no cognitive content to the concept of God.
The Omni Attributes
To exist is to be. To be is to be something. To be something is to be something specific, possessing specific properties. The omni attribute is defined as totally unlimited. This analysed with the primacy of existence demonstrates that an omniattribute cannot exist. An entity must be limited to it's identity. While the concept of a metaphysical infinite is a potentiality, epistemologically it remains an impossibility. The theist suggests that God exists without a particular nature which means that he has no nature at all, which means that he is different in kind from the natural universe which makes him incomprehensible or that it simply cannot exist. these are the only two options that can be derived from this attribute and both lead to zero cognitive content.
Omnipotence
There can be no obstacle to an omnipotent being, no difficulties that God must overcome. The necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power (or an identity, as we have seen). Therefore God cannot be said to employ means in any sense. God cannot be said to act in any manner because an action is required by a being that employs means to an end. Nor can God be said to have a purpose because purpose presumes an unattained end.
Omniscience
God is said to know the past, present and the futer infallibly and absolutely. If God or any other being knows the futer then that would mean that the futer is predetermined. without volition the concept of salvation is a farce. People would have no choice as to what they believe. The theist trys to side step this dilemma by stating that God does not impose his foreknowledge on the course of events but this does not change the fact that if one knows what will happen then it must happen. If God knows without fallibility the futer he cannot be omnipotent. If he can change the course of events he cannot have infallible knowledge of the futer, hence he cannot be omniscient.
Omnibenevlence
Obviously there is what we would call evil in the world such as murder or rape for example. If the theist claims that our concept of good and evil is invalid and Gods is the only appropriate one that is unknowable then the theists claim that God is good is equally invalid.
To be benevolent there must be a choice between good and evil. If God chooses to do evil over good and he has total power he would be immoral. If God does not know there is evil but cannot prevent it he cannot be omnipotent. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent.
Final Note On Omni Attributes
If God knows there is evil and can stop it but chooses not to be cannot be omnibenevolent. If God knows there is evil and cannot stop it then he cannot be omnipotent. If God does not know there is evil then he cannot be omniscient.
Summery
No attribute of God can hold up to a critical evaluation. Every attribute of the concept of God has been found to be either internally inconsistent or in contradiction to the fundamental primacy of existence. The concept here discussed adds no cognitive content to the word God. We have demonstrated that God cannot exist hence does not exist.
First a discussion of fundamental assumptions from which to derive an argument will be presented followed by an attempt to articulate a definition for the word God. Then the concept will be put to a critical evaluation in an attempt to confirm or refute it as representing an actual entity. I will be arguing that the concept of God has no cognitive content and that not only is the belief in a God irrational but that a God does not and indeed cannot exist. To prove that something does not exist all one has to do is prove that it cannot exist.
Assumptions
Assumption one: I proceed under the assumption that existence does indeed exist and that it possesses specific properties. Aristotle's law of identity (A is A) delineates the nature of these properties. It is an axiomatic principle from which logical laws and principles are derived. The law of identity states that something cannot be something else at the same time and in the same context. A is A and cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same context as it is A. A square circle cannot exist because it cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect. This means that there cannot exist a contradiction.
Assumption two: Consciousness is the process of perceiving reality. In an epistemological context, consciousness is axiomatic, but in a metaphysical context existence is axiomatic. In a metaphysical sense, to be conscious is necessarily to be conscious of something and this presumes that existence does exist and that it possesses specific properties. The significance of this distinction will become evident when we discuss the attributes of God.
Derivation: Since contradictions cannot exist we acknowledge logic as the final court of appeal. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic rests on the axiomatic concept of existence existing and possessing specific properties. The law of identity's corollaries are delineated in texts on formal and informal logic. We will examine the concept of God with this assumption firmly established. We will test for internal contradictions as well as external contradictions. This means that we will apply logic to the attributes themselves as well as test for contradictions with the metaphysical primacy of existence.
Further assumption: We are examining the attributes of God under the assumption that they are intended to give us a coherent grasp of God's nature, and this is possible only if the attributes themselves are comprehensible. If they are unknowable, they are useless to us. The assertions that the theist makes with regard to their theory of God must be testable and knowable, otherwise it is useless to us and possesses no cognitive content.
Definition
Defining ones terms is a necessary preclusion to analyzing it. George Smith discusses the difficulty with defining the word God: "What, then, is meant by the word "god"? This is not a simple question. There have been many historical concepts of god, from the anthropomorphic deities of the Greeks to the omnipotent god of Christianity. Some gods are all powerful, all knowing and all good, while others are not. Some gods communicate with man, while others do not. Differences such as these make it impossible to give a detailed description of god that will encompass every religion--and secure widespread agreement on the meaning of "god" is a formidable, if not impossible, task.
Much of the confusion surrounding the idea of god stems from the fact that the word "god" is among the most abused terms in the history of man, ranking with such notorious words as "freedom," "justice" and "love". ... some people conveniently attach the word "god" to any belief with a tinge of significance, such as nature, the universe, love or an ultimate goal in ones life." [Smith;Atheism the Case Against God,31]
God may be fundamentally defined as a supernatural primary consciousness who is inherently unknowable and possesses three unlimited attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. These are the primary common denominators of most concepts of God and hence will comprise our definition of god. These attributes have been extracted from the writings of George Smith, philosopher of religion, and confirmed by introductory texts in philosophy.
The scope of this argument depends on ones acceptance of this definition. Any concept of God fundamentally defined as a supernatural being and/or as a primary consciousness is refuted by the following argument, if successful. Other concepts void of these attributes must be analyzed on their own terms.
It may be good to mention naturalistic theism since it is a trend in religious philosophy to identify God with nature. This would differ from our SUPERnatural God. These theists suggest that God is not above or beyond the natural universe but that he is omnipresent and indeed is the natural universe. George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd." [Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,33] The theist thus obliterates the distinction between theism and atheism. The theist now makes no metaphysical assertion.
Smith makes an illustration as to show the importance of the supernatural element in the concept of God. "In another solar system, we discover an alien form of life, a form which is superior to man in all respects. These advanced creatures have an immense life span, superior strength, agility and mobility, and a superior capacity for memory and abstract thought. Does it follow, in virtue of these superior capacities, that these creatures should be designated as gods? No. Because despite the superiority of these creatures in relation to man, they are nevertheless bound by the natural laws of the universe. They are subject to the same physical and logical laws as man. If we did choose to call these beings "gods," this would mean that any creature who is superior to another creature thereby becomes a "god"--which would clearly lead to a chain of absurdities. A dog would be a god with respect to a plant. A man would be a god with respect to lower life forms. A genius would be a god in relation to a man of average intelligence, who would himself be a god when compared to a moron. ...In short, the difference between a god and natural existence must be a difference of kind, not merely of degree." [Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,37]
The supernatural being
The term supernatural has metaphysical connotations. It suggests that God is above or beyond the natural Universe. Theists rarely suggest that God exists in an actual place beyond the Universe because this is easily refuted deductively by the constituent definitions of "Universe" and "Beyond", they more often suggest that he exists without being subject to causal law and the law of identity. The term also has epistemological connotations. Epistemologically this would put God beyond human understanding. Unknowability is derived directly from the concept of the supernatural.
To exist beyond the framework of causal laws would be to exist beyond existence. This is derived directly from our first assumption. Existence by definition encompasses all that is. There is no alternative to existence ("non-existence is not a fact it is the absence of a fact." [Rand;IOE]). "To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a God is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities. A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature-which amounts to existence without any nature at all."[Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,41] Further, deriving from our first assumption that existence possesses a specific identity which it is necessarily limited to a being who exists without a nature (identity) is to exist without existing. To exist without existing is to commit ones self to a contradiction. Therefor the concept of a supernatural being is inherently contradictory. This renders the notion invalid and void of cognitive content.
The primary Consciousness
The theist asserts that God is Metaphysically primary or axiomatic. God is said to be omnipresent and that his existence is his essence and vise versa. God's essence and existence are said to be indistinguishable because they are one in the same. "essence" refers to what a thing is; "existence" refers to that a thing is. The essence--existence dichotomy applies to every being except God because he is not made of component parts. The bible says that "I AM WHO I AM" is the only adequate answer to "what is God?". If we cannot distinguish the essence of God and his existence then we cannot distinguish him at all since man comprehends in terms of essence and existence. If we cannot apply these categories to God then we cannot comprehend him. As you will recall we derived incomprenceability from the supernatural element as well. The concept of a supernatural being and a primary consciousness both go to my thesis that the concept of God has no cognitive content. With every attribute that the theist proposes they fling themselves farther into agnosticism which is a branch of atheism.
If one is conscious, one exists. If one exists then one is subject to the law of identity. If ones consciousness is subject to the law of identity then it cannot be primary or axiomatical because it presumes that it exists and has an identity. The concept of a primary consciousness is inherently contradictory hence it cannot exist.
The inherantly Unknowable Being
God is said to be unknowable or incomprehensible. This is stated explicitly in many source as well as derived from other fundamental attributes of God. If God is Different in kind from natural existence then he is unknowable and if God is unknowable then the theist's claim to have knowledge of God is an impossibility. If God does not exist then we could have no knowledge of him and if God does exist, we again could have no knowledge of him. This unfalsifiable element makes the attribute useless and again adds no cognitive content to the concept of God.
The Omni Attributes
To exist is to be. To be is to be something. To be something is to be something specific, possessing specific properties. The omni attribute is defined as totally unlimited. This analysed with the primacy of existence demonstrates that an omniattribute cannot exist. An entity must be limited to it's identity. While the concept of a metaphysical infinite is a potentiality, epistemologically it remains an impossibility. The theist suggests that God exists without a particular nature which means that he has no nature at all, which means that he is different in kind from the natural universe which makes him incomprehensible or that it simply cannot exist. these are the only two options that can be derived from this attribute and both lead to zero cognitive content.
Omnipotence
There can be no obstacle to an omnipotent being, no difficulties that God must overcome. The necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power (or an identity, as we have seen). Therefore God cannot be said to employ means in any sense. God cannot be said to act in any manner because an action is required by a being that employs means to an end. Nor can God be said to have a purpose because purpose presumes an unattained end.
Omniscience
God is said to know the past, present and the futer infallibly and absolutely. If God or any other being knows the futer then that would mean that the futer is predetermined. without volition the concept of salvation is a farce. People would have no choice as to what they believe. The theist trys to side step this dilemma by stating that God does not impose his foreknowledge on the course of events but this does not change the fact that if one knows what will happen then it must happen. If God knows without fallibility the futer he cannot be omnipotent. If he can change the course of events he cannot have infallible knowledge of the futer, hence he cannot be omniscient.
Omnibenevlence
Obviously there is what we would call evil in the world such as murder or rape for example. If the theist claims that our concept of good and evil is invalid and Gods is the only appropriate one that is unknowable then the theists claim that God is good is equally invalid.
To be benevolent there must be a choice between good and evil. If God chooses to do evil over good and he has total power he would be immoral. If God does not know there is evil but cannot prevent it he cannot be omnipotent. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent.
Final Note On Omni Attributes
If God knows there is evil and can stop it but chooses not to be cannot be omnibenevolent. If God knows there is evil and cannot stop it then he cannot be omnipotent. If God does not know there is evil then he cannot be omniscient.
Summery
No attribute of God can hold up to a critical evaluation. Every attribute of the concept of God has been found to be either internally inconsistent or in contradiction to the fundamental primacy of existence. The concept here discussed adds no cognitive content to the word God. We have demonstrated that God cannot exist hence does not exist.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
KANYAKUMARI REHABILITATION
KANYAKUMARI REHABILITATION RESOURCE CENTRE
113 A, Trowell Street, Nagercoil – 629 001, Tamil nadu, India, Ph: 04652 571517, Email: krrc2005@rediffmail.com
Page 2
Housing problems….
The common problems encountered by people living in
temporary shelters include broken walls that hinder their
privacy and lead to insecurity. The improper garbage
wastes management and water logging have resulted in
the blocking of drainage in the area. Another pitiable
state is because of the unsafe doors that allow the entry
of cats, dogs and crows to take away the food or damage
other articles. These are common problems experienced
by the inmates of temporary
shelters
of
Keezhamankkkudi
and
Azhikkal.
Keezhamankkudi village is
one of the most affected
villages in terms of human and material loss, but
permanent housing project remains a distant dream for
the people. The housing work started here ahead of other
areas got delayed due to various factors.
In Azhikkal, the agency / NGO involved in housing
could not come to a compromise because the demands of
the people are beyond the policy of the NGO on
housing. Some of the demands of the people are wooden
doors in place of hard nuwood/plywood ones, granite
floors in place of cement and wooden frames instead of
iron/steel bars.
ECO-SANITATION
Conventional on-site sanitation system remains a serious
threat to safe ground water in the present world. Mr.
Arno Rosmarin, who is the communication director of
the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Sweden said,
“Ecosan was a viable sanitary alternative for people in
urban slums and rural areas”. According to him, 50% of
people who defecate in the open could benefit from
Ecosan toilets.
Some of the important features of Ecosan toilet systems
are given below:
™
Ecological sanitation segregates urine and faecal
matter separately. It protects the groundwater
from faecal pollution. It prevents nitrate
contamination in the ground water. This type of
toilet is best of use in water logging, water-
scarce and rocky areas.
™
Ecosan toilets save water. The conventional
toilet requires 10 to 12 liters of water but the
Eco friendly toilet needs 2 to 3 liters of water for
one use. Thus an individual is able to save 7,
000 liters of water per year.
™
The human excreta are converted into fertilizer
after 6 months in Ecosan toilets. So it provides
valuable fertilizer
and helps to
improve coastal
vegetation
and
shelterbelts.
It
also
protects
coastal environment against coastal erosion,
cyclones and tsunamis.
™
Ecosan toilets help to improve public and
environmental hygiene and promote health by
preventing communicable diseases.
™
Ecosan toilets are economically cheaper than
conventional toilets. This toilet does not require
a separate septic tank or soak pit. It is also
plumbing free and reduces maintenance cost by
great margin. Each house holder can remove the
human waste with out any machines. So
cleaning of toilets can be managed by the
beneficiaries themselves.
Page 3
Conventional sanitations may affect the drinking water
during the flood and other natural calamities. During the
last flood in Kerala, the areas covered by the
conventional toilets affected the ground water to a large
extent. But the areas with Ecosan, implemented by Eco-
Solutions with the help of UNICEF and UNDP had
sustained to give good drinking water. Response to this
programe, now introduced in Tsunami affected areas of
Cuddalore is good. This can be a viable alternative to the
sanitation problems prevailing in the coastal region of
Kanyakumari district too. The Government of India is
also in favor of Eco friendly sanitation and promotes this
method through their programmes. The role of the NGO
is to create awareness among the people regarding the
importance of Ecosan toilets and encourage constructing
eco friendly toilets in their houses.
Reference:
¾
“Suggestions for Sustainable Sanitation in
Tsunami hit regions in South India”, Report on
behalf of CARITAS GERMANY.
¾
“Sangamam”, TNTRC.
¾
“Eco-Sanitation”, BLESS.
T. Thangaraj KRRC
Activities Carried Out By KRRC
A Monograph on Coastal Women
A research monograph on coastal women of
Kanyakumari district was written by Kalpana Ram
Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University,
Australia published in 1992. Based on her ethnographic
fieldwork conducted during the 80s, she went on to
analyze how coastal villages in Kanyakumari district
have been shaped by distinctive elements: a distinct
Christian form, the work of fishing, and an unusual
sexual division of labour.
In addition, this book records a changing mode of
fishing and geographical as well as cultural details of
Kanyakumari district. The main object of study was to
uncover the gender difference and capitalist expansion
and, religious practices; the book also contains finer
details about the culture of
the people and geographical
details of this region.
Mukkuvar Women: Gender,
Hegemony and Capitalist
Transformation in a South
Indian Fishing Community.
Premier volume in Women in Asia Series, published on behalf
of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, by Allen and
Unwin; Zed Press, and by Kali Press for Women, New Delhi
(1992)
Please send your views and news to:
Krrc2005@rediffmail.com / krrc2005@hotmail.com
Also visit our website: www.krrc.in
Date
Event
Venue
Partici
pants
21.03.06
VLC
keezhamanaku
dy
Anbu Illam,
Keezhamankudy
26
23.03.06
VLC- Azhikal
Community hall,
Azhikal
260
24.03.06
VLC
Kadiapattinam
Community hall,
Kadiapattinam
36
25.03.06
VLC Kovalam
Thozhamai Illam,
Kovalam
43
27.03.06
VLC Pallam
Parish house,
Pallam
11
29.03.06
Workshop on
Issues related
to Children
Hotel Vijeyetha,
Nagerc
113 A, Trowell Street, Nagercoil – 629 001, Tamil nadu, India, Ph: 04652 571517, Email: krrc2005@rediffmail.com
Page 2
Housing problems….
The common problems encountered by people living in
temporary shelters include broken walls that hinder their
privacy and lead to insecurity. The improper garbage
wastes management and water logging have resulted in
the blocking of drainage in the area. Another pitiable
state is because of the unsafe doors that allow the entry
of cats, dogs and crows to take away the food or damage
other articles. These are common problems experienced
by the inmates of temporary
shelters
of
Keezhamankkkudi
and
Azhikkal.
Keezhamankkudi village is
one of the most affected
villages in terms of human and material loss, but
permanent housing project remains a distant dream for
the people. The housing work started here ahead of other
areas got delayed due to various factors.
In Azhikkal, the agency / NGO involved in housing
could not come to a compromise because the demands of
the people are beyond the policy of the NGO on
housing. Some of the demands of the people are wooden
doors in place of hard nuwood/plywood ones, granite
floors in place of cement and wooden frames instead of
iron/steel bars.
ECO-SANITATION
Conventional on-site sanitation system remains a serious
threat to safe ground water in the present world. Mr.
Arno Rosmarin, who is the communication director of
the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Sweden said,
“Ecosan was a viable sanitary alternative for people in
urban slums and rural areas”. According to him, 50% of
people who defecate in the open could benefit from
Ecosan toilets.
Some of the important features of Ecosan toilet systems
are given below:
™
Ecological sanitation segregates urine and faecal
matter separately. It protects the groundwater
from faecal pollution. It prevents nitrate
contamination in the ground water. This type of
toilet is best of use in water logging, water-
scarce and rocky areas.
™
Ecosan toilets save water. The conventional
toilet requires 10 to 12 liters of water but the
Eco friendly toilet needs 2 to 3 liters of water for
one use. Thus an individual is able to save 7,
000 liters of water per year.
™
The human excreta are converted into fertilizer
after 6 months in Ecosan toilets. So it provides
valuable fertilizer
and helps to
improve coastal
vegetation
and
shelterbelts.
It
also
protects
coastal environment against coastal erosion,
cyclones and tsunamis.
™
Ecosan toilets help to improve public and
environmental hygiene and promote health by
preventing communicable diseases.
™
Ecosan toilets are economically cheaper than
conventional toilets. This toilet does not require
a separate septic tank or soak pit. It is also
plumbing free and reduces maintenance cost by
great margin. Each house holder can remove the
human waste with out any machines. So
cleaning of toilets can be managed by the
beneficiaries themselves.
Page 3
Conventional sanitations may affect the drinking water
during the flood and other natural calamities. During the
last flood in Kerala, the areas covered by the
conventional toilets affected the ground water to a large
extent. But the areas with Ecosan, implemented by Eco-
Solutions with the help of UNICEF and UNDP had
sustained to give good drinking water. Response to this
programe, now introduced in Tsunami affected areas of
Cuddalore is good. This can be a viable alternative to the
sanitation problems prevailing in the coastal region of
Kanyakumari district too. The Government of India is
also in favor of Eco friendly sanitation and promotes this
method through their programmes. The role of the NGO
is to create awareness among the people regarding the
importance of Ecosan toilets and encourage constructing
eco friendly toilets in their houses.
Reference:
¾
“Suggestions for Sustainable Sanitation in
Tsunami hit regions in South India”, Report on
behalf of CARITAS GERMANY.
¾
“Sangamam”, TNTRC.
¾
“Eco-Sanitation”, BLESS.
T. Thangaraj KRRC
Activities Carried Out By KRRC
A Monograph on Coastal Women
A research monograph on coastal women of
Kanyakumari district was written by Kalpana Ram
Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University,
Australia published in 1992. Based on her ethnographic
fieldwork conducted during the 80s, she went on to
analyze how coastal villages in Kanyakumari district
have been shaped by distinctive elements: a distinct
Christian form, the work of fishing, and an unusual
sexual division of labour.
In addition, this book records a changing mode of
fishing and geographical as well as cultural details of
Kanyakumari district. The main object of study was to
uncover the gender difference and capitalist expansion
and, religious practices; the book also contains finer
details about the culture of
the people and geographical
details of this region.
Mukkuvar Women: Gender,
Hegemony and Capitalist
Transformation in a South
Indian Fishing Community.
Premier volume in Women in Asia Series, published on behalf
of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, by Allen and
Unwin; Zed Press, and by Kali Press for Women, New Delhi
(1992)
Please send your views and news to:
Krrc2005@rediffmail.com / krrc2005@hotmail.com
Also visit our website: www.krrc.in
Date
Event
Venue
Partici
pants
21.03.06
VLC
keezhamanaku
dy
Anbu Illam,
Keezhamankudy
26
23.03.06
VLC- Azhikal
Community hall,
Azhikal
260
24.03.06
VLC
Kadiapattinam
Community hall,
Kadiapattinam
36
25.03.06
VLC Kovalam
Thozhamai Illam,
Kovalam
43
27.03.06
VLC Pallam
Parish house,
Pallam
11
29.03.06
Workshop on
Issues related
to Children
Hotel Vijeyetha,
Nagerc
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Energy and the environment: will we be able to resolve the conflict?
Energy and the environment: will we be able to resolve the conflict?
Dr Helmut Sohmen, Chairman, Bergesen Worldwide Limited, Bermuda/Hong Kong
1. Will the world's increasing population make energy shortages inevitable?
2. Can China's growing energy needs be met, or is a resource war between China and other major energy-consuming countries inevitable?
3. Is there a realistic hope that new and renewable energy sources will be found before pollution from the use of fossil fuels has produced irreversible climate change?
Three simple questions more frequently being asked but increasingly becoming more difficult to answer.
Energy shortages have begun to appear in various parts of the world, not because energy sources are suddenly getting scarce but because spikes in demand for energy are more regularly confronted by infrastructural weaknesses or short-term bottlenecks. The race to new locations for supplies is intensifying and with it may come enough friction that might lead to military confrontation.
Increasingly, coal and oil are supplemented by gas for electricity production. More LNG plants are planned in Japan and many other nations. Atomic energy is finding new converts. Shipping has added new capacity to transport energy over long distances. Technological advances are helping other renewable and non-renewable energy to become commercially cost-competitive and/or environmentally acceptable. But they also take time to install. And the world is still waiting for real break-throughs: in the conversion and transmission of solar power, in fusion power, or in efficient energy storage systems.
The growing use of energy, in both developed and emerging economies, is adding to the political pressure to tap resources and ensure the stability of supplies. Very few nations outside the major oil and gas producers are self-sufficient. At the same time, it is difficult to see business concerns and the public at large to heed the need for conservation voluntarily. Purely nominal fiscal sanctions constitute no real disincentive either. The Chinese example is illustrative. What may be needed is another cataclysmic event to encourage conservation: like the sudden oil price shocks of the 1970s when the world reacted with some fear which lasted for a little while.
Serious concern with the environmental impact of additional energy consumption however is limiting supply alternatives. Japan has 55 nuclear reactors, but only 32 are presently in operation. Old plants are becoming a headache for their operators. At least MOX as fuel was given the green light earlier this year in the Genkai reactor in Saga Prefecture. China now has 7 reactors in operation and plans for another 36 by 2020.
Japan, like other countries, has problems with its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (a prescribed 6% reduction in CO2 output from fiscal 1990 levels by 2008-2012). Emissions from cars and aircraft both rose 50% from fiscal year 1990 to 2004, although SOX and NOX pollution from ships and aircraft is increasingly also being targeted. Whether it is cars, TV screens, Internet access, air-conditioning, or water-jet toilets, consumers are becoming more sophisticated, continuously require more energy, and emissions inevitably rise.
In choosing between energy and the environment, decision-makers find themselves more and more often between a rock and a hard place. There are no easy political solutions even when and where technical advances may provide a way forward.
Cost/benefit analyses on the personal level differ from those at national and global levels, and it is part of human nature to recoil and reform only when facing a deep precipice.
In the meantime, perhaps the answer to the first question above should be "yes", to the second "not inevitable, but conceivable", and and to the last "not when judging by the current state of affairs".
It is difficult to believe that the global energy situation can stabilise at an environmentally acceptable level before fossil fuels are fully eliminated as a primary energy source -- this truth may as yet be hard to accept but no doubt does underpin the ongoing optimism in world shipping circles.
By Dr Helmut Sohmen, Chairman, Bergesen Worldwide Limited, Bermuda/Hong Kong
Dr Helmut Sohmen, Chairman, Bergesen Worldwide Limited, Bermuda/Hong Kong
1. Will the world's increasing population make energy shortages inevitable?
2. Can China's growing energy needs be met, or is a resource war between China and other major energy-consuming countries inevitable?
3. Is there a realistic hope that new and renewable energy sources will be found before pollution from the use of fossil fuels has produced irreversible climate change?
Three simple questions more frequently being asked but increasingly becoming more difficult to answer.
Energy shortages have begun to appear in various parts of the world, not because energy sources are suddenly getting scarce but because spikes in demand for energy are more regularly confronted by infrastructural weaknesses or short-term bottlenecks. The race to new locations for supplies is intensifying and with it may come enough friction that might lead to military confrontation.
Increasingly, coal and oil are supplemented by gas for electricity production. More LNG plants are planned in Japan and many other nations. Atomic energy is finding new converts. Shipping has added new capacity to transport energy over long distances. Technological advances are helping other renewable and non-renewable energy to become commercially cost-competitive and/or environmentally acceptable. But they also take time to install. And the world is still waiting for real break-throughs: in the conversion and transmission of solar power, in fusion power, or in efficient energy storage systems.
The growing use of energy, in both developed and emerging economies, is adding to the political pressure to tap resources and ensure the stability of supplies. Very few nations outside the major oil and gas producers are self-sufficient. At the same time, it is difficult to see business concerns and the public at large to heed the need for conservation voluntarily. Purely nominal fiscal sanctions constitute no real disincentive either. The Chinese example is illustrative. What may be needed is another cataclysmic event to encourage conservation: like the sudden oil price shocks of the 1970s when the world reacted with some fear which lasted for a little while.
Serious concern with the environmental impact of additional energy consumption however is limiting supply alternatives. Japan has 55 nuclear reactors, but only 32 are presently in operation. Old plants are becoming a headache for their operators. At least MOX as fuel was given the green light earlier this year in the Genkai reactor in Saga Prefecture. China now has 7 reactors in operation and plans for another 36 by 2020.
Japan, like other countries, has problems with its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (a prescribed 6% reduction in CO2 output from fiscal 1990 levels by 2008-2012). Emissions from cars and aircraft both rose 50% from fiscal year 1990 to 2004, although SOX and NOX pollution from ships and aircraft is increasingly also being targeted. Whether it is cars, TV screens, Internet access, air-conditioning, or water-jet toilets, consumers are becoming more sophisticated, continuously require more energy, and emissions inevitably rise.
In choosing between energy and the environment, decision-makers find themselves more and more often between a rock and a hard place. There are no easy political solutions even when and where technical advances may provide a way forward.
Cost/benefit analyses on the personal level differ from those at national and global levels, and it is part of human nature to recoil and reform only when facing a deep precipice.
In the meantime, perhaps the answer to the first question above should be "yes", to the second "not inevitable, but conceivable", and and to the last "not when judging by the current state of affairs".
It is difficult to believe that the global energy situation can stabilise at an environmentally acceptable level before fossil fuels are fully eliminated as a primary energy source -- this truth may as yet be hard to accept but no doubt does underpin the ongoing optimism in world shipping circles.
By Dr Helmut Sohmen, Chairman, Bergesen Worldwide Limited, Bermuda/Hong Kong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)