Humanity now sits at the point where we must evolve. As with part one, this is not a suggestion of a physical change, but rather a mental change.
The biggest single problem we have with humanity is Greed. Our societies and economies are based on greed. We see it all around us, though we may not immediately recognize it. We are constantly flooded with ideas and concepts telling us that we need more stuff, and that there is no such thing as having to much stuff.
We have harmed our economy and environment with this mentality in more ways that I can possibly count. People constantly harm others for a little bit more wealth of some type. A brief example is the big push in the last 30 years to increase profits by sending jobs overseas in the US. This is done at the expense of consumers, and the expense of the Economy as a whole.
A Simple Example
The best single example I can give for this is the US Automotive industry. Factories in Michigan were literally packed up and moved over to China and Mexico from the 80s to the 90s. All of the automotive workers laid off were vital parts of the economy, as well as consumers of the products they were building. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs because of this directly, and millions lost their jobs indirectly.
The reason for it happening is simple: Companies lost touch with the reason Henry Ford's model was such a success. (Pay people a decent wage to build the cars, and they will also buy the cars. They will also support an economy that can purchase cars). Henry Ford had it correct, and anyone that studies history and economics will agree with that point (if they are honest anyway). What we see through the 80s and 90s is this concept being broken so that the large earners in the economy could earn a little bit more in the short term.
When people were laid off in Michigan (and to be fair there were other states impacted as well) they were displaced from the economy. The top earners saw short term stock prices increase, as profit margins were increased. Long term, the volume of vehicles sold turned down. It would be interesting to see the correlation between number of people laid off and number of vehicle's sold decrease though I lack the time to do so.
Back on track - That example and lessons could go on for a long time, perhaps a different article.
Greed's impact on our economy: Demand for more things at less money has been done at the expense of quality, health, and natural resources. It has cost each country jobs, as we farm out work to the lowest bidder instead of craftsmen and craftswomen that used to do the jobs locally. If someone in a foreign country is being exploited to get us something at the right price, we tend to look the other way. Not always mind you, but often enough where our desire for stuff has had a human toll.
We destroy nature to get at resources instead of caring for the surroundings. It's all about cost, not about what we destroy in the process. How many millions of acres of the Appalachian Mountains have been poisoned by Mountain Top removal for Coal extraction processes? We can't possibly know the long term impact of this, but short term we know it's devastating to humans as well as the ecology we destroy in the process. We know it, but yet the courts allow it to continue and many times end up punishing those who are fighting for what is right.
Commodity has additional costs. Greedy people and environments don't want quality products. This is especially true today, where everything has become a commodity. If I make a chair that lasts a lifetime, I only make money from you once. If I make a chair that is lesser quality and lasts lets say five years, then I will make money from you every five years. Of course I can sell you the 5 year chair cheaper, but at the same time is it really in your best interests to spend money every 5 years for a chair? We as humans, and our economy, has lost the distinction.
The great psychological war is being waged against us, and has been waged against you for years and years. Every day we are hit with advertisements showing how every house has a computer for every member of the house, plus a cell phone for every member, plus a TV, gizmos, gadgets, etc. We all know what all of us are supposed to have because an advertisement told us what everyone else has, or at least what the advertisers want us to perceive that everyone else has.
The rampant exploitation of natural resources is the biggest fear we should have. Everything we know of is in finite supply. Some of those resources can not be recycled, and can not be replaced. Oil will run out, Coal will run out. Right now, we burn staggering amounts simply because people are making a huge profit from it. Even though we know the supply is limited, advertisements tell us that we are dumb to look for alternatives. It's a part of the psychological war being waged against everyone. But is it in the best interests of our long term survival.
In my first article, I said that population is impacted by the same mindset of Greed. Greed is why you won't hear about the Earth being overpopulated. There is a tremendous amount of profit being made due to overpopulation. Not only sales on goods for middle class. That part is very easy to see. The other way profits are made is a bit more underhanded. Companies receive money to send goods to impoverished areas. Companies exploit natural resources in areas severely impoverished. This is easily seen if you do some research on Oil in Africa, and Blood Diamonds.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Philanthropy 1 - Survival/Population
Humans are at a point in time where all things are coming to, or are already at a critical junction. It is a fact that our impact on climate has had negative impact on our Home, Earth. Simply put, we are taking more from Earth than can be replenished. If we continue at the rate that we are, we don't have much time left.
When we read reports of climate change, extinction of species, destruction of Ocean habitat, Destruction of Land resources it is important to understand that these are all symptoms. None of those things are root causes of problems. The root cause is that we are not capable in our current form of being able to continue.
In order for Humans to survive, we must evolve. This is not an evolution as we think of in the form of Darwin's theories, like birds growing different beaks to eat different foods. I am referring to a mental evolution, a revolution where we must change the way that we think and in what we find important.
Population
Population is not the biggest problem, but it is one of the easiest to understand and for me to write about. There is a much greater problem behind even this which I will cover in part 2.
It has been estimated by numerous scientific sources that the Earth can support roughly 2 Billion Humans. At 2 Billion, as we use trees and kill animals and plants for our needs, use water and other minerals, the Earth can replenish most of the resources. In those studies, it is still important that we recycle what we can. Metals, Glass, plastics all need to be recycled and carefully managed. Without management, we end up with what we have now in the great ocean garbage pits, landfills and of course lots of pollution. (You can search the Internet for tremendous amounts of data on the "Great Pacific Garbage Pit".)
Symptoms of the overpopulation are everywhere. Asia for example is having skirmishes over who owns what parts of the Ocean. The reason for this is that they have fished everything they could out of what is close to home, and now extend their search for fish far away from their coast lines.
The US has similar problems, but we have been a little better at controlling what we take. Even with those controls, resources are often difficult to acquire. Combine the overfishing with a loss of habitat due to pollution and destruction of Ocean areas near shore, and we have a much bigger problem. The Oceans simply don't have the resources they need to support a renewal of resources.
Don't take my word for anything here, simply search for Ocean Dead zones, Pacific Garbage Zone, Atlantic Garbage Zone, and watch conflicts in Asian Ocean regions and look for yourself. Also search for population estimates for any fish or mammal in the Ocean that humans use. Not only are they on the decline, but declining at frightening rates.
The Oceans are not the only problem. We can similarly look at land resources and find the same issues. While the US may have fertile farm lands in some areas, much has been destroyed. We have mountains being destroyed for coal, we have farm lands being destroyed for natural gas, we have rivers and lakes so polluted we can not eat anything that comes out of them.
Instead of using land we already have for housing, we continue to expand horizontally instead of vertically. We must understand our footprint on the Earth and how it relates to our resources.
Without making drastic changes to the way we live, we simply can not support the current population of Humans on Earth.
Stemming Overpopulation
There are numerous moral implications in asking people to reduce. Who decides who has children? Who decides who lives or dies when we have grave medical conditions? Who decides how we handle medications for the critically ill or elderly?
Instead of asking any of those things, I believe simple education is all that's needed to accomplish the task. People tend to do the right thing when they understand the choices at hand. An educated society tends to perform very well under any circumstance. An ignorant society does not fair the same.
Why do we hear nothing about population being a problem any more? Why are people not being taught that we have too many humans living on Earth? This will be covered in my next article on the "Greed Based Economy".
When we read reports of climate change, extinction of species, destruction of Ocean habitat, Destruction of Land resources it is important to understand that these are all symptoms. None of those things are root causes of problems. The root cause is that we are not capable in our current form of being able to continue.
In order for Humans to survive, we must evolve. This is not an evolution as we think of in the form of Darwin's theories, like birds growing different beaks to eat different foods. I am referring to a mental evolution, a revolution where we must change the way that we think and in what we find important.
Population
Population is not the biggest problem, but it is one of the easiest to understand and for me to write about. There is a much greater problem behind even this which I will cover in part 2.
It has been estimated by numerous scientific sources that the Earth can support roughly 2 Billion Humans. At 2 Billion, as we use trees and kill animals and plants for our needs, use water and other minerals, the Earth can replenish most of the resources. In those studies, it is still important that we recycle what we can. Metals, Glass, plastics all need to be recycled and carefully managed. Without management, we end up with what we have now in the great ocean garbage pits, landfills and of course lots of pollution. (You can search the Internet for tremendous amounts of data on the "Great Pacific Garbage Pit".)
Symptoms of the overpopulation are everywhere. Asia for example is having skirmishes over who owns what parts of the Ocean. The reason for this is that they have fished everything they could out of what is close to home, and now extend their search for fish far away from their coast lines.
The US has similar problems, but we have been a little better at controlling what we take. Even with those controls, resources are often difficult to acquire. Combine the overfishing with a loss of habitat due to pollution and destruction of Ocean areas near shore, and we have a much bigger problem. The Oceans simply don't have the resources they need to support a renewal of resources.
Don't take my word for anything here, simply search for Ocean Dead zones, Pacific Garbage Zone, Atlantic Garbage Zone, and watch conflicts in Asian Ocean regions and look for yourself. Also search for population estimates for any fish or mammal in the Ocean that humans use. Not only are they on the decline, but declining at frightening rates.
The Oceans are not the only problem. We can similarly look at land resources and find the same issues. While the US may have fertile farm lands in some areas, much has been destroyed. We have mountains being destroyed for coal, we have farm lands being destroyed for natural gas, we have rivers and lakes so polluted we can not eat anything that comes out of them.
Instead of using land we already have for housing, we continue to expand horizontally instead of vertically. We must understand our footprint on the Earth and how it relates to our resources.
Without making drastic changes to the way we live, we simply can not support the current population of Humans on Earth.
Stemming Overpopulation
There are numerous moral implications in asking people to reduce. Who decides who has children? Who decides who lives or dies when we have grave medical conditions? Who decides how we handle medications for the critically ill or elderly?
Instead of asking any of those things, I believe simple education is all that's needed to accomplish the task. People tend to do the right thing when they understand the choices at hand. An educated society tends to perform very well under any circumstance. An ignorant society does not fair the same.
Why do we hear nothing about population being a problem any more? Why are people not being taught that we have too many humans living on Earth? This will be covered in my next article on the "Greed Based Economy".
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Philosophy: Is there a creator?
I should note that this document is a work in progress. The thoughts contained within are complex. While some ideas may be clear to me, they are my own ideas. As I see ways of helping convey the thoughts more clearly I will modify the writing.
One of the most basic questions in Philosophy is whether or not we have a creator. This is also one of the most important questions to answer for reasons of morality and science. Most of us have been exposed to the question at some point, and most of us have probably contemplated this topic on our own rather heavily. Much of our viewpoints on the world are impacted by what we believe to be the answer to this question. The goal of this document is to show you my answer, and perhaps help you formulate your own.
The question dates back to our earliest documented philosophers Socrates and Plato, and the debate continues today. The duration of the debate should show both the complexity of the arguments and the importance in trying to answer the question. I have read the works of both of the Philosophers previously mentioned , as well as Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, and many many more. This has helped me to formulate an answer for myself, and offer a great amount of defense against most of the atheist arguments.
I will never suggest that you take my word for anything here, but rather recommend that you go search, read, and think for yourself. You can think, therefor you are! A good place to begin your reading would be the Works of Aristotle and his theory of "The not caused Cause".
What should be done in order to show a logical proof is to reduce the argument to the base level. I won't ask you to discard your belief system no matter what Religion you believe in, but the purpose of truly understanding the question and formulating an answer I will ask you to set them aside for the time being. This includes atheists who tend to evangelize with the same conviction as any named Religion. While it is important that you have your beliefs, it is also important that you set them aside while you evaluate the logic and reason which will follow. Obviously you have faith to believe what you believe. Faith alone can not be used as proof to someone that does not have the same faith as you.
One of the major challenges in defining a creator is that we tend to associate properties that we can understand to our idea of a creator. We do this for numerous psychological reasons, most of which assist us in associating ourselves with a creator and our vision of our creator. It's much easier to believe in something we can visualize. For example if you are a believer in the Old Testament, the quote "God created Man in his image" comes immediately to mind. If we take these words literally, then we must look like God right? But what does this phrase mean if someone does not believe, believes differently, or even if you have doubts and question your own faith (which most people do periodically). What if the statement means "how God envisioned humans" and not that we look like God? For now, we need to put all of our visions of a creator to the side so that we can prove that our Creator exists. S
I mentioned before that I thought Aristotle was a great beginning choice for arguments for a creator, though there are many to choose from. The reason for my choice is that using cause and effect does not require that we assign or visualize any human like properties to a creator. The premise and conclusion of Aristotle's argument is rather simple, hence to me much of the beauty.
The next step we must take is to define what our word "Creator" means. Again I'm using the simplest possible terms, and I'm using the term Creator very intentionally. This is not done to offend anyone, but rather to assist in reducing the question to the smallest possible logical arguments. The question should not include things like "What does the creator look like?" as many people attach to the question. This question is not about who's right or wrong when it comes to Religion. The Creator is a concept, hence we should define "Creator" here to be a single entity which has no shape or size.
In the proof of a creator, we are only going to examine a single action with the Creator. That being, the inception of the Universe. This single action is an extremely complex act. No matter what your current belief is (Big Bang, Expanding Universe, or Divine creation) picture this event for what it is. In a small fraction of a second, the Universe came to exist. This act included the creation of matter, energy, space, time, and all of the laws of Physics we know.
It should only be fair to warn people that I must introduce scientific concepts here, which may bother some of the extremely Religious people. The intent is not to offend anyone, but rather show the logic involved in answering the question this paper addresses. If you are offended by reading something about God, or a Creator, that is not in the Bible or taught in a common Theology please stop reading.
Now that we have a Creator and the action we wish to assign to our creator we need to tackle one more very important issue. The importance of this question relates to the question very heavily. Is there a Beginning? Without a beginning, there would be no need for a creator.
Is there a beginning? Yes, without a doubt. There is no logic that could indicate that there was no beginning, no matter what school of Cosmology you refer to. There are many people who use theories in an effort of avoiding the question, but none can take us to anything other than Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and countless other great minds have taken us to. The answer is rather resounding and unanimous "yes", there was a beginning of the Universe.
It is now time to work on a thought experiment so that we can resolve our question of whether or not there is a creator.
Assume that we could set up a small experiment where we could isolate a mass from any influence. We can somehow shield our experiment from radiation, magnetic forces, heat, and gravitational forces. We could ensure that no external particles would ever touch the inside of our box. Lastly, we need to envision the ability to remove all heat from the box making our box's temperature absolute zero inside. We have an environment where there is no energy of any type inside, and no possible way of any type of energy entering our experiment.
If we could maintain the mass in the box, in a billion years time what would the box contain? There is no motion, no heat, no gravity, no magnetism so our ball of mass would be exactly like we started with.
No matter how much matter we put into our box, we would still have nothing additional assuming we could totally shield the box as described above. No matter how much mass we have, it’s only mass until it’s excited to be something else. The amount of time the matter sits in the box would make no difference.
When we watch objects in physics, movement is caused by something. The reasons for movement range from heat transfer, to kinetic motion. A molecule bumps into a molecule causing it to move. An increase or decrease in heat causes similar motion, due to atomic and sub-atomic kinetic motion. Gravity can also pull objects in motion, and magnetism can push or pull objects. As we scale up from the atomic level, we can see that things really don’t change. Gravity and velocity (Velocity created by kinetic energy as the Earth was formed) move the Earth around the Sun, which moves through the Milky Way, which spins through the Universe (as do countless other Galaxies).
In a nut shell, there is energy all around us. Everything that moves does so because energy has been transferred from somewhere to the object moving. This is true even in a quantum
We note in physics that without the energy, nothing happens. Hydrogen cannot fuse with Oxygen to create water molecules. Compression of heavy elements cannot happen to create stone; we cannot send electrical impulses to our muscle tissues to cause movement.
Whether you believe in divine creation or the Big Bang makes no difference. There must have been a point in time where nothing was moving. The Big Bang theory as well as Divine Creation Theory both agree to that point. Even when people start to argue for a Multi-verse or Parallel Universe, that point does not change. Everything can be traced back to a point of origin, in which there was nothing. And then, there was an excitement that started everything moving.
We can only look back to the point just after the initial excitement occurred. Anything, and that is an absolute anything, prior to that moment can not be proved by science.
Was there a beginning? Yes, without a doubt.
Now for a very profound statement: We can never prove a cause, we can only prove that it occurred. We could debate for an infinite amount of time the Theism or lack thereof which caused it, but we can never prove it (at least while we are alive).
Why will we never know? For the same reason we can prove that there was a beginning, we can prove that we will never know what the beginning actually was. We can measure movement backward, but the prior to the beginning there was no movement. Regardless of what was there, it was nothing until the beginning happened. The Universe prior to the Beginning, is mathematically and logically zero.
Theories about why we have a beginning are only that. I have my own beliefs, just as you have yours. The logic I use points to some obvious answers, but not all of them. Since we can prove nothing as far as these theories go, they will all remain the same. Yours is just as good as mine, is as good as theirs, etc...
So after all of that, we now come to the question and answer I started with. Was there a creator?
Since we know that there was a beginning, we know that there must be a creator as long as we use the definition for a creator I provided above. While that answer may not satisfy some of the theological crowd, remember we are proving that a creator exists. We are not defining any properties that the creator has. To finish the definition, we need to add that "The creator is the entity that started everything in motion".
Scientist should have no problem relating to a creator if the definition being used above is followed. More simply put, the creator either is the ball of mass or made the ball of mass, and the energy that caused the mass to become the Universe. (For the Theological minded, if the creator is the mass and explosion we have backing in scripture. God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. If God "is" the Universe then we can easily see how this statement has scientific merit.)
For the scientific folks: I want to expand a bit on the concept of the initial event and why it must be considered something more than just an act, but rather something divine.
We know for example that the Sun generates heat and light. It took us years upon years to figure out that fusion was responsible for the effects we see from Earth. We looked at our effect, sunlight and heat, and found our cause. What a complex and beautiful thing Fusion is right? But fusion is something so complex that while we think we know how it works, we have no ability to really work with fusion. The energy it takes us to fuse atoms like the Sun is immense in comparison to how the Sun works which is nearly self sustaining. Though not perpetual, it's efficiency is not something we can hope to achieve.
We know that we have gravity, and we believe we understand the mechanisms behind how it works. We can't simulate the energy though, nor can we counter gravity.
We know that we have life, yet we have no idea what causes life. As with the origin of the Universe we can see properties and symptoms of life after it's been created, but we have no idea what the little bit of magic is that actually brings something to a living state.
Imagine the initial cause of the Universe. In a fraction of a second something happened. Not only did it create fusion, but the laws of physics that fusion works with. It not only used gravity immediately, but created laws of gravity. It not only created matter and energy, but it also created the potential for, and finally life itself.
That initial event, the creator, is something special and incredibly complex.
Countering atheism
If you can never get yourself to the point where you believe that the Universe has a creator, then you must absolutely deny the big bang. Without an initial event the big bang could not have occurred. This is why most atheists will deny any discussion about the event that started the big bang. They claim it does not matter, but we can see that it does matter and changes their belief to something intangible and impossible.
To believe in a creator is a very logical thing, and it does fit with Science very well. Remember, I'm not assigning any properties to the creator, nor am I claiming to know what the creator thinks or does. Those thoughts are the study of Theology.
One of the most basic questions in Philosophy is whether or not we have a creator. This is also one of the most important questions to answer for reasons of morality and science. Most of us have been exposed to the question at some point, and most of us have probably contemplated this topic on our own rather heavily. Much of our viewpoints on the world are impacted by what we believe to be the answer to this question. The goal of this document is to show you my answer, and perhaps help you formulate your own.
The question dates back to our earliest documented philosophers Socrates and Plato, and the debate continues today. The duration of the debate should show both the complexity of the arguments and the importance in trying to answer the question. I have read the works of both of the Philosophers previously mentioned , as well as Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, and many many more. This has helped me to formulate an answer for myself, and offer a great amount of defense against most of the atheist arguments.
I will never suggest that you take my word for anything here, but rather recommend that you go search, read, and think for yourself. You can think, therefor you are! A good place to begin your reading would be the Works of Aristotle and his theory of "The not caused Cause".
What should be done in order to show a logical proof is to reduce the argument to the base level. I won't ask you to discard your belief system no matter what Religion you believe in, but the purpose of truly understanding the question and formulating an answer I will ask you to set them aside for the time being. This includes atheists who tend to evangelize with the same conviction as any named Religion. While it is important that you have your beliefs, it is also important that you set them aside while you evaluate the logic and reason which will follow. Obviously you have faith to believe what you believe. Faith alone can not be used as proof to someone that does not have the same faith as you.
One of the major challenges in defining a creator is that we tend to associate properties that we can understand to our idea of a creator. We do this for numerous psychological reasons, most of which assist us in associating ourselves with a creator and our vision of our creator. It's much easier to believe in something we can visualize. For example if you are a believer in the Old Testament, the quote "God created Man in his image" comes immediately to mind. If we take these words literally, then we must look like God right? But what does this phrase mean if someone does not believe, believes differently, or even if you have doubts and question your own faith (which most people do periodically). What if the statement means "how God envisioned humans" and not that we look like God? For now, we need to put all of our visions of a creator to the side so that we can prove that our Creator exists. S
I mentioned before that I thought Aristotle was a great beginning choice for arguments for a creator, though there are many to choose from. The reason for my choice is that using cause and effect does not require that we assign or visualize any human like properties to a creator. The premise and conclusion of Aristotle's argument is rather simple, hence to me much of the beauty.
The next step we must take is to define what our word "Creator" means. Again I'm using the simplest possible terms, and I'm using the term Creator very intentionally. This is not done to offend anyone, but rather to assist in reducing the question to the smallest possible logical arguments. The question should not include things like "What does the creator look like?" as many people attach to the question. This question is not about who's right or wrong when it comes to Religion. The Creator is a concept, hence we should define "Creator" here to be a single entity which has no shape or size.
In the proof of a creator, we are only going to examine a single action with the Creator. That being, the inception of the Universe. This single action is an extremely complex act. No matter what your current belief is (Big Bang, Expanding Universe, or Divine creation) picture this event for what it is. In a small fraction of a second, the Universe came to exist. This act included the creation of matter, energy, space, time, and all of the laws of Physics we know.
It should only be fair to warn people that I must introduce scientific concepts here, which may bother some of the extremely Religious people. The intent is not to offend anyone, but rather show the logic involved in answering the question this paper addresses. If you are offended by reading something about God, or a Creator, that is not in the Bible or taught in a common Theology please stop reading.
Now that we have a Creator and the action we wish to assign to our creator we need to tackle one more very important issue. The importance of this question relates to the question very heavily. Is there a Beginning? Without a beginning, there would be no need for a creator.
Is there a beginning? Yes, without a doubt. There is no logic that could indicate that there was no beginning, no matter what school of Cosmology you refer to. There are many people who use theories in an effort of avoiding the question, but none can take us to anything other than Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and countless other great minds have taken us to. The answer is rather resounding and unanimous "yes", there was a beginning of the Universe.
It is now time to work on a thought experiment so that we can resolve our question of whether or not there is a creator.
Assume that we could set up a small experiment where we could isolate a mass from any influence. We can somehow shield our experiment from radiation, magnetic forces, heat, and gravitational forces. We could ensure that no external particles would ever touch the inside of our box. Lastly, we need to envision the ability to remove all heat from the box making our box's temperature absolute zero inside. We have an environment where there is no energy of any type inside, and no possible way of any type of energy entering our experiment.
No matter how much matter we put into our box, we would still have nothing additional assuming we could totally shield the box as described above. No matter how much mass we have, it’s only mass until it’s excited to be something else. The amount of time the matter sits in the box would make no difference.
In a nut shell, there is energy all around us. Everything that moves does so because energy has been transferred from somewhere to the object moving. This is true even in a quantum
We can only look back to the point just after the initial excitement occurred. Anything, and that is an absolute anything, prior to that moment can not be proved by science.
Now for a very profound statement: We can never prove a cause, we can only prove that it occurred. We could debate for an infinite amount of time the Theism or lack thereof which caused it, but we can never prove it (at least while we are alive).
So after all of that, we now come to the question and answer I started with. Was there a creator?
Since we know that there was a beginning, we know that there must be a creator as long as we use the definition for a creator I provided above. While that answer may not satisfy some of the theological crowd, remember we are proving that a creator exists. We are not defining any properties that the creator has. To finish the definition, we need to add that "The creator is the entity that started everything in motion".
Scientist should have no problem relating to a creator if the definition being used above is followed. More simply put, the creator either is the ball of mass or made the ball of mass, and the energy that caused the mass to become the Universe. (For the Theological minded, if the creator is the mass and explosion we have backing in scripture. God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. If God "is" the Universe then we can easily see how this statement has scientific merit.)
For the scientific folks: I want to expand a bit on the concept of the initial event and why it must be considered something more than just an act, but rather something divine.
We know for example that the Sun generates heat and light. It took us years upon years to figure out that fusion was responsible for the effects we see from Earth. We looked at our effect, sunlight and heat, and found our cause. What a complex and beautiful thing Fusion is right? But fusion is something so complex that while we think we know how it works, we have no ability to really work with fusion. The energy it takes us to fuse atoms like the Sun is immense in comparison to how the Sun works which is nearly self sustaining. Though not perpetual, it's efficiency is not something we can hope to achieve.
We know that we have gravity, and we believe we understand the mechanisms behind how it works. We can't simulate the energy though, nor can we counter gravity.
We know that we have life, yet we have no idea what causes life. As with the origin of the Universe we can see properties and symptoms of life after it's been created, but we have no idea what the little bit of magic is that actually brings something to a living state.
Imagine the initial cause of the Universe. In a fraction of a second something happened. Not only did it create fusion, but the laws of physics that fusion works with. It not only used gravity immediately, but created laws of gravity. It not only created matter and energy, but it also created the potential for, and finally life itself.
That initial event, the creator, is something special and incredibly complex.
Countering atheism
If you can never get yourself to the point where you believe that the Universe has a creator, then you must absolutely deny the big bang. Without an initial event the big bang could not have occurred. This is why most atheists will deny any discussion about the event that started the big bang. They claim it does not matter, but we can see that it does matter and changes their belief to something intangible and impossible.
To believe in a creator is a very logical thing, and it does fit with Science very well. Remember, I'm not assigning any properties to the creator, nor am I claiming to know what the creator thinks or does. Those thoughts are the study of Theology.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
X Forwarding with SSH and Sudo
Information: If you don't know what X, ssh, or sudo are then this document is probably not for you.
Caveats: There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat. One of the reasons I like Unix/Linux so much is that this ability is always present. My solution may not match your solution, but both work just as well.
Warning: Use these steps at your own risk! I tend to clean as I go, so see little risk from taking the steps defined below. Most people don't, and being lazy and careless can cause huge problems.
This "problem" is really not a problem once all the parts are put together in the right order. Knowing the parts is like knowing the shape of the piece. I have seen several documents on "how to configure" this, but nothing in one place that really explains what's going on. I'm not going to be very techie with most of this, just summary. There are lots of technical details about all the parts written and probably much better than I could write them.
X clients look for a $HOME/.Xauthority file for information. This file is made for each new session, generally created and managed by the X server. When we ssh -X to a host, we have no X server running. What happens without any technical details is that sshd creates the file for us, and proxies X services through a tunnel within the ssh session. So without attaching to graphics (X) we still have the ability to launch graphical applications.
Now, it's important to remember that the $HOME/.Xauthority is not just a pointer to the display. There is also information in the file for security including session information. A good handy fact is that when sshd creates the file, the permission is set to 0600.
It's also important to note that $HOME/.Xauthority can be be something of a different name or location. This is controlled by a variable "XAUTHORITY". For now, we only need to know that the variable is not set by default, but it can be. What I'll show in a bit is how to use this so that you can sudo to a new account and maintain your X client abilities.
Lets say I need to ssh to a server, and run a graphical installer. This is pretty common now days, Unix isn't all command line any more.
% ssh -X -l johndoe myserver.mydomain.com
After I'm on the console, I should be able to launch "xterm" for example and bring the display back to myself (assuming I have an X server running and allowing connections from myserver.mydomain.com.)
What happens if I need to sudo to a different account and run an xterm (given I could just run the installer, but for testing xterm is a bit lighter weight).
% sudo /bin/su - dbadmin
% xterm
Best case, I'll see an error that I have an invalid cookie "Invalid MIT_MAGIC_COOKIE" something, which means I have a ~dbadmin/.Xauthority file, but it's not correct. Worst case, I'll see a slightly different error that I have no X server defined. Either way, I can't launch my installer.
If I was to run strace or truss on the xterm command, I would eventually find that the problem is with my ~/.Xauthority file. A lot of people at this time start cursing sshd or sudo thinking that they are the problem.
First things first. Lets make sure sudo is functional. Are we passing a DISPLAY and XAUTHORITY variable? Are both variables being set as our initial connection?
% echo $DISPLAY
localhost:140:0
% echo $XAUTHORITY
Well, you see that we have no XAUTHORITY being set. In order for the dbadmin account to use johndoe's X pipe, they will need to have that set and accessable.
Add this to johndoes .bashrc or what ever equivalent log in file and language. Now, we also need to make sure that both johndoe and dbadmin are in the same primary group. This is important because we don't want any schmuck to send DISPLAY to your monitor.
XAUTHORITY="$HOME/.XAUTHORITY"
if [ -f $XAUTHORITY ] ; then
chmod 640 $XAUTHORITY
else
touch $XAUTHORITY
chmod 640 $XAUTHORITY
fi
export XAUTHORITY
So now, johndoe has the variable set and exported (that part is important). We have also given group read access to the file, which is more important.
Log in as johndoe again, and make sure you can see both variables.
% echo $DISPLAY ; echo $XAUTHORITY
localhost:140.0
/home/johndoe/.Xauthority
Good so far, so lets sudo to our database admin account and see if we have both.
% sudo /bin/su - dbadmin
% echo $DISPLAY ; echo $XAUHORITY
localhost:140.0
Uh oh, we have no Xauthority file. X clients will still fail. The problem is with a PAM module that tries to set up the xauthority for the user when they su. I'm sure I could monkey with it and make it work, but right now I just need my dbadmin installer to run. Comment out the entry for pam_xauth.so in /etc/pam.d/su.
So exit, and sudo back to dbadmin and you should see both entries. If you can, make sure you can read the $XAUTHORITY file.
% strings $XAUTHORITY
If is shows you a bunch of text that you don't understand, you are ready to go. If it errors, see where your permission setting went wrong or.. double check that group ownership is proper.. and that your primary group for both users match.
When all that works, so will your X clients.
As a final warning, there is nothing secure about graphics. Keeping default permission on files is much better than manipulating things to make them work. The above steps are only a way of hacking something to make it work as I needed it to work. Use at your own risk!
Caveats: There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat. One of the reasons I like Unix/Linux so much is that this ability is always present. My solution may not match your solution, but both work just as well.
Warning: Use these steps at your own risk! I tend to clean as I go, so see little risk from taking the steps defined below. Most people don't, and being lazy and careless can cause huge problems.
This "problem" is really not a problem once all the parts are put together in the right order. Knowing the parts is like knowing the shape of the piece. I have seen several documents on "how to configure" this, but nothing in one place that really explains what's going on. I'm not going to be very techie with most of this, just summary. There are lots of technical details about all the parts written and probably much better than I could write them.
X clients look for a $HOME/.Xauthority file for information. This file is made for each new session, generally created and managed by the X server. When we ssh -X to a host, we have no X server running. What happens without any technical details is that sshd creates the file for us, and proxies X services through a tunnel within the ssh session. So without attaching to graphics (X) we still have the ability to launch graphical applications.
Now, it's important to remember that the $HOME/.Xauthority is not just a pointer to the display. There is also information in the file for security including session information. A good handy fact is that when sshd creates the file, the permission is set to 0600.
It's also important to note that $HOME/.Xauthority can be be something of a different name or location. This is controlled by a variable "XAUTHORITY". For now, we only need to know that the variable is not set by default, but it can be. What I'll show in a bit is how to use this so that you can sudo to a new account and maintain your X client abilities.
Lets say I need to ssh to a server, and run a graphical installer. This is pretty common now days, Unix isn't all command line any more.
% ssh -X -l johndoe myserver.mydomain.com
After I'm on the console, I should be able to launch "xterm" for example and bring the display back to myself (assuming I have an X server running and allowing connections from myserver.mydomain.com.)
What happens if I need to sudo to a different account and run an xterm (given I could just run the installer, but for testing xterm is a bit lighter weight).
% sudo /bin/su - dbadmin
% xterm
Best case, I'll see an error that I have an invalid cookie "Invalid MIT_MAGIC_COOKIE" something, which means I have a ~dbadmin/.Xauthority file, but it's not correct. Worst case, I'll see a slightly different error that I have no X server defined. Either way, I can't launch my installer.
If I was to run strace or truss on the xterm command, I would eventually find that the problem is with my ~/.Xauthority file. A lot of people at this time start cursing sshd or sudo thinking that they are the problem.
First things first. Lets make sure sudo is functional. Are we passing a DISPLAY and XAUTHORITY variable? Are both variables being set as our initial connection?
% echo $DISPLAY
localhost:140:0
% echo $XAUTHORITY
Well, you see that we have no XAUTHORITY being set. In order for the dbadmin account to use johndoe's X pipe, they will need to have that set and accessable.
Add this to johndoes .bashrc or what ever equivalent log in file and language. Now, we also need to make sure that both johndoe and dbadmin are in the same primary group. This is important because we don't want any schmuck to send DISPLAY to your monitor.
XAUTHORITY="$HOME/.XAUTHORITY"
if [ -f $XAUTHORITY ] ; then
chmod 640 $XAUTHORITY
else
touch $XAUTHORITY
chmod 640 $XAUTHORITY
fi
export XAUTHORITY
So now, johndoe has the variable set and exported (that part is important). We have also given group read access to the file, which is more important.
Log in as johndoe again, and make sure you can see both variables.
% echo $DISPLAY ; echo $XAUTHORITY
localhost:140.0
/home/johndoe/.Xauthority
Good so far, so lets sudo to our database admin account and see if we have both.
% sudo /bin/su - dbadmin
% echo $DISPLAY ; echo $XAUHORITY
localhost:140.0
Uh oh, we have no Xauthority file. X clients will still fail. The problem is with a PAM module that tries to set up the xauthority for the user when they su. I'm sure I could monkey with it and make it work, but right now I just need my dbadmin installer to run. Comment out the entry for pam_xauth.so in /etc/pam.d/su.
So exit, and sudo back to dbadmin and you should see both entries. If you can, make sure you can read the $XAUTHORITY file.
% strings $XAUTHORITY
If is shows you a bunch of text that you don't understand, you are ready to go. If it errors, see where your permission setting went wrong or.. double check that group ownership is proper.. and that your primary group for both users match.
When all that works, so will your X clients.
As a final warning, there is nothing secure about graphics. Keeping default permission on files is much better than manipulating things to make them work. The above steps are only a way of hacking something to make it work as I needed it to work. Use at your own risk!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
There is no such thing as "Jobs American's won't do"
I have seen this phrase used in the past, I think we all have. Quite frankly I find it disgusting. This phrase is a rhetorical trick, trying to get the average person to believe that businesses and politicians are doing them a favor by not doing their duties and protecting US citizens.
Lets call this what it really is.
While some of us may see some of the short term financial benefits from the practice (lower priced goods) our society and country as a whole is losing, and losing a lot.
Factory jobs were moved overseas which cut jobs and income from middle class Americans. As indicated by unemployment rates over the last 10 years and the economic troubles for middle class Americans, have we as a nation seen any benefit outside of the top 1% of income earners earning more income from the policies of NAFTA or not punishing those breaking the law by paying illegal aliens under the table to perform jobs? Has wealth disparity in the US improved? The answer to both of those questions is provably false.
Daily we have immigrants performing jobs that teenagers and young adults would perform in the past. This of course gave our younger generation liquid income to spend and keep the economy moving, in addition to work experience. This income is now pulled outside of our borders and reduces spending in the US. What 20 years ago may have been someones college money, or first car, or money for the prom or their first date, is simply no longer there for them. The money is in Mexico or some other foreign country.
Before people began to break the law and damage our economy, all of these jobs were being done by Americans. If we enforced the current laws and protected our citizens, those jobs would still be done. As in the past, those jobs would be done by Americans, spending that money in the US economy, which in turn keeps the US economy healthy.
The duty of our politicians is first to the American people. If we have surplus, sure, we should absolutely help out people in other countries where we can. If the US unemployment rate is at 9% (declared) in the US, is it our Government's duty to provide money for a poor family in Mexico or put an American person to work? Obviously, the latter is the duty of our Politicians.
Lets call this what it really is.
- Jobs Employers don't want to may minimum wage for.
- Jobs Employers don't want to pay taxes and insurance for.
While some of us may see some of the short term financial benefits from the practice (lower priced goods) our society and country as a whole is losing, and losing a lot.
Factory jobs were moved overseas which cut jobs and income from middle class Americans. As indicated by unemployment rates over the last 10 years and the economic troubles for middle class Americans, have we as a nation seen any benefit outside of the top 1% of income earners earning more income from the policies of NAFTA or not punishing those breaking the law by paying illegal aliens under the table to perform jobs? Has wealth disparity in the US improved? The answer to both of those questions is provably false.
Daily we have immigrants performing jobs that teenagers and young adults would perform in the past. This of course gave our younger generation liquid income to spend and keep the economy moving, in addition to work experience. This income is now pulled outside of our borders and reduces spending in the US. What 20 years ago may have been someones college money, or first car, or money for the prom or their first date, is simply no longer there for them. The money is in Mexico or some other foreign country.
Before people began to break the law and damage our economy, all of these jobs were being done by Americans. If we enforced the current laws and protected our citizens, those jobs would still be done. As in the past, those jobs would be done by Americans, spending that money in the US economy, which in turn keeps the US economy healthy.
The duty of our politicians is first to the American people. If we have surplus, sure, we should absolutely help out people in other countries where we can. If the US unemployment rate is at 9% (declared) in the US, is it our Government's duty to provide money for a poor family in Mexico or put an American person to work? Obviously, the latter is the duty of our Politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)