RE: From the Sun to the Earth; A Report on Weather in the Grand Solar Minimum, May 18, 2018 by Freddie Thornton
I'm a lot less worried about the UN and agenda 21/2030 than I was. It's still a concern, but enough people know about it now, that I don't think they'll be able to implement it. People like Alex Jones and yourself have been doing God's work, as far as I'm concerned. A new Ice Age would be something deeply troubling. It would be interesting to see how it shifted geopolitics. All of a sudden immigration from Canada would be a bigger problem than immigration from Mexico, for one thing. Farmers in Texas and Mexico would make a lot more money. Farmers in Idaho would be screwed. And yeah, it's pretty clear that the winters have been longer and more intense lately. Let's hope it's not too intense. I'm not at all concerned about overpopulation in the first and second worlds. If anything, there needs to be a higher birthrate in those countries. But overpopulation is a problem in the third world, especially when you consider the cultural effect of the spread of Islam. I think the only thing that can be done about that is to push for genuine reform within the Islamic religion. The future is religious, so religion needs to be tamed, not fought.
Historical fact, empires crumble during grand solar minimum global cooling events. So yeah an ice age would play into geopolitics. I live in Canada, southern Ontario near Toronto so global cooling is more of a concern to me than say someone in Mexico.
It isn't just long cold winters that are a concern, already there is a huge increase in highly energetic storm events with lots of lightning and large hail smashing everything in its way. Kansas just had its summer wheat decimated by a hail storm, hail is destroying crops worldwide. There is the increase in galactic and solar cosmic rays as well as the potential for a repeat of a Carrington like event that some scientists say we are overdue for.
As for overpopulation in the third world and fundamentalist Islam, well the latter is in direct response to US foreign policies and the former can be resolved with education. Improve education and quality of life and birth rates drop.
As for the future is religious, I'd say you're close but not right on. The future is ideologiousity-I think I created a new word-it means the religiosity of ideology whether it be political, economical or whatever. it is ideology that is causing the great divide in humanity and religion is just a small part of it. And more important it is the self-identifying with ideology that is the big problem. From there it is just a hop skip and a jump to total abdication of your sovereign human self and once that is done you are psychopathic enough for committing heinous acts against your human brothers and sisters.
Yeah. I would think that as the situation develops, a new ecological norm would develop, and we would reorganize our agricultural system accordingly. Of course, in the meantime, it would be no picnic.
The dangers of ideology is a special interest of the philosopher Zizec. I think he makes a strong case that ideology is inherently dangerous. Of course, he's drawing on Lacan, who, in turn, drew on Heidegger. The irony of that, of course, is that Heidegger, while refuting Metaphysics based ideological systems, was himself captured by the ideology of Naziism. Which just goes to show, I suppose, that ideology is a really seductive thing. Today I posted a brief essay that is somewhat relevant to this subject, if you're interested: [https://steemit.com/nietzche/@pjcomposer/an-introduction-to-moral-ecology] And I would agree that ideology is a dangerous thing to play with. It casts things in black and white terms, and if you can identify someone as evil, you can easily justify doing horrible things to them. I've noticed that tendency within myself, and it's very clear to see in the Antifa movement, for example.
But I still maintain that the future is specifically religious for one simple reason: only religious people are having children. Secular 1st world people are having 2 children, 1 child, or no children. Highly religious people of all stripes are having 3 or more. The likelihood of a child who grows up in a religious household adopting that religion is very high. So the future looks pretty religious to me. That's not necessarily a negative thing, provided we can tame religion, and make it compatible with natural law norms. If we can't, then that's a problem.
Honestly I have no idea who the majority of those philosophers are, I do not read a lot of philosophy, I think it.
Ideology is not in and of itself a dangerous thing, though I would say it is a limiting thing for it groups a set of ideas and limits you to those ideas. Ideology can spring from anywhere. One could argue that my ideas surrounding the self-identification with an ideology as being potentially bad, is, in and of itself, ideological.
Yes it does tend to cast things in black or white lies, totally ignoring the infinite variation of grey that unites these polarities. Its seductiveness comes through our tendency for tribalism in all things from nationalism to fashion. So few people actually think for themselves and instead rely on the herd mentality. Recently someone actually dared say to me, "I don't understand the science of climate change but I know it is man made." ~ Really? if you do not understand the science of a thing how can you know about that thing? Oh, yes, herd mentality.
I will read your post and comment on it there.
Not all people born to religion stay with the religion. The poorer the people the more children they will have. Highest birth rates are in poorer countries, who also have higher infant mortality rates. Religion is on the decline, churches struggle with maintaining their numbers. It is hard to say whether it will or won't as their are many factors to consider such as climate and the potential shutting down of our techno culture with a x-40 flare. If we survive technologically through this global cooling then I would argue religion will decline as more and more people seek to get away from unjust dogma and antiquated notions of what is righteous. Education and knowledge will assist in reducing religious congregations. If we lose technologically then we will see a rise in the popularity of religion, as well, we will see a rise in immorality as people struggle to survive by whatever means possible.
Who knows you may be right, but as for taming religion, I do not know if it is possible. many have tries to tame religion before and what happens is it tends to go underground.
How would you tame religion?
"Ideology is not in and of itself a dangerous thing, though I would say it is a limiting thing for it groups a set of ideas and limits you to those ideas. Ideology can spring from anywhere. One could argue that my ideas surrounding the self-identification with an ideology as being potentially bad, is, in and of itself, ideological."
It certainly can be. First of all, you have to define what you mean by the word. Does it mean a set of axioms that completely "enframes" (Heidegger's term) the way you think? If so, it's certainly a negative thing. Is it something you've set forth in a self-aware way to identify what it is you strive for while acknowledging the prejudices it may create for you? Maybe that's not such a bad thing. Surely a man with ideals is to be preferred over one without them.
"Yes it does tend to cast things in black or white lies, totally ignoring the infinite variation of grey that unites these polarities. Its seductiveness comes through our tendency for tribalism in all things from nationalism to fashion. So few people actually think for themselves and instead rely on the herd mentality. Recently someone actually dared say to me, "I don't understand the science of climate change but I know it is man made." ~ Really? if you do not understand the science of a thing how can you know about that thing? Oh, yes, herd mentality."
Yes. So much. People don't like to feel inferior. The herd mentality enables them to escape that without actually having to earn the right to talk about the ideas they're spouting.
"Not all people born to religion stay with the religion. The poorer the people the more children they will have. Highest birth rates are in poorer countries, who also have higher infant mortality rates. Religion is on the decline, churches struggle with maintaining their numbers. It is hard to say whether it will or won't as their are many factors to consider such as climate and the potential shutting down of our techno culture with a x-40 flare. If we survive technologically through this global cooling then I would argue religion will decline as more and more people seek to get away from unjust dogma and antiquated notions of what is righteous. Education and knowledge will assist in reducing religious congregations. If we lose technologically then we will see a rise in the popularity of religion, as well, we will see a rise in immorality as people struggle to survive by whatever means possible."
I'm not so sure that it is the case that congregations are still on the decline.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/
Only 27% of people in the US never attend church as of 2017. Not sure what the stats are for other countries. I consider Europe's numbers to be irrelevant because they are being displaced by Muslims, who, on the whole, tend to attend Mosque rather regularly.
And I'm not sure you're framing the issue correctly. I don't think people go to church in order to be indoctrinated. Some do, sure. Mostly, however, people attend religious services because it makes them feel connected to a social group, and to their community in general. Most of them believe in God and the Bible, sure, but, mostly, you're not dealing with fundamentalists when you're talking about church-goers in general. But churchgoers do have more children than those who don't. I'm having some difficulty finding relevant statistics, but based on what I've seen, it's quite common for churchgoers to have 3 children or more, and very uncommon for secular families to have more than 2 children. I don't see this as a problem provided the people going to church aren't being indocrinated to not approach issues rationally. I've attended several churches. Some of them are brainwashing facilities, but most of them are not. Most of them are social groups in which the pastor uses the Bible to talk about ethics from a fairly well-reasoned position. Remember: most pastors have college degrees in ministry, so they have had to actually pass college classes by showing that they are capable of expressing themselves in logical arguments. Churches have come a long way in the last few hundred years. They aren't without their problems, but I think they do more good than bad, overall.
"Who knows you may be right, but as for taming religion, I do not know if it is possible. many have tries to tame religion before and what happens is it tends to go underground.
How would you tame religion?"
Look, I used to be a religious zealot all the way up until my mid twenties. What helped me overcome that was reading philosophy and alternative interpretations of the Bible, as well as a critical analysis of Christian history, and engaging with my ideas about God on a personal, spiritual and intellectual level. Taming religion takes a long time, because it requires a lot of introspection on the part of the upcoming generation. It helps if there is literature out there providing alternatives to what they're being told their scriptures say. Believe it or not, even the Koran can be read in such a way that it leads someone to be non-dogmatic. But someone has to be out there making those arguments, and that has to be available to young people who know that something is wrong with what they're being taught. If you do that, over time, the more rational position will win. If you try to tame religion by force, you only make stronger in the long term, because you help create a narrative that serves the preacher.