Saturday, April 15, 2017
Random Existential Weekend Thoughts
First, the more pleasant and intriguing question:
There are two great existential questions facing the human race. Given how humans, even in wealthy countries, are faced with challenges and demands that require our attention daily these questions are rather abstract in nature. Still though, it would be wise to not totally ignore them since the answers ultimately connect to the fate of our children and to our hopes and fears.
The first question is simply whether or not there is any other intelligent life in the universe. On the surface this question looks pretty uncomplicated, either we Homo sapiens shares existence with other species inhabiting other worlds or somehow we are utterly alone in a universe that spans billions of lightyears. Like I said, while there are only two possibilities, the implications for either answer are staggering. To learn that an alien species on some faraway world has evolved enough to become self aware and build a civilization that at least equals our own would truly be the final blow to Humanity's longtime deluded view that we are somehow special.
On the other hand, to learn that the human race is alone in the universe raises difficult questions that might actually be more troublesome than having some intrepid aliens explorers enter Earth orbit and say “hello” by radio. We're not just talking about the idea that God created the universe for us hairless primates but the possibility that our very existence is nothing but an elaborate computer simulation that our erstwhile creator/programmer developed for either fun or an experiment. Think I'm joking? There are serious scientists and esteemed philosophers that have crunched the numbers and feel the probability is quite high.
The basic laws of physics makes it unlikely we will learn whether or not we share universe with another intelligent species in our lifetime. The distances between stars so stretches out and weakens radio signals even if we were relatively close to another species that shares our desire for communication the resources needed and the engineering skills required might be more than they can readily spend. While there are several private groups and government agencies across the planet searching for alien radio signals, it wouldn't be wrong to suggest our efforts are at best piecemeal.
Then again, since any alien species near enough to communicate would almost certainly be far more advanced that us, there is a real question as to whether we would be any interest to them. Chimpanzees are remarkable creatures but you would not try to talk to them about genetics, quantum mechanics, nanotechnology, or even something as mundane as literature. I'm in no way saying searching for radio signals from an extraterrestrial civilization is a mistake or a waste of time and money. Discounting the private groups who fund their own projects, the money spent by governments wouldn't pay for a day's worth of electricity to run the air conditioners for the Pentagon.
Any anger generated by the idea that the United States government has spent money searching for Little Green Men should instead be redirected at far larger targets that cost billions and caused the death of thousands. While my opinion of George W. Bush has turned around considerably since the election of Trump, my favorite boondoggle is still the trillion or so he spent to find Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
Searching for others in the cosmos speaks to the best side of human nature. Something inside our genes wants to understand how the universe works and seeking out others is just one facet of that desire. While the chances of finding others during our lifetime are small, the rewards would be incalculable for our species.
Now on a darker note:
Getting back on point, the second existential question has more to do with the dark side of human nature. The second question we must face is what in our nature makes us come to crave war, even when a possible threat is manageable. While many of our species has created great works of art and literature and strove to remove the shackles of superstition and ignorance by pushing the boundaries of science and reason, the vast majority seemed locked into never ending cycles of violence and incessant warfare. This is in no way a question of the right of a people to defend themselves from aggressors. As I have stated before, while I am a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal of the highest order who believes in social justice and that living in peace with others is the only way to ensure the safety and future of our children; I pretty much detest my political comrades who are pacifists.
While the idea that terrorists “hate us for our freedoms” is a vile piece of narrow, self-aggrandizing propaganda, there are individuals and groups who quite literally want to see the world burn. These people need to die in the same way a rabid animal needs to be put down before it causes harm to others. Of course, the devil in the details comes when you have to determine just who is a short, plumped up blowhard wanting to shore his prestige in the tiny totalitarian hermit kingdom he controls and who might be an imminent threat. Another important item to consider before launching a “preventive war” is whether or not the death of possibly millions is worth the cost to remove a manageable threat.
As you might be able to guess, I am not so delicately alluding to Trump's provocations towards North Korea. Yes, the bizarre little troglodyte running that country is a danger, his development of nuclear weapons and missiles is deeply troubling and should be monitored with exacting precision. Our response to any aggression he and his generals might attempt should be so overwhelming that the abused and tormented souls under his control would rise up. This begs the question as to whether it would just be best to go in and put the North Korean regime down like the rabid dog I mentioned earlier.
The problem with that idea is namely the fifty million South Koreans and the nearly one hundred-thirty million Japanese that live dangerous close to the little delusional twit, Kim Jong-Um. They would bear the brunt of any preventive war whose declared purpose would be just another in a long line of tired slogans. Ignoring North Korea's supply of nuclear weapons, that country has plenty of chemical and biological weapons that would cut through its densely packed neighbors like a hot knife in butter. Frankly, my conscious shutters at the idea of another war where millions of people could die horrible deaths because some American non-serving talking head or chickenhawk politician says we should fight them over there before they can reach us. That philosophy worked so well for the Iraqis.
My intention here is not to get bogged down with my admitted disgust with Trump. But his blatant ignorance on matters of national security and foreign affairs should have eliminated him from political contention before the primaries even started. His recent ham-fisted cruise missile attack on a Syrian airfield only to have it return to full operation the next day is just as big a joke as him claiming going bankrupt multiple times shows his business brilliance. Having a fully armed aircraft carrier battle group steaming towards North Korea while spouting verbal offal about solving that problem on our own if need be just so Trump can feel powerful is asking for the deaths of a lot of innocent civilians.
The curious thing is that Trump's saber rattling and talk of taking manly action for glory is not an isolated occurrence. Human history is replete with warmongering idiots coming to power and then leading their nations to disaster. The question of whats worse between a people who fall for such speeches about the glory of war or the those leaders who give them is debatable. It's almost as if populations occasionally go insane and forget that war means brutal death for some and lifelong mental and physical injuries for many others.
I can't help but ponder the dichotomy between the United States after World War Two and the one that exists now. After both Germany and Japan was defeated rational leaders in the Allied nations realized that the Soviet Union had replaced the Axis Powers as a threat, this lead to the establishment of collective security arrangements whose best example is the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) charged with protecting the democracies of Europe. No, it wasn't a perfect solution but it is the big part of the reason we didn't have another world war. Every elected leader from both North America and Europe knew this and worked hard to prevent both idealistic leftist fools and right-wing nationalists from cutting their own throats in a bid to promote an workable warm and fuzzy Utopian peace or protecting a deluded view of sovereignty.
Without question many in the United States now have the idea that because we carry the biggest and baddest sticks that we should use them on a regular basis without regard to morals or existing international agreements. The funny thing is that exact mindset was the same one Germany held during World War One when it went into Belgium killing civilians which helped push the United States towards the Allied cause. In many quarters, especially Trump's branch of the Republican party, collective security is viewed suspiciously even though it has kept the peace. What bothers me the most is that the vast majority of these misguided people will be the ones sending their sons and daughters to die to reestablish a workable global security arrangement if the power vacuum we created causes another war among major powers. At least Trump recently changed his mind and said NATO wasn't obsolete, although I believe he made that statement for more cynical reasons instead of coming to some sort of realization about the true nature of the world.
Without question, war in most cases is a racket perpetrated by the rich and powerful on the poor fools who do most of the dying. Let me restate, that the right to self defense is fundamental but going to war should always be the absolute last choice since innocent people always pay the price for our failure to find a peaceful way to solve the issues we face. It doesn't say much for our species that despite several thousand years of organized warfare knowing it causes more issues than it solves that so many can at times still crave, if not demand, we line up and kill each other over the stupidest of causes.
As far as existential questions go, I'd much rather contemplate what kind of galactic neighbors might be near us. But unfortunately, the nightly news has far more stories on the whack jobs that hold the reins of power and influence on this troubled planet. So much that I often find myself wishing a starship of intrepid alien explorers would stumble upon our world and demand we get our act together or face the consequences of being stupid idiots. I can only hope that we would listen to them.