The innate goodness of liberals justifies their being authoritarian and even fascist

February 16, 2022

The fundamental truth is that a “liberal” is a member of a higher species, homo sapiens sapiens superieur.

To be a liberal is to be an enlightened, right-thinking, superior type of human being. The superiority is a moral and intellectual superiority which derives from the certainty of thinking correctly. Thus the liberal knows, without any shadow of doubt, that any opposing views, whether expressed openly or only hiding in the sewers of someone else’s mind, are wrong. The rightness of the liberal view is absolute and must be accepted as a brute fact of our universe. To challenge this is not just immoral, but evil. The innate goodness in a liberal is such that all thoughts and actions of a liberal are, per force, “good”. It follows that liberals must rule over non-liberals for the good of the non-liberals. Non-liberals must be forbidden from thinking or doing anything that may harm their own humanity. The use of coercive force to ensure that non-liberals follow the liberal rules – for their own good – is justified and inherently “good”. If necessary, any rotten non-liberals may be cancelled by liberals. The cancellation, in the extreme case, may consist of physical extermination. But it is a “good” extermination since exterminating a non-liberal is always a “good thing”.

For a member of a superior species, as any liberal is, members of lower species are to be taken care of for their own good, just as other pets are taken care of. A liberal does not indulge in unnecessary cruelty and only uses necessary force. Non-liberals are to be well treated and well trained and only culled as a last resort, and even then with great humanity. However the liberal – by definition – always acts responsibly. In exposed spaces, non-liberals are not to be allowed to run freely or destructively. They are to be kept on a leash whenever others are around. If there is a risk that they will say wrong things, they are to be muzzled. Non-liberals may be allowed to have a say in their own future but the liberal will exercise his veto if non-liberals are not thinking correctly.

A liberal enjoys an exalted state and has a place reserved in heaven. Nothing he can do can take that away from him. Normally, a reservation in heaven would be jeopardised by cruel and coercive behaviour to others. However, authoritarianism and fascism are perfectly allowable if one is first a liberal. Coercion with necessary force is permitted when applied to a lower species, such as non-liberals or pet dogs.


Vaccinations may have helped against severe illness but neither masks nor vaccinations have shortened the pandemic

February 10, 2022

For almost 3 years, epidemiology and rock-star epidemiologists have been flailing their way through the pandemic. Ridiculous modelling and constantly changing and contradictory advice have become the norm. 

At least there are some few who are beginning to be self-critical about all the mistakes that  epidemiology – which is no science – has made. Even fewer are willing to admit that blindly “following the science” means also following the 90+% of scientific research which goes down the wrong path. 

  • It was first thought that the infection would spread like influenza. But instead it spread in clusters which negated all hopes for achieving some kind of herd immunity.
  • the pattern of mutations of the corona virus was not as predicted (more hope than prediction) and that made specific vaccines less useful and for shorter times than expected.
  • vaccination has probably helped more in preventing serious illness than in preventing any spread of infection.
  • Infection was first thought to be air-borne. Then it was thought to be liquid-borne. In fact it is both and neither. These assumptions led to confused advice about the use of masks and types of masks. In fact, the use of masks may have helped in preventing a few of the infected from infecting others but has had little effect in stopping the mask-wearers from being infected.
  • even if the WHO had not tried to avoid blaming China and had raised the warning flag two months earlier than they did, no country had any useful plans for preventing the spread of infection in place.
  • Travel restrictions were never introduced fast enough to prevent the entry of a virus into a region.

The response to the pandemic will be studied for a long time yet and all the mistakes made will be the subject of many PhD theses to come. The social “sciences” are going to have a field day.

I believe in vaccines. I am sufficiently scared of serious illness to have taken all the vaccinations and boosters as they have become available. No doubt I will also take the 4th shot if and when it becomes available. It has generally been forgotten that for an effective vaccine to be useful and do its work, a vaccinated person needs first to be infected. But it is perfectly clear to me that, of course with the best intentions, vaccines have been grossly over-hyped as a means of preventing infection. Uncertain and bad science has also been used to justify the introduction of authoritarian and mandatory measures by governments. It may even be that the over-reliance on over-hyped vaccinations has prolonged the effects of the pandemic for longer than necessary. The purpose of mandatory vaccinations has misguidedly been the prevention of infection (not the prevention of serious illness) but the stark reality is that vaccinations have not been, and cannot be, very effective in preventing infection. The various mask mandates introduced in many countries have been both ridiculous and ineffective.

 


Physics theories are remarkably similar to God theories

February 6, 2022

I was listening to lectures by Carlo Rovelli on Loop Quantum Gravity and Sean Carroll on Quantum Wave Theory. While the maths used in modern physics is beyond my capabilities, it is very evident that the leading physicists of today when propounding their theories do not sound so very different to priests talking about their gods.

WSU Master Class: Loop Quantum Gravity with Carlo Rovelli

Mysteries of Modern Physics by Sean Carroll


I take physics to be the all-encompassing field which includes, among other scientific disciplines, astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics. In one critical sense physics lies at the base of all the physical sciences and thus chemistry must be a sub-set of physics (though no self-respecting chemist would ever openly admit that). Mathematics, of course, is a language (actually many languages) invented to describe the world around us. The more precise and specific a branch of mathematics the more esoteric its application. It appears, at first glance, that physics gives chemistry which gives rise to organic chemistry which, in turn, leads to biochemistry. However, there is a crucial element missing when considering biochemistry as merely a sub-set of chemistry and then of physics. Neither physics nor chemistry can explain how the spark of life which animates biochemistry and biology came to be or why it should be at all. Some other unknown thing, in addition to physics, is needed to convert chemistry into biochemistry and for living things to emerge. The brute empirical fact of the existence of life and living things becomes both a fundamental assumption and a boundary condition for biology.

There are no physics theories which do not start with some fundamental assumptions which generally make up the initial and boundary conditions for the field of study. The field of study does not, cannot, thereafter, penetrate why those assumptions must be. Physics assumes causality and therefore cannot conceive of any non-causal events. (A contradiction arises whenever physics relies upon or invokes a truly random event since such an event must be – by definition – without cause). Biological and medical sciences start with the assumption of the existence of living things and do not, thereafter, concern themselves with the “trivial” question of why life came to be. The scientific process, in every branch of science, assumes that all observations are explainable, that causality prevails, and that the flow of time is regular, one-directional and irreversible. Philosophy and metaphysics sometimes address existence and causality and the nature of time but no science and no logic can address the fundamental assumptions it is itself built upon. Assumptions enable the many fields of study but they also constrain the field of study.

At the level closest to metaphysics lies the Standard Model of Cosmology which, in turn, is built upon the Standard Model of Particle Physics and the General Theory of Relativity. They all need fundamental assumptions which the models themselves cannot address. It is when justifying or explaining these basic assumptions (beliefs) that physicists and cosmologists become indistinguishable from theologists justifying the existence of the Divine.

The current Standard Model of Cosmology (SMC), also called the “Concordance Cosmological Model” or the “ΛCDM Model,” assumes that the universe was created in the “Big Bang” from pure energy, and is now composed of about 5% ordinary matter, 27% dark matter, and 68% dark energy. While the SMC is based primarily upon two theoretical models:

  1. the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP), which describes the physics of the very small in terms of quantum mechanics and
  2. the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which describes the physics of the very large in terms of classical mechanics;

it also depends upon several additional assumptions. The main additional assumptions of the SMC are:

  1. the universe was created in the Big Bang from pure energy;
  2. the mass energy content of the universe is given by 5% ordinary matter, 27% dark matter, and 68% dark energy;
  3. the gravitational interactions between the above three components of the mass energy content of the universe are described by the GTR; and
  4. the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on sufficiently large (cosmic) scales.

I note that the certainty of our science is based on observation of just part of the 5% of the universe which is observable. The other 95% (presumed to be and labeled dark energy and dark matter) is not observable but is imbued with just those properties needed to make our observations of part of the 5% fit into the Standard Model of the whole. They are, in fact, fudge factors to make observations fit a model. The God of Fudge Factors is brought into play but God forbid that it be considered a God. Dark energy and dark matter are just labels for unknown, magical sources of undetectable, unobservable matter and energy inferred to exist. Dark energy and dark matter are as true, and as slippery as heaven and hell are in theology.

The universe of this Standard Model starts without space, without time, and without any laws governing what causality should be. Physics and cosmology cannot address the question of existence (an assumed initial condition) and therefore resorts to trickery to create something local from a global nothing.

(Net zero)global = (+ something)local + (-something)local-elsewhere

This trick allows matter and energy (locally) to be “created” from a global nothing. We cannot detect enough anti-matter to balance all the matter we observe in our local universe, but don’t worry, it must be out there somewhere else. But that is not all. Just as our ancient ancestors invoked gods when there was no explanation, modern physicists invoke random events happening entirely by chance – as just one probability of many, that just happened to realised. Truly random must be without cause. Anything without cause is remarkably magical. To assign divinity to the magical is just a small step. Whenever it is claimed that it was pure, probabilistic chance that led to our particular universe or parts of it coming into existence, it is no more than an invocation of the Supreme God of Random Events.

Where there is no energy, pure chance allowed the use of this trick such that a

net zero = +(any amount of energy) – (the same amount of energy),

This gives some positive energy (from nothing) while at the same time (what time?) creating an equal amount of negative energy somewhere else (what somewhere else without any space?). Just preceding the Big Bang, Cosmic Inflation started (why?) and created space which allowed the laws of physics to emerge. Time emerged (why?), all entangled with the space, and this all somehow led to the Big Bang. They are all just Creation stories. Listen to cosmologists talking about Cosmic Inflation, or about the appearance of a local positive energy when the net global energy is zero and it is like listening to theology.

Whenever a physicist today claims that something is emergent, it is because that something defies explanation. In fact all the various speculative theories trying to bring quantum theory and gravitation together (string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotically safe gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, and emergent gravity) are all theories ultimately about the existence of our universe. When quantum mechanics brings in Everett’s universal wavefunction which collapses to give everything that existed, exists or will exist, we have just reached a God of Wavefunctions which rules them all.  Listening to the avid proponent of any particular theory is not so different to listening to an incomprehensible Sufi mystic. Hearing a string theorist arguing against a loop quantum gravity adherent is very like listening to the noises made by a Sunni arguing against a Shia. 

We need to remember that all God and Physics theories ultimately originate from inexplicabilities. Every mystery allows room for an explanatory theory which can be labeled a god. The Great Mysteries, which in past times would have been couched in terms of the Divine and called theology, are today couched in the language of mathematics and called Physics.

I seem to go around in circles but I can reach no other conclusion than that Gods and Physics theories are both just attempts to explain the inexplicable.


Science needs its Gods and religion is just politics

This essay has grown from the notes of an after-dinner talk I gave last year. As I recall it was just a 20 minute talk but making sense of my old notes led to this somewhat expanded essay. The theme, however, is true to the talk. The surrounding world is one of magic and mystery. And no amount of Science can deny the magic.

Anybody’s true belief or non-belief is a personal peculiarity, an exercise of mind and unobjectionable. I do not believe that true beliefs can be imposed from without. Imposition requires some level of coercion and what is produced can never be true belief. My disbelief can never disprove somebody else’s belief.

Disbelieving a belief brings us to zero – a null state. Disbelieving a belief (which by definition is the acceptance of a proposition which cannot be proved or disproved) brings us back to the null state of having no belief. It does not prove the negation of a belief.

[ (+G) – (+G) = 0, not (~G) ]

Of course Pooh puts it much better.


Science needs its Gods and religion is just politics


Why are vaccines not shortening the length of the pandemic?

January 27, 2022

The Covid-19 virus was first encountered at the end of 2019 though the World Health Organization only declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020, and a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Total global deaths now exceed 5.6 million and after over 2 years, the pandemic continues. We received our first doses of vaccine in April 2021, the second dose in June 2021 and the third, booster shot in December 2021.

The major difference – for a layman – between the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1920 and this Covid pandemic is that there were no vaccines available 100 years ago. The Spanish flu hit in 4 major waves; one in March 1918, the second (the deadliest) in August 1918, a third, mainly in Australia, in January 1919 and the final fourth wave in early 1920. By March 1920 the Spanish flu was less deadly than common influenza and the pandemic was over. With no vaccines of any sort available, the Spanish influenza pandemic lasted just 2 years. It is estimated that the total number of deaths was somewhere between 17 and 50 million and that up to 500 million were infected.

With Covid-19, vaccines were available first about 11 months after the outbreak though most received vaccines in the second year of the outbreak. A remarkable achievement. The logistics of carrying out mass vaccinations has been equally impressive. So far over 5 billion of the 7.3 billion global population have received at least one dose. Around 4 billion have received two doses. Close to 60% of the global population has been vaccinated to some extent. Around 360 million are thought to have been infected and around 5.6 million have lost their lives.

There is little doubt that the quality of health care after being infected is orders of magnitude more effective than 100 years ago. It is also reasonable to conclude that the vaccines have prevented many deaths. Numbers infected are similar to 100 years ago (360 m / 500 m) but number of deaths are drastically lower (5.6m / 17 – 50 m). Yet the pandemic continues and the earliest it may recede – we think – is this autumn of 2022 which will be 3 years after it started.

It would seem that vaccines have not reduced the length of the pandemic at all. In spite of all the advances in health care and the huge medical/pharmaceutical efforts in understanding the virus and creating vaccines, we are entirely reactive in our response. Vaccine development is reactive. Getting vaccinated is proactive but defensive and does not harm the virus. Health care is reactive. We have no means, it would seem, of taking the initiative and attacking the virus. We are forced to rely on natural mutations eventually reducing its virulence. Our actions, being reactive, would seem to have no impact on the length of the pandemic. Epidemiology has not impressed me during this pandemic. Every so-called mathematical model (which depends finally upon human behaviour) was wrong. (Of course epidemiology is a discipline of clerks and statistics – a social “science” if it must be called a science). They have not been able to do more than regurgitate the same advice as from 700 years ago at the time of the Black Death. Avoid the infected, wash your hands, wear a mask, burn your dead!


Fighting population decline – Not having children is not sustainable

January 22, 2022

Within 50 years population decline will prevail in most of the world except for some countries in Africa. Within 100 years population decline would have set in across the entire globe. The demographic reality is that the long-term decline in fertility levels cannot be reversed very quickly and the coming peaks and declines cannot be averted. However catastrophic population declines will surely be avoided by most countries. Some have already started taking mitigating actions. The optimistic view would be that population enhancing measures will increase fertility sufficiently so that populations will not drop to lower than about 70-80% of the peak levels reached during this century between 2010 and 2100. As an illustrative example, Japan reached its peak in 2010 when the population reached 128.6 million. The decline has started and population is now about 3 million less. The projections are for a population of around 90 million in 2060 and, without any mitigating actions, down to a catastrophic level of less than 60 million by 2100. China’s population is peaking this year (2021/22) and could halve within another 100 years. India’s population will peak in about 2050 though there are some indications that this may happen as early as 2040. Some countries in Africa will reach their peak towards the end of this century but by 2100 all countries will be in decline.

The question is no longer whether populations will decline, but how fast will they decline? The interconnected nature of our societies means that a too rapid decline could lead to a breakdown of the fabric of society. A resilient society might be able to cope with, say, a 30% decline in about 100 years (<0.3%/year). The projected Japanese decline of 50% over 90 years would be catastrophic. 

Some aspects of societal strains are already evident in Japan and parts of Europe. Public Services are gradually withdrawn from peripheral areas which, in turn, leads to people moving from remote areas towards urban conglomerations. The decline of schools, health services, clinics, public transport  and other services in remote, rural areas is already happening in Japan and parts of Europe. Remote areas are seeing depopulation as services decline or get more expensive. The increase of aged populations compared to working-age numbers is an additional stress factor for provision of services. 

Population decline is an existential threat far more difficult to handle than a population increase.

Mitigation measures focus on keeping society functioning despite a declining population. Increasing automation and the use of distributed artificial intelligence is a way of coping with a decline, but that does not change the demographic trend. Nevertheless, working from home, distance learning, the use of distributed diagnostic machines, and smart unmanned vehicles will all increase with the use of AI in smart devices. Even more automation in farming, industry and the provision of basic services can be expected. However, mitigation actions can only help in tolerating a population decline and cannot reverse the demographic trend. Immigration has been seen as a mitigation action. Populations only move from regions of lower to regions of higher economic development. Such immigration of people of child-bearing ages, usually brings an increase of fertility rates. However this increase disappears very quickly with the next generation and is only a short-term benefit. But increased immigration of working-age populations does provide short-term gains which can help to prevent the collapse of societal structures. 

The root problem, though, is the declining fertility rate and to have any chance of arresting the population decline will need actions to arrest and reverse the underlying fertility trend. Some possible actions are already being tried. It can be expected that we will see increasing attempts in the next 100 years to provide incentives for having children. It will be quite different from the last 100 years where the fear of population growth has led to an unhealthy emphasis on disincentives for having children and even incentives for terminating pregnancies. For a hundred years, the scare-mongers (such as The Club of Rome) have promoted the apocalyptic vision of exploding populations starving to death in a world unable to feed itself. The doom-sayers have hijacked the perception of virtue. Having many children has invited ridicule. Being a mother has been denigrated while being a childless “career-woman” has been glorified. The nuclear family has been maligned as being damaging to freedom and sustainability. But the bleak and cowardly narratives of population-explosion and peak-oil and peak-water and peak-food and peak-energy have all been false, malicious and insidious. The last 100 years have seen incentives for sterilisation and even forced sterilisations. Since the end of WW II, it has become, not just socially acceptable, but admirable, socially responsible and virtuous, not to have children. Abortion has become fashionable. From being a last-resort medical procedure to protect the life of the mother, abortion on demand and for convenience has become just another alternative to contraception. There are circles where having had an abortion is a badge of honour. There are around 60 million deaths every year and this will increase to about 120 million in 2100 as the world ages. There are around 115 million births per year and these will decline slowly through the rest of this century. In addition, according to the WHO,  there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions per year. This is incongruous in a world where a false “sustainability” has become a fashionable buzz-word. But it is economic development, not encouraged or forced sterilisations, which has reduced fertility rates. Not having children, it is being finally acknowledged, is not sustainable. 

Can public policy break the inexorable demographic trend and increase the fertility rate?

This will become the great challenge of the next 100 years. Financial incentives, often in the form of tax breaks, for having children are increasingly being introduced in many countries with low birth rates. These include Finland, Estonia, Italy, Japan, S Korea, Turkey, Iran and Australia among others. How successful they are remains to be seen. I suspect that financial incentives will not be enough. They will need to be provided together with strong social incentives to reverse the trend. Not having children cannot be a badge of honour. It is only when having children becomes a matter of social admiration that women will want to be mothers. It is only when having children becomes fashionable again that the declining trend can be reversed.


“Minor incursion” by Russia allowed by Biden

January 20, 2022

It is fairly obvious that Sergei Lavrov and the Russian strategists are making a very precise calculation of what they can get away with with Joe Biden. I suspect that they have been surprised that Biden is even more risk averse than Obama and at how far they can push. They were fairly accurate with the multitude of red lines drawn by Obama in Syria which they knew could be crossed with impunity. Now that Joe Biden has confirmed that “minor incursions” by Russia into Ukraine would be acceptable, it only remains to define what a “minor” incursion is. They would have received some further proof from the German Foreign Minister recently that Europe will do little without firm backing from the US and that this backing would be very lukewarm.

It now remains to make a case for “minor” including all the clearly Russian speaking areas of Ukraine.

Line of acceptable minor incursion?

Austria: Could next step be branding and internment of the unvaccinated?

January 20, 2022

The Austrian parliament is showing Europe the way and has made vaccination mandatory for the over 18s.

Austria parliament approves mandatory Covid vaccination

Vienna (AFP) – Austria’s parliament on Thursday approved making Covid-19 vaccinations mandatory for adults from next month, becoming the first European country to do so despite a wave of protests opposing the measure. Tens of thousands have demonstrated against mandatory vaccination in regular weekend rallies since the measure was announced in November in a bid to drive up the country’s vaccination rate. But all parties, except the far-right, supported the measure, with the new legislation passing with 137 votes in favour and 33 votes against it.

I wonder what they will do with the unvaccinated. First, brand them by pinning a coloured label on them so they can be avoided? If they persist, they could  vaccinated by force? If they still resist, their property could be confiscated and they could be sent to special internment camps?

A final solution for the pandemic?

You would think the Austrians might have learned their lesson. 

Exterminating The Unvaccinated

…….. It stands to reason that forcible vaccination of the reluctant is preferable to their incarceration. A quick execution would be much cheaper if a little unethical. Deprival of employment is already here for some. Deprival of citizenship has been suggested for others. Maybe they could be branded with a yellow star and used  – forcibly – for the trial of untested vaccines? 

……..


Australian Border Force displays its arrogance and brainless incompetence – again

January 10, 2022

There is a reality TV show about the Australian Border Force which I sometime come across when I am avoiding commercial breaks on other channels. I am amazed at the unfeeling incompetence on display (but perhaps that is just what counts as “good” TV).

My own experience with the ABF is very limited but even that limited exposure to them has not impressed. They confiscated packets of liquor chocolates and Malaysian nuts that I was carrying. A friend had a packet of cornflakes confiscated.

Their latest escapade with Novak Djokovic only confirms my perception of a an arrogant, bureaucratic gang who have not realised that brains are intended to be used. Of course it does not help with idiot politicians at the helm.


Wildlife conservation at its best?

January 6, 2022

There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy about wildlife conservation. In today’s world it has become the protection of failing or failed species (tigers, elephants and the like), the culling of inconvenient but successful species growing in numbers (wolves, moose, deer, …) and the extermination of highly successful species classed as pests (mosquitos, killer bees, …).

A plan to kill 10,000 wild horses in Australia is now being put into effect. Apparently a little too much biodiversity.

But to be labeled a conservationist is to be on the side of the angels. 

From Nature

Fighting against species extinction is to deny evolution

……..

So what then is the objection to – say – tigers becoming extinct which is not just an emotional reaction to the disappearance of a magnificent but anachronistic creature?  The bio-diversity argument is not very convincing and is of little relevance. To artificially keep an unsuccessful species alive in a specially protected environment has no genetic value. It increases the mis-match between the existing environment and the genetic profile needed to survive in that environment. In fact the biodiversity argument is only relevant for “life” in general and never for any particular species or group of species.  It can serve to maintain a very wide range of genetic material in the event of a catastrophe such that some form of life has a chance of continuing. But given a particular environment biodiversity in itself is of little value. …….


Exterminating The Unvaccinated

January 6, 2022

Italy will now make it mandatory for over 50s to be vaccinated. If it is mandatory I expect that appropriate force will be used. One would expect that a single 20 year old should be able to subdue and jab around fifty 80 year-olds per day. It might take 2 to subdue a 50 year-old.

Macron has been mouthing off (apparently literally) about making life as difficult as possible for the unvaccinated. Sweden has now made it perfectly legal for any establishment to discriminate as desired against those without proof of full vaccination (thought it is unclear if “full” means 2, 3 or 4 shots). The market for fake vaccination certificates has been given a boost and is booming. The Australians have made idiots of themselves with the Novak Djokovic affair. (Of course, Novak has been a little idiotic himself).

It is apparent that, among the politically correct and the unthinking, the unvaccinated are the new scum of the earth – even if vaccinations provide no great protection from being infected by the Omicron variant. I wonder what the hierarchy of incorrectness is?

  1. Unvaccinated, infected are clearly the worst sort.
  2. Unvaccinated, uninfected are somewhat better
  3. Unvaccinated with natural immunity are not to be assumed to exist
  4. Infected though vaccinated
  5. Vaccinated and uninfected have a place reserved in heaven.

It stands to reason that forcible vaccination of the reluctant is preferable to their incarceration. A quick execution would be much cheaper if a little unethical. Deprival of employment is already here for some. Deprival of citizenship has been suggested for others. Maybe they could be branded with a yellow star and used  – forcibly – for the trial of untested vaccines?