Compiled on 24 Sep 2011
Human Rights Council
Eighteenth session
Agenda item 1
Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in all countries
High Assembly:
Every child’s life is being consciously attacked by a hilarious group of scientists at a Swiss town well known to many members of the United Nations – Geneva.
Being virtually “under the eyes” of UNO, scientists there reckon on being invisible when refusing to check on the safety of an ongoing experiment that according to un-disproved scientific evidence is about to create undetectable-at-first miniature black holes which in a few years’ time can shrink the planet to 2 cm, that process becoming manifest only after a symptom-free interval of more than a year.
There are courageous human rights activists in Europe and Japan who find it their duty to bring this before the UN General Assembly. All that is required is an immediate stop of the experiment in question until the scientific safety conference asked-for by a Cologne Court on January 27, 2011, has taken place.
No pretense is being made which side in this scientific debate – pro and contra the continuation of the LHC experiment — raging on the Internet for 3 ½ years is going to win. Only the humble request is made to the UNGA to endorse the humble request to “have a look” before it is too late.
Signing on behalf of all: Prof. Dr. Otto E. Rössler, University of Tübingen, Germany
The pope at this moment said, “this convention is shining.”
Dear Mr. Rössler!
We adore you for sentences like: “Signing on behalf of all” and “The pope at this moment said, “this convention is shining.””. We do have a, let’s say, bias towards freakishness. But YOU are THE MASTER! Bowing! Bowing again! And bowing a third time!
But you should add in your UNGA-requests “mice & wo_men” further on. Otherwise we have to do an extra appeal, and — you know what — that’s something nobody wants to see.
Heal The World
Make It A Better Place
For You And For Me
And The Entire …
Tears in our eyes and shivering,
The Pinky & the Brain
Dr. Rössler!
Please take note:
We’ve asked our pope some minutes ago. He said: “We all should stop our desire and deeds aimed at bringing basic research to a standstill.
A funny pope! Actually he is Brain with a funny hat on. Wednesdays Pinky is the pope. And sometimes Telemachos, chatting with us via skype from Aiaia (only classical Greek, you know).
You can leave your hat on!
The Pinky & the Brain
According to the CIA World Factbook, 26% of the world population consists of children under the age of 15. That’s 1.8 billion of the 6.9 billion living humans. The lives of these children, as well as their mothers and fathers, are being recklessly endangered by the high-energy experiments of the pompous group of scientists at CERN.
The same group has already admitted that their giant collider may “become a black-hole factory” (CERN Courier, Nov. 12, 2004) and could also produce strangelets (HeavyIonAlert.com). Such phenomena are capable of reducing the Earth to an 18 millimeter black hole (Wikipedia, “Schwarzschild Radius”), or in the case of strangelets, “a hyperdense sphere about 100 metres across,” according to astrophysicist Martin Rees (Our Final Hour, 2003, p 121),
The notion that basic research is always a good thing is obviously false, for experiments that generate dangerous phenomena are potentially hazardous to life. Prof. Rossler properly signs “on behalf of all”, for whether they care or not, every person has their life on the line in CERN’s determined effort to produce black holes — a phenomenon already demonstrated by nature to have destroyed over 4 million stars in our own galaxy..
Help from heaven.
Dear Mr. Rössler!
“Help from heaven.” Häääääääääääääääääääääääääää?
Who do you want to impress with such an argumentation?
“I get by with a little help from my friends. Mm, I get
high with a little help from my friends. Mm, I’m gonna
try with a little help from my friends.”
The Beatles-Pinky & the Beatles-Brain
“Hilarious” Dr Rossler? I believe you mean “risible”, “ridiculous” or some such adjective, not hilarious.
The disappearance of the entire Earth and us with it is not a laughing matter as far as I am concerned, though I suppose death will send me on a similar adventure soon enough.
Why soon?
The “hilarious group of scientists” may be a sardonic reference to the rather feeble attempts at humor by CERN scientists or supporters in their efforts to ridicule the safety concerns of Dr. Rossler.
The latest example are the cartoon-like characters “Pinky and the Brain”, who were first presented as mice making cheesecake in the “ACME labs”. The cartoon-writer may or may not be involved in a detection system at CERN called “ACME” (Aluminum Cathode Electron Multiplier).
Strike the last line. “Pinky and the Brain” was an animated TV show in the early 1990’s. It featured two genetically enhanced mice at “Acme Labs.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_the_Brain
Why does the whole green world of the planet stand behind CERN?
Scientists=particles=government, so the authorities who are supporting the greatest existential risk by paying for the LHC cannot be much enough advised by critical academics who are not Nobel laureates to change their course. Most of physicists supporting CERN cannot be criticized much enough by those academics mentioned first since most of the scientists having great financial support from the government just stick to the highest elite in mathematical physics including Nobel laureates. When a critical reviewer says the scientists who are favoring the ongoing experimentation with the LHC could be wrong, s/he are/is considered insane by individuals and groups who are staying submissive to the the last-mentioned scientists. There is not only the government paying for the great physics research institutes, it is also the only elite in mathematical physics including Nobel laureates who are having their experiments going on with that funding. Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has chosen to consider dangerous aliens of outstanding intelligence from outer space among the currently greatest existential risks. The general Assembly and gender equality? Philosophically, the days of green mother Earth can be counted or not, that does not change the urgent demand for more research on better colonization strategies towards a place somewhere in outer space within the next decades and Centuries as Hawking has suggested http://www.space.com/8924-stephen-hawking-humanity-won-survi…earth.html it. Let’s remember: the LHC was made for running on and Nobel laureates would not stop their own research that depends on it, so they are willing to bear the greatest existential risk and the unethical denial of its cause. There is so much authority with the above mentioned elite and little elbowroom for anyone else to work against the subservient analgebraism (the advanced mathematical equivalent to analphabetism) of the masses who want to succumb to the government — not Einstein. Since operations at the LHC went on unsecured, there might be some uncharged matter of subatomic proportions sinking through molecules inside the Earth. So the risk that something dangerous might has been created must be compensated from now on, there is no time left anymore. Psychology for moments of sane anxiousness followed by research on new methods for space colonization will make a change to leave this planet incl. its green environment and the classic form of men behind.
I actually learned about “lifeboat” for the first time some years ago when Stephen Hawking had apparently joined it.
This is a very important comment. I only would add that the last percent out of three that can still be prevented by stopping the LHC now is worth the effort.
1x Stephen
“soon enough” as in “all too soon”, Professor. Death is waiting for us all despite the best efforts of science and business to put it off further.
Although it would seem that one’s consideration for the future of the human race would suggest worrying about the LHC and its possibly catastrophic outcome, it is quite hard at time –eg staring into the night sky — to think why one should care about the human race, when it seems it is just a little blip on the course of eternity.
Is there some philosophical justification for caring about the human race, and succeeding generations? I dont know of any which dont amount to self interest, do you? As a member of the group I care, somewhat feebly, since not all my fellow members seem particularly worthy of any concern. In fact as I look around I can hardly raise any objection with God (I like to think I have a direct line to his office) about the unhappy fate of even local hurricane and tornado victims who lose thi lives and houses as they appear on the news ie if I dont know them personally. Is the concern of others for total strangers who suffer disasters genuine? I believe it is only provoked by a deluded fantasy that somehow one does know them personally when they appear and talk on TV.
Since there are approaching 7 billion humans on this planet why is the life of any one of them necessarily so valuable, except to their loved ones and friends?
Reducing the human population would seem to be necessary if any of us are to survive in the long run, surely. Perhaps a mBlack Hole would be a convenient method of eliminating a large portion of us without fuss.
The only drawback would seem to be that any mBH threatens to swallow us all without discrimination, and that seems excessive. What we need is a partial mBH.
Perhaps that is possible, Professor? Is it possible to have a mBH operate briefly and then turn it off?
Of course someone would have to decide who should remain. Perhaps there should be a cut off point in terms of a psychological test of virtue on various parameters where the greedy and selfish could be swallowed up and the saintly do gooders saved?
Of course, the world would immediately become as dull as an economic conference at that point, so maybe the choice of those to remain should be reversed.
Very elegant, my dear professional journalist and intimidating colleague. I like tongue-in-cheekese. And with 2 percent Armageddon already booked (unless — hopefully — I am wrong) and with the third percent announced by CERN to be produced the coming 5 weeks, it is about time to return to the really important issues that humankind could afford to forget in times of exponential growth, so you seem to suggest.
But you really refer to anthropology. Or the deep science which is no longer science but throrough humnanness. And you know the answer, of course. THE miracle.
But let me — before you remind me — come to a more profane thought: the little-gren-men invasion which all of a sudden would re-unite humankind into a large family of brothers and sisters.
Exactly this has happened with CERN’s defying reason out of its humanly excusable being carried away by ideological science. Groupthink should never be trusted as we know. But now we have this chance or a new group-think. What does it say?
It says that we humans have made a very strange invention — truthfulness. Of recognizing the other as a person that wants me to be happy and whose happiness is my greatest reward (ask a mother). This has nothing to do with biological egotism or group selection. This is pure metaphysics: To believe in a soul and love a soul (not a body or its no matter how sweet features). A soul. Levinas-style.
Who has a soul? Everyone who can understand benevolence. “Gratefulness” is a partial word. One has to add the word “genuine.” Only persons have this trait.
I currently always have to quote the pope — I love this man. He still knows what the secret of life is: this present given to us — the now, the colors, the friends. None of the three exists in nature. Each is pure madness. But it is demonstrably there. My Tubingen colleague Ratzinger (we never saw each other in Tubingen) still knows THE SECRET that you kindly asked for.
I am a stupid scientist as I always stress, so the real appreciation for this infinite gift I never learned to express professionally. But I can tell, for example, that this insane feature of humans — to be “movable” (where?: in the soul) — can be proved, scientifically proved, to be our real feature and the only root of any heritage. For it is based on a creative misunderstanding that turns out to be true.
And we have the duty to understand it and strengthen it and even export it. The real mission of humanity. We have creatures on the planet which are way more intelligent, hardware-wise, than we are. Sperm whales, dolphins, elephants, keas, gibbons, oran-utans, maybe even mirror-competent sea crabs and giant octopuses. They all are — to the best of anyone’s knowledge — “physiological autists.” They never fall into the trap of believing in another’s genuine joy in your own pleasure. Delectatio in felicitate alterius, as Leibniz called it and as the pope’s good friend Robert Spaemann unearthed it. Much more sexy than sexy. And much more binding than group egoism.
Saint Francis — I am a Franciscan Jew (I never left his third order even though I do not pay church taxes and still wait for acceptance by a rabbi) walked in king Salomo’s footsteps. My late friend Konrad Lorenz — he was a loving person — wrote a sweet naive book with the title “King Salomo’s Ring”) — but this is starting to get too long, forgive me.
Please, contardict me, then others might feel tempted to cut in or join in. Theodicy. Is there a present to be grateful for? Does it makes us genuine loving friends?
It does. Take care.
Forgive the typos.
Dear Mr. Houston!
Your first attempt (“The cartoon-writer may or may not be involved in a detection system at CERN called “ACME” (Aluminum Cathode Electron Multiplier).”) was excellent lark, but the second: ““Pinky and the Brain” was an animated TV show in the early 1990′s.” was even better! You’ve got it; congratulation! But this is just the official version. Shhhhhhh! There is more behind it. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX11!!!111!!!!!
We are NOT financed by CERN, but we asked them twice. They declined because we were not able to yodel the text of the European-anthem.
Back to this blog: during our investigations we’ve found out that maybe MR. RÖSSLER himself is part of the BIG CONSPIRACY. LOOK: http://www.esowatch.com/ge/images/9/9d/Schroeter_und_Roessler.jpg. Haaaaaaa! Is he collaborating with Mr. Rolf Landua, one of the BAD BOYS & GIRLS of CERN? No counterproof was given up to now.
But as we have elaborated the experiments at CERN are not that dangerous (TeChFat-theorem; TelemachOS — BTW: OS not US, check the Greek original, Mr. Houston: Τηλέμαχος).
Maybe this is the biggest danger for the world? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Hasselhoff_2009.jpg
We are just the BAD MICE,
The Pinky & the Brain
Theodicy, as we recall, refers to the various rationalizations for belief in a Deity of some kind.
(Let’s ask the Catholics: Etymologically considered theodicy (theos dike) signifies the justification of God. The term was introduced into philosophy by Leibniz, who, in 1710, published a work entitled: “Essais de Théodicée sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal”. The purpose of the essay was to show that the evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God, that, indeed, notwithstanding its many evils, the world is the best of all possible worlds (see OPTIMISM). The problem of evil (see EVIL) has from earliest times engrossed the attention of philosophers. The well-known sceptic Pierre Bayle had denied in his “Dictionnaire historique et critique” the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. The “Théodicée” of Leibniz was directed mainly against Bayle. Imitating the example of Leibniz other philosophers now called their treatises on the problem of evil “theodicies”.
Hmm… in other words it is various stupidities denying the obvious, which as Bayle had pointed out, is that an omnipotent God who loves humanity is not an internally consistent concept ie if he was such He would not visit upon us arbitrary horrors such as four year olds running into passing traffic and being squashed to teach us all that His works are mysterious and not to be fathomed and other inanities of Aquinas onwards.)
In other words, theodicy is better spelled theo-idiocy.
Also, isn’t Pope Ratzinger the man who protected child abusers among Catholic priests? Hardly an example to the world of moral and religious insight. Did the media misreport him?
Professor, may I respectfully ask if you quite well and not under the influence of medication of any kind? There is a certain loose ruminative quality about your Comment above.
There is something of the insolence of a juvenile in Anthony’s efforts to be provocative. He vaingloriously passes judgement against God, man, and Dr. Rossler, as if in a schoolboy rant.
The apparent moral context is not even the humanism of many atheists. Instead, he appears to espouse nihilism — a view that existence is senseless and useless, and that mass destruction is desirable for its own sake. Thus, it seems quite hypocritical to be scolding the Lord for a traffic casualty, while wishing — as in the earlier comment — that most of mankind could be destroyed in a black hole.
The self-amused nihilism of the literati has a counterpart in the frequent use of nihilistic humor by defenders of CERN. On many LHC discussion threads, there are comments to the effect that “the world is such a mess, so what if it goes down a black hole”; or, “look at the bright side: no more taxes,” etc. Such views amount to an attitude of abject irresponsibility. The humor is that of a laughing demon.
.Population control is responsibly addressed through birth control, not genocides or geocide. Theodicy is a challenge only if one assumes that goodness/divinity is necessarily omnipotent. Anthony seems Janus-faced but does make sense in his Dr. Jekyll mode, as on Sept. 26th when he wrote: “The disappearance of the entire Earth and us with it is not a laughing matter as far as I am concerned.”
The photo from P & B of Dr. Rossler at the LHC with CERN physicist Rolf Landua verifies Rossler’s account that he met with Landua there in 2008. Dr. Landua agreed with him that the superfluidity of neutron stars should be investigated and even suggested an experiment using the superfluid helium II at CERN to study the transit of neutral particles.
For those who may be confused, Pinky and the Brain are murine scientists (genetically enhanced, highly intelligent mice) at “Acme Labs”, who were so renowned as to be the subject of an animated TV show in the 1990s. The Brain uses his gifts to plot world domination, usually foiled by the bumbling of his amiable pal Pinky.
Admittedly, some of their comments at Lifeboat have been quite amusing, especially the bits about making cheesecake and calling a safety conference with Dr. Rossler and their mouse friends. “The Brain” is an acronym for Biological Recombinant Algorithmic Intelligence Nexus. Meet him in person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZ7NoIz0Zc&feature=related
Their claim of a terminal “os” is true of the Greek but not the English spelling of “Telemachus”. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemachus .
This discussion has a high level, I thank everyone. Maybe the pope will join in?
What I never understood for 3 1/2 years is the special hostility shown by the Greens on the planet against my attempts to help their most tangible cause.
“There is something of the insolence of a juvenile in Anthony’s efforts to be provocative. He vaingloriously passes judgement against God, man, and Dr. Rossler, as if in a schoolboy rant.” — Houston
Dear me, is this the correct tone of civil discourse for which Lifeboat is renowned?
As we have often privately observed in the past, Houston, it may be that you have difficulty with fundamental logic, is this so? Is that why your posts are distinguished for filling in facts and quoting references, but when they attempt even elementary mathematical reasoning, only excite the CERN defense squad here to ridicule your “private algebra”? I sincerely hope this is not the case.
In this instance it seems that your defense of theo-idiocy rests first on saying that my pointing out its lack of logic is somehow disrespect in a juvenile vein. But I merely point out the internal inconsistency of the concept human loving all powerful interventionist God, which if you knew anything about modern philosophy you would know was a given in all modern discussion. One reference to peruse might be Simon Blackburn’s little volume “Think” , in which that most distinguished Oxford scholar explains this point to the confused lay crowd (p175) . But then you don’t need Blackburn since you have already concluded that theodicy has to abandon the concept of the omnipotent God.
This is all rather surprising, since your defensive emotion seems rather group think in flavor, where you feel it is wrong to undermine social shibboleths of the religious or moral kind as “juvenile” trolling, when in fact it is merely applying elementary logic. You are not against applying reason to the claims of CERN’s religious faith in its spurious safety claims, are you?
Why then object to undermining belief in a Deity who is both all powerful and uninterested in intervening in human life to the extent of saving us all from the LHC potential of generating mBHs and strangelets to swallow us all?
“Theodicy is a challenge only if one assumes that goodness/divinity is necessarily omnipotent.” — Houston
Your second reason is that the Deity — let’s call it Mr Goodness — is not necessarily omnipotent. Very true, as noted above. But this is a spurious out. Most of the overwhelming portion of humanity who believe in Mr Goodness — extending to some older scientists, unfortunately, who abandon their professional principles later in life as their existential terror rises and their spine weakens — believe he is omnipotent and will even answer prayers if they are sufficiently urgent. They believe this even though there is not one indication yet that the chances of their prayers being answered is more than 50–50.
Actually I don’t think that the willingness to tackle fundamental questions is juvenile at all. On the contrary it indicates that in the service of enlightenment one is willing to question world wide assumptions. This ability is especially important in reviewing the behavior of CERN, for example. I am sorry you won’t extend your practiced ability in this area to an equally fat headed group-think, the rationalization of the religious impulse, especially since this as I have pointed out above is actually the very political problem we have with CERN and the LHC. Given their faith nothing will go wrong, which flouts their own safety reasoning, if you look closely, as you have pointed out , it is a religious impulse, and it is not juvenile to question a religious impulse. On the contrary, it is the first sign of true adulthood.
This applies even to your other apparent Deity, Dr Rossler. This principled scientist is the only scientific theorist on the planet willing to step up to the plate in public and fend off the brickbats of the ignorant and the CERN bots for the sake of the future of humanity as he sees it, and he stands out in this regard as a man of uniquely stiff spine. Unlike most other scientists who seem to reliably turn into jelly as they approach their existentialist deadline, as mentioned above.
But he is a human and it is perfectly well to ask if he is in good health and even to urge him to get his theorems in order so that they and his cause may win the respect he deserves. He is not a God, Houston, even if he proves as impotent as God to change the course of human affairs as they rush lemming like to the precipice.
He is a human being, which is the basis on which he asks for consideration for the nearly 7 billion other humans on this planet who live outside the financial structure of CERN and the LHC.
As to your objecting to my unusually frank speculation that most of these 7 billion humans do not particularly care for the other 7 billion humans beyond their immediate family and friends, other than those they see on TV or read about in a desperate plight, where they can put faces to the crises concerned, I am not saying that your or Professor Rossler’s concern for humanity in general is a bad thing, or even false.
I am saying it is an imaginative act, and not one emotionally based on the reality of your life experience. For example, I doubt if you would easily put up with any but a tiny few for long if they were to move into your apartment or house.
Even the most attractive young females among them. This is, of course, assuming you are a bachelor scholar, which is the flavor of your posts.
Let’s hope that in such a case you do not have the same difficulty with birth control as do most of the human race.
“Population control is responsibly addressed through birth control, not genocides or genocide”. — Houston
Given that difficulty, and the fact we face the appalling prospect of 12 billion mostly surplus people on this planet if we escape the LHC unscathed, I was only suggesting that a mBH could be the solution if it could be operated for a limited time in a limited way, to vacuum up maybe 6 billion of the current nearly 7 billion.
What is your objection to this, if Dr Rossler can pronounce it feasible? It would be a lot more painless than starvation, which is the current solution we are promised by current trends.
“Sperm whales, dolphins, elephants, keas, gibbons, oran-utans, maybe even mirror-competent sea crabs and giant octopuses. They all are – to the best of anyone’s knowledge – “physiological autists.” They never fall into the trap of believing in another’s genuine joy in your own pleasure.” — Professor Rossler
Professor, which trap is that? Did you mean to write it, or the opposite? Empathetic humans have genuine joy in one another’s pleasure do they not? And why shouldn’t animals feel it, since they are so similar to us.
Are not animals generally nicer than we are, if they are tame? I think they set a very good example.
I sense friendship in the above mental saber-rattling. Leibniz is responsible, not only for theodicy but also for this nice discovery of his: “delight in the felicity of the other” (delectatio in felicitate alterius).
This apart from humans, only wolves (and relatives) possess towards selected other adults. (In brood care, most mammals and many other animals show it unilaterally toward the young.)
The symmetric case — that the young can be moved by the felicity of the adult (Mom, say) — is known about humans, but whether it has ever been observed in a dog while in principle conceivable since tailwagging is both friendly and a sign of pleasure (like the happy sniling face in humans) I do not know.
But in humans we do find this. This one 18-months old I observed before the wolves’ cage putting a sweety into his father’s mouth asking “good?!”
This just proves that humans belong to the unique species of parent-feeders (Pongo goneotrophicus). If wolves should be found to do so too, they will be called Lupus goneotrophicus. This still would be not alarming since they are not mirror competent.
But there was this palpable question mark in that toddler’s voice. This element of something adults call benevolence. This event is a “catastrophe “in the sense of catastrophe theory, René Thom’s mathematical theory. For it reflects the invention of the suspicion of benevolence by the human toddler. For the smile not only rewards him — there is also this high-performance universal simulator (VR) built into the brain of us pongids (and other highly brained animals). But here, in the combination with delectatio in felicitate parentis (of the father), a grandiose suspicion arises out of nothing in the toddler: that the other might be delighted internally — and might just as well want you to be delighted in the next case.
This suspicion of benevolenc eis the attribution of a person property by a non-person, a pongid intelligence. But by attributing a person property to another, you (the toddler) became a person yourself.
This is the most dramatic event in the cosmos. A holy invention. Personogenesis. Only from the point of view of biologigy is it pathological since it stops natural selection. At the same time, however, it amounts to a jump towards the end point of evolution, the point Omega, the Avicenna-Teilhard attractor.
This is the unique invention of humanity in the cosmos — infinite trust and love. In the still young and stupid, but never surpassed when it first arises there. We should treasure this lethal factor and export it, Hawking style, before it is too late.
One word on CERN: They deny personhod to me and everyone else if they do not at long last come up with an answer to the genocide theorem — subito. Humankind will otherwise never forgive them.
Anthony, thank you for your theological exegesis. What I considered juvenile, however, was to sally forth publicly against someone’s expression of a spriritual or religious impulse. A more mature atitude is to respect such personal beliefs of others. It’s obvious, however, that you’re probably a young graduate of a prestigious university where you relished being on the debating team.
As for theodicy, why assume that “Mr. Goodness” is an interventionist? Even if omnipotent, it’s obvious that His interventions are at best sporadic in this world. As the atheistic humanists have shown, one does not need to be religious — merely humane — in order to abhor a slaughter of the innocents, such as an LHC black hole might cause.
It is only “risking slaughter”, and this only with a probability of 2 percent today and 3 percent in a month.
But I still think this un-disproved state of affairs needs to be dismantled before the third percent can be allowed.
Every person on the planet is on my side, only they are not allowed up until now, to know.
The past will soon need to be changed in the Orwellian sense if this goes on for 4 more weeks. The story is, unfortunately, not over when it is over. Why is no one intelligent enough among those in charge in science and politics to see this?
This is the last chance for the rehabilitation of science and Europe.
Professor, your pointing out that the child able to empathize with the adult parent is a human trait is intended to suggest the reason for the sheep following the shepherds, in the case of CERN, is it? That this admirable trait is being bent in the service of CERN pulling a fast one on the global public by exploiting the trust most of us have in hyper intelligent though grossly politically and psychologically immature overgrown wiz kids, namely, CERN physicists?
You are saying that they are exploiting what is a beautiful human trait, trust and empathy in older people?
If so it is difficult not to agree with you. How undignified for senior people to light the house we live in to “see what happens”, and risk making a funeral pyre of the entire plent we live on.
But that is the modern group blunder of the huge organization or field, a trait of modern life. We need heretics like yourself to point this out. But Alas, like Giordano Bruno, you are liable to be burned at the stake rather than thanked. Just ask the estimable Peter Duesberg, who for 25 years has pointed out in peer reviewed articles on the highest level that HIV/AIDS is an ill founded scientific nonsense, and been successfully ostracised for it.
The fate of the whistleblower is not kind.
Not quite. The young child makes the invention that mother might wish him to be happy. This hypothetical attribution of a person property by a non-person makes the latter a person. Heaven enters.
Here amongst adults, we have just ordinary displays of lacking rationality. That a given proof is more than the opinion of those who refuse to look at it, is not new as we all know. But that in a situation where the proof forebodes doom unless falsified, humanity as a whole and I have to say in the hope you can forgive me — your own profession in the first place — are unable to do their duty, is without historical precedent.
Killing Bruno for being right is one thing, committing collective suicide as a punishment for Bruno is a billion times more stupid.
Professor, in order to gain a proper response leading to a review you have to solve the political problem, just as President do, and everyone, including all activists. What is your political problem and how do you solve it? Both Alas are rather independent of whether you are right or wrong, in fact, entirely dependent on your credibility and those you can gain support from.
Some people who are wrong can gain tremendous support, as you know. Some who are right can gain very little.
You and I value rational discourse and action taken on rational grounds., Alas, the human race is ploitically Neanderthal in this respect. It mostly is led by emotions of the irrational kind.
It is hard for a man who reasons well and is cleverer than most if the world’s population, and more expert, such as yourself, to stoop to operating on the animalistic level, but that is what you have to do in politics.
In this respect your oratory should be positive and uplifting, I believe, yet urge action in the face of the threat. This is a hard trick. Perhaps it is worth studying Gibbon on the history of Rome.
Perhaps Machiavelli?