Re: Alternative interpretation of the KT boundary and dionsaur die-off

On Oct 6, 2:00 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At the moment I am much more concerned with who would go to space
colonies and why. Quite an ingenious proposal for hollowing out. In
fact you would need repeated impact at the same spot. Rather like
someone chisseling out a space habitat.

If you would trouble yourself to actually read the reports based on
the computer simulations you can see that one impact of a shaped body,
that reacted chemically with material at the impact site to blow gases
after penetrating deeply in the ground melting the rocke, can indeed
blow a big bubble.,

You will need to travel at 11km/s, no real escape. You could however
escape having to make a long journey.

??

The "religious" proposal was one that rather got my hair standing on
end. I believe that proposals for colonies should be directed towards
how we can live in peace together and not kill each other when we say
our prayers the wrong way.

Peace is not possible among a people who have not found inner peace.
Those who are in turmoil typically project blame on anyone for any
reason as a way to live with their inner turmoil by creating turmoil
in the outer world. They believe that if someone somewhere did
something different things would be better. They attach their
happiness to events. If this or that event happened, then they could
be happy and at peace. They are at the mercy therefore of events.
They are an effect in their lives because of this, and never a cause.
And so they feel adrift, seperated from their own power,and fearful
and hateful because of it. They spend hours analyzing things and
rationalizing their hatred and fear.

This process can operate within the context of a religion, or not. It
doesn't matter. It is a form of madness. It is a madness widely
shared by many. Those who share this madness seek others who have
similar views to build their perception of power. But sense their
power is still rooted in the uncertain events of an uncaring world,
their core fear is only lessened, and does not go away.

This can only change if large numbers of people do the hard work of
looking inward and taking back their power and taking responsibility
for their lives, regardless of the events in their lives. At that
point, people won't care how others pray, or even how others vote,they
will be self referencing and concerned about making their own way in
the world without refernece to others.

The best way to safeguard humanity is not to build colonies, it is to
address these points in human nature.

It is not human nature. It is a recent phenomenon exacerbated by mass
culture and modern child rearing practices. Please refer to Alice
Miller and her book Drama of the Gifted Child. Children are
disrespected when growing up, and so, there is a natural tendnecy in
these children when adults to be alienated from their own iideas and
opinions,and to be fascinated with power,size, violence and death and
to carry a deep resentment that they were never given a proper
chance. With a populatoin of individuals all sharing this common
madness, it is easy for religious figures, father figures, power
figures of all sorts, to gain great power and manipulate these
populations for their own benefit. One of the outcomes of this sort
of universal madness is the need to project blame on those who are
different - and as long as those 'others' are distant and do not
interact much - no harm is done. But if those others are in intimate
contact then conflict is inevitable.

Space colonies will spread us apart and reduce contact - and restore
conditions of a more primitive world.

However, psychologists know the roots of war and conflict, and have
known it for a long time. Organized religion is an effect of a common
mode failing in our culture. It is not a cause. And while religion
obtains much of its authority and power from the spiritual impulse of
the individual, the failings and sins of religions should not be
attached toward the spiritual impulse, which at its root, is the
individual's ablity to retain a sense of wonder, and hope and joy - in
an uncertain world.


The thing that strikes me about
religion is how someone can calmly go into the mosque at Samarra, blow
themselves up and expect 72 houris. Until we get answers to these
questions space colonies MUST be a non starter.

Those individuals are not at peace. Do not confuse religion with the
impulse toward spiritual experiences. A common theology is not
possible given the nature of human communication. A common spiritual
experience is possible.

Consider the difference between music theory and the musical
experience. There are a large number of schools and theories of
music. They argue quite heatedly about their musicological views.
This has little impact whatever on the ability of people to have their
own musical experiences - and even share musical experiences at a
concert say. These experiences may be an important part of peoples
lives. But because people give little more than admission prices to
concert promoters, musicological schools and their conflicting
theories have little to do with violence and power struggles in the
world.

If we could firstly recognize that everyone's spiritual experience is
personal and valid - just as their musical experience is - and
secondly, separate out that experience from the theology surrounding
it in a given culture, and thirdly, empower people so that THEY are
the author of their lives, not their religion - or their nation - or
their race - that is, people define themselves firstly as THEMSELVES -
not a man, or woman or black or white or jew or gentile or American or
Swiss... then we would be on the road toward sanity.

But it has only been recently and only in the West, that Churches have
even permitted people to even think that they could author their own
spiritual experience. But this is the program Isee;

(1) Spiritual experiences are personal and any person's experience
is valid;
(2) Theology is a system of thought that flows from the experience,
(3) Individuals define themselves, they are not defined by any one
feature

This allows folks to take back their power, and causes a lot of power
bases to erode, but at the same time, results in less projection and
more peace of mind, and ultimately, more peaceful society.

This can be augmented if all nations agreed to the following;

(1) Nations shall not kill - they will abandon war
(2) Nations shall not steal - they will not tax excessively
(3) Nations shall not lie - they will not use propaganda or
intelligence ops

If nations agreed to really adhere to these principals, and they would
do so only if demanded by their people, then the opportunity for
violence and insanity would be greatly reduced.

In replying to this I fing myself torn. Technically it is ingenious.
Small impacts in fact have a lower aspect ratio than large impacts.

the shape an orientation and density of the impactor relative to the
impact site, are important variables. then chemical composition and
how they react and when they react - to blow big bubbles in molten
rock.

However the first priority must be human irrationality and
destructiveness.

People are not naturally destructive. Margaret Mead shows this in her
ground breaking book Coming of Age in Somoa. Alice Miller further
shows in her book Drama of the Gifted Child, the dynamics and the rise
of the modern fascination with power money, sex, prestige, violence
and death.

It sounds funny or perhaps even ridiculous to those who were mentally
wounded as children - this becomes the elusive obvious - but creating
a society that truly respects and values every child that is born,
allows free sexual expression and experimentation in adolescents, and
empowers every human being so that they refer to themselves rather
than authorities as the ultimate arbiter of what is right and just and
decent. In short, a sane and rational upbringing - results in a sane
and rational culture that is filled with adults that do not demand
respect because they respect themselves, do not worry about others,
because they rely on themselves, and do not blame others, because they
feel happy and fulfilled in their lives and are not separated from
their own power.

Without an anwer to that space colonies can only
serve to put humanity at even greater risk.

This is quite true.

I am looking for a solution to Iraq -

I ama US citizen. So, I can only look at it from that viewpoint.

The US can only control what the US does. So,for US Citizens like
myself I ask what can we do?

One possiblity is that we need to tell ourselves the truth about
Iraq.

The truth is, its their oil, not ours.

The truth is, we are increasing the price of oil by our actions

The truth is, the American public is not being told the truth about
the decisions made in iraq

The truth is,our actions in Iraq have reduced our energy stability and
our national security.

Accept these three simple truths. Then we can start to make rational
choices about what to do in Iraq. Once we make rational choices, then
we can address how to reduce the turmoil.

Also, things are nonlinear. That is, if the US had spent as much on
interplanetary expeditions in the past 20 years as it has spent on
expeditionary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,others in the world would
view America differently. We would have a different geopolitical
position in the world, one informed by a unique global and even
interplanetary perspective. This is something new, and if exercise to
the full effect possible, quite a bit more powerful and effective than
the current cluster *** we're involved with.

Also, about 1/3 of all the Apollo lunar astronauts have had a
signifcant spiritual experience from their voyage. Some have become
artists, others have entered clerical orders, still others have
started new age movements.

This suggests that it is a foolish sort of delaying tactic to wait
until we've figured everything out before we do what we can. it may
be, and in fact it is likely, that if we do all we can in space as
soon as we can, and let the chips fall where they may, we will find
that we are richly engaging live, and as a result, emerge as world
leaders for reasons quite different than any we could predict.

Put differently, if say Edgar Mitchell's Noetic Institute, informed by
a steady stream of lunar and mars explorers grew in depth, breadth,
and relevance to a growing number of young people, we might find the
appeal of 11th century muslim dogma among the muslim youth of the 21st
century far less compelling to that youth - and as a result - have a
distinctly different geopolitical climate today.


No I am not talking about a US
withdrawl

We should never have gone in the way we did, and we should do what we
can to secure peace and stability as we withdraw. Electing a new
President who apologizes to the Iraqi people and pledges that their
oil is their oil and pledges to work to restore to iraq that which is
theirs, would do a lot to end the violence there.

although that I think has to come. I am talking about 72
houris for killing yourself and a lot of other people to boot.
Religious people might well decide to put Ceres into the people who
say their prayers the wrong way. I just don't understand.

The US since the end of World War 2 has worried about a nuclear pearl
harbor - and has organized its affairs to avoid that at all costs.
One policy that has been put into place is a constant war footing in
peacetime. Eisenhower warned about the problems with this. Kennedy
wanted to convert the cold war into a space race and build up the
peace corps to end conflict. He was assasinated. Nixon, Eisenhower's
VP in the 1950s, took another tact. To avoid a nuclear pearl harbor
the US observed that poor nations seldom attack rich nations and
succeed. So, we instituted a policy of large disparities of income
between US citizens and the rest of the world. The US consumes 31% of
the food in the world and 22% of the energy in the world, even though
it has only 4.8% of the people in the world. This large disparity
provides a military multiplier that theoretically makes the US more
secure, but it also creates a natural tendency of foreigners,
especially poor foreigners to see the US as a problem for their future
growth. No worries, the US would use its significant political and
intelligence muscle to undermine any such groups that disliked the US
and remove them from power by hook or by crook- Nixon did this in
Chile, and the US routinely fixes elections throughout the world.
This does not endear the US to other nations.

But despite this hammerlock over world affairs, the US was attacked by
the poorest of the poor using terrorist tactics. This is a clear
indicator that we must change our tactics because our tactics are not
securing our long term stability and strength. A clear admission of
this by the US and an abandonment of the international dirty tricks
that the US engages in, along with a commitment to be a good
international citizen, would do wonders for US leadership in the
global community.

Many people attack the US saying we're evil. The US is manifestly not
evil. The US wishes to secure its future in an uncertain and hostile
world. It cannot sit and wait until the nuclear ICBMs are falling on
its cities to respond. It must take preemptive action - and that's
what it has done since the creatoin of the CIA and NSA and other
agencies in the Truman administration. But it is time for far seeing
leaders to recognize that the success of this control paradigm is at
an end with 9/11 and we must take a different approach if we wish to
see continued US leadership through the 21st century. Failure to do
the effective things will result in the destruction of the US, by
hardening opposition to the US uniformly throughout the rest of the
world, and by weakening the support of its policies by its people and
even its political leaders.

Its time the secret agencies came out of the closet and fairly and
clearly spelled out to the nation what is going on, and seek a public
referendum of how we should proceed, since the experts are taking us
in the wrong direction unable to break free from the organizatoinal
structures they are caught in.


- Ian Parker


.