Provisional Ethics in a Post-Apocalyptic World

(Warning: Spoiler alert if you've not yet seen 'The Road' but plan to!)

More and more research discloses that ethics arose naturally out of human community-building, long before the first organized religions. For example, in the earliest hunter- gathering culture, the sort of "survival of the strongest" shtick, where the largest and mostly male tribe members grabbed their chunks of meat first - would never have enabled human survival later. No, a basic tribal ethics had to emerge, which ensured a sharing of scarce resources - whether for food or fuel. Those tribes that adopted such basic ethical sharing (such as we now observe in the lab with chimps and Capuchin monkeys) were found to endure and survive while the "Me first, 'cause I'm biggest" didn't last. Thus, a rudimentary ethics was adopted as a means of ensuring better adaptation and survival.

When the change occurred from hunter-gatherer culture to agrarian this became even more critical. The bounty of growing large food crops meant an even more enhanced chance of survival since every manjack of the tribe contributed. It would be anathema therefore to exclude any member, weak or small, female or child - from receiving his or her fair share.

Thus, ethical emergence never was founded on absolutist principles or precepts. These only arrived later as organized religions sought to impose their own brands of mind control - and found that absolute edicts were the best way to do that. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church - rather than permitting some forms of sex before marriage (e.g. masturbation) absolutely ruled out all. Meanwhile, a provisional ethics (the midway pragmatic ethics between absolutist and relativist) would allow masturbation for hormone-beseiged adolescents to gain relief but no intercourse. (Which presumes a level of maturity they lack).

Of course, the most extreme testing ground for any ethics inheres in the most extreme situations. Then, what does one do, how does one apply ethics? We have seen examples of the provisional and pragmatic basis for example, given by Kai Neilsson in his brilliant Ethics Without God. As one extreme example, he considers four spelunkers who are exploring a deep cave, 1,500' below the surface. A rockfall closes the cave at one end while one member - a very obese guy - has found himself trapped in the only other available opening. The group has two choices: all die of oxygen deprivation or find some means whereby most can escape.

Absolutist ethics rules that all must die rather than any one sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of the others. Provisional ethics, meanwhile, argues that the optimum outcome is for most of the party to survive- however that is achieved. In Neilsson's example, one of the spelunker's happens to have a stick of dynamite and a match and inserts it into the obese guy's boot to detonate him - thereby opening the only available path so the remaining three can escape. Yes, there's a risk of another cave in, but it's the only shot the group has and it works, since all more prosaic efforts to dislodge the obese man were for naught.

In the same way we beheld an application of provisional ethics in the case of a nun doctor who was summarily excommunicated from the RC Church because she saved a pregnant mom and permitted her fetus to die. The issue was that the mom's blood pressure was increasing malignantly and would have surely killed her if she'd been forced into labor. The nun had two choices: save the fetus and let the mom die, or spare the mom and let the fetus die (without any birth). The nun reasoned the fetus was nascent human life but the mom was full fledged human life- manifested as an autonomous thinking and fully conscious person. Therefore, the mom had the greater claim to life. Meanwhile, absolutist ethics would have argued that an effort to save both ought to have been made, despite the fact that medically both would have died.

Now, we move consideration to the nature of any ethics in a post-apocalyptic world. A recent scenario to consider is from the controversial film, 'The Road'. In the film we behold a family of three- mom, Dad and baby- suddenly thrust into a world where everything has collapsed. The story doesn't make the cause of civilization's collapse specific, but the narrator ('the Man' or husband) informs us there were multiple "percussions" and "flares of light" - leading us to think of nuclear war. As we see the world outside turn cold and gray this cause is reinforced by what we know about the "nuclear winter" effect.

There are no animals to speak of, all the plant life has died, and the trees are collapsing one by one as they wither from lack of sunlight. Basically, over ten septillion tons of debris and dust released by the nuclear explosions into the atmosphere has blocked out almost all sunlight, thereby paving the way for food chain collapse - since there is no more photosynthesis. This means no food, and the nuclear blasts themselves - via the EMP or electromagnetic pulse effects- would have shut down all power grids. So people, to keep warm, have to break up their furniture and use it for firewood. Once that's exhausted they've no choice but to leave home and hearth and move on, looking for whatever food and fuel available. This is where we pick up the Man and Boy in the opening sequence.

When the film joins the post-apocalyptic scene, it is ten years (roughly) after the original events and the Man and the boy are scrounging for food and near starvation. At every turn they must also dodge and hide to avoid the eyes of roving predatory cannibal gangs. These gangs round up whoever they see that's vulnerable, rape them if they're mothers or kids, then chop them up and devour them for food.

At one point, the Man and boy narrowly escape one such gang, as the Man (Viggo Mortensen) is forced to shoot one predator who has grabbed the boy.

By way of flashback, we also see what happened to the wife. In that scene, maybe a year earlier she's shown holding a pistol with only two shells left. She berates the Man (none of them are given names) about not letting her use the pistol to kill herself and the boy when they had more shells. She points out to him: "All the other families are doing it. Killing themselves. If we wait here and do nothng you know what will happen! They will first rape me, then our boy, then eat us!" (And indeed, in an earlier, pre-flashback scene, Man and boy encounter a farm where the family have hung themselves. The boy asks "Why?" and the Man responds, "You KNOW why!"

It is here the first hint of provisional ethics enters. Clearly, this world without food has only two classes of people remaining: predators and prey. One may choose to live by becoming a predator and eating his fellow humans, or live as prey - to be endlessly pursued by the cannibal predators (no other kind are depicted) and scrounging always for anything to eat in the throes of gnawing hunger and the edge of starvation. (One problem with the film is Man and Boy are depicted as "above it all" and able to live beyond this base polarity by simply ordinary food scrounging. They happen to luck out once and find an underground cache of canned goods. (Then leave, carrying some of them away, when they hear noises above.) But one must be realistic here: in this world only so many such concealed canned stores can be available and everyone - including predators - will be competing to find them!)

Two scenes in the film reinforce this predator-prey paradigm to different degrees, and why one must conclude that familial suicide is actually a rational ethical option in this world:

1) The Man and Boy happen into a home or mansion that at first sight appears like it may have provisions. While inside they spy a trap door which has been locked and smash it open. They enter and wend their way along when they come upon a most grisly sight: naked and starving people screaming for help- manacled in chains- and covered in blood, with body organs scattered over the floor. Man and boy make a run for it and barely escape to a top floor when a trio of scruffy looking renegades enter. These are the cannibals, and what they do is keep the people that originally lived in the home chained downstairs so they can lop off their limbs and body parts when needed, to cook and eat them (there are large pots in the yard for cooking the parts and inside the tub and sink are blood spattered from chopping up limbs).

After Man and boy escape the house of horrors they hide in the woods as the predators use a telescope to survey the landscape and try to locate the intruders. Minutes later, loud chopping sounds and screams fill the air - obviously the cannibals have gone to work to chop up more parts of living bodies to barbecue in their cooking pots for food.

2) Sometime later, in a wood, while headed south (for warmth) the Man and boy hear a noise and hide then see a gang of predators pursuing a lone mother and child. After the gang catches up to them, all that can be heard are piteous screams and cries. Then silence.

The Man, based on these events, understands that it's better for the Boy to learn how to kill himself - if and when the critical time comes - then be captured alive and multiple horrors practiced on him. To that end, he shows the Boy how to hold the pistol with the lone shell left in it. He is to point the barrel directly down his throat then pull the trigger. (The mother's choice, since she wanted the two remaining bullets to be left for husband and son, was simply to walk into the night and - presumably- drown herself in a nearby river.)

Some absolutists, of course, will try to argue that the "morally right" thing is to live at all costs. But if they say that, I invite them to see this film, not just merely parse it from the brief descriptions here. Both my wife and I agreed that if such an aftermath ever befell the planet, suicide would definitely be the most ethical and rational option. It certainly would not be ethical to slay others and eat them to live!

What we see then is that it is from extreme cases and examples that a true ethical structure can be tested. Many will say that the depictions of life in 'The Road' are fanciful, but they'd be most unwise to jump to that conclusion. We have a set of possible events that could lead to exactly the scenario confronted in the movie, including: 1) a nuclear exchange - of at least 30% of all the world's existing nuclear stockpiles, 2) an asteroid strike - Torino scale 8 or larger, 3) rapid change in the Gulf current incepted from climate change and disruption of thermohaline circulation leading to a new ice age precipitated.

Other scenarios to consider would arise from: 4) Peak Oil (which would limit energy sources, and hence food output - but not eliminate food sources entirely since animals would exist in multifold areas), and 5) Phase just preceding full immersion into the runaway Greenhouse effect. (Of course, in the runaway Greenhouse itself - with temperatures approaching 100 C, no organic life or very little would survive, and clearly few humans. But just before the critical threshold, human life would greatly resemble that depicted in The Road, except with fierce heat dominating as opposed to cold.

Whatever the future, it would do well for any rational human to have a provisional ethics back up to lean on!

Why Have the Dems Turned into Weak Wusses?

This is the $64 question, now that it appears obvious they will lose every major confrontation with the Repukes over the extension of the Bush tax cuts - likely ending with at least two years of tax cuts extended as a "compromise" for the wealthiest (at a cost of nearly $140 billion) as the price to get any for the Middle class extended. But as I noted in earlier blogs, NONE of them ought to be extended given the parlous deficit crisis we are allegedly facing.

The argument that the tax cuts will create more jobs is totally and irredeemably bogus! Tax cuts do not create jobs, at least not jobs on a par with their cost. It would be vastly better, if an economic jigger is needed, to pass the unemployment benefits extension and let millions use those benefits to buy groceries, pay off mortgages, and utilities - and maybe have a few bucks left over to get little Johnnie and Susie a stocking with some candy canes.

This is bad enough, but reading in today's paper that the Dems will let the rich tax cuts pass without even making a case for unemployment benefits extension as the minimal price - is inexcusable! How has it come to this? More, how has it come to Dems not being able to prevail in any long term arguments with the Rs? Are they that much brighter? C'mon! Something is amiss here!

What is amiss - the clear giveaway- was mentioned by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media,Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.

It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries.

A new generation of economists trumpeted the value of applying market principles to all communication policy matters, as one of them put it, 'the ancient regime was often dominated by ad hoc prescriptions premised on shaky economics applied to dubious histories'."

In other words, the virus of Neoliberalism is at the root of the rot in the Democratic party - why they have long since ceased fighting for the poor working man, and now can barely lift their voices to defend the interests of the beseiged Middle Class - even as they prepare to vote through $140 billion for two years of tax cuts for the rich.

Now, it is a sad and sorry state that many of our populace have no grasp of Neoliberalism and appear to confuse it with traditional Liberalism. This is tragic, but why be surprised when an estimated 1 in 2 Americans are so woefully ignorant they confuse National Socialism with genuine Socialism?

Liberalism in the traditional sense has always been about defending and expanding personal rights and liberties, whether for speech, property protections, or in the venue of economics in terms of social justice and fairness. The Liberal in the latter sense demands a LIVING WAGE for the working population, which is defined as a wage that would accommodate basic needs in any community, without having to work more than one 8 hr/day job. Meanwhile, his Neoliberal counterpart says "Oh NO!" He argues the "free market" must decide wage scales and how many are hired and where hired. Never mind the "free market" has long since become coercive, as Charles Reich has noted ('Opposing the System', 1996). Because of centralization of many corporations and application of the same hierarchical managerial structure to all, the same rules generally apply. Workers therefore have no choice in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It is 'take it or leave it'. Hardly a free market!

The Neoliberal then, is all about worship of the free market and free market forces as basic empirical definers to how much an individual or society can attain. In his skewed universe, all would be well if the "market" would just be permitted free rein, laissez faire to the googleplex power, and devil take the hindmost! Deus ex machina anyone? This is why the Neoliberal pundit, wag or political hack now seeks to retrench benefits and entitlements, since he's invested in the basic thesis is each manjack ought to be able to make or earn his own way. If the government assists, then this "reduces personal initiative" to get ahead or so the Neolib argument goes! He doesn't seem to reckon that in times of insecurity most people will be driven be their most basic fears, not by some economic abstraction that doesn't exist.

Neoliberalism also extols the hegemony of the corporation as the fundamental unit of society, over flesh and blood humans. Oh, the Neoliberal will spout empty words proclaiming human worth and the need to contain or control corporate greed, but these are simple mechanical mouthings. For Neoliberal politicians, it's simple: it is those corporations that pay the bulk of his campaign expenses, via their contributions, and make his election runs possible. He dare not move beyond rhetoric to undercut their agendas.

How or where the Neoliberal toxin took hold in the Dem Party is a matter of conjecture, but most believe it started with pseudo-liberal Wuss Michael Kinsley, in an article in The Atlantic in the 80s. (Older readers may recall Kinsley sat opposite Pat Buchanan in the old CNN Crossfire series, and always got his butt handed to him by the Patster because of his meek bearing, weak voice and weaker arguments). The piece defined market empirical measures as the optimum way to share benefits from taxes, etc. as opposed to merely giving money out to the needy and poor, a la Johnson's "Great society" in the 1960s.

If a market measure didn't justify a support basis, say for unemployment benefits, or child health care, it wasn't to be done.

Why adopt this strategy? Kinsley and the honchos who were later to become the "DLC" (Democratic Leadership Council, aka "Republicans Lite") believed this was the best way to counter the Republican pro-business obsession. Hence, DLC strategy in this regard enabled Bill Clinton to out maneuver the Repukes on welfare in 1996, by actually supporting a welfare to work reform bill. (Of course, this earned Bill the undying contempt of many Liberals).

If the Dems could beat the Repugs at their own game, via Neoliberalism, why not use it? Well, because ultimately, it would make consolidating an activist base (reared as such from the time of JFK) reluctant to consistently ally itself with them. This is why many old line Dems have simply stopped voting, period. They couldn't stomach how the D-party sold itself out for political expediency, and how it's lost the will to fight for the common man.

How far were the Dems prepared to go in their new Neolib conversion? Well as far or further than newly minted Evangelicals, all full of piss, vinegar, fire and brimstone.

John Farrell, writing 4 years ago in his Sunday Denver Post column ('Lost liberals ponder path back to power'), observed that these "new Dems have no intentions of ever going back to any kind of economic populism" (read: join the struggle for the working man, woman) again. He quotes in his piece author Thomas Frank ('What's the Matter with Kansas?') and the degree of the Dems' capitulation to the corporate overseers (ibid.):

"the Democratic establishment is absolutely determined to not let that old-school economic populism back in the door, they would rather lose elections. And they do. They lose and they lose and they lose."

And, of course, having jettisoned the old school populism of FDR, JFK etc. they have lost elections - lots, like in '80, '84, '88, and more recently 2000, 2004 and 2010. (Though many rightly argue Bush had the 2000 election handed to him by 5 Supremes). The Dems may also lose again, White House, in '12 - if they don 't get their act together and finally organize around a credible economic populism. But how can they when their paymasters, the corporate elites and power brokers, are the ones underpinning the Neoliberal thrust?

Unsettling as it may be, the Neoliberal germ is also what would explain, account for Obama's "Deficit commission" which renders its alleged "prescription" on the basis of an "emergency" (exploding and unsustainable deficits - never mind they say nothing about halting the Bush tax cuts) and which would impose unfathomable and needless hardship on millions of Americans.

Is Obama himself a Neoliberal? (Contrary to what many who elected him in '08 believed). It would make sense, given the whole Dem establishment has taken that kool aid. And as R.J. Eskow observes in a recent blog:

"Despite the right-wing ideology behind the proposal, despite the bizarre inversion of goals that leads a "deficit commission" to cut revenue, and despite the co-chairs' mismanagement and public outbursts, reports indicate that the president is inclined to include many of its recommendations in his next budget. The administration has been determined to make cost-cutting proposals that affect Social Security, for a long time, according to all indications.

If the president moves to cut Social Security -- whether it's by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or both -- it would be catastrophic: for his presidency, for his party, and for the nation. Every "yes" vote on the commission tomorrow make it more likely he'll do so.

How disastrous would that course of action be? A recent poll the depth of emotion on the issue: Seven out of ten voters opposes cutting Social Security to fix the deficit...

Make no mistake: These cuts will be laid at the feet of President Obama and any Democrat who supports them. There will be no passing the buck."

If Obama wishes to show he's not hostage to the Neoliberal paradigm, he needs to draw the line and renounce any plans to enter Social Security cuts in any future budget. Unfortunately, his very creation of this "commission" doesn't redound to his favor. He had to know before Alan Simpson made his first off the cuff remark about Social Security ("Sucking at 310 million tits") that all its off the wall proposals would be traced to him at the source. It also had many people scratching their heads why a putative Dem President would install a commission with the potential to weaken or destroy the most sacrosanct Dem programs (Social Security, Medicare). But if one groks the Neolib mindset this isn't a mystery, it would embody the ultimate step to separate the party from "economic populism".

Alas, Obama betrayed his Neolib DNA at his post-mortem conference by saluting Big Business and the "free market". He said: "The reason we've got an unparalled standard of living in the history of the world is because we've got a free market that is dynamic and entrepeneurial and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated." Straight out of the neoliberal DLC handbook! And why many progressives who voted for him now feel like they were bamboozled by his floaty rhetoric. (Though I was not one, as I always pegged him to be right-of -center and most likely Neolib but preferable to Insane McCain. ) This explains why Obama merely goes through the motions and endorses Bowles' and Simpson's remedies. The tragedy is he'll likely assure not only that he's a one-termer, but the Democratic Party itself goes the same way as the Whigs. A true tragedy given the party of FDR and his Liberal principles, has veered so far off course to pander to the very Big Business honchos FDR despised.

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble brought together every 4 years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin.

Bolstering the Power Grid (2)

Shown is a trailer-based dynamic synchronous condenser, of the type used by the TVA. The compact size allows many of these HTS devices to be used in the grid system to avert power blackouts.



We continue where we left off, examining how voltage collapse can be prevented in a power grid using HTS technology. The point was made that capacitative elements inserted in a grid system can prevent or significantly limit voltage collapse because the current leads the voltage for capacitative reactances (X_C).

The primary problem with the U.S. power grid is the lack of volt-amp-reactive (VAR) dynamic compensation elements. Instead, an array of conventional methods are employed to give a rough equivalence to true VAR-compensation. If instead of this approach, HTS dynamic synchronous condensers (see image) were more generally used many advantages would accrue, including:

i) Large Q (imaginary) power output
ii) Rapid dynamic response
iii) Minimizing of switching transients
iv) Long term reliability from the stable operating temperature (of HTS coils)


To better grasp the HTS condenser’s remarkable abilities, a basic inductive physics set-up (often employed to teach physics students) is useful. We obtain a U-shaped magnet wrapped with n turns of conducting wire. Then the magnetic flux induced in the gap is proportional to nI (product of turns by the current) and inversely proportional to the gap length, x. Thus:

Flux ~ n I/ x

Note as x is decreased, the flux gets larger. In like manner, the closely spaced iron teeth in rotor and armature of a conventional motor are closely spaced precisely to enhance the flux by minimizing the gaps. Logically then, a machine with HTS rotor coils and no iron teeth has much greater effective gap between the armature coils and magnetic components in the core.

This lowers the flux, but this is compensated for by the fact the high current density HTS wire is so fine that many more turns n are allowed. This enables any HTS device to generate a much greater flux than its conventional counterpart.

When d.c. HTS rotor coils spin they generate a time –varying flux that induces an rms excitation voltage (V_e) according to Faraday’s law such that: V_e = - d(phi)/dt

Where 'phi' is the magnetic flux.

Meanwhile, the a.c. armature current I(a) induces a back emf (V_b) in the armature coils that is proportional to I(a) but out of phase with it. The proportionality constant is denoted as X_s the synchronous reactance. Then:

V_e = X_s I(a) - V_b

Now, the sum of the two voltages induced in the armature coil must equal the grid voltage: V_G, so the out of phase reactive armature current coupled to the grid is given by:

I(a) = X_s[V_e - V_G]

Note what happens above, say if the grid voltage V_G drops below the level set by V_e, say to V_e/10 or 0.01 (V_e). Then the HTS synchronous condenser injects capacitative current into the grid. If the converse holds, and V_G > V_e, the condenser injects inductive current. (Since recall the current lags behind the voltage). Most importantly, the magnitude of V_e can be adjusted in seconds by changing the HTS rotor coil current.

It is precisely the "hair-trigger" control over V_e that allows a dynamic response to the VAR-compensation needs of the grid.

Thankfully, first generation HTS wire-based dynamic sychronous condensers have already been field tested by the TVA (Tennessee Vallee Authority), and additional orders have been placed. This is good, but such technological enhancements need to be made throughout the U.S. grid to bring us up to date, as electrical power needs ramp up.

This will be especially important as global warming is exacerbated, with mean global temperatures` expected to increase by a further 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. (That is the average expected, it could be lower or higher). This means there'll be more prolonged heat waves and of greater intensity with higher night time temperatures - leading to a vastly higher draw down of power as millions in cities struggle to stay cool with their air conditioning. Unless grid capacity is majorly enhanced, along with its ability to deal with variable loads (from fault currents), surges ...this country is in for a lot of trouble.

The Utter Foolishness of "Hell"

In this blog we return to more letters from the M-Brane Mailbag, this time concerning "Hell", or rather the claims for such and the purported existence of - and what serious people need to do to prove their claims (or more accurately, THEIR claims made on behalf of semi-literate nomads claims in ancient texts). Here we go!

1) As an atheist aren't you the least worried if you don't get saved you'll end up in Hell?

Jeanne, New Orleans, La.


Not one bit. The reason is that I understand and realize "Hell" is a phantasmagoria, a myth, a piece of ancient refuse from a shattered mind, and not worth donkey lickspittle. This is from two points of view: historical and logical. Let's examine each.

First, one of the things we had to study as students of Theology 200 at Loyola (in 1965) was the origin of Hell. Today, this is mostly glossed over and while millions hear or see the word “Hell” blathered about (as by ignorant ministers and “pastors”) they are unaware of the origin. Thus unaware, they are prey to the mental predators who pander to baseless fears via the brain's amygdala - in order to exert CONTROL. This is the only reason for retaining any concept of Hell today: to try to gain control of people's choice and minds through naked fear. If they can get a wayward mind to succumb to their fear, they feel validated. These are pathetic people (like the Rev. James Dobons, Billy Graham , Fred Phelps et al.) who really belong in institutions strapped to ECT machines.

Unknown to most is that the most common afterlife teaching (by Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Adamantius) in the early centuries after Christ’s death was metempsychosis. Unlike reincarnation, which metempsychosis is often confused with, the same soul exists and is resurrected in a succession of different human bodies in an evolutionary process. (Ordinary reincarnation, meanwhile, allows for reincarnation into animal bodies, even after a human incarnation, which metempsychosis does not. The inability of MacDonald's to market beef burgers in India is a direct result of the Hindu proscription against killing cattle- believed to be reincarnations of their ancestors. Daft belief? Maybe! But "Hell" is even more daft, plus derelict!)

The Christian metempsychosis teaching probably endured for at least 500 years before later Church fathers decided (at the 2nd Council of Constantinople)that it gave men too much time to seek God. Thus, a device had to be used to spur on and speed the desire for redemption. The device decided on was “Hell”. Now, recall this was around 400 A.D. and there were NO evangelicals skulking around with their KJVs in hand. There was only ONE Church, one religion: the Catholic one. So anything that later accrued or occurred had to have been COPIED from these early times, Church teachings, doctrines, dogmas and canons. Thus, any claims evanglicals make to being "original" in anything - especially their acceptance of "Hell" - is pure lies and balderdash. They are merely lying to themselves and their people if they believe they are the first Christians. No! They spun off from the RC Church like all the other Protestants (that's why they're called Protestants, because they "protested" Rome's claims to original truth).

The general tack for inventing Hell was to take certain passages in the then Latin Vulgate that referred to “Gehenna”, which was really a dump for burning offal outside Jerusalem, and amp that burning pit into an everlasting abode for punishment. What better way to punish than by fire, which is about the most painful, as anyone who’s ever touched a red hot frying pan or stove knows! Thus, Gehenna became the putative basis for eternal torment at the Council. All teachings to do with metempsychosis were ordered expunged, and any transgressors were to be listed as "heretics". In a firm outline of the properties of Hell, the Council further mandated:

- It become the final abode of eternal punishment for all who rejected the Church's teachings or the Pope's authority

- It include the agency of fire and this fire never be quenched - and further it have the capacity to burn the soul without destroying it permanently (else there'd be no "eternal" aspect)

- Hell was under the governance of "Satan" or Lucifer, with a hierarchy of sub-Devils (Asmodeus, Belial, Pazuzu et al) to administer other punishments

- All non-Catholics, because of they're being outside the state of sanctifying grace, to be destined for Hell

The other job mandated by the Council was to insert the words and references to “Hell” into the scriptures and this duty was charged to various transcribers, translators. At key points also Jesus had to make the odd reference to it, including the threat of punishment for those who refused to believe: specifically “accepting” him as Savior (e.g. the bogus John 3: 16) . This is skewered by Oxford Scholar Geza Vermes in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, who points out any such belief on Christ's part would have been interpreted as self-idolatry. He never ever referred to himself as "Son of God" only as "Son of Man", nor did he dictate any belief be accorded him. All such references were fraudulent later additions.

In the context of the Hell invention, it was also necessary to erect a whole fantasy story about the background. The faithful were thereby led to believe an actual spiritual war was going on with beautiful angels at constant odds with cunning devils, demons and wights. The usual Church depiction beheld God and his fair-complexioned friends on one side, battling Satan and his dark, leather-skinned devils on the other side. (Atheists are still waiting for a clip of these battles to be aired on CNN.)

Add in assorted “demons”, largely copied wholesale from ancient pagan legends and beliefs (e.g. Zoroastrianism)and you have a veritable demonic menagerie to populate Hell with its assorted tormentors. Later, diabolical “possession” (and exorcism) was also invented to enhance the fear factor, and other biblical passages altered to reflect it – leaving millions of gullible believers to buy into this too. The stage was set!

But was it real? NO! As noted by Rev. John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc …

Hell was invented as a control tactic to control minds. As Sponge notes “people don’t need to be born again but to GROW UP. “ The Hell myth is used as a cudgel to drive people into a control system where no one may question any elements of the beliefs. What we then have are whole groups, namely evangelicals, who take everything literally (when if they had an ounce of education they'd see their KJV Bible is corrupt and defective) and try to reduce people's minds and judgments to fear reactions.


Secondly, Hell doesn't work from the point of view of logic. Analyze it from the perspective of one or other of the five basic truth functions (see, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/truth-claims-and-propositions-how-to.html ) which are:

i) The 'negator': Not-p. Expresses that function of p which is true when p is false, and that which is false when p is true.

ii) The disjunction: p OR q: This is a function whose truth value is 'truth' when p is true and also when q is true. The truth value is falsehood when both p and q are false.

iii) The conjunction: p AND q: Has 'truth' for its truth value when BOTH p and q are true, otherwise falsehood.

iv) Incompatibility: ~ (p /\ q). E.g. p and q are not both true, or the negation of conjunction (iii). It is also the disjunction of the negations of p and q, i.e. not-p or not-q. The truth value appends 'truth' when p is false, and also when q is false. Likewise, the truth value appends falsehood if both are true.

v) Implication: p->q (p implies q) or "if p, then q". This can be generalized in various ways, e.g."Unless p is false, q is true" OR: "Either p is false or q is true".


Now in the context of the claim for Hell, its truth or falsity rests on first making a conclusion which must start from a premise. A number of them can be tried, and found to fail, unless one renders the premise in very narrow terms.

Example (1): "As an infinite Being, God must demand an infinite punishment"

In fact this fails a number of truth functions, including: (i), (ii), (iii) and (v). Let's look at two of these by way of example, for logical failure and hence failure of the claim.

By (ii), disjunction, the truth value is falsehood when both p and q are false. In the claim both p and q are rendered false by consideration of the definitions themselves, for "infinite" and "infinite punishment". Now, "infinite" means extended to or pervading all of Being. There is literally no place left where - whatever it is- doesn't exist. Hence, if applied to "God" it means all inclusive of reality. However, IF Hell is interjected, it contradicts the proposition by inserting a sub-manifestation of an "eternal" existence which limits that which is claimed "infinite".

Thus, if Hell is asserted to exist and is eternal then God cannot be infinite. If God is maintained to be infinite - meaning all inclusive of Being- the only conclusion is that Hell must be a part of God! The only way to make the proposition work, then, is to remove the infinite claim on either end. God can therefore only be a FINITE Being if It demands a literal "hellish" punishment, which can only exist a finite length of time (since no finite Being can be eternal). Note that "infinite punishment" is also excluded, since to enable this would require a punishment infinite in time, space and intensity - which a putative finite Being simply can't accommodate.

This also supports the truth function for (iv) Incompatibility: ~ (p /\ q). E.g. p and q are not both true. Since God cannot be both infinite and demand infinite punishment then it follows the two partitioned claims "infinite Being" and "infinite punishment" cannot both be true. Now, does this leave open that an infinite Being can feasibly impart a finite punishment? Yes, and this fits in with what many theologians accept: that a given soul requires a period of purification before it can be accommodated in the Divine presence. (Which is simply what the Catholic Church refered to as "Purgatory").

Today, it is not so much as punishment, but a necessary purification or better, "tempering" of the spirit before it can withstand the infinite energy of God's presence. (Much like steel is tempered to be much stronger by intense heating etc.)


(2) I have seen in a couple earlier blogs where you argued that an infinite God can't co-exist with Hell because then its infinity would have to be shared with Hell, so God would no longer be infinite (since a true infinite entity can't share or divide itself). I get this, but isn't it possible God, being able to do anything, could set aside a part of His being just to punish people (like you atheists!) forever? - Allan B., Las Cruces, NM

Okay, here I refer you again to the basic truth functions above, especially (i) the Negation or Negator.. Once more while a God can do about anything It chooses, it can't contradict its very nature. To allow such would invite Negation , which is the incompatibility of a proposition with itself, or p<->p. In this case, God's infinitude is contradicted by managing to fabricate a "place" or abode ("Hell") which delimits that infinitude.

Further, as per the link I gave above, one cannot assume a "logical deduction" unless there exists a relationship between the premise and the conclusion such that we have a right to expect the conclusion IF we know the premise is true (Russell, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, p. 145). From this it follows that two truth functions which have the same truth value for all values of the argument are indistinguishable. Thus, p and q are the negations of not-p and not-q. In this case, "infinite" and "good" are the negations of "finite" and "evil" when it comes to formulating conclusions that integrate both "God" and "Hell".

Again, the end result is self-evident: no formal conclusion based on a claimed true proposition (premise), can employ both an "eternal Hell" and "infinite God" in a sensible unified link. There is simply no premise which uses both that leads to a sensible conclusion.

This won't stop people from trying, of course, since humans are naturally averse to giving up their pet ideations if their beliefs are contingent on them. But they ought to at least realize they aren't going to persuade anyone outside their cults unless they can formulate their claims about Hell, Heaven, God or soul, with logical rigor.

This they have thus far been unable to do!

A Nation that's lost Its Mind, Moorings and Sense

Why are these three Republican miscreants looking like 3 cats that swallowed 3 canaries? Probably because they know a "compromise" is forthcoming from the weak-wussy Dems that will award tax cuts for the rich totalling at least $140 billion over two years, while unemployed "99ers" and kids have to suck salt this Xmas.



Bob Herbert's recent NY Times op-ed column, 'America is Hiding from Reality', really told it as it is. As he put it:

"We're in denial about the extent of rot in the system and the effort that would be required to turn it around. It will likely take many years, perhaps a decade or more, to get employment back to a level at which one could fairly say the economy is thriving"


And yet despite this fact (also explained in detail in my two blogs on 'The Great American Decline') the Repukes in congress have refused extending unemployment benefits to nearly 800,000 for whom the deadline expired two nights ago. And by Xmas, two million more unemployed will be dumped from the rolls - also sending 2.5 million of their kids into food insecurity, want and possible malnutrition - because a few assholes on the Right side of the aisle would prefer to extend tax cuts for the rich. Those would add $700 BILLION to the deficit over ten years, and $70 billion for a one year extension alone, while extending unemployment benefits for another year would cost about $65 billion - and immediately fuel a much needed economic stimulus as those people buy groceries, gas, pay utilities and even maybe a couple toys for their kids at Xmas.

We have a nation: government and people, trapped in the shadows and insanity of their own delusionary thinking when the times call for cold, clear logic and an enormous dollop of common sense. But where is it? Not from a certain segment of the people- many of whom keep insisting they want their tax cuts though they have to know their Social Security and Medicare will then have to suffer cuts later. Not from the government, which continues its idiotic turkey dance on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts or not while at the same time declaring the bona fides of a "deficit commission" that needs "to make hard choices". REALLY?? Then, why the hell not make the first and easiest "hard" choice which eliminates automatically $3.7 trillion of potential deficit over the next ten years and let ALL BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE!

The Dems keep playing soft, pander-to me- math games by asserting they want to let only the Middle class tax cuts (defined as $250k and up) to go forward, while the reeps want all to go forward, with the wealthiest 2% benefiting disproportionately. This is a fool's errand, as ALL the cuts ought to expire. The Dems' game is based on phony numbers and dishonesty since they refuse to level with their constituents that we're talking about marginal rates and given their existing threshold ($250 k) the wealthiest 1% will still get a tax cut that amounts to nearly $6,300 a year on average (compared to about $350 for a $40k/yr earner) , while if the higher end cuts went forward (as the Reptiles desire) this would amount to about $70,000/yr. (Or equivalent to 225 weeks of added average unemployment benefits.)

In other words, if the Dems could mount an honest argument for once, and trust the intellects of their constituents, they could inform them that the wealthy are still getting tax cuts even if just the Middle class cuts pass! But rather than do that they engage in verbal and political gamesmanship with the Reeps, who are no better and no more honest - arguing the rich tax cuts will "lead to more employment" when all the accumulated evidence of the past decade discloses the exact opposite.

A Financial Times analysis from two months ago, by Richard Bernstein, noted:

“Our own examination of U.S. non-residential investment indicate the reduction in capital gains tax rates failed to spur U.S. business investment and failed to improve U.S. economic competitiveness”

In other words, the FT’s findings were exactly opposite to what had been touted by the 2001-2003 cuts’ cheerleaders (many of the same people who claim that extending the Bush cuts to the wealthiest now is critical for job formation).

The FT’s analysis continued:

“The 2000s- that is the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in U.S. postwar history for real, non-residential capital investment. Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures. Rather the slowdown accelerated to a full decline”


Contrast this with the hike in taxes (which the current expiry of Bush cuts would revert to, about 39.5%) immediately after Bill Clinton took office, leading to the accumulation of more than $600 billion in surpluses by the time he left office, and the creation of 20 million jobs.

Meanwhile, the FT analysis observes that “during each decade from the 1950s to the 1990s, growth in real gross non-residential investment averaged between 3.5 percent and 7.4 percent a decade. During the 2000s it averaged a mere 1%”.

For reference, the top marginal tax rate during the Bush years (for income tax) was reduced to 36% from the 39.5% during the 1990s Clinton Years. Over the 1950s and into the 1960s (until about 1964) the top marginal rate was at 91%, going down to 65% by the mid -60s. The low level of 39.5% wasn’t hit until Reagan arrived in 1980, and passed his tax cuts. (And we note here that the debt as a percentage of GDP rose to nearly 30% during the Reagan years, caused by his tax cuts in conjunction with military spending that amounted to nearly $2.2 trillion over his tenure).

Simple, elementary common sense discloses that the way to pump up the economy is not to hand more free money to the rich who will merely sit on it, speculate in hedge funds, or buy diamond jewelry, yachts and Ferraris. It's to extend unemployment benefits. Those people will spend it immediately and will deliver an estimates $1.50 per dollar invested, contrasted with 25 cents for middle class tax cuts, and 10 cents for higher end cuts.

And yet today's reports from the Associated Press include this amazing piece of codswallop:

"Congressional opponents of extending the the unemployment benefits beyond this month say fiscal responsibility should come first. Republicans in House and Senate say they're open to extending benefits but not if it means adding to the $13.8 trillion deficit"

But this is unadulterated horse manure! Because in the same breath, these "congressional opponents" are quite prepared to add $70 billion to the deficit next year, and another $70 billion the next via upper end tax cuts -with NO hint of paying for them, in order to grant the wealthiest a vastly higher amount of tax cut largesse than they'd receive if just the $250k and under 'middle class' cuts went through. Contrast this with $65 billion needed to extend unemployment benefits for one freaking year, to give a helping hand to over 6 million that will eventually need it, and their more than 9 million innocent victim kids. (Who will now be fortunate to receive an oatmeal cookie each this Christmas, while rich kids can look forward to jet skis, Kawasakis, land rovers the next! Is this "class warfare? Damned fuckin' A straight it is, and about damned time more 'Muricans also became class warriors, or suffer the consquences!)

So, the whole argument is bogus as a three-point-five dollar bill. It doesn't wash, yet few seem able to break through and see it. At the same time, people are hostage to this insane "deficit commission's" claims that draconian measures must be enacted to pare $3.7 trillion from the deficit over 9 years, when merely eliminating all the Bush cuts saves $3.7 million over ten, with no cuts in basic entitlements! Has the whole nation and government lost its collective reasoning power, or is it so ensnared in its own semantic mind games it finds honest argument and decisions impossible?

The same goes with the war-defense funding which continues to bleed away an estimated $715 billion per year, not including unpaid for "supplementals" to the Afhgan excursion - which easily total on average $160 billion a year. As Bob Herbert put it so well in his column (ibid.):

"The wreckage from the recession and the nation's mindlessly destructive policies in the years leading up to the recession is all around us. We still don't have the money to pay for the wars that we insist on fighting year after year. We have neither the will nor the common sense to either raise taxes to pay for the wars or stop fighting them".

So true! Neither the will or common sense to pay for these engagements-occupations, or stop fighting them. The delusions of empire, or more exactly a declining empire. And the major error committed was when we made the dreadful and fateful step to cross over from a democratic Republic to an Empire - preoccupied with extending military might to every corner of the planet, but minus the means or will to pay for this extravagance. Never heeding once John F. Kennedy's warning in his 1963 American University speech that peace can never be enforced by a Pax Americana - at the end of American weapons of war! Now we have American weapons of war everywhere, confronting every conceivable threat from the North Koreans, to Iran, to the Taliban, Al Qaeda and every snot-nosed gang of rag tag punks that fancies themselves terrorists, from the Phillippines to Indonesia to Yemen. Yet no money to pay for any of it unless we go to Chinese Bankers or beg bond traders to let us keep our triple A bond rating so we can get into more war debt, and soon....tax cut debt!

Meanwhile, the tax cut phobia, stoked by a political party that has only its own interests and not the nation's at heart, has done untold damage - sowing in millions of American minds that taxes are ooooh....sooo very bad and nasty! Soooooo "Un-American!" Which is more horse shit. As Matt Miller showed in his book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, tax cuts "aiding a nation are amongst the most dead of all". In terms of economic growth over time, it is in fact the European "welfare" states which beat the pants off the tax-phobic U.S. of A. The reason is simple: the people in those nations haven't had their brains subverted against higher taxes, and understand they are part of a commonweal whose shared interests those taxes support. They also get it that the spending generated by that "welfare" side of the economy is what props up the demand side of the macro-economic equation, and preserves growth while the "supply-side" economies (like the U.S.) suffer. Why do people think Germany has done so much better than the U.S. in weathering this recession?

When unemployment benefits for two million run out by Xmas - causing massive psychological harm as homes are foreclosed, and families forced into the cold streets or homeless shelters, wiser Europeans will look on and wonder how their American counterparts could be so blind and misled. How could a toxin introduced more than two hundred years ago, endorsing an unrealizable hyper-individuality, gain so much traction that it now threatens to permanently disable a once -great nation? One can only speculate, but observing the goings on in Washington today, makes it clear that this is a county that - for whatever reason- has surrendered its collective mind, moorings and sense.

As Bob Herbert put it:

"All we are good at is bulldozing money to the very wealthy, no wonder the country is in such a deeep slide....America will never get its act together until we recognize how much trouble we're in and how much effort and shared sacrifice are needed to stop the decline. "

The problem is, pending the outcome of the Bush tax cuts vote (or not), the decline may well be beyond any remote repair. If they are allowed to go through, for anyone, because of misplaced political pandering- it's mostly over but the dirges. Within 2-3 years a new "deficit" commission will arrive saying even steeper cuts are needed because of how the increased deficits from the tax cuts enlarged the existing deficits.

And so it goes.

Bolstering the Power Grid with New Technology (I)

The memory of the March, 1989 solar flare that produced a one –million amp surge in the Ottawa power grid remains fresh in the minds of many. As images from the overloaded circuits attested, the flare’s induced currents actually melted two-inch thick transmission cables. Service was out for at least two days,

The U.S. power grid is itself vulnerable, not only to intense solar flares but other breakdowns. Let’s face it the grid must be able to withstand fault currents which are thousands of times more frequent than 1-million amp induced flare currents. These fault currents are current surges from a short to a ground. Currently, tacit protection is afforded by circuit breakers designed to open within a few tenths of a second and some can support as much as 80,000 A for a brief time. The trouble is, as power sources have been added to expanding grids, fault currents have increased and demand for fault current limiters has grown.

Is there a better and cheaper way (long term) to address the problem of fault currents, and perhaps even those induced by moderate to large solar flares? The answer appears to be ‘yes’ with the onset of high temperature superconducting (HTS) cable technology, specifically rotating machinery of the type shown in Fig. 1. Here we have the most startling offshoot of HTS technology which can be applied directly to the grid: a dynamic synchronous condenser (capacitor). This is basically a rotating machine like a generator but minus an external mechanical energy source driving the motor. It provides out of phase currents to the power grid.

“Out of phase” may not be clear to most readers who’ve never taken university general physics, so I illustrate it using a C-R alternating circuit diagram in Fig. 2. Here a capacitor (C) is in a circuit with a resistor R and the respective voltage differences are V_C and V_R across each. The phase diagram derived from this circuit is shown in the lower right and we see that V_R is in phase with the current, I, but that V_C lags the current I by pi/2.

The resultant voltage V can be given in terms of the current I, the resistance R and what we call the capacitative reactance (X_C):

V = I(R^2 + X_C), and we know: V_R = IR, and V_C = IX_C

The phase angle for the configuration is given by: tan F = V_C/V_R = X_C/ R

Or F = arctan (X_C/R)


Now, let’s turn to the synchronous condenser in the HTS setting, to see how it addresses issues, say for a grid. In this case we use Fig. 3 which features an inductor L, along with a resistance R. The AC source has an rms (root mean square) voltage V(o) and via angular frequency w = 2pi f couples to the resistive load through a reactance X(L) which we call the “inductive reactance”. This X(L) in a model represents transmission lines, transformers or other ancillary elements in a power grid. The resulting rms current I has real (in phase) and imaginary (out of phase) components, such that:

I = V(o) / R + I X(L) = I(o)[ cos F – I sin F]

Where F is again the designated phase angle

More specifically:

I(o) = V(o)/ [R^2 + X(L)^2]^1/2 and

cos (F) = R/ [R^2 + X(L)^2]^1/2

Note that the in-phase (real) component determines the average power transmitted to the load:

P = V(o)I(o) cos F

There is also a volt-amp-reactive power:

(VAR)power = Q = V(o)I(o) sin F

Which originates with the imaginary, out of phase current. For inductive reactances, Q describes the average rate at which the magnetic energy is absorbed then returned to the source per cycle.

Now, if we compare the quantities P and Q we can quickly see what magnitude phase angle F and minimum current enables a given real power delivered to the load. Since we want the out of phase Q to approach zero, and the value of P to be maximal, this means F = 0 so sin F = 0 and Q = 0, hence vanishing imaginary power. At the same time P= I(o)V(o), since cos(F) = cos(0) = 1.

Why do we want Q = 0? Because this imaginary power plays a critical role in determining the magnitude of stress on the grid. (And if F increases, additional current is required to deliver the same power to the grid.)

What happens in a given power grid to cause a black out? Basically, the voltage drop across the load R decreases until the system becomes unstable and the voltage collapses. Considering the circuit diagram for the model (Fig. 3) as soon as many users simultaneously demand power – say for air conditioning – their many (parallel) resistance loads combine to reduce the load R.

Since V_L = IX(L), we see that the current and the voltage both drop across the inductive reactance. At the same time, since V_R = IR, the voltage drop across the load decreases until – when it goes below a critical threshold- the system destabilizes. We get a black out.

As we see from Fig. 3, the current lags behind the voltage for an inductive reactance, but from Fig. 2, the current leads the voltage. This provides a clue that a timely insertion or introduction of capacitative elements might prevent or mitigate the voltage collapse occurring in black outs. We will look at this more closely in Part II.

BWAHAHA! God Denied Me My Touchdown Catch!

The simpleton minds of American god-believers never ceases to amaze me. As one Brit told me in Barbados during my Peace Corps service, it's like most are mentally arrested at the stage of three -year olds. They either want their deity to act like "big Tough Daddy" and beat up all those other believers (or non-believers) or they want an eternal "gimme" machine, delivering endless goodies to satisfy their immature desires, egos and needs. Never for one moment do these morons stop to process that IF a deity existed that putatively controlled the universe, it would no more pay attention to a human's desires or wishes than the human would an ant's.

Thus, we come to the sorry case of Buffalo Bills' wide receiver Stevie Johnson, who this past Sunday, muffed a perfectly thrown 40-yard touchdown pass into the end zone that would have rewarded the even sorrier Bills (2-9 record in the AFC East) a victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers. But as replays showed, Johnson let the ball slip right through his fingers. He was inconsolable afterwards correctly blaming himself for costing the Bills the game.

That was actually the correct and mature move, accepting sole personal responsibility for a failing as a grown man and adult. However, within a short time, he clearly began to think of all the thousands of hours he'd committed to the "Big Coach" upstairs - not only getting saved and becoming a diehard evangelical, but praising the Big Guy at every opportunity. As he wrote on his Twitter account which by now has crossed all of cyberspace and even entered the mainstream:

"I praise YOU 24/7!!!! And THIS is how you DO me! You expect me to learn from this???? HOW???!!!"

Well, Stevie, for one - maybe "He" wants you to grow up for once and act like a man instead of a pouty child tossing a fit. Maybe "He" wants to bring your obvious inflated ego down a few notches, and practice some humility. Maybe this is how he decided to engage the learning exercise. Or not!

If no God exists, then ultimately catching the ball depended only on you and no mystical big spirit in the sky. Then ultimately missing the catch was not a matter of decisive divine entry into the natural world to help out a wide receiver playing for a nondescript team from an over-the-hill former industrial city, but rather of basic physics: the momentum and direction vector of the ball, and your hands being off ever so much.

But rather than admit to his own football defects, he blames the Almighty. (Real or make -believe, the blame is real for Stevie).

But after being caught out on Twitter, he then tries to deny it! On Monday, Stevie - in a separate Tweet- dismissed any notion that he was blaming God. He bellowed:

"No I Did NOT Blame God People! Seriously! C'mon! I simply cried out and asked WHY!"


Trouble is, like certain other fundies who have problems with basic English, crying out and asking 'why' is a de facto BLAME! Why would he or anyone call out to the Almighty, who supposedly knows what's best for every manjack and girljack on the planet, if not to cast effective blame? Either the whiner is testing his deity and insinuating it doesn't know everything (else, how could he allow such a devotee of itself miss a catch) OR the whiner is casting blame on the deity's decision to allow this football failure -which has all of Buffalo crying!

But take heart, Stevie. We know the line that God never delivers more crosses than people can actually bear.

So, maybe next time you will make a 60-yard TD catch, and realize then that yes, God still loves you, and ...he wants to do the best by you after all.

Or maybe it's just that you enhanced your own wide receiver skills!