It is still freezing cold in Britain and depending on which side of the climate change fence you sit on depends on what it all means. On one side, we have the man-made global warming believer (it is wrong to think of them as climate change believers because everyone apart from a stupid idiot, believes the climate changes). They think that because of man-made global warming (because that is what they believe) the ice is melting around the Arctic and this is causing the Jet Stream to change, making our winters longer and causing this month to be third coldest March on record. I might add that we do not have long records on this fact, only since 1910. 1962 was the coldest I believe. In their argument, Britain is the unluckiest country in the whole world, the only country to get colder because the world is getting warmer. Well that seems plausible, I remember reading that as the temperatures started to rise, the Gulf Stream would fail and Northern Europe’s temperatures would drop significantly. I gather the Gulf Stream or the flow of warm water coming up from the Equator, keeps Europe much warmer than it should be. However, it is not the Gulf Stream this time; it is the Jet Stream moving southwards that is causing the bad weather. I remember on an insightful documentary about the orbit of the Earth, they described how the Jet Stream is constantly moving, sometimes northwards, sometimes southwards, which causes Britain’s highly unpredictable weather.
I read a comment saying this has to be because of global warming, and another said what about the two colder March’s, what were they down too.
On the other side of the climate fence, we have the sceptics, the ones who do not believe in global warming, or should I say man-made global warming. I suppose they fall into many brackets and I bet that is why the global warming believers call them deniers, and categorise them as the same as holocaust deniers, and creationists. It is always easier to demonise your opponent if you can attach them to an obviously stupid concept or theory. You see, umm now I think about it I have lost my train of thought, and now I am wondering about another thing entirely. There are different types of believers and sceptics, and the problem with the whole climate change argument is we only ever hear from the extremists on both sides. I would imagine this is because they are the most likely to want to put their argument across. They have the most to win and lose. Personally, I believe the world is warming slowly and perhaps a small part of it is because of the pollution caused by man, but I do not believe in the tactics employed or the reasons for the warming. Obviously, man has changed the climate; from agriculture to building cities, we are always changing the climate. Does that mean we should go back to being hunter-gatherers? We started to change the climate the day we went from hunter-gatherers to agricultural farmers, but we continued to progress. I believe governments and large corporations, and the power brokers of the world are using it as a new form of control. They have taken the loony tree huggers, sorry extreme environmentalist’s ideology and moulded it to their own agendas. It is another way to force you and me to their will, to make us more subservient, and less likely to spoil their global sized game of Monopoly/Risk.
Thinking further, I wonder what would make the world right and what would right be.
If the world was right and right was 100%, right would mean we do not use fossil fuels for anything apart from none polluting means. Right would mean we drive hydrogen-powered cars that only require a few gallons of water to run efficiently. Of course, this would see the end of the dominance of the oil companies, their monopoly on the world would disappear. Saudi Arabia would lose its political and religious power over the Middle East, and a multitude of tensions would decrease immediately across the world. Yes, we are deceived into thinking that Iran and North Korea are the main stick pokers, but they are really just the distraction, part of the illusion.
Right would mean we have fusion reactors giving us free energy, meaning we do not have high-energy costs for the consumer. Imagine how horrifying it would sound for oil companies and energy companies if they heard the words, fusion works. Right would mean the whole world had this free energy and everyone had clean water, electricity, as well as food to live. This would begin the end of sweatshops and cheap labour. Right would mean we have an infrastructure allowing the population of the world to enjoy descent living conditions, as well as specific human rights for all, in all countries across the world. This would end poverty and destroy the slave labour now seen in the undeveloped, subjugated, or poorer parts of the world. Imagine how happy a child would be if they did not have to work in a sweatshop making designer clothes for pennies. Imagine how unhappy the large corporation would be.
Right would mean that conservation of the environment and the creation of human free zones, to allow nature to take its own course. Human free zones would mean the environment was untouched or spoilt by humanity; this does not mean humanity could not explore and learn in these areas. There are parts of the world we know are necessary for our survival that should stay unspoilt. We know this, everyone knows the areas in question, but because of an insane concept of ownership of land, we do nothing about it. National ownership of land is such a divisive concept nowadays; it is a medieval and primitive ideology, deeply engrained in us. We allow this insanity and many others in our world because we feel it is more important to respect the rights of a nation, or a corporation, than the rights of a human or even the rights of the land itself. This is not just for the animal’s sake but for ours as well.
Right would see the end of popular party politics and the creation of a government not as a means to wield power and influence, but for the betterment of its region and the rest of the world. When a government needs to win votes and collect large sums of money to gain those votes, then it is unlikely the outcome will lead to a descent society. Right would mean we do not have war anywhere. War is insane, war is now illogical, war causes misery and pain, and the only winners in war are the makers of war weapons. Right would mean the end of forced control and subjugation of any human anywhere, no matter their race, creed, nationality or religion. We have to learn how to trust our fellow man, it is not easy, we are hard wired not to trust, but a time will come when we will have to. Right would mean all religions work in harmony for the benefit of humanity not the benefit of themselves. Obviously, anyone who wants to be part of that religion will be able to practice their religious beliefs, as long as each religion does not try to force its ideas and doctrine onto others, especially the young. Just because your parents are religious does not mean their children should be also. They should have a non-religious upbringing, and if later, they decide to embrace religion then so be it, otherwise they should be able to live a normal life without fear of reprisal. It is another insanity that we have religions that believe it is fine to kill someone if they leave that religion, or they banish you, so you never see your family again. Or they force you to marry someone you hardly know. Some even put the fear of god (pardon the pun) into you if you even think about leaving. The problem with this from a religious point of view is that religion is designed to scare the living hell out of kids so they continue the religion. Religion would disappear in a matter of generations if children were brought up without it.
Right would mean the creation of a new set of laws that we update constantly, that take into account the changes in understanding and rationale. Old petty laws that have no bearing in reality at present would face abolishment. Right would mean the right justice for criminal behaviour. This is a difficult one, as I would suspect as society improves less crime would occur. Most people do not want to be criminals, but as long as it is beneficial to be a criminal, we will have criminal behaviour. When there is no benefit in becoming a criminal then why be one. Obviously, some will not see the rationale behind this way of thinking; unfortunately, they will need controlling by humane means. I hope that by the time we reach right, we will have thought of ways to change anti-social behaviour. Psychopath’s spring to mind, but this is a mental illness, probably the worst kind for everyone including the psychopath. How do we remove irrational anti-social behaviour without destroying what it is to be human, is a question that would need answering?
Right would mean space travel to other planets, moons, asteroids, manned space stations, with everyone having the ability to travel into space if they want to. Right would mean we would directly work towards creating ideas that benefit society without the need for useless consumerism. Good ideas or theories have a chance to flourish even if there is no money. The concept of, no there is not enough funding for a project would disappear. For this to work we would have to figure out how to create a society without the need for money, or find another type of work for reward policy. Money worked as a concept for hundreds of years, but now it is making society worse instead of better. Right would see humanity flourish, with billions of satisfied and predominately happy citizens, all working for the benefit of everyone. This seems like a pipe dream, as we are not predisposed to be both satisfied and happy, but who knows, it may change when more of us are doing something we actually want to do. Right would see a reduction in population, through natural means obviously. I would suspect that once we create a descent society everywhere, populations would stabilise and probably drop marginally in some parts of the world. It is a known fact; if our population continues to rise, we will have major food shortages, as well as other issues around the world.
Right would not see a few greedy men owning all the wealth of the world. At one time, a great man or woman shaped the world; he/she made it better. Does this mean the ancestors who are nowhere near as great, should create a system where they get everything and everyone else gets nothing or very little. They have too much everyone else has too little. Right would see healthcare for all and no one should profit from ill health. How evil and misguided are we that it is profitable to keep people sick and on medication. Right would see the right treatment for the right reasons, including what we like to call alternative means. Right would see the end of the concept of exponential growth as a means to determine the prosperity of the world. We do not need to grow, to create more money to prosper, it is an illusion created by the way society works. We know it is an illusion, yet we continue to follow it blindly. Right would give every human the right to go anywhere and experience the beauty of our wonderful planet, if they so choose. Even the human free zones, if everything was right we would have found a way to see the animals of the world, without spoiling their habitats and destroying their environment. Right would see appropriate education for children, based on their abilities to learn. Education would be fun and not designed around creating automatons that follow blindly, without thinking. I would hope that over a few generations we would eventually figure a way out of the terrible insanities of the world. Children have the ability to learn at such a fast rate, why we deliberately make it so unpleasant to learn new things. is illogical Children as one song says are the future. However, we destroy them before they reach puberty, and we finish them off by the time they reach automaton age, or should I say, work shitty job age. That is if you live in the western world, it’s even worse if you are unfortunate enough to be born in a underdeveloped country or a one that has a despot as a leader, or a country that does not care for its citizens and just wants to bleed them dry. We can only reach near to 100% when we change how children are educated, until this happens we are never going to change. Until this happens, we will blindly continue to destroy our world, allowing insanity in all its manifestations across every part of society. The way we teach children determines who we are and what we believe, it forms our structure and it is flawed.
If right was 100%, I suspect we are at 33%, roughly, we are two-thirds the way from right, perhaps. Now I think about it we are probably at 25% of right. We might never get to 100%, in fact it might not be good to reach that high, it might be better to get to 80%. I suspect it is impossible for humanity to reach right, but would it not be great if we actually tried.Well I went off track a bit there. I was going to give another paragraph about climate sceptics, and blah de blah de blah. What is the point, we are at 25%, and we have a long way to go.