Archive | science RSS feed for this section

The Physical Immortality of Man, Part One

16 Feb


By Mike McGee

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate scientifically that man is an immortal being. By this statement I mean that the known and proven scientific evidence shows that the physical body of each man is immortal. You and I and all the rest of us are at the least many thousands of years old. We have lived continuously all this time without death.

This statement is limited to the physical body of man. I will be using physical science to demonstrate a physical fact. The discussion does not at all touch on the consciousness of man, or the spirit or soul of man, or the awareness we all have of the world around us. You will find no theology here, and we are not going to look at the “afterlife” or “many lifetimes” as part of the proof of our own immortality. Continue reading

Cosmology: The Universe as an Ecosystem

8 Nov


By Mike McGee

The classical universe may not be in any respect a funnel-shaped box of rocks and gases. The universe, I assert, is likely a complex organic and inorganic ecosystem, a smear which is capable of, and a necessary condition for, maintaining life as we know it here in our own cosmos called earth.

Continue reading

Cosmology: Our Relationship With Light

6 Nov

By Mike McGee

In this discussion of cosmology, we will explore the rather unusual relationship between Man and light, and then discuss how our very indirect relationship with light may compromise many of the “factual” observations of cosmologists. I have arranged each statement so that it is accurate to the point where scientists would generally agree with the truth of each such statement.

We are a light-based species. Almost every aspect of cosmology, as well as everyday life, is dominated by what we can see with our eyes. Even the giant lens of the most powerful telescope is attached either by an eyepiece or a computer screen to a human eye. There are of course some exceptions where electrical waves or cosmic rays are captured by a collector and fed directly into a computer. These waves are for the most part, though, translated into charts which are viewed entirely by the human eye.

The eye, then, is our window to the cosmos as we receive it from cosmologists. Yet does the eye actually receive and visualize light? We cannot really be sure. No one throughout history has ever actually “seen” what input enters the eye. In fact, we cannot be entirely sure that all the input into what we “see” actually comes solely from the eye.

What we “see” with our eyes has no provable relationship to what actually enters the body or the mind through the eye or elsewhere. We are fairly sure that whatever it is that excites the nerves of the eyes is what sends electrical impulses to the visual cortex in the brain, which displays a colorful and informative scene. This is about as much as we can say about the process of “seeing.”

The brightly lit image on the monitor screen of a computer, such as the home page for Windows, is “seen” identically by millions of computer users. Yet absolutely no one can follow the cable back from the monitor screen into the works of the computer and find anything which even remotely resembles the beautiful, colorful and user-friendly light display on the home page screen of the computer monitor. It just isn’t there. All we find at the other end of the monitor cable is hard parts and electrical flow, and stored programs and flowing data in bits and bytes. There is no light inside the hardware of a computer; yet what we see at the other end of the monitor cable is almost entirely light.

This situation with the computer is almost an exact analogy to the process of “seeing” in human beings. The computer monitor is analogous to the visual cortex of the brain, which presents us with a colorful and user-friendly display which helps us to do most of our tasks and move about from place to place, and displays also for us the cosmos, which we presume is high above in the sky.

The optical nerves move electrical impulses from the eyes to the visual cortex, just as the computer monitor cable moves similar electrical impulses from the hardware of the computer to the monitor screen. To be very precise, the visual cortex in our brain is activated by electrical impulses, NOT by light. There may be other processes which participate in activating the visual cortex of the brain, such as hard-wired neural processes and stored memories, yet light is not one of the activating factors.

So, our relationship with light is at best very indirect. We don’t even know for sure if it is light that is activating our visual cortex. We don’t even know for sure what’s out there beyond our optic nerves. Of course we have four other senses, yet all of these senses have the same limitations: we perceive the evidence of all our senses as meditated by neural “cables” which carry only electrical impulses to the centers for perception of each of our senses.

“Let’s imagine what a human body looks like through a microscope…. Molecular cells are moving and the whole body is loosely arranged as if composed of sand…. completely different from the human body we see with our eyes. This is because this pair of human eyes can create false impressions for you; prevent you from seeing such things.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

It is absolutely certain that the “human eyes” have created a false impression, as described in the quote above. It is also absolutely certain that the eyes have prevented us from seeing the actual nature of what is before us. Science cannot dispute the accuracy of the above quote.

“Now some people believe that the physical eyes can see any substance or any object in this world of ours. Therefore, they fall into a rigid notion, believing that what is seen through the eyes is true and real, and they do not believe what they cannot see…. Our eyes have the capacity to stabilize the object in our physical space into the state we have now seen. Actually, it is not in such a state, not even in this space of ours.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

What these quotes don’t address is the assumption that we “see” with our eyes. In fact we “see” with our visual cortex via electrical impulses through the optic nerves, as I have described. Yet the quotes bring out by specific examples the essential point that what we think we “see” is not in any way analogous to what is actually out there.

“People ask how large the universe is…. The inside of the human body from molecules to micro-particles is as large as this universe. It sounds like a tall story. When a person or a life is made, his specially given composition of life and his nature have been already formed in the extremely microcosmic state.” (Li Hongzhi, source unknown)

Yet if there are seven billion people now on earth, and each person is made up of trillions of individual cells and other microcosmic components – as scientists agree is so – then the microcosm (the body) and the macrocosm (the universe) could be identical. Try multiplying seven billion by the reliably estimated 50 trillion cells and 10 x 10^26 molecules in each human body. I am too exhausted by the concept itself to compute this number.

Let’s look very closely at one human being, either you or me. “If we take roughly 2.3 x 10^13 (23 trillion) as the number of molecules in a cell, and roughly 5 x 10^13 (50 trillion) as the number of cells in a human body, we get approximately 10 x 10^26, or 10^27, or one thousand trillion trillion molecules in each individual human body.” (Cite: David C’s computation, at Saima at the same source computed an answer in a more poetic way: “The human body consists of about 50 trillion cells, and each cell has about 10,000 times as many molecules as the Milky Way has stars.”

This number is almost unimaginably vast for one person only, either you or me. All these numbers are within the microcosm of each human body on the earth.

And these numbers, multiplied for the seven billion human beings on earth, do not even take into account the fabulous number of individual molecules which make up the inorganic portion of our planet: the earth itself, rocks, soil, water, air and the elements.

Now let us move from the realm of demonstrably stated scientific fact into the more obscure area of theoretical reasoning.

Imagine if you will, if mankind had developed over the past few thousand years with all our senses intact except for our vision. We would reach up and feel the leaves of the trees, and construct theories about how these leaves are the distant reaches of the universe.

We might even in our advanced scientific vision-free society have discovered ways to build ladders which go high into these trees, and construct theories about the even farther distant reaches of the universe, with a treetop as the infinitesimally small source and origin of the universe. Yet all we’d really be doing is touching the things which are around us in everyday life.

It is quite true that each human body is a microcosm of trillions of trillions of cells and more trillions of molecules within these cells, held into place by what may be analogous to gravity. So therefore, it is possible that when cosmologists “see” the universe, what they are actually “seeing” is the microcosm within each human body, or within the confines of the planet earth and its inhabitants. I recognize that this statement is somewhat far out, yet it is not beyond the realm of the possible.

The truth is, the phrase “seeing is believing” is no more than a superstition. “Seeing” is a much more complex process than we normally own up to. The act of “seeing” into the cosmos by cosmologists, and the scientific data drawn therefrom, are open to very many equally probable interpretations.

The current crop of cosmologists should not be too quick to accept the canon inherited from the past. It might even be better if some of these absolutely brilliant and enthusiastic men and women turned their attention to more pressing scientific problems right here on earth; such as the invention of new clean energy sources, for example.

From Copyright © 2013 by Michael H. McGee. All commercial rights reserved. Non-commercial or news and commentary site re-use or re-posting is encouraged. Please feel free to share all or part, hopefully with attribution.

Cosmology: Is it True? Part Two

5 Nov

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

Today we’ll look at more supposed proofs of the veracity of the assertions of cosmological scientists regarding the Big Bang, and Black Holes, and other phenomenon beyond the realm of our solar system which are described in the current literature. Particular emphasis will be given to the known qualities of light.

Please, please understand that I am not attacking the reputation of any cosmological scientist, nor am I suggesting any conspiracy among them. Instead, I’m inviting you, the reader, as well as our current crop of cosmological scientists, to look at the subject matter of cosmology in a different way.


The above photograph is another piece of assumed factual evidence that the universe is exactly the way it’s described by the cosmological scientists: “The Hubble Extreme Deep Field Telescope was completed in September 2012. This photo from the telescope shows, we are told, the farthest galaxies ever photographed by humans. Except for the few stars in the foreground, every speck of light in the photo, they say, is an individual galaxy, some of them as old as 13.2 billion years.” (Wikipedia)

Let’s examine why the quoted description of this photograph cannot possibly be accurate. The tendency of light to diffuse, or to spread out due to a non-flat source of origin, as it travels through any distance, should be enough to prove the fiction of this analysis of the Hubble photo.

When we turn on a light bulb in a room of our house at night, the intensity of the light is always greatest at the source, the center of the light bulb. The intensity of the light diminishes as the glow from the source spreads out across the room. The light from the rounded light bulb source is dispersed over a larger area of space within the room, and so cannot illuminate the distant corners of the room as well as it does the areas closest around the light bulb, due to the rounded dispersal of the quanta of light being emitted. This process is called diffusion.

Let’s now look at a special case of light, the laser. The core property of laser beams is that their emitted light remains tightly focused in a straight line over large distances. In a laser, light is amplified using mirrors until it departs from the source in a “straight line.” This straight line is generated by the amplified light reflecting off of the generally flat surface of the mirror. Since light travels in straight lines unless reflected or refracted, this amplified light reflecting off a flat surface allows a tight concentration of light, with all the individual quanta of light traveling in almost exactly the same direction. The directional beam of light generates a very powerful and useful concentration of the energy of light onto a very small receiving surface.

Nevertheless, the reflective mirror of the laser is not an absolutely flat surface, only a relatively flat surface. There is no technology which will create a reflective surface which is absolutely flat at the atomic level. Thus the laser concentrates straight lines of light over short distances to a target, usually a matter of inches or a few feet. Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that there are some lasers which can adequately concentrate light over a distance of five hundred or a thousand miles.

Lasers use collimated light. This is light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates. The word is related to “collinear” and implies light that does not disperse with distance (ideally), or that will disperse minimally (in reality). A perfectly collimated beam, with no divergence, cannot be created. The light waves will eventually disperse away from the center of the diameter of the beam over a long distance, due to the lack of flatness of the generating surface and due to the diffusion of the energy of the light wave over space and time.

Laser beams are very important because they remain tightly focused for useful yet short distances. Over the long haul, though, there is enough dispersion of an average half-inch laser beam such that the same exact beam is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon, and 20 kilometers in diameter when it reflectively returns to Earth. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,403 km (238,857 miles).

Let us then compare the light dispersion of this laser over 384,403 km (238,857 miles), the distance from the earth to the moon, with what we see in the above photograph of a telescopic image. The scientific interpreters of the image say that they can see discrete objects in the picture, such as galaxies, which are as old as 13.2 billion years. This stated age actually means that the light in the picture has traveled 13.2 billion light years to reach the optical mirror of our Earth telescope, since light travels over any distance at the speed of light.

Since light tends to move in a straight line, the only way all that light from the galaxy could reach into a telescope on Earth will be if the distant galaxy were absolutely flat and the flat surface was absolutely aimed at the absolutely minuscule speck in the universe known as Earth. Way too many absolutes are required to line up for us to actually be able to see this so-called galaxy far, far away.

A light-year is a unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometers (or about 6 trillion miles). So if what the scientists say is true, the light in the telescope’s picture has traveled 6 trillion times 13.2 billion miles to reach the optical mirror of the telescope here on earth. That works out to the object in the photograph being 79,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away from the telescope which is photographing the so-called galaxy. (That’s 79.2 sextillion miles, by the way.) This means that if the picture is actually from the described “galaxy” then the light from the galaxy must have traveled in an absolutely straight line with no dispersion, for the described distance, in order for us to be able to see it exactly as it was way back then 13.2 billion light years ago. Could this be magical thinking?

As Walt Disney said in the movie Pinocchio (nose grows when you lie): “When you wish upon a star, Makes no difference who you are, Anything your heart desires, Will come to you.”

Now if light from a laser disperses from a half-inch beam into a light beam twenty kilometers in diameter over the relatively short distance of 384,000 kilometers, how much more will light from a star or galaxy disperse over a distance of 13.2 billion light years? And this dispersion remains constant only if there are no physical objects or dense fields (such as a Black Hole) or cosmic dust on the path the light takes from origin to destination. Such physical objects or dense fields will cause any light to bounce, or waver, or diffuse or to take some other different track than a straight line.

So, to say that a specific dot of light in our above telescopic image shows the actual appearance of an object which is 13.2 billion light years away (or even a paltry million light years away) is pure poppycock. Dispersion and diffusion, not to mention bouncing and wavering, will have rendered the light emitted by such a theoretically distant object to be no more than a vague film of random light particles scattered throughout the universe. The portion of these diffused and scattered light particles which could be captured by a telescope on the earth is infinitesimal to the extreme, and entirely unseeable.

It is pure fiction for our scientists to say that when they look into a telescope they are seeing actual objects from the deepest of deep space. The intelligent yet untrained millions like me and you are entirely complicit in this fiction, and it cannot exist without our desire to believe. We want to believe that it is so, so that we will feel like we actually know the meaning of the deep night sky which surrounds us and which seems so mysterious. We want to believe that the mysteries of the ages have been solved, and that we live in a time in history when almost everything is knowable. We want ourselves to be placed at the pinnacle of the evolutionary development of not only the earth but of the whole universe. We want to be the Masters of the Universe.

Yet we are not even close to mastering the universe. We are, though, close to mastering the intricacies of our solar system: the sun and the eight (or nine) planets and the asteroids and the comets. All these parts of the solar system are close enough for us to see without being fooled by the optical qualities of light. We’ve actually set foot on the moon, and we’ve sent space probes to land on Mars and to fly by all the planets, and take up-close pictures. We may just have to be satisfied with being masters of our solar system; at least until some thus far unknown technology allows us to extend our physical reach beyond its borders.

Nicolai Copernicus (1473-1543) was probably the first master of our solar system. He didn’t even have a telescope, yet he was able to use Euclidian geometry and arithmetic to chart the observations he had made of the night sky. He was able to distinguish the fixed stars from the moveable planets, chart the relations between these two types of lights in the sky, and chart the relationships between these stars, these planets, the earth, the moon and the sun. His conclusion, that the sun is the center of the solar system, has stood the test of time.

In his book On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, published in 1543, Copernicus gave us an understanding of the universe which we have hardly surpassed to this day: if we limit ourselves to the truth of what we know and what we don’t know, and reject fiction and conjecture. We have added three more planets, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto; and subtracted one planet, Pluto. Yet beyond the realm of our planetary system almost all is still a mystery. Here is the entire universe as Copernicus drew it in his book:

Copernicus 112

At some reasonable yet unknown distance beyond the orbit of the outermost planet in the solar system, Copernicus showed, is the “Immobile Sphere of the Fixed Stars.”

Copernicus goes on to say: “But that there are no such appearances [of brightness and irregular movement] among the fixed stars argues that they are at an immense height away, which makes the circle of annual movement or its image disappear from before our eyes since every visible thing has a certain distance beyond which it is no longer seen, as is shown in optics. For by the brilliance of their lights shows that there is a very great distance between Saturn the highest of the planet and the sphere of the fixed stars.” (Emphasis added)

The science of optics has really not changed much in the last four hundred years. We of course know how to make better optical devices. Yet the principles of diffusion and diffraction, and the principle that a light source which is nearer is usually brighter than a light source farther away, remains constant. It is easy to conclude, then, even following the words of Copernicus, that a light source which is supposedly 13.4 billion light years away would be so dim as to be utterly invisible. Even our greatest telescopes could pick up only a few, if any, scatterings of light from a source even “only” a million light years away.

So here is my first entirely facile description of the universe. It is just as Copernicus said it was, a shell of fixed stars set at a fixed distance not too far outside of our solar system, and enclosing our solar system as tightly as the orbit of any planet. The lights from these stars cannot really be too far away from us, or else their light would be dimmed, diffused and diffracted to the point of total soupiness. The enclosing darkness and points of light prevent us from seeing anything beyond the orbit of the fixed stars, so there could be either anything or nothing out beyond this orbit.

And here is my second entirely facile description of the universe. The universe is a smear of dark matter and dark energy, infused with points of light. Dark matter and dark energy move at far in excess of the speed of light, since by definition they have no light, and thus do not have the limitation of the speed of light; and so cannot be seen by us, a species attuned to the energy and frequency of light only. Our solar system and the points of light we can see are spots in the smear which have become congealed like knots in a pine board, and have thus been reduced to the speed of light, which enables us to see them.

In the next parts of this series we will explore the rather unusual relationship between Man and light, and then explore another way of describing the contents of the universe which is perhaps as likely as the current scientific conjectures.

Cosmology: Is it True? Part One

4 Nov



From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

It is patently absurd to believe that it is factually true that “the universe” is a very large and rather static physical object shaped somewhat like a funnel, which began with a singularity occurring 13.74 billion years ago. The Big Bang model of the universe has no basis in fact. The theory of Black Holes is a mathematical construct only. Both the Big Bang and Black Holes are based on questionable theoretical modeling and are supported solely by paper and pencil mathematical computations (or, in more recent years, computer math). They and other similar cosmological fantasies are also supported by our unshakeable faith in the far-seeing ability of a handful of scientists who happen to be very good at telling interesting stories which capture the attention of the public.

In this four-part series I am going to explain why the properties of optics among other things demonstrate the universe could not possibly be a funnel-shaped “box of rocks” as the current scientific canon dictates. I will provide several alternative descriptions of the universe, including that the universe may actually be a smear rather than an “object.”

I will show that what we can see of the smear of the universe could actually be a mixture of organic and non-organic materials. Finally, I will demonstrate that the universe may actually be an ecological system where our solar system is simply an ecological niche. I will show that the universe as an ecological system is not capable of mathematical certainty, and therefore is indeterminate and subject to computational irreducibility. This is a long story. I guarantee it will be worth your while to follow the story to the end.

What we are seeking here is an actual coherent explanation of what we know and what we don’t know about the “universe,” and a coherent view of our place in the “universe.” Perhaps in our quest for coherence, we should keep in mind the possibility that the universe, as well as the vast world within us and without us, remains a mystery. To the extent that we can look at our whole world as a mystery rather than as a solved scientific problem, we will make eventual progress in finding better and more fulfilling ways of living in our bodies, our world, and our universe.

The excitement of the scientific stories of the “discovery” of the nature of the universe has spread around the world over the last hundred years. The Big Bang, Black Holes, the shrinking and expanding universe, objects about to collide with the earth: all these and many more speculative narratives have entered the consciousness of our time. These fictional accounts are now accepted as a fact by people who should certainly know better.

Please let me make clear at the outset that in these comments I am not attacking anyone’s religious beliefs, nor am I describing these religious beliefs as fictional. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and all the other foundational religious texts are what they are, and are worthy, and are based primarily on the faith one has in these ancient foundational texts.

What I am saying is that the texts written primarily by Twentieth Century cosmological scientists are to a great extent fictional, and are written in such a way as to have some of the same attributes as religious texts, yet are not worthy of belief as revealed truth. They are based solely on assumptions, and require faith in order to be believed.

At least Jules Verne had the integrity to declare that his novels such as “Journey to the Center of the Earth” were fictional. And when Orson Welles’ radio drama, “War of the Worlds,” in 1938 made millions of people actually believe that we were being invaded by Martians, at least the network had the integrity to follow up with heavy disclaimers about the truth of the show.

It is absolutely necessary for us who are not a part of the initiated priesthood of science to accept the fabulous assertions of our cosmologists based entirely on faith, as there is no other basis for belief. The foundational stories of cosmology were written by such notables as the five cosmic theologians Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre, and Stephen Hawking. For us to believe in the current cosmological description of the universe we must believe without question and with faith in these five men’s written texts, a Torah of science, and those of their minor prophets, who are many.

These physicists are the authors of the new cosmological creation stories, and their narratives are largely intended to replace the prior religious creation stories contained in faith-based religious narratives. The writings of these and other scientists are intended to, or have the effect of being, analogous to the writings contained in the five books of the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Everyone acknowledges that the writings of the Torah must be accepted on faith and without factual evidence to support them. Why is it that no one seems to recognize that the writings of the five above-named physicists and their minor prophets must also be accepted on faith and without factual evidence to support them?

From Easton’s Dictionary, faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a given statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching. Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith. Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of the source of the faith.

How do our cosmological physicists of the last hundred years get away with claiming infallibility and dodge the question of faith as a precondition for believing their narratives? First of all, they claim that each of their assertions is entirely based on facts, and as such we must accept the truth. The problem here is that their “factual analyses” are so complex and obscure that only a very few select people can understand them, so everybody in the common population must simply accept that the facts are there. And the truth is: the facts are not there.

This position is not so very unlike the position of the medieval European priesthood. Only a few selected scholars knew Latin, the Bible and all Biblical analysis was in Latin, and all masses and other services were conducted in Latin. Therefore the common people, which meant nearly everyone, were required to rely entirely on the priests and the scholars for an understanding and interpretations of the Christian faith. I don’t know about you, but this seems to me to have been a very unsatisfactory situation, especially since I’m one of the “common people.” Even with my considerable education, I know only a few Latin phrases, such as res ipsa loquitur.

The modern cosmological scientists are therefore claiming much of the same ground as these medieval priests. So we must agree, on faith, that the narrative stories of these cosmologists are true. Such an act of faith requires us common people to exercise our will to come to a place of agreement with these cosmologists. We must willingly assent and choose to believe, even without understanding the essence of what we are choosing to believe in. The ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of the source of the faith.

Are we as a people willing to blindly accept on faith the veracity of Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Edwin Hubble, Georges Lemaitre, Stephen Hawking and their followers, and their very obscure computations and suspect “observations?” We really don’t know these men, or their followers, and we don’t know what was or is in their heart of hearts. We do know that Albert Einstein was a man of noble intentions, yet even he may have inserted some extraneous factors into his Special Theory of Relativity equations to make them balance.

I’m certainly not suggesting any conspiracy among scientists. I expect that they were good guys who were doing the best they could with what they had in front of them. None were deliberately trying to generate a false cosmology. It’s just that one thing got piled onto another, as things tend to do in everyday life as well as in the hallowed halls of scholarship.

Another source of our faith in these cosmological scientists is the award to many of them of the Nobel Prize in physics. If the work receives a Nobel Prize, it must be true. Just remember, though, that the Nobel prizes are generally awarded based on a consensus of scientists who are in the same field. Each of these scientists has a vested interest in preserving the current narrative. Thousands of men and women are frantically publishing academic papers confirming and extending the current narrative. This is just what scientists do. No one should make them out to be either good or bad for doing what they normally do, even if they’re getting it wrong some of the time.

Another source of our faith in these cosmological scientists is that their creation and history of the universe stories are peppered with observations and experiments which they say demonstrate that the facts they are writing about are true. They tell us in a facile way that the computations on which their stories are based are so complex and obscure that we normal people couldn’t possibly understand them. But the observations, experiments, and calculations are there, take our word for it, they say.


The “cosmic microwave background radiation” shown above is considered by cosmological scientists to be actual evidence and proof of the Big Bang, not subject to interpretation; and looking at it, scientists in the know see the origins of the universe. Hmmm…. All we see when we commoners look at it is a gooey mash-up of irregular forms. We are assured by the storytellers that each of the tiny configurations in this picture contains hard evidence of the Big Bang. Is their heartfelt assurance worthy of our belief? When I look at that picture I see a brightly decorated and slightly deflated beach ball.

This is part one of a series. As the series progresses we’ll look at more supposed proofs of the veracity of the cosmological scientists. Particular emphasis will be given to the known qualities of light. Then I will propose one or more alternate descriptions of the universe outside our solar system, descriptions which are just as likely as those of the current creation scientists.

DNA and the Cycle of Life, Part Three

21 May

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

In Part One of this series we followed the life-cycle of a simple insect, the Luna Moth, through one complete cycle, paying attention to the details of the process. We demonstrated the role of DNA and the genome in the replication of each stage in the life of the moth. In Part Two we demonstrated scientifically that death is not present in Luna Moths who complete their life-cycle and generate another life-cycle. Unending life is the gift of nature to this moth and all the other crawling creatures.

The complexity of the organization of each life-cycle of a moth or any other creature, including man, is staggering, and is managed almost exclusively by the living DNA which is passed forward to the next generation.  This concluding Part Three will make a lot more sense if you take the time to read Parts One and Two before going further.

We quoted from accepted science at the beginning of this series: “Life is specified by genomes. Every organism, including humans, has a genome that contains all of the biological information needed to build and maintain a living example of that organism. The biological information contained in a genome is encoded in its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).” (2004).

I have been leading you to an acceptable scientific conclusion which is difficult to comprehend. Unending life is not only a demonstrated characteristic of insects; it is also a scientifically demonstrated characteristic of human beings, including you and me. The life-cycle of a human being is really not very different from that of the moth. Sexual reproduction through the transfer of living DNA from one generation to another is the same. Unending life is the gift of nature to man as well as to moth.

The life-force passed on from one human being to another through sexual reproduction thus is scientifically demonstrated to come down to a single point. One microscopic strand of living DNA in a single sperm cell meets with another single microscopic strand of living DNA residing in the nucleus of one human egg cell.

“Whenever the state of a biological system is not determined solely by present conditions but depends on its past history, we can say that the system has memory.” Casadesús, J. and D’Ari, R. (2002). Bioessays, 24: 512–518.

It’s clear that the information inside these microscopic strands of DNA is from the past, since the actual “being” does not exist at the time of conception except as a single cell penetrating another single cell. The past memory stored in each microscopic strand represents a memory capacity billions of times greater than the human brain. This memory may include things other than building instructions, such as somatic and unconscious memories from the long unbroken line of the vital life-force from which your life and my life has emerged.

Each of these single microscopic strands of DNA, when joined, has in its memory all that is necessary to produce and maintain, without further direction, a complete and complex zygote, fetus and child; and an adult human being composed of about 50 trillion individual cells. Each of these cells is structurally and geometrically ordered in exactly the right manner for the human being to function much the same way as each other of the seven billion people on the planet.

With regard to the enormity of this task of memory and management, I can only give a comical example. Give an aeronautical engineer all the instruction books necessary to produce a Boeing 747 Dreamliner. Let him read them, take them away, and then put him in an empty aircraft construction building. Ask him to build from memory an entire working Boeing 747 aircraft, there inside the building, with no help from the outside, except he can ask for rough unprocessed raw materials to be brought in.

Let’s exaggerate and say there are ten million mechanical parts in a 747. Well, there are about 50 trillion cells in an adult human body, and they all have to coordinate together every microsecond of every day. This is the memory capacity of one microscopic strand of DNA.

I find it useful to describe this process of the unending continuation of life as “immortality,” even though it does have a theoretical beginning and end, which is contrary to the meaning of the word. We don’t know when or where this life-force began, and we can’t possibly know when or where the life-force will end. All we have is observation of the present behavior of the life-force and historical examples from the recent few thousand years.

The place where the unending continuation of life occurs in humans is in the passage of living sperm across an open space during reproduction, to join together with the living egg. The traverse across the open space is the singular similarity applicable to insects and humans and all creatures who reproduce sexually.

During sexual intercourse human sperm is left out in the open at the end of the vagina, at the head of the cervix of the female. The sperm must then find their way, unaided and alone, over a lengthy and dark open area, through the narrow cervix of the female and far into her uterus. Each of these individual sperm is a living being, containing all the DNA which defines a human being. Each has also been provided with DNA memory to know which direction to travel after being unceremoniously deposited in an unknown squishy dark place in a splat. How incredible is that?

Each sperm, independently of all the other 200 million or more sperm released each time, has a mind of its own sufficient to sort out the completely dark and unfamiliar space (the interior of the vagina); and on the spot develops a geometry which gets it going along the right path to where it needs to be. In addition each sperm has an active means of locomotion, a tail, which is entirely up to the task of moving the sperm in the exact direction it knows to go. Do we need any further scientific proof of life in this transfer across an open space?

The Luna Moth sperm doesn’t have to be so versatile. It’s deposited in one spot and sits there until the eggs come in contact with it. All it has to do is recognize the eggs and jump onto them. But then the human being has always been much more complex than an insect: even though the insect itself is staggeringly complex.

Don’t forget that science has shown that each of the trillions of cells of the human body has exactly the same strand of DNA in its nucleus. When I say exactly the same, I mean that each strand of DNA in every cell of an individual human body is identical in every way. Each strand carries the same memories as each other, and has its parts arranged identically. So for our purposes, there is only one configuration of DNA which can be carried by these sperm. The genome in each of these lively and eager travelers is the same. And it is full of life.

The goal of each sperm is to swim across the open space inside the female body until it reaches the egg. There is no question that the egg is a living part of the female at the time one sperm penetrates and causes that egg to begin to divide and become another human being. This is the meaning of the statement that the human being remains alive for generation after generation without the interruption of death.

This is also the meaning of the statement that those seeking life after death have been looking for life in all the wrong places. Life continues and persists in a human being at the life-cycle stage of reproduction, not at the stage of death.

People die before producing offspring and of old age. All but one of the millions of sperm dies without becoming a part of the life-cycle. All of this death is irrelevant in the human life-cycle. Life is in the genome, and the living genome carries on, generation after generation. This is scientific fact.

DNA is living human tissue. Each strand of DNA by definition has within itself all the elements of human life. When sexual reproduction occurs, a single strand of living human tissue joins with a single strand of living human tissue from another human being. There is never a time during human sexual reproduction when the living tissues of the parent contributions to the new human being cease to be living tissue. There is no new life, only a continuation of the existing living tissue in a slightly different format.

These living attributes may include either dominant or recessive traits, and when the attributes are stitched together at conception there is a new and different living strand of DNA. Yet this new strand can contain only what is present in one of the two halves, with dominant and recessive traits jockeying for position. Through the process of recombination, progeny derive a combination of these two specific sets of genes, which is yet really not so different from the parental genes. (2004).

The new combination is without question a continuation of the living tissue of the two donors. Certain traits within the genome may have a half-life, or be entirely eliminated during the joining of the two halves of the genome. Yet the living human tissue of the strand of DNA remains alive and fully functioning throughout all these changes. If the DNA strand was not alive, it could not retain the memory of how to build the new person.

This scientifically self-evident continuation of life is passed from one human generation to the next through the narrow portal of sexual reproduction. The next question is: what is the nature of the life which is forwarded on through hundreds of such portals for several thousand years?

DNA carries the past history of each human organism in its lineage and brings that history through the portal into the present activity of every person. Thus the current “state,” or circumstance of being, of each and every human is determined by its past history, carried by DNA, along with a few recombination changes. Thus the “system” known as a human being has a “memory” which is encoded in the DNA of each cell of the body. It may be said that everything we are is a memory.

For the DNA, which carries the memories of the life of the past physical being into the present, it may be said that the human urge toward reproduction is not voluntary. Nor is the human urge to nurture their young until old enough to reproduce. These urges are prescribed by the DNA in much the same way as the passage of the sperm across the open space is prescribed by the DNA.

In the end there is no death for those who successfully navigate the entirety of the human life-cycle. The DNA, which contains all that you are, perpetuates life unending for millennia. You are likely three thousand years old or more, and are definitely a lot more complicated than a Luna Moth.

DNA and the Cycle of Life, Part Two

18 May

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

In Part One of this series we followed the life-cycle of a simple insect, the Luna Moth, through one complete cycle, paying attention to the details of the process. We demonstrated the role of DNA and the genome in the replication of each stage in the life of the moth. This Part Two will make a lot more sense if you take the time to read Part One before going further.

Where in the life-cycle of the Luna Moth is death? It’s going to be hard to wrap your head around the answer to this question. The common answer is that the adult moth dies. The scientific explanation defies the normal logic of life and death, beginning and end. Here we’re going to analyze the meaning of the simple story of the moth; then move on to more complex matters you need to know about.

Each cell of the moth contains DNA in its nucleus. For each moth the DNA, the genome, is identical in each cell of that particular moth. This genome contains a full set of chromosomes, which are all the building instructions and inheritable traits of an organism. This genome is alive and a part of the tissue of the moth. Indeed, it carries in its living tissue the very definition of the moth, and the full living memory of how to conduct each of the stages in the life-cycle of the moth. (Reference: My earlier blog “DNA and Memory.”)

If the double helix DNA strand ceases to live for even a moment it will fall silent, and will not retain the memory of how to build any part of the moth’s structure. So when you squeeze a caterpillar until the green goop splatters, or squash moth eggs under your foot, the DNA in the structure is actually dead, and cannot any longer participate in the life-cycle.

Yet the life-cycle of the Luna Moth goes on, creature after creature and year after year. Most of us look at life and death as the beginning and the end. The egg hatches, and after several stages produces an adult moth, which dies. Yet when we scientifically examine in detail the various stages of the moth’s life, we can come to only one conclusion. There is a part of the moth that does not ever die: its living genome.

When philosophers look at life after death they tend to exclusively look at the death of the adult organism, and opine whether there is any physical or spiritual continuity after the death of the adult. They’ve been looking for life in all the wrong places.

A scientist must consider visible and provable facts as the standard for determining the correctness of observations of any physical process. Up to now scientists have been in denial about the continuity of life, ignoring what is right under their noses. The stages in the life of the Luna Moth are factual, clear, and observable, and no scientist can disagree that these stages are exactly as I have described them. Even better, these stages are simple in the moth, and therefore easy to analyze if you are looking at them without any preconceived notions.

The earlier posed question was: where in the life-cycle of the Luna Moth is death? The proper scientific answer is: nowhere. The life-cycle of this moth is continuous, and life never ends as we go from generation to generation. Death is only a by-product; irrelevant, one might say, from the point of view of the genome. The genome never dies.

Of course some moths do not mate before they die, and caterpillars and eggs and pupae are squashed and otherwise die. For all these who do not complete the life-cycle, death is the end and they have no further existence. There are thus many who die without continuity; yet many more do complete the life-cycle and carry on the unending cycle of life for generations to come.

So we see the eggs, the larvae, the pupae, and finally the adult moth. So the adult moth engages in “adult behavior” of a sexual nature. During mating the living DNA in the sperm from the male is ejected from its phallus across an open space into the body of the female, where it enters her genital chamber. For the moth the open space may be only a millimeter or so, yet the sperm, laden with living DNA, is definitely outside the physical structure of either moth.

Thus the only time in the life cycle of the moth when the living DNA crosses an open space outside the body is during mating. The sperm then sits in this open space, inside the female genital chamber, until the eggs, containing the living DNA of the female, are laid by the female.

“The eggs do not become fertile at the time of copulation. The eggs get fertilized as they pass through a mix of male sperm, seminal fluids and ‘glue’, stored in the female’s body. This immersion/fertilization takes place as the female expels/deposits the eggs.” .  (This site contains a wealth of detailed information about the Luna Moth.)

Each sperm is a single cell, yet it is alive in every scientific sense of the word. The DNA genome it carries contains memory or information identical to that of every other genome in the body of the male moth. Each egg is a single cell which is equally alive. It contains within itself memory or information identical to that of every other genome in the body of the female moth.

Thus it is clear that the life of a Luna Moth is unending (unless interrupted by outside factors such as a dear reader squeezing a caterpillar until green goop flies everywhere). The place where the unending continuation of life occurs is in the passage of living sperm across an open space during reproduction, to join together with the living eggs.

It may even be said that the death of the adult moth following mating is irrelevant to the carrying on of the unending (not quite eternal yet close) life of the insect species known as the Luna Moth, actias luna. The cycle of life is complete and ongoing, without the intrusion of death, when one examines the reproductive act rather than focusing on the fate of the adult moth.

This showy yet commonplace six-legged insect has been gifted by nature with unending life. One could almost call it immortality, yet such an appellation would be an exaggeration. It is most likely that the life which is present in each phase of every Luna Moth is hundreds or thousands of years old, and will continue unabated through another hundreds or thousands of years into the future. It’s rather remarkable that Nature would give such an unlikely creature such a long unending life-span. Yet there you have it.

There is no death for these insects, the ones who make it through their entire life-cycle. The living DNA which is passed on during reproduction contains all the memories and instructions to guide the insect through its next rather identical series of changes from egg to adult moth. The cycle of life for these creatures is continuous and unending, according to accurate scientific observation.

There are hundreds of thousands of different insects and other crawling and buzzing creatures whose life-cycle is marked by sexual reproduction and unending life. The defining moment for each is the movement of a living DNA genome across an open space to meet with another living DNA genome. There is always an open space to be traversed. Life persists and continues unabated across the open spaces.

There is no death for any of these lowly creatures, except when they get stepped on or lose their habitat or are unable to breed.

In the next essay we will take you to places you probably didn’t think you could go. Stay tuned!

DNA and the Cycle of Life, Part One

15 May

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

“Life is specified by genomes. Every organism, including humans, has a genome that contains all of the biological information needed to build and maintain a living example of that organism. The biological information contained in a genome is encoded in its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).” (2004).

I intend to demonstrate, using only scientifically valid information, that we remain continuously alive over many generations, even hundreds or thousands of years. Mystics and theologians have throughout history claimed to know the truth about Man as a being who lives beyond the boundaries of our lifetimes.  They argue based on philosophy and faith, and make no claims of scientific validity.

Give me a chance to show you the science. You’ll be surprised and convinced as this accepted mainstream scientific analysis unfolds. The answer is not what you think.

Since this is a complicated subject, let me start off with a little birds-and-the-bees story. It will seem long because there are a lot of pictures, yet there’s not too much reading to do. If you need a better understanding of DNA, please look at my older blog entries entitled “DNA and Memory.” If you want the complex science of DNA, look at the link highlighted above.

When I was young, among other things I collected insects, especially butterflies and moths. My favorite insect was the Luna Moth. The story of the Luna Moth will demonstrate how DNA is the active player in the passage of generations. It has been well established by science that the instructions for the development of each stage of life for each organic being are encoded in the memory of DNA. The double-helix strand of living tissue is contained inside each cell of the Luna Moth and every other being, including humans. We need to start with a clearly explainable insect model before moving on to the human experience, which is more complex.

I’m going to describe the complete life-cycle of the Luna Moth, starting with the showiest part of the process. The adult Luna Moth is large and strikingly beautiful, with lime-green yellow-trimmed wings spanning up to four and a half inches (11.4 cm) across, with long trailing green hindwings. Here’s a picture of the beautiful adult moth. You can see why I liked them and still like them.


So we see the adult moth. Now let’s go through to the next stage in the life-cycle of this elegant creature. Stay with me. Each of these wonderful, yet common, Luna Moths is around only for a very short time. The adults cannot eat, since they have no mouths or other digestive structures. They emerge as adults solely to mate. For this purpose they have only about one week. They tend to hide in the day and move about at night. There is something eerie and ghostlike about their movements. They flit from the gloom into the light, and back into the gloom once more; not unlike humans in their travails.

The male shown above has feathery antennae which sniff out pheromones from female moths. The two come together and mate, as is shown in the X-rated picture below. During mating the living DNA in the sperm from the male is ejected from its phallus into the body of the female.

WP2.Luna Moth Mating

As we shall see, the only time in the life cycle of the moth – or a human being for that matter – when the living DNA crosses an open space outside the body is during mating. For the moth the open space may be only a millimeter or so, yet the sperm in its journey is definitely outside the physical structure of either moth. The sperm quickly enters the genital chamber of the female moth and embeds its living DNA in the living egg sac of the female, which contains her own contribution of DNA for the next generation.

Once they mate, the male moth has no further raison d’etre. He flies off like a leaf falling from a tree in autumn and is never heard from again. The female moth flies around until she finds the right spot and lays her eggs. Then she shrivels within a few days like a tulip in a vase. Due to the lack of a mouth to eat, it may be said with scientific certainty that the beautiful creature that flies through the air is only a transitional stage, no matter how we may love it.

Thus all that remains after the transition of the living DNA across the open space between the two moths are the extremely small eggs shown below. Each is self-contained and a little larger than the head of a pin. Each of these self-contained living eggs contains the entire living DNA from the two mating adult moths. No further instructions are needed to continue the life-cycle of the Luna Moth. Life continues, full and complete, uninterrupted.

WP3.Luna Moth Eggs

The eggs hatch without further ado in about ten days. A wormy little caterpillar crawls out of the egg case and leaves the shell behind:


Its goal is to find food. Unlike the adult moth, the caterpillar has a voracious appetite. Since the eggs are laid by the female only on the leaves of suitable food plants, the little caterpillar can go right to work on the edge of the nearest leaf. The only instructions it needs in order to do its job are completely and unerringly remembered by its DNA. Over a period of about 25 days it eats and grows and sheds its skin five times (not four times or six times), until it becomes a rather majestic mature caterpillar:


At some point, the mature caterpillar finds itself overcome by a desire to leave its body and become an entirely different being. Internal changes are already underway to facilitate this transformation. The instructions in the memory of its DNA are very precise as to both the timing and the behavior, and always generate the same outcome.

The caterpillar begins to spin a web of silk to enclose itself. The outward appearance of the caterpillar is sloughed off as if it never existed. What is left is a hard brown pupa, which once again contains all the DNA memory of the caterpillar, albeit in an altered physical form:

WP6.Luna Moth Pupa

After about two weeks a summer pupa, following its own inner instructions from its DNA, breaks open and an adult Luna Moth emerges, full and whole and without blemish, ready to spread its wings and fly away. The brown case of the pupa is discarded. The life-cycle for this one individual insect is now complete:


It’s easy to see this transition as a commonplace event, since it’s an everyday activity of moths, and there’s no drama in the ordinary. Yet the very precision of both the timing and the physical structures involved in the changes are nothing short of extraordinary.

And these precise changes in the cycle of life are repeated perhaps millions of times over each year by individual moths. And for hundreds or thousands of years these precise and exact changes have been repeated, perhaps modified slightly over time by Darwinian evolution.

Here’s the question: Where in this cycle is death? Is there ever a time when there is absolutely no life present? The living DNA is passed from generation to generation with sufficient vitality to produce exactly the same life-stages in each cycle of the existence of the Luna Moth.

In the next essay we will explore these far from commonplace questions.

Global Warming, Part Four

2 May

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

To summarize, there is significant evidence that there is not a big danger for the earth as a whole from global warming or population increase. According to the World Meteorological Organization, globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be .7° Fahrenheit (0.40° Celsius) above the 1961-1990 annual average. The WMO does acknowledge that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at historically high levels. The combined statistics, though, seem to be saying that greenhouse gases are not a major threat to the planet.

A significant portion of this small increase in globally-averaged temperature increases can be attributed to natural fluctuations such as population increase, changes in weather patterns around the globe, and even to very small changes in the tilt of the earth as it rotates.

Even so, the public is inundated by charts showing catastrophic geometric progressions of warming, destruction, and chaos. All these projections are entirely speculative in nature, and have no basis in reality. Most of us humans can’t really say with certainty what will happen tomorrow, much less next year.

Although we have no Starship Enterprise, nevertheless we boldly go where no man has gone before: setting up secondary markets for carbon credits, shutting down or hobbling legitimate manufacturing facilities, establishing ever tighter emission controls for motor vehicles. All these and more are expensive, short-term, popular, and unproven solutions to very ill-defined problems.

The short-termism can be seen as coming from the “Information Age” where every opinion (including mine) and every catastrophic event is presented in real-time to everyone in the civilized world. Worried people demand immediate action on these fragments of information.

I urge those who believe we are on the edge of the extinction of mankind to look deep inside your own soul and face what you fear most in your own life. Get past these personal fears in your own life, and you’ll get to a place of YOUR OWN harmony with the earth.

Don’t be so quick to blame corporations and plastic bags and the burgeoning multitudes of souls for the woes of the earth. Be very slow to blame all the natural phenomena which are arising as nature adjusts in its own way, a way which we can’t control. Try to stop focusing on doomsday and the need for quick, unproven and very expensive “fixes” for the earth.

There’s more than a little delusion of grandeur within individuals, when they believe they and their politicians can “save the earth” from ultimate destruction. The earth will adjust as it will, and magnificent policies and billions in spending won’t change a thing. The changes which are ultimately needed are changes within ourselves which will remove fear and restore personal harmony inside our bodies, in our relationships, and in our communities.

The “New Earth” requires new visions, not new rounds of blame and finger-pointing. The first vision must be stirred within each of us. Only then can we find adequate solutions for the actual problems which confront us with regard to global warming and the environment.

Let me give one example of “New Earth” thinking. We can say with some degree of certainty that there will be a rise in sea levels due to global warming. So why isn’t anyone looking at the coastal areas in the United States and around the world that will be inundated or flooded by the rise in sea level? We need to begin right now to find ways to encourage people to relocate from areas which will be inundated by the ocean over the next fifty years. If we start now, the long-term consequences will not be severe.

Governments can stop issuing building permits for areas within zones likely to be affected by the rise in sea level. The government and private insurers should phase out the issuance of flood insurance policies in these areas. Banks should avoid giving thirty-year mortgages in such areas. Planners should begin founding new city centers on higher ground not far from the old cities which are in these areas. It takes all of us, working together, to adjust with the least amount of pain to the rising sea levels.

New Orleans is a prime example of an urban area which will be significantly affected by the rise in sea levels. Brad Pitt should stop encouraging the rebuilding of New Orleans, and should never have started doing so. There should never have been any rebuilding. The city should have been, and still should be, moved to higher ground. When coastal floods such as Hurricane Sandy wipe out homes there should be no new building. Find a location on higher ground, and flood insurance proceeds can be used to build in the new location. The government should begin to phase out new construction of levees in flood plains, and mortgage lenders should stop approving new mortgages in flood-prone coastal areas. And so on. If we all work together, the relocations will not hurt too much.

More significantly, governments at all levels should announce right now that they will not use tax money to pay for private losses due to rising sea levels. Give people advance warning that they are on their own if they persist in coastal flood plain building. The rising sea levels are an entirely natural phenomenon. The government didn’t create the problem, and tax money paid out to those who ignore the warnings is a grave misuse of the system (except for help with immediate disaster relief).

There seems to be a lot of male testosterone flaring up in the current “solutions” to global warming. We have to tear down smokestacks, spend money to dig and bludgeon the earth into submission. There needs to be an infusion of feminine energy in the process, to achieve a spiritual balance in the process of reaching toward the “New Earth.” Here’s a quote I found in John Steinbeck’s classic novel, THE GRAPES OF WRATH:

“We got nothin’, now,” Pa said…. “Git so I hate to think. Go diggin’ back to an old time to keep from thinkin’. Seems like our life’s over an’ done.”

“No, it ain’t,” Ma smiled. “It ain’t, Pa. An’ that’s one more thing a woman knows. I noticed that. Man, he lives in jerks – baby born an’ a man dies, an’ that’s a jerk – gets a farm an’ loses a farm, an’ that’s a jerk. Woman, it’s all one flow, like a stream, little eddies, little waterfalls, but the river, it goes right on…. We ain’t gonna die out. People is goin’ on – changin’ a little, maybe, but goin’ right on.”

“How can you tell?” Uncle John demanded. What’s to keep ever’thing from stoppin’; all the folks from just gittin’ tired an’ layin’ down?”

“Hard to say,” she said…. “Just try to live the day, just the day.”

Let’s now summarize what we’ve learned about global warming and population. First, the “New Earth” is a warmer place than at any time during human history, and greenhouse gases are here to stay. Second, the “New Earth” will always have a greater population than it’s had at any time in human history.

There’s an old expression, “If you can’t beat ‘em, then join ‘em.” Trying to roll back global warming, through megalomaniac efforts to stop industry, commerce and transportation from releasing carbon into the atmosphere, is not feasible. We now have in place sufficient laws, rules and regulations to prevent or reduce most of the preventable noxious discharges. Adding more of the same will impose an intolerable burden on industry and commerce and will have little or no effect on global warming and carbon emission.

Much of what now passes for environmental activism is actually untethered fear-mongering. “Sensationalism, whether for good or ill, sells,” says Robert J. Samuelson in his 2010 book The Great Inflation and its Aftermath. “We may weaken our productive machine by…. an uncritical reaction to the possibility of global warming that may cause us to undertake costly policies that, in the end, do little to affect global warming but do weaken our economy’s performance.”

Dr. Bengt Skarstam has said flatly that global warming may be a good thing. HOW CAN THAT BE????? First, Dr. Skarstam lives in Sweden, which is a very cold country. From his perspective a warmer Scandinavian region may make life a little more comfortable for himself and all his fellow countrymen :>)

Yet there is a great deal more insight involved in Dr. Skarstam’s statement. First, we can’t reverse global warming. So let us re-cast it from being a “problem;” make global warming an active part of the “New Earth” solutions which will inevitably emerge from the fertile and sometimes febrile imagination of the scientific community. With the active acceptance of global warming, new political and social ideas will inevitably arise which do not involve the repression and destruction of commerce and industry. With seven billion souls on the planet, we need huge increases in commerce and industry in order to alleviate the poverty which strangles so many of our fellow planetary citizens.

I’m not trying to gloss over the difficult changes we will see as a result of global warming. I’m simply trying to point out that there are some benefits the planet will gain. We are already seeing that the melting of the Arctic ice cap is opening access to vast new deposits of high value ores and oil reserves, which could be sufficient to supply a warmer world for the next hundred or more years beyond our currently identified available resources.

What if all the ice on the island of Greenland melts? According to the CIA World Factbook, Greenland consists of 2,166,086 sq. km (410,449 sq. km ice-free, 1,755,637 sq. km ice-covered); a land area slightly more than three times the size of Texas. It is owned by Denmark, which has a total land area of 43,094 sq. km. Assuming there are oil and ore deposits under the Greenland ice pack, little Denmark could become a major world economic player as a result of global warming.

It’s also fairly certain that mankind will evolve or adapt in a fairly short time to the increased levels of carbon and heat in the atmosphere. We don’t know exactly what this Darwinian evolution will look like, yet it will happen, and it’s an established scientific theory that most of the evolution of our species has been in the direction of greater strength and intellectual capacity.

One of the many problems created by increasing population and global warming is a greatly increased worldwide competition for increasingly limited supplies of fresh water. Some of our more evolved and febrile scientists will inevitably come up with economically feasible ways to desalinize sea water and remove contaminants from industrial and human waste water. Current methods are just too expensive for widespread use. Although the developed world does a good job of removing contaminants from waste water, there is not any structure at all in place for the most part in countries like India. And even the developed world is struggling with the negative consequences of too little fresh water per se.

One possible near-term solution is to set up thousands of acres or even hundreds of square miles of sea-water evaporating pans; which will be heated by sunlight to remove the largest part of the salt or contaminants by simple distillation. Then powered plants will only have to remove the “last ten per cent” of the salt or contaminants, making them not so expensive. Huge fields of warming pans could be set up in central Texas, or even in the deserts of Iran. Ocean water could be pumped to the distillation fields. The resulting fresh water could be distributed using networks of pipes like the spokes of a wheel.

The point is, if we accept the inevitability of a warmer and drier earth, even embrace it, we will inevitably find solutions to the problems which must be solved. As long as we spend our money and energy on fighting the problem, and relying on the sensational, we will overlook things which can make the “New Earth” a better place for life of all kinds to exist and flourish.

So it’s mostly fearful thinking and feeling which separates us from the benefits of global warming. Living in fear is also one of the characteristics of an unhappy person. If we can evolve to a loving acceptance of these things we fear, our lives will be much more contented. We will also be in a better position psychologically and emotionally to make the best of the world we have and to create the “New Earth” we all so ardently desire.

To use the language of Robert J. Samuelson in a different context, the real source of our environmental errors is in the prevailing doctrines. Blaming industry and commerce for the increase in global warming results in a smug and ruinous complacency, which allows us to lash out at a scapegoat rather than looking at what we can do right now with what we have right now.

Once we reduce our fearful and desperate quest to stop global warming and population growth by our “righteous” and simplistic attacks on industry and commerce, we can clear our heads and concentrate on ameliorating its effects. Most of the time, the demonstrable things we can actually do to “dance with” global warming and population growth are ignored, in the rush of panicked thinking about stopping global warming and population growth, which we can’t do.

A global rise in sea levels is one of the most certain consequences of the “New Earth.” Yet most opinion leaders and scientists have nothing to say about what actually needs to be done when sea levels rise. There is a huge mental disconnect brought on by fear of the loss of property values in coastal properties and low-lying cities. Planners can begin by drawing boundaries around coastal areas which are projected to be flooded or unusable if there is a three-foot rise in sea level.

Drawing these boundaries, though, will result in an immediate and irreversible loss in property value for all buildings and land inside the three-foot boundaries. These losses in value can be ameliorated to some extent if these same planners give projections that the three-foot sea level rise will not occur for fifty years, or for whatever is a responsible and supportable time frame.

Probably more than half of all the homes and buildings in the three-foot zone will already be twenty or thirty years old, which means they will retain value for most of the rest of their useful life. Raw land and the land under existing structures will not retain much value, though. There will be considerable financial losses for coastal land-owners and developers. Planning will need to include refusal to issue building permits for new structures.

Perhaps the government could set up a fund such as the FDIC, and owners can pay in each year, with some payout to be made when land or a building is actually lost. The government should not be looked to as responsible for paying for these natural losses which are the inevitable result of a warmer planet. By starting now, though, the private losses will occur over a long period of time and will be more manageable.

Right now almost no one is looking at the obvious and knowable actions that need to be taken. Simplistic battles against the earth as it is make better headlines, and are easier to deal with than absorbing the more complex strategies necessary to adjust to the changes which will happen within the lifetimes of our children. It’s easier to devote ourselves to despair than to look with love at the world we actually have, and live on it gracefully.

This is part four of a four part series.

Global Warming, Part Three

1 May

From .Copyright © 2013 Michael H. McGee. All rights reserved. Please feel free to share or re-post all or part non-commercially, hopefully with attribution.

Thus it may be deduced that global warming caused by population increase is a natural process, and not an artificially induced phenomenon. Global warming may actually be an integral and necessary part of the “New Earth.”

Such acceptance is an advanced form of wisdom. We would not have the world we have today without the great increase in population and global warming. The population increases, and the warming of the planet, are keys to our current existence.

Before 1927, when both these natural phenomena began, there was really no way to confirm our existence on a planetary scale. All our existence was fragmented and for the most part local. The current tribalism evident in Afghanistan and other societies underscores the local nature of earlier existence. Communications were difficult and travel from one place to another was to take your life in your hands. It was probably somewhat colder in places like Sweden and the Arctic than it is now. Being warmer can be a good thing, therefore.

Even more so, without the population increase, there would not likely be a sufficient “customer base” for the launching of new technologies such as fast cars on fast highways, oil, gas and water pipeline systems, and the Internet and cell phones and crowd-sourced computer applications; not to mention ground-based rapid transit systems and the fastest travel by airplane. We would likely never have put a man on the moon; South Africa would still be a primitive apartheid-based society.

And without population increase and global warming, both of which are natural processes, our scientists and innovators would not be motivated to develop more efficient methods of energy production and use, and better ways of marshaling the resources of our planet. We would not even be having this discussion if the population were still two billion. Furthermore, it’s not likely this discussion would be propagating globally via the Internet if the population were still two billion souls.

Another major issue which is brought to the forefront by population and global warming is the subject of corporate responsibility for emissions and pollutants. Corporate responsibility was not even a term in use back in 1927 when the population was only two billion. The dumping of the detritus of production at the factory gate was the norm back then.

I remember when I was a child, in about 1955. There was a creek that ran through an area of woods where I played, in the small town of Lexington, North Carolina. I was amazed by the rainbow of colors in this creek. One day it would be bright red, the next day bright green, and another day it would be bright yellow, and so on. Fortunately, I was just concerned enough to stay out of the water. There was a fabric dyeing plant nearby, and they were dumping their untreated dye residues directly into the stream.

Most corporations inside the United States are doing considerably better at handling their wastes and runoffs than they were back in 1955. They are showing at least some degree of corporate responsibility, and it is appreciated. So in this essay I’m not going to hammer too much on corporations. I’m going to look at the flip side of the problem: the politically correct and seemingly magically effective solutions offered up by the environmental establishment: the green advocates.

If only we could get our government to agree on forcing companies to meet carbon reduction targets, and to buy and sell carbon credits. If only we could spend multi billions of government and private dollars on wind and solar power. If only, if only. The list of impractical and expensive solutions goes on, and no one seems to be questioning the long term effectiveness of these more or less academic ideas; and no one is really questioning whether we even need to do these things.

No one is asking whether any of these environmental “solutions” will “cure” the “disease” which may actually be a natural process, which we can live with if the genius of our scientific and political leaders is applied to direct solutions such as increasing the efficiency of internal combustion engines and reducing the weight of vehicles and other equipment used for freight and personal transportation.

After we accept the reality of a changing earth and an increasing population, what we need is to find ways to imagine actual scenarios in the future and begin to invent processes and things right now to cope with these grounded visualizations of the next thirty to fifty years of the earth.

The “New Earth” we live on demands us to care deeply about how we spend our money, and how we adjust to the changed living conditions which did not exist even 85 years ago.

What about those who believe in their hearts that global warming and environmental pollution is the greatest disaster the world has faced, and the world must act decisively to combat these threats to our planet?

Marinette Forbes-Magno has a master’s degree from the Asian Institute of Technology, and has researched energy issues in Thailand as a professional. She’s a member of my family and is visiting in my home as I write this. She says that global warming brought about by massive population increases will inevitably lead to major environmental disasters. These natural disasters will wipe out the excess population and only after this happens will we return to a more normal way of living. This is not necessarily the way it will happen, she says, yet it’s one way to look at it.

She’s worried, that’s for sure. Yet she’s not a doomsday prophet, she’s simply a well-informed concerned citizen. The label of doomsday prophet belongs to the loud and robust environmental activists and politicians –think Al Gore – who are constantly bombarding us with messages that we have to do what they tell us to do; and spend billions to implement schemes of dubious or unproven effectiveness to “reverse global warming” (Bill Clinton’s words).

The label of doomsday prophet also belongs to the lurid and showy television pundits, and the networks with 24-hour news cycles which must be filled with words and pictures – think CNN. They get better ratings if they really scare people with the rash predictions made by interviewees with personal agendas, and the endless loop reporting on every storm and earthquake on the face of the earth.

My daughter Michelle Kathryn McGee, is concerned that what I’ve been saying about the environment in my series of blogs is a convoluted justification for constant striving rather than constant being — which means being willing to face contradiction fearlessly at every turn. She is personally concerned about the degradation in the quality of life brought about by global warming, yet global warming per se is not the problem. There is, she says, a bigger need for a raising of human consciousness, and she wants each person to take on BEING the solution to a different, more important set of problems. It’s not our planet that is the problem, it’s the level of consciousness and awareness each of us brings to our everyday living that is the problem.

The environmental activists are pushing a hundred doomsday scenarios; rivaling the preachers of the “end times” rapture, where only the saved will be taken into heaven. These dramatic doomsday scenarios are endlessly looped to the public and to the politicians, until everyone believes in them regardless of the evidence to support them. Believing in such disasters is much easier than if someone says we must examine our own personal levels of consciousness to find our way home, and take personal responsibility for our part in what happens next.

Pushing “easy solutions” – which claim to have the remarkable ability to totally head off the natural and artificial disasters threatening our planet – seems to be the most popular way of addressing the claims of environmental degradation. That these easy solutions, such as solar and wind electrical power, carbon offset credits, and battery powered cars, are incredibly expensive, and are so far unproven as primary methods of carbon emission reduction, doesn’t stop us from embracing them as tightly as is they were our first-born child.

The popular culture seems utterly captivated by movies and other media, where the whole earth is threatened by monstrous outside forces, and one person – think Ironman – comes along and saves the whole planet from destruction. (Interestingly enough, this typical movie plot is a direct rehashing of the Biblical New Testament, where one man saves all humanity from the malevolent forces of evil.)

There are even people out there who are persuading us to spend huge amounts of tax dollars to set up a system to predict when a rogue asteroid or meteor might crash into the earth, so we can take defensive measures. This could happen at any time, they say, or at least within the next thirty thousand to a million years from now. Budgets are already being prepared for submission to governments.

Our collective disaster-consciousness is a big step away from reality, and from the true measure of human consciousness, which is: who are we BEING right now, in this moment? How can we be a part of generating peace and awareness within ourselves? How can each person, from elected official to corporate officer to hamburger-flipper, take responsibility for our own part in the ongoing “drama” of daily life? How can our systems be re-calibrated to move our thinking away from disaster and into the fullness of a well-lived life?

For example, what is the primary obstacle to our doing our daily driving around town and to and from work in golf-cart sized battery-powered vehicles made of light plastic parts? It is this: If I tried to drive out into the traffic on the local road right out in front of my home in a “golf cart” type vehicle, I’d be terrorized and traumatized by all the big-engine roaring steel cars going as fast as they can, almost bumper to bumper. I probably wouldn’t make it a hundred feet before I gave it up and parked the little plastic buggy and walked back home to get my full-sized car, to protect my life and sanity. If I continued driving along in spite of my fear, I’d probably be arrested by the police for blocking traffic and being on a public road in a nuisance vehicle.

Far more than half of the driving in the United States is for distances of thirty-five miles or less round trip. These trips could easily be made in golf-cart sized vehicles, if such vehicles were allowed and provisions were made for their safety, and they were cheap enough. Most people would still want another full-sized car, for longer trips and on bad-weather days. Why is there no public dialogue about smaller light-weight vehicles?

First, in our country the road still offers more freedom than frustration. Three-quarters of Americans say driving often gives them a sense of independence, and nearly half say it’s often relaxing. Four in ten love their cars — not just like them, but love them. (This is from an ABC News Analysis by Gary Langer, February 13, 2005.) I’m definitely one of those freedom-lovers. I’m also one of those four in ten who love my own big heavy car.

I’ve already made the internal shift to driving a small car with a small fuel-efficient engine. It would take a further cosmic change within me before I’d emotionally adapt to driving around town in a golf-cart car. Can I adapt? Yes. I. Can. Will I adapt? Only if the whole system of traffic is re-calibrated to make me feel safe and wanted in my light-weight golf-cart sized car.

And yet I don’t see or hear any politicians or environmental activists howling for a new traffic system that will accommodate light-weight individual vehicles. Any such vocal activists would probably be opposed by the auto industry and the highway construction industry. Maybe we could make it more palatable by promoting light-weight car lanes as a new infrastructure project which will help create jobs to get us out of the recession. You think?

This is part three in a four-part series.