Comments on What evil is and is not

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to What evil is and is not

arGee - that's typical of when I wander into areas where my knowledge is

limited.

Replace kilotons with megatons where applicable. As you suggest, the underlying premise of so many uncertainties is valid however. The greatest intangible of all would be human reaction. We've seen how ill prepared we can be when faced with natural disasters, with Katrina being the latest example that is closest to home. In conjunction with all of the commendable efforts by so many people were illustrations of all of the worst aspects of human nature. With lawlessness in certain areas probably being the most insidious but that was just a minor snapshot of the lowest common denominators in our societies becoming opportunistic. Life sustaining resources were not in short supply, law and order, infrastructure and communication had not broken down outside of the afflicted areas but what if all of these things were to become a reality? The myth of nuclear holocaust may be truly a myth when speaking of destructive capability likelihoods but that is only pertaining to physical and environmental destruction.

posted by gomedome on September 6, 2007 at 9:35 AM | link to this | reply

A couple of corrections to your otherwise fine argument, Gome...

The typical fission bomb is in the kiloton range, up to several hundred KT – we have tested them and have a good idea of their destructive power, although we really don't understand the impact in a large, modern, concrete and steel city. Fusion bombs, on the other hand, are in the Megaton range, typically up to several tens of MT, but the Soviets created a 100MT super bomb, whose purpose was to penetrate our extremely hardened land-based launch sites. It is these bombs for which we have absolutely no idea of their real impact. The calculations simply don't give meaningful results.

Interestingly, we made the strategic decision that hitting a hardened target with a series of smaller bombs was more effective that blowing it away with a super bomb. Thus, we developed Poseidon and Trident missiles with 10 independently targetable warheads that could be placed in any desired pattern, or to independent targets. Our technology was always far ahead of the Soviets. Since they couldn't pull this off, they "had" to make the super bomb.

posted by arGee on September 6, 2007 at 8:28 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - I've read that segment of your book and where I cannot refute it,

there are some simple truths that cannot be refuted as well.

The first reality being that as laypersons we do not know how many long range fusion type thermonuclear weapons exist on this planet. We can only utilize unofficial numbers which vary dramatically from several hundred to several thousand aimed at various points of this continent. When it is considered that weapons testing and yield documentation has had a practical ceiling in the area of 70 kilotons yield, we simply do not know with complete accuracy what the destructive capability of a thermonuclear weapon with a 500 kiloton yield would be. Sure we can extrapolate and predict based on mathematical equations but the destructive capability of any weapon is only one aspect, there is the non physical aspect as well.

The fission weapons dropped on Japan were 15 and 20 kilotons (if memory serves) . . . What area of a city would a 500 kiloton weapon destroy by comparison? How about 2 of them? A bus delivery system of 10 or more? How about hundreds of them? So the next reality would be in how would people react? Would common sense or revenge prevail? Would the will to survive overcome the level of anxiety we would all experience? Would we all go insane? The last question is not facetious, we only assume that our inherent will to survive will guide our actions when faced with such a catastrophe.

posted by gomedome on September 5, 2007 at 10:57 PM | link to this | reply

In order to reply with accuracy, Gome...

I would need to know a bit about the size of the bomb (in MegaTons), the shape of its charge, and the height of the explosion, to make intelligent observations. It is very likely, however, that you would survive just fine. All the calculations current in use (primarily by McKinzie and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) –a far-left ultra anti-nuclear group) originated in the tests conducted in the 50s and 60s, primarily in the South Pacific, and at the Nevada test site. These are open areas with no obstructions to absorb and mitigate both the blast and radiation. Furthermore, the bombs tested back then were much "dirtier" than current bombs, so any fallout calculations and initial radiation calculations will be way wrong.

In reality, we never were facing a "holocaust" like we thought. I'm not saying it would be a walk in the park, but a nuclear war is perfectly survivable, and civilization would continue afterward. It's really just another "Chicken Little" kind of thing that I discuss in depth in The Chicken Little Agenda.

posted by arGee on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - I can agree with that and I am also willing to add that global

nuclear capability is almost irrelevant to small warring religious factions.

In other words; the fact that we can destroy the earth does not mean that people like Bin Laden will ever get their hands on this capability. But still, imagine if you will a reasonably sized device being detonated in the middle of the continent, say the Detroit area for example. At only 2 hours away from me that would be the end of life as I know it and for millions of others as well. Admittedly the "charred black cinder" is a catch phrase and may be a complete exaggeration but only in terms of technical accuracy. There isn't a hell of big a difference between an uninhabitable planet and a planet that has vast regions that are uninhabitable.

posted by gomedome on September 5, 2007 at 8:17 AM | link to this | reply

When you talk of planetary destruction, Gome...

Basically, you refer to Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" scenario, wherein he predicts a drastic global cooling (life destroying) resulting from worldwide use of nuclear weapons. In fact, in order to get to his result, Carl had to take every one of his calculations to the most extreme error limit, all in the same direction. Technically, his result is "accurate," but in the real world, things never happen that way. Errors tend to bunch around a mean, not at the extremes. When you run his calculations using the error mean in each case, you get virtually no effect on a global scale at all. In other words, his predictions were a politically-driven fraud!

posted by arGee on September 5, 2007 at 7:48 AM | link to this | reply

Ariel, one of the interesting elements...

Of my book, The Chicken Little Agenda, is a discussion that clearly shows a so-called "nuclear holocaust" is not nearly so bad as we have been told. I haven't yet posted that extract, but when I do (or if you should purchase and read the book), you will see what I mean.

posted by arGee on September 5, 2007 at 7:41 AM | link to this | reply

ariel70 - that is a valid point, every generation feels they have cornered

the market on anxiety but:

All impending threats throughout history from the time of the Mongol hordes up until the second world war have had destructive capability limited to the technologies of their respective eras. If it were not religion, land, wealth and resources were the motivations. For 60 years now we have had nuclear capability, for nearly 5 decades we have had the capability to destroy our planet. Can a mix of this destructive capability and the fervor of brainwashed religious wackos who are threatening to use it, be compared to threats of the past? The will of religious adherents has never been accompanied by the technology to destroy life as we know it until this era. In one sense, I completely agree, we have survived as a species throughout all impending challenges but can we survive a threat that would destroy our planet and think that doing so is a glorious thing?

posted by gomedome on September 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM | link to this | reply

Argee

I'm not disputing anything that you write about the so-called axis of evil, nor am I minimising the threat that these countries pose.

But in a long life, ( that includes WWII, and its aftermath )one thing that I've learned is that things are never as bad as they seem ; nor as good.

I've lost count of the real,and supposed, threats that have come and gone without trace, but hell, didn't they loom large and black on our horizon at the time! Remember how we were all gonna be vaporised by nuclear weapons?

Oh,if only one could have been a fly on the wall,listening to what the American and Russian leaders actually said to each other in private.

You can bet that it was nothing at all like their utterances for the benefit if their own people ; and do you reckon it's any diferent now?

The more things change the more they stay as they are.

posted by ariel70 on September 4, 2007 at 1:15 PM | link to this | reply

I do so agree. It is an unevolved method of perception stemming from

the time of sacrificing virgins to angry volcano gods. Some have not progressed beyond, the devil made me do it. If they are so inclined, they will eventually understand it is a world with many minds and many voices and some of those voices are simply in their minds. Good contribution.

posted by roadscross on September 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - in the case of Libya, we can say that economic sanctions eventually

produced the desired outcome.

Eventually they will do the same with Cuba. We will see a dramatic change in Cuba within our lifetimes but at what costs to the populaces of both nations? The use of economic sanctions has multiple facets, considerations and outcomes, both undesirable and in furtherance of the intended objectives.

posted by gomedome on September 4, 2007 at 9:43 AM | link to this | reply

I couldn't agree more, Gome...

Although I think that the sanctions were necessary, since otherwise their perception of us would have been as very weak, and the subsequent confrontations even more bloody, as they would have proceeded from a sense of superiority, instead of cautiously, because of their sense of our strength.

posted by arGee on September 4, 2007 at 9:04 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - I completely agree with the notion that the threat is very real

There is also an argument with some merit that economic sanctions coupled with diplomatic isolation have contributed far more than we realize to the polarization of these small rogue nations against the west. The biggest threat is obviously Iran, who are at war with us, though undeclared.

posted by gomedome on September 4, 2007 at 8:20 AM | link to this | reply

Please see my last response to Gome, ariel...

It's not silly, and the threat is rather larger than you probably imagine. Keep an eye on my THRAWN RICKLE blog for the coming post.

posted by arGee on September 4, 2007 at 8:13 AM | link to this | reply

I concur, Gome, regarding the "changing" Axis of Evil...

But, as you will see in my forthcoming post on this topic, there really is something to the threat of the Iran/Syria/N. Korea/Venezuela axis. Please be patient while I put my assorted facts together coherently.

posted by arGee on September 4, 2007 at 8:09 AM | link to this | reply

Ey up, Tel. At least you'll be able to go to the store in Malaga and pick up those nuts and bolts you've been missing all these years.

Sorry, Gome, for hijacking the place to say hello to El Tel, but we don't see the ol' gimmer in these parts very often these days.

posted by _dave_says_ack_ on September 4, 2007 at 7:41 AM | link to this | reply

.Dave

Well, really! Have you never heard of " IKEA, therefore I am"

Although what precisely IKEA makes the " I" one hesitates to imagine!

Incidentally, they are opening a new branch in Malaga soon, and they've had 16,000 applications for 480 jobs. Makes yer fink dunnit, guv?

posted by ariel70 on September 4, 2007 at 7:37 AM | link to this | reply

Good discussion here.

posted by A-and-B on September 4, 2007 at 6:38 AM | link to this | reply

Gome, you evil boy, you have stirred up Satan once again. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will surely get you and whisk you away to IKEA for a makeover. Probably. I don't believe in IKEA actually.

posted by _dave_says_ack_ on September 4, 2007 at 6:26 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - sadly one need not go as far as TV to find those who use the

word "evil" far too flippantly.

We have seen some bloggers use it towards other bloggers on this site in a way that clearly demonstrates they do not appreciate what the word means. They are not only incapable of questioning things they have blindly accepted in their beliefs, they have been conditioned to think of all who do not believe as they do as an enemy with insidious motives.

posted by gomedome on September 4, 2007 at 6:19 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome

I fully agree with you that the word 'evil' is more frequently, loosely, and flippantly used by people intoxicated with relgious beliefs, just as they are taught to believe, without their ever giving a discerning thought as to why to believe unquestioningly - and without these matching one's experiences. When I see the TV, I find Christian priests using the word most liberally. Probably because it keeps remimding them of the devil?

posted by Bhaskar.ing on September 4, 2007 at 3:42 AM | link to this | reply

ariel70 - In your first comment you cover my primary beef with the notion

of evil as a life force or conscious entity.

It can and does act as a built in excuse or cop out, or as a means of deflecting personal responsibility for one's actions. We are at a time in the development of our species where we should have a better understanding of human nature. Ascribing human shortcomings to mythical bad guys or unseen conscious forces is primitive stuff and serves no constructive purpose other than relieving the perpetrator from guilt.

posted by gomedome on September 3, 2007 at 12:40 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - the reality of the word evil being used as a noun was in the back

of my mind as I was writing this, subsequently I have added one word to clarify.

". ..evil is primarily an adjective . . ." which should suffice as a qualifier.

As for the axis of evil, you are rewriting history by including Syria. The infamous triumvirate of the famous 2002 speech was comprised of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, all being dubbed so because they were seeking to develop WMD's. These three nations were not allied at the time of the speech. The popular game of adding or subtracting members to the axis of evil, which has included Libya, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela at various times, is a pastime taken up by various political interests and media after the speech was given.

posted by gomedome on September 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM | link to this | reply

Argee

Very rarely also do I find myself disagreeing with you!

You are of course linguistically correct in you use of evil in those two contexts, but neither of them do anything to validate the concept of evil as an entity.

And as for the " axis of evil" nonsense, that is what it is ; nonsense pure and simple.

The countries that you cite are undoubtedly "baddies", but that is simply a matter of degree, not principle, for aren't all countries bad in one degree or another?

Evil -- especially in a political context -- is simply a convenient label to stick on countries whose rulers/polity/customs etc one does not like.

There is no proof, nor will there ever be proof of a self-motivating, independent and autonomous person/being/power or force of evil.There is simply good, not so good, bad, very bad and awful (choose your own gradations)

To believe otherwise is mediaeval superstition at its most abysmal.

posted by ariel70 on September 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM | link to this | reply

Although it does not happen often, Gome...

I find that I differ from you in this. In the first place, evil is, legitimately, both an adjective and a noun, a in "An evil taste filled Mac's mouth as he peeked over the wall to view pure evil."

In the second place, although you use it only for illustration, I don't really believe your characterization of the present-day "axis of evil" as "...small non allied countries that just happen to be non compliant to our political philosophies" accurately reflects the intent of President Bush, who coined the current usage of the phrase. My own studies have clearly uncovered a surprising closeness between Iran, Syria, and North Korea, with another new partner more recently – Venezuela. This comment section is not the venue to delve more deeply into this topic, but you know that I research my material carefully, and rarely make statements that I cannot back up fully. Bush had information available to him when he made that statement initially that is now generally available to those willing to look. The "axis of evil" is quite real, and poses as serious a threat to the general world population today as did the World War II axis of evil seventy years ago.

I will compose a post on this subject in the near future. Look for it.

posted by arGee on September 3, 2007 at 8:02 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome

Evil as a self-motivated entity,eh? Ah well, I guess they've gotta have something to blame for their own shortcomings and hangups.

" It weren't me, guv, 'onnist! It was Evil wot made me do it!"

Makes a change from blaming the poor of Devil for everything, I guess.

Actually Evil ( as an active entity ) is alive and flourishing not a million miles from where we sit here in Blogit.

He's forever giving some raving religious maniac a hard time of it. Gosh, it must be a real bummer to be forever dogged by that Evil dude!

I haven't read such hairy scary demented rantings since I finished reading Malleus Maleficarum just after I left school at 14. Nope, tell a lie, I wrote a series on the Spanish Inquisition in here last year.