On Obama and a Nuclear Free World

As much as i want to believe that a nuclear free world is possible and that Obama is the one to set such a thing in motion it doesnt seem to be an achievable goal even within 50 years – not that anyone can predict what will happen half a century from now but you can map out what is likely.

Now Obama himself admitted that the US will always have nuclear weapons if other states or non-state actors have or as i interpreted it, possibly have, nuclear weapons. Given that you can never really be sure that the world (outside the US) is free of nuclear weapons why would any president take the risk? or put another way why would any president give up the clout of being the only registered nuclear weapons state when he or she can always refer to the uncertainty around the world’s possible nuclear weapons as an excuse to delay thier own disarmament.

Or maybe im being too cynical…

TED: a great resource and a great inspiration

I am a fan of internet lectures, by which i mean university public lectures broadcast on the internet but they can drag on. TED talks on the other hand are short, to the point, always interesting and sometimes simply great. Like my favourite TED talk given by Samantha Power:

Can we chill out about North Korea and Nuclear Armageddon?

Is all the internation concern of North Korea and its nuclear ambitions justified, or put another way are we worried for the reasons we say we are.

How likely is it that North Korea would start a Nuclear war in which the only certainty is its own obliteration? not very likely i think.

Then what is all the fuss about, why do the powers-that-be want us to be concerned about North Korea? The only practical reason i can think of apart from the admirable but unrealistic goal of a nuclear-free world is that North Korea’s status and therefore regional pulling power will (supposedly) greatly increase and the elevation of another power (especially an unfriendly one) is something the US will prevent if possible.

This is all perfectly obvious stuff but from the tone of most of the media coverage they make it sound like nuclear war is on the table when it is really a geo-political issue.

The Pope holds the line. As Monty Python say “every sperm is sacred”

Despite a worldwide scientific concensus, despite media uproar, despite common sense, despite the cautionary principle despite statistics heavily in opposition the catholic church once again demonstrates its pig-headedness by swearing that condoms do not prevent aids whether on a macro or a micro scale:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

What can we do but laugh…

A lurch too far?

The modern attempt at a perfectly rational bureacracy to run society at the expense of common sense, common decency and even compassion. It is crying out for a replacement – in this new age of collabrative complex systems can we offer a solution to the nightmare?

Why Atheists care about religion – an interesting video

This is a good video because it isnt a rant, its a clear simple exposition of facts and observations.

What i find most disturbing is that in many US states you are not trusted to give evidence in court or to hold public office if you are an atheist.

First Question: Does Religion have a place in the modern world?

The point of saturday questions is to set a general theme for the week, to encourage debate and criticism that both i and others can learn from.

First I am working from the assumption that the core metaphysical claims of the various religions are impossible to prove either way so all that remains to talk about is the effect of religious belief and religious practice on individuals and groups.

The question then becomes: “does religion have a place in modern lives?” and of course that leads to other questions: “do you mean lives in New York or lives in Tehran?”. Despite the effects of globalisation ,not least in the way we see the world but also the effect it has on the world, there are still clearly definable and for the most part separate civilisations in the world.

So if we are not going to be specific about the civilisation, and “modern” is arguably a somewhat civilisation-specific word,  the question then becomes “does religion have and place in contemporary lives?” with equally important follow up question :

“Whether yes or no, is there a case for a conscious effort to either instil or discourage religious belief?”

In order to be precise about the question we must be clear about to whom the question is directed. It is not directed at evangelists for example who will seek to spread religion due to their beliefs.  For simplicity the question should be directed to two groups: First, secular individuals who have to make a decision about their children’s upbringing or generally someone who has to make a decision as to the benefits of religious belief for another individual. Second, individuals with power who through whatever means influence peoples beliefs;  for example a leader of a theocracy or a media mogul.

So what does religion offer to the individual and to society as a whole? I suppose that question needs to be answered in relation to the other options and in reference to history. I’ll leave this thread here and pick it up later.

If anyone has a problem with how I have framed the question so far please let me know.