Vera Verba

One of the interesting problems with a new religion like Environmentalism is that it is not yet generally recognized as a religion. This means that some people will not realize that they have to abandon their old religion in order to practice this new one fully.

Every collective idea-organism has its traditions that are practiced to create a sense of group unity and used as signals of belief so that fellow members of the group (and infidels) can be identified. These include everyday behavior such as clothing worn, hair styles, jewelry, make up, language spoken (or at least sub-dialect jargon) - and they also include specific days of celebration that require specific religious observances. While such tokens of belief are mostly harmless (at least they are today in places with a more secular society) they risk being incompatible if you are trying to be a member of more than one religion at the same time.

My most recent thoughts on this matter were inspired by an article today in the Jerusalem post about some Jews who are also trying to be Environmentalists. They have started a campaign to warn other Jews that burning Hanukkah candles produces unnecessary Carbon Dioxide:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546797524&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won’t need another miracle,” said Liad Ortar, the campaign’s cofounder, who runs the Arkada environmental consulting firm and the Ynet Web site’s environmental forum.

So you see, a custom honoring the story of a miracle performed by the God Jews believe in can be thought of as contributing to our damnation based on the story of the Hell Environmentalists believe in. Mr. Ortar (quoted above) who makes a living from Environmentalism (so I suppose we could call him one of its holy men), apparently also considers himself to be a Jew. However, he believes that GOD would rather get the short count on his sacraments than be bothered to perform any miracles to save mankind from Chanukah candle generated green house gases.

It is interesting to note that Environmentalism has impacted other religious traditions as well. (So they are not just persecuting the Jews.) The Christmas tree is a common Christian tradition. However killing a tree is probably the least green thing a person can ever do - other than maybe digging up and burning the millions of year old remains of sacred dead tree corpses just to stay warm. (If you were a proper natural sort of animal you’d have fur for that!)

So what is an Environmentalist who wants to remain Christian supposed to do?

A plastic tree was once an acceptable solution for those who didn’t want to kill a tree, but these days plastic is considered evil too. Apparently it doesn’t biodegrade in the ground and this makes it bad - even though rocks that don’t biodegrade in the ground are not bad - including shale which has the same chemicals in it as plastic. And when you think about it, its not surprising that plastic doesn’t biodegrade in the ground considering that it is made from a liquid that is found naturally in the ground. But somehow, the process of pumping a natural liquid out of the ground, removing part of it to make plastic, and then putting that part back into the ground where (by not bio-degrading) it is guaranteed not to hurt anyone or anything, has been deemed sacrilegious by Environmentalists.

So the only environmentally righteous solution is a live tree. (At least until the extension of plant’s rights prohibit tree-napping as a crime) But to bring a live tree into your house, you have to also include a lot of dirt and roots. This reduces the size of the tree that can be used. Much like lighting one less candle, a smaller tree with a lot of dirt attached can be seen as an apt metaphor for the reduction of competing religions that the growth of Environmentalism is causing.

And the majesty of the symbol is indeed reduced. New York City’s celebration of Xmas has only been influenced by Environmentalism to the degree that the tree lights are the more efficient LED rather than incandescent bulbs. However, the small Westchester village I live in (just north of NYC) has gone for the live tree this year. Consequently, our government sanctioned official Christmas tree is actually smaller (unless you include the huge stand full of dirt) than many of the trees in Westchester living rooms.

It is particularly ironic that the Christmas tree symbol being degraded is actually an old pagan religious symbol that Christianity co-opted and that this symbol was based on older versions of nature worship.

If Environmentalism continues to grow in mind share, it will probably have to do something similar in co-opting the symbols of other religions. In fact, the whole Hanukah story of one day worth of oil lasting for eight days could easily be co-opted as a symbol about conserving resources. What other religious symbols could be turned into environmentally conscious messages? I wonder if the Romans ever re-used those crosses for the next batch of criminals? They would certainly have recycled the nails - metal didn’t just grow on trees back then.

Recycling old religious symbols and holidays might seem particularly appropriate for Environmentalism, but it is something every collective idea-organism does as it takes over previous belief systems and/or mutates from one form to another. Is Environmentalism already doing this? Maybe so.

Environmentalism’s big holiday, called “Earth Day” is celebrated on a different day in the United States than in other countries. There is no doubt that many of the organizers of the first such celebration were also Vietnam War protesters which included many people with strong communist leanings. So it might not be just a coincidence that, while the rest of the world celebrates Earth Day on the more appropriate Vernal Equinox, in the United States the official holiday is a month later, and that the very first such Earth Day observance on April 22nd, 1970 marked the 100th birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

In the United States, we observe Environmentalism’s high holiday on the birthday of a famous mass murderer - a man who was more widely known by his pen name, Vladamir Lenin.

I tend to look at the world of ideas a little differently than most people do. I see the ideas that cause people to take group actions (religions, governments, corporations, racial identities, and the like) as closely related ideological organisms. I view them as the equivalent of multicellular lifeforms in idea space, constantly competing with each other and evolving new strategies for controlling human actions.

That said, I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised to see one of the newest such collective idea-organisms, start to reach for one of the same old handles that nations and religions have long used to control people. Still, I really didn’t see this particular development coming until today, when I read this article entitled “Want to Go ‘Green’? Stay Married”:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3946834&page=1

Apparently a study was done at Michigan State University which came to the (fairly obvious) conclusion that when a couple divorces, and starts living apart, they use more resources than when they are together. They are using resources to light and heat two living areas, they are less likely to be sharing a car, etc. So the conclusion was that married people are greener - more environmentally righteous.

Various religious and political systems have always had an interest in human mating habits. The idea of marriage is nothing more than the sanctioning of sexual behavior by religion and/or nation state. An idea-organism that can connect itself to various biological drives is far more likely to survive and replicate, so such ideologies evolve to exploit all the built-in human fears and desires that they can. Fear, hunger, and sex drive are three of the most powerful biological motivating factors.

So, like I said, I shouldn’t have been surprised to see Environmentalism start to reach for the same handles that other collective idea-organisms have used so successfully. In fact, if it can actually make inroads into controlling the sex drive, it will have the whole trifecta. It already has the standard scare stories and dietary controls.

This table is an extended version of one found in the book, “God Wants You Dead.”

Looking at this, Environmentalism seems to be overly weighted towards using fear as a control handle, but maybe this is just because it hasn’t really managed to infiltrate the sex drive yet. Perhaps when this new collective idea-organism figures out how to have its own sort of marriage ceremony, the emphasis on scaring people will relax somewhat. Maybe Environmentalism will end up condoning polyamorous group marriages, as this would create much larger (and therefore more resource sharing) family units. Until then, we can probably expect a continuous parade of new frightening scenarios telling us how technology will destroy the earth, as this is Environmentalisms most effective hook.

Note that I am not saying than any particular such scenario isn’t plausible. It certainly makes a great deal of difference if any particular scare story is true or not, but it does not change the nature of these ideological organisms and the way they try to control us. That is why I am always suspicious when people are trying to scare me into doing what they want me to do - even when their stories sound very plausible, or are backed up by the opinions of a lot of seemingly intelligent people.

It may be that we are indeed all going to die of some sort of ecological disaster if we don’t follow all the directives of the Environmentalist leaders.

But we might also all be killed by terrorists if we don’t grant our national governments greater powers to spy on us and control our lives.

And it could equally well be true that we will all go to Hell if we don’t live our lives the way the priests of some particular religion tell us we should.

It is often hard to tell what is a real threat and what is just so much more B.S.
So hold on to your ability to make your own decisions. Do not surrender your mind to any collective idea-organism, no matter how much it scares you with hypothetical disaster scenarios. You do not need to let other people decide the truth for you. Even if the occasional bad idea has slipped into your head, your core self can still be relied on to determine the truth, as long as you are always willing to question and re-think things from time to time.

Just use the mind you have created for yourself. You have built a mental structure that allows you to evaluate the world. You have assembled the mind that you wanted from the ideas that you found to work best for you. Furthermore, if you have managed to read all the way to the end of this post, then odds are you did a pretty good job constructing that mind.

The rational mind that you have put together, let nothing put asunder.

[For more on how environmentalism acts like a religion see previous post, “Pope Blasts Marx, Misses Gore.”]

So the big news of the week from the holy wars is about the “serious issue” of teddy bear idolatry.

In September, at a Sudanese grade school, a British teacher name Gillian Gibbons let her 7 year old students name the class teddy bear mascot. They happened to chose the name Muhammad. One thing lead to another (as it so often does) and today the teacher is serving a two week jail sentence in Sudan before being deported and the New York Times is reporting protesters in the streets of Khartoum demanding that she be put to death. (There is no word yet on the fate of the stuffed bear.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/world/africa/01sudan.html

My first thought about this was, “How stupid can these Islamic people be?” but when I have a thought like that, where I find I am thinking in terms of large groups, I know it is time to take a step back and look at the situation more carefully. Of course Islamic people can be stupid, but so can people of every race, creed or nationality - and it has been my experience that the stupidest behavior is caused by thinking in terms of such groups.

Whenever I start to think in terms of large political, religious, or racial groups, rather than considering individual human motivations, I take it as a sign that my mind is going down the wrong path - that my thoughts are being manipulated by unwanted influences.

So I reconsidered the question of “Why would an Islamic person think that this teacher had done anything wrong?”, and the only answer I could come up with was, “They wouldn’t.” Not only is it obvious to you and me that this teacher did nothing wrong, but I believe that this is actually obvious to everyone concerned.

Even the most devote Islamic person can not seriously find blame with a non-Muslim teacher for allowing her Islamic school children to name the class teddy bear after the most important prophet of the Islamic faith. Some Muslims might indeed decide that there is a theological case against naming the bear “Muhammad,” but many of them would have no problem with a child giving the prophet’s name to a favorite toy. Clearly no insult is intended by the children, and the theological issue of what constitutes idolatry is complicated and much disputed.

No Muslim should find fault with a British teacher for not correcting her students on an obscure point of Islamic faith - especially when they probably wouldn’t even correct their neighbor’s child. The name “Muhammad” is the most popular boy’s name in every Muslim country, so there are probably teddy bears with that name in many an Islamic household. It would be no more unusual than for Latin American children to name their teddy bears “Jesus.”

So if we start from the point of view that no one actually thinks that this teacher did anything wrong, then what the hell is going on here? Why is this woman in jail? Why are people marching in the streets about a teddy bear?

The answer to this puzzle is simply that, while no one actually blames this non-Muslim British school teacher in Sudan for anything having to do with this (or any other) teddy bear, there are almost certainly plenty of people who blame her for being a non-Muslim British teacher in a Sudanese school.

The apparent chain of events that lead from class mascot naming to jail time, deportation, protest marches, and reports of call for the teachers death are as follows:

• 1. Students name bear and teacher gives writing assignment where each child takes the bear home.
• 2. Some parent finds the bear’s name objectionable and complain to school administrators.
• 3. School administrators report this to government officials who use it to create international incident.
• 4. News sources in other jurisdictions find this to be a compelling story.

Now we have already talked about why the students would name the bear Muhammad. It is a common name. The majority of them didn’t know that anyone would ever find this objectionable and the teacher didn’t know either. An Islamic teacher *might* have had the kids pick a different name, but the British teacher had no idea there was an issue.

That the teacher used the bear for an assignment is just good classic teaching technique - you try to connect the material to something that the students are interested in. Kids like toys - the stuffed bear is a fun toy - so you give the kids a writing assignment to take the bear home and write about what he does there. Then the kid can read to the rest of the class about the bear’s exploits. It is personal, but not so personal as a journal of the child’s own life would be, so no one is shy about it, and all the kids love it and learn from it.

So the bear makes its way home with some student, along with a writing assignment, and some parents find that their kids have brought a bear named Muhammad home and are supposed to write about it in English because a British teacher gave them an assignment. Now it is not uncommon for parents to feel uncomfortable that their children are strongly influenced by their teachers. Add to this, 3 separate cultural conflicts: Not just religion, but also nationality and language.

Nationality

The fairly recent history of Sudan is one of British occupation and conflict for independence from Britain and Egypt, with independence finally established in 1956. Britain is also still a major influencing factor in the area, and is highly involved with the United Nations attempts to involve themselves in the Darfur conflict. So one can imagine that the Sudanese view of the British is much as an American’s view might have been during the U.S Civil war, had the British wanted to send in troops to “stabilize the region.”

Language

Arabic is the official language in the Sudan, and the government is trying to get everyone to use it, although there are many other languages in the country. English is still taught to school children, as it is a common international language, but there is probably some anti-English Language sentiment, particularly among those who don’t speak it well or resent it because of its country of orgin.

The parents in question might have had any number of reasons to have ill feelings towards a non-Muslim British lady who was teaching their kids to speak English. So when some parent was offended (probably not greatly so) by Muhammad the bear, they probably also had a few other reasons to be cranky. It is not surprising that someone complained - in fact, parents complaining to schools about stupid stuff is doubtless common throughout the world.

This is the level where things should have stopped. Parents are always going to be stupid about their kids, and governments are always going to be stupid about everything that individual human beings actually value, but an educated school administrator is supposed to be smart enough to handle such a problem without it turning into an international incident.

So why would the school administrator not just inform the teacher, who would have had the kids re-name the bear, and apologized to anyone who might have been offended? The kids would have all gotten a bit of education on the religious debate concerning the proper use of the name of the prophet. The parents would have all felt like they had more power over their children’s education. Everyone would have been happy and the situation would have been diffused.

So what happened?

Best guess is one or more of the following:

• 1. The School administrator is a government stooge and not a real educator.
• 2. Anti-British sentiment exists even among well educated Sudanese.
• 3. This particular school teacher was disliked and someone wanted to fire her.

In any event, once the government got a hold of it, it was probably inevitable that it be made into a big deal. It makes a perfect distraction issue to bring up whenever anyone mentions Darfur and the international media is all too willing to let something so patently ridiculous become an ongoing story.

People often complain about media bias. They feel that their cause is often hurt by the media blowing up trivial things and making them into big issues. They don’t notice that the media does this to their opponents causes just as much.

The media does have a bias - it is biased towards the interesting. It will always hype the uncommon over the common - even the uncommon but trivial over the common but critical. When something isn’t interesting enough, the media tries to make it more interesting by giving the spotlight to extreme fringe views on the subject.

In the New York Times story linked to above, for example, it says that protesters carried swords and shouted “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

Does that represent the average Sudanese person?

I am quite certain it doesn’t.

What it represents is the biggest asshole in a large group of people. He is the most interesting, so he gets the most press coverage. Those who’s views are more mainstream are not interesting, and so, are not reflected by the media.

The guy with the sign that says “Just give her a stern talking to!” doesn’t get any TV time.

The guy who responds to the reporter with “Why are you asking such a stupid, biased, inflammatory question?” never gets quoted.

And no one ever seems to care what happens to the poor teddy bears…

Pope Benedict XVI released his second encyclical letter today, entitled “Spe Salvi” - or “Hope Saves”. This is basically an open letter from the Pope to all Catholics. However, it is not an Ex Cathedra communication, so the views expressed in it are the Pope’s personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Catholic religion or any sponsoring deity(s).

In the letter, the Pope blames atheism as the cause of the many atrocities committed in the name of Communism in the 20th century. He also points to the ideological remains of communism, continuing to live on in more capitalistic cultures even as previously communist states have left these failed ideas behind, as the cause of rising atheism in Europe and North America. The overall theme of the letter is that faith equals hope, that atheism causes misery, and that religion that reaches out and embraces others will save the world.

The English translation of the letter can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

Now I have to give the Holy Father credit here, because he is definitely correct about some of his causality. He is right that Communism could not have seized complete control without minimizing the influence of Christianity. He is also correct that the left over influences of communism (often called progressivism) is definitely playing a role in the current reduction of Christianity in Europe and North America. But (and this is a really big but) in extolling the virtues of hope/faith he is missing the fact that it is actually faith that causes the big problems.

While it is true that the communists didn’t believe in GOD, they definitely had faith in The State, and their belief in the greater good allowed them to do some terrible things. The Nazis also had their own religion that gave them hope/faith in the natural superiority of the Aryan race, and perhaps they even thought the old Norse gods would lend them a hand or hammer. And belief in a monotheistic GOD has no shortage of culpability for atrocities. The Catholic church of the middle ages, in full control of the show, committed acts of torture and genocide that, if they do not actually surpass the death toll records of communism and fascism, at least put it up on the score board as a respectable third runner. (And please note that these results are not yet final.)

The truth is that peace and prosperity have never been achieved through the dominance of a single ideology over the minds of a group of people. Historically, where we see times of peace and prosperity, we see separation of power and co-dominance of ideas. Where no single philosophy is allowed to gain too much power, no one is persecuted and new ideas are given a fair hearing.

The free exchange of ideas creates a better world for us all.

The creeping effect of too much faith is why I sometimes refer to hope as the “slowest evil.” This is also a reference to the fable of Pandora’s box. She was said to have a box containing all the evils in the world. Then one day she foolishly opened the box to look inside. As all the evils in the world started to escape, she quickly closed the box again, but Hope was the only thing she managed to keep from escaping. The fact that Hope was in the box at all implies that it was one of the evils that the box contained.

Hope can indeed be evil, or at least lead to evil - that is if it is an irrational hope. There is nothing wrong with being optimistic rather than pessimistic when those are the only two choices, but never discount being realistic whenever you can be. Maintaining hope/faith when it is unwarranted is a sort of evil. When your hope is proved wrong, it should be abandoned. Not doing so is to abandon reason instead.

Gradual change from optimistic hope to irrational faith is the course run by every ideology that turns to evil means to accomplish its ends. Hope that they are doing the right thing becomes faith that they are doing the right thing becomes the knowledge that they can do no wrong.

When people believe they can do no wrong, they are rarely found to do anything right.

In the book “God Wants You Dead,” Paul and I explain that religious and political philosophies are sub categories of a type of ideological entity that we call “collective idea-organisms.” We show how such multicellular ideological constructs, existing across many minds, will turn individual hope/faith to their own (often evil) ends. We try to show the reader how the story of humanity is the story of the evolution of, and competition between such ideological entities. (We also included funny cartoons to lighten the mood ;-)

But let’s get back to what the Pope thinks is happening today. He recognizes that his own particular faith is on the decline in Europe and North America, and that something else is on the rise. He calls it atheism, but is that really what it is? Is it just the absence of his particular religion, or is it actually the encroachment of another ideology that is very much like a religion? Is there a new collective idea-organism battling Christianity for mind share - mental territory?

Looking at the ideology of the modern Western world, I fear that a new collective idea-organism is indeed on the rise. It has moved more quickly in Europe, where the rise and fall of fascism and communism significantly weakened Christianity, leaving an ideological void to be filled. In North America, Christianity is still strong enough to give it some resistance, so this new ideology is gaining strength more slower there.

This new collective idea-organism is known as Environmentalism, and it is indeed using the remains of communist/socialist/progressive philosophy to advance its cause. It is a new religion where the idea of a “Divine Plan” is replaced by the concept of “Natural Order,” and it certainly offers its own ideas about morality. It could probably be part of an overall climate of peace and prosperity, just as Christianity has been in various places at various times, but only if there is separation of powers and other ideas are allowed to exist in a state of co-dominance. Given full control, this collective idea-organism will be just as dangerous as any other.

If Environmentalism is allowed to take full control of any government, we are likely to see as much evil as we might expect from any religious oligarchy or other form of totalitarianism. This seems particularly likely when you consider that Environmentalism starts out openly containing an idea that most other ideologies end up with only when things start to go very bad - the idea that individual human lives are not of paramount importance.

If you are a person who is infected with the collective idea-organism of Environmentalism, you may now think I am an evil person for saying these things - that I must be a tool of the earth-hating corporate devils. But please consider that when you find yourself inclined to think that someone is evil, simply because they hold opinions that are contrary to your own, that this is an indication that something is bending your mind in an extremely unpleasant direction. Please also consider that your hope/faith that your cause is good may some day lead to a great deal of harm, should you let go of your ability to rationally question the dogma.

Just as not every person who thinks of themselves as a Christian is an evolution-denying fundamentalist who believes the earth is only 6000 years old, not every person who thinks of themselves as an Environmentalist is an intellectual slave to an ideology that promotes nature over man. But I have seen the passion that Environmentalism inspires in some, and I really do fear its potential to evolve into a more harmful Enviro-fundamentalism.

There is nothing wrong with the altruistic idea that one should minimize one’s impact on shared resources. But this does not mean that you should buy into everything that anyone attempts to sell to you in the name of Environmentalism. You must ALWAYS question each new idea separately, and be willing to abandon old ideas as new evidence dictates. If you refuse to allow multiple ideas to bundle together under a single label, and continue to question old and new ideas, then no collective idea-organism will ever be able to control your mind.

And try not to allow yourself to be labeled. If you don’t buy into the group label, then it is easier to think for yourself. Instead of thinking of yourself as a Christian, think of yourself as a person who sees many important truths in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Instead of thinking of yourself as an Environmentalist, think of yourself as a person who sees the wisdom in considering the impact on shared resources before acting.

Or to quote the great Ferris Beuller:

It’s not that I condone fascism… or any “ism” for that matter. “Isms” in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an “ism,” he should believe in himself.