Recently, NASA has confirmed that during the Martian summer melt water runs on the planet. The presence of running water means that life could have developed on Mars and may still exist there today. We need to find out.
So far Space agencies have made considerable efforts to ensure that Mars and other planets and satellites have not been contaminated by microbes or other life forms from Earth. They need to redouble their efforts.
If a base is established on Mars, which exploits Martian resources, then the spacefarers will need to be ultra careful not introduce alien species. Mars should be protected for scientific research at all costs.
If life is discovered on Mars it must not be contaminated as it will be the most important discovery ever made: we will know that we are not "alone" in the Universe. It will be essential to know what are the differences between life on Earth and life on Mars. This knowledge will help us to survive and prosper on Earth.
There will be no excuses to develop Mars industrially or to exploit its resources. The human species has done so much damage to the Earth's environment because we have been unable to control or regulate ourselves. We need to suppress the desire to exploit our neighbour.
There are many who express the opinion that Mars should be populated by humans as part of a "Noah's Ark" project to ensure the survival of the human species against the threat of environmental collapse of even asteroid strikes. These opinions are disingenuous and I aver that they are an attempt to scare the the human population into taking unneeded action.
If we look after our planet we can ensure our survival for the foreseeable future and we could even survive long enough to evolve into a different species. The chances of the Earth being hit by a completely destructive meteorite or asteroid are low and we are unlikely to be hit in the near future. There is probably much more chance of our environment being seriously damaged by man-made climate change or war or both. Man-made threats could quite easily be regulated or even eliminated if we learn how control ourselves. Scientific research of the Martian environment will help show us how to preserve our own planet; but only if we are certain that our neighbouring planet has not been artificially contaminated.
There is little that we can do about the threat of a massive asteroid hitting us and we just have to learn to live with this fact. It is after all part of the natural evolution of the solar system.
Our future could be assured without he need to populate Mars just to create man-made climate change and environmental damage there.
An asteroid threat exists no matter which planet we live on and Mars is closer to the asteroid belt than the Earth, so we might be better off staying where we are.
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
The refugee crisis
A substantial proportion of people migrating to Europe are refugees. Europe has a duty to help them. Many of these refugees are escaping from regimes which arguably are the most cruel in history.
The Western powers have mistakenly intervened by force in the Middle East but the armed forces of the Western powers have not indulged in deliberate cruelty and barbarity and they have acted in general within the confines of the Geneva convention. It was never the intention of the USA, Britain or France that irregular forces should take over in Iraq, Syria or Libya but this is what has happened as a result of military and political intervention and the failure to make provision for the peace. The civilian populations of these countries are now being exposed to the most dreadful cruelty inflicted by guerilla forces and their political supporters in the power vacuum left by the Western Powers. withdrawn.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Syria and Iraq, Western powers have been forced to act with more military force. President Obama probably would not have got involved in the Iraq war to unseat Saddam Hussein but his hand is now being forced to contemplate further military action rather than achieve a diplomatic solution which now seems almost impossible. Interfering in Syria to unseat President Assad has been another costly mistake.
Whilst there is no peace in the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa there will be refugees. The USA, Britain and France have played a substantial role in creating the chaos of war, albeit unintentionally, but without forethought the peace was not provided for. This is why the USA, Britain and France must take responsibility for the victims of war. We did this in the Second World War - a conflict which we did not start. In this era we had real leaders namely, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle - perhaps we need them back.
The Western powers have mistakenly intervened by force in the Middle East but the armed forces of the Western powers have not indulged in deliberate cruelty and barbarity and they have acted in general within the confines of the Geneva convention. It was never the intention of the USA, Britain or France that irregular forces should take over in Iraq, Syria or Libya but this is what has happened as a result of military and political intervention and the failure to make provision for the peace. The civilian populations of these countries are now being exposed to the most dreadful cruelty inflicted by guerilla forces and their political supporters in the power vacuum left by the Western Powers. withdrawn.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Syria and Iraq, Western powers have been forced to act with more military force. President Obama probably would not have got involved in the Iraq war to unseat Saddam Hussein but his hand is now being forced to contemplate further military action rather than achieve a diplomatic solution which now seems almost impossible. Interfering in Syria to unseat President Assad has been another costly mistake.
Whilst there is no peace in the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa there will be refugees. The USA, Britain and France have played a substantial role in creating the chaos of war, albeit unintentionally, but without forethought the peace was not provided for. This is why the USA, Britain and France must take responsibility for the victims of war. We did this in the Second World War - a conflict which we did not start. In this era we had real leaders namely, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle - perhaps we need them back.
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Jeremy Corbyn and The Labour Leadership Election
I am not a member of a political party and never intend to be. I also have no intention of paying £3 to vote for a Labour leadership candidate. This does not mean that I am not interested in politics or the outcome of the election.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Migrants at Calais and Racism
When I see the disturbing scenes at Calais of hundreds of migrants from Africa, Afghanistan and the Levant trying to avoid the police to jump on trains heading for Britain, I think of racism. If all of these desperate people were white skinned they would stand much more of a chance of being accommodated in both Britain and France. The migrants have been forced to live in appalling conditions in "jungle city". This is much to the chagrin of local residents. Everyone wants to escape this situation resolved and none more so than the refugees and residents of Calais.
Most of the migrants are genuine refugees from violence , torture, false imprisonment and starvation. They are desperate to find a new home. Some of them will be miscreants who are using violence to gain access to lorries and the channel tunnel system but the miscreants are few in number and they can be dealt with by the justice system.
The British and French governments are reluctant to take positive action to accommodate these poor people because of public opinion. I am ashamed to say that not many people in Britain or France have got much sympathy for the plight of these people - and it is probably because they are seen as being from a different "race" by some of our compatriots. Some politicians are also stirring up political trouble with their populist opinions and simplistic solutions to a complex problem.
The leader of UKIP is being disingenuous when he makes public statements that all France has to do is give the 3,000 migrants at Calais French passports and then they can all come to Britain legally - so let's leave the EU to prevent this happening: Balderdash. The French government cannot and will not grant any of these migrants French citizenship. There are already thousands and thousands of immigrants in France who have not been given passports; they are the "sans papiers" and they work in the under cover economy. These migrants have been staying in France illegally for years and they are going nowhere else.
The French government is coming in for much criticism from the British tabloid press and right wing MPs. The same people who object to the EU from doing anything which impinges on British freedom of action are telling the French what to do. Hypocrisy - hardly a British value is it? Maybe the French find this objectionable.
Of course, the British Home Secretary recognises the need for co-operation with the French government which has been generous enough to allow British border posts and fences on the French side of the channel or La Manche. If the border posts had to be moved back to Dover and Folkestone then the migrants would establish "jungle city" in Britain and in short order. We are lucky that the French are prepared to secure our border for us. We are also lucky that the French police are prepared to go along with this.
Many of the migrants have travelled a long time and across dangerous terrain and countries to get here. Many would have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea in flimsy boats to land in Europe. The people at Calais are resourceful risk takers and have not given up on their objective. Many of these migrants would be hard working people who have no need to sponge off the state as they can survive on their own resources. They would probably be happy to work hard for Britain if we let them in.
Successive British governments have done nothing to make provision for traffic to be managed when the channel tunnel is closed for whatever reason. If there is just a storm in the channel then the tunnel cannot cope with the diverted traffic from the ferries. Lorries, therefore, are parked on the M20 motorway. This is a ludicrous solution. With migrants blocking the tunnel on a nightly basis the M20 stacking system in Kent has now reached crisis point. Complacency is no longer an option.
The French and British governments must find a solution which helps everyone including the migrants, lorry drivers, the residents of Kent and Calais and the police from both nations.
The French and British governments have a moral duty to resolve this crisis as they have brought war to Africa, The Levant and Afghanistan and this is the major reason why the migrants are coming. We really have no right to treat any of these unfortunate people so badly. The answer can be found if we use a sense of compassion on both sides of the channel rather than xenophobia. The voters of France and Britain should give their governments more room for manoeuvre.
Most of the migrants are genuine refugees from violence , torture, false imprisonment and starvation. They are desperate to find a new home. Some of them will be miscreants who are using violence to gain access to lorries and the channel tunnel system but the miscreants are few in number and they can be dealt with by the justice system.
The British and French governments are reluctant to take positive action to accommodate these poor people because of public opinion. I am ashamed to say that not many people in Britain or France have got much sympathy for the plight of these people - and it is probably because they are seen as being from a different "race" by some of our compatriots. Some politicians are also stirring up political trouble with their populist opinions and simplistic solutions to a complex problem.
The leader of UKIP is being disingenuous when he makes public statements that all France has to do is give the 3,000 migrants at Calais French passports and then they can all come to Britain legally - so let's leave the EU to prevent this happening: Balderdash. The French government cannot and will not grant any of these migrants French citizenship. There are already thousands and thousands of immigrants in France who have not been given passports; they are the "sans papiers" and they work in the under cover economy. These migrants have been staying in France illegally for years and they are going nowhere else.
The French government is coming in for much criticism from the British tabloid press and right wing MPs. The same people who object to the EU from doing anything which impinges on British freedom of action are telling the French what to do. Hypocrisy - hardly a British value is it? Maybe the French find this objectionable.
Of course, the British Home Secretary recognises the need for co-operation with the French government which has been generous enough to allow British border posts and fences on the French side of the channel or La Manche. If the border posts had to be moved back to Dover and Folkestone then the migrants would establish "jungle city" in Britain and in short order. We are lucky that the French are prepared to secure our border for us. We are also lucky that the French police are prepared to go along with this.
Many of the migrants have travelled a long time and across dangerous terrain and countries to get here. Many would have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea in flimsy boats to land in Europe. The people at Calais are resourceful risk takers and have not given up on their objective. Many of these migrants would be hard working people who have no need to sponge off the state as they can survive on their own resources. They would probably be happy to work hard for Britain if we let them in.
Successive British governments have done nothing to make provision for traffic to be managed when the channel tunnel is closed for whatever reason. If there is just a storm in the channel then the tunnel cannot cope with the diverted traffic from the ferries. Lorries, therefore, are parked on the M20 motorway. This is a ludicrous solution. With migrants blocking the tunnel on a nightly basis the M20 stacking system in Kent has now reached crisis point. Complacency is no longer an option.
The French and British governments must find a solution which helps everyone including the migrants, lorry drivers, the residents of Kent and Calais and the police from both nations.
The French and British governments have a moral duty to resolve this crisis as they have brought war to Africa, The Levant and Afghanistan and this is the major reason why the migrants are coming. We really have no right to treat any of these unfortunate people so badly. The answer can be found if we use a sense of compassion on both sides of the channel rather than xenophobia. The voters of France and Britain should give their governments more room for manoeuvre.
Friday, 24 July 2015
Breakthrough Listen and the Fermi Paradox
Professor Stephen Hawking recently launched the Breakthrough Listen project which will be conducted to find intelligent alien life on another planet in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, or even in another Galaxy altogether.
http://www.space.com/29990-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-initiative.html
In my view this is a fantastic project. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that any form of life exists in the Universe other than on Earth or its near environment.
The project involves scanning the skies to detect electro-magnetic radiation in the form of radio signals or laser beams which would have been transmitted by an alien and intelligent living being or a robot of such a being.
It is quite possible that the ten year project will pick up such a signal and be able to decode it. Picking up an alien radio signal may be our best chance to confirm that life exists elsewhere in the Milky Way. It is unlikely that a telescope such as Kepler will be able to resolve the signs of life on planets many light years away. It is equally unlikely that a satellite probe will find life on another planet or moon of our solar system within 10 years. However, Mars could be a candidate for such a discovery.
Yuri Milner who is financing the project has rightly pointed out that even if we do not discover alien life with the Breakthrough project then it does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere.
I am hoping that the project will be successful but I have my doubts that intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy.
The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi surmised "our galaxy should be teeming with civilizations, but where are they? Why are they not here visiting us already? Why can't we see them? The Galaxy has been been in existence for billions of years surely we cannot be the only form of life that is intelligent? This is the Fermi paradox.
http://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
So far we can only speculate that life exists in the rest of the Galaxy. It is quite possible, however, that some planets are teeming with life - just like the Earth. There are about 400 billion stars in our Galaxy so millions of them could support life on a planet or moon within their alien "solar system".
However, what are the chances of a life form on another planet evolving both the intelligence and the dexterity to make tools which can communicate across interstellar space and make space probes. Out of the millions of species that have ever survived on Earth only a small number would qualify as tool makers intelligent enough to make a radio set if they had survived. Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are two but they went extinct. Neanderthal Man also had the potential but he could be part of our own species. Only one surviving species has been thrown up on Earth which has the intelligence and physical ability to design and build a radio set. Dolphins, Whales and other non-human primates display some form of intelligence but they do not have the manual dexterity to create complex tools. The chance of an intelligent species such as man evolving are probably millions to one against. Intelligence does not confer a particular ability to survive as a species. Cockroaches have survived for millions of years without any form of intelligence. The human genus has only existed for a couple of million or so years.
Planets which support life elsewhere in the Galaxy could face the same evolutionary predicament. Thousands or millions of species survive on a planet but none of them have both the intelligence and the dexterity to create tools. There may be billions of planets which can support life but only thousands which support intelligent life that can communicate across the Galaxy.
It will be interesting to note how human beings fare when they travel to Mars. Whilst it may be physically possible to survive a trip it might be mentally very difficult. We cannot know how humans will deal with the isolation of both time and distance. Experiments have been done by isolating humans in submarines and laboratories for months on end and humans can survive on the international space station for similar periods. All of these humans have had an escape route and know that their isolation can be ended if it becomes too much of an ordeal. A trip to Mars is of a different order of isolation of even a trip to the Moon. Inter-planetary and inter-stellar space travel may not be possible for humans because of the isolation factor. The same could apply to intelligent aliens. Some of the stars which harbour intelligent life could be hundreds if not thousands of light years away; the magnitude of the isolation is daunting and a more advanced species than ours may have already given up the idea of travelling to another star and may have resigned itself to just listening out for other forms of intelligent life. This does not mean that we should not try to find a distant radio signal across inter-stellar space even if we cannot visit the source.
The difficulty of communicating with other being is also a daunting task. The latest extra solar planet discovery, Kepler 452b, is 1,400 light years away. This planet is similar in size to Earth and it revolves around a star similar to our own in the "habitable zone". If there are intelligent beings on this planet and they are listening out for us then they will have to wait a long time to pick up the BBC news - more than a 1,000 years. If they send us a message back then they would have to wait 2,800 years for an answer, and that would be if we were confident enough and feel safe enough to reply. Communication with even a near stellar neighbour may be almost impossible because of the time difference, isolation and social difference.
This could be the resolution of the Fermi Paradox. There are too few fellow intelligent beings out there and they are too far away in terms of time and distance to maintain contact.
This does not mean that we should not satisfy our curiosity; it would be good to know that we are not alone and that life is not a single event limited to our own planet and star. If we do pick up a radio or laser signal from an alien civilisation it would probably mean that our Galaxy has millions of planets and moons that support life and that we should redouble our efforts to find it on Mars or a moon of Jupiter or Saturn.
Let's hope Stephen Hawkings and Yuri Milner meet with success.
http://www.space.com/29990-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-initiative.html
In my view this is a fantastic project. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that any form of life exists in the Universe other than on Earth or its near environment.
The project involves scanning the skies to detect electro-magnetic radiation in the form of radio signals or laser beams which would have been transmitted by an alien and intelligent living being or a robot of such a being.
It is quite possible that the ten year project will pick up such a signal and be able to decode it. Picking up an alien radio signal may be our best chance to confirm that life exists elsewhere in the Milky Way. It is unlikely that a telescope such as Kepler will be able to resolve the signs of life on planets many light years away. It is equally unlikely that a satellite probe will find life on another planet or moon of our solar system within 10 years. However, Mars could be a candidate for such a discovery.
Yuri Milner who is financing the project has rightly pointed out that even if we do not discover alien life with the Breakthrough project then it does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere.
I am hoping that the project will be successful but I have my doubts that intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy.
The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi surmised "our galaxy should be teeming with civilizations, but where are they? Why are they not here visiting us already? Why can't we see them? The Galaxy has been been in existence for billions of years surely we cannot be the only form of life that is intelligent? This is the Fermi paradox.
http://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html
So far we can only speculate that life exists in the rest of the Galaxy. It is quite possible, however, that some planets are teeming with life - just like the Earth. There are about 400 billion stars in our Galaxy so millions of them could support life on a planet or moon within their alien "solar system".
However, what are the chances of a life form on another planet evolving both the intelligence and the dexterity to make tools which can communicate across interstellar space and make space probes. Out of the millions of species that have ever survived on Earth only a small number would qualify as tool makers intelligent enough to make a radio set if they had survived. Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are two but they went extinct. Neanderthal Man also had the potential but he could be part of our own species. Only one surviving species has been thrown up on Earth which has the intelligence and physical ability to design and build a radio set. Dolphins, Whales and other non-human primates display some form of intelligence but they do not have the manual dexterity to create complex tools. The chance of an intelligent species such as man evolving are probably millions to one against. Intelligence does not confer a particular ability to survive as a species. Cockroaches have survived for millions of years without any form of intelligence. The human genus has only existed for a couple of million or so years.
Planets which support life elsewhere in the Galaxy could face the same evolutionary predicament. Thousands or millions of species survive on a planet but none of them have both the intelligence and the dexterity to create tools. There may be billions of planets which can support life but only thousands which support intelligent life that can communicate across the Galaxy.
It will be interesting to note how human beings fare when they travel to Mars. Whilst it may be physically possible to survive a trip it might be mentally very difficult. We cannot know how humans will deal with the isolation of both time and distance. Experiments have been done by isolating humans in submarines and laboratories for months on end and humans can survive on the international space station for similar periods. All of these humans have had an escape route and know that their isolation can be ended if it becomes too much of an ordeal. A trip to Mars is of a different order of isolation of even a trip to the Moon. Inter-planetary and inter-stellar space travel may not be possible for humans because of the isolation factor. The same could apply to intelligent aliens. Some of the stars which harbour intelligent life could be hundreds if not thousands of light years away; the magnitude of the isolation is daunting and a more advanced species than ours may have already given up the idea of travelling to another star and may have resigned itself to just listening out for other forms of intelligent life. This does not mean that we should not try to find a distant radio signal across inter-stellar space even if we cannot visit the source.
The difficulty of communicating with other being is also a daunting task. The latest extra solar planet discovery, Kepler 452b, is 1,400 light years away. This planet is similar in size to Earth and it revolves around a star similar to our own in the "habitable zone". If there are intelligent beings on this planet and they are listening out for us then they will have to wait a long time to pick up the BBC news - more than a 1,000 years. If they send us a message back then they would have to wait 2,800 years for an answer, and that would be if we were confident enough and feel safe enough to reply. Communication with even a near stellar neighbour may be almost impossible because of the time difference, isolation and social difference.
This could be the resolution of the Fermi Paradox. There are too few fellow intelligent beings out there and they are too far away in terms of time and distance to maintain contact.
This does not mean that we should not satisfy our curiosity; it would be good to know that we are not alone and that life is not a single event limited to our own planet and star. If we do pick up a radio or laser signal from an alien civilisation it would probably mean that our Galaxy has millions of planets and moons that support life and that we should redouble our efforts to find it on Mars or a moon of Jupiter or Saturn.
Let's hope Stephen Hawkings and Yuri Milner meet with success.
Monday, 20 July 2015
Countering Extremist Ideologies
Naturally, I agree with the British Prime Minister that the government and the public in general must do all they can to counter extremism and terrorism. However, I do not agree that " historic injustices and grievances" and " recent wars" should not be included as part of the solution.
We only have to look to the United Kingdom to look at the effect of "historic injustices and grievances" and "recent wars" to see graphically and tragically their effect.
The "troubles" in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998 involved the deaths of 3,600 people. They were the result of hatred between the IRA and the UVF and UDA. Combatants from both sides of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide were responsible for most of the deaths and casualties. The conflict was only resolved by negotiation.
Some of the animosity in Northern Ireland remained from the 1690 Battle of The Boyne. The Protestant victory is still celebrated today by Protestant extremists, even though some of this extremism no longer expresses itself through terrorism and violence.
There has been animosity between Irish Catholics and Protestants for centuries and this culminated in the War for Irish independence between 1919 and 1921 and the subsequent civil war after the formation of the Irish Free State. The civilian population of Ireland and the UK has got plenty of blood on its hands. Irish and UK governments have also got blood on their hands with relation to Ireland.
Thousands of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want to be British and do not want to adhere to British values, whatever they are, and they would vote to join the Republic of Ireland if there were a plebiscite tomorrow. Luckily there is no longer any terrorism to achieve this but the whole of our society needs to be careful. The situation could easily slide back into violence if the politicians from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland do not remain watchful.
British politicians should therefore have a full understanding of how historical injustices can play on the mind of potential terrorists; and they ignore this aspect of why people become violent to achieve political means at their peril and at the peril of the British community at large.
We do not have to look to Northern Ireland to find the causes of why young people choose violence to achieve political aims. During the Spanish Civil War hundreds of Britons went to fight in the International Brigade against fascism. Some of them were members of the British establishment and were fully imbued in British values.
To persuade British people not to join guerrilla groups such as Daesh or ISIL we must start a dialogue with all of our young people and encourage them to think for themselves rather than blindly follow an extremist or violent ideology.
We could begin this dialogue by becoming a secular state which defends the rights of all of our citizens to become believers or non-believers. We should also withdraw state funds from faith schools including Church of England ones. If parents want to give their children a religious education then they should send them to private schools. State funded schools should teach our children to think rationally about all aspects of our society including religion and our history and to face the truth.
Why not let our children mix and why not do our best to integrate the sons and daughters of immigrants into British society rather than condemn them for having "Un-British" ideas?
We should not traduce immigrants or their children; we should welcome them to play a full part in our community and nation.
To ignore history or to have a prejudiced view of it invites trouble. Equally, we have to tackle the grievances caused by injustice and war: these are other sources of animosity that we ignore to the detriment of harmony within our nation.
We only have to look to the United Kingdom to look at the effect of "historic injustices and grievances" and "recent wars" to see graphically and tragically their effect.
The "troubles" in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998 involved the deaths of 3,600 people. They were the result of hatred between the IRA and the UVF and UDA. Combatants from both sides of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide were responsible for most of the deaths and casualties. The conflict was only resolved by negotiation.
Some of the animosity in Northern Ireland remained from the 1690 Battle of The Boyne. The Protestant victory is still celebrated today by Protestant extremists, even though some of this extremism no longer expresses itself through terrorism and violence.
There has been animosity between Irish Catholics and Protestants for centuries and this culminated in the War for Irish independence between 1919 and 1921 and the subsequent civil war after the formation of the Irish Free State. The civilian population of Ireland and the UK has got plenty of blood on its hands. Irish and UK governments have also got blood on their hands with relation to Ireland.
Thousands of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want to be British and do not want to adhere to British values, whatever they are, and they would vote to join the Republic of Ireland if there were a plebiscite tomorrow. Luckily there is no longer any terrorism to achieve this but the whole of our society needs to be careful. The situation could easily slide back into violence if the politicians from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland do not remain watchful.
British politicians should therefore have a full understanding of how historical injustices can play on the mind of potential terrorists; and they ignore this aspect of why people become violent to achieve political means at their peril and at the peril of the British community at large.
We do not have to look to Northern Ireland to find the causes of why young people choose violence to achieve political aims. During the Spanish Civil War hundreds of Britons went to fight in the International Brigade against fascism. Some of them were members of the British establishment and were fully imbued in British values.
To persuade British people not to join guerrilla groups such as Daesh or ISIL we must start a dialogue with all of our young people and encourage them to think for themselves rather than blindly follow an extremist or violent ideology.
We could begin this dialogue by becoming a secular state which defends the rights of all of our citizens to become believers or non-believers. We should also withdraw state funds from faith schools including Church of England ones. If parents want to give their children a religious education then they should send them to private schools. State funded schools should teach our children to think rationally about all aspects of our society including religion and our history and to face the truth.
Why not let our children mix and why not do our best to integrate the sons and daughters of immigrants into British society rather than condemn them for having "Un-British" ideas?
We should not traduce immigrants or their children; we should welcome them to play a full part in our community and nation.
To ignore history or to have a prejudiced view of it invites trouble. Equally, we have to tackle the grievances caused by injustice and war: these are other sources of animosity that we ignore to the detriment of harmony within our nation.
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Citizen's Duty
The British government has described non-violent extremism thus: "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". On this basis schools, universities, NHS trusts, local authorities and prisons will be placed under a statutory duty to prevent extremist radicalisation taking place within their walls. In the current climate of our society, you are what you say as well as what you do.
On the face of it I agree with the opinion that citizens should not indulge in extremism and that secular values should be encouraged. However, will it not be counterproductive to censor or "blacklist" individuals who express opinions which fall within the definition? We all have a duty to promote non-violent political activity and those who deliberately provoke others to behave violently towards political or religious opponents or commit treason should be sanctioned. However, we cannot challenge "extremist" ideas if such ideas are only held or expressed in private. Those who are potentially violent will simply keep their mouths shut with the aim of not arousing suspicion.
Some proponents of religious or political change could feel resentment that they cannot express their views in public and may turn to violent organisations to vent their anger.
We live in a free society and open debate is necessary to defend our values of liberty, openness and free thinking.
Of course there is a fine line between expressing "extremist" views and inciting others to violence or even being violent but we must be careful not to sanction those who have not crossed that line.
We really should be able to recognise the difference between the expression of an opinion and taking violent action or inciting violence.
I find the extreme views of some of our fellow citizens abhorrent especially with regard to proposing violence. There is, however, a difference between actually taking action or inciting someone rather than just talking and being offensive.
Some politicians have proposed taking military action without consent from the United Nations should their views be considered as extremist? Should they be put on a blacklist?
You have the right to openly propose changes to the law that go against the grain of British values , if you so wish. You have this right but you do not have the right to impose extra-judicial punishments on those who do not agree with your moral or ethical standards.
You have the right to oppose a secular democracy and the right to express the view that Britain should become a theocracy or a republic. However, you do not have the right to impose any of this without the democratic consent of the majority of the British people.
We would live in a better society if everyone recognised democracy and secular values and we were allowed to express non-violent opinions freely.
On the face of it I agree with the opinion that citizens should not indulge in extremism and that secular values should be encouraged. However, will it not be counterproductive to censor or "blacklist" individuals who express opinions which fall within the definition? We all have a duty to promote non-violent political activity and those who deliberately provoke others to behave violently towards political or religious opponents or commit treason should be sanctioned. However, we cannot challenge "extremist" ideas if such ideas are only held or expressed in private. Those who are potentially violent will simply keep their mouths shut with the aim of not arousing suspicion.
Some proponents of religious or political change could feel resentment that they cannot express their views in public and may turn to violent organisations to vent their anger.
We live in a free society and open debate is necessary to defend our values of liberty, openness and free thinking.
Of course there is a fine line between expressing "extremist" views and inciting others to violence or even being violent but we must be careful not to sanction those who have not crossed that line.
We really should be able to recognise the difference between the expression of an opinion and taking violent action or inciting violence.
I find the extreme views of some of our fellow citizens abhorrent especially with regard to proposing violence. There is, however, a difference between actually taking action or inciting someone rather than just talking and being offensive.
Some politicians have proposed taking military action without consent from the United Nations should their views be considered as extremist? Should they be put on a blacklist?
You have the right to openly propose changes to the law that go against the grain of British values , if you so wish. You have this right but you do not have the right to impose extra-judicial punishments on those who do not agree with your moral or ethical standards.
You have the right to oppose a secular democracy and the right to express the view that Britain should become a theocracy or a republic. However, you do not have the right to impose any of this without the democratic consent of the majority of the British people.
We would live in a better society if everyone recognised democracy and secular values and we were allowed to express non-violent opinions freely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
