Skip to main content

Non-violence and science

As a practitioner of non-violence, with the aim of not unduly interfering with the free will of another sentient being, I could never be a formal student of science.

Killing, containing and cutting are but three methods used to interfere with other, non-consent giving beings, in the name of science in "scientific" institutions.

This is thought OK because animal suffering is not seen as important compared to the noble goal of the quest for knowledge through science.

This kind of elitist and emotionally cold thinking is what differentiates a scientist from members of the general public.

Just as fishing is left to those who are happy to kill fish and soldiering is left to those comfortable with killing humans, science, particularly biological science, is left to those comfortable with killing and containing animals for experiments.

As a result, science does not attract the best and the brightest necessarily, but rather the emotionally stunted, but quite intellectually sharp.

This also impacts on the tone of the work done.

High emotional intelligence people with high intellects have the greatest likelihood of moving humanity ahead in the right directions.

Instead of building atomic bombs and massive dams,
both highly destructive activities,
they will move us towards technologies that are life promoting,
for humans and other beings,
and that make the experience of being alive
 so much richer!


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level pla…