Signs of Creationism vs. Atheism

As you, the reader can tell, I am touching on a very sensitive subject.  I may put my personal beliefs into this post, but I am not here to pose my belief and painstakingly defend them.  I actually have participated on numerous online debates, and actually, they were very informative.  Not on the actual arguments, but on the argument itself.  I believe at the very core of this debate, can be broken up from coincidence.  I am quoting from the movie Signs:

People break down into two groups when they experience something lucky.  Group number 1, sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence, a sign, evidence, that there is someone out there watching over them.  Group number 2, sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance, sure there are people in group number 2 are looking at those 14 lights in a very suspicious way – for them this situation isn’t just 50/50.  It could be bad, it could be good.   But deep down, they feel that whatever happens they are on their own, and that, fills them with fear.

There’s a whole lot of people in group number 1.  When they see those 14 lights, they see a miracle.  And deep down they feel that whatever is going to happen, there’s going to be someone there to help them, and that fills them with hope.  You have to ask yourself, what kind of person are you?

Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles?  Or do you believe that people just get lucky?  Or, is it possible that there are no coincidences?

And guess what the movie title is?  It is Signs.  So the movie is making a statement that there is no coincidence, that there is some forces that watch over us.  It’s a good movie, and very thought provoking, with some constant humor that will make you chuckle.  It’s a good watch.

But what I really wanted to say, is I started a huge debate online with creationism vs. atheism, and I opened with an alternative to what Mel Gibson said.  I started with a word, that I think is the correct word, however it really ticks off atheists, and that’s the word “faith.”  Simply put, I said that in whether or not you believe in a God or not, both outcomes practice faith.  That fueled the fire, but at the very end, where they stopped responding, was when I started being more specific with what I said at the beginning.  I started talking about coincidence, and how for some people, there is never a coincidence, while others there is just coincidence.  And that is what sealed it.  We argued aspects of the big bang, the cosmos, physics, mathematics, biology, what have you.  It all doesn’t matter.  What matters is if you believe in coincidence, or do you believe if there is something more?  So what did I learn?  The Creationism vs. Atheism debate fundamentally is a philosophical debate, rather than the debate on interpretation of various facts that humanity has found.

  • Faith –>  belief that is not based on proof.
  • Belief –>  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.


  • Do you believe in coincidence, or do you believe there is no coincidence?
  • Do you have faith in coincidence, or do you have faith that there is no coincidence?

All I did was change the word and they were okay with it.  But they literally mean the same thing in this context.

There is something I wanted to explore.  Let’s assume the entirety of Mel Gibson’s analysis.  People that just believe in luck, know that they are alone, and so they have fear.  People that believe in something more than just luck, they are filled with hope.  What would be the implications that this is the case?

The first thing that comes to mind is the life cycle of empires.  In Sir John Glubb’s essay, The Fate of Empires, he talks about societies that do not believe in a God or Gods.  Which means, that according to this analysis, many people were in the state of fear.  And in this state, it makes us make decisions and do actions that would be different if we were not scared.  Now when looking at that work, there is no doubt that the US is in the Age of Decadence.  Which means, there is an increasing amount of people that are not God fearing people, which means they are scared.  Look at our society?  Fear begets fear.  It seems like it’s a snowball effect.  The media pumps out fear, and we like it because we are scared.  I’m not really sure as to why that is.  Why is it, that when I am scared, I enjoy watching things that make me scared?  I just know from personal experience, with me as well as other loved ones – they were scared, and they expose themselves to fearful stuff.  I do not necessarily understand the psychology of that to be honest.  But it also makes me wonder, what kind of society would we be if we were not scared?  What policies would we put into place?

Personally, I do believe in a God and a spiritual realm, but I have problems with particular views, however I haven’t really put in the effort to resolve these problems in either outcome.  But I feel that’s where a lot of people lye.  They are spiritual, but they do not put effort into that spirituality.

In any case, that one scene in this entire movie, encapsulated what I have learned is the core philosophical argument with the creationism vs. atheism debate.  If someone, on a philosophical level, can refute one side and prove the other, I would argue it would be for sure the best philosophical find ever, and one of the biggest intellectual leaps humanity will have ever done.

Thanks for reading!  Post comments!




The Book of Eli Analysis

This is an older movie so I am not too stressed out about spoiling the movie. I did want to take the time to dive into what the movie was trying to say, and at one point the writers view is the core message of The Bible. I don’t think I am even going to take time to summarize the movie.

Eli you learn later is blind. “I see by faith, not by sight,” he is quoted to saying, and he literally can see from faith. He wears sunglasses not to protect his eyes from the sun, but to not show people that he is blind. He has been given special privileges from God so to speak. He took on a task that has taken him over 30 years, surviving off of a wasteland. It isn’t just the surviving from the elements, but from gun fire. The first gun fire scene Eli was literally standing with no cover, and the audience hears bullets flying by. This maybe typical in other Hollywood movies, but this one had a purpose. It was showing that God was protecting him on a more literal level. Not to mention when he gets shot, and somehow by God’s plans, a friend comes and helps save his life.

He takes life and he hates taking it. Probably the coolest action scene is towards the beginning of the movie. He uses his blade. And after he was done protecting himself, he slams his blade with disgust. It’s to show that he follows what he reads. He knows it was to protect himself, but he hates taking the life of another.

What made the movie more interesting was the stance of the antagonist. He wanted to use The Bible as a means of power. By using their faith, they could be more righteous by building more towns, or something to that effect. He wanted to use faith as a means of expanding his power, of having his people follow him. By slanting the word of God, he could control his uneducated citizenship into doing things mainly for himself. I feel considering the statements made in his movie, the writing are showing not only what was done in the past with God, but also what should be done instead.

When I think about religion being used as a means of power, I automatically think of The Crusades and The Inquisition. As I understand it, by using what the bible says about bringing Christianity to all parts of the Earth for the second coming, this justified eliminating or saving the heathens. This created more conquest, and therefore more power. Depending on how you worship Christianity, there are some denominations that have you pay money to help loved ones pass into the after life – in the olden days, you had to pay the priest in order for your prayer to be heard by God. The Inquisition brought fear to the church, a fear that was used as a means of power. You fear the church, you do as the church says. These were once dire moments of our history, but people of God have evolved so to speak. Now through the Christian faith, there are different flavors of worship, but I believe what The Book of Eli said as to the main message of The Bible, is basic but very true.

Keep in mind Eli has been reading this book (it’s in braille) every night for 30 years. He is asked by his friend, the one who saved his life, indirectly, “what did you learn from this book?” Keep in mind she has no concept of God, of Jesus, or Creation, I mean anything. It’s the last Bible on the planet. Eli said, “Do onto others you’d want to do onto you.” The Golden Rule basically. This message is shown through love and caring throughout the entire Bible. I would argue that at some points the love is hard to see – however especially in The New Testament, love is a theme found throughout the book.

On this issue of spirituality, and faith, I think there comes to be two kinds of people that approach this phenomenon on whether or not to worship a certain religion. The first kind, take a leap of faith and believe in that God, to later find the evidence for that religion. The second, are people that require proof in order to worship whatever said God. The main difference that I can see, is for one the second group have to put forth loads more amount of effort to even come to a decision. The first group is able to put their belief into something and not require proof. This is admirable, but did they make the right decision? Only faith will tell.

Eli basically said if you were to remove knowledge of all the various characters of The Bible, and all the various stories, that the main message is the golden rule. Imagine, as John Lennon would say, what our society would be like if we treated others as we would like to be treated. It’s really difficult to be that way in our current society, with how people are vultures with our money. As they should be, because it seems if there is a financial incentive to do something, regardless of the ethics involved, you do it. As I have said before, our society is individualism. You could expand individualism to units of people, like your immediate family and friends. It’s okay to look out for the ones you love, but it is not okay to do that at the expense of others livelihood. People have forgotten that, people have forgotten the message of Eli. I wouldn’t be so against capitalism if it didn’t corrode the souls of so many people that partake in it. We seem to be taught the golden rule, but we refuse to execute that into our lives. Admittedly, that is the hard part. It is much easier to learn of a concept, rather than to incorporate that change into your life. I hope we can come together as a people, rather than be divided. We are so divided on so many levels. But class, sex, race, religion, political ideology just to name a few, we are so separated that we aren’t even an American people. What drives this conflict, is money, even where race is involved. Didn’t this book say money is the root of all evil?

When Eli prayed, he didn’t ask for anything. He thanked the Lord for everything. He will only take that of which is given to him, and what is planned for him, but he will not request it. If we all showed that humility, our world would be a much better place.

“Image no possessions,
Wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.”

“Imagine” by John Lennon

Tron Legacy Analysis


This movie I have really enjoyed recently.  I felt when I first saw it about five years ago, I didn’t really appreciate the fullness of the film.  It’s beyond the great special effects, music in accordance to action, and the wardrobe.  I mean these costumes look like they were engineered in the future.  They did a good job.  Daft Punk being in the futuristic bar was a great touch.  The story is well written, and brings about themes of love, perfection and imperfection, as well as God and creation.  It’s a very compelling movie, and really makes the viewer reflect on the statements on these themes.

It starts with the father son relationship, of the Flynn’s.  His father decided to pursue ideas that were way ahead of their time, get enveloped in creating utopias, while realizing that “perfection” was right at his finger tips (more on the perfection them later), and it was that of his son.  I quote, “I would give it all up for just one more day with you.”  In order to really appreciate the power of those words, I have to explain the premise of the movie.

Flynn was able to take the human image and put it into a digital self.  Sort of like a Matrix I guess, but different intentions and conditions.  In this world, Flynn is God.  He created a program to protect users (himself) named Tron.  He then created a program, a digital representation of himself, to create the perfect system.  That program was named Clue.  With those three, they created utopias.  First one they created, only programs could exist in the world.  They finally after that attempt, started over and made a utopia for both programs and users.  In a super computer for the time it was made, in the bottom of an arcade, there was a universe and Flynn was God.

In fact, the image that is presented in this post, is my favorite part I think.  It is the moment that God revealed himself to His creation after many cycles.  Everyone goes in to awe and fear was expressed.  There was a program that was praying the in the presence of Flynn.  Imagine that?  First, imagine being God.  Isn’t that insane?  He created all of that.  As shown later in the film, Flynn has powers that only He can have.  Since He has the master file on his disk, He can manipulate what He created.  Imagine seeing God right in front of you.  I would just wait and stare in awe honestly.  To actually be with the Creator, brings a mixture of emotions I can’t describe.  Imagine living in a world where they know there is a God, and they know who He is.  That society has a much different psyche than ours, and in a sense, I envy them.  I would love to have the luxury to have seen my God and know that He is there.  What is interesting, is Flynn doesn’t hear prayers.  It’s something I have thought hard about with our Creator, does he actually listen to prayers?  Or does he let the system run and does something else?  I will never know.

Now it is understood the strength of those words, “I would give it all up just to spend one more day with you.”  He would give up being God to be with his son again.  He was forced to stay in The Grid because the portal closed.  He hadn’t seen his son in years, and he thought he would never see him again.  Flynn knew what had to be done in order to get The Iso and his son out.  That is why he said,”one more day” because he was going to merge with Clue and create an instant explosion followed by a complete reset.  Flynn died, but The Grid remains to be manipulated, or improved, by his son.  Flynn knew he was going to die, and it would of given up his life’s work, at being God, to be with his son more.  That was more important to him.  That is really strong, and shows what we all desire and what usually happens.  Father’s aren’t home making the cheddar, and some get so caught up in their career it is more important than family.  A song that shows this well is “Cats in the Cradle.”  It’s a cycle.  The boy mimics a distant father and becomes a distant father.  Most of us yearn for a close father because not only is it human, but a lot of us have had distant relationships with our fathers because of our society.

There is another love story.  The son Flynn and The Iso.  Iso’s were literally a result of The Grid.  They were a different race of people created by The Grid.  Flynn, God, not only created a digital frontier and utopias with programs, but created another being that lived in The Grid, with their own DNA.  Clue saw them as imperfections, and slaughtered them.  “It was genocide.”  The Iso, she is the last remaining Iso, that Flynn saved.  Imagine, being saved individually by your Creator.  In any case, The Iso’s DNA could revolutionize technology back on Earth, and was the true purpose of The Grid to Flynn.  His creation, of living beings, He truly is a God if one thinks about it.

Clue was programmed to make the perfect system.  He did it well.  Flynn had a long time to think, and told this to Clue.  “The thing about perfection, is that it is unknowable.  It’s impossible but it is also right in front of you all the time.  You wouldn’t know that because I didn’t when I created you.  I’m sorry, Clue.  I’m sorry.”  When his son went to the portal, there were images of his son when he was younger.  To show what he was thinking.  “See ya kiddo.”  Flynn then combined Himself with Clue, resetting The Grid.

I don’t know why, but that quote is making me think of a concept.  Could the world be more perfect that we originally thought?  I think it is a perfect super-organism.  Meaning it has processes that ultimately balance everyone out, and is cyclic to bring motion to the planet.  There’s a carbon cycle, a water cycle, an oxygen cycle, a carbon dioxide cycle, and the list goes on.  It’s a perfect system, that was created through the laws of this universe.  But could it be more perfect?  Perfection to us is pure symmetry, uniform color, evenly divided angles.  Sterile.  But could the structure and all of the planet be perfect?  Sure the structure is different than our preconceived notion of perfection, but what if Flynn is right?  What if perfection is unknowable?  Then our views of perfection are not valid because perfection is unknowable.

Could it be possible that perfection is our universe itself?  Could the very variable leaves of a tree actually all be perfect?  Sure there is variance in nature, but it is truly random, and that could mean true perfection.  Maybe a part of perfection is variability, or randomness?  Maybe our preconceived notions of perfection blinds us from the perfection right in front of us.  Excuse my french, but it’s the fact that we fucking exist in the first place.  I believe there were systemic steps, and I think considering all the Earth like planets we are finding, we are bound to find life.  If we are truly alone in this universe, then those are planets for our taking.

Singularities.  There is no reality.  There is no time.  There is nothingness, but a infinitely small and dense particle.  Do you think that particle could of exploded in an infinite amount of ways?  After all, there is no reality.  The singularity exploded with just enough energy to produce the exact mass of 14 decimal places to create a universe that is flat and eventually harbors life.  That to me is perfection.  Iso’s are us.  As a result of the flow of energy becoming more efficient, life was systematically created.  We are the result of energy.

This movie has really changed me.  I think the climax of the film, where Flynn explains perfection, has actually changed my perception of the world.  I think we are living on a perfect planet, in not only processes, symbiotic relationships, but also in structure itself.

I’m going for a walk I think tonight.  Thanks for reading.

The Revolutionary Theme in Film

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

There are two movies that I have recently watched, and it has been awhile since I have enjoyed movies.  The first movie, is The Hunger Games:  Mockingjay Part 1 and then Exodus Gods and Kings.  And really, the main theme that I keep seeing in these movies is some sort of revolution.  Exodus has been redone by Hollywood I don’t know how many times, and it makes me wonder why they focus on that one story so much.  What my theory is, is it has to do with revolution.  Mazerunner was another example.  The game essentially forced these kids to risk their lives to exit the maze, a sense of rebellion/revolution.  I want to explore as to why this theme keeps recurring throughout movies over the years.

First, since the first movies of this kind have been successful, it is a recipe to be repeated by Hollywood to maximize their profits.  But why do we like them?  We like to see the oppressed to be free of their bondage.  All throughout human history, there have been revolutions because living conditions were so poor, or their treatment was so unjust, there had to be something done.  However, with the repetition that this movie theme is used, it makes me wonder, is there another purpose to this?  When the revolution is successfully fulfilled, there is a better life for many.  Seeing that moment, feels good, and maybe why these movies are so successful.  However, I think the action of putting revolutions on the big screen, undermines actual revolution.  What I mean is, when people watch something fictional on the big screen, and see the loss of life and risk involved, mixed with current contentment in their lives, people don’t even think about enacting a new government forcefully.  When I say contentment, is our way of life is decent enough to not risk for many, even though the quality of life for everyone could greatly improve if our government was forcefully abolished.  So since we have large amounts of things to consume, and we are programmed to consume at a young age, we don’t think about the possibilities of other lives.

And just as fictional stories show, there is risk involved, including one’s life.

I suppose peoples’ standards of living are at the point they aren’t willing to risk their lives for the possible betterment of humanity.  After all, things in theory may end up being practiced completely differently.  But I see so many problems with our economy, our government, and our way of life.  I suppose my life right now is fine.  I get to watch movies, play video games, listen to an insane amount of music, and have libraries full of databases and books.  However, as one example of so many I could list, The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a verdict that basically says if the owner of the property is not present, cops have the legal authority to search the property.  That basically undermines the fourth amendment.  I’m saying this, because ever so slightly, our Constitution is degrading.  We as a people revere it so much, but are not educated about it.  And our way of life is moving further and further from the intentions of our forefathers, allowing greed and apathy to consume our population.

And these movies?  In a way I think it is a defense for the establishment towards the idea of the masses revolting over what is going on.  Because the people in power, and the people making all the money, feel it too.  They dehumanize, just like any moment in history, people making less money than them, to justify their exploitation.  But they know it isn’t right.  There was a UN study done on social stratification, and it found that countries with the most social stratification had the least quality of health among all classes of that population.  When Donald Trump sees a homeless man, two things occur.  There is a pyschosocial stress experienced between the homeless man and Donald Trump.  This stress, leads to failing health.  Donald Trump, to deal with the psychosocial stress, dehumanizes the homeless man.  The homeless man, probably feels the stigma associated with being homeless, and feels worse about themselves when they see affluence.  Both parties experience stress, and both parties have less health because of it.

I also see these movies as an expression of a fantasy.  I think it in a way, because it is enjoyable to all of us, we desire a better life.  It speaks to us.  But because it is on the big screen, it is undermined.  “Because it is a movie.”  Nevertheless, I feel there is a desire in people for a better life.  For example, what the band MGMT feels.

They are giving up on life, because they don’t want to work the 9-5 life.  They don’t feel like they are living if they live that life.

So will America keep consuming movies about revolutions, or will they one day do something about the state of this country?  Time will tell.

I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.  -John D Rockefeller


Thoughts from Watching Pacific Rim


As the title suggests, I had the opportunity to watch Pacific Rim, a movie that I have been looking forward to watching.  The movie is essentially Hollywood tackling an anime with CG and live action.  The plot takes place in the future, where there is a portal to another dimension in the Pacific Rim.  Through this portal, large monsters are sent to devastate human cities, in hopes to annihilate the human race.  The defense to this, are huge robots that are controlled by two specially trained pilots that fight these large behemoths of alien flesh.  Not only are all aliens eliminated, but the portal is eventually destroyed.

This plot is a lot like current Japanese anime.  There are certain cities that are attacked by an alien race, and humanity fights against them using mech warriors, or a combination of mech and biological weapons.  The main characters are the pilots, and the various dynamics and struggles that takes place with the other human characters.  There is usually a love story.  Just like in Pacific Rim, there are camera shots of the pilots strapping in the robots, and creating a neural link with the machine.  The nature of this link, and limitations of this link varies from anime to anime, but basically it creates an intimate connection between pilot and robot, increasing combat effectiveness.  This movie really was an anime.

But, there is a theme that came up in this movie that I have been ranting about in this blog.

As usual, the world leaders in this movie combined their resources for the common good in order to combat these aliens.  That is the only way these robots were able to be constructed.  The necessity of survival, of the imminent apocalypse, seems to be the only possible motivating factor that can create humanity to unite themselves for the common good.  Also, these aliens that the humans are fighting, are parasites to planets for they consume resources and then move to the next planet.

The first brief point I want to make, is the fact that currently the human race is consuming the world’s resources at a rate in which the world will not be able to sustain.  Population growth, coupled with the advancements of economies around the world, is speeding the consumption of resources.  With our current view of how to handle things, and the necessity for economic growth, the only way to keep this growth continuing is to consume resources from other planets.  Does that sound familiar?  To me it is strange, that we create stories that we enjoy where the antagonist of these stories that are viewed to be evil, are sharing qualities of our current behavior as a society.  I am willing to bet that the majority of people that watch these movies do not make this connection.

I want to make things clear.  I am totally for the use of resources that are available to us.  I see no problem with mastering the material world (however I do have a problem with it being a central value to all things), but when these consumption of resources not only threatens the livelihood of the planet and inhabitants as a whole, by not only the byproducts of consumption but the depletion of these resources entirely, that is when I see our way of life being counter productive.  It is not in the best interest for the human race to deplete resources entirely, especially when various resources replenish naturally.  This is why I think we should move to a value where we consume resources at or less than the rate of replenishment.  Only then, would sustainability be guaranteed.  This statement would force humanity to really think and prioritize how they will use the various resources that are available to them.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  It would also force humanity to design technology to last as long as possible, and when repair is needed, to be the most resource efficient as possible.  This would have great implications.  For one, the amount of waste that is being disposed of on a continual basis would decrease, allowing for more input per unit of resource.  The bottom line is this would allow for more things to be produced while decreasing the pollution to the environment.

But why is it that humanity has to be threatened with annihilation that we unite?  Is it because the necessity of survival benefits individual interests and freedoms, which is perceived to be the underlying factor that drives humanity to act?  Can humanity unite for a cause, and work for the common good when conditions other than survival are present?  Could a vision exist where people would work for the common good while humanity is in a state of peace and tranquility (for the most part)?

Why do people believe that working for the common good is not possible?

I have some thoughts on this question, but I am sure I will not address all statements.  But the obvious arguments to me would be the record of communism, and that working for the common good is not in our human nature.

I am not an expert on what communism is or how it collapsed.  Although it is something that I think I need to read more about, I do not believe that this philosophy is not the only possible philosophy out there on how to manage the disbursement of resources and wealth.  Also, could different policies been in place to prevent the collapse of the government while still maintaining communism?  I just don’t know.  But these possibilities provide a point that I think people give up on the notion to work for the common good of man too early, because there might be other possible philosophies that have not been authored or attracted the mainstream, and to the possibility that different regulations could of been in place.

I also think that self-gratification and maximization is our human nature is entirely false.  There is mounds of evidence to suggest that humans can develop in an infinite amount of ways.  Temperamental biases (biology), culture, and historic era shape the development of the human mind.  Scientists have done longitudinal studies on infants from various cultures, ranging from the Western cultures to remote villages around the world.  The extreme variety on how these minds develop suggests that the human mind can is completely malleable.  Consider the United States.  When individuals were being stripped of their freedom, they created a national vision that centers around the maximization of individual freedom.  It makes sense.  It was a vision that so many people followed and were passionate about, many people lost their lives for the establishment of this nation.  But to me this is evidence of a few things.  For one, that society can change and unite for a singular cause.  Secondly, that values can change.  I am not a historical buff, but I am sure there were postulates and values in England that were vastly different from the eventual birth of the United States.  Look at different civilizations throughout the history of the world.  Things have constantly evolved, resulting in vastly different people.

This is evidence to the idea that once a civilization or nation state is established, the culture that is produced will alter the development of human individuals.  It is very possible for people to work for the common good, for the motivation for honor.  It is possible for humanity to value the pursuit of knowledge, peace, mastery, and the like over material gratification and consumerism.  I believe if a proposition were introduced and refined over time, and enough support was behind this philosophy, human behavior could change in whichever kind of way.  I think the science of human development strongly supports this claim.

I’m sorry, I am saying the same things again.  I need to stop.  But I really think it is possible for humanity to work for the common good without a comet, or an alien race working towards the extinction of the human race.  I think this could greatly benefit the lives of many people on this planet.  And I am wondering what could be done to make this vision into a reality.  I think the obvious part would be to collaborate with people across the globe on a vision that would benefit the lives of everyone.  What would have to be done in order to make this vision a reality, a vision that is supported by people across the globe?  Secondly, I think a leader has to step up to the plate.  I think this is necessary to guide the people into a direction and due course that shares this vision.

I’m thinking.  One day, I might start a website and forum, collaborating with people across the internet to determine what this could be.

This post was all over the place.  But I am writing what is coming from my mind and my heart.  Maybe one day I will post formal essays, but that is at a later time.

Thanks for reading.

Oblivion, Fusion, and Energy

Yesterday I had the pleasure to watch Oblivion starring Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman for free because I have an AMC giftcard.  It was a pretty good movie, I must say.  And, it was a movie that really made me think, with the messages it was portraying to the audience.  What is crazy, is I was going to write an essay on fusion and put it as downloadable material for a learning experience, and here a movie talks about it.  I am not writing the essay as I still have a whole book on fusion on reserve at my public library.  I think after this post, I am going to read the book, but I am not going to write the essay.  The thesis of the essay will be in this post.

In any case, some of the ideas of the movie in my opinion are spot on, and they are ideas that have me worried.

The background storyline (not spoiling anything) is that there was a war between man and alien.  Humanity won, only by ruining the planet.  And so, to satisfy energy demands humanity have machines that harvest sea water for the use of fusion; to quench their energy demands.  Now I hope this may have you concerned.  Does fusion require sea water?  And the answer is yes.  Sea water is an abundant source of the deuterium ion, a hydrogen ion used in fusion with tritium.  The names have to do with the amount of neutrons in the atom, one having two neutrons and the other having three.  So what is fusion?

Fusion is the holy grail or answer if you will to the world’s energy problems.  The issue is to develop and build the first fusion reactor, a lot of money needs to be poured in.  And, a lot of it is still theoretical at this point.  In theory, the amount of energy potential from a single reactor is much more than a fission reactor, or modern nuclear reactors.  As you can tell by the names of these reactors, fusion and fission, these describe the method by which these reactors work.  Let us start with fission, or modern nuclear reactors.

Fission reactors usually have uranium rods placed in a pool of water.  Then, neutrons are sent flying towards the uranium rods.  What happens, is the nucleai of uranium split into smaller particles, releasing energy and sending particles flying to other nucleai furthering the reaction.  The heat generated boils a pool of water which turns a turbine.  The nuclear waste is the water that surrounds the uranium rods.  This is essentially how our current nuclear reactor works.

Fusion is a little different, and it is essentially creating a small star on Earth and harvesting the energy.  The sun works by fusing two hydrogen atoms into helium.  This process makes the atom much more stable, because it has turned to an inert gas, thus releasing energy.  (There is a general trend in nature.  When things become more stable energy is released)  The explosiveness of this reaction fights against the Sun’s constant gravity, giving the sphere of energy that we see almost every day, and is responsible for life on this planet.

So a fusion reactor uses the same strategy.  It takes two hydrogen atoms, deuterium and tritium, and fuses them together.  This creates helium and a neutron, and of course, energy.  A blanket is placed around the ignition chamber of various theoretical compositions, and is used to transfer the energy from the ignition as heat.  The neutron can also react with the blanket and create heat, however there are some neutrons that exit the chamber entirely and induce neutron damage to the rest of the facility.  (Another cost to keep in mind)  There are two ignition strategies, but the quickest one to talk about is using 192 lasers.  These high powered lasers hit a cube of deuterium and tritium from all angles.  The pulsation of the lasers combined with the frequency causes the cube to collapse on itself, producing large amounts of heat and pressure.  This eventually starts a fusion reaction.  The reaction will be controlled by either increasing or decreasing the fuel being added to the reaction.
There is another powerful concept and that is hybrid reactors, or reactors that have both a fusion reactor and fission reactor.  Basically the added advantage is the neutron from the fusion reaction could fuel the fission reactions and react with the nuclear waste, making it not nuclear waste.  Which is amazing, to be able to get rid of nuclear waste.

Now that was really brief.  Of course in my paper I would add more, but I think that gets the just of it.  I didn’t spend too much time on how because that is not what I want to talk about.  I want to talk about the implications of fusion energy.

Remember the movie Oblivion?  The humans were extracting sea water to fuel their fusion reactors.  And well, that wouldn’t be far from the truth if the world switched to fusion power.  And remember, the fusion reaction takes sea water hydrogen and tritium (derived from much more expensive methods) to create helium and a neutron.  Which means the sea water is completely consumed.  Helium is released, and is inert and light.  As far as I know, it may eventually leave the atmosphere, but that I don’t know about for sure.  But that sea water is gone.  There is nothing to take it back.

And this would have huge implications on the planet.  This would be essentially speeding up the feedback process of heating the ocean by decreasing its volume.  One way the ocean keeps us alive is that it cools the overall planet from the sun.  The water, actually absorbs heat, and transfers it all over the place.  With less and less sea water, less and less heat can be absorbed.  The heat could get so hot, that eventually the rest of the ocean would vanish.  This would not only mess up the food chain, but would be felt with the weather among other things.  (The Earth’s gravity would keep the water vapor inside the atmosphere)

And this is what I wanted to talk about.  Fusion is a engineering marvel, a testament to what the human mind can do.  There is no doubt.  But it is not the answer.  The thirst that keeps increasing for energy, is going to drive conditions on the planet that will make most of the planet uninhabitable.  Are we going to turn into those aliens that are in the movies?  The ones that go from planet to planet, and invade to take the natural resources?  Because it is looking with our current thoughts and philosophies that is where we are going.  Our infinite growth paradigm is unsustainable.  I guess we shouldn’t care because we would all be dead then.  I guess I shouldn’t really care because I have the internet on the go, and I am content with my life.  We owe it to the future of humanity to not allow fusion to pass.  Consuming sea water is the most dangerous thing you could do.  But of course, the energy companies want this.  Water would be the fuel, and they have 75% of the planet as fuel.

The reason why energy companies do not want green energy, is the fuel they can not control.  The sun.  Like I have said a thousand times, if we were to harness the sun’s energy for one day, that could satisfy the energy demands of the world for years.  There is geothermal energy!  Plenty of energy for the world.  If we were to use photovoltaics, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal, we could meet energy demands.  The energy companies do not want this to happen, and will use their power to not allow this to happen at all costs.  As technology develops, these methods of power will become more efficient, but that is not the reason to wait.  The moment is now.  If we start to make our grid powered by the sun, then we would have a grid until the sun runs out of hydrogen fuel and moves to the next stage.  Which won’t be for another billions of years.  Now that, is sustainable. 

We as a human race have to make a decision, and the people of power have worked really hard at keeping us distracted from what matters.  We have to end our obsession with constant growth, as that is not possible, and will drive us to the end of the universe if need be for energy, only to be turned to dust.  Or, we could be on this universe for a much longer time.  Harness the power of the stars for our energy demands, and learn to live within our constraints.  I severely doubt it is going to be like living in a cave.  But I do know mansions probably would not be allowed.  What I am saying, is we would have to change our consumption of power.  This in turn would force us to be closer to the planet Earth, which as far as I can tell, is a perfect super-organism.  We should appreciate the Earth, and get a grid off of the sun, and use other fuels to propel us in space in order to have a longer lasting presence there, as the sun is scheduled to consume our planet.

And what is getting in the way?

People not caring.  People distracted, consuming their entertainment without further educating themselves.  That is the purpose of the educational system.  To stunt the desire to further educate, and to pump out student after student with a degree so they are “marketable”.  People blindly accepting the standards of our society without questioning them.  And finally, the lust for money.  Of some meaningless thing that we give meaning to.  And we refuse to think of a world without money, automatically assuming we would regress.  Have there been proposed economies constructed without currencies?  I know of one, and I am sure there are others somewhere in those economic journals, I just got to find them.

There is so much more to life than money.  I hope some Americans see that, considering that there are news channels dedicating themselves to following the stock market.  I hope that one day some important people will realize that sacrificing making money may be necessary to ensuring the survival of the species.  I hope humanity does not get lured into fusion energy, and the consumption of sea water.

Avatar –> The Statements Herein

Avatar was actually the very first full length 3D movie I saw at a movie theater.  During that time, I was much more of a hardcore gamer than I am now.  My job required me to be plugged into the internet constantly, so not only was I browsing everything video games, I was participating in all kinds of forums with regards to gaming.  I’ll never forget an off topic forum thread about peoples’ thoughts on the recently released movie Avatar.

The general consensus was not only was it a bad and or poorly executed movie, but that the messages conveyed were essentially dumb.  There was a lot of heat towards this movie from the gaming community.  I also feel that this was the general trend from the overall population, and evidence of this was the fact that Avatar lost to Hurt Locker in regards to some prestigious movie award.  (I constantly get the movie, theater, music, and sport awards all mixed up.)  It is true that Hurt Locker was an amazing movie, and it was true that Hurt Locker was able to create such an amazing story with a fraction of the budget that Avatar had, but it is in my view that the most influential factor as to why Avatar lost, was its messages to not only the Human race, but the ideologies of Western thought.

Also, I would like to consider the events when this movie was released.  America had already invaded not only Afghanistan, but Iraq.  Also, the American People had realized by this point that they were fooled into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  In essence, members of the government created a motive for war, so that other members of power granted the authority of war, so that war could be pursued for the financial interests of a select few.  It is known now that Dick Cheney was on the board of directors for the company Halliburton, a large construction company, who have been given contracts to rebuild an Iraq that we essentially destroyed.  Compounded by The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it becomes very apparent that the Iraqi war, and therefore the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and citizens of Iraq, were due to the addiction of profits.  And well, that is essentially one of the core messages that is portrayed in the movie Avatar.

I will never forget watching the GOP Presidential Nominee debate on the thirteenth of September.  Ron Paul not only said something that was one hundred and ten percent true, but “boo’s” started to be heard throughout the whole audience.  Ron Paul’s view according to my understanding, is that we as America are going to constantly run into “Terrorism” if we constantly occupate countries across the globe for our own interests.  In fact, one of the nominees said that she would only establish American Embassies in other countries if there was an American interest to be there.  Everyone applauded!  In my view, this is so wrong.  What about the interests of the people who live in that country?

To go back to Ron Paul, is he essentially said the actions of American Foreign Policy created the events of September 11th.  He instantly got booed, but in my mind, this is true.  Osama bin Laden was very explicit as to why he did what he did.  It was not because of some religion that we practice, it had everything to do with occupation, exploitation, and bombing of innocent people.  Yes, when bombing it is very possible and part of war to have the bomb either miss a target, or kill someone who was not anticipated to be there.  That is the very nature of bombing.  However, that innocent person that we killed, has family and friends, who ultimately are going to question why the bombs were dropped in the first place.  Considering that, as well as the fact that people are more likely to become terrorists after experiencing the conditions of certain war prisons (I suggest watching the documentary Taxi into the Darkness), it really is the actions of America that brought this upon themselves.

Let me ask the reader this.  How would you like it if China came to America, establish fancy buildings called embassies that worked in China’s interests only, while at the same time exploiting our natural resources, and constantly kill innocent people?  I do not think we would like it.  And this is why our current foreign policy of, “Democratize or we will shoot” will ultimately bring more terrorist attacks on United States soil.  It sounds pretty tyrannical to me to force a nation to conform to a certain way to do things, and well, that isn’t American; that isn’t what America was predicated upon.

We all know that one of the resources we wanted from Iraq was their oil.  Not only are we addicted to oil as a society, but the very leader of our country had intimate ties to oil companies!  This solidified when I read an article from CNN, that released an interview from a military official.  Right after the attacks of September 11th, the United States dispatched special forces into Iraq to perform reconnaissance and if possible, secure the perimeter of oil fields.  I think from the very beginning, the men in power were looking at the events of September 11th as an opportunity to make more money.

And so, the message of Avatar, of pursuing profits at no matter the consequence, really does not bode well with men and women who not only believe in the free markets, but believe in maximizing profits.  Essentially, by seeing yourselves as a bad person in a movie, does not go well with the audience.

Which in my mind, explains why so many people on these forums that I participated in at the time, did not like Avatar.  They believed that financial security, and material wealth, were the road of not only success, but happiness.  And well, if keeping our way of life means invading other countries and exploiting their resources, then so be it.

But what is so beautiful about this movie, isn’t just this issue.  I would argue, that this issue is a very controversial one, especially in our culture, but other statements were made that were very well executed and delivered in my view.  For example, I felt the movie really showed the importance of not only learning something accurately, but learning something quickly.  If one were to think about this in a Darwinian perspective, someone who is unable to learn important lessons fast enough to survive well obviously die more quickly.  Which means, their genes are more likely to not be passed.  Which therefore means, that through natural selection, the species of whatever organism should have a population that is able to learn quickly.  And if one were to think about it, even in our current age and not necessarily survival, there is a huge advantage to be able to learn something accurately and quickly.  Because, the less time you invest in learning that concept, not only is money saved, but more time could be devoted to learning other things.  If those things are learned quicker, this opens the time doors to even more concepts that can be learned.  And so, someone who is able to learn quickly, will inevitably be more knowledgeable in the long run assuming they constantly push themselves to learn.  And so, I challenge what my third grade teacher told my class.  “It isn’t about how fast you learn it.  It is about understanding the concept at hand.”  Now, not all of that is true, but not all of that is not true.  But, in my mind, if teachers could teach methods to students on how to learn more efficiently, I think that would greatly benefit the student in the long run.  I do also believe that understanding something, is more impactful than simply memorizing something.

Another theme was love.  The tango of the two characters that fall in love, I thought was accurate in some areas.  For example, there are men out there that get crazy for a woman who is not only a challenge, but seems to be out of their reach.  It also shows that in order for a relationship to work, the two people not only need a foundation of friendship, but really have to be on the same page so to speak.  I forget her name, but the woman Avatar that taught Jake Sulli the ways of the people, wasn’t even remotely interested at first because he was unable to not only provide for them but a family (he was extremely ignorant of their culture and of ways to survive on that planet).  Through their journey of Sulli learning the ways of the people and the planet, not only was he becoming closer on the same page so to speak, but they were learning about one another and establishing a friendship.  Finally, at the very end, she sees Jake in his true form, as a human being.  I think what the movie might be attempting to show, is that through the journey of loving a person for a long time, one gets to see the very fabric of that person.  And well, true love not only means both members accept one another for who they are, but they ultimately do things for the partner first, and not themselves.

And well, even though this isn’t the only interpretation, and, there very well could be things in my interpretation that were inaccurate.  And if they were accurate, this could be vastly different from the real world.  But in my mind, I am not exactly sure that is important.  A lot of these statements, through my reasoning, I agree with.  I think in order to make a commitment with someone, I not only have to be a good friend, I have to put something on the table as well.  Finally, if I were to truly love this person, I would put her needs in front of my own.  And well, that is something that I want.  And if that does not exist in this world, I am willing to find a way to fight and change it.

This I think also sheds light onto another reason why popular culture did not like this movie.  Our current perception of modern relationships are very shallow in my opinion.  I think the main reason why so many relationships fail, is that sex is introduced initially, and not worked up towards.  In other words, there is no emotional or friendship foundation, to stay with the commitment.  Hell, when things get hard, I could just go to another club or bar and pick someone else up!  I am not necessarily saying wait for sex until marriage.  I am saying, that I think people should view sex as more emotional on both ends than it is currently perceived.  To think that a relationship is going to be successful because both parties like to have sex with one another, the likelihood of success in my mind is drastically reduced compared to two people who truly care about one another; not their sex organs.  And so, this view on love in Avatar conflicted with the current messages being portrayed in our modern culture in regards to relationships and sex.

To wrap all of this up, in my opinion, I think Avatar was one of the best movies that I have ever seen.  I absolutely love the story, I love the thoughts that it provokes in me, and well, I love the world that is shown.  People that are respectful to not only one another, they are respectful to the world around them, and well, they are respectful to their very creator.  And well, I also respect the people who made this movie for having the back bone to make something like that in our society.  It takes the radical, or the controversial thought, that eventually brings about a better world for all of humanity.