Skip to main content

A Clash of Civilizations

 Samuel P. Huntington was right, there will be and there is a clash of civilizations: He got the major forces completely wrong, though. While in many regions religions fight with each other because they persecute each other, that is laughably wrong on what will mold the future of civilizations.  The main fight is not religion vs. religion, but secularism and democracy vs. cronyism, theocracy, royalty and dictatorships

Do humans take charge of their own governance or are they slaves to the group that happens to have some guns or claim to be able to give you ever-lasting life? I have my preferences. What are yours?

From Wikipedia: Religion (the fake life offerors) has continued to decline, in the US less than half of people are members of any official religion.

Change in religious identification, 1950 - 2020

Percentage of Americans by religious identification (1950 – 2020)[157]

  Christian (nonspecified)

  No Answer

The people will rule. Since 1776 there has been a steady increase in democracy and a steady decrease in religiosity. The people are taking their power from the elites. No more shall anyone be punished for the supposed crime of heresy. There is no such 'crime' (sin?) as apostasy. This is the last dying gasp of a mode of civilization that has been dealt death blows over 150 years ago. During the last great clash between citizens and their repressive elites who tried to enforce feudalism: the civil war of the United States. It did not end well for the farmers and their need for slave labor to thrive. They've been resentful for 150 years, but not only did they lose then, they are losing now. 

Religions have a few fundamental problems which cause their own downfall from within. The fundamental fraud that all religions fall inherent to is the fraud of infallibility. To claim their supremacy for moral decisions, they must claim to be infallible. If not, then they are open to argument, reason and truth; from which they would fail miserably; so they cannot go back on their claims. Thus they cannot change their minds, the model they build will invariably be wrong, so they must claim faith is the only way to show they are legitimate. Faith: the ability to claim to believe in things you cannot prove. They bend and twist the meaning of faith to imply it means believing in things that are untrue. This is why they will not stand as a legitimate societal institution. When your entire institution is based on a lie, it will eventually collapse.

Democracies are inherently safer than autocracies because of the extra effort that must be spent to convince the government to do anything. If the government does anything the people don't like, in a democracy, there's a legal, non-violent way to change it. In an autocracy, it's only about what the autocrats want. There is no accountability. This is dangerous. Look at the rate of wars democratic countries have been in versus autocratic countries. Essentially, democracies do not go to war against each other, autocracies do it all the time. Democracies aren't saints, democracies tend to fight autocracies.

However, the long march of history is clear: towards more democracy and less religion. 

The human race is making progress.

Thanks for reading!



Popular posts from this blog

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of modern ethics

The Settlement of the War between Science and Religion . Why the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are More Important than you realize. These two documents provide the foundation of the Grand Moral Compromise between Religion and Science that allowed the Industrial Revolution to progress by defining the morals and ethics of governments and their relationship with the people. The only moral and ethical form of government is declared to be a Lawful Democracy with Religious  Freedom . These two documents define why this is from first postulates and dictate the method to form a government. The Grand Moral Compromise was defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights : it is the agreement that abolished the crime of heresy in return for freedom of all religions , including science , the harbinger of truth . Only about half [G] of the world has agreed to this  Grand Moral Compromise , the rest are still at war with themselv

Ten Grand Technical Challenges of the 21st century: 1. Settle Space, Mars, moon, asteroids, the solar system.

Settle Space, Mars, moon, asteroids, the solar system. The first of the Ten Grand Technical Challenges of the 21st century TIme for some more blogging. One blog post on each of the TEN GRAND CHALLENGES of the 21st century. The things that make us proud to be a part of the human race. The things that we should be doing regardless of what else is true, the things that make life have meaning. Humanity will infect the galaxy; we already are. Humanity has a chance to make a real mark on the universe. If you look at what we've been throwing out into space for the last 50 years, it's obvious we have some innate need to expand into new environments. People have been in space almost continuously since 1971 (that'd be ~50 years) and I detailed the history of the technology in this post [1] about how technology changes things. We keep throwing robots out there as fast and as far as we can. They aren't yet killer robots (we keep those closer to ho

Grand Vacations or Burning Man on Mars. It could happen.

Precursors No, it will happen. At least if the aliens don't get here first. But we'll talk about that in another blog post. What I want to talk about today is the mistaken idea that progress will end. There's a neat book by John Brockman , actually a series of books that I call 'blog fodder.' The one that drove me to write about Grand Vacations is: " This Idea Must Die: Scientific Theories that are Blocking Progress ." John has put together several books of this type where he asks scientists, economists and others to write something provocative on his chosen topic. These books are great fun to scan. Many of the articles are great fun, many are just crazy, some are so bad they aren't even wrong (as Wolfgang Pauli would say.) The article that started my train of thought that has led to this blog post was: "Economic Growth." Cesar Hidalgo , an Associate Professor at MIT claims the idea of economic growth must die. He makes two arg