Or are you too preoccupied with dreams of sucking off the natural gas teats while you fantasize of Asian money? All the while participating in the raping of the planet and depletion of our natural resources.
By the way you rocket-scientist Canadian politicians, have you noticed that Colorado has collected so much excess revenue from the decriminalization of marijuana it needs to give $30 million BACK to the citizens!
The longer we (Canada) wait for the inevitable, the more stupid, ignorant and Johnny-come-lately we will show ourselves to be as a Country. And to think BC used to be known as a marijuana capital and around the world people knew about BC Bud! Now look at us, shameful I say.
We need to evolve past our adolescent phase of conventional moral reasoning and elevate our thinking towards a post-conventional morality where higher principles, individual rights and justice are the driving forces. Rather than our current rule or expectation of blind adherence to authority and social order typical of conventional moral reasoning..
Wake up Canada! The proven medical benefits alone – across a remarkably wide range of physical and psychological ailments – should be sufficient grounds to start shifting policies and thinking around marijuana.
Is scientific fundamentalism just as bad, just as limiting, just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism?
“Science shares many of the same problems that burden religion, such as blind faith, self-righteousness, and intolerance. Though science goes to great lengths to distance itself from religion, the two seem to suffer from similar afflictions.The difference between people with scientific beliefs and those with religious beliefs is that most religious believers are aware that their position is based on faith and that believers in other religions, or even different sects of the same religion, have different beliefs. People who put their faith in scientific materialism are often unaware that their beliefs are beliefs at all. They usually think of them as the truth. One of the common ways in which this attitude is expressed is in phrases like ‘People used to believe X, but we now know…’ *Scientific fundamentalism mirrors religious fundamentalism in distressingly many ways*. But there is no need for science to be fundamentalist any more than there is a need for religions to be fundamentalist. Fundamentalism springs from a desire for certainty, but many religious people and many scientists know that this cannot be achieved by beings with limited minds and experience such as ourselves.” (Rupert Sheldrake)
“Reductionism inevitably misses almost everything of interest about systems that concern us in everyday life and ignores most of the activity of our minds entirely. A more holistic science admits the emergence of new properties at different levels of organization and sees the universe made up of a nested hierarchy, or holarchy, of wholes: organelles within cells, within tissues, within organisms, within societies, within ecosystems, within Gaia, within the solar system, within the galaxy, and so on. All of these defy reduction to the properties of their parts. And human meanings, values, and purposes can only be understood in the context of human societies, traditions, philosophies, religions, and experiences.” (Rupert Sheldrake)
“Materialism alienates us from our own experience, from the rest of the natural world, and from each other, because it claims our minds are nothing but the activity of our brains isolated in the privacy of our skulls. Yet our scientific knowledge is inexplicable from this point of view. If our brains simply make us think what we think and we have no freedom, as materialist proclaim, then materialism itself is a necessary consequence of the brain activity of materialists.Their brains make them believe it. But they would like to think their beliefs are based on science – reason and evidence – which would require their minds to have a freedom and independence from physical causation that the theory itself denies.”
(Rupert Sheldrake – Interview with Tricycle: The Buddhist Review)
Great thought experiment by Todd William about the age of the Universe.
Originally shared by Todd William
A Brief Thought Experiment ~ The Origin of the Universe
When a ball is thrown vertically into the air, it decelerates until it reaches a peak, stops, and then begins to accelerate back to the ground. You have the earth’s gravitational pull to thank for this.
If you look at a short interval that spans a period of time when the ball is going up and recognize that it is decelerating, you can calculate how high the ball will go and how long it will take to reach its peak. This is simple physics.
However, if you look only at a short interval that spans when the ball is going back down, and recognize it is accelerating toward the ground, it is not clear where the ball began. Using the same laws of physics, you can calculate backwards to the point when the ball began its downward movement, but nothing before that. You can even calculate the amount of time that has passed since it began accelerating (its peak).
But this says nothing of its actual beginning which took place long before this point in time. Without knowing how the ball initially got to the point at its peak, no amount of calculations can tell you whether the ball was initially thrown from a different point or just dropped at its peak. In fact, the variables would be the exact same for this snapshot in either scenario.
Now consider how we look at the universe. It has been observed that the universe is accelerating in an outward direction. Using basic mathematical formulas, we can calculate backwards to a single point in time about 13.8 billion years ago when this acceleration began. And as a result, we have assumed this is the beginning of the universe.
Yet just like the ball, this assumption is fallacious If we observed a ball that had been decelerating downward for 13.8 seconds, we’ve only determined at what point it reached its peak, not when it began. In fact, 13.8 seconds ago it would have only reached the halfway point along its journey.
When viewing only intervals where the universe is accelerating, there is no reason to presume we know how it reached this point. Would there by any reason to assume that the ball must have begun its motion with a bang?
What if it was the opposite?
Imagine the universe as a giant sphere, only with a gravitation pull outwards, rather than a push from a big bang. If all matter was “thrown” inward, it would gradually decelerate, stop, and begin accelerating outward, just as we observe the universe today.
What if something far bigger than we have imagined and beyond what we can observe is pulling us outward?
Perhaps the universe didn’t begin 13.8 billion years ago, and just like the ball, the acceleration we are observing is a sign that it is returning to its true origin.
This Friday the Supreme Court of Canada will rule on assisted suicide. If the decision goes the way it should, and is predicted, we will FINALLY see a bit of progress on our torturous and immoral treatment of the terminally ill and suffering. The next step is to recognize the basic and fundamental human right to decide how and when we die, even when we are perfectly healthy. My life is my own and NOBODY will be allowed to make decisions around my existence unless I have allocated that responsibility of my own free will. I for one will take care of it myself when I decide I have lived all I can live, given all I can give, loved all I can love and when I decide that my life is complete.
“For the first time, the Canadian Medical Association is acknowledging that helping a suffering patient die may be a doctor’s most humane option.”
“The organization’s updated and recently approved policy on euthanasia and assisted death comes as the powerful doctors’ lobby prepares for a possible lifting of the federal ban on assisted suicide when the Supreme Court of Canada releases its historic ruling Friday morning in Ottawa.”