Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Mulugeta Wudu: on 2/22/17 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Donald Palmer, Modern Science is the root cause, not the symptom,...

Donald Palmer: on 2/20/17 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote An interesting essay and call to deal the mess we have made. In all my...

Peter Jackson: on 2/16/17 at 16:29pm UTC, wrote Malugeta, Well answered, though doubtless many would say cites may just be...

Jack James: on 2/16/17 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Dear Mulugeta, I appreciate your points with respect to (as you say) the...

Mulugeta Wudu: on 2/16/17 at 6:13am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Peter Jackson, I am glad that you asked these very important...

Peter Jackson: on 2/15/17 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Mulugeta, I think it's great to have a wide range of views. Yours may...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/15/17 at 9:25am UTC, wrote Dear Mulugeta Wudu, Thank you for your excellent discussion on existence...

William Walker: on 2/14/17 at 19:35pm UTC, wrote I don't think you investigated a resource based economy - web site is the...


leonae gonzales: "This seems to be very interesting site. Professionally i am a writer at the..." in Quantum Replicants:...

James Putnam: "Quoting Gary D. Simpson: "If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Steven Andresen: "It might be that I have come to know where the hidden variable is, to..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

Lawrence Crowell: "The choice for anonymous commenting is a good idea. A person scoring less..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

dieu le: "The Creation of Momentum From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the..." in Alternative Models of...

dieu le: "What causes Things Move in Universe? Things move when encountering a..." in Alternative Models of...

leonae gonzales: "I would like to prepare a review of this topic with the help of research..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Thewitcher: "Đến với dịch vụ chữ ký số bạn sẽ được..." in Riding the Rogue Quantum...

click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.

March 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: An Appeal to Stop Doing Science by Mulugeta Wudu [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 2.7; Public = 4.2

Author Mulugeta Wudu wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

Modern science is founded upon unbelief. In its five-hundred year history science never once attributed the things of nature to God. Although there were men of science who confessed belief in God, they did so while swearing allegiance to the principles of science. Therefore, their personal beliefs would not alter the nature of science. So, science, by its foundational principle ignores God or declares that there is no God. If we assumed for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It follows therefore, that the universal purpose of the universe is God. Since science happens in the universe, it must have something to do with that purpose. However, as we see it, science works against purpose, and so, from this fact and from learning how opposites are paired and how they take turns in the universe, it follows that there is a counterpart to purpose. Science, therefore, is the counter-purpose that is opposed to purpose, the same way as sorrow is a counterpart to happiness, as evil is to good, as death is to life, as falsehood is to truth, as hate is to love, as war is to peace. Now in this essay I will show that science is wrong about everything by examining the most influential branches of science. I will show that science is harmful. I will also show that the Lord God Lives. I will show that choosing science is a fatal course of action to earth but choosing God will restore life in it. In my conclusion I will offer solutions and propose that all men of science should steer towards a goal of life, not wander towards death.

Author Bio

I was born in Ethiopia and leaned to read and write at St. Rufael Church in Gondar. There too, I studied the Epistle of St. John. That was as far as my formal education went but amidst the frightening tempest of the Western ideological conquest of the mind, I was taught of the Lord.

Download Essay PDF File

Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Wudu,

Interesting essay. But notice your claim being made here. Have capitalised the important points.

"If we ASSUMED for a second that science declared that God Is, then there would be nothing better to do in the universe than the praising of God, because there is nothing nobler than God. It FOLLOWS THEREFORE, that the universal purpose of the universe is God."

You 'assume' a claim, and from this assumption 'follow therefore' from it. So your argument rests on pure assumption (for more than a second).

Also if science did prove a God it wouldnt necessarily follow that praising that God would be a worthwhile activity. That God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God.

Good luck with your entry.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

The reason I used the term "if we assumed that science declared that God Is" was to bring men of science to the same thinking as those of Christians and to show them that in Christianity, Orthodox Christianity that is, God is the purpose of the universe. It was not to use science as a basis toward a conclusion. Since the entire message is especially for men of science, the point is to demonstrate that, when there Is God (for the mind that knows God Is), there is no nobler job than the praising of the Lord God. So it was just a proposal for the man of science to be in the shoes of the Christian for a second.

Since I did not ask for science to prove God, the question of whether science would then deem the praising of God a worthwhile activity is irrelevant. I see that you strove to deploy science's habit of providing competing identities in order to diminish an identity when you remarked: "God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God." Science created many competing identities and elevated many idolatries in order to overthrow the Christian faith. Its preference has always been to fight Christianity using what it calls 'religion' and in the process science puts itself above the fray and its principals as 'gods'. This is a trick science used for five hundred years. I think that time has now expired.



Jack Hamilton James replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Mulugeta,

How do you know that God doesn't want humans to do science?

You see there is a difference between cause and purpose. Science only concerns causes. Should we assign any purpose to science? No. It is simply about correctly describing causes.

That is why it is wrong to say evolution has a purpose of somekind, or that the purpose of life is evolution. When we speak of causes there is no purpose, just causes.

If your charge is against scientists who 'believe' in science, those who assign purpose to cause, then this is a fair point to make.

However to make the further claim, as you do, that God doesnt want humans to describe causes, which is to speak correctly about, presumably here, 'God's world', is actually to do just as the those who use science as a purpose do, as you are using purpose when it comes to causes.



report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

God's first instruction to man in Genesis is to stay away from the knowledge tree (science). God told man that the fruit from the knowledge tree leads to death because the fruit is tempting and would seduce man to vie for godhood and to compete against God. What science did to earth is exactly as God said it would. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of...

view entire post

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 16:32 GMT
It does have to be pointed out there was a time when the western world was based on theology or theocracy. We generally call it the middle ages, from 600CE to 1500CE. I attach an image to illustrate a common practice during this time period. This sort of thing in that age of little entertainment were the spectator fun people had, along with watching witch burnings, breaking on the wheel and so forth. It was not a lot of fun, and murder rates were 50 times what they are now in the US or EU. The problem with the idea of returning to some age where belief in God is the main foundation of society is that we have been there and done that.

Humans and maybe most intelligent tool making life forms in the universe are good at creating positive feedback for themselves. It may have started with Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago when they made fire and took themselves off the predatory menu. Science and technology just allows us to do this in an exponential amplified manner. In terms of our behavior it is quantitatively different, but it is qualitatively much the same as ever before. This means it was the same even during the middle ages that is sometimes referred to as the age of faith.

attachments: drawn-and-quartered3.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Mr. Lawrence B. Crowell,

The western society may have had what it called 'theocracy' but it is clear from the picture you presented and from the historical information many provide that the western world was a material world. That cruelty in the picture, if true, demonstrates that the claim of 'faith in God' was merely cosmetic. I understand there was some desire to be godly by some...

view entire post

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 20:58 GMT
Boko Haram means education is a sin. In 1950, Ethiopia had 16 mio inhabitants. The number rose up to more than 100 mio today. Compared with cities this is a modest growth. Damaskus got simultaneously 16 times bigger. Women in Kenia have on average 4.4 children. Is the Lord resposible for such perspectiveless perspective?

report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 04:35 GMT
Dear Mr. Eckard Blumschein,

You saw the fly hated the fire. That is fine. However, you will be in error to conclude the bee is the fly when you find that the bee doesn't like the fire either. There is more to my plea than an equation with a certain Boko Haram. As for the population figures you conjectured on, I took publicly available data and projected population growth using the pre-industrial revolution figures and you can see in the curves attached that science ignorantly transgressed to infringe the natural balance of life that God put in place. The western science man oozed prideful 'knowledge' and equated himself to God in knowledge; but look at what the bitter fruit of that prideful knowledge has become. Do you see now that your blame is misplaced?



attachments: science_and_world_population.png

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 12:03 GMT
I suppose it comes down an argument that your infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is true while the other guy's (Muslims etc) infinite invisible man in the sky who works magic is false.

God is a nice idea in a way, just as Santa Claus is a nice idea. That does not provide an argument for God's existence, but is just a special pleading. Special pleading is a classic flaw of syllogism and argumentation.

World population around the time of Moses was about 50 million. By the time of the Caesers or Jesus around 250 million, by the high middle ages around 500 million and prior to the industrial revolution close to a billion. The surge of population was ongoing long before the scientific revolution. Malthus argued there would be a population crash from starvation, but the industrial revolution provided positive feedbacks that avoided that.

Will we avoid a population die-off or collapse indefinitely? I can't say. I think this has ultimately more to do with the nature of the human species than the fact we know things about quantum mechanics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 20:42 GMT
Jews, Christians, and Muslims obey the ruLe: Be fertile, get more, and fill the Earth. Mulugeta's attachment demonstrates the problem:

There live already about ten times more people than responsible.

Not just their number is growing rapidly. Global advertizing makes the poor too desiring a life in luxurity. However, this is not feasible due to limited recources, increasing amount of waste and pollution, and many other problems that were not yet envisioned by Malthus and Marx, not to mention the fathers of Bible. That's why I support Kadin's way out. Naively I hope for minimal resposibility evem among Catholics and Muslims. Science provided the option of contraception.

The attachment shows a declining number between 1600 and 1650. In Middle Europe, a 30 years lasting war "fortunately" decimated the population more than did the plague. From the perspective of irresponsible growth of population, the largely peaceful era after 1950 did split the world into those who got richer with less children and those who will go on getting precarious with a "treasure" of too many children.

Don't blame science for a quite natural evolution toward more human obligation. Blame the outdated irresponsive interpretation of the notion humanism.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Mulugeta Wudu,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

You are absolutely correct about the implausibility of science.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any imaginary “universal purpose of the universe by an invisible God.” The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 08:10 GMT
Dear Mr. Joe Fisher,

You talk of a "visible universe of infinite physical surface and infinite non-surface light" and you start from it as given. If someone takes you to the wilderness and there he provides you with a beautiful home furnished with beds, chairs, tables, light, water, food etc, would you just ignore everything and assume that such furniture is given, that it is there by...

view entire post

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear Mulugeta Wudu:

There may be a relevant thought experiment—

Say that the only information you have about an object are some pictures of it which you are given.

In every picture the object is always perfectly still.

Do you believe the thought: "The object IS moving"?

Or, do you believe the thought: "The object IS NOT moving"?

Next— there seems to be a back and a front to the object. And, the front of the object is always facing to the right.

At this point in the story would you tell someone who believes the thought that the object is NOT moving to "Stand in front of the object"?

Next add one more piece of information:

This object is, in actuality, a disguised kind of arrow.

In which case— the idea you believe in no longer matters. You know that you shouldn't stand in front of a moving arrow.

It's an adaptation of Zeno's "paradox" of the arrow. Zeno was trying to help Parmenides make a point about the difference between believing and knowing. And in those days, everyone had seen many (many, many) animals killed by arrows. Because in those days it was how they got food.

Moral: If you care about yourself, you know that you don't stand in front of an arrow.

report post as inappropriate

William Walker wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 06:53 GMT
You make some interesting points... Not sure why you want to live in a dictatorship where everything is restricted. To me God is about gaining experience to know that it is real. So if you are going to limit that to only a few things and mostly praising the Lord... you will be in a boring hell...

report post as inappropriate

William Walker replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 13:39 GMT
Look into a resource based economy... this is a world where we can have the best of both (science / God)... it was designed by a man named Jacque Fresco... this is the balance the world needs.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Mr. William Walker,

Being from Ethiopia I can tell you firsthand that a social life of praising the Lord is a society you can't have enough of. There is love, compassion and humility and boredom has no habitation in it. The problem now around the world is that societies are polluted, living a decadent, immoral and pleasure-seeking life. So a person already shaped by a spoiled society...

view entire post

William Walker replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 19:35 GMT
I don't think you investigated a resource based economy - web site is the Venus Project. or you can watch a YouTube video called Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

This is the only economic theory that truly addresses the finite nature of resources on this planet. And it uses the brilliance of science to assure that abundance is achieved by all at the most optimum levels of efficiency. And their would be no rich and powerful because there is no money in this system. So just going back to living like cave men isn't an alternative that people will accept... so why not use science under the guide of God's consciousness (love) to make the best world we can. Prosperous, free, and most importantly balanced.

Take care and good luck in the contest... and most important... God Bless!

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 15:30 GMT
Having read Wudu's essay, I will give 3 scores to it.

I am definitely not the only defender of science who doesn't agree with his attitude: "an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science". My essay argues for almost the opposite: more reasonable evolution instead.

However, Wudu's cry for help deserves, as Crowell correctly remarked, more attention than e.g. quantum mechanics, and it is written in excellent English.

Science haram (= it is a sin)? It surely is irresponsibly oriented so far.

Semmelweis endangered mankind when he saved the mothers. Ethis needs correction.

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear Mulugeta ! Science has become a tool of the economic production line and most scientists are working at this tech-know-logically perfected assembly line, i.e. contemporary science is definitely not an intellectual beauty contest. About 60% of new arable land (resources) on this globe is situated in your continent and 'the economic machinery' knows this fact, i.e. science has additionally become a tool of political supremacy. The ethical corruption of science is indeed an issue; all prophets of humankind have taught us to practice an earth sharing economy.However, I will not follow your appeal, because I am applying the scientific method with an other intention and goal. Best wishes: stephen i. ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:48 GMT
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.


This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.


The infinite God can not by us, in the present limitation of our faculties, be comprehended or conceived.


A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.


The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.


God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.


I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God — an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility?

Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don’t believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it.


report post as inappropriate

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
"Sir, an equation has no meaning for me unless it expresses a thought of God."

Srinivasa Ramanujan

report post as inappropriate

H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:27 GMT
A question if I may - have you ever used something that sprang from science? Used some medicine, a telephone, an airplane, a car?

report post as inappropriate

H Chris Ransford replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:30 GMT
Sorry Lee, I meant this question as a general post, not a reply. By the way - I really like the quote you cite :-)

report post as inappropriate

H Chris Ransford wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
A question if I may - have you ever used something that sprang from science? Used some medicine, a telephone, an airplane, a car?

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 09:25 GMT
Dear Mulugeta Wudu,

Thank you for your excellent discussion on existence of God. Your words…

….. “Reproduction - what is it? Why do organisms need to make a copy of themselves? By observing ourselves in teenage or young life in the wilderness, we can tell that we don't plan to make copies of ourselves, but we are drawn to the opposite sex of our kind by way of an inherent desire which is not the desire of self replication, and this attraction results in the replication of ourselves.” ……

Hope you will have a look in my essay also, where I discussed about reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe.

I feel reproduction is a basic property of nature or Universe. I don’t know the difference between God and Universe….

We can have discussion…

Best wishes to your essay…


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT

I think it's great to have a wide range of views. Yours may interestingly be aligned with a 'mathematical universe' view as logically some greater intelligence is then implied. I find that a more detailed view of matter and evolution can explain much but still not exclude a god.

I also have sympathy for your views ref our effect on the planet. The problem I see which you may help with is, where was mankind supposed to stop? There weren't enough caves to stop back then so we had to build shelters, so we had to from and use tools to dig and cut wood, so came the log, wheel, and oil, all around long before Jesus. Once we had the wheel it seems to me that F1 (etc) may have been an unavoidable consequence.

So where do you think we should have stopped? How? and do you think we can get back there without wiping out billions of gods innocent children?

Also; do you think a 'purpose' may be to finally travel space and find new homes?

Well done for expressing the philosophy so unequivocally.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Mulugeta Wudu replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Dear Mr. Peter Jackson,

I am glad that you asked these very important questions. To answer your question, let me quote what the Book of Truth commands man to do with earth and please notice the part in upper case letters:

'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to DRESS IT AND TO KEEP IT. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the...

view entire post

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT

Well answered, though doubtless many would say cites may just be 'dressing' the earth.

I agree that ours and ALL planets will indeed be renewed, and have (scientifically!) identified the evidence that a recycling process (also explaining re-ionization) has been undergone many times before and will likely continue. Penrose has an incomplete model similar to the 'big bounce'. I just posted a link under John Hodges essay to my joint published paper on the more consistent and complete model, also on DOI here;

A Cyclic model of Galaxy (and universal) Evolution

My essay is consistent with that. I hope you may read, score and comment on it.

I'm sure you're realistic about the chances of western man giving up technology. I also agree we have a damaging homocentric view, which I wrote of here a few years ago. A New Yorker may answer 'where is the dog?' by saying "300yds to my left heading this way." An African or Asian may more likely say; "under the tall tree beside the bend in the river moving north."

That may reveal a problem permeating present western science.

Best wishes and thanks for your input.


report post as inappropriate

Donald Palmer replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
An interesting essay and call to deal the mess we have made.

In all my readings and dealings with people, I have never found a time or location where entire groups of humans lived without harming some part of nature &/or other humans. There might be short periods of time where the impact is minimal, but humans seem to have a desire to 'be more' than they are (I will not say 'better' as that requires a comparison against something few will agree on).

I think you have placed a problem with humanity, in general, on one aspect of humanity, science. If we were to do as you suggest, I believe humans would again attempt to 'be more' and some different set of problems would occur and we would be facing devastation in another form.

I think you are looking at a symptom of the problem and not the root cause.

The chances of all humanity shifting to your solution is extremely small, so is there a different direction to consider with a higher chance of success?

Best to us all addressing the mess we are in,


report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'I' and 'K':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.