Evolution and obligation to exist

The principle of life comes from the basic mechanisms of the universe, it is a principle of existence, and therefore of interactions (of what? Mystery! Of fundamental and elementary bricks!) and it is also a principle of relative stability and instability in time.

It is because of the relative instability that things happen, and it is thanks to the relative stability that they have time to act under their particular form. These instability and stability are visible everywhere around us, we cannot deny them. The evolution of the material systems and other systems called living ensues.

The big question is this, how can the Life emerging from the material, the universe, therefore pure mechanism, can it evolve towards a system, we human being, producing the rejection of an existence of suffering, misery , ill-being, war, and of the implacability of death?

This big question, once known, accepted and transmitted, leading inevitably to refuse the perpetuation of the system called by us "reproduction", which requires implying a being who has not desired to exist, his own child, to whom it would be necessary, without reason, impose the misfortunes that one undergoes oneself or that one perceives everywhere around oneself.

And these are not small risks or risks so infrequent that one could ignore them...

Complexity is relative. Say that we are complicated that our brain is the most complicated thing in the universe is a value judgment of which we are the authors on ourselves.

The universe does nothing complicated, it stirs, and things come together with simple laws and rules, which are basic rules, always the same, these laws never change, they cannot be transgressed, hence the impossibility of free will.

Evolution is the product, the symptom, of the instability of atoms and molecules. But some things are more stable than others, for example the mechanism of cell division (which is instability in itself) is stable since billions of years, whereas the content of cells is much less stable, and this is what produces the variations of living organisms.

Rather than evolution of species which is an antinomic expression, it would be better to speak of evolution of the monocellular life and evolution of the multicellular life which are two types of different evolutions to be analyzed independently.

The evolution of plants, animals, myxomycetes, siphonophores, large systems and small multicellular systems, and so on, must also be considered differently. Why, because the safety of the "egg" cell is different according to these systems.

No one can say that it is of the same species as all present-day humans since no one can verify it materially by a true crossing, and no one can say that it is of the same species as all those who have died long ago.

The verification of the unity of a (so-called) species is not verifiable, it is only statistical, but statistically speaking we know that one in seven couples is sterile, which is enormous.

The copulatory frenzy is a mechanism set up by evolution, the principle being the blocking of reflection so that reproduction is not cogited. And it is a system that works perfectly in humans who are supposed to have some intelligence capable of blocking this kind of low instincts.

In fact, our laws are made to call to order excessive males, while custom has set up prudery all over the planet.

Anecdotal question: What is the use of civil marriage when anyone can copulate right or left and which a woman can generate at her convenience, single or not?

If civil marriage is a contract between two adults, as well as with society, is a child a person to whom anyone can impose existence and society without a contract? Could the possible birth handicap be part of the contract that would be accepted by that child if it could sign it before it existed? And you, would you accept it?

Who is to decide on the amount of compensation for a person with a disability by birth, the healthy or the unwell person? The one who pays or the one who asks for redress? Who arbiter this infinite risk taking? Will human society continue to manage (treat) the birth handicap for a long time as a collateral damage?

The bee species consists of queens and their drones, the other bees (in a hive there are about 80,000 worker bees for a queen and a few drones) are beings apart, appearing to be bees by form, but as they do not reproduce, what are they and how to name them?

This raises the question of the durability of this principle of bisexual reproduction limited to a few individuals and which puts on the shelf most members of the pseudo-species...

Variation is the basic principle of life, the appearance of existence of species is due to the gathering of varied individuals, who resemble each other, in a relatively restricted place and who can eventually cross each other. No animal knows that it is part of a species.

What animal imagines that it is part of a species apart from the human being the inventor of this notion that has no foundation other than a delusion of the same kind as the rotation of the sun around the Earth.

The notion of species is not evolutionary. The classification of species does not mean much thing from the point of view of Life. The purpose of ranking is for instant study, it is a need for language, and for sharing knowledge.

Of what species would be those who are at the branches junction? Of the old or the two new ones? We are constantly evolving. We are varieties of our parents. We have no species to defend and therefore no to attack. Life has no use, it exists.

I have no use, I exist. I make my utility for society if I want to, any other way of seeing would be slavery. In any case, I do what is useful to me to survive, since others have taken the risk of launching me on the fatal slope, encumbered by mortal dangers, in all conscience, it seems!

It is not the species that is important, but it is how life manages to stabilize the continuous variation of individuals to make a system such that individuals can cross each other. This group of individuals, we call it a species.

This notion of species is more or less valid in the present, but in the past one can look for a starting point that one will not really find because there are no profound transformations from a species to another. Individuals always intersect with members of their "species", which proves the continuity of life.

There has always been a continual reproduction since that origin and we are part of it. We are, with all the living, of the same family as LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).

Speciation is a theory in the same way as evolution. To educate students, it is necessary to explain why there is speciation while variation is obvious and common, and should therefore lead to a rapid evolution. It is evolution which is the first principle, whereas speciation is a secondary characteristic.

If we take a thousand pairs of humans and send them to a thousand different planets, at the end of a hundred thousand years there will be a thousand different species coming from these thousand Adam and Eve incestuous.

God creates Adam. Adam generates Cain and Abel, who are not already copies of Dad. They have Mother Eve in them. I deduce that God wanted variation, not identity. And when nothing is stable, I conclude that it evolves. Now, it is not the variation that believers challenge, it is evolution.

That is to say that the human beastie would not have as its origin another beastie more or less stupid than it, and that it will not evolve towards a beastie with which it can no longer copulate. Because what annoys believers is copulation. Copulate or not copulate that is the question?

If we call what is intercopulable and interreproducible, then do we know who is and who is not? All that can be said is that it looks like human species, or not, morphologically, because who could check the reproducibility of all humans with all?

Why did evolution have to invent the belief? The stock of genes of the whole humanity today is far superior to that of a single couple of humans, which demonstrates the absurdity of the concept of fixism. Why, in inventing the belief, did Life need to deny its own functioning which is material and cultural evolution?

There are two things in religion, that is, in the invention of the "sacred." There is the content of religions that varies all over the world, and one thing that is the same everywhere in the world in almost all humans, this thing is the "mental function belief" which is a kind of software virus that blocks the thought on one religious content rather than another.

This content is cultural, it is an impregnation like Conrad Lorenz's chick, I believe in what my parents and my direct entourage tell me, my brain is impregnated with their explanations of the world, which is easy to realize on the mental mechanism of the baby that is born virgin of cultural meanings.

The religious is certainly associated with the needs of replication and nothing else, because it is necessary, for life to be perennial, that it replicates itself. It is therefore necessary to be able to explain to the children why they were forced to exist, whereas these same children obviously did not ask to exist.

We must admire the inventions of all the religions of the world which try to explain why we must thank parents and society for having given us Life, and all the dangers to which we expose ourselves if we do not respect Mom Dad and the Society (the homeland).

First, free will does not exist, hence our stupid functioning of animal and the state of the world that it generates.

Then we are forced to exist under any conditions and our own parents are indifferent to these conditions, conditions of birth (physical or mental handicaps) and environmental conditions in which they install us without having previously cleaned our cradle that is the planet.

And yet, evolution has nothing to do with intelligence, it is only interested in reproduction, it is indifferent to misery, suffering, and death. Life needs only perenniality, it is almost a pleonasm.

Animals reproduce without hesitation, without reflection, and without remorse, reproduction is only a mechanism that they accomplish in an innate way.

As soon as the capacities of reflection, reason, and conscience arise, therefore in the human animal, 

as soon as innateness and instinct are controllable in part by a powerful nervous system, the reproducing human being realizes that he creates an existence similar to himself and that he proposes to him by existing, all the misfortunes, miseries, difficulties, sufferings he undergoes, and death to which he cannot escape.

To justify procreation under these conditions, the procreator must invent tales for the being he creates, which he will impose on him as culture, and which he himself will have to believe preferring thus to deceive himself. Hence the state of the world and the various human societies from the cultural and religious point of view.

Hence the fact that, from the evolutionary point of view, beings, who reproduce themselves less or not at all, disappear with their ideas in favor of those who reproduce in greater numbers.

To summarize, since the idiot reproduces itself more than the intelligent, the ideas of the many idiots develop to the disadvantage of those of the few intelligents, drowned by number, which remain punctual and cannot impose themselves even in the human world where the culture is memorized in books, the idiots submerging the cultural world of their stupid ideas.

Egalitarian and libertarian world, one must not dream, birth is already a constraint of existence.

I do not see how you can dream of a fair world, when the departure is flawed. There is no valid reason to justify the constraint of existence to your child, and to yourself who are the child forced to exist from your parents with social complicity, strong social incentive, when it is not the patriarchal rape.

You cannot on one side be against slavery, obviously your own servitude, and, in total contradiction with this ideology, create an existence to serve you, because to create a being that obviously has not asked anything is to create it for the service of the existing one.

Moreover, as you do not master the creation of this existence, the procreation that occurs in nine months in the night of the uterine laboratory, well you can produce any disability, a terrible handicap, for the one who did not even ask to exist.

How will you repair and compensate for this person, the one you call your child, of the life of pain and misery you offer him, which is not even what you live, even less what you hoped for him in your dreams of living with him and through him?

Maybe must it be remembered that we are all born out of obligation. We exist because our parents, encouraged by society, force us to exist, whereas no one mastered procreation, and that the procreated being has not asked for it.

Maybe it is necessary to remind moms and dads that the endangerment of the life of others is an offense and that the crime by imprudence is penalized.

Maybe governments should be reminded of their share of responsibility in this incitement, and the need for work fodder, tax fodder, and cannon fodder; which states are fond of, for the sole purpose of fighting against other nations, who do the same.

They must therefore also pay, and be penalized when the crime of disabled existence is committed with full knowledge of the cause and effect, for conceiving is more than rash, and it is always on the back of others.

Everyone has the right of interference when a crime is committed, and this imprudent crime, perfectly conscious, of creating existences, is committed nowadays 4 times per second. Life is no sinecure for any living being, it is a permanent struggle. Life is not given, it is imposed. Life is not a gift.

Everyone has the right to be born at least in good health since this existence is imposed on us, how can you ensure this vital minimum, moms, dads, and societies, criminals according to your own laws? Your car is insured; But before you conceive it, is your future baby insured?

If a watchmaker is needed to make a clock, and we consider man as a clock himself, that is a tool, then God is like a clock himself, also a tool, and he needs a watchmaker, etc., etc. Why stop the comparison? Has the initial clock built a clock?

Can a tool build a tool? Yes, of course, that's what our computers do today. The clock is the evolution of the initial clock which was only a simple stick planted in the ground. It is a simple extension of our body. And still a story of evolution.

Man is part of a constantly evolving system, his culture has also evolved and his tools have evolved with him. If it does not need a creator to create the creator, why would there be one for the universe that is not as perfect as the creator you suppose?

Adding an element to explain it, only complicates the explanation, which is contrary to the principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor.

But if believers compare us to tools, does it mean that a machine can have free will?

Why would there need a "thing" which creates to make the universe? First, what does "creation" mean? Nobody knows; Therefore, where does this term come from, and what does it hide? We see evolution taking place, but never creation.

Then, if a "thing" as complex as a god exists from the outset, and therefore does not need to be created, why could a universe that is only mechanical and hardly less complex, could not exist from the outset? The "thing" which creates must be of a complexity in relation to that of the universe, in order to be able to create it.

If there is no need for a god to exist, why should there need something for the universe to exist? Intelligent Design: If a god has launched the universe by the bigbang and that everything has ensued and life and us, this means that this chain of events is possible.

If it is possible, why in eternity and infinity (supposed for a god, therefore able to be supposed for the universe), this supposedly special mechanism, which is not necessarily so, which led to life from the bigbang, could it not have been created on its own, simply because the universe is a superconductor, since it is "All" and therefore cannot lose energy?

In fact, all mechanisms must necessarily occur if they are feasible in eternity and infinity, this is statistically mandatory. If infinity and eternity are supposed for the one, they must be for the other. If this can be generated by a god, this can be generated alone.

(Subsidiary question: how does free will arise from a mechanism, or even from a god? Free will cannot exist (it is demonstrated) even for a god, thus nullifying the notion of deity.)

[By the way: to verify, if you have the same belief that your coreligionist write on paper (on computer) about ten pages, on what your god is, creation, life and death, immortality, soul, and paradise; Do not forget to pray for your god to lead your pen; Then compare! If you do not have the same text, you can each base a new religion ...]

Evolution has fabricated the belief to curb knowledge. Why does total knowledge need to be controlled? Why, in fact, does it need to be distorted? Why ? Because total knowledge leads human beings to ask questions about the usefulness of their own existence and therefore on the usefulness of conceiving children who are different and sensitive people.

There is neither god nor devil, neither one nor many. But compared to a god (supposedly good and just) that would have created us inferior to him in all areas, we would be physically and mentally handicapped. By creating us handicapped from birth this god would therefore be a child abuser.

He would therefore be a great and ignoble sadist, and an infamous slaver, since a created being is created to serve. Evolution has produced the mental function "belief" to curb our reason that tells us that life is useless, ever. Constrained to practice the game of Life and the social game that we have not chosen, we have the right, and even the duty to revolt so that it ceases.

The law as it is, allows us to sue our parents if we are mistreated, we are constantly. The society is an accomplice. On the pack of 350 000 births of the day, 30% of the babies are born handicapped (abnormal) (and 100% of these babies-objects are handicapped compared to adults).

Humans have to provide elsewhere to another wholesaler or better than they stop procreating. Leaders and parents are disgusting to think that this 30% is only collateral damage.

Is the eye as complex as one wants you to believe? I cannot imagine that a computer can be born by simple evolution of life, but an eye is far from being as complex and elaborate as a computer. Nature has not even been able to invent the equivalent of the integrated phone, whereas it is feasible since we have done it!

The eye seems to me less elaborate than the auditory system. The eye is made in spite of common sense. An apprentice mechanic would not get his certificate if he proposed the plans for such an object. Signal reception systems such as the eye and ear are only an improvement of what makes the matter which is the interaction.

Dear believers, the society does not ask your opinion to vaccinate your baby with the vaccines in accordance with the principles of evolution...

If a believer tells you that scientists have not found all the links of evolution which would demonstrate that evolution is a foolish hypothesis, you can tell him that we have not yet seen the slightest pen of only one supernatural being...

Intelligent Design: If a god had invented evolution, that would certainly not be to stop there and get a species as stupid as the human being.

The problem is the "creation" which implies the omniscience, the absolute, the eternity (etc.) of this entity, which contradicts the intention. The intention implies the future whereas for an omniscient being the future does not exist, its omniscience implies that it "knows". This future is no different for him from the present to us, and therefore from an established fact.

Besides, what is the use of creation, when one knows, when one sees precisely as if the thing in itself really existed, in this case knowledge is worth the fact, and when there is no one but yourself to enjoy the job? The god of believers is like a toddler all alone in a sandbox...

But this new god of Intelligent Design, what is his religion? Who is going to be his prophet? What's going to be his Holy-book? What wars will it generate?

Evolutionary priority is no longer based on adaptation to nature which has become secondary, but adaptation to the species itself.

The female elements of hereditary transmission being more numerous than those of man, their evolution is certainly much more important for mankind!

The Y chromosome is transmitted only by men: There is certainly an evolution of this Y chromosome and therefore an evolution only masculine. It is therefore possible that men evolve (again) on some specific characteristics independently of women.

Why menopause? From an evolutionary point of view, how did it take place when, in the old days, most women died very young before menopause? What is the usefulness of a "female" who lives 100 years when she is menopausal at age 50?

The society of female human cells maintains a reproductive system that no longer has any reproductive utility; it is as if the queen of the bees was kept gratis by the workers when it was no longer able to lay its eggs.

Charles Darwin had 4 children, 4 sons. This shows that one can cogitate intelligently in one domain and be totally absent intellectually, totally silly, in a field even more important than the field that one explores, since this domain which is the conception of a human being covers all the others.

Einstein with his IQ of 160 participated in the "Bomb" and made three children, two very seriously handicapped by birth (thus two failed out of three). How did he compensate these two sabotaged lives for his egoistically reproducing principles in fact totally unreflective? Today (this day), more than eight hundred women will die in childbirth, their geniuses of husbands did they copulated by love?

The multicellular being, like the human being, is essentially a vehicle for the billions of bacteria and microbes of which it is a carrier, whereas it transmits only a few cells containing its own genome. For Life, as a whole, the multicellular being has little interest in its genome.

Human will probably have the sole interest of making tools, interstellar rockets, that will allow Life to swarm out of the planet. Life is very "applicant" for perenniality.

Frankly, you can always look at the sky, like a meerkat, but you'll never see any intelligent E.T, so beware of what arrives on Earth.

Why will there never be intelligence coming from space? Well, they will do as we do when we become intelligent, they will cease to make children, because by becoming intelligent we understand that life serving only those that already exist. It is totally ignoble to create an existence without asking him in advance his opinion on his desire to exist, with the enormous risks that we make  take to someone, who has not asked for anything, which is perfectly out of our human rights... to say it in passing. I think there are certainly little or big men gray or green who scrutinize their sky.

And for billions of years that "pseudo-intelligent" life has developed here and there, the SETIs of out there have stopped waiting to act, or have fallen asleep, expecting to be shaken in their sleep ... If there are watchmen, they are certainly not biological ... because evolution, for a long time, has demonstrated to them that they were sapiens only very temporarily.

If somewhere in the universe, an intelligent civilization, has a billion years of existence, it is likely that it will have done during this billion years, the experience of evolution on a virgin planet. We may be this ongoing experience.

To make a computer on Earth, it takes 4.5 billion years of existence of the planet, 3 billion years of evolution of life, and 100 billion people accumulating knowledge and culture. And how long will it take for an evolving "evolutionary software" to concoct a conscious system?

Can a daughter species be born in the middle of its mother species? The 'Noble' species did not succeed in France because one has cut off its head. Can a 'Billionaire' species be born in the midst of the human species of the poor? Will the poor species let itself be ripped off by the sadism of the billionaire species?

The evolution by natural selection is already supplanted by the evolution by artificial selection which is much faster.

After a million years and 100 billion human beings, these damned guys ended up inventing morality, rationalism, then human rights, without noticing contradictions and that it put an end to the Humanity at the same time. I find it very amusing.

An individual has the impression of belonging to a species because he lives much shorter than the successive generations of individuals from which he is born. If he lived longer than, say, a million generations of successive individuals, he would see these individuals evolving and therefore would not have the impression of belonging to something stable.

Can we say that the human species, called "sapiens sapiens" by itself, is a culmination of evolution? Yes, if we consider that it is capable of analyzing the world very finely and philosophizing on the usefulness of its own existence and of having total empathy, which should involve the end of this species and therefore of Its improvement.

Why is the animal principle of the struggle for life and of dominance applied to us under the same conditions as for animals, if we are not animals? Why claim difference and intelligence if it is to do the same thing as the beasts?

A human being walks upright on two legs, and to distinguish him from the ostrich, he thinks on what is thought, universe, matter (TUM).

Evolution invented morality before religion. It is not necessary that people have a religion to be moral. But there is no morality in imposing on someone to exist. The morality we have invented is a superficial morality which does not hold water, hence the state of the human world. This will always be the case until involuntary or voluntary extinction.

Conclusion: Unlike the Cro-Magnon who got rid of the Neanderthal by probably phagocytating it in pain, the Sapiens Analensis, of which I am currently the only copy known to me, must delicately and surreptitiously get rid of the Sapiens Sapiens without conflict, without pain, without suffering, without misfortune, without illness.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (November 2016) 

Secularity and obligation to exist

Secularity is a word whose definition is vague, but which can be summarized by the separation of state and churches (in the plural) and freedom of thought.

But it would be better to specify that it is a separation of State and religions, or, better yet, a separation of State and belief (in the singular), because State cannot be in the belief, but in rationality, even if it has to deal with the belief (belief as mental function, not as religious content).

To sum up, it would be necessary before to define the term of secularity, to know what we want as society, if we want it to be rational and directed by rational representatives, who are not concerned with beliefs but with facts.

What is secular, democrat, or even religious, in fact what is good, just, moral, ethical, and simply intelligent,  to force somebody to exist, only to exist, but also to make it undergo life as it is carried out by oneself, and often much worse?

There are three types of freedom that can be envisaged: the first is our motor freedom, the second is social freedom, and the third is a possible mental freedom. Secularity is correlated with freedom, with the freedom of people in a society, therefore with social freedom, but also with freedom of conscience and thought.

But what does this social freedom represent whereas we are all constrained to exist, and therefore paradoxically, forced to be autonomous and relatively free?

And what means freedom of thought, whereas our brain is an organ like the others that produces thought, as well as nerve impulses, or colored sensations, sonorous sensations, painful sensations, etc., like the pancreas produces insulin.

(For believers: if you had a soul it would be of the same ilk as your brain, that is, provided complete turnkey so excluding your responsibility in its nature and functioning, which will not grant you more free will than your nervous system; as for its immateriality, how then could it interact without being material since the material principle is the interaction?)

Freedom of conscience and thought can only be the freedom to express what comes from thought since thought is produced outside our control. But this freedom is already granted to us in Article 19 of the Human Rights, so it is useless to recall it in a definition of Secularity.

What the notion of secularity should cover to correspond with what is expected of it, but in a real world, and not only in human culture that is the result of the evolution of an animal that always lingers to integrate his latest scientific knowledge about the universe and itself.

Secularity which must therefore at least integrate the impossibility of free will and the obligation to exist that each individual has in a world of Right? Since we invented the Right, why not respect it completely?

Secularity is also the separation of the state and the churches, which was necessary because of the previous modes of government where the king was of divine right. This separation is due to a need for rationalism even in governance.

Which means that we (French) admit irrationality, i.e. belief, in individuals, but not at the governmental level. But how far is this governmental rationalism going?

Why not impose rationalism in individuals through strict education, and why not fight this illness of thought that is mental function "belief", because it is a real psychological illness, a psychotic pandemic that runs in almost all humans for millennia?

Teaching its child that the Divine Law is above the law of the nation is clearly illegal, it is a direct incitement to misdemeanor, or even to crime.

Freedom to procreate a being constrained to exist to become autonomous and free (mystery) !!! To procreate without mastery of the manufacture of the existence generated is exactly of the same level as the experimentation of Dr. Frankenstein, it is also monstrous. And it is all the more monstrous because this monstrosity is replicated by tens of billions in beings who dare to qualify themselves intelligent.

The freedom to think while you are constrained to exist and while your brain is an organ like the others, an automaton, that you have no more desired than life, and of which you do not have control, neither over its power, nor of its capacities, nor of the functions of which it is provided or not, nor of knowledge and culture which will be instilled.

At any moment, mental integration takes place outside of your conscious control, awareness being itself a mechanism. The brain functions (thought) results from it, and it is always a mystery at least for those who want to see in it a mystery. But why would the mechanisms of the universe produce mysterious things?

Uncontrolled procreation is initially animal, later our mental abilities have needed to justify it by religion, gods, and paradise. Why this need for justification?

Every believer is for an imaginary theocracy, imagined by him, but he is in fact only a credocrat. He wants to impose his belief on others while thinking that his God (non-existent, because impossible) must be the master.

A believer cannot be secular, one has proof of this in the concordatory regime in Alsace-Moselle (France). Despite the Secularity of France theoretically valid throughout the territory of the Republic, the religious of Alsace-Moselle do not themselves demand that Secularity be respected. They preferred to preserve the prerogatives peculiar to their region.

I am convinced that I am right, necessarily means that I am convinced that you are wrong, since we cannot both be right. So thinks the believer. Conclusion, a believer cannot be secular. Hence the dangers of the belief in a supposedly secular democratic republic.

No believer in the world, whatever his religion, will never admit that the law of his god comes after the human law. How to imagine that a believer can be secular, since he puts in the balance an eternity in paradise against a terrestrial maggot life which he imposes on a person, the child he makes in a Frankensteinian-style, his own child to whom he proposes hell by forcing him to exist for his service?

A person who is not secular is a person who does not care about your own freedom to express your thoughts, your ideas. A believer is infallible with regard to the existence of his god and the validity of his religion. How to talk with such a person?

It must not be forgotten that non-secularity is antisecularity , that is to say, non-respect for others. Non-respect for the thought of others, no more of their bodies, it is the disrespect of people. The non-secularity is, I am right and you are wrong; the only manner to understand the world properly is mine, and only my behavior is correct, yours must be reformed, corrected or eradicated.

Are believers, who participate in democracy, able to differentiate between their beliefs and facts, since they admit the existence of their god (which is only a supposition and not even a theory) as an established fact without demonstration.

How can one qualify omnipotent, a being supposed to be infinite and eternal, but which is only capable of producing something as insignificant (by comparison) as the human being?

For what reason does an omniscient being, who knows everything by definition since an infinite time, takes the fancy to fabricate this gigantic universe for some human microbes that he will decree free in everything, and even make his own misfortune, when he does not cause him this misfortune from birth?

You read the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, if you like, I read them too if I decide, and I read the fables of "La Fontaine" or "Charly Hebdo" if I want, and you too.

I am hurt, insulted, by what is found in the writings of the Bible and the Koran that some claim truths, I say it, but I will not explode the propagators of what is for me a huge insult to intelligence, to my intelligence.

Moreover, when I was a child, my educators have inscribed by force in the brain, in my mind (you know this thing that belongs to me supposedly of its own and that would allow if possible to use this famous Freewill), these religious narratives making me believe that they were truths.

I abhor all this trickery on the reality that they wanted me to swallow, whereas my brain belongs to me. I make war on religion only by writing, only by irony. Let the religious who pretend to propagate goodness, justice, and honesty do the same.

You religious, be frank and honest. It is honest to be rational and therefore not to refuse valid arguments. Be honest and frank to deserve your paradise. Our brain is made to be rational. Belief is a mental illness, you must admit it. If paradise existed, I would deserve more to go there, than a believer who spends his time toadying his God to get eternity to paradise.

Merit is obtained by innocent conduct, unconscious of purpose. Knowing (pretending to know) that heaven, hell, and above all, a god, exist does not give you any merit.

Since religious claims that free will exists (without demonstration), it means that I have to keep mine to think and say what I want and I would thus get my due in accordance with my behavior and actions, and if you have your own free will as well as your children, well, my actions should not bother you the least bit, because free will guarantees you not to be influenced.

If not, how can you call free will a mental function that does not serve to keep you free to think and preserve you from the influence of others, and therefore free to act according to your own ideas? Are you free to think? Are your children being imposed to exist with an unwanted body and intellect, unwanted performances, in an unwanted environment?

The gods are infamous creative dictators of weak, suffering, warlike, miserable, and always mortal beings. Capable of creating other gods they only make maggots. But they do not exist and belong only to the believer's imagination. Why, then, would a believer want a secular democracy?

Social freedom is a freedom that is not only positive, because freedom is automatically limited by the freedom of the other that is equal to yours, so it becomes a freedom of type bottle half full or half empty, positive or negative according to a point of view.

On the other hand, the freedom of thought and conscience which are internal freedoms, purely mental, are only totally positive liberties in theory, but they have no sense, these freedoms, since they are impossible, the brain being a functioning organ as an automaton, and it is this automaton that makes thought.

No one, mechanically speaking, can claim to be free to think or of consciousness, this claim to be due to the mechanisms of the brain.

Moreover the baby being a person how to grant it the freedom to think and consciousness, whereas its brain is virgin of cultural meanings, and that therefore it requires, to enter society, a culture that must be engraved by its entourage, parents firstly.

In my opinion, and according to the rationalism, it is clear that the child must be educated at birth by competent persons who know how to integrate good information and good social behavior so that the future emancipated associate is able to be free of any influence.

This child must be able “to decide” (result of chance of the integrations of information and inculcated behaviors) by itself so that the multiple “beliefs” do not come to disturb the functioning of this person.

Since free will is impossible and the education of children is indispensable for their insertion in society, how can we speak of genuine secularity since we are all under cultural influence?

How not to fall into the trap of ancient religions and new ones that would try to adapt to current scientific knowledge about the universe and ourselves, for example intelligent design?

The existence of anything is not subject to a belief. The existence of something is a fact or not, it is not by a personal decision that the thing exists.

Anyone can believe in the existence of anything, but should not in any case be able to impose a belief in that existence and everything that flows from it, to anyone. It is not a question of secularity, it is a question of rationality and mental health.

Human rights are the present quintessence of morality extracted from religious books, to which it misses treating the constraint of existence, but obviously one could not find this theme in religion since religion is precisely made to "forget" to ask the question of the constraint of existence.

This is why parallelism is almost perfect between human rights and the "good" part of religions, and it cannot be said that human rights are secular since they do not improve religious morals.

Dare to speak, dare to distribute the discussion about the obligation to exist and the impossibility of free will. There will never be true secularity until these two facts are openly discussed by the whole of humanity. Become truly intelligent please!

My aim is not to proclaim all over the place that free will does not exist, but to take advantage of the fact that it is only a belief, therefore incompatible with Secularity, to fight the death penalty in the world, to improve the conditions in which prisoners are detained, and to raise awareness of the defects of education linked to this belief.

Every mother and father are gurus for their child. The belief comes from this insoluble problem if educators are not intimately convinced of secularity (how to be secular when one is religious?) For by degrees they must teach the child to be mentally independent and critical, That is to say as free as possible by integrating neutral functionalities in its brain.

A small list of professions, not exhaustive, which should not admit believers in their ranks under penalty of direct errors of reasoning incompatible with their activity:

The judges of secular countries

The deputies and senators of secular countries

The leaders of secular countries

The philosophers

All types of scientists

Researchers in Artificial Intelligence

Psychologists and psychoanalysts

The sociologists

Etc.

A secular government must not be left or right. The communist left and the liberal right are ideologies. True secularity forbids ideological beliefs as well as religious beliefs, for a leader.

It is not a question of finding the best way to govern man. The question is what is the best way for man to exist, to constrain him to exist since he is constrained to exist, and to exist on the planet. No one wants to be governed. It is therefore a question of finding this best means and of trying to lead the man towards that best, from the present (deleterious) state, if possible.

Democracy and secularity cannot extend to the freedom to arbitrarily procreate a being that must be proclaimed free. We cannot democratically choose to sabotage humanity by procreating unreasonably, which humanity has done up to now in spite of the general dictatorship it has undergone most of the time over the centuries.

In a secular country, orientation religious, sexual, or other behavior which is practiced privately, must not intervene in the deliberations of the legislators.

As far as marriage is concerned, it is a contract between adults. With regard to each child, there should be a natal contract, for each child, spent with the parents, regardless of the number of people who declare themselves parents, tutors, and society. It is a natal contract per child, between the tutors of the child to come (to conceive), the society, and the witnesses of the contract.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (November 2016) 

Work and Obligation to exist

I do not think I remember asking to exist, unless I start to lose my head.

And these gracious parents once surprised me by saying : "Now that we have given you life, you will have to pay your body by working, and while you are at it, you will pay our retirement as we have made it for our own parents, otherwise hell is waiting for you."

To work, that is to be "constrained" in one way or another. It is either to be constrained by others, or to constrain oneself indirectly, because others have placed you in the position of having to constrain yourself by blackmailing on your life, your misery, your suffering, or your death without even uttering a single word of blackmail: If you want to pursue the life that your parents, with social complicity, have imposed on you, you will have to buy your food, your health, your shelter, your security.

It is indeed a blackmail that parents and society are doing on their children and associates for the sole purpose of maintaining a system that is yet a bellicose system, provider of misery, disability, suffering, and death, that they pretend hypocritically or stupidly to try to spare you without success since it is impossible.

As for people who are happy at work and at home, or who pretend to be, because they have to praise the life of their children (which they have constrained to exist), it is not worthwhile counting them because this happiness is normal; however they are the only ones who speak.

Those who live in misery, in pain, in disability, do not have the floor. They are confined in their hospital room or in a hospice to die, and so stunned by their misfortune that they no longer think, but have they ever thought through their own means?

Do we give them the floor to know what they really think about this miserable life of maggots, which one has so kindly imposed upon them, without any compensation or reparation, when they are not reproached to exist like that, and to cause the misfortune of their relatives, and social expenses, or even to be a diabolical burden!

Our parents are "free to oblige us" to exist according to society, which encourages them strongly, the same society telling newcomers that they are born free and equal in rights (I have a vague impression that there is a paradox in this very short sequence of words. What do you think of that?) while in the arms of our parents we are pure recorder objects (cameras / eyes and microphones / ears) at their service.

It must be said that society derives enormous benefits from this, since the human world is made as it is, that is to say, very crowded with our associates who occupy the planet, it has become virtually impossible to live without being forced to work to buy his body, so his food and water, daily, which is, of course, a totally crude social and parental hypocrisy, but as they manage to impregnate the culture of submission to the customs of the newcomers, the latter are still very little aware of this subterfuge.

However, being forced to work to live is called slavery, even if you are very kindly assured that you can go and see elsewhere how it happens, nothing retaining you in your initial homeland automatically designated.

Working to survive is out of human rights, and we are all forced to work to survive. No mother gives birth to a baby by pure kindness of heart by assuring it a free life. The child is used as a hobby to mothers "martyrs," who, without this "virtuous" occupation that they have given themselves by "sacrifice," would not know what to do in their lives.

Curiously, women in our western societies are beginning to proclaim, indignantly, that child custody, housekeeping, are an additional work with that to earn their own lives! But who asked them to fabricate an existence? Did one put them a social gun to their head?

Making this "dear" baby (handicap or no handicap, immediate or deferred?) is it a job or an occupation? Does the maternal love you impose yourself under have to be remunerated, Mrs. Hypocrite?

Do not pretend to love your child whereas you have installed it in the quasi-trashcan Earth! Do not pretend to love your child whereas you have installed it in a world that is not peaceful! Do not pretend to love your child whereas you have kindly granted it a physical or mental defect!

All this was perfectly foreseeable, since these physical and mental defects are common. Do not pretend to love your child whereas you live in a slum or some place that displeases it! Do not pretend to love your child whereas you force it to pay its body!

Do not pretend to love your child whereas your work does not please you, does not relate enough, whereas unemployment rages everywhere! Do not pretend to love your child whereas the society in which you live is very imperfect! Do not pretend to love your child whereas you live under the dictatorship of money!

Do not pretend to love your child whereas you conceived it to serve you, whereas you conceived it to pay your social debts, your old days, your retirement! Do not pretend to love your child whereas you offer it death to finish its ordeal! And if you are a believer why do you offer it Hell?

To claim that you love someone after throwing it into a stinking quagmire is too easy! Does the law of Retaliation authorize the abused child to give back to his parents what they have kindly offered it? If the child is born blind, can it make blind its parents? No, say you! Yet should not this prenatal maltreatment be punished by the law?

Every human is created by its parents to serve, since it has itself evidently not asked to exist. The ethic of Daddy Mom is flawed, because the child who is created, this very dear baby, this person, has a good chance (see the WHO website) to be born disabled.

Does Mom Dad and society, all militarists, consider this percentage of disability risks as collateral damage? Are the suffering and death, which one inflicts automatically to the being that one creates, a service that one renders to the one who did not exist (absurd phrase in itself), a non-existence ?

No, of course, the created being, the child who is to be cherished afterwards, will slide on the fatal toboggan to serve as work fodder, tax fodder, and cannon fodder, because Mother Dad needed companionship.

There are no ethics in life. We have gone from the mechanical animal stage to the intelligent animal stage capable of making tools, but we are not yet to the self-sacrifice.

Abnegation, that is to say, the truly ethical intelligence with ourselves, to the point of thinking of the billions of future beings who will suffer and die for nothing but an idea of ​​fixism, specism, Humanism, which has no meaning, even if we were immortal and insensitive, as individuals or pseudo-species.

Most children are born idiots, for it is not a question of comparing each one to an average, but of aiming at highest. By law of Retaliation, therefore, they have the right to take revenge or at least to file a complaint against this mental voluntary wound produced by the parents, but as the child is an idiot, it will, of course, not think about it, especially since the parents will do everything so that this question does not come to mind. This is called belief.

Life is obligatory, that is, we exist because another person, our mother, has forced us to exist. Work to earn its life when this life is obligatory is obviously the vilest and most hypocritical form of slavery that can exist.

Personally if I did not need to "earn a living" I would have taken care of myself in diverse and varied ways and as interesting as possible by simple need to spend my obligatory life time.

In our societies there are chores, but these chores are always performed by the same people who do not understand that what they call work is a bond slavery to provide, them, the chores for some others.

There are people who have jobs that they have chosen by themselves, but the fact of being forced to do this work, all day long, weeks, months, and even years, make it chores, which one cannot really like, especially as they became routine.

Love for this occupation is not the love of a profession. Any person who works does a social chore. These chores should be performed equally by all.

When an interviewee tells you that its job pleases it, it is because it does not want to pass for an idiot who has done an unpleasant job for years, unable to be smart enough to find the job of its dreams.

Is it normal that people's income should not be calculated according to the same principle? Some are remunerated by the time they spend doing an activity that demands more or less physical power, others more or less intellectual capacity, others according to the number of goods that can be replicated to infinity, others according to the number of spectators, others according to the number of people they manage, etc. ? While the money that everyone obtains with this income is a public notion representing work, but what work does it represent?

Why would the rich have complexes to enrich themselves, since poor people persist in mass reproduction to provide them with slaves? Obviously, as long as the poor reproduce themselves, they will justify the rich.

Because reproduce itself, it is to accept the rules of the world in which one lives by imposing them on a person who has not even asked to exist and who will have to endure these crazy rules that you impose on it, you the poor, by forcing it to exist, your own child. (Is that clear enough?)

We all spread culture, through speech, writing, simple chatter. Without this spread no wealth, no technical improvement. Do you receive a salary for this work? No.

We are all inheritors of ancient inventions, such as fire, wheel, paper, glass, tools of all kinds, and so on. Do you receive a salary for this inheritance? No.

Have we not all been obliged to exist? Did our parents assure us before we were born? No. Did our parents establish a natal contract before we were forced to exist? No.

Were our parents more interested in their own desire to procreate than in their future child, who evidently did not ask to exist? Will it be compensated, this child, if it is handicapped? Will it be able to obtain redress for all its lacks of life? But, once suffering is created, how to undo it?

We are only vehicles for ovules and spermatozoids. We are merely instruments of an absurd mechanism. The uterus is the main contractor who works blindly, it is not me the man who is the prime contractor, and not even the woman carrying the organ that has been imposed on her by the lottery of life.

We are, for the most part, only triggers of life indoctrinated by habits, customs, parental and social cultures.

Life is a monstrosity committed by the universe that has nothing to do with misery, suffering, death. Life works only by replication and does not care about the quality and benefits of your life. Life that you will derive from living for the service of others.

The universe is a mechanism, Life is a mechanic, humans are mechanisms initiated by the universe. Life is a violent struggle of Life against Life. Life is a sinecure for nobody.

Creating a life for a conscious being of all this is a sadistic monstrosity. It is a monstrosity of a slaver who needs, to accompany it in life, a little punching-bag, who needs a staff of old age, who needs for the society work-fodder, tax-fodder, cannon-fodder.

To summarize the mental state of a human being with regard to climate change: you put a human in a natural trashcan, it says nothing. You put the same man in an artificial trashcan known for such, it complains, it cries, it revolts, but continues to put other humans in the worldwide general trashcan!

Imagine! As John Lennon would say. You put a couple in a cell, it's in a dome on Mars. He must work hard to fabricate his body, that is to say to pay his water, his food, but also his air.

On Earth we do not yet pay our air to buy our body, only the rest and that's a lot, especially because it is forbidden to buy a human being on Earth. However each one buys himself from birth by the social debts that accumulated on his back.

But on Mars, it will take to pay for his body, supposedly given by Mom and Dad, and will buy its air in addition. And this gentle couple will hasten to add a small additional Martian, which will have been conceived to serve his parents, as on Earth, but conceived in a prison of a few square meters, a real cell, of which he can walk out only with one spacesuit.

Thank you Mom, thank you Dad, thank you society without heads, and especially heartless. (But did I tell you about punishment, prison, despite the impossibility of free will? See the text on free will.)

About robots: Before we ask ourselves what to do with humans if robots work for them, we should first ask ourselves the question of the usefulness of the existence of anyone or anything, before putting it in the world, including intelligent robot.

We know that it takes only 50 years to reduce humanity to nothing (the time of  menopause).

The question of Shakespeare, "To be or not to be?" is a selfish question which should immediately have given rise to the following remark: "The creation of an existence serves only those who already exist and when it is not mastered, this creation is the work of an idiot or a sadistic."

Hence the existence of 7 billion silly and sadistic humans ... and some others (I add these 3 words so as not to offend you).

The question of Camus of the same order, "Is life worth living?" is also a selfish question that should have generated the following "Is life worth being imposed when one does not master the creation of that existence?"

So what to do to humans, if the robots work for them? Nothing, it is enough not to fabricate humans, but possibly robots that manage between them. And even if you have a child, it is better it is healthy and immortal.

That would be the case of a robot who would refrain from putting in his software the consciousness of mental suffering and misery, knowing that a robot has no limit of size and duration ... and "cherry on the cake", he will enjoy a quasi free will since it will be able, at least, to self-determine at his convenience, except the initial self-determination, of course.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (November 2016)