How can we save the Earth?

The Earth doesn’t need saving. What can hurt the Earth? The Sun can. In a few billion years, the Sun will destroy the Earth. We can start worrying about that in a million years or so. A huge asteroid, say 1000 miles in diameter, could destroy the Earth. Not much we can do about that, so there’s no reason to worry about it.

What about saving life on Earth? Life has existed on Earth for well over 3 billion years. It has survived ice ages, large asteroids, diseases, and everything else that’s been thrown at it – for 3 thousand million years. At present, life exists on land, under the land, in the oceans, and in the air. Life on Earth is not likely to die off until the Sun does it in.

Certainly, some species will go extinct, and some new ones will crop up. This is as it always has been. Over 99% of the species that ever existed are now extinct. This is how nature works. Don’t feel bad: no species cares if they go extinct, except for humans.

So “saving the Earth” mostly means “saving humans”. Well, there’s good news about humans. There are human communities on every continent except for Antarctica. And we’re smart. We find solutions to problems that occur. We can adapt to many environments. Thus, it is difficult to see how a large portion of humanity can be killed off.

Disease? No. Many countries have modern sanitation and clean water and good medical care. Diseases that may have killed a large portion of humanity in the past can no longer do so.

Nuclear war? Only the United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons. What president of the US or Russia would start a large-scale nuclear war? A small-scale nuclear war, say between India and Pakistan, would kill millions, but would not be a threat to humanity.

Global warming? The Earth is warming at the rate of about 2C per century. And by 2100, we’ll mostly have energy generated from sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses, so that will be the end of humanity’s contribution to global warming. Global warming may be disruptive in some areas, but it won’t pose a significant threat to humanity.

Overpopulation? The current population is just over 7 billion. But the rate of growth is slowing, and human population is expected to top out just after mid-century at 9 to 10 billion people. Right now, we could provide enough food for that many people. Technological advances will make food, water, and other resources inexpensively available to all.

So that’s it. Humanity is not under threat. We do not need to save the Earth.

------------------------------------------------

Yet many people are suffering and dying who don’t have to be. And this breaks the heart of all people of good will. What can be done about this? What is the major cause of this?

At its essence, it is the lack of freedom that results in needless suffering and dying.

In the developed world, there is relatively little needless suffering and dying.

But in the developing world, millions are dying and suffering each year from:

- Pollution (mostly from coal-burning power plants)

- Lack of sanitation and potable water

- Terrorism (in Syria alone, millions are affected by terrorism)

- Lack of modern health care

- Lack of crime control

Why are these things happening? The governments in the developing world do not protect their citizens’ freedom to live and believe as they wish. In fact, they mostly violate it.

In many predominantly Muslim countries, you can be arrested or killed for having the wrong belief system. And if you are a person who was a Muslim and converted to another religion, that person can, by Sharia Law, be killed.

In most African countries, the governments are so corrupt that the ruling class keeps most of the wealth to themselves. And they don’t protect property rights, making it difficult for the majority to accumulate wealth.

When governments don’t protect their citizens’ freedoms, especially their economic freedom, their people will not become prosperous. Without prosperity, getting a good education is difficult. And having a good sanitation system is difficult. And being able to afford pollution controls. And conservation measures are difficult.

Without freedom, there is no prosperity. And without prosperity, many of the things we need to lead happy and productive lives are not affordable.

Prosperity is the key to a better world for all. And the single, best thing we can do to assist humanity in becoming prosperous is to promote individual freedom, especially free markets and free trade.

------------------------------------------

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. He writes about mathematics, computer science, physics, the reconciliation between science and spirituality, and the application of Natural Law to our various systems such as education, government and economics. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

What should we do about the Islamic State?

On November 13, 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks—consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage-taking—occurred in Paris, the capital of France, and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Over 120 people were murdered and over 400 injured.

France has temporarily closed its borders, and is reviewing its security procedures related to immigrants. It has also bombed many sites in Syria that they believe harbored terrorists.

How should the United States respond?

For months, the United States has been bombing ISIS and other Islamo-Terrorist targets, mainly using our Special Ops forces to identify targets for our drones.  It is not known how effective this has been. We have not been battling them with our soldiers.
Many in the United States think that we should put 'boots on the ground' to fight ISIS and other terrorists.

But we should learn from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Former President Bush thought that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and helping to install a constitutional democracy there, would lead to an Arab Spring. Not only did this not occur; a plausible argument can be made that it has made matters much worse in much of the Muslim world. ISIS and other terrorist groups can move from country to country, and so defeating them in a war may be virtually impossible to do.

Furthermore, I do not believe we ought to go to war with ISIS. Yes, they would like to destroy us, but they cannot do this from outside of our borders.

More importantly, I think that ISIS and other Islamo-Terrorist groups are able to exist in the countries that they operate in because a significant minority of the population support them. Many support having Sharia Law as the law of the land, as described in the Koran, and Sharia Law allows women virtually no rights. But ISIS is not able to get a foothold in countries like the United Arab Emirates, who will not put up with terrorists. 

And they would not be able to get a foothold in the United States, either, because we would not put up with them. And this is why I do not wish to risk American military lives battling ISIS.

I believe the only way to defeat ISIS and other such Islamo-Terrorist groups is for the MEN in those countries to fight against them. When enough of them decide to do so, ISIS will cease to exist.

------------------------------ 

What can the United States do to Protect Itself? 

First, it should be noted that attacks from terrorists in the United States have come from within our country. Terrorists do not have military jets or missiles that can reach us. Also, since 9/11/2001 terrorists attacks here have not killed that many Americans. And another 9/11 type of attack is unlikely just because we reinforced cockpit doors. A terrorist might be able to blow up a jet, but would not be able to take control of one.

At the same time, an internal attack here like the one in Paris would cause a great deal of fear, and our leaders might feel compelled to go to war. The cost in lives and money would be extremely high. And the peaceful Muslims who are here would suffer as well.

The main job of the Commander in Chief of the United States is to preserve and protect the people of the United States. It is not to bring democracy to the world, or to force our values upon other countries. And it is not to prove to the world how nice we are. With that, here are specific suggestions that will enhance our security:

1) As mentioned above, don't go to war with terrorists. 

(If our intelligence agencies find overseas groups who are planning
attacks in America, Special Ops can take them out).

2) We have troops in over 100 countries around the world. We still have tens of thousands in South Korea, and more in Japan, and England, and Turkey. Are these troops sent there to protect America? I don't see how. Let's bring most of them home where they can protect our borders and ports. (They would have to be in the National Guard or Border Patrol to do this).

This would help to prevent a worst-case scenario of a terrorist group sneaking in an atomic bomb.

3) We should build some sort of high-tech fence along our borders that are vulnerable. This, along with the increased protection afforded by an increase in the National Guard and Border Patrol, will help to make sure we let into our country those who we want to be in our country. If we brought home most of the troops we have stationed abroad, we'd save money doing this.

4) Become oil independent from Middle Eastern oil - and Russian oil. After 9/11, we could have gotten all the oil we need from Canada, Mexico, and from our own country within a decade. Sadly, there are some environmentalists here who don't want this. Somehow they think we can just transition out of using oil in a few years. They don't think of how much it would harm the poor in our country to have high gasoline prices. 

5) We have always had immigrants. There are many millions of people that would love to immigrate to the United States. And who can blame them? Where I teach at The University of Texas at Dallas, most of our graduate students in Computer Science and other technical areas, are foreign students, mostly from Asia, but some from almost every country. And there are quite a few Muslims. If they get a degree, and find a job, as most do, let's do a background check and then offer them a Green Card. They are young, talented, and will likely raise their children well, because most come from cultures that value caring for and educating their children.   

Many of the top officials in the FBI, Homeland Security, and the CIA, don't believe we have the ability to do the kinds of background checks needed to keep terrorists from getting in, when we have a large influx of immigrants from predominately Muslim countries, such as those trying to leave Syria. My grandparents are from Syria and Lebanon, and my family still has relatives there. Yet, it would be unwise to allow so many unfortunate immigrants into the United States, until we have a system in place that can minimize the chance of terrorists of getting in. 

And we KNOW they will try. The FBI already has a list of about a thousand immigrants who they are trying to watch carefully, because they are considered a terrorist threat. We don't want to add to this list.

What about the controversial idea of letting in Christians or Jews or those of other religions? I want every immigrant to be vetted, just as you would vett a stranger before you'd let them into your house. But less vetting would be needed for these other religions, because we wouldn't have to vett for ties to terrorist groups.

6) Keep expanding free trade with countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Free trade increases prosperity for all. And prosperity brings education, the desire for freedom, the desire to provide good things for one's family, and lessens the chances that a guy will wander off to join a terrorist group.

A Note to my Muslim Friends in America

If there was an ISIS attack in America as there just was in France, your life here as Muslims would be much more difficult. It would benefit all of us to carefully vett Muslim immigrants.
_____________________________
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The  University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of  the author.

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 6) - Military Policy

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.” 

George Washington

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

 

Introduction

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions.  The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place. 

US Military Policy 

Purpose 

The purpose of the United States military should be to defend the USA if it is attacked, and to prevent an attack if a country or group has said that it intends to attack us.  This also includes eliminating in some fashion those who have already attacked us.

A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally. 

Having the Best Military in the World 

Of course, the best outcome of having the best military in the world is that no rational country would attack us or even threaten to attack us. And indeed, since we developed nuclear weapons, not a single country has attacked us.

The quality of our troops, their training, and the quality of our leadership are the reasons why we have the best military.  And along with this is that we have thousands of nuclear weapons. (We used to have over 30,000 but it seems like having 1,000 would be enough of a deterrent, and much less expensive to maintain).

Some people have a desire to have a 'nuclear free' world, meaning that all nuclear weapons should be dismantled.  This is a terrible idea.  Our enemies would be ecstatic if we got rid of our nuclear weapons.  And, of course, there is no way to be sure that all other countries do not have or will not develop nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, our nuclear weapons are the greatest deterrent to those who would consider attacking us. As mentioned above, not a single country has attacked us since we developed nuclear weapons.

And because the United States is not imperialistic and does not steal natural resources from other countries, I suspect that if you privately asked most people around the world which country should have the best military, they would choose the USA. 

We should not be the Policeman of the World 

One implication of the purpose of the military given above is that we should not be the policemen of the world.  People and countries have fought each other since the beginning of recorded history, and it is not the business or purpose of the United States to intervene in such fights, unless, of course, we are attacked or threatened with an attack.  The last war that we should have fought was World War II.  Our wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been misguided, although they were likely well intentioned.

Another implication of this is that we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war.  Currently, we have troops stationed in over 100 countries.  How many countries have troops stationed in the United States? None. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money.  It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business? 

The Department of Defense has stated that we even need fewer military bases in the USA, but Congress has been loathe to remove bases in the states that they represent, for fear of losing jobs. 

How Different Would our Military be given the above Purpose of the Military 

If we eliminated foreign bases, wouldn't our ability to defend ourselves be degraded?  I think the opposite would be the case.  Countries would no longer be telling us to mind our own business, and terrorists would not be telling us to get out of their countries, and would have fewer reasons to attack us.

Here's a brief summary of what I believe would be the best way to protect our country:

1) Remove our troops from all foreign countries (over time).

2) We would not even need a standing army, because we are not going to get involved with policing the world, or overturning governments.

3) We could use the National Guard in this country to strictly guard our borders and ports.  Their main purpose would be to see that no WMDs, especially nuclear bombs are smuggled into this country.  And the secondary purpose would be to see that those who come into our country are legally allowed to be here.

4) As far as threats from other countries, we can use our intelligence agencies (which can of course operate overseas), our intelligence-gathering space satellites, and our Aircraft Carrier Groups, which operate in international waters, and that dominate the oceans.  No sneak attacks from other countries are at all likely to occur.

5) As far as threats from terrorist groups or other such groups who wish to harm us, again our intelligence agencies are the main line of defense, along with the border and port controls.  If an overseas threat is found, we would send in our Special Operations groups to eliminate those threats. 

Note that if all countries had this same military philosophy, there would be no war! 

Conclusion 

Following these military policies will, in the long run, bring the world close to peace, because we would not be interfering with other countries, and we would be setting a good example for other countries to follow.

A very nice side benefit is that this could almost cut in half the military budget, and make us safer at the same time.

One other way to reduce the likelihood of war will be discussed in a future post.  It deals with free trade.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 8) - Foreign Trade, Foreign Relations, and Foreign Aid

"I saw that you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace. You could not have serious war anywhere in the world and expect commerce to go on as before. And I saw that wars were often caused by economic rivalry. I thereupon came to believe that if we could increase commercial exchanges among nations over lowered trade and tariff barriers and remove international obstacles to trade, we would go a long way toward eliminating war itself."

Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State, in his memoirs after observing two world wars

Foreign Relations

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully. No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be. This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow. What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same. What this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

As mentioned in a previous part, we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money. It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business?

Foreign Trade

Allow free trade with all nations. Free trade, not aid, is the best way to help other nations to become more prosperous.

Benjamin Franklin said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.”

George Washington, the Father of our nation said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

And Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.”

It would be well to heed these three of the most influential men in the history of our country.

Furthermore, free trade with foreign nations possibly offers one of the best solutions to avoiding war. We went to war with Japan over 60 years ago. Within a few decades, we were buying a great deal of goods from Japan, who then became dependent on trade with us. Do you think that they would consider going to war with us now, even if they thought they could win?

Similarly, China’s economy is closely tied to ours, and they are very desirous of us having a robust economy, so that theirs can thrive. Thus, the more trade we have with other countries, the more we reduce the risk of war with them, and the more prosperous they and we become. It is truly a win-win scenario.

Also, there is no reason to not have trade with Cuba. Cuba has not threatened the United States since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. We may not like some of their domestic policies, but that is none of our business. Cubans and Americans would benefit from trade between our nations.

Trade protectionism does not have a history of working well for our country. For instance, in 1930, the year after the stock-market crash, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the U.S., quadrupling previous tariff rates. Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act as a factor in causing the crash and/or the recession that began in late 1929, and its eventual passage as a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Another important point is that when people of good will trade with each other, they naturally get to know each other. And they frequently find out that these “foreigners” usually have the same values that we do. For instance, they also want the best for their families and for their country. So free trade has the side effect of producing friendships that might not normally be made.

However, free trade cannot occur if countries subsidize their industries. For instance, the U.S. subsidizes farming (often run by large corporations and often at the behest of a strong Farm Lobby), which makes it harder for poor nations to export food to us, leaving them and us poorer. It has been proven that there is always a net benefit when we are allowed to buy and trade with those who make the best product for the best price, wherever they happen to be in the world. And the best way to make this happen is to allow individuals and companies to buy or trade with whomever they wish. This is not a guarantee, but there is no better way to achieve prosperity for all humans. Beside, freedom is the American way.

Congress can and should restrict the trade of goods or services that could harm national security, such as the sale of weaponry to countries that are hostile to us. Also, any imported goods would have to meet the same health and safety standards as domestically made items. For instance, any cars we import must meet the same standards as domestically made cars. Inspections of such goods, which should be made by our government, should be paid for by the company who is selling them. Otherwise, Congress should not restrict trade with other countries.

Developing countries are welcome to ask foreign companies, such as those in the U.S. and elsewhere, to start companies in their country. This may benefit the developing country by attracting the talent and resources needed in order to grow economically. Of course, this would always be up to the home country.

Foreign Aid

The U.S. ought not to subsidize other nations, or provide continuous foreign aid to any nation. However, the U.S. may provide temporary humanitarian aid to a nation or nations due to natural disasters or other such events.

Continual foreign aid contributes to corruption and to dependency. It also can create enmity toward our country in that other countries may wonder why their country is not getting any of our money. And, not infrequently, this money is used to purchase weapons, and buy power, rather than help the people for whom it is intended.

It may also prolong conflicts, as I believe it has done in the Middle East.

This is not meant to be a restriction on individuals or organizations, who may give time and money to whomever they wish (again with the restriction that no goods or services may be provided to individuals, groups, or countries that could harm our national security.) ______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________