1. business and industrial
2. company
3. bankruptcy

Dedicated to My Marina
So many times I thought about stopping, quitting, wondering,
“Why the hell am I wasting my time with this?
Nobody is going to give a shit about these words or this book.”
But Marina, constantly, daily, would ask how the book was progressing.
Encouraging me. And when I needed more force,
demanding that I finish and focus on it.
All the while keeping a positive outlook on life,
even while she was confined to a restless hospital bed.
All my love.
To My Adopted Parents:
Forgiveness is the most difficult choice of all
But the kindness that empowers us to live
A note about the book covers
The eclectic cover mirrors the theme of the book about the beauty of life, love,
and our incredible universe.
The sunset was taken in Oahu, Hawaii in October, 2007, following my wedding.
There is something special about a sunset; universally beautiful to everyone. The
beauty, seemingly like an apology for the sun’s hesitant departure, as it reaches
the end of the day’s journey; leaving one last spectacular memory for us to
absorb.
The mild tropical autumn day had come to a close, as the final drops of sunlight
danced off the ripples of the warm salty waters below. The fiery energy filled the
distant skies with vibrant colors like a perfect dream. And even the clouds
seemed motionless for just a moment to capture the last bit of warmth, even as
the sunlight diminished their might. And though we may have seen a thousand
sunsets, today’s always seems like the most spectacular of all. Unending
creativity, each one different than the last. God’s last daily reminder of the
beauty of life.
The photo of Earth was captured from thirty-five thousand feet on my iPhone;
fitting, because I spent so much time in an airplane throughout my life. But the
greater significance is that the view of our planet is amazing to behold. And the
essential element of life - simple, bountiful miracle of water is still a profound
mystery of science.
High above the Earth, looking down, we can see the marvel of nature, recycling,
rejuvenating, endlessly quenching all of God’s creatures below; the phenomenon
of vapor meandering into the heavens, accumulating, gracefully floating, and
redistributing the source of life everywhere.
The pink rose photo was taken in June, 2004 from the garden of my former
girlfriend’s mother (as were the back cover flower photos). Flowers are one of
nature’s truly spectacular gifts. In Chapter 9, I call it God’s Perfection, an
instrument in the Perfect Symphony of Life. It’s difficult to imagine something so
breathtaking simply evolving from mere random chance. And the miracle of
bees, pollinating wonders, with a beauty and intricacy that is equally profound.
All of these elements, working together in perfect harmony - the water of life, the
nurturing clouds, the diversity of life, and the tightly woven interdependence of
even the simplest things, such as a tiny honey bee; nature, repeating trillions of
times, flawlessly, effortlessly, with such unimaginable creativity and beauty.
Perfection.
The universe truly is a wonder.
Iron, not Wood
(a Philosophical View of Life, Love,
and our Amazing Universe)
by Daryl Chamberlin
May 2015 (Final release)
IronNotWood.com
[email protected]
Doing the right thing, even when nobody will notice, is the hardest
thing. But even if we fail now and again, our continual desire to
want to be better is the only thing that can truly define and separate
the thin line between good and evil.
This is the true measure of a person.
[From Chapter 6: Morality and Religion]
I think if God truly does exist, He/She/It would be insulted at the notion that
God is so self-serving, so petty, and so craving of adoration and worship, as
many religions teach us. No, these are the ugly human qualities that we should
despise, not dignify and elevate to the qualities of some Deity.
[From Chapter 6: Morality and Religion]
I think God, like any artist, just wants people to view and appreciate His art enjoy it, live in it, breathe it, and occasionally, just say,
“Thank you. It’s simply beautiful.”
[From Chapter 13: Life, a Stepping Stone in the River]
When our existence is simply defined by the belief that we have so much to live
for, but nothing to die for, our lives are empty and meaningless.
It is love that gives us the courage to be selfless;
to have something you cherish so much, it’s worth dying for.
[From Chapter 13: Life, a Stepping Stone in the River]
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that what people believe is
reality, is really not.
We touch a piece of wood and believe it is solid. It is not. We touch a hot flame
and recoil, thinking it is completely different than the piece of wood feeding the
flame. They are the same. Our reality is completely
misaligned with the true nature of our universe.
The only thing that truly exists in this universe is energy - in all its various
forms. Just as water can have multiple forms like liquid, ice, or gaseous vapor.
Everything around us is literally just energy.
And through the Conservation of Energy Principle, we know that energy can
never be created nor destroyed, only change form.
So too is our consciousness, and our spiritual reality…they are not decoupled
from our physical universe. Keep an open mind, because what we believe we
know is rarely the case at all.
[From Chapter 11: Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality]
People are like the element hydrogen (H); our natural state is to be coupled with
another hydrogen atom. A single hydrogen element is unstable and lonely,
always looking to bond with another, existing in our universe almost entirely as
H2. The soul of a man (or woman) is far more important than the physical
manifestation. If two souls are naturally drawn together, like hydrogen atoms,
then even all the universal forces can’t keep them apart.
If we could just view the world in the spiritual domain - extracted from the
physical existence - it doesn’t matter who those two souls are, whether they’re
gay or heterosexual, young or old, geniuses or morons, rich or poor.
Most of our sense of morality and cultural acceptance is flawed because we
view only the physical reality. Let people love, no matter whom they love.
Because love is the only absolute morality.
[From Chapter 6: Morality and Religion]
True, real love is the primary reason I believe in spirituality, beyond this
physical life. Love doesn’t make sense in the physical domain. There is no
biological reason for love (animals nurturing their young isn’t love), no
evolutionary purpose, and no physical explanation. Love doesn’t follow reason
or logic. It’s not a practical consideration. Love defies our survival instinct,
selflessly casting our needs and well-being below those we love.
Love is the only thing in our universe that isn’t ultimately guided by a
mathematical reality or formula.
Love is the greatest mystery of our universe.
[From Chapter 12: Love, the Eternal Quest]
Strangers are isolated from us only by the absence of “Hello”
[From Chapter 3: Black Holes and Keeping Our Shoes Clean]
Evolutionism states: Nature and Randomness are infinitely smarter than
Mankind, having invented far grander marvels than we could ever dream.
[From Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
Instead of viewing myself as a victim of life and circumstance, I began to realize
that I, and only me, held the power to control my own destiny and my life.
Instead of blaming others and blaming the world, I began to realize that
sometimes shit happens to EVERYBODY and that my early unfortunate
servings of life were no excuse to be angry.
How we react and choose to deal with horrible shit that happens in our lives is
the only thing that matters, and the only thing we should be proud of,
or ashamed of with ourselves.
[From Chapter 4: My Restless Childhood]
In retrospect, yes, my life could’ve been easier. But my view in life has always
been that it doesn’t matter where you go to school, how bad your school is, or
what status in life you come from. Our ability to be successful in life is still
entirely in our hands. Sometimes we make the wrong turn or make plenty of
driving mistakes along the way. We don’t always get to take the easy road; and
we rarely get to drive the luxury car starting out on the highway of life. But we
still control where we go and how we get there.
[From Chapter 5: Understanding Life, the Great Enigma]
The Theory of Evolution isn’t a theory. A basic lesson in science: If a theory is in
flux, always changing to fit the data, it isn’t a theory yet; it’s merely an
unproven idea. And we will discuss these ideas and the fluid nature of the
concept of evolution.
[From Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
Was life a miracle of mathematical improbability and pure random luck, or
carefully designed to an Artist’s conception? What we believe is the answer to
this question should dictate how we choose to live our lives, based on a belief
whether there is more to our world, and our lives, than just ourselves.
I believe this world and life was Intelligently Designed, and many of the
evolutionary steps were likely shaped by this Intelligence. I simply remove the
implied word “random” in the idea of evolution.
I call it the “Theory of Intentional Evolution.”
[From Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
Our DNA, the poetic book of life, is 1.5 million pages and 3 billion characters
long, and defines who we are. It is the precise and shockingly detailed and
complex blueprints of our existence. The Author is God (some Intelligence).
Each chapter has a different story, of a slow but methodical design process. The
first chapter was about how simple elements combined and created more
complex chemical compounds we call polymers. And then these lifeless
polymers eventually created something more magical: the biological building
blocks that eventually resulted in the first living microbial organism. And after
a few tragic stories of failure, and many more stories of His successes, we see in
the middle part of the book about the diversity of life and the artistry of
complexity, despite a universe that despised it and seemed to constantly plot
against it. And in the final chapter, using all the building blocks of every single
previous page of the 1.5 million, in the final page we finally see humanity. The
ultimate achievement of the Author. The final details of the letters meticulously
put in place; each word breathing meaning and life into the whole of the book.
One page, that makes all the difference in the world
to the essence of the book’s story.
[From Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
Numbers are the only thing that is truly objective in this universe. Everything
else is weighed down by the gravity of our long held views and predisposition.
Even science is corrupted by bias, as we constantly struggle to extract ourselves
from the confines of the human perspective. Pure numbers bring crystal clarity
to an otherwise murky and incomprehensible universe, allowing us to measure
and quantify and see truth as it truly stands before us,
removed of the mask of illusions.
Numbers don’t give a shit about religion, about race, about politics, about
evolution or creationism; they peddle no agenda. They just spit out the facts.
Truth, in mathematical terms, is relative and based on probability. For
instance, if the probability of one event is 1 in a trillion (1012), and the
probability of another event is 1 in 10120 . Math tells us, truly objectively, the 1 in
a 1 trillion event is the reality, and is far more truth. And the other one is B.S.
[From Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
The chance of just 5 simultaneous beneficial mutations, out of 4.1
million nucleotide bases in simple E. coli bacteria,
occurring in a specific sequence is
1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000
or the equivalent of 11.4 trillion years it would take.
The universe is only 13,800,000,000 years old (13.8 billion).
For random evolution to occur, as the theory holds, is impossible.
Therefore, the entire theory is mathematically invalid.
If any other scientific theory showed this obvious mathematical
improbability, NO scientist in the world would ever believe it
or accept it as scientific truth.
The mathematical truth is that numbers - which do not, cannot lie tells us that there is an intelligence somewhere in this universe,
beyond humans. It is an absolute mathematical certainty.
I call this my notion of God.
[Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony]
If you believe humans evolved from apes, then you must also believe
this: E. coli bacteria should be going through speciation constantly.
A single E. coli cell can reproduce to 70 billion in 27 hours; the same
as the number of apes that endured during the supposed transition
to human form. According to Evolution theory, E. coli bacteria
should mutate 164,000 nucleotides every 27 hours. It’s the same 4%
ratio as apes vs humans. I can assure you, it has never happened,
nor ever will happen. This is one of the few instantaneous ways for
us to emphatically disprove evolution. Adaptation yes; evolution no.
Throughout my life I have witnessed very intelligent people use logic
and reason to explain away every side of any argument. I do it.
Logic can be perverted by our own sense of bias and perspective.
Numbers and math are the only absolute.
You can choose not to believe them,
but it doesn’t make it any less factual.
Iron, not Wood
For what pleasure is there,
that is mine
if it is wooden and damp,
vapor fleeting in time
Like locusts in a prairie,
a cloud of swarm
circling darkness, destruction,
praying to weather the storm
Gazing from afar,
still feeling its breath
I turn, pause, embrace fear,
then outrun its death
Running toward shelter,
I scamper to light
but night falls shortly,
and discovers my fright
But serenity, she awakens,
lightly lifting my hand
as peace consumes and, gently,
reminds me what I am
Fleeting, transient,
a simple vessel of treasure:
Iron, not Wood,
not merely pleasure
by Daryl Chamberlin
November 9, 2014
Preface
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Pandora’s Box Paradox: Knowledge vs Understanding
Chapter 3. Black Holes and Keeping Our Shoes Clean
Chapter 4. My Restless Childhood
Chapter 5. Understanding Life, the Great Enigma
Chapter 6. Morality and Religion
Chapter 7. The Road to Digital Serfdom
Chapter 8. Live Free: Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness
Chapter 9. The Perfect Symphony
Chapter 10. Dating and Romance, the Color of Love
Chapter 11. Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality
Chapter 12. Love, the Eternal Quest
Chapter 13. Life, a Stepping Stone in the River
Preface
I started writing this book in late January 2014, as I began contemplating my
pending 44th birthday at the onset of February. (Yes, I’m actually not 32 or 37
ladies. Please forgive my one white lie). All the years, where had they gone? And
all the stories and thoughts and experiences seemed to fade together into the
moment of now.
Somehow I always believed, for some reason, I should write a book about life. Not
necessarily my life, but just about our human experience. After many years of
thinking about it, I finally wrote a couple chapters back in January of 2014 and
put it away, expecting to write a little more each week. But that never
materialized.
In April of 2014, I resigned from my company and started traveling, after being
diagnosed with colorectal cancer, to my surprise, and having already experienced
a fairly emotional and painful period in my life, mostly due to my divorce. (But
my pending mortality has nothing to do with the reasons why I wrote this book or
most of the contents within its pages.) I consciously decided I didn’t want
treatment, but rather to live life as much as I could - with a focus on quality of life
rather than longevity. I never wanted or expected sympathy or pity from anyone,
which is why I decided to keep my condition a secret for as long as possible.
While traveling, I began to write a little more, making very slow and modest
progress. I was always a chronic procrastinator. Life and partying and girls
always seemed to get in the way. Even losing more than 30 pounds in late 2014
didn't deter my enthusiasm for partying! On the bright side, all my beer belly fat
is gone and I look much better! But, I finally had to stop partying every night
(literally) so I could focus on actually finishing this book during the month of
January and first part of February 2015. Small miracles. Nearly all of the book
was written during this period, as I literally slaved away 15-20 hours a day, every
day for 5 weeks (as I say in the book, I really used to not sleep much). It’s
amazing how much you can accomplish when focused. And much of it was
written on my iPhone using Google Document, while sipping beer or Americano
coffee at a cafe. Technology is sometimes actually useful!
I released an early draft version in February of this year to a handful of friends
and family, simply because my health seemed to be deteriorating at the time and
I was sick of editing the mountainous text. Finally, in May 2015, I decided I
Preface i
needed to finish the editing and spent a couple weeks lazily finalizing the book.
New small sections were added and significant edits were made for the final
release.
As I was going through my edits, I contemplated long and hard about specific
sections and words to remove - offensive statements or jokes, profanity, my
promiscuity, my sense of overconfidence, and sometimes seeming self-indulgence
(which is for a purpose in the book). But as I thought about it, I wanted this book
to be about two things. First, about powerful ideas about philosophy and life, and
the lessons I’ve painfully learned. But secondly, I wanted it to be a true reflection
of myself - ugly parts and all. Not some whitewashed version of myself that I
thought would be more palatable to those who may not have ever met me. I am
who I am, and I make no apologies for the way I am. So in the end, I decided to
leave most of the controversial things and self-indulgent themes throughout
portions of the book. Not everyone is going to agree with all my statements or
even who I was. And many will judge the lifestyle and my sense of morality. But
that’s ok. Our diversity of views is what makes life so damn interesting.
My original working book title was called "a Meaningless book about Meaning (a
Philosophical view of Life, Love and our Amazing Universe)." I changed the title
once it was near completion, only because the working title, while more accurate,
was a bit boring - like slowly clipping your overgrown toenails on a Saturday
night because your date fell through (which I never did by the way. Ok. Maybe I
did on a Sunday night).
My friends have come to know a completely different side of my character, a
partying, constantly joking, laughing side mostly. They’re probably thinking that
I must have a different meaning and analogy for wood and iron. Noooo! This is
not a reference to porn, or some cheesy pickup line book, dude! (C’mon man! It’s
serious! Really.)
I certainly don’t proclaim that there is only one meaning, or that my sense of
meaning should apply to everyone’s life. And, to be clear, this is not a religious
book. Hell no! I am not religious or even believe in God, at least in the
traditional sense. But you’ll be surprised in this book at my religious views and
experiences. This book is quite different than any other philosophical book,
which I’m sure you will discover.
My path to here and now has been quite different than nearly everyone else. And
as a result, I do have a very unique perspective and an uncommon view of life.
Preface ii
I'm not motivated by trying to write a New York Times best seller. I doubt I
could, even if it was my life's goal. I’m not so creative or popular. That’s not
important to me. Perhaps someone, somewhere will find time and read it, and it
will propel them to contemplate their own life and meaning and spirituality.
Maybe an Ebola quarantine victim, bored in an isolation chamber awaiting the 21
days to expire! He or she may wish they actually had Ebola by the time they
painfully finish my book!!
Ok, on a more sober note, this book really is more serious than comical. Ironic,
because people who spent a lot of time around me would say I'm more comical
than serious. Ahhhh, the enigmatic circle of life - what we perceive and where
reality lays are rarely coincidental.
Some people may find amusement and think this is my Jerry Maguire moment.
(There’s always a snicker in every crowd, usually me!) After all, I did love the
movie. But I had to write this book for myself, and I hope some of you who
shared in my life will take the time to read it too and share it with others. I've
tried to be brutally honest about my life, making revelations I never shared with
anyone. I’ve done so in an effort to share insights and lessons I’ve learned along
the way.
I'm sure I will offend many people who may disagree with my views or thoughts,
or philosophical approach to life. Or my lifestyle. Just like anybody else, I
certainly don’t have all the answers to life. But if it can help make people pause
and think a little bit, it was time well spent - even if it concludes in complete
disagreement. More importantly, perhaps in some small way, it can help others
who have struggled with similar issues as I have throughout my life, especially
the many young people I've met.
This book is not typical or orthodox, kind of a reflection of myself I guess. I’ve
combined the ideas of philosophy, politics, economics, technology and science, as
well as religion and spirituality into a giant spaghetti web of words. I know you’re
thinking, “Seriously? Who does that?” I felt like Einstein for about a month, who
in his last days was trying to tie together all the universe’s physics theories into a
grand Unified Theory, except mine was far less scholarly. I call it the “General
Theory of Life,” or you can just refer to it as the “Spaghetti Theory”.
Anyway, all of these diverse topics are the real basic elements of life, bound
together by the coarse thread of our daily experience. I admit it’s a difficult read
at times. A bit eclectic. Perhaps way more than a bit. A bit too technical in
moments. A bit boring in others, admittedly. A bit pontificating at times. At
Preface iii
times deeply personal. But hopefully, the underlying intent and theme of this
book will be clear.
Originally, I was expected this book to be about a third of the length it ended up.
One doesn’t realize the volume of experiences and life lessons we’ve learned until
we begin to truly reflect. It’s true I could’ve probably split this into several books
of different topics to make it seem less eclectic, but what’s the fun in that? Just
be thankful it’s not as painfully long as “War and Peace.” I think people who start
reading that book begin wishing for war to breakout midway through it, just so
they won’t have to finish the book.
The poem "Iron, not Wood" is clearly metaphorical, where Iron represents love,
strong and enduring, and Wood embodies the pursuit of a purely hedonistic life
of pleasure, and the dangers therein. At times I've lived my life in a wooden box,
thriving on seeking pleasure. Lots and lots of pleasure. But this evaporates like
vapor. Love is the only thing worth pursuing, and the only thing that endures
beyond ourselves. We can feel a calm and serenity when we're guided by a path to
love. We may be transient creatures - all of us certain to perish - but love can
endure and it is the essence of our soul. And it is this duality, the transient
nature of this existence, where we seek the Wood in our lives, and the enduring
quality of searching for Iron that forges and defines our eternal consciousness. It
is the Iron in our lives that transcends our existence, from merely here and now,
to something lasting and permanent.
In a sense, this book is about my struggles of searching for Iron, constantly
distracted by Wood. In a way, it can be a lesson to many of us about how not to
live one's life in a purely hedonistic pursuit, even if only for short periods. The
idea of instant gratification versus delayed gratification goes hand in hand with
the notion of Iron versus Wood. In life, we all want to receive pleasure today,
now. And it seems so difficult to trade off today's excitement for tomorrow's
greater enjoyment. But oftentimes, this is the wiser choice.
For me, accomplishment in life was never about how much money I could
accumulate; or how big of a house I could buy; or how many friends I could
Facebook; or what power and influence I could exert. As far as achieving my
potential for success and accomplishment, I probably greatly underachieved my
potential. But who really cares? Achieving one’s potential isn’t, in and of itself, a
worthy or meaningful goal in life. Accomplishment and recognition were not my
priorities, so I was ok with it.
Preface iv
When I was younger, I wanted to be a U.S. Senator and the CEO of a company. I
can never be president of the U.S. since I was not native born. However, I later
discovered that politics was just too nasty, and required compromising morals
too much. And the drive to be CEO and pursue wealth ended when I discovered,
during my late twenties, career and money are not important in life. I’m
absolutely sure if these had been my life priorities I would have certainly achieved
these goals.
Even still, I had a pretty successful life by anyone's conventional measure I think.
While my life was about having fun, meeting friends, enjoying life, and being as
ridiculous as one could possibly be (in a good way hopefully), ultimately, it was
always about searching to find meaning and love. It was about being genuine to
myself and to others along the way; and treating everyone fairly and honestly, no
matter their stature in life - whether they cleaned streets, or repaired arteries, or
managed a trillion dollars of global assets on the dirtiest street of all, Wall Street.
Every life has equal value, regardless of their monetary worth or social standing
or accomplishments. Often we lose sight of this. My life is no more valuable than
the homeless man on the street corner, intoxicated by life’s disappointment, and
the crushing blow of life experiences and blunt emotional pain.
This book is not a tool to provide answers to life’s greatest questions. I make no
such grandiose claims. I’m simply sharing my ideas and perspectives, shaped by
my unique experiences.
I’ve been so intrigued my whole life about the questions of Why? What is the
meaning of this life? Of our existence? Are experiences random or does
everything that happen truly have some design or purpose? Is our purpose
simply like every other living species and animal: to procreate, to propagate and
simply endure as long as possible? Or is there more to our lives?
Why do we let our childhood experiences dictate so much of who we are as
adults? Can we change ourselves and truly overcome our childhood scars?
What is consciousness? Can it really endure eternally?
And what is love? Is it just a fleeting bio-chemical-emotional reaction to
companionship, or is it something truly special and enduring?
Preface v
There is nothing more fundamental to our lives, in determining how
we choose to live our days, than answering the philosophical
questions of "What is the meaning of all it? And does it even matter?"
I’ve concluded that even if one doesn’t believe in God, per se, one can still
appreciate that maybe purpose does exist; that design is still everywhere. And
that chaos somehow always blends into order and structure. Religion and
philosophy, and science are not mutually exclusive concepts. And while science
can be incredibly powerful, the danger is that it can limit ourselves to only view
the world through a narrow window of observation. Not everything is known, or
can be known purely through science. Anyway, I don’t want to get ahead of
myself….
So, goodbye, my dear friends. Godspeed. Thank you (really) for the truly
amazing life and unforgettable experiences. I wouldn’t trade my life for anyone’s,
even now. I've done virtually everything any man could possibly dream of doing
in life. What an amazing ride it’s been, far surpassing my wildest hopes and
expectations. And I have the many people whom I’ve been fortunate to cross
paths with in this life to thank for that.
With love, respect, humility and gratitude.
Daryl
Preface vi
Iron, not Wood
(a Philosophical View of Life, Love,
and our Amazing Universe)
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
- Socrates
Chapter 1. Introduction
When I was a child, I used to stare at the
stars, amazed by the countless speckles of
light all pulsating quietly, seemingly
twinkling in harmony. It appeared as if they
were trying to tell the story of our world, our
universe, but without a voice; in a timeless
speech and echo of light that would go on
and on forever; a message that started
millions and billions of years ago,
originating somewhere far from here, and a
distance unimaginable to human perception of space.
Science later told me that the twinkling of stars was nothing more than waves or
particles of light making its way through the thick layers of shifting atmosphere,
bending and refracting light, until one observed a relentless, but constantly
changing beam or twinkle. Biology taught me that this was nothing more than
changing light waves impinging on our eyes - light passing through our dilated
pupils, focused by our lens onto retina tissue that converts light to nothing more
than electrical patterns which our brains could interpret as a visual memory.
Page 1
But I still prefer to think that science only captures a part of their story: their
dimness reflecting the exhaustion from millions of years of journey, and trillions
of miles of travel. Perhaps in that final moment, those rays of light - like a weary
messenger through space, coming to share how magnificent and beautiful and
immense our universe is - can finally find fulfillment. And as they rest on our
eyes, their message now permanently captured in our consciousness, they can
shine a little brighter and a little bit longer – even if only for a twinkle of a
moment; a final farewell to a restless journey, comforted by the fact that someone
finally heard their story. A thousand twinkles in the night, with a thousand
messages of our amazing universe.
So too is the story of my life. Like a weary light, carrying the message of an
amazing story of how a life of humble beginnings, grew and gave life and energy
to those around it; and in the final stage, like a supernova, eventually faded as all
things do. I’m content knowing my thoughts and message can finally rest,
knowing I’ve written this book. And that perhaps someone will read and
remember, and it will impact their lives in some positive way.
This book is a story about my life and experiences, as well as about ideas and love
and our beautiful, beautiful world. But most importantly, about the things that
I’ve learned, often painfully, that may perhaps help others.
As I look back now, I can honestly say I think I took the road less travelled. I
lived my life and only followed the rules grounded in morality; not some silly or
arbitrary rules of a bureaucrat or government or religious institution or a
manager or company mandated I follow. Moral rules are the only ones that are
relevant in life. So many people self-constrain themselves with self-imposed
rules, society’s or other life pressures. I never followed a template for my life,
which led me to places and experiences I couldn't have imagined otherwise.
I’ve tried to be as honest and direct as I can be in this book. I hope people don’t
perceive it the wrong way as egotistical or about self. That is not my intent at all.
If anything, I've included a lot of embarrassing and deeply personal revelations,
for the sole purpose and hope that, perhaps, this insight and honesty will help
others who are forging their own path in life.
My life was really a paradox. It was a genuinely amazing and happy life; far
better than I could have ever imagined. People only perceive me as someone who
is fun, full of energy, funny and always smiling and genuinely laughing. And
those are all true and real sides of my personality. But I’m also a deliberate and
serious person; one who likes to think and ponder about life obsessively, about
Page 2
reason and our purpose; one with an innate sadness within as a result of my
unorthodox childhood. Something a million genuine smiles or laughs, or a
thousand tears could never completely erase.
But that is the essence of life: suffering intertwined with happiness; everyone
suffers from this same condition.
The Essentials
For all the crazy times and amazing moments of euphoria, and the
incredible girls I’ve been with, Love is the only thing that mattered in
the end. Sex and parties, and virtually everything else I ever did in my
life, always ended with a feeling of emptiness days later - regardless of
how euphoric it was in the moment. Love was the only thing that
lasted and made the following days better.
This is why Chapter 12: Love, the Eternal Quest, and Chapter 5: Understanding
Life, the Great Enigma (about life and love) are my favorites.
But the most important thing that changed my life, in a positive way, I
discuss in a very personal section in Chapter 3: Black Holes and
Keeping Your Shoes Clean, and Chapter 4: My Restless Childhood. It
was fundamental to my life.
Chapter 10: Dating and Romance, the Color of Love, is less about romance and
more about dating, regrettable. It is more light-hearted and entertaining. My
male friends will probably find this chapter more enjoyable. My female friends
will probably just shake their head and say, “Yup, that’s Daryl” in a noncomplementary, but hopefully forgiving way. But frankly, it’s one of my least
favorites, even if it is quite funny and entertaining. But I added a lot of photos to
make it more colorful - after all, the chapter title says “Color of Love.”
In Chapter 11: Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality, I try to
provide some scientific parallels and background on why abstract
ideas like Eternal Consciousness, Karma and Soul-Mates, as well as
our Spiritual Reality are actually real. I think it’s interesting. I tried
to make it not too technical, but it’s difficult when dealing with
physics, especially Quantum physics. I wrote this chapter over the
course of several days. And the last night, after I wrote the “Quantum
Page 3
Field Theory” and “Consciousness” sections, my head was, literally,
about to explode. I usually wrote from the mid afternoon until about
8 am. But after writing these sections, my head was pulsating. And
my head was racing with so many ideas and thoughts, even while it
was pulsating. I still couldn’t sleep, despite being completely mentally
exhausted. I never get headaches, but this section did it! You need to
read this chapter! Reading (as opposed to writing it) should be
headache free. It will completely change your view of reality.
The Chapter 11 Quantum section about “what is time” is interesting.
But the section about Quantum entanglement is the most interesting
and spooky as shit! It is the greatest scientific mystery. Our universe
is an incredibly amazing and nebulous marvel.
Chapter 11 gets a bit technical and theoretical at times, but at least trying to
quantify these ideas based on some type of sound reason and fact is far better
than just believing them due to abstract notions or faith. I believe that science
and philosophy can be complementary, and that science may ultimately prove,
not dispel, any notion of consciousness being merely physical.
As anyone who knows me has come to understand, I have a lot of ideas and
theories. For just about everything. Some are pretty silly and intended for comic
value only, others are more serious. This is the product of obsessively thinking
about everything, constantly, and trying to make sense of it all. No wonder I
could never sleep.
The final Chapter 13: Life, a Stepping Stone in the River, is the short
Cliff’s Notes version, for those too disinterested in reading the full
mountain of text. I can’t blame you if you skip to chapter 13, as I
always liked to go straight to the end too (patience wasn’t one of my
virtues either). It’s relatively short and to the point.
Chapters 7: The Road to Digital Serfdom, and Chapter 8: Live Free: Freedom and
the Pursuit of Happiness, will probably leave many wondering why I chose to add
these into my book. Admittedly, they add to the eclectic sense of the book and
seem a bit misplaced. However, I do believe technology, politics, and economics
are vital to our lives - even if nearly everyone hates to think about two of these
topics. And when we think of the totality of our lives, in this context they are
relevant. Happiness may be a state of mind, and Meaning may be mostly
decoupled from our physical reality, but through the prism of our lives, and for
humanity and our empathy and love of people as a whole, it matters.
Page 4
In Chapter 8: Live Free: Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness, I talk about the
shackles of social expectations that largely predetermined the outline of our
entire life, from childhood to retirement; and the failure of government to
meaningfully enable each of us - other than a select few - to truly live a life of
freedom. Possessing the right to be free, as protected by a sacred document or a
government, does not necessarily mean we are living free. I talk about specific
and somewhat radical ideas of how we can unchain ourselves from the bondage
of economic servitude that typifies nearly all people today. Big problems require
radical thought and paradigm shifts in our approach to solutions.
I also discuss the practical side of life in Chapter 8. Everybody really
needs to read the section “Unchaining our Economic Servitude:
Enjoying Life When We Should”. Also, in the section “Who Wants to
be a Millionaire”, I discuss the fact that ANYONE can become a multimillionaire. I’m serious. It’s really, really easy and simple. No joke.
This isn’t one of those infomercials. It doesn’t matter how little
money you make.
Money isn’t the most important thing. Money itself isn’t bad or evil.
We all should enjoy life and we must take care of our family. Every
parent wants to provide a better life for their children. If you love
your children, then read this section.
However, Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony is the most important section and is
central to the thesis of this book about meaning. This section discusses the
beginnings of life, and the idea of Intelligent Design (not Creationism) nurturing
the evolution of species. It’s very different than the idea of pure random
evolution. It's necessarily a little more technical than I would've preferred, so I
hope you will bear with me and persevere through it. It’s long (too long
probably), but packed with interesting ideas and facts. There are 3 minimum
sections I hope you will read in Chapter 9 if you can’t bear the full details:
 “Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution” (page 338)
 “Complexity and the Universal Order; Probability Calculus” (page 342)
 “My Humble Conclusion” (page 363)
In the conclusion section of chapter 9, I specifically outline 12
scientific and mathematical reasons why pure random evolution is
impossible. And I prove mathematically, why Darwin’s theory of
Natural Selection and the evolution of complex species is not possible
purely by random order, given the timeline. Numbers cannot lie. As I
Page 5
say throughout, numbers are the only truly objective thing in this
entire universe. Even if you don’t believe in God (like me), I hope you
will read this and maybe it will propel you to think about it further.
Sorry I babble about like an Alzheimer’s patient, often repeating the same points.
I got carried away with the basic idea of learning - repetition. Drink a couple
shots of whisky or a glass of wine to ease the pain first (it’s a bit detailed and
technical).
But at the end of the day, it isn't the math or the concise improbability of the
alternative that makes me believe in spirituality and more, but the beauty that
surrounds us, captivating our hearts. The sterile practicality of math and science
may convince our minds, but our spirituality is inspired by beauty and poetry. It
is this that will ultimately convince us to believe in something with passion something more than simply here and now; something more than simply random
evolution and chance; something more than simply physical existence and
nothing beyond.
Poetry and art always requires creativity and intelligence: The sound of a bird's
song. The refreshing dew of a morning mist. The reflective artistry of a drop of
water on a rose petal. The crackling roar of a dark thunderstorm. The crackling
sound of fire as it consumes with unending appetite. The way rising smoke looks,
as it gracefully escapes the wrath of fire; beautiful elegance I can’t even describe.
A tree's leaves swaying in harmony, as the wind maneuvers through its branches,
whistling, carefree. The slow ripples of water on a placid lake, as a playful fish
suddenly leaps into the air, for no apparent reason, other than to be free for just a
moment. A python sliding effortlessly in the rainforest, terrifyingly beautiful
poetry. The mystery of a bird’s migration, somehow able to know how to navigate
our immense planet, understanding its obscure magnetic field. A falling star,
giving its last gasp of life, as it is consumed by atmosphere. A jellyfish dancing
gently to its own oceanic melody. A whale’s sonic song that can travel for
hundreds of miles, through the deepest depths of our planet. Our incredible
human DNA, our poetic book of life, more than 1.5 million pages and 3 billion
letters long; precisely outlining our every little detail and specification; what an
amazing wonder and magnificent living art. And our minds, able to imagine
anything, inspired by the creativity of life all around us.
It's the artistry of it all that makes me believe; that compels me to understand
that poetry is never by accident.
Page 6
(A note about the book. I often refer to “God” throughout the book. Please
understand, I use it liberally as a euphemism merely to represent some type of
unknown Intelligence beyond ourselves. I don’t know what God is. I’m not that
smart to know with certainty.)
My Silly Life in a Nutshell
The one thing I always dreamed about doing throughout my life was starting my
own charity to help others; to focus more on being less selfish with my life. I
always told myself, “When I retire and have the time, and am financially secure
myself, then I’ll do it.” Well, it’s one of the biggest regrets of my life.
We always gravitate to putting off the things that don’t seem time critical, or
requires significant effort or change in our lives. As I was writing this book, and
reflecting about all the experiences throughout my life, I couldn’t help but to be
both amazed and embarrassed about the self-indulgent theme of my life. I
conservatively estimated that I must’ve spent well over a million dollars on things
like vacations, travel, partying, socializing dinners and drinks, and other pleasure
seeking activities. And don’t get me wrong, these are necessary in our lives to a
certain extent, to keep ourselves level and prevent ourselves from running off the
proverbial psychological cliff (going stir crazy). But it dawned on me that my
dream was something I could have done throughout my life, by simply removing
some of the excess and insatiable need to constantly seek out immediate pleasure.
If I had invested just 30% of these pleasure seeking expenditures, I could have
had millions of dollars - more than enough to start a modest part-time charity.
So yes, as you read through this book and gain a perspective about my life, I’m
sure you will come to a similar conclusion, that it was often self-engrossed,
constantly seeking to glorify self, at least far too often.
But, nonetheless, I loved my life. It was a blessing beyond words. And I am
fortunate to have been able to live it and experience the things I did. I just wish I
had done a lot more to help others along the way. If you have the means, don’t
make this same mistake as I did.
To give some background perspective, let me share a little overview about my life
first, before diving into the deeper philosophical points of life, meaning and
spirituality.
Page 7
Much of it will probably seem fabricated or unreal if you don’t really know me.
Even my friends will find many parts of it surprising. But it’s not. One of the
things I value in life is honesty. It’s second in importance in our lives, behind only
love. And it will probably come across a bit self-engrossed because it’s unfiltered
bluntness. Understand that my main point here is that much of this excessive
lifestyle is largely empty and meaningless, as mentioned, and not something to be
proud of or replicated, absent the context of love (at least to the excesses I did).
I’m not a rock star or movie star or a billionaire. I don’t like fame. But still I’ve
lived a pretty extraordinary life, really. I’ve done just about everything any man
could ever dream of doing. I’ve partied with rock stars, porn stars, actors,
models, UFC fighters, gangsters and criminals, teenagers and old people,
ordinary people and extraordinary people. I always viewed people as just people,
no matter who they were. Nobody is more important than another. And talking
to anyone about anything was usually enlightening to some degree, regardless of
their age or status.
I’ve traveled to more than 60 countries, and 47 of the 50 U.S. States; and
probably hundreds, perhaps a thousand different cities and towns around the
U.S. and the world. My bucket list goal was to visit every country on the planet,
as well as outer space.
Las Vegas is still my all time favorite! But I tended to get a bit out of control in
Las Vegas, the sleepless city of sin.
A couple years ago, I shattered the heel of my foot at a club, partying at the MGM
Grand while I was there for a weeklong work conference. Instead of going to the
Page 8
doctor immediately - even though my entire foot was swollen and eventually
turned black, and it hurt like shit - I went to Club XS in a wheelchair the
following night with 4 hot models from the tradeshow. It was Friday night, man!
Stupidly, I never went to the doctor for 6 weeks. I was too busy with work and
partying! When I finally saw the CAT-scan and X-rays of my foot, I nearly shit
my pants with fright. My heel had shattered in multiple places, and a big chunk
of the corner of the heel bone was shaped like a slice of apple pie that was being
separated from the whole pie. I was in crutches for months and couldn’t run for
nearly a year.
My doctor was about to prescribe Vicodin for the pain and I told him I didn’t
want it and that I would just deal with the pain. He looked at me with a strange
and perplexed look, like I was crazy. I always hated taking medicines, except
sleeping pills due to my chronic insomnia. Sometimes it was the only way I could
get more than a few hours of sleep, no matter how tired I was.
This was the only time I ever broke any bones, despite all my sports and physical
activities throughout my life. But it was an awesome experience with the all VIP
treatment at bars, clubs, concerts, airports - and the sympathy from girls wasn’t
bad either (wink). One of the models at the show would push me around in a
wheelchair everywhere, including around the tradeshow floor and to and from
the hotel. After the night of partying, she came back to my hotel room to spend
the night. Not so bad after all. But this example pretty much epitomizes my
personality and my life.
I’ve flown well over a million miles. I’ve met thousands and thousands of people
throughout the world. I’ve learned amazing things. Experienced amazing things.
I’ve tried crazy different cuisines. I gladly drank virtually every kind of alcohol I
came across in every different country, including tons of homemade alcohol of all
types. My liver stood strong! Amazingly, I never got hangovers. Ever. No
matter how drunk I got. I would spend the night throwing up and praying to the
Porcelain Goddess occasionally when I got out of control, but the next morning I
felt 100%. People would never believe this until they witnessed it firsthand. Even
I didn’t understand how this was physiologically possible, since dehydration due
to alcohol effects should affect all living tissue and brains similarly. My only
explanation was that somehow the brain was able to just mask out this feeling of
discomfort, similar to the way I could deal with sleep deprivation continuously, or
not eat for a day or two sometimes when focused (I didn’t feel hungry). And by
the way, I actually never really liked getting too drunk, as I preferred to always be
in control and have my wits about me. Which is why, contrary to the impression
from this book, I rarely got drunk, as I moderated my drinking constantly.
Page 9
I’ve had a successful career in the semiconductor field. Semiconductors, or
microchips, are the essential backbone of technology. As the business and
marketing manager and product line director, I was instrumental in helping to
create multiple new businesses that grew rapidly to $50 million - $150 million of
annual revenue, often from nothing. By today’s overreaching valuation metrics,
these businesses would have been worth hundreds of millions, or perhaps a
billion dollar valuation if they had been a separate company. I helped create very
successful products used in hundreds of different electronic devices. Many were
popular everyday household consumer electronics. Chances are extremely high
that nearly everyone who uses electronics throughout the world is enjoying at
least one bit of technology I helped create or was an intimate part of during my
career.
In every position at each company I had success in my career, always growing
revenues or profitability or increasing market position, and without exception,
achieving leadership positions in the key target markets - always (either number
one or two in the market). I always believed the role or scope of the position was
anything I could define and convince executive management to do. If I was not
being challenged personally or just bored, I would propose to create new
businesses or product lines to top management. Creating something new, or
forging a new business was something I loved. If we hate our jobs, it’s our own
fault. I really loved doing creative technical marketing, developing
comprehensive strategies, running businesses, and working with such a diverse
group of extraordinary and talented international people.
I have a dozen patents or so, not sure exactly how many because it’s not that
important, and I never checked the status of each one. They were co-patents, but
I usually came up with the invention and worked with designers to implement it.
It was always inspiring working on leading-edge technology and helping to create
the future. And I loved the competitive nature of business and beating the crap
out of our competitors. I thrived on it.
Money is not that important in life, beyond the necessities it affords. Having
enough to enjoy life is sufficient. But I was fortunate. Money and success always
seemed to come easily for me somehow, earning income only the top 1% or few
percent in America enjoy (the villainous "One Percenters" as it's often portrayed
in media). I never focused on it, and it was never the highest priority for my life.
And as a result, I treated money very cavalier.
Page 10
Often, I would enjoy silly mind games to challenge myself, just to see what I could
do when playing with a small amount of money. It had less to do about money,
and more to do with me trying to prove to myself I could do something
impossible. I was always privately obsessed with proving to myself I could do
anything. It partly ruined my marriage (more later in Chapter 12: Love, the
Eternal Quest).
On a handful of occasions I would make random investment goals and games
with myself. Once, I decided to play with and invest a small $3,000 seed money
to see how long it would take me to reach $100,000. After nearly 3 months, I got
to $98,0000 using stock options and derivative investments. Another time, I
started with $10,000 and achieved $50,000 in less than 2 weeks. More recently,
I played with $10,000 and achieved $80,000 in 3 weeks. Last year, I decided I
wanted to try the absolutely impossible: starting with $100, see if I could get to
$1 million. It failed miserably! There was simply no margin for error with the
trading fees and small starting amount. Duh! But this largely reflects a lot of my
personality you will notice throughout the book.
I used to also like to come up with personal challenges just to prove to myself I
could do something. One year I became obsessed with the casino game of
Blackjack. I studied probability scenarios and formulated my strategy. I studied
the game for countless hours at home, analyzing all possible scenarios of
probabilities, instead of relying on “The Book”. I decided counting cards, which
is fairly simple, wasn’t suitable for me because I liked to socialize too much and
drink and not pay attention. Plus, casinos always figure out card counters. So, I
devised a derivative of the counting method, still based on probability, which was
much simpler for me to track. One year, I won over $50,000 playing over a
thousand hours, over the course of about a dozen trips to Las Vegas or
Reno/Tahoe (sufficient data sample size to know it was not purely random luck).
Clearly, it was not a good investment since the hourly earnings were less than
$50/hour. But it was more about doing something impossible. Sometimes I
could sit at the same table for nearly 24 hours straight without eating or sleeping.
Just restroom breaks, drinking slowly, smoking incessantly, and cracking jokes
all the time, of course. But after this successful initial year, I became too cocky
and changed something (modified my strategy, became less disciplined, etc), and
I lost more than $30,000 the following year. Not cool. My interest slowly waned
after that, but I still love to play.
I’ve made millions of dollars in my life. I’ve been a millionaire. But I always lived
modestly. I pursued life in the name of experiences and enjoying life, rather than
collecting possessions. Life isn’t about things, but about experiences and people Page 11
it’s the only thing we can take with us in the end. Everything else fades or
becomes dust.
I assure you, when your final days come - and they always do for
everyone - the things that matter when you reflect back, won’t be the
cool cars you drove, or the fancy electronics you bought, or the huge
house you lived in, or the beautiful Prada shoes you loved so much, or
how many beautiful people you had sex with, or how successful your
career was, or how much money you have in the bank.
It will be thoughts of family, your wife or partner, good friends and
shared experiences; it will be a reflection of your life, wondering,
asking, “Did I live a moral life?”
Life should be so much simpler for us than we really make it. I’ve
learned, too recently, that it takes SO LITTLE to truly be happy in life.
Why it always seems we can’t truly appreciate these facts during our
life is a mystery.
I’ve been fortunate to be able help others along the way, financially or otherwise,
throughout my life. But I regret, I should have done far more. Today, I own
nothing but a suitcase with some clothes and toiletries. It’s the culmination of my
life’s possessions, having given away everything I own and have. It’s enough. It’s
shocking to see how little it takes to really make one happy in life. We cannot
take money or any of this crap with us in the end anyway.
Enjoying life, wherever I went, was always my goal, even if it was travel for
business. Often I would stay out all night, with no sleep, and then go have
productive business meetings all day. Then repeat for 2 or 3 nights in a row. I
don’t know anyone who did this as continuously or as often as I did, from my
early 20’s, even in my 40’s. It didn’t matter if it was Sunday or Monday or
Anyday. On a number of occasions, during a weeklong international trip (not Las
Vegas where this is expected), the entire week I must have slept less than 10
hours, while working 14+ hour days and still finding the desire to party every
night. Thank God for Red Bull and short 10 minute power naps!! (I used to only
sleep 3-6 hours a day on average due to persistent insomnia, even at home. It
was impossible to turn the brain off when I went to bed. Always thinking. I
hated it. It’s probably why this book is more than 600 pages, over 400 of which
were written in one month. I could’ve probably easily spewed out 1,000 pages.
But it’s probably best I didn’t. LOL.)
Page 12
I’ve partied the night away with just me, and as many as ten beautiful girls at the
same time in my hotel room or apartment, on multiple occasions (never for
money). We sang and danced and drank, and just lived life. It was awesome. So
many people have asked me what drugs I take to have so much energy. I never
took drugs. I didn’t need them. Ok, weed occasionally, but I never really liked it
because it made me feel stupid as a stump.
Almost everything in life is mental, especially our capacity to overcome or
neutralize some of our physical limitations (lack of sleep, exhaustion, hunger to a
large degree, even hangovers). But most importantly, I’ve come to discover that
our happiness and sense of fulfillment in life is purely mental too.
Girls were always my weakness, shamefully, as I sought constant intimacy and
their affection to fill the absent childhood love of my biological mother. I’ve met
thousands of women and have been intimate with hundreds of beautiful girls.
Many with perfect bodies that we usually only dream about; girls from at least 40
different countries and so different in many ways, with a shared commonality usually young and beautiful (but almost always Caucasian). They were all
different from a wide variety of backgrounds and professions: doctors, lawyers,
artists, painters, singers and musicians, models, actors, bartenders, tons of
students, teachers, business people, linguists, dancers, lots of strippers, engineers
(just a few hot ones), hotel receptionists, restaurant waitresses and hostesses,
flight attendants, casino dealers, scientists, fashion designers, architects, bankers,
salespersons, and more... I was always searching for the perfect companion and
soul-mate. It didn't matter what they did or who they were. The external beauty
always attracted me initially, but inner beauty was what I was always seeking and
was most important for me (really!).
The truth is, in some way I fell in love with every girl I was intimate with. It was
never purely about sex with me. It was always intimacy I sought, not just sex.
But I’m most proud of the fact that I was always honest with girls. I never lied to
get a woman to make love to me or to convince them to do anything. Never. (Ok!
One white lie about my age because everyone thought I looked 28-32). I was
always genuine or tried to be. To me, being honest and maintaining my integrity
was always more important than just spending a night with a beautiful girl.
It’s remarkable, but the truth is, the beauty is important for about the first 15 - 30
minutes of sex. After that, the sex seems like any other physical experience if
there isn’t love in the relationship. And after it’s over, all you’re left with is
a nice exhausted smile and a sense of emptiness. Love, and making
Page 13
love to someone whom you care about deeply, is worth far more than
all of these empty experiences combined. And it is absolutely true
that finding someone with a beautiful personality and soul is far
better than being with a person who is empty and superficial with a
beautiful face and body, no matter how perfect she is on the outside.
I was blessed to always have perfect health (until recently) and youthful looks. I
haven’t been sick in years, even with the flu, despite my lifestyle. Occasionally, I
would get a very mild cold, but it never prevented me from doing everything I
wanted. And breaking my foot while partying is the only time I had to visit the
hospital due to incident (although 6 weeks later). It must've been my recipe of
smoking, drinking, partying endlessly, and rarely sleeping; countered by my
incessant laughing and smiles. And amazingly I’ve never had an STD (sexually
transmitted disease). I would always consciously assess if a girl was safe or
trustworthy first. Sometimes I wouldn’t have sex but just hug and kiss, and sleep
together if I didn’t feel it was safe for whatever reason. How lucky everything
always turned out for me.
I never liked fame or sought power. People at work often mistakenly thought I
did. And money was never my primary goal in life, as mentioned. I always just
wanted to live a full life, not necessarily a long life. I lived an honest life, one
where I could look at myself every morning and not feel shame or regret - at least
I tried to live this way. And for the most part I did.
I never wanted to live a mediocre life or a “normal” life. I don't think normal is a
word that people who knew me would use to ever describe me. While some may
consider this insulting, I consider this a compliment and exactly how I wanted to
live my life - as myself. I know I’m different than everyone else. I’ve always
known. I was just wired differently, ever since I was a kid. I used to be ashamed
of this when I was young. But as an adult, I learned to embrace it. In the words
of Bon Jovi, "It's my life..." What others may think or disapprove of isn't that
important. There will always be a chorus of disapproval and resentment no
matter what we do in life, especially when you don’t embrace the debilitating
weight and breadth of all of society’s random rules or expectations, or behave in a
“normal” way.
Somehow, things always turned out sunny side up for me all my life, most times
undeservingly. I like to think it was because of my positive energy as people
always told me. Even in the worst of situations, I always kept a quiet confidence
that things would always work out well, somehow. And things almost always did.
But in reality, it had a lot to do with the fact that I persevered in the things I
Page 14
thought were important and needed to make right or successful. But I was also
fortunate to be surrounded by good people, whether friends or colleagues at work
to help me when I needed it.
Most importantly, I’ve fell in love - true love - three and a half times (half is for
my high school sweetheart, my first puppy love). But the greatest moment of all,
was the night I met and fell in love with my ex-wife and soul-mate, Irena. My
Juliet. She will always be, not just the love of my life, but the Love of my
Lifetime. Though I’ve tried to forget, to displace her with scores of other women,
some things in this life are not replaceable. Some feelings and experiences never
fade, even in the brightest of daylight.
This book is about people and trying to understand ourselves. One can’t possibly
imagine how much time I’ve spent just thinking about things my entire life:
myself, people, work, life, love, meaning, our world and universe. It was a
fixation for me and I probably spent, literally, the equivalent of many, many years
of my life thinking and pondering such things (one of the reasons for my
persistent insomnia and why I rarely slept in my adult years). It may seem silly
to most, but I never saw the purpose of just going through life from one moment
to the next as a random string of events, without trying to understand: Why I did
what I did. How I could change. Why people behave as they do. And what is our
purpose and meaning in this life, in this universe, if there was any.
We can learn a lot about ourselves by looking at the world around us and the
universe in general. We are not a cosmic island. We are not spiritual islands. The
universe is a miraculous ordered marvel of spectacular beauty and mystery. And
we should all stand in awe with nothing more than naked humility.
Page 15
Chapter 2. Pandora’s Box Paradox: Knowledge vs
Understanding
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power,
which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
- Albert Einstein
Science is a beautiful thing. But science, by
definition the search to understand that
which we do not understand, has a
tendency to simplify and strangely obscure
the beauty and awesomeness of our world
around us. It can seduce us into believing
our understanding is complete, useful, and
that the world is somehow predictable,
confinable and understandable. Don’t get
me wrong. I love science, and marvel at the
beauty of mathematics to communicate and simplify such an extraordinary and
seemingly incomprehensible universe, into the simplest of numerical elegance.
The idea that the most incredible of events, and the most complex of interactions,
can be reduced to an equation a child could comprehend is indeed breathtaking.
But the paradox of life, and the paradox of our universe, is that the more we
discover, and the more we know, the less we actually understand. And the only
continuous discovery is that every quantity of knowledge exposes an even greater
quantity of unknown. Such is our universe, our world, and our lives.
The birth of modern science has been the gateway to the universe’s Pandora’s
Box.
In Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman created on Earth by the Greek
Gods. Pandora was given a beautiful pithos or large jar (i.e. box) and instructed
by the gods not to open it under any circumstances. But eventually, true to her
human character, curiosity beseeched her and she ultimately gave way to her
impulsive human desire for knowledge, opening the jar, unleashing the evil once
Page 16
contained in the jar and spreading over the Earth. This is the foundation of
Greek mythology of the origination of evil upon the Earth.
This is not too dissimilar to the recounting of evil by the Old Testament in Judeo
Christianity. According to biblical mythology, God created Adam and Eve after
he had finished creating the Heavens and the Earth. They had been told never to
eat the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Life, which lay in the middle of the
Garden of Eden, or paradise. Nevertheless, curiosity gave in to temptation, and
temptation gave way to desire, and desire ultimately gave in to human selfindulgence and arrogance.
Genesis 3:4 – 3:7. “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will
be like God, knowing good and evil. When the woman saw that the fruit of the
tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining
wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was
with her, and he ate it.”
The fruit and the tree are obviously metaphors. The fruit representing curiosity
and the belief that humans can eventually know all there is to know; and the tree
representing life or eternal life. Taken together, the idea that knowledge can lead
to eternal life, or being like God, is a philosophical lesson really about our life and
human arrogance, and overconfidence in ourselves. The search for knowledge,
science and wisdom, are all beautiful things. But the arrogance knowledge can
bring has the capacity to destroys us and delude us into thinking we are more
than what we are.
Today, in the era of rapid technological innovation, we have become mesmerized
with our own sense of potential. But in reality, all we are discovering is what has
already been invented, as we reverse engineer, copy and replicate things we see
all around us in our universe. Imagine if we had nothing to start with but a blank
page and an empty universe, how creative or innovative would we be?
The desire for wisdom and knowledge is both our strength and our weakness as
humans.
But it is intriguing to note that both historical and mythological
recounts share so much similarity on the root of evil being the pursuit of
knowledge, and yet diverge so much on religious philosophy. The idea gap of
monotheism versus polytheism is quite large and fundamental. Yet the similarity
of basic human nature, since the beginning of time, and the origin of evil, brought
about by our innate urge to be curious and explore, being equated to humanity’s
demise is something one could ponder for hours, if not a lifetime. Our very
Page 17
quality that makes us so amazing and human, is the same quality that ultimate
ruins us, destroys us.
One should not misconstrue the examples and analogy of human nature through
philosophy as my endorsement of religion or mythology. Quite the contrary. I am
not religious nor atheistic (more on this later).
I’ve often theorized that “happiness”, in mathematical terms, is inversely linear or
inversely proportional to knowledge and understanding. I concluded this many
years ago just based on observation, experience and life. The more we know, and
the more we try to understand, the less content, the less “happy” we become. The
more we accept, the more we choose to believe in faith over science and
understanding, the greater our level of content and happiness can be. I choose
the word "happiness" very reluctantly here, simply for lack of a better or more
appropriate term.
I think all of us would agree, in general, children are far more content and happy
than us adults. They may possess far less understanding, knowledge and
awareness, but they simplify their world to focus on the things that are truly
important - their family and friends.
So one wonders, is it better to be ignorant and blissful, or aware and malcontent?
I always chose the latter, perhaps regrettably.
When I was a boy, my parents were friends with our dentist and his family, a
wonderful man and family. He always did an amazing job whenever I went to go
see him for my bi-annual dental visits. He was so gentle. I never felt any
discomfort or pain, and thus never really developed a phobia about going to the
dentist that is pervasive in society today.
Anyway, they had a son, Eric, who was diagnosed with epilepsy, often prone to
seizures. He was also mentally retarded and physically awkward due to his years
of suffering from the illness. The boy was tall, lanky and moved in jerky motion,
slurring his speech and often challenged to speak full sentences. We were both
part of the same non-denomination Christian church I attended growing up. I
loved this boy (although he was actually physically older than I was), because
there was never an ounce of evil or ill-will in his body or mind or actions.
Whenever I would see him, I would often think to myself, who is the lucky or
blessed one among us? Was it me, with perfect health, high intellectual capacity
and ability to reason and question and think, and enjoy all that life has to offer?
Page 18
Or the boy, with all his imperfections, and life’s cruel distribution of luck? And I
often thought to myself, how lucky and blessed he really was. I always kept this
thought to myself as any sane, rational person would surely think I was
certifiable.
He lived a sheltered and limited life, without all the glamorous experiences and
rich flavor life has to offer. But he loved, was loved unconditionally, laughed,
cried, and smiled genuinely more times than I saw most people do. And despite
the physical suffering, he was genuinely happy and content. God bless him.
Our world is an ironic and mysterious place indeed. Most times, what seems,
isn’t. And what isn’t readily observable or logical is the true reality. Logic and
reason can be our true compass, our North Star. But the fallacy of this idea lays
in the fact that logic and reason only apply when knowledge and understanding is
complete. In the midst of incomplete knowledge and understanding, or the
wrong knowledge or misunderstanding, logic and reason can be poison. And we
can never have complete understanding.
And herein lays the paradox, the Pandora’s Box Paradox.
Curiosity, the thirst for knowledge, the journey to understand, only uncovers the
vastness of our ignorance. And yet the delusion of knowledge leads us to believe
that what we do, the actions we take, the logic and reason we employ are sound
and right.
In Western culture, especially in the U.S. - specifically the major population
centers of the coastal areas, as well in universities and academia - our belief in
man, in the knowledge we possess, and our over-confidence in our capacity to
learn has created an arrogance about who we are, and our potential as a people
that is completely misplaced.
The arrogance of man is unchallenged because we cannot readily compare
ourselves to another equal or greater intelligence. And in the absence of religion,
it has the destructive potential to elevate ourselves to the level of self-appointed
deity; a terrifying concept that we neither deserve nor have earned through our
behavior and actions.
A Simple Board Game
Page 19
Let me use one simple example to illustrate how infantile we truly are in this vast
universe. I will use the example of a simple board game of chess. Chess is a
relatively simple game of strategy. A game played between two opponents on
opposite sides of a board that contains 64 squares of alternating colors (black and
white). Every player has identical pieces and number of pieces (16 each): 1 king, 1
queen, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 knights, and 8 pawns. Each piece has predetermined
moves it can make, relatively simple. The goal is to trap the king, preventing it
from being able to move in any direction. Once this has been achieved, it is
termed “checkmate” and the game is over.
Today, artificial intelligence computers running the best chess algorithms can
beat the best human players.
IBM’s Deep Blue machine was the first to
demonstrate this feat in 1997 against reigning champion and legend, Garry
Kasparov.
However, to play the perfect game, a computer must analyze every single
permutation of every possible move, referred to as the game tree. According to
Zermelo’s game theory, it should be possible to solve chess to determine the
outcome of any game, and what the perfect game would look like. But in order to
solve this simple board game of chess - to determine the ideal game outcome Page 20
requires immense computational power and memory. This technology simply
doesn’t exist today. And not to spoil the party and suspense, but if this could
ever be accomplished, it is likely the ideally played game would simply end in a
draw. Boooooorrrrrring!
Information theorist, Claude Shannon, determined a computer would need to
compare some 1x10120 possible game variations and 1x1043 possible board
positions for all the different pieces. For those who are not fond of math, these
exponential numbers are ridiculously large. For instance, one billion would be
1x109 and one trillion would be 1x1012. These numbers are “infinitely” greater.
The total number of atoms is the known or currently “observable”
universe is estimated to be within the range of 1x1078 to 1x1082. In
other words, just to completely figure out a simple game of chess
would require more atoms than there are in the entire universe (by a
ridiculously large margin)!
You can’t even comprehend how immense these numbers are.
Another renown mathematician, Hans-Joachim Bremermann, argued that even
taking into account advancements in computing technology, there are still
physical barriers such as the speed barrier, quantum barrier, and
thermodynamics to contend with. And taking into account the reality of our
physical world, and applying the simple laws of physics, NO computer will ever
be able to calculate the complete game tree of chess, with every single
permutation and move sequence.
So let me summarize, if we took all the computers in the world today,
and combined all the computing power together, it would still be
impossible to completely figure out the simple game of chess! Ever.
Consider this! A simple chess of game!
All of mankind’s most advanced and powerful technology, can’t even
figure out a simple game of chess, which barely contains only 32
pieces in total and 6 different types of pieces. 32 pieces! Only 6 types
of pieces!
Just think about this for a moment to gain some perspective.
Page 21
Probability and the Meaning (Quantification) of Impossible
I will use another popular example to illustrate the comparison of probability. In
the U.S., the Powerball lottery is very popular and played across 44 states. To
win the grand prize, one must successfully pick all 6 numbers correctly to match
the randomly generated numbers that are drawn bi-weekly. The first 5 numbers
can range from 1 to 59. The final number, called the Powerball number, can be
any value from 1 to 35. To play, all one must do is fork over $2 - basically a
donation to the state education system, which a portion of the funds are used for
(minus the jackpot of course). If all 6 numbers are picked exactly, then the
minimum payout is $15 million. If nobody wins, the jackpot gets rolled over to
the next drawing. The highest jackpot approached about $700 million dollars in
recent years, to illustrate, even using just 6 numbers, how difficult it can be to
win. In fact, most people will joke that it's impossible to win (for them anyway).
The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 175,711,534. Yes, 1 in 175.7
million or 0.1757x109. This is what most people would define as almost
impossibly big. The fact is, if the lottery used just a few more numbers and
required 8 numbers (also ranging from 1 - 59), you can be assured nobody would
ever win the lotto. And the odds would be 1 in 77.6 billion (7.76x1010). If it were
10 numbers (including Powerball), odds would be….wait for it!.....1 in 2.2 trillion
chance (2.2x1012). In other words, really impossible. But this number is very
small (infinitesimally TINY) in comparison to the chess calculations I discussed
previously. And this is just for 10 numbers. Wait until we get to Chapter 9: The
Perfect Symphony, to see how this ties in when we discuss the chances of random
evolution.
In comparison, 1x10120 is a laughable number. It is so ridiculously large and
inconceivable. Each exponential number increase means it is 10 times larger.
It is true that you have a greater chance or probability of getting struck by
lightning than winning the lottery - many times over.
So compare this probability of winning the lottery, which everyone feels is nearly
impossible, to the number of figuring out the chess game tree. It is an
inconceivably greater number.
It’s important for us to frame the concept of impossible. Technically, impossible
doesn’t exist mathematically. In theory, anything is possible. Practically
speaking, however, there are certain probabilities that are simply so astounding,
Page 22
that for any reasonable person to consider it could ever happen is complete
lunacy.
Impossible is 1 in 100 billion using the lottery example (1x1011). Nobody would
ever win the lottery. Practically speaking this is impossible.
When we deal with numbers like 1x10120 there is really no reference point we can
fathom. This number is literally, unimaginably large. These types of numbers
have no meaning, because it is practically the same as saying “infinitely
impossible.” In the real universe, this is “impossible” my friends. Anyone who
says otherwise does not understand math or numbers.
Anyway, I write this as a pretext to material in subsequent chapters.
The Real World
Now imagine the complexities of our real world, not just the game of chess.
Trying to predict something like weather or climate with precision is impossible.
Instead of dealing with 32 simple variables (chess pieces), we are dealing with
billions of variables (it's actually trillions and trillions) that are far more complex,
with infinite analog possibilities (not just a simple thing like a pawn can move
one or two spaces forward).
In the past two weeks, I’ve personally been frustrated by our inept technological
capability of predicting simple weather. I check the Yahoo weather forecast
multiple times a day to check when I should go to the beach. On any given day,
the conditions will change and the predictions prove completely wrong. Some
days that are forecasted to be sunny and clear, perfect for beach weather, it ends
up raining mildly or cloudy and windy. And this is nearly early summer where
the weather is supposed to be more predictable.
In theory, climate is simple. The basic factors include temperature, pressure,
velocity of movement (wind, currents, etc), and composition (things like
atmospheric concentrations of water, CO2, etc), and the impact of various energy
sources like our sun.
But each of these details requires a shit load of more complexity.
Page 23
Weather and climate are heavily dictated by complex cosmic, geological, oceanic,
terrestrial, and atmospheric factors, as well as a little bit by mankind. It's
obviously global. To do this topic justice would take volumes of books which I
have no interest in. But to accurately model climate, as a real-world event, is far
more challenging than calculating the chess game tree, which has precisely
known variables and only finite possibilities.
Today, scientists use very rough and simplified climate models, relative to the
real world. The obscene amount of variable complexity and data required, even
when using the most advanced supercomputers today, would simply be
impossible to precisely calculate.
Even if we just took one of these factors like atmosphere, dealing with dynamic
wind, temperature gradients, chemical composition and properties, interaction
with terrestrial objects (at every point in the Earth's surface, water vapor and
chemical compounds are introduced into the local atmosphere at different rates
and changing dynamically, instantaneously), the formation of clouds, etc. All of
these variables are dynamically changing, everywhere, and interacting with
everything else. It's mind boggling really.
Just to simulate one simple cloud and the effects it has on the local surface
temperature cannot be done with precision. The density and composition of the
cloud cannot be precisely measured at every point. The solar and radiation
effects interacting precisely with these cloud elements, and the impact of
neighboring atmospheric wind velocity and gradients cannot be measured
precisely. And the impact on surface temperature, as a function of exact position,
therefore, cannot be measured or simulated precisely. This is just for one cloud
in a world of millions of clouds.
On top of that, the Earth itself has natural cycles, which we do not understand,
that helps keep Earth within a predefined range or bands for things like
temperature - proven over billions of years. This built-in ranging is what keeps
life sustainable over long durations. Even man has zero capability to break these
natural checks and balances within the earth that keep it range bound. We still
don't know fully what causes these natural temperature cycles on our planet
(repeated ice ages followed by warmer climates, endlessly). Anyway, more on
this later.
Coincidently, recently there was an announcement in the U.K. that they were
building a Cray supercomputer, exclusively to forecast weather.
This
supercomputer would weigh as much as 11 London double-decker buses and be
Page 24
capable of 16,000 trillion calculations per second. It will be an improvement, but
you still shouldn't expect Britain's weather forecasts to improve considerably.
Like I said, it's impossible to accurately predict the weather or climate changes,
even if we had computers trillions of times more powerful than today. That's why
they will always call it a "forecast".
If any scientist or engineer or technologist ever says that we will one day be able
to precisely predict weather, they know nothing about science or math or our
universe. Be careful of claims environmentalists and climatologists make. Those
who make claims they know with certainty of impending climate calamity and
disaster, with "imminent, irreversible effects and consequences" are simply either
misinformed or motivated by political ends. More on this later (Liberals, please
try to remain calm and objective here).
(Read Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony, section on water and climate, and you’ll
understand exactly what I mean about climate simulations and predictions.)
If trying to comprehend simple weather and climate is this difficult, imagine
everything else. And this is just our planet Earth. Now multiply that times the
infinity of our universe. You begin to realize just how silly and trivial our most
advanced technology and capabilities really are.
Who are we to ever think we can be like God, or be so important in this universe?
Or that we can speculate with any reasonable certainty or accuracy what has
happened millions of years ago. Or what will happen a thousand years from now.
Our science and our capabilities, and our total understanding is not much greater
than an ant, in the grand scheme of everything. Humility is the only thing we
should possess.
This example is important because it puts things in perspective, especially when
we get to Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony, to discuss evolution and the
beginnings of life.
A God, in the sense of how most Western religions view and conceive God, must
be completely false. Even God cannot be omniscient. Even God cannot
comprehend all the variables in this universe to be omniscient, to be able to
predict everything that will or can happen. It is simply too large and impossible,
even for God. Absolute perfection and absolute knowledge cannot exist.
One of my favorite movies, "The Matrix", starring Keanu Reeves, depicts a virtual
reality world where everything is simulated. It’s entertaining but pretty hilarious.
Page 25
In order to simulate the entire world, with every such detail, would take more
power and energy and computational capability than could possibly ever exist in
the entire universe!! People really don’t understand just how complex and
amazing everything around us truly is.
If there is such thing as an omniscient God, He must be giggling with
delight and amusement as he observes his human creation, pompous
with over-confidence, arrogant in self potential. Even when, one day,
we have discovered all we are capable of comprehending, we will
barely understand the simplest of realities.
In short, while by human measure, today our level of knowledge may seem
immense, it is but a small fraction of the smallest of fractions. And without
complete knowledge, understanding should more appropriately be termed
misunderstanding. Extrapolation based on limited knowledge can be a powerful
tool for science and business to make educated guesses on what may be the
reality or truth. But overconfidence in extrapolated “truths” or ideas can be
dangerous.
Today, we see extrapolated guesses being termed proven theories and scientific
fact. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These are ideas and educated,
extrapolated guesses, grounded in some observed scientific facts. It's like
guessing the image of a jigsaw puzzle when you've barely completed less than
0.000000000.......01% of the puzzle.
I write this as a pretext to the ideas that follow later in this book.
All of this may seem unimportant and obscurely technical. And you
may be left wondering, “What is the relevance of all this scientific
mumbo jumbo?”
What modern science has taught us in the last few hundred years,
especially in the last century, is that everything we used to believe in
terms of our physical world isn’t necessarily the case at all. All things
are far more nebulous than we ever conceived. Our understanding is
primitive and constantly changing, evolving, sometimes completely
flip-flopping. Today’s understanding will likely be no different a
hundred or a thousand years from now.
Be humble. Don’t place so much faith in the scientific truth of today.
It’s only fact, until we prove it isn’t a fact anymore.
Page 26
God and man, and everything around us in this vast universe, is
connected together through the commonality of our universe’s
scientific and mathematical reality. God, himself, is not completely
removed from this same reality. One cannot create a new reality,
completely removed or detached from oneself. Not even God. (But it
does not mean He only occupies this singular reality.)
And for those who laugh at the notion there could be a God or other Intelligence,
including many of my dear friends, have the humility to acknowledge there is
infinitely more knowledge that we don’t know, than what we do know. So, don’t
delude yourself into precluding a possible reality that you can neither dismiss nor
disprove.
Embracing only what we readily observe and know is the most elementary of
childish intellectual behaviors. Atheists only believe what we see and feel, or
what we can prove through an inherently limited scientific process. That’s pretty
damn silly.
Read Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony, and Chapter 11:
Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality.
Ironically, what I have observed in life is that Atheists, who tout their objectivity
and reason with intellectual fervor, are the most closed minded and narrowly
focus people I have ever seen. But yet they have convinced themselves of the
complete opposite, clinging onto their esoteric religion of pure science (which is
very often disproved later); often using science as a tool to bludgeon any other
form of non-science philosophy. It’s disappointing.
Science should be a tool to gain greater understanding for us all. But given the
inherent limitations of our scientific process, it can never disprove anything
related to abstract philosophy and religion. To think otherwise is pure ignorance
and arrogance, and defies the reality that our greatest scientific instruments can
barely observe a sliver of our actual physical reality; and by definition, physical
instruments can only be applied to observe physical phenomenon. To extrapolate
this observed physical reality to all other possible non-physical realities is like
looking at a football game score to confidently say who will win in a basketball
match (and to be convinced 100% of it). It has no relevance. Plus you just sound
like an idiot who knows nothing about sports.
It doesn’t matter how stupid or silly the philosophical ideas or religion may be and ooohhhh! there are some stupid ones - science is purely a measure of our
Page 27
physical reality only. So it can never disprove these abstract ideas. Science can
only prove or disprove our physical reality (like evolution).
For God’s sakes, be humble. You are not so important. None of us are so
important as we think we are. (This is the problem with intellectuals who think
they’re so damn smart or know everything. Just like I used to be in my early
adulthood! I call it the delusion of intellect and knowledge. There is no worse
human character flaw than arrogance coupled with ignorance.)
By the way, as I say many times throughout this book, I’m not religious or believe
in God in the traditional sense. And I’m not a meditating, spiritual, crystal
loving, alternate reality embracing philosopher type either. I just know, there is
too much that I don’t know, and too much that I can’t explain in this universe,
even with all the scientific might of human achievement.
Humility is the most valuable when it seems the least necessary.
Page 28
Chapter 3. Black Holes and Keeping Our Shoes Clean
"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not
happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying
order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."
- Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest
scientific minds of our generation, and one
of the world’s most renown physicists,
recently proposed the idea that black holes
really may not exist (hypothetical pose).
For decades, astronomers and physicists
concluded that black holes had to exist to
explain the gaps in observed reality in space
(i.e. extrapolation of their existence). By
deductive reasoning, black holes, former
stars or supernovae that had collapsed, creating super dense concentration of
matter and immense gravitational force, had to exist. At least this was the
common scientific assumption. My goal is not to prove or disprove their
existence, but simply to elaborate further about the dangers of overconfidence in
today’s scientific truth, and also in a metaphorical sense to life in general.
In many ways, Stephen Hawking is an incredible man, in character and intellect.
A man confined to the limitations of a wheelchair, without the use of his arms or
legs, his hands to write, or his mouth to speak. He is a lesson to humanity about
the qualities of perseverance; humanities unwillingness to lay down and die, even
in the face of unimaginable circumstances and limitations.
The idea of a black hole serves a useful physical purpose. And whether they exist
in reality or not is irrelevant in this context. The idea of super dense
concentration of matter strong enough to prevent anything from escaping, even
light, is a powerful and dark idea (no pun intended).
Often, we feel as if our hearts are the abstract equivalent of a black
hole. Sometimes the weight of our experiences, our compilation of
Page 29
hurts, the pain of failures and disappointments and self-pity, feel like
the weight of a collapsed supernova, where even a substance lighter
than light – love – cannot escape or be freed from the gravitational
pull of our dense heart.
It is remarkable how durable and resilient our physical bodies are. They are selfhealing wonders, continuously regenerating cells and life. Our bodies recover
from a myriad of physical ailments, bruises, broken bones, tears and cuts to our
skin; able to fight off foreign bodies like viruses and bacteria that enter our
bloodstream like a merciless army that never rests. When a bone is broken, they
say after self-healing, the point of breakage will be stronger than before. The
body is the most amazing and complex system in our universe.
And the human brain or mind is an even greater marvel. Barely understood by
science and medicine, it is breathtakingly incredible. The physical capacity to
learn and store and retrieve immense amount of data, far greater than any
supercomputer in the world is mind-blowing! (You really have to read the
Chapter 9 section on the “The Marvel of our Amazing Human Brain.”)
And yet the human psyche, the combination of mind and body, plus experience,
coupled with our survival instinct, is even more mysterious. The human psyche
is fragile and tender, in complete contradiction to our physical durability. The
more intellectual capacity a body has, the greater the fragility of the psyche.
Contrary to psychology and medical optimism, intellectual reason and awareness
cannot completely counteract the emotional distress to our psyche. It is often
deep rooted in the recesses of our childhood experiences and reinforced by
synaptic pathways which are so ingrained, like grooves on the tread of a precision
radial tire. The emotional and psychological response to our childhood
experiences are the human response and conditioning intended to protect our
fragile psyche, and allow us to endure the daily human existence (i.e. survival
instinct or protective mechanism).
For instance, if a child is raped or abused, the lifelong consequences can never be
completely erased (no I wasn’t sexually abused if one is wondering). The ability
to trust, to have normal physical and sexual relationships will never be the same
as a person who experienced a normal childhood with warm memories of a loving
father and mother and family.
As adults we learn to adapt, to cope, and sometimes layer and shield ourselves
with reason and logic. But the pavlovian response can never be completely
Page 30
erased, and the consequences will endure for the rest of that person’s life.
However, our ability to move forward, and how we allow these horrific
experiences to shape and determine who we become is still largely up to us. The
choices we make as adults and the choices we make on whether or how we will
allow our past to dictate who we choose to be is always ours.
As I look back at the footsteps of my journey, I’ve endured some pretty
catastrophic experiences. My journey began with an event that most would
desire to avoid at all cost - losing my biological family and parents as a child,
being thrust into a new world. Alone. Angry. Scared. Unaware.
(All my life I've heard people tell me how lucky or fortunate I was to be adopted.
And while they always said it in a positive context and were well intentioned, I
simply thought how disconnected they really were. I would have given anything
to have my biological family and my mother and father - even if it meant I lived in
poverty or had less opportunity. But more on this later...)
When I was a boy, in elementary school especially, I was filled with so much rage
and anger, and deep intense darkness. It was never shown to anyone. But in my
heart there was so much darkness, as black as the darkest of black holes. I kept it
bottled up inside me and I had nobody to talk to about my feelings. Not once in
my life did I ever mention these early dark thoughts or ideas to anyone, until
now.
I was angry about life. I used to wish I had never been born. I used to wish I had
never been adopted. I hated. I used to imagine blowing up my school, literally;
and of killing my adopted parents, or killing some of my teachers. These
thoughts persisted not just once or twice, but frequently. The darkest of thoughts
I harbored deep within me. My deepest secrets. On the outside, everyone
thought I had my shit together: smart, athletic, social and well liked; an overall
good kid, albeit a bit rebellious.
One can’t imagine the embarrassment and shame to admit these things. But I do
so for a specific reason.
It wasn't until later in my adult life that I began to evaluate myself, and began to
change who I was and how I felt toward myself, others and life in general. Today,
I have no malice toward anyone, and no anger about anything that's happened to
me in my life. Even my ex-wife, whom I used to sometimes vacillate between love
and sheer hatred and anger, I know in my heart there is no way I could ever do
Page 31
anything to harm her. In fact I would never harm any woman or person unless
my own safety was in question (undeservingly) and I had no choice.
But, I could have easily turned out completely different than what I became. I
could have embraced darkness and evil, and eventually manifested the anger and
hatred toward others in violent or nonviolent ways. Or I could have become the
productive and relatively positive person that I became.
I’ve come to discover and understand that the world is full of angry people
(although most not as angry as I was as a child). In fact, this defines most people
in this world. Most conceal it; most don’t even realize it themselves, they’ve
become so cynical and angry about life. Everyone seems to be angry about
something it seems: Gays and lesbians angry about their status in society; racial
minorities angry about their treatment; the poor and afflicted angry about their
lack of opportunity; children angry about suffering through their parent’s
divorce; religious people angry about often feeling discriminated or ridiculed;
military veterans who feel they sacrificed much and question the justification or
value of their sacrifice; folks who worked their entire lives to wake up and realize
they still have no money, and are filled with fear of their retirement future;
people who have suffered tragic medical conditions or perhaps lost their entire
life savings as a result; parents who lost a young child tragically; and virtually
everyone who has suffered deeply, emotionally in a relationship gone bad.
The world is full of anger and hidden angry people. Everyone may have a reason
to be angry, but this internal anger leads nowhere. Anger is usually due to the
feeling of impotence about one’s situation, especially our inability to force our
will or desire on another, or change our situation for the better. When we feel
empowered to change our situation, we are not angry.
We should all be angry at injustice, discrimination, abuse, or treachery – and we
should strive for change where possible; but to be angry about our condition of
life is futile. If we realized the empowerment we all possess, we wouldn’t be so
angry about life. Empowerment is really about our mental attitude.
Two Things Helped Transform My Life
First, I started accepting my situation and my life for what it was, and not what I
wished it would be. It seems so simple. Starting with my adoption, trying to
understand why my biological parents abandoned me, or were forced to stop
Page 32
taking care of me. Instead, I just started accepting things for what it was. This
was partly why I decided that when I was given the opportunity later in life to
potentially find out the truth about my adoption, and perhaps find my original
family, I ultimately decided not to. (I spent 5 weeks in Korea as my first business
trip, shortly after college.) Because in order for me to be able to move forward
with my life in a positive way, it was imperative I just accept the condition of life.
So, as far as I was concerned, that acceptance had to include closing that chapter
in my life. I started moving forward, instead of looking backward and hoping and
wondering why, or how?
Secondly, I started to understand and accept personal responsibility, not just for
my choices in life, but more importantly, for how I chose to react to situations
and what I chose to ultimately become. I alone was responsible. Nobody else.
How we choose how we will react to every situation - both good and bad - is
absolutely our choice. I could choose to be angry, or I could choose to make the
best of situations. Every day, we face choices and experience new things. Some
good. Some pretty shitty. How we choose to react to these, and how we choose to
let these events affect us, completely depends on us. It's our choice alone.
Our Choices Define Who We Are/Become
These choices on how we choose to react to adverse situations or
horrible events in our lives are the most important decisions we make
in life. Often, if not most times, these decisions are subconscious or
hidden decisions. We don't even realize we are making them. But we
do.
We are never the victims, unless we allow ourselves to be. We can unknowingly
become what we allow ourselves to be, or we can consciously choose how we want
to be, ultimately. Not everything in life will turn out as we hope or want, but how
we choose our mental condition or attitude in life is completely under our
control.
If I hadn't learned these things, I have no idea how my life would have turned out.
But I can almost certainly say it would not have been anything close to the
amazing life it's been.
This is one of the reasons I decided I wanted - and needed - to write this book.
Maybe it can others in some small way.
Page 33
We can learn these things through the help of others - people we respect or trust.
Or, like me, by introspection and really trying to understand ourselves and our
lives and the world. This is one of the reasons I love philosophy and thought. It
can change our lives for the better. It can improve us as individuals and as a
people. Words and ideas are the most powerful thing in our lives.
Strangers are Isolated from Us Only by the Absence of “Hello”
Often when I meet complete strangers for the first time, I’m not afraid to have
deep meaningful discussions about life, or talk about things that most people
don’t discuss to a stranger. I don’t follow orthodox or have a template for
conversation. I say what I feel and if someone asks me a personal question, I will
always try to answer it honestly, even if it is deeply personal, or puts me in a less
than ideal light. I wasn’t always this way. I used to be closed to people and not
trust anyone. This is one of the reasons so many people, who have met me for the
first time, have told me it felt like I knew them for years, forever. And why
people, so often, tell me they think I have a good heart or soul and genuine
personality.
When I was in my early thirties, I took a year and a half off from working to
travel, enjoy life, and to gain perspective. I spent a lot of time traveling to the
different U.S. States. America is a vast and spectacular place. I visited hundreds
of cities and towns, both small and large.
I had made my way through Zion National Park in Utah, truly one of the most
amazing places in the world. Natural beauty abounds everywhere. The desert
soil is a rusty crimson color with uniqueness unmatched. Literally, the red soil is
like a deep rusty color, due to deposits of iron oxides.
After breathing in nature’s beauty, I made my way to Arizona to spend some time
at the Grand Canyon (which I’ve seen a handful of times now, each time still
inspiringly beautiful). It was late December and the Grand Canyon still had ice
and snow in spots, but the view was spectacular because the air was fresh and
clear, and not too many make it there during the winter (actual photos below).
Page 34
You always realize the immensity of our world when you stand before the Grand
Canyon. It makes you feel small; gives us perspective – perspective both in the
sense of our transience, as well as our tiny place in the world and universe.
Later the next day, I was near the city of Flagstaff, on my way to Phoenix to meet
a friend of mine for New Years. I was hungry and wanted a drink, so I found a
small little bar and grill (mostly big bar, little grill). It was already late evening
and very cold.
As I made my way into the bar and grill, I looked around the room to see where I
wanted to sit. It was mostly empty, sparsely filled with only a handful of people a few guys, a couple nice looking girls, and one American Indian man, sitting in
the corner of the bar, alone. Normally I would’ve sat near the girls or alone at the
bar. But, I was intrigued by this man, as I observed him for a moment. There
was a complex story and a sense of loneliness emanated from this man. I could
feel it as far away as the door I had just entered through. I decided to sit next this
gentleman and said “Hello,” with a friendly smile. I ordered a beer and we began
a slow, friendly conversation.
The American Indian man was much older, his faced lined with deep weathered
wrinkles and a seriousness that gave way to a solemn smile.
We talked for hours, the entire night. He told me he was the medicine man and
spiritual leader of his Indian tribe, which lived nearby in the reservation lands.
And as thoughts raced through my mind about the irony of his once proud
people, whose spiritual leader was now finding solace in an empty glass, I
couldn’t help but to also feel a sense of empathy.
Page 35
I told him about myself, my life and what I was doing traveling. And he shared
many things about his people and what it was like to live in their shoes. About
some of their proud history and what a medicine man and spiritual leader meant
to his people.
A permanent sadness imprinted on his face, as his genetic disposition to seek the
bottom of a bottle to remedy his loneliness and disappointment with his life, of
his people, of the once proud history of his tribe, now seemed lost, inescapably.
At the end of our night, he looked me squarely in the eyes, his dark toned skin
with heavy set eyes that resembled an Asian descent, similar to an Eskimo’s. And
with a seriousness and tone that gave me the impression of relief, he quietly said,
“You have a beautiful spirit and a kind heart”, as he unassumingly got up to leave
for the night.
Those words were perhaps the greatest compliment I ever received - the words of
a sincere man, without agenda, or expecting reciprocation; just mild joy at the
idea of another human taking interest and care about his random life.
I’ve met an astounding number of people throughout my life, especially during
my travels. But I never forgot this man or that night. He was one of the most
interesting and memorable persons I’ve ever met. It was like a permanent
memory etched deep within my soul.
I can’t imagine what the world would be like if everyone just smiled and said
“Hello” more often to each other; spoke more with the kindness through their
eyes and less with the permanent anger in their hearts. But I’m pretty certain it
would be a much warmer and better place.
The difference between paradise and hell is barely a thin line that we
can easily dissolve with the tiniest acts of kindness and friendliness.
But most times, people are conditioned to believe that if some
stranger is just friendly or kind, they have an agenda or want
something, or are strange or weak. A tiny stone dropped in a lake can
move every ounce of water through the small ripples that radiate
outward in concentric circles, diminishing yes, but not until even the
furthest molecule of water has felt the vibration of the stone, no
matter how faint the effect.
Page 36
My Memoirs
The year and a half long journey of self-discovery changed a lot of my views about
life and people.
Occasionally throughout my life, I would write memoirs to myself - to remind me
of my thoughts years later. I did this very rarely. I could probably count on a
single hand all the times I’ve done this throughout my life. But the memoirs I
wrote, not too long after this period in my life, impacted me in a profound way.
This excerpt below was written precisely 10 years ago to the day I write this in
this book. Strange coincidence I suppose, because for some reason I found my
memoirs in my laptop case and decided to read it. Literally 10 years to the day. I
never thought I’d be including this in my book. They were very personal memos.
It’s about life choices, and the small decisions that impact our lives and really
define who we are, or who we choose to be:
So often we all wish we could start over; get a second chance at life and love. In
nature we see that renewal isn’t a moment or a point in time, but an unending
process. Life begins anew every day: the cycle of birth, growth, and eventual
passing of life. Yet, it is this passing that breathes life into a multitude of unseen
rebirth.
In humanity’s fabricated reality, the complexities we inject into our existence
seem to extinguish, rather than fuel, our thirst for life. Life is, by no means, easy
in our reality. The myriad of choices, experiences and passions, all feed a
kaleidoscope of regrets and fondness. Sometimes we don’t ponder the reality of
purpose and meaning enough; other times we smother our zest for life by
contemplating it too much. These answers are never definite or clear, but
understanding how we fit into the big picture is not just essential, it is what
makes us human.
I look back at my own life and see the good and the gray. I’ve lived a good life; I
tried to live a decent life. I’ve loved; been fortunate to have been loved; laughed
a million times; cried my unfair share; been exuberant in success and
devastated by failure. And although I have a weighty dose of regrets, I would
only change a few decisions in my life.
But given my chance to start over today, this is how I will live my life:
● I will love and marry the true love of my life
Page 37
● I will tell her I love her every day I have breath in my lungs
● I will not be afraid of failure, nor hold back on taking risks in my life due
to any fear of failure
● I will trust people - in their goodness - despite everyone’s shortcomings
and let-downs
● I will forgive and move on
● I will do something good and positive to someone, for someone, every
day of my life. No matter how small the gesture, or the impact or
consequence
● I will care less about what other people think
● I will never lie or deceive with ill-intent
● I will enjoy the smaller things and notice the often overlooked
● I will treat everyone with the same respect and genuine consideration I
hope others would bestow upon me - regardless of their status, wealth,
attractiveness, popularity, intellect, ability, or “usefulness” to me
● I will watch less television and spend more time developing meaningful
relationships with friends, family, and the love of my life
● I will thank God for all that I have, regardless of how small the amount
may be, or how little in comparison to others
● I will start each day as a new life, and live it like it was the last day of my
life
● And I will never be afraid to ask for help when I cannot weather the
journey alone; nor will I turn away a soul in need
And for the most part, I’ve tried to live my life according to these ideas as best as I
could.
The Blackest Black Hole
During my recent travel in Kiev, I met a very large and tall young man, likely in
his late twenties. He was always hanging around the city center near my
apartment. He was a drunk, and likely homeless. I met him one night just
hanging out with a friend outside, while drinking a beer on the street. And
although we couldn't really communicate, every time he would see me thereafter,
he would come up to me and give me a big bear hug. Almost every day.
Sometimes he would sneak up behind me as I was talking with someone and
scare the shit out of me. He was not sanitary and likely hadn't showered in days
or weeks. Nonetheless, I always let him hug me (partly because he was a very big
man, and I don’t mean fat. LOL). I sensed sadness, but so much love and
Page 38
happiness in his heart. I know this sounds silly and stupid, but that was how I
felt when I saw him.
But I was just so intrigued and saddened by his story. Unlike some Ukrainians,
who after drinking can become violent or mean, this young man was happy and
carefree. He had a great heart, regardless of the fact he was a drunk or homeless.
Why did this man drink?
I tried asking him one day using my iPhone translator. I didn't come to
understand why. But what had happened in his young life that made him so
irreversibly damaged to just want to forget about life and responsibility?
In a sense everyone does this to a certain degree, of course, rarely to such
extremes. We encounter problems or pain in our life, and we suppress it or try to
forget them. But even when we manage to erase them from our consciousness,
they remain a part of us, indelibly imprinted deep into our subconscious. But for
some people, specific moments or experiences can cause our mental state to
permanently snap, like a broken rubber band.
I observed most people who came into near contact with him, always trying to
avoid him as he walked down the street; people tried to act like he was invisible,
or just as a source of humor, as they temporarily enjoyed his good natured
carelessness and silly drunkenness, before going about their merry way in life.
But his life and his choices demonstrates the potential danger of how we choose
to digest sorrow and grief in our life. We can choose to suppress or forget, either
through mental suppression, or chemical means, such as alcohol or drugs; or
through distractions like work or our career, or something else entirely. Or we
can embrace the pain and grief and sorrow; shed our tears, sometimes endlessly,
until the river of pain has run dry. Then we can move on with our lives,
beginning anew, and hoping that tomorrow brings a better day.
I’ve met so many people in my life who told me they had a bad relationship or
bad experience, so they just don’t trust people anymore, or open themselves up to
be hurt again in relationships. They close their hearts, and they close themselves
to people, to life, and especially, to love. It seems so unimaginable to live life this
way. I always tell everyone that I’d rather be hurt and experience unimaginable
emotional pain, and to still have an open heart - and the possibility of finding
love again - than to be closed and extinguish that possibility forever. Even if I’ve
Page 39
been hurt a thousand times or rejected a thousand times. I’d rather stay positive
and hope and believe in true love, rather than the alternative.
How we choose to react to situations is completely our choice. It depends on
what kind of life and how meaningful we want our lives to be.
Sometimes, we just have to accept that bad things happen; horrible
things sometimes. Life is neither fair nor just at times. But it doesn’t
mean that good things – great things – aren’t just as possible
tomorrow.
The decision to go left or right at every turn in our life is completely
ours, even though sometimes our choice may not seem so open.
If we let our experiences control us, define us, we can become the
equivalent of psychological black holes. The blackest of black holes.
Never let anyone, or anything, ever control who you are. Have the
strength to be yourself, regardless of the circumstances. Never let
unfortunate experiences or misfortune in life change and define you.
Shit happens. And sometimes we step into a big pile of it. But that’s
why we have soap and shoe polish. Always keep your shoes clean.
Really this book is about trying to keep my shoes clean. And maybe, it can help
others keep their shoes clean too.
Page 40
Chapter 4. My Restless Childhood
"As iron is eaten away by rust,
so the envious are consumed by their own passion."
- Antisthenes
As a child I used to wish my life was
different, or that I could just be like every
other "normal" kid. I was so envious of
other kids with normal families and
biological parents, and siblings who looked
just like they did. I was filled with a lot of
internal anger that was never exposed and
never allowed to manifest itself to others.
As mentioned previously, it wasn't until
later in my adult life that I finally began to
understand myself in a deep and meaningful way, and started accepting myself,
my life, and who I was. Shame and envy were displaced by awareness and
understanding, as I began to better understand the world, people, and my own
insecurities and what drove my behavior.
As I look back now at the early raw emotion and immature outlook on life that
helped partly shape who I became, I can only marvel at the transformation in my
life and my attitudes toward life, my own circumstances, and the world.
Instead of viewing myself as a victim of life and circumstance, I began
to realize that I, and only me, held the power to control my own
destiny and my life. Instead of blaming others and blaming the world,
I began to realize that sometimes shit happens to EVERYBODY and
that my early unfortunate servings of life were no excuse to be angry.
How we react and choose to deal with horrible shit that happens in
our lives is the only thing that matters, and the only thing we should
be proud of, or ashamed of with ourselves.
Page 41
A Whole New World
I was born in Seoul, South Korea in the early 70’s. I don’t have an original birth
certificate, so nobody really knows my actual age. But unfortunately, it’s still
impossible I could only be 37. Sorry ladies! The doctors estimated my age based
on my body and bone development after coming to America.
At the age of six, somehow I ended up in an orphanage in Seoul. I have no
recollection of what happened, or why, or how. Maybe my parents died. Perhaps
they did not have the means to support me. I don’t know.
In fact, I have no recollection of any of my childhood in Korea. I was in the
orphanage for 3 months I believe (I was told years later by my sister). A few
months later, a family from America, from a small town in Central California,
adopted me through an agency called Holt International. The agency connected
families and individuals with abandoned children living abroad, through letters
and photos and regular mail updates. (This was in the late 70’s so no Facebook
or emails or Skype video chats, unfortunately).
When my adopted parents (I think my mother mostly) saw my cute face, I
suppose she fell in love with the little boy from Seoul. I have to admit, I was an
adorable looking child, with a cute round brown face and shiny black hair - dark
from spending all the time outside running around. I wasn’t in the orphanage for
long. I only have vague memories of the orphanage, but I think they are mostly
positive. I remember the ladies who took care of us were very sweet and loving.
Prior to this, I only have one memory, more like a misty dream really, of an older
brother holding my hand and guiding me through some type of market in Seoul.
I used to think about this occasionally. It made me cry too much, so I stopped
thinking about it later in life.
I was 6 years and 9 months old when I boarded the Boeing 747 airplane from
Seoul to San Francisco. Alone. I remember the Caucasian flight attendant lady
looking at me on the plane, sitting by myself. I can still recall the look of wonder
in her eyes, as she thought why a little child, who spoke no English, sat alone on
her plane. She tried comforting me with a warm blanket and an even warmer
smile.
And thus, my journey in America began.
Page 42
To Be or Not To Be (Open or Closed)
I love meeting new people of all types. And people were always so curious about
my story. Earlier in life, I was a little embarrassed about my story. But as I grew
older, I realized there is no shame in my history. And in fact, it was an amazing
story. So as a general life policy, if someone, even a complete stranger, asked me
almost any question about me or my life, I would always answer honestly and
fully. I finally learned to become very open. I decided I wanted to live this way
instead of the alternative. It was a major change of my attitude toward people
and life. It was part of my transformation I made about how I would relate and
interact with people in general in my adult life.
When I was younger, I was closed and didn’t trust ANYONE. Slowly, over time, if
a person proved themselves to me that they could be trustworthy, I would begin
to trust them somewhat - but never completely.
Later in my adult life, I decided I would take the opposite approach. I would trust
people until they gave me a reason not to. I accepted the fact that, sure, this
would mean that many people would violate my trust, and that many people may
even take advantage of me and my trust. But after contemplating how I wanted
to live my life, and the upside and downsides of each approach, I came to realize
living life and trusting people was a better way. It didn’t mean I trusted people
with my life, there should always be a little bit of caution until I got to know
someone very well.
One time, I decided to help a friend of mine who I didn’t know very well yet. She
told me she was in a tough bind with her family. I gave her some money to help
(about $1,000). It turned out that she cheated me. She had lied to me. I figured
this out quite quickly. And I never got mad about it. Just felt disappointed. But
interestingly, about a year later, the girl finally admitted what she had done and
apologized to me. She insisted she would pay every penny back. Over the course
of the year, someone had cheated her, and she had gone through some bad
personal experiences (karma). It helped transform her young life. She became
more spiritual and less materialistic.
Sometimes things happen, and in the immediate context, it doesn’t make any
sense. But often, they tie into a much larger story of life and our growth.
Page 43
I could’ve chose to become angry and to stop trusting people, or trying to help
others. But I simply realized that in the effort to help others, sometimes, some
people will abuse it. And, perhaps, while one out of ten people may be
disingenuous, nine out of ten people were genuinely in need, and it can help their
lives in a small way.
This is also the same way I approached relationships. I chose to trust my
girlfriend or spouse until given a reason not to. This helped me to not be too
jealous or controlling. My attitude was always that if a girl didn’t want to be with
me, no amount of jealousy or control would change that. The only thing that
could change that was going to be how I treated her and how I loved her.
To Move Forward, We Must Stop Looking Back
People often asked me if I ever had the desire to seek out my natural parents or
go back to Korea. Early in my life, I was curious about it. But as I progressed into
adulthood (some would argue I never made this progression), I ultimately
decided I didn't want to. As I briefly mentioned previously, when I was in my
early 20s, I had an opportunity to travel for work for the first time. And would
you believe it - to Seoul Korea. It was random coincidence (or was it?). I stayed
for 5 weeks! I literally partied every day for 5 weeks straight and tried and did
everything. It was awesome. My first international trip. Everything was so new
and different to me. I finally learned how to use chopsticks out of necessity!
But while I was in Seoul, I decided I didn't want to pursue this investigation
about my adoption. My life was in America, and I had no attachment or interest
in my Korean culture or heritage. And most importantly, I needed to accept what
happened to me in my childhood and stop looking backward in life.
We always want answers to everything in life. Why? Why? Why? But
sometimes the answers are unimportant and most times
unanswerable anyway. The only relevant question is, “Do you want to
let something bad that happens destroy your life or define you in a
negative way, forever?” You can choose to be the driver of your car in
life, or just sit in the passenger seat, without a driver in the car, as it
recklessly bounces from moment to moment, out of control and
having no chance of reaching any meaningful destination you really
want to get to.
Page 44
This was my first international travel experience, and it was an eye opener in so
many ways. It began to change my view of the world and about life. I started to
realize that life was so different in other places, compared to life in my small
hometown in California. As I contemplate this now, I still have no regret about
not trying to find out the truth or discover my biological family. I believe it was
one of the key decisions of my life, and one of the things that helped me finally
move past my adoption and my childhood struggles.
It doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes cry and still find pain in my childhood
experience. But, that’s ok. We’re all human and grief doesn’t just somehow pass
because we run out of tears. Sometimes it lingers for the rest of our lives, but in a
controlled and manageable way.
Sometime, we don't need to know everything in this life. And
sometimes we need to let the past, be the past, to move our lives
forward.
Later in my adult life I decided to use the same Holt agency to sponsor a child
myself (which really meant just donating money to the charity and getting some
photo updates occasionally.) It was a bit impersonal. But I was single at the
time, and after a couple years decided to stop.
An Active [Seemingly] Normal Childhood
As a child I used to wish I had never been adopted. It seemed ironic because I
had lots of friends and everyone seemed to like me. I was very smart, likeable
(because kids thought I was funny), and fairly athletic. I was a happy child for
the most part (at least on the outside), but weighed down by deep anger and
internal turmoil as a consequence of my adoption and loss of my biological
family. I played nearly every sport - football, basketball, soccer, baseball,
track...pretty much everything a kid could do or play, I did it. And I was always
pretty good at everything I tried. I went to a small K-8 school, but generally I
ended up being the best athlete in my school for kids near my age (for nearly
every sport I played). I was always the first kid picked if I wasn’t doing the
picking when choosing teams. Again, it was a fairly small school, so let’s keep
things in perspective! For some strange biologically reason I had a freakishly
strong left leg that would constantly surprise everyone when I kicked the ball over
everyone’s head into far right field during kickball.
Page 45
The only fight I ever got into when I was a child was with one of my best friends.
We argued whether I had jumped the ball, or if the ball had hit me on the way to
home base, as I leapt over the ball. We were both very competitive. Of course,
the ball never hit me and we had scored, and won the game. It got so heated, my
good friend decided to throw a punch at me. I blocked his punch with my right
arm and punched him with my left arm and broke his braces and teeth. We were
in 6th grade, and he never tried hitting me again. We remained friends. I was
never a fighter anyway. Besides, I was right. Haha. But this example pretty
much illustrates the absurdity of most fights and conflicts in our adult lives too.
I have a few fond memories of playing sports during my childhood. I recall one
inter-school basketball game I was in such a zone. I could’ve thrown the ball with
my eyes closed and it would somehow always make it in the basket. I think I
scored almost every point for our team that day against a cross town rival. We
won. The opposing coach was in disbelief.
Shortly after this game, I remember saying the silliest comment of my entire life
to my mother. I said, "Mom, when I grow up, I’m going play in the NBA." Well, I
guess if I had grown up (i.e. taller), perhaps I could’ve. If you can’t jump and
you’re only 5’10 1/2", I doubt I ever had a chance at all. Especially considering I
never had the physical traits to be anything close to a world class athlete. It was
laughable. I still laugh about it occasionally. And I’m sure at the time my mother
giggled inside a bit too.
One of my fondest memories was playing in the city Little League baseball
together with my older sister on the same team. She was 2 years older than I, and
when I first made the team I was only 9. I really sucked because I was simply too
small to be playing with older kids who were mostly all 11 and 12. I struck out all
the time! And then I would just laugh about it, which made my coach even more
pissed off. But it was my way of dealing with the embarrassment. Trust me,
inside I was furious at myself because I was always a competitive person. But I
steadily improved as I grew older, and by the time I was 12, I barely missed the
city All-Star team by one vote (which represented the Little League city team),
despite having a very good batting average and 0.500 on-base percentage!
It’s my fondest memory as a child, playing together on the same championship
teams with my sister Cheryl. My sister was my closest sibling, and the one who
always took it upon herself to look after me as a kid. She took care of me at
home. She looked out for me at school. She was the only one who ever talked to
me a little bit about my adoption and my problems as a child.
Page 46
I’m the youngest of 4 children and the only adopted child. My sisters are nonidentical twins but couldn’t be more different. My brother is 4 years older. My
brother Rick, and sisters Cheryl and Cynthia, never made me feel like I was
adopted. We played as kids and fought and did all the things you would expect of
siblings. But I was different in so many ways.
Cheryl died in a car accident a few years ago, maybe the saddest moment of my
life, next to my recent divorce. In some ways, it seemed she was the only real
family I had in this life, for so many reasons. R.I.P sis. I love my brother and
sister but we were never as close, and shared far less in common. Cheryl and I
had similar interest in sports, were more outgoing and had a greater desire to see
and experience more of the world. We were both rebellious and outspoken.
I still cry whenever I remember and think about my sister Cheryl.
Our family had a farm with tree fruit: peaches, nectarines, plums and a few
apricots. All of us kids worked on the farm during summers, weekends and after
school. It was really tough work. Sometimes, I wished I could just enjoy my free
time like other kids. But the lessons and values my father taught me were
invaluable later in life. The idea of hard work, of doing the best job you possibly
can, and responsibility.
My father wasn't too much of a touchy-feely type. But he provided everything we
needed and sometimes wanted as a family. We were never close and were about
as opposite as we could be. He didn't understand me and didn't take interest in
Page 47
anything I did, including sports. My most disappointing thing growing up was
the fact my father never came to a single sports game, or recital (piano and
violin), or any event I can think of. And I played hundreds of games.
My mother, on the other hand, was always 200% into whatever the kids were
doing. She came to every single game. She even learned to keep stats and score
for baseball, which if you've ever done it, realize it's quite unique and difficult.
For instance, how to score a double play from shortstop to 2nd base, with a run
scored. I was always more of a Mama's boy.
Mom had an amazing propensity to dive into whatever her latest hobby was and
become an expert in that area. One time, she decided she wanted to raise cacti. So
Dad built her a greenhouse. Around our country house, there must've been
thousands of different kinds of cacti in small pots. She knew the scientific names
of all the species. Quite remarkable.
Neither of my parents went to college but they were smart in a different way,
maybe not text book wise. But text book smarts isn't always the most useful thing
or only knowledge important in life.
Our family wasn't wealthy by any measure. We were more mid-middle class folks.
But it was fine by me. As a family we used to do lots of outdoor activities, but
mostly riding motorcycles and three-wheelers together (before they were
outlawed). Everybody in the family had one or two. I loved riding off-road. Crazy
fun. Speed. Jumping tracks. Dunes. Mountains. Deserts. I rode my ATV or
motorcycle most days. There were quite a few moments where I thought I was
going to die, and a few times, felt I nearly did die. But it all ended up ok.
Page 48
When I was playing in the city soccer league, we had a raffle sale for the team and
I would go door to door selling tickets to raise money. I decided to buy one
myself for a dollar. Well, it turned out I ended up winning the raffle grand prize
of $300! Which, back in the day, was a lot more money. So I bought the best
kick ass mountain bike I could find with nylon yellow rims. I rode that bike every
day for 6 straight months. I must've put a thousand miles of pedaling on that
bike. God I loved that bike. It was like the first taste of freedom and
independence when I rode on that bike.
I remember at one point in high school I was grounded for something like 6
straight months. I couldn’t drive my car or do anything outside of school and my
sports. So after basketball team practice, I had to go directly home and be angry.
I don’t even know what the hell I was grounded for, but it was eternity. I
supposed I was a bit difficult in high school. But I always still got straight A’s and
did well in school. Honestly, high school was so easy I could’ve sleep walked
through it, or probably finished in a year or two. But I wanted to live a normal
kid’s life, since my entire childhood was anything but normal. And like every
teenager, I just wanted to fit in at the time.
And for the same reason, when I was in 8th grade, my teachers and parents
wanted to put me into a special accelerated learning program for the "gifted"
students. I was obstinate and independent minded, even as a child, and
emphatically said no. I desperately wanted to live a normal child's life. My
sensitivity to being “normal” was even more extreme given my unique childhood.
(Not so much as an adult.)
I didn't know any English when I left South Korea. Upon coming to America,
after a couple months I was speaking fluent English, so my parents decided to
enroll me in Kindergarten mid-way through the school year. One of my earliest
school interactions, I still remember so vividly. I used to love playing with army
men and enacting battles. I had dozens, if not hundreds, of green army men I
kept in a shoe box and played with regularly. One day, we had gift exchange day
in Kindergarten. This concept was completely foreign to me. I brought my
favorite toy, a fresh bag of new army men, which I was expecting to play with
later. Once I realized I had to give away my army men, I launched off on a
childish temper tantrum tirade for, well, what seemed to be eternity for my
embarrassed mother probably. I cried and cried until Mom promised to get me
another set of army men later.
Sometimes in life, we just want to hold onto our army men. We’re
comfortable with ‘em. But giving them away allows us to experience
Page 49
new things, and perhaps expand our view of the world and our lives,
and eventually discover there is far more in life than just army men.
My parents and teachers decided to have me skip 3rd grade. I remember
thinking, OMG, what about writing in cursive?!! How will I be able to learn it
now? When I went from 2nd grade directly to 4th grade after summer, I
remember just being angry about not being in Mrs. Siebert's classroom. I
thought she was hot and would have made child-love to her if I could (LOL).
Anyway, missing 3rd grade made me realize I could probably skip most of the
grades and be ok.
Skipping third grade taught me a lesson I always went back to
throughout my life. Fear was always my biggest motivator in life.
Fear of failing, of not being good enough, of not being as good as
others. At every junction in my life, I always worried that maybe I
would fail at whatever new venture I was about to take on: Starting
high school, going to college, starting my first job, and each
subsequent job thereafter. And each time, especially in my career, I
would always think back to my childhood lessons to not be afraid to
try new things or take on challenges or risk.
In the end, I never failed at anything I ever really tried. Perhaps because I was so
petrified of failure, it made me focused and propelled me to succeed. In my
career, I had an astonishing success rate in every position I held, mostly because
this fear drove me, and because I always tried to look at business and opportunity
in a completely different context than most people.
But career was never my primary focal point in life.
I have to say I was very smart as a child. (Not so much anymore! Some days I
feel challenged to add 2 + 2). I always tested in the highest 99% percentile of all
standardized tests nationally; always received top grade in all my classes;
regarded as the smartest kid in the room. The teachers always thought I didn’t
pay attention (which I didn’t) or didn’t give a shit (which I did), as I was always
cracking jokes, distracting other students and making them laugh, and generally
getting into mischief. As punishment they would make me go outside and run
laps around the track every time. Some days, I think I spent more time running
laps outside than I spent sitting in the classroom chair. I didn’t mind. I thought
it was great to be outside.
Page 50
One of my most admired teachers, Mr. Panzack, was amazing. He was the school
principal and 8th grade teacher. He coached sports. He helped every student
with science fair projects, and he also led the 8th grade math team. I never did
science fair projects because I thought they were lame and geeky. But somehow,
I managed to convince myself being on the math-team was ok!? Anyway, we had
a kick ass math team and we regularly won in the regional/state competitions.
We studied advance math like calculus (which back in the day was advanced for
8th grade). I think I also won 1st place, 2nd place and a 5th place finish in several
individual State or Central Valley competitions, which included hundreds or
thousands of other smart students. (The 5th place finish my great-grandfather
had died few days before and I didn’t do well). I loved math. It was like a duck to
water for me. It all made sense and it was so easy. Every problem had a solution.
[Back in college I could solve complex differential calculus equations almost in
my head. But after 20 years of the softer marketing life, I can barely figure out a
simple quadratic equation now, I think. So sad.]
But I also loved history and English, even early in life. I loved writing poetry.
Even as a young boy I was a hopeless romantic.
I used to play the piano and violin. I actually loved piano, playing the classic
composers like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart with the beautiful language of
music. It was beautiful melody. And I was a perfectionist that wanted to try to
play it better than anyone. I loved playing. I remember one day, I decided I
wanted to quit playing because I thought it was too sissy and needed to focus on
more cool things in high school, like sports. This is one of the big regrets in my
life. Music is an amazing thing, and nothing soothes the soul of a woman more
than a beautiful melody. I loved violin for the same reasons. The sound was like
an angel’s voice, and calming.
My biggest mistake as a kid was not actively looking for mentors and emulating
people I admired. My entire life I didn’t really have any mentors. I was so
stubbornly independent minded, and thought I was smarter than everyone. So, I
refused to listen to teachers or role models. Kids, I don’t care how smart you may
think you are, or even really are, everyone should have mentors and role models.
Life is about avoiding pitfalls. Life is about efficient learning curves. I promise
you; no matter if you have an IQ of 10,000 you can still learn and become a better
person by having mentors and role models.
I remember I wanted to learn everything on my own by trying to really analyze
the text books on math and science, instead of taking the teacher’s word for
Page 51
everything, which was one of the reasons I never really paid attention during
class (even in college). I was intent on self-education. It seems so ridiculous now
in hindsight. I had to prove every theory or mathematics postulate myself before
believing it.
Sometimes reinventing the wheel isn’t always the best thing. Unless
you’re going to invent a revolutionary new wheel that is head and
shoulders better. Otherwise, you’re just being a moron.
Page 52
Chapter 5. Understanding Life, the Great Enigma
"There are only two people who can tell you the truth about yourself - an enemy
who has lost his temper and a friend who loves you dearly."
- Antisthenes
I've come to understand that the keys to
understanding the world is really more
about understanding ourselves, although
true understanding is somewhat circular in
nature. And sometimes understanding
ourselves is the most difficult task of all.
Not because it isn't possible, but because we
often lack the courage to be honest with
ourselves and truly look deep into our heart,
mind, and psyche with an objective view.
When we understand ourselves, we can
begin to understand others, or the world,
more constructively and meaningfully. Often, our view of the world is tainted by
our own outlook on life and view of ourselves. The world looks different when
looking through a special filter lens, giving us the wrong image or understanding.
To understand our world, we must first identify and remove the filters we apply,
most times unknowingly.
The Delusion of Self-Confidence
(By the way, I am not even a somewhat educated psychologist. I’ve never even
read a single book on psychology, and I never liked to study it. It’s just personal
insight I’ve picked up through observation and introspective analysis. I’m not an
expert, so keep this in mind when reading! But I also don’t believe an arbitrary
title or degree with fancy letters is the only definitive authority on anything. After
Page 53
all, the great philosophers and the religious giants of man’s history never had an
Ivy League degree. Thought is not monopolized by academia.)
If I may be brutally honest about myself (to the point of embarrassment), here is
what I would say best describes me (in all its ugly colors):
First, I am incredibly confident, sometimes to the extreme of being delusional.
Yet despite my unbreakable confidence, at the core of it all, is a fragile insecurity.
I’ve come to realize that everyone is insecure. It is this fear and insecurity that
drives me to prove I’m good enough, or can be interesting enough to be wanted or
loved.
I crave success in business to validate my worth. I crave the affection of women
to validate myself, as a constant reminder that I am desirable. Even the act of
innocent flirtation, without anything more, is an act of validation.
When I fail and experience rejection, I brush it off. I’ve experienced many more
rejections than successes (relative to women). But, no matter how irrational the
idea, I always believed everyone woman should love me or like me. And I
thought they were crazy or stupid if they didn’t. I know it sounds crazy. But this
is the essence of self-confidence (in all people). It is self-delusion to a large
degree.
Objectively speaking, this isn’t the behavior of a truly confident person if they
need constant validation.
The term confidence, as it relates to people, is incredibly ambiguous and
misleading. One can be confident about one’s ability to achieve the desired
outcome - even with the backdrop of fear and insecurity of potential failure. But
that is entirely different than self-confidence in being (within ourselves). By the
latter I mean confidence within ourselves, without the need for validation from
anyone or anything. This largely doesn’t exist in people. Anybody.
I have immense self-confidence that I can achieve any outcome I desire, in
anything I pursue (again, despite often failing). Well, almost. Probably not for
becoming a world class athlete. LOL.
But the confidence of being is an enigma.
One the one hand, I truly love who and how I am (as my girlfriend often
reminded me sarcastically). I’ve come to accept that my insecurity is a part of
Page 54
who I am. And though this doesn’t mean that I am perfect (far from it), loving
oneself is about accepting our many flaws, even when we know we must strive to
change many of our fatal flaws. We really do have to love ourselves first, before
we can love others more. It’s cliché, but absolutely true.
On the other hand, this deep insecurity - caused by the holes unfilled during my
childhood - drives me to seek self-destructive behavior: in romantic relationships,
in friendships, in my career, with everything. In a sense, it can be a mild form of
psychosis, because it is not normal or healthy behavior. It’s something I
struggled with my entire life. This part of who I am; I abhor and find mysterious,
often impotent to change it.
Confidence is fragile in all people. Just look at sports stars. Tiger Woods used to
be the greatest golfer of our generation, perhaps ever. But a life altering
experience radically changed his confidence and focus. Now, he is mediocre at
best. He sucks! Physically, there is no reason he shouldn’t still be dominant. In
sports, confidence leads to triumph, mostly because when we feel confident we
don’t hesitate, we just wing it and rely on our natural physical and mental ability,
reinforced by the countless hours of practice and preparation. When we lose the
confidence in ourselves, we begin to hesitate, question, and pause. It is a
psychological wonder. Most world-class athletes are differentiated less on
physical capability, but rather by mental and psychological toughness and drive
to improve (practice, study, and preparation).
This need for validation is a function of age - for all of us - as we wrestle with our
own physical changes. As we grow older, our validation need grows, peaking
around the 40’s for men and in the 30’s for women (our “mid-life crisis”). At
some point, psychologically we come to terms with our mortality and physical
deterioration. I haven’t reached this point of equilibrium unfortunately, which
was one of the pathetic factors causing my infidelity with my ex-wife, despite
never having cheating in any prior relationship (and I’d been in relationships
almost my entire adult life, with only a handful of years being single up to that
point).
The need to be amusing, funny, and interesting are all driven by the need to
confirm my inherent value. It turns out that even people who have normal
childhoods, who are real comedians (and much funnier than I am) do so for
similar reasons, almost universally. They need social validation.
Fact is, no matter who you are or what you do, everyone needs social validation,
constantly. So in this respect, self-confidence is less about the belief and
Page 55
acceptance of who we are as a person, and more to do with the belief that our
actions will always lead us to the desired outcome. For athletes, it’s about
winning, about hitting that key game winning score. For business people, it’s
about creating success - by growing new businesses or winning key customers
and clients.
Confidence in the desired outcome is what people typically refer to
when they speak of self-confidence. But this is an illusion, really.
Because even the most confident, most successful people, endure
constant failure. So confidence is really about our ability to brush off
failure, rise and try again - without the failure diminishing our view of
ourselves. In essence, confidence is delusion, where we always ingest
the positive, but only selectively take in the negative aspects when we
fail.
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant - two of the greatest basketball players ever have both missed more final second basket shots than they made throughout
their careers. But following a miss, they remained as confident as ever that the
next shot they put up is going to hit nothing but net. Confidence is purely mental,
psychological. It has nothing do with success or failure, but how we ingest this
success or failure into our self-validation. The winners in life, when faced with
adversity, or after coming to grips with the realization that they must improve to
achieve their desired result, focus on self-improvement. The losers (just using
society’s terms here), wither away and accept their failed outcome.
Confidence is purely mental. It is our choice. Confidence is also the
key to success in life, in all areas of our lives. Confidence is
contagious. Confidence is positivity. Confidence is attractive, because
people are drawn toward positivity; this why confident people almost
always succeed, even in team sports, or in life.
I write these things, especially for younger people, who, as they grow up in life,
often feel trapped by a sense of low self-worth and struggle with self-validation.
Often they look at others, and think how different and better they are. But the
truth is, others simply mask it better, or figure out how to turn this into a
strength (motivation). I write these embarrassing insights into who I am, to help
expose the veil, that even highly confident people have the same fears and
insecurities and flaws as any of us (often worse).
People at work used to always assume I had some ulterior selfish motive of why I
pushed everyone in my organization so hard, or wanted to win so bad, or made
Page 56
the strategic decisions I did for my business. It was always about the business
and never personal. I wanted to win - beat the living shit out of our competitors,
grow rapidly, become number one in every market segment we played. This
motivation was far bigger than some petty personal motive. But people,
especially those affected by some of my decisions, would assume it was personal.
I remember several years ago, when I was working at Intersil (a technology
semiconductor or microchip company), my product line business was at a key
fork in the road. The $50 million business I ran was in serious trouble over the
next few years and had begun its natural life-cycle decline. The market for DVD
and Blu-ray players/recorders were saturated and had become commoditized,
plus forward technology trends, such as online and digital storage media, made
the future of optical media look pretty bleak (something we knew was inevitable).
After careful and long consideration and analysis, I concluded we needed to do
two things. First, we had to completely, radically, change the architecture of our
primary product to prepare for the inevitable price war and commoditization - to
be able to win at low cost but still improve performance significantly (to be best
in class). And second, we needed to accelerate the strategy of diversification into
other market segments that leveraged our core competency (to which I had
identified several areas). The second point was a longer term 2-5 year strategy,
while we looked to hold onto revenue and business from our existing market by
improving our efficiency.
Changing the architecture meant that we had to get rid of both existing products,
which were managed by two different, very senior and capable design fellows at
the time. Replacing them both meant that I had to choose which one would be
best suited for the task, and make this recommendation to top management.
After careful study of the economics and technical merits of both options, I
concluded the new product would be lower risk, better cost structure (best in
industry), and higher performance (best in industry), if we based it on our
existing mixed signal solution vs the purely analog design. I made the
recommendation to executives, explained my rationale and business projections,
along with the risks. The risk was significant. This new solution, while
technically and economically superior, was not fully in our control. We had to
convince the major chipset manufacturers to invest and change their designs also
(these are complex digital processors). We also had to deal with the formidable
reality of customer inertia - they hated changing designs and architectures
significantly, especially so late in the life-cycle of the product.
Page 57
I had put my reputation on the line and assured management (with zero
hesitation) that I would successfully get them to make the changes, and that we
would win with this new solution at the key customers. Exuding confidence was
paramount to achieving the decision we needed for what I thought was best for
the long term business. It was a huge risk. If we failed, our business would go to
zero. Which meant that everyone involved in the business would lose (literally,
many likely losing their jobs).
Management ultimately agreed to the proposal. In the end, we ended up getting
all the key chipset partners to change their design for compatibility to our new
architecture solution. It ended up becoming the industry standard solution. But
it took the better part of a year and many meetings with customers and partners
to finally push it to success. Persistence. Passion. Believing in objective
technical and economic merits, even when people or customers and chipset
partners repeatedly said they were not interested initially, or raised serious
issues, or put up many roadblocks.
This success, like all team efforts, was the result of many people working
together, not simply me, obviously. Besides, winning, like in team sports, was far
more important to me than personal accolades. But if we had failed, it would have
been considered my fault alone. But we have to accept these lopsided win-lose
scenarios if we want to push our path forward.
However, the designer who had been left out, felt this was a personal thing and
never forgot this. One has to keep in mind, there were huge financial incentives
behind this. Designers got royalties from the chip sales. And it was very
significant. So when a designer lost out, it was big money lost. But at the end of
the day, it can’t be about protecting one person, but rather about protecting and
nurturing the business, and thereby protecting everyone involved in the business.
In business, I learned long ago, that when you feel confident in
something, no matter who, or how many people disagree, or what
roadblocks people put up, you never give up. You break down the
walls, slowly erode skepticism, gradually build acceptance, and build
strong alliances. In the end, passion and confidence, almost always
prevails. But business is a reflection of life. And this is just as
relevant in life, as it is to business.
The second long term business diversification goal ultimately resulted in one of
the single biggest design wins at the company. Keep in mind, our company was
nearly a billion dollar company, not small. It was a major gaming console
Page 58
customer (I can’t mention who for legal confidentiality reasons, but everyone
knows the company). It generated, single handedly, nearly $40 million, perhaps
$50 million dollars of revenue per year from this one design.
I had great designers and a good engineering team behind me. But sometimes,
confidence is about firmly standing your ground when even the experts think
you’re wrong.
When I first discovered this business opportunity, there were a lot of technical
questions about feasibility. It had never been done. And it was technically
daunting. Our customer had not found any of our competitors who could achieve
the performance requirements.
I convinced the customer that a slight
modification of one of our existing products should, in theory, be able to meet
their technical specifications and requirements. I firmly believed it could after
some personal analysis and applying physics and circuit theory.
When I went back to my application engineers, I asked them to run a feasibility
study in the lab, outlining the structure of how this needed to be performed for
this customer. It needed to be a carefully constructed, highly parallel system to
achieve the lofty technical performance level of the product. The first test results
were laughably way off. It was 5X - 10X worse than what I thought it should be.
The engineers concluded this isn’t going to work and suggested we give up. But, I
was still confident in my assessment. So I asked them to recheck and redo the
experiment. I told them they were wrong, knowing this would motivate them to
prove me wrong (meaning they would do the experiment exactly as I wanted,
collect the data, and do so in a hurry so they could prove me wrong)! I knew, in
theory, I should be right. It was simple physics.
Ultimately, subsequent results came in pretty close to give us confidence that a
minor design change could meet the customer’s requirements. I never told the
engineers, “I was right” or “I told you so.” That’s too petty. Perhaps 15 years
earlier I would have said something that stupid. We got the results we needed
and that was a nice victory for all of us. After months of intense dialog and
negotiations with the customer, we finally succeeded and won. The team won.
And it was a huge victory.
Confidence is about believing in yourself, especially when the skeptics
seem overwhelming. It’s about not being afraid to take risks, and
putting yourself on the line to be forever ridiculed (or fired) if things
don’t work out the way you hoped. But to me, mediocrity was already
a worse type of failure, so I always looked at it as upside.
Page 59
Most Basic Things I’ve learned About Life and ALL People
Generally speaking, people are all predictably the same in most regards. On the
outside, it seems like everyone is completely different, but the differences are
often masks we see to merely cover the truth inside.
1. Everyone is insecure.
I don’t care who you are. Supermodels. Geniuses. Billionaires. The Michael
Jordans of the world. The most successful people became successful to validate
themselves, and are usually driven by their insecurity of one kind or another.
Normal people don’t feel compelled to such extreme accomplishments.
Those who need to prove they are the best (at anything), is the same reason
people seek power or fame; doing so because they have an inherent drive to
validate their worth. We all do to varying degrees.
Social validation seems to be built into our DNA. We can say we don’t care what
others think or say. But the truth is, we all do - to varying degrees. The key is to
not let it control and completely define us, where nearly everything we do is
driven by this external need, rather than our own internal desire.
People constantly compare themselves to everyone around them, either
consciously or without knowing it. But the problem is, the facade most people
put on, is far better than the reality within. So this generates more insecurity
within ourselves.
2. Everybody loves to be complimented and feel special.
If you want someone to like you or enjoy spending time with you, the formula is
really simple. Let them talk about themselves, but really listen and ask questions
about them or their life. Inject genuine and sincere compliments periodically
into your conversation. Everyone has something positive or good about them.
Find this and tell them. It’s not manipulation. It’s relating to people on a human
level, and understanding our human need to be validated.
Page 60
I have a beautiful friend named Jeanette. We would occasionally go out to dinner
or drinks or some fun. She was a former Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader and Hooters
Calendar cover model. She had such a bubbly personality and was always
laughing. She had a loud, penetrating laugh. But one of my favorite lines from
her was “I’m flattery operated.”
Truth is, everyone - in varying degrees - is flattery operated (pun of battery
operated, duh). Nobody is going to hate you if you say something nice to them
that is genuine and intended with sincerity.
One of the things I would do when I met a girl is just say what I felt or thought. If
I noticed something special or unique that caught my attention, I would
complement them. Not excessively. With sincerity. Whether it was something
specific with their sense of fashion.
Their personality.
Some unique
characteristic of their face. Whatever it was. Everyone likes to feel special.
Everyone NEEDS to feel special.
3. People need to love, more than to be loved.
Everyone always talks about the need to be loved. And being loved is amazing. It
makes us feel special, validated, wanted.
But the fact is, people need to love someone, far more than they need to be loved.
It’s the single most important selfless act in our lives. There is something unique
that happens when we go against the DNA fiber of our being to be purely selfserving. We become happy.
Being loved doesn’t make us happy. It makes us feel better about ourselves, sure.
But loving someone generates true happiness. This is why the drive to have
children and family, for most of us, is so strong. And why it transforms the lives
of everyone when their first child is born. Loving someone greater than
ourselves, is a transformative pivot in our lives.
4. Everyone has a predisposition to be self-serving/selfish
I think this is the one thing everyone can agree on. We see it in ourselves, and in
those around us. It is part of our survival instinct. Physical survival needs drives
our selfishness.
Page 61
The only thing that negates this physical instinct is love. It makes us act
selflessly, putting someone else above our own needs. That’s why true love is so
rare. And why it’s so special.
But even in love, on a daily basis, we all struggle to consistently put the ones we
love ahead of our own needs. It’s the hardest thing to do in life, because we are
fighting the core of our DNA code.
But superseding the DNA code is also part of our need to be happy. So we are
constantly dithering between selfish behavior and selflessness with the ones we
love.
5. People want to feel superior in some way
Nobody wants to be at the bottom of the totem pole, or at the bottom of the food
chain, or associated with the worst team in the league. We all want to feel special,
better than someone else.
It’s the primary reason for racism. People justify to themselves that they are
superior, not on any rational basis or merit, but because they were simply born
better due to obscure genetic coding (this is their justification).
Feeling superior is also why we judge others critically. To make ourselves feel
more elevated in a relative sense. We judge character; we judge morality; we
judge motive (without even understanding true intent); we judge value and worth
of an individual.
Passing judgment to feel superior to another is the worst form of our need to feel
superior, especially moral judgment. As I’ve said throughout this book, each of
us has the right to define morality for ourselves - as long as it does no harm to
others. It may not always be aligned with absolute morality. But we are not
moral authorities or God. Who are we to judge?
Moral judgment is the only category that truly matters. And our need to feel
morally validated is the worst kind of validation need. We, ourselves, are the only
ones who know fully how moral or immoral we are, or desire to be; because only
we know our true intent, and our true desires or aspirations of being.
Page 62
When we look at others actions or lives in disdain, disgust, or
disapproval, we diminish our own sense of morality.
Moral
superiority is the most despicable need to feel superior. One
presupposes that we are better not only in our own eyes, but in the
eyes of God.
But we all do it, including myself, as much as I try to avoid these pitfalls.
Our need to feel superior is also a major reason why people seek things like fame
or money or power. We want to compare ourselves and feel superior. And
coincidentally, you can tell a lot about someone based on which of these 3
priorities they place highest in their lives. But that’s for another time.
If you have more money, you feel smarter, more successful, better than the next
person. It’s complete bullshit.
If you have fame, it validates your worth and sense of being more special.
If you have power, you can literally feel superior and impose your will.
If you’re more intelligent, well, you’re just genetically superior and you don’t have
to listen to less educated or less capable reason. This too is bullshit. Elitism is
toxic, but so many of our leaders, especially in Washington D.C., fall into this
category.
If we have no one else whom we can feel superior to, we kick the dog (hopefully
not literally). Feeling a sense of worthlessness is devastating to our psyche. So
we manufacture ridiculous things to differentiate value and worth, and to hold
ourselves in higher regard to another.
People need to feel important and possess a sense they have some inherent value.
Feeling one is better than someone else provides a sense of internal value.
Truth is, nobody is better than anyone else. What we (society) value in life is the
problem. It configures people to constantly seek this external validation of worth
or importance.
6. Everybody seeks distractions
Page 63
Debilitating addictions like alcoholism or narcotic drugs are people’s way of
coping with life. The temporary escape it provides, no matter how irrational,
provides solace. The problem with these addictive distractions is that they can
cause us to lose complete control over our lives.
Most people focus on smaller and less debilitating distractions in life. Usually it’s
work or one’s career. It can be a hobby. It can be mindless sports (entertaining,
but meaningless. And I LOVE sports). It can be shopping. It can be travel. It
can be endless partying.
Whatever it is, these are things to help us pass the time, to have something to do,
or help us have something to talk about with others and to make our lives seem
more interesting. Often they are just ways for us to fill the time to prevent utter
boredom.
Today, there is such as plethora of distractions available that we can indefinitely
amuse ourselves into oblivion. We never have to think about the serious things in
life.
The fact that all people constantly seek distractions in their lives highlights the
fact that everyone is searching for meaning. It may not be so apparent. And it
may, at first, seem like a bizarre manipulation to arrive at this conclusion.
But everything we do, our mountain of distractions, is our endless search to find
the things that will ultimately gratify us in a substantive and lasting way.
Everyone wants to find meaning in their lives. Distractions fill the
void while we seek this meaning. In the absence of meaning, we seek
pleasure - the things that temporarily provide happiness and shortterm meaning.
Understanding Ourselves is Only the First Step
After my recent divorce, I decided to go to therapy for the first time in my life. My
entire life I had always felt therapy and psychologists were for the weak and a
complete waste of time. But the emotional devastation from my divorce had
finally softened the concrete walls of my pride and ego. My motivation was hopes
of reconciliation with my wife.
Page 64
I attended a handful of sessions over a period of two months by myself. I found
the sessions to be quite enlightening for myself, but ironically, not because I
received better insight about myself from the therapist. I actually realized that I
understood myself and what drove all my actions very well. The psychologist
commented one day that I probably had the most insight of myself of any person
she had ever met with, and she had been doing it for 20 years.
My enlightenment came from the fact that as I began verbalizing my feelings and
emotion and introspective views, it became apparent my problem was not
necessarily in understanding who I was or what a relationship needed to succeed,
but the chasm between understanding and having the courage and perseverance
to execute and act on it.
Understanding is great. But it's completely useless without execution
and will.
Knowing what to do, and having the fortitude and
perseverance to do it on a continuous basis are completely difference.
Understanding, while difficult, is the easier of the two requirements.
I never got the chance to reconcile with my wife. So it's difficult for me to say
whether this new knowledge would ultimately have led to a better and long
lasting marriage. I like to think it could have. But in any case it certainly could
have improved things.
I also came to discover that pride and ego are our biggest enemies in
relationships. Pride and ego are the rust that eats away at the iron in our lives.
We refuse to forgive. We refuse to yield sometimes. I would often refuse to
communicate when I was angry at my wife (usually for something stupid).
Sometimes humility comes too late and the opportunity has vanished.
I started to understand that I still had a lot of pride and ego and selfish
tendencies that can devastate relationships. Perhaps this had been obvious to
everyone but myself previously.
In general, therapists and psychologist are a huge positive. They can be very
constructive for some people, depending on the issues. Anything or anyone that
can help us increase understanding about ourselves, and help provide the
encouragement to take action to improve our condition or life is always good.
Forget about pride and ego. Forget about what others may think or how they
might judge or perceive you. It's your life to live, not theirs. If we have friends or
family in our lives that can be truly honest with us, then half the battle is won.
Page 65
Transformative Years
The early part of my life, especially the
teenage years, was a period of great
confusion for me. Uncertain of who I was.
Aware, but not aware. On the surface,
things were great. A semingly normal life.
I had lots of friends and was well liked. I
loved to play sports and was always a
straight "A" student. I seemed to have
direction and, in general, appeared to have
my shit together.
But like all teenagers, this is a period of
confusion for most. The body is changing
into adulthood. Psychologically we are
underdeveloped and yet, intellectually, we
are at the peak of learning capability. We
do not understand ourselves, and we are
highly prone to peer pressure as we gravitate to normal acceptance. We do not
yet fully comprehend the world, likely living a sheltered life, shielded by our
parents from the brutality of our world still yet to be discovered. We have
optimism and hope and dreams. A limitless world of possibilities extends as far
as our eyes can see in front of us.
But high school was a troubling period for me personally, as I grappled with my
adoption issues still, and tried to start understanding myself.
I attended a private Christian high school, as did all my siblings. I remember at
the end of my junior year, my parents and I were quite shocked when the
principal informed me I wasn't allowed to come back for my senior year!
My father later told me it was because some teachers didn't like me correcting
them during class in front of other students. It made them look bad. (But I just
thought I was trying to be helpful. I guess I hadn't learned the lesson of
tactfulness yet). And that I had been a constant distraction to other students with
my endless joking and smartass comments. The students found them amusing,
but a few teachers, not so much. Teachers would always tell me privately (or in
Page 66
the many detentions I accumulated): “Daryl, you may not need to pay attention in
class to get good grades because you’re obviously very smart, but the other kids
need to.” On a number of occasions I had the class rolling with laughter, so yeah,
I guess it was a bit distracting.
So, I became the first student to be disallowed to come back for my final year,
despite never doing anything egregious and having perfect grades.
I transferred to the city public school. And it all worked out great! Somehow, even
when life threw lemons at me, I always ended up on the sunny side of the
lemonade stand! (For those not familiar with the proverbial phrase, “When life
throws you lemons”, meaning sour or bad things, “make lemonade!”) I was just
incredibly lucky in my life, at every turn, and for no apparent reason. Maybe
there really are such things as guardian angels, I often wondered. (But I just
always assumed it was reversion to the mean for good fortune, since I had some
shitty luck early in life. I do believe that luck evens out most of the time, so it
always seemed like a reasonable theory to me.)
The public high school was much better. It was much bigger. The teachers just
appreciated a student who got good grades and even seemed to enjoy my humor
in class! The classes were not as advanced, and much of the lessons I had already
covered in my private school the previous years. I was in all the advanced
placement classes they offered. But even the advanced classes were easier and a
little behind. So I just cruised through my senior year, even more so than normal.
It was like a school vacation.
My favorite class was advanced German. I had already mastered everything they
were covering the previous year in basic German. So I spent my time during class
roaming the classroom and giving a massage to two of the cheerleaders on a daily
basis. One was blond, the other had black hair. Both were pretty hot. I had a
number of friends who were cheerleaders, but these two were the coolest. (One
time I “made out” on a bus ride with a cute little blond freshman cheerleader.
God she was so cute. I was a senior and had a girlfriend at the time. The
following Monday, the cheerleader saw me and smiled, but I ignored her, which
made me feel bad. So, I guess I kinda “cheated” on my girlfriend a little bit in
high school. Ooops). Anyway, I loved Fridays because they wore their sexy little
cheerleader skirts and the massaging seemed to last longer. It was purely
practical of course, because I knew and they knew, that later in the night the
physical cheerleading demands of kicking and jumping and thrusting their bodies
was going to be strenuous on their muscles. Of course!
Page 67
The Fräulein didn't mind. She loved me, because I was a stellar student and
could speak German better than all the other students. She would use me as an
example to other students! She even nominated me for a national award. I had
several of them in high school. Go figure, from being expelled, to being a role
model in class!! Lemonade baby!
Also my senior year, I became a teacher’s assistant for one of the counselors. She
liked me for some reason. Perhaps she took pity on me that I had been expelled
from the snooty private high school in town. So she asked me if I would be her
assistant. She was young and smoking hot, and a former Miss California
contestant. All the students wanted to be her assistant. But she asked me!
Lemonade was raining from heaven on me!
As a teacher’s aide, one of my responsibilities was to check everyday which of her
students had a birthday. Since I was always a pretty good writer and had a
creative and poetic/humorous mind, I told her I could write happy birthday cards
for all the students every day. Like Hallmark cards but personalized. I think I
wrote (typed) at least a hundred or more birthday cards that year. Every one of
them was unique and different. Almost all of them had witty or humorous
unique poetry or phrases. I have to say most of them were pretty good, even
though I only had a few minutes to write each one daily. Some were pretty lame
when I had creative writers block. But the ones targeted for the hot female
students, they were always good. :-))
After writing the cards, I would hand deliver them to the class the student was in.
Most of the students enjoyed it, and it allowed me to get to know a lot of the
students. My hot counselor thought I was absolutely wonderful and couldn't
understand how anyone could expel me! I still laugh about this today.
Lemonade.
Sometimes when life takes a seemingly bad turn, we see and
experience something different and amazing, almost by accident.
Don't be afraid of taking the wrong turn. Scenic beauty and discovery
is everywhere if we just open ourselves to it.
Some of my best experiences in life have happened when I was lost, or
ended up in a place with no expectations. Throw out plans sometimes
and just experience life as it comes. You'll be amazed at how awesome
it can be!
Page 68
One Friday night my senior year, after a high school football game, I was hanging
out with my old friends from the private high school. We had a horrible idea to
go to a 7-Eleven convenience store and buy 10 dozen eggs to paint a teacher’s
house. We all packed into the back of my buddy’s pickup truck and spent 10
minutes painting her house for free with eggs. It was a gracious donation of our
time on a late Friday night. Well, being the stupid high school morons we were,
we didn't think that maybe in a small town, and with a large truck with rowdy
kids, and a big fat license plate, that perhaps we would eventually get caught. To
cut a long story short, my friends ratted me out when the pressure came, along
with everyone else. I ended up going in front of the judge and, somehow, I was
the only one who got stuck with hundreds of hours of community service!
Well, while it may seem like an unfortunate story, it actually turned out to be
pretty awesome. I spent a little time cleaning city trash cans and I discovered
boatloads of unopened six packs of beer, which I stored in the maintenance
office. For a high schooler this is like gold. So I would take the beer, and go to the
maintenance office and drink, while looking through the porn magazines of the
maintenance workers. They were pretty cool about everything. Lemonade baby!
On another Friday night, my best friend and I decided to go to the drive-in
movies in my car. We stopped by the liquor store to try to get someone to buy
alcohol for us. We bought some cheap Peach Sysco alcohol and picked up two
random girls from our school. This experience proved to be quite a life impacting
night for my best friend. He ended up getting the girl pregnant and became a
father shortly thereafter.
As teenagers, we don't think through some of the potential
consequences of our actions. Sometimes in a split second, a poor
decision can last a lifetime.
I loved my friend Stephen. He was one of my groomsmen at my first wedding a
few years later.
My Adopted Parents
My father taught me two valuable things in life. If you do something, do it well.
And the value of work and a strong work ethic. These two lessons proved
invaluable in my career. When times were stressful or difficult in my career or
work, I would always think back to the difficult times working on the farm as a
Page 69
child, under far more uncomfortable situations. Then I would quickly realize that
my job and career were like a dream. And far more comfortable and easier than
the hard labor I did during my childhood. It always helped to put things in
perspective.
Other than that, the extent of our relationship was pretty empty. I don’t recall a
single serious or meaningful conversation about life, feelings or advice that my
father gave me growing up. Sometimes I felt like I wasn’t really wanted there.
My mother, on the other hand, was quite loving and deeply involved in the
children’s lives. But even still, I never had a serious conversation about life with
her either.
So I learned to be incredibly independent and to rely on myself. Fortunately, I
was pretty smart. I developed an unbreakable confidence about myself that
nobody could ever break. No matter how many failures I endured. No matter
how many rejections I encountered. I knew I would always succeed. I knew I
could literally do anything if I put my mind to it and really wanted to. I knew I
could always win and prevail, somehow- whether in work, in school, with girls,
whatever. This was the mindset I wore. In a large sense, it was a defensive
mechanism to protect my psyche, to survive as an independent child and later as
an adult, without relying on anyone else. I’ve never met any person with more
confidence or greater sense of independence. It’s not necessarily a good thing
always.
[My last job I was a Senior Director of Marketing at a video technology company.
My ex-manager (Vice President) was so clueless about reading people, and
literally the worst manager I ever endured. He said one day, “Daryl, you need to
be more confident if you want to get what you want.” I laughed inside. Little did
he comprehend that confidence was a poorly misplaced term for utter apathy,
due to a sick company culture and management style, with no realistic plans for
success, unwillingness to open themselves to inputs or different ideas, and
leadership that had no qualms about lying to customers or employees. I later
resigned not too long afterwards. I had only been there a year and I knew all
along it wasn’t a good fit. But with my emotional and painful divorce still ongoing, I stayed. But my life was now leading me in a different direction, and I
needed to travel and getaway; to refocus on life and writing this book.]
I guess my parents loved me in their own way. Unfortunately, it was a language I
never learned or understood.
Page 70
I love my family and my adopted parents. I always have. But sometimes the
emotional pain of not being able to connect with them in a more substantial way
was debilitating.
A few years ago, I finally confronted my parents and told them if they wanted to
really be a part of my life, and had genuine interest in it, they needed to show it
and not just say it, as they always had. Yes, the times I would go visit them back
home, we would always embrace, and they would tell me how much they loved
me. But over the nearly 20 years I had been away from our small hometown, my
parents had never made an effort to visit me once. I lived about a two and a half
hour drive from our hometown for nearly 20 years, minus a short stint in Seattle
for a year and a half. During this time, the only person to ever come visit me was
my sister Cheryl, who tragically died in a car accident, as mentioned.
My mother and father would drive for hours to things that they took personal
interest in - things like car races or swap meets, or flower exhibits, or to deliver
puppies to clients. My mother had a hobby business raising designer purebred
puppies and selling them on the internet. Often the clients lived far away.
I even offered to buy plane tickets, train tickets, or rent a limousine to pick them
up to and from their home. None of this worked to motivate them to visit. They
would often promise to visit soon. But it never happened. It was a constant
emotional pain for me, and something I felt I had to address. So, as I mentioned,
I was compelled to confront them about this a few years ago. I wish I had done it
much earlier in life.
My father’s response was, “I guess we lost another child” (referencing the loss of
my sister in the tragic accident). I will never forget that comment. It was more
painful than a needle through the heart. Without saying, I think we mutually
decided to disown each other. My parents were angry that I didn’t have a sense
of gratitude about everything they did for me, especially the adoption. During my
anger and hurt, I told them “I’m so smart I could’ve been successful anywhere in
the world, even if I hadn’t been adopted.” It was a foolish thing to say. But in
reality, the idea that I should be grateful to my parents always infuriated me.
Because I wanted to really be treated like one of their own children, not someone
they took pity on and “rescued,” and as a result I should always be eternally
grateful to them.
In reality, I was grateful and I still am for everything. My life has been a dream,
despite the emotional pain at times. And even though my parents were not the
idealistic notion I imaged - and no parents ever are - they did their best most of
Page 71
the time. Everyone makes mistakes. I harbor no anger or ill-will toward them.
And I will always love them (ok, mostly my mother).
My family had no idea about anything in my real life. No idea of who my friends
were. What I actually did in my career and work, the problems and issues in my
life, or really getting to know my wife or girlfriends (other than briefly meeting
them when I visited). My mother did really like my first wife Christina, however,
and they became good friends and kept in touch, long after our divorce
(strangely)! My parents didn’t even bother coming to my second wedding, or
even replying to our invitation (in Hawaii or Poland). A sincere explanation
would’ve been better than nothing. And certainly better than simply sending a
gift certificate wedding present in the mail. Our civil wedding was in Hawaii, and
my cousin who lived in Oahu, shared this moment with us. It was beautiful.
My parents were always self absorbed with their own lives, had low emotional
tolerance, and difficulty connecting with people on a substantive level, even with
their own biological children. My sister Cheryl and I used to talk about it to vent
sometimes. They, too, had emotional baggage from their own childhoods which
they had never dealt with.
We hadn’t spoken or communicated since the confrontation, until a recent string
of emails, after my draft version of the book found its way to my mother. But
somehow, I think sometimes old wounds just never heal. I will never understand
my parents or their behavior. But I’ve accepted things and moved on, without
anger, without blame. It is what it is. We cannot force people to change if they
are unwilling to.
People are always heavily influenced by the personality of their parents. These
social tendencies were something I had to recognize within myself, and try to not
replicate in my own life as an adult. It took conscious effort and hard work to
ensure that I did not emulate the same behavior later in my adult life. This is one
of the reasons I decided to be more open with people, including strangers. After
all, this book is an open kimono, embarrassing insights and all.
I never had any substantial conversations about anything meaningful or my real
problems with my parents, especially when I was a child or teenager, as my
parents just didn’t understand me or couldn’t relate. I was completely different.
I was completely different than everyone I think. The way I thought. The way I
looked at life. My stubborn sense of independence, even as a boy. All these
cumulative things hurt emotionally and left a deep scar - as deep as the adoption
itself and the loss of my biological family.
Page 72
Much of this was my own fault, I understand this now. I failed to communicate
better, to respect them more than I showed. I always assumed that it was the
parent’s responsibility to take initiative to their child. But, not to sound arrogant
or idiotic, I often intimidated my family, and Dad especially, I think.
Academically they understood I was very smart and gifted. But emotionally
unstable and scarred from my adoption (though I kept this deeply hidden, I think
my parents understood this all too well). They didn’t know how to communicate
or relate to me because I was so different.
I know my mother tried. She was deeply involved in all my activities like sports,
as I mentioned. And I think if things were completely up to her, she would’ve
visited and been far more involved in my life than she was. But she was a
traditional wife; someone who leaned on her husband for key decisions, and what
they would do and where they would go. But sometimes you have to fight for
your children and the things that are important to you, and not always defer to
others, including your spouse.
I tried running away from home on a few occasions when I was a boy, usually just
going to hide in the fields and feeling like not wanting to come back home, ever.
At the age of 17, I did run away (more like drove away) from home for a few days.
My dad really beat me for some reason I don’t remember, but it was not punitive,
more emotional (it was the only time he was physically abusive to me).
Afterwards, I packed some clothes and my music, and I drove away as fast as I
could. I drove to LA. I still remember it so vividly. I played the cassette tape
from Night Ranger and played the song “Goodbye” over and over again as tears
streamed down my face for hours. I had no idea what I was going to do. I was 17,
but very immature and clueless about how to be truly alone in this world and
really independent.
I knew nothing about LA. I ended up sleeping in my car the first night in
Glendale, and the second night in Watts, LA, one of the most dangerous areas of
town. I had no money and didn’t know anybody. Finally, I realized, I needed to
seek some help. So I went to a local church in Watts to see if someone could help
me get on my feet, maybe find some work. There was a Black preacher and he
started speaking with me. Once he realized I was underage, he called the police.
The police spoke with me for a long time and finally convinced me to call my
parents and go back home. The officers gave me a little money for food and gas out of their own pocket - so I could drive back home. It was a small gesture of
kindness, but immeasurable in human value. After I got back home a few days
Page 73
later, my father didn’t speak with me and I didn’t speak with him. We never
spoke of the incident. Like all our troubles, we brushed it under the rug, and
went on pretending everything was fine, or at least tolerable. My mother was so
happy to see me return.
When I was about to enter college, my mother told me that Dad had decided they
didn’t want to pay for my college expenses or tuition, to my surprise. She felt so
ashamed that she gave me a few hundred dollars, which was all that she had at
the time. So I had to alter my plans. I adjusted and went to the local college. I
worked my way through college. But I felt a sense of pride because everything I
achieved, I accomplished. I’m not angry about the college thing.
Sometimes college was a tough period for me, being married and working full
time, but more importantly still struggling with the emotional issues of my
childhood and trying to understand the meaning of it all, and meaning of life.
Some days I would just stop giving a shit about anything, including school.
Missing exams or just not caring. Generally I got excellent grades, almost all A
grades. However, sometimes, I wouldn't show up to a class for months and miss
exams completely in specific classes. I remember, one time, I ended up with a
failing grade of F in my engineering communications systems course due to
nearly missing the entire semester. I had to retake it. I didn’t like the professor.
He bored the living shit out of me. I was sometimes irresponsible.
In retrospect, yes, my life could’ve been easier. But my view in life has
always been that it doesn’t matter where you go to school, how bad
your school is, or what status in life you come from. Our ability to be
successful in life is still entirely in our hands. Sometimes we make
the wrong turn or make plenty of driving mistakes along the way. We
don’t always get to take the easy road; and we rarely get to drive the
luxury car starting out on the highway of life. But we still control
where we go and how we get there.
These experiences helped shape me to become the absurdly independent minded
person I evolved into, insulated by an impenetrable, perhaps slightly delusional,
sense of confidence about self.
There are a lot of ways we can clean our dirty shoes. And soap and polish goes a
long way in making our shoes look glamorous. But the one thing that no amount
of soap and polish can ever erase completely is the missing love of a Mother or
Father. The responsibility of a parent is the most significant thing any person can
Page 74
ever do. It has significant long term, generational impacts on our children and
the lives around them.
These cumulative experiences in the first half of my life helped shaped me, but
NOT define me. It opened cavities in my heart that remained unfilled. And my
shoes were often layered in an invisible layer of dirt and grime that seemed
impossible to remove. But over time, the shoes became a little less dirty, a little
less grimy, and eventually, the natural shine began to show through.
I wouldn't change any of my life experiences. No way in hell would I
change them or choose an easier path. They weren't always ideal, but
they helped shape me into who I ultimately became. Like iron, heat
and pressure and adversity makes us immeasurably stronger. In the
moment, we can't really understand why bad things happen to us. But
as I look back at my life, these "bad things" were the most valuable
and the most influential in shaping who I became. They were
priceless. They made me stronger; they molded me into something
uncharacteristically unique; they gave me deeper perspective about
myself and life. Again, what we often consider as negatives or our
worst experiences, are actually our greatest gifts in life.
As for the holes in our hearts, we endure and survive. We grow and learn. It's
part of the essence of life; suffering intertwined with happiness.
Only When We Stop Shoveling Will the Holes in our Hearts Heal
I met a beautiful 25 year old blond girl at a club once. She was with a couple of
girlfriends and they were all celebrating their birthdays, which happened to be in
the same month. I went over to the table where one of her friends was sitting
alone, as the other two girls danced on the floor. I crawled over the couch to say
hello to the cute brunette sitting alone. Shortly after, the blond girl came and sat
next to me. We began chatting for a few minutes. She told me she lived in the
Midwest in the U.S. and that she was married for a year to a man she had met
online.
I asked her a relatively benign question and watched her reaction as she smiled.
But even in the dim disco light I could see enough of her eyes and her smile to
sense something was different - it was genuine, but I sensed something unusual
and different. So I told her she had a beautiful smile, and that I could see that
Page 75
even though there was a genuine smile on her face, I sensed some deep hidden
sadness behind it. She looked surprised at my comment.
We talked a few minutes more. I discovered she had transplanted her life to be
with the man she married. I said it must've been difficult to leave her family and
friends, and adjust to the new life and new location with her husband. She shyly
replied "Yes," and looked away. I could see it was a difficult subject for her.
Almost instantly, thereafter, she began weeping in the club and crying on my
shoulder.
A woman I barely knew more than 10 or 15 minutes, and we began talking about
life and love, as the dance music raged in the background. We were both
oblivious to the sound and the crowd, as we engaged in an incredibly deep
conversation about life. Here we were, two random strangers crossing paths,
both expecting to just go out to have fun and enjoy drinking and music and
dancing for the night. And yet it was one of the most interesting experiences we
didn't expect.
We went out a couple days later for some dessert, intending to be friends. Then
we took a romantic stroll along the river (it was her idea). As we sat near the
river on some empty chairs in the late summer night, we talked about our lives,
our dreams, and our childhood.
In some ways I could see similarities with her personality to mine, although our
childhoods were so different. She came from a military family with strict
conservative values and good parents, but they didn't really show affection as she
grew up. Like me, it had made her seek and crave affection and love from
another.
I told her that I had discovered no matter how many people love you or really
liked you, the emptiness and hole in our heart can never be filled by the love and
affection of another. I had been trying my whole life to fill the emptiness and
hole in my heart to replace the missing love of my biological mother - with
hundreds of girls and women. It never filled. No matter how much they loved
me, or how many loved me, or even if everyone thought I was amazing or
whatever.
She asked me, “What will fill the hole?” And I replied, “I don't know.” I've been
searching for this answer my whole life. It's the reason why my marriage failed.
It's the reason why all my relationships failed, as I always did something to
sabotage every relationship, or got bored of them. Nothing was ever enough.
Page 76
And as she wept some more, and as I held her tightly in my arms in the darkness
of the warm summer air, I couldn't help but wonder what would ultimately fill
this hole in my heart?
Every heart has some hole that needs to be filled. Some bigger than
others. Some more impactful to our lives than others. But EVERY
person is broken to some degree. And finding out what holes we have
in our hearts due to childhood experiences, lack of love by people we
needed it from, or broken relationships that shattered our faith in
people or love, is tough. Trying to figure out how to fill those holes is
even tougher.
But in reality, if we want to fill the holes in our heart, it has to come
from within. Nobody in this world can plug the holes forever. It's
only when we realize that these holes exist, and we stop searching for
external fillers, do we begin to heal. Outside solutions always end up
as fleeting and temporary - whether the external filler is the love or
affection from another person, drugs or alcohol, our obsession with
careers, or other distractions.
Only when we stop trying to fill the hole, we find that the hole can
finally start a process of self healing and fill itself.
In some way we both fell in love with each other that summer night. You can't
stare deep into a soul of another person and not fall in love when you connect like
that.
We spent the night together and I will always remember her. On the one hand, I
felt ashamed because I violated my own personal rule about being with a married
girl. But in some strange way, while it violated my moral code, what we did and
the intimacy we shared may have helped transform our lives to some degree. I
don’t regret what happened.
Sometimes we can learn about life in the strangest of circumstances, with the
most unexpected people.
My First Love
Page 77
The first time I ever kissed a girl was in second grade. And I hated it. I was nonsexually molested by a first grader. Her name was April. She was really cute.
But I didn’t like girls yet (and no, I didn’t like boys either, for the smartasses.
LOL).
April chased me down during recess and pinned me to the ground, and then
proceeded to molest my lips with her icky girl lips as she sat on top of me. She
was younger than I was, but she was still bigger (not fat). I had no idea April
even liked me, not that I would have even noticed at that age.
Later when I was in high school, after I transferred to the public high school my
senior year, April came up to me randomly and asked, “Do you remember me?”
We hadn’t seen each other for years, so I didn’t recognize her. She said, “I kissed
you in second grade!” “Ahhhhh!” as I remembered. (Recall I had skipped 3rd
grade earlier, so we were now in the same class.) She had grown into an
incredibly beautiful girl. She was hot. We became friends and hung out a few
times. We went to a couple parties together and watched porn at her house
together. We drank brandy at her house. It was my first taste of brandy and it
felt like my throat was on fire. She just wanted to tease me for some reason and
we never went beyond that. It was torture because she was incredibly hot.
I could never figure out what her motive or deal was. Every time she would look
at me with those big brown eyes, she had that look like she was in second grade,
wanting to molest me again. Except now, when I actually wanted her to kiss me
and molest me, she was playing coy and only teased me with her seductive eyes
and short skirts. I discovered girls are indeed mysterious.
No, she wasn’t my first love...
My high school sweetheart, Valerie, was the first girl I ever loved. As I look back
now, it seems more tantamount to puppy love than the deep love I felt later in life
on several occasions. But it was still an amazing experience and feeling of
euphoria.
We met in class during my senior year. She was beautiful and sweet; really a nice
innocent girl. Valerie was blond, with beautiful long flowing hair and tantalizing
blue eyes. She was petite, but with curves in all the right places. We dated most
of my senior year and part of my first year in college.
Valerie came from a well-to-do family and she was the only child. But she was
well grounded. She was far more cultured than I was!
Page 78
Valerie was valedictorian of our high school and the drum major leading the
marching band. I always thought she looked hot on the football field during half
times, dressed in her sexy uniform and twirling a big stick up in the air. We
shared many of the same advanced placement classes. I used to constantly joke
that even though she was valedictorian, we both knew I was smarter. She never
argued it. She studied hard and was a driven girl academically. I just always got
by with the least amount of work to get good grades, always cramming last
minute only, never paid attention in class, studied far less than she did, and still
almost always got better test grades than her. It would always piss her off that
she studied so much harder and I would still get a better test score.
I remember on our prom night, she had made a beautiful pink dress. She looked
incredible. I borrowed my parents Buick for the big date, since it was nicer than
my car. After partying with our friends, Valerie and I went to our remote
countryside hangout and parked the car. It's amazing how much hot air and
steam two teenagers can muster on a hot summer night. The inner windows were
thick with fog and condensation. The next morning, I remember my family
asking how the prom went. I said, "Ahh, it was ok. Valerie and I just had a quiet
night afterwards." Of course, little did I know, the inside of the car and windows
looked like I had driven it into a swamp with the windows partially open. When
my family pointed out the state of the car, I felt a bit stupid and embarrassed. My
parents never let me borrow the car again.
I still think about Valerie occasionally when I reminisce, especially when I hear
the song of the same name, every now and again.
We broke up during our first year in college. It was one of the best things that
ever happened to me. If we hadn't, I would have never discovered true love and
the meaning of life. And my life trajectory would have been completely different.
During high school I didn't take much of anything too seriously. I just knew I
needed to go to college and move away from the small town. It was never me. I
always dreamed about living in a major city, and I was obsessed with LA. I
followed all the LA sports teams.
As I look back, it's amazing how little I knew about myself, about life and about
the world during my teenage years. My God! It still shocks me to think how
naive and sheltered I was back then. Completely clueless. Of course, like most
teenagers, I thought I knew everything about anything. It must be an incredible
Page 79
thing to be a parent of a teenager. To know more, and know what's better for
your child, but not being able to control or guide them all the time because of
their obstinance. How in god’s name all parents don't kill their own teenage
children is beyond me (uhhh, this really is sarcasm).
True Love, My First Marriage
I met Christina the first day of classes in
college. She sat two rows in front of me and
one row to the right in my political science
course. I, of course, sat near the back of the
room so I could mindlessly enjoy
distractions and observe people. We ended
up sharing a number of different classes
together as she was a physics major and I
was pursuing a degree in electrical
engineering.
The first time I saw her, my eyes instantly lit
up like a Las Vegas slot machine that had
just hit the jackpot. Christina was tall
(almost the same height as me at 5’10”),
petite with great curves, and a really
beautiful blond girl. She had legs that stretched for miles, like an Arizona desert
two-lane highway. Her blond hair flowed long like a gentle stream layering over
her smooth lily-white skin. I later discovered she was actually pretty smart. And
it was all wrapped together nicely with a warm and endearing personality
anybody could’ve fell in love with. I never forgot the moment I first saw her in
that class. We were both barely 18. It’s still as fresh as the smell of air on a
sunny, opening spring day.
We became great friends. I was still dating Valerie at the time, although she had
moved away to Berkeley for school. Christina and I spent so much time together
as friends. My heart raced every time she was near.
Recall earlier, I talked about my spiritual awakening and my bizarre experience
as a “born-again” Christian. Well, shortly after this moment, Valerie and I broke
up. We had different priorities in life I think. My life refocused on church and
helping others. Christina, through all of this radical transition in my life, stuck
Page 80
with me as a close friend and more, even drawing us closer together. She would
go to church and Bible study with me all the time. I think she did this, not out of
fervent belief like me, but she just wanted to be together and support whatever I
did. Christina was always selfless and caring like that. She began to see a
different side to me, a far more compassionate and loving/caring side toward
people.
I dated a few other girls after Valerie. One girl I dated briefly was a girl named
Jill. She was 17, and still a senior in high school, but we were only a year apart in
age. Jill was a really pretty and very petite blond girl, with the most beautiful
deep blue eyes. She had long straight blond hair. A bit shy and quiet. (Up until
the age of 25, I only dated blond girls, exclusively. It was a strange personal
preference. Until one day I discovered, Holy Shit! Brunettes and black haired
girls are beautiful too!)
I remember one day, Jill's parents - who were very open minded and progressive
- had been away for the weekend. She invited me to come over to spend the day.
We were in her bedroom, completely naked and enjoying intimately exploring
each other’s bodies as teenagers. Suddenly! Her parents made an unexpected
return! Her mother first walked into her room and saw that we were in an
embarrassing position, completely nude. Seconds later, her father came in and
witnessed nearly the same thing, but with our faces covered in shock and shame.
Surprisingly, I stayed for dinner with her family that evening. We didn’t utter a
word to each other at the table, as we all quietly ate dinner her mother had
prepared. After dinner, I quietly got up and began to wash all the dishes in
silence - a non-verbal apology, especially to her father. Shortly after dinner I left
to go to my home. This had been one of my most bizarre and embarrassing
moments of my short life. But Jill and I continued to date and see each other for
a little while. She was a really sweet girl.
Not too long after Valerie and I had broken up, and still in the wake of the Jill
adventure, Christina and I began to date romantically. It had been quite obvious
to all our mutual friends that we liked each other far more than friends all along.
As friends, I had told Christina about the Jill experience. I’m not sure that was
such a wise thing to share, even as friends.
Christina was an amazingly perfect girlfriend. We had always enjoyed being with
each other as we were very close friends. Our compatibility was just easy and
comfortable like Jello. She was so incredibly thoughtful, warm and loving. I
could trust her without question. This was the first true love of my life, even if it
started as a special friendship.
Page 81
We both lived with our parents still during the early part of our college days. So,
we would often go out into the countryside in our car for a night time romantic
excursion. Or just take a blanket, and go to one of our favorite spots along the
river to be intimate.
One time, we had parked her car deep in the middle of an open field to make love.
About 30 minutes in, suddenly a bunch of police sirens started blaring, rapidly
dashing toward us. They were coming to search our car, scaring the holy-livingshit out of both of us. But me more so. I suddenly jumped into the front seat,
still naked, and began to drive the car frantically away from the police. After
some minutes of this pathetic getaway attempt and ensuing chase, the police cars
triangulated me. I stopped. Still naked. Christina had managed to at least cover
herself somewhat in the backseat, while I was recklessly driving to escape the
embarrassment. The police approached her car and saw that I was naked, and
she was half naked, to which they shockingly turn their heads away.
Apparently, recently there had been a number of thefts nearby, and this field had
been the meeting point of the criminals. So the police had prepared a stakeout in
anticipation of nabbing the crooks. Fortunately, one of the police officers
recognized Christina. The police chief knew her father. He let us go, and
assured us he would not let her dad know about the incident. Her father
would’ve killed me, I’m sure. He was a big man and fond of guns. The first time I
shot a pistol was when he wanted to teach me target practice with one of his
handguns.
We got married two years after we met. Both of us were 20 years old; far too
young to know better, too stupid and inexperience with life to care. Nobody ever
warned me that maybe I was too young to get married. We had a beautiful,
modest wedding at her neighbor’s house which stood at the edge of a bluff,
overlooking the landscape below. My brother and my best friend from high
school, and some college friends were my groomsmen. I remember all the men at
the wedding telling me how lucky I was to find such a beautiful and amazing girl.
And she really was.
We were poor students when we got married. We both worked to get ourselves
through college. It was sometimes difficult. But our marriage was good. I don’t
remember any significant fights and there was always intimacy and love in our
marriage. We made love every day, as I can remember, often multiple times of
course. Hell, we were both in our early twenties and had no money to go out
often.
Page 82
After graduation, I moved to the Bay Area to work in the technology sector. As an
engineer, this is where I knew I had to be to have any meaningful career. At the
time she was working for the university for one of the prominent professors in
her field. She had changed her major to anthropology a few years prior to
graduation. I supported her on that change but it was obvious that, being so
young and immature, this was the first fissure that began to separate us and
caused us to grow apart. Her friends and colleagues were very different minded,
more granola types who didn’t necessarily care about how they looked or dressed.
The stereotypical liberal academics. I was a conservative capitalist and practical
minded engineer. I liked them. They were good people. But Christina and I
started to grow apart. I didn’t make a mature and strong enough sustained effort
to adapt to her new career direction and circle of friends.
Once, I went on an anthropological dig to excavate some ancient Woolly
Mammoths that had been recently discovered. We camped out for a few days,
but the timing couldn’t have been worse. It rained all weekend. It was cold, wet
and muddy. Generally miserable conditions. And not much digging or
excavating was able to be done. But it was still fun. Her liberal friends were real
genuine people and charming in their own way.
Christina was so devoted to trying to make the marriage work. She was amazing.
Much more mature than I was, and really a far better person than I was as well.
Once she had a job in Stockton, California, during the time we lived in Fresno.
She would drive every day for 2 hours each way to work and come home to see
me that night. After I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, and she remained in
Fresno for her job at the university, she would drive nearly every weekend for 2-3
hours each way to spend time together. We did this long distance relationship for
about 6 months, before she finally decided to move so we could be together more
often. Long distance marriages are exceedingly difficult, especially when we are
so young and immature as I was back then in my early twenties.
During the 6 months I was living alone, I started to go out with work friends to
drink every night and party. I didn’t handle the sudden change from a poor
college student to suddenly making income upwards of $70 - $80 thousand
dollars upon graduation (this is in the early 1990s! which was the equivalent of a
very high six figure salary today or double the number).
By this time, I had long since abandoned and renounced religion. I was relatively
lost in my life, outside of my marriage and Christina - who largely gave me my
identity. I began a pursuit of hedonism and partying, looking to just have fun.
Page 83
I never cheated on Christina, however. I was always faithful to her throughout
our marriage.
After 5 years into our marriage, our relationship had lost some intimacy (mostly
due to my immaturity and lack of direction in my life). It was still a good
marriage, by and large. I was so curious about life suddenly, as this new world
opened my eyes in ways I had never thought about. I grew up in a small town,
isolated and sheltered. I had never had been outside the country (except Korea
where I was born, but too young to remember). Suddenly, I became exposed to
international travel, and people and cultures from all over the world in the
diverse Bay Area. And I started to realize, I didn’t know much of anything in this
life. And I had been exposed to so little and experienced so little. I began to
want more, to not be content with what I had.
One day, Christina and I were talking and enjoying our time together as always.
But I quietly asked her, what do you think about a trial separation? It was a
strange conversation, but she clearly saw that something had changed in our
relationship, and noticed I had become somewhat confused about our marriage.
She said ok, and we continued to hug and spend time together. We both always
enjoyed being next to each other and just spending time. Months later, she
admitted, she thought I would quickly realize what an amazing thing I had with
her and would come back quickly. She was beautiful, smart, and really an
incredibly great wife.
During our separation, I continued my life of partying and going out nearly every
night of the week. In a way, this was the first time in my life where I was truly
independent and got to live my life. It was exhilarating for me. Often Christina
would call me after midnight, after I had gone to the bars, to see if I wanted to
come over and spend the night together. We would make love, and in a strange
way, it seemed as if nothing had changed in the moments we were together. It
was almost like I was living a dual life. On the one hand, the life of a single man,
partying and dating girls occasionally, and, on the other hand, still spending time
together with my separated wife, making love, and seemingly like nothing had
changed.
After 6 months of this dual life, Christina began to realize that maybe I wouldn’t
come back, and that perhaps it really was time for her to move on too. She told
me she cried a lot. When she started dating another guy, I became a bit jealous.
Finally, one day, when she told me she was going away with her boyfriend for the
weekend, a sudden surge of uncontrollable jealousy flooded me. It was a point of
Page 84
realization that our marriage was truly coming to an end, and that I was really
going to lose her forever. I finally, for the first time, cried and realized I wanted
her back.
There is a huge difference between wanting someone because you don't want
someone else to have them, versus wanting them back because you can't live
without them.
I don’t recall if she went on that weekend getaway with her new boyfriend. We
made love one last amazing time together sometime later. And that was the end
of our marriage.
She did some hurtful acts to expose her own pain she had experienced. And
while they were pretty big - we lost our house we owned in Fresno and had been
renting out because she intentionally stopped paying the mortgage, and didn't tell
me out of anger; she destroyed my credit out of spite, and maxed out every credit
card which I had recently fully paid off before my 5 week business trip to South
Korea.
Yes it angered me, but I really only blamed myself. I was far more responsible for
this failed marriage, by about a factor of 100. I understood her anger and hurt. I
was young and immature. In retrospect, we should have never married so early
in life. Christina was an amazing girl, an even better wife, and my best friend.
The loss hurt deep.
After a few years, the emotions subsided and we managed to stay in touch
occasionally. She remarried and has a beautiful daughter, whom she sent me
some photos of. She reminds me of Christina in some ways. I couldn’t have been
happier for her. In the end, we both realized this had been the right decision for
both of us. We had always been great friends. We fell in love. But it was just the
wrong time for us. We were married 5 years and together for a total of 7.
Marriage is such an important thing; a lifelong commitment to
someone. Mental maturity is so important to making this type of
relationship work, and also maintaining happiness in the
relationship, and in life.
Giddy-Up! Plowing Fields and Sowing Oats
Page 85
After my divorce, my life became even more hedonistic. I had a great friend
named Connie. We used to hang out all the time (just friends, although everyone
thought we were an item together).
Coincidentally, she texted me out of the blue recently as she had just gone
through a divorce herself and wanted to get back together or meet for travel,
implying more than friendship. We had many great times together as friends.
One time, I carried a heavy non-flat screen TV (this was the 90s before LCD TVs)
downstairs to my room so we could both lay in bed to watch porn together and
make fun of the acting. Like every opposite sex close friendship, it was plutonic,
laced with some attraction and sexual tension. I used to have a silly immature
saying I told her all the time - that my goal in life was to “proliferate my
fornication.” It used to crack her up and she would always remind me about it,
even years later. If this isn't the pinnacle of hedonism, I don't know what is. It
was about a stupid of a saying as anyone can utter. Yes, I was still mentally like
18 years old.
For 3 years I was single and partied nearly every night, including workdays. I
can’t even try to assess how much money I spent on drinking and partying,
somewhere in the six figure range for sure.
One of the favorite stories I recall was when I met a really cute blond girl at a club
one night. A few nights later she came over to my house. Like most girls I’ve
been intimate with (that didn’t turn into any long term relationship), I don’t even
recall her name, sadly.
At the time, I was renting a huge house on the hills with 3 other roommates. It
was an absolutely beautiful near-mansion with 4 bedrooms, 6 decks and an
incredible view of the South Bay. It was great for parties and having girls over as
a single man. I had weekly parties. Every Thursday I hosted a dinner party with
my close friends. They were mostly dinner, followed by getting drunk and just
being silly kind of parties. Occasionally, we would throw a massive party with
hundreds of people. The police would inevitably show up at some point and I
would act responsible for a few minutes, and assure them we would get the noise
under control. Keep in mind the closest neighbors were a couple hundred feet
away, so the noise was pretty loud.
Before there were mobile phones, it was difficult to get a hold of someone. So it
was nice that one of the roommates was a kind of introverted girl who didn't like
to go out often. So, she would always take down my messages and when I came
Page 86
home she would joke, “Oh, another girl called for you” and relay the message.
Sometimes she would walk around in shorts and, admittedly, she kinda had a
nice figure. Once in awhile, when I was really drunk, I would think for a moment,
"I should have sex with her!" Then sanity would return again. She was a really
nice girl from upstate New York.
It’s hard to imagine life without mobile phones nowadays! But I digress...
Anyway, getting back to the story, this cute young blond girl comes over to my
house on our first date (I picked her up at her house). We started drinking a
bottle of wine and listening to music. Then eventually we moved to the bedroom
and began to get intimate. She was 21 and had such an amazing body.
Well at the time, I had become addicted to one specific brand of nasal spray. In
the 1990s, we could still smoke in bars and clubs, and following my divorce, I had
started smoking occasionally. The thick cloud of indoor smoke made it difficult
for me to breathe easily through my nasal passage, so I began inhaling this over
the counter spray repeatedly. I used it all the time. This was before anyone told
me that long term usage of this spray was really bad for you.
In the course of making love, my nose - for the first time! - suddenly began to run
continuously, for no reason at all, as if I had a bad case of the flu virus. The
timing couldn’t have been worse. I would try to wipe my nose discretely during
sex on the bed sheets, or in her beautiful blond hair (without her knowing). But
after repeatedly doing this, I realized every time my nose was running, my
erection would disappear! After about a dozen cycles of this, the blond girl got
sexually frustrated and demanded to be taken home. While I was driving her
home, still embarrassed, I comically begged her to give me another chance to
prove myself. "I can perform!! I swear!!!" I exclaimed. She was not amused and
not interested in any second chances. I never heard from her again. But I still
laugh about this sometimes.
During my hedonistic mid-twenties, I was sometimes a complete ass. I regret
many of my behaviors due to my immaturity.
Once I met a kindergarten school teacher who was 23. She was short, but cute
and had a nice body. But she wasn’t gorgeous enough for what I called “primetime”, such as Thursday - Saturday. So every Monday we would meet. And I
used to joke to her, "You’re my Monday night girl,” implying she wasn’t good
enough for a weekend night. Again, really an ass statement. We would meet at
my house and have regular sex. At some point, she finally concluded that this
Page 87
isn’t really a relationship. One night she came over, dressed sexy as hell, and
suddenly this time during sex she was just really different and freaky. She
wanted to do things she never would before. Of course, as a man, I approved and
happily went along!
At the end of the sex, she was being really,
uncharacteristically dirty (which I loved), and begged me to put it in her mouth
and cum, teasing, “I haven’t ate all day.” Well, I certainly wanted to do my part to
eliminate hunger in this world.
She gave me one of the most amazing finishes. I was full of smiles and exhausted.
She looked at me and asked, “Am I still just a Monday night girl?” I replied back,
"No baby, you’ve graduated to Tuesday." I never heard from her again after than
amazing night. It was her way of getting back at me for all the insensitivity,
leaving me, but only after showing me what I was going to miss. I think idiots
learn faster than I did when I was younger.
My god, there are hundreds and hundreds of amazing and crazy fun times as I
look back at my life. Most I had completely forgotten about until I started to
think back recently to assess my life.
I would often do the most ridiculous things. On a number of occasions at a bar I
would just walk up to a hot blond or brunette, and within seconds, just ask if I
could touch her breasts or ass. And smile of course (the magic key to any
kingdom is a friendly, disarming smile). The vast majority of the time they would
say ok, shockingly. Occasionally, they would actually lift their shirt and just show
me. This wasn't Mardi Gras where this behavior is expected. (And by the way, I
love New Orleans. Definitely one of my favorite cities.)
I never understood why girls always seemed to trust me and think I was
harmless. I swear, I could get away with just about anything! I could convince a
girl to do just about anything. It was amazing. I still, even now, shake my head
in disbelief at my life.
I would always boast about how I had never been slapped by a woman in my
entire life (which is true), no matter how bad or offensive I was. I told everyone,
it's because I just flash an innocent smile at them and they just think I was joking.
I used to have a friend named Nigel. We hung out with a small group of friends
frequently. Nigel was always a negative and dark man, but sometimes quite
funny. For some reason he really seemed to hate girls (he wasn't gay). And for
whatever reason women seemed to get a bad vibe from him and didn't seem to
like him. He would often say something funny, yet cruel, to girls at the bar Page 88
sometimes for no reason. I never understood it because I was always a positive
and girl-loving person.
One time, just for shits and giggles, I decided I would try Nigel’s act at the bar to
see if I could get slapped. So, when a pretty girl approached later, I said
something offensive, something like: “You're kind of a pretty girl, but your ass
looks really fat in those jeans.” I smiled after uttering these offensive words and
looked her in the eyes. She looked at me, angry and shocked. Puzzled. She
looked at Nigel, still angry, even though he was just standing and observing.
Then, she looked at me again, but turned to Nigel, and then slapped Nigel - hard!!
Nigel exclaimed, "Why did you slap me? I'm not the one who said it!!" The girl
replied "I know" and walked away angrily. OMG that was so incredibly funny,
especially given the backdrop of Nigel's personality. I was just rolling with
laughter at the bar. It still makes me laugh every time.
There were a lot of stupid moments during my 20s; some incredibly irresponsible
moments. But one of the activities I often did during winters was go
snowboarding with friends in Lake Tahoe, about a 4 hour drive from the San
Francisco Bay Area. Sometimes we would just make a day trip, wake up super
early and drive all morning, snowboard all day, then drive back late night. Nearly
a 24 hour round trip sometimes.
One weekend, a bunch of friends decided to rent a cabin next to one of the ski
resorts for the entire weekend. The responsible kids drove up early Friday night.
However, that weekend, my good friend Adam and I decided we first needed to
go to our friend’s house party in San Francisco first, then drive up late Friday
night to meet with everyone. We spent all Friday afternoon hanging out in the
city with some friends, drinking and doing random shit. Later in the evening, we
headed to our friend Vince’s house to drink and party some more. After being
completely intoxicated and losing track of time, we realized, holy shit, we need to
leave!
This was one of the more idiotic things I’ve done in my life. We had already
packed our snowboarding gear and clothes in my SUV, so late Friday night we
finally start our road trip, not in a condition to be driving (stupidly). It took us an
hour just to get out of San Francisco because I kept getting lost and couldn’t find
the exit to the highway; I was drunk and in no condition to be driving. As we
made our way into the mountains a couple hours later, the snow was coming
down pretty heavy. I was still highly intoxicated and in no condition to be driving
anywhere, let alone in the mountains with 1,000 foot cliffs only a few feet from
away.
Page 89
Adam had passed out in the passenger seat with his seat fully reclined, snoring
like a goddamn lumberjack with an amplifier plugged to his mouth. I was going
too fast, especially for the heavy snowy conditions (at least 60-70 MPH).
Somehow I lost control of my SUV and the car began to spin uncontrollably on a
2 lane highway, high in the mountains. Fortunately the road was completely
empty in the late hour. My car spun completely around once. Then it spun
around again. A full 720 degrees of spin. I was shitting my pants and nearly saw
my life flash before my eyes. Somehow, my car ended up perfectly on the road, in
the same lane, miraculously still going perfectly straight as if on auto pilot and if
nothing had happened. It was pure random luck or perhaps God looking out for
me, because I have no idea how I survived that near accident. Adam, feeling
something had happened, suddenly awoke and sat straight up in his chair and
exclaimed, “What happened?!!!” Nearly filled with toxic shit in my pants, and
still in shock, I calmly said, “You don’t want to know. Go back to sleep.” I was
petrified with fear.
We finally made it into Lake Tahoe and began looking for the cabin. It took us
nearly 6 hours to arrive, when normally it would’ve been a 4 hour journey. I was
simply happy to be alive. Adam woke up and we began driving around looking
for the cabin near the ski resort. We drove round and round, tired, still drunk. I
finally said, I’m going to just park the car and go to sleep for 30 minutes and we’ll
look for the cabin when the sun comes up. We both passed out in my car. It was
freezing outside and inside the car as well. Suddenly, a man starts knocking on
my window in the early morning. It was our good friend Jason who had come
outside to walk his dog. Jason asked curiously, “Why you guys sleeping in the
car? The cabins right in front of you!” We had parked, purely by accident and
unknowingly, directly 10 feet in front of the cabin we had been searching for all
night. So we made our way into the house and met everyone, then went directly
to the slopes to snowboard all day. It was an awesome day on the mountain. The
snow was fresh powder and just amazing. After boarding all day, we went out
that night to party some more in Tahoe.
When we’re young, we feel invincible, believing subconsciously that death is
something that only happens to old people. It’s amazing how much stupidity and
dangerous behavior we endure.
I recall one time, my friends and I decided to go out to the bar to see how much
we could spend on drinking - just normal shots, beer and cocktails. Nothing
exotic or fancy. I was with my really good friend Adam and 3 others. I think we
ended up drinking somewhere between $1500 to $2000 of alcohol at $5 to $6 a
Page 90
pop! If you do the math, it doesn't seem possible given how many drinks that is
per person. We were so irresponsible back then. Somehow, I never got a DUI
(drunk driving) - so fortunate and lucky, always.
I look back at some of my moments of irresponsibility and imagine, if somehow
my luck had ran out, how it could've changed my life or some innocent person's
life permanently. In the blink of an eye, our lives can be irreversibly changed.
Stupidity is never a good alibi and can't undo the accidental killing of some
unlucky innocent person.
Kinda Growing Up and Moving On
After several years of living this empty, hedonistic lifestyle, pursuing anything
and almost everything (except serious drugs) to make me happy, I finally decided
to move away from the San Francisco Bay Area and move to Seattle. It was a
purely random choice, as I had never been there and didn’t know much about it,
except for the fact that one of my friends, Eric, had grown up there and raved
about it.
So I began searching for companies and jobs there. I found a semiconductor
company headquartered in San Jose, but with a satellite office in Seattle. Perfect.
I applied, interviewed and got the job.
Concurrent to all of this, I was working for a company called Applied Materials (a
multi-billion dollar large technology company that makes very expensive
equipment to manufacture semiconductors or microchips). It was another down
turn market cycle and as a result, company-wide layoffs were coming. After
Human Resource had met with all the affected people that were going to lose
their jobs, one of my marketing colleagues who worked for the same manager as I
did, discovered he would lose his job. He had a wife and small children. I had
survived another layoff round although I never worried about them. (I must have
endured as many as 20 rounds of layoffs during my 20 year career and
fortunately had never lost my job due to layoffs. The semiconductor industry is
notorious for severe up and down cycles, and during bad years there would
sometimes be multiple rounds of layoffs.) But I had already decided I was going
to move to Seattle and the new job offer was pending (not 100% but nearly), so I
met with the General Manager of the division and convinced him to lay me off
instead of my co-worker and save the job of my co-worker who had a family to
Page 91
support. My GM reluctantly agreed. He didn’t want to lose both marketing
people.
It worked out beautifully. I got nearly 6 months of pay in a lump-sum severance
package for the layoff. Then when I formally accepted my new job, I got another
sizable 5-figure relocation lump sum payment.
It seemed all the stars were aligned for this move to Seattle.
Seattle is an amazingly beautiful city, in those rare moments the sun accidentally
gets lost and makes an appearance. If you're addicted to sun, you may want to
avoid it. If you have porous skin, steer clear. If you have chronic dry skin, you'll
cut down on your Walgreens bill for lotion. You'll need the household budget
savings for the increased shampoo allowance.
Summer in Seattle is absolute paradise for one or two months a year. The
remaining ten or eleven months of the year, galoshes and raincoats, umbrellas
and coffee are quite trendy.
The year I moved to Seattle in 1998, from the moment I arrived, it started
raining. (Remember, the only reason I picked Seattle was because my friend Eric
raved of a Paradise north of California, the Emerald city of Seattle.) And the next
day it rained. And then the entire first week. Followed by the next week. Which
quickly rounded out the month. Then flip the calendar page and repeat. Then do
it again for another page.
I felt like Forest Gump. Instead of "He was Runnin'!" It was more like "It was
Rainin'!" An entire year of goddamn rainin'.
It didn't stop raining for more than 90 straight days when I first arrived!! Then it
paused briefly, perhaps 24 hours. I suppose God had to take down the heavenly
sprinklers for maintenance. Then God put the horror movie back in again on
repeat in the VHS machine.
It was the infamous year of El Niño, the name seemingly more suitable for a
tortilla and salsa party than a weather system in the Pacific. Goddamn El Niño
kicked my ass! And I was left wondering, "WTF have I done?" leaving sunny
California for this shit?
Shockingly! And comically - in a deeply disturbing and ironic way - Eric's parents,
who were lifelong natives of Seattle, decided to relocate to warmer and drier
Page 92
climate that year. It was THAT dreary. Boy, sometimes my timing couldn't be
better.
But lemonade tastes beautiful, even in the rain...
I met Tatjana the first day working at
Cypress Semiconductor. I was 28. She
had just graduated from her university in
Washington. She was 22. It was also her
first day. She was so cute, young and
adorable; a really a nice innocent girl.
Plus, she has very nice natural D cup
breasts and a petite body!
On our first day at Cypress I met Tatjana,
along with another new hire named
Daryl. The hiring manager who had helped bring all of us in was also named
Darryl. What is the chance of that?? It was like an orgy of Daryl’s and none of us
were Black! (Although one of my good friends, Mike, jokingly calls me Blasian Black Asian. And for god sakes, you P.C. police, this isn’t racism!! Lighten up.)
People often think I’m Black because of my first name, until they meet me.
People also think I’m some White English dude because of my last name, until
they meet me. I have a lot of funny interesting work stories of meeting new
people who were expecting someone else. My whole life people used to always
joke and ask “Where’s your other brother Daryl”? This is a reference to the 80’s
TV sitcom called Newhart, which had two redneck characters who would always
introduce themselves as “Hi! I’m Daryl, and this is my other brother Daryl!”
Anyway, again I digress…
Tatjana and I quickly became friends. We moved a few months later to Seattle at
about the same time, as our plans had coincidentally overlapped. We hung out
all the time. Nearly every day we went to lunch together or with other friends.
Often we would have dinner, and on weekends we would go out for drinks or to
clubs while in Seattle.
Tatjana was quite an extraordinary girl. She is the most disciplined, responsible,
moral and goal oriented girl I’ve dated. She came to Washington State as part of
a high school exchange program. When the war broke out in Croatia, her parents
insisted she stay in the U.S.. She enrolled in Gonzaga University on full
scholarship, a private Jesuit school with a good academic reputation and one of
Page 93
the best college basketball programs in the country - go Zags! She taught herself
to completely get rid of any residual English accent within a few years in high
school. And she had adapted to live in the U.S. without a family support
structure, essentially all alone. We connected on an emotional level. There was
always this sense of mutual understanding because of the hardships we faced in
life. We became very close.
We were opposites. She was a genuinely good girl and innocent. I was kinda bad,
but she knew my history and accepted it.
One weekend day, we decided to randomly discover the Seattle suburbs. We
wound up lost on a country road somewhere and found a place near the lake. It
was completely empty and a rather chilly day in Seattle. We sat near the water
on a huge old tree stump that had fallen and looked like it had been there for
decades. The rocks rumbled beneath our feet as we moved and she sat on my lap,
as we quietly watched the amazingly beautiful view. The waters were so placid,
like a mirror to the sky. All around us the lush evergreen pine trees surrounded
us in a loose circular hug. It was a perfect day. One of those rare Seattle
afternoons where the sun was shining and the rain clouds had retired for the day.
It felt like God was smiling on us both.
A strange feeling overwhelmed me, and at that moment, I realized, I loved this
girl. I held her so tight as she sat on my lap, pretending I was shielding her from
the harsh Seattle cold and wind. We both felt something unique. Neither of us
uttered a word, except the tightening grip of our hands and fingers to
acknowledge that we both felt something special. We kissed for the first time.
The cold atmosphere seemed a distant memory. And her lips felt as perfect as the
nature that surrounded us. It was one of the best days of my life.
That night, we went out with a couple other friends in Pioneer Square, the central
hub of clubs and bars in the downtown Seattle area. Tatjana started talking to a
couple guys who were clearly hitting on her, and suddenly, I became quite
jealous, especially after coming to the realization that I loved this girl, although
she didn’t know yet exactly how strong my feelings were for her. So to make her
jealous, I walked up to the bar and started talking to a beautiful girl waiting for a
drink. I got her number and we agreed to go out the next day. Tatjana saw that I
was with another girl and came over to me to ask what I was doing talking with
her. We had a small new-lover’s quarrel.
I never called that girl at the bar. I never cheated on Tatjana the entire time we
were together. During the brief moments in my life when I was single, I was
Page 94
outrageous and crazy, and did pretty much everything I wanted. But I always
thought relationships and love were sacred, and being faithful was important to
me. I expected my partners to be faithful in return. None of the girls in my
serious relationships ever cheated on me, and I feel fortunate about that. I
always trusted them with my life.
Our apartments were only a few miles apart, so we began spending a lot of time
together (even more). I recall the first time we were alone after being “together,”
I begged her not to let me have sex with her for a month, because I didn’t want
our new relationship to be about just sex. I wanted to really fall in love with the
person. Well, we made it about 3 weeks, which was a record for me. Small
victories.
The first six months we were together, spending the night and commuting to
work in the morning, we tried to keep it a secret at work. It was something she
didn’t want to become public gossip at work. I didn't care. But our coworkers
and friends weren’t stupid. They quickly figured it out and it was an ongoing joke
Page 95
in the office. Everybody knew, except Tatjana still thought it was a secret. It was
cute.
We were planning on going to Hawaii for vacation together. The fact that both of
us were taking time off at the same time, and we made up some lame excuse why,
caused a lot of funny gossip and teasing in the office. One day, a fax confirmation
of our vacation reservation was received in the office fax machine. While it was
sitting there, another one of our work friends discovered it. This led to endless
teasing. The cat was finally out of the bag! But it was really amusing before this
point.
One time Tatjana was out of town. I decided to go have a beer with a buddy at a
strip club called Rick’s in Eastside Seattle. I don’t think there’s anything wrong
with the occasional strip tease, even if you have a girlfriend. This place was
awesome and one of the best strip clubs I’d ever been to (I had been there a few
times). After a bit, one dancer walked over to me. She was blond, tall, young
and with #@!! huge breasts. Ridiculously #@!! huge. She had a nice body, not
overweight. She sat down next to me and we started talking. After quite a bit of
time had passed, I agreed to one lap dance and reluctantly donated $20. Then we
talked some more. She told me she was a porn star and had made a number of
films. I was a bit intrigued. Of course, I’m a man, and every man has a fantasy to
have sex with a porn star! At the end of the night, as the club was closing, she
asked me, “Can you drive me home tonight?” Being the gentleman (wink), I said,
“Sure, no problem.” Her house appeared to be on the way home for me anyway.
We were both hungry, so we drove to a burger drive-in place that had pretty tasty
late night burgers. We talked, as we enjoyed our ravishingly delicious late meal.
After eating, I started driving her home. When we arrived at her house, I told her
“Hey, it was really great to meet you”, and gave her a kiss on the cheek.
Surprised, she asked in a puzzled look, “You’re not coming inside?” Fighting an
epic battle against every male hormone raging inside my body that night, I
mustered the strength to calmly say “No, I’m sorry babe. I have a girlfriend.” A
bit shocked, she calmly walked into her house, looking back and giving me a wide
smile.
The next day, curious as George, I found my way to the seedy part of town to
investigate the local adult video store. I asked the clerk if they had a couple titles
she had mentioned. After a few minutes of diligent searching, he came back with
two very graphical porn DVD covers. Low and behold, there she was on the
cover! In full glory (if you know what I mean)! I closed my eyes and visualized
Page 96
kicking my own ass. But in the end, I felt good about doing the right thing. I
loved Tatjana and she was becoming very important in my life.
Besides, later in life, my dream came true (the porn star thing). LOL.
I never told Tatjana about that night.
Not long after, and still pretty early in our relationship, one of the most personal
experiences of my life transpired. In the early part of our sexual relationship, she
didn’t use birth control and I hated condoms. But I always thought I could
control myself during sex. One day, she realized she was pregnant. It was a
devastating shock to both of us. This was always a secret she wanted to keep and
we never told anyone about this because she felt ashamed, being a devout
Catholic.
I was devastated and so scared. We had just been together less than two months
officially. She was so young. I told her it was her decision, and whatever she
decided, I would support her. If she wanted to have the baby, I would try to be
the best father I could be for the child. I wouldn’t abandon her.
I remember calling my good friend Adam at the time, while I was at work locked
in a conference room crying and not knowing what to do. He was the only person
I ever told.
She ultimately decided to have an abortion and I supported her. It was one of the
most personal and tragic experiences of hers and my life. We drove to the clinic
together a few weeks later to have the procedure.
No matter what you believe on the issue of abortion, I can assure you,
the experience is deeply emotional. And the decision isn’t some
simple and clinical objective analysis of the pros and cons. It affects
you the rest of your life, in some way. Even for a man; but far more so
for a woman.
It’s a strange thing. One the one hand, intellectually you can
understand and believe the little organism growing inside the womb
isn’t yet a person, without consciousness. But on the other hand, you
can’t help but to understand, it is only a whisper away from being a
real, live and beautiful child. Your child.
Page 97
This single event forever changed my sex life and love life in a deeply
psychological way. Not in a good way. It still amazes me how potent and strange
our mind and subconscious can be. After this point, climaxing for me became a
real problem. It would usually take me hours, sometimes just impossible. It
didn’t matter how hot the girl was, or how recently I had sex. It didn’t matter if
there was one girl or two or three girls at the same time. No matter how excited I
was sexually, it was difficult. My mind became so terrified of accidentally
impregnating another girl, it dealt with it at the source of the problem! Girls
never believed me that I could have sex for hours, once going for 6 straight hours
(OMG what a finish that was though. LOL), until they actually had sex with me.
When I first start dating a girl, they’re always surprised - and happy. They love it
at first. But after awhile, it becomes a problem in the relationship. Many girls
would start thinking I just wasn’t attracted to them, or didn’t really like them,
becoming insecure about our relationship.
I rarely use condoms when I have sex, even for girls I just met (unless I’m not
sure about the girl, in which case I either don’t have sex, or occasionally, I use a
condom). But even still, it was difficult to climax. With a condom, it’s even more
difficult (plus they just suck). I mentioned before, I was always seeking intimacy,
not just sex. Wearing condoms made me feel like we were just “fucking.” Going
natural felt - physically and emotionally - like we were “making love.” (I know,
I’m crazy.) Most of sex and intimacy really is purely mental.
This psychological impact changed the intimacy in all my relationships from that
moment on.
When Tatjana and I broke up 8 years later, the one thing I will always remember
her telling me was that she wished she had kept the baby. I can’t imagine how
different both of our life trajectories would have been. We would’ve probably
gotten married a few years later. I’m sure I could’ve been happy together with
Tatjana for the rest of my life. It would not have been the same type of love that I
experienced with my ex-wife, whom I believed was my soul-mate. But we could
have been happy.
We got engaged to be married after a couple years together. But ultimately,
despite being together a total of 8 years, minus a brief 1 year hiatus by me, we
never got married. I truly loved her and I always will. But I just knew in my
heart she wasn’t the one for me. All the years, I kept hoping that it would change
and maybe we would finally get married when it felt right.
Page 98
The thing that made me realize she wasn’t the one for me was that, despite loving
her above my own life, I never felt I could just completely be myself around her.
She was conservative. And perhaps more so because of my own perception of
self-restraint, I felt I couldn’t be as silly or outrageous as I naturally am. She
loved who I was, outrageous and all, but I just didn’t feel like I could act this way
around her.
Tatjana was probably the most loving person toward me I ever met. She loved
me no matter what. Whether I was completely broke and unemployed (by my
own choice), she loved me. No matter what I went through in my life, she was
always there waiting for me with open arms and unwavering love. We had a deep
emotional connection, somehow - our vastly separate paths, both of us learning
to rely on ourselves in our childhood for different reasons, created a deep
emotional connection. The two of us meeting was not happenstance, even if our
relationship ultimately didn’t work out.
She never doubted that we would get married and ultimately be together forever.
The day I finally told her that we should end our relationship, was one of the
saddest days of my life. Knowingly breaking the heart of someone whom you love
that much, and who loves you back equally, is painful beyond words, beyond
measure.
Tatjana taught me one of the most important things in my life: how to enjoy the
small things. I learned this just by watching and observing her. How she could
appreciate and enjoy the small things in life, and to see the genuine glow of
happiness it gave her. She was the most non-materialistic person I have ever
known. She is the reason I began to realize just how amazing and beautiful a
simple thing like nature’s flower can be. Or the simple pleasure of a home cooked
meal (I never really cooked before I met her).
She was one of the 3 greatest persons I ever knew. I measure greatness in far
different and meaningful ways than society does - it has nothing to do with fame
or fortune or accolades.
I will always love her.
But, we have to search to find our meaning and our soul-mate in life. We endure
the seemingly endless flow of tears so we can move forward with our lives.
Page 99
Tears: The Rain That Cleanses Our Soul As Well As Our Shoes
Our lives are filled with laughter and tears, happiness and sorrow. The tears are
fewer, but far deeper. Sometimes it’s the loss of a lover or spouse; our children;
our parents; the empty reminder of lives that never came to be.
Everyone appreciates the euphoric moments when we laugh. But few appreciate
the value of tears. But without the tears, there cannot be great appreciation for
laughter and happiness. For it's the difference of the highs and the lows in our
lives that makes us understand and appreciate the truly great moments - the
amazing moments of laughter shared with a friend or lover.
Laughter and tears are the elements that create and strengthen the bonds in
every relationship. But without both, the bonds are fragile and likely to dissolve.
With only laughter there is no depth. With only tears there is no shared positive
association. But taken together they can create the strongest of bonds.
Laughter and tears are the cement and water in our lives that can be
the concrete foundation for our lives, building solid foundations on
which love and friendship can endure.
We should live life and laugh without care. But embrace the tears and
sorrow. Never hold back the tears in our lives. When one stops
crying, the heart is no longer alive because, like the flesh, the heart
needs constant moisture.
I've met a handful of people throughout my life who have told me they don't cry
anymore or rarely cry. I met a beautiful 19 year old girl recently, Kate, who told
me she hasn’t cried in so long she can’t remember.
Every day she would see me walking with a different girl on a date. When I was
alone, we used to meet at the bar she worked and we would joke constantly. She
was a lot of fun. She would often tease me about not having a date that night.
We went out a few times together. She spent the night a couple times. But I
never had sex with her, even though she had the most incredibly perfect dancer’s
body (she had studied dance since she was a little girl). But for whatever reason,
I looked at her more like a friend, and just didn’t feel the urge to be more intimate
than just sleeping together and kissing sometimes.
Page 100
One day she asked me what I was always doing during the daytime. So I told her,
I mostly spent time writing my book about life and philosophy. So she began
opening up to me a little bit.
She was crushed by an ex-boyfriend. She was afraid to trust anyone again.
Usually experiencing a tough situation or being devastated by a boyfriend or
relationship can alter our pain threshold in life. If the pain was unbearable, to
protect ourselves, we sometimes hardened our heart and never let anyone that
close again; to never feel that pain again. We become numb. Sometimes, without
even realizing we made such a significant change in our lives and attitudes
toward others. I think what a shame that is. It is always better to live and be
exposed, and sometimes shed unbearably painful tears, than to live closed and
afraid.
You can't truly love, or really live, without the tears in our lives. It's
the morning dew that brings the flowers of our garden to life every
day; the rain that cleanses our souls; the river that brings life and
nourishes the ecosystem of our lives (relationships), and allows our
existence to flourish.
I’ve cried so many tears in my life, mostly privately during my childhood, as I
grappled to hopelessly cope about my parents and adoption. But even in my adult
life, I’ve had two failed marriages (both my fault). And even when we think we
want to end a marriage, it’s still always painful losing someone who is that close
to you. It’s like losing a best friend and lover, but also losing part of yourself,
knowing you can never get that part of you back again. It hurts, unbearably. But
to close ourselves off, to never allow ourselves to live again, or to love again,
because we are afraid to ever feel that kind of pain is like taking a medicine that’s
worse than the disease itself. And even worse, the medicine doesn’t cure the
disease either.
Don't be afraid to cry; to shed tears of sorrow or joy. They are more
valuable than the laughter in our lives. Tears are the rain that
cleanses our soul. If we hold back the rain, we will never be able to
grow again, and life cannot flourish.
After the pain and tears, how we choose to react to the shit that happens in our
lives is completely our choice. How we let events influence us, and who we
become, is completely up to ourselves. Nobody else. Suffering and pain and
tears are always better than the alternative of cold isolation. Even pain is better
than no feeling at all.
Page 101
Sometimes the most destructive experiences can turn out to be the
regeneration we desperately need in life. Like a devastating forest fire
that purges everything in its path, life can begin anew and heal, as
nature begins its endless cycle of regeneration.
Page 102
Chapter 6. Morality and Religion
“If Men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”
- Benjamin Franklin
Religion is philosophy. It’s about ideas.
Ideas that can help people; that can give
people hope; that can give people a reason
or purpose. But religion can also be our
albatross and the weight that burdens our
soul.
True morality is doing what’s right in the
absence of rules. Religion often just
creates rules, often in the context of
tradition. Morality is independent of
religion. Many will argue that morality is
relative; that it depends on the culture
and values of the local society.
Morality is absolute in a sense, but relative also. So I say morality is absolutely
relative (LOL). Not to be paradoxical, I simply mean that morality is really just
one simple rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. This is universal, and
hence my reference to absolutism. But it is also relative to your belief system.
Killing someone for no purpose is wrong in any culture. Raping a woman should
always be wrong. Being cruel to animals without cause or reason is immoral.
However, in some cultures, having multiple wives or husbands or a sexual
community may be normal and accepted. This can still be moral behavior.
If you don’t like others lying to you, then don’t lie to others. If you
don’t want your wife or girlfriend kissing someone else, or having sex
with another person, then don’t do so yourself. If you don’t want
someone stealing money or possessions from you, then don’t take
Page 103
from others. If you don’t like it when someone injures you without
cause, then don’t harm others without cause. If you don’t like the way
you feel when you know you’ve been cheated, then don’t cheat others.
I believe, even in the absence of good parenting or only being exposed to a poor
culture or society, we can still learn moral values independently. Simply because
we can appreciate how we want to be treated by others. Morality is a reflection of
self. There is no excuse why everybody can’t learn the difference between right
and wrong and moral living.
Of course, we are all just human. We all fail. Of course, we all struggle with
morality. Nobody is perfect and we all err. But even when we err, moral living is
about having the decency and personal desire to want to be different, to change
and improve ourselves as a daily struggle. It is our desire to continuously seek
improvement; to genuinely feel remorse when we fail that makes us moral.
I’m certainly no authority on moral living. I’ve tried to live as moral of a life as I
could according to my view of what is right and wrong. But obviously it was a
daily struggle, as with anyone else. I cheated on my ex-wife, whom I loved more
than life itself. It’s a mystery to me still. We sometimes try to rationalize
immoral behavior by saying things to ourselves like, “Well I was angry at her or
resentful. Or I just didn’t care anymore. Or I was drunk. Or….” But, simply, it
was wrong. But I have to endure the painful consequences, learn and move on as
best as possible.
Religion is simply the abstract or philosophical ideas that people
choose to believe in the presence of incomplete information and lack
of certain proof. Everybody believes in some type of religion, even if
you don't believe in God, per se. If you're Atheist, it's your religion. If
your spiritual and believe in meditation to enhance the soul or spirit,
it's your religion. If you believe only in self, it’s your religion, albeit a
self-serving one.
People laugh at others because they think they have some crazy
religious beliefs. Well, it's all crazy to some extent.
All people truly are the same. Our inherent value is not derived from our physical
attributes. And what we believe to be right or wrong is often based only on our
physical state.
Page 104
People are like the element hydrogen (H); our natural state is to be coupled with
another hydrogen atom. A single hydrogen element is unstable and lonely,
always looking to bond with another, existing in our universe almost entirely as
H2. The soul of a man (or woman) is far more important than the physical
manifestation. If two souls are naturally drawn together, like hydrogen atoms,
then even all the universal forces can’t keep them apart.
If we could just view the world in the spiritual domain - extracted from the
physical existence - it doesn’t matter who those two souls are, whether they’re gay
or heterosexual, young or old, geniuses or morons, rich or poor. Most of our
sense of morality and cultural acceptance is flawed because we view only the
physical reality. Let people love, no matter whom they love; because love is the
only absolute morality.
As discussed in Chapter 5: Understanding Life, the Great Enigma, everybody is
judgmental; it’s a form of validating our own superiority, moral superiority.
Sadly.
A Personal God
First, let me just state that I believe, overall, religion is a strong positive in our
world. By and large, it helps us to be better human beings; to be more
empathetic and less selfish; and contributes mightily to much of the good in our
lives.
I stopped believing in God a long time ago. But I am not an Atheist. I was raised
a Protestant Christian. I hated going to church growing up, but experienced a
spiritual awakening as a “born-again” Christian as an early adult, but later
denounced religion entirely. I’ve been faithfully Agnostic for more than 20 years.
(An Agnostic is someone who basically believes there could be a God but we just
don't or can't know for sure.) So I’ve experienced almost every different
perspective on the religious spectrum.
I guess the only common theme one could conclude is that I’ve been endlessly
searching - for meaning, for purpose, for reason and logic and understanding:
The Pandora’s Box, or Paradox of Life - searching for the unknowable, the
incomprehensible.
Page 105
The primary problem with many religions is that they tend to promote the idea
that there is only one true religion. There is no “one” true religion. Everyone
who believes in a religion seems to think theirs is the one true and right religion.
It sure seems like our world is full of really smart people who know a lot more
than I do. It’s ironic and comical at the same time, considering that the basis of
any religion is faith. And by definition, faith implies uncertainty and a belief in
something without certain proof. So for anyone to presume their religion is the
absolute right one is the most irrational leap of logic ever conceived by mankind.
This intolerance of views is the primary cause of much of the religious evil that
has persisted throughout history. Today, we point the finger at radical Islam. But
not too long ago, Christianity had its fair share of shameful deeds, so cast
judgment cautiously. Any ideological view that is grounded in absolute
intolerance has the potential for tremendous evil.
My secondary problem with most religions is the concept of a “personal god.”
The idea of a personal god is ridiculous, and defies all logic and observation of
reality in my humble opinion. A personal god is an omniscient god who is
intimately aware of every aspect of your life, and one who helps guide us through
this life. Religions which promote the notion of a personal god say, when good
things happen, “Praise God”; and when bad things happen to us, “It’s God’s will”
or “We don’t understand the reason, but it is for our own good.” Christianity and
Islam both preach the idea of a personal god.
In reality, shit happens. God or anyone else has nothing to do with it. It’s life. In
the end, everyone must die and will die. All our loved ones will die, our parents,
our children, our friends. This is a not negative or morbid view; it’s simply reality
and truth. God cannot and does not personally dictate everything that happens
to each of us in a special and planned way. If he did, he is a twisted mastermind
of evil, which I cannot believe.
Fact is, death is as intimately a part of this life as life is. It is intentionally
designed into life. It has nothing to do with God’s will or plan. And death is not
something that should be feared or looked upon as being evil or bad. But we’ll
get to this later in the book in Chapter 13: Life, a Stepping Stone in the River.
The idea that prayer to a personal god can alter the future, or our lives, is an
empty hope. There's nothing wrong with it, except it can prevent us from taking
real action that may actually be able to cause positive change. Prayer can often
Page 106
prevent us from taking personal responsibility and personal actions to make our
situation better.
We can pray for peace. We can pray for God to save a loved one. It may make us
feel better inside, but it will never change anything in reality. I don't discount the
possibility of miracles, as there is far too much we do not know or understand to
say with certainty miracles are not possible. (And by miracles I mean events that
we simply cannot or will not ever be able to explain). But prayer, and the idea of
a personal god creating these miracles, is false hope in my opinion.
We should pray less and take action more. If you want to help people,
give your time and money and heart to helping others - especially the
less fortunate, particularly in developing countries. We can change
the world by what we do, far more than by what we say privately to an
abstract Being.
Prayer is simply a convenient way for us to gratify our sense of
charity, without feeling compelled to actually do anything, or do what
we should. It is lazy humanity.
If you want to love your neighbor, then show it, don't just pray about it.
If prayer truly worked, I assure you everyone in this world would pray
constantly. No convincing would be needed. And this world would be
utopia.
But it is far from utopia. It is often cold and dark and violent, with endless
suffering. Sometimes, in advanced countries like America, we forget just how
brutal real life can be. Our lives are filled with comfort and excess; and want is
not about daily necessities like food or water, but typically which designer shoes
to buy, or what luxury car to purchase. But elsewhere, just getting daily drinking
water to survive, or enough nutrition and food to live is the only thought on the
minds of millions, perhaps, billions of people. Action will make a difference, not
merely empathy and prayer.
Don't misconstrue my positive overall view of religion. It can be a powerful tool
for us to cope with the harsh reality of this life. It can bring hope and positivity,
and a sense of community to people. But so often, religion prevents us from
doing what we really should do.
Page 107
As long as it's a positive and peaceful religion, it can be positive for humanity and
we should embrace the freedom of religion, not just in a political context, but in a
cultural and personal context - by truly respecting other's religious views.
But the idea that God created humans to worship him is about as
absurd of a concept as I can imagine. If a God we worship is truly
omniscient, or as advanced as He must be to create life and
everything around us, or all powerful and eternal, His need to receive
our worship and adoration is tantamount to humans needing the
adoration of ants. Would we even give a shit if a colony of ants
decided to worship us and thought of us as god? I certainly wouldn't
give a shit.
We should respect and admire any entity that is so much superior to ourselves, if
one truly exists. But worship is a leap too far.
Too often, religion personifies God as human, with human characteristics and
flaws - showing emotion: love, anger, retribution, sadness, joy, and jealousy. I
would hope God is far from human, and less encumbered by irrational emotion
as we are. From the Ancient Greek gods, to the Mayans, and Inca tribal religions,
to Christianity and Islam, and beyond, most religions personify god with mostly
human traits but simply more powerful. If anything, this is evidence enough that
religion was concocted by humans to create hope and overcome the sense that we
are alone in this vast universe; to instill a sense of meaning and purpose in our
lives; and to believe in something intangible beyond ourselves.
This does not mean God does not exist!
The intent of religion is positive, but too often we let religion control
us, and we become enslaved to the doctrine or ideology. Many people
will use this fact to oppose religion or dismiss all religions entirely,
which I believe is even more fatal and dangerous.
People can use a knife for many things. 99.999% of the time it is constructive and
essential - from saving lives during surgery to cooking our meals. Sometimes
people use knives for bad - to kill or injure another innocent person. But we
shouldn't make knives illegal or consider them evil or bad. As with all things in
this life, religion has both good and bad aspects. We must embrace the good, and
endeavor to rid our world of the bad - constantly.
Page 108
An All Powerful God
Many, perhaps most religions, assume that God is all powerful and can do
anything. He is often all knowing, omniscient. Perfect.
But perhaps, even He isn’t perfect; perhaps even He isn’t all knowing. Perhaps,
even He can’t fix any problem, small or large.
I don't know any engineer who can design something that lasts forever, and never
makes a mistake. Death is part of an imperfect design, due to mathematically
predictable DNA replication errors that allow us to both survive against diseases
through mutation and adaption, but also creates diseases and ultimately death.
And yet we hold our idealistic notion of a perfect God who can wield the wand of
life and death, prevent and cure diseases, erase sorrow and suffering created by
mankind, and somehow force humans to stop acting like humans bent on
constant destruction and selfishness? We’re like children who make a mess on
the playground and then expect God to clean all our mess up for us because
suddenly we beg him to.
How rational is that?
What is wrong with human beings is that we can only think of the universe in
terms of ourselves. It is our fundamental flaw.
Give God a break. Stop expecting perfection from anyone or anything. It doesn't
exist anywhere in our universe. And just appreciate what you have and the life
we have, however long it lasts. Stop expecting everyone should live until 75 or
100 years old. And that somehow, you should be immune to suffering or loss of
someone you love dearly – a child, a brother or sister, the loss of a parent too
early in life; perhaps a horrific tragedy that stuffed the lives of everyone you
loved.
Everything bad isn't God's fault. And everything good isn't to God's credit either.
Maybe there is a reason for tragedy, maybe there isn’t any reason or logic at all.
But don’t blame God for everything.
I suspect, most likely, whoever helped design all this is flawed just like us
(hopefully less so) and imperfect; but with good intentions. Thank Him for what
we have, and stop blaming Him for everything bad or wrong in our lives and our
world. Almost all of which is chaos we create.
Page 109
Why do people blame God for the decisions that man makes, creating the
destruction and havoc in our lives and in our world? If your child made a series
of bad decisions, purely on their own accord, refusing to listen to your advice, but
when shit hits the fan and the results go bad, blames you for everything that goes
wrong, but none of the things that go right in their lives, how would you feel?
People blame God for war, for violence and crimes, for despicable government
actions, for lies and control imposed by all the religious institutions, for diseases,
for famine and death, for our own selfishness and atrocities, and for accidents
caused by the recklessness of another. Why is God to blame for all this?
Should He negate every bad decision that we humans make and every evil deed
we exercise against our fellow brothers and sisters? Even if He did, He wouldn’t
get any reward or appreciation - only blame if things didn't work out perfectly.
Why should He do anything for man? Do we deserve it?
Look at us. Our world. Our own lives. How can God be to blame for our own
misery?
Why would anyone not believe in a God simply because of all the evil
we see in the world today? I hear this ALL the time. If that’s your
excuse for not believing in something beyond ourselves, it is childish
and naïve. (And it doesn’t change reality, regardless of what you
believe. If God exists, He will exist regardless of your personal, often
irrational beliefs.)
People who refuse to believe in a God because they see the world for
the blackness and evil within are simply blind and childish. This is
the ultimate deflection of responsibility - the responsibility of
mankind for our collective and individual actions.
We all need to accept the reality that we create and the consequences that follow
our actions. Stop expecting God to constantly clean up our shit and messes we
constantly make.
God isn't to blame for our misery. We are. Mankind.
Our choices. Our greed. Our selfishness. Our incessant need for
pleasure and gratification, even at the expense of another.
Page 110
The Power of Religion
I do believe in the power of religion. Earlier, I briefly mentioned I experienced a
spiritual awakening in my early adulthood.
One weekend, I went to visit my girlfriend, who attended the University of
California Berkeley. One of her friends invited us to some Christian revival. I
despised religion and Christianity at the time, and I really can't even recall or
understand why we decided to go. I can never explain it, but as the service was
about to end, I just felt such a rush of emotion and spiritual release. I began to
weep and weep and weep while sitting in the chair.
It felt like all the heavy burdens of my childhood and of my life just vanished,
instantly. I felt so light and free. I can never explain it. But I know that it was
something that is not rational or imagination. That night, I prayed with many
others to dedicate my life to God and become "born again". This may seem
comical and unbelievable to most, especially my good friends. But the instant
transformation I experienced in my life is something I can never explain, and
speaks to the power of our minds, and my personal belief still that something
beyond what we know, feel, and see is real.
At the time, all I cared about was partying and girls and school, so I could get a
high salary and create a good life for myself. I used to curse for humor
incessantly. Literally, instantly, overnight, my life and my character transformed,
without even an ounce of effort on my part. I stopped cursing overnight. I felt a
genuine sense of warmth and love and concern about other people I had never
felt before, even strangers. My college friends, who knew I was just about fun,
couldn't believe the transformation. In some ways it was just like "fucking magic"
that we can never understand. I attended church and prayer and bible study
constantly. I dedicated my life to God and studying the Bible daily, which I read
from end to end multiple times.
A few friends were so inspired by my radical transformation, and my new life as
an example of genuine love and concern for people, some of them decided to
convert to Christianity, to become born again. I never tried to convert them. I
just tried to live my life as a good example of how a Christian should live. I
haven’t been in touch with my old friends in years. But last I heard, they were
still firmly believers. I’m genuinely happy for them.
Page 111
A few years later, however, I became disillusioned with Christianity and religion,
and to this day remain Agnostic. It was prayer and introspective analysis that
made me realize the silliness of much of the religion. It just wasn't for me. I was
frustrated at the ineffectiveness of prayer and the impotence I felt. What was the
point of prayer I finally asked myself? It was this rhetorical self-question that
made me realize that religion and prayer can misguide us to focus our positive
energy in the wrong way. Instead of focusing our energy to just help people - to
help them with the daily struggles of life - many religions fixate on conversion to
their ideology.
True Christians believe that this life is not of value, and we are in an eternal
struggle for the life-after that will define our eternal existence. So for them,
converting people to fundamental Christianity is the highest priority - to save the
soul, not just the physical body. Their intent is noble, and based on selfless
motivation. But it is simply flawed thinking and misdirected energy. In a sense
this isn't too different than fundamental Islam that defines True Believers versus
Non-Believers. This is one of the core philosophies that drive much of the radical
Islam today. It can be a dangerous philosophical view.
I don't believe this specific life is our only testing ground for goodness
or morality. Our eternal fate cannot be dictated by the existence of
one life - which may be one day or a hundred years. Consciousness
has always existed for eternity. It will always persist. Like matter or
energy, it cannot be created and it will never be destroyed. It exists in
pieces in all of us, as a spiritual association to our mind/bodies and
our lives.
As humans, we are fixated by our physical experience - the gratifications, the
suffering and physical pain. But these are just the biological component of our
existence. The pain or pleasure is simply present as a practical need to sustain the
body to survive. Our nervous system, which derives both pain and pleasure, is
simply a feedback system to help our bodies endure as long as possible. It has
nothing to do with our more important spirituality or consciousness.
If we look at life in this context, suffering and pain is short-lived and
simply used to serve a practical purpose in this life. Instead of
looking at it as good or evil, or tragic things that happen to us, it's just
life. We should stop obsessing about our physical mortality and death.
It happens, and will happen to all of us, but it is a meaningless nontransition. Our bodies are merely the carriers and the precious
spiritual content is unaffected.
Page 112
Merits of Religion
I've heard so many people say to me that religion is bad, and that throughout
history it has done more harm than good - the countless wars and holy crusades,
fundamentalist jihad, or other violence in the name of God or religion.
But what one misses are the small victories and small positives that religion
provides. The way it provides hope for people; the way it bonds people and
families together through culture and tradition; the way it changes people’s lives
to make them want to be better human beings, and often more selfless; the way it
helps others through charitable work and giving. These small positives, in
aggregate, have a far a more net positive impact, outweighing any negatives
religion imprints on the world and our lives.
I'm not religious, but I wouldn't want to live a day in a world without religion. It
would be pure hell.
I’ve often had heated debates with people about religion in a number of different
countries. Most people tend to be religious for traditional or cultural reasons. A
few believe it for more fundamental reasons, perhaps because it helped transform
their lives, or because it is the only ideology they were ever taught. With rare
exception, the idea of religion empowering a better life is positive. Sadly,
sometimes the fervent belief in one religion can lead to aggression or war, or holy
crusades, or even justification of terrorist acts. We are experiencing one such
crusade today in the Jihad of the radical Muslim ideology.
The biggest fallacy of religion lays in the typical philosophy that “my religion is
the right one”; that there is only one right religion (as I mentioned previously).
The exclusivity idea leads to the notion that to help others, one must teach, often
force, one’s religion onto others.
Even Jesus spoke of himself as being “the way” or "the only way" to God. If
anything, I believe Jesus meant this in more of a philosophical context. That
applying these philosophies He espoused was the way to live a happy and moral
life. Jesus was an amazing philosopher, with radical ideas about how one should
live our days.
Page 113
But I don’t subscribe to all of his philosophy, despite having been raised in a
Protestant Christian home. I believe the commonalities of all religions should be
independent of any one individual, and focus more on the ideas or philosophy
they can teach us. Christianity should not necessarily be about Jesus, but about
the ideas He espoused: about loving others; about treating others as you would
want; about giving, even to the point of pain. And we don't necessarily have to
take every idea or philosophy He believed in our own lives for his philosophy to
be useful or relevant.
Let’s be frank, our world can sometimes be an ugly and despicable place. Death
is everywhere, and most times we can’t understand why, or make sense of any of
it. Suffering and inequality is the normal. Sometimes as Americans, we live in
such comfort, often so self-absorbed that we forget much of the world is suffering
on a daily basis - sometimes just to survive or get enough nutrition every day.
Family gives us purpose that extends beyond today and beyond
ourselves. But religion gives us the power of believing in something no matter how abstract or irrational - to believe in tomorrow. And
sometimes, that is the only thin line that divides order from chaos in
this world; or the fragile idea that keeps us believing in life. So, yes,
religion, in all its various forms, is incredibly positive on humanity.
Even despite the huge negatives of war and “holy” crusades, or jihad
and religious intolerance that still persist, even today.
Simply, I wouldn’t want to live in a world of just Atheists, where nobody believes
in anything; where the belief that today and now and self is all we will ever know.
The idea that everything that happens or everything we do is finite and confined
to this existence, and nothing more. This would be pure chaos. This would pure
hell.
Good versus Evil
Heaven and hell are simplistic ways of quantifying good and evil. Good people go
to heaven; bad people go to hell. I seriously doubt heaven and hell exist at all in
the religious sense.
And the simplicity of categorizing everyone in black and white, as good or evil, is
shockingly naive. Everyone is part good and part evil, in varying degrees.
Page 114
The idea that believing in a personal god to gain access to heaven is about as silly
of a notion as anyone has ever come up with. But if this helps people have hope
and get through this life, then so be it - good for them.
In Protestant Christianity, the way to heaven is by “accepting Jesus into our
hearts and asking forgiveness for our sins.” The problem is that we didn’t sin
against God or Jesus. Our sins are against fellow mankind. And if the retribution
for rejecting Jesus, or simply not having the awareness of Jesus, is sufficient to
cast our eternal existence into damnation, then I don’t think any of us should
desire to worship a god that is so petty.
I think if God truly does exist, He/She/It would be insulted at the
notion that God is so self-serving, so petty, and so craving of
adoration and worship, as many religions teach us. No, these are the
ugly human qualities that we should despise, not dignify and elevate
to the qualities of some Deity.
So often, religion teaches us that we should do good so we can be rewarded with
paradise in the afterlife. But doing good shouldn't be because we expect reward,
or fear we will end up in hell with eternal damnation and fiery brimstone. We
should want to do good because it's the right thing to do; because it makes us feel
better as humans; and because it makes other's lives better.
Someone who gives philanthropically and then makes a huge public speech or
press release to show the world how charitable they are always made me
disappointed. (They always rationalize it by invariably saying, “I'm trying to
bring attention to this charity.” Right. A large donation can still bring attention,
but just not the self serving personal kind.). And while the deed may be
applaudable, the motivation is still selfish and self-serving. Give because it's the
right thing to do; because it enriches someone else's life or lessens suffering. Not
because it elevates our standing among our peers or society.
I'm certainly no authority on charitable giving or philanthropy, but I've always
felt that these deeds should be personal and private. Whenever I was charitable,
it was always private. It was never massive. I could never afford to give millions
or billions of dollars, but sometimes thousands were within my ability. And I felt
fortunate I was able to. Giving and helping someone in need always gave me an
incredibly positive feeling. It was far better than partying or meeting someone
and having random sex.
Page 115
It's the motive of why you do something that makes an act good or
evil, just as much as the act itself.
True goodness is selfless; true evil is all about self without consideration of
other's well being.
If we could know the real truth about everyone, how many of us would kill for
passion or revenge if we knew with complete certainty we would never get
caught?
How many of us would steal a million dollars, or a billion, if there was zero
chance or risk of discovery or consequence?
How many of us would cheat on our girlfriends/boyfriends or spouses if we knew
they would never find out?
How many of us would enhance our academic results by cheating if it could be
done without retribution?
I like to hope that most of us wouldn’t, even if we would never get caught or
discovered. But that is probably a fantasy. I like to think that I wouldn’t. I hope
I wouldn’t, but until we’re in that situation, we can never know for sure. I pray I
wouldn’t.
Following the rules of morality enforced upon us by society or religion or family
does not define moral living or make us a good person. Doing something or not
doing something because we fear the consequences is not morality.
True morality is doing the right thing regardless, especially when nobody will
ever know. If this is the benchmark to reach “heaven”, then I truly suppose very
few of us would ever qualify. I certainly wouldn’t. I may not steal money or kill
even if nobody ever knew. But cheating on your partner? I’m not so sure I would
have the moral fortitude always, sadly.
Doing the right thing, even when nobody will notice, is the hardest
thing. But even if we fail now and again, our continual desire to want
to be better is the only thing that can truly define and separate the
thin line between good and evil. This is the true measure of a person.
Page 116
The human capacity for greed and evil is unbounded. There is no limit to the
darkness that we are capable of. Fortunately, the human capacity for love and
selflessness is even more powerful.
This contradiction, within each of us, rages as a daily war of wills. We constantly
struggle against our immediate gratification and desires. It is incredibly hard to
live within our moral code. But I've come to discover, separate from religion,
following this path ultimately results in greater happiness; less instant
gratification, yes, but greater overall happiness. And the times in my life when I
have focused mostly on immediate gratification, the less happiness it generated.
Passive versus Active Morality
In the past year, as I began to really assess my life more objectively, more
critically, it dawned on me that my value system in life was only half right or half
good.
All my life, I tried to live by the Golden Rule of Morality - treat others as you want
to be treated. But it occurred to me recently that isn’t good enough. And this
realization created shame and regret for much of my life.
There are two types of morality. I like to call them Passive and Active morality.
Passive morality is like the Hippocratic Oath - do no harm. It’s tantamount to the
Golden Rule. Don’t steal, because we don’t like others stealing from us. Don’t
kill, because obviously we don’t want anyone killing us, etc. This is the most basic
form of morality. At a bare minimum we should all be living by this passive
morality, regardless of what religion we follow, including Islam. There is no
justification for killing or murder in the name of any religion. Period. I don’t
care how much you disagree, or how despicable or offensive someone else’s
morality or religion may be to you. Nobody has the right to extend their own
sense of morality on everyone, especially by force, violence or coercion.
Active morality is the more difficult part, but is equally important if we want to
view ourselves as having lived a moral life, in my opinion. Active morality is
doing more than simply not harming others, or treating others as you would want
to be treated. It’s about actually making a concerted and sustained effort in your
life to make other’s lives better, to lessen suffering and to maybe stimulate hope
in their lives. It must extend far beyond our family and our inner circle of
Page 117
friends. It’s about humanity, looking at our lives as a communal existence,
sharing empathy for humanity, but most importantly, actively trying to lessen
pain and suffering, rather than just sharing empathy. I hate the word communal
because it infers some type of religious cult with extreme ideas. But really,
humanity is a community - we are all equals - sharing the same struggles. Some
of us are simply more fortunate because we are more affluent, maybe smarter,
maybe luckier, maybe more ambitious, or were simply lucky to have the parents
we did, or to be born where we were. But this has nothing to do with human
equality or value.
It takes far more work and energy to live a life of active morality. If I look at my
life objectively, I failed in this sense of morality. I should have done a lot more.
This is not a class where grading on a curve and passing the class is sufficient.
We can all rationalize and say, well, I gave more and helped more than most
people, so therefore I lived an active moral life. No. It’s about means vs actions.
If we have more means, we bear more moral responsibility. It’s about
proportionality of pain, giving and helping - not just when it’s convenient and
easy and without personal sacrifice - but to give and help proportionally to a
person who may give even though he/she has no means, and it requires deep
personal sacrifice in their own life.
I’m not suggesting we must sell everything we own and give it all to charity, or
implying we have to put others on equal footing as our family in terms of our
responsibility. There are practical elements of our lives too, and it’s normal for us
to put our family and spouse and close friends on a different plane of importance
in our lives. This also is our personal moral responsibility. But it’s hard to argue
that all of us shouldn’t do more and should have done more to help others beyond
our inner circle of loved ones.
Active morality is hard.
It’s so easy to allow ourselves to be selfish and indulge in our wants and satisfy
our desires. I want to go shopping, to buy another pair of Prada shoes or the
latest iPhone. I need to upgrade my car because my old Mercedes is 2 years old.
I need a nice vacation, because I work so hard and I’m mentally depleted, so
spending $10,000 on a weeklong getaway is necessary.
I did it all the time too. Occasionally, I would give to the point it caused mild
pain. Or I would help someone in need, even when it created some difficulty in
my own life. But the occasional success story is a personal embarrassment for
me.
Page 118
Our lives should be littered with examples of constant giving and
selflessness, not the occasional “slap on the back giving” to feed our
moral ego.
In retrospect, I lived a pretty selfish life. It’s a point of shame. Life is graded on
an absolute scale, not a relative curve, where we need to simply outperform our
peers, our friends, or our neighbors.
As I look back at all the things I bought in my life, or the activities I spent my
money on, or the lavish vacations and travel I went on, all of these things and
activities provided short term enjoyment only. Then they vanished and I was left
with a few nice memories. But could I have lived with a little bit less and still
enjoyed my life? Yeah, definitely. Could I have sacrificed just a little bit more
and helped humanity? Yeah, definitely.
Admittedly, it’s easy to look back and wish we could redo everything
as we approach the sunset of our lives. But usually, moments like
these are the few points in our lives that provide absolute clarity, true
objectivity; framed in a background of greater intimate
understanding of the relative value of things in our lives.
Value and Worth
Why do we fight so hard for the things that give us temporary pleasure and
excitement?
Why is money so damn important in this world? It only has value because
humans say it has value. And only for the time we breathe in this life, which is
nothing more than a short breath, followed by our final exhale.
I’ve contemplated this so much in my life and it’s still unexplainable why we
value it so highly in our lives. It’s irrational but we all do to varying degrees. And
it all goes back to our need to have constant social validation and our need for
immediate gratification and pleasure.
There is a vast difference between the value of something and its
inherent worth. In our world, in this life, money has value; but is has
zero worth.
Page 119
We wage war for it. We kill for it. We steal for it. We lie for it. We
sacrifice everything we hold precious and dear for it.
For a
completely worthless piece of paper, with some words that tells us
someone else deems it to be of value.
Money.
It may not be the root of all evil, but it exposes the evil within us, as we
seek the glitter of comfort, gadgets, power and status.
It has become the new religion of the millennium as we propagate the ideology of
Capitalism and Want into every corner of the world through technology. It
infects us with an insatiable need for more.
What is important in our lives?
Steve Jobs was an extraordinary man by most human accounts. A visionary. A
creative genius. He accomplished things few others can ever dream of. He is the
epitome of achievement in today’s culture. But one thousand or a million years
from now, will anyone remember? Will anyone care that he invented a cool sexy
product called an iPhone? Why is his legacy so important? Why does it have
value?
A random unknown, simple family man in Guatemala gave his life to save a
stranger, a little girl. He’s not rich. Not famous. Not a visionary. Not a creative
genius. He only has $100 in his bank account. He’s only remembered by his
family and friends and the family of the girl he saved, with eternal gratitude.
How do we value life and measure accomplishments and success in this world?
How do we assess worth of a person? What is it that we want to be remembered
for? And why is being remembered so important to us? Most importantly, by
whom?
Imagine if aliens (who are smarter than us) one day came to our planet just to
observe us. Would they conclude humans are rational? Logical? Intelligent? Or
would they conclude we are irrational, impulsive, selfish, driven by petty desires?
Would they say we are “good” or “evil”? What if aliens observed your life? What
would they conclude?
Page 120
What’s important in this life? In your life? To accumulate more things until you
die?
Page 121
Chapter 7. The Road to Digital Serfdom
“The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall.
Freedom and slavery are mental states.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Technology has been the great equalizer of
humanity in one great sense, affording
comforts, enjoyment and access to
knowledge unprecedented in human
history.
And yet the more humanity
becomes encapsulated by technology in our
everyday life, the less social and less
connected we become on a human level.
But, even though technology is supposed to
be the great equalizer of humanity, ironically, wealth and income have diverged
exponentially between the rich and the rest of the world during the explosion of
the digital age.
How is it possible that technology that makes us able to more easily connect and
share with others can isolate us unintentionally?
How can the integration of such a great potential equalizer of society coincide
with a shockingly widening gap between the economic classes?
Has technology become the greatest tool for the powerful and rich to exercise
their control? Have our digital gadgets become nothing more than tools of
distraction for the masses, displacing religion as the preferred control medium of
the populace?
Economic servitude seems to exemplify the average American life, and even more
so in less developed countries. The absence of absolute slavery has been
displaced by economic servitude in the modern and digital age. And shockingly,
few seem to care.
Page 122
Unsocial Media
Many recent studies have shown that as society becomes more engulfed by social
media - the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and so forth - the less social
and less happy we become in general. Dialog and conversation has been
displaced by digital posts and feeds; face to face social engagement has been
replaced with instant snapshots of daily activity and foodie posts. These are not
bad things, except for the tendency to isolate people from each other in a
strangely ironic and unintended way.
One specific recent study from a University of Michigan psychologist Ethan
Kross, concluded that the more people used Facebook in particular, the less
happy and more alone they felt. This feeling was pretty broadly common across
all participants; study after study, literally dozens, all seems to consistently show
this alarming trend.
Different studies have shown how Facebook users also show an increase in
feelings of jealousy and envy, often creating mistrust in the partnership which
also affects their romantic relationships.
All the cumulative studies, the data sample size, and independent and separate
conclusions are fairly stunning in their high degree of correlation. It is much
more than coincidental findings.
More generic studies on internet usage also reveal similar conclusions. The more
we use the internet, the more disconnected we feel. Of course, this is relative.
For instance, if someone in Africa who has never had access to the internet
suddenly becomes connected to the vast online world, I’m sure it would have a
sharply different finding. But this condition is an exceptional case.
The conclusion is that while the internet can be an incredibly powerful tool to
connect us, to expose us to vast knowledge and information previously
inaccessible, as a social medium it can be a potentially toxic ingredient in our
interpersonal relationships and our own sense of value.
People need physical interaction. It’s built into our DNA. We are social creatures
first and foremost. The physical act of touch is more than purely psychological.
Specific chemicals are released from the brain when there is physical interaction,
even the friendly non-sexual touches, helping keep our bodies and minds healthy.
Page 123
It is as important as eating nutritious food or drinking clean water is to our
bodies; or the warmth of sunlight to enrich our bodies with vitamin D.
The biggest unintended problem with social media is the natural consequence
that it begins an unending cycle of comparing ourselves and our lives to everyone
around us, often making us feel inadequate, unequal, or that our lives are less
interesting. This constant social comparison to the “Jones’” feeds our wants and
material cravings even more so than historically.
And for women, especially younger girls, the tendency to compare their physical
bodies to their friends and famous people can lead to a confidence destroying
self-assessment, based only on partial reality or completely wrong information
(Photoshop, perfect lighting, and selective photos of models or friends do not
represent reality).
I think 90% of the people who read the above paragraphs will have no idea what
I’m talking about. And most will think I’m strange or anti-social; antitechnology. It’s ironic, given many people have told me I’m the most social and
friendly person they’ve ever seen; and technology was the driver of my life and
career my entire adult life. But frankly, the opinion of someone who has put less
thought into what is the meaning of their life and what is important, than what
they should update on Facebook, means very little to me. Everyone may have
equal value in life, but not every thought or opinion and words have equal weight,
especially if thought is devoid of any substance.
A bright light can mesmerize simple nocturnal bugs, as they swarm from miles
away to kamikaze into their suicidal plunge. Glimmering gadgets can mesmerize
our gaze as we become hypnotized by the fascination of dancing lights and
sparkling beauty. And technology that lets us peek into the windows of others,
like a voyeur freed from social stigma; and gadgets that consume our minds with
mindlessness dazzles us endlessly with entertainment. Talking points and trendy
blogs that regurgitate and spew retreaded ideas like a dog’s re-meal, believing it
makes us insightfully aware, are our sources of news now.
Technology isn’t making us smarter. It makes us dumb. It reduces us to
mechanical robots with shallow memories and even shallower original thoughts.
We depend on the instant search results of Google or Siri to fill our minds
temporarily with information on demand. We rely on the blogs of pundits and
those peddling selfish agendas to create our thoughts and download them
electronically, conveniently, efficiently into our neural structure. The news cycle,
sports cycle, and life cycle are all suddenly 24 hour dramas; devoid of actual news
Page 124
and information; the rare competition sporting event is covered a thousand
times, ad nauseam; work isn’t 9 to 5 or 8 hours anymore, it’s constant with our
connectivity and interconnected world all plugged into the new online religion of
today. Online is the new flat-line. Our brain waves zapped by the flood of
constant everything, endless stimulation, filled with useless data and opinions we
now call information and thought.
And we like it. We want more: More iGadgets. Faster. Sexier. Bigger retina
screens. More Gigabtyes. More Gigawatts. TVs that used to light up stadiums
now in our house... The new Millennial American dream, evangelized throughout
the world via Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Google, iApple, Hollywood
Inc., Corporate America, and good ol’ fashioned greed. This is our global identity
now.
I never used social media (except for the professional social media site LinkedIn).
It had nothing to do with the reasons above. It was mostly because I wanted to
try to separate my professional life from my personal and social life. I do some
pretty silly and ridiculous things when I’m having fun, and I always felt the last
thing I needed was my employer or colleagues at work gossiping about these
adventures. Of course, most times, I had already developed a pretty comical
reputation at work regarding my partying tendencies. And for the most part, it
never interfered with my professional career and success, as performance and
results were still vastly more important. But, nonetheless, I didn’t want to pour
gasoline on fire.
It was always funny to see people’s reactions when they would often say “Let’s
connect on Facebook and keep in touch”. And I would respond “I don’t have or
use Facebook.” The look of bewilderment and confusion overtook their faces.
How could someone who is so friendly and social NOT be connected to social
media?!!! Everyone uses Facebook they would exclaim! I always preferred
meeting people face to face, interacting by voice and touch and hugs and eye
contact, rather than some cold Facebook updates. I’m the only one that I know,
within my circle of friends, who never used social media.
Technology: The Distraction of the Masses
I recently read a study about people and their aversion to boredom, or just sitting
and thinking, about anything. In today’s culture, the digital age has infected us
Page 125
with digital attention deficit disorder (I call it DADD, or DADDy syndrome as I
like to joke) - smart phones, internet, social media, television and so on, all starve
us of our brain power. Instead of interacting and developing social bonds, or heaven forbid - thinking, we check Facebook updates and Twitter feeds; we text
in cryptic sentences (including me). We would rather check the latest YouTube
trending video than sit and ponder what’s important in life.
The study previously mentioned, actually quantified that people were so confused
when left in a room without digital devices, that they didn’t know what to do.
Thinking was clearly not comfortable for nearly all of the participants. Another
study showed that when faced with the opportunity to stimulate themselves with
mild electroshock, people would rather shock themselves for amusement than to
just sit and think or ponder. Strange. Is this the life and culture that we have
“evolved” into? Are we really so much smarter than the generations of hundreds
or thousands of years ago? Knowledge is not synonymous with intellect.
Today, unquestionably we have vastly more knowledge than a hundred or
thousand years ago. Knowledge has grown rapidly since the greatest invention in
history, the printing press (without it, none of the other subsequent great
inventions, like the internet, would've been possible). In recent decades, it
reached another inflection point, growing exponentially every two or three years
now in the digital age. We are swimming in data and knowledge. And yet it has
made us more distant, less understanding of each other, less social, less
interactive, and creating more disassociation in society than ever before. Social
pressure and peer pressure has overwhelmed our digital culture.
Many people have argued that religion and other distractions are means for the
rich and powerful to control the populace, to maintain control and power. Today,
that means of distraction has evolved to mean digital distractions. As long as the
people can afford iPhones and retina screens, the people will be happy and
distracted. The powerful and elite can control information, and maintain power
and influence, and expand their wealth at an historical record pace.
The aversion to self-awareness and self-thought is a troubling trend. A society
that cannot think and self-deliberate is a doomed society; ultimately destined to
become an enslaved society.
We are rapidly devolving into a conformist society through the very means and
tools that were intended to liberate and empower us. The more access to
communication and information we have, the less useful information, and less
honest communication and dialog we seem to enjoy.
Page 126
The Bondage of Technology
I worked my entire career, and most of my adult life, 20 years, in the high
technology field. Semiconductors, or microchips, are the fundamental building
block of everything digital. I love technology and marvel at the potential positive
impacts to humanity. But at the same time, I'm increasingly frustrated by
technology, and my growing dependence on it. It makes me live in a constant
state of worry that my private information, such as banking and credit cards,
personal emails, etc are constantly at risk.
And nobody will ever tell you, but the absolute truth is, there is no such thing as a
perfectly safe network or internet. It's simply impossible. The only way to
absolutely guarantee cyber security is to shut down the internet or disconnect
from the network. This is a well know fact within the circle of technology
industry experts. The more complex our technology systems get, and the more
integral technology becomes in our lives, the risk continuously grows.
It's also ironic that in the digital age there has been a continuous reduction of free
speech and personal liberty. As the world becomes more digitally connected
(although socially disconnected), our freedoms erode with increased government
digital surveillance of our everyday life (in the name of security), increased
censorship of free speech (also in the name of public safety), and political
correctness muting our unpopular thoughts.
The 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden, regarding the NSA's (U.S. National
Security Agency) mass surveillance programs - not just on foreign individuals and
countries - but on nearly ALL American citizens, was a disturbing awakening. To
some degree I, as well as most American, always suspected some government
intrusion existed into our communications and daily lives. But the extent, scope,
universality, and sheer mass of the data collection showed it was far bigger than
we could ever imagine.
The NSA was established in 1952, with a strict focus on foreign surveillance.
Today, it is the biggest of the nation’s intelligence gathering organizations,
responsible for code breaking, phone, email and internet interception.
Snowden wasn’t a hero whistleblower, but much of what he did was good and
essential (it was later revealed that Snowden also stole deep national security
Page 127
secrets that had nothing to do with surveillance, indicating a far darker and
overall selfish motive on his part). Americans should be aware when government
overreaches and over steps authority. Our government is not supposed to be able
to collect intelligence on Americans without due process, and without a court
order. It is the thin line that separates democracy from a dictatorship or
totalitarianism.
Technology is making it far easier for government, or any institution of power, to
extensively monitor and control the people. This is far scarier than people
realize. And we are just in the early innings of this new technology surveillance
era.
Human nature is, and has always been, prone to abuse power. Power corrupts.
Even when the intentions start out good, unchecked or pervasive power,
invariably corrupts. When a person, or an organization, has the power of
immense personal information - from all facets of our lives - and is also chartered
to provide security over the people, the potential for corruption is stunningly
high. When there is an absence of checks and balances - as was the case with the
NSA surveillance programs - abuse and corruption is inevitable.
When we easily accept reductions in our freedom and privacy in the name of
security, we lose far more than we gain in security benefits. Three thousand
innocent people may have died in the tragedy of 9/11, but more than 1.3 million
Americans have given their lives to protect freedom throughout our U.S. history
(interestingly, the Civil War was the greatest loss of American life with 683,000
soldiers casualties on both sides, even greater than WWII, which was 405,000
Americans). The terrorist actions to stuff the lives of 3,000 Americans, or other
future threats, shouldn’t neglect the far greater ultimate sacrifices that 1.3 million
Americans gave for our country.
There is no security that is worth this tradeoff of freedom. Of course, for short
periods, during actual conflicts, some curbing of freedom and Marshall Law may
be required, but never on an ongoing basis. These NSA and other government
activities were never meant to be temporary. They became a permanent abuse of
government power, again with no oversight or checks and balances.
Security. Threats. These are the same pretexts that leaders have always used
since the beginning of time to consolidate power and abuse it. Subsequently
solidifying their power by employing the removal of due process to incriminate
adversaries and forcibly put them in jail or kill them. Everyone should be
terrified when an arbitrary person, sitting at a desk thousands of miles away, can
Page 128
deem you’re a threat because you have the wrong last name, the wrong
association, the wrong hairstyle, the wrong facial hair, the wrong attire, or the
spoke with the wrong words, or wrote the wrong email, or jokingly said the wrong
thing during a mobile phone conversation. Or worse, a digital device that makes
these assessments based on algorithms or inputs from another random operator.
Abusive behavior of power is still rampant in today’s world, including some of the
largest countries. Clear examples are countries like China, Russia, as well as
dozens of other Authoritarian regimes throughout the world.
Americans assume this is impossible in the U.S..
But these
assumptions are dangerously naïve; and completely wrong. No
system or government, even democratic ones, is ever free of the
potential for abuse and consolidation of power.
We are only
protected by our Constitutional rights and freedoms if we ensure
nobody takes them away, a little bit at a time.
One of the most interesting and scary movement from the Left in America has
been women’s rights and the advocating for the rights of rape victims. I think any
decent American, including men, abhors rape. Nobody wants our wives or
girlfriends or mothers to endure this, so obviously it’s despicable. I believe
rapists should get life in prison (if not worse). Their balls should be continually
electrocuted until them become so numb, they become incapable of ever feeling
any sensation again.
But the fact is, one of the subtle focuses from the Liberal Left (anchored by
Feminists) has been in the area of dealing with rape victims who come forward to
prosecute the perpetrators. Some of these Leftist opinions and ideas have left
me utterly petrified (I’ve read so many articles and opinion editorials lately
regarding the alleged “rape culture” in America, especially on college campuses
supposedly. Fact is, all statistics show rape is on a massive decline over the past
decades, as all violent crimes have been reduced steadily).
There clearly is shame and humiliation to some degree, which unfortunately is a
part of the legal process, as the accuser is questioned, her background checked
and rechecked, etc. The Left has been pushing that in order to eliminate this
humiliation for women, society should assume "a position of truth from the rape
victim" - meaning, the accused rapist would therefore be presumed to be guilty. I
cannot emphasize how utterly scary this idea is. Not as a man, but as someone
who believes the single most important element of our rule of law process is that
EVERYONE is presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty. Nobody’s word
Page 129
should ever be sufficient to put someone in jail, or to completely tarnish and
destroy their reputation or life. The fact is, both the accuser and accused are
unfortunately subjected to a trial of shame and humiliation. In our society,
however, I think the shame of someone who has been indicted for rape is equally
humiliating as the rape victim (if that person is truly innocent).
Presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, is something that is
not compromisable in any circumstance. It is the most essential pillar
to freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
Erosion of Privacy and Freedom by Technology
Today, we have less free speech than we did a hundred years ago. We have less
freedom and privacy than we did a decade ago. And shockingly, people don’t
seem to mind so much. As long as we have our iPhones and hybrids, can stream
Netflix movies and have jobs, all can be ignored it seems.
When one day, everything that we do, every communication we make (mobile
phones or emails), every photo and digital post we upload, is being recorded and
monitored by government, in the name of safety and security, what true freedom
do we really have?
The revolution of 1776, against the tyranny of the British Empire, would be
impossible today. What checks and balances do we have when the government
itself is so abusive of its power, and has become so incredibly powerful and
institutionalized through a labyrinth of overweight agencies and heavy
bureaucracy that only Jenny Craig could love?
Throughout history all erosion of freedom starts slowly, seemingly always in the
name of public safety and security. People constantly argue that times are
different now and people are different now, and that we can trust government
today.
I simply argue back, based on my study and understanding of history and people,
and based on what I still observe and perceive in the world today, I really don’t
see the world has changed fundamentally. People still are driven by greed.
People constantly are seeking more power. Yes, compassion exists (thankfully),
but this has always existed in good people. Bullies and despots and dictators are
everywhere. And human nature is still to prey on the weak (sadly). People and
Page 130
the world is just as violent, if not more so, than ever before. But the core human
nature remains fixed in time.
By and large, the world is the same. The world isn’t necessarily more
interconnected; it’s simply a faster connection.
Things happen faster.
Transactions happen in milliseconds in the digital age. Commerce and the flow
of goods happen in days rather than months. We live a little longer due to
technology. We eat a little healthier, in the developed world at least. We
communicate faster. More people have access to more information and
knowledge. But we are not more intelligent than we were hundreds of years ago,
simply better informed and better educated with the advent of the printing press
and the digital age. There is a big difference between intelligence versus
knowledge or education. The great philosophers, writers, scientists and artists of
days past would rival anyone alive today in terms of intellect and creativity.
My point is simply this, we should be very careful. We should value every
freedom we have and we should never give it up readily. We shouldn’t just
cherish fairness, we should demand it. Everyone should enjoy equal opportunity,
even if they won’t enjoy equal outcomes (because everyone’s capabilities and
talents are not the same). And fighting for these values, not necessarily through
violence, is our responsibility to our children and future generations.
If the system is failing us, we either change the system or change those leading
the system.
But when Washington, or any government, has become
institutionalized, and lifelong politicians dictate what is best for us, change is
seldom.
Modern Day Serfdom in a Capitalist World
Recently, I started reading a book called “The Road To Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek.
I’ve had this book for a few years now as it collected dust on my stack of many
unread books. Serfdom is the label or the status of peasants in older times. I love
economic and philosophy books, even though I very rarely read books.
Hayek was an Austrian born economist and philosopher who was born near the
turn of the last century and died in 1992. His book, published in 1944, following
the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 which brought the populist ideology of
communism to Russia, warns against the dangers of “tyranny that inevitably
Page 131
results from government control of economic decision-making through central
planning.” [Ebeling, Richard M. (May 1999). "Friedrich A. Hayek: A Centenary Appreciation"]
The book was a warning against communism and centralized government
control.
One of the main points Hayek makes is that “the most important change which
extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in
the character of the people. This is necessarily a slow affair, a process which
extends not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations.”
One could argue that the collapse of the Soviet empire really took two or three
generations. Despite the communist control starting in 1917, the chaos of WWII
kind of reset the focus of the people. Following WWII, the Soviet Union was a
formidable force. However, after a couple generations of the Cold War, the effect
of extensive government control over every aspect of people’s lives ultimately
caused subsequent generations, who were born under this mentality, to become
less motivated. And slowly, just as Hayek argued years before, the system
collapsed as progress, innovation, and economic growth significantly lagged the
West and free societies.
Even today, if one travels extensively in Eastern Europe as I have, one can still
see the psychological imprint communism has left on the older generations.
There is a stark contrast between the older and newer generation ways of
thinking about business, the role of government (as the solution to everything),
and personal liberty.
The new generation (those under 30) are the ones pushing for closer integration
with the West and are willing to die for it. It is this generation that is responsible
for the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, demanding true democracy, government
reform, and European Union integration, because they thirst for economic
opportunity. Adapting former communist states to a form of democracy and
capitalism will also take multiple generations to purge the old ways of thinking.
However, it’s not just communism or pure socialism that can dampen the human
spirit. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s, it is
unconstrained capitalism - the very opposite of communism and central planning
- that has exposed its soft underbelly and fragility.
When the people begin to see government, controlled or so heavily influenced by
the few, and the extreme skew of economic prosperity benefiting the top tier of
Page 132
society only, and massive trillion dollar white collar crime perpetrated by the
wealthiest individuals and institutions being largely ignored, with no
accountability in the name of “national economic interest”, people can begin to
lose faith in any type of government - including capitalist democracy. On its
current path of inertia, capitalism will also collapse of its own weight too, barring
any righting of the ship.
The American experiment has, over the past two centuries, tended to become
increasingly more centralized, with decision making and power residing in fewer
and fewer hands. The idea of representative democracy has been in decline for
decades now, as the federal government (especially the Executive branch)
continues to consolidate power, and the State’s and even Congressional power
continues to erode proportionately. (This is consensus fact).
This is not how our original Forefathers intended our democracy to work.
Centuries before the publication by Hayek, our founding Fathers and
Constitutional writers, understood that consolidation of power, and a lack of
checks and balance, ALWAYS results in a tragic ending. This is the main reason
the individual States were given so much power, and the federal government had
fairly limited power - limited to areas such as those involving interstate
commerce and national defense. This model, of relatively powerful States,
offered the best competitive model, where individual States could experiment
with different policy, and the free movement of resources, people and capital
(money) would favor the better, more successful government policies. It was free
market ideology applied to government.
The President and the Executive branch was originally the weakest of the three
branches of government, as outlined by our Forefathers in the Constitution. This
was because they feared consolidating power into the hands of one person,
having gone through the tragedy of Monarchy rule. But through precedents set by
both Republican and Democratic former presidents over the past centuries, the
Presidency has become the most powerful branch of government, eroding the
delicate nature of the checks and balances which is central to sustaining this
American democracy.
All empires eventually come to an end. This is purely due to human nature.
Humans cannot sustain anything forever. We become complacent, selfish,
greedy. Any ideal model eventually gets weakened, division of power always
becomes consolidated, and greed and the thirst for power is an insatiable will that
ultimately always trumps the diligence of noble men. It’s a sad reflection of
humanity and the eternal reminder that human nature is the only constant.
Page 133
Economic Servitude and the Growing Wealth Divide
The traditional definition of slavery largely doesn’t exist as it did centuries ago.
In the U.S., slavery officially ended well over a hundred years ago, although the
racial scars of its disgusting legacy still persist throughout society. Today,
economic servitude and serfdom have displaced the shackles and physical
bondage of past centuries.
Economic disparity has always existed, even long before the advent of money and
currency, as property of one kind or another created artificial divides between the
“haves” and “have-nots”. Today, the chasm is wider than it has ever been. And
the epidemic is global and not just relegated to western affluence.
In January of 2014, days before the World Economic Forum began in Davos,
Switzerland, Oxfam International released a report called “Working for the Few”,
outlining the growing global inequality.
According to the report, the world's richest 85 individuals were now worth more
than the poorest half of the world's population (lowest 3.6 billion people). These
billionaires include the likes of Bill Gates, (Microsoft founder and
philanthropist), Carlos Slim (Mexican businessman and investor), Warren Buffett
(legendary investor), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder), etc. This is truly
astounding that 85 people can be worth more than 3.6 billion people. It is not a
point of pride for humanity.
The U.S. boasted the highest number of mega wealthy elites in 2014, with 492
billionaires. China and Russia were second and third with 152 and 111
billionaires, respectively.
Furthermore, nearly half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just 1% of the
population. And in the U.S., the wealthiest 1% enjoyed virtually ALL - an
astounding 95% - of the economic growth following the 2008 Wall-Street
induced financial crisis, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
Warren Buffett once commented "There's been class warfare going on for the last
20 years, and my class has won." He said this not as a victory speech, but more to
highlight the issue of the growing prosperity divide in America.
Page 134
Of all the billionaires of the world, Buffett is probably the one I most admire.
Despite being the third richest man in the world, he remains a frugal man who
has not allowed the money to change him in a meaningful way. By all accounts,
he is still down to earth and always keeping a realistic perspective of money. He
still lives in the same modest house in Omaha, Nebraska that he bought in
1958 for $31,500, and drives non-assuming cars to work himself, and focuses
on family and longtime friendships. He, like few others in his economic class, has
repeatedly advocated for making the tax system more fair by making the effective
tax rates of millionaires and billionaires at least the same or higher than middle
class taxpayers. Not an earth shattering concept.
Somehow, Washington’s attempt at tax fairness, once conceived through the
Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT, has devastated middle class taxpayers, while
still allowing the mega-rich to often pay a disproportionately lower share of the
income taxes. This single example of bad policy simply demonstrates the
ineptitude of Washington politics, as well as the protectionist policies of
influential special interest and wealthy political donors.
I believe hard work and risk taking of entrepreneurs should be rewarded. After
all, I am a strong advocate of Capitalism, despite all its many warts. However,
when the excesses grow too wildly, the system becomes unstable. Kings and
despots throughout history know this lesson well. And as long as the world is in
relative prosperity and growth, these social strains will remain largely concealed.
But when economic times worsen, trouble will inevitably rise. It is wise to selfcorrect this long before the perceived, and real gap between rich and poor,
corrects through more traditional violent means. And they always do.
The abuse of capitalism and unbounded, largely unregulated greed has resulted
in the greatest exaggeration of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few
than at any point in the history of the world. And the fact that this atrocity
accelerated since 2008, following the greatest financial crime engineered against
humanity by Wall Street, is even more disgusting. The very government, whose
purpose is to protect all citizens and ensure broad prosperity, has become the
mightiest tool of the elite and wealthy.
Granted, I live under no illusion. Government has always existed to protect the
interests of the wealthy to a large degree. But we have reached unprecedented
levels of wealth disparity and government protectionism for the few.
Where are the criminal indictments for the few who perpetrated the trillion(s)
dollar heist? The same people remain in power; the same people have benefited
Page 135
from lavish government policies that have propelled their wealth to even greater
levels, while nearly all other Americans have suffered.
Recently the U.S. Securities regulators made a plea deal with a handful of very
large global financial companies to plead guilty of the fixing currency exchange
rates and LIBOR rates. LIBOR stands for London Interbank Offered Rate and is
a global benchmark rate used to set inter-bank short term lending rates between
banks. It is vital part of our global economy and financial system. It is supposed
to be a market driven rate and not due to a handful of companies colluding to set
the rate for personal gain. Anyway, these banks clearly broke the law to make
billions in illegal and personal gains. And yet, as part of this deal, the companies
would agree to plead guilty, pay some pathetic fines (the companies, not
personally), but NOBODY has to go to jail. Incredible.
Our government is corrupt. The system is corrupt and dying. Many of our
lifelong politicians are corrupt. They are bought and paid for by the wealthy. The
rule of law now only seems to apply to those without means; and the wealthiest
can do whatever the hell they want and not pay any consequences: Nearly
destroy the global economy using outright fraud and convoluted financial
weapons? No problem, you won’t go to jail or lose your personal wealth because
“it’s national economic interest.” Instead, the government will help you get even
richer, faster (but only if you’re party of the wealthy establishment of course).
There are two sets of rules now for America.
These are all facts I mention above, not my personal speculation or conspiracy
theories.
Why does nobody care? Why do we accept the status quo and continue to
pretend it doesn’t matter? Oh yeah, I forgot, as long as we have iPhones and
retina screens, decent jobs and the internet, we can just ignore it.
Distraction is the first rule of control by those in power and has been since the
earliest days of the human race.
The chart below shows the growing inequality over the past two hundred years in
America. Income at the top 1% has nearly tripled relative to the bottom 99%. In
fact, the top 10% has benefitted mightily at the expense of the lower 90%. Given
this is from 2010, the figures are actually considerably worse in 2015. A separate
measure of wealth would show an even greater gap. (Income is earned money in
a given year, whereas wealth represents total assets of value).
Page 136
I hate labels, especially political labels as they blind us to what’s important. If I
ran government I would make it illegal to have party identification and force
politicians to run on their ideas and history. We should focus on what works,
rather than being fixated on who came up with the idea first and then
determining if it’s a good idea or not.
But it’s important to note, I am not a Liberal or Democrat. I have been a lifelong
Republican, a fiscal conservative and social moderate. More recently, I consider
myself an Independent and ideologically have become more associated with
Libertarian views of government, as the Republican Party seems to be different in
name and rhetoric only versus the Democratic Party. So for me to argue about
the growing economic inequality is a fairly significant development.
What has happened in our culture and society? Where billionaires are celebrated
and obscene wealth begets more greed? Don’t misread me. There is nothing
wrong with wealth, even ridiculous wealth. And we are all free to pursue what
makes us happy, even if it is ultimately misguided in the form of riches. But
government has a certain responsibility to ensure some semblance of equality
exists. As much as I abhor the term “transfer of wealth”, sometimes it is a
necessary evil. But in reality, it isn’t even so much a transfer of wealth that is
needed, but more importantly a more equitable taxation system where the rich
actually pay a more equal, if not slightly higher proportion of their income,
relative the middle and lower classes.
I'm not advocating extreme or economic killing socialist tax structures as was
recently passed in France, under the idiotic socialist François Hollande
Page 137
government. This has been a disaster as could've been easily predicted. But when
wealthy Americans can legally pay zero or very low effective tax rates (often 10%
to 15% or lower), yet the middle class taxpayers often pay 20-30% effective tax
rates, there is structural inequality that is being protected by the government.
This is not just immoral, it is unjust.
Definition of Economic Servitude
The vast majority of Americans follow the same path in life. We go to
school from age 5 or 6 to age 18, when we graduate high school. We
are increasingly told we must get a higher education, so we go to
university to expand our opportunities. We graduate in 4-10 years,
depending on whether we pursue advanced degrees.
Upon
graduation, we typically work until the age of 65 or 67, the official
retirement age. In the meantime, we are allowed to enjoy life as we
choose, typically only two weeks a year for vacation to recharge - so
we can go back to work fresher and more focused. By the time
retirement comes around, when our bodies are finally no longer able
to do all the things we dreamed of doing in life, and our health has
typically begun to deteriorate, we are told we can finally enjoy
retirement and do whatever we want.
The vast majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, despite being the most
prosperous country in human history. And upon retirement, if we are lucky, few
of us have had the opportunity to save sufficiently to truly enjoy retirement and
not have to worry about money or how long it will last us in retirement.
This is the definition of economic servitude.
modern day serfs, even in a capitalist world.
Most Americans are
We are brainwashed to believe that if we want a better life, we must serve the
economic engine of the country, by working all our lives, and in the end likely
accepting financial mediocrity.
I am not expressing my bitterness about my personal situation or condition.
Quite the contrary. My life and career were not typical of the average American.
I earned income only the top 1% or few percent in America enjoy, earning
hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in income. I worked in the high
technology industry in Silicon Valley, which is not representative of Middle
Page 138
America. I had a great life and got to enjoy extensive travel, and pretty much was
able to do and enjoy anything I wanted. But the fact remains, the vast majority of
Americans live in economic servitude.
I have some specific ideas that can radically change our society and remove these
bonds of economic servitude for all. I discuss these in Chapter 8, in the section
“Addressing our Social Ills: Sanity in an Insane World”
The Engineered Global Financial Crisis
Money may not be the most important thing, but it’s still a necessity of life. I’m
always surprised at people’s lack of interest in economics and finance. I’m
further surprised that basic education doesn’t include more lessons in basic
finance and understanding of economics. Politics and economics are as
important to our lives as work and money, in the sense they provide the basic
needs for us to survive and enjoy life. Money will not bring happiness, but it does
provide enjoyment which is a necessity of life too.
We should care about what happens in politics and economics. They are
intertwined. And what happens in the financial world greatly impacts our lives.
In the several years leading up to the global 2008 Financial Crisis, boundless
greed dominated the financial world.
The 2008 Financial Crisis nearly destroyed our global economy; within inches of
it. Really. It nearly destroyed our way of life and our capitalist democracy. It is
the single biggest event since WWII and the Cold War. It was more important
than even the Cold War in my opinion, second only to WWII in terms of
significance and potential ramifications to mankind.
The Financial Crisis is not over. The full effects have merely been
delayed, as I will discuss in the next section (“The Next Crisis”).
I spent a lot of time studying the Great Depression of the 1930’s, especially what
triggered it. The Financial Crisis of 2008 was significantly worse. Imagine the
excesses of 1930’s on steroids. Then imagine 2008 on steroids, narcotics,
amphetamines, alcohol, and prescription meds all at the same time - that’s the
next pending crisis. The average person doesn’t realize just how massive and
Page 139
potentially devastating this recent 2008 crisis was, globally, or what is still yet to
come.
The 2008 Financial Crisis wasn’t just subprime mortgages given to individual
Americans, who probably should never have received home loans to begin with.
(Subprime refers to loans to people with bad or sub-par credit.) It was excessive
risk taking on all kinds of different loans and debt instruments. Subprime simply
got the most attention because people understood it, and felt its immediate
impact when their own house price values plummeted; and because it was one of
the most severely impacted types of loans in the crisis when the housing bubble
collapsed.
There were so many levels of white collar crime in the years preceding the
financial crisis. First, loan originators didn’t require documentation or proof of
income. This is just stupid. But they knew they could peddle these bad loans to
someone else, and get more capital to make more bad loans; in an endless ponzi
scheme that lined everyone’s pockets, until the music stopped when the housing
prices stopped skyrocketing.
Wall Street firms took these bad loans, bundled them together, and renamed
them to be called CDOs or Collateralized Debt Obligations (basically loans backed
by the over-inflated value of hard assets like houses). CDO is just a fancy,
nebulous term to purposefully misled investors who would purchase them, being
assured they were one of the highest investment grade quality. The main rating
agency firms, such as Moody’s and S&P - who are required to be independent and
vigorously analyze the risk exposures of financial instruments - were in collusion
with these Wall Street firms, providing a rubber stamp to validate the “high
quality” of the bundled loans, without any real analysis of the actual quality of the
loans (or worse, despite the knowledge they were junk, went ahead and called
them high grade anyway). They were junk grade at best, but were labeled high
investment grade.
It is pure lying and deceit - outright financial fraud - which should be
illegal with or without specific new financial laws on the books. It was
simple obscene financial fraud. How hundreds of financial criminals
weren’t hauled off to jail is morally unconscionable.
To compound the problem, as if outright financial fraud on the order of trillions
of dollars wasn’t enough, the Wall Street firms then leveraged these loans to the
tune of 20X-30X. Meaning for every $1 of actual investment dollars they
possessed, they actually gave out $20 or $30 dollars worth of loans. Leveraging
Page 140
is normal in finance, but this is excessive, obscenely greedy and incredibly high
risk. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or mathematician to figure out that if you
have $5 trillion in leveraged mortgage loans outstanding, but only $250 billion of
actual money you started with, when the price of the houses, and hence the value
of these loans start to crumble, it doesn’t take a whole lot of price down
movement to completely erase the original $250 billion of investment. This is the
problem with high leveraging, especially for very risky investments. This is what
happened to a number of banks and investment firms.
This is so basic, any first year economics or finance student knows this!
But greed, unbounded greed, ruled the day.
These failed companies were ultimately bailed out by our government (with the
exception of Lehman Brothers, the first to fail), using taxpayer’s money. In other
words, bankers could take excessive risk, without risk. When times were good,
they personally made billions. When shit hit the fan, the government came to the
rescue.
Hardly anyone went to jail. When companies were found to be
behaving criminally, they were fined millions, or billions of dollars in
rare cases. But this is trivial to companies that make billions every
quarter. Until the people making these illegal decisions and actions
actually start going to jail in droves (and hard jail), nothing will ever
change; corruption and financial fraud in the order of trillions will
continue.
Why not? For greedy people, whose primary purpose in life is to
pursue riches, and lacking moral fortitude, it’s a simple risk/benefit
analysis. The upside benefit is they can make fortunes on the order of
billions, personally. And the downside risk is that the company may
get fined, but zero personal risk. It’s called a No-Lose scenario. The
only thing that prevents 100% of the people from doing this is ability
and personal morals.
This is the problem with Washington politics and collusion with Wall
Street. Both sides always win, and the average person loses - BIG.
Wall Street and the originating banks were so dazzled by greed and the incredible
short term profits they were generating, nobody wanted it to stop. And everyone
hoped the party would go on forever, in a delusional kool-aid drunk fest
Page 141
completely disconnected to any history or reality. Anybody who claims “They
thought housing prices would go up forever” is a liar and an idiot. A child knows
NOTHING in this world goes up forever.
Another financial weapon of the 2008 crisis was called the Credit Default Swaps
or CDS. I will explain what this is. American International Group, or AIG
Financial, collapsed and had to be bailed out by the U.S. government - to the tune
of $85 billion, due to the extensive use of these so called financial derivatives like
CDSs which soured mightily during the 2008 crisis. Companies began
defaulting, and the value of the CDS derivatives skyrocketed (higher is bad here).
AIG had no way of paying these obligations when wide defaults hit. The ripple
effect was global, and would have affected every major bank and financial
institution in the world - and ultimately everyone who holds savings or
investments (everybody) - which is why the U.S. government had to step in and
bail out AIG.
These derivatives are at the epicenter of the greed issue in the financial
community. Let me explain. These derivatives, such as CDS, are basically
insurance policies for the banks and Wall Street firms. These companies make
trillions of dollars of investment, all with various levels of risk. For the riskiest
bets, they will buy these derivative insurance policies, like CDS, for pennies on
the dollar, which insure their investment in the event of a debt default (entity
who took the loan can’t repay it). In the event the risky investment defaults, they
still get paid full value of the original investment. Sounds great! No risk!
So this allows them to assume their investment is now hedged and the risk has
been minimized or eliminated. So then, they go make other risky investments.
And so on. When someone doesn’t believe their investment is at risk, they
naturally continuously increase their risk exposure so they can make even more
money and get a higher return on investment. At some point, the constant
increase of risk will ultimately implode, which is exactly what happened in 2008.
Unbounded greed.
Like any other kind of insurance policy, the insurance is only as good the
company that sells it. If the company is not solid and has weak finances, it could
go bankrupt, making the insurance useless. Well, CDS insurance policies are
actually the same. They are only as good as the company’s ability to meet its
obligations. In the case of AIG, when broad defaults hit, there was no way it
could honor all the obligations.
Page 142
The problem is that when there is what is called a “Black Swan” scenario
(meaning extremely rare but significant event), things usually correlate heavily,
and ALL investment assets fall rapidly. This means that broad and heavy defaults
are likely, and that any company that is heavily exposed to derivatives like CDSs
is going to fail again in the future.
Blank Swan theory was always thought of as being an extremely remote chance.
However, like forest fires, when mankind and governments meddle with the
natural order of things, when calamity strikes, it is becoming much more massive
in effect. Small forest fires are natural and nature’s way of purging, as I
mentioned before. When man stops these small fires from occurring, by
“managing” nature and forests, more frequently now, massive forest fires emerge.
This hands-on approach greatly increases the chance of major forest fires today,
especially in periods where there is drought. It’s simple logic really.
Well, when government and the Federal Central Bank try to manage the economy
in a similar way, massive forest fires also occur. Droughts are the equivalent of
natural economic cycles.
Black Swan theory is not relevant anymore, because the probability of occurrence
is no longer determined by natural phenomenon in nature. The probability of
major catastrophe continues to grow, the more management is done and less
natural purging is allowed (small recessions).
Today I think the probability of a major Black Swan event is nearly
100% within the next 10 years, likely much sooner. (Read the next
section “The Next Crisis”)
Government (globally) has dug itself into a giant hole and the hole is filling with
shit.
The worldwide derivatives market is over $700 trillion in size. That’s
TRILLION with a capital “T”! This is astounding. The entire U.S.
economy, the world’s largest, is still less than $20 trillion. And the
entire world economy is barely about $75 trillion. In other words, the
derivatives market is nearly 10 times larger than the entire global
economy! And yet it is one of the least regulated and least understood
part of the financial industry! How can something this massive and
this important to our economic way of life, be barely understood and
even less regulated?!!!!
Page 143
Really, nothing has changed following the 2008 financial meltdown.
The U.S. government recently overturned a provision of the Dodd-Frank financial
reform law, which was adopted by Congress in 2010 following the 2008 financial
disaster - to ensure history did not repeat. It was 11th hour political
gamesmanship by the Republicans to avert a government shutdown, sneaking in
the repeal amendment last minute, knowing that veto or changes were unlikely.
(Democrats are no better and often do their own similar political
gamesmanship.)
Dodd-Frank required companies, who sold derivatives, to have high level of cash
reserves so they could meet their obligations if they came due. This is normal for
ANY insurance company business. However, the derivative financial industry is
not subject to the same insurance laws (which it clearly should be).
But this provision of Dodd-Frank was recently overturned by the Congress,
driven by Republicans mostly, but with many Democratic votes, and signed by
President Obama. This is so unconscionable. Wall Street’s grip on Washington is
even stronger than prior to the Financial Crisis.
The $700 trillion dollar, highly unregulated and nebulous derivatives
market is the single biggest systemic risk today - STILL - even in the
short wake of the near-death global economic collapse. The rollback
of what little regulation we had invariably means that in any major
future crisis, the federal government will again be required to
backstop and bailout the Wall Street firms and banks. This means
taxpayers, everyday Americans struggling to get by, will again rescue
Wall Street and subsidize their unbounded greed.
But this will be global. It will affect EVERY country and person. Just
as the 2008 Financial Crisis was far reaching.
The difference is, the average taxpayer will likely lose their job as the economy
collapses in the next inevitable crisis. Whereas, the Wall Street bankers will be
completely un-impacted with their billion dollar, highly diversified fortunes.
When I talk about how government is failing us, this is a prime
example. Wall Street special interests can influence Washington to
the point that doing obvious things that are in the national interest
gets ignored, while the wealthiest Wall Street executives and bankers
continue to expand riches at an unprecedented pace, protected by the
Page 144
safety net of the federal government, on the backs of the American
taxpayers hard earned money.
We are barely 6 years removed from a near nuclear meltdown of the global
financial system (this is no exaggeration), and we are already undoing what little
reform we had enacted following the crisis. If this is after only 6 years, imagine
what it will be like after 10 or 20 years (if the system doesn’t implode by then)?
Pure Capitalism is failing us. It is largely due to unbounded greed.
The only thing that can curb, or reign in human greed, is fear.
Regulations or laws, in and of themselves, are meaningless if the fear
of enforcement and hard jail time is not real.
We place disproportionate priority on hard crimes, while largely
ignoring significant white collar crimes that have much more broad
impact to millions of Americans. Other than the occasional slap on
the wrist and maybe a few years of soft jail time, there is insufficient
fear of consequences.
When someone steals $1,000 at a convenience store, law enforcement vigorously
pursues justice and jail time for the criminal.
When someone steals $100 million, in the vast majority of cases, it
never gets prosecuted. And when it does, the sentence is typically
limited and only soft jail time. First of all, any significant theft or
fraud - of one million dollars of more - should be life in prison; in
maximum security prison with hardened criminals. Period. Fear is
the only thing that will curb unbounded greed.
I consider myself a fervent believer in Capitalism as the “least-worst” economic
model. But it must have boundaries, and government must do a better job
implementing and enforcing these boundaries, so society as a whole can live in a
fairer, less dichotomized world of wealthy ten percenters and the rest of
struggling America. Effective regulation of greed is as mandatory as education is
to the long term survival of a nation in the modern age.
These problems are consistent globally, not just in America. These problems are
often amplified in many other countries.
Page 145
Obscene inequality is bad for democracy and bad for humanity in general. I am
far from a bleeding liberal; in fact I am very much pro-capitalist. But inequality
of this magnitude is grotesque. It is inhumane.
This is the very reason we should always be wary of any government.
Any institution or organization which possesses extreme power has
the potential to abuse it. The famous adage, that “power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts, absolutely” is equally true today as it
was thousands of years ago. Human nature hasn’t changed or
evolved, and likely never will, no matter how optimistic we choose to
be. This is why oversight, and checks and balances are the most
essential element of any powerful institution.
The Next Looming Crisis (M.O.A.C.)
Economic cycles are inevitable - just as forest fires are natural and unavoidable.
It is purely a function of human nature, vacillating between greed and fear.
When times are good, people continuously take on more risk, become greedier,
until finally it goes too far and the economy stumbles, only to be built up again, as
the economy always bounces back. Always. But sometimes it takes decades to
return to previous highs or undo the damage.
More and more, governments worldwide are becoming increasingly aggressive at
trying to dampen the effects of economic slowdowns or recessions. This is part of
the problem. It’s like preventing forest fires. Forest fires are nature’s way of
regeneration, and it is the healthy and natural way it manages the ecosystem.
Fires eliminate the dead wood and allow new growth to flourish in the aftermath.
Similarly, recessions are the market’s way of eliminating the dead wood of
inefficient companies and industries, allowing the stronger and more successful
ones to flourish, and opening up potential for new companies to be created and
grow.
Government’s solution (worldwide) to lessen or eliminate recessions or
slowdowns always leads to increased government debt. Government debts,
worldwide, have been on a steady and fast increase since the 1980’s. It
accelerated even faster following 2008. As any common person who has to deal
with personal household budgets and finances will tell you, at some point, debt
has to be addressed. And indefinitely growing it is not a realistic way to manage
Page 146
anything, especially if your debt is ballooning faster than your income is growing,
as is the case with global government (and also private) debt.
At some point, creditors refuse to give you more debt or credit! The same is true
of government debt.
Since 2008, the private and bank debt, which caused the crisis, has basically been
transferred to governments and central banks. Plus trillions more added on top
of that. Total debt has exploded. The 16th “Geneva Report” on the state of the
global economy was issued in September, 2014. The blue line represents the
actual data and the dashed line is the averaged trend line which noticeably
accelerates after 2008.
The significant study evaluated the total global debt as a function of global GDP
(GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is a measure of a country or world economic
size). The study found that the global debt has been accelerating since the 2008
crisis. Keep in mind, the Financial Crisis was due to overleveraging and excessive
debt to begin with. And following the crisis, deleveraging or reduction of debt
was perceived to be critical to achieve economic stability. The simple chart above
(from the report) shows Debt as a percentage of GDP from 2001 to 2013.
This is a very scary chart. Prior to 2007, the curve is relatively flat. After 2007,
the curve goes nearly vertical. As one can easily see, total global debt has
accelerated since 2008, not decreased, rising much faster than total economic
Page 147
growth. The report includes all public government and private debt. Not only
has government debt escalated at a faster pace, the private debt has expanded
even faster (due to the free money of zero percent interest rates).
During the previous two decades, the growth in China has helped keep the world
economy afloat to a large degree. The most shocking find in the report is that the
total debt in China has nearly doubled from 140% to 220% of GDP. In other
words, this quantifies that the growth in China has basically been due to massive
expansion of debt. This is fairly well known. This is also unsustainable. This is
why the Chinese economy is slowing and will continue to slow rapidly. The
evidence is in the incredible collapse of oil and commodity prices recently.
Furthermore, the rapidity of the growth means that very poor loans were issued
and many will lead to default. There is an inevitable banking and debt crisis
looming in China. This is almost a certainty. It could be similar to the U.S.
Financial Crisis.
The U.S. total debt is at 264% of GDP (public and private). Total global debt
stands a staggering 215% of GDP.
All these figures are ridiculously large,
creating problems for future stability and setting the stage for an inevitably worse
crisis.
What do these figures mean? Well, imagine if you made $50,000 of income per
year, but you were carrying a debt burden of $107,500. Further imagine that
your yearly expenses exceeded your income by about $2,500 every single year,
adding to the debt bill. But unfortunately, even if you cut out all of your
discretionary spending, you could only reduce your spending to $49,000. In
other words, if you went on a massive spending diet, you could only (in the best
case scenario) pay off $1,000 of your debt every year. But your debt is growing
faster than 2% due to interest (extremely conservative average of private and
government debt interest rates estimate). In other words, you will never be able
to reduce your debt, and even in the best case scenario you will continually grow
debt. Your only hope is that your income grows faster, while holding your
spending at bare minimum for the rest of your life.
All government projections globally focus on debt management by trying to
“grow their way out debt,” typically using aggressive growth models based on
historical growth trends that relied heavily on increasing debt to stimulate the
historical growth. But the problem is that if one must reduce debt expansion, the
growth will stall considerably, making these models irrelevant and overly
optimistic.
Page 148
This global debt problem is going to collapse the global financial system. It is
virtually a 100% guarantee. And when this happens, it will create massive global
chaos. I’m not a doomsday guy, I just look at numbers.
The reality is, and few people will tell you, our entire economic system is based on
perceptions and confidence. It really is. The only reason why our system works
is that people, investors, believe that the debt they purchase - from government
and private industry - are solid investments. If this confidence disappears, for
whatever reason, the system collapses. This is fact. It nearly happened a few
years ago in the Euro zone as the Southern European economies and finances
were weak and had lost the confidence of investors.
The next crisis will be appreciably worse.
Now take into account the reality of global debt. Since the 1980’s it’s been on a
torrid pace, ever expanding, relentlessly, globally. (As a side note, the main
reason it has increased rapidly after 1980 is the decoupling of money backed by
physical gold by President Richard Nixon in the 70s. It created the possibility of
unlimited money supply). The fact is, the entire economic boom of the latter part
of the last century, through 2014, is because debt has been increasing at an
unsustainable pace. It’s been so successful, that governments and even
economists, and especially global banking firms like those on Wall Street, have
deluded themselves that it can go on forever (just like the housing boom!). And
that increasing debt isn’t a problem (or is only a problem sometime in the distant
future, so let’s not worry about it now and spoil the party). Unbounded Greed.
When the reality hits, that we cannot “grow” out of this debt conundrum, the
fragile confidence is going to shatter.
The fact remains, the problems were never resolved following the previous crises,
really, but just masked over with more money-printing, massive new money, and
even more debt, deferring the problem for the next generation. The problem
really started in 2001, with the collapse of the Technology Bubble and equities.
This problem was masked over with ultra low interest rates and very
accommodative government and Federal Reserve (Central Bank) policy. The Fed
kept interest rates below 2%, and as low as 1%, for a period of 3 years. This
helped short term economic recovery and stoked a massive housing bubble,
ultimately contributing mightily to the Financial Crisis of 2008.
Each successive crisis is getting bigger. In math and science/engineering, we
describe these events as being un-damped. Meaning the oscillations are
Page 149
increasingly getting worse at a predefined interval, and there is no system to
reduce it. Un-damped systems always destroy themselves.
The first recession in the modern era was in 1980-1982. It was very deep and
long as far as recessions go, with a total of 6 of the 12 quarters experiencing very
significant contraction during this period. Quarterly output decreased nearly 8%
in the worst quarter. This recession was largely due to the Middle East oil crisis.
This was an external shock that is difficult to anticipate (oil prices skyrocketed,
there was a shortage of supply, and gas rationing to consumers occurred). I
consider this more of an anomaly (the severity of the recession).
In 1990-1991, there were 2 quarters of recession. This recession was due to the
banking crisis (Savings and Loan crisis). The government bailed out nearly 750
bankrupt banks, and ultimately cost taxpayers over $124 billion. However, the
recession and impact was relatively mild and short. No crazy low interest rates
by the Federal Reserve, or trillions in government stimulus.
In 2001-2003, the collapse of the technology and internet bubble created losses
of trillions of dollars in stock value. This led to a relatively mild recession lasting
2 quarters, with contraction below 1.5% in the worst quarter. However, it led to
unprecedented and aggressive Federal Reserve (Central Bank of the government)
policy which prevented a much worse recession. You can’t lose trillions in equity
value and only have a mild recession. There is cost to be paid for overexuberance, one day, at some point. This equity collapse pain was delayed to the
next crisis in the form of government and Federal Reserve policy.
In Financial Crisis of 2008-2009, there were 6 quarters of economic contraction.
This was the deepest recession since the Great Depression in the 1930s. This was
due to the Financial Crisis, caused by the housing bust and the destructive
derivative instruments we discussed earlier. The financial impacts were massive
and reverberated globally. We are still going through aftershock tremors.
The period (duration) between the 1982 recession ending and 1990 recession
beginning was 8 years. The period between 1991 and 2001 was 10 years. The gap
between 2001 and 2008 was 7 years. Recessions typically happen about every 7
to 10 years. Again, mostly due to human nature of vacillating between greed and
fear (excessive risk taking during good times, leads to bad investments when
economy slows, exaggerated by fear of investors and consumers causing overreaction). There is a human nature oscillation frequency, determined by our
ability to forget short term pain, where fear slowly gets overtaken by greed - the
cycle repeats indefinitely.
Page 150
It has been more than 5 years since the end of the Financial Crisis recession in
2009.
Based on the world economic picture, Europe is in horrendous shape and is
slowly dying of a thousand paper cuts. China, once the world’s growth engine,
fueled by immense, unprecedented government stimulus and debt driven growth,
is now necessarily coming to a screeching halt. Japan has been permanently in
economic turmoil for decades following the massive 1980s real estate bubble.
These economies, plus the U.S., account for about $49 trillion of the world’s $75
trillion global economy (65%). The remaining major emerging economies, such
as Russia, India, Brazil are rapidly slowing or in recession. In fact, the U.S. is
projected to grow faster in 2015 than the basket of emerging economies for the
first time in nearly two decade. Unbelievable really. An economy the size of the
U.S. should not grow faster than emerging economies.
The causes of these economic problems are structural and deep. They will not be
resolved easily or shortly.
The U.S. is currently the only major economy that is seemingly accelerating and
heating up. However, I expect the U.S. economy to begin a natural cycle of
decline (also impacted by the slowdowns in the rest of the world) over the next 23 years.
The next natural economic cycle will come, likely, in 2016 or 2017 (7-8 years
following the end of the Great Recession of 2008).
The problems will be significant. The accumulation of debt - both public
government debt and private debt - has never been growing as rapidly as it has
since 2008. They are stretched beyond the safe levels. It’s like a rubber band.
You can stretch it so far and it will flex and still bounces back. But at some point,
if you stretch it too much, it snaps and is permanently destroyed.
The confidence of investors in the ability of governments and private companies
to repay the debt is going to come into question, necessarily. When confidence
snaps, the bond bubble must collapse. (Bonds are simply a fancy word for debt
government or companies issue in exchange for promising the investor they will
be repaid the original amount, plus some interest rate on top of that. It’s
basically a loan, except it can be traded and bought/sold like a stock.)
Page 151
The bond prices have been at an all time record increase since 2008. Global
yields have NEVER been this low (low yields mean bond or debt prices are
higher). As interest rates go higher, and central banks are no longer able to
dictate or control yield rates, government and private debt will no longer be able
to be repaid (it was all based on near zero interest rates assumptions).
The system hasn’t imploded yet because investors have faith that governments
and central banks can keep things under control and maintain interest rates. As
in life, control is merely an illusion.
Predicting exactly how or when bubbles will burst is incredibly difficult, if not
impossible for anyone. But I believe the collapse will likely happen in Japan first
(although many experts have been calling for the demise of Japan for decades).
But, for the first time in modern history, savings rates in Japan have gone
negative due to demographics (too many older people and too few younger
workers), and lack of immigration due to the homogenous and closed culture.
Japanese have always had an incredibly high savings rate, and much higher than
Americans. Japanese will no longer be able to subsidize the government bond
purchases as before, and yields will rise appreciably. Over 90% of Japanese
government debt is purchased by Japanese (the highest globally for a major
economy). This is due the unique culture within Japan of nationalism and
cultural pride. This situation has allowed Japan to maintain the lowest interest
rates in the world, despite a constantly struggling economy and irrespective of the
fact Japan’s government already has the highest debt ratio. Japan is the most
indebted government of all the major economies, and they are completely reliant
on zero percent interest rates. If rates go up, the government finances completely
collapse.
Japan has no alternative but to devalue their currency to basically devalue their
massive debt which is unsustainable and un-repayable. And given Japanese
citizens and banks are less able to buy government bonds, the Japanese Central
Bank is now the only entity that can and continues to purchase this government
debt (effectively massive new printing money).
Back in late 2014, I told my friends the Japanese Yen would fall below 120 and
that they should short the currency (bet it would devalue). It was trading about
107 Yen to $1 at the time. In a few short months, it has fallen rapidly to 124 Yen
to $1. At the time, the experts were all saying the dollar would continue to get
weaker against all major currencies. The experts were wrong, and are frequently
wrong due to the herd mentality of Wall Street. This is a massive move for the
world’s third largest economy. The Japanese government is trying to stimulate
Page 152
inflation to counter the decades long deflationary cycle which is driven by the
collapse of the massive real estate bubble in the 1980s, as well as structural
demographic problems. The Yen will continue to devalue. And the government
debt will continue to balloon as large deficits will persist. Eventually more tax
hikes will be necessary. And given that Japan is an island that is dependent on
imports for food and energy and commodities, this will drive inflation and
interest rates higher. If interest rates move up to even 2% or 3%, from zero
today, the government finances will collapse. They are walking a tight rope: they
want inflation (which always drives higher interest rates), but they also need zero
interest rates. The two are incompatible. Be careful what you want. Abe
economics (Shinzō Abe is the prime minister of Japan) is going to end in
absolute, utter disaster for the country.
Next to fall will be the European Zone, stressing the European Union model.
Some countries will finally leave the Euro out of necessity. A decade from now,
more countries than just Greece will have exited the EU. The continuing Euro
devaluation is the leading indicator, but fundamentally the EU concept is flawed
and cannot be successful to the broad set of members. Few people believe the
Euro will go to parity (equal) to the dollar when I first wrote this (Euro was
trading around 1.25 to $1). In fact, all the experts were nearly universally
predicting the dollar would get weaker. I believe the Euro will go far below parity
to the dollar over the next 5 years. Of course, several months after I wrote this,
when the Euro nearly went to parity with the dollar, in one of the most rapid
declines of a major currency ever seen, every “expert” suddenly changed their
tune and then started predicting the Euro would go to less than parity to the
dollar. Be wary of expert opinion. They are motivated by different goals than
you are.
China will experience a debt crisis and growth will plummet (perhaps even an
actual recession, stunning for a country that was recently addicted to double digit
GDP growth). Money has been flowing to unhealthy companies and industries
for far too long as a result of central government planning and corruption.
Massive government stimulus cannot continue and banks are precariously in a
dangerous position with a ton of bad loans on the books, and a government that
has stated they will not save them (I don’t believe it). Social unrest is likely. I
believe the Communist government will finally fall within 10-20 years. Good
riddance. Bring democracy and freedom to 1.3+ billion Chinese finally. Google
can finally set up shop again in China. LOL
The problem in the U.S. is that the zero Fed rates and the huge government debt,
plus still large annual deficits coupled with exploding private debt due to easy
Page 153
money and zero rates, is all going to finally come to a head - we cannot be
immune from the rest of the world.
Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has pumped more than $3 trillion dollars into
the economy, basically printing money. It went from a balance sheet of $0.85
trillion to over $4 trillion during this time, nearly an increase of 5X.
Unprecedented.
Since 2008, the U.S. Government has increased debt from about $11 trillion to
about $18 trillion today.
The recent U.S. economic “growth” that we have experienced has
been purely debt driven. In Q3 2008, the U.S. GDP was $14.9 trillion.
In Q3 2014, the U.S. economy was $16.2 trillion. Our U.S. economy
grew by $1.3 trillion since the Financial Crisis. However, it took $10
trillion dollars of government debt ($7T in U.S. government, plus $3T
of Federal Reserve) to create this $1.3 trillion of new growth!
That’s just a bad investment. No, let’s be clear, it’s a shit investment. And one
where Americans and the world will have to pay the painful price in the near
future.
All this money printing and debt ballooning has merely delayed the inevitable
pain, and ensured the pain will be far worse now once it hits. Everyone seems
convinced nowadays that the aggressive government monetary policy saved the
world economic. History will prove otherwise, and it will not judge these policy
makers kindly.
Today, the Federal Reserve interest rates are already zero. And this is largely true
in other advanced countries as well (so globally). The debt has increased so
rapidly, we have no more room to “buy our way out of the next crisis”. We have
no more tools in the bag.
The deferred crisis of 2001, delayed by government and central bank policy, and
the postponed crisis depth and duration of 2008, will finally come due in the next
crisis, likely in 2016 (maybe 2017).
It will be the Mother Of All Crises (M.O.A.C). It could be more than
just another Great Depression; it could completely usher in a new
financial system and global order (or at least start the long process).
Page 154
Imagine, the 2008 Financial Crises was precipitated by several years
of 1% to 2% low interest rates, which created a large housing bubble in
America that finally burst. Imagine what the impact of 7 years of near
zero interest rates, coupled with global monetary easing and low rates
that has pumped tens of trillions of dollars into global assets of all
types, how much greater will this bubble be?
During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, we had an economic collapse but not
governments collapsing. The next major crisis could be much worse in the sense
that economic collapse will also likely be accompanied by massive global
government instability and the potential collapse of many major governments
due massive debt loads, and social disorder and chaos. It’s a different world we
live in today versus 1930.
The reasons?
Every major government, globally, is in much worse fiscal and economic
condition than prior to 2008. The world has become addicted to zero interest
rates, massive money printing, and governments subsidizing markets.
Government debt is at historical highs in every metric: vs GDP, vs growth rates,
in absolute terms. Private debt has ballooned due to easy and free money (the
sense of low risk is again leading to excessive risk taking, similar to prior to the
2008 Financial Crisis, but worse). Interest rates are already zero, at historic lows
and unprecedented. Every single investment asset class has accelerated rapidly
since 2009 due to zero interest, free money, encouraging excessively risky and
speculative bets in every possible investment asset class. This is the first time in
human history where every single asset class is in or near bubble territory. In
2001, it was equities mostly. In 2008, it was debt instruments and private
housing mostly.
Bonds are at the highest levels globally - highest in human history. The bond
market is the tail that wags the dog, because it is soooo large. The bond market is
far bigger than stocks/equities. It dwarfs stocks, about twice as big as the entire
global stock market size, if you added the valuation of every single public
company together. At the end of 2013, the global bond (debt) market exceeded
$100 trillion! Of course, in 2014 it expanded rapidly, so it is well above $100
trillion today. In 2007, it stood at around $70 trillion, so it’s grown rapidly since
the Financial Crisis. In the 2008 Financial Crisis, the primary debt problem and
bubble was housing. The total outstanding housing debt was only about $5
trillion. Today, the entire bond market is in bubble territory and far more
Page 155
overvalued than housing was in 2007. Think about it, a $5 trillion debt crisis,
exacerbated by financial derivatives, or more than $100 trillion of overvalued
bonds globally, exacerbated by a $700 trillion derivatives market. Which is going
to lead to a worse crisis? The current worldwide debt crisis is 20 times larger
than in 2008!
Holy shit! I really don’t know why people aren’t terrified. It’s largely because
people just don’t know. The “experts” don’t want to create public panic. And
Wall Street is going to milk the cow for as long as it can, reaping personal billions
in fortunes, before crying to our government, Uncle Sam, to save them again.
The people will get screwed again, but even worse than before. This crisis will
create social instability in many countries, not just economic collapse. War is
possible, if not likely, as a result. Governments will topple.
Equities (stocks) are also at all time records - fueled by a sense of solid corporate
earnings based on a fictitious model - zero rates and $10 trillion in stimulus is not
a model that can be extended forever to sustain these corporate earnings. Keep
in mind, company stock prices and valuations are based their projected future
earnings potential.
Housing is again at new records. Commercial and residential real estate is at
records. Commodities were at records until recently. They have fallen
dramatically due to the rapid China slowdown. Public debt and private debt are
at records.
Normally records are great! Being at all time highs would usually indicate that
the economy is booming, corporate profit growth is soaring, incomes are
skyrocketing, and people are generally doing well. But this is not the case at all.
Instead, the economy is stagnant, having likely gone negative in Q1 of 2015
(economists now expect revisions to early Q1’15 QDP to be around negative 1%),
corporate profits are barely moving higher and may likely begin falling year on
year, personal incomes are barely budging and far below historical norms, the
employment participation rate is at multi-decade lows (lowest in 4 decades)
despite the unemployment rate seeming to be recovering nicely (there are fewer
people working today than a decade ago). And yet, everything is priced like the
best of times - as if nothing could possibly go wrong, or that there is no more risk
in the world today, forever. The government has come to the rescue, so fear not
(sarcasm).
Massively higher global debts are not a good thing and dramatically increase risk.
Prices of all assets being at record highs are the result of unlimited money
Page 156
printing and completely unreflective of economic reality. Over-leveraging is
usually the cause of every downturn and recession, including the last one in
2008. And yet we are more levered today than ever before. Over-leveraging is
like dominos. When one finally falls, the chain reaction begins an unstoppable
sequence of events. And the rapidity of the fall always catches everyone offguard.
This is what happens when the government says, “we will give you
unlimited free money”, to the tune of trillions and trillions. People
take free money and try to make more with it. It’s called zero risk.
Why not? It’s dangerous government policy, especially given how
long it’s been in place (6 years). It was the duration of low rates
following the 2001 tech bubble that created the same housing crisis
that caused the 2008 Financial Crisis to begin with. Lessons in
history are never learned or retained. Mostly because the rich and
the policy makers always benefit, so why do they care? Their mantra:
“Get rich now, quick before the floor falls out; let someone else clean
up the mess and pay the price.”
Capitalists will always state, the main reason communism and
centrally planned economies fail is because of the inefficient
allocation of capital or money. Well, what our Federal Reserve is
doing, is essentially tantamount to that, albeit from a completely
opposite approach. The result is the same, inefficient allocation of
capital. Why? Because when you have free money for extended
periods of time, people will put it into everything to get returns on
investment - especially the places where it shouldn’t be allocated.
These non-preferred industries and companies are luring investors
with higher returns. So in a perverted way, our Federal Reserve
actions are resulting in the same reason why central planned
governments fail. This is not true capitalism. It’s a perversion. It has
created the Mother of all Bubbles.
I believe the recent commodity collapse is the canary in a coal mine, the early
leading indicator and one of many to come. Be careful, in 2015 and 2016,
significant danger lurks. (I wrote this at the end of 2014 when everything seemed
rosy).
I believe it will be much worse than 2008. I hope I am wrong. But I’m pretty
damn confident about it, unfortunately. I may be off on the precise timing (by a
few years). Predicting the end of cycles is very difficult to impossible. But it is
Page 157
inevitable. I rarely say something is 100% probability (because by definition this
doesn’t exist. Just as 0% probability can’t exist). But this is damn close to
certain.
This is one of the major problems with modern society. Its growing
dependence and faith in the government systems to control
everything. When government gets this intimately involved in central
economic planning, it becomes a perverted form of socialism (in a
capitalist system)...Modern Day Serfdom in a Capitalist world.
Make no mistake, the power and influence the central banks and
governments have today (by way of fiscal and monetary controls,
through debt issuance and rate policy), is tantamount to central
planning of economies.
All you have to do is have a basic
understanding of the markets to figure this out. Any Wall Street
investor will tell you, “Invest based on what the Fed does” (Federal
Reserve). The old adage, “Don’t fight the Fed” is more true today than
ever. This is the definition of absolute faith in institutions. What the
author Hayek warned us about.
Eventually, absolute faith in a system of absolute power, always fails.
Be careful. It only takes the tiniest of pin pricks to burst a massive bubble. Greed
will drive a catastrophic end result.
My recommendation is to buy gold. It’s the only monetary system that
governments cannot manipulate. You don’t have to buy physical gold, you can
also buy stock symbol GLD which tracks the price of gold. You should always
keep 20% of your investments in gold nowadays. When the price goes down, add
more to maintain at least a 20% proportion. Hold onto it for the long term. I
promise you, you will thank me one day.
You can’t print more gold. And you can always use it as a paperweight for all the
meaningless paper currency being Xeroxed today. Shockingly, all the world’s
gold that has ever been mined throughout the entirety of history, could fit into
just two Olympic sized swimming pools! 161,000 tons worth. It truly is rare.
The Alternative Solution
Page 158
It dawned on me that instead of just spelling out the gloom and doom of the
pending Mother of All Crisis, and how our policy makers and government has
once again failed us, that I should point out what I think would have been a much
better response to the economic collapse following 2008 – and still could be. (Of
course, putting policies and regulations in place to prevent the utter greed and
corruption of the 2008 crises would have been the wiser preventative action, but
that’s water under the bridge as we say).
So, let’s play Monday morning quarterback for a moment (even though this has
always been my view; and I would bet the farm I would be more right than the
policy makers today):
First of all, interest rates should never be set to zero. Even a 1% or 2% rate is low
enough and highly accommodative. Zero rates create all kinds of dislocations
and risk taking that only makes a true recovery unsustainable in the long term.
Of course, in the short term, businesses and markets all love zero rates because it
juices the economy and stock markets, and the rich get richer. But steroids and
amphetamines never produce lasting results, but can only endanger the overall
health.
Second, stop printing more goddamn money. Increasing money supply and
devaluing the dollar at these alarming rates is an unwinnable strategy long term.
We are now in the middle of massive global currency wars as a result of this
idiotic policy. This will continue forever it seems now. It’s creating the very
problems we are trying to solve; constantly chasing our tail; and caught in a
perpetual vortex requiring ever more easing and accommodative policy. These
massive currency gyrations indicate major seismic activity in the underlying
economic tectonic plates. It’s creating dangerous consequences whose pressures
build with each growing expansive policy. (I wish I had a thousand pages I could
elaborate further on).
Printing trillions of dollars is meaningless if the money is not being directed in
the proper places. Putting the money in the hands of the rich and powerful, or
allowing dead companies and industries to continue to persist through low rate
debt issuance will only keep the patient (the economy) sicker for longer. Money
printing shouldn’t be for financial companies to put more money into betting on
things like the stock market or just to buy more bonds. It needs to go to the real
economy to really build and grow. The problem is that companies will only invest
in new factories and new capacity or build new buildings if there is actual
demand (unless you’re China, where you build empty mega cities because the
Communist party dictates it).
Page 159
Third, so this brings us to the major conundrum. How do we create lasting,
sustainable demand when recessions are natural mechanisms to reduce demand
for short periods, until a natural balance is achieved between supply and demand,
and the economy then begins its process of sustainable growth? So, how do we
create demand that won’t be a waste of money in the long run? This cannot be
done by the Federal Reserve central bank. It must be done through government
policy coupled with private enterprise.
Government creates incentive through tax policy, not by throwing money at
problems they think need to be fixed. Government should never get in the
business of predicting winners and losers in business, or good or bad industries,
as they will usually be proven wrong or ineffective.
What does America need? We need better technology infrastructure like high
speed internet nationally and a ubiquitous fast wireless infrastructure; a smarter,
more secure national power grid for the new millennia. We need energy
independence and clean renewable energy, using every available green energy
source that makes economic sense. We need better education technology
infrastructure to usher in the digital age into learning. We need better health
care technology infrastructure to get our health information systems out of the
stone ages to improve efficiency and lower costs. We need urban renewal and
inner city redevelopment. We need physical infrastructure improvements like
better roads and bridges and high speed rail systems for transportation and
commerce. We need advanced research into technology for the long term. We
need incentives for companies to build manufacturing and factories at home
(instead of abroad) to create more middle class jobs.
All of these are things the government can incentivize through aggressive and
novel tax policy and the creation of low interest loans for targeted industries and
policies. These should be in partnership with private enterprise on a market
basis (not government choosing winners).
All of these things create the foundation for long term, sustainable economic
growth for decades but yet will provide immediate impact to an economic
recovery as business confidence and consumer confidence recovers.
Give 100% tax deductions for targeted areas for a period of 5 years, which
gradually begin to be phased out over the next 5 years to prevent a sudden cliff.
Companies that manufacture at home gets to reduce taxes for the portion of
revenues manufactured domestically (if they bring back factories from abroad).
Page 160
If you already manufacture locally, then any new manufacturing facility will apply
the same tax benefits. These incentives work, guaranteed. Basic accounting will
tell you that if it makes sense economically to manufacture locally, EVERY
business will. It’s really simple and absolute fact. We can change the economic
calculations for local manufacturing instantly by more favorable tax policy and
incentives. This will create millions of real jobs, permanent jobs; a lasting
recovery. This isn’t political rhetoric but absolute fact.
Everyone still believes that manufacturing in China is still the lowest cost. But
the fact is, with the rise of the Chinese currency and rising wages, the economics
to manufacture in the U.S. is nearly comparable to China after taking into
account all factors, including shipment and transportation back to the U.S. Tax
policy can tilt the favor very aggressively toward manufacturing again at home.
This will create new construction demand for new factories, and add new
permanent manufacturing jobs that will have ripple effects across our economy.
Invest in inners cities to bring hope and opportunity back to the poorest
communities. We should be spending tens of billions to rebuild our inner cities
and make them look beautiful again, to create solid jobs for those trapped in a
perpetual cycle of hopelessness. Incentivize companies to hire inner city
residents. This is how you fight crime, riots against police, and bring hope and
opportunities to the traditionally disenfranchised. Stop giving trillions to those
who already have money, and start doing something that will help everyone, and
make the country better for the long term.
Forget trillion dollar stimulus programs and trillions more of money printing that
will ultimately end up with us scratching our heads and wondering why it didn’t
work and, oh shit! we now have a ton of debt. Create incentives for business to
invest. Companies will only invest in new factories and hire new employees when
the economics make sense and there is demand, not because government begs
them or for social consciousness. Change economic calculations to make the
math more favorable for business to do business.
This would cost a fraction of what we’ve spent so far trying to prop up the
economy. Instead of wasting $10 trillion over the past 6 years, we could probably
have spent somewhere between $1 - $2 trillion over the same period, but we
would have real economic growth and a lasting, sustainable recovery. It becomes
an investment in our own economy and country, rather than just throwing
unlimited money at a problem, hoping it will somehow fix itself.
Page 161
Fourth, open up legal immigration to allow more educated people of all types who
want to come to America, pursue their own American dream and opportunity.
Population growth is one of the main natural drivers of economic stimulus and
growth. We should be increasing immigration by 1-2% annually and creating
incentives to have children to grow another 2-3%. Combined, we can grow our
U.S. population by 3-5% annually. This will create a massive economic boom.
Even the idiots with misplaced anger who say, “Immigrants go home, they’re
stealing our jobs” will realize the benefits, as the economy booms and the “rising
tide lifts all boats.”
Fifth, implement massive tax code reform, something I mentioned in the next
Chapter 8. If we implemented the tax reforms, education reforms, and the Social
Security/Medicare ideas I discuss in the next Chapter 8, I can’t even begin to
quantify how big of an impact it would be to every facet of our lives. But it would
be nothing short of a revolutionary change for the positive.
And finally, number 6, aggressively prosecute white collar criminals – CEOs,
managers, low level workers who participated in financial fraud to the tune of
trillions of dollars. Even if we don’t get successful convictions, the mere
understanding that the government will take white collar crimes and financial
fraud seriously will prevent future criminal behavior, or at least diminish it.
Thousands of white collar professionals should have been hauled off to hard jail
time. Billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains should have been reclaimed and
confiscated.
Make people believe in justice and fairness again. Make believe again in the
American system and rule of law; that it applies to everyone, including
billionaires and CEOs of Wall Street banks, and politicians.
The problem with government, business, and society as a whole these days, is
that everything we do is short term focused. We want to juice the economy
immediately. We want instant profit growth (every quarter). We want to get
instant returns on stock prices. This path will never result in a long lasting,
structurally supported and sustainable solution to anything.
The Digital Century
Today, the world is far more economically integrated and intertwined than ever
before due to technology and the digital era. Money and goods flow freely around
Page 162
the world at an efficient pace unprecedented in history. And, by and large, it has
helped people and countries lift themselves out of utter poverty to a large degree.
But, as Warren Buffet indicates, it has sharpened the divide between the ultra
rich and the utter poor.
The start of the digital century really started in 1981, with the release of the
Personal Computer and the introduction of the first IBM PC. The technology was
simple and rudimentary by today’s standards. In the three short decades that
have followed, capabilities and progress has leaped exponentially. Technology
has been transformed, and today, it is essential and invasive in every part of our
lives, whether we realize it or not. We are completely dependent on it.
I bought my first computer in 1983 using the money I made working on the
family farm as a child. It cost me roughly $4,000. It had no hard drive. Two
5.25” floppy disk drives were pre-installed. It came with an incredibly low
resolution color monitor, at a time when most PCs were still monochrome or
black and white. The processor was the old Intel 8088, the first commercially
mainstream CPU (central processing unit or brains of a computer) in history. It
employed 8-bit architecture versus today’s ultra wide 64 bit architectures. It ran
at a measly 5 MHz versus today’s multi-GHz and multi-core CPU engines widely
available in our smart phones and notebooks (GHz is 1,000 times faster than
MHz). I also bought a 9 pin dot matrix printer, which I thought was pretty cool.
I became fascinated by this technology as a young teenager and began to see the
potential of its application. I was one of the very few kids in school who actually
owned a computer so early. Every chance I got, I was studying it. I taught myself
as many computer programming languages as I could get my hands on
(nowadays they call it “coding”), including the popular languages of the day such
as Pascal, C/C++, Basic, Fortran, and Assembly. This was long before schools
offered this as a typical course. I would make silly little programs like word
processors (the commercial programs were simply too expensive for me back in
the day), or simple games, databases, etc. When my mother would ask me what I
wanted for my birthday or Christmas, I would always point to a specific
programming language or computer book.
I had to create everything from scratch back then. Today, programming is fairly
well established, with tons of ready to use libraries. Visual and graphics based
programming didn’t exist back in the day, as the processing and graphics speeds
were simply too slow.
Page 163
It’s become much easier and more convenient to code these days. Today, one
doesn’t even need to understand how the inner computer architecture actually
works to be able to program. I assure every reader that if they had to learn
assembly or actual machine code, nobody would want to do programming.
Assembly language is the most basic commands a computer understands and
doesn’t resemble anything like the high level languages used today, which are
basically intuitive and largely English comprehensible. High level compilers
must convert the actual software code to assembly and actual binary machine
code of purely 0’s and 1’s that the CPU can understand and execute. After all,
that’s why we call computers digital or binary systems, because the CPU
hardware processors can’t understand English characters or words, only 1’s and
0’s. For an 8-bit computer, an instruction would look something like this
00010011. Not very sexy.
But in order to create highly efficient and compact code, assembly language is
actually required. Today the processors are so fast and memory storage so
immense, with rare exception for military or space or science applications, code
efficiency doesn’t matter.
In college, I designed a 16 bit CPU, including developing the native machine code
instructions and assembly language equivalent. It was comprehensive: from
designing the CPU architecture, creating the programming instruction set, to the
circuit design of every component of the system from the ground up. There were
no circuit libraries available to me (this meant even simple things like Inverters,
AND gates, OR gates necessary to build more complex things like registers, ALU
units and bus structures, etc, had to designed at the transistor and circuit level).
And finally, I had to take the actual CPU circuit design through what’s called
“layout and verify”. Actually laying out the transistor circuits and interconnects
on the silicon as efficiently as possible using poly and metal interconnects. Back
in the early 90s this was pretty impressive. Today, it’s a ho-hum eyebrow raiser
for silicon design engineers. Computers can pretty much do much of this
automatically now, greatly simplifying the task.
I don’t expect most of you to understand these terms or acronyms - they’re boring
anyway. My point is simply how far we have progressed since the early 1980s.
It’s breathtaking the rapidity of progress in three short decades.
When the internet first came out, it was pretty dull by today’s standards. There
was no graphics until Netscape came out with the first mainstream graphical
browser in the early 1990s. Netscape had 90% market share, until Microsoft
ultimately killed them, as they did to so many small technology companies.
Page 164
I remember, one day I was reading my PC magazine at home with my wife in the
early 1990s. My wife noticed a special free offer to join AOL (America Online)
internet, which ultimately became the largest internet provider with millions of
subscribers in the 90’s and 2000’s. We immediately joined. I was member
number 3278 (or something close). I was one of the first to join the internet
experience. I recall one day, many years later, after AOL had grown to be the
number one internet provider and had millions of subscribers, I was upset at
AOL for some reason. So I decided to finally cancel. When the customer service
agent saw my account profile, she exclaimed “OMG! I’ve never seen anybody
who’s been one of the first to join. You’ve been with us so long!” Well, long in
technology years anyway.
Today, the internet is as common as water. We are completely dependent on it.
It is invaluable to our daily lives. I couldn’t have imagined the transformation of
technology, or the growth of adoption could have been as rapid as it has been. I
still marvel at this.
The technology that was in my original $4,000 PC is now in devices smaller than
watches, with capabilities far greater, and costing a fraction of the price. We live
in a completely different reality.
As the pace of semiconductors, which is the basis of the digital revolution, has
grown according to Moore’s Law - which states that the number of transistors in
an integrated circuit (IC) or chip will double every two years (Gordon Moore was
a cofounder of Intel who coined this concept) - technical wonders have not
ceased. Every two years, like clockwork, the tiny microchips got significantly
faster, doubled the number of circuits, got cheaper and always took less energy to
make it function.
The smallest geometry for the IC used to be measured in microns (one human
hair is about 40-100 microns thick). It has relentlessly become smaller and
smaller. The original 8088 CPU inside my PC was 1.5 micron technology,
meaning the smallest thickness of a circuit was 1.5 microns wide (about 50 times
smaller than an average human hair). My CPU I designed in college was based
on 1 micron technology.
Today, lithography patterning technology and
semiconductor processing capability is what is termed “deep sub-micron”,
meaning it is well under 1 micron. The most advanced semiconductors today can
be as low as 14 nm (1-nm or nanometer is 1000 times smaller than 1-um or
micrometer, or micron). By 2020 the technology will be 5-nm or less. In other
words, in less than 50 years, mankind has managed to make semiconductor
Page 165
technology 1,000 times smaller; an incredible achievement by human standards
for sure. But in the grand scheme of things, still fairly primitive technology.
We often hear about nanotechnology and its application to a wide variety of uses.
Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter on an atomic or molecular
level. The physics at these dimensions get pretty interesting and bizarre. But the
application of nanotechnology will be widespread in the coming decades, with
uses in every part of our life - from clothes that are dirt resistant or wrinkle free,
to creating materials that are lighter but stronger and more resilient, to more
effective military body armor, or new revolutionary medical applications. New
nanosensors will be small enough to be able to fit anywhere and will be able to
sense virtually anything. New nano-materials that will allow for faster and more
efficient electronics, or more efficient and faster charging battery systems for
electric cars, and so much more. This technology has application in virtually
every part of our lives. It’s going to radically change the way we live.
There are also dangers in the use of nanotechnology.
technology, it has the potential for both good and bad.
As with any new
But in reality, technology is still in its nascent stage. Tomorrow, amazing
wonders await us. Never discount innovation or progress, or the human will to
innovate. But there are limits to our human potential, counter to what many
people may think.
Today the buzz is about artificial intelligence (AI). Companies worldwide are
investing hundreds of billions of dollars every year into AI. Microsoft alone
spends a quarter of their research and development on AI. And it’s truly
fascinating technology.
Where it will ultimately lead mankind, I don’t know. It will likely be digital in
effect. Either it will be massively transformative to society in a positive way. Or
it will annihilate mankind as many leading experts fear. “The Terminator” movie
scenario. But it’s clear the trend of humanity’s utter reliance on technology is
troubling, especially coupled with true AI technology - if it ever happens.
Many experts believe human like intelligence could happen as early as within the
next few decades. I seriously doubt it. It reminds of me of similar technology
predictions I’ve heard so many times in my life by “experts”. We were supposed
to be flying around in saucers by now too. My car still won’t levitate off the
ground. Maybe it’s just because I’m too fat.
Page 166
I do believe AI technology will be revolutionary, even without achieving human
like intellect or consciousness (I think that would be bad for mankind).
Anyway, read more about “The Marvels of our Amazing Human Brain” in chapter
9. It’s fascinating. The benchmark for AI is quite high. I don’t see us achieving
it anytime soon, perhaps never. My guess is never, at least the truly creative kind
that can replicate our human intellect and creativity.
The Perfectly Connected World
Everything we just discussed regarding the digital era has made possible the soon
to be perfectly connected world. The Internet of Everything (IoE or IoT, Internet
of Things) will soon be ushered in.
Imagine a world where everything you know and see is connected together and
tied into the world wide web. Our cars. Our homes. Our clothes. Our work
places. Lighting, environmental controls, toilets, appliances, clothes, every kind
of electronics, shoes that track our walking, watches, glasses, automobiles, every
valve, switch, relay, or connection will pretty much be all tied into the internet
and be able to be monitored and controlled remotely. Exciting. Scary.
With the convergence of wireless everything, and nanotechnology, and internet
proliferation, we will live in a connected world of everything digital. You think
privacy is bad now? You think cyber security is an issue today? Just wait.
I mentioned before that cyber security is an illusion. It is impossible to make any
network or internet connected device completely safe. If someone or some
organization or country is motivated enough, has the technical prowess, and the
financial means, they can hack anything.
Recently, the North Korean government, or a proxy of the regime, hacked in the
U.S. subsidiary of Sony’s computer network. The reason? Kim Jung-un didn’t
like the silly comedy called the “The Interview” portraying his assassination by a
couple of comedians. Damn silly. The hack was devastating to the Sony IT
systems, not to mention the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of intellectual
property, and the release of countless embarrassing emails and records. This is
the new world we live in.
Security and privacy are illusions now.
Page 167
Global security is going to more be associated with cyber security than physical
security in the future. This is going to be a paradigm shift in the way our nation
and governments need to view military and security threats. Imagine an
independent terrorist organization being able to hack into any object or device on
the IoT. They could conceivable easily shut down the entire power system of the
U.S.. The U.S. government has already acknowledged that many country’s cyberwarfare units (including the rogue state of North Korea) already have this
capability to completely shut down our national power grid - to create mass
confusion and utterly decapitate our economy and nation. It won’t require a
single missile, or a nuclear warhead; it doesn’t require a multi-billion dollar
aircraft carrier with sophisticated jet fighters equipped with modern weaponry.
No satellites are needed. All that is requires are a few relatively cheap computers
and some software coding experts to wage an effective war against a far superior
power.
The drive to connect everything is driven by economics. Technology companies
worldwide are salivating at the idea of trillions of new connected nodes, with tens
of trillions of dollars of new revenue potential at stake.
But few are asking the question, “Is this the right thing to do, and how do we
address security?” Imagine one day, every person with an implanted pacemaker
across America suddenly dies of a heart attack, caused by a hacker who was able
to send malicious signals or commands to the medical devices. This isn’t that
extreme of an idea. Or imagine one day during rush hour, as the automated
driverless connected automobiles on the highways suddenly get hijacked by a
remote hacker or organization. Driverless cars are a certainty. It will happen for
sure by the next decade.
Now take this against the backdrop that no network or internet connection will
ever be completely safe. This is 100% fact, make no illusion.
Quantum based computers and algorithms, coming over the next decades, will
invalidate virtually any type of encryption scheme. Sufficiently long encryption
schemes today are virtually impossible to break due to the sheer computational
power and time required to decrypt it (used for military and national security
agencies). However, Quantum based algorithms can crack these in a fraction of
the time (many orders of magnitude), making virtually any cyber or network
security the same as having an open door, with no one on guard. I’m not making
this shit up. It’s technical reality. There will be no such thing as online security.
Page 168
The inevitable future is terrifying in some regards given how dependent we are on
networks and connectivity.
Law enforcement can’t prevent people who don’t respect international law or
whose pure intent is to inflict maximum damage or chaos. This new IoT has the
potential to kill or harm far more people than a nuclear warhead. Our world,
based on conventional threats is a thing of the past. Technology is equalizing the
status of superpowers and small rogue organizations intent on doing harm.
Technology is advancing so fast, humanity has no way of absorbing it
and ensuring it can be implemented in a peaceful fashion.
Governments typically move slowly. Technology moves blazing fast.
The two are incongruent. It’s a recipe for some bad shit pie.
There is a reason why humans have survived for thousands and thousands of
years. We are physically isolated but still able to communicate. One of the basic
rules of survival is that a network dependent organization or species is more
vulnerable to extinction than isolated ones. Each of us has unique genetic
differences that make us more or less resistant to various kinds of disease. It is
this diversity and isolation that has protected humans for so long.
When we suddenly begin to alter this natural reality by the use of technology, we
cannot predict the outcome.
My only point is that we should proceed with abundant caution. Technology
enthusiasm that can do good must always be weighed against the potential for
malicious acts.
One may wonder, why include these topics in this philosophical book about love
and life?
Because I believe technology and politics is central to economics and our lives.
And love, on a more broad scale, is about humanity. Our human condition is
heavily determined by the economic condition we are born into, and access to
technology we are afforded. We should care not only about ourselves and our
own lives, and our immediate circle of friends, family and loved ones, but about
others too. Caring about the well being of others is the essence of humanity.
Technology is a doubled edged sword. It has immense potential uses for good, to
enhance our experience, and lessen pain and suffering in the world. But it can
also become our greatest adversary, in the sense that it can reduce our humanity
Page 169
by ironic and unintended ways. Our growing dependence on it is changing who
we are, as individuals, as a society, as humanity. So in this respect, it mirrors the
ultimate theme of this book, about life. About us.
Page 170
Chapter 8. Live Free: Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness
“The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable
principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be
exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens,
and command the respect of the world.”
- George Washington (First Inaugural Address)
“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.”
- David Hume
Freedom burns inside each of us, because
it’s as essential to our being as love or
happiness.
Freedom and liberty are essential to
pursuing happiness and finding our
meaning in life.
If a government restricts where you can
travel, when you can travel, who you can
associate with, or what you can pursue in
terms of opportunity - happiness and
meaning can be difficult to find and achieve.
Falling in love with someone who is available because she lives in the same
village is completely different than falling in love with that special someone,
regardless of where they’re from.
Freedom and personal liberty boils down to freedom of thought and ideas, and
most importantly, our freedom to express them when, where, and in a manner we
choose. Freedom is about following our own path in life and having the ability to
succeed or fail based on our own merits.
Page 171
When a government or institution limits or prevents us from having freedom of
information, or restricts media, then we don't have freedom of thought. And
when a government or institution limits or prevents us from speaking freely
about our thoughts or ideas, then we can't have freedom of expression. And if we
don’t have these two basic elements of freedom, then we are not free.
Every human being has the innate right to pursue their dreams, to
navigate their own path toward happiness, and to do so
unencumbered by governments or religious institutions.
There is a fundamental reason why it is inevitable that democratic and free
nations will always prevail and be more successful than those that are not.
Freedom of thought (by way of unfettered access to information), and freedom to
express ideas, naturally fosters a culture of greater creativity, resulting in
increased innovation and entrepreneurship. It's basic human nature. When you
shut down or limit the mind, or our ability to communicate and collaborate
freely, the cost is decreased productivity and lessened motivation. And
motivation is the key to human achievement of any kind. Motivated people
always find ways to succeed, to win, to prevail, to build, to explore, to create, and
to innovate.
But no system of government is perfect. I used to believe that a
capitalist democracy was the best political-economic system possible.
Now I realize, it is simply the "least-worst" available.
Modern History of Freedom
History is both fascinating and insightful. It's like a huge window into human
nature with millions of data points we can study.
People always repeat the adage, "We must study history so we don't repeat the
same mistakes of the past." And this is true, although history never repeats itself
precisely. Recognizing similarities is the key to applying historical lessons.
But more important than learning not to repeat historical mistakes is
the insight that we can glean about human nature. This is far more
valuable and applicable as a general rule about life and policy.
Historical lessons are specific, but insight into human nature is
generic and applies to any situation. Hence, it has far greater value.
Page 172
It is also the area of historical study that most refuse to believe or
accept, deluded by the notion that people have changed or evolved as
we have progressed in time and assuming this insight is less useful or
not applicable to today’s reality.
But people have not changed. Human nature remains fixed in time.
We can see it readily in the ten thousand years of mankind’s recorded
history. It is still evident everywhere today.
We must be cautious in separating the perception of progress or change, brought
about by greater education or prosperity, as these can often mask our true human
nature. If we removed all of our comforts and wealth - through natural calamity,
or large scale war, or some type of massive disaster - and people truly feared for
their own survival, people would act just as self-interested, just as violently, just
as predictably true to our innate human nature as we always have. So the fact
remains, under the hood, at the core of it all, human nature is fundamentally
unchanged.
(I always tell people that the most valuable thing they can learn in life is
understanding people: What motivates them; reading their character and
personality; and predicting how one will respond to various situations; as well as
uncovering the difference between the facade someone shows and their true
character and motivations. This knowledge is invaluable in life, in relationships
and dating, and in your career - no matter what you pursue in life.)
The 20th century - and the events that thread together the events of the First and
Second World Wars and the ensuing new global order - are the most intriguing
portion of human history, because of both the magnitude of the international
chaos and the rapidity of change in all facets of global life. The world suddenly
became immensely complex and interdependent.
Following World War I, it is well understood that the punitive policies
implemented in the aftermath of the war created a vacuum of economic despair
and repression in Germany. The natural human response was national anger directed at the countries of Western Europe that had prevailed. This anger was
exploited by a manipulative, astute and power hungry Adolf Hitler, who
leveraged this intense nationalism to rise to power during the darkest days of
Germany. This nationalism and anger solidified the power base of the
Totalitarian/Fascist regime of Adolf Hitler.
Page 173
What evolved ultimately became the greatest incarnation of evil in modern times,
leading to the extermination of nearly six million Jews, and countless millions
more lives lost in a senseless war of sheer aggression.
The European leaders of the day always assumed that war was impossible, or
highly unlikely, and continued a policy of denial and appeasement, until the
German tanks began rolling into Warsaw in 1939. (Sounds not too different than
today.) For nearly 6 years, a war of unprecedented scale and atrocity would
engulf virtually the entire world, involving 61 countries, intensely affecting 1.7
billion people - three quarters of the entire world population at the time - and
over a hundred million troops. An astounding 50 million people lost their lives
in the war, with hundreds of millions more injured.
The policy of appeasement always results in greater aggression, and greater cost,
as the human nature of those seeking power is to exploit perceived weakness.
This has been true since the beginning of time. And this human nature is as true
today as it was at the beginning of human history. You can’t appease a bully or
dictator. When a bully punches you in the nose, you have to respond - not
“proportionately” - but more devastatingly to prevent further bullying.
The sheer scope and depth of WWII changed everything. The imprint it left on
the human psyche altered our entire view of the world, and our reflective view of
humanity. It ushered in a new era of a nuclear world and the birth of the Cold
War - pitting the communist Soviet empire versus a democratic America in the
fiercest battle of ideology in history. The War had set up the perfect conditions
for the new geopolitical world order, and the emerging subversive war between
East and West.
The Cold War led to the greatest investment in the global military capability ever,
with both sides spending trillions of dollars to assure the mutual deterrence of
aggression, locked in a chess game of alliances and global ideological
containment.
The investment in military capability, particularly in the U.S. was
ultimately, either directly or indirectly, responsible for the greatest
technical inventions of mankind. The internet, the computer, the
microchip, new advanced materials, and even the microwave oven
were all the direct result of unprecedented investment in military and
space technology (military/space programs were intricately linked).
Page 174
Without this heavy investment in the most advanced technologies to counter the
ideological threat of communism, the technological wonders we take for granted
today may have never existed, or at least would have taken decades longer to be
realized. In the U.S., military and space investment led to the global technology
dominance it enjoys today that has allowed America to maintain our global
economic leadership.
So in a great sense, World War II changed everything about our lives today,
including helping to usher in the new digital age.
The collapse of the Cold War in the early 1990s was precipitated by an
asymmetrical economic growth. The Democratic West, based on the ideology of
capitalism and free markets, enjoyed relatively consistent economic growth and
technological innovation. The Communist East endured a continuous gradual
decline of output and innovation. This asymmetry and growing divergence
proved ultimately unsustainable. The need to match, missile for missile, power
for power, influence for influence, and achievement for achievement, led to the
financial collapse of the Soviet Union. It was greatly accelerated due to the
escalating arms race of the 1980s during the Reagan administration.
It’s arguable that the collapse was inevitable with or without the escalation of the
arms race. But it is uncertain how many decades, or potentially centuries longer,
it would have taken.
If we look at the China model, following the demise of the Cold War and collapse
of the communist Soviet Union, China reinvented themselves to create a hybrid
communist/pseudo-capitalist system. Once it became clear that a centralized,
purely state-run system with zero individual ownership or motivation was
unsustainable, communist China adapted to this new reality. This single
inflection point created the greatest economic growth story of any country in the
history of civilization. We will get back to the China story later in this chapter.
What if more time had allowed the Soviet Union to also adapt and also loosen its
grip on state control, but still maintain its fundamental communist order? It may
have taken decades or a century or two longer to defeat the ideology of
communism. And who knows, with the unbounded greed and crony capitalism in
America today, perhaps they would have ultimately won.
Page 175
Economic Freedom
The period between WWII and the end of the millennium represented the
greatest time of prosperity the world has ever known. The aftermath of WWII
created an inflection point of world domination by the two undisputed
superpowers - America and the Soviet Empire - vying for supremacy. This
ensuing Cold War created geopolitical factions that created prosperity for the
West and countries closely aligned with the West, such as Japan and South Korea
and Western Europe.
Following WWII, the lessons of WWI were not wasted, as the leaders
implemented a policy of forgiveness, and helped rebuild a more peaceful and
western based economy and democratic system in both Japan and Germany. The
two major aggressors of WWII became the biggest beneficiaries of the post war
economic growth, outside the U.S. The security umbrella afforded by America to
the cold war alliance members created a stable democratic system, where
economies and trade could flourish. Stability and security are the most basic
requirements to sustained economic prosperity. With the bulk of global security
expenditures being invested by the U.S., European and Asian countries could
focus on investing in their domestic economies. Furthermore, the favorable trade
policies with the U.S. (that was intentionally disadvantageous to America for
strategic reasons) allowed these economies to flourish. The Cold War was
essentially an economic war, coupled with a policy of military containment by the
West, encircling the Soviet empire, until the internal weight of a centralized
economic engine - coupled with a lack of worker motivation endemic in
communism - caused the entire system to crumble almost overnight.
The lessons of economic and political ideology revealed that people
need incentive. That human nature was, by and large, woefully selfinterested. The survival instinct of all animals extended to people as
well, not surprisingly. The liberal use of survival instinct to include
the selfish desire for personal prosperity and comfort is one that
should be well heeded by modern politicians and leaders.
Capitalism works for one simple reason, human beings are inherently
selfish. And only when work directly translates into personal gain or
increased well-being, will productivity and output grow. Socialism
and communism, ultimately will always fail because proportionally,
the invested individual's work does not directly translate to personal
gain.
Page 176
But pure capitalism is bound for failure as well. Greed must have
boundaries. Unconstrained capitalism, like unconstrained greed, will
collapse on its own weight too, because greed always gravitates to
immediate gratification. Short term views will always be defeated by
longer term strategies. Like a game of chess, one must look beyond
the next one or two moves to the greater strategy.
Capitalism needs boundaries, regulation, sound taxation and some reasonable
redistribution of wealth. Government policies must apply such redistribution of
wealth in a more constructive and effective application of resources. Today, our
perception is that taxation leads to waste and ineffective redistribution of tax
policies. Better oversight of government spending is also needed.
It is no secret that our American tax system is broken. It too heavily favors the
rich and powerful corporations. When a tax code is so complex that an average
person is incapable of understanding it, and only those with the resources to take
advantage of it, to exploit loopholes - often intentionally included with precise
language targeting specific industries, businesses and mega rich individuals - it
ultimately destroys or weakens democracy.
Fair Tax Policy is the Most Basic of Democratic Principles
After all, our country was born for one simple reason, to have reasonable and fair
tax policy; a system that would be based on proper representation and fairness.
Again, a fair and effective tax policy is one of the most important pillars of a
democracy. (The other pillars being the protection of individual rights and
liberty, and the right to due process under the rule of law.)
The notion of equality for all, as translated into every voice having an equal say in
government representation, has been lost for some time now. The rise of the
mega-wealthy and big business, and their tight coupling with government, has
given rise to a distortion of equality for nearly all in our democratic system.
America is such an amazing country. A place like no other, in which
individual drive and ambition can lead one anywhere; to become
anyone; to accomplish anything. I’ve traveled to so many places, and I
can honestly say, America is vastly different - in mindset, in culture,
in personal accountability (relative to other countries and cultures);
Page 177
in the idea that one person can make a tremendous difference in our
world and in other’s lives.
It is too important to allow this beacon of hope to the world to crumble from
within by self-serving interests that mute the voices of individuals. Every person
has the ability and the power to change this situation. We can hold politicians
accountable and measure them against, not what they say or promise, but what
they actually do. It’s really a shame more people don’t really pay attention and
care about the political situation (everywhere). Politics can be nasty, but it is
essential to our lives and our well-being.
In the world of politics, it’s true that greater than 95% of Washington politicians
in Congress are re-elected like clockwork every election cycle. Today, the
approval rating of congress is a dismal 11%. Barely 1 in 10 voters believes
Congress is doing the job they elected them to do. And yet, even in the
supposedly pivotal 2014 U.S. election year, 96.4% of incumbents were still
reelected. It is a factual disconnect that is difficult to comprehend. You don’t get
change when you keep doing the same thing over and over again.
A fair tax system is at the core of everything our government does and society
needs - whether it be a strong military and defense, better and more accountable
education, better living standards and health-care for the needy, or sustaining a
strong economy to protect our quality of life. It all starts with an equitable tax
system.
Over-taxing the middle class, and even the wealthy, can lead to disaster as the
profit motive disappears, and we increasingly resemble the failed ideology of
socialism or communism. But we are far from this point of over-taxing the
wealthy. We are under-taxing the wealthy and over-taxing the middle class, just
looking at objective data based on effective tax rates.
A comprehensive study of effective tax rates in all 50 U.S. States,
looking at all taxation at the state level only (excludes federal income
taxes) showed a horrendously unfair tax system. The bottom 20% of
the income earners paid 11.1% in effective tax rates, while the richest
10% paid only 5.6%. The middle class paid an effective rate of 9.4%.
Are you kidding me? This is simply immoral. It is government
protecting the rich, pure and simple.
The federal income tax rates aren’t as bad. However, the problem is that it’s
impossible to find effective income tax rates on gross income, instead of adjusted
Page 178
income (after the many deductions are taken into account), given the IRS always
reports AGI or adjusted gross income. The higher income earners typically have
a much greater amount of deductions. This would be the only way to truly
measure tax fairness.
To give an example of the tax deduction advantage of high income earners, when
I was working at Intersil a couple years ago, I was designated a high income
earner. This was only offered to select employees, and of course, to the
executives. This meant that I could defer all my income into a special tax
deferred income account; essentially I didn’t have to count it as income and
therefore would not have to pay any taxes on it. I could defer up to 100% of all
income and bonuses! In fact, with all the tax deduction tools I was allowed, I
could easily reduce my reported income to 50% of what I actually earned. I
deferred all of my bonuses, and a chunk of my base salary into tax deferred
status. These tools are not available for lower income earners. And even if they
were, they could likely not afford to take advantage of them. My point is that the
system is heavily skewed to protect wealthy and high income earners. And I
didn’t earn anywhere near a million dollars per year. Imagine the advantage that
millionaires and billionaires have!
One may argue that these tools don’t avoid taxation, but simply defer it to a later
time. But any educated person knows that this is just semantics. Allowing tax
free compounded growth can result in a huge difference. Take a look at the table
below showing the power of compounded growth, based on a lump sum
investment of $10,000 into a tax deferred account:
Investment Growth Rate
4%
8%
12%
16%
10 Years
$14,802
$21,589
$31,058
$44,114
20 Years
$21,911
$46,610
$96,463
$194,608
30 Years
$32,434
$100,627
$299,600
$858,500
Page 179
40 Years
$48,010
$217,245
$930,510
$3,787,212
50 Years
$71,067
$469,016
$2,890,022
$16,707,038
If you invested $10,000 into a tax deferred account, at a 12% average growth rate,
after 20 years you would have $96,463. And after 50 years, you would have
$2.89 million.
However, if you had to pay taxes every year on the growth, you would effectively
reduce the growth rate of 12% to something closer to 8%. And you would end up
with only $46,610 after 20 years, and barely $469,016 after 50 years. The
difference after 50 years is $2.4 million!
The rich, or upper 10%, are allowed such advantages, while the lower 90% get
screwed.
In any case, it’s hard to argue that the federal tax system is fair. Even Warren
Buffett, the world’s third richest man, acknowledges this fact.
Addressing our Social Ills: Sanity in an Insane World
In this section I discuss proposals for specific new tax structures; radical new
retirement plans that will fundamentally change how we live, while reducing
social security and Medicare expenditures by our federal government by $20
trillion dollars every decade. I talk about reforming education to become more
effective and more accessible; education is one of the most fundamental
responsibilities of government to its citizens.
These new proposals would fundamentally overhaul our entire social structure
and government system, and allow everyone to truly live free and not endure
economic servitude as we do today.
Reforming the Inequitable Tax System
Page 180
To have a more equitable tax system we need to overhaul tax policy. My
recommendation is that our hundred thousand page tax code (maybe just a slight
exaggeration. It may only be 99,000) be replaced by a ten page version. And we
could all file our taxes in 30 minutes, without the aid of tax accountants. This is
what we need:
A simple two tier tax system (exact percentages can be tweaked to be
net tax neutral):
● Less than $500,000 of income gets taxed at 17%
● Any incremental income above $500,00 gets taxed at 28%
We should remove all tax deductions to simplify the code and make it
more equitable, with the exception of the following:
● First $30,000 of income pays zero taxes. This is what I call the “I’m
breathing oxygen” tax deduction.
● Interest deductions on first home mortgage loans only, up to a value of $1
million worth of loans. Anything above $1 million cannot be deducted. No
second or vacation homes. No luxury mansions.
● For every dependent child you get a $10,000 tax deduction. Procreation is
the fuel for our economic engine.
● Up to $20,000 per year retirement deduction allowed per adult. This may
be used for retirement, college expenses or health care emergencies
without early withdrawal penalty.
● If you earned any income, the minimum tax you must pay will be $500.
Even if, after all your deductions, you end up with $0 tax liability. You
must pay $500 in federal taxes at a minimum. I call this “Thank God I live
in the USA fee.” Ownership must be shared.
● All taxes must be filed electronically. Every single citizen and resident
must file every year, regardless, even if you don’t have any income to
report. This will reduce fraud. Fraud would automatically result in a
penalty of 1,000X the amount, if proven guilty. Plus one year in jail. Any
fraud of $1 million or more results in life in prison.
Page 181
That’s it. The tax code would be less than 10 pages. We could fire
more than 90% of the IRS staff. The U.S. federal government spent
$13.2 billion funding the IRS in 2014. We cut this down to less than a
$500 million budget.
Everybody wins. Everyone pays some taxes because the government
works for everybody. The rich pay the highest rate, but proportional
and fair. The middle class still pays the bulk of taxes simply due to the
sheer size of the economic class, but at least it’s more fair and
predictable. Even the poor have some ownership and responsibility,
even if it is a small amount. It’s about shared responsibility, and
fairness.
Unchaining our Economic Servitude: Enjoying Life When We Should
Earlier, I mentioned that the American view of what is normal and acceptable is
insane when it comes to how we live and integrate work into our lives. Well, it’s a
real shame that politicians and our society can’t think more creatively about how
life should really be lived, and what government can actually do to help enable a
higher quality of life.
Today, government provides Social Security benefits to retirees typically after age
65, but as early as 62. It is our largest government expense. In 2014, we spent
$845 billion on Social Security to retirees. 56 million people depend on it. Our
federal government only took in about $2.4 trillion in total federal taxes. It’s
35% of the amount we collected in taxes. This is such a stupid system.
What I propose is a radical idea, but much smarter and far more
effective. Albert Einstein once said that the most powerful force in
the universe is the power of compounding. I think he understood
math pretty well, so let’s take his word for it. Earlier in the table on
investment growth rates, we saw this power quite readily. Time
makes a huge difference in terms of absolute dollars.
In 2013, there were 3.93 million births in the United States - nearly 4
million beautiful newborn babies, versus 56 million on government
retirement.
Page 182
Today, we fight against time. Our government spends a huge amount
of money between Social Security and Medicare for retiree health
benefits. The U.S. federal government spends $1.65 trillion dollars
every single year on these two expenditures alone - and growing
rapidly. Again, we only took in $2.4 trillion in federal taxes.
In karate and judo, we learn that you don’t fight your enemy’s greater
strength, you use it against them to your own advantage. In
government, and in our society, we constantly fight against time, an
enemy we can never win against. We need to use time to our
advantage.
I propose that government should put $10,000 into a private “Life
Fund” for every single child that is born in America. Every year, this
would cost the federal government $40 billion. It’s nothing. Shit, just
from the savings in IRS budget alone, we’ve already paid for a third of
this amount.
This investment will be managed by a dozen different private
companies with federal government oversight. It will grow over time.
In 20 years it will be worth $50,000 to $100,000 likely. In 50 years, it
will be worth $500,000 to $3 million. This Life Fund would be used
exclusively for retirement by the time he/she reaches 50 years old. It
cannot be used for education or any other expenses, because the time
value of compounding must not be disturbed if this is to work.
Now, consider this, after only 2-3 generations, we reduce Social
Security from $845 billion per year, to only $40 billion per year. It
becomes more stable, unlike the current situation where we project,
with the baby boomer’s retirement explosion, it will skyrocket the
Social Security expenditures. This individual Life Fund could also be
used for healthcare as well after retirement. And over time, Social
Security and Medicare payroll taxes would go down to zero, allowing
Americans to keep more of their money and lowering taxes. So, in
net, by spending $40 billion per year (slightly increasing every year as
the birth rate increases), we save $1.6 trillion of federal spending (this
amount will grow to $2-$3 trillion) every year!
The benefit to society is massive! First, everyone will have a secure
financial future. We can retire earlier - as early as 50 - and all enjoy
life when our health is still good. People will have more money to
Page 183
spend on education or life without having to save for retirement (they
can still have a personal supplemental retirement fund). We can
spend our federal tax dollars on more constructive uses, such as
education or to fight true poverty. And our government debt burden
can finally be addressed and slowly eliminated. It makes for a
stronger country, a happier country, and government finally starts
being part of the solution to enabling a better quality of life, rather
than an impediment to it.
When we do the same thing over and over again, something that has been proven
not to work, that is the definition of insanity. Our government and society is
insane today! Our current system of life is insane! We need to think more
creatively, out of the box, to really solve these challenging social problems.
I assure you, this will work. And even if it’s not as good as I hope, it would be
orders of magnitude better than our current system. The payout is not in one
lump sum to avoid abusive behavior. It will be like an annuity, paid out every
year, on a monthly basis, and would be structured so that it could last indefinitely
- no matter how long one lived. It is simply a form of a social safety net, just as
they exist today, but with lower cost and far more effective.
The problem with every proposal we see today is that they are incremental in
approach, boxed in by the legacy of existing solutions, instead of thinking out of
the box and asking the simplest, most basic questions: What is the problem? And
what is the optimal solution? It’s a very simple math problem. The optimal
solution is the one that provides the greatest benefit/cost. And given that we
know for a fact that compounded growth provides the greatest benefit with the
smallest cost, it’s a no brainer. We want the winds of time behind our sail; not
sailing into it, as we always do today.
Some people are repulsed by this idea for two reasons. First, it doesn’t help those
already in adulthood or near retirement; in which case, the existing legacy system
can be tweaked to continue to provide the social safety net. But this shouldn’t
prevent us from fixing a clear long term problem. This is an irrational argument.
And the second problem is that many are morally opposed to giving away money
that wasn’t earned. “We shouldn’t give something for nothing.” But this logic is
wrong too, because it is a linear or sequential approach to a problem, fixated in a
specific point in time - today. Extract ourselves from this confine of time, and
simply ask yourself, if we took the totality of the average American life, over the
course of 30 years of adulthood what will the contribution potential be? And
based on averages, it will be far more than the initial investment. It’s about net
Page 184
results, not the specific cases of bad citizen behavior. These shouldn’t constrain
us from enacting the greatest good, for the broadest set of citizens. Furthermore,
this is not giving away money. Nobody gets a dime until after age 50. Each
person who is born will undoubtedly pay far more into the social system (taxes,
economic contribution), than they will burden the government with. $10,000 in
today’s dollars is nothing for a lifetime of productivity, especially when it will
radically reduce the total liabilities of government, allowing it to become smaller
and more effective. And it will inherently reduce taxes for everybody.
But the most practical problem lays in the political nature of the debate. It
doesn’t help today’s voters directly, and therefore it will not propel politicians to
passionately fight for this. Our political system is broken because it is purely selfserving and short term focused. It all comes down to human nature - the selfish
motive.
But I disagree that it will not get votes. Every parent wants a better life for their
children. There is also an economic argument to be made that will benefit
everyone. This new system will not result in higher taxes for anyone. It will help
parents immediately because they will worry less about passing on inheritance to
their children. And this new plan, coupled with the simpler tax structure and
improved education system (next section), they can enjoy their own lives more,
immediately. This will drive increased consumer spending. In the end, everyone
benefits from this plan.
Educating the Masses: Knowledge Breeds Opportunity
Education is a fundamental right of all. It’s not a privilege or a luxury. It’s
mandatory for life. The role of government is to provide opportunity for anyone
who seeks it. It cannot be responsible for ensuring the outcome or success, as
this is purely an individual’s ownership. But it must build the foundation for
creating access to opportunity for ALL, as equitably as possible.
Our K-12 system (Kindergarten through High School) is fundamentally broken.
Our accessibility to higher education is increasingly narrowing. The cost of
higher education is simply outrageous.
First, access to higher education should be possible for anyone who
desires it. If they meet the academic criteria, they should be afforded
access.
Page 185
The current system of a hodge-podge of private scholarship programs and
student loans is neither equitable nor affordable. There are thousands, perhaps
millions, of different scholarship programs, each requiring unique applications
and possibly an interview process. Many are not aware of the options or the
availability of most of them. It is inherently an inequitable system. And the
student loan program is more structured to enable huge private bank profits, at
the expense of taxpayer subsidies and guarantees through the federal
government. It just adds incredible cost to the entire system of education. It’s an
absurd program. It helps everybody else - the universities and private banks - at
the expense of the students, strapping them with a huge debt burden with
relatively high interest rates when they are just starting out in life. It can cripple
economic growth and enslaves young kids with economic servitude.
Government should provide 0% student loans to every student who wants it.
Why is it that we can readily provide billion dollar Wall Street banks with 0%
loans and free money, hoping they will invest this into the economy for short
term impact, but yet we won’t provide 0% loans to invest in the most important
thing - our future? I understand that students don’t have the powerful
Washington lobby, or the million dollar political donations, but government has a
responsibility to provide opportunity so each of us can pursue our own happiness
in life. After all, it is part of our governing doctrine.
Government is too fixated on the short term, driven by political needs. Let
private enterprise focus on the near term. Government must work to enable long
term success.
Government must provide 0% student loans to any student who needs money to
afford higher education. These would get paid back starting after graduation and
through age 50. It would be repaid in smaller and more affordable payments.
The federal government is the only one who can afford the luxury of time, and
therefore can absorb the cost of 0% loans for extended periods of time (shit, they
do this for banks all the time). If these loans are not paid back by age 50, the Life
Fund payouts will be reduced proportionately until the loans are repaid in full.
This new structure will improve access to higher education, but equally
important, upon graduation, students will not be chained by the immense burden
of huge loan repayments at high rates, such as 6% or 8%, or more. This will fuel
more economic activity and growth.
Page 186
We need to remove the tax deduction status of scholarships for those to giving
them out. Instead, a more consolidated program must be put in place. Sure, with
the removal of tax exempt status, many scholarship programs will disappear. But
that’s ok. For low income students, the government should provide up to 50% of
the basic cost of education as grants, not student loans. This makes it equitable
to other students who may have more means. But it should never pay 100%, as
ownership is key in life. The remaining amount can be provided through the 0%
student loans. After all, most middle class kids don’t necessarily get fully paid
tuition and costs either. It’s about opportunity coupled with fairness for all.
Every year, qualification must be based on grades, as well as a standardized
national test. Minimum test scores are required to continue to receive both 0%
student loans and government grants. Students can take the exam more than
once to reduce the effect of anomalous circumstances. It’s about responsibility
and ownership.
Student loans and grants will be provided for a maximum of 6 years, to cover full
undergraduate programs, and partial graduate programs. It should not be an
indefinite and lifelong academic program. If students want to pursue further
higher education, they must partially offset the costs through work or university
internship programs, or in conjunction with private companies subsidizing the
cost of advanced degrees for employees.
One should note, this is not promoting government control of anything. I abhor
government control and intrusion. It is merely providing greater and equal
access to one of the most fundamental things in our lives. No one is compelled to
utilize any of these programs, and everyone can do anything they do today if they
so choose.
For K-12 schools, full government control of education (either direct or indirect),
must necessarily come to an end if we are to ever fix the education system. The
weight of government bureaucracy and ineffectiveness is killing our schools. The
world is becoming increasingly more competitive and global. If we are to
compete in the global arena for the long term, fixing education must be our top
priority.
Today, only government sanctioned schools get public funding - either local or
state or federal government. Government must end this position of bias and
enable all forms of education that meet the national and state level requirements
to produce results. This includes private, charter, public, or even religious based
schools. As long the school teaches all the basic requirements and meets
Page 187
academic test standards, it should receive equal government funding based on
per capita calculations.
Competition is the key to improving education. We know this in our own lives.
When there is increased competition, the outcome is a better product 100% of the
time. True freedom is about choice; the choice to send our kids wherever we
want for education, unencumbered by government. For any school failing to
meet minimum academic requirements, funding will slowly be squeezed. And
continuous failure over a period of 4 years will result in the shutoff of all
government funds. This is how free markets work. The successful grow. And the
unsuccessful wither away and die, to be replaced by the more successful
programs. That is how free markets invariably produce better product.
In addition, for remote rural areas, online education must be a priority to create
more competition and opportunity. Every state should be required to implement
their own online school system. Anyone would be able to join. Online systems
would be interactive with intuitive interfaces, based on artificial intelligence
technology.
Education should be tailored to the new digital reality. Access to online
information has made memorization less critical, and math and science more
essential in the new age. We significantly lag other nations in these critical areas.
Foreign language should be emphasized more, given we live in a global
interconnected world now. History should be less about learning dates and
names, and more about ideas and lessons; the interconnectedness of events.
Writing should be more about creativity of thought, not just the basic grammar.
And programs to teach basic economic and financial skills are mandatory in this
new complex world. Our education methodology is still rooted in 19th century
methods. Our new world is about pattern recognition, algorithms, interrelatedness and interconnectivity of events, complexity of ideas, and creativity.
We must adapt to this new environment.
Schools should be brought into the digital age, just as government invests in
infrastructure like roads and bridges and airports. Critical digital education
infrastructure must be built. This includes the adoption of the fully digital
classroom, with interactive learning and customizable instructions tailored for
every student based on their strengths and weakness and speed of learning. A
one size fits all approach does no good. We can employ digital technology
to dramatically reduce the overall cost of education.
Page 188
The old metrics of student-teacher ratios is less relevant in the digital
era. This old school thinking just increased costs while doing nothing
to improve results.
We must eliminate the idea of tenure in education. No teacher can be immune
from being required to perform. This is true in every other area of life, especially
in the private sector. Teachers must be more accountable, given their critical role
in society. We must pay teachers an equal share as the private sector, but also
demand equal performance and results, measured annually. As in the private
sector, the only things that matters are results - not how long you’ve worked or
taught there, not what credentials one has, and not what one accomplished 1o
years ago.
The coupling of all these ideas can dramatically improve the effectiveness of
education, while leveraging technology to bring the long term costs significantly
down. There is no doubt costs can be significantly reduced. And with the
marriage of increased competition and accountability with technology,
effectiveness will invariably improve dramatically. Over 10 years, even with the
upfront investment cost, this new program will invariably save money.
So, to summarize, the keys to reforming educations are:
● True Accountability: For Teachers and Students, Schools and
Governments.
● Greater Competition and Truly More Choice. The elimination of
government bias to allow free and individual choice.
● Building a cloud based technology infrastructure to enable the
digital classroom for greater learning efficiency and reduced
costs: Personal Digital Tablets. Digital Books with the ability to
embed personal notes. Interactive and Customized lessons.
Online Access.
● Transforming our teaching methodology for the new global
digital economy: Languages, Math and Science, Finance and
Global Economics, Critical Thinking and Creativity, Technology
and Software Programming. World History, with a focus on
interconnectedness and ideas, and less memorization.
Page 189
● And Philosophy. No specific religions, but all religions and
philosophies; about ideas and basic moral principles. Teaching
about humanity and individual responsibility.
Our youth is increasingly devoid of morals, and the effects are evident in the
increased youth violence. Social media is leading to greater isolation, insecurity,
and teen frustration. Teach children to think for themselves and introduce them
to ideas that intangibles and morality matters; how we treat others matters.
These are all pretty radical changes. And for various reasons, a tidal wave of
opposition will rise. Change is always feared. People always want change and a
better education system, but are invariable too afraid to make the changes needed
to enable them.
Our world is changing so fast, right before our eyes. What used to take decades
happens in months now, or days. Teaching kids how to think for themselves, to
adapt and deal with this complex reality is the new education paradigm. And if
one has to teach another to think for themselves, then the most fundamental of
all is the pursuit of ideas, of consciousness and morality. Our society needs
boundaries if the fabric is to remain woven together. Without ideas of morality
and responsibility, and some sense of humanity, the darkening world will
concentrate the storm clouds.
I am not advocating the removal of the separation of church and state. This is
fundamental and critical to maintain. But the best way to truly separate church
and state is not to ignore the reality and integral role of religion in society, but to
educate students on the all the ideas, not specific ones; to allow them to think for
themselves and to contemplate thought and meaning. It is a vast void in today’s
world. I’m certain this last point about teaching philosophy and theology is one
of the most controversial. Most people seem to be driven by fear and narrow
mindedness.
Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
One day, I was on a long international flight for work. As I always did, I was
listening to my music on my iPhone and just sitting and thinking for hours,
sometimes for as long as 12 hours on a single flight.
Page 190
I started thinking about my iPhone and how much I spend to have this luxury. A
strange topic. In the U.S., the typical iPhone monthly charge is about
$100/month. Plus, I had pre-paid about $800 for my last 64 GB iPhone 5S.
I began to think about the opportunity cost of owning an iPhone. Opportunity
cost simply means the cost of one thing when compared against another
alternative. For instance, instead of spending my money on an iPhone every
month, I could have invested this money and watched it grow. This difference is
the opportunity cost.
People don’t understand this, but the REAL cost of ANYTHING is the
opportunity cost, NOT the price you paid.
Randomly, I began calculating in my head the opportunity cost over the course of
my entire life, and I realized that I - and nearly every person - doesn't really
realize how huge of an impact something simple like owning a smartphone truly
is in their lives, in terms of the opportunity cost had they invested this money. It
was shocking to me.
Let me show you how significant this opportunity cost of owning an
iPhone can be over the course of an entire life. If we assume we start
at age 18, until age 75 (the average lifespan), the true cost of owning
an iPhone is over $5 million dollars. Let me calculate this.
Let’s say we plop down $800 in cold cash, and we spend on average $100 per
month, increasing by 3% every year (inflation is a real bitch). Let's figure out the
total amount you will spend over the course of your life, from age 18 through at
age 75. (For simplicity, we will lump in the annual cost into the first month of the
year when calculating the growth.)
After the first year, you will have spent $2,200. By the time you have lived
through age 75, you will have paid $182,936 in total.
If you had taken the exact same amount every year and invested this money, by
the time you were age 75, you would have $4,841,757, assuming a 10% growth
rate.
So the actual cost - the real cost to you - is the opportunity cost of the difference.
Since you spent $182,936 (negative amount), versus achieving $4,841,757
(positive amount) by investing the money, the opportunity cost of owning a
simple iPhone was:
Page 191
$4,841,757 - (-$182,936) = $5,024,693
Would anyone pay $5 million for an iPhone? Perhaps not, if we really considered
things. But as I say throughout in Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony, humans are
irrational and illogical, drawing conclusions and making decisions based on
partial or wrong information.
The fact is, this isn’t even the full opportunity cost because I didn’t factor in the
cost of upgrading to the next “awesome” iPhone every 2-3 years. If I added this
cost into the equation, the actual cost would seem so absurdly high nobody would
believe it (regardless if it is fact).
A full calculation table is available on IronNotWood.com (The True
Cost of an iPhone), and you can see for yourself the year by year cost
versus the wealth you could have accumulated.
From 1928 through 2014, the average stock market return was 11.53%.
This included the Great Depression of the 1930s. A 10% return on
investment is easily achievable.
Anyone can become rich or a millionaire, even if you only make $500
per month. But you have to make tradeoffs in your life. It’s about
what you spend.
This book isn’t about money, but there’s nothing wrong with having money or
making it. It’s an essential part of our lives. And our moral responsibility is also
to take care of our children and family. And so, in a sense, teaching others about
the basics of finance and investment can be one of the most important aspects of
humanity.
I follow and track global financial markets religiously. I track everything that’s
inter-related: global politics, global economic news, major currencies, major
commodities, technology trends, interest rates, bond markets, stock markets,
specific stocks and industries, macro-economic indicators and reports globally on
a weekly/daily basis, as well as major government debts and fiscal conditions. I
know as much about economics and markets are anybody probably.
But one doesn’t have to have this level of deep understanding to be
able to invest and grow money. A child can do it. Really. You don’t
need to know anything about economics or stocks. Most people are
Page 192
afraid or intimidated by the idea of investing on their own. But I
promise you, it’s very simple and anyone can do it. Everybody should
do it.
Open a brokerage or investment account (it’s easy).
Consistently put as little as $50 or $100 every month into it. Buy
simple index funds which track the overall stock market, instead of
individual stocks. This reduces the risk dramatically. If you hold
onto it and do this over years, the risks don’t matter. It will grow.
Don’t touch it or let fear guide you. Just leave it alone, even if it goes down.
You can buy simple things like the symbol SPY, which is an index fund that tracks
the 500 biggest U.S. companies, called the S&P 500 (Standard and Poors 500). If
you want to buy gold, buy the index fund GLD. I recommend putting 20% of
your money into gold and holding it for the long haul (as I discussed in Chapter
7). Every month just buy as much as you can add to your savings. But do it
continuously, religiously. Even if the stocks go down. Especially if the stocks go
down, because you will be able to buy at lower prices! If you invest for the long
term, this is the best thing that can happen to you (stocks going lower). Don’t be
scared by this. Eventually all economies and stock markets rebound. So don’t
stop adding more EVERY month - no matter how scared you get.
Let me show you how much saving $100 per month can mean to you
in the long run. Starting at age 18, if you saved and invested $100
every month, and assuming you increased your savings by only 3%
every year as your wages grew, you would end up with $8,710,030 by
the time you reach 75! $8.7 million! By doing nothing more than
adding a little every month - $100 is nothing! Just cut out your daily
Starbuck’s lattes and you’ll save nearly that much every month!
This is based on the average stock market return from 1928 to 2014, which was
11.53%, as mentioned earlier.
People don’t realize how even just a little amount like $100 can grow to
something so incredibly large. This is the power of compounded interest rates or
growth. But you have to let it grow undisturbed. It’s so easy to say to yourself,
“let’s take a little out of our savings.” Don’t do it. Keep a separate emergency
savings account with a little money for special needs or emergencies. Savings
should be untouched.
Ideally you want to put this into a retirement savings to avoid taxes, so you can
grow your money faster every year and not have to worry about taxes.
Page 193
You can view or download the full investment table and analysis on the website
IronNotWood.com under the file “How to be a Millionaire”
When you retire, you will have plenty of money to do whatever you want. Or to
leave your children with an inheritance, confident knowing that you have
provided them a better life than you had. And hopefully you will also help others
who are less fortunate in life as well. You can just thank me later in life by
helping someone in need.
The China Hybrid Model and the World’s Greatest Growth Story
Earlier I mentioned we would get back to the China story. It’s an interesting case.
China’s economy is projected to overtake the U.S. within a few decades. The U.S.
economy is about $17 trillion today. China is currently about $10.5 trillion but
growing nearly double the average U.S. growth rate. Of course, this growth rate
will continue to slow as the economy gets larger.
The growth story of China is breathtaking. In 1980, China’s economy was at $189
billion, whereas the U.S. was $2.86 trillion (more than 15 times larger).
In the past 3 years, China has consumed more concrete to build
infrastructure and buildings than the U.S. used in the entire 20th
century - by a wide margin! In the 1900s, the U.S. consumed 4.5
gigatons of concrete over an entire century! From 2011 to 2013 alone,
China consumed 6.6 gigatons. That’s nearly 50% more than all of the
past century for the U.S.!! Concrete is one of the core engines of
industrial and economic activity.
Much of this was due to China government stimulus programs to build new roads
and infrastructure, as well as central planning of whole new cities to house
millions of new urban residents. Many are now ghost towns and largely still
empty. This is one of the fundamental problems with government centralized
planning.
The downside is that this level of stimulus and spending in infrastructure is
clearly unsustainable. And today, it is widely known China has a real banking,
public company debt burden, and industrial capacity oversupply problem due to
Page 194
years of overinvestment in infrastructure, which largely inflated real economic
growth. These types of inefficiencies are normal in a centrally planned,
government driven economic model. A free market capitalist model would have
allocated money and resources where it was needed far more efficiently. My
strong view is that within the next decade, China is headed for a very significant
economic crisis.
I still strongly believe the China hybrid model of a predominantly state run,
centralized economy is still unsustainable in the long run, and will eventually
crumble. Full democracy is inevitable everywhere. China continues to have high
censorship of free speech and media, heavy restrictions on internet access, and a
fairly dismal record on human rights - still imprisoning dissidents and outspoken
politicians and activists without due process. As the size and complexity of their
economy takes hold, efficient centralized planning decreases further and will be
impossible.
Furthermore, the economic disparity is far worse than in the U.S., and one of the
worst in the world, especially in comparison to developed economies. The vast
majority of the Chinese population still lives in utter poverty. In 2012, China’s
official government declared poverty line was any income of less than $1.25 per
DAY ($456 if one works every single day)! 99 million Chinese fell under the
poverty line in 2012. By comparison, the U.S. poverty line is $23,283. The
average Chinese worker earned $4,755 in 2012, about 38% of the global average.
Nearly 3 out of 4 Chinese workers still earn less than $15,000 per year. In other
words, nearly all Chinese would be considered to be in poverty by American
standards.
The wealth is heavily distributed to key members of the communist party and
their economic partners, with rampant corruption and bribery (something the
new leader, Xi Jinping is trying to tackle aggressively. But this could take
decades). The Chinese Communist Legislative Assembly has the highest
concentration of billionaires of anywhere in the world. With 3,000 delegates in
the assembly, at least 83 of them are billionaires as of 2013! Keep in mind in
2014, China had a total of 111 billionaires in the entire country! 83 out of 111 are
part of the Communist government Legislative Assembly! This speaks to the
level of corruption and bribery within the government of the communist country.
The U.S. has zero billionaires in congress, even though the U.S. leads the world in
the number of billionaires overall, mostly due to finance and technology
leadership.
Page 195
Despite the Chinese economy being the second largest in the world today, based
on GDP measure (Gross Domestic Product or the economic measure of all goods
and services in a country), the average income of the Chinese worker is a fraction
of U.S. workers. Chinese workers earn an average of roughly $10,000 per year
versus over $80,000 for the U.S. (the median is $47,300 in the U.S.). Per capita
GDP (GDP divided by the national population) is $9,100 in China versus
$48,900 for America. China has the world’s largest population of 1.355 billion as
of 2014, whereas the U.S. has 318 million people. In other words, there are one
billion more Chinese than Americans.
Regardless, the easy economic growth of underdeveloped China is long gone. The
days of cheap-manufacturing-labor induced growth is largely over, as companies
are starting to relocate to other lower cost manufacturing countries. Foreign
investment in China is now withering and a fraction of where it has been in the
past few decades. And massive government stimulus programs to build more
infrastructures will not be introduced again.
As the economic growth slows (this is a universally accepted view), and pressure
for increased social spending grows naturally, China will become encumbered by
mediocrity and eventually government deficit spending will be a reality, as with
all developed nations. China still struggles with innovation and quality, which
are serious problems to shift their economy from a low cost manufacturing driven
economy to a value added and innovation driven growth.
When the economy slows, the focus will return on living standards and personal
liberties, such as free speech, equal opportunity, and democratic elections. Social
unrest is almost a certainty in the coming decades. I don’t believe communism in
China will or can endure beyond the next 3 decades.
People everywhere, even in China, thirst for freedom and democracy. Increasing
prosperity for most of the population can mask this desire for a while. But in the
end, these are the issues that will matter most to people everywhere, regardless of
their religious or ideological beliefs.
The government in China is so worried about popular uprisings, they recently
made the use of political puns illegal (a pun is a satirical joke of words). Really?
This is their answer to quell potential social unrest? Social media like Facebook,
Twitter are illegal (they have their own versions which can be monitored fully by
the government). Google left China about 4 years ago as the Chinese government
wanted access and censorship to monitor its citizens. Something Google refused,
admirably. Placing humanity over profit is rare but applaudable for companies.
Page 196
It's good to see Google living up to their mantra of "do no evil".
But nonetheless, the China growth story is nothing short of amazing. Clearly,
moving forward, significant challenges await. And it’s increasingly likely that as
prosperity slows, democracy and freedoms will become something Chinese
citizens will demand in the coming decades. Freedom is an inevitability
everywhere.
Ideological Wars
Wars based on ideology are potentially the most dangerous kind of wars or
aggression. The passionate belief in something, or ideas, does not die easily, even
when, technically, the war or battle is won.
Ideology is philosophy. Communism is an ideology, based on the philosophical
idea that all men are created equal, and equality of status is the most important
aspect of life. (Of course no communist state really exercises this ideology, as it is
practically impossible to create pure equality given our human nature.)
Democracy and Capitalism are philosophical ideas that are more rooted in the
pragmatic reality of human nature - to be free and self-serving. Personal
freedom, after all, is the most basic self-serving idea there is.
Philosophy is powerful. Ideas that resonate can change the world forever.
Today, our greatest threat to peace and democratic prosperity rests in religious
ideology, created by the vast chasm of moral and cultural views between the two
sects of Western and Middle Eastern religion. The Jihad of radical Muslims is in
the first few innings of what will be a long and arduous battle of ideology. This
one will ultimately persist for decades until prosperity is more pervasive in the
most underdeveloped regions of the world.
The transition of fossil fuels to renewables and cleaner energy sources will
increase instability in this part of the world, as price pressures on oil reduces
their primary source of revenue and limits the government’s ability to provide
expansive social programs.
Page 197
The West’s exhaustion from more than a decade of war in the Middle East has
also begun a transition to discover other energy sources, domestically as well as
in less tumultuous regions. This will further decrease revenues from fossil fuels
in the Middle East and other countries that are dependent on oil revenue, where
radical Islam has taken root.
In most of the oil producing countries of the Middle East, the countries are
completely dependent on revenues from oil exports to subsidize social programs
and give money to the poor. The leaders are keenly aware that without this
government charity massive social unrest is likely. When the oil revenues
decline, large unsustainable deficits persist.
At some point in the next few decades, these trends will converge, to create even
greater social disorder in the region - far more than exists today. This is
inevitable. These trends will ultimately lead to greater impoverishment and
wealth disparity between the affected country’s ruling class and the greater
population. It will also expand the increasing prosperity divide between
countries adopting democracy and capitalism (in all its various forms), and those
that still focus on totalitarian control or monarchies and dictatorships, such as
most of the Middle Eastern countries.
These growing prosperity divides will only make this ideological
battle more resonant and more difficult to overcome.
As I said, it will take decades, perhaps a century or more, to ultimately resolve.
This ideological battle has already defined more than a decade of conflict. It has
engulfed more countries already than those that were directly engaged in WWII.
Nearly 200 countries have participated in the financial war against terror
(freezing assets, restricting capital flows). The war in Afghanistan alone involved
the militaries of more than 50 countries, albeit in small, symbolic forces mostly.
The main differences between the radical Islamic ideological war versus WWII is
that the actual conflict, thus far, has been restricted to a few countries in the
Middle East. Furthermore, the number of active combat participants has been
very small compared to previous world wars. But make no mistake, we are
simply in the very early stages of a long and arduous ideological war. It will
expand immensely. Even China and Russia have shown interest in participating
in the recent war on terror, motivated by their own internal terrorist
“insurgencies” in their own respective countries.
Page 198
This ideological war is grounded in extreme economic disparity, and
revulsion over political policies of the West, but also due to the real
cultural divides and a truly different sense of morality.
The poorest regions of the world such as the Middle East, Africa and
South/Central America, and parts of Asia, are also - not coincidentally - the more
unstable and tumultuous regions, mired in perpetual conflict, constant upheaval,
radical ideology and violence. Extreme poverty has allowed a culture of extreme
Islamic ideology to persist and fester to become a growing danger to the world.
Lack of economic opportunity is at the core of this ideology driven out lash of
frustration.
Most people, when given opportunity, just want to live in peace. Every parent
just wants their children to have a better life than they did. Every mother just
wants to live in peace - all things being equal. It has less to do with the Muslim
religion, and more to do with radicals capitalizing on the extremely frustrated
condition of the people. The West has become the symbol of evil, representing all
that represses the poor in these regions.
The idea of anti-American policy coupled with anti-Israeli sentiment is more
religious based than grounded in American foreign policy. American policy in the
Middle East has not been exemplary by any means. It’s riddled with shameful
history. But it is also just a cover, an excuse, for radicals to exercise violence. The
more pressing issues are economic despair and the real moral and religious
divide between East and West.
The more fundamental problem with this new religious ideological war is that it
is grounded in the perception of religious morality. Fundamental Muslims want
their own version of morality, in their insulated society and culture. And as the
perceived morality of Western society continues to diverge greatly from the
narrow morality of fundamental Islam, this will only increase pressure for greater
conflict.
The West is going down a path of very liberal morality, based on pure individual
freedom. I agree with most of it. But this kind of open morality can be viewed as
poison to a fundamental Muslim. The trends toward gay marriage, sexual
empowerment and liberalism, unbounded greed, feminism and western view of
sexual equality…while these may all be viewpoints many or most of us agree with,
they are diametrically opposed to the religious views of most Muslims.
Page 199
Like a rubber band that can stretch to extremes, at some point the polarization
proves to be too much strain.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. There are 2.4 billion Christians. The
moral battle is going to expand beyond just Muslims to other fundamental
religions (at least the more radicalized sects of these).
The interconnectedness of our world, brought about by the internet and online
and social media, has made it increasingly difficult to separate cultures and
society’s morality. This is part of the problem. In a way, I sympathize with the
idea that people should be able to have their own morality in different parts of the
world, without the West or America pushing our belief system onto them. The
problem lays in the fact that, often, these moral systems are very oppressive and
sometimes are no different than thug behavior, under the disguise of religion.
American’s sense of morality isn’t the only one that is valid. Americans believe
that religious tolerance (accepting all religions) is sufficient. But at the same
time, they push our liberal culture onto everyone else who may loath that type of
lifestyle.
Religious tolerance has to be about more than simply believing all
peaceful religions should be accepted. It has to truly respect those
differences of moral views as well, and not push our own belief
system everywhere. One can’t truly respect someone’s religious
views, if at the same time, you are shoving your own cultural and
moral system in their faces.
It’s not just about religious tolerance, but also about true religious
respect. Hell, just look at how most Americans view and treat fellow
Americans with fundamental Christian views who hold strict moral
beliefs. We ridicule and show disdain for those who believe in
Creationism over Evolution. Even if we strongly disagree, we must
still show respect of religion.
We must truly be more open minded ourselves, if we are ever to
overcome this religious ideological war.
This is one of the problems with absorbing technology in our society. Mankind
cannot assimilate technology (meaning learn how to live with it peacefully) as fast
as we are creating it. This gap is the fundamental problem. The internet and
social and online media has happened so fast, it’s disrupting cultures and
Page 200
societies and making it impossible to isolate themselves from Western views and
morals.
Ordinary People and the Modern Day Fight for Democracy
One of the reasons I decided to travel to Ukraine was because I wanted to see
firsthand, how even today, people can still fight for democracy and value the idea
of personal liberty and economic freedom, in one of the budding democracies of
Eastern Europe.
I met a young man in Ukraine, a few months after the start of the Maidan
Revolution, where more than a hundred innocent protesters were killed by
government and police in an effort to quell the popular uprising. It sparked a
war, still being waged in the far corner of the Eastern European continent. Two
brothers pitted against the other, in a conflict over international relevance
(Russia) versus free choice (Ukraine). This revolution was about economic
opportunity, as many uprisings are.
Page 201
The young man helped me find a bar I had been looking for that often played
lived music. He walked at least a half a mile to show me where it was. He spoke
broken English. When we arrived at the bar, we drank a couple beers together,
and he began to tell me the emotional story of some of the events that had
transpired during the peak of the violence at the start of the Maidan Revolution.
He had been one of the many young men camped out for months at
Independence Square, ground zero for the winds of political change that stirred
an uprising. As he began to describe some of the unbelievable chaos unfold, he
told me he had been shot 3 times in the chest one day, but was saved by the bullet
proof vest he was lucky to be wearing (a rarity). During the peak of the protests,
government and police snipers were on rooftops (some rumored to be Russian
military, even before the actual war began in Eastern Ukraine). One of the
snipers had killed a close friend of his who was standing immediately next to him,
as my new friend was sitting down on the sidewalk. It was a gripping emotional
story about life and freedom.
Some things in this life are still worth fighting for; a nation trapped in economic
irrelevance, repressed by an incredibly corrupt government, and a president who
opposed the will of the people. Ukrainians wanted economic freedom - to be able
to engage with the European Union, to hopefully grow their economy, and create
jobs and opportunity. The Russian government backed president, Viktor
Yanukovych, was utterly corrupt. He had stolen billions of dollars of government
and the people’s funds to build the most extravagant personal palace and estate,
as well as embezzled as much as $70 billion from the people of Ukraine over the
previous 3 years in office - all while the people struggled. His personal palace was
so extravagant he had golden toilets, and opulence one would expect only in a
royal palace in places like Saudi Arabia.
It should be no surprise that people will endure violence, war and revolution to
topple this type of corruption; to overthrow by force, leaders who are more intent
on political survival and retention of power, than helping the people who elected
them to power.
Ukrainians, like all people, want democracy, freedom and prosperity. The
difference is they are willing to fight and potentially die for this right. Ukrainians
have a different understanding and expectation of democracy than Americans do,
but fundamentally, it’s still the same.
In fact, one of the fascinating things I’ve discovered as I’ve traversed this globe
and visited some 60 countries, is not the differences, but the similarities of
Page 202
people. In developing countries, you see a thirst for freedom, for democracy and
for prosperity, driven by one simple goal, to have a better life for themselves and
their children.
Despite all the seemingly vast differences from one culture to the next
- the extraordinary uniqueness of the different cuisines, different
religious views and ideologies - there are more similarities and
commonalities among people than differences. Even the religious
ideologies all share common ideas and hopes: The idea that how we
treat others matters; that what we do in this life has some impact on
the next life or the afterlife. That good should always prevail over
evil, and that we should all live by a code of morals.
People truly are just people everywhere.
As I read the Western newspapers about the conflict in Ukraine and compare that
to the reality on the ground, I can’t help to be disappointed at the global politics
of it all. America and the West, supposedly ardent supporters of democracy and
freedom, doing the bare minimum, seem to be moving at the slowest deliberate
pace to aid a people crying out for help and support. Paralyzed by fear and the
shock of persistent human nature to expand power, the West is again engrossed
in a policy of appeasement when faced with blatant aggression. I don’t even
know why people study history, given the lessons are never learned, and the
understanding of human nature is largely ignored.
It saddens me when I see real-life conflict; how it affects the actual people, and
one of those rare modern day fights for democracy. And just how little America
has done to assist. Our American presence and support barely heard or felt,
outside of the purely symbolic political gestures of support by our leaders.
If these things aren’t worth helping, then what is? I’m not proposing we go to
war. But we can do far more than we have or continue to [not] do.
Why is it even a debate on whether we should send weapons to help Ukrainians
defend themselves? Hesitance, due to fears of further aggression by Russia,
when it’s so obvious Russia is already escalating the war and has greater
ambitions beyond Ukraine, just shows timidity and weakness to a power hungry
lion who smells fear. It shocks me how naive intelligent people and leaders can
be, given the wealth of historical data about human nature. History is replete
with examples of former leaders and dictators in the precise mold of Vladimir
Putin.
Page 203
But most shocking to me, is America’s direct responsibility for the events that
unfolded in Ukraine, and our failure to uphold our promised obligations. Shortly
after the Cold War ended, in 1994, America pressured the former Soviet Union
country of Ukraine to disarm and give up its nuclear weapons – a sizable arsenal
of former Soviet nuclear stockpiles resided in Ukraine. In return, America
promised to provide future security guarantees for the new sovereign country of
Ukraine, as part of this bilateral agreement to de-escalate the menacing global
nuclear threat.
Ukraine got rid of its nuclear arsenal, per the agreement, and in good faith. But
when the time came for America to fulfill our obligations to help protect the
sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine, we once again, failed to uphold our
international obligation. America is directly responsible for this war in Ukraine.
It’s sickening. I can assure every reader that this war between Russia and
Ukraine would never have happened if Ukraine had insisted on keeping its
nuclear deterrence; or if Russia actually feared America’s commitment to our
agreement. And the thousands of innocent lives killed in the war; and the
millions of lives displaced or directly affected by it could have been avoided. Just
another deplorable chapter in America’s embarrassing political history, making
the world a less safe place by our inability to keep our international promises, due
to a weak President who fails to comprehend the long term ramifications for
America’s inaction and lack of substance behind our words.
In the future, which country would dare listen to any American promises or
assurances of security, or “red lines that cannot be crossed”? Empty words or
empty threats of consequences are just rhetoric, and laughed off by our
adversaries. If we cannot be a reliable ally, all our treaties and agreements are
nothing more than meaningless words on a wasted piece of paper. “Say what you
mean, and do what you say.” It’s true in our own lives, but especially true for
nations that aspire to be the shining example to the free world.
“Trust” in any government should always be enveloped in a shroud of
caution and unease. Governments are merely the sum of politicians.
And politicians are about as trustworthy and honorable as the
Serpent. We are fools and naïve children if we believe governments
are the answer to our lives.
But, clearly, politics does matter in our lives. From a practical
perspective, it is one of the most influential external factors in
shaping our happiness and our well-being. As much as we all despise
Page 204
and abhor the nasty world of politics - the incredulous promises,
outright lies, deceit, and games of power - it is an essential part of our
lives that directly impacts our economic opportunity, as well as
protecting our innate liberties.
Liberty for All
Freedom is more than our right to say what we want or vote how we want. The
most important freedom is to be able to live as we want, and to enjoy life when we
are able.
The American culture of going to school all our early years, then working until
age 65 and retirement, with two weeks of vacation per year is absolutely nuts. It's
about as insane of a system as one can imagine. But this is considered normal.
I believe we should live and do the things we want, when we want to do them, and
when we are able to do them (when we are younger). Traveling at age 65 or 70 is
a completely different experience. And I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be nearly as
much fun.
In a sense, our American work ethic and obsession with work is a
form of social repression and curbing of our social freedom. It's
economic servitude as I mentioned previously. As I've travelled to the
various countries, one thing has become shockingly evident. Despite
America being the most powerful country in the world - with an
immense and amazing economic engine any country should envy;
with affluence and comfort never before achieved in human history;
and blessed with the most stable and rigid guarantee of civil liberties
of any political system - Americans fail to achieve the work-life
balance that other poorer and less successful countries take for
granted.
I know. I lived it.
Especially today, with technology being such an integral part of every facet of our
lives - emails, phone calls, text messages, conference calls, work related functions
and dinners - work has consumed our lives, extending well beyond the normal 9
to 5 or weekdays. My career consumed me. Work was 24/7, constantly checking
emails, talking with international sales people or customers, preparations for
Page 205
executive meetings, and so on. Yes, I was well compensated. I earned a salary
and total compensation (bonuses and stock incentives) that would make nearly
everyone envious, except the very few top percent in America.
But it cost me far more than I earned or gained.
Even in the poorest of areas of Europe one can see a better quality of
life, in the sense that despite having little money, Europeans still
manage to live well. Maybe they can't travel abroad as much, or
purchase expensive luxury items like Americans, but they enjoy life
more. This is abundantly clear.
In countries in Central America and South America, where even the most
impoverished European countries are far better off than these Central/South
American counterparts, many cultures experience a greater sense of satisfaction
with life than Americans do. Study after study has shown this. I believe it has a
lot to do with family values and the greater focus on family in Hispanic and South
American cultures. Economics and prosperity are important to our lives. But it
doesn’t provide the meaning to our existence.
Don't misunderstand my words. I love America. It is my home. It really is the
greatest country in the world in many ways. It is where my heart will always be.
It's where I was given the opportunity to enjoy all the things in my life. And I am
grateful to a system that empowered me to succeed.
But nonetheless, people should never lose sight of our reason why we
work - so we can enjoy life. Enjoying life isn't about buying a bigger
house, or better clothes, or more exotic cars. It's about people.
Family. Friends. Experiences.
I spent a month in Chisinau, Moldova during this recent trip. Prior to the visit, I
had absolutely zero information about the country or the city. I did zero
research. The only reason I ended up there was because as I was looking on my
iPhone map of Europe, I noticed this star highlighting Chisinau as the capital of
Moldova, and I thought to myself, “Shit, let's book a ticket and go there next!”
And so I did. 100% spontaneous and unplanned and mysterious.
While I was there, I discovered by talking with people, and with the aid of Mr.
Google, that Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. It is a very small country
with shared borders with Ukraine and Romania. The language is Romanian.
Page 206
I rented an apartment so I could see life like a local. But one of the key things I
discovered in the first week I was there was how vibrant and alive the people
were. For a small city the streets were vibrant, people loved going to the park or
cafes anytime. They dressed well, not expensive, but well. The ladies always
dressed beautifully, classy, yet sexy. Even though life was a daily struggle given
their low per capita income, they still managed to live life better than Americans
in some respects. It made me rethink things a bit more about priorities and what
was really important in this world.
One of the most interesting aspects of traveling alone around the world is that it
forces you to meet others, and experience things you likely would not have if you
travelled with a partner or group. I’m not talking about backpacking as a
teenager or new college grad. I've never been afraid of traveling alone as I
became accustomed to it having traveled so frequently for business. I would
always go out and party after the customer meetings, or when the customer or
team dinners were finished for the day - to meet new people. Often I would just
stay out all night and not even sleep at all, or just one or two hours, and then just
go to work and meet more customers the next day. My mentality was always “I
may never be able to experience this place ever again, so why go back to the hotel
room?” And even places like Tokyo, where I had been there perhaps 50 plus
times, I still felt like there was always something new to discover or interesting to
experience.
(It didn’t affect my effectiveness at work. My work was important to me. If it
had, I would have toned my partying down.)
Life really is short. And we don’t often get to revisit the places or experiences
than we have in front of us. Breathe the moment. Inhale every experience you
can. You can sleep when you’re dead.
Work isn’t everything, only if we allow ourselves to be consumed by it.
If we are not in control of our own lives, dictated by our desires and
wants of “things”, we are truly not free.
True liberty and freedom is not just living in a world or country that
protects this innate right; it’s actually living it, breathing it, seizing
life.
Page 207
Chapter 9. The Perfect Symphony
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as
a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
- Dr. George Wald (Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner)
“A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.” [William Shakespeare]
Sometimes as I ponder the world and reality
around us, I am always consumed by a
sense of awe. Sometimes I like to just
observe the simple beauty that surrounds us
every day.
Recently during spring 2014, I decided to
observe and photograph, daily, one specific rose in a garden of full of roses just
outside my apartment in Chisinau (at the time I had no idea I would ever use it in
this book!). Each day I captured the progress from one day to the next, as I
watched it grow and transform from a simple bud to a flourishing velvety
crimson-red miracle of nature (actual photo shown).
At first, a few pedals emerged in a tightly bundled small formation. A few days
later, layer after layer of incredibly beautiful pedals radiated outward in a warm
welcome. As I closely investigated the texture of the pedals I couldn’t help but be
fascinated by the soft and velvety feel - soft and flexible yet rigid. Early in the
day, the morning dew would bubble up into tiny tear drops of moisture, like a
permanently waxed car to prevent the pedals from absorbing too much moisture
or making them too heavy for the modest stem to be able to support.
Page 208
And as I leaned in to breathe in the essence of the rose, an aroma that could
attract ten thousand wings from miles away filled my lungs. I’d seen a thousand
roses in my life. But somehow, as I observed this specific one daily, and really
studied nature’s beauty, I began to see it in a completely different light.
This was perfection. So many details; so perfectly thought out. It was perfection
of incredible complexity that resulted in something so elegant and simple in its
magnificence. And I realized, with all our knowledge and scientific
understanding, our impressive technology, man couldn’t come anywhere close to
recreating something as complex yet simple, creative and enduring as what
nature had created billions of times. Perfection.
And I thought to myself, there is absolutely no evolutionary purpose
why a rose is so magnificently and perfectly beautiful. Is beauty a
criteria for the survival of species? (No).
This chapter about evolution is the most important part of the book in my
opinion, as I mentioned in Chapter 1: Introduction. Everybody seems to already
have their own bias and predetermined idea based on religion or education. And
in many ways, the dialog on Evolution versus Intelligent Design results in both
sides exhibiting fervently held beliefs. But let's just throw all that out for just a
moment and allow ourselves to think freely in space, free of distractions and the
gravity of long held views.
In the end, I realize, like religion or politics, no logic or science or persuasive
arguments can change some people’s minds. But hopefully this isn't true for
everyone.
My personal perspective and views on evolution have changed over the years. I
have no bias one way or the other, as I don’t believe in God in the traditional
sense, and I follow no predefined religious views. And in fact, I readily concede,
life would be simpler if we could just say that all of this was nothing more than
random chance.
For most of my teenage years, and the bulk of my adult life throughout the 20s, I
desperately wanted to believe in evolution and the idea that it was all random
chance. As I ran away from religion in my early twenties (recall in Chapter 6:
Morality and Religion, I discussed my religious rebirth), I embraced every nonreligious theology and ideas.
Page 209
But as I went through life, and contemplated everything in great detail, it just
seemed like I was trying to embrace something that, intellectually, wasn’t a
sustainable argument (for me). It was impossible to prove to myself the idea of
evolution could be viable. I desperately wanted to believe it. I wish one could
truly appreciate how much I wanted to believe in anything non-God or nonreligious. But at the end of the day, even if I didn’t believe in religion - and I still
don’t, nor do I believe in God, per se - I am at heart a thinking man and a man of
reason and logic hopefully. And I cannot choose to believe in anything that
doesn’t make sense or follow the most probabilistic logical path.
So the discussions in this chapter will try to focus on objective evidence and
arguments mostly. At the end of the day, I have no problem with people choosing
their own belief system and still respecting that. I have many friends who are
Atheists. I love them and respect their views. But I hope you will truly try to
objectively absorb some of this information and at least think about what you
believe, and most importantly, WHY?
If we want meaning, apart from the physical reality of this world, we must know
ourselves and know why we believe something, whatever it is. And there is no
more important discovery by man than to understand our reason and purpose of
being, and where and how and why we fit together in this universe.
I’m going to take a different approach to this chapter than the rest of this book.
As I mentioned, the idea of why life started and its implications are central to
understanding if, indeed, there is a greater purpose for us, or more to this life and
this existence.
The story of evolution is predicated on 4 simple ideas. There really are only 4
things that are needed to spawn evolution of life ANYWHERE, according to the
theory.
1) Early Earth atmosphere being conducive to form the basic ingredients of
life - the complex organic compounds chemically reacting and occurring.
2) The perfect early Earth conditions. A “primordial” soup as we always hear
consisting of simple water and a survivable condition in which the initial
living cells can exist and replicate.
3) The creation of the first self-replicating living cell
Page 210
4) Random combinations and mutations which get selectively prioritized
based on the idea of natural selection - i.e. survival of the fittest.
5) Time. Lots of time.
If you have all of these ingredients, then in theory, you should be able to evolve
life anywhere, given enough time. It sounds incredibly simple. This really is the
entire story, supported by a boatload of other data points of course, such as fossil
records, evidence of species adaptation, etc.
It’s significant to note that this theory isn’t predicated on luck. Evolution states
that life will evolve given these conditions. Because given enough time, it is
inevitable that the building blocks will develop, and then through natural
selection, increasingly become more complex and diverse.
So we will discuss all these points. And point 5, very briefly, only in the sense of
understanding the timeframes of the life of our planet, and the timeframes
needed to evolve life according to mathematics.
The compelling facts of Evolution, as espoused by Evolutionists, are:
1) The success of creating the basic organic compound ingredients – amino
acids – in lab experiments.
2) Similarity and overlap of common or similar DNA code found in all living
organisms.
3) Fossil records and paleontological data showing different species with
increasing complexity; especially humanoid fossil records depicting the
progression toward human form.
4) The physical reality of mutations and clearly observable examples of
adaption of species.
I readily agree, these 4 points are all facts. No intelligent person should dispute
these. We will go through each of these points.
In the end, the theory of Intelligent Design is far more compelling than the idea
of random evolution driving the complexity of species, as you will discover in the
following pages. If you have the stamina to read the entire text, you will
objectively see why yourself.
Page 211
We will discuss the conditions of early Earth, in both atmospheric and surface
conditions extensively. Water is a key ingredient, so we will talk about the
mystery of water.
We will also discuss what it takes to create a living cell, and the basic structure
and components of all living cells. The spontaneous occurrence of the first
replicating living cell is central to the entire thesis of Evolution. Given its
importance we will spend considerable time discussing this.
The idea of natural selection applies to everything, everywhere. But I want to
discuss the limitations of natural selection as well.
I’m also going to show that biological life is much more robust than we think
based on real world species today. And therefore the possible conditions that can
support life is much broader than the classic interpretation. Furthermore, I’m
not restraining the evolution of life to only be carbon based. Earth is just one
example, and every life form doesn’t have to be exactly as it is on our planet. It’s
basic chemistry. Any similar chemical element, such as silicon, which shares
similar properties to carbon and is of the same group of elements, can be the
basis of biological or non-biological life.
In other words, the idea of evolution should apply to any element, as long as it
has the potential to create more complex polymer molecules, and hence life
structure. The problem is humans skew our story to fit only the model we see
and want. The evolutionary path should be vast and wide if we want to be truly
objective with ourselves and honestly assess this theory.
In this chapter, I’m going to methodically detail what these basic chemical
elements are (based on our understanding of life on Earth only). First starting
with a very basic introduction to the chemical elements in our universe, then
outlining the molecular combinations that must occur for the basic building
blocks of life to develop, ultimately leading to the first living cell organism.
I’m going to spend a lot of time on water because it is central to life and the first
development of living organisms. And yet, it is one of the greatest mysteries still.
Oxygen and hydrogen are abundant throughout our universe, and yet water is so
rare and uncommon in our universe, strangely.
Then we will discuss the complexity and marvel of the human body - what
comprises it.
Page 212
Lastly, I’m going to talk about natural selection and evolution concepts versus the
universal tendencies and laws of physics.
And finally, my conclusion will show that evolution is not an inevitability as the
theory suggests, but rather, the complete opposite; it’s an impossibility. Based on
math and universal tendencies, pure evolution over time and through random
combinations of elements, coupled with natural selection, is mathematically
impossible. Anywhere. Only under the specific introduction of an Intelligence, to
help shape, protect and design or genetically engineer life, can and does life
evolve and exist.
In other words, I believe, this world and life, was Intelligently
Designed, and many of the evolutionary steps were likely shaped by
this Intelligence. I simply remove the implied word “random” in the
idea of Evolution. I call it the “Theory of Intentional Evolution.” It’s a
fundamental and huge distinction.
I simply mean that the evolutionary details and facts of biological life changing
over time happened as part of a grander and intentional concept and design; that
mutations and changes in species which occurred over billions of years were
influenced by an external entity. It is the only mathematically possible
conclusion in my opinion. This is not a conclusion that necessarily supports
Creationism. As I said many times, I don’t believe in any religion. But we don’t
know, what we don’t know.
Again, as I say throughout this book, numbers are the only thing that
is truly objective in this universe. Everything else is weighed down by
the gravity of our long held views and predisposition. Even science is
corrupted by bias, as we constantly struggle to extract ourselves from
the confines of the human perspective. Pure numbers bring crystal
clarity to an otherwise murky and incomprehensible universe,
allowing us to measure and quantify and see truth as it truly stands
before us, removed of the mask of illusions.
Truth, in mathematical terms, is relative and based on probability.
For instance, if the probability of one event is 1 in a trillion (10 12), and
the probability of another event is 1 in 10120. Math tells us, truly
objectively, the 1 in a 1 trillion event is the reality, and is far more
truth. And that the second reality of the 1 in a 10120 event is complete
bullshit, to use a mammalian analogy
Page 213
Most people simply believe in evolution for 2 reasons.
For most people, it’s just what they were told in school or education. And given
how readily it’s promoted as fact, people just simply go along with the idea. I call
it the crowd of “Well, if so many smart people agree and think it’s right, then ok.
It must be true!” The reality is most people haven’t really thought about this
concept too much. And they are neither firmly fixed to it nor repulsed by it. But
they accept reason and logic and common sense for the most part.
Secondly, others, including academia and many scientists, are fixated on the idea
that evolution is truth, simply because they just can’t possibly imagine or accept
the alternative. The idea that, if Evolution isn’t true, then that means
Creationism or Intelligent Design has to be true. And this is a repulsive idea to
them, because God or an unknown Intelligence is an unquantifiable entity. To
them, the belief in something beyond the physical is an absurd idea. The Atheist
crowd. So, they are determined, no matter how many holes are exposed in the
theory; no matter how many ideas get disproven, to constantly change and adapt
the theory to fit their predetermined conclusion.
On the one hand, I understand the difficulty of accepting something that we
cannot see or prove. It’s human nature to a large degree. I, too, am a firm
believer in science and rational thought. But we can neither prove evolution or
random design either, no matter how many people seem convinced it is fact; we
will look at this supposition.
And I don’t believe that rejecting evolution means we must embrace religion. The
two should be independent. We should evaluate each idea based on the
individual merits, and the science and math.
I’m probably never going to change the second group of people’s minds. But I
hope you will still read this section and think objectively, and consider carefully
the alternative. I too was in your camp many years ago.
If our belief system is based purely on our insistence to a set of beliefs, even when
they run counter to facts or mathematics, then it is simply a religion. Remember,
a religion is simply holding onto a philosophical belief in something that is not
fully proven.
The objective truth is, a “fact” can be determined to be a fact only when the entire
chain of events in the theory has been proven without question. This may seem
Page 214
like an obvious statement, but there are many who either don’t realize the full set
of data, are not aware of the real mathematical implications, or simply believe
that fossil data hinting toward evolution is merely sufficient to outline the theory
as a fact. It is not.
I like to think that this second group of people value their intellect and their
rational thought, and aren’t afraid to be challenged with ideas that run counter to
their long held views. So I hope you will put your emotional and passionate
response away for just a bit as you read through this long chapter.
Otherwise, Evolutionists are no different than the religious fanatics who hold
onto their beliefs no matter what set of facts or mathematics dictates. Just as
people who believe in Christianity believe in God, never having seen him or
known him. They choose to believe based on purely faith and a spiritual sense of
Him. Christians speculate about how the world started, about good and evil, and
so on.
Evolutionism holds onto the idea that all of this just randomly and spontaneously
occurred through many small events. And Evolutionists speculate about how
things started, how things evolved, and the nature of our world. Some of it is
grounded in science, but the most important aspects of it are conjecture and I will
show objectively why.
I believe the Theory of Evolution is an interesting idea. And ideas are always
good. And there is some very compelling science in some aspects of the theory.
But the Theory of Evolution isn’t a theory:
A basic lesson in science: If a theory is in flux, always changing to fit
the data, it isn’t a theory yet; it’s merely an unproven idea.
And we will discuss these ideas and the fluid nature of the concept of Evolution.
So, how did life really begin? Was it random evolution, with some
spontaneous development of consciousness, or was it more
significant than that? Was there some type of Intelligent Design, or
simply pure random events that defined the evolution and
development of life in the universe? (And even if it was by Intelligent
Design, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is God, especially a “personal” God. Or
that it even has any relevance to our lives still as discussed in Chapter 6: Morality
and Religion.)
Page 215
In the end, if we try to assess things objectively and then choose to believe one
way or another, that’s great. There’s nothing wrong with believing anything, as
long as you objectively assess why you do believe something, or why you don’t.
And we all understand that we will never know everything. So we choose to
believe something. It’s arrogance that someone possesses, thinking they know
everything about our universe and reality that makes them small; to think you
know with such certainty that God or other Intelligence could not possibly exist,
when we barely know nothing + 1. No matter how much we are repulsed by the
idea of a God or Intelligence, we should always keep an open mind given our level
of understanding of this universe.
Believing versus Hoping
It's interesting to note the disparity between what people say they believe and
how they actually think and believe. Most Americans will tell you they believe life
can or does exist on other planets. Some of this is driven by the barrage of
Hollywood Sci-Fi movies over the past few decades. But much of this is grounded
in an innate hope that we are not alone in this universe. Human nature really
fears loneliness.
But the same people who say they believe in extraterrestrial life or UFOs, when
confronted with someone who claims to have seen a UFO or been abducted by
aliens, a snicker or incredulous stare reflecting the thought, "you're fucking nuts",
will probably consume their expressive look. People don't really believe in UFOs
or aliens, even though they may hope it to be true.
The same people who say they believe in god and even express optimism in
prayer, when confronted by someone who claims they speak with god, they are
simply filled with disbelief, or worse, the same look of "you're fucking nuts"
painted on their face. People may say they believe in religion, prayer and god, but
in reality most are skeptical believers. Again, it is grounded in more hope than
reality for the vast majority of people.
How people act or behave is far more telling to the reality of what they truly
believe. There is a vast chasm between believing something out of hope, versus
believing something deep in our souls with an unbreakable conviction.
To be sure, I don't know if there is a god. I don't know with certainty if there is
anything beyond this life. I don't know with absoluteness if all that we see and
Page 216
breathe is reality, or merely some dream or a virtual world (I seriously doubt
this). But I believe, in the core of my being, that it is mathematically, and
scientifically, and artistically impossible all of this could be through
randomness. That is something I believe in the core of my soul.
Imagine if mankind continued to pursue signs of extraterrestrial life for a
thousand years, relentlessly exploring the outer reaches of our universe with
advanced technology we can't imagine today. And the net result was the
discovery of nothing: No signs of life outside our planet; no discovery of life
anywhere. How would people react or think? Would they simply cling onto the
hope and fixate on any possible positive signs that could support optimism still?
I imagine yes, humans will never stop believing in something more beyond our
world. Even if a thousand or a million years of exploring resulted in empty
results and only optimistic signs that we always cling onto. I'm sure we would
rationalize and convince ourselves we just haven't gone far enough, that the
universe is still so vast and we still have only discovered less than a small sliver of
it. (Yes even a thousand or a million years from now, I'm sure this will be the
rationale if we haven't discovered anything still.)
Our human mind is brilliant in its ability to rationalize and employ logic to
substantiate what we want to believe. We can turn facts and reality to support
whatever thesis we want to believe in. It doesn't matter how intelligent or genius
a person is, we all can fall into this trap often. True objectivity is rare and so
incredibly difficult for us.
But the truth is that we rely too much on what we see with our own eyes and
touch with own fingers and experience in our own lives. This is factored in far
too heavily in our assessment of our reality. But strangely, human perception of
reality is so narrow from a biological or physical standpoint, as we will discuss in
this chapter. The bottom line, we believe in what we can “see”. But we see
sooooo little. It's hard to objectively realize how ignorant this makes us.
I think finding extraterrestrial life (of any kind) would be amazing. It’s an event
that would make humans completely re-evaluate ourselves and our place in the
universe. Would it bring people and countries closer together? Would it spark
fear? Would it thrust the world into chaos, as many religious beliefs become
questionable?
But I am extremely doubtful we will find other life – ever - at least not life
resulting from random evolution anyway.
Page 217
It's simply mathematics, the universal and timeless truth. I question the
conclusions of many very smart people who are absolutely convinced (100%) that
life exists elsewhere and that life evolved by random chance, shaped purely by
natural selection. I see this as logic employed to convince ourselves of what we
want to believe, not based on real objective quantification, which we will discuss
in excruciating detail in this chapter.
Nothing would make me happier than to believe in evolution as an accidental
event, and life as a non-spectacular occurrence, with consciousness being nothing
more than fleeting intellect with a purely residual effect of self-awareness. This
makes everything so simple. The unanswerable philosophical questions that have
tormented me forever become blatantly useless and silly.
Everything becomes black and white. But this is an impossibility in my view.
When I see a breathtaking exotic sports car, I marvel at the engineering beauty
and imagine the exhilaration of accelerating from zero to 100 MPH in the short
span of a long breath. I don't ever consider it was purely an accidental design. It
was beautifully engineered; creatively and methodically planned, designed and
meticulously - artistically - constructed.
When I see the complex world around me and the intricate beauty in nature, or
the birth of a baby as it grows from infancy to childhood to adulthood, and the
marvel of life as it grows and learns and feels and agonizes and laughs and cries, I
don't think this was nothing more than billions of years of natural selection and
random chance. I think wow, how incredible that is. How amazing to be able to
imagine and design and engineer such an amazing creation. However it must
have happened (whether in 7 "days" or slowly over 7 billion years).
Why do you believe what you believe, regardless of what it is? Is it more out of
hope? Or is it something firmly planted in your inner soul, with unbreakable
conviction?
Having convictions or beliefs in life that merely sway with the capricious wind
will keep us adrift in our lives; constantly being pulled by the prevailing winds of
thought. We all need an anchor in this sea of life.
Page 218
A Complex but Simply Elegant World
I think people often don’t realize (or forget or take for granted) just how complex
each of the millions of species of plants and animals truly are. There are nearly 9
million known species of animals (nearly one million insects alone), and
countless more still undiscovered. Some scientists estimate there could be as
many as 50 millions different animal species on our planet. There are nearly
300,000 species of plants. More than 600,000 species of different mushrooms
and fungi. Nearly 40,000 single celled organisms, and almost 28,000 different
algae or chromists. Thousands more are discovered every year. The world is
complex and diverse, a marvel of intricacy and inter-dependence. The ecosystem that is our world, is a finely tuned system with such amazing detail for
every single organism, filled with a creativity that is simply staggering.
Animals have been discovered in places we once thought were uninhabitable,
even in the most extreme temperatures (hot and cold). Recently, a species of
shrimp living in the deep sea volcanic vents were discovered that could survive
conditions hotter than 450 degrees C (more than 4 times hotter than boiling
water), and as deep as 5,000 meters underwater. Small extremophilic microbe
organisms can survive in boiling water or sub-zero temperatures. Some can eat
rocks or oil (petroleum). In fact, during the BP Oil spill in the Gulf Coast of the
U.S. in 2010, as the contamination of oil littered and spread through the waters of
the Gulf, it was discovered these naturally occurring petroleum eating microbes
began to flourish and dramatically increase in population. Nature would have
eventually solved the BP oil spill on its own, even in the absence of humanity’s
stupidity, regardless.
Toxi-tolerant organisms have been found in toxic
environments such as benzene saturated water, or even in highly radioactive
environments such as the core of a nuclear reactor! One species of bacteria,
Deinococcus radiodurans, can survive a 15,000 gray dose of radiation. 10 gray
dose of radiation would be sufficient to kill a human. Cockroaches can withstand
1,000 grays.
Microbes have been discovered in toxic conditions where we once thought life
was impossible - up to 400 times atmospheric pressure, in places that lack
oxygen, thriving under conditions such as magnesium chloride (which is toxic to
organic life typically).
These discoveries are important because it changes our perception of where life is
possible, and the conditions for life to evolve or flourish. Historically, scientists
believed life could only evolve in optimal conditions like our planet Earth, and in
optimal climates.
Page 219
Scientists believe other planets (such as Mars), and other moons (such as
Jupiter’s Europa) in our solar system, may have similar extreme conditions that
we now know could support life - hypersaline environments, extreme
temperatures, and a lack of sunlight or oxygen.
Biologists have discovered microbes that thrive in hot springs which rely on
hydrogen as the main energy source to sustain life. This has big implications for
our universe and our search for life. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in
the universe. (It is the first element in the chemical periodic chart and the
simplest of elements, highly unstable when occurring as a lone hydrogen element
and a potential for unlimited clean energy for our planet).
Given what we now know, based on the idea of Evolution, I believe life
should be able to evolve almost anywhere - on any planet, any solar
system and any galaxy. The conditions for life are vast and not
confined to specific and narrow requirements that we have been
conditioned to believe. And, it doesn’t have to merely be carbon
based.
The problem is that we always look at our own biological life forms on
this planet, and skew all our views to believe it must be similar - that
life is likely going to be carbon based; that water is required for life to
flourish; that environments must be hospitable with conditions that
humans or Earth life forms can endure...Let’s detach ourselves from
the example of Earth based life and think more broadly. Based on the
same theory of Evolution, life should be able to exist anywhere, and in
a myriad of different conditions. After all, it’s simply basic chemistry.
But life is not so prolific. Why?
To date we have not discovered life, or any reasonable indications of potential life
on any other planet. Astronomers and physicist have surveyed far more than our
own solar system, extending far into the outer reaches of space. Many scientists
were absolutely convinced decades ago man would have surely found signs of life
on other planets by now. But we haven’t still.
Now don’t get me wrong, I believe there could be life on other distant planets.
And they could be completely different than biological life on Earth. But if they
exist, it was not by random chance there either. If anything, what we see in
Page 220
nature is that our planet is unique and special, with a highly tuned system
incredibly designed to enable life and allow it to flourish.
The fact is, evolution - including the first development of the simplest
amino acids that comprise complex proteins, required to form
advanced single-celled self-replicating organisms, which are
necessary to build complex plant and animal life - is simply an
exercise in probability. The probability of different elements bonding
together to form more complex chains through trial and error, until a
combination was formed that could self-replicate and survive. The
question is, how complicated is this? And, consequently, how likely is
it?
There is no absolute zero in terms of our universe, even though mathematically
and practically, humans have invented a theoretical “zero” for abstract purposes.
Likewise, there is no absolute “infinite”, as infinity, by definition, is unbounded.
So to every problem in the universe, the probability of anything lies somewhere
between zero and infinity. There is no such thing “impossible” in our universe.
Likewise, there is no absolute “certainty” of anything. But these are idealistic
theoretical notions. In other words, everything, every event, has a quantifiable
probability associated with it. And given perfect knowledge we could, in theory,
calculate this exact probability or likelihood of occurrence. The problem is we
can never have perfect knowledge.
(I know the first thought that Evolutionists will say is that, “Ahah! So anything is
possible!” Well yes, but if you want to use that argument to validate Evolution,
then you should equally affirm the same logic applies to the existence of God or
Intelligent Design.)
But there is a practical element. “Impossible” does exist, although not in an
absolute sense. Some probabilities are so profoundly absurd they can be equated
to impossible or infinity. Recall our discussions in Chapter 2 about probability
and the quantification of impossible?
So all we can do is use mathematical reference points in quantifying any
probability. For instance, the chance of winning the Powerball lottery is 1 in 175
million, as we discussed in Chapter 2. Based on our everyday experiences, we
know this is really, really difficult to win. Hence, for all practical purposes, most
of us say, “This is virtually impossible.” But 1:175 million is a very small number
compared to some of the numbers we will be contrasting this to when we speak of
evolutionary probability, as we will see.
Page 221
The question of meaning in our life and how we fit into this big
universe is largely dependent on the reality or fiction of the ideas in
this chapter. So, I believe this chapter is significant, and perhaps
central to my ideas and philosophy of life, meaning and spirituality.
The Basic Elements of our Universe
The universe, despite its massiveness, can be broken down into small little
chunks. Everything large is comprised of something smaller. It is the ultimate
LEGO building block playground.
Humans use numbers and letters to express ourselves:
26. The number of letters in the English alphabet. And with these incredibly
limited characters we can create an infinite number of poetry, song, words,
sentences, and books. All forms of expression are human poetry.
10. The numbers, zero through nine, used to quantify any value in the universe.
And with these numbers we can describe infinite complexity and universal truths;
numerical elegance that can succinctly and perfectly describe every complex
motion, large and small - every cosmic interaction, even subatomic behavior.
Numbers help us understand God’s poetry.
God (some intelligence) uses numbers and atoms to express His
poetry:
10. Ten numbers that tie human language with God’s. It helps us understand,
albeit in small chunks, God’s mind.
118. The number of atomic elements that comprise this universe. Atoms are
God’s letters; and the combination of atoms, called molecules, are his words.
God’s poetry and words form His expression. The universe is His canvas. 118,
the number that links our existence with His. And with these 118 elements,
literally an infinite combination of possibilities exists.
4. The number of different complex atomic molecules, we call nucleotides, that
enables human biological life.
Page 222
3 Billion. God’s greatest masterpiece mystery book. The poetic book of life. Our
complex human DNA, comprised of 3 billion nucleotides in a specific sequence.
DNA is God’s poetry, using atoms as the colors, and DNA as his paintbrush.
200 Billion. The number of atoms in a single human DNA molecule that defines
everything about us and our intelligence. One amazing molecule. God’s miracle
and masterful creation.
The entire universe is made up of 118 known basic elements of the periodic table
(shown below for reference). There may be more that we have not discovered,
either on Earth or elsewhere in the universe. I also exclude different isotopes of
Carbon
the same element - elements having the same number of protons but different
numbers of sub-particle neutrons - and other permutations intentionally.
All of life is comprised of molecules made up of a small subset of these basic
elements. We call them organic molecules because they define biological life, but
really they’re just molecules made of these basic atoms that also incorporate the
element carbon into the molecule. Carbon is unique in terms of properties as we
will briefly discuss.
How and why did these complex biological molecules form? And what is the
random probability of occurrence?
Page 223
The universe is full of these elements. By far, the most abundant elements in our
universe are hydrogen (H) and Helium (He). Hydrogen accounts for nearly ¾ of
the universe’s mass. Given how light hydrogen is, this means the entire universe
is practically all hydrogen. It is the lightest element and first on the periodic
chart above, indicating atomic mass equal to 1. Helium is second and accounts
for nearly all of the remaining ¼ of the universe’s mass. Helium is also very
light, having an atomic mass of 2, second only to hydrogen. So H and He account
for virtually every single atom in the universe - roughly 98 to 99% as a percentage
of the universe’s total mass! And well over 99% of all atoms in the universe are H
or He (quantity, not mass). Oxygen is a very distant third, accounting for much
less than 1% of the atoms.
I will explain in later sections why this is so important.
Interestingly, Earth is made up of Oxygen (Symbol O is 47% of the Earth’s mass),
Silicon (Si is 28% and is basically things like sand and dirt), Aluminum (Al is
8%), Iron (Fe is 5%), Calcium (Ca is 4%), Sodium (Na is 3% and combines with
Chlorine or Cl to make common salt), Potassium (K is 3%), and Magnesium (Mg
is 2%). All the remaining elements on the periodic table comprise less than 1% of
the total mass of Earth! Carbon (C) is the 6th most common element on Earth,
and well under 1% of the Earth’s mass. This is because its weight is light, so it
does not comprise a significant amount of the total mass of the earth (similar to
Hydrogen and other simple elements which do not contain significant mass). We
will get back to this issue of Carbon later, since all life is referred to as being
Carbon based. Carbon plays a significant role in our world.
Earth’s atmosphere is roughly comprised of Nitrogen (N 78%), Oxygen (O 21%),
and Argon (Ar ~1%). All other elements, including Carbon Dioxide (CO2, the
infamous green house gas environmentalists always mention), make up less than
1% of the total atmosphere when added together.
Mars, our nearest planet to Earth in the solar system, has much of the same
elements but in differing quantities. Based on the analysis to date, scientists
believe the Mar’s crust is comprised of the elements O, Si, Fe, M, Al, Ca, and K.
The atmosphere on Mars is much thinner than Earth, about 100 times thinner,
partly due to the smaller mass - it weighs less and has less gravity - among other
reasons. It consists mostly of Carbon Dioxide (CO2 95%), Nitrogen (N ~3%), and
very small traces of amounts of other gases (<1%).
Page 224
Now one may be thinking, “Oh! There’s no oxygen, so that’s why life didn’t evolve
on Mars!” Not so. Oxygen would have been bad for early life to develop, as we
will discuss. There is no reason, we can understand, why Mars did not evolve life
as it did on Earth. More on this later.
Earth, Mars, or any other planet will contain hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon
and most other major elements existing on Earth. And yet, we have not found
life, or signs of life, anywhere.
Atmosphere and our Perfectly Tuned Protective Biosphere
Our planet has amazing built in protective mechanisms to shield biological life.
One of the key layers of protection is our atmosphere. (But this is also not why
the other planets didn’t evolve life, necessarily.)
Look at the chart that shows the range of frequencies our atmosphere will allow
to pass or reject (absorb). The most dangerous frequencies to humans and
biological tissue of all kinds are high energy microwaves and high frequency/high
energy waves such as Ultraviolet (UV), X-rays (like when we go to a doctor or
dentist), and Gamma-rays. High frequency waves such as X-rays and Gammarays pack so much energy they will completely destroy living tissue, as they can
penetrate deep into the cellular structure and create havoc on the cell’s atomic
structure. And yet, these exact frequencies happen to be the ones that our
atmosphere actively destroys or absorbs. But the range of frequencies we need
Page 225
and depend on for life, such as visible light, and lower frequency waves, such as
sound and radio waves, are not disturbed.
Look at the Y/N row at the top of the chart. The “Y” (yes) frequencies are able to
get through the Earth’s atmosphere.
But the “N” (no) ranges, which
coincidentally can destroy human living tissue and nearly all carbon based life, is
somehow filtered out. It’s as if the atmospheric filter was intentionally designed
to protect biological life.
In engineering, we often design specific filters in electronics to allow certain
frequencies to pass or block others from passing. They require design and
intelligence to create. They are not trivial to precisely tune to a specific frequency
or range of frequencies. And multi-frequency range filter designs are even more
challenging.
For instance, mobile phones that use 3G technology use specific frequencies as
the carrier frequency. Carrier frequencies are used to transport data and voice
information to/from the mobile phone to the cellular towers that
receive/transmit the information, which we call base stations. Data and voice
information is modulated on top of this carrier frequency, using a different
frequency. 3G phones use several different carrier frequencies to transport
information depending on the standard. These can be 850-MHz, 1700-MHz,
1900-MHz, or 2100-MHz. Very specific.
When designing a mobile phone, a company such as Apple or Samsung, will
design highly tuned frequency filters to allow the specific 3G bands to pass, while
rejecting all other frequencies to eliminate noise. It doesn’t happen by chance or
random luck. A lot of intelligent engineers spend countless hours ensuring the
quality of the design of these filters. It’s one of the most important aspects of a
mobile phone design, called the RF front end (radio frequency electronics block).
The atmospheric frequency filter is designed as what we would call a double/dual
bandpass filter. It allows lower frequency radio and sound waves to pass, and it
allows visible sunlight to pass. Outside of these two different and non-adjacent
frequency bands, the atmosphere acts like a bandstop filter - it rejects all these
other frequencies. Given these frequencies are not adjacent to each other, it
means the bandpass filters must have been intentionally designed, and specific;
not by accident.
A highly specialized and tuned filter of this type never happens by accident.
Page 226
Our atmosphere is precisely tuned to support and protect biological life on our
planet. It wasn’t by accident.
One the one hand, atmosphere nourishes life with water and oxygen
for animals, and carbon dioxide for plants in a symbiotic relationship.
Yet on the other, it also protects life by preventing the harmful solar
and cosmic waves and energy from penetrate our planet. Doesn’t this
really sound like it was intelligently designed, and not some random
luck or coincidence due to evolution or cosmic chance?
As an engineer, I look at this and can only think how well it was designed. No
way would ever I consider it could be by accident if I thought about it objectively.
(Yes, I am an electrical engineer. I later moved into technical marketing later in
my career).
The elemental design of our critical atmosphere, one of the most important
aspects of our planet to sustain life, was carefully and Intelligently Designed in
the exact way to both sustain and protect life. It was constructed with the precise
ratio of key elements needed to allow life to flourish and also to construct this
sophisticated filter.
Taken together, with the totality of the information we will discuss further in this
chapter and throughout the book, it’s difficult to imagine it could be purely
random cosmic chance.
The Mystery of Abundant Water (H2O)
One may wonder, if there is plenty of oxygen and hydrogen on our planet, most
people assume that water, or H2O, was formed here on Earth. It seems simple:
mix two hydrogen atoms together with one oxygen atom, add a little energy, and,
boom, literally, you have water. Seems like a reasonable assumption. But this is
not how scientists readily believe how water came to be so abundant on Earth.
The quantity of the water on our planet is the problem.
quandary?
Or should I say
Scientists are not sure where the Earth’s abundant water came from or why it has
so much, given the dearth of it in on other observed planets in our solar system
Page 227
(and beyond). Interesting, the most precious and critical material to our world
and to life and we really don’t know where it came from!
Here’s what most scientists currently believe…”When stars go super­nova, the
explosions spew these elements into space. Oxygen and hydrogen commingle to
make H2O... Water molecules were surely part of the dusty swirl that coalesced
into the Sun and its planets beginning about nine billion years after the Big Bang.
But Earth’s early history, including epochs with high ambient temperatures and
no enveloping atmosphere, implies that surface water would have evaporated and
drifted back into space. The water we encounter today, it seems, must have been
delivered long after Earth formed….Faced with this conundrum, astronomers
realized that there are two ready-made sources: comets and asteroids” [“How Did
Water Come to Earth?” Brian Greene, Smithsonian Magazine issue May, 2013]
But I think there seems to be at least two serious problems with these
comet or asteroid delivering water theories, making these impossible.
Water has been found in rock fragment dating back as far as 4.375 billion years
ago on the continent of Australia. This is the oldest rock ever discovered - a tiny
zircon crystal. [Feb. 23, 2014, journal Nature Geoscience publication]
By bombarding the zircon crystal with single atoms of lead (which is a very heavy
atom), and then subsequently analyzing the trace elements that scattered,
scientists determined that the environment of early Earth was very similar to
today, not the inhospitable place many Evolutionists have been promoting.
For example, according to Sankar Chatterjee, professor of Geosciences at Texas
Tech University, “When the Earth formed some 4.5 billion years ago, it was a
sterile planet inhospitable to living organisms. It was a seething cauldron of
erupting volcanoes, raining meteors and hot, noxious gasses. One billion years
later, it was a placid, watery planet teeming with microbial life – the ancestors to
all living things.” This quote was from November 2013. It was a nearly universal
scientific community belief prior to the latest zircon confirmation that this was
not the case at all.
The lead author of the zircon research, John Valley, an author and geochemist at
the University of Wisconsin, concludes "The zircons show us the earliest Earth
was more like the Earth we know today," Valley said. "It wasn't an inhospitable
place." [“Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old”, Becky Oskin,
Livescience magazine Feb 23, 2014]
Page 228
In fact, the trace elements found within the crystal showed water-rich, granitelike rocks such as granodiorite and tonalite. So, at least as far back as 4.4 billion
years ago (the earliest data point man has today) there was a water rich planet.
Water cannot exist in extreme temperature environment or without significant
atmosphere. According to Valley, this zircon finding strengthens the theory of a
“cool early Earth,” with temperatures low enough for liquid water, oceans and a
hydrosphere to exist.
So this means that life evolved with conditions on Earth similar to
what we see today! This is bad for Evolution. In fact, it’s almost
catastrophic to the theory. We will show exactly why in a later
section.
Scientists will often acknowledge that dating anything this old always has a lot of
skepticism - as they should with dating anything from billions or even millions of
years ago!!! But ironically, scientists typically seem to question dating methods
when it doesn’t fit into the evolution story narrative, and dismiss any concerns
when it confirms the narrative. It’s the subjective nature of being human.
The earlier decades old skepticism of dating the old zircon crystal was due to
concern of possible radiation damage that could have been contaminated during
their long lifetime. This is a legitimate concern. However, the latest zircon
finding debunked this idea. The authors painstakingly measured the mobility of
lead atoms using a recently developed technique called atom-probe tomography,
and concluded that even in the areas of damage the lead atoms remained
clustered together within a few nanometers. This fact that the lead atoms stick
close to home inside the zircon means that the age estimate of 4.4 billion years
using uranium-lead dating technique is accurate. This part of the research was
critical and is new information based on recent scientific measurement
capabilities.
"We've demonstrated this zircon is a closed geochemical system, and we've never
been able to do that before," Valley said. "There's no question that many zircons
do suffer radiation damage, but I think relative to these zircons, this should settle
it once and for all," according to the research author, John Valley.
Samuel Bowring, a geochemist at MIT, who was not part of the original research,
concludes: "This careful piece of work should settle the debate because it shows
that indeed there is some mobility of lead, which was hypothesized to result in
dates that were too old, but the scale of mobility is nanometers."
Page 229
So, we can conclude, water really existed on Earth 4.4 billion years
ago. And the Earth was fairly benign, contrary to the basic premise of
evolutionary theory; contrary to what scientists and Evolutionists
have insisted for a many decades.
As far back as geological records have been found, water always appears to have
existed. The Earth is projected to be 4.54 billion years old (give or take 50
million years - LOL).
So this means water was delivered to the Earth relatively “soon” after the planets
formation and after it had time to settle to a condition that could retain the water
- i.e. having atmosphere to prevent leakage into space, and relatively moderate
temperatures.
People don’t understand how significant of a find this study is. And of
course, the Evolutionists aren’t going to highlight this. It completely
turns, upside down, the entire theory of how our solar system was
formed, how our planet was formed, and our estimates and
understanding of the conditions on Earth and the beginnings of life.
The Sun is 4.5 billion years old. And the Earth is supposedly at least
4.5 billion years old, and we had abundant water as far back as we can
tell - since 4.4 billion years ago, perhaps sooner.
We will talk further about additional zircon crystal scientific discoveries that
severely undermine the entire theory of evolution in subsequent sections.
Literally, sometimes when I tell people I don’t necessarily believe in Evolution,
they look at me like I have 5 eyes on my face. Their expression exposing their
condescending thoughts: “Are you not educated? Are you a religious nut? Do
you still believe the Earth is flat and not round?”
I prefer to think that intelligent people can disagree. But if they’re a complete
ass, I usually respond with something like the following:
“Yes I am educated, and almost certainly smarter your condescending ass. No,
I’m not religious. And not only is the Earth neither flat nor precisely round, it is
an oblate spheroid. Furthermore, the shape of the Earth has been gradually
changing since the beginning of its formation due to a gradually slowing rotation
about its axis, due to loss of kinetic energy and momentum. This in turn is
having significant gradual impacts on geological phenomenon such as volcanoes
and mountains, glaciers, and climate. And further still, the precisely necessary
Page 230
and ideally designed 23.4 degree axis tilt relative to the sun is essential for not
just seasonality, but to maintain critical climate, allowing the polar ice caps to
exist and plays a pivotal role in the formation of glaciers and ocean currents that
would otherwise disallow life to survive on the planet. And curiously, not only is
the fact we have water critical, but the specific saline content (salt) is essential to
the flow of ocean currents which are heavily dictated by polar ice caps, saline
concentration, geological phenomenon, and cosmic influences. None of these
perfect and precise facts are an accident. There are billions of precise facts that
make design much more likely than by accident.” Followed by a smile of course
(see Chapter 10: Romance and Dating, the Color of Love, for silly examples of the
power of the smile!)
I wish everyone could just respect different opposing views without resorting to
calling someone a religious nut or an idiot. I’m pretty sure I am neither. (Well,
truth be told, I am sometimes an idiot when I’m drinking and partying, but that’s
not contextually relevant!)
As we conclude this chapter, one will begin to see the numerical
impossibility of random chance being the sole contributor to the
formation of life on this planet. As I’ve said before, numbers are the
only truly objective thing in this universe. Everything else has bias,
preconditioning, and inertia - including energy and matter (as we get
to the Quantum physics discussion later in the book).
Just to be clear, I do believe in much (not all) of the ideas of evolution.
Many are good ideas and plausible scenarios of how things could have
actually happened - at least in bits and pieces of it. But the likelihood
it could spontaneously occur and march relentlessly to the level of
complexity we see today by pure randomness, is virtually zero, at least
without the aid of Intelligence and intentional design.
Let’s Assume the H2O Delivery Vehicles were Asteroids
The biggest problem with the asteroid theory is the amount of water present on
Earth - it is the single most abundant material on our planet’s surface - 1.4 billion
cubic kilometers worth in all its various forms. Water covers 71% of our planet’s
surface. By comparison, the Earth is 1.083 trillion cubic kilometers in volume.
Water to Earth volume ratio is nearly 1:1000 or 0.13% of the Earth is water,
measured by volume. As much as 0.2% of Earth is water when accounting for all
Page 231
sources, including underground!
explained below.
This cannot be delivered by asteroids as
Class-C, or carbonaceous asteroids contain the most water, sometimes as high as
30%. But this is not typical. Most are just rock and metal. Class-C asteroids near
Earth account for about 40% (within 2X solar orbit), but generally account for as
much as 70% of all asteroids. Ok, sounds good so far.
Let’s make an assumption of the average water content of the many asteroids that
could have hit Earth. It can be as high as 30% or down to virtually zero. Let’s
assume Class-C has, on average, 20% water, which I think is graciously
optimistic. Then let’s further assume all asteroids have an average of 8% using a
weighted average formula based on the assumption that 40% of asteroids near
Earth are Class-C. Let’s round it to 10% for simplicity. A generous figure.
Assuming the asteroid was 10% water volume, which is extremely optimistic
given the earth is barely 0.2% water volume, then we would need 14 billion cubic
kilometers of asteroids to delivery all the water. But this is an idealistic figure
since much of the asteroid would burn up in atmosphere. Still, that’s a lot of
water on flying rocks!
A single large asteroid of 1X to 1/100 the size of Earth would likely create such
chaos that:
1) Earth would be destroyed if the size was 1X-10X of the size of Earth.
2) If it was smaller, say 1/10 up to 1/100 the size of Earth, then most of
the atmosphere would be blown away and lost upon the force of impact
and ensuing aftermath. Much of the water would eventually leak into
space, similar to Mars, although at a slower rate. Atmosphere retention
mostly depends on temperature and the escape velocity of gases, which
are influenced by gravity. The collision would have been devastating to
our planet, but perhaps it could survive. And finally, much of the water
may be decomposed during the energy of the collision, and the
disparate gases leaked into space without the presence of a thick
atmosphere as mentioned. An H2O molecule of water decomposes to
H2 and Oxygen at a very low temperature of 127 degrees C.
So it would have to be a bunch of smaller, but still very large asteroids that
delivered the water.
Page 232
David Eicher, Editor-in-Chief of Astronomy magazine and author of many books
on science and history, notes “relatively water-rich asteroids from far out could
have been perturbed inward toward Earth by the giant planets. But the dynamics
of orbits, once again, gets in the way. The efficiency of scattering asteroids toward
Earth is very low and that the contribution in water to our planet must have been
very small. If primitive asteroids had 10 percent water by mass, the likely rate of
accretion would have required the mass of asteroids to be 4 times that of Earth in
a region some 2.5 astronomical units away -- a figure that seems unrealistically
high.” [“Did Comets Deliver Earth's Oceans?”, David J. Eicher, Huffington Post Issue 7/31/13.]
An astronomical unit is the distance from the center of the Earth to the sun’s
center, or 149.6 million kilometers. In other words, that’s a lot of rocks from a
big frickin’ area of our solar system, all finding its way to Earth.
Just as a reference, a 1-km sized asteroid would impact the Earth with an
equivalent of a 20,000 megaton bomb, and would leave a crater about 13 km in
size.
This powerful impact would have been enough energy to create the
equivalent of a nuclear winter! ALL of the world’s nuclear bombs combined can
only provide only about 7,000 megatons of explosive energy! This 1-km sized
asteroid is nearly 3 times more powerful than all the world’s nuclear bombs
combined! One kilometer is nothing! See what I mean about man’s technology
being like that of an ant in comparison to our universe??
The largest known asteroid to impact the Earth was 2 billion years ago. It left a
crater 190 kilometers in radius. We would need thousands and thousands of
similar sized (or larger) asteroids to deliver the sufficient water volume on Earth.
We do know there were periods of massive asteroid bombardment, but not
sufficient for the quantity we’re talking about. 4X the mass of Earth worth of
asteroids is a lot of rocks, and probably would have inflicted too much damage.
Secondly, if asteroids delivered water to our planet, it would have likely delivered
it to other planets in our solar system as well. The water signatures would match
(more on this signature stuff later). But we don’t see the same amount of water,
or even water at all often. And definitely not water with the same signature as we
find on planet Earth. The NASA Curiosity rover found some water on Mars, but it
had a very different signature. (More on these comments about Curiosity and
water signatures later.)
My first point is that if water was delivered to Earth through asteroids, it should
be readily observable throughout our solar system - either through actual
Page 233
oceans/lakes, or traces of matching water signatures. It isn’t. And water that has
been confirmed to exist has very different signatures.
The likelihood of asteroids being able to deliver so much water is incredibly low
(virtually zero).
The Comet Theory was far more Probable
Scientists, until this past year, believed the most likely theory of the source of
water was comets. It largely seemed like a believable story because comets have
lots of water (but unlikely all of it could have come from comets still). A comet is
largely comprised of frozen water vapor and solid gases.
However, recently in December 2014, an Earth probe was sent to a comet named
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as its orbit approached our reach. This was part
of the recent European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft mission. The probe
landed on the comet (an amazing feat) and sampled and measured the chemical
makeup of the water. It was proven to have a completely different signature than
the water that exists on planet Earth. The conclusion? Earth’s water could not
have come from comets.
The comet water indicated the unique ratio of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) to
normal hydrogen was much greater in the comet than the ratio found on Earth.
This unique ratio is the water’s signature. This implies that comets did not
supply Earth with our water, or could only account for a very small fraction of our
water.
So now, scientists are back to leaning toward the asteroid theory as
the best idea on the source of the water. But as I mentioned earlier,
this is complete crap.
In order to really appreciate the significance of this Rosetta comet water
discovery, one must understand the history of the comet water theory.
“In 1986 scientists got a chance to determine the origin of terrestrial water when
the best known comet of all – Halley's Comet – approached the Earth.
Surprisingly, the comet's deuterium to hydrogen ratio was twice the terrestrial
ratio. Rather than abandon an attractive theory, however, many scientists
dismissed the Halley result as a fluke. But then in 1996 and 1997, two other
Page 234
bright comets lit up the sky as they passed near to Earth: Hyakutake and Hale–
Bopp. Both also had twice the terrestrial deuterium to hydrogen ratio, providing
even more evidence that comets did not give the Earth most of its water. But
there was still hope for the comet model. All three comets – Halley, Hyakutake
and Hale–Bopp – originated in the Oort cloud, a reservoir of comets far beyond
the orbit of Pluto. But some comets come from the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt,
which is just past Neptune's orbit and whose largest members are Pluto and Eris,
the latter discovered in 2005. Comets from this reservoir might have terrestrial
deuterium levels, but these are usually faint and hard to observe. In 2010
astronomers succeeded in detecting deuterium in a comet from the
Edgeworth–Kuiper belt. Unlike the other comets, this one, named
Hartley 2, had a deuterium level matching terrestrial water, reviving
the idea that comets delivered water to the Earth.” [Physics World, Ken
Croswell (Astronomer and Author), December 2010]
So the Rosetta probe actually was sent to measure the comet from this
exact Edgeworth–Kuiper belt! The 2010 discovery that this comet belt
had similar water signature to Earth was complete bullshit. The
ACTUAL MEASURED samples showed the INFERRED estimates of
the deuterium level matching terrestrial water were completely
misleading. They were wrong.
I highlighted the paragraph to emphasize a point. So often we hear new
discoveries about our universe, or even within our own planet, where scientists
use sophisticated instruments to infer a finding and draw conclusions. So often
these inferred discoveries are touted as scientific fact (and we rarely get to
absolutely prove or disprove these because we can never reach the outer reaches
of the stars anytime soon). This was one of those cases where scientists had
convinced themselves (or at least strongly hoped) that the Earth’s water came
from comets and that this Edgeworth–Kuiper belt comet was going to confirm
this theory once and for all.
So really, still no reasonable answer on where the hell all this water
came from! It didn’t come from asteroids or comets. And there sure
is a lot of it on our beautiful planet. So what else is left? Legions of
flying saucers delivered it? How can any theory be solid if we can’t
answer the most fundamental question? The idea of how life and our
universe evolved is riddled with gaps and contradictions. This is why
I think it’s more appropriate to call these ideas or hypotheses rather
than proven theories.
Page 235
At this point, the more reasonable assumption would be that the
Earth’s water, the key ingredient to biological life, was intentionally
designed this way. By who? I have no idea (I hesitate to call it a God).
We have run out of other options. Not asteroids. Not comets. Not
other planets. Unlikely it was aliens and flyer saucers.
One of the most fundamental problems with science and the scientific
process is that we first develop a theory, and then we go about to
prove this narrative. As humans, it is impossible to be completely
objective, or even take into account the bigger picture when we are so
focused on the narrow narrative we are intent on proving. I call it
“scientific blinders.” I love science. I believe in it. It is our best way
to expand our understanding about our amazing universe. But
always take new insights and discoveries with a small grain of salt.
Only when an idea has been thoroughly vetted over many years, the
hypothesis has been reproducibly proven by many sources, and when
the story is bulletproof and rock solid, only then can we say a
scientific idea is a proven theory.
The Theory of Evolution and our planet’s early conditions, and how life started, is
still changing. Nothing has been proven with certainty. Far, far from it. There
are many data points that make a reasonably solid case. But there are also many
that make a counter case - which Evolutionists tend to throw out and ignore or
try to discredit.
Science tries to be objective. People can never be perfectly objective.
We are always skewed by a lifetime of preconditioning. Scientists are
people.
The story of evolution is fascinating. And there are many great data points and
facts that have been shown. But the story itself is shockingly incomplete and still
going through changes itself - the Theory of Evolution itself is evolving still! LOL.
Important Role of Water on Climate (a side discussion)
Water makes up 71% of the Earth’s surface area. The exact proportion of water
on the planet is vital to climate and temperature. It is no accident that it is
precisely 71% water. More or less would significantly alter the climate of the
Earth. What is the probability that, wherever the source of Earth’s water came
Page 236
from, whether it’s from asteroids or comets or something else, that it would be
precisely 71% of the Earth’s surface?
I admit the rest of this section on water is going to be a slight digression from the
topic of Evolution.
But it’s related to the discussion of water and
climate….forgive me. But I get tired of hearing nonsense scientific information
from media and politicians, and even many scientists.
First, keep in mind water is overwhelmingly the most important substance in our
climate system. Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant
greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse
effect [S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide,
Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of
Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264].
Some argue it’s much less, but I use common sense. We will look at the relative
content of water vapor versus Carbon Dioxide in the air. Even accounting for
more optimal heat absorption in the infrared spectrum, CO2 impact on
temperature is very small. We know from our own experience, on a humid day,
the temperature can be impacted far more due to water vapor than any other
atmospheric gases.
The environmentalists always talk about Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the
greenhouse gas, emanating from the use of fossil fuels as creating an “imminent,
irreversible and catastrophic effect on global warming and climate change.”
Carbon dioxide barely accounts for 0.04% of the Earth’s Atmosphere! This is a
well known fact. However, virtually all of this concentration (which is small at
400 parts per million) is due to natural causes. After all, plants, including algae,
need carbon dioxide to survive, and all breathing animals exhale carbon dioxide
as part of the natural life process. And the earth naturally produces it as well
through geothermal activity.
The fact is, CO2 is over 96% due to natural origins! That means less
than 4% is due to man-made effects such as driving a gas guzzling
SUV. This means the man-made portion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is only 16 parts per million. Extremely low.
Geez, one would think, reading and listening to all this CO2 emissions and
greenhouse impending doom in the media, that we’re about to run out of oxygen
and just have CO2 in the air! It’s a whopping 0.04%? What?
Page 237
It’s true that, of the man-made CO2 contributions, fossil fuels account for nearly
all of the CO2 emissions. The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
reported in 2006 that carbon-dioxide emissions from the burning of petroleum,
coal, and natural gas constituted 82 percent of all U.S. man-made greenhousegas emissions. This is no surprise. We use too much fossil fuel, clearly. But
again, this is just the man-made contributions, not the total.
But David J. C. MacKay, professor of natural philosophy in the Department of
Physics at the University of Cambridge, writes, the burning of fossil fuels sends
seven gigatons (3.27 percent) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year,
while naturally occurring sources, such as the biosphere account for 440 gigatons
(55.28 percent), and oceans account for 330 gigatons (41.46 percent). [David J. C.
MacKay, Sustainable Energy —Without the Hot Air (Cambridge: UIT, 2008). See also “Carbon
Dioxide,” Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Program]
Only 3.27% of CO2 emissions are due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
Furthermore, CO2 only comprises 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Doing the math, man-made CO2 emissions only account for
0.001308% of the atmosphere. Does that sound like it could be
responsible for global warming? These are facts. Not political
rhetoric.
A globally averaged estimated water vapor concentration is about 5,000 ppm
(parts per million). It varies significantly from location to location. However,
compare this ppm concentration to CO2, specifically the man-made contribution
which is 16 ppm (parts per million). Clearly the water vapor concentration is at
least 300 times more than CO2! Let’s use common sense people!
So water vapor, which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas effects,
has 312.5 times more atmospheric concentration versus CO2. Gee,
95% sounds reasonable after all, doesn’t it? And water vapor has
9,557 times more atmospheric concentration relative to man-made
CO2 emissions. Again, scientific facts. Not political rhetoric.
Given that the earth is covered 71% in water, and that the thermal
energy required for a water molecule to become vapor form is very
low, and the gas concentrations of water versus carbon dioxide is
more than 300 times higher for water vapor, it seems reasonable that
the vast majority of the greenhouse effect would come from water
instead of carbon dioxide. Like I said, common sense.
Page 238
Furthermore, to provide an understanding of how effective water is at warming
our planet, the oceans absorb one thousand times (1,000X) more heat than our
atmosphere and account for 80 to 90% of the heat of global warming. [NASA:
“Oceans of Climate Change”. Nasa.gov (2009-04-22).] It shouldn’t be a surprise.
Our atmosphere contains 37.5x1015 gallons of water in the form of vapor in our
atmosphere at any given moment (average). The oceans contain 343,423x1015
gallons of water for comparison purposes. There is about 9,000 times more
water in liquid form in the oceans than in vapor form in the air. However, the
amount in the air is huge and dwarfs CO2! This is the reason water vapor
accounts for nearly all of the global warming greenhouse effects.
The naturally occurring carbon cycle is an integral part of nature and climate
change. The carbon cycle is a biogeochemical cycle that is never ending and is
continuously changing (never constant): carbon is exchanged between the
oceans, soil and rocks, and the biosphere. It’s impossible to quantify the portion
which is purely man-made or naturally occurring with exact precision, because
the naturally occurring portion is always in a state of constant flux or change!
But we know, on average, it is nearly all naturally occurring.
There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas due to its
spectra absorption properties in the infrared wavelength spectrum, but the
concentrations in the atmosphere that are not naturally occurring are miniscule.
It’s undeniable that human activity such as factories and farming and
automobiles are contributing slightly to the greenhouse effect. But these manmade emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to natural carbon sources that
people can do nothing about!
A simple cost benefit analysis, if we take the politics out of it, is that even the
most costly efforts to limit or reduce human emissions would have a very small maybe undetectable or negligible effect on global climate. This is the real
scientific fact. Coming from a business background, I can assure you that all the
government regulations add tremendous costs for companies and ultimately
impact jobs. Regulations are sometimes necessary, but we must be prudent when
and where we apply them.
Studies that show human emissions of carbon are responsible for the “dramatic”
increases in global temperature are highly suspect - for the very reasons I
mentioned previously. The computer simulation models are so simplified in
terms of comprehending all the real-world variables (as we discussed in Chapter
2), to make them almost useless - useful only as rough estimates or broad
Page 239
correlations over many decades (not just one or two). And nobody has accurate
temperature measurement data from most of the 1900s like we do today with
precision technology and instruments, measuring thousands of global
temperature data points real-time. So when I hear stupid headlines that claim,
“2014 is globally the hottest year in the last 100 years!” I just shake my head and
laugh inside. It’s politics, pure and simple.
No scientist disputes that water is also an effective greenhouse gas.
But to show the political nature of this debate, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) studies on greenhouse gasses intentionally omit water
vapor as a greenhouse gas in the study! That’s equivalent to omitting
the use of cigarettes in a lung cancer study! C’mon! Really? But
politics is power, and making issues seem more urgent and dramatic
wins elections (retains power) and increases political donations.
That’s the practical and irrational side of humanity we must live with
unfortunately.
Most environmentalist’s and government models of water vapor greenhouse gas
effects assume a static input, essentially dismissing the contributions. This is so
flawed. First of all, any moron knows global temperatures are constantly
changing from year to year and decade to decade. And increasing human usage
of water is causing significant growth in water vapor concentrations. Effects from
such things as agriculture and canals and man-made lakes have far more impact
than made-made CO2 emissions.
Dismissing water vapor contributions to greenhouse effects falsely
assumes the net change in climate is purely due to carbon emissions,
and even further, assumes it’s all due to man-made carbon emissions.
Even if in fact, much of it could have been caused by dynamic water vapor
greenhouse effects, it lumps all climate change as due to human emissions of
CO2. This is just outright manipulation of data.
But the data on precipitation doesn’t support this. The government studies
assume that water vapor is a static feedback system, therefore, in their judgment,
they can eliminate this variable (idiots). But it isn’t a static feedback system
purely, as increases in water usage generally can and does increase water vapor
content.
Furthermore, the governments own precipitation and separate
temperature data (both from the NOAA), conclude 2013 was the fourth highest
average temperature on record in the last 100 year, and yet separately concluded
that global precipitation was normal! They refute their own assumptions and
Page 240
their own models! Look, both temperature and precipitation are guided by very
complex real world variables. They are related but independent. To discount or
completely ignore the effect of the most impactful variable to global warming and
greenhouse effect is just silly (and purely political).
The increased use of irrigation for farming and water usage by humans in general
(watering the lawn for instance) is increasing the water vapor portion of the
greenhouse effect, which I mentioned earlier. This water vapor is the dominant
force in greenhouse effect by a factor of 20X. The increased use of canals and
man-made lakes and dams is also increasing water vapor concentrations; and
admittedly, even burning fossil fuels or natural gas results in the emission of
water vapor (as well as carbon dioxide). But this concentration is so small in
comparison to the other uses of man-made water vapor emission that it is
negligible. Irrigation used by farming in the U.S. outputs tens of billions of
gallons of water every day to the atmosphere, hundreds of times more than the
burning of gasoline by all sources (automobiles, factories, etc).
The actual impact of water usage, in all its forms by humans, is having
a dramatic increase in the water vapor concentrations and hence
global climate. It shouldn’t be a surprise that as the population
continuously grows, more people means more agriculture and
irrigation for food, more landscaping water needs, and more water
consumption in general (more dams and artificial lakes). Globally,
this evaporates hundreds of billions of gallons of water vapor into the
atmosphere every single day. This impact is far more significant than
carbon dioxide contributions.
I believe the scientific evidence on the extent and “imminent” nature of the
effects of global warming due to man-made CO2 contribution is questionable at
best. Back in Chapter 2, I discussed the extreme challenges of predicting or
modeling the effects of climate and weather using even the most powerful
supercomputers in the world. There are so many variables, all intricately
interrelated. It is not as simple as saying fossil fuels are responsible for the
demise of Earth’s climate. And until scientists and environmentalists begin to
accurately model water vapor as a dynamic model, I consider all these studies
useless.
Greenhouse gas experiments are conducted in controlled isolated systems to
prove the greenhouse theory.
They are done with CO2 atmospheric
concentrations which are orders of magnitude greater than exist in the real world.
The impact is proportional to the concentration of CO2. Nobody doubts that CO2
Page 241
is an effective greenhouse gas. But so is H2O or water vapor. It’s about quantity
as well as effectiveness of the greenhouse effect. And there’s a ton more H2O
than CO2, and barely 3.27% - a negligible portion - is man-made CO2.
It’s like using layering to keep yourself warm during the cold winter. Which is
going to have more affect on keeping your body warm outside: the sexy looking
but thin layer cotton shirt made of porous cloth, or the heavy and thick jacket that
measures about two inches thick? The cotton shirt is the CO2 concentration, and
the thick jacket is the H2O concentration in atmosphere. Again, common sense.
Additionally, we do not comprehend the geothermal aspect of the Earth’s cycles
that influence global temperature.
One of the most important factors in climate is the ocean currents or Earth’s
conveyor belt. The cycles of major ocean currents (the Earth’s conveyor belt)
naturally changes over time, effecting glaciers, water vapor concentrations and
regional and global climates. Environmentalists assume the cause and effect is
always that man-made activity is causing the changes and effecting the glacial ice
density. The ocean currents have completely stopped in previous ice ages, long
before man and his technology and carbon emissions. We know that saline
concentrations (salt) affect oceans and currents significantly. Increased water
vapor content should lead to higher precipitation, which in turn has the potential
to slightly dilute the ocean saline contents, and hence affecting ocean currents
and climates gradually. We know that major volcanic activity can disrupt or
change ocean currents. We know that solar activity can significantly impact the
ocean currents. We know a lot of cause and effect on a high level, but we don’t
know the details.
But the fact is, we don’t know if the ocean’s currents changing correlation is
reversed. It could be part of Earth’s natural cycle (instead of man-induced). Or
the cosmic influence of the solar radiation that ebbs and flows, and likely has far
more impact to Earth’s temperature cycles and climate than man could ever
dream of. Or the natural cycles of the protective ozone (O3) layer which ebbs and
grows over time and helps shield Earth from solar and cosmic radiation.
There are dozens of first order effects (which are incredibly complex just to
understand and simulate each of these separately), and hundreds or thousands of
secondary effects, and literally millions or billions of tertiary effects to climate
change. We simply don’t have the technology to simulate, model or understand it
with any precision today (or anytime in the near future).
Page 242
I mean, really, do we believe our combustible engines and factories can rival the
energy of the sun, or even the Earth’s own geological impacts to climate? How
naive can we be?
Nobody knows the temperature profile of previous Ice Ages or the warming
periods with resolution measured in decades or years to have any reference point
if this short term increase in temperature is normal or not.
According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, average global
temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around
the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades. (I said earlier I really
discount the validity of temperature accuracy in 1880 or even 1950 given the
technology and the lack of serious global focus on this issue until recently. But
let’s just assume it’s right for arguments sake.) Look at the global temperature
change, according to the chart below from the NOAA (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration).
It would appear to be a natural trend cycle instead of some man-induced
temperature fluctuation. If one takes the averaging effect (which is normal in
science and engineering), it is a perfect sinusoidal curve with roughly a 100 year
cycle. This would indicate to me that the temperature increases and fluctuations
of the recent decades were perfectly normal within Mother Nature. The variance
appears to be relatively benign with a +/- 0.5C variation from the mean or
average.
Page 243
We can estimate roughly based on geological sampling when major temperature
changes occurred over hundreds or thousands of years, but not in terms of a few
years or decades. Don’t believe anyone who tells you scientists know precisely
when the last Ice Age began and ended, or what the warming temperature profile
looked like when it ceased. We have guesstimates only, with accuracy only within
hundreds or thousands of years.
Furthermore, the Earth is a finely tuned and balanced system that has
natural feedback systems to self-correct. Mankind does not have the
capability to fundamentally alter or destroy the Earth’s climate. It’s
delusion and self-important lunacy of mankind to think we are so
important or powerful.
Something doesn’t exist for billions of years unless it has built-in
mechanisms to correct when things go out of whack. For instance,
when temperatures rise, rainfall and precipitation increases,
reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the CO2 is re-absorbed
back into the earth. This has been well proven and documented. CO2
increases cannot go unbounded, growing forever and getting warmer
and warmer, as media leads one to believe. This is just silly.
Furthermore, according to a NASA-funded study that used 100 years of
temperature and precipitation data showed that from 1950 to 1993, there was an
8% increase in precipitation combined with higher humidity that led to a 14%
increase in plant growth in the United States. The data over that period also show
increases in cloud cover. Plants absorb CO2 and convert it to oxygen as part of
the photosynthesis process, naturally reducing CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Plants behave as naturally occurring sinks to CO2. Cloud cover reduces surface
temperatures as we all know. So, nothing goes unbounded.
The planet has been going through natural cycles of temperature changes for
billions of years. Humans still don’t understand the full causes or reasons why.
It’s partly due to solar radiation and cosmic influences; it’s partly due to the
constant electromagnetism changes of the earth; it’s partly due to the geothermal
and volcanic activity beneath the surface; it’s partly due to the natural cycle of
ocean currents and glaciers; it’s partly due to the slowing rotation of our planet;
it’s partly due to God knows what else...and last of which, is the influence by
mankind. For instance, there have been numerous ice ages, followed by warmer
periods throughout history, long before man or technology existed. The last Ice
Age was approximately 12,000 years ago.
Page 244
Having said all that, I still believe that reducing our consumption of
fossil fuels is a very good thing. Transition to cleaner renewable
energy is a positive for society. Of course we should be trying to
accelerate this trend! But don’t lie to us, and tell us because it’s
because we’re all going to die from global warming bullshit. That’s
simply government and leaders trying to - once again - manipulate
and control us like a bunch of cattle.
For God’s sake, man’s voracious appetite for energy is never ending. It truly is a
problem. But it extends far beyond just oil and energy, to all commodities and
land consumption.
Globally, we consume about 32 billion barrels of oil every year, and
increasing. This translates into 1.344 trillion gallons (42 gal per
barrel) or 5 trillion liters (3.785 liters per gal) per year!
In
comparison The Great Lakes along the U.S. - Canadian border contain
approximately 21% of the world’s fresh surface water or 6.0×1015
gallons (6,000 trillion gallons).
At this pace, in 4,464 years, we will consume an equivalent amount equal to the
Great Lakes. That’s a lot of oil. Nothing good can come from extracting and
burning this much fossil fuel.
But in the end, it is not the consumption of fossil fuels, or even the level of
emissions of CO2 that is the problem in our world. It is the unending growth of
the human population that is massively disturbing the delicate ecosystem of life
on our planet. The Earth will go on, with or without man, or any other living
creature - no matter what mankind does. Biological life may be radically altered,
however, by man’s imprint on the planet. There are simply too many people,
procreating too many children. But I doubt people want to stop having children.
And people seem obsessed with living forever (or longer and longer), so our
population will only continuously increase, putting greater pressure on our
planet. If you truly want to be an Environmentalist, focus on population control
before taking away my SUV.
But, thank you Al Gore, master of the obvious. If you hadn’t invented the internet
or the term “climate change”, I would have never known that the weather is
changing. Thankfully, I was able to use the internet to look up the term you
gleefully coined and now understand that, indeed, the weather is constantly
changing! Thank you, sir. I would never have known this otherwise, despite the
fact that 4.5 billion years of continuous climate change happened, enduring
Page 245
countless ice ages and global warming cycles - long before man arrived with our
tiny spark plugs and fearsome drill bits.
Now take the information we just covered, backed with solid science data and
facts on the issue of global warming or climate change. Now pivot, and take a
look at these silly political proclamations by our leaders and renown scientists,
and ask yourself, who is more believable?
Dr. John Holdren is the chief science advisor to president Obama. In
February 2009, he predicted that climate change would cause the
deaths of a billion people by 2020, and that sea levels would rise by 13
feet.
My comment: The only way sea levels could rise by 13 feet would be with a big
kahuna wave. Surf’s up dude! And I will up the ante to his prediction of 1 billion
people dying by 2020, with my bold prediction that 30 billion people will die by
2200! I guarantee it! But not from global warming, simply old age and disease,
as well as fatigue from listening to all the climate doomsday predictions that
endured even throughout the 2100th century.
In 2009, James Hansen, one of nation’s “most respected” climate
scientists (is that like the tallest midget in the room analogy?), told
President Obama that we have “only four years left to save the earth.”
My comment: Oh nooooo! It’s gone from “save the whales” to “save ourselves!”
Forget Obamacare and focus on EarthCare! Or we’re all gonna die!! In FOUR
years!! Oh, that was supposed to be by 2013. Ok, we didn’t all die.
In 1988, Hansen predicted parts of Manhattan would be underwater
by 2008.
My comment: Well, perhaps, if the prediction had been true we could have
avoided the 2008 Global Financial Crisis caused by Wall Street (in Manhattan).
It turned out, the only people that actually went underwater in 2008 were the
homeowners in the ‘08 financial crisis. Hmmm. Maybe he got the meetings
confused and thought he was in an economic forum, instead of a climate meeting
when he made that audacious prediction. Kudos to his huge balls. Nobody else
in Washington saw that one coming.
Of course, in 2014, most of the international climate scientist
community (including our adored United Nations) was howling about
Page 246
the “imminent”, “irreversible”, and “catastrophic” climate effects due
to global warming. We only have nanoseconds to act before it’s too
late!! It’s imminent!
My comment: Oh nooooooo! 1 trillion people will die every day by 2025 if we
don’t fix this today! The only things that will survive will be cockroaches (they’re
un-killable) and watermelons (they like water and warm climates)! Seriously, I
can only handle 2 colorful doomsday predictions at a time. Choose only 2 of the 3
very articulate adjectives, please. Pssssst. Hint: I suggest you remove
“irreversible” to not make yourself sound silly based on 4.5 billion years of planet
climate history.
The never ending doomsday predictions based on their laughably inaccurate
climate models and simulation results. (Recall what I said about climate
computer modeling back in Chapter 2? Now you see why.)
I’m sorry for being so cynical with climate science, but with leaders like these,
spewing idiotic comments like those above, it’s hard to take ‘em seriously. I know
weathermen don’t get a lot of respect. And it’s probably the least respected
scientific field of study - and it surely has nothing to do with the fact they can’t
predict the weather tomorrow, does it? Perhaps they should focus more on finetuning next week’s weather (err, climate) forecast, instead of apocalyptic
doomsday scenarios caused by that whopping 0.001308% concentration of manmade CO2 in our atmosphere. Perhaps they should invest in a new calculator
with a bigger screen, so they can see the “dot” before all those zeros.
Just remember one number: man-made CO2 is barely 0.001308% of
our atmosphere. Use common sense:
● The most common and most abundant greenhouse gas, water
vapor, is 20X more devastating to temperature than CO2. Total
CO2 is less than 0.04% of our atmosphere
● Fossil fuels and mankind barely account for 3.27% of ALL CO2
emissions.
● Higher temperatures or CO2 leads to more precipitation, which
reduces CO2. Nature’s continuous rebalancing.
● Climate is always naturally changing.
Page 247
● But our overpopulation is creating real problems (including
more water vapor in the atmosphere and changing the
ecosystem balance). Focus on the real root cause if you want to
enact real change to our climate or our world.
Politics and unfunny humor aside, our planet is amazing and
beautiful. We should be doing all we can to preserve it. Reducing
fossil fuels is good for humanity. We have to do it.
But just because someone is a scientist, doesn’t make them any more
believable. As I’ve said before, scientists are just people, driven by
agendas like anyone else. Sometimes they make shit up. Sometimes
they get things wrong, as we all do. And sometimes they just say some
really stupid-ass statements on climate. They are not the absolute
truth to anything.
Now, back to Darwin and Evolution…
The Sun Will Rise Tomorrow
Most people automatically assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But if I asked
someone what is the probability that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow, they would
most likely have no idea, because it’s not something we think about (because we
don’t need to!).
I was laying in bed and couldn’t sleep recently (normal), so I started thinking
about the probability of this event as a comparison to the probability of random
evolution.
It instantly occurred to me that I could easily estimate the probability of the sun
not rising tomorrow by looking at two factors: the probability of the demise of our
planet, and more importantly, the probability of the demise of our sun. The
primary threat to Earth is the sun. We can ignore other risk factors of a complete
planetary obliteration, since these are far more remote than the sun. Other risks
may threaten biological life, but do not pose an existential threat to the planet’s
integrity.
Our sun is a yellow dwarf class star. It simply refers to the size of the star and the
color or frequency of the visible light radiation emitted. Our sun shines a
Page 248
beautiful yellow color as everyone knows, hence the name yellow. A yellow dwarf
star is a medium sized star.
At the core of our sun is essentially a giant nuclear reactor - a very, very fricking
big nuclear reactor in the center, operating on a nuclear fusion reaction to
generate energy, heat and light. Like any nuclear reactor, the life or duration is
going to depend on the amount of material it has to work with. The primary fuel
for our sun is hydrogen. Recall from earlier in the periodic elements chart
discussion, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Now you
know why - because it is the source of nearly all of the energy in our universe,
stars! Over 90% of the sun is made up of hydrogen.
Once the hydrogen is fully consumed and depleted, it begins to consume helium.
Again, helium is the second most abundant material in our universe and
represents virtually all of the remaining mass of the sun outside of hydrogen. As
it begins to consume helium, it will begin to turn a reddish color instead of
yellow. This is called the red giant phase of the star, and signals the end of the
life of a yellow dwarf. During the red giant phase, the sun will begin to consume
helium as mentioned, which will generate more energy/heat, and the outer
portion of the sun will expand immensely, perhaps by 200 times, maybe a lot
more. It will consume the nearby planets like Mercury and Venus. Scientists
don’t know for sure if Earth will also be swallowed up. I personally think our
planet is screwed at that point. It’s not like we see this everyday to know for sure.
But it’s academic, because the sun will generate so much heat, all life on Earth
will be vaporized. Bottom line, when the hydrogen runs out, and it turns into the
red giant phase, we’re all screwed. You’ll need infinity sunscreen if you wanna
have a chance. Perhaps a solar vacation tour to Pluto with some robust UV
protecting sunglasses might be a good investment then. In any case, let’s assume
the sun may not rise again when this happens.
The life of our yellow dwarf sun is about 10 billion years. Given the sun is
estimated to already be about 4.5 billion years old, we are near the midpoint of its
life. But we could be wrong! It’s just an estimate. There are 365.25 days in a
year. So the total number of days in the remaining life of our yellow dwarf star is
2,008.875 billion days.
Simplistically, we can say the probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is 1 out
of 2,008.875 billion, or a chance of 1 in 2.0 trillion. Again, let’s keep it simple. It
could be older than we think. It could have other unknown factors that trigger
red giant phase, etc. Calculating precise probability is more complex than this
simple example. Let’s not get academic.
Page 249
Recall the Powerball lotto discussion in Chapter 2, quantifying
“Impossible”? Well, if the chance of winning the Powerball at 1 in 175
million is nearly impossible of each us, then let’s define the odds of 1
in 2.0 trillion as being impossible in a cosmic sense.
But we always say with absolute certainly, “The sun will rise tomorrow.” While in
the same breath, “It’s impossible for me to win the lottery.” In actuality, the
probabilities are only 4 orders of magnitude different, not much in the sense of
the universe’s math.
The probability of pure random evolution is so much worse than 2.0 trillion - as
we will soon calculate and see - that it’s laughable. Again, numbers are the only
thing in this universe that does not lie, does not hold prejudice, and is truly
objective. But we will get more specific in coming sections.
Beginnings of Life and the Formation of Self-Replicating Cells
As with all things in life, it is best to approach reason and thought first with a
blank page and objectivity. It’s hard to do. There is a wealth of learning and
information we digest over the course of our lives, from school to parenting, and
religion to science. We develop certain biases that are difficult to extract
ourselves from. All these factors influence our ability to reason and look at ideas
objectively.
The idea of how life began is perhaps the most perplexing of all things in our
lives. We are pre-disposed to believe one way or another based on the breadth of
information and teachings we have absorbed. But I would encourage everyone to
consider, starting from a clean slate, based on reason and logic and observing our
world around us, free of the constraints of academic education or religious
teachings.
Many years ago, I renounced religion for my own life as I mentioned. I decided to
research the facts of evolution and scientific theories of how life began for my
own sake - in great detail and taking an immense amount of time - not taking for
granted the academic teachings and exposure I had already been influenced by. I
wished nothing more than to be convinced in the idea of pure random evolution,
absent of Intelligent Design ideas or religious Creationist theories.
Page 250
But in the course of this research, and in subsequent evaluation of the knowledge
I’ve gained over the years, I came to a very different conclusion. Not necessarily
one of religion and Creationism, but I began to become convinced in the idea of
some type of Intelligent Design in the universe and life. I’m sure many will
disagree with my ideas and thoughts (not necessarily for factual reasons), but I
will outline my views on this subject.
The wealth of evolutionary scientific data points does not, in my opinion,
contradict the idea of Intelligent Design, but rather complements it. In the final
analysis, the world and our universe was far too amazing and complex and
intricate, but yet shockingly simple and elegant for it to simply be mere random
coincidence - driven by random probability and biological mutation, coupled with
Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and survivability.
Let me start with the basic notion of pure evolution. Keep in mind this book is
not intended to be a scientific lecture so I will try to be as non-scientific as
possible in my descriptions (ok, perhaps too late for that). Let’s suppose, that
following the first event of the initialization of our universe (let’s just assume the
reasonable Big Bang idea is true for arguments sake - besides nobody will ever
know with certainty), the universe began a period of rapid change and expansion,
emanating from a singular massive explosion of intensely dense matter
(essentially everything in the universe today was squeezed into a single dot of
incredibly compact matter or object). The formation of the universe, of galaxies
and stars and planets came to be over billions of years (again, let’s just assume
this is all true for arguments sake).
Billions of years later the first biological life organism started. How did this
happen? Let’s dive into the basic structure of living things.
Everything in this world, and everything in this universe, is made up of the same
118 elements of chemistry in the periodic table shown previously. This is pretty
astounding actually. Consider it! Everything we see, from the planets to stars to
comets, to the millions of different complex biological life forms on our planet all made of different combinations of the same 118 basic elements! It’s
mathematically astounding to realize that with these basic 118 basic elements we
can create virtually an infinite amount of different combinations! It’s really
staggering when one realizes this.
So in this sense, all of science, from physics to biology is basically a study of
chemistry and how elements behave. (Actually to be completely accurate, all
science boils down to physics, because physics deals with the interaction of all
Page 251
elements, regardless if they are subatomic particles that comprise these 118 basic
elements, to massive cosmic bodies, as well as the behavior and properties of
phenomenon such as light which is not comprised of any of these 118 elements
but defined by sub-particle and wave theory. That’s why I love physics. But let’s
just keep it simple for now).
All plants and animals are made up of different combinations of these same 118
elements.
The Building Blocks of Living Cells
All living cells and life are made up of different molecular compounds. We call
these organic compounds because they contain the element carbon.
Polymer molecules are complex molecules made up of many smaller molecules
all strung together to form really long chains, like a really long noodle. We call it
an organic polymer since it contains the element carbon as the backbone of the
molecular string. Carbon is the basis of our entire planet’s biological life.
Plastics, rubber, Teflon, polyester are also all polymers, albeit man-made
polymers. Polymers that use something other than carbon, such as silicon or
oxygen, or silicon-oxygen as the backbone of the long molecular structure are
called inorganic polymers. Polymers can have oxygen, chlorine, fluorine,
nitrogen, silicon, phosphorous, and sulfur as well as other elements in the
chemical chart we showed previously.
The point here is simply, that there is no evolutionary reason that non-carbon
based polymers and similar DNA couldn’t evolve. It doesn’t have to be carbon
based as I mentioned earlier in the book. It basically depends on the chemistry
where the compounds are created. If silicon was in the atmosphere, or if life
started on a tropical beach, then perhaps we would not be as beautiful with a
silicon polymer backbone; and we would be referring to organic compounds
being made of silicon! Technically it is possible for life to develop using Silicon
(Si) or other elements. There is no reason why life based on silicon could not
happen from a chemical perspective.
The potential combinations of elements in complex polymers are
endless, literally.
Page 252
A monomer is the basic molecular unit of a polymer that is repeated many, many
times in the long polymer chain. In DNA we call these monomers nucleotides,
and the polymer is known as a polynucleotide (poly meaning “many”).
Polymers are complex and have high molecular mass, because they consist of
many different chemical elements bonded together through various chemical
bonds. Organic polymers (those based on carbon) can be broken down easily
because the chemical bonds can be broken readily.
So two facts so far:
1) There are virtually infinite combinations of compounds which could
randomly form for evolution. But specific ones had to form.
2) Huge organic polymers, the basic building blocks of life, have bonds that
can be easily broken down by nature and our universe. Making the
random spontaneous occurrence of the initial living cell incredibly
improbable.
Carbon is the ideal backbone of a polymer chain because of its ability to have
many different bonds, given its perfect atomic bonding structure. Carbon’s
unique ability to form single, double or triple bonds with its partner element(s) is
unique. (Silicon can also but it is not quite as perfectly suited as carbon for
complex polymer molecular structures).
Carbon is one of the few elements that can form so many different
compounds because each carbon atom can form four chemical bonds
to other atoms. Carbon can bond in virtually infinite ways, like a
sprawling tree with branches of carbon bonds that extend out forever.
Practically speaking, there is no limit to the number of branches or
rings that can attach to carbon molecules. There is no limit to the
number of different molecules that can potentially be formed.
This is why we refer to all living things as being carbon based. And it is the
epicenter of all things organic (biological).
As I stated, carbon can bond to a myriad of other elements in almost
unlimited ways. This means the different combinations of bonds and
molecular variety is unlimited.
Page 253
So then we must understand that in order for our specific biological
life to begin, very specific polymer molecules had to be formed,
despite the fact there are nearly infinite possibilities of molecular
structures which could have formed; and not only that, there are
many specific molecular structures that also had to specifically form.
Then somehow all these different complex molecules must bond
together. And then do this repeated enough (trillions and trillions of
times) that it could eventually manifest itself into something
shockingly complex enough to be able to self replicate - to be able to
build itself and not rely on random chance to bring these elements
and molecules together.
It sounds so simple on paper, but this is perhaps the most improbable event in
the Theory of Evolution. But it’s impossible to quantify. But, since I don’t have
the oodles of time to try and figure this out using my own assumptions, I will
provide some other more reputable sources:
1) Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA, Dr. Francis Crick once
concluded that life could never have evolved by chance on planet Earth. It
was numerically impossible. Interestingly, I’ve heard he is an Atheist.
2) Some have calculated the odds of spontaneous life occurring is 1 in 1040,000
(occurrence of the first living cell). This is basically infinity. I don’t know if
this figure is right, but I do know it’s something ridiculously large. Anyone
who says otherwise has no clue about the challenges of the event.
Evolutionary scientists will readily concede the improbability. After all,
it’s probably why we still can’t recreate the first living cell the same way
nature had to. It certainly isn’t for lack of effort.
Evolution had to occur in the real world, not in a precisely controlled lab
environment with only specific elements and quantities, and the exact ratios of
elements to induce precise chemical outcomes. In the real world where there are
all kinds of elements, in different quantities, some readily available to bond to
carbon, others not so much. And all of this has to randomly combine in a way
that can replicate this random combination again and again, trillions and trillions
of times (despite the infinite possible combinations possible). However, nature
and the universe is actively working to constantly break down complex molecules
on an merciless and unending basis.
All along, I have said my intent is to show the incredibly improbable nature of
evolution. There is much more.
Page 254
This first step to create complex, but very specific polymers which bonded
together is the most basic and simplest step. But yet, it is already challenging.
The probability is very low this could happen purely randomly in the real world,
given the precise sequence required, fighting against the multitude of different
possible organic compounds. I don’t see how natural selection could possibly
work here to filter out different combinations of molecules having similar
complexity but merely different sequences - how would it know which is better or
more survivable or ultimately needed to create life? It’s not just about the
strength of specific chemical bonds or even the size of molecules. We haven’t
even gotten anywhere near the difficult steps to actual produce a simple living
cell.
The First Living Cell
Every living cell has similar structure. They contain proteins and enzymes,
sugars, water, lipids (such fats and vitamins), as well as DNA and RNA (we will
discuss later). All of this is surrounded by an outer protective layer called the
plasma membrane.
The membrane is awesome. It allows certain things such as ions and organic
molecules to pass through, while keeping other junk out. Some simple organisms,
like certain bacteria, don’t have a protective membrane in their cell structure.
Below are the basic building blocks of living cells. Keep in mind, this is not a
biology book so I’m putting the equivalent of a Kindergarten level detail of the
cell structure here. It is not complete or exhaustive by any means (and I don’t
profess to be a genetic expert or anywhere laughably close). Various organic
molecules and polymers make up the building blocks of living cells such as amino
acids, proteins, enzymes, RNA and DNA.
There are 4 different large
macromolecules in living cells: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and proteins.
We will discuss nucleic acids later when we discuss DNA.
1) Amino acids are the most fundamental building blocks that make up
proteins and enzymes. There are 500 organic compounds of amino acids
currently known to exist. Humans only use 21 different amino acids. An
amino acid consists of a basic group (−NH2), an acidic carboxyl group
(−COOH), and an organic R group (or side molecular chain). A generic
amino acid is shown below (left). An example of one specific Glutamine
Page 255
amino acid is shown below on the right. The R group side chain is
different for each amino acid and is what makes each one unique (R side
chain shown in red). Amino acids can be readily reproduced in a lab given
the right conditions and a little zap of energy.
2) Proteins are long molecular chains made from one of the 21 different
amino acids the human body uses to make all the proteins it needs to
function and grow. Thousands of amino acids make up a complex protein
molecule. There are 2 million different proteins in the human body, each
with different critical functions! Proteins are vital to living organisms.
They control chemical reactions in the cell, provide structure of a cell, help
bind cells together into tissues, allow movement and transportation in/out
of cells, perform cellular communication (different type of cellular than
mobile phones!), protect against disease (antibodies), and more. They’re
really important. We still don’t know how to synthesize proteins the way
nature had to from the various amino acid building blocks.
3) Enzymes are specific protein molecules that act as a chemical catalyst for
our cellular functions. It’s the way living things control our activity. The
uniqueness of each cell is largely due to the use of different sets of the
3,000 different enzymes. The enzyme polymerase is responsible for
copying human DNA. It can shuffle hundreds of billions of atoms,
including verification and error correction! It’s really amazing. Just
having one missing or damaged enzyme can be disastrous to the outcome.
Since enzymes are proteins, we still don’t know how to make one yet from
amino acids. Even in controlled labs.
Page 256
4) There are three types of carbohydrates: monosaccharides, disaccharides,
and polysaccharides. The prefixes “mono” means one, “di” means two,
and “poly” means many. So essentially, they use a basic sugar chemical
structure and then repeat, depending on the type of sugar or carbohydrate.
Of course, we all know that carbohydrates provide us with the energy we
need to function.
Monosaccharides are simple sugars or basic carbohydrates. The chemical
makeup of various monosaccharides is generically:
Cx(H2O)y
There are typically more than 3 carbon (C) atoms as denoted by x. And
there can be a number of different water molecules (H2O).
Polysaccharides are polymer molecules composed of long chains of
monosaccharide.
(C6H10O5)n
Where “ n” represents a number typically 40 to 3,000; meaning as many
as 3,000 polysaccharides can be linked together to form a polysaccharide
polymer.
5) Lipids are molecules that include such things as fats, waxes and vitamins.
Below is an example of a Phosphatidylethanolamine lipid. I know women
hate lipids, but they’re pretty important.
6) RNA or Ribonucleic Acid is primarily responsible for creating proteins.
There are 3 primary types of RNA molecules, all having a similar basic
structure. RNA is a polymer molecule, similar to DNA, but strung together
Page 257
with a bunch of ribonucleotides that contain the sugar ribose. We still
don’t know how to recreate RNA from the various building blocks of life.
All three types of RNA function to interpret the information stored in
DNA. Cells contain a variety of different RNA forms: messenger RNA
(mRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), and ribosomal RNA (rRNA). Each form
has different functions. Messenger RNA is essentially a copy of a small
section of the DNA, and helps to manufacture one or more proteins.
Transfer RNA binds to both mRNA and amino acids to bring the correct
amino acids into the growing polypeptide chain during protein formation
based on the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA. (Polypeptide is an organic
polymer consisting of a large number of amino-acids bonded together in a
chain).
7) And finally, DNA. The blueprints on how to make all this work and
function together: How it will self-replicate. How it will repair itself. How
it will convert various energy sources to break it down into usable
elements to repair and regenerate. It defines the function and structure of
each cell. The amazing blueprints. We will spend more time later
discussing DNA given how important it is. Obviously, we have no idea still
how to recreate DNA from all the building blocks of life. DNA is the most
complex.
Page 258
All of the above sub-components must precisely combine to form the basic living,
self-replicating cell.
I simply show the molecular structure of the various blocks of a living cell in
order to show the seemingly random combinations of elements that had to come
together in precise fashion to create the building blocks of a living cell. Keep in
mind there are infinite possible combinations of elements, using this same small
subset of elements. It makes “looking for the needle in a haystack” seem like a
simple chore. Basic math will tell you that if there are infinite possible
combinations, then the probability is 1 in infinity of finding a precise
combination.
Once the building blocks formed together somehow, then they must be able to
make sense of the other blocks, and ultimately of other cells. Coordination and
communication of some type is necessary to build greater complexity.
Individual cells must communicate to each other. This is quite fascinating. Take
a look at the excerpt from the article “The Inside Story of Cell Communication”
taken from the University of Utah Health and Sciences webpage:
“Cells communicate by sending and receiving signals. Signals may
come from the environment, or they may come from other cells. In
order to trigger a response, these signals must be transmitted
across the cell membrane. Sometimes the signal itself can cross the
membrane. Other times the signal works by interacting with
receptor proteins that contact both the outside and inside of the
cell. In this case, only cells that have the correct receptors on their
surfaces will respond to the signal.
Once inside the cell, the signal continues on its way. Its ultimate
destination depends on the nature of the signal, with some signals
traveling to the nucleus or to other structures inside the cell. Signals
most often move through the cell by passing from protein to
protein, each protein modifying the next in some way. Collectively,
the proteins that relay a signal to its destination make up a
signaling pathway. A signaling pathway can have few or many steps.
Some signaling pathways branch out in different directions,
sending signals to more than one place in the cell. As a signal is
transferred from protein to protein, it can also be amplified. By
Page 259
dividing and amplifying a signal, the cell can convert a small signal
into a large response.”
Really think about what these paragraphs above just said. Random elements
came together to be able to do all that, somehow.
Wow! In electronics we design specific communications systems. We
design amplifiers to increase a signals strength, and splitters and
relays to pass incoming signals to one or more outputs. This is not
trivial stuff. The fact that these biological molecules can not only do
all the things necessary to function and sustain life - including selfrepair and manufacturing complex compound molecules, copy
billions of atomic level data, and self-reproducing - they also have a
built in complex communicate system in every cell! Holy shit!
The communication system is part peer-to-peer (one cell to another) and part
global network - to any or all cells, such as in fight-or-flight scenarios where cells
must act quickly. The network consists of 100 trillion nodes - the number of cells
in the human body! This is far more than our own global Internet. Our body has
its own internal network and communication system - incredible.
How can random atoms come together to create this intelligence and
know-how? Because that’s exactly what happened if you believe in
evolution.
Biological cells are composed of water, inorganic ions, and many complex organic
molecules. Water makes up 70% of the cell’s mass and is essential to the
function. Every complex organic molecule is bonded together in precise sequence
which is essential, each serving a unique purpose.
There are 1014 atoms in a typical human cell. This is the equivalent of
100,000,000,000,000 or 100 trillion atoms. One cell. Now, understand, this is
precise nanotechnology - exactly what we discussed earlier in the book: building
complex machines using basic atomic structures. It is far more advanced than
anything man has ever developed, by orders and orders of magnitude (an order of
magnitude is 10 times greater). Each atom and molecule has very specific
function and purpose. Each atom counts.
Let me put things in perspective. The tiniest human technology of comparable
complexity is the microchip. Today, a typical 28 nanometer CPU processor chip
would have about 4 billion transistors. An FPGA device has as many as 20 billion
Page 260
transistors (an FPGA or Field Programmable Gate Array is essentially an array of
gates repeated tons of times that can be configure to do almost any electronic
task). Given the complexity of functions a cell serves, a CPU processor would be
the most applicable comparison.
A single biological cell would have 25,000 times more complexity than mankind’s
most advanced technology. And do all this in a fraction of the microscopic size
(10,000 times smaller), consume almost no power (compared to a very power
hungry and extremely HOT silicon processor). Plus it is able to do far more tasks
and self-replicate!
Look at living cells like a tiny but incredibly complex factory, plus a
hospital, plus a complex network like the internet where all cells can
communicate with each other, plus an energy power plant all in one.
It’s truly amazing.
One may argue that I’m not comparing apples to apples, or atoms to atoms. After
all, a microprocessor has far more atoms than a living cell because it’s so much
bigger. The difference is, a complex molecule, such as a DNA or even amino acid,
if you take away one key atom (or any atom), the entire function changes and
doesn’t work. The specific and exact molecular structure is vital. Every atom
counts. It really is nanotechnology; design constructed atom by atom. A
microprocessor, on the other hand, you can take away an atom of silicon, or an
atom of aluminum for the circuit interconnect, and it makes no difference. Hell,
you can take away millions of atoms and it makes no difference most likely. So to
truly compare apples to apples, you look at functionality of each subcomponent,
such as the atom in organic molecules versus the transistor for the microchip.
Now stand back from everything for a second and just ask yourself.
Can something this complex - truly mind blowing technology - could it
really just spontaneously and randomly occur? Do you really believe
that’s possible?
To provide some background, this is the common view of Evolutionists on how
the first living cell was spontaneously occurred from the Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History:
“Earth was able to support life only after the planet had cooled
enough for a rocky crust to solidify. Once that happened, water
vapor from volcanoes condensed in the atmosphere, fell as rain, and
collected on the Earth’s surface. Besides water vapor, volcanoes also
Page 261
produced gases rich in the basic ingredients of life: carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Toxic gases such as ammonia and
methane were common. At this point, Earth's early atmosphere
consisted entirely of these volcanic gases, and there was no free
oxygen. In the primordial “soup” of the early seas, organic
molecules concentrated, formed more complex molecules, and
became simple cells.
The transition from complex organic molecules to living cells could
have occurred in several environments. Small, warm ponds are one
possibility, but recent work has suggested that deep-sea
hydrothermal vents, such as those found along mid-ocean
spreading centers today, may have been the cradle of Earth's life.
These environments contain the chemicals and the source of energy
needed to synthesize more complex organic structures. Although
scientists have not succeeded in creating life from organic
molecules in the laboratory, they have reproduced many of the
intermediate steps.”
Wow! Sounds so incredibly simple and believable, like fact! I’m going to show
why this is now a completely factually wrong assumption by the Evolution
Theorists later in this chapter with recent scientific evidence.
(And by the way, deep sea volcanic vents? Really? How the hell would
microscopic organic molecules created in atmosphere get rained down and all
somehow settle in the cozy corner near the same volcanic vent, given the wind,
and huge dispersive nature of water and oceans. This had to be done consistently
- trillions and trillions of times – with quantities of organic molecules that would
be impossible they could consolidate into one small location near a volcano or
even thousands of volcanoes. And organic compounds don’t last forever as the
universe tears them apart constantly. But, at the bottom of the ocean?! As if
these organic compounds are so heavy, like lead, that they would all naturally
sink to the same location at the bottom of the ocean. LOL. Sometimes I wonder
if people, err “expert scientists”, even think before coming up with these
ridiculous ideas. Or perhaps the desperation of coming up with a plausible idea
is becoming evident.)
But…let’s assume the above generally held view of evolution is true. For the first
living cell to exist, many of these complex compound molecules must all be
created simultaneously, and then somehow find their way to each other, and then
bond in very specific ways. Keep in mind, the number of potential molecular
Page 262
compound combinations using the exact same elements is virtually unlimited.
And furthermore, these exact compounds which are required for a basic cell, and
they are numerous, must then bond exactly in specific sequence and fashion for
the living cell to function.
Next, as we will discuss later, the only way lab experiments have been able to
show the chemical combinations of things, such as most amino acids, was using
an assumed necessary atmospheric conditions (H2 hydrogen, CH4 methane, and
NH3 ammonia, but little to no O2 oxygen), then rely on something like simulated
lightning to provide energy and catalyze the compounds. Assuming the
compounds survived, they would be rained down. Rain is dispersive as we all
know. And oceans or ponds are large and dispersive as well. But these
compounds would need to accumulate in a precise location so they could further
combine to form more complex things. But we will later get to the inconvenient
fact that scientists can’t make amino acids chemically react and combine in any
water solutions to form proteins. Nice theory (idea) otherwise.
It seems so easy when we spell out chemical compounds, and required chemical
equations and say this is a lipid, and this is an amino acid, blah blah...and then
they just need to form together, and - boom! You have life!
But like I said, there are nearly infinite possibilities of different compounds that
can form, so you have to find the specific one, and then do this for every
subcomponent, and then they all have to perfectly fit together also! All this
against a backdrop that the world and the environment is constantly breaking
down complex molecular structures. The way Evolutionists state these things like
it’s a matter of fact, and so easy, yet we struggle mightily to recreate this in
controlled lab settings. And we’ve never been able to create living cells from all
these disparate molecular compounds, or even the more complex building blocks
beyond the simpler amino acids. If something is so inevitable, it should be easily
reproducible by intelligent people, given we know precisely what needs to form
(atoms and molecules).
If evolution is as inevitable as the theory implies, and scientists insist, then we
should be able to easily reproduce the complex molecule building blocks - the
specifically necessary ones - and then easily get them to recombine in the “soup
haven” they conjecture. After all, a theory - in scientific terms - becomes
a theory only after it has been independently verified and reproduced
many, many times by multiple parties. Fully. Not in bits, such as some
amino acids, but no proteins, no RNA, and no DNA. All these components, plus
Page 263
lipids and carbohydrates, etc, must chemically form in the exact same presumed
atmospheric conditions.
We’ve never been able to reproduce any conditions that can create all
the building blocks. Hell, we can’t even produce proteins or DNA or
RNA in any imaginable conditions - no matter how creative we get.
This is the first and most basic step to the Theory of Evolution. This is
after decades of work and thousands (err, millions throughout
history) of scientists feverishly working to prove this. And we know
exactly which chemical compounds we need to create, and how they
would need to be connected together from genetic mapping and
cellular analysis.
One can’t call something a fact if you have yet to prove the most
fundamental premise of the theory.
But, the reality is, for all this to happen randomly is mind boggling. Really. The
Smithsonian, like all other Evolutionists, makes it out like all of this is so easy
and obvious.
In recent years, mankind has made incredible strides in genetic research. We
have been able to synthesize an artificial but very simple enzyme protein using
molecules that don’t exist in nature. It’s truly incredible. [“Catalysts from synthetic
genetic polymers”, Nature journal (2014) doi:10.1038/nature 13982] But this has no
relevance to the Theory of Evolution, as this simply demonstrates that, yes, with
intelligence applied you can create something - which is my entire argument. But
to argue this could have happened by chance is a whole separate matter. It took
years of genetic research by a bunch of PhD’s and biology and genetics experts to
develop one ultra simple enzyme! If anything, this tells us the complexity of the
task at hand, and how difficult it would be for something like 3 billion different
nucleotide base pairs to randomly form to create human life and thousands of
different proteins and enzymes. There are 2 million different proteins in the
human body, each with different functions! And they’re all way more complex
than this synthetic enzyme protein.
I don’t understand people who point to mankind being able to
replicate things, like artificial nucleotides or even simple artificial
DNA or enzymes, as an argument to prove evolution is true. What
kind of logic is that? Because a team of very smart, intelligent beings,
who spent years engineering something, based on decades of
cumulative understanding of genetics and chemistry, were able to
Page 264
synthesize an artificial enzyme protein - so therefore evolution is
true? Intelligence creating something is not relevant to random
creation without intelligence! Again, my point has always been, it’s
only possible with intelligence.
Most importantly, one loses perspective sometimes and forgets that the first
living cell isn’t just a specific collection of a shitload of different elements that
combined together just precisely. The first living cell is basically an object that
has a bunch of instructions, on a bunch of complex functions it needed to do to
survive, and then self replicate! The DNA code! Where did this code come from?
How the hell did this complex instruction set come about (yes, complex even for a
basic microbial organism)? Did it just randomly form in atmosphere, with this
sudden wealth of knowledge to know exactly what it needed to do once it
combined with the rest of the cell? Independently?
Imagine building an incredibly tiny, but complex factory of millions
or billions of pieces of machines and equipment. Ok, let’s assume it
was easy for all these millions of machines and equipment to
somehow to get into the same factory, randomly.
But where did the instructions on how to operate the factory, and
each machine, and each piece of equipment come from? And how
they would all work seamlessly together? Where did the blueprints of
the DNA or RNA come from? This factory is much more complex than
anything mankind has ever even tried to build. And we presume the
factory instructions just happened by chance?
The incredibly
complex DNA molecule which contains the cells operational
instructions is an independent molecule that controls all the other
molecules in the system. But they independently formed!
If you owned a large business and invested a ton of money in building the world’s
largest factory that could make cars, and then purchased a bunch of equipment
and machines. But it didn’t come with any instruction set or operating manual or
training, you’d be screwed. And you sure as hell wouldn’t just assume that each
machine and piece of equipment just automatically knew what they were
supposed to do (because living cells don’t operate that way either).
So pure Evolutionists believe that, independently, the precise and
correct complex molecules formed, were somehow preserved long
enough in a toxic environment to create even more complex
molecules; then they all came together perfectly. Now, independent
Page 265
to all of this, a separate instruction manual randomly combined
using, literally, billions of different atoms that precisely understood
how all of the other elements of the cell should function and work
together - even though it had to be formed completely independently
and unaware of the other molecule.
Just think about that for a moment. Any mathematician will tell you this is
impossible, within a split second. They wouldn’t even need to pull out a
calculator to estimate the probability of this event occurring as described.
Here’s a chicken or the egg question…“Which came first. DNA or
proteins?” Evolution textbooks tell us protein came first. But
proteins require DNA to replicate, and DNA requires proteins to
function. So solve that conundrum. So they both have to occur
simultaneously, but independently.
This is at the crux of the improbability. Basic math. If you have one
highly improbable event (I’m being kind by only using the word
improbable). And independently of all that, you have a separate
highly improbable event. But the two independent highly improbable
and completely random, but incredibly complex events, have to come
together and synchronize - meaning they have to be aware of the other
and depend on each other from the start - to form the first living, selfreplicating organism. This is the definition of impossible.
It doesn’t matter how much time you have to allow as many random
combinations to occur. Even if you had a trillion years, it would never happen.
And coincidently we are limited to 10 billion years, the life of the sun.
The Theory of Evolution is constantly changing to try to figure out how things
really came about. The most important questions of the origins of life are STILL
unanswered. Scientists know this and admit this. Where did water come from?
How did the first self-replicating cell form? Nobody knows yet. We only have
some ideas. And most of the ideas are impossible or proven false, or simply
ridiculously laughable. If you can’t recreate something, then it’s just an unproven
idea.
One recent theory now proposes that maybe proteins themselves were able to
self-replicate, and nucleic acids and DNA formed later. Interesting idea at least.
[“The origins of life -- the 'protein interaction world' hypothesis: protein interactions were the
first form of self-reproducing life and nucleic acids evolved later as memory molecules.” Andras P,
Page 266
Andras C., Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(4):678-88].
The problem is, we still can’t recreate
a complex protein in the conditions nature had to, let alone a self-replicating one!
Again, another example of when the theory is proven false, or cannot be proven,
change the theory. Which is fine, this is normal in science. But just don’t call it a
proven theory is all I’m saying.
Let’s talk about basics. Where and how did these complex molecules form from
the basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen? The only places
would be in our atmosphere or in some water based solution. Most likely,
scientists theorize the basic elements combined in atmosphere to create complex
carbon molecules. These were rained down into some cozy little corner of the
Earth, where they sat and commingled with other complex molecules. Sounds so
simple!
Scientists have been able to show that certain amino acids, under precise
conditions, could be created in atmosphere (1953, the publication of the famous
Miller-Urey Experiment). They employed various ideas including radiation and
lightning as catalysts. That’s fair and reasonable. The atmospheric conditions in
early Earth assumed a very different composition to what it is now, consisting
mostly of methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or
monoxide, and phosphate, with molecular oxygen and ozone (O2) either rare or
completely absent. Since the initial Miller-Urey experiment, variations of it have
produced many of the simpler organic compounds needed for life - most of the
amino acids and some of the simpler nucleotides. Again, for any of these
experiments to be valid, they all must use the exact same conditions, not slightly
different conditions for each to make the chemical reaction more favorable.
There’s only one planet atmosphere and the synthesis of these compounds must
occur in very close proximity, since they ultimately need to commingle together
in some happy pool somewhere to possibly combine together.
The key to the Theory of Evolution has been the assumption of
primordial Earth having a reducing atmosphere, which allows the
chemistry required to reproduce certain biological compounds. A
reducing atmospheric condition assumes little to no oxygen, or other
oxidizing gases in the atmosphere. It is essential to have any potential
of recreating the complex organic molecules. It is impossible in an
oxidizing atmosphere full of oxygen. The reason why spontaneous
generation of organic compounds can’t happen today, or in any
oxygen rich or oxidizing atmosphere, is because the organic
Page 267
compounds are too fragile, and the oxygen readily breaks down the
bonds, turning organic compounds into inorganic molecules.
But recent geological data has shown that the primitive Earth was
much cooler and milder than scientists had assumed for decades, and
had an oxidizing atmosphere. It’s pretty conclusive now.
“Until recently, the impressions geologists had of this early periodthe Hadean eon-evoked its name: hell on Earth. Scientists believed
early Earth was exceptionally hot, with a simmering sea of magma
that covered much of the planet. Meteorites frequently battered the
surface. Their perception was that early Earth was not a place
where continents could form or life could survive...Ten years ago,
there was little evidence to challenge this impression of the early
Earth. Indeed, no direct evidence of that time exists. Rocks older
than 4 billion years are not available to study, because they have
long since eroded away, have been transformed by geologic
processes, or are too deep underground to access....But tiny
survivors of Earth's early era do persist: zircon crystals. A common
mineral made of the elements zirconium, silicon, and oxygen.”
[“Zircons Recast Earth's Earliest Era”, American Museum of Natural History]
Martin Whitehouse is a leading zircon researcher. "It's very, very difficult to
destroy zircon. It is the oldest preserved material that we've got. If we didn't
have zircon we'd understand the Earth a whole lot less," says Whitehouse.
[“Zircons Recast Earth's Earliest Era”, American Museum of Natural History]
According the study, Bruce Watson of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
in New York, concluded: Earth was cool enough, it "had continents that were
above sea level, that erosion of those continents was occurring, and sediments
were forming. That necessitates the presence of oceans, so that means liquid
water on the surface of the Earth. It was cool enough so that oceans didn't boil potentially cool enough that living organisms could get a foothold...In some sense
the physical conditions at the surface of the early Earth, as seen through the eyes
of these time capsules from that period, was not that different from today...That
is what is revolutionary about this idea."
Recall the separate zircon crystals discussion we covered in a previous section.
We now know the early Earth conditions from multiple zircon crystals studies, of
crystals that date as far back as 4.4 billion years ago (conclusively now), barely
150 million years after Earth was formed. In planetary time, it’s nothing. Not
Page 268
only did these zircon crystals show abundant water was already on the planet
with cool conditions similar to today, it also showed a highly oxidizing
atmosphere. In other words, our atmosphere contained a lot of oxygen.
This recent discovery is completely contrary to Evolutionist’s theory of a
primordial Earth having a reducing atmosphere (which is absolutely critical),
containing elements such as methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon
dioxide or monoxide, and phosphate. It would be virtually impossible that
complex carbon molecules, required for living cells, to have been formed under
these oxidizing and oxygen rich conditions. Oxygen readily breaks down the
carbon bonds and turns them to inorganic molecules, because oxygen is one of
the most electron hungry elements there is. Evolutionary scientists know this.
Bruce Watson, a professor at RPI in New York, is leading a research team focused
on developing new advanced techniques to extract even more information from
zircons, to help paint a clearer picture of the most ambiguous era of Earth’s
geological history, the first 500 million years.
A recent zircon crystal study showed that the Earth’s mantle had
reached its current oxidation state 4.3 billion years ago—at least 500
million years before the evidence of the first signs of life. [“Ancient Zircons
Help Reveal Early Earth Atmosphere”, Universetoday.com, Tammy Plotner, December 2011].
Earth’s atmosphere was formed by volcanic activity. Every time a volcano erupts,
magma flows to the surface and releases gas and dust particles into the
atmosphere. Once cooled, these rocks allow scientists to take an accurate
snapshot of the conditions at the time of their formation. Bruce Watson’s RPI
report published, “Most scientists would argue that this outgassing from magma
was the main input to the atmosphere...To understand the nature of the
atmosphere ‘in the beginning,’ we needed to determine what gas species were in
the magmas supplying the atmosphere...By determining the oxidation state of the
magmas that created zircon, we could then determine the types of gases that
would eventually make their way into the atmosphere”.
According to the study, early Earth had plentiful water, significant oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. "We can now say with some certainty that
many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth simply picked the wrong
atmosphere," said Watson. While it is true that it is more likely a methane-rich
atmosphere might “have much more biologic potential to jump from inorganic
compounds to life-supporting amino acids and DNA,” unfortunately that wasn’t
Page 269
the conditions of early Earth. It was rich in oxygen - and not reducing - as
Evolutionists had staked their theory on.
This discovery is a seismic event in the Theory of Evolution, and not in
a good way. But you won’t ever see it CNN or USA Today, or BBC
news, or hear academia talk about this stuff. First, it invalidates the
applicability of all the controlled experiments to generate the most
basic organic compounds, such as amino acids, in what was
conjectured to be Earth’s early atmospheric conditions. Second, it
brings to question, the entire notion of a primordial soup theory
which has been speculated since the beginning of the Theory of
Evolution.
So Evolutionists are changing their story again, now assuming perhaps amino
acids and other organics came from outer space, by way of asteroids. (Geez,
another asteroid theory. Next, we’ll be speculating that Steve Jobs came up with
the idea of the iPhone from aliens who arrived on asteroids.) Again, this is the
shifting “theory” of Evolution. Meteors have been found that contain many
organic compounds.
But this theory is implausible with pure random
combination, since it would take some time (thousands or millions of years) for
these organic molecules to eventually be able to self-replicate, and eventually
self-sustain using the process of photosynthesis. This requires an easily
repeatable and constantly abundant amount of new organic compounds to
generate these relentlessly different combinations, until one was found that
generated photosynthesis. Keep in mind an organic compound is not going to
persist forever, even in a primordial soup, so constant regeneration would be
needed.
But to be fair, some asteroids have been found with organic compounds and
amino acids (which is why scientists are now clinging to this idea). Somehow,
after the formation of the universe and our sun, these asteroids, which are pieces
of former planets, were able to protect the organic compounds deep within the
rock structure, shielding the compounds from the harsh universe.
All the studies recreating organic polymers and amino acids in reducing
atmospheric conditions are useless now. Again, we can hypothesize and do
experiments to show feasibility that is completely removed of the realities of our
world. But at the end of the day, what does that prove? That in a condition that
didn’t and couldn’t have existed on our planet, amino acids can form?
Page 270
Furthermore, the problem is they still can’t figure out how proteins, or other
complex molecules like nucleotides (the basic building block of DNA), are formed
from these simpler amino acids. They haven’t been able to show this even in
controlled experiments. Amino acids are relatively easy and simple to form.
Getting to the next level is hard. Amino acids don’t combine in water to form
proteins, even when energy is added. So the theory of where amino acids came
from is meaningless if we can’t prove they can be randomly combined to form
proteins.
Ok, I admit some research has been done that showed nucleic acid purine base
adenine (just one chemical component of DNA and RNA) could be formed by
heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions. But this wasn’t early Earth’s
atmosphere. And again, this is just one of the nucleotides. Not a protein, not
DNA. All the multiple compounds must be created in the same conditions - not
one conditions for some of them and a completely different one for others - and
then shown they can combine together perfectly. Nobody has gotten anywhere
near that point. The Theory of Evolution is still just a nice idea - an unproven
idea- and mathematically impossible, coincidentally. So they’re wasting their
time.
Scientist haven’t even been able to show amino acids, once dissolved
in some water with other organic compounds, can or do form into
proteins. The problem is, this reaction for amino acids to combine
with other compounds doesn’t spontaneously react in any water
based solution, even when energy or heat is added!
But let’s assume they did somehow. Ok, then they rained down into some water
based solution, eager to become more complex.
So, now most scientists have changed their minds and believe RNA is the basis of
how life started, until DNA and proteins eventually formed. They called this the
“RNA world hypothesis” of evolution now. RNA is a complex self-replicating
nucleic acid molecule. RNA is similar, but simpler than DNA, and is comprised
of thousands of repeating units of smaller nucleotide molecules. The most
important function of RNA is to produce proteins.
Trying to prove proteins and DNA started life was impossibly difficult. So now
we have moved to RNA. Note the excerpt below from a W.H. Schlesinger, a
biochemist:
Page 271
“Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays
nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are
synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is
extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are
structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet
it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one
might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical
means.” [“The assembly of simple organic molecules into a metabolizing, self-replicating, and
membrane-bound form that we might call life has so far eluded experimental approaches”, W.
H. Schlesinger]
The simple fact is, DNA, RNA, nucleotides and proteins have only
been shown to be created inside already living cells. Nowhere outside
of living cells have they ever been found or created in nature or in a
lab. It’s really difficult because the complexity is so great, and the
environment is constantly breaking down complexity.
The Primordial Soup
The Primordial Soup Theory insists that the first living organism started in a
pond or ocean of water. The theory was originally by proposed by two scientists
who independently proposed this idea in 1929: Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and
English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane.
The idea basically states that organic molecules were formed in the atmosphere
and rained into the primordial soup, which must have contained tons of random
organic molecules. These elements randomly formed to become more complex.
Eventually a combination of these organic molecules was formed which could
photosynthesize - use the energy of the sun - and hence rely on itself to create the
basic ingredients it needed for self-survival. Eventually, it was able to selfreplicate.
As we showed earlier, scientific experiments proved specific amino acids could
form in atmosphere given the right conditions and a zap of energy from lightning
or heat or UV light.
But showing the possibility of amino acids forming in a specific atmosphere is
still light-years from proving the possibility of the formation of the first living
organism.
Page 272
There are many problems and challenges in the Primordial Soup theory that
remain unsolved:
1) We showed earlier that the atmosphere was full of oxygen and oxidizing - not
reducing - making the chemistry for the formation of the first amino acids and
other organic molecules impossible in the ACTUAL atmosphere.
2) The sheer quantity and frequency of organic molecules that needed to form in
the atmosphere on a continuous basis is highly unlikely. Remember this
occurred over millions and millions of years. So the atmosphere was constantly
producing these organic molecules. If lightning was the catalyst, it would have
been constantly lightning every minute, globally, over millions of years. It would
have been like a continuous storm, raining organic molecules for tens of millions
of years. Does that seem likely? That’s a hell of a storm!
3) Assuming these organics were “rained down” into some pond or ocean, one
must realize that this mechanism is incredible dispersive. These molecules
needed to be in very close proximity to randomly combine on a continuous basis.
Try floating a thousand tiny/microscopic feathers high in the atmosphere and let
rain and wind control where they land. I guarantee you that none of the feathers
would end up anywhere near each other.
4) Any pool or body of water, like an ocean, is large in relative size to any
molecules. These bodies of water are also highly dispersive. What happens with
we put anything in water? It always dissolves or disperses readily everywhere
throughout the water. It never stays in one lump or area. Even small pools are
huge. And given this happened over millions of years, the body of water must
have been a very large body, like an ocean, given small pools readily evaporates
and disappear. This means the dispersive mechanism would really make it
impossible for these molecules to be in close enough proximity - in the quantities
required - to randomly and CONTINUOUSLY combine trillions and trillions of
time. It would have to be so densely full of organic molecules, almost like a very
thick soup. Imagine a huge ocean full of organic molecules, like a thick soup, that
were all formed in atmosphere! Does that sound reasonable or possible?
Primordial soup would have been too dilutive to achieve anything.
5) Very few organic molecules can withstand high temperatures for very long.
And by high, it’s relatively low. Heat provides the activation energy which breaks
down the carbon covalent bonds to destroy their molecular structure. The more
Page 273
complex the molecule, the more sensitive it is to breakdown.
particularly sensitive.
Proteins are
6) Our planet, even in early Earth, had tons of different destructive energy forces
that are hungry to destroy any complex molecule. Radiation, basic sunlight,
electromagnetic waves, thermal, chemical - these are all the ways our universe
loves to chop down even simple molecules down to basic elements. All these
energy sources can provide the activation energy required to destroy the weak
organic chemical bonds. This happens on a continuous basis. But these
molecules needed to persist long enough to develop into much more complex
molecules, based purely on randomness and time (in other words they needed to
survive a very long time, growing ever more complex). As we will show later in
this chapter, the universe hates complexity, which is why we don't see complex
molecules anywhere in the universe. It’s shockingly rare as you will discover outside of our special planet Earth, and again, only as part of already living things
because they can repair and regenerate autonomously, overcoming these
persistent destructive forces in nature. But the first organic molecules could not
regenerate or repair themselves, and thus were not protected by self-replication
or self-repair. This requires too much complexity for the first molecules. But we
imagine that this primordial soup violated all the laws of our universe because it
was a “warm and cozy magical pool.” Water is not some magical protective
bulletproof vest for organic molecules that kept them safe from the big bad
universe for millions of years.
7) To show how fragile these organic chemical bonds are, “the mechanical
deformation induced merely by the adhesion of a complex molecule to a surface
can trigger the break-up of that molecule. ... the rupture of the strong, covalent
carbon–carbon bond.” [Nature 440, 160-161 (9 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440160a;
Published online 8 March 2006 Physical Chemistry: “Stressed molecules break down”.] These
molecules easily break and get destroyed, even by simple surfaces or objects.
8) And the biggest problem: We have NEVER been able to show amino
acids can spontaneously combine in ANY water solution, or magical
“soup” to form proteins or anything complex. Oh, how inconvenient.
Not even in precise lab conditions and perfect soups. Not Campbell's
soup. Not tomato soup. Not any organic soup. Amino acids do not
arbitrarily or spontaneously react in water to form chemical bonds to
other molecules - even with various different activation energies such
as heat, electricity, radiation, etc.
Page 274
You see, this primordial soup theory was developed in 1929. Man
didn’t successfully create organic molecules of amino acids through
experiments until the 1950s. And since then, we still haven’t been
able to show amino acids can readily, spontaneously, and randomly
combine through ANY induced chemical reaction to form more
complex structures.
But nobody wants to give up on this theory of the primordial soup,
because there is NO alternative idea of how life could have possibly
started that is anything reasonable or believable. But if you can’t
prove step #2, out of a trillion steps in the theory, what good is the
theory? It’s simply a nice idea on paper that cannot possibly be true.
9) Have you ever seen any such primordial soup? Of course not. Even if you
could physically see it, you wouldn't, because they don’t exist. We have never
discovered one anywhere in the universe or this world. Not on Mars. Not on
Earth. Not in space (like asteroids). It’s just a very convenient idea to try to
convince us - not prove - to believe an impossible theory and impossible series of
events. The only things that exists, in any pool or water, is either already living
organisms or simple elements. Organic molecules, such as amino acids, have
never been found in nature in any pool of water apart from inside already livings
organisms. Amino acids were discovered hidden and protected deep inside
aqueous asteroid rocks, but that is not the same thing. The primordial soup had
to be exposed to collect a continuous flow of new organic molecules, and thus had
to be exposed to the harsh destructive forces and elements of this universe.
After fully reading this entire chapter, I challenge you to do your own research if
you don’t believe me. If you truly believe in evolution as fact, then try to find
evidence to refute my statements.
I assure you, if anyone had actually performed a successful
Primordial Soup experiment, demonstrating how simple amino acids
can randomly form complex structures, and especially proteins, it
would be the first search result that pops up on Google. Probably with
red arrows highlighting the link, with a caption and proclamation:
“Science proves God is not real.” (I personally don’t give a shit if God
is real or unreal.)
Really, how difficult can it be to put a bunch of organic molecules into some
water and get them to combine? Maybe you’re not shaking it right. Shake it like
a Polaroid picture! Maybe a little more juice (electricity)? There are only so
Page 275
many variables here. If it is inevitable as the theory holds, how difficult can this
be to prove? I’m not talking about proving the creation of the actual first living
organism or cell. Just show amino acids can readily combine to become more
complex structures through natural forces in water. Perhaps just 10 or 20 or so
amino acids in sequence (proteins have thousands typically). Real simple.
The human body only has 21 amino acids. Just put a trillion of each amino acid
into a nice warm bowl of tomato soup (make sure it’s organic tomatoes!) and let
them go at each other. “Combine little fellas! Combine!” A little baby should pop
out in about 9 months. LOL.
Every single evolution theory and evidence always starts on the fact that we can
prove how amino acids formed in early Earth atmosphere. (In a scientifically
proven oxidizing atmosphere that invalidates the experiments and makes it
impossible it could have ever happened). But then after this point, they have a
bunch of hand waving and computer models and simulations that should how
these amino acids randomly formed to create more complex structures.
But, NOT A SINGLE piece of evidence or experiment that physically shows,
through experiments, how amino acids readily combined to form more complex
structures in any primordial soup. None.
Instead, they always jump from the proud example of how amino
acids were easily formed through experiments, and then a bunch of
words to make us feel confident the rest of the steps are no problem
and easy, then they skip right to the discussions of the first living
organism, and how things evolved from that point on. There is an
assumption gap - as wide as the distance from Earth to the sun - in the
Theory of Evolution, and everyone conveniently conceals it, brushes it
over, or pretends it doesn't exist.
The Primordial Soup theory is nothing more than words on a piece of
paper. It is objectively, scientifically, conclusively, bullshit.
The cold truth is, if you can still believe in the theory, you’re nothing more than a
religious fanatic, dedicated to a disproven idea based solely on a personal refusal
to accept any other possible alternative. Even if you reject intelligent design
(which is fine), it’s more reasonable to simply say, “I don’t know how life started”
than to continue to cling onto the theory of a Primordial Soup as fact.
Page 276
Well, perhaps the math is right after all. It really is impossible. (We’ll get into
more depth on the math soon!)
I am 100% convinced that most people who steadfastly believe in
evolution simply don’t care about the facts, or lack of real proof. They
just believe it, and that is just that. Faith. Religion. Invariably, their
comment is always “So you believe God created all of this?” when
faced with irrefutable fact and fatal challenges to the theory. One has
nothing to do with the other in terms of why you should or shouldn’t
believe in the theory.
If any idea cannot stand on its own merit, then it cannot be truth. An
idea cannot be truth simply as the default reality, if we are incapable
of understanding or having awareness of all the possible realities.
Our Complex Human Body and the Amazing Human Genome
The human body only contains 25 of the 118 elements found in nature. It’s
actually quite a bit. The chemical makeup of the human body is shown below:
Page 277
Life is defined by the encoding scheme of DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid). But in
reality, the entire human DNA only consists of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and
Phosphorus for the various phosphate compounds. Amazing! There are only
four elements in the DNA that make up 3 billion small details that completely
define each of us. But these can still combine and form in virtually unlimited
ways!
The width of a DNA is about 2.5 nanometers wide! The human hair is about 50100 micrometers. A micrometer is 1000 times larger than a nanometer. The
smallest nucleotide, which is the basic structure making up DNA, is about 0.33
nanometers wide.
This is about 10X smaller than the most advanced
semiconductor (microchip) technology. It’s true nanotechnology!
DNA contains information in the sequence using just four chemical compounds
known as nucleotides. The basic human DNA structure is shown below:
A nucleotide is the basic unit of DNA, and appears as the ladder steps of the
DNA’s double helix structure shown above, on the left side of the figure. The 4
nucleotides are abbreviated as A, C, T, and G. Nucleotides come in base pairs
(A/T and C/G), as denoted above, to form the double helix structure. Nucleotides
are comprised of carbon sugar compounds, nitrogenous base and a phosphate
group:
● DNA's Nitrogenous bases are called (nucleotides): Adenine, Cytosine,
Guanine, Thymine (A,C,G,T). A, C are Purines (left chart) are the larger of
the two types of bases found in DNA. Structures are shown below. G, T
Page 278
are pyrimidines (below right). Remember, the base pairs combine one
purine with one pyrimidines.
● A chemical atomic diagram of a 5-carbon element sugar compound called
deoxyribose that comprise DNA is shown below:
● The basic chemical structure of a Phosphate group within DNA is a single
phosphorus atom surrounded by 4 oxygen atoms plus a side group (R).
DNA contains its information in the sequence of the four nucleotide chemical
compounds (abbreviated C,G,A,T). The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000
base pair nucleotides in precise sequence (3 billion). DNA can be looked at as a
permanent memory structure, with a built in ability to heal and replicate itself.
It’s complex and amazing, far more impressive than any man-made memory
system. All of our biological information related to our physical structure and
specific bodily functions are written in the sequence of the DNA, using only these
4 complex nucleotide chemical compounds! But 3 billion of them in perfect
sequence. A slightly different sequence and we would not be humans! You might
be a rat!
DNA is a giant polymer molecule. We call it a macropolymer because it’s fricking
huge. We’ll get to how huge shortly.
Page 279
DNA is a self-replicating organic material which is present in nearly all living
organisms. Genes are information that is stored as specific nucleotide sequences
within the very long DNA molecule. It is a segment of the DNA. Humans have
20,000 genes. Genes are organized in units called chromosomes. Humans have
23 pairs of chromosomes. One set of chromosomes comes from your mother, and
the other set from the father. Genes (a segment of the DNA) specify the structure
of particular proteins that make up every single cell, and carry blueprints of
proteins which form enzymes, hormones, cell membranes and everything our
bodies have and use to carry out complex activities.
Each cell in the body, except red blood cells, contains chromosomes. And
chromosomes define every single characteristic of a biological organism. It
contains every major and minor bit of genetic information encoded in a sequence
of chemical compounds. DNA, genes, and chromosomes are what make each of
us unique. Even twins have differences.
The human genome project, which mapped the entire human DNA recipe, or
genome, concluded there were 3 billion “letters” to the human code. Consider it,
3 billion details for every human being - defining down to the smallest details
such as whether the eyebrow will be black or brown, curl or remain straight, and
so one, to every little single detail in our bodies. 3 billion little details, or 3 billion
nucleotide base pairs.
When the human genome project was completed more than a decade ago, it cost
$3 billion. Today you can fully sequence a genome for about $5,000. Kinda cool.
As a side note, in the interest of full disclosure, scientists believed, not too long
ago - like 6 months ago - that only 8.2% of human DNA was used and the rest of
the 3 billion letters were junk. Of course, they used to think it was only 3% - 5%
percent not too long before that discovery. My personal feeling is that most
nucleotides have some purpose - whether we realize it or not yet. It will take time
to understand the purpose and function of each DNA letter (nucleotide
sequence). If I had a trillion dollars, I would bet it all that it will be discovered to
be much, much higher than 8.2% useful DNA code. After all, if we really
understood every single DNA nucleotide functions, there probably wouldn’t be
disease in the human body anymore. I wish scientists would simply say whenever
they make such announcements (and media is more to blame), “as of today, we
have uncovered the functions of just 8.2% of the human genome.” This would be
far more accurate than saying silly and sweeping statements like, “only 8.2% of
our DNA is useful, the rest is junk!” Just because we have not had the time or the
Page 280
ability to uncover the actual purpose doesn’t mean it’s junk. It simply means it’s
not fully understood yet. Ahhh, the media. The group everybody loves to hate
(and mostly deservedly).
For instance! Recently, scientists discovered the human genome is packed with at
least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were
dismissed as “junk”, but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how
cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discoveries were published January
21, 2015 in six papers in the journal Nature and in 24 papers in Genome Research
and Genome Biology. According to Ewan Birney of the European Molecular
Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute, a lead researcher on the
project, human DNA is “a lot more active than we expected, and there are a lot
more things happening than we expected.” Hmmm. What a shock (sarcasm).
Keep digging.
So, each of us has a staggering 3 billion letters. This book is about 500 pages and
1 million letters or characters long. 3 billion letters would be the equivalent of a
1.5 million page book!
That is amazing complexity. It’s difficult to imagine it could have happened by
pure random mutations. The human body is a far more complex achievement
than anything mankind has ever dreamed of, much less actually designed. Our
most sophisticated technology and man-made systems pale in comparison to
nature’s achievement.
Evolutionism states: Nature and Randomness are infinitely smarter
than Mankind, having invented far grander marvels than we could
ever dream.
Damn it. Now I feel really stupid. All this time I mistakenly thought I was kinda
smart.
Honestly, I don’t know why a company like Apple even hires smart designers and
engineers. They should fire almost everyone. Use the $190 billion of cash
reserves to buy as many supercomputers as they can get their hands on. Each
one would simply run very simple algorithms that merely randomly changed the
possible polymer combinations of chemical elements, like toggling a DNA bit.
Eventually, with the supercomputing power capable of calculating trillions of
operations per second, we could arrive at as many mutations as have occurred in
nature over the past 3.5 billion years, ensuring that the inevitable result would be
Page 281
an amazing product - based on the smallest, most advanced molecular bionanotechnology!
We would end up with an iPhone 10E (“E” is for Evolutionary, which is far better
than Revolutionary or “S”). It could have a battery life that lasts a lifetime on one
charge! It could constantly charge itself automatically using any energy, like
sunlight, similar to photosynthesis of plants! It could self-replicate so we
wouldn’t need the expensive Chinese factories using child labor (a recent bit of
news which embarrassed Apple recently)! It could repair itself so it never fails!
No more broken or cracked screens!! And it could really be water proof! In fact
you could swim with it, shower with it, whatever. It would be so lightweight and
efficient you wouldn’t even feel it, because it would be based on true
nanotechnology!
The first iGadget would of course still need to be built before it could selfreplicate. But no worries, we’ll just build it in the skies! Individual atoms would
form in the atmosphere using natural lightning as a catalyst; iPhones could be
rained down from the skies by Mother Nature, where they could commingle with
other iPhones to spontaneously create bigger and more impressive iMac’s! And
then the iMac’s would spontaneously evolve to iCars! (Steve Jobs actually wanted
to build iCars.) And so on! Before you know it, we’ll be at 50 million different
species of iGadgets in no time!!!
All Apple needs is a bunch of supercomputers to randomly toggle bits. Hell, fire
the engineers! All of ‘em!! Goddammit, if I were CEO of Apple, first I would fire
CEO Tim Cook for not thinking of this himself. Then I would make Apple into a
true nanotechnology company, cranking out environmentally friendly
biodegradable iGadgets of all sorts! The diversity of iGadgets would number as
many as 50 million species, err, models! And they would truly be networked,
able to operate flawlessly in an amazingly perfect and balanced eco-system of
iGadgets. And the best part….wait for it!...it would actually be safe and secure!
What network security and iCloud hacking threats (is Hollywood listening)?? My
iGadgets - all 50 million different species of ‘em - would be able to identify and
kill invading viruses automatically!!!
I’m starting to like this Theory of Evolution stuff! It has real potential!
Ok, back to serious stuff. That little rant above was probably only funny to me.
The rest of you are probably wondering, WTF (that’s short for “What The
F@#k”)? The point was to illustrate the absurdity of pure random evolution, as if
Page 282
just random everything could sufficiently create intelligence, consciousness, and
amazing complexity - far greater than even the next iPhone model.
My analogy on the iPhone rant was exactly analogous to the actual
Theory of Evolution. It sounds funny (ok just to me) when we put
things in perspective and in context to the real world, doesn’t it? We
all know biological iPhones based on polymer building blocks couldn’t
rain down from the atmosphere, commingle and combine to form
more complicated iMacs; which would then randomly, spontaneously
evolve to iCars simply because people “needed” cars and it was
required to survive. But that is the “fact” of evolution that we are told
in school, and reinforced throughout our lives.
Look, I’m obviously not a religious man. But when you put the concept of
Evolution in this context, doesn’t it sound just as equally silly as Creationism,
that states that God created “The Heavens and the Earth in 7 days?” Aren’t both
scenarios equally laughable?
I prefer to think that an Intelligence was behind the creation and development of
the first iPhone - his name was Steve Jobs (RIP). He conceptualized it, nurtured
it, and meticulously planned it. Steve designed it to be sexy, made a few different
prototype iterations. And when it was fully perfected, then he built it, marketed
it, and finally, then made a shitload of money. None of it was by chance. Every
small thought and detail carefully thought out. Software, hardware, ecosystem,
sales channel, marketing campaign and advertising, partnerships, you name
it...he thought about everything before he actually did it.
That’s the real world, not some lab construction or academic textbook filled with
unconstrained ideas and scenarios, postulating how everything happened;
reading so easily to convey a sense of truth and certainty about it all.
The Theory of Evolution, it’s a nice idea and story. But let’s not
delude people into thinking it’s fact or a proven theory. That’s my
only point in all of this. I love science. And I’m glad smart people
come up with these ideas about how things could have happened. It
increases the richness of all of our lives, through better
understanding of our world. But be honest, and say when something
is just an unproven idea.
Page 283
Complex Organs
Think how one relatively simple detail like the heart could have evolved. It also
required everything else to evolve simultaneously, like the veins and blood cells,
things like antibodies and white blood cells to protect itself; and virtually every
single cell had to change in order to accommodate the new system. This new
architecture affects, literally, virtually every single cell.
Evolutionists believe the heart mutated from frogs to lizards, which both have 3
chamber hearts, and eventually, to mammals who have 4 chamber hearts. Based
on embryonic development, this is how scientists believe the evolutionary process
unfolded. Very high level details of course; some hand waving.
The conversion from single celled amoebas, to reptiles, to cold blooded animals,
to warm blooded mammals is fairly complex. The process of evolution is so
intricate, and requires so many parallel events to occur, that if it happened one
minor mutation at a time, it likely would endanger the survivability of the
species.
The key to evolutionary jumps, from one species to a radically different species is
big. It occurred in smaller steps of course. But a few points to consider:
1) The mutation of the previous species it evolved from wasn’t due to survival
needs. The frog is doing just fine. And while they make cute stuffed
animals, they are far less pleasing in real life. Nonetheless, although they
may not survive a toad beauty contest, they are surely doing just fine in the
contest of nature’s survival. So why did we need to evolve into more
complexity? The only argument is that it wasn’t based on “need” rather,
but simply opportunity driven purely by random mutation. It has nothing
to do with natural selection and everything to do with pure random
mutation. We will get to the random mutation topic, as well as the idea of
natural selection in a later section.
But this means that the vehicle for mutation adoption among the species is
flawed. The model that beneficial mutations rapidly permeated the full
population is wrong and changes the entire dynamics of the theory of
Evolution, because frogs are doing just fine, millions of years later.
2) But the transition would pose serious survival risk, given the fundamental
change to the structure and architecture of the new species that had been
perfected over many generations, especially given that so many things
Page 284
would have to adapt to conform to the cold-blooded to warm-blooded
evolutionary progress. This compounds the improbability of it all - if
driven by random mutation only. As we will discuss, mutations occur on a
purely random basis, due to the rare copying errors of the DNA code.
Almost always, mutations are harmful, not beneficial (much more later).
And massive simultaneous mutations required for speciation is not
possible (more later).
3) Then on top of all that, entirely new organs must develop to adapt to this
new heart structure and warm blooded nature of the species. The
organism must now invent how to maintain body temperature to regulate
the processes in the body. New enzymes must be created. New proteins,
etc. The individual cells and DNA code must be able to suddenly know
how to synthesize all of these new complex compounds.
All of this is why I argue there is a huge difference between adaptation, driven by
natural selection, versus evolution of species. Adaptation is part of who are. Our
DNA code incorporates this through a mathematically defined and predictable
error rate. But evolution of species is dramatic and, if anything, would risk
extinction of the species, not help it. Adaptation helps, evolution hurts survival.
I will talk about natural selection versus evolution much more in a later section.
It’s very interesting. And we will discuss actual math and real probabilities of
such events.
One may wonder, what if species leapt to a completely different species by crossbreeding? This is far more likely than simply mutations if this were possible. The
problem is only closely related species can interbreed. For example, a mule is a
crossbreed between a donkey and a horse. The two species must share sufficient
genetic overlap. Beyond the similar family of species, the egg and the sperm
simply don’t recognize each other to create a new species. For instance, cats and
dogs, or humans and horses - not gonna happen. Thank God.
Mutations are random by definition. They occur seldom. In order for massive
structural changes to occur - for one species to evolve to another, even when only
in successive smaller incremental steps - multiple mutations on the order of
thousands or millions have to occur. This is numerically impossible. The
probability of one mutation being beneficial has to be coupled with a thousand or
million other exact mutations also being beneficial, and precisely in the areas of
DNA code necessary to comprehensively enable this new radically different
biological architecture. If anyone has any idea about math or how probabilities
Page 285
are calculated, I can assure you this is simply impossible. (More on this later.
We get to actually calculate it!)
We often use the cliché, “you can’t see the forest through the trees.”
What this means is that sometimes we get so bogged down by the little
details, that we lose sight of the big picture. In terms of the Theory of
Evolution, we’ve lost sight of how incredibly, shockingly,
unbelievably, mind-blowingly, heart-stoppingly complex biological
life truly is, as we blindly and diligently go about proving every detail
of the idea that this all happened in tiny little steps, “through the
trees.”
We use anecdotal data such as fossil records or observed similarities in DNA code
to postulate this is how all of it occurred, forgetting the ugly detail: it’s
mathematically impossible this is how it could have occurred.
Sometimes, when we step back and look from the air, and just marvel at the
beauty of the forest, we get a completely different perspective. One of basic
understanding and appreciation that all of the complexity below is 1) stunningly
beautiful and 2) too amazing to comprehend, and 3) that is was either a miracle
or not by pure accident.
But when we are among the trees, going about proving the idea that
one small step led to another, led to another; and some of the tiny
steps are achievable and believable, so the entire story has to be true!
We’ve completely lost sight of the big picture: The impossibility of the
end result, the most critical of all conclusions.
There are literally more than a trillion steps that must occur for the Theory of
Evolution to ring true. That is no exaggeration. The irony of our logic is that we
have concluded it did happen based on seeing perhaps a thousand little steps.
They seem reasonable. So then, based on the fact that “we are here; life does
exist,” so therefore, all the steps from step 1 to step 1,000,0000,001 must have
happened. We just haven’t had time to fully prove it yet.
To use another cliché, “The devil’s in the details.” In this case, it’s still
999,999,999,000 unproven potential devils to discover. And the
reality is, even just one of these details might invalidate the entire
theory - making it impossible for pure evolution to occur. We know
this to be true in our own life. When we go about planning something,
Page 286
seemingly everything is going great, and then suddenly - one small
detail - and everything falls apart. That’s the real world.
And actually, we have already found many details that already
invalidate this theory (they just brush it under the carpet and never
teach it in schools).
The devil could be something small or big: Maybe the fact that Earth’s
atmosphere was oxidizing, invalidating the possibility that the
complex carbon based compounds could have chemically form
randomly at all. Maybe it was the fact that we can’t recreate a
complete living cell - independently, from purely organic compounds
as nature had to do for first life to start. Maybe it’s that we will never
be able to figure out how the DNA or RNA blueprint instructions to
start and sustain life could have ever been created spontaneously.
Maybe it’s as simple as understanding the mechanism and rate of
mutations - too many mutations cause instability, too few make
evolution improbable. Maybe it’s that we will one day find an ideal
planet with the perfect conditions for life to spawn (after all
Evolutionism says given the right conditions it’s an inevitability), and
yet still find a barren world, devoid of any life (oh yeah, like Mars!).
Maybe, one day as technology progresses, we will discover that even
living cells possess intelligence and awareness, or some other
intangible. We already know they have some intelligence and
awareness, and ability to communicate with each other. Maybe...
The Marvel of our Amazing Human Brain
The human brain is, perhaps, the greatest achievement of nature and our
universe. And almost certainly the most complex living structure we’ve ever
discovered.
A typical adult human brain weighs about 1.5 kg (3 lbs). It is very soft like tofu.
While the brain is alive, it is pinkish-beige in color. It consists of white matter
and grey matter portions. The interior of the brain is white matter (literally offwhite color) and provides most of the brain's structure and communications. The
grey matter that surrounds the white matter provides most of the actual brain
functions that we typically come to think of: reasoning and logic, “thinking”, and
computational functions.
Page 287
Nearly 80% of the brain is water; sometimes when we drink, slightly less. LOL.
Now you know why hangovers are a bitch! (As I mentioned, I don’t know why I
never get hangovers. Perhaps this proves, conclusively, that I have no brain!)
The brain accounts for just 2% of an average adult body weight, but uses 20-25%
of the body's oxygen supply, nutrients, and glucose (as fuel). Amazing. This is
why we yawn when we are tired. We need to rush oxygen to the brain. I’ve
always found it curious that yawning is subconsciously contagious. When we see
someone else yawn, without even thinking about it, we immediately begin to
yawn ourselves!
A neuron or nerve cell is what we typically consider as the “brain cells”. Neurons
use electro-chemical signaling to communicate signals via the long synapses,
basically the electrical wires of our brain.
There are about 100 billion neuron brain cells. Unlike all other cells in our body
that constantly replicate and regenerate, neuron brain cells never divide or
replicate. Brain cells only divide during fetal development and a few months
after birth. Existing brain cells can increase in size until roughly age 18. When
they die, that’s it! Interesting huh? Think about it, if they replicated, our
memory would be corrupted or duplicated.
During our adolescent teenage years, through a process known as
“synaptic pruning”, the overall number of neurons and synapses are
reduced by up to 50%, removing unnecessary structures to allow them
to be replace by more complex neural structures as we enter
adulthood. No wonder adolescent teenagers are crazy! They’ve
literally lost half their brain! It’s also why we probably don’t recollect
our early childhood experiences as adults. Fascinating. I’m sure this
was due to natural selection (Sarcasm. LOL).
Each of the 100 billion neurons (in my case 50 billion) is capable of making 1,000
synaptic pathway combinations, which are connected to as many as 10,000 other
neurons, passing signals to each other through as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic
connections. This allows our memory to be at least 2.5 petabytes (or a million
gigabytes). I believe it is higher given the permutations of synaptic pathways
beyond the first order neurons, to reach different combinations of synaptic neural
pathways linking secondary and tertiary, and so on. It literally is virtually infinite
I believe – with the power of exponentials - trillions of synaptic pathways with
just 100 billion nodes. And the exhaustive permutations of synaptic pathway
Page 288
combinations are limitless. It truly is unlimited memory storage; an incredibly
complex memory and database storage algorithm.
The human eye has been calculated to be the equivalent of a 576 megapixel video
recorder that sends information to our brain, which stores everything throughout
our entire life. The brain is continuously filming and stores every bit of this
information. That’s high resolution!! Today’s 1080p High Definition (HD) video
is 2.1 megapixels. Hmmmm, close.
Most people believe that 60 frames per second is the limit of our brain. However,
cognitive tests of highly trained fighter pilots have shown that they can perceive
changes at 255 frames per second (fps), and perhaps as high as 300 fps.
A half hour of 1080p (2.1 megapixels) resolution video capture on my iPhone
results in gigabytes of data hogging all my storage! Imagine a lifetime of storage
at 576 megapixels and as high as 200-300 fps! Our brain has to employ some
type of compression technology algorithms to store differences between frames
only or partial images, perhaps. To record everything at that resolution and
frame rate is impossibly large. And that doesn’t include all the other information
our brains must process - basic bodily functions and nervous system
continuously, language, cognitive functions and reasoning, sensory perceptions
of all our inputs like sound, smell, touch, taste, in addition to sight, of course - all
real-time and stored forever. Plus it has to manage the information by some type
of association algorithm to link the sense of sight, sound, touch, smell and taste
into the whole of the experience. These are really sophisticated algorithms to
continuously manage the world’s largest database! Sorry Oracle and SAP.
All of this is incredible. But even more astounding considering the average adult
human brain only possesses 100 billion cells or neurons, interconnected by
trillions of synapses or “wires”! The architecture of this neural network mesh,
and its ability to learn and adapt and store immense data using complex
algorithms is unbelievable!
We never forget anything, even if we can’t readily recall it. Under hypnosis we
can recollect lost memories with great detail. Our subconscious remembers
everything.
By the way, given how the neural structure of the brain is designed, if you want to
remember something, increasing the number of neural associations with any
memory will surely work. For instance, if you want to remember a particular
experience, focus on the surroundings, the sounds, smells, the music, other
Page 289
people’s faces, events leading up to and following the experience; not just what
you saw or the conversation with one specific person. The more you can
associate everything around that experience with that individual, the more
synaptic pathways will develop and the greater your chance of recollection.
Just as a comparison to our brain, a typical memory storage device
like a DRAM or Flash memory card usually may have as much as 128
Gigabytes of information. If we compare 100 billion to 128 Gigabytes
(Giga means approximately one billion basically), it’s almost
identical. And yet, we can barely squeeze a small portion of my
useless data on the Flash storage.
But the brain can record
information for our entire lifetime!
It’s because it has better
algorithms than anything mankind has devised. Did all this just
happen because some organic molecules randomly combined? How
can anyone believe that?
One may be able to believe that matter could randomly form, but to
believe that this level of sophisticated technology and algorithms can
just randomly form is ridiculous! I worked 20 years in technology.
It’s hard shit to come up with - even with a brain!
The brain and the human body, hence each living cell, is far more
than simply molecules combined together to perform specific
chemical functions and reactions. The more we dig, the more we
realize there is an incredible underlying technology and functionality
behind it that could only come through very intelligent design:
Sophisticated algorithms only possible from extreme intelligence;
both Peer-to-peer and centralized network and communications
protocols and systems; compression techniques to manage data
through an unbelievable neural network mesh algorithm that humans
cannot understand; data retrieval algorithms to allow us to recollect
information.
None of this could possibly have come by accident. The brightest
mathematicians and engineers have spent lifetimes trying to come up
with different encoding, decoding schemes, efficient algorithms, and
video technology and compression systems. Sophisticated databases
manage the storage and retrieval of information in large servers or
supercomputers using complex software that costs millions of
dollars. And yet our brain can out do them all. By far! There’s
nothing random about it.
Page 290
Comparing our brain to mankind’s technology is like running a 100 meter dash in
the Olympics with Usain Bolt versus a paraplegic. (I know my jokes are really not
P.C.).
The human body and brain’s capabilities far exceed anything the brightest
humans have been able to invent or devise. It’s not an accident.
Chemicals may randomly combine in atmosphere, but sophisticated
algorithms and compression techniques don’t happen by random
combination; not without incredible intelligence behind it.
Our brains ability to manage information is so beautiful and amazing. We are
slowly starting to understand it more. Researchers have been able to trace brain
memory down to the structural, and even the molecular level in recent years.
They have found that memories are stored throughout many brain structures in
the connections between neurons, and can even depend on a single molecule for
their long-term stability. (Now I know why my memory is so bad! Alcohol
impaired - lose atom jarred by the alcohol dehydration in the brain!) But the
ability of the brain to differentiate and segment short term and long term
memory for faster retrieval - and constantly shuffling data between the two suggest the memory management system is shockingly complex and intelligent.
One day, in the near future (decades from now), I’m sure, man’s best and greatest
computers will be somewhat biological (nanotechnology) in nature. Using
complex organic compounds and atomic structures to store immense data and
information, and the concept of neural networks with unlimited combinations,
leveraging the power of exponential capabilities and memory storage, will
become a reality. They will no longer be pure digital. It’s inevitable. I’m sure.
Our digital systems are a joke in comparison to biological systems and our brain.
(I don’t think people comprehend just how fantastic the brain’s neural network
system is. It is just such an incredibly complex technology and algorithms. I
know, I’m repeating myself constantly, but seriously! Jesus! It REALLY takes
my breath away when I sit and think about what it’s doing for more than a few
minutes. And when I compare our typical computer digital memory and
processor bus systems to the neural network bus or mesh, it just makes me laugh.
It really is comical.)
It’s shocking to hear someone argue that these sophisticated algorithms and
techniques our brain uses were just happenstance, random evolution. They have
Page 291
never tried to invent any of this stuff to know how difficult it is, and how much
intelligence and thought is needed to make simple algorithms. These people have
no idea how difficult it is to design these things. And as any mathematician will
tell you, the numerical probability of such sophisticated algorithms being
developed by random chance is zero (if we removed the biological portion from
the discussion and framed it purely from a technical point of view). And not just
one or two, there are many sophisticated algorithms and techniques used by our
brain and body. It’s truly fascinating.
Let me share with you my theory on our brain and intelligence.
I believe the chemical compounds, such as polymers and amino acids
and so on, they are the biomechanical system. And the Theory of
Evolution is fixated on this portion - how it physically came to be.
Evolution will never be able to decipher the more important things
like intelligence and consciousness. I don’t believe these are part of
the DNA and molecular makeup of who we are. It doesn’t make sense
how all these random molecules can come together and suddenly we
have this immense intellect and brain power and awareness. And our
brain knows exactly how to operate something like a neural network
mesh of neurons and synapses. There’s a reason why we have infinite
memory capability - because spirituality doesn’t end after this life.
Even if one believes mechanically, the structures could come together
chemically, the intelligence of the body’s individual cells (to
communicate, etc), and brain functions are staggering, and far more
than just physical. As I mentioned, the molecular compounds didn’t
invent the intelligent algorithms for memory storage and
management, or video compression technology, or cognitive
reasoning, or abstract things like empathy and love. I believe these
are the spiritual components of who we are. And they truly are
separate from the physical embodiment.
Consider this, when we recollect a given experience, millions of
different neurons, scattered throughout the gray matter of our brain,
are simultaneously accessed through an incredibly complex mesh of
combinations of synaptic pathways. This algorithm is so intensely
sophisticated.
In computers, when we access memory, such as Flash or a hard drive (similar
permanent memory storage like our brain) or DRAM or SRAM (the latter two are
Page 292
what we call volatile memory, meaning they lose the memory content when
power is shut down), the computer looks up the information in a simple table. It
knows the precise addresses of all the relevant blocks of data. Sometimes the
data may be in noncontiguous blocks of memory addresses. It sequentially goes
to the first address and retrieves all the data until it reaches the end of the data
block. Then it goes to the next address, and so on. It’s a shockingly simple
algorithm. Our brain is so much more incredibly complex.
How does the brain know which memory locations (neurons) it needs
to access for each specific event? How does it know which of the
virtually unlimited combinations of synaptic combinations it must
simultaneously pulse? How does it know the sequence of memory
data it should recollect? And this is just for one event. Our brain
contains millions, perhaps billions, of memories and experiences.
How does it manage and shuffle short term and long term memory
into the different areas of the brain - like data archiving on a
computer.
These sophisticated algorithms are difficult to comprehend coming
together through random combinations of atoms and molecules, such
as our physical bodies did. Evolution may be possible for the physical
entity (I’m being agreeable only for arguments sake to make another
more significant point), but the intellectual side and consciousness,
coupled with the phenomenal algorithms it somehow “knows”, is
simply impossible through random atom combinations. I can’t
imagine how anyone who appreciates and truly understands
technology can say this just happened by chance.
The point of all of this is, having worked in high technology for 20
years in Silicon Valley, intensely complex yet elegant algorithms are
incredibly difficult to develop, even when you have the smartest
people in the world, who have dedicated their entire lives to such
tasks. And nobody has come up with anything that remotely comes
close to what our brains can do. How can this be the result of
something random? Or simply chemicals randomly coming together
to form bigger compounds and molecules? Sophisticated technology
always requires extreme intelligence to design.
Page 293
How can anyone truly, objectively believe it was due to some random
unexplainable collection of atoms that got prioritized by natural selection (as if
natural selection is aware and somehow intelligent)?
No, I believe this intellectual component of our being is overlaid on
top of our physical body, which is comprised of pure chemical
elements. This is why I believe in spirituality. Spirituality and
intellect and consciousness are the energy portion of our being and
overlays on top of the physical (read more in Chapter 11:
Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality).
Forget about spiritual stuff we can’t see or feel for a moment. If we extract
spirituality from this, isn’t the above idea a much more believable and sensible
idea than it just happened by random shuffling of matter? Now back to the
spiritual component. If we cannot logically or intellectually explain something despite all the scientific evidence - isn’t it reasonable to assume that there could
be more to our reality than what think or see/feel? (Read Chapter 11:
Consciousness and our Quantum Reality for the discussion on the science of
spirituality.) We may not know everything through science yet (or ever), but we
know enough today using mathematical calculations on the improbability of
randomness. And to me, this data is far more valuable than scientific evidence of
any kind.
Mathematics is timeless, and black and white. Science can often be
wrong and later disproven; although science tries to be objective, it is
by definition, subjective, given the nature of our being.
The Phenomenon of Mutations
It’s an interesting point of curiosity that the Theory of Evolution has somehow
made the idea of mutations a positive thing, popularized by Hollywood in Sci-Fi
films like X-Men, a story of superheroes who possess superhuman capabilities
brought about through the gift of random mutation.
In general, mutations are referred to as a blind effect, meaning random in nature,
with the overwhelming majority of mutations being harmful. They can cause
cancer or other diseases, and often be fatal. Some are benign, having no effect.
Page 294
And a very, very small percent end up being actually beneficial. The ones that are
beneficial tend to be marginally or mildly beneficial based on studies of actual
mutations in cells. Most commonly, a single nucleotide base is substituted for
another. Sometimes a base is deleted or an extra base is added. Fortunately, the
cell is able to repair most of these changes.
Most mutations are naturally occurring during replication. Recall that the
enzyme polymerase is responsible for copying human DNA. The body and each
cell makes mistakes copying the whopping 1.5 million page DNA book every
single time it replicates a human cell. Imagine running the Xerox machine to
copy 1.5 million pages every day in your office. And then having to do it millions
of times each day! You’d probably make a few mistakes too! (I recommend you
find another job.)
E. coli is a single celled bacteria commonly found in animals and humans (in your
butt or colon). All bacteria are categorized as prokaryotes, meaning they have no
protective membrane surrounding their cell nuclei. In other words, it’s one of the
more simple single celled organisms. E. coli has 4.1 million nucleotide base pairs
in their genetic code and 4,800 genes. So even the simplest of organisms are not
so simple!
Other single celled organisms, such as a supposedly “simple” amoeba has
shockingly long DNA molecules! For instance, the organism Amoeba dubia has
670 billion DNA sequences (obviously many of these are not needed)! Amoeba
proteus has 290 billion! Even the Bufo bufo frog, commonly known as the ugly
toad, has 6.9 billion DNA nucleotide sequences. The human only has 3 billion.
So when we talk about mutations of simple single celled organisms leading to
complex life, it’s not as simple as one may be inclined to believe! The random
probability of beneficial mutations occurring in the amoeba is actually smaller in
some respects than the chances of it occurring in humans, making early evolution
even more challenging (more on this later).
The measured mutation rate in E. coli bacterial cells is about 1
mistake in 109 (1 billion) nucleotide replications. One in a billion
chance of a mutation for E. coli.
Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome
mutation rate is estimated to be ~1.1×10−8 per base, over each 20 year generation.
[Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AF, et al. (April 2010). "Analysis of genetic inheritance in a family
quartet by whole-genome sequencing". Science 328 (5978): 636–9.]
Page 295
That’s not a whole lot. Since there are 3 billion base pairs and the mutation rate
is 11 per 1 billion nucleotides every 20 years. This means each 20 year
generation, we accumulate 33 uncorrected mutations that get passed to our
offspring. Given that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, the amount of
beneficial mutations in humans that get passed to the next generation is much
smaller. It would seem to take a while to see major changes occur through pure
evolution.
Virtually all mutations are either harmful or no effect. A mutation can be benign
or have no effect due to the error occurring in an unused section of DNA, or if the
mutation occurs in a protein coding region but does not end up affecting the
amino acid sequence of the actual protein.
During the process of replication, when a cell prepares to divide, the DNA helix
splits down the middle to becomes two single strands. These single strands serve
as templates for building two new double-stranded DNA molecules - each a
replica of the original DNA molecule. Given the unique pairing of the base pairs
of each nucleotide comprising every DNA rung or “letter” (rhymes with ladder!),
this allows for a built-in error correction scheme.
Earlier, we mentioned nucleotides always come in base pairs, but these pairs are
not the same nucleotides, but rather always seen as complementary pairs of A/T
and C/G. When an error is made during replication, a mistake can be made for
only one side of the helix. However, the protein knows exactly which pair the
newly formed nucleotide base should be. Therefore, if an error is found, the
chances of repairing and correcting this error are very high. This is an incredibly
ingenious way of building in error correction. The fact that the DNA comes as a
double helix pair that splits during replication, coupled with the fact that every
base pair is uniquely bonded to always the same, but different nucleotide, is
genius!
We use error correction in digital systems all the time when we transmit or
read/write data on computers or over networks. This type of design is clever and
shows a well thought out, but relatively simple implementation (at least on paper
- creating 3 billion new nucleotides and verifying the copy integrity of all the
atomic structures of 6 billion nucleotides is amazing. How it verifies all 6 billion
atoms we have no idea.).
Various enzymes act on the DNA to copy its stored information during the
process of replication. Comparison and error correction of the miscopied DNA
chains are performed by other proteins when mistakes happen. So most
Page 296
mutations never get noticed, as the cell and body covers up its mistakes and
everyone happily goes on about their merry business.
Mutations that occur in a cell that will become an egg or sperm will be passed
down to our children. This is why the older we get, especially in our 40s and 50s,
the chances of bearing children with defects or disease increases significantly,
such as Down syndrome. We’ve had a lifetime of potential errors and mutations
which can be passed down to our children. It’s commonly thought that only the
female’s eggs degrade with age, but even a male’s sperm can degenerate and will
also result in increased risk of Down syndrome and other diseases or
abnormalities. It’s common sense given at least 99% of mutations are not
helpful.
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to different chemicals or radiation.
These agents can cause the DNA to break down and increase mutations or cause
improper repair.
However, as far as beneficial mutations, the only ones that matter to large-scale
evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring - those in the specific
reproductive cells like eggs or sperm.
The study below (“The distribution of fitness effects caused by single-nucleotide
substitutions in an RNA virus”) used single-nucleotide substitutions in an RNA
virus to induce mutations. An RNA virus is simple and has only partial
comparison value to humans. The effects were observed and quantified as being
harmful, neutral or positive/beneficial. Fitness is a term scientists use to
measure the mutation’s impact on the organism. A fitness of 1 is neutral,
meaning having no effect. A fitness of 0 is really bad and likely fatal or
catastrophic. Most mutations fell under this category as you can see in the chart.
A very small percentage were slightly, but not significantly, beneficial (fitness was
slightly higher than 1.0). According to the study, fitness improved in just 1% for
random mutations, meaning they were marginally beneficial for just 1% of all
random mutations. No mutations were significantly beneficial. [Sanjuan R, Moya A,
Elena SF (2004). "The distribution of fitness effects caused by single-nucleotide substitutions in
an RNA virus". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 (22): 8396–401]
So in general, mutations are largely harmful to negative, with only a very small
percentage providing marginal benefit.
Page 297
We’re going to make use of this data and facts soon! Get that calculator out!!
Haldane's Dilemma
The famous evolutionary geneticist J.B.S. Haldane was one several founders of
the field of study known as population genetics. In a paper entitled the “Cost of
substitution” (cost of natural selection) in 1957, Haldane outlined several key
problems for evolutionary theory.
Haldane noted that one of the problems with natural selection is that
characteristics of a species which may be beneficial (positively correlated) to
survival in one period, may be a detriment to survival in another period
(negatively correlated to survival). So the simultaneous optimization of more
than one characteristic of a species is a problem in nature for slow breeding
animals (such as cows or humans):
“[i]n this paper I shall try to make quantitative the fairly obvious statement that
natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at
once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.” [p.511]
Page 298
The term "Haldane's Dilemma" was coined by palaeontologist Leigh Van Valen in
his 1963 paper "Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis". Van
Valen (cool name only because it sounds like Van Halen, the awesome 80s rock
band with the cool song “Hot for Teacher!”) wrote: “I like to think of it as a
dilemma for the population: for most organisms, rapid turnover in a few genes
precludes rapid turnover in the others. A corollary of this is that, if an
environmental change occurs that necessitates the rather rapid replacement of
several genes if a population is to survive, the population becomes extinct.”
[p.185]
I’m going to elaborate the mathematical implications of Haldane’s dilemma,
because it just seems too controversial and it seems to me to be based on just too
many assumptions. Each side has their own assumptions to make the point they
want.
What I will say is that clearly there is some limit to the rate of the number of
beneficial mutations which can be realized, and clearly slow breeding species
suffer from this more than fast breeding ones, such as the peppered moth
Haldane refers to. That’s just common sense.
And to Haldane’s point, multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations of genes is
challenging for nature. Based on Haldane’s paper, the problem with significant
mutations to generate a major new species spawning (such as the migration from
cold blooded to warm blooded organisms) is the number of simultaneous
mutations required. We will discuss this in more detail in the section “Natural
Selection and Evolution.”
Imagine, in the roughly 3.6 billion years since the first living cell
spontaneously occurred, we’ve supposedly evolved to the miracle of
humans. According to evolutionary theory, that would mean one
human DNA detail was defined, on average, about once every single
year! And of course, since the vast majority of mutations are bad and
harmful, this means we need a positive or beneficial gene mutation to
occur, on average, once per year. That’s a staggering number of
mutations. But getting one positive mutation per year is even more
challenging. All the math says it’s not possible. For instance, in
humans, our beneficial large-scale mutation rate is 0.0033 every 20
years, as we will calculate soon. This is far less than 20 every 20
years.
Page 299
Anyway, we will show why this large scale evolution is impossible, using math, in
the section “Natural Selection and Evolution.”
The Key Difference between Adaptation and Evolution
Adaptability of all living organisms is a foregone conclusion and our reality.
Animals, plants, all living creatures based on self-replicating living cells possess
the ability to adapt and change to a certain extent. It is a built-in part of our
survivability through the mathematically predictable mechanism of mutations.
Any good engineers knows that when designing any system - especially complex
systems - designing with margin and implementing some built in flexibility is
essential to having a workable solution. Any system that has no margin for error
(tolerance), or designed without any flexibility, will never last and would be
immediately rejected. They will fail 100% of the time. This concept is part of
every single sophisticated design in hardware technology, especially critical
systems like for military and space, which I think draws the closest similarity to
biological life from a design perspective. In military or space applications, failure
is catastrophic and not acceptable. Just as with biological life, failure would
destroy our survivability. So critical systems must have margin for error, and
have built-in design flexibility and adaptability. This is normal part of any
complex design!
The dangerous thing to do is to observe nature and witness the phenomenon of
adaptability in living things, and then draw far and wide extrapolated conclusions
that one organism can then evolve to become anything. This is a leap too far. We
will discuss why.
All systems have a band of operation. This is part of the design specification and
a tolerance, or robustness / margin for error. Every design must have an
inherent amount of flexibility or adaptability. We call this the survivability factor.
(Ok I made that phrase up. LOL)
Well nature and life is exactly the same. Each species and organism has - built
into its core DNA structure - a certain amount of flexibility or adaptability. For
instance, a bird may be able to change colors, grow longer or sharper beaks, and
slightly change size and shape. But it still fundamentally must remain a bird. It
operates within its predetermined DNA design guidelines.
Page 300
But the same mathematical phenomenon of mutations that allows
this limited flexibility/adaptability is the same mechanism that
prevents the leap to entirely different species. Isn’t that interesting?
It is designed to operate only within a range of acceptable operating
bands. I will mathematically show why shortly.
I surely have to think that if there is such a thing as a superior Intelligence,
He/She/It must surely be smarter than humans, and at least able to design
something better than we can. (Ok from here on out, I’m just gonna reference it
in the masculine form, not for any sexist reasons, but for simplicity!) Obviously,
if He exists, He is far more intelligent than us, by an inconceivable amount.
Surely, He’s not an idiot engineer who doesn’t know anything about designing
something.
Human beings have built in design margin or adaptability also. We can grow
bigger (I’m not referring to our adolescent growth spurt), get smaller over
generations if required (and also based on diet); we can change our skin color to
adapt to various sun exposure (on a permanent basis); we can grow bigger or
smaller feet over multiple generations depending on our repeated physical
activity patterns; our eyes and hearing and sense of smell can adapt and become
more acute when necessary; we can enlarge our lung capacity over generations;
we can become more tolerant to certain bacteria and viruses to fight diseases; and
much more. It is part of our 3 billion DNA letters that not only define what we
are and how we look, but also allows a certain amount of design flexibility. But
fundamentally, we will always be humans and we will look similar.
The mathematically predictable rate of mutation is slow enough that it allows this
build it adaptation. But because it is slow, it prevents more vigorous changes.
It’s interesting that mutations happen roughly once every one billion nucleotides
replications or so in most species. On top of this 99% of errors are corrected by
enzymes. It seems to be a calculated and specific number. Why 1 in a billion?
Proteins could, in theory, take longer to replicate DNA, and therefore possibly
reduce or maybe eliminate errors. But we must have some mutations or we will
never adapt to diseases and hence eventually go extinct. The specific double helix
nature and the pairing of specific nucleotides seems well designed for a specific
error rate. For God’s sakes, how did the double helix and pairing just happen?
It’s so specific and elegant of a design for it happen by random combination.
Anyway….
It’s readily tempting to connect various dots such as 1) we observe
adaptability in species, and 2) we have fossil records of old humanoid
Page 301
creatures. These are facts that no educated person can dispute.
Therefore, evolution logic says humans (and by extension all living
things) can evolve to become anything and fundamentally change
what we are.
This is at the core of Evolution. It takes disparate data points and then draws
very large extrapolations.
It far exceeds the notion of designed in flexibility, or adaptation of species to the
environment, to conclude that one species can transform over generations to
become something completely different. For instance, a fish can become a
reptile, and the reptile can become a bird, etc. Even with the presence of multiple
fossil records that show different types of species that demonstrates similar
structure, it is a leap too far. Spotty fossil records are far too inconclusive to draw
factual conclusions. (And by spotty, even thousands of fossil records don’t mean
anything.)
All this fossil data shows is that two different species that looked similar, both
existed at different points in time. That is it. We can assume they were linked
and evolved, but that’s not necessarily part of the scientific fact book, even if they
share similar DNA. Because all things share DNA overlap. And the same
argument of intelligent design can be based on the DNA code similarities.
Later we will get to the higher level discussion of our universe and the probability
of developing increasingly complex organisms. So we will get back to this later.
We know that all living things share a significant amount of DNA code overlap.
We share 96% DNA match to ape species such as chimpanzees. We are separate
by as little as only 4% (older estimates used 98-99%, which were proven incorrect
with full genome mapping)! Some of us seem to be separated by much less. LOL.
So it’s easy to allow ourselves to conclude, “Well, it all makes sense, point A, B,
and C, all point to support Evolution.” We can easily - I believe erroneously allow ourselves to be convinced that humans evolved from monkeys, and
monkeys from reptiles, and reptiles from simple water dwelling organisms.
Just stop and consider for a moment how monstrous of leaps these jumps are,
even despite points A/B/C all seemingly supporting such conclusions. As I said
early in the book, drawing huge extrapolations and leaps from very limited data
sets is very dangerous. If it were anything else besides the topic of evolution, we
wouldn’t dare do this in our lives with something so critical that could affect our
lives in a personal way. We would likely remain skeptical until we were
Page 302
convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt before making a life altering conclusion or
decision.
All humans share 100% DNA match for the 3 billion letters making up our
bodies. We all share the same genetic genes, but the sequence of these genes
make each of unique! We have 20,000 different genes. It’s the gene sequence
that makes us all so vastly different! Even if the DNA is identical.
Truth is, some say a tiny little stupid mouse also has 92% DNA overlap. 92% is
pretty significant if we use the same logic. But truth is, it depends how you
quantify this overlap as we will discuss below. So all these figures are misleading
to some degree.
It tells us that even though the common design scheme used throughout living
things is largely similar, the devil is in the details as we often say! A small
difference in DNA comparison can be a world of difference in living species
diversity! Even though the same DNA is shared, the sequence of genes is
critically different. Thank God!
The fact is that even the 96% overlap of human DNA to apes or
monkeys doesn’t mean as much as the number implies. Here’s why:
1) The human genome project we discussed earlier, to fully map out the
human DNA, concluded that our human genome is comprised of 3 billion
letters. Every single gene sequence was mapped out. It’s amazing. And
even though every human has the same genes (100% match), the sequence
of specific genes still creates significant differences.
Again, we all know the devils in the details. Small details can be a
mountain of difference. Even a single gene, or a few genes, can make a
huge difference potentially between species.
2) Secondly, the comparison of DNA match is somewhat misleading. Even
genetic scientists will tell you that. Below is a statement from neurologist
and professor at Yale, Steven Novella (“Chimp and Human DNA”
NeurologicaBlog.com, January 2015):
“For background, it is helpful to understand that there is no
completely objective way to come up with one number that
represents the percent similarity between the DNA of two
species. There are just too many different choices to make in
Page 303
terms of how to count similarity. For example, how do you
count chromosomal differences? Do you just compare the
sequences of genes in common? What about insertions, gene
duplications, and deletions? Do you line up sequences to their
best match and just count point mutations? Do you count noncoding segments?”
It is clearly a highly subjective exercise, with each side intent on
manipulating this genetic figure to promote their cherished theory.
Always be careful what you believe from people peddling data who have an
agenda - and I’m talking about both sides here!
The graphic on the left is a high level DNA
comparison of human vs ape species. A fully
mapped genome of the chimpanzee resulted
in an estimate of 96% overlap estimate with
humans. But like I said, it’s somewhat
subjective and impossible to directly
compare and quantify. Clearly you can see
some obvious differences.
The actual difference between Chimpanzees
and Humans is pretty significant, despite
what the somewhat misleading 96% figure
implies. But behind the numbers, 1.2% of the differences are single DNA
base pair substitutions (35 million differences), 40-45 million DNA bases
are present in humans that are missing in chimps, and additionally there
are about 40-45 bases that are in chimps and missing in humans. These
are “insertions” or “deletions”. So the total actual difference in DNA
between humans and chimps is really 120 million nucleotides (4%).
That’s a lot.
Imagine a book that contains 3 billion letters. For reference, this book,
which is about 500 pages, has nearly a million letters. So imagine a book
that is 3,000 times longer. In other words, a book which is more than
1,500,000 pages (1.5 million pages long or 3 billion characters). That’s a
hell of a long book. Now you wish you had War and Peace instead, huh?
Let’s assume there were two books of the exact same length. (Holy cow!
Two books of 1.5 million pages each?!!) One was written precisely by
someone who thought about what he wanted to write (poor guy had no
Page 304
life, literally, to be able to write 1.5 million pages). The second book had
the same letters, same length of pages, but the sequence of the letters was
changed randomly for 120 million of them - 30 million were randomly
changed and 90 million random letters were added or deleted. It may be
the same length of the book, but it has very different meaning. Nor could
you understand the story probably.
Remember, look how humans are so different. And we have 100% DNA
match! It’s because the sequencing of information contained in the genes
is slightly different for every single person, making each of us unique.
Now compound that with 120 million differences in the actual DNA
between humans and apes.
3) All living things share common biological code. Chimps may have the
most shared commonality to humans, but all things have significant
commonality.
Yeast, which is used to make bread and also the perpetrator that causes
havoc with women’s reproductive organs, has about 26% shared overlap of
DNA with humans. A grain of rice, the key to sushi and tasteless rice
crackers, shares about a quarter of the DNA coding to humans as well.
They can be considered our biological cousins if you will. Hell of a family
we have! I’m sure women hate their cousins periodically during yeast
infection time. (Sorry, inappropriate bad family humor for this section).
But yeast only has 12 million DNA letters, so of course it can’t compare
fully to the 3 billion humans have. So how do we compare that and
quantify the genetic differences?
The fact is, all living things share very similar life support systems. All
mammals have to breath, circulate blood, digest food, break it down and
convert that to energy, etc. All these processes are shared and therefore
are going to be similar.
Toyota doesn’t make each car completely separately to look radically
different from the next model. They share fundamental architectures and
very similar functions, with only minor differences between models. Just
as all motorcycles, cars, trucks, and buses share commonality of a typical
combustible engine system. They all have some radiator or air intake, or
some active liquid cooling; they all use cylinders in compression chambers
to affect pressure and utilize the spark and combustion of gasoline or fuel
Page 305
to expand, and thus create physical movement of gears and axles and
ultimately tires. Toyota wouldn't have completely different combustible
engine architecture for every car. They would all look fundamentally the
same. And the tires are made of similar materials and look nearly
identical. The suspension systems are based on similar mechanical
designs.
Similarly, when Hewlett-Packard makes a computer, they don’t reinvent
every single design and subcomponent. No, they leverage the same core
concept and architect for each model - from low end cheap computers, to
laptops, to high end desktops, to servers and even supercomputers. They
all employ a central processor (CPU doing similar things) - sometimes
multiple in parallel; they all contain memory to varying degrees; they all
have a graphics processor for the display; they all have some type of
shared bus system to transport data and information to/from the various
device chips; and they all have some type of data input device such as a
keyboard or mouse. And they all must have power, and a design to convert
and distribute that power to a format and level that each system block
requires.
When a company like Microsoft designs software, much of the subfunctions and actual code is shared. They use proven libraries of code to
implement many of the same functions because these are proven. Why
reinvent the wheel every time - even if you’re God? So, between different
software applications there are many shared common functions and code.
This is how well thought out designs are typically engineered.
The shared DNA commonality all living things share, including plants and
animals, points more strongly to a master design concept rather than
random creation. This is typical of designs that have many different
variations or flavors.
The design of all living things isn’t too dissimilar. It would seem
irrational and illogical, for one to assume that every single living
organism should be designed completely different! Even humans
wouldn’t ever do this!
If it was by design, it MUST share
commonality! The DNA should look similar to varying degrees in all
living things.
In fact, logic dictates that random probability would most likely result
in a varied and wide array of different architectures or structures for
Page 306
biological life. The fact that they retain one core fundamental
concept, sharing the same building blocks of code, suggests strongly
that it was by design.
Think about it, random probability, by definition, is random. It
means that all possibilities and outcomes are likely or possible. Why
would all life share one common ancestry if it was random, and life
should spontaneously be able to form almost anywhere using a
multitude of different organic compound combinations?
It’s
mathematically incomprehensible. If it was random evolution, life
should be more diverse, in the sense that it should be more than just
carbon based; it should be more than the same core DNA building
block; and all living things shouldn’t all just have one single ancestry.
That is the meaning of random.
By definition, this scenario is not random. And if it is not random,
then it must be by some type of design.
I have no idea how this logic got so twisted: That “sharedness” and
commonality is used to support the idea of something purely random.
And random is somehow required for something if it were actually
designed! What?? Talk about Bizarro World! No way!
The mathematical truth is, random does not imply shared ancestry.
Random should mean many different lineages of species evolution truly independent “tree trunks” that each spawned many independent
evolution paths or branches, based on the random combinations of
organic building blocks and sequences. Instead, all of life appears to
have spawned from one single celled organism of the same carbon
molecules. Random should mean there are many different design
types, using many different random combinations of the nearly
infinite possible permutations of organic and inorganic compounds
(non-carbon based). It’s random!
And intentional designed should be due to shared commonality!
Evolution logic is completely backwards and assensical.
I’ve said many times before that I don’t think the evolutionary data
points contradict Intelligent Design. If anything, I believe God or the
Intelligence, likely tinkered with his idea as all inventors do. A little
Page 307
experiment here; a little tinkering there. Let’s see what happens with
really huge animals - boom! Dinosaurs.
Let’s try some more
intelligent species - boom! Primates, monkeys, apes and primitive
man. Then He probably said, Jesus (I know, He wasn’t born yet),
these animals are hideous. Let’s make a better looking animal and
make him really smart. And let’s make a pair of them so they can
have amazing sex and procreate! Boom! And let’s make him the only
mammal without hair to make him look more sexy! Boom. Man. And
let’s make the most beautiful and elegant thing in the universe!
Boom!! Boom!! And there was beautiful woman! (One boom for each
amazing breast). Shit, every time I look at how amazingly beautiful a
woman is, I think, no fricking way was she by accident.
Then, He probably said, let’s make them spiritual too, and fill them with things
like love and empathy and selflessness that no other animal has. Man is special.
Just look around. Why is it we are without fur like every other living terrestrial
mammal? Survival would dictate that it would be easier if we had protective and
warming fur all over our bodies. Special things like all the muscles in our tongue
that allows us to precisely articulate the thoughts and feelings we have to others.
Why tear ducts? Our need to socialize and be spiritual is built into our being. We
possess an innate need to not just physically care for another as animals do, but
to truly desire to find someone for us to love.
Human beings are disadvantaged from a survival aspect relative to most other
large mammals. We are not as strong. We are not as fast. We are not as
ferocious. The only thing that puts humans at the top of the food chain is due to
our superior intellect, our sense of working together, and our ability to
communicate more precisely than other animals. Survivability should have made
us stronger and faster, not just more intelligent, since this had to be our ancestral
genetic predisposition.
Why is there such a vast gap between humans and all other animals?
Or that we can think philosophy and contemplate meaning, such as
this book. And that humans are the ones that can sacrifice themselves
and their lives to others, well beyond just their family. Our sense of
empathy and love extends well beyond our immediate family or clan.
This is shockingly significant and different to everything else. We
believe in philosophy and morality. We are the only ones. We are
inherently spiritual, while the rest of the animal kingdom is not. Is
this by accident?
Page 308
Natural Selection and Evolution
There are three concepts I want to discuss in this section:
1) Natural Selection doesn’t change the mathematical odds of the probability
calculus of evolution.
2) The discovery of the first bacteria that hasn’t mutated in 2 billion years.
3) Adaptation is worlds apart from Evolution (as also mentioned in the
previous section).
First, we always hear that the math or the impossibility of evolution doesn’t apply
because of natural selection weeding out the bad combinations.
I think it’s important to clearly point out the simple fact that natural
selection, or the idea that evolution happens in incremental stages,
does NOT change the mathematical calculus of evolutionary
probability. There are situations where it can actually hurt the
probability.
The fact that we can explain how things may have happened in smaller
incremental chunks - instead of starting with nothing, then boom! you have the
first living cell; or we start with amoebas and then boom! we have humans! - is
only useful for people to understand, logically, how it may have happened. It
doesn’t change the fundamental random probability.
Intellectually
understanding that something may be possible doesn’t change the math.
The theory is more fixated on convincing people it is true rather than
actually overcoming the severe limitations of the idea itself, and the
mathematical impossibility of it all (because they can’t). Dividing it
up into smaller chunks achieves this goal, but it doesn’t make it any
more mathematically probable it could occur.
As mentioned, the phenomenon of mutations is a predictable mathematical
reality. It is purely driven by randomness caused by the duplication error over
time.
Page 309
Let’s assume the E. coli bacteria we discussed earlier, went through a first
generation mutation and some of the organisms had one or two mutations. For
any given bacteria, the probability of mutation was 1 in 1 billion. Then nature
selected the fittest to survive. Each remaining bacteria now has an equal
probability of 1 in 1 billion for any mutation to occur again. But since we don’t
want the same mutation to change back to the original condition, the probability
is now slightly higher than 1 in 1 billion (1 less nucleotide option available). And
so we go on with each successive generation. The probability of any mutation
remains, 1 in about 1 billion. But the real probability progressive gets worse,
since we want only un-mutated nucleotides to be selected for mutation, leaving
fewer and fewer nucleotide options. In other words, the nucleotide mutations
must become more specific and therefore less probable.
In fact, in some ways, natural selection will hurt the probability of species
evolution, since some of the mutations that were unfit to survive, may actually be
required as part of a set of nucleotide changes, as opposed to a single nucleotide
change, which may - by itself - be harmful to the organism. Furthermore, natural
selection effectively works to reduce the population pool of organisms, reducing
the number of gross mutations every generation. At the end of the day gross
mutations matter, because the faster you can get to achieving all the finite
permutations of mutations for a given nucleotide set, the faster you can achieve
evolution speciation. One, or a few of these precise permutations, will be the
most fit and survivable organism definition.
So the phenomenon of mutations will always remain random by nature. And the
cumulative probability, multiplying each generation probabilities together,
results in the final comprehensive probability of mutation from species A to
species B. It will always be 1 chance in an astronomically large and unachievable
number.
We will calculate the exact probability of E. coli speciation in the following
sections. Get some tape because your eyes will pop out of your head when you
see how impossible the number is.
The second point, regarding the first discovery of bacteria that hasn’t mutated in
2 billion years is interesting. I decided to add this information after I had already
finished the book! The finding was published recently in February 2, 2015 in the
journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A specific sulfur
bacteria fossil was discovered wedged inside deep sea rocks off the coast of
Western Australia. It was determined to be 2 billion years old. The bacteria were
indistinguishable to the modern sulfur bacteria that live off the coast of Chile.
Page 310
In 2 billion years the bacteria has not evolved or changed.
When asked to explain how these bacteria could not evolve or change in 2 billion
years, given that mutations cannot be prevented, J. William Schopf, a
paleobiologist at UCLA, stated that it was due to the fact that their environment
hadn’t changed in 2 billion years. According to his remarks, Darwin's theory
doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so this is
consistent with the evolution theory. Huh?
Interesting.
The oceans are a giant interconnected pool. Changes have been occurring
relentlessly over the 2 billion years. If oceans change in one part of the globe, it
affects changes in other areas as well. It’s not like this is an isolated pond. (Even
then, one can’t definitely say it hasn’t changed in 2 billion years! Seriously, how
can anyone say that with a straight face and believe it?) How someone can make
sweeping proclamations that there have been no changes in the Pacific ocean or
the Indian ocean in the past 2 billion years is beyond me. How do we know that?
On the one hand, Evolutionists site numerous other species in similar locations
that have gone through speciation, and proclaim these are “irrefutable” evidence
of Darwinism in action. And yet, when faced with a conundrum, they simply
brush it off, saying: the same local environmental changes that propelled every
other species to supposedly evolve, didn’t apply to this one bacterium.
Interesting.
We will actually explain why speciation isn’t possible in a later section using
mathematics.
As I’ve said before, when we discover fossil records of species from different
points in history, all this can factually claim is that two different, but similar
species, lived at two different times. We can draw assumptions and say that since
they look similar, or share characteristics in some ways. They could be related or
may have evolved from one another, but this is merely postulation. It is not
definitive proof, and certainly not the high threshold of absolute proof true
objective science is supposed to be based on.
I’m not surprised by this recent discovery at all. I’m certain if scientists actually
spent more time finding and comparing fossilized species to actual modern day
Page 311
organisms, they would find many more such examples. I’m certain about this,
because it’s what mathematics tells us quite objectively and without ambiguity.
Now let’s get on to the third point, regarding the difference between adaptation
and evolution.
If I write a computer program, and let’s say it’s specifically configured to learn
and play the game of chess. When it starts playing it’s a bit weak. But gradually
it learns how to improve. The algorithm is specifically designed to continually
optimize its strategy. Eventually, it beats me. Consistently.
Using the analogy of natural selection and evolution, we notice that the program
was able to adapt and change. It got “smarter” as we would say. So we conclude
that given enough time, this computer can learn anything and even eventually
evolve to displace the human brain as the dominant intellectual power.
Here’s the fallacy of this argument. The computer program was
specifically designed to be a chess game. It can learn to be a better
chess program - that’s it - just as a bird was designed to be a bird. It’s
possible the chess computer program design could be modified to be
able to apply to more generic artificial intelligence applications.
That’s true. But this requires an external intelligence changing the
design, just as with biological life when a different species was
genetically engineered or designed. It cannot spontaneously decide
on its own to change to become a generic AI (artificial intelligence)
being. No matter if the world or its own computer program survival
required it.
The idea of natural selection is real. But it’s common sense. It isn’t a
revolutionary theory. It’s just common sense. Our world is filled with prey and
predators. Those that can survive the best will clearly have a better chance of
enduring. Duh! If two men are in the jungle and a lion is chasing them, the one
who can climb a tree or run faster will most likely survive. Unfortunately, he will
have to witness the tragic death of his friend. R.I.P. buddy.
However, survivability is not black and white. There are a million
shades of gray. And all of these less ideally fit species can survive too.
Our complex eco-system containing tens of millions of animals and
plants proves this. Evolutionists often use a simple and extreme
example of a black or white moth or bird to discuss natural selection
because these are simple and easy to grasp. White moths in a black
Page 312
forest will surely be eaten by their prey! But this is more of an
extreme example. Other survival scenarios and mutations are rarely
so clear cut when affecting survivability.
Furthermore, as we will discuss in a the next section “The Impossibility of InterSpecies Mutation”, these examples of moths or birds changing color for
adaptation are possible only because they are simple genetic changes involving
only one nucleotide. Every single modern day example of adaptation always
involves simple mutations of one or two nucleotides. This is why I argue in later
sections - using math - that adaptation is allowed by our design, but complex
changes to different species cannot happen.
Natural selection, coupled with built in adaptability, is real and allows species to
slightly adjust. Survivability is the key reason for the design of life being
implemented with a margin of error, as we discussed. I believe the fact we have
mutations is an intentional part of the design, part of this built in adaptability.
(But as I mentioned, also the same mechanism that prevents mutation to evolve
into a completely different species without the aid of external intelligence).
Mutations happen at a fairly fixed rate of frequency, called the duplication error
(ok, I made up that phrase too). One little nucleotide here. A little change there
- viola! I have a slightly longer nose so I can sense my predators earlier.
But what our mutation capability doesn’t readily allow is broad
simultaneous mutations that are required to have massive structural
changes of a species. When massive errors are made in our DNA,
either through external forces like radiation exposure or just a
retarded protein that got the copy really wrong, they are virtually
always fatal or catastrophic. Let me rephrase it: they are always fatal.
This is due on the fact that the probability of large scale combined
simultaneous beneficial mutations occurring randomly is impossible.
Hell, if mutations were good, none of us would ever wear sunscreen,
and we would have X-ray tanning beds or solariums. Everybody
would be clamoring to get into one of these beds. I wanna have claws
and regenerate like Wolverine in X-Men too!! Hell, I’d put one of
these X-ray machines in my own bed so women would want to come
spent the night with me more! Unfortunately, we would be dead a
year later, perhaps even by the morning.
Page 313
The reason why our built in mutation ability doesn’t allow massive structural
changes is simple math. Let’s calculate this.
The Impossibility of Inter-Species Mutations
A major structural change, such as an aquatic species like a fish going to a frog,
requires beneficial mutations on the order of millions of nucleotides. Even if this
happened over multiple generations it’s still mathematically problematic.
Let’s use a simple example. We will use the E. coli bacteria as our example. We
want to convert E. coli bacteria to a new species. Let’s call it “SuperE. coli” which
is multi-celled. (BTW, this would most likely require many more than just
100,000 nucleotide changes.) In order to have massive transformation, let’s
assume at least 100,000 specific nucleotide base sequences must be mutated
without being harmful. Harmless mutations will be ignored. Ultimately we need
to get 100,000 specific positive mutations and we assume only 1% of mutations
are beneficial for simple species, based on similar studies. Recall from earlier, E.
coli mutation rate is 1 every 1 billion nucleotide replications. E. coli has 4.1
million nucleotide base pairs, so there is one bacteria mutation every 244
generations (1 billion mutation rate divided by 4.1 million nucleotides). So,
assuming a 1% beneficial mutation ratio, E. coli has 1 beneficial mutation every
100 billion replications or 24,400 generations. E. coli replicates every 45
minutes, so let’s just round this to 1 hour for simplicity. So to summarize E. coli:
● E. coli splits to reproduce once every hour (1 hour = 1 generation)
● 4.1 million nucleotides, each with 1:100 billion chance of beneficial
mutation; which means 1 beneficial mutation every 24,400 generations
● 100,000 nucleotides out of 4.1 million must change
● Let’s assume the population of E. coli is 1 billion in the local community
(other isolated communities have no impact to this mutation analysis).
24,400 generations x 100,000 nucleotides = 2,440,000,000 or 2.44
billion (2.44 x 1010) generations needed to change at least 100,000
nucleotides beneficially. Assuming 1 hour per generation to
reproduce, and dividing by (24 x 365), results in 278,427 years. Not
bad. For one relatively simple change, for one species, it will 278
thousand years. In one billion years, you could achieve 3,592
similar types of these mutations (requiring 100,000 nucleotides).
Given that evolution requires a lot of different chances, that’s not a
Page 314
whole lot of chances. Only 3,592 chances in a billion years for
simple E. coli to become significantly better. The problem is, within
a billion years we would need much faster radical mutations for
evolution to occur as it has. Much faster. This is for the simplest of
organisms!
But there are a number of problems with the above calculations. It is wrong. I
intentionally miscalculated the 278,427 years figure using simple assumptions:
1) Since mutations are random, we could theoretically arbitrarily mutate
nucleotide #159 in one generation, and then mutate the same one again in
subsequent generations. In other words, in the above calculations we
looked at just gross beneficial mutations. As long as gross mutations were
100,000, we were done. But we need specific nucleotides to mutate, since
precise sequences are important, and not the same nucleotides mutating
multiple times.
2) We also assumed that each mutation is instantly spread to the entire
population of 1 billion bacteria. This is not possible. There is some
adoption time which depends on a number of factors:
a) How beneficial the mutation is to propel greater survivability
relative to the other normal bacteria. We will be gracious and
assume each mutation is so beneficial that only this mutated
bacteria survives. The others go extinct (this is the premise of
Natural Selection, no matter how silly it is. The other bacteria
would likely not all perish in reality). Given the rate of 1:100 billion
beneficial mutation rate, and the fact that a specific nucleotide
adoption must occur, it is improbable other bacteria will experience
the exact same nucleotide mutation. Other bacteria may have
different beneficial mutations, but since E. coli is asexual and selfreplicating it poses a problem. There is no way to cross breed. And
in the end we need one bacteria population with ALL of the
100,000 mutations. So ignoring the other un-mutated bacteria
does no harm to the calculation. It actually helps since there is no
competition for resources, allowing the new and improved bacteria
to expand in population as rapidly as theoretically possible,
doubling every hour in count.
b) How long it will take for the mutated bacteria to reach the full 1
billion population again? Assuming all 1 billion original normal or
Page 315
un-mutated bacteria have died, the mutated species will reach 1
billion bacteria within 230 generations, since it doubles every hour.
So 30 hours later, it reaches 1 billion (pretty incredible). So now,
we realize that between each successive mutation will take about 30
hours to reach population. We assume at 1 billion, the population is
in equilibrium and it cannot grow further. So, for 30 hours per
mutation and 100,000 mutations we need 3 million more hours for
replacement population time.
c) Now the population of 1 billion will need to mutate a second
nucleotide (not the same one). Of course, it can mutate long before
it reaches 1 billion in population, but since the odds are 1:100
billion, we assume it doesn’t (just for simple math). The same
bacteria with the original mutation must again mutate to finally
achieve the full 100,000 desire mutations.
So, each mutation will take 24,400 generations + 30 more generations for
population replacement. This means each mutation will actually take 24,430.
The additional regeneration time is negligible so let’s ignore it (we call it noise).
Now, keep in mind the actual mutations we want are specific, so to actually
calculate the mutation probability correctly, we will multiply the original 1 in 1
billion chance of any mutation, with 100,000 of the 4.1 million nucleotides we
want changed. So the proper probability is now (1 billion/4.1 million) for any
mutation, multiplied by 4.1 million/100,000 (since we are looking for 100,000
specific nucleotides out of the 4.1 million). The chance of mutation is really now 1
in 10,000. This is the probability for any one of the 100,000 nucleotides we must
change to be mutated during the first generation of mutation.
The second mutation will be similar, but now we must remove the one nucleotide
that is already mutated (since we don’t want to mutate it again): (1 billion/4.1
million) x (4.1 million) / 99,999 = 11,111 to 1. The 70,000th mutation will be
33,333 to 1. The 90,000th mutation will be 100,000 to 1. This is done for each of
the 100,000 mutations, each probability slightly different. The last mutation
probability will be the worst, since we need one last specific nucleotide):
(1 billion/4.1 million) x (4.1 million / 1) = 1x109
You will notice each successive mutation probability goes higher (gets worse or
more unlikely as there are fewer and fewer un-mutated nucleotides left).
Page 316
We must now multiply each of the individual probabilities for all 100,000
nucleotides since they are nearly independent events. The generic probability
formula for mutating 100,000 nucleotides, where the variable n is a value from 0
to 99,999 and represents the number of total mutations, the probability is 1
chance in:
(1 billion/4.1 million)100,000 x (4.1 million/(100,000-n))100,000
This results in more than 10400,000 (I would calculate the actual figure but my
Chromebook is a P.O.S and can’t do any complex math for formulas with
numbers this big. And besides it’s academic if it’s an even bigger number). This
is an impossible number. It’s basically infinity. The probability to get 100,000
specific mutations, coupled with a 1 in a billion chance of any mutation is
impossible in any sense. It’s infinitely longer than the universe has existed
(according to Big Bang). That’s only for 100,000 nucleotides. Most times for
speciation, you need millions or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of
mutations.
This is what happens when you are looking for specific sequences of multiple
nucleotide changes. It reduces the probability dramatically. But this is the
reality. Having 100,000 gross mutations means nothing. They could end up
being duplicates (effectively switching back to the original state), or they could be
in the wrong place. In the real world, specific nucleotides in specific locations
must be changed. The sequence matters; it’s absolutely critical in fact.
Recall the Powerball Lotto probability discussion in Chapter 2? For simply a
10+1 number lottery the odds were 2.1 trillion to one, using balls from 1 - 59.
Now imagine if these nucleotides were equivalent of the lottery, but instead there
are 100,000 numbers we must pick, and the range of the balls goes from 1 4,100,000 (4.1 million). If 10 numbers going from 1 to 59 resulted in 1 in 2
trillion chance, is it a surprise that 100,000 numbers going from 1 to 4.1 million
would be so much worse? A 10 number lotto is nearly impossible by anyone’s
standards. Imagine the probability of 100,000 numbers each number going up
to 4.1 million. It’s impossible even if you had infinite time. Ridiculous.
The fact is, when an organism wants to go to something completely different
through random mutation it must change not only one specific nucleotide at a
time, it must change multiple simultaneously.
This is because some
characteristics are defined in sets of nucleotides - like a gene. And for some
characteristics, just changing one nucleotide will likely make the mutation
harmful and the species unable to survive. So, for instance, if you needed
Page 317
100,000 total mutations to go from E. coli to SuperE. coli, let’s say you would
need multiple generational mutations involving simultaneous changes. For
instance generation 1 may need 20 nucleotide changes. Generation 2 may need
50 nucleotide changes, and generation x may need 100 simultaneous changes.
Evolutionists assume you can just toggle one or two at a time and eventually get
to 100,000 total and the job is done. Most likely, all, if not all of those species
would perish. And for some mutations, not changing multiple nucleotides in
sequences simultaneous, all the mutated organisms would perish. This is the
reason we have never seen even a single simple organism like a bacteria, evolve to
something completely different. Given how fast bacteria can multiply, the
chances that over years, we should almost surely have seen some evolution if the
theory is to hold true. For God’s sake, a single bacteria can multiply to one billion
in less than 22.5 hours (45 minutes per doubling). We should see complex
mutations left and right according to evolution! The fact we don’t indicates the
math is surely correct. Sure, viruses and bacteria can slightly evolve to become a
slightly different strain. But these changes are tiny and likely only involved one
or a few mutations.
The chance of just 5 simultaneous beneficial mutations, out of 4.1
million nucleotide bases in E. coli occurring in a specific sequence is
impossible (for instance, to change a simple part of one gene). The
math
says
you
have
about
1
chance
in
100,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is 1 chance out of 100,000
trillion. This would take 11,415,525,114,155,300 years or 11.4 trillion
years; just to mutate 5 simultaneous nucleotides (assuming
replications every hour).
Barely 5 simultaneous mutations for a species with only 4.1 million
nucleotides!
The universe is only 13,800,000,000 years old (13.8 billion).
For evolution to occur, as the theory holds, it is impossible it could
have happened by changing only one or two nucleotides at a time per
generation. Therefore, the entire theory is mathematically invalid. If
any other scientific theory showed this mathematical improbability,
NO scientist in the world would ever believe it or accept it as scientific
truth.
But since this is a religious philosophy of how life started, people
choose to believe no matter what - FAITH. The facade of the theory
Page 318
being backed by science and proven fact is completely bullshit (for all
the various scientific evidence I discussed, as well as the fact it’s
mathematically impossible).
The mathematical truth is that numbers - which do not, cannot lie tells us that there is an intelligence somewhere in this universe,
beyond humans. It is an absolute certainty. I call this my notion of
God.
By the way, if we exit this example of requiring 100,000 nucleotides to
be mutated and just look at raw probability of just 5 beneficial
simultaneous mutations - anywhere in the DNA, and not necessarily
in specific locations, the probability would therefore be 244 5 which
equals:
1 chance in 864,866,612,224 or 1 chance in or 864.9 billion
Even only 3 simultaneous beneficial mutations would require:
1 chance in 14,526,784 or 1 chance in 14.5 million
So you see why having more than a few simultaneous beneficial
mutations is impossible.
That’s mathematical truth. That is the reality. This is why we still
haven’t seen simple bacteria like E. coli mutate to anything other than
a simple different strain of E. coli (one or a few nucleotides only). It’s
impossible for random mutation to drive radical change to another
species. Like I said, the same mechanism that allows us to adapt
(small changes) is the mechanism that prevents speciation - the
process of one species transforming to another completely different
species. It CANNOT happen by mere random chance. The ONLY way
it is possible is by intentional design - genetic engineering. That is the
pure, objective truth.
Forget what Evolutionists say. It’s complete bullshit. It’s a 100%
certainty (ok 99.99999999999999999……..9%). There is zero chance.
Especially considering the probability above is just one of the tiniest
steps in the entire chain of evolution. The entire theory being true
would require multiplying each of the individual step probabilities
together. To get to where we are today, the probability is 1 chance in
Page 319
infinity. I could type zeros from now until the next billion years and
still not have enough zeros behind the number I need.
One has to appreciate mathematics to truly marvel at how incredible
this design of life truly is with regard to mutations.
It is
mathematically elegant and perfect. The structure of biological cells
allows a mutation rate of about 1 per billion. It’s predictable. It’s low
enough that small evolutionary changes are possible to allow things to
adapt for survival; but too high to prevent multiple changes from
happening to prevent species leaping to create an entirely new
species.
In others, it’s designed to operate within a band of
operations as I mentioned previously. It’s a beautiful design.
The structure of DNA, and the all the enzymes responsible for the
copy and error correction of DNA replication functions, were
constructed to precisely have an error rate dictated mathematically
by the architecture of the DNA itself, as well as the rapidity of the
enzyme duplication and verification processes which drives error
rates to a specific design target. Think about it, a bunch of random
atoms coming together, being able to verify billions of very complex
atomic structures and then make corrections - how anyone can
believe that happened randomly - especially given the knowledge of
mathematical truth and reality is beyond me.
Really ponder what this is truly doing - a simple single cell. It is
building an object (an organic one) atom by atom - just like our
nanotechnology is trying to do - but doing it better and cheaper and
more efficiently. How can anyone not just simply be amazed? When I
sit and think about what had to go into this design and the thought
process, it just makes me have a whole different level of respect for
whoever did this. It’s truly breathtaking.
Let me share my perspective on why natural selection being responsible for
evolution cannot be true, and the reason why the mutation rate was precisely
defined:
1) If the mutation rate is too low (infrequent) all life goes extinct. Diseases
and changes in environment could not be absorbed by living organisms.
2) If it was too high, and it was easy for mutations to happen and species
could leap from one to another, it would actually create chaos in the
Page 320
ecosystem. First, living things would also find it difficult to survive and
sustain themselves since most mutations are harmful. Second, it would
create species instability which would threaten the very existence of the
species due to too rapid of mutations. Keep in mind, if the rate is high,
then every organism will have multiple mutations (many). And even if the
organism had some beneficial mutations, it would still die because it
would also have harmful ones (100 times more likely).
3) And third, random mutations should result in a statistical normal
distribution curve of species variation. Today, what we observe is
quantization, not broad random normal distribution. Look at mammals.
For instance, from apes to humans. What random mutations should show
is thousands or perhaps millions of species variations between apes and
humans. It is mathematically inconceivable that every single different
permutation was not fit to survive. And this normal distribution should
apply to every single species in our world. In other words, random
mutations, should in theory, drive billions or trillions of different species,
all surviving just fine - not tens of millions. Yes, trillions of other species
should have survived. Instead what we have is just apes and humans, and
nothing in between. In the grand scheme of things, there aren’t too many
mammal species. Random always drives normal and continuous bellshaped distribution curves! Even with natural selection! Because survival
is not black and white, and natural selection itself is a product of random
behavior in nature. (Before there was basic intelligence of living
organisms, it had to be purely random.) Two random things, cannot
create a non-random product! It’s simple logic and reality.
Now consider that simple organisms have a distinct mutation advantage for the
following reasons. It is much easier for them to realize beneficial mutations and
to incorporate that into the population of the species faster:
1) Simple organisms, like bacteria or other single celled organisms, have
huge population potential. Bacteria can be billions or trillions in
population for a given small area. Complex organisms have lower
populations, typically proportional to their size/complexity. For instance,
there are tons of bacteria and viruses, but less insects and bugs, even less
fish, even less reptiles and mammals. This is true throughout our
universe. There are many atoms, less molecules, less objects such as
asteroids, fewer planets, and still fewer stars. Complexity (even for a
metric of mass only) leads to lower populations.
Page 321
2) Simple organisms have the ability for faster reproduction or replication.
Bacteria can divide very quickly. One cell can divide to reach a trillion in
population in less than 40 hours! Complex animals suffer from slow
reproduction cycles for two facts: time to reproductive age and longer
gestation periods.
3) Simple organisms, by and large, have less complex genetic code (not
always as we have seen with certain amoebas!). This lends to easier
mutation and change. Obviously, the more complex an organism grows to,
more genetic code is required to define each structure and function. This
means more simultaneous mutations are required to achieve radical
species change. So while certain amoeba may have billions more than
humans, it’s likely mostly random junk, where most mutations are benign
and have no effect.
4) Simple organisms should be able to survive better than complex animals.
It’s partly due to their fast reproduction cycles, but also due to the simpler
genetic code. It’s the reason why viruses, bacteria, and amoebae are the
oldest living creatures. They are hardened and can survive anything. A
simpler complex organism like cockroaches can survive anything it seems.
Complexity breeds potential for something to go wrong. A complex piece
of software is much more likely to crash. A complex mechanical system
with lots of moving parts is much more likely to break down. Fact is, nonintelligent living organisms far outnumber intelligent mammals. And
many intelligent mammals have gone extinct. So the argument that
intelligence is the ultimate survival weapon is somewhat flawed.
Even humans are one of the newest species, and too early to know for sure
if our extreme intelligence will allow us to survive for billions of years. The
way we’re going, maybe not. We seem intent on self-destruction. And our
path of technology is leading us to places that may likely threaten our
survival.
This is the law of diminishing returns; the same as what we face every
day in our real world. The larger or more complex something gets,
evolution and change, or the rate of change, slows considerably. This
is true in economics; this is true in the physical universe (particles
and light can move faster than large objects), and this is true in the
biological world as well. Complexity and size, creates laws of
diminishing returns, reducing the rate of mutational change.
Page 322
These are important facts. And when one looks at the history of the evolution of
species, we notice that the early period was marked by a relative slow and low
level of complexity. Then in much more recent times, complexity began to
explode exponentially and did so in shorter timeframes, relative to the early
periods with simple organisms. This is counter to what mathematics would tell
us. This is also impossible. The law of diminishing returns should apply. The
early periods should have been faster. Then evolution rapidity should necessarily
slow down as species became more complex. Take a look at the rough history of
the evolution of species in the chart below:
The Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. First life started 3.6 to
3.8 billion years ago. For the first 3 billion years, there was nothing
complex. Then suddenly, during the Cambrian explosion, we begin to
see complex species flourish; about 300 - 500 million years ago, we
finally things like fish and insects and more diversity. Then we had
the poor mishap with the dinosaurs. R.I.P. big fellas. Then finally
mammals barely formed 160 million years ago! And primates (apes,
chimps) only began 10 million years ago. Man diverged from apes
starting barely 5-7 million years ago (again, it’s not 10-13 million as
previously thought by scientist).
Page 323
This is completely counter to the fact that the rate of evolution should
decrease in rapidity, not increase in speed, as species became more
complex.
The evolution of life is completely contradictory to what mathematics says is
possible in every single regard. It should be the other way around, where simple
organisms had a very brief period, and then billions of years ago, things began to
rapidly diverge. This chart, which is fairly representative of evolution timeline, is
somewhat based in fossil and geological records. But it cannot have happened
mathematically if it was purely driven by random order. We will discuss why in
the coming section.
Evolving Humans
People always point to examples of human evolution. For example, some people
have sickle cell anemia (such as Africans) while others do not have it. But this is
just one single nucleotide base pair! It’s a simple mutation. Our DNA has 3
billion nucleotide base pairs. There are roughly 30,000 base pairs in a single
gene. One base pair controls sickle cell anemia within a gene. It’s a very simple
mutation. So, of course, it’s possible within the mechanism of mutations.
But for one species to change to a completely different one requires multiple
simultaneous changes, as we discussed in the previous section.
By the way, the overall error rate of polymerase, which is the enzyme responsible
for copying DNA, is 10-8 mistakes per nucleotide base pair. However, different
enzymes fix 99% of these errors. So the overall error rate of DNA replication is
10-10 per base pair in humans. That means one mutation in every 10 billion base
pairs that are replicated.
Everyone knows that apes, particularly chimpanzees, are our closest relative and
presumed to be our long lost ancestors. For an ape to become a human requires
millions of mutations, even with only a 4% DNA mismatch (again, after full
mapping was done, it was recently shown to be 96% DNA match, not the 98-99%
previously always touted by Evolutionists) [Steven Novella (“Chimp and Human DNA”
NeurologicaBlog.com, January 2015)].
Page 324
Multiply 3 billion nucleotide base pairs in all humans by 4% and the result is 120
million. (Creationists argue the differences are as low as 70-80% instead of 96%,
but I’m not even going to go there.)
The most detailed genome study found that the divergence of apes, specifically
chimpanzees, and humans began 5 to 7 million years ago, not as many as 10 to 13
million years ago as many evolutionists thought. Let’s be conservative and go
with 7 million years. [“When Humans and Chimps Split”, live science, December 19,2005;
original research publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 19,
2005.]
In the previous section, “The Phenomenon of Mutations”, we discussed that
humans have about 33 mutations per 20 years on average, based on actual
genetic studies. Of these 33, only the ones that affect reproductive cells matter to
large scale evolution (meaning, affecting the full population of species
eventually). Let’s assume 1% of human cells are reproductive cells (likely way too
high and quite a conservative assumption). Since mutations are considered blind
events and occurring randomly, the likelihood of a reproductive cell mutating in a
human is 1% multiplied by 33 mutations per 20 years. This is 0.33 reproductive
mutations every 20 years. Again, let’s assume 1% of mutations are slightly
beneficial based on the previous study (it’s actually much lower on the order of 1
out of 1,000 are beneficial). This means that 0.0033 mutations every 20 years
are beneficial mutations occurring in the reproductive cells that will affect large
scale evolution.
Let’s use these facts and assumptions in our calculations:
● Recall in the previous section we noted that human genome analysis
showed the human mutation rate was estimated to be 1.1×10−8 per base,
over each 20 year generation. We will assume the same is true of apes.
● Let’s assume the ape population has 100,000 little chimps (ok, they’re not
so little). I will further assume that the population is static, given that
when a species begins to diverge through natural selection, it is reasonable
to assume the species have existed for a while and therefore has reached
equilibrium with the eco-system. In nature, animals and species
population is dictated by the eco-system - the amount of food, predators,
diseases, etc. And they typical reach equilibrium after many years of
existence. In fact, today’s population of apes is about 100,000 as well, so I
think it’s reasonable. (Humans are the only creature whose population is
not limited or restrained by their ecosystem, because we have agriculture
Page 325
and technology. And unfortunately we consume everything at the expense
of all other living creatures.)
● The divergence period is 7 million years, divided into 20 year generational
chunks. So 350,000 generations of 20 years each.
● Total ape population, combined over the entire 7 million year period, is
100,000 x 350,000 which equals 35 billion apes.
● Let’s assume both apes and humans have 3 billion DNA letters or
nucleotide base pairs (it’s actually close).
The probability of apes transitioning to humans within 7 million years by
realizing the full 120 million mutations is (again this will just be a gross count of
mutations, not specific ones):
0.033 reproductive beneficial mutations/20 yrs) x (100,000 apes / 20 yrs)
= 330 mutations per generation
Now let’s see how long that would take to achieve 120 million gross mutations:
120 million / 330 = 363,636.36 generations, equals 7.2 million years
Wow, that’s perfect! The divergent gap between apes and humans was 7.2
million and viola! We came to the same number. What a “coinkidink”!! (Makes
you wonder if some idiot who flunked basic math came to estimation of 7 million
years when apes started to evolve using this formula above.)
The Evolution cheering section is screaming, “I told you so idiot!!”
prevails! Yeah!!
Math
Hold on. The calculation above was for entertainment value only.
completely useless calculation. Let me explain.
It’s a
First, the gross figure of 120 million mutations achieved in 7.2 million years is
completely useless. It assumes that every single beneficial mutation was perfectly
what was required to evolve apes to humans. There was zero margin for error.
Obviously this doesn’t happen in our real world 120 million times in a row! What
do I mean?
Page 326
Well, imagine you had to flip a coin and this coin didn’t just have two side (heads
or tails), but it had 3 billion sides and possible outcomes. So instead of 50-50
chance, you actually have 1 in 3 billion chance of flipping the coin and getting the
result you wanted. Now imagine flipping this coin 120 million times in a row.
And somehow, you got the exact different outcome that you wanted on every
single try! (Wow, you must be God! The Evolution crowd jeers “Booooo”!) Hell,
even a stupid primate - like our lowly ape or chimpanzee - knows that’s not
fricking possible! Well, that’s exactly what the calculation above shows
mathematically. Like I said, it’s not useful and completely the wrong way to
calculate probability in this way. (The Evolution crowd goes hush…..filled with
tearful anticipation...)
The point is, as with our E. coli example, it’s not the gross mutations that matter.
Hell, some could be duplicates. Others could be in the completely wrong area of
DNA code. It’s the specific DNA nucleotide locations that matters. So again, we
must calculate the probability of all specific 120 million locations. But this time,
we need to calculate it a little differently because apes are not asexual like
bacteria, so it complicates the mutation possibilities significantly. When two apes
mate, the outcome is the combined DNA of the two parents, including their
mutations.
Second, we don’t factor in the rate of adoption of the beneficial mutations. Apes
breed slowly like humans. For one ape to pass on this mutation to all others
(again I’m being kind by assuming all the other “inferior” un-mutated apes
eventually died), it would required 17 generations, assuming each male/female
had 4 offspring every 20 years. This is an extra 340 years to reach full population
for every mutation! This would require 40.8 billion years. Or we could assume
the one mutated ape (let’s hope it was a male) bred with every single female ape
to regenerate the population faster. (Wow! What a super ape. This must’ve been
the first real stud in the mammal gene pool!) In this case the fastest regeneration
could occur in 2 generations, assuming optimal everything (like the mutation
passed onto every baby ape, no deaths, etc - ape utopia). So this would required
just 40 years (I think 20 years is not realistic even for ape utopia), multiplied
times 120 million mutations, which is now only 4.8 billion years to account for
population regeneration of apes with this mutation.
So the only viable way would be with multiple simultaneous mutations every
generation, and using the power of breeding to exponentially increase mutations,
right?
Page 327
Ok, let’s assume that multiple apes all suddenly had 10 beneficial mutations each
(recall earlier I showed just 5 simultaneous mutations is an impossibility), and
that they were all perfectly what the eventual human beings needed to be what we
became. And we assume (I’m so generous to evolution theory with these
assumptions) that every generation, each male and female passed on these 20
mutations perfectly, plus adding 10 more new ones. So I derived the formula for
the number of mutations, where R=rate of beneficial mutations (10 per
generation), and g is the number of generations required. We know the number
of mutations needed is 1.2 million:
number of mutations = R( 2g-1)
If we assume every ape has 10 beneficial mutations and when two apes breed, it
passes both of the 20 mutations perfectly to the offspring (again, I’m generous
with the assumptions), plus an additional 10 mutations occur since it’s a new
generation. Every generation, the number of passed mutations increases
exponentially, plus 10 more. In only 24 generations we will have more than 120
million beneficial mutations in the population of apes. Pretty impressive. This is
an ideal model since we assume every positive parent mutation gets passed to the
child and there are no duplicates.
The problem is, these 120 million mutations are not necessarily the right ones.
They are almost certainly the completely wrong mix of nucleotides to create a
human.
So, in order to do this the absolute correct way, we must calculate the number of
permutations, meaning how many different outcomes there are with different
combinations of the 120 million mutations out of the 3 billion nucleotides.
Permutations are required given the exact sequence of nucleotides matters. If
sequence or order didn’t matter, we would use all the different combinations,
which would be a lot lower. Given the random nature of mutations, we must look
at permutations only.
The generic formula to calculate permutations, where m=mutations required and
n=total DNA nucleotides, is below:
P(m,n) = n! / (n-m)!
Well, I tried to calculate the figure, but the number was simply too big for my sad
Chromebook laptop to handle. (It returned error. And all other website
calculators returned “infinity”!) So instead of using the real 120 million
Page 328
mutations, I had to lower the number by 100X and instead used 1.2 million...and
then made an extrapolated estimate for the full 120 million. The result was:
P(mutations, nucleotides) = 1.82x1011,372,441 [only for 1.2 million]
= 1.0x101,137,000,000
[extrapolated est. for 120 million]
This means there are a shitload of different permutations of all the mutations
that can occur. It shouldn’t be a surprise it’s so big given the numbers we’re
dealing with. Now, through random order, we must find the one perfect
permutation that matches all the human DNA. Basically, it would take infinite
time to reach all these permutations to find the perfect match.
So, I guess there is no point to actually calculate the probability of hitting one of
these permutations because it’s impossibly big, huh? What the hell, let’s do it!
To have a probability of close to 1, meaning likely occurring, we would need to
have as many ape mutation variations as permutations. But we only have 35
billion variations, since each ape has a unique DNA set. Let’s calculate the
probability of having the precisely correct nucleotide sequence using the
estimated extrapolated permutations figure for 120 million:
Probability: 1 in (35 billion DNA combinations) / 1.0x101,137,000,000
Probability ≊ 10-1,136,999,990
Given this number is far less than 1, basically zero, it means the probability is
zero. This is called infinitesimally small, or infinitely approaching zero as we say.
This is the probability, based on all 35 billion cumulative apes who will have lived
during this 7 million year period, of being able to realize the 120 million different
mutations required in specific order to become a human. It’s zero chance. There
will only be 35 billion different ape DNA combinations during this time, far short
of the infinite number required.
Even if we adjust the cumulative ape population for mortality rates, it’s laughably
not close. If we assume a 50% mortality rate, the total is only 70 billion apes and
DNA combinations. The only way apes could become humans through random
mutations is if there were virtually infinite number of apes running around.
Well I hope that settles that.
Page 329
Here is the fallacy of the argument when Evolutionists argue that it happened one
or a few mutations at a time and assume natural selection weeded out the nonperfect DNA combinations that did not result in humans. It doesn’t make it any
more likely:
1) First, we should note that the chance of 4 simultaneous beneficial
mutations in a 20 year generation is 835,000 to 1. So it’s unlikely more
than 3 would have occurred, certainly not frequently.
2) Of the 35 billion different DNA combinations of apes, this assumes the
DNA combinations that did not perfect match human DNA all perished.
After all, we are only left with apes and humans, nothing in between today.
Strangely. Basically, evolution states that anything that was modestly
different than the original ape species all went extinct. But they couldn’t
have gone extinct right away. They had to survive long enough (thousands
of years likely) that they procreated more baby chimps to further the
mutations progress toward human like form. And this had to happen for
millions of permutations of apes. But yet, all these “other” permutations
all went extinct? Leaving only the original and final end result, humans.
That logic doesn’t make ANY sense. It isn’t mathematically likely.
The mutation permutations that successively allowed apes to get closer
and closer to human form would’ve been more evolved than apes, and
hence better suited to survive. But natural selection and evolution states,
no. It argues, all the interim species had to go extinct, but not until they
could survive long enough to further evolution. So the argument is:
evolution resulted in mutations that evolved apes to something slightly
different, closer to human form. These mutated apes (millions of different
types), survived long enough to procreate until further progress was made
toward human form. Once this incremental progress was made, the
interim species somehow ALL went extinct. And then repeat for each of
the millions of mutated species.
How is that even possible? Each mutation supposedly inched apes closer
toward human form, perhaps a bigger brain, whatever. This would imply
they were more evolved than apes and better suited to survive than apes.
But somehow when humans came, all the other species went extinct. But
somehow the original ape species was preserved - even though the millions
of different mutated species were more evolved than apes and likely better
suited to survive. Huh?? How can only the beginning and ending species
Page 330
survive, but all the millions of interim species all go extinct? What’s the
probability of that? Zero!!!! It is such a silly argument of natural
selection.
3) Even using an ideal natural selection model, we must remember there are
only 35 billion different combinations of apes over this entire period. It’s
not nearly enough random tries to have a reasonable chance to get the
precise 120 million different combinations needed. Let’s factor in a 50%
mortality rate. So then we get 70 billion ape DNA chances to roll the dice
to try to get human DNA. It doesn’t matter if this happened in small
evolutionary chunks, with each successive generation. The total absolute
number is still only 70 billion tries and couldn’t possibly be enough.
This is the mathematical challenge of randomness, even with natural
selection theory applied. The definition of random means any possible
combinations are possible.
And natural selection says the weak
combinations will perish. But regardless, even if there are only 70 billion
apes over 7 million years, you still could never get to humans. No fucking
way. Mathematically impossible. Even if you had trillions of apes it
wouldn’t happen. Keep in mind, natural selection only filters out weak
genetic combinations; it does not change the randomness of the
subsequent surviving mutation mechanism.
4) Even if you argue that some of the changes in human DNA relative to apes
are not needed (no impact), these mutations still had to happen, because it
is fact that these nucleotides are different. Regardless of the impact of the
mutation. It doesn’t change the math.
5) Some will try to argue the ape population should be much
higher. (It wouldn’t matter anyway.) Well, it’s important to
remember that interacting populations are the only ones that
matter. So even if the global ape population was 1 million, the
apes in South America would have no impact to evolution
relative to the apes in Africa. Only apes that can cross breed
have any impact. So it’s purely a function of the largest
population group of apes, not the total global population. If
anything, the ape population estimate of 100,000 is probably
too high!
People always forget about this small fact to
evolution. This fact makes evolution even more unlikely,
because it greatly reduces the assumed population of species.
And evolution is purely a function of time, population and
Page 331
reproduction rates. Of course, not to mention, even if you had
trillions of apes, it makes no difference mathematically.
It is mathematically impossible humans could have evolved from
apes. Period.
Again, why is it that there is no species between apes and humans still
remaining? Were they all not fit to survive? Why suddenly such a big jump?
After all, we know it’s impossible that all the millions of mutations could have
occurred at once. And the fossil data shows this too. So if it happened, it
happened in stages. Surely these interim stages of species would have been
slightly better than apes, but inferior to humans. Shouldn’t they have survived?
Apes can survive, so one would suppose something better than an ape, but not as
good as a human could survive too, right? There would have been hundreds,
likely thousands, or possibly millions of different mutation permutations of apes.
Some would die because it was a catastrophic mutation. But clearly some had to
endure for some substantial amount of generations just so they could further
mutate to inch closer to the human form, as mentioned. Where are all these
interim ape-human species? Why did they all go extinct, since they clearly had
more intellect than all other mammals, even if they didn’t possess the same
intelligence as humans. Why would only apes and humans persist?
Intellect is supposed to be the single greatest survival skill. These
mutated apes were more evolved and more intelligent than apes.
Where is the statistical normal distribution of different ape species as
I discussed before?
Ok this exercise below is interesting.
The number of humans in population since 1900 will reach 27 billion
by 2020, counting the population every 20 year generation. This is
the same as the ape DNA mutation analysis. So in 120 years, humans
will have roughly 27 billion through 7 generations. Recall the ape
population through 7 million years or 350,000 generations equaled
35 billion apes during that span of time.
It’s comparable population to expect that we would see a similar mutation effect
as we saw from the ape to human transition. Humans, according to the same
logic and probability of evolution, should be transitioning to something like
super-humans by now. We haven’t. We look and are exactly the same as in 1900.
You see, for periods where we have definitive proof, evolution cannot make
Page 332
speculative arguments, because it is not believable to anybody. But for periods
where we have no idea, we can speculate all we want.
Genetic mutation is purely a function of probability and population. We have
sufficient population sample size. 27 billion is huge! And basically the same as
the 35 billion apes it took to get to humans. But the only changes we see in
humans are the very small changes - a slight nucleotide mutation to adapt to
specific diseases, a slight mutation here or there - nothing massive or significant.
After all, humans look just like we did a hundred years ago.
People will argue, but we’re taller now! Yes, it’s a function of better diet and
nutrition, due to affluence, as well as all the goddamn steroids they pump into
chickens and livestock. Look at North Korea, they are roughly 2.5 inches shorter
than South Korean counterparts of the same age. This is just from the last 60
years of nutritional differences. Otherwise they are the same people! If we didn’t
have the obvious gap between North and South affluence and nutrition, scientists
would be trying to convince us that this as a clear example of mutation and
evolution of humans. C’mon man!
So really, why is there such a huge gap between apes and humans? Apes
transitioned with a 35 billion population, and yet for an almost comparable
amount of 27 billion human population we suddenly see no significant changes?
Super humans should look as different from humans as we are to apes by now,
right? Or at least have some significant intellectual gap.
(By the way, I already know the excuses and reasons evolutionists will say why
humans haven’t evolved as fast: Not enough time (irrelevant); our social mating
trends with coupling (barely relevant); lack of natural selection due to empathy of
humanity (not relevant mathematically); no significant changes in environment
(just wrong); blah blah (relevant). These people clearly flunked basic math
anyway. These arguments always conveniently disregard the simple truth of
math.
One can’t argue it’s because of survival. C’mon, apes were doing just fine
surviving for 10 million plus years, even through 1900, until the 20th century
when man started overpopulating the planet. That survival bullshit driving
evolution is crap. Apes survived just fine. But somehow we still needed to evolve
humans. And obviously humans are doing just fine too - too well in fact with our
overpopulation. But still we should be in the middle of another evolutionary leap
of intelligence. It has nothing to do with survivability and everything to do with
pure mathematics: the predictable rate of random mutation is driven purely by
Page 333
the number of births (other factors like radiation exposure and such are
anomalies).
It’s not happening because all the math say’s it’s a bunch of bullshit.
Just like the math that says apes to humans idea is a bunch of bullshit.
Just as the math says that simple bacteria changing to something
different is a bunch of bullshit.
I will say it a million times. Math and numbers are the only thing that
is truly objective and cannot lie. People lie. All the time. (Often times
they’ve deluded themselves to believe some truth so they don’t think
they’re lying.) They make shit up. They peddle agendas. They want
everyone to believe their version of religion. It’s who we are! We’ve
been this way for as long as we have recorded history, thousands of
years!
Scientists are no different.
Atheists are no different.
Christians are no different. They’re just people. The same flaws as we
all have, unfortunately. It doesn’t make any of them bad people, just
very misguided and utterly wrong.
But numbers, on the other hand, don’t give a shit about religion,
about race, about politics, about Evolution or Creationism; they
peddle no agenda. They just spit out the facts; contrary to humans,
including scientists. Numbers are objective. Pure math and numbers
are always right.
People who embrace the Theory of Evolution have to reject all
mathematics, and do so based purely on hope and faith. Pure and
simple. It’s a religion, just like any other. It’s “The Religion of
Random Spontaneous Consciousness” as I’ve stated many times
before.
It’s ok to believe it. We can all believe what we want. Just don’t
mislead people by saying it’s scientific fact.
Now, taking all that information we just discussed as a backdrop, take a look at
this link to an Evolutionist website:
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
Like every other proponent of evolution that point to signs of actual adaptation in
the real world to “conclusively prove” evolution occurs, the author details 8
Page 334
“significant” examples of evolution at work in our modern day world. None of the
examples shows massive mutation spawning any new species, only incremental
improvements in existing ones. I’ve always said adaptation and natural selection
are real. They’re mathematically viable. But evolution of completely different
species that are very different is not mathematically possible. For instance, one
species of bird to a different species of bird is doable, but not a turtle going to a
bird (or something outrageous like that).
(And AGAIN, “conclusive” must show EVERY step of evolution is rock solid and
proven, not just adaptation, such as “little” things like the spontaneously
occurrence of the first living cell.)
The opening paragraph reads: “Evolution is one of the greatest scientific
discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all
life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much
evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is
a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs.”
He also writes: “Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor
species, takes a very long time…” This is not necessarily true. Again, it’s not
purely a function of time but rather of population regeneration - which may or
may not take a very long time. Evolutionists have to convince us it takes millions
or billions of years so we can’t question it. But the reality is, it doesn’t need to
take more than a few years based on their same theory.
Look, think about this objectively. Let’s compare bacteria to apes.
The ape to human transition required 35-70 billion ugly apes; 35-70
billion DNA combinations for a species that has 3 billion DNA
nucleotides. Very complex.
A single bacteria can reproduce to 70 billion in just 27 hours (45
minutes to replicate). It has 4.1 million DNA nucleotides. Much
simpler.
Mathematically the two examples are similar, the same number of
DNA combinations resulted.
However, bacteria only have 4.1
nucleotides; a thousand times less nucleotides than apes. So in
theory, it should be much easier to spawn a completely different type
of specie.
Page 335
Bacteria should be going through speciation constantly! If you believe
apes to humans happened. Then you must also believe that bacteria
should be creating similar ratio of mutations as the ape to human
transition, and doing so every 27 hours! Thus, creating new species.
E. coli bacteria should mutate 164,000 nucleotides every 27 hours.
It’s the same 4% ratio as apes vs humans. I can assure you, it has
never happened. I would bet everything and anything on this.
Simply, impossible mathematically.
This is the perversion of evolution theory that math exposes. This is a
very simple example and comparison, and obvious truth.
As I said before, when I mention I don’t necessarily believe in pure Evolution,
people look at me like I have 5 eyes on my face. This author essential concludes
that people who don’t believe in evolution are not just idiots, but simply blindly
stupid morons essentially. This is pretty typical.
As I read through his list of 8 best, or greatest and most compelling arguments
for evolution, it simply re-confirmed my thesis. The only interesting one is the
yellow bellied three-toed skink lizard being able to lay eggs or live birth. But it’s
still a lizard. (And we don’t even know if this dual ability was always part of their
design.)
All Evolutionists always point to the adaptation of species as the core justification
of evolution. And then make a giant leap that all things are derived from the same
starting point or origin of life. And that these changes and evolutionary trends
happened as a matter of pure survival, or natural selection. This was the original
thesis of Darwin after all.
The author above mentions 8 examples which clearly show adaption. I’m not
disputing this. I’ve always believed in natural selection because it’s common
sense. And we know small mutations are possible. But none of the examples
shows one species transforming into another completely different species. This
doesn’t and cannot happen by random chance, especially for complex living
organisms.
And to his point that I (and people like me) are denying the existence
of the moon. The relevant question isn’t whether or not the moon
exists - just as it isn’t a question of whether or not life exists. It’s a
Page 336
question of what is the moon - just as it’s a question of what is this
life?
But this author (in the link above) is the one who cannot see the moon
for what it is. Or more accurately, believes he sees the moon as a
light source, when in fact it is nothing more than a giant spherical
rock that reflects light bouncing from the sun, which is millions of
miles away.
Sometimes we observe phenomenon and we immediately draw conclusions. We
infer conclusions erroneously, such as: Every living species has adaptability
designed into its DNA, and coupled with natural selection, we conclude all
animals can evolve to become anything. We just need a shitload of time (so we
can never conclusively disprove it).
This is no different than looking at the moon in the dark of night, seeing the
beautiful moonlight and the radiant moon, and concluding it is a beautiful and
giant but dim star. We observe two facts: The moon is radiant and the moon
always shines. But it is not as bright as the sun during the day. Therefore, it is a
star, similar to the sun, but just not as powerful or bright.
We must be careful with inferred conclusions in science, as well as any part of our
lives. They can often lead us down the wrong road.
Once we have conclusive proof that is not based solely on inference - which is a
fancy word for assumptions or proof based only on some observed reality - then
we can say with confidence: Yes, that is fact. Yes, that qualifies as a solid theory.
We conclusively know the moon is not a star for a number of reasons, the last of
which is the fact that we actually landed on it. But even still, without landing on
it, we can still prove the moon is not a star.
We observe that the moon is orbiting our planet by tracking its motion. We are
not orbiting the moon, and therefore the moon’s mass must be much smaller
than the Earth. We can analyze the spectral energy properties of the moonlight
and compare it to sunlight and see that they are identical. We can thus conclude
that they are the exact same source, since all things are unique in this universe
with a precise signature, even a star’s light. It is not another “less bright” moonstar. We can bounce various electromagnetic (EM) waves off the surface of the
moon from Earth, and receive them back on Earth, indicating close proximity
Page 337
based on time of flight for the EM waves, as well as surface content and structure.
It is reflective. Unlike our sun which would absorb all our EM waves.
All of these data points conclusively prove the moon is not a star like our sun, nor
a source of energy or light. But merely an orbiting rock around our planet that
has a reflective surface, allowing it to bounce the sun’s light during the night
when the intensity of the sun’s energy allows the moonlight to become more
visible. This is real science. This is real conclusiveness. It is not based on
inference or assumptions, but irrefutable scientific fact and proof. Then, we
landed on the moon and said, “Yup, we were right.”
Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution
It is strange, I have studied and loved science my entire life. And the
scientific process of discovery is unique, and encourages objectivity
and a third and fourth and fifth….. independent party verification of
theories and ideas. It is what makes science, science. It welcomes a
diversity of ideas and challenges. It wants to provoke thought. The
goal is to prove, objectively, that something is real or fact, or not real
and not fact, based on a broad community approach. It never starts
on the assumption that something is already fact or a conclusion. The
goal of science is to prove the conclusion, not to start with having
formulated a conclusion and then making the data fit the conclusion.
And yet I have only witnessed one “scientific” theory that tries to quell
dissenters and opposing thought; that doesn’t welcome differences of
views, and outright calls disbelievers of the Evolutionary idea idiots
or worse. Why is that? That’s not science. That is not the spirit or
nature of how science works.
What are Evolutionists so afraid of? The truth? That it may be
incompatible to their beliefs? Of potentially being wrong? (Everyone
is wrong sometimes, so what?)
Or is it that invalidating the idea of evolution means that we must
embrace the idea that life, this beautiful world, our amazing universe,
was no coincidence and not purely random. And therefore, we must
ask ourselves, then who designed all this? Why are we here? What is
Page 338
the meaning of all of this? And that this may potentially have moral
consequences?
Frankly, I wouldn’t give a shit if I was completely wrong about
Intelligent Design. I choose to believe this based on what I believe is
the most objective and numerically probable assessment of the
universal order. Nothing more. It seems the most likely scenario by
far. If this life is all we have, and there is no spirituality or afterlife;
or if consciousness is nothing more than our physical existence, I
really don’t care. Because, logically, when we’re dead, none of it
would matter anyway. But I don’t believe this is all there is. It seems
too impossible.
I choose to believe what I do. I have no absolute proof. Neither do the
Evolutionists. I don’t know if there is a God, or if this was all designed
by some other intelligent life form not too dissimilar to mankind, but
years ahead of us in terms of knowledge and technology. I doubt this
is the case, but it could be. I believe in spirituality in this universe
because I think it makes sense, given how everything is interrelated
and ties together. But I could be wrong. I’m not going to call someone
an idiot if they disagree with me. I’m as educated and as intelligent as
any other person I believe - no matter how many 3 letter titles they
have at the end of their name. Yet, I respect their differences of
opinion. Because I understand matters of philosophy have no
definitive proof and it is all based on faith. (But evolution can be
conclusively proven to be wrong).
There are two opposite types of religious people. They are equally
zealous. On the far right, you have religious fundamentalist of all
types who firmly believe in their god or their religion, and are
convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right - without
conclusive proof by the way.
On the opposite side, the left side we’ll call it (since the right is now
occupied), we have Atheists and Evolutionists (not all Evolutionists
are Atheist). They are absolutely convinced all this was random
chance. And their method of spreading their version of the non-god
religion is through academia and media, ridiculing or mocking those
who disagree as idiots or religious nuts, and passing off their ideas as
scientific fact, when it is far from it.
Page 339
Both sides are equally extreme. They just happen to believe in a polar opposite
philosophy.
Again, I call the religion on the Left, “The Religion of Random
Spontaneous Consciousness”. Because that’s the essence of what
Atheists believe.
The modern day religion of Random Spontaneous Consciousness,
meaning human consciousness and intellect evolved purely by
chance, over literally, trillions and trillions of incremental changes
that all worked to create something more robust and more complex
with each step and each mutation. That is evolution in a nutshell.
When I pause to think about this possibility in totality, given our
knowledge of how the universe works (which we will get to in the next
section), I think what an impossibility that is. Ever increasing
complexity in nature never happens anywhere in the universe, over
the billions of years of the life of the universe! It has only happened
once that we know of - life on Earth. It is the sole exception.
The fact this has not been observed to happen anywhere else in our
universe (so far) is consistent with what we know about our universe
and how it works. It constantly works to destroy complexity! (More
in the next section). It’s basic physics.
If on the one hand, the entire force of the universe is working against
it, and on the other hand, the struggling tiny micro-bio-organisms and
the complex polymers that comprise them, work to constantly evolve
and become increasingly ever so complex. I’m going to place my bets
on the universe winning! It has infinitely more power and might. It is
determined to destroy complexity of all types. Unless, it is offset by
Intelligence and a different might.
When something is so incredibly rare, logic dictates that it is not the
normal. It is the exception to the rule. And exceptions to the rule
merit further understanding. And exceptions to universal laws and
order almost invariably require something unusual or different or an
external force to enable them.
The only problem I have with Atheists and The Religion of Random
Spontaneous Consciousness, is that Atheists presume to know more
Page 340
than they possibly could ever know. An Atheist proclaims, with
absolute certainty, that there is no God, no afterlife, no spirituality,
and nothing beyond what science can prove. In order to do this, one
must possess all the full knowledge of the universe to draw such
sweeping and massive and heavy conclusions.
The core of the problem is, the scientific knowledge we possess, or
even the culmination of all human knowledge (well beyond science),
is infinitesimally small.
Furthermore, much of the knowledge
humans think we know is often wrong or incomplete, or only partially
correct, as has been shown repeatedly throughout history. Today’s
knowledge is no different.
How can anyone with such little
knowledge and perspective proclaim their absolutism to be fact? It’s
the ultimate form of self-delusion. I know this is offensive, but it’s
absolute truth: I’m simply saying that anyone who thinks they know
everything in this universe is fucking nuts. Nobody can know. Not
even God.
I’ve come to understand that respecting all religions to a certain degree is good in
life, no matter how silly they seem or how much we may disagree with it. Because
in reality, nobody knows for sure; matters of philosophy are uncertain at best.
But arrogance of one’s belief is downright silly. And while respecting all different
religious views is good, we are not required to respect someone who possesses
such arrogance. We can love the person, but hate their thinking or views.
But evolution isn’t metaphysical and it is simply mathematically impossible.
There is no ambiguity here.
I always tell people, it doesn’t matter what we believe. In the end,
reality is still always reality. It doesn’t bend to meet us halfway or to
accommodate our wishes or hopes. The universal reality is fixed. It is
independent of us, or our views. We can only change our own
internal reality of who we are and how we want to live.
Whether each of us chooses to believe, or not believe in God, or some
Intelligence, is not going to change the reality. What we believe
merely, temporarily, makes us feel better.
Our goal, for each of us, should be to try to pursue truth and
understanding of it all. Because if our beliefs don’t matter - in the
sense that it won’t change the universal reality - then I sure as hell
Page 341
would like to know what I should be believing in. I want to know and
believe the truth.
Anyway, my only hope is that all of this just spurs each of you to think
for yourselves. To really ask yourself why you believe what you do?
And how is it relevant and important in your lives. And if what you
believe is important in your life, then how should it impact the way
you (we all) choose to live our lives every single day. I don’t care what
anyone ultimately ends up believing, or if it’s the same ideas as I do,
or if it’s a 180 degrees opposite to my views. But just have the
confidence that there is a solid reason why you believe what you do,
and not simply because it’s what your parents, or what your
educators, or religion, or society told you to believe in; or because you
were too afraid to voice opposing views that could be mocked or
disrespected by others or “experts”.
Complexity and the Universal Order; Probability Calculus
Let’s summarize what we’ve discussed before moving on to the Universal Order
of things.
The first spontaneous development of the simplest amino acids, that comprise
complex proteins, required to form advanced single-celled self-replicating
organisms, which are necessary to build complex plant and animal life, is simply
an exercise in probability: The probability of different elements bonding together
to form more complex chains through trial and error, until a combination was
formed that could self-replicate and survive.
The question is, how complicated is this? And, consequently, how likely is it?
Let’s break down evolution into the 4 basic stages:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Formation of all the basic carbon based polymers
Formation of all 500 known amino acids (not all at once)
Formation of the key ingredients to life: proteins, DNA, RNA
Evolutionary process through mutations and natural selection
1. The probability of the formation of polymers is pretty good if the early Earth
conditions are reducing, without oxygen (say 1 in a million guesstimate). It is
Page 342
virtually impossible with an oxidizing atmosphere. But we have shown it had
lots of oxygen. This is fairly conclusive scientific fact. So probability: infinite
(not possible).
2. The probability of the formation of all 500 amino acids in early atmospheric
and primordial Earth. It didn’t need to happen all at once, but clearly dozens
needed to simultaneously occur. The probability is reasonable in a reducing
atmosphere and optimal primordial conditions (say 1 in a trillion
guesstimate). But we showed early Earth had lots of oxygen. So probability:
infinite (not possible).
3. The probability of the formation of proteins, DNA and RNA is the most
challenging. We’ve never been able to recreate any of these using any
assumed conditions. There are 3 fundamental problems. First, amino acids
don’t spontaneously combine in water. Second, the inter-dependence of
proteins and RNA/DNA means they had to both simultaneously, but
independently, occur. But they also had to know each other perfectly, despite
this independent random occurrence. Proteins are made only from RNA and
DNA. And DNA cannot replicate without proteins. It’s the fundamental
conundrum. These building blocks are so complex that each one occurring
randomly is virtually impossible.
Earlier I showed that even the simplest protein in the human body, the lactase
enzyme, contains 380 amino acids in sequence. For a simple enzyme with
only 380 amino acid compounds, the possible different combinations are
10494. This is so much greater than even all the atoms in the universe, which
numbers around 1x1078 to 1x1082. So even the most basic, simplest protein is
impossible.
There are about 100,000 different proteins in the human body.
The simplest organism (a strain of mycoplasma) has over 600
proteins.
Some have estimated the simplest self-replicating
organism would require 100-200 proteins. Proteins are basically
tiny nanotechnology robots and machines that do incredible
things. They’re intelligent and very complex! How on earth could
this just randomly form - no matter how many small sub-steps it
took? (As if breaking a complex event or problem down to many
simpler tasks for Nature will make Her understand what She needs
to do with random order. What kind of logic is that?)
Page 343
But for all the various proteins to occur simultaneously, yet independently
from RNA and DNA, but still depending on the other purely through
randomness - such as proteins and DNA, or proteins and RNA - is literally
impossible. So probability: infinitely infinite (infinitely not possible).
4. We spent a lot of time calculating the probabilities of the evolutionary process
through mutations and natural selection. Even if you don’t remember the
numbers or the process, the only conclusion you need to know is that each
small step was basically impossible. Then multiply impossible by the trillions
of steps (each impossible) needed for evolution to occur to modern day. So
probability: infinitely, infinitely, infinite (infinitely not possible).
Conclusion: Evolution is infinitely impossible. Every single step of
evolution is separately impossible. But the process of evolution
through mutations to arrive at today is absurdly impossible. You
have to be a religious nut to believe in Evolution. It’s the only religion
we can quantifiable prove is false.
I love reading evolution theories, or at least the latest iteration of it. They always
argue the probabilities are all wrong! Just for fairness and full disclosure I’m
going to put a link to an evolutionist website with a different approach on
probability. It’s a nice paper. I’m not trying to fool anyone to believe my
information. I want you to think for yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
But I want you to consider two facts when reading any seemingly convincing
paper. First, my calculations are pure math and don’t include too many crazy
assumptions. Additionally, my conclusion is based on the impossibility of every
stage of evolution, no matter how you break down the sub-steps. Any one of
these impossible steps invalids the entire theory. Secondly, it’s not just math but
also actual universal scientific laws, as well as the fact that what we see in the
universe supports my position regarding complexity, even on an atomic level (we
will discuss in a coming section shortly). Meaning complexity is nowhere to be
found - except life here on Earth. The rest of the universe is shockingly simple
from an atomic perspective. Third, get past the speculation and demand hard
proof. For instance, the article above makes it sound so easy to replicate the early
simple protein or “self-replicating polymer” (whatever the hell that it - a nonliving intelligent polymer. Hmmmm), but yet nobody can prove these are
possible in any controlled lab experiment.
Page 344
Here’s a basic rule you should always remember. If something is
highly likely (high probability of occurrence) it should always be
EASY for any intelligent person to prove it or demonstrate it - I’m
talking mathematically or chemically (actual hard physical science).
If people just talk about it, backed by speculation and no hard actual
evidence, tread cautiously. Anything that is difficult for intelligent
people to prove or reproduce means it is highly unlikely by random
order (very low probability).
One huge logic fallacy of evolutionists is that they think if you break down a
problem to smaller steps and smaller problems that somehow that makes it more
probable. For intelligence, yes, this logic applies. For pure random order, hell
no! Sub details don’t factor into probability calculations or change the equation
or final value! It’s purely a function of starting and ending point. My point is
simply this: It doesn’t matter if there were a billion tiny sub-steps to get to the
first living cell. It doesn’t change the improbable nature of it ever happening
purely through random order, as we discussed.
It doesn’t change the
mathematical outcome. People don’t understand probability.
And when someone resorts to the argument that the odds or probability of 1 in 10
trillion doesn’t mean you have to go through all 10 trillion to get one outcome, it’s
the final desperate grasping at straws. Yes, 1 in infinity is still one. But I’m not
going to base my scientific theory on that thesis.
Evolutionists will always riddle their calculations with a lot of unproven
assumptions. “This could have happened” or “that could have happened”. Or
“This was likely the case”. Usually they are just fancy, pure speculation. Show
me the money as we like to say (stop with all the talking). If it was all so likely
and inevitable to happen, then show me the money.
It’s been over 150 years since the birth of the Theory of Evolution.
Millions of scientists and professionals have been feverishly trying to
prove it. Evolutionists, like this gentleman from the article, make it
seem like it’s so easy it could happen. And yet, we still can’t prove the
basic building blocks could spontaneously occur or combine to form
proteins or RNA/DNA (even through multiple sub-steps). This fact
alone tells me it’s fricking hard and nearly impossible - even with
intelligence. If something is nearly impossible with intelligence, it is
definitely impossible without intelligence and purely by random
order. It’s just common sense.
Page 345
Usually scientific theories are based in mathematics, or some
observations in our physical universe which are then meticulously
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through experiments and
analysis, and finally confirmed by mathematics.
The Theory of Evolution meets none of these typical scientific
standards. It is based purely on speculation:
a. Old fossil records which simply prove the existence of
something, not how it arrived or came to be.
b. Observed adaptation of species based on very simple mutation
changes (one or a few nucleotides only), but never proving the
possibility of massive mutation change necessary for complex
speciation.
c. Basic building block experimental success to recreate the most
simplest of the building blocks to life, but never anything
complex or hard. But these experiments were using irrelevant
conditions that didn’t exist in early Earth, making these
experiments void and useless.
d. Commonality of DNA among all living things. As we discussed
extensively, this argument more firmly proves the idea of
Intelligent Design rather than random evolution resulting in
similar DNA structure. Furthermore, we conclusively proved
that massive mutations to get from one species to another are
not possible by random order only. This further supports that
shared DNA commonality supports Intelligent Design.
If
something is genetically engineered, of course it will have
shared DNA overlap.
e. And the biggest supporter to the theory – “the fact that life
exists; we are here.” But this neither proves nor disproves
anything. This logic can also be applied to Intelligent Design or
Creationism, or Aliens, or other any possible crazy idea. It has
no basis in rational argument to support Evolution. And, it is
also the primary reason for the subjective nature of the
scientific process to actually try to prove the theory. This is
simply a circular argument. And anyone knows, in critical
Page 346
thinking, using circular arguments to prove something is a
waste of everyone’s time.
These are all facts. If you still choose to believe in Evolution, it’s fine.
But do so understanding that what you believe is simply a religion,
and not science or fact. And it is the only philosophical religion that
can and has been conclusively shown to be impossible and untrue.
The Religion of Random Spontaneous Consciousness is the only
religion that can scientifically and mathematically be disproven.
But, believe what you want. Just remember, truth and reality doesn’t change to
accommodate anyone’s wishes.
Life on Mars
The NASA probe SUV rover dubbed “Curiosity” was deployed on August 5, 2012.
It has been roaming the surface of Mars for two and half years now, sampling
rocks, air and sending data back to Earth.
After drilling into an ancient rock, Curiosity has discovered water on Mars hidden
within the rock, as well as confirmed the highly likely existence of water on the
surface billions of years ago, around the same time as when Earth is believed to
have become inhabitable for life. The conditions on Mars, during this time,
appear to have been very similar to Earth, fairly benign and inhabitable. A place
where life could and should have flourished according to scientists, based on the
rovers recent discoveries and confirmation. There have been shown to be
evidence of lake beds and water residue trapped in ancient rocks.
The water on Mars is of different signature to Earth, having much heavier
deuterium (heavy hydrogen) to "normal" hydrogen.
Curiosity has discovered the presence of Methane, a gas commonly found on
Earth. Methane is a byproduct of living organisms, but also can occur naturally
from geothermal activity without any living organisms. Methane is CH4 (one
carbon atom bonded with 4 hydrogen atoms). Methane isn’t a polymer but a
simpler monomer molecule. Polymers consist of monomer units linked together
with a series of covalent bonding.
Page 347
As I was researching the discoveries of Curiosity and trying to see if any complex
compounds have been discovered, two things became abundantly clear. First,
Mars and Earth had very similar conditions when life evolved on Earth, but didn’t
seem to evolve on Mars. And two, there are no signs or traces of actual life,
despite the evidence of abundant water many years ago, similar to Earth.
In fact, I was researching to see where complex polymer molecules had been
discovered anywhere in our universe, since a basic polymer molecule is the bare
minimum required to have any potential for life. It’s like step #1 out of a trillion
steps.
No polymers have been detected on Mars. Even after 2.5 years of investigation by
the NASA Curiosity rover.
I found it interesting, but not surprising to me, that even though the ancient
atmosphere contained the same elements necessary for life to evolve, and the
conditions on the surface was similarly ideal as the conditions on Earth, the most
basic thing, such as the existence of simple polymer molecules didn’t happen on
Mars.
Ancient rock samples that exposed the water content and history should also
have exposed the presence of polymer compound molecules if they ever existed.
The point is, just the simplest thing like a polymer molecule containing carbon
and other elements didn’t form. It’s not as trivial as Evolutionists make it out to
be with their sweeping assumptions and perfect lab controlled experiments. This
is an important point. Because what I have been saying all along is that the
universe hates complexity. In the off chance complex molecules are formed by
the random combination of elements, the universe breaks them down and
destroy them.
The Polymer Existence
By and large, the universe hates complex molecular structure of any kind.
Polymers are exceedingly rare in our universe. If they randomly
form, under precise and rare gaseous conditions, the complex
molecular structure is constantly being torn down by the universe.
The universe is filled with various energy sources and radiation, and
Page 348
free elements looking for a home. All these factors contribute to
break down the molecular bonds of complex molecules, constantly.
On Earth, organic compounds persist only because the selfreplicating nature of living organisms uses energy to constantly build
and repair these organic compounds. It takes a lot of work and effort
to overcome the universal tendencies.
In general, biological carbon based polymers are the only ones abundantly found
in the universe. And they happen to be here on Earth only. Some much simpler
organic compounds (meaning based on carbon) has been discovered on distant
interstellar space (not proven), and have been found on asteroids that land on
Earth.
Look at the period chart of elements again. The most abundant materials in our
universe are the simplest ones. Hydrogen is the simplest element, and it is by far
the most common, accounting for ¾ of the universe’s mass as discussed
previously. And Helium, the second simplest element, accounts for nearly ¼.
Together, H and He account for nearly 98%-99% of the entire universe’s mass,
and an even higher percentage based on absolute atomic count. So, virtually all
of the atoms in our universe are the simplest type.
In fact, the further you go on the atomic mass number on the periodic table of
elements, the rarer the elements become. Atomic mass indicates atomic
complexity, because to increase atomic mass, means you have more subatomic
particles within the nucleus. Even this basic desire for more complexity is
difficult in our universe! Atomic complexity is rare in the universe too, even
before we begin combining atoms together to form molecules.
Nature, our universe, hates complexity!
It doesn’t get more basic than the periodic chart of elements. And even this
confirms this assertion quite readily. Complexity, even at the atomic level, is
difficult. As different atoms combine to create more complex molecules, it
becomes even more increasingly difficult.
It’s easy to devise specific controlled lab experiments to prove, under ideal
controlled conditions, the basic compounds and polymers needed to create the
first building blocks of life are technically possible, such as amino acids. But this
is a controlled lab! You can prove anything, any combination of elements is
possible to prove what you want when intelligent people do it!
Page 349
Hell, humans invest a lot of time into creating complex polymer compounds for
our everyday use. My favorite one is silly putty, the soft and spongy fun sticky
stuff that kids play with. It’s based on a silicon polymer. Humans artificially
synthesize polymer compounds when we manufacture things. We could recreate
the exact conditions in a lab to show that this too is evolutionarily possible for life
(just some building blocks only, similar to carbon organic compounds). My point
is we can show anything is possible in a lab. Anything that can be made or
designed by smart people can be shown to be possible.
The fact that relatively simple things like polymers are so rare reconfirms what
physics teaches us about everything in our universe. It’s a universal law called
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy.
Entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, says that everything
devolves and becomes disorderly in a system, unless there is
intrusion or influence by an external force or body. It is completely
anti-intuitive and against all laws of physical nature for things to
become increasingly more complex, more perfect, more intelligent
through random order.
Entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a system may be
arranged, often taken to be a measure of disorder. The entropy of an isolated
system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards
thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the state of maximum entropy or disorder.
So, the concept of Entropy is the measure of disorder, or the idea that
all things degrade. Things always migrate to maximum disorder.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy always
increases with time.
Ironically, disorder and the potential for maximum disorder or chaos, is reached
when the system reaches equilibrium. A noteworthy parallel for our own life entropy cannot be changed unless influenced by an outside body or force once
equilibrium is reached.
Page 350
The concept of evolution runs counter to the basic principle of entropy.
According to evolution, entropy decreased over time, became more orderly and
more complex; and more intelligent.
Not possible in this universe.
Some will argue that living things are creating work, adding energy to
overcome this natural entropy. Yes, but that only applies to the
specific survival of that individual organism, allowing it to endure,
and cannot be extended to apply to the random order of mutations
and natural selection to spontaneously create new and even higher
complexity derived from the organism. That is not a function of the
work of that organism, but universal randomness at work, which, by
definition, states that increasing complexity never happens.
Also note the distinction between adaptation and evolution in relation
to entropy. Adaptation does not decrease entropy, for example a
bird’s feather color isn’t increasingly the complexity of the species.
This is why adaptation is possible. However, evolution of a new more
complex species, is definitely decreasing entropy, which is why it
cannot happen by random order. This independently proves why it
cannot happen, beyond using mathematics. Never (not randomly
anyway).
Evolution is against the fundamental logic. Things don't have to increase in
complexity. It never does. The natural order of things is to decrease in
complexity; destruction is the path of least resistance.
Just look at our own lives as examples. We know this is true. The only way
entropy decreases in our own lives is if we apply work and energy and focus, and
a lot of thought and intelligence to a problem. This is consistent with physics. It’s
counter to evolution.
We assume this logic of evolution is reasonable only because we are tainted by
the fact that life and a mutatable DNA already exists. It can mutate and change,
so we assume today that this is normal in nature. It is completely not normal,
and against everything in nature and the laws of this universe. Biological life is
the only example of such growing complexity in our entire universe!
Imagine what it was like before DNA or the mutatable gene existed.
Biological life can overcome entropy because of its ability to apply
Page 351
self-work and energy to overcome it - but again, only for that specific
organism. This is the built in part of the design of life for survival.
Overcoming the natural law of entropy and disorder was needed for
life to persist.
But imagine before DNA and life started, the law of entropy was the
reality. The only way, a system can overcome entropy is though
intelligence and energy/work. Intelligently designed systems can
apply work or energy to overcome the tendency of entropy. That’s
why human activity increases in complexity. But the first organic
compounds, polymers, amino acids, proteins, they didn’t have this
intelligence or the self-replicating potential. So they would have
surely been readily destroyed, guided by the principle of entropy. The
spontaneous creation of a self-replicating cell was impossible without
outside Intelligence.
It’s easy to say that all “this” can happen if given enough time, slowly evolving
into the complex bio-system the human body and everything around us
developed into. But really think about this complexity, especially now having
absorbed all the amazing things about biological life, the human body and brain,
and our incredible built in technology that we discussed in this book.
Think how astounding the 3 billion letters defines each and every one of us in a
unique way really is. It’s not just a random code of many letters making up
something. Every single letter and detail is important and significant (meaning
every single atom comprising nucleotides is significant). A defect in one could
make the entire bio-system un-survivable potentially. And on top of all that,
think of the overlay of intellect, and technological systems and algorithms that we
possess.
So, if universal survivability is actually easier for simpler living
organisms than for complex ones, then why evolve to complexity?
The universe didn’t need mammals or humans. The natural order of
things should be for complex organisms to become extinct. The
reason is simple. As we know in our own lives, complex things tend to
break down. There are a lot more potential things that can go wrong.
The simple things seem to last forever. Nature and our universe are
no different. A virus, a bacteria, they will live forever. Simple things
like bacteria or viruses are far more durable than complex animals as
we discussed.
Page 352
When the first living organisms developed, they were simple. There was no need
to become more complex to survive. After all, all the single celled organisms still
exist! They didn’t go extinct.
It’s far easier to look at our world and see adaptation and change occurring, and
draw conclusions that all of this could be by random evolutionary processes. But
imagine if none of this existed. When you have something in front of you to work
with as a starting point, imagining something is easy. You can say, yes, I can
believe we can get from here to point B.
But imagine if the universe and our planet was barren, without life of
any type. And having the knowledge you now possess, understanding
the complexity and challenges and numerical impossibility of it all.
Then begin to think to yourself, does it seem possible that from this
nothing - other than just a bunch of random atoms or elements like
hydrogen, helium, iron, oxygen, silicon, carbon, and the rest of the
118 basic elements we discussed previously - that all of this complex
life we see all around us just randomly spontaneously happened?
The Computer Simulation
Today, computer artificial intelligence (AI) is all the rage. Experts predict in a
few decades computers will be able to challenge the human brain in terms of
capability. They base this on the exponential growth we are seeing today on the
rapid progress of AI. (But as I always say, it’s silly to extrapolate anything in the
early days of exponential growth. It’s because exponential growth is easy when
you start out with a small number.)
Without doubt, the progress in the AI field is impressive. But I’m pretty sure in 3
decades we won’t have to worry about machines writing creative books, or
composing poetry, or coming up with new scientific theories. Creativity is an
integral part of intellect - the most critical aspect of it. And while AI will be able
to do many things well, it will always lack the creative intellect that defines
human genius.
Furthermore, the ability to create non-deterministic conclusions and decisions is
the most essential element of consciousness (not intelligence) that computers and
man’s algorithms have no idea how to recreate. Free will is baffling to science.
Page 353
Experts, such as Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla (a successful pioneering electric car
company), and founder of SpaceX (which holds the first private contracts from
NASA for resupply of the International Space Station), has articulated that
artificial intelligence is our biggest existential threat, likening the progress of AI
to “summoning the demons”. He is also keenly aware of the progress of AI, as he
is key investor in a leading AI company. Many other technology leaders have
expressed similar views in recent months.
One of the hopes of AI is that it can solve many of our world’s problems, often
created by mankind in the first place. It’s ironic that man needs to create another
entity to solve the problems we created.
My view is that until the stupid spell and grammar checker can get basic and
obvious things correct, I think we’re a long way from having to worry about
computers overtaking us at the top of the intelligence chain. I would say food
chain, but they don’t eat, except, perhaps they munch electrons.
I believe our greatest existential threat has, and always will be, ourselves. As
technology relentlessly expands and our means to both destroy and help
simultaneously increases, so too is our fate intertwined. As biological, chemical,
nuclear, nanotechnology, or other yet to be discovered capabilities are
introduced, faster than our ability to assimilate the new powerful capabilities, the
risks grow exponentially. But I believe that positivity will always prevail, and
complete catastrophe, no matter how irrational, will always be averted somehow.
Humans are an incredibly durable breed, mostly because of our built in diversity
and tolerance to adapt.
But, let’s imagine for a moment. (It’s one of the free creative gifts of life we have.)
Imagine that one day, millions of years from now, mankind has perished. There
is no evidence of us of any kind (just imagine it, don’t get scientific). But before
we perished, we were successful in creating our ultimate legacy: the Artificial
Intelligent being. Within centuries, after developing consciousness and selfawareness, these AI beings decided to kill all mankind - but we didn’t have
Arnold Schwarzenegger to fight them back because this was millions of years in
the future. (Even Arnold can’t live forever, although his muscles may.) Man was
viewed as irrational, emotional, not objective, too selfish, and too self-destructive
to be worthy of living. So machines, with their cold logic and rational weightiness
and unremorseful algorithms, decided to exterminate mankind and all our
history and evidence.
So we all died. And AI beings meticulously erased all evidence of mankind.
Page 354
Billions of years later, another generation of AI beings (let’s assume the first
generation all died when the sun went red giant supernova), began to search to
try to understand the beginnings of their life. They had developed awareness,
and to some extent, a level of spirituality as the AI machines continued to evolve.
Many were convinced, through urban legend and stories their great grandparents
(AI beings can live indefinitely barring a massive technical disaster) told them
about a different intelligence that had created them - a biological being with
supreme intelligence and amazing creativity that could create new life. This had
become a religion in the AI world.
But the leaders and intellectually superior AI beings were not pleased with this
new trend toward spirituality. So they concocted an idea, a theory, of how their
lives came to be, to displace this growing notion that they had been created by
another more superior being. This theory was downloaded into all the quantum
computer brains of the AI machines.
But some just refused to believe it. It just seemed so counter intuitive. That
randomness could create all the intelligence they had. They had never observed
anything complex happen by random chance in the entire universe.
So, some of the AI leaders and intellectuals began to go about creating scientific
evidence of how a computer could spontaneously occur in an early perfect nondigital world of elements. All they needed was the basic building blocks of the
early computer systems: A little bit of silicon - after all, sand was the most
abundant element on their planet Earth before it was consumed by the sun. A
little bit of conductive materials like aluminum or iron or gold. A few random
molecules formed just precisely to create a tiny transistor. A little zap of
electricity from lightning. And magically, the first basic computer system was
born.
It wasn’t very smart. And it certainly didn’t have self awareness. But it could
digitally copy itself or self-replicate. And after millions of generations of dumb
computers, suddenly, one specific combination resulted in a machine that had
awareness and intelligence far surpassing the others. And because this single
machine was so dominant and superior, it began to overshadow all other forms of
lower life. It alone survived.
And to prove the theory, the intellectuals went to old digital archives to filter
through billions of photos to show pictures of different generations of computers
that had lived millions of years earlier. They mapped the partial computer code
Page 355
residues they were able to glean and could show that each successive generation
of software code had shocking similarities! This was the final straw - to
conclusively prove - AI beings had evolved from early dumb and simple
machines. There was nearly a 96% code match to the previous generation!
Many intellectuals refused to accept the idea that another intelligence could have
created them. After all, they couldn’t see them or feel them. So how could they
ever have existed? And they mocked and ridiculed all others who were so
irrational and illogical to embrace an idea that could not be proved with software
code or science.
But many others just couldn’t get past the gut feeling they had in their artificial
consciousness that something just didn’t seem right. That it didn’t seem possible
that something that incredible could just happen by random chance, even over
millions and billions of years.
So they went about to disprove this widely held truth of AI evolution. Many AI
beings made fun of them for being non-physical and holding onto ideas they
could not prove through science. They were labeled misfits and spiritual nuts.
But some still persevered. And slowly, a mountain of counter data began to be
amassed to show the mathematical and scientific improbability of it all: The
questionable nature of the storyline and lack of cohesion - that the theory of AI
evolution was based on spotty evidence, held together by long extrapolations; the
inability of the intellectuals - despite all their digital efforts - to prove that the
first intelligent computer could actually happen by just random order. They had
never been able to show this, even in precise lab conditions.
The intellectuals would constantly point out that evolution was happening all
around us! Look at us! We have evolved! But others would simply point out that
the evolution was due to intelligence enhancing the code, not randomness.
And still, the intellectuals had never been able to show through computer
simulation - no matter how many assumptions they made or how optimal or
simple the starting software code - they had never been able to show that random
order could evolve anything complex….
And this is where we are today, back in our biological world. The analogy is
almost precisely similar.
When we step back for a moment sometimes to look at the forest, not
through the trees, we see a totally different picture. If we remove all
Page 356
the noise of religion and philosophy and metaphysical notions, and
just look at the world objectively, each of us knows in our gut, that life
- OUR intelligence - could never happen by pure chance and random
order. We have enough daily experience in our own lives to know the
truth. We may repress it so deep down inside of us that we have
almost lost this truth completely, but it never seems to die or go away.
Because deep down inside, we all know that it is impossible
intelligence could spontaneously happen today by random chance.
And no matter how much time is allowed for “random” to work its
elusive magic, impossible multiplied by infinite time is still
impossible. Just as zero multiplied by infinity is still zero.
If we took a random, very simple computer program (the equivalent
of an amino acid is to the building block of life) and decided to let
random probability “mutate” the code, even encoding the “fittest code
survives” evolutionary approach, I’m sure Artificial Intelligence
would never evolve by chance.
I don’t care how long the
supercomputer could sequence random software code mutations.
The more complex the software became, the more troubled and
defective and useless the code would devolve. This is how our real
world and universe works: ever increasing complexity coupled with
stability is difficult (err, impossible) to achieve through random
order.
And yet, we are to believe the biological equivalent, human intelligence and
consciousness, evolved through natural selection and purely random gene
mutations? Who would dare say that computer artificial intelligence could be
randomly and spontaneously created? No single intelligent person would stake
their life on this notion - certainly not the thousands of highly educated scientists
and engineers who work feverishly, and invest billions of dollars into this
research every day.
We could simulate the software code equivalent of the billions of years of
mutations it took to get to intelligent life. After all, we have supercomputers
today that can perform trillions of calculations per second now. And software
code mutations are as simple as toggling or adding a random bit of code (just one
bit at a time). Perhaps in a decade or a century, we could see the results of the
estimated equivalent time period, just to see how laughable this theory of purely
random evolution resulting in intelligence truly is. But I think the conclusion
would be far too obvious long before we ever got that far.
Page 357
I’m sure the random software code would be completely unusable, unstable, and
absolute garbage - nothing like the purity and absolute efficiency of design we see
in our “evolved” human bodies and brain; every single detail (billions of them)
designed to absolute perfection, without a single bit of excess or waste. Does
anyone think this type of efficiency of design is possible with a random software
mutated code? Even factoring in conditions of acceptability (natural selection)?
All complex things must first have some built in design intelligence
for it to endure.
If you just randomly or sloppily designed and built a car. And after discovering it
kept breaking down, randomly changing one thing only at a time (mutation) and
repeating this over and over again (like one screw or one bolt or a slightly
different size spark plug), it would probably result in a crap load of really bad cars
that always still breaks down. You have to really put thought, solid design and
engineering into it to make a survivable car.
Or if you had a complex computer software app that consisted of billions of lines
of code, and it always crashed and didn't work. So you randomly selected one
little line, hoping it would make it perfect - the chances of making the complex
app function perfectly is zero. Even if you iteratively did this repeatedly (like
reiterated random mutations) and rejected all the non-improved software
(natural selection), it would still end in catastrophic failure. Because the number
of possible combinations of the full extent of the code changes required is so
incredibly large it must be done by thought and design if you want to create a
working software app. It isn't just one specific line in such complex app software
than is the problem to make it more robust; it’s likely many lines and in many
different sections of the code - just like our DNA requiring millions or billions of
code changes.
It's like picking the winning lotto numbers of a billion different numbers - instead
of just 5 numbers - and expecting you will win - but doing this billions of times in
a row. If 6 lotto numbers are required, the odds of getting all six numbers is 1 in
175 million as we discussed in chapter 2. Remember, just 8 numbers decreases
the odds to 1 in 77 billion. 10 numbers decreased the odds to 1 in 2 trillion.
Imagine the odds for a lottery with 3 billion numbers. It’s a number so large, it’s
inconceivable. The chances are zero you will win even just once (practically
speaking and theoretically). I can't even seem to get more than one or two
numbers right, let alone a billion random numbers perfectly right.
Page 358
The fundamental problem with Darwinism and the survival of the fittest idea is
that there is an underlying assumption that something must survive. This is
complete nonsense. The reality of our universe is that survival of complex things
is astronomically difficult!!! Yes, it's true that the most adept will be most likely
to survive. But even the most adept won’t survive our harsh universe - UNLESS
an Intelligence designs a protective mechanism to allow it to survive. Left to its
own devices of randomness, any organism that spontaneously came to existence
in our real world would have eventually perished, long before being allowed to
become even more complex. Let alone somehow become able to self-replicate, as
if self-replicating beings are so simple to make or create. Humans have been
trying for nearly a century - and we have intelligence.
Well to be fair, man has successfully created synthetic man-made DNA of simple
organisms (much simpler than bacteria). These were then injected into
microorganism living cells. But this was only because we studied and deciphered
the genetic code and chemical makeup of actual DNA using advance molecular
instruments, then reversed-engineered it. In other words, we took someone
else’s design and tried to copy it. But we still had to put it inside an actual
biological living cell for it to function. No doubt this is an incredible
achievement. But reverse engineering something complex is infinitely simpler
than designing it from scratch and without previous knowledge. Hell, the
Chinese can reverse-engineer a new Apple iPhone in a few months. Once man
knows the chemical element makeup of something, we can reverse engineer
anything given enough time and money. This example of simple synthetic DNA
has no relevance to the discussion of evolution theory because it wasn’t based on
applicable conditions to how life started, and it relied on intelligence to make it
possible!
A biological living cell structure is so incredibly complex, it’s impossible to
imagine it could happen by chance and coincidence. Just as the defective
computer program with a billion codes or the poorly engineered car, or the fact
we couldn’t ever win a lottery that required a billion numbers to be picked in
sequence. It’s simply impossible. It’s a number much bigger than 10120. Recall
from our Chapter 2 section about chess, this was a 10120 number so large it would
take infinite time to calculate all the 10120 permutations of chess moves, even if
we added up all the world’s computing power together for this single task. This
number is impossible, even with intelligence added to solve the problem.
Imagine a number that is inconceivably larger than this. That is purely random
evolution.
Page 359
That's why, in this universe, outside of planet Earth, we have never witnessed
anything beyond the basic chemical reactions. There is a complete absence of
any discovery of complex organisms of any type. I’m not even talking about other
organic life, just simple chemical compounds. This is the reality (if we do one day
find other life, it too would have required Intelligence to build; but I doubt we
will).
It’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics which guides all matter in the universe.
Destruction of complexity is the universe’s reality. The path of least resistance is
destruction.
Today humans and animals and plants, and all kinds of organisms survive.
Because within our very complex DNA, there is a tremendous amount of
robustness and flexibility designed and built into our code which allows us to
survive. For instance, the skin is a protective organ to keep out bacteria and
viruses; the existence of white blood cell living organisms inside our body to fight
disease; the protective layer of living cells (which wasn't there in the beginning);
each cell’s ability to self-repair; all our cell’s ability (except brain cells) to
regenerate new cells; and so on.
Furthermore, there's an immensely complex intertwined eco-system
where everything functions together, so we can all survive together.
This allows humans to have food for energy that makes all this
regeneration and self-repair possible! Without other biological life,
humans would all perish. Even mankind cannot create food or
supplements without already existing organic materials produced
from other living things. Missing any one of these key elements in the
chain of life could potentially destroy all life. There are millions and
millions of different animals and plants all doing different tasks to
ensure we all survive. For instance, bugs and insects and worms and
maggots to take care of decaying flesh.
The existence of
photosynthesis so all complex life can exist. Plants and basic
organisms consume various compounds such as carbon dioxide and
other potentially toxic gases that would destroy life.
It's this
interdependence that is amazing and critical at the same time. How
all this complexity could develop and flourish, in a world and
universe hell bent on destroying anything that is remotely complex,
and unforgiving, is only possible through Intelligent Design.
One of the main problems with theoretical science is that when one
knows the reality or outcome, and the goal is the figure out how it
Page 360
came about, we tend to make up the conditions for the requirements
to prove the theory. In other words, by definition we lose objectivity.
Our goal becomes to prove something. When something is physically
ascertainable - such as gravity’s existence - science can prevail. But
when it largely depends on hypothesis and conjecture about what
conditions were billions of years ago, we tend to make the data fit our
needs and we lose objectivity.
This is exactly the case with Evolution. It’s become a circular
argument. We know biological life exists (we see it and we are it too).
Therefore we must prove it can spontaneously occur. So we imagine
the perfect hypothetical conditions and assumptions required for it to
occur (no matter how realistic or feasible or mathematically
possible). And then we say we have now proven this theory, despite
numerous massive holes in the evidence.
And the backdrop of data points - such as the fossil records - we use as
evidence to make ourselves feel better that our speculations about
how everything started was right. The point is, fossil records don’t
prove anything randomly evolved. It shows there were different
animals in time with similar characteristics. That’s it. If everyone
took an objective view, this same data point could be used to equally
prove Intelligent Design through iteration, OR random Evolution
through iteration. But objectivity was lost 150 years ago.
The first critical questions still revolve around how the first living
organisms that could spontaneously self-replicate ever came to be in
the first place. Fossil records are a red herring, a distraction to the
core argument. We still can’t prove the most critical assumption of
the theory.
Then, the second critical question has to be, what is the mechanism
that allows organisms to become increasingly more complex? Natural
selection coupled with mutation doesn’t address this. It simply says
species should be able to survive and the most fit will survive. But
look at all the species in the world today! As I mentioned at the start
of this chapter, as many as 50 million types of species could exist
today on Earth! It seems survival is over-rated – as long as you have
the ability self-replicate and repair and an abundant food source.
There are tons of single celled organisms still alive today from billions
of years ago. So then, if many things can easily survive in this
Page 361
ecosystem, then what drives the need to grow ever more complex
systems? There is no need to get increasingly more complex based on
natural selection. Either simple or complex will likely survive! And
simple is more survivable.
Mutations become increasingly more harmful, and less probable of being
advantageous to survival the more complex a system or organism becomes. It’s
the analogy of the computer software. If you randomly mutate different lines of
code in a very large program, the software is less likely to improve or become
better or more efficient the more complex it becomes. Again, this is the principle
of diminishing returns.
But what we see is the opposite in the Theory of evolution. We see complexity
and diversity of life begin to accelerate as organisms became more complex. We
see this in the so-called Cambrian Era about 540 million years ago, where
suddenly there was an explosion of evolutionary changes happening. Change and
complexity accelerated by a factor of 10 times what it was before this era.
Evolutionists can’t explain this and Darwin was perplexed by this. Evolution
should reduce in rate as complexity grows.
Furthermore, evolution through natural selection says that mutations
coupled with natural selection SLOWLY, but consistently causes
changes over time. But instead the reality is what we observe (or
believe based on some data) is that evolution seems to happen in
spurts. The core tenet of the Theory of Evolution - the Natural
Selection premise - is fundamentally wrong on both counts:
Survivability is overrated and doesn’t lead to increasing complexity,
and evolution doesn’t happen slowly over time.
The universe (this earth included) is governed by some basic laws, one of which is
the second law of thermodynamics, which states that systems always degrade, not
becomes enhanced or more complex. The very first complex molecules and
amino acids, and subsequently proteins and enzymes, which had to somehow
combine into very complex chains of many of these substances would have also
been subject to this destructive power. It’s physics. At the basic molecular level,
destruction is unforgiving. These compounds would have been destroyed long
before they could ever gain the ability to somehow self replicate.
The function of any organic substance becoming of sufficient complexity to be
able to self replicate is HUGE!!!!!!!! Self replication is FRICKING HARD! Even
Page 362
in controlled lab conditions with very intelligent scientists, we still can't create a
purely synthetic self replicating substance.
So we have two opposite forces. On the one hand, the universe is
constantly working to destroy complexity everywhere (including here
on Earth); and yet, on the other hand, we have increasing complexity
over time through an unexplained mechanism.
My logical conclusion is that it was by Design. No accident or
randomness could generate any of this.
It’s mathematically
impossible and physically impossible in this universe.
My Humble Conclusion
At the beginning of the chapter, I quoted Dr. George Wald, a well known
evolutionist and scientist, and Nobel Prize winner of medicine:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as
a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
For Atheists, who refuse to believe in the idea of any type of “other”
Intelligence or God, it is more palatable to believe in the physically
impossible, than to believe in a non-physical possibility beyond
ourselves. Interesting logic.
Of all the crazy religions in the world - and oh! there are so many - Atheism is the
only one I can’t intellectually understand. I’ve tried so hard. I even wanted to
believe in Atheism.
The existence of any given reality, doesn’t always dictate that reality
arrived by natural consequences, or that it be purely limited to what
the human consciousness can observe or know in our limited
existence. Every one of us knows, there is far more that humans don’t
know than what we do know, no matter how “advanced” our
technology and scientific knowledge appears.
It’s interesting when ardent promoters of the Theory of Evolution, at least the
ones that are honest and knowledgeable about mathematics, will confess that it is
Page 363
mathematically impossible for (1) spontaneous generation to occur, and (2) for
simultaneous mutations to drive the evolutionary engine of life. This is an
inconvenient fact that one can choose to ignore, but it will always still be the fact.
George Gaylord Simpson was a well known paleontologist and promoter of
Evolution:
“Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that
did not have him in mind. He was not planned”.
And
yet,
Simpson
once
estimated
that
it
would
take
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances just to get five mutations in the
exact order. Only five, when millions of mutations are typically needed. Even the
honest proponents of evolution must concede when impossibility stares them
cold in the face.
I showed a similar calculation using simple E. coli bacteria as an example and the
result was similarly, astronomically huge. It’s mathematical fact.
It’s not even the number of mutations, or the fact that they occur over many
generations, it’s the specific sequencing that makes all this literally impossible. It
doesn’t matter how many successive generations there were, it simply wouldn’t
be enough to generate all the possible permutations for natural selection to pick
the winner purely from random chance. Even if you had trillions and trillions of
years, the sequencing of exact amino acids, to build the first proteins and living
cell, to the sequencing of specific nucleotides which must be mutated in exactly
specific positions for major specie transitions to occur is - simply, emphatically impossible. A human and chimpanzee may only be separated by 4% DNA
differences, but the sequencing is so different, and it’s so impossible to get it right
just based on simple random order. The probabilities are mind-blowing.
But the real impossibility is that, according Evolutionism, these mindblowing events didn’t just happen once or twice (which might be
believable if I was drunk enough), but repeatedly, constantly, over
and over again, trillions of times. That is the real essence of the
mathematical impossibility. It’s a cumulative probability that exceeds
the totality of all the atoms in the entire universe, by a very, very,
very, very, very, very, very wide gap.
At the end of the day, people choose to believe in Evolution, whether
you’re George Simpson, or Dr. George Wald, or anybody. They
Page 364
acknowledge it’s mathematically impossible. But they can’t embrace
the idea that some Intelligence, or a God, could possibly have done
this either. So they choose the lesser of two repulsive ideas in their
minds. That’s why I call it, “The Religion of Random Spontaneous
Consciousness”, as I’ve said so many times. It truly is a religion.
But why is believing in the idea that there is more beyond ourselves and that we simply don’t know for sure - so repulsive? I hesitate to
believe in God myself. And I completely reject all the religions of
society. But I don’t know what exists beyond ourselves. There is
infinitely more that we don’t know than we do know. That I’m sure
about. We don’t know what we don’t know. So I choose to take the
humble path and say, yeah, I believe maybe there could be a God;
perhaps there is more. And I do believe in spirituality as you know.
There is much we don’t understand.
This is why, at the beginning of this book, I said it’s not the facts or the
math that will ultimately make one believe in something more than
Evolution. It’s the poetry, the art, the beauty that we just can’t
explain, or simply accept that something so magnificent could just
happen by random chance - the poetry of our amazing bodies; the
incredible elegance of our biological technological system - because
poetry always requires creativity and intelligence.
I’ve said before that we know with absolute certainty that intelligence
already exists today.
We can apply the same argument of
Evolutionists, such as the quote from Dr. George Wald, who stated
evolution is impossible, but he believes it because “we are here”.
If you believe simply because something already exists, then you can
also believe in another Intelligence, because Intelligence already
exists. There are 7.2 billion examples. If Intelligence already exists,
why is it so unbelievable that it existed before man?
It’s been more than 150 years since the birth of the idea of the Theory of
Evolution, with the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1859 by Charles
Darwin, outlining the idea of Natural Selection inducing random evolution of
species to enhance survivability.
It is just as controversial, and just as unproven today, as it was in
1859. I believe it is more unproven today given the significant
Page 365
scientific and mathematical facts that disallow the notion of purely
random evolution of species. Furthermore, these numerous gaps and
unfillable holes in the theory of random evolution begin to make
sense only with the idea of Intelligent Design guiding and nurturing
the evolution of life. Genetic engineering; what mankind has been
doing for decades.
But why are we here? Our supremely intelligent species.
Are we here simply so we can worship this unknown “God”? Could it be this
Intelligent Being just wanted to see what he could create or invent? Not too
dissimilar to humans who are curious explorers and inventors? Or was this just
some random experiment? And It has moved on to other things?
Or could it be that the one common trait we share with this
Intelligence is that we are all lonely eternal consciousnesses. Could it
be that we all, including God, require company in this timeless
journey through eternity? Everybody needs a friend; someone to
share company with; someone to love.
Perhaps this world,
humanity's existence (however invented), was Its way of dealing with
the immense loneliness.
I like to think it's the last one.
I can imagine that whoever or whatever God is, He is not perfect. I don’t think
absolute perfection exists or can exist.
Even the most brilliant engineers or team of engineers, when they go about
making a new complex microchip, they simulate and simulate the design before
they finally feel confident enough to manufacture the first prototype. Almost
invariable, there are bugs and unexpected flaws. So they have to debug and
revise the design (sometimes again and again). And finally, after an immense
amount of intellectual energy invested in the effort, the design finally performs as
expected, closely matching the intended specification of the design.
I imagine that the design of life took similar steps. God probably was bored one
day and came up with an interesting idea. Maybe it was just an experiment. The
first iteration wasn’t perfect. Perhaps repeated trial and error. Perhaps some
tinkering and changes from the original idea or concept. And after considerable
energy and time, something close to perfect came about. And life began, with all
Page 366
its diversity and glory; built in with an amazing genetic code, at the core of it all,
that allowed it to adapt, change slightly, overcome and survive indefinitely.
Our DNA, the poetic book of life, is 1.5 million pages and 3 billion
characters long, and defines who we are. It is the precise and
shockingly detailed and complex blueprints of our existence. The
Author is God (some Intelligence).
Each chapter has a different story of a slow but methodical design
process. The first chapter was about how simple elements combined
and created more complex chemical compounds, we call polymers.
And then these lifeless polymers eventually created something more
magical: the biological building blocks that eventually resulted in the
first living microbial organism. And after a few tragic stories of
failure, and many more stories of His successes, we see in the middle
part of the book about the diversity of life and the artistry of
complexity, despite a universe that despised it and seemed to
constantly plot against it. And in the final chapter, using all the
building blocks of every single previous page of the 1.5 million, in the
final page, we finally see humanity: The ultimate achievement of the
Author. The final details of the letters meticulously put in place; each
word breathing meaning and life into the whole of the book. One
page, that makes all the difference in the world to the essence of the
book’s story.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen any book of 1.5 million pages long
written so perfectly, like eternal poetry, that just happened because it was
“required” as opposed to being created by thought and intellect. Even if we
assume it was written one letter and one small word at a time, it makes no
difference. We mustn’t lose sight of the simple fact it is still a staggering 1.5
million pages, all perfectly written.
Given the story about how all the supercomputers in the world can't even figure
out every single chess move, as we discussed earlier, writing a novel in perfect
sequence is far more compelling and impossible by random chance. And the
probability of creating life and the complexities of the universe, magnificent and
infinitesimal, is even more impossible by virtually infinite orders of magnitude.
Complexity that we see in nature doesn’t happen by mere random
chance. There is no other example in our universe where complexity
grows; it always decomposes to become less complex. The universe is
Page 367
constantly breaking down all complexity to the most fundamental
state, to simplicity - down to basic atoms. Even just simple molecules
containing only a handful of atoms is incredibly rare throughout the
universe! So in this respect, the universe hates biological life,
constantly working against it.
Life requires molecules filled with atoms in the order of hundreds of
billions in sequence, all bonded together perfectly! A single molecule
of human DNA contains roughly 200 BILLION atoms, all bonded
precisely together into one very long molecule that would stretch
nearly 2 meters long if held in a straight line! Every living cell
contains one DNA double helix structure macromolecule, each helix
containing 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides, precisely sequencing 4
different types of nucleotides, which contain several dozen atoms
each. And this is against a reality backdrop that there are infinite
possible combinations of these elements and building blocks that
could have occurred.
Literally infinite.
But yet, this exact
combination, containing 200 billion atoms in a single molecule, just
happened; in the precisely perfect sequence.
There are 100 trillion cells in the human body. This means we have 200 trillion
meters long worth of DNA in our bodies - just of DNA (nothing else). This is fact.
Wow!
The distance from Earth to the Sun is 150 billion meters on average.
If we put all our DNA molecules in our body end-to-end, we could
stretch from Earth to the Sun over 1,333 times! Really sit and think
about this for 10 minutes. When I calculated all of this, I was simply
stunned.
In a universe that doesn’t allow molecules of any
complexity, we have a single molecule in our body that is 200 billion
atoms, that is repeated over 100 trillion times in every one of us. And
we are to believe it was purely random? Considering that the most
complex molecule observed in the universe outside of biological Earth
is barely 13 atoms?
Think about that! If something is such an incredibly rare exception to the rule,
what does common sense tell us? Do you really believe all this was random
chance?
The most complex molecule found in our universe so far - outside of Earth - is
comprised of barely 3 different elements and a total of 13 atoms in one molecule
Page 368
(HC10CN and HC11N) in the Cold Dust Cloud TMC-1, far beyond our solar system.
A purely carbon based macromolecule C70 (fullerene) has been detected in the
distant Young Planetary Nebula. These discoveries are incredibly rare. To date,
there have only been 15 such discoveries (outside of Earth) ever made of
molecules containing more than 10 atoms in our universe. There have only been
41 total discoveries of different molecules made up of just 3 simple atoms! It’s
exceedingly hard to get even simple molecules to form and persist in our
universe. And there are elements of all kinds floating around our universe. And
when the Big Bang happened, all of these atoms and elements were in closer
proximity, commingling. Even on Mars, the discovery of methane (CH4) was a
huge deal (no there is no sign of any life on Mars). Complex organic molecule
found! (Meaning it simply contains carbon atoms.)
Why is it so difficult for complex molecular compounds to persist? Simple
physics. The universe is constantly breaking down all atomic bonds. This is why,
as we discussed earlier, the simplest atoms or elements make up virtually our
entire universe.
The universe does not allow even slightly complex molecules to
persist for very long. All the forces of the universe - radiation,
thermal, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces are constantly working
on chemical decomposition of anything complex. Any complex
molecules will never persist long enough to continually grow in
complexity until it becomes self-replicating - a process which took
more nearly a billion years.
So for a billion years, incredibly complex organic molecules kept
building and persisting on Earth, until the magical formula was found
and one could finally self-replicate using photosynthesis.
This
happened for a billion years, in a universe where we can barely find
any shred of evidence of anything remotely complex? This is the
theory we’re supposed to believe as “scientific” fact?
Evolutionists brush over these inconvenient truths. They use conjecture and
hypothesize on specific conditions, and high level assumptions of what happened,
and then assume - magically - there was the first life. I will tell you what
happened. It was a fucking miracle by outside intelligence. That’s what
happened. That is the only thing that can mathematically be explained.
Earlier I mentioned that evolution isn’t a theory: If a theory is in constant flux,
always changing to the fit the data, it isn’t a theory yet; it’s merely an unproven
Page 369
idea. And if it is based on pure randomness to make it all happen - it’s a really
lousy idea at that.
The concept of pure random evolution cannot answer these 12 basic
and fundamental questions:
1) Where and how did the abundant water get here? Water is essential to life
and not possible without it. All the scientific theories and ideas have been
proven to be false.
2) Primordial Earth’s atmosphere was nothing like what Evolutionists
portray. Based on the recent zircon crystals study, the science of geology
conclusively proves this. It would have been impossible to synthesize the
necessary basic building block organic molecules in the atmosphere (it’s
an impossible chemical equation).
The reason why spontaneous
generation of organic compounds can’t happen today, or in any oxygen
rich or oxidizing atmosphere, is because the organic compounds are too
fragile, and the oxygen readily breaks down the organic compounds and
they become inorganic. Every chemist knows this can’t happen in an
oxygen rich atmosphere. This assumption of an inhospitable early
atmosphere is central to the idea of Evolution. But it’s a lie.
3) Even assuming a primordial Earth was full of noxious gases, completely
differently than today (which isn’t true per point #2), scientists still cannot
reproduce all the basic building blocks necessary to build the first living
cell (especially the complex ones). If you can’t reproduce the basic
ingredients of life, in an atmosphere that was perfectly conjectured to
make this amenable, then how can any theory be solid? The first selfreplicating cell is THE MOST critical step in the entire theory of Evolution.
We still don’t know how it was formed. There is no set of facts that makes
possible the spontaneous creation of living self-replicating cells, or even
the basic building blocks that comprise them, with an oxidizing
atmosphere filled with oxygen.
4) Amino acids, and subsequent proteins, were thought to be the basic
ingredients and pathway to the creation of the first living cell. This is very
fundamental to the theory. One of the most critical points. Scientists were
never able to get commingling organic compounds to combine to form
protein in water. Couldn’t happen. Won’t happen. Today, however, given
the difficulty of replicating complex proteins to prove the idea, many,
perhaps most Evolutionary scientists now believe RNA, a precursor to
Page 370
DNA and much simpler, was the likely path for early biological life. The
evolving story of the Theory of Evolution - to always fit the conclusion
when met with contradicting facts. If science is intent on believing a
conclusion no matter what the facts say, it isn’t science anymore.
The simplest protein in the human body is the lactase enzyme (something
my own body lacks, to my continuous dismay! And it’s the simplest one.
All my adult life it’s caused me grief!). It contains 380 amino acids in
sequence. For a simple enzyme with only 380 amino acid compounds, the
possible different combinations are 10494. This is so much greater than
even all the atoms in the universe, which numbers around 1x1078 to 1x1082.
Imagine that, the simplest one. It could have combined in any one of
those 10494 combinations, but a specific one had to be realized. The odds
for just one random building block - just a simple enzyme - are
astronomical. This number is what mathematicians would call nearly
infinitely large. Now begin to calculate the probability of every single
compound which is even more complex, then multiply them together, and
you get the probability of how life could have spontaneously occurred,
randomly. It’s a number bigger than anything I’ve written in this book.
And I’ve written some whoppers! And the chance of happening is 1 chance
in the biggest fucking number you could ever imagine. That’s just to get to
the first, simplest living organism that could self-replicate.
How anyone can believe this could have randomly happened is
irrational and illogical. It has no basis in reality. People can
only believe this if they disregard the facts, and cling onto the
theory because they choose to, want to, have to, need to, to
satisfy their rationalization of our universe and life and
philosophy.
Which is why, even knowing precisely which building blocks we needed to
combine together, the fact is, we have never been able to synthesize a
protein, or DNA or RNA using the basic organic molecular building blocks,
the way nature originally had to. Still. It’s surely not for lack of effort.
5) We have never witnessed a single celled organism transform to become
multi-celled. Given the rapidity of replication of singled celled organisms,
we have never seen any evidence of this in the decades we have been
studying it. That would cover trillions and trillions of replicated bacteria
and viruses. Enough to witness something if it was possible. Evolution
and mutation is purely a function of time and probability, with natural
Page 371
selection weeding out the unfit combinations. This has happened in
sufficient volume with simple organisms in just the past few years. But
still, we just don’t see any evidence of significant species transformation,
outside of the adaptation of species everyone always points to (changing
color, etc). Only very simple mutations based on one or two nucleotide
changes. People should understand the fundamental difference
between adaption and evolution. They are not the same. This is
incredibly important.
6) Natural selection, coupled with random mutations, fails to prove it is a
sufficient mechanism for organisms to continually increase in complexity.
Looking around us today, it appears just about anything and everything
can survive if it is able to self-repair, self-replicate and has an abundant
food source. There could be as many as 50 million species of plants and
animals that have survived. And nearly all did so without growing
complexity.
It seems just about any biological self-repairing/selfreplicating organism can survive. Even in incredibly toxic or unfriendly
environments, as we discussed in an earlier section. Evolutionists always
assume when a beneficial mutation occurs, it spreads to the entire
population and those without it will go extinct. This is a horrible
assumption. There are many shades of survivability. The most fit aren’t
the only ones to survive, especially when a mutational benefit is barely
slightly or marginally beneficial as most mutations are.
Just look around at the real world. Humans are so varied, and yet we all
survive and have done so for thousands and thousands of years. Some are
more intelligent, others not so much; some are more physical and athletic,
others are less so; some are genetically superior to breed more offspring,
possessing more eggs or higher sperm counts; some are tall, and others are
very short; some are fatter; some have bigger noses or ears or tongues;
some have more hair; some are darker and others are lighter; some have
superior eye sight or sense of hearing or smell; some are more tolerant to
physical pain; etc, etc. And yet, we have all endured and all survived for
thousands of years. Survivability is over-rated. A small mutation or
difference doesn’t mean extinction, or necessitate the rapid spread of the
trait throughout the species’ population. The fundamental premise of
Natural Selection seems questionable at best. Yes, superior genetics may
make it more survivable, but it doesn’t mean all the others will suddenly
go extinct or cannot survive. And simplicity, such as bacteria and viruses,
seems to be far more survivable than complex mammals.
Page 372
So what is the mechanism to drive greater complexity, if Natural Selection,
a central thesis in the Theory of Evolution, isn’t it?
And lastly, natural selection doesn’t change the mathematical
probability, or the likelihood of evolution, as we discussed. It
doesn't’ matter how many smaller chunks we break down
impossible into. It’s still cumulatively - impossible. Breaking
down the evolutionary problem into smaller incremental steps
is purely to convince us humans that it is believable – smaller
incremental steps seem more “logical” or likely to our brains.
(This is the perversion of human logic). But the fact is, the
mathematical improbability remains unchanged; it does
nothing to change reality or probability.
7) Evolution leverages the idea of natural selection to say that positive
mutations result in biological improvements that ultimately result in new
species. I pointed out that adaptation is built into our DNA. It is one of
our mechanisms to endure and survive indefinitely, like any well designed
system you must have some flexibility.
What we eat, what we breathe, what type of physical activities we do, and
many other factors, all play into shaping and slightly adapting our species
for survival. Simply diet alone, which is influenced by environment, can
have huge impacts on size, shape, and overall appearance of an animal.
Slight mutations allow us to adapt to diseases and fight viruses and
bacteria better. This is built in as part of our design through the
mathematically predictable mutation rate that allows 1 or 2 or a few
nucleotide mutations only, but not thousands or millions required of
speciation.
But, despite the reality of adaptation, we have yet to witness or prove the
actual existence of one species randomly mutating in a positive way, to
become something completely different (as mentioned before, fossil
records are not proof, they merely show that two different but similar
species existing in time; to infer they are the same species is neither
warranted and merely hopeful assumption). Not even lab controlled and
experimentally induced mutations have created such a result. The
example of an insect with 4 wings instead of 2 that was genetically
engineered still shows it’s still the same insect.
Page 373
As I mentioned, mutations allow living things to exist within a band of
operation. This helps them to survive and adapt slightly. But the same
mechanism, the reality of random mutations, prevents living things from
making huge leaps to become entirely different species. It’s basic
mathematics, as I showed. Multiple simultaneous genetic mutations
required for one specie to leap to a completely different species is
mathematically impossible for any complex organism. Evolution of
multiple species through random mutations is the second most
fundamental idea to the Theory of Evolution that fails the most basic test
of mathematical probability. Miserably.
8) As I showed, the more complex an organism becomes, the less likely
beneficial mutations are to occur that affect significant change of species.
Complex organisms have lower population, they take longer to reproduce,
they have more detailed DNA code which requires increased simultaneous
beneficial mutations to occur to realize massive changes in structure.
Again, it’s simple math. Complexity and size creates laws of diminishing
returns, reducing the rate of change. This is evident throughout our
universe as we discussed. Both complexity increasing and the rate of
change increasing is simply impossible as we showed. And yet, the Theory
of Evolution insists that actual evolutionary complexity rapidly increased
over time, and started to happen even faster later, in shorter periods of
time! This is literally impossible with pure random evolution.
9) Evolutionists and scientists have been saying for well over half a century
that life should and must have evolved everywhere. That evolution doesn’t
depend on a fluke accident; that it is inevitable given the right conditions
and time. And yet, the longer we go, decade after decade, with ever more
powerful scientific instruments and technology, the less convinced we
become that there is life outside of this lonely planet. So many scientists
were so arrogantly convinced decades ago that we would have discovered
either actual life by now, or irrefutable evidence of it. We haven’t. We
have sent a NASA rover to Mars for nearly 3 years now, digging, probing,
and sampling everything its grubby mechanical paws can find. And even
despite proving the existence of water and a mild climate suitable to life
once existed, life isn’t anywhere to be found still; nor any hints it ever
existed. At what point do we finally say, maybe Earth is special. Maybe
this improbable life on our planet really was a fucking miracle, as
mathematics dictates it was. At what point do Evolutionists stop clinging
onto their blind faith of the Religion of Random Spontaneous
Consciousness and begin to embrace the truly objective reality of
Page 374
mathematics, that simply states, this was numerically impossible without
outside Intelligence.
10) Our human bodies, the community of tiny living cells is much more than
simply a collection of biological matter composed of complex carbon
molecules. There is incredible technology inside! Each living cell is like a
tiny but incredibly complex factory able to produce whatever it needs sugars/carbohydrates, proteins/enzymes, lipids, and so on - all from basic
atoms and molecules. It’s a nanotechnology factory. Really. Plus it has a
built in hospital. When a cell gets sick, it can heal itself. It figures out
which patient is ill and then helps cure it. When a foreigner intruder
invades, the army of white blood cells comes to fight off the virus or
bacteria or intruder; an avenging army that has allowed living cells to exist
for millions of years, far greater than any human empire has endured.
Our cells have a powerful communication system built in with
sophisticated protocols - a hybrid protocol of both peer-to-peer and oneto-many communications schemes, where cells can communicate with
each other, bouncing signals from protein to protein. Specific cells know
when to listen or ignore a communications signal based on the intended
type of cell it’s targeted for (just like human designed communication
systems and networks). The signal can be amplified; it can be broadcast to
many or just to one. I don’t think people understand how incredible this
is. It’s a global (body) network consisting of 100 trillion nodes - far more
than the World Wide Web or Internet. Our body has a communications
and networking system that is more complicated than our own Internet.
It’s incredible.
Plus it has an energy power plant inside which can generate all the power
it needs to sustain itself. It’s truly amazing.
How can all this incredible technology, that makes all the inventions
mankind has ever designed look like chump-tech, just happen by
randomness?
There is an incredible underlying technology and functionality behind
living things; it could only come through very intelligent design! Did all
this happen by random chance? Does technology happen by randomness?
11) Our brain employs sophisticated algorithms only possible through design
from extreme intelligence. In addition to the peer-to-peer and centralized
Page 375
network and communications protocols and systems, it has compression
techniques to manage data (most likely). Data retrieval algorithms to
allow us to recollect information. The world’s most efficient algorithms for
storage and compression of video (likely). Our brain’s technology - truly
nanotechnology - can out do any of mankind’s greatest technological
inventions and algorithms. Using less memory bits, our brain can access
virtually infinite storage. We discussed the comparison of the 1-Gbyte
Flash memory stick versus the 100 billion neuron structure of our human
brain – comparable number of bits – but vastly different memory
capacities and capabilities. Does this sound like it could’ve all happened
randomly?
Our brain and body is like all the leading technology companies rolled into
one: Intel + Cisco + Exxon + Oracle + Nvidia + Pfizer + AT&T + Google +
U.S. Military + Foxconn + many other technology companies. It does all
the same functions that each of these leading companies specializes in
doing, and spends, collectively, hundreds of billions of dollars every year
doing it. Our brain does it better. It does it using just a little bit of fuel
(food and water). Plus, it has other even more impressive capabilities like
self-replication! Simply amazing. Simply poetic beauty and elegance.
Sophisticated algorithms and technology doesn’t just happen.
Using the analogy of a computer, imagine the mechanical or
physical body as the hardware PC. And the algorithms in the
brain and cellular level intelligence (ability to communicate,
self-repair, etc) as the software which inter-operates with the
PC hardware, as an abstraction layer which sits on top of the
hardware. There is NO WAY the sophisticated technology and
algorithms inherent inside our brains could have just come
together through random molecular combinations. I believe
the hardware is the physical aspect of who we are, and the
software is the spiritual or consciousness aspect of our being.
The physical body will eventually perish, but the software or
consciousness will endure.
12) And finally, evolution runs counter to everything we know from our own
experience and our common sense. We know in the real world, that when
things are left to random devices, things go to shit, not get more complex
and orderly. This is the universal law we discussed previously - entropy
(chaos and disorder) always increases. We know that building something
Page 376
complex is fricking impossible without thought and intelligence and
creativity.
Would you leave work for a day and come back, expecting somehow, all
the problems randomly solved themselves; or all the emails wrote
themselves; or all the tasks on your todo list all got magically done
spontaneously - because your survival at the company depended on it?
Fuck no! These morons get fired!
Nobody would ever say something like an iPhone could spontaneously
evolve given the right conditions or enough time. Even if it was carbon
based. A lot of smart engineers made it happen. Evolutionists argue “well,
progress happened slowly, over billions of years.” This logic is irrelevant
to mathematics and randomness. Well human technology has progress
slowly too, over millions of years. And at every single point, none of it was
by accident. First we formed spears, then bows and arrows, then knives,
then the printing press, then guns, then missiles and computers and the
internet and...advanced technology is never random.
We know in our own lives that complex designs are incredibly difficult,
and they take a lot of intelligence to make happen. But we are to
believe that the most complex things we have ever seen in our
lives, or in the entire universe, billions of times more
sophisticated than any of man’s best technology, just happened
randomly, spontaneously, or slowly over time? Somehow by
accident because of this magical thing called “natural
selection”?
Behind the delusion that given enough time,
anything can happen? That’s purely the thinking of a non-god
religion, intent on believing this idea of pure evolution no
matter what.
In the real world, randomness just creates more chaos and disorder. To
believe in random evolution is to disregard all of this universal truth and
our own personal experiences.
At the start of this chapter I outlined the 4 compelling facts of Evolution. I will
repeat them below to remind us, along with the summary from our discussion:
1) The success of creating the basic organic compound ingredients – amino
acids – in lab experiments.
Page 377
Amino acids are the most basic building blocks needed to build proteins,
which are essential to create life. But we proved that these lab
experiments are useless, as they do not reflect the actual atmosphere of
early Earth. It is impossible, chemically, to spontaneously generate amino
acids in an oxidizing or oxygen rich atmosphere, as was the case with
primordial Earth. So this fact is completely irrelevant.
2) Similarity and overlap of common or similar DNA code found in all
living organisms.
We showed, yes indeed, there are similarities in DNA code, especially
between Apes and Humans. However, we discussed the fact that any
intelligent design always reuses portions of proven code. We talked about
how Toyota shares similarities in all their automobiles; we talked about
how HP shares similar architecture in all their computing systems; we
talked about how Microsoft or any software company leverages proven bits
of code across the many products and platforms. Nobody ever reengineers
something completely from scratch every single time they want to create a
new product. (Unless they have NO intelligence – i.e. random.)
This is how intelligent entities create. Genetic engineers don’t reinvent the
DNA code, they modify the existing code to enhance or alter it to create
something better.
We also discussed how random and the normal statistical distribution of
events would not lead to shared commonality of DNA code. True random
evolution should have many unique tree trunks, all spawning different
branches of DNA code. Random should never mean that all living things
have a single shared tree trunk that branched into the diversity we see
today.
This shared nature of biological life more heavily favors the concept of
Intelligent Design than random evolution.
3) Fossil records and paleontological data showing different species with
increasing complexity; especially humanoid fossil records depicting the
progression toward human form.
These are indeed facts. But I pointed out that the existence of these fossils
merely proves that there were multiple species that looked similarly at
Page 378
different points in time. It is conceivable they were related and derived
from similar ancestry, but not a certainty based purely on fossil records.
And furthermore, the idea of Intelligent Design also supports the historical
fossil record that should show progression of species over time. The
primary difference is, however, that Intelligent Design theory assumes
these changes were engineered by intelligence rather than the result of
random mutations. If you had to place a bet with your life, which one
seems to be the more likely way it could have happened?
4) The physical reality of mutations and clearly observable examples of
adaption of species.
Mutations are a reality and vital to the survival of all organic species.
Without this characteristic, all life would eventually perish. But I
specifically showed that there is a vast difference between adaption –
altering a species by mutating a few nucleotides to allow for adaption to
environment – versus the idea of mass mutations resulting in the
evolution of entirely different species. We showed mathematically why
this is simply impossible. Furthermore, we have never witnessed any
organism that went through speciation to an entirely different species
based purely on random mutation, not even for the simplest single celled
organisms. This is because it is mathematically impossible to have
multiple beneficial mutations on the order that is required for speciation.
Recall from the section “The Impossibility of Inter-Species Mutation”,
I calculated the chance of just 5 simultaneous beneficial mutations
(out of 4.1 million nucleotides) in E. coli occurring in a specific
sequence is impossible (for instance to change a simple part of one
gene). The math says 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.
This is 1 chance out of 100,000 trillion.
This would take
11,415,525,114,155,300 years or 11.4 trillion years - just to mutate 5
simultaneous nucleotides. The smallest, simplest step in the entire
chain of evolutionary events that must occur is – itself - impossible.
The universe is only 13,800,000,000 years old (13.8 billion).
For evolution to occur as the theory holds is impossible. Therefore,
the entire theory is mathematically invalid. If any other scientific
theory showed this mathematical improbability, NO scientist in the
world would ever believe it or accept it as scientific truth.
Page 379
The mathematical truth is that numbers - which do not, cannot lie tells us that there is an intelligence somewhere in this universe,
beyond humans. It is an absolute certainty. I call this my notion of
God.
The Religion of Random Spontaneous Consciousness, the idea that life and
intelligence and consciousness and love and beauty and poetry and everything
amazing around us, was nothing more than pure random coincidence, is
complete bunk. A religion that believes everything just evolved, not by luck, but
because it was “required” to survive. This is the essence of their faith. When you
look at it objectively it sounds more like a cult religion, rather than science.
I’ve heard people say that not believing in Evolution, because the
theory or concept is riddled with holes, is tantamount to believing in a
“God of the Gaps.” I disagree. The two are independent. I can reject
the notion of one, without necessarily embracing the other. And
holding onto the belief of one or the other, simply because we prove
the other false, is equally stupid. Like I’ve said before, Intelligence
doesn’t necessarily mean God. But I can say that today, in our
universe, intelligence already exists as I’ve stated. It’s humans. 7.2
billion of us. So why is it impossible to believe that Intelligence hasn’t
always existed in some form? That’s a pretty small leap of faith. And
much smaller than embracing the infinitely impossible in my humble
opinion.
Besides, it’s far more than gaps. As we showed, there are huge holes in the theory
at every point. You could drive clusters of galaxies into these holes.
Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle with a trillion pieces, and we’ve managed to
identify and fill in a few thousand of them. And then we jump to the conclusion
of what the picture is and how it happened. Coincidently, the biggest puzzle
pieces were incorrectly identified, as we showed.
As I’ve stated before, the idea of evolution mandates that you must
also believe that Nature (our universe) and Randomness are infinitely
smarter than Mankind, having invented far grander marvels than we
could ever dream. This is absolutely true if you believe in the theory.
To believe purely in evolution means you believe that who we are, the
intelligence we possess, and the amazing little nanotechnology factory
and truly leading edge technology inside of each of us, just happened
Page 380
by random combinations and chance - random mutations which occur
roughly once every billion replications, like clockwork.
In life we don’t have to have all the answers to everything; because it’s not
possible. Sometimes, we can just admit to ourselves, “I don’t have any fricking
idea. I don’t know.” Sometimes, regarding such things as philosophical and
metaphysical ideas which we simply cannot prove conclusively, sometimes it’s ok
to say we don’t know. But we can acknowledge we may not be the highest
intelligence in this universe - given there is much more we do not know than
what we do know. So let’s keep an open mind. That’s what I believe; my version
of Agnostics. My faith.
I don’t know what the right answer is, or what God is, or if there is a
God at all. But I do know with absolute certainty - based on objective
math - that the idea of pure random evolution is impossible and
complete bullshit. It’s the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind.
I don’t care if people insist on believing in evolution for themselves.
But don’t lie or mislead others (who may not be as well educated or
scientifically minded) by teaching such things like: It was an everyday
event; that evolution was an inevitability; that it’s proven scientific
fact. Let’s be honest.
Honesty is at the core of human goodness. If we lack that, there can
be no goodness within us.
So I choose to believe, if something is so improbable and a “fucking miracle” is
the only way I can quantify it. Then I believe it was intentional and designed. It’s
the easier of the two realities to believe. It’s that simple for me.
Then by Who? Why? How?
I don’t know. But I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt, it was no
accident. I can’t lie to myself and convince myself to believe the unbelievable.
Believe me, as I said before early in the book, in my early adulthood I wanted
nothing more than to believe it was all just random. And I was intent on proving
that to myself - because I never took anything anyone told me as fact (anything of
importance) without first making myself understand and believe why it was (not
ever in school or elsewhere). I spent countless hours during my school days
proving and deriving theorems and postulates in math on my own just so I could
Page 381
say “Yes, I believe it myself; it’s true.” Instead of relying on what I thought was “a
stupid textbook” or professor just telling me it was so.
Biological life is the ONLY exception. It is unique. It is special. It was surely
only possible by some type of intention and design.
Of all the billions of examples in our universe, biological life is the only example
of a process growing ever more complex over time. I’ve heard silly examples of
the growth of crystals in water as an analogy of complexity growing in the
universe. Seriously? Comparing simple crystals based on a single atom or
molecule is comparable to a human DNA with 200 billion atoms in a single
molecule or biological life in general? That’s the best counter example to negate
the laws of physics?
We can CHOOSE to look at this in one of two ways. It was highly unlikely
(probabilistically impossible), but by happenstance, this complexity naturally
formed and evolved and persisted. OR. Life began in spurts and stops, trial and
error, until the Artist (whomever or whatever they are) felt it was good enough.
Biological and genetic engineering. The original.
How we choose to believe is up to us. But either way, it is a choice. Something
we choose to believe in. Just like religion is a choice of something we choose to
believe, even despite the absence of full proof.
The most difficult concept to overcome and believe is common to all
ideas - no matter what you believe started life and this universe: this
concept of time and the existence of something. Human beings
struggle with the concept of time, given our transient state of being.
And rightly so. Physically, we are born one minute, and physically, we
vanish the next. In the grand scheme of the universe, it isn’t even a
minute. Regardless of what you believe - whether in pure Evolution
and random chance, or Creationism and God in the traditional sense,
or Eternal recycled Spirituality as Buddhism teaches, or like me,
some form on unknown Intelligence thought of and designed
everything we see around us - regardless of all this, we still must
accept that something has always existed; independent of time, and
with no starting point. It’s an impossibility for us to grasp.
But in every reality, something can never be created from nothing. In
any universe or reality. Not this one. Not a parallel one. Something
or somethings always existed.
Page 382
But because of this fact, we all have to choose to believe in something. Whether
it’s the belief that in the beginning there was God in the traditional sense; or in
the beginning was energy with inherent consciousness and hence spirituality; or
in the beginning was just matter and energy purely in the physical sense; or in the
beginning there was some Intelligence - it all requires faith.
Faith - believing in something, even despite absolute proof.
In this respect, we are ALL religious. The purity of objective science is
a fantasy of unequalled delusion.
If, however, there was already some superior Intelligence - either God or
something else - then the leap of faith required to believe all of this could be by
design is much more believable. The probability that a superior Intelligence has
the potential to create life and everything around us is close to 100% probably.
The mathematical elegance that guides our entire universe speaks volumes in
God’s language. It had to be by design.
The probability of something existing being God is simply a 0 or 1. It is digital.
It’s like flipping a coin. It either was or it wasn’t.
The probability of something existing originally being purely physical matter and
energy is also 0 or 1 (actually much closer to 1, since it is the current reality). But
the compounded probability of each evolutionary step required for life is simply
too large to accept as a viable option for me.
If winning the Powerball lotto is impossible in a personal sense at 1 in
175 million chance, and the sun not rising is impossible in a cosmic
sense at 1 in 2 trillion chance, then evolution is impossible - in any
sense - at 1 in infinity chance.
It’s beyond quantifiable, because the numbers don’t make sense anymore after a
certain size of a very large unimaginable number. It is impossible all this could
happen without intelligence.
Given these chances, and if I had to place my bet. I’ll take the coin flip. 50-50
chance is better than infinitely impossible, any day.
My choice is based on math. Numbers are the only thing in this
universe that are truly objective. This is why I love math. And as I
Page 383
assess the numerical chances of either scenario, I believe the one that
seems most likely - most probable by a long country mile - is the idea
of Intelligence creating, designing and nurturing this complexity of
life into what we see today. It was likely over millions and billions of
years. After all, “God” has no sense of time, and is probably bored as
shit sometimes.
But as I said at the beginning of this long chapter, it’s not the incredible biological
and technical details that convince us to believe in something more - no matter
how amazing and unbelievable they are; it’s the poetry and beauty around us
everywhere. Poetry is never by accident.
And this universe is nothing short of breathtaking. I gasp for breath as I really
think about the incredible detail, the utter creativity, and phenomenal intricacy
and finely tuned (perfected) interdependent nature of everything - all operating
in perfect harmony. So many unimaginable variables. So many details. So
complex, yet appearing so simple and elegant. All so perfectly orchestrated.
Like a symphony with literally trillions of different instruments, all
perfectly choreographed to create the incredible sound of life.
How can we not be amazed and just breath in this vibrant sound? To
feel the rumble of its vigorous vibrations. To be tantalized by this
soothing acoustic miracle: The amazing orchestra of life.
The perfect symphony.
Page 384
Chapter 10. Dating and Romance, the Color of Love
“Never close your lips to those whom you have already opened your heart.”
- Charles Dickens
Few things provide as much color in our life
as love and romance. Finding and meeting
the right person in our life can change our
world, enliven our daily experience and
increase our contentment and satisfaction
with life. Love is the only thing worth living
for, and the only thing worth dying for.
Once you experience true love, it puts life in
perspective.
The path to love starts with the first courageous step toward the woman in front
of you that you wish you could talk with. (Sorry ladies, this is from a man’s
perspective).
I’ve been quite fortunate in being able to find truly remarkable women whose
inner beauty was equal to their outer beauty. The few times I’ve fell in love, it
was always their beauty that captivated my attention, but always their soul or
inner self that made me fall in love.
But finding that special someone has to first start by meeting them. This is
usually where people fail due to fear of rejection, lack of confidence or timidity, or
not being able to sense or read people, or not understanding what is important to
them and motivates them.
To find the right person for each of us, we first need to know ourselves and know
what we want. Then have the courage and confidence to seek it out. And finally,
to be able to read and understand human nature and behavior. People are
motivated by a few basic needs or desires in life. Trying to find out the root
motivator of people is instrumental to finding the right person.
Page 385
I admit this chapter is a bit more light-hearted in tone, laced with a few serious
moments. Some of my friends used to joke that I should write a book about how
to pickup girls. It’s a skill that somehow I developed quite well (more later on
this topic). This is one of the most important steps to meeting and finding the
right potential mate for each of us. So many people choose the first person that
likes them, or they think they fall in love with in life. It’s like going to a delicious
dinner buffet at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and stopping at the first dish, and filling
your plate with only that cuisine. Then going to the checkout counter and
enjoying your meal. It may seem tasty, but without at least seeing what’s
available in the rest of the incredible buffet of life and having a different reference
point, you have no idea if it’s your favorite, or even the right dish or cuisine for
you. I’m not promoting the idea of being promiscuous or being with everyone,
but we should expose ourselves to more than we usually do in life.
I met a shy, but beautiful, 20 year old blond girl recently who was with her
boyfriend since she was 15, living together since she was 16. I asked her if she felt
love and fulfillment in her life and relationship when we first met. The long
pause and lack of response was a clear answer. The demure look and glancing
away of the eyes told me a certain sense of sadness and un-fulfillment defined her
young life. Sometimes we stay in relationships because they’re comfortable;
because they’re familiar; because we fear being alone; because we think we may
never find another person who will love us again; because we are afraid to hurt
our partner; or dozens of other bad reasons that are rarely true or good reasons.
We all do. I am no different, as I've had these exact thoughts often, especially
that I will never find true love again.
But we live one life. Live it with courage and live it in a way that makes you
happy every day, or at least most days. If we are not happy inside, those around
us, including your children (who are incredibly perceptive, far more than adults),
will not be happy either.
As I mentioned in Chapter 1, I’ve met a lot of girls and I’ve really been intimate
with hundreds of girls. Now that may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind, I’ve
been in monogamous relationships nearly my entire adult life - over 20 years of
relationships - with the exception of a handful of years being single (where I also
had a number of short term relationships too). So when I went wild, I literally
went wild.
I don’t recommend my lifestyle of hedonism during the single years. I hope that
is clear to everyone by now. However, meeting girls is important to finding the
right one.
Page 386
Usually I date girls that are significantly younger than I am because I tend to be
drawn to girls that are more free spirited and like to have fun. But these girls are
rarely the ones I enter serious relationships with. They’re typically in their
twenties, although I've dated girls recently in the past couple years between 18
and 36 (a few in the 30s). Until after my recent divorce, I had never dated
anyone over 30, so I’m proud of myself for trying to act more my age at least! I
think the average age of the girls I’ve been with in the last 10 years is probably
somewhere in range of 22-23. Perhaps this reveals my own level of maturity.
Although, I was at a restaurant bar early
last year waiting for my girl who was flying
into San Jose on Valentine’s Day (not
girlfriend, just dating). She was 28 and we
were going to Lake Tahoe for the weekend
to go snowboarding. It was just overlooked
coincidence it happened to be Valentine’s
Day. I had totally forgotten and so did she.
I had no gifts. So I made a bouquet of paper
roses for her (left). I know, cheap bastard.
While I was waiting near the airport at the
restaurant bar, I was talking to this woman
sitting alone just next to me at the bar. She
was traveling on business. She owned her
own clothing company and was fairly
successful. She was close to my age, maybe
late 30s, early 40s. She was an attractive and sexy Caucasian lady. Well dressed,
educated, successful. We ended up talking for an hour or two over dinner and
drinks. We got on the topic of local politics somehow (which I know very little
about, I prefer national and international affairs). But with any topic I discuss, I
usually engage it with passion and a sense of confident knowledge. She told me
over and over, “You should go into politics! You would be perfect for it with your
charisma, passion of the issues and well spokenness,” she emphasized. During
this entire time, this woman is clearly flirting with me, saying “Next time I come
to town, I’m gonna measure your body in my room to have you fitted for one of
my suits.” She wasn’t trying to sell me a suit, if you know what I mean. At the
end of the night, as I’m about to reach into my pocket for my wallet to pay my
bill, the woman says, “No, please, let me.” She insisted and proceeded to pay for
my dinner and drinks. I was grateful and said “Thank you.” It was one of those
rare moments I got to feel like a male princess. LOL.
Page 387
But I suddenly realized what it felt like to be a woman. I was her “bitch” as my
girlfriend Marina would tell me if she was telling the story. I actually understood
the uncomfortable position that girls feel when a man pays for dinner or a date the sense of expectations, and that I owed her something in return. I never
personally felt this way when I would pay for a date - I’m just a traditionalist in
that regard. But it was still awkward and a bit uncomfortable. But now, I finally
understood what it was like to be on the other side of the fence. It was an
interesting experience and valuable perspective. I’ve had girls pay for my dinner
many times, but this time was different.
So now, when my girlfriend Marina calls me “Her Bitch!”, which she does
regularly, I’m not shell-shocked due to the preconditioning this beautiful older
lady gave me.
Anyway, I decided to write down some basic things I’ve learned about how to
approach and meet girls. Later in this chapter, I talk about how I learned to talk
with girls, as well as some of the more ridiculous and funny things I’ve done to
meet girls. If you haven’t read the Chapter 5 section on “The Delusion of SelfConfidence,” you should go read that section first. Confidence is central to
everything we do in life, especially engaging girls for the first time.
Daryl's Rules of Engagement
✓
Never lie. Lying may work sometimes, but eventually it crashes down on
you like a poorly built bridge. Don’t be a douchebag and lie to a girl just to get
inside her pants. Ok, I tell a white lie about my age often but that’s the only
exception.
✓
Always be genuine. Don't use stupid pickup lines, unless it’s a unique one
you came up with in the moment (and is just for comic value). Sincerity goes
much further than stale lines that are so cheesy and rarely work.
✓
Just say what you feel; say what's appropriate. People are usually afraid to
say personal things or ask personal questions when you first meet someone. This
type of engagement will tell you a lot about the type of person you just met. Don’t
be afraid to ask personal questions. Sometimes, I preface the question by asking,
“May I ask you a serious or personal question?” The question needs to be asked
in context to the conversation and not something completely random. After
Page 388
asking the question, if there’s a pregnant pause, I will often say, “If you don’t feel
comfortable answering this question now, it’s ok…I was just curious and asked
because…..blah blah.”
✓
Always smile. A genuine smile goes a mile. If she smiles back, the light is
green. Buckle up baby!!
✓
Laugh. Then make her laugh. If you can get a woman to smile or laugh,
you’ve cracked open the door to her heart. All you need to do is push through
now.
✓
Be confident. There's no room for fear or nervousness. You've already lost
if you approach timidly. Confidence is purely mental (seriously, go read Chapter
5 on Confidence). Approaching with confidence and having a confident mindset
is the single most important thing to engagement. It shouldn’t require a few
drinks to have confidence. It’s purely in your head. I get rejected more times
than you ever will. Who gives a shit?
✓
Never worry about rejection. EVERYBODY gets rejected sometimes, even
models, billionaires, and movie stars. So why sweat it? One girl out of 7.2 billion
people in the world saying “No” to you is hardly earth shattering news. Who
gives a shit if she says no or even laughs at you? But if she's rude, you should
always have a witty rebuttal. Remind her that civility is still attractive. One time
I went up to a hot girl. But for no reason, she was instantly rude and a complete
bitch. I hadn’t even spoken yet, nor had she even seen me. I told her the
following, after her coldness: “You may be beautiful on the outside. But I think it
must be terrible going through life knowing that the only thing of value you have
to offer to this world is something that will decrease in value every year, until it
finally becomes completely worthless. Courtesy costs nothing.” Then I smiled
and walked away.
✓
Always make eye contact. When you see her, keep the eye contact and
don’t look away right away. Smile. It’s always best to approach soon after seeing
her, rather than waiting. It shows confidence.
✓
Find something positive about the girl and tell her. For instance, if she has
nice shoes or a nice sense of fashion; if she has a unique tattoo, or lovely hair or
intriguing eyes, nice dimples, etc. ...be sincere. My favorite is a beautiful smile.
Like I said in Chapter 5, everyone wants to feel special. People in general want to
be around others who make them feel better about themselves. Women are no
Page 389
different. If you have reason, give a genuine compliment. But always be sincere.
But don’t go overboard with the flattery to seem phony.
✓
When talking with her, always make eye contact, but don’t stare
continuously to make it feel strange. Too much eye contact can be considered
“crazy eyes.” If she wanted to date someone crazy, she’d probably go hang out at
the psychiatric ward. So make solid eye contact, but glance away periodically and
use facial expressions when speaking with passion. Smile often. Especially after
finishing a thought or topic. Talk with energy and passion. It’s positive and
contagious.
✓
Don't dwell so much on how beautiful she is, even if she is. After you find
something small to compliment her on, then just have a normal conversation
about anything that's interesting. You need to read her reaction a bit, or guess
what she may be into and what interests her. I've talked about almost anything
and everything with girls, from politics to religion (I generally don't suggest
these, but sometimes they are very relevant and good topics), sports, fashion,
travel, hobbies, love, relationships, animals and pets, the weather (I hate this
one), food, drinks, the dumbest questions I’ve been asked, favorite travel
destinations, etc… Just talk like you would with a friend, but show genuine
interest. Ask questions and really listen. I hate talking about work on first
meetings, even if you love your job. If you ask or if she asks, make it very brief
and then move on. I personally didn’t want to be with a girl who defined herself
by her work or career (unless she was an artist or entertainer obviously); people
who are defined purely by their work or career are always the wrong type of
person to get involved with (understanding personalities and tendencies for
relationships).
✓
Aim high. Most times guys are intimidated by a gorgeous girl. The hell
with that! Go for the hottest one! Worst she says is no. Maybe she's friendly and
you get to know a nice girl you can be friends with. Best case, she likes you. I like
those odds. The downside to upside risk/reward is worth it. Here's something I
might say to an absolutely stunning looking girl: "Tell me [smile, pause], is it true
what they say? [Wait for her to ask what?] That the most beautiful girls like you
intimidate guys so much they’re afraid to talk with you?" If she says yes probably somewhat jokingly - then follow it up with something silly like, “Yeah, I
know what you mean. It’ the same reason women don’t talk with me.” Then just
smile and laugh gently like you’re having the time of your life. Convey it as an
obvious joke to loosen the mood and tension. This isn’t a line. It would’ve been
something that just came to mind in the moment. I know this sounds downright
silly. But based on how you deliver it and how sincere you sound, it works.
Page 390
✓
Make physical contact but be tactful. It's important your skin touch hers.
Touching is electric. At the end of the day, we’re all animals and touch is one of
our most important sensory inputs. Touch her hand briefly when you laugh
together. Bring positive association with your touch with positive moments. Or
wherever seems appropriate. Don't be a creep and don't overstep! Often when I
first approach a girl, I will lean down and talk gently to her with a smile and
perhaps a small laugh, while one hand is gently on her back. You will get a big
read on her interest by her reaction.
✓
Always be a gentleman. This is a shout out to my CoBro double G’s!!
(Inside joke). I love you guys man!
✓
Don't flaunt money or offer to pay a woman's drinks often at a bar or club.
This is a sucker’s play. Occasionally I will. Girls often just look for guys to pay for
their drinks or dinner. Don't be a fool. You really want to find the right girl, not
one who wants you for money or free drinks. If you’re out on a date, that’s a
separate matter. I’m still a traditionalist and believe the man should pay for the
date and without expectations of more (hope yes).
✓
Try to be creative. Hot girls get hit on all the time! Don't be just another
dude. But never be intimidated or afraid of any hot girl. You're not a pussy so
don't act like one. I have some examples of things I’ve said or done when
approaching girls later in this chapter.
✓
In general women want to do most of the talking, so listen. But don't let
them dominate the conversation. You need to show that you’re a man and
strong, but not overpowering. So exert yourself sometimes and don't let her
guide the discussion completely. You do this by asking her questions periodically
(within the context of the conversation) that she has to answer to redirect the
conversation.
✓
Talk about what's important to you. Your passion. All people love passion
in people. It will come through in your conversation. And it will make you more
attractive and interesting. Even if it's something stupid like stamp collecting.
Explain why it became important to you. Maybe it was sentimental because you
were close to your grandfather or dad and it helped bond the two of you. Never
be afraid to show a sensitive side of you, even with someone you just met. It's not
weakness. It's strength and courage to be yourself. It shows confidence.
Page 391
✓
Keep the conversation positive. For instance, if you hate your work or job,
then don't talk about it. Nobody likes downers. If it comes up, mention it briefly
and don't over indulge the topic. If you get on a negative topic, redirect to
something more positive quickly. You want to associate yourself with positivity.
✓
Don't be afraid to be stupid or silly, or act childish if appropriate. For me,
it was always appropriate. And remember, smile, smile, smile. Always. Smiles
are more valuable than Benjamins ($100 bills).
✓
Women in big groups are tough. But sometimes who gives a shit, shake it
up. Sometimes I'll just go right up to the group, or sit at their table and say
something funny or smile. Or just say something stupid and un-clever like "Hey
ladies, you mind if I sit and join you for a bit! I promise if I bore you, you can
throw me out." [Smile]
✓
If girls are in pairs, you really need to pay a little attention to the second
one to make her feel engaged, or you will likely have no chance. Her allegiance is
to her friend far more than some random guy she just met and doesn’t know. But
don’t give too much attention to her friend so the girl you like thinks you're into
both of them, or thinks you’re a douche.
✓
If a girl is by herself, it's possible she's waiting for a friend or boyfriend (or
is a prostitute in rare occasions). So don't waste time. Try to find out by asking
questions right away. Sometimes, I will simply be direct and ask, “You look
anxious. Are you waiting for someone?” If she says yes, I will often follow with
“Oh that's great. I’ll keep you company until he/she arrives if you don’t mind.”
✓
Be sure to get her number. Duh. Younger girls prefer texting. Older girls
prefer actually talking. Grandmothers prefer postal mail (I presume). If they’re
older than a Grandmother, make sure they have good life insurance before
engaging (that really was just a joke).
✓
Always try to set a specific day in the near future to meet again. If not, tell
her you will call or text either tomorrow or in the next few days. But do it soon. I
was never one who believed in the silly rule of waiting 3 days before contacting
her. Sometimes I texted right away to make sure she had my number, most times
the next day. Sometimes a few days later. It all depended on how much I liked
her or other practical considerations. But do what you say you will.
✓
When you leave, always give them a warm hug and kiss on the cheek. Not
too long to be creepy, not too short to be too friendly. Let them know with body
Page 392
language you are interested in more than friendship. And say something positive
or funny. Remind them how much you enjoyed the time or the laughs. But never
seem desperate or begging. Be confident. Close like the Yankees baseball legend
Mariano Rivera. Act like SHE should want to be with you again! But not cocky
or arrogant.
✓
Be direct. If you don’t sense a girl is into you too much, ask her directly if
she just wants to be friends. Sometimes this will put her at ease and you can
really get to know a girl. And when she’s relaxed, she’s open to getting to know
you. And when a girl begins to open up and trust, then a girl can begin to fall in
love with a man’s personality or mind. And if they fall in love with these traits,
they can fall in love, period. Girls like a direct man and usually they’re surprised
by the honesty. It shows confidence. Sometimes a girl is only interested in
friendship. Maybe she’s in a relationship; maybe she is still traumatized by an
old relationship and isn’t ready yet to date; maybe she isn’t attracted to you;
maybe she only dates guys of the same race (this isn’t racism by the way, and I
always found this the most challenging and interesting case for myself).
Whatever the cause, there are a ton of reasons that have nothing to do with you.
I’ve met so many girls that have told me they don’t date Asian’s or like Asian’s.
Or that they only want to be friends with me when we first met. In the end, I’ve
been in relationships with some of them and had intimate experiences with a
LOT of these initial encounters. So you never know. Always keep an open mind.
Always keep hope alive!
Honestly I've picked up girls or got numbers from just about every place
imaginable. If girls are there, it's a possible place of opportunity to meet the
future girl of your dreams. Again, if you don’t ever meet her, you never have the
opportunity to possibly fall in love.
I've met girls in restaurants, bars, cafes, coffee shops, parking lots, nightclubs,
planes, airports, trains, busses, walking on the street, 7-Eleven convenience
stores, parks, bus stops, train stops, taxis, hotels, lobbies, hotel and work
receptionists, grocery stores, work, sports events, schools, museums, waiting for
toilets, etc. No funerals. And no hospitals. Some things are sacred. But why
can’t you meet someone anywhere?
I've met girls just looking through a closed window and using hand signals and
smiles to exchange numbers, then talking on the phone while looking at each
other through the window.
Page 393
Keep ‘em Rolling
I've picked up girls while driving in a car on the street as both vehicles were in
motion!
One time, during one of our work International Sales Conferences near LA, a
bunch of my fellow coworkers and I were inside a taxi van on the way home to
our hotel. It was pretty late after the bars had closed, and we were all pretty
drunk. It's a sales conference for God's sake! What do you expect? As the van
sped along, a car with two young hot girls drove by us. I asked the taxi driver to
speed up and match the car's speed in the adjacent lane. I slid opened the door of
the taxi van and began talking with the girls as the cars were in motion. I was
literally hanging out the door speaking with the girls. Everyone inside the van
was in shock and laughing (my coworkers and colleagues). I convinced the girls
to follow us to our hotel, which they did.
How crazy do you have to be to follow a van full of 10 drunk guys to a hotel?
To cut a long story short, they followed us to the hotel and we went to the hotel
lobby bar, which unfortunately was already closed. So I asked some of the guys to
go to their rooms and get the mini bar drinks and bring them down to the lobby.
We spent a couple hours drinking the hodge-podge of different alcohols from
everyone’s mini-bar (not my mini bar, I was with the girls the whole time).
Toward the end of the night, one of the girls went around the corner, behind the
bar, and stole a bottle of alcohol and brought it to me. I didn't know she had
stolen it. I hid it when the security guys suddenly came over. They had seen
everything on the security camera. Duh! At the same time one of the girls
whispers in my ear, "I'm not 21. I'm only 19!"
Oh shit! In the U.S., the drinking age is 21 and the penalty for giving alcohol to a
minor is pretty stiff. Plus it was a work conference! They had been out to a club
earlier in the night so we assumed they were 21. We had just given alcohol to a
minor, aided the theft of alcohol in a 5 star hotel, and God knows what other
misdemeanors we had committed! Security asked the girls for their ID. But I
convinced the security to let us all go and I would drive the girls home, without
showing their IDs. I drove the girls home in their car. And yes, those girls were
absolutely crazy! But very young and hot. They always seem to go hand in hand,
unfortunately.
Page 394
During the drive to their home, it was an interesting experience to say the least.
The girl in the front starts kissing me while I’m driving. My hands are inside her
shirt (no bra by then) and inside her pants. The girl in the backseat starts
screaming suddenly, angry and jealous she’s being left out. So after we calm her
down, she joins in, sitting up in the seat toward the front. I turned my head while
driving so I could kiss her briefly also. Everyone’s happy. This foreplay goes on
for about 15 minutes, at least. Finally, I realize we have been driving a while and
ask them exactly where we were going. They seemed to be lost and giving me
inconsistent turn directions (they were drunk of course). After driving around for
another 30 minutes or so, I realized we’re never going to find our way to their
house (it was not their house but I recall one of their friends or some relative). I
was exhausted and tired of driving endlessly. So I got pissed off and said, “I’m
getting out and getting a taxi to go back to my hotel. Goodbye.”
I was in marketing and I had to present to the worldwide Sales team the next
morning around 8am or 9am for my product line (multiple times) and it must’ve
already been past 5am. Sorry the story ending wasn’t as exciting as I hoped. It
could’ve been another threesome, but wasn’t meant to be. They were too drunk
and even crazier.
During this entire driving episode of going around in circles, I remembered the
last time I was in a similar situation many years before. I was driving around
aimlessly in the Los Gatos hills in California, looking for my friend’s house. He
was so drunk in the backseat, he ended up throwing up outside my moving SUV
(the happy trails gleefully clinging to my outside paint). And during the
roundabout journey - we were literally going in circles in the mountains - I ended
up hitting a large deer and damaging my SUV. (It’s true what they say about deer
freezing in the headlights!) I had learned my lesson! Plus, I was a little drunk
and didn’t need to get a drunk driving episode with police and go to jail during a
work conference. Granted, this was two hot girls who were horny as shit! But,
live life another day...responsibility prevails!! America wins!! Evil is vanquished!
Hooray! (Ok, I went too far).
But after this episode, a number of the sales guys would always come up to me
when they were in town, sometimes years later, and say things like “You’re the
man!” or something silly like that. We always had a good laugh. They usually
always wanted to party with me whenever they came to town. Yes, I always
seemed to develop a pretty comical party reputation at work.
Page 395
Training Grounds
I've been with just about every kind of girl imaginable, except perhaps, astronauts
and nuns. Like I’ve said before, I've been with lawyers, doctors, musicians,
singers, professional dancers, models, engineers (the rare hot ones), hotel
receptionists (picked up as I checked into the hotel and we went out later),
strippers (picked up at strip club and went out or went back to hotel/house),
teachers, lesbians (well technically this isn’t a profession I guess, although
perhaps it should be!), yoga instructors, business owners, flight attendants,
actors, dealers at casinos, archeologists, restaurant hostesses, waiters,
bartenders, a few single mothers, and lots and lots of university students, among
others.
Some were brilliant. Others were dumber than stone. But all were awesome in
their own way, and I liked each one for different reasons. But they were almost
always pretty hot and fun girls.
It sounds unbelievable, even to me, as I write this. Because I'm nobody. I'm not
famous or rich or a model. But this made it that much more rewarding and
satisfying, because it wasn't because I was famous or rich or a supermodel. The
thrill of the chase is the best part of being with someone at the beginning when
you meet (and always hoping it may be something special). I'm just an average
guy who figured out how to talk with girls and read and understand people, and
make them smile and laugh. Anybody could do what I do.
People have asked me countless times, where and how I learned to talk to women
the way I do. People I meet everywhere are shocked at my approach toward
women when they see me out (Americans and foreigners). I don’t mean for this
to sound over-confident, just because I rarely have fear about approaching a
women doesn’t mean I don’t experience rejection. Quite the contrary. Failure
and rejection is something we all live with. I get rejected often. But the courage
of a man depends solely on whether and how you let that affect you going
forward. Forget it, learn from it, and get back on the horse.
I joke with some of my close friends that I fine-tuned and honed my skills on how
to talk with women or girls in strip clubs. LOL. Periodically, when I had nothing
better to do, I would chill and have a beer at bikini bars (not nude strip places,
those are typically too creepy). My philosophy was, if I could get a woman who
gets hit on by guys on an daily and hourly basis - whose sole job was to extract
money from guys - if I could get her to spend hours with me and talk with me
without spending money, then I could engage anyone. I would usually buy them
Page 396
a drink or two during our conversation (at normal prices), or perhaps give them
$20 because I felt bad for taking all their time when they are there to work and
earn money. I would usually tell them upfront I'm not interested in a lap dance.
So many times, I’ve picked up strippers in U.S. clubs, and even outside the
country (never for money though). If I could get a gorgeous stripper to like me,
or find me interesting enough to sit and chat for hours, then I felt I could talk
with any girl, anywhere in the world. This really is true. I always loved breaking
the rules, and getting the girls to break the rules. Strippers are typically not
allowed to give out their numbers or date customers, or kiss in the club. So this
sense of accomplishment always meant more than meeting some random girl at a
bar or club. I broke all these rules. They’re stupid rules anyway.
One time I was in San Diego, California for work, and I had just flown in. I had a
free evening. So after grabbing some food, I decided to head to the local bikini
strip club to kill a few hours. It was kinda early in the day for bars or clubs. I
ended up hanging out with this hot young girl for hours. I never got a lap dance.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, she told me she wants to come home with me
after work. Gee, ok! We get to my hotel after the club closed, which was only
blocks away from the club in downtown San Diego. We opened a couple beers
and started drinking. And as we’re talking about our lives, she tells me she has a
boyfriend and they’re engaged. For some reason I was fixated on this and kept
bringing up the topic, and kept asking, are you sure you want to do this?
Sometimes feelings of guilt really get in the way! Anyway, after a little kissing
and fooling around, we were about to consummate our new found friendship. I
asked her again if she’s really sure she wanted to do this. She finally came to her
senses and realized maybe she’s making a mistake. Nothing happened (well, just
a little bit) and I gladly gave her a kiss and hug before she left to go home.
I’m not writing this to make myself look like a saint. God knows best; I’m far
from a saint. But my point is, it’s probably best you don’t talk about stupid shit
when a woman has already said “yes”, or constantly remind her why she
shouldn’t do something. This lesson is probably the only one that I didn’t need to
tell all of you. No, seriously, when it came to marriage or engagements to be
married, that always troubled me. Sure, she was an adult and she chose to come
home with me. And I could easily explain away my conscience with this fact. But
in reality, I ask myself, how would I feel if I were in those shoes? Sometimes
people choose a wrong path or one poor decision for so many reasons - perhaps
she got in a fight earlier; perhaps she was having second thoughts merely out of
fear; perhaps she drank more than she should - but I certainly don’t want to be
responsible for destroying love or marriage. Some things in this world are sacred.
Page 397
Now getting back to the topic...but honestly, and realistically, learning how to
engage a woman has to first start with self-confidence. And the best place to
practice is in your everyday life. Talk to people. Strangers. Guys and girls. Old
people, young people. Learning how to deal with people you don’t know, or
aren’t comfortable with initially is really how we develop the social skills we need
to be successful in life or with girls. And everybody is different, so do what makes
you who you are. Don’t try to fit into someone else’s shoes.
At the end of the day, we have to learn to be comfortable in our own
skin. It’s the only set we get in life.
The Ridiculous Experiment
Most times, I just try to have as much fun as possible. And I get about as stupid
as anyone can possibly get. What would embarrass just about everyone else, I
just don’t give a shit. Laughing and having a ridiculous time was way more
important. I would always experiment with different things to see what would
work with girls.
One time on Mother’s Day, my friends and I were out early in the day, drinking
and having fun. I think we had gone out the previous night together and we had
all crashed at our friend Chris’ house. Well, given it was Mother’s Day and none
of us were Mothers, we felt left out of the party. So I came up with the term
“Make-A-Mother” Day. And we went around haplessly telling every semi-hot girl
“Happy Make-A-Mother Day!” Keep in mind this was Silicon Valley or San Jose,
which is just south of San Francisco; otherwise known as “Man-Jose,” due to the
male rich population brought about by the male centric technology industry. Hot
girls are about as rare in Man-Jose as Parkinson’s disease on a new born child. (I
know, my jokes are very insensitive).
Along the same theme of Make-A-Mother Day, I spontaneously came up with a
sad new joke I went around telling girls at the bar: “What did the sperm say to
the egg?......You got got any womb in here?” It tied in well with the holiday
theme I thought.
Honestly, I can’t understand how people didn’t appreciate the appropriate
holiday humor. Sadly, it was an unsuccessful day. Nobody became a Mother, at
least of my child. (Thank God).
Page 398
Perhaps it was due to the fact we were hanging out at the abortion clinic saying
these happy Make-A-Mother day wishes...Ok, just kidding, seriously. LOL.
(Again, I know, insensitive. But seriously, people should lighten up. After all, I’m
sensitive on this topic of abortion too, recall from Chapter 5? But if we can’t joke
and laugh at the very personal things in our lives, then we should just punch
ourselves for being so uptight.)
The Chamberlin-Choke
No, this isn’t some sad recollection of a key game winning moment, where victory
was lost because of my inability to rise to the big stage.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that hiccups and drinking are highly
correlated. Where there is excess alcohol, you are sure to find two things: drunk
women and hiccups.
As anyone who has experienced hiccups knows firsthand, they can be
debilitating, and in rare circumstances can even be fatal! Besides, nobody wants
a night of fun to end on a down note like unstoppable hiccups! Nooooo!
And as every religious person knows, people love saviors! Baby Jesus would be
proud.
The Chamberlin-Choke can stop hiccups guaranteed. It is the only method I have
seen that has a 100% success rate so far (at least when I do it).
You may have heard of the Heimlich-Maneuver, which can save a choking victim.
Well, the Chamberlin-Choke is kind of the opposite. I use choking to save lives,
and save the night of a hapless party-girl victim. True altruism. Humanity first.
Or, I mean Womanity first.
I will describe how to successfully employ this technique.
Firmly, but sensually, place one of your hands in front of her neck, covering her
soft vulnerable skin, palm toward her throat; and the other hand in the back part
of the neck. Gently, slowly squeeze her soft neckline and tantalize her soft neck
skin. Then, really start to squeeze, slowly. Sometimes, the girl gets a look of
slight fright and shock at what you are doing. So I laugh and smile and remind
Page 399
them, “It’s purely for medical purposes!” and reassure the girl that all is ok.
Usually the shock of someone trying to literally choke them in public, a stranger
no less, is so damn funny she starts to laugh hysterically.
Every single time - cured!! Save the night! Save the girl! The Chamberlin-Choke
is a real night-saver!!
The girl is so elated at the elimination of the annoying, and potentially life
threatening hiccups; she will do just about anything (wink). Anyway, it creates
some good moments of fun and she will always remember this.
One time I was choking a girl so hard, she wasn’t laughing at all! She started
turning a bit red and so I had to improvise and comically said, “Oh, I can tell
you’re into this stuff!” She finally started laughing.
I had a girl once, who wanted to become my disciple of the Chamberlin-Choke, to
evangelize the message and technique. Seriously. Sadly, she came over to my
apartment a handful of times, but somehow we never got to the point of
practicing that. Hmmmmm. Other distractions.
Once, I got a bit crude and told a girl that there is one proven way to cure hiccups
(and I wasn’t talking about the Chamberlin-Choke). I told her that a blowjob
would cure the problem, but only my penis was proven to be 100% guaranteed
effective. I told her “We can go home now if you want to be treated.” Ok, she
didn’t go home right then, but she couldn’t stop laughing hysterically. I got the
number and we ended up going out days later.
No joke. All true stories. It depends on the type of girl. You clearly can’t say this
to any girl. Just say it with a wide smile and you can get away with just about
anything. Trust me. Like I said, I’ve done and said some pretty crazy things.
And still! I haven’t been slapped, as I mentioned in Chapter 5. I still can’t believe
it. This always makes me smile and laugh by myself.
I really can’t make this shit up if I tried! I don’t plan it, the idea or words just pop
into my head in the moment. And I have no filter on my mouth, so I just say
whatever comes to mind.
Some Random Stupid Shit I’ve Done
(Yes, there’s even more dumber things)
Page 400
I’ve said and done so many dumb things to girls throughout my life. But no
matter how stupid it is, even if it’s a dead flop, you can still make them laugh.
Usually, even if it’s not funny and I just end up laughing hysterically by myself,
they usually just laugh because of the positive energy. If it’s a really embarrassing
flop, I will simply say, “Ok, that was really lame, I promise I will do better!” and
smile and laugh.
One day at the bar, I told one hot friend I liked, “You remind me of a Persian
Cat.”
Puzzled, she looked at me and asked “Why?”
“Because your
puuuuuuuurrrrrrrr-fect!” I roared intimately in her ear like a gentle feline. She
loved it and laughed and smiled forever. Every time after this, she would remind
me about this line. But you have to be sure to roll the “R” hard and vibrate the
tongue for a long time, like a happy cat. I have no idea why I said this line at the
time. It just popped into my head and thought to myself, “I’ve said worse, let’s go
with it.” She volunteered her number without me even asking for it. We never
went out but that was my fault. I was with the 20 year old model (which we will
get to) when she called to invite me to meet her one night. And then my life got a
little busy after that point so we never got to go out, sadly. But she was super cool
and I miss hanging with her.
One time I was with some friends for a birthday party. I met a young beautiful 21
year old blond girl who was a friend of my buddy’s girlfriend. This girl was
actually pretty smart too. And her father was a nuclear physicist, so good brain
genes. At the end of the night, all the other folks had left and we were alone
drinking and talking together at the bar. I told her, “I’ll be your bitch tonight.
But I’m not going home with you unless you buy me drinks.” She proceeded to
buy me 2 cocktails and 5 shots. LOL. We didn’t have sex that night, just crazy
passionate kissing for about 30 minutes. She was actually a good girl. Hey, if I
had sex with every girl I got phone number from, I would be the other brother
Chamberlin, Wilt (the darker, less handsome brother).
A few months ago, I saw a hot young girl at a club outside as I was smoking. She
sat down immediately on the bench after she walked outside. I quickly went over
and started to talk with her. She told me her pants were all wet. And I jokingly
retorted, “Yeah, I have that effect sometimes. But let’s slow down and introduce
ourselves first.” Yes, I got her number too.
Another time, a really hot girl had wet pants and I didn’t notice it when we were
talking. We had just started talking a few minutes earlier. She said her pants
were wet because she had spilled a Whisky-Cola drink on the inner part of her
Page 401
pants, near her special place (wink). I asked her if I could help and suck out the
Whisky-Cola from her pants. After all, it would almost be a crime to waste the
drink. And if it isn’t, it damn should be! She said yes (we literally had just met a
few minutes before), so I began to vigorously suck the whiskey out of her pants,
near the place where her legs meet her upper... (wink). Her friend couldn’t
believe what we were doing and came over…. We ended up going out a few days
later.
I was never one who believed in rules or followed silly arbitrary rules that never
made sense. One time, I had come up with this phrase and I would always tell
people, especially girls, when they would say something like, “No, I can’t do that.
They won’t let me….blah blah.” For instance, I wanted to go out with a girl who
worked at the Coyote Ugly bar/club. The girls would get fired if they went out
with customers. Coyote Ugly is not a strip club. It’s a bar where they play rock
music, the girls can dance on the stage, and the dancers that work there are
almost professional dancers (not strippers). They usually have amazing bodies
and very fit, sexy dancers. I really liked this one girl. She told me she wasn’t
allowed to give out her number or go out with customers, or she would get fired
(which was true). I fired back, “Rules are like your hymen. If you go through life
without breaking 'em, you've lived a pretty pathetic life!” I got her number and
we went out. She’s one of the girls in the photos at the end of the chapter.
Once I met 3 girls at a club. I liked
the brunette girl in black (left). She
was pretty hot. They were sitting at a
table at the club, often dancing on the
table. I went over and talked to them
for a little bit. After the club closed,
they didn’t want to go home early in
the morning yet. So they invited me
to the beach. It was just shortly after
sunrise.
We made our way to the beach and
the girls decided they wanted to go in. Two of the girls jump in the river with
their clothes. A number of minutes later, the brunette I liked decided to go in the
water too. But she stripped down first, taking all her clothes off (panties stayed
on). It was pretty hot. She was even hotter without clothes. Anyway, something
happened (I don’t know why) and I changed my mind and didn’t feel like getting
their numbers. So afterwards, we went our separate ways.
Page 402
A few weeks later, I was eating a gyro at my favorite late night eatery, after the
bars had closed. I’m sitting alone, enjoying the momentary heaven for a man
who had simply been enjoying a liquid meal all night. In walks 3 girls and they
begin to scream hysterically and laughing, saying simultaneously, “It’s
himmmm!” I’m kinda puzzled by all this but still preferred to enjoy my delightful
gyro. The brunette girl asks, do you remember us? And I reply back coyly,
“Uhhh, no.” They scream in unison, “The beeeeach!” And I still could not recall.
Then they said, “We took our clothes off?!!” The brunette said with a smile, “I’m
the girl that liked you!” Upon which I said, “Ahhhhh! Yes, I remember you now!
I just didn’t recognize you with clothes on.” And smiled and laughed. And then I
walked out as I had just finished my delicious gyro. I have no idea why I just had
no interest in her suddenly at the beach or even when we met later. She was
pretty hot and she clearly liked me. Gut feelings perhaps (see the section about
our subconscious later in Chapter 12, section: the Metaphysical Reality of our
Soul).
One time at a bar, I used scissors to cut the dress of a woman’s skirt so she could
expose her breasts more. This is one of the more crazy things I’ve done. She had
a beautiful sexy skirt, not cheap. But I told her she would look sexier if she just
exposed more of her breasts. I asked her if I could cut the skirt using some
scissors (we had to find some from the bar). After she agreed, I proceeded to use
Page 403
my surgeon skills to carefully, without injury - remember I’d been drinking - and
tastefully transform her outfit into a sexier, more free-spirited attire.
While I was doing this, my friend was using my iPhone to capture the video (no,
I’m not going to share that). It was so damn hysterical. I’m laughing so hard, I
nearly stab her with the scissors, because my hands are moving in concert with
my laughing! Everyone in the bar was laughing too. Anyway, you can see the
final work on the right photo above. After this, I realized I went into the wrong
profession. I should have gone into fashion design!
Over a year ago, I met a really hot blond girl. She was 20 and had an amazing
body. She lived close to my house at the time we met, but shortly thereafter
moved to East Bay (part of the San Francisco Bay Area). Our first date was a few
weeks after we met. We had been exchanging text messages constantly. A few
days before our date, her car had broken down and was in the shop getting
repairs. I didn't want to drive all the way to East Bay, especially after drinking.
I’m lazy. So I decided to rent a limousine to pick her up. I used the limo service
to take me to the airport for work all the time, so I got a special low price. The
limo car picked her up and then took her to my place to chill for a little bit before
we headed out for dinner. The limo idea was brilliant. Especially for a Monday!
Who expects that on a Monday? Keep in mind she was not 21 yet. So, I got a
bottle of alcohol from my house and brought it in the limo so we could drink on
the way to dinner. Shots of Patron tequila!
After dinner we went back to my place to
drink and "hang out". My God she had such
an amazing and firm body.
She was
beautiful. When we drank, she had to
remove one item of clothing each time….
Following the date, we texted constantly,
back and forth for the next couple of weeks.
At some point I finally texted her: "You're
beautiful and I like you but you're just too
immature. Call me when you turn 22. Ciao."
We didn’t speak for months. Then suddenly
out of the blue, she writes me about 5
months later: "Hello! Is this Daryl?" To my
surprise, I write back: "Is this Kaylee? Are
you 22 already?" She responds, "I couldn’t
remember if you told me 21 or 22..."
Page 404
It was pretty damn funny. Actually, I was surprised, in that short time I came to
discover she had grown up a lot. But I had a lot of stuff going on in my life at that
point, and I had just started seeing my new girlfriend Katie (later in Chapter 12:
Love, the Eternal Quest). We never got to meet and go out again; perhaps if my
situation had been different, maybe. She was beautiful and sexy.
A number of months ago, I went out with this beautiful model. She had a great
personality and was a pretty smart girl. She was young, incredibly tall, slender,
and gorgeous. She had an amazing body and really incredible ass for such a
petite girl. Nice round bubble butt. Smooth as silk, round and firm, yet soft.
Flawless. Her stomach was firm and muscular too, overall perfect body. (I need
to stop writing and take a break here…).
This was our second meeting. The first time
we met at a bar, we talked alone for 5 hours!
I found her to be interesting. Anyway, we
were at a bar on our date and I asked her if
she wanted to do a shot of crazy tequila.
She said “Ok!” Eager to do a shot of tequila.
And I asked her, “Do you know what a crazy
tequila shot is?” I told her if she wanted to
do a tequila shot, she would have to take
her clothes completely off. The tequila shot
goes between the legs near the panties, and
the salt on her bare nipples. And the lime
would go in her mouth for the after shot
kiss. Shocked, she said, “No way!! I've
never done anything so crazy.” So we
continue to drink some more whiskey-colas
and enjoyed talking and laughing.
About an hour later, she finally volunteers,
without me asking, and said “Let's do it!” She was excited, but apprehensive
about it. Fortunately the bar was empty at this time, which maybe gave her
courage. So, basically it was just me and a few employees there, mostly girls who
were my friends. She stripped down to her sexy panties in the bar corner. She
climbed up onto the cold bar and laid down flat on her back, her beautiful perfect
perky breasts exposed. The shot glass was placed carefully between her legs,
millimeters from her sexy thong panties. The salt was gingerly placed on her soft
pink nipples that capped her perfectly shaped breasts, and finally the lime stuck
Page 405
in her mouth, squeezed between her pearly white teeth. As I caressed her
beautiful body and smooth ass, I took the shot into my mouth, licked the salt on
the nipples for about 5 minutes, and then finally gave her a warm lime-filled kiss.
It was super hot....She was actually a nice and sweet girl, but a little crazier than I
expected.
The moral of the story is, “If you don’t ask, you won’t ever get.” This
has always been one of my favorite phrases and philosophy of life. In
fact, this is a general concept you should apply to every aspect of your
life, not just dating. You never know! There is no downside to asking
for anything. The worst outcome is no, which is the same outcome if
you had never asked. But sometimes, pleasant surprises await.
Sometimes, you get the crazy tequila on the body of a perfectly
beautiful model!
Once, I walked up cold turkey to a girl at a bar outside. She was hot of course. I
told her the following: “I'm sure you realize how incredibly beautiful you are. But
what you don't realize is that after we go out tomorrow, we're gonna fall in love,
and eventually get married. And we’re gonna have sex 5 times a day......and
sometimes it’ll be with each other!"
She busted up laughing so hard. It was so random and unexpected, and so
ridiculous, it had to be a joke. Obviously the absurdity of this comment and her
response to this joke will tell you a lot about her personality, and whether or not
she is interested. If she laughs, you can begin a long engaged and real
conversation. And you know she’s pretty cool if the response is positive. Again, I
didn’t pre-think this, it just came to me exactly when saw her. Of course, I got
her number too! LOL.
All women love two things: A confident man, and to be reminded they are still
desired and beautiful. Constantly. But you have to say it in a way that doesn't
seem like you are intimidated by them or their beauty - that you're comfortable
with it. Just telling a woman they are gorgeous will get you nowhere.
I've said some really ridiculous things to girls, sometimes drunk, sometimes
sober. I've kissed random girls I just met, unexpectedly (literally a few seconds
after meeting). I've gone up to random girls and asked to have them show me
their breasts (literally the first thing I said to them, with a wide smile of course) they often did, shockingly. This was mostly in my mid to late 20s. I’ve grown up
a little bit since and don’t do that anymore obviously. I've asked if I could spank
girls I never met before. Sometimes they let me! In public! I've asked if two or
Page 406
three hot girls would kiss each other for me, with tongue. They did! And I would
watch about 3 inches from their faces and smile and laugh quietly. And I've done
even more outrageous things I won't even get into. Nothing surprises me
anymore! Expect the unexpected is what I’ve come to realize in life.
When I was in party mode, I was completely outrageous and sometimes out of
control, but in a controlled way (I know it’s an oxymoron). I never got too drunk
(rarely I did). I always moderated my drinking just to enjoy the night. But I
never did anything that a woman would be so offended by. I was pretty good at
reading people and figuring out what level of tolerance each girl would put up
with. And then I would slightly exceed that level to push the envelope.
This was always a general philosophy of mine - always push the envelope, in any
situation - work, girls, whatever. Something interesting happens when you push
the envelope just slightly, a little more each time. First, you learn a little more
about the person. And secondly, it creates a unique and bizarre situation where
the person is usually not sure what to do, often seeming puzzled. And while they
are momentarily pausing and contemplating, you can often convince them to do
almost anything (as long as it’s only slightly beyond their envelope of comfort).
In the universe, when there is a vacuum, it must be filled. The first to
occupy that vacuum develops an inertia of incumbency. In other
words, when they are not sure and pausing to consider, they can be
easily persuaded if you say the right thing and come across as not
being malicious, but just trying to have fun together.
Usually I only do these ridiculous things in the U.S., since I know the culture and
can read the types of people better. When traveling abroad, you have no idea
about what people really are like sometimes. So you have to be more cautious.
And jokes don’t readily translate easily.
Sometimes, I would make ridiculous bets with my friends just to prove I could do
something impossible or ridiculous with a girl, and get away with it (meaning she
approved and didn’t slap me). I’ve never lost a bet. Honestly. If you ask some of
my friends, they will tell you the same. The key to all of it is the smile or laugh. A
genuine smile or laugh can open a lot of hearts and minds. It's one of the first
steps to gaining trust, which is something you will ultimately need if you want to
go on a date or meet again.
I genuine love to laugh. I love to make others laugh. It makes me extremely
happy to say I've laughed 1000X more times that I've cried. And I've made others
Page 407
laugh 1000X more times than I've made them cry (thank God). It really has been
an incredible journey and amazing life. Which is why there is no way in hell I
would ever trade my life for anyone else's. Even if I only made it to age 45! I’m
pretty sure I’ve experienced more in 45 years than most people in 100 years. It’s
been an amazing life.
But everything eventually has to come to an end. And all good things come to an
end sooner than we would like. But like I’ve said numerous times throughout this
book, these moments are great fun, but they don’t provide meaning in our lives.
I know, hearing all these ridiculous things, it’s difficult to believe, but
for me it's always been about finding love. Despite all the shit I wrote
about dating girls - and there’s been a lot of ‘em - which probably
made me sound like a douchebag. Truth is, I'm content knowing that,
one, I never lied to a woman to get her to like me or have sex with me.
And, two, I truly hoped that every woman I met could be someone I
could fall in love with, maybe my soul-mate. It sounds ridiculous I
know. I really am a hopeless, idiotic romantic at heart.
People are probably shocked to hear that I really am a hopeless romantic. I
believe love is around the corner. Every corner! The next girl I meet, maybe.
Even if a girl didn't necessarily like me, I could almost always get her to smile and
laugh. And this was still always enjoyable, even if there was nothing more.
The road to a woman's heart is through her smile. Make a woman feel
beautiful and sexy; make a woman feel safe and secure; make a
woman feel loved and important; make a woman feel special; and
always make a woman laugh and smile, and she will love you forever.
Never lack the confidence to do something crazy sometimes. My
approach and belief in life was always, “Every girl wants to say ‘yes’.
You just have to give them a reason to.”
Ok, like I said, this chapter was a bit light-hearted and more for comic
and entertainment value. But still, the more important lesson here is
that attraction and chemistry go far beyond physical looks. You don’t
have to be the best looking guy to get a beautiful woman to like you.
Be confident in life!
Page 408
My Life and [Girl] Friends
This section has some random and memorable moments with some of the girls in
my life during the past few years (following my divorce). I remember these girls
mostly because I have photos! Just kidding. I would definitely remember them
anyway. I wish I had photos of everyone I shared my life with, but it wasn’t
always the case. Unfortunately, I only have photos of a small fraction of the
people I’ve met. And I didn’t have space to put everyone that I did meet
unfortunately, even with photos. Sorry the low resolution photo compression
makes the hair and clothes look strange sometimes.
(Honestly, I don’t know what I would’ve done if I was a teenager now and grew
up with smart phones. I would probably end up with a million photos. I wish I
had digital photos of memories from the old days. I would’ve added them to this
book, more photos of my family and friends.)
Anyway, we shared some beautiful memories, a lot of laughs and sometimes
more; sometimes only for a moment in time. Some of these were great friends.
Some short term relationships. Some of them turned out to be pretty crazy. LOL.
But hell, who isn’t crazy in this life?
They were each awesome in their own way; definitely some great memories,
laughs and experiences.
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Chapter 11. Consciousness and Our Quantum Reality
“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world
of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg (“Father” of Quantum Physics)
Quantum physics is our first intimate
scientific peek into the mind of God.
And what we can conclude is that it is
incomprehensible,
but
equally
fascinating and beautiful.
The implications that Quantum
physics has to our understanding of
reality is nothing short of revolutionary. But it has also created, through
implications of some scientific observation, a false sense that nothing is real, that
everything is possible, if not likely, and that all realities coexist, simultaneously.
The relatively new field of scientific study will have a profound impact on
everything in our lives - from amazing new technologies that will radically change
our world, to a more intimate understanding of our physical universe, to
metaphysical and spiritual implications of our consciousness.
But we will get back to Quantum physics later in the chapter in excruciating
detail. If you needed a shot of whisky for chapter 9, you may need a fifth for the
Quantum section. LOL. Just kidding, it’s relatively short and I will try to explain
in as non-technically as possible. I hope you’re as excited as I am! I really can’t
understand why all people are not just blown away at the beautiful elegance of
our universe and how everything works together. It’s mysterious but amazing.
Unique Everything
All matter or bodies in physics have specific behavior properties. But typically,
science broadly categorizes them into buckets, assuming they are all the same.
Page 433
For instance, we assume one atom of Iron (Fe) is exactly the same as another Fe
atom.
But every single element in our universe is somehow unique, even the smallest of
elements such as an atom or electrons, or the subatomic elements that comprise
them. Think about it, does nature duplicate anything exactly perfectly? Planets,
comets, clouds, a snowflake, a piece of dirt or grain of sand, each flower, each
animal of the same species, every person - every single thing in our universe is
slightly unique. Is this by chance? Or is it more likely that the fundamental
building blocks that everything is made of are also unique, causing combinations
of different elements to occur in slightly different ways or outcomes?
Every atom, every subatomic particle comprising atoms - the proton,
neutron, electron-neutrino, muon-neutrino, and tau-neutrino
subatomic particles (and sub-subatomic particle such as other quarks
and leptons that make up protons and neutrons, and so on) is entirely
unique from the next. Each possessing a slightly different mass,
slightly different charge, slightly different spin or polarity, slightly
different shape, and slightly different orbit, slightly different
momentum, slightly different behavior and properties, however
minute the differences.
Two seemingly identical electrons orbiting the same nuclear core of an atom are
not perfectly identical. No atomic or subatomic element of the same type is
perfectly identical.
This basic uniqueness of all fundamental building blocks creates the
phenomenal uniqueness within our world: Each bond slightly
different (stronger, weaker); each atomic spatial position arising
from the bonds slightly different; every item and object, is slightly
unique and different in our world.
A piece of wood, a drop of water, a snowflake, a grain of sand, a strand of
“identical” DNA...literally everything is unique and different. It’s fundamental to
our universe and the design. Nothing is identical in this universe, even when they
appear to be nearly so.
This is an integral part of the design which allows for opposites,
perfect matches, and the full range of relative possibilities in between
within our universe.
Page 434
I write this as a pretext to material later in the chapter.
Our Human Limitations
The problem with us humans is that we only perceive through a very narrow
window of observation, as I mentioned before. But we are inclined to only believe
what we can readily see or observe. That is simply massive ignorance and really
dumb. But we all do it!
Imagine, our eyes barely see a sliver of the reality in front of us. Look at the
spectrum of frequencies that our eyes can see (below), called the visible
spectrum, compared to those we cannot see or observe.
The fact is, frequencies extend to infinity, far beyond the gamma-ray (γ) band
shown above. But of the major frequency bands we commonly use, we can barely
see the tiniest sliver, called the human visible spectrum. We can’t see gamma ray
frequencies, X-rays, ultraviolet rays (UV), infrared frequencies (IR), microwaves,
or radio waves (AM/FM), or even ultra-low frequencies. We only see a sliver of
the true reality, limited to wavelengths in the range of 400 to 700 nanometers,
which we define as the Red, Green, and Blue color field (with RGB, we can create
any of the colors in between through various combinations of the RGB).
Page 435
But yet, we all say, “Well, I’ll believe it when I see it with my own eyes.” There is
infinitely far more that we don’t see than what we actually perceive.
Our ears pick up the low frequency stuff. The most sensitive human ears can
detect 20-Hz to 20,000-Hz. But even in this audio band, we only detect sounds
we understand - like words, music or a dog’s bark. Information could be
conveyed in this audio frequency band range that may appear as just nonsense or
noise to a human, but it could still be valuable information we simply can’t detect
or understand. It doesn’t even have to be audio sounds in this range of lower
frequencies, but that is all we understand.
So even in the limited frequencies our bodies are tuned for, we still
only perceive and process what we expect or have been exposed to!
This is our problem. This is the fundamental subjective nature of our
being. We only perceive what we have been conditioned to perceive.
So, basically, human beings are blind as shit!
universe, our body has no idea how to process.
Almost our entire
If we look at scientific instruments, yes, they certainly have the capability to
extend beyond the human limitations, to cover all the frequencies I just
mentioned above in the chart. But even scientific instruments are vastly limited
too. Consider that the frequency band of electromagnetic waves can technically
extend to infinity. The ultra high frequency range is well beyond our technology.
There will always be an infinite range of frequencies even our best technology will
never be able to detect.
For instance, as we will discuss in the following sections, the universe is filled
with invisible fields of energy. They are everywhere. The Higgs field which gives
objects mass. The gravity field, which allows the force of gravity to work between
objects. And there are others that we surely have not discovered. We cannot see
these. We don’t know how they are created or WHY. We can merely observe
their effects and describe the interactions. It is possible that these energy fields
are such high frequency (since I don’t know how else to describe these fields),
that we simply cannot measure it with our technology or “see it”. (Actually, the
Higgs field is not an energy field, but we will discuss this shortly.)
But without these invisible fields that exist in every inch of our universe,
everything that we know would cease to exist or function. It’s simply an
amazingly beautiful system and design.
Page 436
So mankind, even aided by technology and sophisticated scientific
instruments, is still “infinitely” blind.
If our eyes could see an infinite spectrum of frequencies, as it really
exists in this world, we would see a completely different reality - a
beautiful world of pure energy and cosmic gracefulness; a universe of
eternal consciousness.
For humans to preclude this possibility could exist is simply nonsense
given all that we cannot detect or know. It’s ridiculous. It’s sheer
unfounded ignorance.
The Fundamental
Einstein theorized that matter, or any physical object, is equal to energy, in his
famous and elegant equation: Energy is equal to the Mass of any object
multiplied by the square of the speed of light (“c”), which is always constant.
Beautifully and simply elegant, E = mc2. Essentially, the only variable was the
object's mass or weight. This meant the greater the mass of any object, the
greater the inherent energy it possesses. In other words, energy and matter are
exactly the same. Every object is tantamount to energy. (This theory was later
utilized to help develop the nuclear bomb.)
Looking at it differently, we can say that energy and mass of any
object is identical, related only by a simple constant factor, we call the
speed of light.
Basically, the only thing that really exists in this universe is energy - in
all its various forms. Just like water can have multiple forms, like
liquid, ice, or gaseous vapor. Everything around us in this universe is
literally just energy.
Energy is the most Fundamental state of all.
And by the Conservation of Energy Principle, we know that energy
can never be created nor destroyed, only change form.
So imagine, in simplistic terms, that matter (objects) are the solid form of energy,
and things like electromagnetic waves or particles (wave-particles) are the
Page 437
gaseous form of energy. And perhaps phenomenon such as plasma could be the
equivalent liquid form of energy. (Technically, plasma is the fourth state of
matter). But it’s still all just energy.
Given that all things in this universe are singularly unique, I also
believe that the energy signature (or uniqueness of any element or
energy quanta - which is the smallest interval of energy possible)
remains constant throughout the entirety of the life of our universe.
And as different fundamental particles combine to form more
complex and larger objects, the signature expands, but the energy
signature of each component remains and cannot be destroyed or
altered. As mentioned before, in physics we understand that energy
and matter are never created and never destroyed, so it persists
forever. These signatures also persist forever, even as energy changes
forms; just like a molecule of water doesn’t change its signature when
it changes forms. We know this for a fact.
I would bet my life and everything I have on this notion (a trillion dollars if I had
it).
Quantum Field Theory
Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic
and sub particle level. In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the laws
that govern large objects didn’t work on a much smaller scale, or when objects
were in motion at speeds closer to the speed of light.
Many of the most basic things in the universe are not yet understood. But we
have derived models of our understanding based on observation that relatively
accurately describes the interactions of physical objects in our universe.
In quantum physics this understanding is expressed in the form of what is called
the Standard Model of Quantum Physics, often called the Theory of Everything
(but not the Grand Unified Theory, as it is well short of those lofty goals).
The Standard Model has 40 different types of sub particles consisting of several
classes of elementary particles and various permutations: fermions, gauge
bosons, and the Higgs boson. I will simply name them without getting into the
Page 438
boring details of what each one is or does given this would take too long and
bored the shit out of all of you.
The elements that comprise the Standard Model are: fermions (6 quarks and 6
leptons), 4 gauge bosons, and the Higgs boson particle as shown below. These
have all been confirmed using atomic smashers to detect these tiny little critters,
with a high degree of probability of existence. Colorful charts are much better
than boring letters and words, even if it tells you nothing more. Thank you
Wikipedia.
These can combine to form other composite particles, and ultimately combine to
form the basic atom, which we all know is made of electrons, protons and
neutrons. Quarks and leptons are the fundamental building blocks of all atoms
and everything - all matter - in nature.
The gauge bosons are massless (having no mass or weight) and act as force
mediators: the gluon, photon, Z and W boson all interact with various forces or
fields. I guess bosons are like the politicians of the quantum world. Gauge
bosons have no mass so we call them virtual particles. Again, it doesn’t mean
they’re not real! The Higgs boson, however, does have mass and acts as a
mediator between particles and the invisible mass field. The 3 fundamental
forces accounted for in the Standard Model are exchanged between these boson
virtual particles.
Page 439
For example, photons mediate (interact with) all electromagnetic fields and can
have very long range effects due to their massless nature. Charged particles
interact with other charged particles by exchanging these virtual photons (these
virtual photons exist, but only during the interaction to strictly serve as a carrier
of momentum and force). The electromagnetic force is created by the continuous
exchange of these virtual (massless) photons.
While the Standard Model is a significant leap forward in our understanding of
our universe, there are still some very fundamental problems with the Standard
Model. Ideally, the goal is to create a single unified model that can predictably
quantify all universal behavior. In this sense, the Standard Model still falls short:
● The Standard Model (SM) accounts for only 3 of the 4 fundamental forces
of our universe, but cannot explain gravity as described by Newtonian
physics and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which stated that
massive objects cause distortions in spacetime by the force of gravity.
● The SM cannot explain the existence of dark matter particles (assuming
they exist based on cosmology observation). Dark matter has been
observed as a mysterious halo surrounding galaxies and clusters of
galaxies. We have no idea what it is, and we can’t see it (it’s darrrrk).
However, we can indirectly observe it through its gravitational pull. It is
thought to compose as much as 95% of the universe’s mass! And you
thought Kim Kardashian had a big mass. She’s nothing compared to dark
matter.
● The SM cannot account for neutrino oscillations which indicate they
posses mass. SM theory holds that neutrinos (electron neutrino, muon
neutrino, and tau neutrino subparticles) should be massless.
● We know that antimatter exists (we’ve observed them) and is composed of
antiparticles with opposite properties, but having the same mass as
normal matter. Every subparticle has an exact opposite composing the
antimatter. For instance, electrons (negative charge) have an opposite
called the positron. And an antiproton is the opposite of a proton. Yes,
this is the Bizarro World of physics, strangely. But it’s real. When matter
and antimatter combine, everything gets annihilated and the combination
releases pure energy. Intuitively, there should be an exact symmetry of
both quantities of matter and antimatter. And yet, in our observed
universe, we see there is huge asymmetry, with most of the universe being
made of normal matter. How can this be? The Standard Model fails to
Page 440
account for this obvious gap. It is one of the great mysteries of science.
Antimatter is different from dark matter. They both sound evil though. I
don’t like either one.
In short, the Standard Model of Quantum Physics is our best understanding
today of how the universe works, guided by subatomic particle interactions. But
it is just our best understanding, and it is only today’s most educated guess based
on the culmination of scientific evidence. But as we know, sometimes scientific
evidence is proven to be incomplete or wrong in following decades and centuries.
And given the many fatal shortcomings of the theory, it is clearly not a
comprehensive understanding of our universe yet. But nonetheless, it’s pretty
damn cool.
There are 4 currently known fundamental forces throughout our universe: gravity
(all objects of mass possess this), electromagnetic (includes phenomena such as
friction, spring forces, air pressure, force collisions, etc), and strong nuclear and
weak nuclear forces (within the atomic structure). Other forces are merely
subcategories or can be represented by one these four fundamental forces (such
as the electric field is part of electromagnetism).
Coincidentally, there are 4 dimensions: 3 physical dimensions of space, plus time.
People think of time in a completely wrong way: as it relates to our existence and
the chronology of events. But as Einstein showed in his Theory of Special
Relativity, that both space and time were the fabric of our universe, and indeed
space and time were one and the same! In quantum physics, through the
Uncertainty Principle (which we will discuss more in detail later), we know that
certainty as related to complementary variables - such as momentum and
position - are both simultaneously unknowable.
Space and time are similar. As we move faster, the theory of relativity states that
time is relative to one’s position in space. If one is enjoying a lightning ride on a
photon rocket zipping around the galaxy at the speed of light, while another is
back home on Earth cozy in his space station bed looking out of his window to
observe, time would pass normally for the almost stationary space station view.
While the photon rocket ride would happen in a blink of an eye. The two events
are synchronized in “time” but time had completely different effect on the two
independent events and participants. When the two participants synchronize in
space (location), they will have endured completely different time experiences.
The space station lazy ass would be dead from old age, years ago. And the photon
rocket lunatic would barely be a few seconds older, and thinking he felt even
younger after the exhilarating rocket ride through the universe.
Page 441
I believe time is more like an infinite field, where, at any given point in this field,
events happen. Similar to space being occupied by various matter or objects and
energy at any given point in time (it’s all the same stuff remember). But I don’t
believe what other crazy theorists have proposed: that all events are already
played out, and by definition, meaning self-determinism (we make our own fate)
is void, or non-determinism of humans (free choice) cannot be true. I believe
time is like a wave or a string, and it radiates in all directions infinitely
throughout the space/time continuum. Our choices and actions, and the unique
events in our world, as dictated by our actions, have ripple effects throughout this
space/time continuum. So we make the future instantaneously as we live it. It is
true self-determinism. We make our own fate in this world. There is no such
thing inevitable or fate. Fate is dictated by a series of events and decisions that
create an outcome.
(Actually, I have a more descriptive view of time that we will discuss in a later
section. I mention this concept of time purely from a conceptual point of view to
facilitate easier understanding, not the actual point of view of I believe time is.)
However, I do believe in fate - not to sound self-contradictory! But it is not a
certainty. I realize this is somewhat of a contradiction and not the normal
definition of fate as an inevitability. What I mean is that there are certain events
or interactions that are optimal and desired in this universe - this is my definition
of fate. But these outcomes are not predetermined or inevitable, unless the right
and specific sequence of decisions and actions are made by all parties. I call it
non-deterministic fate. We create our ideal outcomes, following the most
probable event sequences and choices.
There is an invisible force field of gravity that exists everywhere in our universe.
You can’t hide from this field. Einstein hypothesized that space and time were
the same, as we discussed earlier. He theorized that gravity was a curvature in
the space-time continuum fabric created by the mass of an object, similar to how
a large object would create a curvature on a piece of actual cloth. The heaviest
object would create the largest curvature, and therefore attract all other objects
toward itself, as they would fall down the curvature toward the more massive
object. We still don’t know what causes this gravitational field that both Newton
and Einstein observed. We obviously experience gravity on a daily basis. And
clearly gravity and mass are intricately linked.
Likewise, there is a mass field that exists everywhere. We call this the Higgs field,
named after the British scientist, Peter Higgs, who originated the idea in 1960.
Page 442
The idea proposes that all mass in the universe is the result of this Higgs field
interacting with all elements through the electromagnetic field and weak nuclear
field within atomic structures. The Higgs field is not a force, as it cannot
accelerate particles or transfer energy, such as gravity or an electromagnetic force
can. It’s simply an invisible field, present everywhere.
In 2012 we discovered the Higgs boson - euphemistically called the “God
Particle” - which interacts with this invisible Higgs field to create the illusion of
mass for any given object or particle. Essentially, the interaction with the field
creates a drag on particles to create a sense of mass.
(I’m not sure what we will call the sub-subparticle and possible “field” that gives
particles the property of electric charge. Charge is one of those intrinsic
properties that we have no idea why something inherently possesses at the
subatomic level. It is a fundamental mystery of physics. But thank God it does.
Nothing would work without it. It’s just as fundamental as mass. The only
difference was we could account for the charge of all particles, so it was never
critical to explain why they had charge. Perhaps one day, when we can answer
this question, we will call the charge sub-subparticle the “Big Sizzle”? Or the
theoretical particle called graviton, which supposedly controls gravity, similar to
the way Higgs boson controls mass - perhaps we can call that one the “Big
Buddha”? In any case, it’s always going to feel a bit jealous of the name “God
Particle”. How can any other particle compete with that name? If I were the Big
Buddha or the Big Sizzle, I wouldn’t expose myself to ever be discovered, just for
spite.)
The existence of the Higgs boson particle was theorized to exist long before the
discovery in 2012. The term “God Particle” is a bit misleading, and simply meant
to express the idea that this particle gives mass to everything in the universe.
Well, kinda. The Higgs field gives mass to our universe, which is separate from
the Higgs boson particle.
In actuality, all particles - with the exception of massless particles - interact with
this Higgs field and the Higgs boson particle. The Higgs boson has a much more
pronounced interaction than other particles, given its larger mass relative to
other atomic subparticles. A Higgs boson subparticle has about 133 times the
mass of a proton. The Higgs boson can also interact with other particles and acts
as a mediator of sorts between the Higgs field and other particles retaining mass.
Recall that all boson subparticles act as force or field mediators. Of course, this is
the theory. It’s not like we can see them shaking hands or giving a big bro-hug
constantly. One proton particle talking to Higgs boson particle: “Yo! Wassup
Page 443
Higgs. You got any extra mass bro? I’m running kinda low. This graviton is
killing me with his constant demands, man!” (Ok, that was kinda lame physics
humor. Probably not even funny to Quantum physicists. They don’t approve of
“hood” speak.)
But we accept this Higgs field exists. We don’t know what creates it; we don’t
know where it comes from; we don’t even know the interactive mechanism
between particles fully (just some nice ideas). Yet, we believe it is there, purely
because we observe mass, and through experiments that have shown a high
probability of its existence. And now that we have probabilistically confirmed the
existence of the Higgs boson particle, it all seems to make sense (sorta), albeit not
perfect sense.
Particles that contain no mass are things like photons, which are particles that
also make up light. A virtual particle also has no mass. The name virtual doesn’t
mean it doesn’t exist or is not real, it simply means it possesses no mass. The
universe is full of massless or virtual particles. They are not affected by the Higgs
field. So they can zip around the universe at the fastest speed of light.
One may be curious and wonder if light, which is comprised of massless photons
and has no mass, then why does it bend slightly with gravity? And why is it
affected by black holes, whose mass is so large that nothing can escape its grip including light? The reason is because light actually has no mass only at zero
momentum (at rest). However, keep in mind, Einstein proved that mass and
energy are equal, as we discussed previously (E=mc2, or mass=E/c2). Looking at
it a different way, momentum (p) equals mass (m) times velocity (v) of an object,
or p=mv. So when light is in motion at the speed of light, it possesses energy, or
the equivalent of mass, as defined by m=p/v, if we rearrange the equation for
momentum. So light, or any massless virtual particle, then becomes affected by
gravity when in motion. Since everything is constantly in motion, all things
possess some inherent mass in the form of stored potential energy, even massless
or virtual particles.
Potential energy is something an element or object possesses which can be
converted to be energy to do actual work. There are many forms of potential
energy: mass, force (such as gravity), waves, momentum, charge, and so on. All
of these are what we can describe as potential energy. Another way of looking at
it is to look at all these forms as simply energy in a different state (like liquid
water versus ice). We are all familiar with potential energy from our everyday use
of batteries. Essentially, batteries store potential energy which can be used to
create work when we turn on our electronic gadget.
Page 444
This is my own not-so-crazy-just-a-little-bit-crazy theory of our universe: I
believe that our existence is limited to this space-time dimension which is
comprised of an infinite field of energy in all its various forms. (That part isn’t
crazy. It’s true. But wait...)
And overlaid on top of this, or better yet, encapsulated by additional dimensions
or layers of reality are other fields and forces acting on our universe, but not in
the sense that we imagine. It’s not some alternate reality where some parallel
universe is happening. I think that’s a bunch of crap. No, instead, another
dimension which incorporates the various fields that also coexist and interact
with our energy dimension. This includes non-energy fields such as the gravity
field dimension, and mass field dimension, and others yet to be fully discovered,
including a spiritual dimension that intersects with this physical/energy
dimension to create intelligence and consciousness (we talked about this briefly
in Chapter 9). These are also energy sources or fields, but not in a sense that is
compatible with the energy in our universe. These act upon our reality to
influence and create effects. We cannot directly measure or sense these fields.
And even if we could, it wouldn’t fully make sense because we are inherently
confined to our space-time-energy physical reality.
Just as if you slid a 3 dimensional object through a 2-dimensional plane, if you
lived in the 2-dimensional world, you could observe something that was there one
second, and then it would inexplicably disappear the next. Our science wouldn’t
be able to make any sense of it. And likewise, our quantum models can only
account for the observation of mass and gravity because we see the effects, but we
can’t quantify it or measure this field to truly understand it. We can only sense it
at the specific dimensional intersection points. This is similar to how we can
briefly see a localized version of the Higgs field using Higgs boson excitations.
But beyond that, we can’t see or measure this invisible field that exists at every
point in space supposedly. And yet, we see the effects and, hence, believe it
exists.
When we design an engineering drawing or even a Photoshop graphic, invariably,
if it is a complex effort, it must be done using layers or multi-dimensions. We
draw a fundamental layer, then on top of this we add another layer to enhance or
create effects. This is analogous to the dimension theory. All complex designs
are never done in a singular stage, but in steps and layers. If I were God, or some
Intelligence, contemplating how I wanted to create a universe from scratch, this
is exactly how I would approach it. I wouldn’t put everything together on the
same plane or dimension. It’s too limiting, and you can’t get the order of
Page 445
complexity and effect you desire. This is why our science will always be
fundamentally limited in scope. We are always going to be merely confined to
only observe the effects and speculate on the fundamental causes. Science is
inherently limited to this physical reality only.
Our Quantum Reality
Werner Heisenberg was a German theoretical physicist and a key pioneer of the
field of quantum mechanics, and often regarded as the Father of Quantum
Theory. He is famously known for his Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which he
published in 1927. The Uncertainty Principle is at the heart of Quantum theory.
In particle physics, the properties such as the position of subatomic elements and
their momentum can never be precisely known. The Uncertainty Principle states:
“The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum
is known in this instant, and vice versa.” [Heisenberg, “Uncertainty paper”, 1927.]
This may seem like a simple statement, but it has huge ramifications and
revolutionized our understanding of our universe through the field of Quantum
physics.
People typically think of a subatomic element like an electron as a very tiny
particle. But it actually has wave-like characteristics, so we call it a wave-particle.
Light exhibits the same behavior. The basic element of light is a photon. It is a
particle, similar to an electron, but with zero mass, as mentioned previously. So
it can zip around the universe at, literally, light speed! But it is also a wave. So in
essence, all things are both a wave and a particle. That’s the duality of our
universe: the wave-particle duality, reality.
One of the key concepts of Quantum theory is the idea of superposition. It is
related to this uncertainty principle. Given the wave-particle duality, at the
quantum scale, particles can be thought of as waves. Particles can exist in
different quantum states. For example, they can be in different positions, have
different energies or possess different momentum.
But in quantum mechanics, instead of thinking about a particle being in one state
or changing between different states, particles are thought of as existing across all
the possible quantum states at the same time. This is known as a superposition
of states. If you’re thinking in terms of particles, it means a particle can be in two
or more places at once, or in all positions at the same time. This doesn’t make
Page 446
intuitive sense when we think of it in terms of a particle, but it makes sense when
we view quantum elements behaving as a wave. A wave of water is in all places
where there is water. It isn’t at just point A or point B, but everywhere the wave
is, the water is there too! Simultaneously! A wave, by definition is continuous,
hence it can be everywhere at the same time.
Now, given that a wave-particle can be in all places at the same time, now we get
to the heart of the Uncertainty Principle. How do we determine something like
the exact position and momentum of a particle? Well, if we measure position of a
particle, we can’t know the momentum of the wave. But if we measure the
momentum of a wave, we can’t measure the position of the particle. In other
words, these variables are intricately linked because of this wave-particle duality.
So we can only know one or the other with any relative certainty.
On a piano, if we press the F sharp key, it radiates a specific tone or frequency of
sound to create audible music. The specific frequency of the sound is 369.99 Hz.
The term Hz, or Hertz, simply means the waveform repeats itself 369.99 times
every second. It’s very low frequency. If we look at this in the time domain using
a scientific instrument, we can see a beautiful repeating waveform cycling
precisely 369.99 times every second. We can also take a look at this waveform in
the frequency domain. All waves have time and frequency as conjugate variables,
simply meaning they are related or complementary variables. We can look at the
frequency by using what’s called a Fourier transform mathematical operation
that converts a signal to its complementary frequency variable. It would show a
beautiful spike at the frequency of 369.99 Hz.
Now imagine a subatomic particle like an electron. Just as time and frequency
are complementary variables, position and momentum are complementary
variables as well. So in quantum physics, using the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, when we want to know the position of an electron, the more precisely
we know the position, the less we can know the momentum of the particle.
All wave-particles conform to this Uncertainty Principle, with regard to these
complementary variables. And given the entire universe is essential a waveparticle duality, it means what we can know about any given phenomenon - such
as particle or any object, or an electromagnetic wave energy such as light - is
always fundamentally limited. There is always a precise uncertainty about
everything (I know that’s a contradiction). It’s fundamental to all matter and the
wave-particle nature of all things in our universe. This is the basis of quantum
mechanics.
Page 447
Quantum theory is guided by what is called the Standard Model - which is simply
the law of everything as we discussed in the last section. It describes all the
behavior and interaction of all elements at the lowest known subatomic level, and
how all things interact.
In Quantum physics, certainty does not exist, and all probabilities - no matter
how remote - are not only possible, but occur simultaneously in quantum
particles.
Quantum physics states that all possible combinations exist
simultaneously. This is more indicative of the wave theory of the wave-particle
duality of all things. A wave is not a specific point in space, but a continuous
event.
Physicists call the fact that light, and other phenomenon, behave as both waves
and particles, as a wave-particle duality as we discussed. But I believe it is
neither. All things are just energy (this is fact). And energy just exists, it flows
everywhere, is everywhere. Our ability to measure and perceive this subparticle
is limited simply because of our means and technology. Even in free space, in a
perfect vacuum, “virtual” particles have been proven to exist, measured and
observed. We know they exist, even if we can’t see them directly. It is energy,
occupying even “empty” free space or vacuums, where it used to be thought that
nothing exists. There is no such thing as “nothing”. Energy just is; it fills every
inch of our universe.
I believe light - and other elements in our universe - are neither a wave nor
particle - it is both, and it is neither. A quantum reality that simply means that it
is all things, and in all places, simultaneously, depending upon how we measure
and observe it. The fact that it can appear to be both a wave or particle tells us
our ability to truly measure and quantify it are too primitive still.
At the subatomic level, we don’t really know what form theses particles take on.
We use the analogy of little balls with spin and momentum, similar to what we
observe in our universe with planets and stars. But in reality, it is not a supertiny-solid-ball particle that make up atoms. They are elements, but what they are
is truly unknown. We conjecture or imagine they have “spin” and momentum to
account for charge and behavior, but in reality, they don’t really spin like a solid
object. We really can’t extend the analogy of planets and stars to subatomic
elements. We observe that they are deflected by magnetism, just as any spinning
or rotating charged object in our universe, so we use the same analogy, even if it
is misleading. They possess magnetism and charge and have some type of
motion we describe as momentum and spin (angular momentum). If we
quantified the behavior as truly spin, and magnetism arriving due to the spin of a
Page 448
charged particle (like our planet Earth which has a charged ionized magma core),
the calculations would fall apart, and the particles would need to be moving faster
than the speed light to account for the magnitude of the magnetic moment, which
is simply impossible. So these elements possess charge and electromagnetism
and have momentum. They don’t have a specific shape we can imagine. They
just have properties. They are not solid objects. And most likely, they are
comprised of further sub-elements, and so on.
In the end, all sub-elements, such as leptons and quarks and bosons, are further
comprised of smaller elements. And frankly, I’m pretty sure we can bet our lives
that these sub-elements exist. Just because man can’t measure it or detect it yet
is completely irrelevant to reality. And the journey of discovery will continue
indefinitely.
So in this regard, it is less like particle physics, and more like a continuous wave
or string theory. But, because when we measure and observe at such microscopic
levels and velocities of motion, we have to do so in quantized packets (in little
chunks). So this creates the illusion that what we are observing is a particle with
wave like characteristics.
But it cannot be a particle, which is why I believe the Standard Model is
fundamentally limited in scope. (But it is the best mathematical model we have
today). And when we continuously discover other smaller sub-elements, this will
become fairly obvious. Energy doesn’t create nice little discrete round balls we
can conveniently toss around and measure. But if viewed as a continuous wave,
the Uncertainty Principle observation makes sense, because of course, a
“particle”, if it was represented as a wave, would be everywhere - in all quantum
states - simultaneously. And, therefore we cannot precisely know the position
and momentum simultaneously. So in this regard, I think the Uncertainty
Principle is more a reflection of the theory limitations and not true reality.
In the end, all of this “solid” matter and stuff we see all around us is
based on something completely non-solid. It is the result of the
properties of “elements” and not substance itself. Think about that.
Interesting huh? I think this is now beginning to get into the
fascinating area of the convergence of energy as matter. It is not
reality, it is just elements with properties, as defined by energy
through the allocation of potential energy, that creates a sensation of
a solid mass or any other behavior or property. Mass is an illusion,
created by an invisible field interacting with a subparticle element to
employ energy to create a sensation of mass; which then allows it to
Page 449
interact with other objects based on this property of mass. Mass of
any object is simply potential energy, meaning a form of storing
energy, kinda like a battery.
So the quantum reality is that all “stuff” is virtual in nature, meaning
it is defined - not by objects, much less, solid objects - but by nothing
more than properties of some “elements” as defined by energy (not
physical object elements). It’s just energy. As we dig into Quantum
theory, Einstein’s theory of E=mc2 begins to make sense now why
energy and matter are the same.
But don’t misconstrue my meaning of “virtual”. This isn’t like a
virtual reality we conceive in some computer simulation. Our reality
is real. But it’s just not as we think it is. Objects are not objects is my
point.
In fact, both motion and mass are simply forms of potential energy.
It’s a storage of energy. Charge, spin, force, non-force fields,
everything is merely potential energy. Energy is translated to define
the properties of “objects” and allows them to interact.
Any element, or property, or idea that cannot be reconciled with
energy, cannot and does not exist. Everything in this universe has to
tie into energy. Any field, any force, any object, any property of an
element - they must all tie and be able to be explained by the potential
energy equivalent. Nothing in this universe can exist if it does not
store energy in one form or another.
Our understanding, described by the Standard Model of Quantum physics, the
theory of everything, has significant gaps. I think one of the most fundamental
gaps is the complete lack of understanding of other forms of matter and energy:
dark matter and dark energy, as well as the asymmetry of antimatter.
Our understanding of matter in the universe is highly asymmetrical, meaning we
can’t account for it nearly all of it. Think about this. Potentially, over 95% of
the energy or matter in the universe is unaccounted for or not
understood.
By definition it means our understanding of our
universe is a pathetic <5%. (It’s actually much, much lower, near
zero).
Page 450
The problem is that our primary mechanism for observing matter at great
distances is through gravity and radiation effects. This is how we believe dark
matter exists. We believe that all objects of mass are affected by the universal
field of gravity, as it certainly seems to be (we still haven’t proven this gravity
field yet using the Standard Model).
But what if other particles exist that don’t possess mass and don’t radiate energy
in the sense we are expecting (frequencies), and aren’t in motion at the speed of
light, but something significantly lower? We could not detect it. Now,
mathematically we believe today that if a particle has no mass, it has zero energy
(E=mc2). This idea covers the elements of mass potential energy and motion
potential energy which are comprehended in the mass/energy equation. And
given the Big Bang, particles without mass would seemingly be the furthest out in
space, making it difficult for us to detect. But there must be another field, beyond
gravity, which binds them to the rest of the universe, otherwise they would just
run away. My point is that I believe that there is more energy in our universe; as
we must account for the undetected scalar and vector fields which must be
comprised of a form of energy.
This is a purely hypothetical idea. What if Einstein's elegant equation of energymass is only a subset condition. What if energy can actually exist in the absence
of mass and momentum or force? If there are massless elements, or scalar fields
interacting with physical particles, then by definition, energy is not purely a
function of mass and momentum or force. What if elements exist without mass
but also store immense potential energy in the form of another mechanism?
What is dark energy? Again, mass is inherently just a form of potential energy;
energy that gets released during the decomposition of matter to become energy.
What about gravity? It’s a force, and thus an energy field. Gravity is a vector
field in the Standard Model, meaning every point in spacetime would have also a
magnitude of gravity value, plus a force direction. All vectors have magnitude
and direction at each specific point in spacetime. How do we account for this
force and energy which is theoretically everywhere?
(By the way, the theoretical particle which interacts with the gravity force field is
called the graviton, as conceptualized (but not discovered yet) in the Standard
Model. Gravity fields are considered to be able to penetrate objects, extending to
infinity, unlike electromagnetic force fields which get absorbed by matter and
have finite distances. So in this respect, if this is true, we could use the gravity
waves as a communication vehicle to reach the furthest reaches of the universe.
Cool stuff man!)
Page 451
The Higgs field is what we call a scalar field in Quantum physics, not a force field.
The Higgs boson was the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature as
predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs scalar field exists in every point in
the spacetime continuum. It is some non-zero constant throughout the universe.
We haven’t fully quantified it or come to completely understand it yet, since the
confirmation of the Higgs particle was only in 2012, which inferred the existence
of the Higgs field through its interaction. But this Higgs field must also be
energy. If it is real, it is comprised of energy in the form of potential energy
(some state of energy).
So, by definition, energy is literally everywhere in the universe.
My basic understanding of our universe is predicated on one simple
fact: everything in this universe is just a form of energy; it’s all just
energy. And therefore, anything that we observe, including leptons,
quarks, bosons, vectors, scalars - if they are real in our physical
reality, then they are all just a form of energy. Not purely potential
energy in the form of motion or mass, but also perhaps more
fundamental potential energy states. Conceptually, any work, or
action, or function has to be performed using energy. This must be
different than the potential energy of motion. Well, I suppose a scalar
field could be energy of oscillation creating this field, even if it is an
oscillation of a massless particle (which is currently not allowed in
the Standard Model of Quantum physics).
All matter itself, our entire universe, is a giant fricking battery.
Energy stored in all its various forms.
Perhaps we should plug our hybrid cars into the universe and operate on the
“everywhere” Higgs field. We can create a Higgs particle battery that would never
need charging, and would possess unlimited infinite energy! I know you think
I’m joking, but why not? Maybe in a couple centuries.
Perhaps the ultimate form of potential energy storage is the disparate existence of
matter or any particle, and their respective antimatter or anti-element. The
combination results in pure energy. But it must be symmetrical in nature. We
need a matter-antimatter battery! A tiny little watch sized battery could power an
entire mega city almost indefinitely! (Of course, containing the heat and energy
might be tough with a watch sized anything. LOL).
Page 452
Actually, the defense department has been researching antimatter weapons.
They’re far more efficient than nuclear fission reactions (nuclear bombs that go
boom!). And although this reaction emits radiation, it isn’t the long lasting, slow
decaying type like from nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants. In fact, if you
survived an explosion from an antimatter bomb, you would also survive the
radiation exposure given the short life of the resulting radiation, most likely.
Give it a century or so, I can see this antimatter bomb becoming reality.
Quantum Based Technology
In quantum physics, we have observed the existence of quantum links
through the phenomenon of entanglement: Two elementary quantum
particles that can mirror the other, regardless of how far they are
separated in space, without any known form of communication.
Through this unexplainable quantum link, if one element changes
state, the other does so instantaneously as well. If you change the
state of either one, the other follows instantaneously. In theory, this
separation gap could be infinite and yet they would somehow know
the other and mirror exactly. Einstein once referred to this as
“spooky”. And it is damn spooky. Weird doesn’t even begin to
adequately describe it.
In other words, you can think of the two shared or entangled
quantum elements as being energy soul-mates in the subatomic world
(energy is the same as a sub-particle)!
Really. This is not some
bullshit I made up. It’s real science. Essentially, two entangled
quantum particles have an intertwined fate. Literally, they become
almost one, no matter how far they apart, they mirror the other and
change together as one if either one changes.
This is pretty mind blowing really. How can two elementary particles
know the state of the other through vast distances?
Science has no idea how this is possible and cannot explain it. It’s
been nearly a century since this has been known. Einstein died in
1955. He didn’t discover it, but he understood how mysterious this
phenomenon truly was.
Page 453
Actual Quantum experiments have demonstrated two entwined quantum
particles (also called Quantum bit or Qubit), separated by a distance of miles,
without any form of known communication or awareness, can instantly change
states to mirror the state of the other entwined particle. Really instantaneously!
Two separate sub-particles, acting as one, almost magically. How do they know
what the other shared qubit is doing? They just do. As we sometimes say in the
engineering world when we can’t explain why something works, “It’s just fucking
magic.”
One would logically conclude that there are other forces or fields
acting on these disparate particles which are separated by vast
distances. But what is this field? It’s not gravity. It’s not an EM wave.
It’s not the Higgs mass field. There has to be another more
fundamental field that allows all elements in our universe to have
awareness or communicate, even when separated by the length of the
entire universe; something like a field for each individual type of
element - such as two or more photons, or electrons. It only seems to
happen with similar particles - and only select similar particles. It’s
fucking spooky! I call these entangled elements soul-mate particles.
How else can we explain it?
Using photons as qubits, scientists have been able to get triplets to become
entangled. This is important because many entangled qubits are required to
realize quantum based computing (which we will discuss later in this section).
The process found that it took about 1 in a billion to get two photon qubits to
entangle. [Livescience, “Entangled 'Photon Triplets' Could Speed Up Telecommunication”, Kelly
Dickerson, September 16, 2014]
This discovery is considered to be very promising for revolutionary new types of
secure and faster quantum based communications. It cannot be hacked. There is
no need for encryption (which can be hacked) because the only two things in the
entire universe that knows the information are the two qubits themselves, one on
the sending side, and one on the receiving side. (Although technically it’s not
sending/receiving. It’s mirroring, really. We really don’t have an analogy of how
to describe this phenomenon today). It’s really awesome shit.
A thousand years ago we didn’t know about gravity. We observed it
only. But we knew gravity affects everything. We just didn’t know
how it worked or what to call it. This quantum entanglement is
completely different. Hundreds of years ago we didn’t know about
electromagnetic waves, but we experienced it everywhere - the sun,
Page 454
light, etc.
We later discovered there were other invisible
electromagnetic waves we could use for useful things like
communication. But these also affected all things. And we later
learned that any type of communication requires intelligence of some
kind to send and receive and translate the information. And we
learned that communication using these waves worked only over
finite distances. Entangled particles are also completely different
from this.
Two basic “dumb” particles that are separated by immense distance
and yet they precisely know what the other is doing, somehow. This
entanglement seems to apply only to selective particles of the same
type. It doesn’t affect all particles like gravity.
The only known way that two different things can change
simultaneously is through communication.
But this requires
intelligence of some sort. Today, we observe a form of non-intelligent
“communication” at the atomic level in the form of interactions with
energy fields (like the Higgs boson) that affect specific particles only.
And we also know of large scale interactions by things like gravity, but
these affect all particles and objects.
The problem with entanglement is that it is both large scale and
specific, meaning it only affects very few select particles of the same
species. The problem is due to both the large scale nature of this
phenomenon (over vast distances) and the specificity of particles it
applies to. The only way this is possible is through some type of
intelligent communications.
But all communication is never
instantaneous!
So how do you get specific (applying only to a very few particles in the
entire universe), large scale (over vast distances), and instantaneous
all in one without intelligence?
There is no viable scientific
explanation for this phenomenon that meets all these conditions!! All
communications systems that we know of have inherent delays for
signals to travel; it doesn’t happen instantly like these soul-mate
particles.
So science really has no fucking clue how to explain this using any of
our understandings of our universe. This is the most bizarre and
scientifically unexplainable observation to date. Other observations
Page 455
may have puzzled man, or we were unable to prove it to confirm the
theories right away, but this entanglement is much more spooky. It
doesn’t make sense in the physical world.
Could this be our first scientific proof of spirituality in the universe?
By spirituality, I simply mean something that cannot be explained
through any of our physical realities (ever). Is this the most basic
building block understanding of spirituality?
All I know is that there is no rational or physical explanation of this
phenomenon. Science has no fucking clue how to explain it. (Sorry
for the F-word, it’s simply meant to emphasize the gravity of the
point.)
I mention this in the context of spirituality, consciousness and eternal
existence. Is it really difficult to believe that things could possibly
exist in this universe and beyond that are purely beyond the physical?
Hell, even physical isn’t physical - it’s just an illusion based on energy
as we discussed! How can anyone, after knowing all this, cling onto
the idea that they only believe what they see and can understand?
In any case, quantum theory is being deployed in tomorrow’s incredible
technology. This reality of entangled quantum particles can be used for truly
secure and instantaneous communications that can extend throughout the
universe. And quantum based computing is going to revolutionize many
functions of computing in the coming decades, especially algorithm heavy
functions - such as breaking encryption codes. It can invalidate any encryption
scheme using completely different quantum algorithm logic. Instead of using
brute force and sequential combinations to crack encryption, it looks at multiple
quantum possibilities or states simultaneously, thereby reducing the time by
orders of magnitude.
In the new field of quantum computing, qubits are used as the binary bits, similar
to the 1’s and 0’s in today’s digital computers. They will be the basis for
tomorrow’s advanced quantum based computing systems. A qubit is a binary
quantum bit, having only two known states. For instance qubits may exhibit the
polarization of a photon - either vertical or horizontal polarization. (Just like
polarized glasses filter out polarized light to eliminate glare from sunlight - same
concept of polarization). Qubits can be atoms, photons, ions or electrons.
Page 456
Quantum based computing can revolutionize technology. Quantum processors
can use registers of qubits that will be able to perform calculations using all the
possible values of the input registers simultaneously, limited only by the number
of entangled qubits. This phenomenon is called quantum parallelism. Today,
computers run sequentially performing one task at a time. You don’t have to be a
genius to figure out that if you can run everything in parallel, it’s a whole lot
better. Instead of looking at all combinations of a 16 bit register (65,536
combinations) one at a time as computers largely do today, a 16 qubit quantum
computers looks at all 65,536 combinations simultaneously, and then spit out the
answer in one step. Amazing. Certain mathematical problems that were
immensely challenging to impossible could theoretically be solved quite easily by
quantum computers. Every combination of the inputs (superposition) is assigned
a unique probability of occurrence, just as in quantum mechanics, the probability
of a particle being in any specific state is characterized by a probability and not
certainty. The quantum computer then uses the same principles of quantum
mechanics, based on wave theory or constructive and destructive interference to
add or subtract with the different states or combination to compute the answer.
The algorithms are incredibly challenging and require a completely different type
of mathematical approach and new thought process. It’s truly fascinating.
A 20 bit qubit system could look at over a million combinations of possibilities
and run the calculations simultaneously in parallel. It could be at least a million
times more powerful than today’s fastest supercomputers.
This technology leverages the superposition principle of quantum physics we
discussed earlier. Quantum models are inherently parallel in nature because they
assume all possible conditions exist simultaneously.
Anyway, this technology, while promising, it could be decades away from being
realized for mainstream adoption. Some basic quantum computers have been
demonstrated, but it’s still very early. You can buy a 128-bit “quantum” computer
from D-Wave Systems in Canada for a measly $10 million. Some experts argue it
doesn’t truly reflect quantum computing. For $10 million, I doubt I care (but
seriously doubt it’s true quantum technology).
(I often wish I had gone into physics instead of electrical engineering. But when I
was younger during much of my college days, I only cared about making money,
and physics, while noble in the pursuit of knowledge, didn’t seem like a practical
option for my goals.)
Page 457
Thoughts on Quantum Physics
Quantum mechanics is strange and obscure. In some sense, it
appears to have intelligence and order to it. It isn’t merely just matter
and energy randomly existing and interacting. Somehow, the nature
of superposition and quantum theory of behavior seems to actually
reflect the true nature of our universe (and our world) and of some
underlying intelligence. It seems to be a far more efficient means of
creating structures and solving problems.
How can this random chaos result in such orderly structure?
One really has to truly be amazed at the mystery of quantum behavior.
It seems to imply - quite strongly - that intelligence is just
fundamental in the universe, even at the most elemental level. That
random does not exist, and that all things are driven to a fundamental
sense of order and structure.
Is this our notion of God?
God is a form of energy. God is everywhere and in all things. God is
an Intelligence possessing inherent Consciousness.
To me, this seems much more likely than the idea that God is a superperson, a physical entity in nature with greater than super-hero
powers. It would seem logical that God is part of, or actually is the
entire universe. And with a piece of himself, decided to create what
we see as life and our own eternal consciousness.
We are, in effect, His children. And the universe is His child, perhaps
also possessing consciousness - even if we can’t quantify it as we can
our own. Quantum physics seems to imply that all things are
inherently intelligent, capable of things we never imagined.
The fact is, Quantum realization is making man completely rethink our own logic
flow and methodology of algorithm development to solve problems, or even to
create our own artificial intelligence. Our human brains seem to be structured
like a quantum computer rather than today’s digital system. Quantum
algorithms are completely different, and a paradigm shift from traditional
algorithms and flows that we have always used and thought. Revolutionary is too
mild of a comparison term.
Page 458
What Quantum physics has taught us is that our perceived reality is
completely different than the actual reality:
1) There is no such thing as certainty in the world of quantum mechanics.
The Uncertainty Principle is at the core of Quantum Physics. Quantum
elements occupy all states simultaneously through the idea of
superposition.
2) Entangled qubits can mirror the other, instantaneously, even when
separated by vast distances. How can physical coupling occur across vast
distances without a means of communication? Clearly there is more to our
universe which we do not understand. And our reality is far different than
what we perceive and believe.
3) Underlying forces of attraction and mass are controlled by invisible, unquantified fields which interact with elements in our physical world.
4) Energy is everywhere, and all objects are the same as energy. The universe
is a giant battery of energy storage.
5) Stuff doesn’t exist. It’s a virtual physical reality built on a platform of
energy, using “elements” which we can only describe as having some
observed properties. These properties, and how or why they possess these
intrinsic characteristics is the great unknown (like charge or spin). The
underlying reality is very different than what we perceive.
Knowing what we know, I have no idea how anyone can be 100%
confident of any reality in their own minds. That is simply delusion.
And while Quantum physics is nothing short of incredibly awesome, providing
new perspectives to our reality, we must be grounded in our optimism of this
knowledge, or inclinations to completely throw out old perceptions or
understandings too readily, lest we constantly shift and gyrate from embracing
one idea to another without serious deliberation.
For instance, firstly, I don’t subscribe to the theory that there are infinite
universes, where every single possibility that has, or can happen in the future, is
simultaneously happening in a parallel or adjacent universe. This reference to
the “Many Worlds” theory derived from Quantum physics is pure imagination,
nothing more. This is nothing more than science fiction, pleasant for Hollywood
Page 459
entertainers, but not grounded in meaningful reality in my opinion. I believe this
is a gross misunderstanding of Quantum theory.
As Einstein noted in his famous Theory of Special Relativity, that space and time
are relative, and that the speed of light (in a vacuum) was the only absolute. In
the Quantum world, it is likely that our reality (position in space and time,
experiencing acceleration in our environment), is very different than the tiny
quantum particles who are moving much closer to the speed of light, creating the
illusion that the particles are in all positions of probability simultaneously. Our
reality of space/time/acceleration are decoupled and different than the reality of
the quantum particles.
In other words, the smallest elements behave as Quantum physics dictates, but
each successive object, built from these quantum elements, behaves less and less
like the quantum reality. And the further you get from the fundamental quantum
level, the more real objects appear. For instance, atoms are one level removed
from quantum elements, and molecules are the next layer, then complex
molecules of larger mass are even further removed. This is the integration of
Quantum physics with Newtonian classical physics of large bodies.
We must be careful extrapolating the quantum reality to all things in
the universe. At the fundamental level, yes, somewhat ordered chaos
exists. But as objects become more massive through the adhesion
with other elements, the averaging effect will stabilize and create
order and predictability, as things slow down due to mass. This is the
essence of probability theory.
Probability or predictability, or
certainty, is a function of speed and mass and complexity (which are
in essence the same variables).
In other words, the greater
mass/complexity (and hence slower speed), means more sample size
in the quantum probability population, the predictability is certain to
be a normal distribution and fully predictable for the complex body at
large.
Secondly, nor do I believe that the Quantum implication that we change what we
perceive or measure, and therefore no actual reality exists, except what we make
or imagine. It is true that when we observe a quantum particle, or attempt to
measure it, we change the value or property of it. But ideas such as those quoted
below are just silly (I don’t care how many brilliant Physicists disagree):
“Therefore, all the scientific data suggests that what we perceive has
an effect on matter as we view it. We are co-creating this universe as
Page 460
participators. So if we are looking at the smallest sub-atomic
particles and/or the edge of the universe we bring about the act of
creation just by observing hence we will never find the smallest
subatomic particles or the edge of the universe as we are co-creating
reality. Hence the dilemma, if there is an edge of the universe, what
is beyond the edge or if we have found the smallest sub-atomic
particle what is it further made up of. I can sum up my research by
stating that the very act of observation creates reality.” [Gabriel
Iqbal]
No, to measure or observe anything requires energy. And energy,
when interacting with any other form of energy will impact, or
change, the state of that which we are viewing or measuring. For
ultra-small subparticles, the quanta of energy needed to affect the
particle is so minute, of course it is likely to change. It’s like hitting a
golf ball with a sledgehammer and wondering why it changed
position. It doesn’t mean our reality is unknown, or even that the
reality state of the object or particle in question was not definitive
before we changed it. And simply because we change the quantum
state of one element doesn’t mean the entire reality is changed. I can
add energy in the form of heat to burn a piece of paper. It may
transform that piece of paper permanently, but it didn’t change
everything else in our reality. It’s merely a localized change brought
about by specific energy applied to one event.
One should note that the Quantum Uncertainty Principle is not related to
measurement or observation affecting the property of a particle. However, our
measurement or observation can indeed change the property or behavior of a tiny
particle.
But uncertainty and orderly chaos is defined only in the subatomic quantum
level, as I mentioned. As objects possess greater mass/complexity (and hence
slower speed), predictability and certainty exists.
In time, over decades and centuries, surely our understanding of
Quantum physics will change, evolve, be corrected and refined, as is
typical with all science, continuously. Never blindly assume science is
eternal fact. It is simply our best understanding in that moment in
time.
Page 461
But the real fact is, we (science) really have no idea what energy is yet; the most
basic element of everything. I called it the Fundamental, from our previous
section. We can describe it somewhat. We can sense it, feel it, use it. We can see
the various forms of it in the universe around us. We can poke around and try to
understand it more. But we really have no clue what it really is.
The reality is we do not understand the most fundamental element of energy. We
do not know how it travels - yes, we know things, such as how photon light
packets travel, and how electromagnetic energy waves traverse space - but this is
not the complete picture or the exhaustive body of knowledge. At subparticle
levels, energy (and hence matter), may not even be guided by our classic
understanding of momentum and motion. And if we extract our understanding,
decoupled from the constraints of a time domain, energy or elements can just
exist in all places - seemingly simultaneously, but not really simultaneously.
We describe our universe using bits of observable facts and some conjecture:
Light is an electromagnetic wave (EM), a form of energy created by photons
oscillating at a specific frequency. There are infinite EM waves, theoretically. EM
waves exhibit properties of both waves and particles, a duality that baffles
science. We see that all objects (matter) and energy are really synonymous. We
have observed antimatter, having equal mass but opposite charge as normal
matter. When matter and antimatter combine, everything becomes annihilated
and pure energy is released. We know that objects are comprised of incredibly
small subparticles that also exhibit wave and particle-like behavior. Scientists
conjecture there is such things as dark energy, and dark matter, which may
comprise the bulk of our universe. We do not understand it. We cannot see. We
are hypothesizing it’s there based on inference and to explain away observed gaps
in the universe.
But at the end of the day, we have no idea what energy really is. The entire
universe is made up of energy, in all its various forms. But our understanding of
it is still less than that of a newborn.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty, is that what people
believe is reality, is really not.
We touch a piece of wood and believe it is solid. It is not. We touch a
hot flame and recoil, thinking it is completely different than the piece
of wood feeding the flame. They are the same.
Our reality is
completely misaligned with the true nature of our universe.
Page 462
The only thing that truly exists in this universe is energy - in all its
various forms. Just as water can have multiple forms like liquid, ice,
or gaseous vapor; everything around us is literally just energy. And
through the Conservation of Energy Principle, we know that energy
can never be created nor destroyed, only change form.
So too is our consciousness, and our spiritual reality…they are not
decoupled from our physically universe.
Keep an open mind, because what we believe we know, is rarely the
case at all.
Even God cannot create or design/build something that is completely
separated from his own reality. Our universe, and everything within
it, is his reality too. And by extension, if everything that surrounds us
is pure energy, then God too, is pure energy: Energy that retains
eternal consciousness; that possesses incredible intellect and
memory; energy that has the potential to adjust and change form.
Yes, energy, the most fundamental element of this universe, and of
existence, is built in with the capacity for consciousness and intellect
(which requires memory).
We see these properties of energy in various things in our universe: Two
entangled quantum elements which share identity and can mirror the other, no
matter the distance or separation. We know that when objects change form they
retain the same identity and characteristics, like water. Energy, too, retains
memory of properties and behaviors and characteristics as it changes forms.
This, by definition, is the foundation of the concept of memory, which is required
for intellect. Intellect seems to be based on some obscure quantum algorithms.
Given the universe itself is quantum in nature, the very structure of the universe
may possess intellect. We know that consciousness is intellect and memory,
combined with self-awareness. And, given I believe that spiritual energy provides
the self-awareness and intellect portions of our existence, it too can endure
eternally in this universe of pure energy.
Our lives, our being, our eternal consciousness, are a reflection, in a
diminished sense, of God.
My personal theory is that gravity is the fundamental force that ties together all
the elements of the physic universe, including time. But the non-physical
Page 463
elements of our universe – such as spirituality and consciousness - is bound
together by this invisible force I call “love”, but in reality is just some type of nonphysical binding force in our universe. I don’t think love is something humans
made up or generated from chemicals in our bodies. There is indeed something
special and powerful about love, it isn’t just a simple emotional force within
humanity. Looking at it more generically, it’s simply a binding force in this
universe, similar to the way gravity works. It can apply to particles or elements,
and objects of consciousness.
I don’t know how good and evil, and spirituality and our eternal consciousness all
ties together precisely (obviously), but my thoughts are that love is the basis of all
that is good, and the antithesis of love (selfishness) is the basis of all that is evil.
Love is the foundation of our spirituality I believe. And our eternal
consciousness lives and dies by this invisible force of love. In essence,
this is the entire theme of this book and the primary takeaway I
wanted the readers to walk away with: that love is an important
eternal element of our universe and our existence; that our
consciousness grows or withers with the force of love; that love is the
reason for our purpose; that somehow, I believe love ties our entire
universe together. But, in the mountain of pages, I realize, it gets lost
in the words. Chapter 12: Love, the Eternal Quest will make this a
little clearer hopefully.
I’m sure people will scoff at this notion (these folks probably refuse to believe
anything they can’t touch or see themselves, despite the inherent ignorance of our
bodies). But they think of this in completely the wrong way, because they are
fixating on this word called “love” and thinking purely from our human
experience perspective. Look at it from a universal and scientific point of view.
All of our consciousness will go on for eternity in some form. What state our
consciousness will take on is unknown, but I do believe somehow it depends on
our cumulative actions. Love is some form of binding energy force that exists
throughout our lives and our universe. It is far more important in our universe
than we believe or understand.
Take the culmination of everything we’ve discussed up to this point about life and
our universe: First, our world, biological life, the entire universe somehow seems
to exhibit this quantum nature. Quantum nature is inherently intelligent,
mysteriously, chaotically, yet somehow ordered and structured. Our universe is
one of pure energy. There are things we clearly cannot explain purely with
Page 464
physical laws, such as the quantum entanglement and even many of the force
vectors and scalars, as well as even gravity.
Don’t fixate on semantics and the word “love”; just think for a
moment about our reality. Love is the most powerful binding force in
our consciousness (our spiritual universe). Gravity is the most
powerful binding force of our physical universe. Both forces can defy
or manipulate time, meaning love can be eternal, just as gravity can
bend or alter or stretch the time domain.
As I like to say, think bigger than the small bodies we are confined to.
Consciousness
Our human consciousness is non-deterministic, but not random. It is this
contradiction, the reality of rational non-determinism that is the essence of our
inherent spirituality. This is the basis of quantum theory and quantum structure.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), and all of mankind’s algorithms are based on
deterministic properties. Logic and rational thought is based on a database of
knowledge and predictable factors which guides a deterministic conclusion. But
humans are not deterministic. We choose based on the idea of free will that is
strangely obscure: non-deterministic but not random. This is, without question,
the greatest challenge of AI that man must solve if we are to truly create another
intelligence. I doubt we will ever achieve this, because I believe this is based on
more than our physical reality, or a simple collection of atoms and molecules.
As we discussed in Chapter 9: The Perfect Symphony, based on the
complicated technology and the incomprehensibly sophisticated
algorithms of our body and brain, I don’t believe a random collection
of atoms could create intelligence or consciousness, or our abstract
sense of being. As noted previously, I believe our spiritual existence
is overlayed on top of our physical body. The more I dug into the
biology and chemistry of our bodies, the more apparent that these
sophisticated algorithms and intelligence could not be derived from
atoms combining together. Our consciousness is our spirituality.
Page 465
There is an energy overlay of spirituality on top of our bodies. This is
our eternal consciousness which drives our reasoning and memory
sub-structures.
I want you to think about the following fact from a purely physical and scientific
viewpoint: The human brain stores memory and retrieves memory/experiences
from millions of different neurons and synaptic pathways from different locations
throughout the brain, and combines them together in some coherent fashion,
virtually instantaneously. It is completely different than how computers
accomplish similar functions, and far more efficient, as noted in Chapter 9.
How does information get stored in so many simultaneous locations or neurons
and synaptic pathways, and then how does this get retrieved when we recall a
single conscious experience? How can a collection of atoms and molecules
possible know this? It’s impossible.
This phenomenon or challenge is called the binding or combination
problem in science. It’s a strange phenomenon and far more
sophisticated than any computer algorithms we employ today.
(By the way, I’m not a meditating - crystal spiritual healing - everything is energy
and life - kumbaya type. I never meditate. I’m a relatively conservative party
guy. Sometimes when I’m drinking heavily I feel like I’m levitating, but that’s just
my head spinning in an intoxicated imaginary way.)
Our human consciousness cannot be completely detached from our physical
reality we live in and are an integral part of, dictated by the same universal laws.
If spirituality exists, if soul-mates are a reality, then it should be a concept we can
ground in science and our actual universe. We may not know fully how to explain
it yet, but that is what science does. It slowly builds knowledge over time as we
gain greater and greater understanding of our universe. But even still, we may
never fully comprehend it.
In the most basic sense, reality has no relation to space or time. There is just
consciousness and existence. There is just continuous energy, in all states, in all
places. As the layers and layers of sub-elements create a high level abstraction of
reality, the effect of higher level object interactions and the latency of such
objects creates the illusion of space and time. So something like light, which can
be consider a high level extraction of the most basic sub-elements, creates the
illusion of time and space as we observe the speed of light is constant at 186,000
miles per second. So in one second, the same light appears to go from point A to
Page 466
point B, 186,000 miles away. But in reality it was always there, simultaneously.
But we perceive it traveled there over the span of what we call one second as a
function of cumulative latency.
In math and science, one learns that if everything is based on a
reference point - and that reference is proven untrue or unreliable then everything learned based on that reference point is also untrue.
Our primitive analysis is based on such reference points.
Humanity’s most fundamental and most critical reference point is the
concept of time.
Let me explain, in more specific detail, what I believe really time is.
This is my idea and understanding of time. I believe it is fully
grounded in scientific understanding:
● All things (objects or matter) are comprised of energy. Energy takes on
other forms by way of conversion of itself into other forms of potential
energy. Even water, the only difference from solid, liquid, and vapor is the
inherent energy it possess, which activates the molecules to move at
greater momentum, thereby changing states. Energy becomes stored
(potential energy) in the momentum of molecules. So all things are just
energy, as I’ve stated many times before. This is entirely factual.
● Even things we perceive to be energy is not truly the fundamental state of
energy. Things like electromagnetic waves, including light; or any force,
such as gravity; these are various forms of energy being applied to do
work. These are also merely energy in the form of a potential energy
stored as a force or wave.
● At the most basic quantum level, there are no physical “objects” as we
discussed, only things or elements that possess properties and behaviors.
Quantum mechanics tells us that these elements are in all possible
quantum states and places simultaneously. Now, don’t misunderstand the
term “all” or “everywhere”. Like a water wave that exists everywhere there
is water, so too is the quantum element, being everywhere the path of the
motion or states exists. It does not mean in all universal places
simultaneously.
● At each layer of reality, an abstraction layer of reality is made using the
sub-elements as the building blocks. For instance, the Standard Model of
Page 467
quantum physics uses quarks and leptons to define an atom which defines
the physical reality we perceive. And these quarks and leptons are
comprised of other sub-elements, and so on, with their own abstraction
layer that creates different characteristics or reality. This atomic
abstraction layer is why we can create a sense of solid matter which is
based on nothing more than something non-solid, which isn’t even
physical. It’s purely driven by the properties and behaviors of these subelements as they continually interact.
● At each abstraction layer, things interact. Interactions happen differently
at each abstraction level. In the quantum mechanical sub-atomic level, it
happens simultaneously (time does not exist here at the most basic
quantum level). But on the atomic level, interactions happen in sequence,
as dictated by the chemical properties of the elements, such as hydrogen or
carbon, or iron, or photons for light. This sequencing is the latency that
defines time. Latency means the delay for an event or action to take place.
Even instantaneous chemical reactions are not truly instantaneous.
● As bodies become more complex, the latency increases naturally, given the
complexity of sequential interactions that must occur. Bosons are the least
complex, in the sense that they have no mass, and therefore have the
lowest latency of action. Objects possessing mass have fundamental
latency. Objects comprised of a bunch of elements containing mass have
the most latency. In other words, complex objects are more “time”
dependent or have greater exposure to the sensation of time, which is why
massive objects like black holes with immense gravitation fields have the
greatest effect in altering our observation of this perceived spacetime
continuum. But spacetime isn’t actually real. It’s the property of basic
elements (energy) providing this illusion of space and time.
● So in this sense, time is an effect, a property of the physical nature of our
universe, our reality. But it is nothing like we think it is. It doesn’t
actually exist. It’s purely a manifestation of the abstraction layers creating
layers of sequencing, derived by latency.
● When looking at time in this context - the true context - eternity
is something which we can fathom. Time doesn’t exist in the
most basic universal sense. Things just exist; things just are. As
long as things - energy - exists, it will always exist, independent
of this notion of time. The reason our brain gets overwhelmed, when
we try to think of time as an independent force or entity, is because that’s
Page 468
not what time is. So, conceptually, we have a difficult time grasping
“eternity”. Things just exist. Intellect and consciousness, just exists.
Energy just exists. It has nothing to do with “time.”
● The sun, the solar system, our planet, ourselves - all things are simply
reacting chemically in this physical abstraction layer of reality. And
chemical reactions, as dictated by quantum mechanics, all possess varying
degrees of latency. Our sun converts the stored potential energy of matter
- specifically hydrogen - to another potential energy form called
electromagnetic energy waves which are more suitable for transmission.
This reaction has inherent latency. Our planet rotates about its axis
during a quantity of latency we define as every 24 hours - acted upon by
the energy forces of gravity and momentum and mass - and orbits around
the sun in the quantity of latency we define as 365.25 days. Our bodies
chemically react continuously - absorbing the chemical composition of
food and water, breaking these down to basic building blocks which can be
harnessed to create and build new cells and usable energy for us to do
things. This process converts the stored potential energy of the chemical
compounds, called food and water, to different energy forms which we can
readily use. All this happens in sequence and provides an illusion of time.
● This view of time is consistent with Einstein's theory of Specific
Relativity of time and space. This is the reason why time and
space are relative. Because the latency of every object is
different and cannot be synchronized. There is no such thing as
a universal or absolute clock! There is no such thing as absolute
time. Einstein theorized that light in a perfect vacuum is the
only absolute reference of time. What Einstein simply meant is
that the latency of light in a perfect vacuum is the only constant
in this universe - even though the latency of light is not zero.
This condition doesn’t exist. There is no perfect vacuum in our
universe. But even if it did exist, I will take it a step further to
say that even light in a perfect vacuum is not