As IF Times

As we’re now in the thick of election season in North America, including regionally in Canada, an old joke comes to mind which classically described the difference between Canadians and Americans.

It seems that someone was having a tour of a restaurant and in the kitchen he noticed two large pots of boiling water; one with a lid and the other without.  When asked, the restauranteur revealed that the pots contained lobsters.  When asked why one had a lid and not the other, the owner conveyed that the one with a lid contained American lobsters and the one without were the Canadian kind.  He explained that the Canadian ones didn’t need a lid because if one tried to climb out, the other ones would pull him back in.

This little anecdote was quite true for a long time, but really, it hasn’t aged very well.  With the passage of time, the stark difference in mindset reflected by that old anecdote has lost its edge.  When you look at the platforms and values propagated by the dominant political factions on both sides of the border, one side clearly favors the collective over the individual.  This may not be so surprising in Canada, but for this mindset to take root in the United States is astounding.

The very foundation of the US nation was premised upon the rights and liberties of the individual over the collective.  In fact, it was started by some brave individuals who decided that living under the arbitrary decrees of a detached monarch in England wasn’t for them.  So, they started the tradition of doing their own thing, which became a hallmark of being an American.  From this beginning, the greatest free civilization in history was born. To this day, this notion of freedom and independence is enshrined in the minds of most Americans and of course, in their constitution. This is true even in the minds of those who only think about the characteristics of Americans.  This legacy is quite different in Canada since it continued to be tied to the old empire for over a century after declaring itself a nation, thus Canadians don’t have that same reputation.

We can observe clearly that the fine edge of freedom and individualism has been blunted over successive generations in the U.S.  As we all know, rights and freedoms once considered sacrosanct have slowly but surely been chipped away by all kinds of interest groups so that now, rights and freedoms still exist….but only if you follow specific rules.  So the illusion exists, but not the reality.  It reminds me of accountants and dentists who ride Harley Davidsons in full outlaw gear.  They’re individual….in a me too kind of way.  These rough-hewn images are cultivated in popular films which depict the heroic struggle of individuals versus a societal machine.

It is only in American culture that this brand of rugged individualism is glorified and celebrated.  It is rare to find this kind of theme in the majority of foreign films ( at least in my experience ).  In America, not only is the protagonist in films a hero, he is often an anti-hero by imposing his strength of will and character upon an oppressive antagonist.  Oddly, even in despotic nations, films with this theme sell very well.  I seem to recall that Kim Jong Un is a big Rambo fan.

But the reality of the American experience has deviated substantially from the original plan.  The mythical rugged individual is fading into distant memory and nowadays, is often demonized.  For those that do any construction work, we know that measurements over long distances can be greatly impacted by only a small variance at the outset. Being off by only a few degrees over 3 feet can mean 3 inches over 20.

This is the case today.  Half of the dominant political parties actively push the notion of the collective versus the individual and they no longer feel the need to obscure their message.  Their platforms clearly state that the interests of the state supersede any individual initiative.  They require  citizens to conform to an ideal which only they are allowed to define.  This may sound familiar to those born 350 years ago.  Seemingly minor curbs on freedoms and activities have morphed into outright curtailment of all kinds of heretofore free movements, which extends even into the realm of thought. The allegorical piece of wood we’ve been cutting has deviated to become an 180 degree cut.

As bizarre as it appears, Marxist and leftist ideologies, anathema to the very core of the American experience, is widely embraced by a frighteningly large segment of the population.  While this may not be surprising in most other nations since few have the history that the Americans have of fighting an actual war of independence, to have this mindset creeping into mainstream American consciousness is shocking.  What’s particularly frightening is that, unlike those plucky individuals who gave the English king the finger and started their own country over 350 years ago, there aren’t too many places to go today to do the same thing.

And of course, the worst part of it may be that films that depict subjects conforming to the state dictates and edicts probably won’t do well at the box office.

link:  https://scitechdaily.com/decade-long-study-challenges-traditional-views-of-evolution/

An article came to my notice which quite piqued my interest.  It does not concern politics or culture per se and in fact is quite an arduous read.  But if you can get through it, the ramifications of the findings of this article should make people think about issues which have always been accepted as being incontrovertible science.

Even those with only a rudimentary education will understand the concept of Darwinism.  Very broadly, it postulates that in an ecosystem, the strong will survive and the weak won’t.  The popularity of this theory has been adopted as a universal truth in society and accepted in scientific circles as well.

Reading of this 10 year study will induce sleep faster than watching golf on TV, but the gist of the conclusion indicates that genetic codes in Daphnia plankton have a mechanism that can quickly adapt to changing external conditions which enables them to survive. In other words, they don’t just die off because of change, they are able to adapt to the new environment.  Here’s the salient excerpt:

They discovered that the strength of natural selection on individual genes varies significantly from year to year, maintaining variation and potentially enhancing the ability to adapt to future changing environmental conditions by providing raw material for natural selection to act on.

While this distinction may be subtle, the eggheads in the science world are now facing the possibility of changing their views of species evolution.

As gripping as this may seem, it would just draw a blank stare from the less scientifically inclined.  The implication is that, by extrapolation, all living species have the capacity to adjust their genetic codes to suit changes in their environment.  The caveat though, is that this happens over generations and not during a sudden change in the environment

As these findings trickle through the scientific community, it’s going to cause a lot of narratives about shrinking polar bear populations and missing bees and penguins into question.  At the very least, this demonstrates the fundamental foundational tenet of all science:  An observation is made and then attempts are made to explain a phenomenon by objective study and testing to validate any claims.  It’s quite the thing to find out that something that’s been accepted to be true…may not be at all.  Empiricism has to be the basis for knowledge.

We’ve all realized by now that much of what passes as science can often be traced to whomever may have been funding the study.  Examples such as cigarette brands most recommended by doctors; foods best suited for long life, good teeth and shiny hair.  And of course, as has been exposed of late, the efficacy of vaccines. All were once apparently endorsed “by science”. When I read the linked article, I can’t determine if anyone had an axe to grind either for or against Daphnia plankton, so we assume its objectivity.  Plankton doesn’t engender as much cuteness sympathy as baby polar bears, thus no teen-aged girls are championing their issues.

What this discovery should lead to is the dampening of the mass hysteria propagated by all quarters on the existential dangers of driving a pick-up, using plastic straws or of dangerous flatulent cows. It appears that animals, including humans, have the innate capacity to adapt to ecosystems over time.  This also has implications for treatment of illnesses. Thus any plans to depopulate the world to save it are not only despotic, but truly unhinged.  In fact, if you think about it, that whole belief system is anti-science.

In earlier times, the official world narrative used to be controlled by those who had the capacity to do so.  This included religious organizations and feudal rulers.  The vast number of people just accepted their dictates as truths.  As we know, the availability of education to everyone eliminated (mostly) these institutions’ monopoly on information.

But as we all know, human nature is predictable; that is, people are malleable. The modern day feudal lords propagate their worldview by control of the media narrative, rather than sending men with swords to the doors.  They effectively use influential proxies as their messengers as well as painting skeptics as deniers of science.  Imagine the pushback Galileo must have endured when he first proposed that the universe did not revolve around the Earth.  Or the ancient Greek, Pythagoras when he surmised that the earth wasn’t flat. Of course they were proven to be correct over time and empirical observation.  But someone brave had to question the established beliefs.

And yet to this day, you still have people pushing flat earth narratives, rising oceans and imminent human calamity.   Even worse, an entire bunch of entitled people still think that the world revolves around them.