Mind Me

Mind me

I'm a lighthouse 

can't sleep while you're not safe

Made of stone 

I can't feel love 

and darkness light my fires 

Morning hastes

Time tears my walls down

Grow me

I'm your garden 

won't talk until you've sown 

Made by light 

you can't touch me 

the warmth would burn your skin 

Night calls

Time makes me feel reborn

Asking 'Has Man A Future?'

(This post was inspired by the book 'Has man a future?' written by Bertrand Russell. This post will be the first of two or three parts, of which this first one will be an introduction to the contents of the book and the questions it made me rise. In the second part, in a later post, I will attempt to answer the questions put the best I can by reasoning and presenting more of those little nasty things called 'facts'.)

I remember my physics teacher once saying "the atomic bomb is one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. It put an end to war". What I had completely missed, was that a weapon 2500 times as powerful as the A-bomb was developed and manufactured soon after the invention of the mentioned bomb of mass-destruction: the H-bomb. The cold war, was a scientific war, and a war of nerves. The fear of the weapon that could obliterate whole nations in a few blows, tempted governments that owned them in their war mongering, but frightened them as well, knowing that their enemies would have them too. Extreme luck, was what saved the world from disaster then. For more than once, satellites, and once even the moon, were mistaken for foreign missiles and the preparation of firing nuclear weapons begun but was miraculously stopped just in time.
       But have nuclear weapons really put an end to war?

It is hard to know where to begin. The little black book, on merely 130 pages, was an incredible page turner for me. To dig right into the mind and mentality of someone who lived during the cold war was not at all how I had expected it to be. Russell writes with the same kind of darkness and pessimism as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley which is typical for the time. He mentions 'universal death' and once even expresses a doubt that what he had written would ever have time to be published before mankind had destroyed itself in the rain of nuclear bombs. The despair and hopelessness one feels as he explains how the scientific war triggered a mad production of weapons and the hunt for the most powerful weapon there would ever be-- the doomsday machine-- is overwhelming. How it must have felt like mankind had always only been a creature of evil, a lost case from the beginning, driven by the madness of greed and fear, longing for death, running hastily towards the very fire that would destroy her.

As Russell's book that I have just read, wasn't published later than 1961, the book says nothing about the cuban missile crisis. When reading about all the horrors of the first, second and cold war and the unbelievable actions of man, I got shocked the first time I read about the agreement between Kennedy and Khrushchev that stopped a nuclear war an inch from its outbreak. To think that two super powers such as the US and what was then the USSR would actually keep their heads cool in such a tense moment is, I think, one of the most admirable fantastic happenings in history.  So it wasn't just desperation and naivité that made Russell dare to express hope in the darkest of hours. He wrote:

"... as yet hope is possible, and while hope is still possible, despair is a coward's part."

In a brilliant statement published in 1955 he says:

"Here then, is the problem which  we present to you, stark dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall we renounce war?"

How simple does not the choice seem when the alternatives are put in this way? But however simple he makes it sound, it is not simple to abolish war and that is what he meant must be done. There were severals steps that had to be taken, according to Russell, and none of them were easy or risk-free. He speaks for a world-government, a government that would concentrate all military power to one nation--the world. A military power that would scare war mongering minorities of mobilizing or easily strike them down- should they ever dare to raise an uproar. Each unit would consist of mixed nationalities, colors and languages, so that the instinctive social cohesion would not be turned against nations, races or cultures. 

       Further on, the money spent on and earned by the means of warfare would have to be replaced by exportation and importation of energy: oil and uranium. 

       Children would in school have to be taught to be more open to opposition, despise war and grow a loyalty and trust towards their government that would not easily be questioned. And for those who'd feel that a world without war, would be a dull world, they would have to get their desire for adventure satisfied. For:

"it must be admitted that, in the world as it is now, many people lead very uninteresting and circumscribed lives, and some among them feel that at last they are able to do something of importance and find relief from boredom and monotony when, in the course of war, they are transported to distant countries and have a chance to see ways of life other than that to which they are accustomed at home. I think that provision should be made for adventure, and even dangerous adventure, in the lives of such of the young as desire it."

These young men (and women, I guess), should, according to Russell, have the opportunity of joining scientific expeditions which would include the disciplines desired in the military; co-operation,  obedience and responsibility. 

Before I start evaluating the outcome of these ideas, I find it important to mention what Russell himself says: 

"In a stable world such as we are envisaging, there could be in many ways a great deal more freedom than there is at present. There would, however, be some new limitations on freedom, since it would be necessary to inculcate loyalty to the international government and to curb incitements to war by single nations or groups of nations. Subject to this limitation, there should be freedom of the Press, freedom of speech and freedom of travel."

Now that I have provided you with some facts and ideas on the matter, it is time to formulate the questions I will answer in a later post.

- What is war to man?
- Have nuclear weapons put an end to war?
- Were nuclear weapons what stopped the cold war from turning into the third world war?
- Do nuclear weapons have the potential of putting an end to war in the future?
- How far have we gotten in Russells plan of abolishing war, and will his scheme work at all?
- Russell also argues that science is what makes the threat of universal death reality and almost divides mankind into two species; a scientific and a non-scientific. Considering this, what role does science play?
- And finally of course: 'Has man a future?'

Science and Imagination

(Inspired by 'The journey to the centre of the Earth' by Jules Verne)

Oh, how I detested physics in secondary school. I abhorred every minute of it. Mostly I chose to be absent those classes, and when I did attend, I did it with such disrespect that I forced myself to fall asleep. Why did I do this? Because I was a romantic. I was a romantic that would not let my imagination be limited by facts, truths and other such silly things. 'Why would anyone want a correct answer to how a rainbow is shaped?' was one of the questions I asked myself.

It did not take long for me to realize that by acting this way, I gave science more glorification and justification than it actually deserves. By accepting science as the ultimate truth I was fooling myself. Philosophers know that in order to decipher the largest questions, one has to start small. Very small. Scientists work in the exact same way, but far from always with the same humbleness. Their enthusiasm affects others and gives science a sort of religious approach.

 I can not help noticing how people relying a lot on science, have a very square perspective on life. It might not be a bad thing though. There must be such dedicated people in order to bring science forward. Meanwhile there will always be others of a more creative and romantic disposition to question, interpret and develop facts and turn them into tools. As a romantic, one can adopt scientific facts and convert them into tools. One learns something perceived to be a fact, and then figures out in which ways it can be used and for which purposes. Jules Verne did this, just to mention one.

 Right now, I am reading 'Has man a future?' by Bertrand Russell and he says this:

"One of the troubles of our age is that habits of thought cannot change as quickly as techniques, with the result that, as skill increases, wisdom fades."


Science is a good, brilliant, mindblowing thing. It has given us knowledge that leads to questions we have never asked ourselves before. But we must remember, that it is still in its infantry and many times it has acted naively, foolishly and advanced too quickly without any thought of the following consequences (here, I find it necessary to mention though, that according Russell, scientists do often consider consequences and he says that it is the ones that orders the experiments-- politicians, entrepreneurs, patients etc.-- who care only about what they can gain from the results and not about what it will actually lead to in the long run).   For hundreds and hundreds of years, man has lived without science and asked the most wonderful questions and by the power of the mind given answers to them that science has approved of hundreds of years later. This indicates, that our most powerful tool to obtain knowledge, is actually our imagination.

Reading Austen

It has now been three days since I finished reading Emma, my first Jane Austen novel. Somehow, I can not settle my mind on a topic inspired by the book to write about. There are many things to admire with the book. First of all, the exemplar I have, is beautiful in itself. Open whichever page you may, and it will not try to bend back or skip to another page impatient of showing its' brilliance. The pages are thin and delicate, the  print small. It invites the reader to read with a light heart, with no concern of time; an oasis in every day life.
       The story is not complicated, nor is the message. It is the story of a well-bred young lady's life in the society of the 18th century. And that is that. Beautiful language (a lot of pretty words that makes your dictionary come to use in a satisfactory way), a portrait of the contemporary life and social intrigues makes this book. Although Austen is not really my genre, I can't help being charmed by the elegant and amiable characters this book consists of. So much kindness, eloquence and peacefulness. There is no real hatred or even argues between the characters, only temporary disputes that resolve in deeper understanding and closer relationships between them.


So... How did the book affect me? Well. During the two weeks I read it, my english must have been horribly spruce and snobbish. 18th century english simply does not fit in the society of the 21st. Sadly. I also thought of how fantastic it would be to be a woman of Emma's (the main character's) wealth and time. She did not work, felt no pressure of doing so since equality did not yet have that meaning, nor did she cook or clean or wash or have children.. She could just read, write and paint however much she wanted. I certainly wouldn't say no to that. Although being addressed as follows would annoy me a great deal:


(Emma's father has heard that his acquaintance Miss Fairfax has, god forbid, been out fetching the post in the rain and reacts likes this:)

"I am very sorry to hear , Miss Fairfax, of your being out this morning in the rain. Young ladies should take care of themselves. Young ladies are delicate plants. They should take care of their health and their complexion. My dear, did you change your stockings?"

Funny, isn't it? I am convinced that Jane Austen herself was quite amused of the many peculiarities (such as what I just mentioned) of her time, and that she added them in her novels simply because she thought them funny. I did actually laugh a lot when reading this book. 

Here are some other memorable quotes from the book: 

"Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken…"

"I do not know whether it ought to be so, but certainly silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way. Wickedness is always wickedness, but folly is not always folly. It depends upon the character of those who handle it."

The People I Don't Know

I don't know why I yesterday was so perceptive of things I otherwise don't notice at all. I was on my way from school to my mother's work to discuss philosophy with one of her colleagues who had a few years ago studied at a university I am thinking of applying to. I was in a cheerful mood (knowing that I wouldn't have to be back at school in one and a half week) when I turned a corner and the sun and the warmth of it, hit my face and all the sounds-- the engines of the many cars, the buses, the sound of feet against the asphalted streets, cell phones ringing and receiving text messages, air planes in the sky above, automatic doors to shops opening and closing, money being withdrawn, conversations being held, pages being turned in news papers... I was no longer in a cheerful mood. In fact, I was in no mood at all. I was just a receiver, nothing but five senses. I turned my head right, and there sat a woman, wrapped in a blanket, with a paper cup in her hand. She was not of the common beggar kind. She didn't seem at all miserable or trying to look like it. No, she held out her cup, smiled and sang a tune and said hello to everyone who met her eyes. A picture flashed through my head, in which I sat down with her, sang with her and held out my own paper cup. We weren't waiting for coins, but for the rain to fall. And everytime it would, we would drink up what was in our cups and then resume our observation of the world hurrying past us.
     I kept walking and soon found myself on the subway, musing over what I had just experienced. After a while, I felt a pair of eyes staring intensely at me. I was tempted to stare back, but feeling that this was someone not clean of drugs, I did not. The next station, however, the person switched seats and sat down beside me. He said "hello" and held out his left hand for me to shake. I greeted him back and shook his hand and observed this poor man's features for the first time. He looked like he came straight from a horror movie, his eyes narrowed, you could only just see something red in them, no other color. From them, fell tears not of sadness but from the strain of keeping the eyes open. His teeth were a brownish yellow and he wore a wicked smile, the kind which is used frequently in horror movies. 'Evil', was the first word I came to think of, and yet I was not afraid. Not until I tried to pull back my hand and the man wouldn't let it go. I calmly explained I was getting off at the next station, he said he was getting off too and asked me where I would go after I had gotten off. I said I would take the bus.
"Which bus?" was his reply.
I told him which and he replied:
"I'm taking it too."
 To my surprise, I laughed and said:
"Oh really, what an incredible coincidence!"
To this, the man's grip of my hand softened, as well as his expression. 'Unfortunate', was instead the word forming in my head now. At the next station, I helped him get off and then we parted, each in our own direction, waving each other good bye.
     After I had had the meeting I had set out for, I headed home. On the subway, I sat beside two girls of my own age. They were discussing something vigorously and, not being able to focus on the book I was reading, I listened to what they were saying. Apparently they had some day before set out in a group to vandalize and scribble on a commercial for a tv-show they found offensive, in order to make others take note to the offense and report it. They had also made sure to collect money within the group so that the expense of removing the scribbles would be covered by themselves, after the commercial had been charged. Their mission had apparently been successful and they were quite pleased with themselves, one could tell. What a creative way to solve a problem peacefully!

It is only a few days of the year I become so evidently aware of all the people I don't know. This was one of them.

Conspiracy, Creativity and Concerns

(This post is inspired by the book "Robotfolket" written by Mats Sederholm & Linda Bjuvgård.  To me, the most important thing with the book, which is also the main reason to why I would recommend it, is that it introduces a way of changing circumstances effectively, other than by politics which is often a slow process and far from always effective. ) 

- The world is run by an elite consisting of members of the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, Freemasons and other secret societies.
- The unions, such as the european and african, are milestones on the way of creating a world government; a plan that has since long been on display in order for a small group of people to gain complete power over the rest of the world.
- Epidemics, global warming, the threat of terrorism and financial crises are all ways for the already mentioned elite to seize control; "Divide et impera" (divide and rule).

Are you familiar with these assertions? I think you are. At least with one or two of them. I was too, when I started reading the swedish book "Robotfolket" (unfortunately it has not yet been translated into other languages). The book was given to me with the intention to give me a sort of soft introduction to this alternative perception of reality. Because there are indeed many spokesmen of these conspiracies, that are far too extreme in their views for someone who has never been in touch with them before (David Icke for example, just to mention one) and will not but frighten those who otherwise could have learned something from it. I have always had an interest in these alternative point of views. My own intention, however, has never been to let myself be convinced of one thing or another, but to become aware of the many perspectives that exist, in order to see the world,  not with clearer eyes, but with a wider field of vision.
        This book is excellent for those who want to know more about on which grounds the conspirators form their theories and how the term conspiracy often is a result of not only wild imagination and in many ways also inspiring creativity, but also serious concern for the world that surrounds us. For as far as I can see, the errors the authors of the book find in society, I find too. But my reasons for their existence might not correspond with theirs'. Here is one example and my evaluation of it:

Pills to reduce feelings of depression and difficulties with sleep and concentration are taken to, what may seem like, an unhealthy extent today. Why?

- The book argues that it is because of a deteriorating public health, caused by stress, which in turn is caused by unreasonable demands made by society. Just as it is bad to temporarily force down a fever with an aspirin in order to be able to keep going to work, it is bad, if not even worse, to take a pill to remove the symptoms of too much pressure in order to keep going on with the lifestyle that brought you into the unhealthy condition in the first place. The body shows clear signs of something being wrong. In many cases pills are short-term short cuts to keep managing the every day life, the every day life that obviously isn't quite as it should be. I suppose this is how the book wants to tell us that the power elite has found yet another way to easier control us. Something is wrong.  But we do not have the time to question or to dig for the roots to our problems. We do not have to do that. It is hard and will take a lot of time which will cost a lot of money. It is much easier and cheaper to just go to a doctor and get a prescription for Ritalin and be done with it.
       Now, what we have to consider is: are we really under more pressure today than we were before? Do you think people generally had less to worry about a hundred or two hundred years ago? If it is so, it might be a sign that we're moving towards something that is not of a good nature (be it a world government or something else). But, I think not. At least I do not think it is a dramatic difference although it of course varies slightly over the years. People who lived before might not have lived the same hectic lives as  we are, but they probably had other factors that caused them to feel the burden of too heavy a load. The difference is that today we have pills, and they are very easy to come by. Today it is more or less of a trend, to take medicines that we do not really need. And yes, in Sweden it could be said that it is forged by 'authorities', since the government sold out and privatized  the pharmacies which causes them to compete more, which makes them more of a candy shop for the body, or a fashion shop for the mind and character, than an actual pharmacy existing to support the ill.
     But in the end, it is up to you and me and not someone you perceive to be above you to decide wether you are going to keep doing something just because everybody else is doing it, or, if you are going to look for the reasons to why everybody is doing it and then judge if it is right to be doing so or not. Let us not forget the wit of the witty Anatole France: "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." If you start to look for the reasons for people taking pills and not early stop the chain of "whys", you might end up asking yourself questions like why you admit to unreasonable working conditions. Or why you admit to let a specific grade in school classify you as smart or silly. Or why you spend hours stuck in traffic at rush hour losing that precious time of yours, instead of taking the bus that would have either given you time to do things on your journey other than keeping an eye on the stuck traffic or get you to the place you were supposed to get to much faster... Why do we let norms limit us?

This is only one of the questions conspiracy might lead you to. With a bit of creativity even the most wild and crazy assumptions about the world can become a matter of concern. After all, it is not wrong to assume the worst. That, those of us who have studied traffic knows well. A driver is told to always assume the worst, because some day the assumption might be correct, and that day you will be better prepared. But it must also be said, that just because the assumption might some day be true, you must not be afraid of moving forward or forget to enjoy life.