Neuroscience: China's One-Child Policy Affects Personality
In 1979 China instituted the one-child policy, which limited every family to just one offspring in a controversial attempt to reduce the country’s burgeoning population. The strictly enforced law had the desired effects: in 2011 researchers estimated that the policy prevented 400 million births. In a new study in Science, researchers find that it has also caused China’s so-called little emperors to be more pessimistic, neurotic and selfish than their peers who have siblings.
Psychologist Xin Meng of the Australian National University in Canberra and her colleagues recruited 421 Chinese young adults born between 1975 and 1983 from around Beijing for a series of surveys and tests that evaluated a variety of psychological traits, such as trustworthiness and optimism. Almost all the participants born after 1979 were only children compared with about one fifth of those born before 1979. The study participants born after the policy went into effect were found to be both less trusting and less trustworthy, less inclined to take risks, less conscientious and optimistic, and less competitive than those born a few years earlier.
“Because of the one-child policy, parents are less likely to teach their child to be imaginative, trusting and unselfish,” Meng says. Without siblings, she notes, the need to share may not be emphasized, which could help explain these findings.
Only children in other parts of the world, however, do not show such striking differences from their peers. Toni Falbo, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved in the study, suggests that larger social forces in China also probably contributed to these results. “There’s a lot of pressure being placed on [Chinese] parents to make their kid the best possible because they only had one,” Falbo says. These types of pressures could harm anyone, even if they had siblings, she says.
Whatever its cause, the personality profile of China’s little emperors may be troubling to a nation hoping to continue its ascent in economic prosperity. The traits marred by the one-child policy, the study authors point out, are exactly those needed in leaders and entrepreneurs.
Technoccult: Teen Girl Charged With Felony For Science Experiment Gone Wrong
Klint Finley
Koa Beck writes:
Given all the data that is out there regarding young girls and STEM fields, ladies who demonstrate an interest in science should be culturally supported. A quick peruse of certain popular culture guarantees that they certainly won’t be getting that support elsewhere. Yet when 16-year-old Kiera Wilmot, who reportedly “got good grades” and had “a perfect behavior record” had a science experiment go awry, she was slapped with felony charges. Way to support our young girls in the sciences.
Wtsp.com reports that the teen was arrested and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device. At seven a.m. that morning at Bartow High School, Kiera allegedly mixed some “household chemicals” in an eight-ounce water bottle. The top reportedly popped off creating a “small explosion” complete with smoke. No one was hurt, according to reports.
In addition to her criminal charges, she has since been expelled from Bartow High School. It remains unclear whether there was any malice in the experiment. But even the young lady’s school principal, as well as her peers, believe that she didn’t possess any vicious motives:
Full Story: Mommyish: Teen Girl With A Penchant For Science Is Slapped With Felony Charges After Her Experiment Explodes
There’s no clarity as to what she was actually trying to accomplish, or exactly how big the explosion was. I can understand people being on edge after recent shooting and the Boston bombing, but the charges seem trumped up for a simple accident. There could be more to this than meets the eye, but it feels a lot like another example of the criminalization of curiosity.
Here’s the news clip:
See also:
Criminalizing science: chemistry student arrested for home lab
Students in ‘Weird Science’ Halloween party arrested under anti-terror laws
Drone Artists/Hackers Detained Held in London on Suspicion of Terrorism
HIV cure months away, Danish scientists say, citing novel new DNA treatment
Danish scientists believe they may have a cure for HIV “within months.”Whoa, whoa, whoa!
How is this not bigger news?!
legalize heroin.: How Purdue Outwitted the FDA into Letting It Keep Its OxyContin Monopoly
Yesterday, the FDA finally decided to approve an abuse deterrent label for Purdue’s three-year-old reformulation of OxyContin, also ruling that its manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, had pulled the original drug off the market over concerns for safety, rather than to extend the life of its patent. Yesterday also happened to be the day on which that patent expired; as a result of the FDA’s label approval, generic competitors will be barred from producing the original OxyContin formulation.
In other words, the most notoriously abused drug in America is now the gold standard for abuse deterrent medication.
The timing of the FDA’s announcement begs a very obvious question: in the three years since the FDA approved Purdue’s reformulation for sale, how exactly did the agency become convinced that it was worthy of the abuse-deterrent label, and why did the agency wait until the last possible moment to grant that approval?
The most concrete assertion that the FDA actually makes to support their conclusion that “the benefits of original OxyContin no longer outweigh its risks” is the following (emphasis ours):
The agency has determined that the physical and chemical properties of the reformulated product are expected to make the product difficult to inject and to reduce abuse via snorting. However, abuse of OxyContin by these routes, as well as the oral route, is still possible.
Oxycodone’s highest bioavalability is through the oral route. Making it harder to inject or insufflate is somewhat analagous to making heroin harder to eat.
Moreover, the agency cannot and does not make the assertion that the new OxyContin formulation has ever even been demonstrated to reduce abuse by any route at all. (Perhaps the community assessments Purdue conducts will confirm that fewer people are abusing their new formulation than the old one, allowing the FDA and Purdue to both play the role of heroes. The assessments though will likely not mention what the former OxyContin users are doing instead.) It is also worth mentioning that much of the data upon which the FDA’s conclusions were based was produced or funded by Purdue.
Anyhow, the rulings are immediately bad for the public for two reasons:
1. By locking out generic competitors, the FDA has ensured that the price of the fourteenth best selling medication in America is likely to remain inflated.
2. The FDA’s decisions lend credibility to a public health approach that (at least as of yet) has no clinical validity and was hatched for the express purpose of maintaining a monopoly.
How exactly did this all come about? While its victory was only sealed yesterday, Purdue won its decisive battle in April 2010, when, in a terse press release, the FDA announced that after a three year back-and-forth with Purdue it was approving the new formulation with this glowing endorsement:
“Although this new formulation of OxyContin may provide only an incremental advantage over the current version of the drug, it is still a step in the right direction,”
Correspondences between the FDA and Purdue certainly suggest that the agency has never really bought the notion that “abuse resistant” OxyContin represents a significant benefit to public health; at the same time, though, they did not have justification to reject the new formulation. Their compromise was to allow Purdue to sell it with the stated purpose of preventing abuse, but to refuse to grant the labeling that would validate those claims (and also, of course, grant Purdue the extended monopoly they were after).
Despite the FDA’s skepticism, the stalemate was always destined to end yesterday, when the patent on the original OxyContin expired. Last summer Purdue filed a citizen’s petition asking that the agency establish labeling guidelines that would require all generic formulations to meet the same specifications as Purdue’s new formulation. The FDA denied the petition on technical grounds, prompting Purdue to offer an extensive appeal that rather explicitly detailed the political fallout the FDA would face if they allowed for generic versions of the Very Dangerous original OxyContin (which, until two years previously - and only three from the end of its patent life - had been earning Purdue $2.5 billion a year).
In the meanwhile, generic competitors were petitioning the FDA to rule that Purdue had pulled the original formulation from the market “for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.” Of course, if the FDA were to rule this way, it would be admitting that it had been fooled into approving Purdue’s new formulation for no reason at all and also opening itself to allegations of neglect in fighting the prescription abuse epidemic that Purdue’s lobbyists were suddenly so concerned about.
One has to imagine that the FDA’s preferred option would have been to allow the sale of generic OxyContin without issuing a (premature) judgement on the efficacy of abuse resistant formulations, but that option was not on the table. The agency had little choice but to finally approve the label based on the same incomplete data it had deemed insufficient three years prior and double down on the notion that such formulations represent a valid approach to fighting abuse (in addition to approving the abuse-deterrent labeling for the new formulation, the agency for the first time publicly released a draft guidance for abuse deterrent approval and labeling, as requested by Purdue).
And that is how an “incrementally improved” reformulation devised as a transparent scheme to extend the patent life of a rampantly abused painkiller became the model for a possibly useless, but widely praised new approach to fighting drug abuse.
![science-junkie:
You Don’t “Own” Your Own GenesResearchers Raise Alarm about Loss of Individual “Genomic Liberty” Due to Gene Patents That May Impact the Era of Personalized Medicine.Humans don’t “own” their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases they might be at risk for. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report two researchers who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual “genomic liberty.”
“If these patents are enforced, our genomic liberty is lost,” says Dr. Mason, an assistant professor of physiology and biophysics and computational genomics in computational biomedicine at the Institute for Computational Biomedicine at Weill Cornell. “Just as we enter the era of personalized medicine, we are ironically living in the most restrictive age of genomics. You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?”
Source: weill.cornell.eduImage: [x]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/170294bbfa6e0ed35c3eb4168bbf8823/tumblr_mkbo9xwy4b1rd1n1oo1_1280.jpg)
You Don’t “Own” Your Own Genes
Researchers Raise Alarm about Loss of Individual “Genomic Liberty” Due to Gene Patents That May Impact the Era of Personalized Medicine.
Humans don’t “own” their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases they might be at risk for. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report two researchers who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual “genomic liberty.”“If these patents are enforced, our genomic liberty is lost,” says Dr. Mason, an assistant professor of physiology and biophysics and computational genomics in computational biomedicine at the Institute for Computational Biomedicine at Weill Cornell. “Just as we enter the era of personalized medicine, we are ironically living in the most restrictive age of genomics. You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?”
Source: weill.cornell.edu
Image: [x]
(via thescienceofreality)
Environmentalists Sign Petition to Ban Water
Infowars.com
April 11, 2013In a nod to a 10 year old Penn and Teller Skit, Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo asks Austin residents if they would like to ban water.
Obama to Unveil Initiative to Map the Human Brain
“President Obama on Tuesday will announce a broad new research initiative, starting with $100 million in 2014, to invent and refine new technologies to understand the human brain. […] The effort will require the development of new tools not yet available to neuroscientists and, eventually, perhaps lead to progress in treating diseases like Alzheimer’s and epilepsy and traumatic brain injury. It will involve both government agencies and private institutions.
The initiative, which scientists involved in promoting the idea have been calling the Brain Activity Map project, will officially be known as Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, or Brain for short; it has been designated a grand challenge of the 21st century by the Obama administration.”
Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com
Donations gratefully accepted at http://www.fdrurl.com/donate
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw…
The Air Quality Egg was named one of Kickstarter’s best projects of 2012.
South Dakota Students Testing Fingerprint-Based Payment System
More than 50 students and faculty members at the School of Mines and Technology in South Dakota are part of that pilot programme which uses biocryptology – biometrics and cryptology combined – to allow them to buy items at campus shops.
Users must first set up an account in person, bringing with them identification, banking information and their index fingers. To buy an item, students enter their birthday, as an extra identification step, and then put their index finger into scanner, which encrypts the fingerprint and sends the data over the intranet to a secure system that checks it against their records.
The scan goes beneath the top layers of skin to detect haemoglobin in the blood, meaning a pulse must be detected before the purchase is allowed.
(via South Dakota School First To Buy Things With Fingerprints - Business Insider)
Poor Richard's News: GLOBAL WARMING ALERT! Liberal journalist admits polar bears increasing in numbers, not dying out
He’s the poster boy for the global warming alarmists: the polar bear, dying out because evil humans are driving too many cars and eating too much beef. Well, all that turns out to be a bunch a baloney, and one liberal journalist is finally seeing the light.
from Wall Street Journal:
I knew I was in trouble when the biologist from the Manitoba Conservation Department sat down next to me. “The bears look good,” he said. “I haven’t seen them this fat in years.” We’d both been hanging around the tiny town of Churchill, Manitoba, ground zero for everything having to do with polar bears. Every fall the town is overrun with bears waiting for Hudson Bay to freeze. The bears, in turn, are trailed by herds of tourists, tour guides, scientists, green-leaning types and B-list celebrities—all looking for communion with The Most Important Animal of Our Time.
What worried me wasn’t what the biologist had to say, but what the woman who had occupied that same seat three minutes earlier had said about the very same bears. A publicist for an environmental advocacy group, she shook her head ruefully. “It’s just so sad,” she exhaled. “They all look so skinny that it’s hard to look at them.”
I went north for a simple reason: I wanted to be a hero of the environmental movement and write a poetic obituary for a doomed species. The Center for Biological Diversity—the environmental group that sued the U.S. government to put polar bears on the Endangered Species list—had predicted that “two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could be extinct by 2050.”
But after months of reporting and hundreds of bear sightings, I kept running up against an inconvenient truth: There were a lot of well-meaning, well-credentialed scientists, wildlife officers and local experts who simply didn’t believe that polar bears were one ice cube away from extinction. And they had the numbers to prove it.
Which was good news for the bears…even if it was terrible news for their careers as symbols of environmental doom.
Let’s start with what we know. Almost everybody agrees that there are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears alive today. Here’s another thing almost everyone agrees on: That number is a whole lot bigger than it was 40 years ago.
So there you have it, the next time somebody tells you that the polar bears are dying out, you’ll know better. They’re most certainly not.
Liberty Tumblr. ⒶⓋ⚔: FDA approves first GMO flu vaccine containing reprogrammed insect virus
Friday, February 08, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A new vaccine for influenza has hit the market, and it is the first ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells. According to reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the vaccine, known as Flublok, which contains recombinant DNA technology and an insect virus known as baculovirus that is purported to help facilitate the more rapid production of vaccines.
According to Flublok’s package insert, the vaccine is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different flu strains. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explains that Flublok is produced by extracting cells from the fall armyworm, a type of caterpillar, and genetically altering them to produce large amounts of hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly.
So rather than have to produce vaccines the “traditional” way using egg cultures, vaccine manufacturers will now have the ability to rapidly produce large batches of flu virus protein using GMOs, which is sure to increase profits for the vaccine industry. But it is also sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects, including the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB), which is listed on the shot as a potential side effect.FDA also approves flu vaccine containing dog kidney cells
Back in November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine known as Flucelvax that is actually made using dog kidney cells. A product of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Flucelvax also does away with the egg cultures, and can similarly be produced much more rapidly than traditional flu vaccines, which means vaccine companies can have it ready and waiting should the federal government declare a pandemic.
Like Flublok, Flucelvax was made possible because of a $1 billion, taxpayer-funded grant given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the vaccine industry back in 2006 to develop new manufacturing methods for vaccines. The ultimate goal is to be able to quickly manufacture hundreds of millions of vaccines for rapid distribution.
Meanwhile, there are reportedly two other GMO flu vaccines currently under development. One of them, which is being produced by Novavax, will utilize “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called ‘virus-like particles’ that mimic a flu virus,” according to Reuters.// read more.. http://www.naturalnews.com/039013_flu_vaccine_insect_virus_GMOs.html
As demonstrated in the video above, lasers can be used to excite molecules into a higher energy state, which will decay via the emission of photons, causing the medium to glow. This laser-induced fluorescence is utilized in several techniques for measurements in fluid dynamics, including planar laser-induced fluorescence (PLIF) and molecular tagging velocimetry (MTV). In these techniques a flow is usually seeded with a fluorescing material—nitric oxide is popular for super- and hypersonic flows—and then lasers are used to excite a slice of the flow field. The resulting fluorescence can be used for both qualitative and quantitative flow measurements. Here are a couple of examples, one in low-Reynolds number flow and one in combustion. (Video credit: L. Martin et al./UC Berkeley)
Alex Blog: Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer
Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 7, 2013There’s a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn’t a whacky as you might first suppose. I’ve actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe — and everything in it — into existence by design.
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.
Here’s what it means in layman’s terms
Here’s the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the “screen resolution” such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.
Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that’s only half a pixel. For example, you can’t draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor — a computer game, a website, even a video — is essentially transposed onto the “lattice” of pixels that exist in your hardware.
Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired “resolution limit” which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.
Now, zoom out to the “real” world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we’re analogbeings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?
Not so fast. As it turns out, our “reality” is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays “snaps to” the “resolution” of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a “universe.”
The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creatorwho built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.
For the record, my personal belief is that the Creator set all the physical constants in the universe and then initiated the so-called “Big Bang” and let things play out from there. I do not believe our Creator “tinkers” with the universe at a micro level on a day-to-day basis. But I do believe there very well may have been individuals throughout history who found ways to “bend the rules” of the Matrix ever so slightly and thereby perform the very kind of miracles we see described in ancient texts.
“The structure of the underlying lattice”
The authors of this new paper describe their conclusion as following: “The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.”
This “underlying lattice” is what I’m describing as a “resolution” of our physical simulation.
There’s other evidence of this, too: Plank’s Constant, for example, is by itself yet more evidence that the physical universe in which we live is quantized to a particular resolution. In fact, even light behaves in a quantized manner, which is why “light packets” are called quanta.
Our universe, it turns out, is digital, not analog. Heck, even your DNA is digital, not analog. You are a digitized physical being imbued with a non-material consciousness that transcends this physical simulation. Realizing this is a lot like taking the red pill in The Matrix and being shown that the universe you thought was real is actually just a grand computer simulation.
Of course, once you grasp that we are living in a grand simulation, the next obvious question is: Who built it?
Intelligent Design
One obvious answer is that we built it! Not “we” the humans here on Earth, but rather the “we” which is a highly advanced civilization of seemingly supernatural beings with incomprehensibly powerful technology. We collectively built the simulation, the theory goes, and then agreed to selectively insert our consciousness into the simulation in order to have a “human lifeexperience” on this planet. But that’s only one possibility from all this.
Another possible answer is that HE built it. Who is He? He is God, our Creator. He is a consciousness with literal God-like powers who is omnipresent and all-powerful. He created our universe (i.e. designed and then launched the simulation) while providing a mechanism for free will consciousness to “wake up” inside the simulation in the bodies of newly-born beings. Upon death in the simulation, your consciousness leaves the simulation and returns to its source, which is the actual reality that transcends this one. This is possibly why people who have survived near-death experiences consistently report their experience as being a “hyper reality” that feels like it is “a thousand times more real than life on Earth.”
For the record, I have always believed in a supernatural Creator of our universe; our God. I also believe — and have good evidence — that God is an all-loving being and that the overriding purpose of our existence in this universe is to express our free will and thereby have a self-aware experience which advances our knowledge of who we are. More details on this below…
What would be the purpose of intelligently designing a grand computer simulation?
If our universe was consciously created, then it must have been created for a purpose. In his book Proof of Heaven, near-death survivor Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, describes the purpose in great detail on page 48 of his book:
Through the Orb, [God] told me that there is not one universe but many — in fact, more than I could conceive — but that love lay at the center of them all. Evil was present in all the other universes as well, but only in the tiniest trace amounts. Evil was necessary because without it free will was impossible, and without free will there could be no growth — no forward movement, no chance for us to become what God longed for us to be. Horrible and all-powerful as evil sometimes seemed to be in a world like ours, in the larger picture love was overwhelmingly dominant, and it would ultimately be triumphant.
The primary purpose of life in this realm, it seems, is to experience personal growth and learn how to overcome Evil. This explains why we all seem to be surrounded by so much evil on a day-to-day basis. We are drowning in evil precisely because our souls chose to be here and learn how to defeat it.
At the end of our Earthly lives, we are then judged on our performance. As I wrote in a previous article:
Upon our death, we are judged by a higher power, and that judgment takes into account our performance in these areas. Did we achieve a measure of self-awareness? Did we work to overcome evil? Did we express love and compassion and help uplift others with knowledge and awareness?
As you’ve probably already figured out, the vast majority of humans fail these tests. They die as bitter, selfish, substance-addicted, greed-driven minions of evil who mistakenly thought they were winning the game of life while, in reality, they were losing the far more important test of the Creator.
Looking around at our fellow human beings, you can’t help but agree with my assessment that nearly everyone is failing the test. If we are here to overcome and resist evil, very few people are scoring very many points at all.
Having your consciousness attached to a human experience in this world seems to be the universal equivalent of “being thrown in the deep end” of Good vs. Evil. Making matters even more difficult, none of us is granted any sort of memory of why we are here and what we’re supposed to do. We simply wake up as a newborn, and we have to figure things out for ourselves — a challenge that often takes a lifetime. In fact, the achievement of “enlightenment” in a human lifetime is quite a remarkable feat by any measure.
What this means for your life
So what does all this mean in terms of the way you live your life here on Earth? If you believe the universe really is a grand simulation created by a higher power, then it forces you to rethink your philosophy on the purpose of life.
Some might say this is the perfect excuse to resort to selfish hedonism and turn your entire life into one vast entertainment parade. But that seems to be the wrong conclusion from all this, precisely because it ignores the importance of personal growth. I do not believe our universe is a childish playground; I believe it is a serious test of spiritual strength. You may or may not agree with all my points, but here’s my philosophy on what to do with this realization:
#1) Don’t chase material things that aren’t even real in the first place. You are living in a simulation that’s as un-real as an old 8-bit Atari computer game. Your focus on trying to collect money and wealth in this world is about as foolish as trying to collect gold coins in a role-playing computer game.
#2) Live your life to WIN the simulation. “Winning” means persistently working to defeat evil, demonstrate love and help awaken others. Rack up your “karma” points, so to speak. Because that’s how you will be judged once your earthly life comes to an end.
#3) Know that your behavior is being watched, recorded and judged. There are ultimately no secrets. You will, in time, face judgment on all your actions, and it’s even possible that an entire civilization of advanced Creators will review your actions with you. (This is what is often described by those who survive NDEs.) Your actions in this simulation are recorded on your soul for eternity, so make them count. Don’t do anything your soul would feel ashamed of.
#4) Know that death is not final. What matters far more than staying alive on this planet is living your life with principle. Your decisions (ethics) survive your human life! I would rather die defending principles of love and enlightenment than compromise those principles to save my own skin in this simulation. Life is fleeting, but the record of your morals and behavior lasts forever. If all this starts to sound a little Biblical, that’s because the Bible is, I believe, based in part on information provided to us by the Creator of our grand simulation.
#5) Realize that your consciousness is eternal and you almost certainly “agreed” to come here and experience this life as a spiritual test. With that in mind, do your best to achieve success within the test by demonstrating behavior based in high spiritual principles.
Why I’m not afraid to tell the truth
Once you grasp all this, you realize why I am not afraid to speak my mind and report the truth here on Natural News. People often ask me, “Aren’t you afraid of being killed?” While I do take tactical precautions to avoid being prematurely removed from this simulation, I simultaneously realize that there is ultimately nothing to be afraid of in this simulated world.
What’s to be afraid of, really? Most of the people who claim to have power in this world will be reduced to Hellish minions after their death. If you look at truly evil people in this world, you realize that those people have already doomed their souls in the real world beyond this one. They will suffer from the Hell they have brought upon themselves by living lives of deception. We who tell the truth are spiritual giants compared to those who gain false power through deception.
That’s why never selling out is an absolutely must if you hope to pass the spiritual test of life. If you sell out to corporate interests or an evil agenda that suppresses freedom or health, you quite literally sell out your own soul far beyond this one lifetime. The phrase “eternal damnation” comes to mind…
On the issue of gun rights, by the way, all this helps explain why self defense is a divine right. We all deserve the right to prevent our souls from being prematurely removed from the simulation (i.e. being killed). Guns are simply tools that can help us defend our physical bodies so that our spiritual bodies can continue with their intended experiences in this reality. This is why those of high spirituality have traditionally carried swords and other weapons of self defense. Even Jesus recommend people carry swords for protection, even as they pursue spiritual awakening.
A gun defends the body so that the spirit can do its work, in other words. But that’s only true if the use of gun is reserved for self defense only. To use a gun to commit unjustified violence against innocents is obviously a terrible sin and a catastrophic spiritual failure.
Conclusion: Has science proven the existence of God?
If all this science is true, it would mean that science has proven the existence of a Creator (as well as intelligent design).
This is certainly not the intention of science, as much of modern-day science seems to be dead-set against the idea of intelligent design. Yet even if the entire universe can be traced back to the Big Bang and Inflation Theory (with Inflatons) there is still the lingering question of “Who or what initiated the Big Bang?”
If you really look deeply into the laws of physics, by the way, you will discover that the so-called universal constants that drive the underlying mechanics and energies of our universe have been intricately fine-tuned precisely to give rise to a universe that can support biological life. Change one of these constants just slightly and stars don’t form. Change another constant and the universe flings itself apart before life can form on any planets. These are at least six physical constants that appear to have been delicately tuned, selected or somehow “set” sort of like a universal control panel with properties and parameters.
There’s an interesting book on this subject by science writer Paul Davies, by the way. It’s called The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? I’ve read most of it and recommend the book to other seekers who are looking for the deepest answers about the nature of reality and how it all came to be.
If you’re interested in my own views on all this, read my article on The Higgs boson “God particle”.
You may also enjoy reading my other website called www.DivinityNow.com where I post articles on consciousness, cosmology and philosophy.
