Leechard,
Here comes a present to Darwin, who has his 200th birthday on 12. The presenter, however, is an organization influencing millions of people worldwide, the Vatican. According to 11 February Times report, the Church has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes. The Evolution theory is compatible with the Christian faith and could be traced to St Auguste and St Thomas Aquinas, the leading official said on 10.
Were Charles Darwin to be alive now, he shall be glad to bear the witness of the scene that Catholic Church announced that they accept his thinking on evolution. Since the publication of Origin of Species, there are many debates on whether we should adopt Darwin's Evolution theory or Creationist theory to answer this question :where the organisms come from? Seeing that evolution appeared to be in conflict with Catholic teaching, creationist, at Darwin's time, was very hostile towards Darwin and his fellows. But all these have gone. In recent 50 years, there are increasing number of biological facts, such as the study of DNA between ape and human, the fossil of early man ancestors, that serves as evidence to support Darwin's theory. At the same time the Church slowly changed its attitude. First, it tried to study origin of man in Darwin's perspective in 1950. In 1996, it was Pope John II to proclaim, in his speech, that evolution theory was "more than a hypothesis" In 2009, Catholic Church, under Pope Benedict XIV, prepares to go a step further, that formally recognizes the excellent work of Darwin in evolution, and to agree that what Origin of Species said is in parallel with the first Chapter of Genesis.
The significance of this event, i think, should not be underestimated. It is the second time, in recent years, that the Church attempts to resolves hundred years long dispute between science and Religion, followed by the Galileo's event. Galileo, like Darwin, was condemned by many and the Church as anti-Christian, while he was advocating a theory that Earth was not a centre of univense. But, with many scientific evidences proving Galileo's theory, he is now accepted by the Church. Now Church is prepared to do the same for the father of evolution, Darwin, which should be welcomed and commenced by all. It is a historic, landmark moment in the present time, in World History, and in Catholic’s history that Church agrees that Darwin and Galileo's theory can be linked with Bible teaching. In other words, Science and Religion are not, as many people believed, in antagonism with each other. They are telling us the same things, but in different angles, on what has happened in universe, and where we come from. So, from now onwards, the time for conflict between science and religion arising on matters related on universe and our origin has ended. The time of communication and cooperation between Science and Religion has begun. People can concentrate their effort in understanding the world deeper and broader in scientific and religion context. Scientists would appreciate the value of love in the society, while religion believers would adopt a scientific way to learn the world. To me, and to many worldwide men concerning on human future, it is a good start for rebuilding the strong world culture since divided, fragmented in years long conflict between science and religion, Only when we are united in our thinking can we begin our planning and execute our plan of rebuilding the world culture. In this sense, it is a good present by Church to all of us in year 2009.
We wish to see more and more such kind of events to take place in Church in the present time.
Here attached is Times report which can serve as your reference.
I am looking forward to hear from you.
Best wishes,
William
Dear William,
來信收到，刊在思想資料庫，請參閱。
關於進化論的問題，天主教和基督教的理解，完全不同。請參看以下
路透社的一篇文章。作者是Philip Pullella
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSLG62672220080916?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
部份激進的基督教會，至今堅持「創造論」，以為上帝在
數天之內創造了世界。
但天主教認為，創世紀並非一部歷史書。宗教故事，許多
時候都以寓言方式啟示世人。
所以，創世紀是一個寓言(allegory). 而耶穌也在新約
中多次講過，他的每一句，都是比喻。
因此，天主教是反對聖經直譯主義的。（Biblical literalism)
那麼，問題何在？
問題是：進化論寫成以後，有人把達爾文沒有說過的話，
強加於他。達爾文不反對宗教，但
一：有人「根據」進化論說世上沒有神。
二：更有人「根據」進化論而強調物質。以為
物質比心靈更重要。
三：還有人以為，弱肉強食才是真理。
所以，生存在世上要有竸爭心，因此，愛是多餘的。
來信提到的意見很好。但請注意：宗教和科學，並不是
像部份傳媒的意見那樣「混合」的。更不是天主教接納
了無神論。
李察謹上
二零零九年二月十五日
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Could Lincoln replace Churchill and Roosewelt?
Leechard,
Churchill, and Roosewelt, both leaders of UK and US, are, in many historians' and general public's view, praised for their excellent performance in World War II. Chruchill, at the fall of Netherland and Belgium, and the surrender of Britain, made many speeches encouraging his countrymen and the Nazi-occupied region people to fight against Germany and Italy, In battle of Britain, when most of British cities were under the heavy fire of German airplanes, it was Churchill who proclaimed"We can take it', and encouraged British to fight. Later his words in this war was being considered to mobilise the English language and send it into battle. Roosewelt, not merely prepared US into war with Axis power, but also tried many means to restore world peace and prosperity. Together with Churchill, Roosewelt had many conference with many ally nations, China, Soviet Union, and Turkey, to discuss a plan to settle all problems in their regions before the war. Atlantic Charter, made after Churchill and Roosewelt, was a draft of United Nation Charter, which gave birth to Unitef Nations organisation. Bretton Woods meeting, attended by economists around the world, defined the structure of world economic system after world war II, the current one, i mean. Their achievements in military, social, economic and political one would be very great in their times.
However, i do not think that they are best people suitable to head the national government in world war 2. It has been well said of Churchill and Roosewelt mistakes in World War 2. Churchill delayed the invansion of France for 2 years(1942-1944) because not only North Africa was in Axis power, but he and his generals were worried of the WW1 trench warfare likely to be happened in France. So, in 1944, while Allies landed at Normandy and moved eastwards, Soviet Union also moved westward, and in a year time, occupied much of Eastern European countries territories, Poland, Czechsolavkia, Hungary, Romania. It was Roosewelt who agreed to give a huge sum of US money in an aid to Soviet Union in the Yalta meeting. Soviet Union then had more resource to develop their military strength and the power to spread communism in every quarter of globe. By making these mistakes during World War 2, Churchill and Roosewelt turned the world onto a path to cold war, which is a dark page in history.
I may want to ask : if Lincoln was in charge of the war, instead of Roosewelt, Churchill, would the world be better? Lincoln may be well-aware of the nature of Soviet government and Stalin, Soviet leader, and could male a better policy towards Soviet Russia, making it strong enough to defeat Germany but not to threaten the world peace. Lincoln may attack France earlier to allow the war to end in the soonest time possible and avoid to use Nuclear bomb in Japan, to prevent bloodshed and death of civilians there.
I think many historians have asked this before, but still no one can get a satisfactory answer for that. Could you answer this for me?
I welcome any comment made on this topic.
Best wishes,
william
Enjoy the year of Ox
Dear William
This is a imaginative question but not a proper question.
Because every one in history has his own position: i.e., his own thinking network and could not be replaced by another imaginated character.
Lincoln is respected by many, but, he is Lincoln in the contest of history, not
in the contest of creativity.
Leechard
Churchill, and Roosewelt, both leaders of UK and US, are, in many historians' and general public's view, praised for their excellent performance in World War II. Chruchill, at the fall of Netherland and Belgium, and the surrender of Britain, made many speeches encouraging his countrymen and the Nazi-occupied region people to fight against Germany and Italy, In battle of Britain, when most of British cities were under the heavy fire of German airplanes, it was Churchill who proclaimed"We can take it', and encouraged British to fight. Later his words in this war was being considered to mobilise the English language and send it into battle. Roosewelt, not merely prepared US into war with Axis power, but also tried many means to restore world peace and prosperity. Together with Churchill, Roosewelt had many conference with many ally nations, China, Soviet Union, and Turkey, to discuss a plan to settle all problems in their regions before the war. Atlantic Charter, made after Churchill and Roosewelt, was a draft of United Nation Charter, which gave birth to Unitef Nations organisation. Bretton Woods meeting, attended by economists around the world, defined the structure of world economic system after world war II, the current one, i mean. Their achievements in military, social, economic and political one would be very great in their times.
However, i do not think that they are best people suitable to head the national government in world war 2. It has been well said of Churchill and Roosewelt mistakes in World War 2. Churchill delayed the invansion of France for 2 years(1942-1944) because not only North Africa was in Axis power, but he and his generals were worried of the WW1 trench warfare likely to be happened in France. So, in 1944, while Allies landed at Normandy and moved eastwards, Soviet Union also moved westward, and in a year time, occupied much of Eastern European countries territories, Poland, Czechsolavkia, Hungary, Romania. It was Roosewelt who agreed to give a huge sum of US money in an aid to Soviet Union in the Yalta meeting. Soviet Union then had more resource to develop their military strength and the power to spread communism in every quarter of globe. By making these mistakes during World War 2, Churchill and Roosewelt turned the world onto a path to cold war, which is a dark page in history.
I may want to ask : if Lincoln was in charge of the war, instead of Roosewelt, Churchill, would the world be better? Lincoln may be well-aware of the nature of Soviet government and Stalin, Soviet leader, and could male a better policy towards Soviet Russia, making it strong enough to defeat Germany but not to threaten the world peace. Lincoln may attack France earlier to allow the war to end in the soonest time possible and avoid to use Nuclear bomb in Japan, to prevent bloodshed and death of civilians there.
I think many historians have asked this before, but still no one can get a satisfactory answer for that. Could you answer this for me?
I welcome any comment made on this topic.
Best wishes,
william
Enjoy the year of Ox
Dear William
This is a imaginative question but not a proper question.
Because every one in history has his own position: i.e., his own thinking network and could not be replaced by another imaginated character.
Lincoln is respected by many, but, he is Lincoln in the contest of history, not
in the contest of creativity.
Leechard
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Has president Bush achieved his education goal
Has president Bush achieved his education goal
Leechard,
In your yesterday article, you have asked this: Has president Bush achieved his education goal set in his 2001 inguaration speech? George Bush has, in this speech, pledged to reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. Yes, he was right in pointing out the root of the problem: Americans lost their control over their schools. Losing the control over school is a root of many problems. Americans hated each other more, resulting in many serious campus murder cases, leaving many bloodshed and death of young people. American education deteriorated very rapidly that mathematics level rated farr behind those Asian and European countries. This line of speech showed that Bush and his colleagues, the Republicans, were well aware of the issue.
However, during his tenure at office, Mr Bush failed to launch a comprehensive reform to restore American education system. We can see many terrible violence events in schools, most notably the one in Virginia University, where a Korean immigrant student killed many his classmates there two years ago. American youth mathematical, scientific, and linguistic skills deteriorated. A recent study showed that among those aged between 18 and 24, 40% would never read a book, and two-third of them would know nothing of the Iraq location in world map. These are signs of the failures in American education system. Despite Bush and Clinton policies to restore it to normal, education system still has many faults, urgently needed for a repair......
William
.
Leechard,
In your yesterday article, you have asked this: Has president Bush achieved his education goal set in his 2001 inguaration speech? George Bush has, in this speech, pledged to reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. Yes, he was right in pointing out the root of the problem: Americans lost their control over their schools. Losing the control over school is a root of many problems. Americans hated each other more, resulting in many serious campus murder cases, leaving many bloodshed and death of young people. American education deteriorated very rapidly that mathematics level rated farr behind those Asian and European countries. This line of speech showed that Bush and his colleagues, the Republicans, were well aware of the issue.
However, during his tenure at office, Mr Bush failed to launch a comprehensive reform to restore American education system. We can see many terrible violence events in schools, most notably the one in Virginia University, where a Korean immigrant student killed many his classmates there two years ago. American youth mathematical, scientific, and linguistic skills deteriorated. A recent study showed that among those aged between 18 and 24, 40% would never read a book, and two-third of them would know nothing of the Iraq location in world map. These are signs of the failures in American education system. Despite Bush and Clinton policies to restore it to normal, education system still has many faults, urgently needed for a repair......
William
.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Amadeus 莫札特傳
曾問現代史上誰獲最多人紀念
每五十年的生忌和死忌, 即一百年有四次, 其家鄉薩爾斯堡, 整個奧地利, 全歐洲甚至全球亦為他紀念
Amadeus 莫札特傳http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/
由另一音樂家 Salieri 帶出 Mozart 一生
由震驚, 欣賞, 嫉妒, 憤恨, 問天何生亮 (電影橋段, Salieri 真人倒不是這樣)
神童, 對我來說不是形容詞, 是名詞, 神的兒童...
三歲露才能, 六歲便寫曲, 十一歲歌劇
對比現今彈琴彈得叻便稱作神童, sorry, 也許彈琴匠較貼切
李察兄, 你認為還會有新的古典音樂面世麼? 還是只能繼續反覆彈奏蕭邦舒伯特等古人作品? :<
說回電影, 片中描繪莫札特為人鹹濕瘋狂無視權貴, 我可沒意見, 也許天才便該不受人世規範, 但"大細超"就好怪了...
當中喜愛有一幕少年莫札特於宴會上表演高超琴技, 蒙眼反手差在未用脚來彈, 眾人皆只懂讚嘆 (全Ｏ嘴也), 唯獨不遠處有一白頭曲髮豆皮臉小童對他微笑, 猶如一位誤墮塵世天使問 :"原來... 你都是跌下來..."
另一小場面小情節, 於奧地利皇宮遇到尚未為法國皇后的 Marie Antoinette 公主, 輕輕帶過己足夠, 大人物的小事件
關於這位皇后的名言 "沒有麵包吃, 何不吃蛋糕", 要為她澄清一下, 歷史上並非她所說
說這話倒真有其人, 在遠東的晉惠帝 "何不食肉糜?"
古代拉至現代亦有, 電視上"一百萬窮人的故事" 中女星問 "生日點解沒有生日蛋糕?" 古今中外皆如此
此電影最後說到莫札特的死亡, 最後的晨光猶如神的召喚, "天使, 係時候了"
很多人惋惜早逝, "如果"有其徒弟 Beethoven 般長命一點, 世界也許不同
我倒覺其一生要走的路已走過, 這才是他, 短的蠟燭卻有射至月球的光芒, 蠟燭已徹底溶掉昇華至空氣中
儲錢到其家鄉走走去 :>
下回說另一套電影
狐狸
每五十年的生忌和死忌, 即一百年有四次, 其家鄉薩爾斯堡, 整個奧地利, 全歐洲甚至全球亦為他紀念
Amadeus 莫札特傳http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/
由另一音樂家 Salieri 帶出 Mozart 一生
由震驚, 欣賞, 嫉妒, 憤恨, 問天何生亮 (電影橋段, Salieri 真人倒不是這樣)
神童, 對我來說不是形容詞, 是名詞, 神的兒童...
三歲露才能, 六歲便寫曲, 十一歲歌劇
對比現今彈琴彈得叻便稱作神童, sorry, 也許彈琴匠較貼切
李察兄, 你認為還會有新的古典音樂面世麼? 還是只能繼續反覆彈奏蕭邦舒伯特等古人作品? :<
說回電影, 片中描繪莫札特為人鹹濕瘋狂無視權貴, 我可沒意見, 也許天才便該不受人世規範, 但"大細超"就好怪了...
當中喜愛有一幕少年莫札特於宴會上表演高超琴技, 蒙眼反手差在未用脚來彈, 眾人皆只懂讚嘆 (全Ｏ嘴也), 唯獨不遠處有一白頭曲髮豆皮臉小童對他微笑, 猶如一位誤墮塵世天使問 :"原來... 你都是跌下來..."
另一小場面小情節, 於奧地利皇宮遇到尚未為法國皇后的 Marie Antoinette 公主, 輕輕帶過己足夠, 大人物的小事件
關於這位皇后的名言 "沒有麵包吃, 何不吃蛋糕", 要為她澄清一下, 歷史上並非她所說
說這話倒真有其人, 在遠東的晉惠帝 "何不食肉糜?"
古代拉至現代亦有, 電視上"一百萬窮人的故事" 中女星問 "生日點解沒有生日蛋糕?" 古今中外皆如此
此電影最後說到莫札特的死亡, 最後的晨光猶如神的召喚, "天使, 係時候了"
很多人惋惜早逝, "如果"有其徒弟 Beethoven 般長命一點, 世界也許不同
我倒覺其一生要走的路已走過, 這才是他, 短的蠟燭卻有射至月球的光芒, 蠟燭已徹底溶掉昇華至空氣中
儲錢到其家鄉走走去 :>
下回說另一套電影
狐狸
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A Response to the Guardian Article by Khaled Diab
Here we have a Hong Kong response to the Guardian Article by
Khaled Diab
guardian.co.uk,
Friday July 25 2008
Title:
Back to basics on climate change
Here are the main points from that article:
★mainstream thinking has focused on the idea that a low-carb Kyoto energy diet will save our obese societies.
★ I don't believe that our oil-based economies are sustainable and I think that switching to renewable energy is essential to our future.
★ According to a 1999 estimate by the American Petroleum Institute, the world's oil supplies would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.
★This was based on estimated proven reserves of 1.4 to 2 trillion barrels and consumption at 80 million barrels per day.
★in 2005, daily oil consumption already passed the 83.5 million barrel per day mark.
★Coal at current production levels is likely to run out within 150 years. If it is used as an oil substitute, many decades would be knocked off this projection.
★At the current rate of deforestation, all tropical forests in the world might disappear by 2090.
★more than half of Papua New Guinea's rain forest – the third largest in the world – could disappear by 2021.
★we will be facing a global food and wood shortage pretty soon, as well as the collapse of the farming land that will replace the forests, due to soil erosion and depletion.
★Droughts and desertification are also threatening millions of people. The Sahara desert is growing at a rate of up to 30 miles a year;
★Within a couple of generations, the global economy will have outgrown the globe.
★There is a desperate need to rethink our attitudes to consumerism, the disposable culture, overpopulation and the economic growth orthodoxy
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday July 25 2008. It was last updated at 19:00 on July 25 2008.
The Response from a Hong Kong based observer:
Dear leechard,
The article about the environmental problems of earth that people now face is nothing of interest to me. It has been talked round the clock in many media sites. What interests me more, is a comment to this article. To let you have a picture on it, I have attached these two documents which both of them are in doc form.
This article is really interesting, as this gentleman has found a special way to view the modern society problem. I consider this writing as the representative of all essays telling us that the present environmental deterioration is not as serious as what we think, monetary methods can solve all crisis, just like The film made by Channel 4 in UK( I will talk about that later). I would not agree with much of the points given in this article, and I shall explain it one by one.
The first mistake, I think, is his belief that money is so powerful that could help us to solve any energy problem, water problem, and metal shortage problem. That is what he said: “The more expensive they are, the more we will find.”,” Wealth insulates us from the worst” I cannot deny that, in a short time, man, driven by the strong monetary power behind the discovery of new resource, shall use their ability to the hilt to find these resources. Also, man, being motivated by large monetary reward, shall try to modify what he did to minimize the waste generated and maximize the volume of output. But if it were successfully solving all the problems of the world, why, according to the result revealed by the research, the resource that we now have is more scarce, compared with that we had 20 years ago? I think he would not answer it using his logic. He may have mistaken the focus that problem of scarcity we now have, which is the demand for that product, has outstripped the supply of that resources and the situation is going to get worse nowadays. Where can people find another source of resources so that the supply of resource can still be consistent with the demand? Apart from known source which their produce is decreasing rapidly, the unknown sources, claiming themselves to be rich of oil and food, shall find it hard to be able to produce enough resources for human in long term if the present trend of consumption continues. They would soon run off one day. It is just like the son of a wealthy man spent all his money one day and finds that he is now in heavy debt and finds it difficult to maintain the basic standard of life.
The monetary forces, or the inevitable hand (in Adam’s view), is of no use in solving the problem but to make the problem more severe. Only those tycoons would still have the power to buy these resources for their own uses and the poverty people can find no means to survive. If such situation appears, I do not think that it is a society that man can still live, and it is the biggest threat that human would face soon. And I believe that even money can buy all the guarding apparatus for themselves, they can never buy a thousand, and even, hundred years of safety. You and many philosophers said, Money is just a tool for exchange
The second mistake is his negligence of the impact of environment when trees in developing world are cut. His words are “The West has more (trees) than ever “and “the Developed World we have more forest than we did in 1900. What is the difference?” when answering the wood shortage problem I am very sad to hear so, as the trees there shall help to regulate the climate of the world by controlling carbon dioxide content in atmosphere. If there were no trees, these places shall become a desert and the people living there shall move, which creates, in turn, the immigration pressure on developed world. He is also in doubt with the rate of deforestation in Panama forest, but I think it is highly likely the present trend shall continue. As he has pointed out earlier, if man understands that cutting all forest in his country shall bring him good fortunate, he shall be happy to cut all of them out, and, it would take a long time to let trees to grow into a forest again in these regions . I consider that his saying” If wood is worth something it is worth planting.” the most astonishing one I have seen. Were he on the right side, then all government and the green organizations’effort to plant the trees is surely a waste of time. Is that the case? Woods are not only the climate regulator, it is the habitat of many animals, the source of so many things necessary for human. From these,I think he should not deny the importance of these wood.
The third mistake is found in this statement: “Or more likely it is just a natural cycle of no interest. Notice that no one much suffered much less died” which is his perspective towards the matter mentioned in these lines in the essay: “:Even in more temperate Europe, droughts have dramatically increased over the past three decades – the areas affected have gone up by a fifth between 1976 and 2006. The 2003 drought affected about 100 million Europeans and southern Spain might become desert in the coming decades. I have seen so many expressions saying there is no link between global warming and the drastic climate change, and this one is the typical one, but I, you and many loving the Earth, shall find it impossible to support this, as we know that the Earth has deteriorated, and at a rate that is out of the expectation of these people. I shall not dwell at that point as I think I have talked a lot on it.
The only good point I found is” We have our intelligences which make the resources we have more and more valuable all the time. So we can increase economic growth simply by using the same amount of resources but more intelligently.” I have a strong conviction that we are so intelligent in solving many problems of the world, but I am still doubtful whether economic growth shall occur if we have faced a severe shortage of resources, and there is still a heavily dependent on the traditional methods that would waste a large amount of them, in industries and any daily practice by man. He should bear in mind that the intelligent way of using resource is not simply the modification of the techniques, but to change the way that people think in production, and more important, the world. As far as I know, most people are not prepared to do so though the time remaining for us to adapt the new condition of world is very little before any disaster occur.
If he were allowed to read your blog, he could understand the biggest problem that human now face is, and could understand what the problem of his article is. He could also learn that the best solution is to create a society with new network of thinking and I hope he could support it.
I wish that you would like this article. I have no objection to make this article in public. I welcome any comment if you have.
Best regards,
william
Khaled Diab
guardian.co.uk,
Friday July 25 2008
Title:
Back to basics on climate change
Here are the main points from that article:
★mainstream thinking has focused on the idea that a low-carb Kyoto energy diet will save our obese societies.
★ I don't believe that our oil-based economies are sustainable and I think that switching to renewable energy is essential to our future.
★ According to a 1999 estimate by the American Petroleum Institute, the world's oil supplies would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.
★This was based on estimated proven reserves of 1.4 to 2 trillion barrels and consumption at 80 million barrels per day.
★in 2005, daily oil consumption already passed the 83.5 million barrel per day mark.
★Coal at current production levels is likely to run out within 150 years. If it is used as an oil substitute, many decades would be knocked off this projection.
★At the current rate of deforestation, all tropical forests in the world might disappear by 2090.
★more than half of Papua New Guinea's rain forest – the third largest in the world – could disappear by 2021.
★we will be facing a global food and wood shortage pretty soon, as well as the collapse of the farming land that will replace the forests, due to soil erosion and depletion.
★Droughts and desertification are also threatening millions of people. The Sahara desert is growing at a rate of up to 30 miles a year;
★Within a couple of generations, the global economy will have outgrown the globe.
★There is a desperate need to rethink our attitudes to consumerism, the disposable culture, overpopulation and the economic growth orthodoxy
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday July 25 2008. It was last updated at 19:00 on July 25 2008.
The Response from a Hong Kong based observer:
Dear leechard,
The article about the environmental problems of earth that people now face is nothing of interest to me. It has been talked round the clock in many media sites. What interests me more, is a comment to this article. To let you have a picture on it, I have attached these two documents which both of them are in doc form.
This article is really interesting, as this gentleman has found a special way to view the modern society problem. I consider this writing as the representative of all essays telling us that the present environmental deterioration is not as serious as what we think, monetary methods can solve all crisis, just like The film made by Channel 4 in UK( I will talk about that later). I would not agree with much of the points given in this article, and I shall explain it one by one.
The first mistake, I think, is his belief that money is so powerful that could help us to solve any energy problem, water problem, and metal shortage problem. That is what he said: “The more expensive they are, the more we will find.”,” Wealth insulates us from the worst” I cannot deny that, in a short time, man, driven by the strong monetary power behind the discovery of new resource, shall use their ability to the hilt to find these resources. Also, man, being motivated by large monetary reward, shall try to modify what he did to minimize the waste generated and maximize the volume of output. But if it were successfully solving all the problems of the world, why, according to the result revealed by the research, the resource that we now have is more scarce, compared with that we had 20 years ago? I think he would not answer it using his logic. He may have mistaken the focus that problem of scarcity we now have, which is the demand for that product, has outstripped the supply of that resources and the situation is going to get worse nowadays. Where can people find another source of resources so that the supply of resource can still be consistent with the demand? Apart from known source which their produce is decreasing rapidly, the unknown sources, claiming themselves to be rich of oil and food, shall find it hard to be able to produce enough resources for human in long term if the present trend of consumption continues. They would soon run off one day. It is just like the son of a wealthy man spent all his money one day and finds that he is now in heavy debt and finds it difficult to maintain the basic standard of life.
The monetary forces, or the inevitable hand (in Adam’s view), is of no use in solving the problem but to make the problem more severe. Only those tycoons would still have the power to buy these resources for their own uses and the poverty people can find no means to survive. If such situation appears, I do not think that it is a society that man can still live, and it is the biggest threat that human would face soon. And I believe that even money can buy all the guarding apparatus for themselves, they can never buy a thousand, and even, hundred years of safety. You and many philosophers said, Money is just a tool for exchange
The second mistake is his negligence of the impact of environment when trees in developing world are cut. His words are “The West has more (trees) than ever “and “the Developed World we have more forest than we did in 1900. What is the difference?” when answering the wood shortage problem I am very sad to hear so, as the trees there shall help to regulate the climate of the world by controlling carbon dioxide content in atmosphere. If there were no trees, these places shall become a desert and the people living there shall move, which creates, in turn, the immigration pressure on developed world. He is also in doubt with the rate of deforestation in Panama forest, but I think it is highly likely the present trend shall continue. As he has pointed out earlier, if man understands that cutting all forest in his country shall bring him good fortunate, he shall be happy to cut all of them out, and, it would take a long time to let trees to grow into a forest again in these regions . I consider that his saying” If wood is worth something it is worth planting.” the most astonishing one I have seen. Were he on the right side, then all government and the green organizations’effort to plant the trees is surely a waste of time. Is that the case? Woods are not only the climate regulator, it is the habitat of many animals, the source of so many things necessary for human. From these,I think he should not deny the importance of these wood.
The third mistake is found in this statement: “Or more likely it is just a natural cycle of no interest. Notice that no one much suffered much less died” which is his perspective towards the matter mentioned in these lines in the essay: “:Even in more temperate Europe, droughts have dramatically increased over the past three decades – the areas affected have gone up by a fifth between 1976 and 2006. The 2003 drought affected about 100 million Europeans and southern Spain might become desert in the coming decades. I have seen so many expressions saying there is no link between global warming and the drastic climate change, and this one is the typical one, but I, you and many loving the Earth, shall find it impossible to support this, as we know that the Earth has deteriorated, and at a rate that is out of the expectation of these people. I shall not dwell at that point as I think I have talked a lot on it.
The only good point I found is” We have our intelligences which make the resources we have more and more valuable all the time. So we can increase economic growth simply by using the same amount of resources but more intelligently.” I have a strong conviction that we are so intelligent in solving many problems of the world, but I am still doubtful whether economic growth shall occur if we have faced a severe shortage of resources, and there is still a heavily dependent on the traditional methods that would waste a large amount of them, in industries and any daily practice by man. He should bear in mind that the intelligent way of using resource is not simply the modification of the techniques, but to change the way that people think in production, and more important, the world. As far as I know, most people are not prepared to do so though the time remaining for us to adapt the new condition of world is very little before any disaster occur.
If he were allowed to read your blog, he could understand the biggest problem that human now face is, and could understand what the problem of his article is. He could also learn that the best solution is to create a society with new network of thinking and I hope he could support it.
I wish that you would like this article. I have no objection to make this article in public. I welcome any comment if you have.
Best regards,
william
Sunday, April 20, 2008
無用的樹
李察兄好
本來想用一條問題來帶出電影
"哪位人士得到世人最多紀念? 耶穌除外"
見無用的樹故事, 忍不住要講兩句先
故事內容可作些少修改
強樹壯樹直樹因為對人有用, 起屋造船乘凉,
人便覺"有用"
怪樹雖弱, 又曲, 也許一碰便斷, 沒人來砍來理而得以長壽
但這長壽並不是"有用"的理由
以上最關鍵字眼是"人"
人覺用得到謂之"有用", 用不到謂之"無用"
但主宰(叫大自然, 大生命也可) 眼光可不是人般短淺,
壯樹可讓老鷹鵬鳥鳳凰等大志之士站腳,
怪樹亦可讓小麻雀等小輩作息, 毛蟲成長, 於壯樹漂白水殺蟲水充斥環境下活不下去的害蟲(人的觀點), 扒糞蟲, 不見光之菇菌齊齊有個歇腳地
沒有食物鏈底層, 上層如何活下去?
壯樹不因能服待大鳥而自誇, 做其本份而己, 也不小看其他小樹怪樹
怪樹亦不因只討好小毛蟲而自悲, 更應能有機會做其本份而自傲, 卻不是以不用辛苦服待大鳥而暗暗偷笑
儍怪樹正以自己不被砍而偷笑, 卻不知一場山火把全個樹林燒清光, 大家最後君體也相同只剩下炭灰, 歸入泥土成養份為下一波幼苗出力
大蠟燭請自覺盡所能燃燒為世放大光, 卻不應以自己是最長最粗最久最乜最物入史冊成紀錄, 為保自我保紀錄保生命而吹熄蠋火, 才為真正"無用"
不在乎長壽短壽, 直曲強弱, 大國小國, 人多人少, 活著便有用, 也許不用活著, 只要存在便已有用了.
(唔... 那不存在, 虛空又有無用呢, 這個要想想 :>)
小燭
狐
p.s. 剛有穩定國家報告, 梵蒂岡聖馬利諾列支敦斯登荷蘭等小國列前茅, 只要燃燒得宜, 何需追求高大威
李察回應：
真莊子並非討論樹的有用無用。
真莊子也不是提出大和小的對立。
真莊子的目的，只是提出一種境界。
如果落進了大小或有用無用的辯論中去，
就會忽略了「境界」這意念了。
本來想用一條問題來帶出電影
"哪位人士得到世人最多紀念? 耶穌除外"
見無用的樹故事, 忍不住要講兩句先
故事內容可作些少修改
強樹壯樹直樹因為對人有用, 起屋造船乘凉,
人便覺"有用"
怪樹雖弱, 又曲, 也許一碰便斷, 沒人來砍來理而得以長壽
但這長壽並不是"有用"的理由
以上最關鍵字眼是"人"
人覺用得到謂之"有用", 用不到謂之"無用"
但主宰(叫大自然, 大生命也可) 眼光可不是人般短淺,
壯樹可讓老鷹鵬鳥鳳凰等大志之士站腳,
怪樹亦可讓小麻雀等小輩作息, 毛蟲成長, 於壯樹漂白水殺蟲水充斥環境下活不下去的害蟲(人的觀點), 扒糞蟲, 不見光之菇菌齊齊有個歇腳地
沒有食物鏈底層, 上層如何活下去?
壯樹不因能服待大鳥而自誇, 做其本份而己, 也不小看其他小樹怪樹
怪樹亦不因只討好小毛蟲而自悲, 更應能有機會做其本份而自傲, 卻不是以不用辛苦服待大鳥而暗暗偷笑
儍怪樹正以自己不被砍而偷笑, 卻不知一場山火把全個樹林燒清光, 大家最後君體也相同只剩下炭灰, 歸入泥土成養份為下一波幼苗出力
大蠟燭請自覺盡所能燃燒為世放大光, 卻不應以自己是最長最粗最久最乜最物入史冊成紀錄, 為保自我保紀錄保生命而吹熄蠋火, 才為真正"無用"
不在乎長壽短壽, 直曲強弱, 大國小國, 人多人少, 活著便有用, 也許不用活著, 只要存在便已有用了.
(唔... 那不存在, 虛空又有無用呢, 這個要想想 :>)
小燭
狐
p.s. 剛有穩定國家報告, 梵蒂岡聖馬利諾列支敦斯登荷蘭等小國列前茅, 只要燃燒得宜, 何需追求高大威
李察回應：
真莊子並非討論樹的有用無用。
真莊子也不是提出大和小的對立。
真莊子的目的，只是提出一種境界。
如果落進了大小或有用無用的辯論中去，
就會忽略了「境界」這意念了。
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
海遠論岳飛
海遠論岳飛
岳飛是一個悲劇英雄.
當他接到十二道金牌之後,他已知道必死無疑.但他沒有選擇的餘地.
一: 投降金國 ?
二. 落草為寇 ?
三. 回臨安受死 ?
全部都是死路.頭兩條路,他或許會多活幾年,但歷史會記他為[賊]. 第三條路,歷史會記他為[忠]. 迫不得已,他選擇了回杭州受死. 無奈的心情,有詞為証.
小重山 (岳飛)
昨夜寒蛩不住鳴。驚回千里夢，已三更。起來獨自繞階行。人悄悄，簾外月朧明。 白首為功名。舊山松竹老，阻歸程。欲將心事付瑤琴。
知音少，弦斷有誰聽 .
可注意的有三句:
一: 驚回千里夢 : 千里夢迴,人之常情. 但他加了個[驚]字.
二: 舊山松竹老，阻歸程 : : [有家歸不得]
三: 欲將心事付瑤琴。知音少，弦斷有誰聽 : [有怨無路訴.]
李察能為岳飛想到更好的選擇嗎?
海遠
Dear Dear 海遠：
今天剛剛寫完那句：「自己不也是神功戲裡的一個小配角嗎？
為甚麼還要把這一場無良鬧劇演下去？」立即就看到了你的問題。
真好像是五雷轟頂。是的，誰也不能為岳飛想到更好的選擇。
自然，「低層次」的答案，是早己有了的。許多人說，不能
離開歷史背景，「逼」歷史人物接受現代人的觀點。不同網絡，
判斷不同，云云。如果岳飛能夠看穿這是一場歷史的騙局，他
早己乘坐時光飛車，飛來今日中國，與我們一起看煙花共享太平了。
但這是低層次。
上一層看，我們也許會看到，我們和岳飛之間相同的地方。
是的，「弦斷有誰聽」？當你的手指拼盡全力，力透kewboard
，你的手指斷了，Blog 中文字，有誰看？
而我們是幸運的。因為，我們有了全新的莊子和現代網絡的
各種知識。我們知道，「弦斷了，我們全都在聽。」而世界上的
知音，是有很多的。知音都是超時代的。且讓我們再聆一次，岳穆武的
《滿江紅》，還有他的《小重山》。我們都在聽哪，天堂上的岳飛爺爺，
你知道嗎？當然，他是知道的。
寒冷的遠山上，忽然驚起了一聲悽厲的鴉鳴。小動物們，會忽然受
驚，噤若寒蟬嗎？或者會的。不過，幾秒鐘之後，又千音和唱了。
Dear 海遠，是的，還沒有回答你的問題呢。
你問：李察能為岳飛想到更好的選擇嗎?
當然可以的。李察能為岳飛，或者任何一現代人，想到更好的選擇。
或者，你也曾看過李察所寫「野雞學飛」的故事。那是在「莊子原理」裡面的。
雞本來是沒有出路的。雞本來是不會飛的。雞的出路，只是nowhere。雞唯一
只會受宰。但是，當我們靜下來，看穿了這一種網絡的限制，看到了人的
「自由」，看到了岳飛不能忘記的「功名」)(白首為功名)(三十功名塵與土)，
都是真的塵與土，那就可能看到，野雞的出路，有一條。
唯有真正自由的人，能夠找到自己的出路。那時，毅力也來了，創意也來了，
付出生命，就能夠得到生命。而我們大約不會忘記，發揮自己的長處，就是
「出路」。雞的長處是飛。岳飛的長處，亦是飛。可惜，絕大多數的雞們，
都無法看見自己的長處。
親愛的海遠，相信你是必定同感的。
李察謹上
2008. 2.13
岳飛是一個悲劇英雄.
當他接到十二道金牌之後,他已知道必死無疑.但他沒有選擇的餘地.
一: 投降金國 ?
二. 落草為寇 ?
三. 回臨安受死 ?
全部都是死路.頭兩條路,他或許會多活幾年,但歷史會記他為[賊]. 第三條路,歷史會記他為[忠]. 迫不得已,他選擇了回杭州受死. 無奈的心情,有詞為証.
小重山 (岳飛)
昨夜寒蛩不住鳴。驚回千里夢，已三更。起來獨自繞階行。人悄悄，簾外月朧明。 白首為功名。舊山松竹老，阻歸程。欲將心事付瑤琴。
知音少，弦斷有誰聽 .
可注意的有三句:
一: 驚回千里夢 : 千里夢迴,人之常情. 但他加了個[驚]字.
二: 舊山松竹老，阻歸程 : : [有家歸不得]
三: 欲將心事付瑤琴。知音少，弦斷有誰聽 : [有怨無路訴.]
李察能為岳飛想到更好的選擇嗎?
海遠
Dear Dear 海遠：
今天剛剛寫完那句：「自己不也是神功戲裡的一個小配角嗎？
為甚麼還要把這一場無良鬧劇演下去？」立即就看到了你的問題。
真好像是五雷轟頂。是的，誰也不能為岳飛想到更好的選擇。
自然，「低層次」的答案，是早己有了的。許多人說，不能
離開歷史背景，「逼」歷史人物接受現代人的觀點。不同網絡，
判斷不同，云云。如果岳飛能夠看穿這是一場歷史的騙局，他
早己乘坐時光飛車，飛來今日中國，與我們一起看煙花共享太平了。
但這是低層次。
上一層看，我們也許會看到，我們和岳飛之間相同的地方。
是的，「弦斷有誰聽」？當你的手指拼盡全力，力透kewboard
，你的手指斷了，Blog 中文字，有誰看？
而我們是幸運的。因為，我們有了全新的莊子和現代網絡的
各種知識。我們知道，「弦斷了，我們全都在聽。」而世界上的
知音，是有很多的。知音都是超時代的。且讓我們再聆一次，岳穆武的
《滿江紅》，還有他的《小重山》。我們都在聽哪，天堂上的岳飛爺爺，
你知道嗎？當然，他是知道的。
寒冷的遠山上，忽然驚起了一聲悽厲的鴉鳴。小動物們，會忽然受
驚，噤若寒蟬嗎？或者會的。不過，幾秒鐘之後，又千音和唱了。
Dear 海遠，是的，還沒有回答你的問題呢。
你問：李察能為岳飛想到更好的選擇嗎?
當然可以的。李察能為岳飛，或者任何一現代人，想到更好的選擇。
或者，你也曾看過李察所寫「野雞學飛」的故事。那是在「莊子原理」裡面的。
雞本來是沒有出路的。雞本來是不會飛的。雞的出路，只是nowhere。雞唯一
只會受宰。但是，當我們靜下來，看穿了這一種網絡的限制，看到了人的
「自由」，看到了岳飛不能忘記的「功名」)(白首為功名)(三十功名塵與土)，
都是真的塵與土，那就可能看到，野雞的出路，有一條。
唯有真正自由的人，能夠找到自己的出路。那時，毅力也來了，創意也來了，
付出生命，就能夠得到生命。而我們大約不會忘記，發揮自己的長處，就是
「出路」。雞的長處是飛。岳飛的長處，亦是飛。可惜，絕大多數的雞們，
都無法看見自己的長處。
親愛的海遠，相信你是必定同感的。
李察謹上
2008. 2.13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
