Iran and its Nukes

I'd like to lightly draw an outline of Iran and the future.
and why im a little frightened.

Iran and the Uk/Us have gone back oh so 35ish years - my history sucks.
The current focus is very much on Iran and nuclear energy, it has been for around a decade.

The main states at the UN will not allow Iran to enrich nuclear material because of their fear it could lead to more nukes.
Iran says it wants to use nuclear energy as a more efficient fuel and for research.

You see these two sets of ideas about things cause friction and even tension.

So, the secret facilities in Iran has been brewing an even more serious tension. More so with the UN having to order them shown.

But the whole logical cohesion is crazy:
Why cannot Iran make these nuclear fuels?
Why do they want to?
What do they want the fuel for?
Who is the international community to deny them autonomy?

It's a series of questions for which there is no clear and delineating answer. I'd suggest (and i know little on the subject)

I suspect Iran is both like the child who does the opposite of what he's told, and like the defenceless ant, small, proud, but not without confidence, when considering how they are perceived and how they have been treated by the Bush administration.
(and i'll provide no more references to the Bush administration's actions, just search google.)

They have been marginalised by the international community and nuclear energy certainly represents a milestone. Not to mention their lack of real defence against military superpowers like Russia and the US (in terms of the nukes).

The most reasonable answer i believe is the west: an overbearing parent.
Iran is a state and like most states has a vested interest in it's state. Why the international community denies and sanctions Iran on nukes is immaterial, they are ignoring it, they have interests to further.

(As for why I'm getting bad feelings... )

I do not think it of little relevance to point out the Iranian government's harsh criticism and attacks at the west and Zionism (from the Ayotollah Iran's supreme religous/political leader and from Ahmedinejad Iran's PM)

also the history of Iran & western relations: from when the Iranians took hostage US citizens. the UK/US invasion of middle east and an extremely suspicious and dictatorial re-election of Ahmedinejad...

the re-election was considered rigged. It is interesting to note how candidates for PM secure their candidacy, that they must be accepted by the Grand Ayotollah. As such Iran can be considered a religious government.

The most poignant issue to date, sparking my real fears is Iran's continued dismissal of UN resolutions:
They still can't build nuclear sites. (although we know they have)
THEY ARE PLANNING TEN.



and, as a form of disclaimer let us not forget the rose tinted glasses we have of our own country.

It just seems to me that a lot is and will happen surrounding Iran over the next 4 years, something is up and it is something we should all have at the forefront of our minds. Time is certainly running out.

... I don't know right now.

Oh!
look!
Right there, in the corner!

is it a message?
A reply?
A comment!

three facebook notifications?!
ftw.
What trash.

Wow. An application...
An application...
An
A-P-P-P-P-LICATION-TION-TION!


COMB-BO-BO BREAKER!

Examples: The Ethics Of Capital

Or rather, the lack of ethics in corporations.

I have mentioned this problem once or twice before, but it is abstract - longer than an arms reach. I saw an article today on the Al Jazeera News Network, and it has prompted me to show you example of this "lack of ethics".

The times, Al Jazeera... Both mention it. The Guardian points it out.

Trafigura, the company, in 2002 polluted a part of Africa and the Africans are still waiting for the money to pay for the damage to their bodies.
Actually look at the lesions on the child's arm. Sulphur.
I hate to be emotive, but really, it feels like this is the only way people take stuff on board these days.

Notice the word i'm using: the africans have to pay for this healthcare. The child needs money for the help.

Why did this corporation leave waste?
simply answer, i'd be pissed if you didn't know it .

IT CHEAPER.
You can make more.........PROFIT. from that, at least.

Let me articulate it in the way a business law website did:

"Probo Koala... attempted to discharge this waste at the port of Amsterdam, but the port service would not accept the waste without an additional handling charge because of the waste’s alleged toxicity. " So they knew about it.

"...After the waste from the ship was discharged in Abidjan, people living near the discharge sites began to suffer from a range of illnesses ... Sixteen people have died, allegedly from exposure to this waste, and more than 100,000 have sought medical attention."

Two final things to point out. Does the company, Probo Koala (used by Trafigura) get shut down? Its executives fired? no.
Who do you think has the best lawyer(s) (yeah, plural!) on the case...
Why do they have the best lawyer(s)... money...

Seriously. Wake up and smell the Sulphur.


(oh... and the company also tried to silence the news... do you think they've tried that before? do you think they have succeeded? Dare i say yes for you. Can money silence the news!? DARE I SAY YES AGAIN?)

A li'l problem with the internet...

You know, I've always praised the internet as a glorious technological innovation. I hail it as passing to us knowledge and information that cannot be surpassed by anything. It is beautiful in that respect, freedom for the mind.

However,

What is the damn point if we keep on using places like WIKIPEDIA and ANSWERS.com to give us our knowledge.

According to wikipedia, at some point, (now if i choose)- A British person is a:
"Highly underdeveloped fruit-bat incapable of abstract reasoning or any remotely serious expression other than "this tea tastes like guacamole". "

So really. Really, really.

It only takes one of those "underdeveloped fruit-bats" to use wikipedia to justify pouring vodka in their eye to cure hangovers and rectal disfigurements.

Yes, rectal.
Disfigurements.

(your face)

Tsk.

The Meaning Of Life - Condensed

Really, i look on past posts and i'm like: why is that so long...
So, in what i believe to be the meaning of life solved, i'm going to re-write my argument in a shorter format.

Here goes.

What is the meaning of life?

To answer this, we need to give credit to human nature.
I would argue:
Human nature, is an imperfect nature.
To say, "i'm only human" is to say: "i'm not perfect"

This is because:
All other species, through evolution have found ways of functioning to ensure their survival.
A simple example is reproduction.
Another would be processing food.
Basic instinctive functions that ensure their survival.

Concerning humans:

Humans do not necessarily reproduce, some via choice. Some via a homosexual nature.

Some humans will choose not to eat, for symbolic reasons, for cultural reasons.

If our nature was the same as other animals, then the meaning of life would follow as "to reproduce"

If we were perfect, i would argue, then the meaning of life would be clear and all consuming.
We are, however, not.

In our imperfect nature, the only assertion we can make about this "meaning of life" is an individualist assertion.
The search, your search is for your meaning of life.




It must be subjective and relative for it to follow our imperfection.
(noting subjective and relative, we can disregard both these ideas and make a case for each person "meaning" being both true and untrue at the same time with my "quantum ethics" argument.)

Quantum logic/ethics - a simplistic overview.

My friend jim has articulated the quantum ethics in a way much simpler to my long post.

consider the following as a reassertion:

The glass that is filled halfway.

The optimist response: it is half full.

the pessimist response: it is half empty.

These two responses are the frameworks/points of reference i was mentioning.

Both assertions are correct. (by virtue of the assumptions: optimism/pessimism)

however when we step back to consider the responses. both are correct/incorrect by virtue of just recognising the two contrary frameworks.

this is quantum ethics.

Quantum Mechanics and it's implications for logic: QM: Restating Relativistic logic

I love long titles.
Quantum mechanics, the study of quantum physics, and logic, our reasoning can be used together to come up with a new way of thinking about logic.
I will run over QM and logic briefly.

Logic. The way in which we rationalize, we look at two things and connect them. (in laymans terms) the dictionary says:

1.	the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2.	a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3.	the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4.	reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

Please take note of, 1 and 2. "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" the way in which we "join up" our points, to "infer" a conclusion (in more laymanic terms) and "a particular method of reasoning" a method of reasoning.

We use logic all the time to discuss points of view, to come up with "correct" ideas.


Quantum Mechanics is slightly harder to
articulate. I have read a lot into such a branch and the wikipedia page does articulate it in an appropriate and true manner.

I shall briefly outline the parts of quantum mechanics relevant. We are used to the planetary model of an atom, an electron moving around the centre like a particle. In quantum mechanics, the electron is both a particle and a wave at the same time, or we say it has "wave-particle duality".
Wikipedia expresses it like this
"These descriptions [of atomic matter] include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behaviour of both matter^[1] and radiation^[2] ("wave–particle duality").
A wave and a particle... That's contradicting right?

Ok.. That was our First Big Step!

We cannot measure, exactly, this wave-particle. Viewing it, distorts the results. (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
So scientists use Probability Densities to say where things are "likely" to be. The red blurry pictures on the side illistrate wht i'm trying to say: the lighter the higher the probability.

What i'd like to take from this, is the idea of probability.
We cannot know.

I'd like to take the basic tenets of QM and apply it to logic, practical logic, nothing fancy.


The case I'd like to make, is one of uncertainty, and certainty, of right and wrong.

All our ideas and logical links, are correct (all of them!) but only in the sense that they are incorrect.
To postulate any idea as incorrect, one must have a sense of what is correct, to draw the line.

I will apply this idea, so we can make more sense of it.
Consider the ethical assertion "killing is wrong".
Under this idea of logic the statement is both wrong and right. WHY?

Ok.
the statement is incorrect because:
"killing is unavoidable"
"killing may be permissible sometimes."

and
it the statement is correct because

"life has value"
"The bible says so" (haha. I like this one, it is very helpful for my case)
I am sure you will be able to come up with your own reasons to prove and disprove the statement.

The reason that the statement "killing is wrong" is both correct and incorrect at the same time is because when we say "the statement 'killing is wrong' is incorrect" we are usually justifying it in some way like "killing is right given the circumstances". We are applying a reasoning method that presupposes that it is correct, otherwise our judgement would be nullified.

Basically to say anything is right or wrong, we have to assume that the methods we use to reason those statements are right. The methods of reasoning, of justifying a position is a framework because we have to assume or reasoning is right.
It may be more helpful to replace framework and say it is a frame of reference.
Most people have their own frame of reference/ way of seeing things.

Fact is, within the framework, our reasoning method is correct by virtue of the assumptions. However outside the framework this is not the case, a reasoning method outside of it's framework does not need to be right. My bible comment helps here, "killing is wrong" because (notice the word "because" is the start of our reasoning method "the bible said so". So, thus, if you agree with the bible (your current frame of reference) then killing is wrong!
Once we separate ourselves from that frame of reference, and assert a new one then killing "may be permissible sometimes".
If we do not consider either framework, then nothing is exclusively right. They are all assertion which we know originate from a framework.

Do you see my point.
All judgements are correct and incorrect at the same time, by virtue of ignoring the framework that they originate from! It is the framework that defines the correctness of statements, not the statement themselves. Thus, uncertainty is a function of all ethical assertions.