Of course, the issues are more complex than just making this prediction. The prophecy presumes that basic personality differences will remain. First: We're merely insuring that the wiring of the brain works most perfectly. Secondly: The process of reducing aggression may include the removal of scaring from bad experiences along with the mitigation of our primitive brain, of which, some have termed the Lizard Lob.

I could go on with explanations, but you may get the idea. You may believe that it can be done, or not. I believe that it will be done, and must be done. I, or you, may not be here when it happens, but predictions that things can't be done have almost never proved true. And the accomplishments of science have well exceeded the dreams (read Arthur C. Clarke's book PROFILES OF THE FUTURE.)

One result of this genetic engineering will be the end of schools and prisons. Since I was young psychologist and politicians have debated over how to improve teaching and learning in schools. Although, some things can be improved by methodology, little will change before human nature is changed. That is what I think. What do you think?
Along the lines of controversy are often found the seeds of revolution for social improvement.



I love to talk about the impact of scienceís dreams on a today news. I will cut the learned and ordinary little slack. All the while, Iíll demand of myself to be open and listen to all facts and opinions.

Even though I believe that in many respects modern psychology is the new religion--with its definitions, interpretations, explanations, and even, obscurantism--it is right to believe that much (not all) of our understanding of self is gained from others. But then, what does that mean when a man like Einstein said, "that he was a lone traveler, and not close to anyone, not even his own family." It's a question you may ponder.

There is a point to be made, that sometimes those in power imagine themselves to be the majority point of view, and sometimes they use their power to bamboozle the majority into believing in their point of view. But then, sometimes the majority point of view is never voted on by the non-participating majority. There is a number of ways to formulate the argument, but since power has the force behind the vote, it's well to remember that MIGHT is not always RIGHT.

In order to protect American sovereignty, freedoms, jobs, industries, and technologies from inefficacious out-sourcing, maybe we should consider creating new Ellis Islands on our borders and in our desert areas. Let new immigrates prove their way while working and getting an education on their way into America.
If constitutionalist weary about the rightness of this idea, then why don't they weary about the rightness of permitting out-sourcing to slave labor; then selling the products back to America. We could give immigrants a grand opportunity right here in created autonomous communities for the benefit of all. (I have ideas on how to design these cities.)
This idea is not meant to end all out-sourcing, but to add pressure on autocratic governments to change. Elements of free trade are good for the world--of course, third world countries will begin to face their own class conflicts and environmental challenges as their economies grow. Yet, some elements of out-sourcing relate to histories rationalizations over slavery; it facilitated production and the creation of wealth--primarily, for whites. The world needs to negotiate decent working conditions, fair wages, and benefits.
Don't get me wrong, because I believe that societies are headed toward a middle ground on their way to a socialist democratic system. Within a mere thirty to seventy-five years science and technology will make it possible to produce nearly all needs now produced by lower classes in the world. Let me tell you more:
America's founding fathers were right to believe that the best system for creating progress, and in the shortest amount of time, is a checks and balanced free capitalist system. The problems with a socialist system were well known: A risk that a leader would take advantage of its people, all the while, while entitlements reduce the incentive to produce. However, this will not necessarily remain the case in a future technological world. Let me tell you succinctly why:
Within a mere twenty-five to fifty years--sooner or later--science and technology will make it possible to produce virtually all basic products, now produced by third world countries, for next to nothing. You don't think so, then I would admonish you to, "just hide and watch." In fact, I say that this prediction is only the beginning. Artificial intelligence and genetic engineering will create a new world far beyond most peoples imaginations. It's already happening. Yes, a question of equal benefits to all will ensue, but that has been true throughout history and hope for something new can be realized. The only thing that can stop it is ignorance and terrorism. And that is true even if you think in terms of religion.
Entitlement will not ring true with the same result once science has changed human nature and reduced our aggression levels. I know! It all reeks of a UTOPIA. But I say that a modern society can not continue to survive in its present primitive mode. Weapons of mass destruction will get bigger until we either, like Jefferson said, "revive or expire in a convulsion."
Once science has made it possible to produce at little cost, who will control the strings of power? Do we want corporations to own all the power before genetic engineering has changed human nature? I don't think so.
Common sense tells us that a modern society can't continue to stand-by while families sleep in cars, or old people sleep on streets, or maybe, sleeping in cardboard boxes on street corners. It's REDICULOUS, and you know it! The excuse, that it's of their own making, is also, RIDICULOUS.
Jefferson would never have believed in slavery, whether it's to an economic system, or fate. He believed that we were created equal in our rights to opportunities and just treatment...a kind of truism. But his beliefs, about the future of our republic, were made in a world with few other alternatives. That is going to change; likely, in this century. I'm convinced that Thomas Jefferson, like most great geniuses, fully understood the faults of a socialist system; short of changing human nature. He would have been the first to see the coming revolution.
Even now, it is wrong for human beings to need to work for the BASICS for survival. The basics must belong to all, EQUALLY, and the incentive to work for advantages must come from working for the LUXURIES. This system would drive progress well enough.
The politicians must negotiate basic benefits for all workers around the globe, NOW. Stop allowing corporations to drive all wages and benefits down to NOTHING. It's REDICULOUS.
Yes, it's true that DOGS are best at creating a DOG eat DOG SOCIETY! It's time to put the brakes on that kind of thinking, or the next terrorist may destroy our modern world, and we'll all be left sitting around a camp fire with a camel, or mule, depending upon your peoples history.
You'll readily note that the richest among us never complain about theirs or their children's inherited entitlements. I ask them, "did they earn them?" Life is what the rich and powerful would like you to believe that it IS; in terms of their own best interest!
Anyone who truly believes that one can't be born with genetic or other unequalled advantage, is simply talking for, and from his own advantaged world. Thomas Jefferson was one of America's first leaders to seek out gifted children for special educations. He believed that they could help solidify and protect our free society.
So when you hear the politicians, and talking heads on the radio, trying to convince you that we must have a totally capitalist or socialist system. Think about it. All things come in their own good time. There are bad things about a capitalist system, and there are bad things about a socialist system. But there is one thing for sure, and that is, that things are going to change. And we can see many faults that should change.
All of these things will come to pass. I'm not afraid of the future as much as I'm afraid of remaining in the present, or returning to a darkened past. The future holds dreams and hopes as great as the imagination.
If you would like to live in a bye-gone age without reasoned knowledge and science, then I recommend that we accommodate you by fining you a state to live in without any technologies or science. For us outsider's safety and security, we should surround that state with a Jurasic Park like fence, and electrify it. We could wait to see how long it takes you to come out. My guess is, NOT LONG.
I'm not saying this just to be facetious. It's important for science and the GREAT VALUES of religions to march together into the future.
Yes, it is true, that I, along with most of the greatest minds of theoretical physics--including Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers--and reasoned knowledge--do not agree with many of the basic interpretations of religions; but then, neither do different religions, AGREE!
You may have heard a popular conservative radio host mention that Thomas Jefferson used the bible in the schools in Washington D.C., but what he does not tell you, is that Jefferson removed the religion and kept the moral and ethical values. Historians know that Thomas Jefferson did not have a formal religious interpretation of the bible. He was a deist in his beliefs.
Yes, you can still find writers who believe that Thomas Jefferson was a formally religious person because he spoke favorably about Unitarians of his time, and was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican), preyed some; nonetheless, he adhered to no congregation or denomination. Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, even though he deeply believed in the moral and ethical teachings of Christ. Jefferson created his own version of the gospels, removing the miracles and kept the morals and ethics (Jefferson's Bible). He wrote "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know". He is identified as a Deist by the 1995 Information Please Almanac, (Source: Ian Dorion, "Table of the Religious Affiliations of American Founders:, 1997). He had scientific views well known to differ strongly with formal religious views of the creation;was said to say on his death bed, "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country"....He was a free thinker regarding religion and God (Much like Einstein, he had his own personal interpretation of God and the Here-After, with little connection to a formal religious approach. It is hardly surprising that Jefferson continued to use the term "God" and the "Here-After", as did Einstein, to describe something no better words can describe. But that does not discount Jefferson's or Einstein's totally personal interpretations, and complete disbelief in their formal religious affirmations.
Like Einstein, and others, Jefferson understood that there is no way to disprove a negative "that a God does, or does not exist", only that the interpretation and explanation in formal religions don't make sense. It's not surprising that Jefferson played the part of a devoutly religious person, much liken to present day presidents whom pretend devotion in public, but otherwise, in private. Thomas Jefferson had to be convinced by his peers, that all religious symbolism should not be removed from our new constitution. It was in order to maintain order in a devoutly religious society.
RELIGION AND Thomas Jefferson
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear".~Thomas Jefferson
There is more evidence of failed thinking in today expert conclusions (refer to the above Carl Sagan definition of an expert) regarding Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings. Genetic evidence suggested a likely personal relationship between himself, or his brother, and Sally Hemmings; he kept a special room in his home (Monticello) for Sally Hemmings; people at the time said that Hemming's children were Thomas Jefferson's. Thomas Jefferson knew that his brother had relations with very young slave girls. It was not that unusual for men to marry very young females in his day. In his day, it was more onerous to marry a black female, than it was to have sexual relations with a colored female. And, of course, there are those same experts who continue to bray, "but where is the absolute proof that Sally's children are Jefferson's and not his brother's?" True. But I contend that those same experts will likely argue that Thomas Jefferson didn't even have slaves on Monticello. I say, that it was a different time and age in Jefferson's day, and neither of those conclusions would detract one iota, in the mind of a rational person, from the goodness, character, and genius of Thomas Jefferson. But remember that we're dealing with experts, whose minds are still with us, from an age of the Kings of yore! And in the midst of truth, the power of a twisted righteousness is what they too often first imagine, and what they so oft, exhort.(There is much more that I could say. Read more on the history of Thomas Jefferson).
Thomas Jefferson said that if he had a choice he would rather be a scientist than a politician. He believed that science was his true calling, but that he got caught up in our American revolution. He understood that he had important abilities and skills to contribute to the establishment of a better government.
Science is not in the business of proving the existence of a God. It's in the business of following the evidence wherever it leads.
I'll admit that I grew up in a family full of fundamentalist preachers from the Ozarks. In the 50's and 60's they would resist science's efforts to go to the moon, transplant hearts, etc., saying that God did not permit it. Still, today they warn that scientist are playing God. I guess, that means that the next reaction will be to kneel down to scientist like olden times of kings and pharaohs. Not likely. More likely to try to kill them! Now, I'm being a little facetious.
I will add, that not all of the new approaches to religion think like that.
It is time for many of our modern day issues dealing with personal matters to be decided by a national vote, and not by legislatures. The public, in a modern world, is well enough educated and aware. The issues should be debated and a vote taken; and we should live by it for a period of time before taking another vote.

Modern legislatures have enough to do dealing with international and economic issues, etc. (This does not include some constitutional issues. It does include many sex, drug, euthanasia, stem cell research, and other social boundaries not immediately involved with national security. Maybe a 49/51 or two-thirds majority by all state legislatures could change this vote. The Supreme Court would remain in effect. The vote should be taken nationally in most cases.) Get congress and legislatures out of much of our personal lives. Yes, there are many questions to be debated about this type of governmental system. I believe that the people will go for this plan with enthusiasm.

I would like to add, that due to the importance of science in a modern world, congress needs an added member from each state with a four year degree in science. This would help balance out the large numbers of lawyers and others in our congress.


A more peaceful world has a quandary in fighting a long and drawn out battle against a seventh century enemy's methodogy. Otherwise, we either obliterate the enemy quickly and violently, discover technologies for easily finding the enemies' weapons and explosives, or possibly find ourselves in a long and drawn out battle of attrition.
It's true, we may discover a kind of neutron detector, or other, such as a table top fusion detector that can easily find weapons and explosive, no matter how far underground, in a vehicle, or on an individual, but then, what if our government becomes the enemy?
Still, changing human nature seems the more long term solution to mankind's insatiable desires for power.



For the scientifically minded I will write my ideas on physics and a Unity Theory--just a layman philosophy and examples and ideas. I like some of my ideas, but I don't take myself too seriously without a formal education and mathematics. Nonetheless, I imagine that I have a new understanding of how the universe works, and if I'm in anyway correct, then the universe is more incredible, and at the very edge of our imagination. That it can be understood by intelligence is evidence that it's amenable to intelligent form, and that intelligence will become the more ordering of any disorder in that form; an interesting notion over entropy and believing in agnosticism, deism (Thomas Jefferson), pantheism (Albert Einstein). (Not disorder, but total intelligent order at the omega).

I give you a question to ponder. How to understand the infinitely large and/or the infinitely small without believing in a surprising underlying form to relativity?
I understand that there are difficulties in dealing with infinites in an early universal models (I believe that an alpha and omega are simultaneously two side of the same coin); although, I believe that those difficulties may be more illusionary than reality; that is, if old laws and infinities are ultimately squelched at the beginning of a new universe (In regards to a search for the beginnings of our universe--like with, noncommutative geometry--maybe we should study the end of our universe [also]). The oxymora may simply be a paradoxical simultaneity of which came first "the chicken or egg"? By the time it's a question to be answered, it's no longer a question. Finites and infinities may be simultaneously under different rules. It's a strange kind of rule without which there might be no universe--as we know it.
It's as though the purpose for knowledge is to learn how to seemingly, live forever, and then, to die, apparently, without awareness; then maybe, intelligence becomes the axiom of a new beginning, striving all over again to a new alpha and omega. Our notion of our three-dimensional world is largely illusionary. (Note that this is not a dire prediction because the original intelligence would imagine living FOREVER. Otherwise, there would be no desire to go there.)
Our universe is a "one" and a "two" and a "three" dimensional--plus one--including others totaling eleven in my hypothesis. I'll admit that five dimensions were, what I term "real" in my hypothesis, and five were virtual, or mirrored, and the eleventh was a charm, entangled with dimension four (needed like a regulator - time and mathematics); four with mirror of which are largely intertransmutable--and maybe five; with time and space as illusory.

First Page
Previous Page
Next Page
Last Page
swirl_-_personal_web_site_5004002.jpg swirl_-_personal_web_site_5004001.jpg