What If

What if science proves that there is probably no god? Would it make a difference in how man understands "Man" and/or society? How would man organize society? Would man structure society so that those that are "Not the Fittest" would have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, such as in our Constitutional Republic? Or would society be better off with allowing those that are not fit to die, abort, or euthanize? Would it matter if society would  be "better off"?

Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?

Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?

And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?

What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?

Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society,  our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?

We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.

The Problems of Testing...

The modern mind-set solves problems with solutions. Standardization and testing is seen as an effective way to solve the problem of categorizing individuals. Humans like to categorize because it makes life more easy to solve the problems in the world. Our minds, in fact, are made to categorize, I think. So, what is the problem?

Before I go into the problems, I want to affirm the need to test, because testing defines. And definition is necessary to organization. But,  the problem for me is;  is a human being a product, commodity, or problem to be evaluated, shuffled into place and "presto" the organization functions!?

I began my pondering on the problem, I have with testing  a year or so ago. For instance, yesterday just for fun, I took a "test" about which Disney character represented "me", I was frustrated as I usually have been with testing. I know these tests are foolish and simplistic in many ways, but what I found interesting were the questions they used. Don't the questions themselves determine or limit answers? And what if an answer was not given, that would have been more representative to "the truth"? How does this limitation of answers skew the outcomes? And are the outcomes a means of defining a given individual, and how much is that individual determined in their minds about those outcomes? Does it influence a person's performance in a given situation because they believe themselves to be a "Belle" :-)?

I re-took the tests and gave other answers that I also thought were representative of "me". But, some questions left me wondering how to answer. Do I value "humility"? Well, what are you asking? Are you asking if I value this for myself or when I see it in others? Or is it a general question about character values? And what if experience has taught someone that a certain character trait is in opposition to their best interests, like survival? Would that hinder their identification with humility?

Does observing another, like an object, change the individual and thier perceptions, responses, or reactions? If so, how can social sciences be done effectively? And is social science a way for humans to understand and organize life? Is organizing life a proper goal on a grand scale? Evolution doesn't seem to value organization, so much as a fight to win. Is this what we are trying to prevent, the fight to win, or the fight for survival?

Just a rant of mine today, because I think that the labelling and wearing of labels is dismissive of personhood. And I look at systemizing as a limited perspective in understanding life and all that is.