No. I am not. You presume limitation where none exists. I believe rationality is a God given gift and to realise our potential in the 3 - dimensional simulation we find ourselves in, we should engage this rationality with conscientiousness towards achieving the highest good. This is how we can manifest the Christ consciousness here and now. This is encapsulated by Paul in 'Faith is useless without works'. 'Faith without love is just the clashing of a symbol' (I paraphrase).

We are at the end of this simulation now because no matter what, the simulation carries on from here without modern technology, if at all. That is the inevitable conclusion from the Geo Magnetic Pole disruption we are now witnessing where protection from solar radiation is already down 20% and will reach 90%. Electricity and living cells cannot function in that environment. Mitosis fails and everything dies. Electricity fails and everything stops.

My irrational hope, provided by my faith, is that I am wrong and that enlightened, rationalist ingenuity will somehow give humanity a second chance within this simulation. I like this Universe and it is not here simply for nothing. We just need to get out of this gravity well and start exploring it properly.

@Century-1 See you say you are not a naturalist, but then you spout off a bunch of naturalist / gnostic psuedo science and dress it up with some fancy sounding, but hollow, words. Revelation tells us how the "end of the simulation" goes, not your laughable fears on the pole drift. I highly doubt you are anything other than a fully indoctrinated evolutionist who makes a bunch of excuses for why the literal word of the Bible means what ever you want it to mean.

The enemy uses people like you to spread his lies packaged up as "science" when it is anything but.

@robertleva I am actually an Ordained Minister. Jesus and Paul told us what signs to look for at the end and they are all here. So are the Revelations provided by John. All those conditions are now met. If you find Christ words 'empty', I suggest you rethink your life.

@Century-1 Are you an evolutionist?

That comment is meant to be ironic, comparing the atheist position to that of what they ridicule as 'superstitious faith' because the non existence of anything cannot be logically proven - so to state to a certainty that there is no God is an absurd statement. With all the atheists I have debated, they soon start Jesus smuggling in all but name as their guiding logos.

The atheist's position is that all people should be forced to convert to atheism, because their God is nihilism. It is the only true God and all the others are wrong. To me, that is a religion in itself. You are correct that most use an atheist position to allow despicable behaviour without guilt. This is the Post Modernist standpoint and their intelligentsia will seek to destroy all religious morality.

It is arguable that the greatest gift that God gave to man was rationality. The ability to discover himself as a free moral agent within creation and to shape his own future. That would have worked out well if man decided for himself to stay in the behavioural framework that God assured man was best for him. Man was not created with the intention that he should live apart from God's guidance. The question is is how do you convince man that that is the case if he questions the assertion? By letting him find out for himself.

The Bible tells us that Satan deceived a woman to entrap man into losing God's guidance. I contend it would have to happen anyway. If you are a teacher in a school showing your class how to solve a particular problem and some kid keeps harping from the back of the class saying 'that's rubbish, I know a far better way to do it'. The teacher can either throw the blackboard eraser at him and shut him up or say to hi: Alright, if you know a better way, come to the front and show us all.' That is the only way to remove all doubt in the class as to whether his claim is either true or false.

This is where I believe the human race is now. We have tried to live without God's guidance and to our own agenda and that is now reached a catastrophic level and left the human race circling the drain.The end game is that we can now wipe ourselves from the earth and many actually think we should. It is indeed difficult to come to any other conclusion. The question your position poses is: Is abdication of responsibility and trusting to God to sort em all out the best option? Many of the worst human atrocities have been committed with the certainty that it is at their root and will be that rationale of the persons bushing the button to end us.

I don not believe that moral certainties are of any help to avoid our extinction. Belief in personal salvation is formed from a subjective analysis of ones standing with God, which could be hopelessly wrong. That certainty of yours coupled to your abdication of responsibility for humanity would. from my understanding of scripture, serve as a barrier against salvation and condemn you to fight on with the rest of us. My belief is that only the enlightenment rationality has even the slightest hope of saving humanity from extinction as the earth shakes us off.

God hasn't given man anything man gave god to the world as a form of control

Yes, if only. If it is going to happen, it will need to be a grass roots movement that somehow survives the elites attempts to destroy it!

@Century-1 A tall order, to be sure. IDF is a good start towards the grass roots movement but we would likely need another JC to crack our inertia and lead the paradigm shift. I'm hopeful one of the world's child prodigies will emerge to fill that monumental role.

@skaarda That does seem to be the sticking point. I do not know where such a mass motivator like JC could come from. It could be that the plan to avoid extinction is done without mass approval and just as now, through specialised institutions away from public scrutiny. The problem with that is that it takes far too long to establish new paradigms compared to the speed new technology is becoming possible and the net is not nearly cast wide enough to capture the talent and genius needed to achieve these seemingly impossible technological goals. Already, mainstream science is 100 years behind the curve and is oblivious to it's cultural significance.

@Century-1 With more than 2600 billionaires in the world you would think there are at least a few of them who could fund the new technologies via specialized institutions as you suggest. Where are the R@thchilds? Re. the source of the mass motivator(s).... I wondered if some of the child prodigies could band together. However, I've read their trajectory is often limited as they "don't learn to be original" and "conform to codified rules, rather than inventing their own". "... only a fraction of gifted children eventually become revolutionary adult creators ...who ultimately remakes a domain" and "do not try to transform the laws themselves." Meantime, I guess we wait until a "chosen one" pops up spontaneously and exert our influence locally.

@skaarda I agree and believe that those already at the top of the tree have absolutely no interest in changing anything; believing their wealth will preserve them through the Armageddon that their class wants to bring about for everyone else. The mass depopulation has to happen first before new game changing tech can be unleashed. That is where the Rothschild et al are focusing their efforts. All those who have tried to stray off message and support 'against the narrative' technology now, soon find themselves destitute or dead. They are trapped in the system that made them. It will need to be developed through a grass roots movement created through an on-line university. The science and the prototypes do exist and in some cases have done for 50 years. Large scale technology and production is what has been denied to people.

@Century-1 Please say more re. "The science and the prototypes do exist and in some cases have done for 50 years. Large scale technology and production..."

@skaarda Thoriium Moulton Salt and Liquid Flourine Nuclear reactors, which are clean and safe, were first built in the 1970s but the US Industrial Military complex suppressed the research because they wanted fiscile U235 for weapons, which these do not produce. They also do not produce toxic radioactive products with a half life of millions of years either. There is no real need for fusion technology if this is utilised unless cold fusion, which hasn't been cracked yet, as far as I know, becomes an option.

Mass reducing electo-magnetic gravitic engine prototypes were also around in the 1980s but that went dark shortly after the viability of the tech was demonstrated. The Electric Universe shows the true relationship between electricity and gravity validating that approach to mass reduction. I have written a post on here about that.

Accessing energy from the 0 point field has been around for at least 50 years, and Telsla was well on his way to mass producing it. It was suppressed back then as it could not be metered but today it would be as easy as metering cell phones so there is no longer any reason to suppress it. Most of the existing patents create heat for steam turbines so hydro carbons would no longer be required for energy production, where the nuclear option is too expensive.

There is much more but there is simply no will to change things at the top - at all! For insance, climate change is a positive boon to half the world and they want to accelerate it, particularly as it will be the western world that will be the big loser. Of course, we are not told that.

@Century-1 Lots to absorb here, thank you.

Humans tend to view observed phenomena in terms of their value system and world view. Those who live in and are indoctrinated by an economic and military superpower see everything in terms of those predominant values and motives.

Logically, the overarching reason to build any enormous defensive structure is fear. Fear of annihilation from those outside of the structure. This would be a response to an existential threat that is either perceived or real. To think of this imperative in terms of military or economic terms is at too low a resolution. To undertake a project that takes century's to complete like the Great Wall of China or Medieval Cathedrals; a multi-generational archetype must be the underpinning, motivator.

In the case of the Cathedrals, we know well enough what that was; to bring glory to God and to continue striving to represent God's kingdom on earth. That is a pretty big motivational driver. In the case of the great wall, it does not seem to be clear at all. After all, what use would the wall be when it was only half built and half as long as required to enclose the area it protected? It would not be any kind of deterrent until it was completed, which would be many decades into an uncertain future. Even then, their enemy could just tunnel under it, out of range of their projectiles or unseen by the defenders; or just blow a hole in it with gunpowder, which was ubiquitous at that time. It must have been well known that it was strategically useless and ultimately pointless. The builders would have known that as they were certainly not stupid. It seems more of a psychological defense than a genuine strategic one as any human enemy would find no more difficulty traversing it that medieval forces did in breaking a castles defenses.

In Neil le Gras Tyson speak. It was likely more a psy-op perpetuated against their own people to make them believe that they are continually under an otherwise unstoppable threat to their lives and those of their children that only building this wall can prevent. Each generation was indoctrinated into the same fear driven psychosis. The elites therefore disposed of their surplus population to the extremity of their area of control where they could be conveniently allowed to starve to death or pillaged by the foreign invader; who is only there because they are there, building a wall; justifying the claim that the threat is clear and present.

The elites are only really at ease when their populations are enduring abject suffering. If there isn’t enough of it about, they need to create some more. Gigantic, useless construction projects that absorb the productive output of tens of thousands of people ensure that suffering is never alleviated by the efforts of those people were they free to contribute to the general well-being. The pyramids and modern war ships are another example of such a psy-op against your own people.

The race for the atomic bomb was driven, in the minds of the military, by the sure and certain knowledge that whoever got there first would use it on the other and win the war. Of course, the scientists did not know if the chain reaction would end when the uranium was exhausted; so the reaction might destroy the entire planet; but they did know that if the other side got there first, they would detonate it anyway – so they may as well too. This was a situation of resignation as they were assured that there was no time for more research. This is a very different motive to the Great Wall project. It was definitely driven by the military mind but economic considerations would not have entered into it.

The Atomic bombs use on mainland Japan and on non military targets was pure genocidal blood lust on the part of the US Elites. Since that moment, they have indulged this primal blood lust across the world wherever the fancy took them. Only M.A.D. has stopped them wiping out half the world with atomic bombs. Self preservation is the only counter to psychopathy.

As one can see, the only real motive behind militarism from the masses is not economic, it is self preservation. From the master morality, it is the need to cause suffering. A much higher ideal will be needed than the theoretical threat of future extinction to drive humanity to preserve the onward trajectory of science, given the destruction it has and surely still will unleash upon us all.

It will need to be generally perceived as our manifest destiny to outwit the forces that will cause our extinction and colonise the stars in the way Neil le Gras Tyson envisages. The only archetype capable of wielding that much power is a religious one. Rationality will have to give way to that to preserve itself. It is no use evangelizing atheism if atheism leads to our extinction, however ‘true’ it is perceived to be.

@Century-1 Your arguments are thorough and well thought out.

In Neil’s defense he was responding to what he was typically hearing as a reason for a manned mission to Mars: “for the sake of science and discovery”. He was attempting to steer the conversation from an idealistic to a realistic mindset.

Changing the subject. One thing that I would like to see spelled out is a dual stance where the main priority is a focus on earth – continuing to adapt in the chaotic way that we do with countless goals and motivations that sometimes align - with space exploration as important but secondary. A both/and instead of an either/or.

@Cecil_J_Twillie Thanks for that. I would welcome anything that could galvanise science out of it's century long slumber and actually produce some real science. I just don't see it happening as they can just cling to the skirt tails of technological advancement and take credit for that. There is plenty of research out there that would benefit from more funding and wider scientific dissemination but they choose to ignore that; and even ignore the failure of their own models..

We will get to where we need to be without them but it will just take longer My point is that we may simply not have the time for generational speed changes. It looks like we are facing a Magnetic Pole reversal right now. At some point in the near future, the magnetic field will be in line with the solar radiation'as the magnetic poles reach the equator. That will cancel out the magnetic field and all the protection from the lethal radiation we currently have.

This happens every 250,000 years or so and we are well over due the next one. This one will likely end all electronic interactions and most certainly end all of mammalian life. If not all of it, enough to ensure that enlightenment scientific research would come to an end. That wasted century of scientific torpor could cost us very, very dearly.

Human reproduction is not the most pressing problem and is actually declining in Western Europe. That is the real reason for immigration. Global population should stabilise at somewhere below 10 billion and we can handle that.

Even if we could find the wisdom to keep our fragile biosphere intact, that does not prevent extinction events of non-human origin that we cannot prevent. There are plenty of them overdue if previous incidence and occurrence elsewhere in the Solar system is any guide.

All that has to happen to ensure our extinction is that advanced technology, assuming that it could exist, is prevented from being developed to the point we can leave earth. Even a minor shift of social priorities could spell the end of the enlightenment approach to science and technology; stunting the drive to advance knowledge.

Post Modernism is one such threat. If it's underlying Marxist ideology is allowed to prevail over rationalism, the human race will lose the ability to advance technologically. This will ultimately cause our extinction, which is the aim of the intellectual nihilism at it's centre.

@Century-1 When the presence of humans is displacing and driving other major species to extinction, it is reasonable to state the human overpopulation is a problem.
To believe that humans own, and can fully exploit the biosphere to the detriment of other life forms, is exceedingly arrogant.

@pbuck0145 Yes. I agree. The presence of humanity is a problem from a conservation perspective but it always has been. We have historically hunted our nuisance and prey species to extinction even amongst fellow humans - never mind animals. However, the absolute numbers of us will not drive us to extinction if, and it is a big if, we behave in a responsible and coordinated way quickly enough to avert ecological disaster. My argument is that if we think humanity is worth preserving, we need to leave earth eventually. The only way that will happen is if embryonic enlightenment rationalism is preserved to develop technology that can allow it. I believe that is what is under an existential threat by reactionary doctrine right now. We could ultimately seal our fate in this generation denying the future to later generations..

With what we are learning about the threats to the earth from without and within, it is amazing we have lasted on here this long. Ultimately, we either get off this planet or we go extinct - sooner or later. By the looks of things, we have very much less time than anyone previously thought. Surely, that behoves us to get our own act together and become a multi-world species. Doing that today is only 'just in time' from a cosmological perspective.

@Century-1 what science informs your pessimism?

@Facci
The 2nd Law of the thermodynamics for one. All systems tend towards disorder. The highly ordered state of the solar system cannot and will not last indefinitely. Evidence suggests 'rearrangement' happens frequently.
The Fermi Paradox.
Evidence of frequent asteroidal impact on earth and other celestial bodies. Likelihood of cosmic ray or / 'shockwave' bombardment from 'local' solar events (we would get no warning and obliteration would be instant as the bad news could be coming up the past light cone right now). Some observed take out half a galaxy!
Geology: the pressure vessel that is earth's crust could fail fatally causing mass extinction and permanent winter.
The Magnetosphere could change to allow fatal exposure to radiation.
Catastrophe psychology: The pathological nihilism of human beings who attain power purely to destroy us do so in a nuclear fireball.
Earth's atmosphere blowing off in an event similar to what Mars experienced.
The resilience of phages, bacteria, fungi and viruses are an existential threat.
The list goes on and on, I am afraid.

@Century-1 not only that, but everyone dies.

@Facci That is a good point. Even now, it takes until we are in our sixties ans seventies to learn enough to be useful in perceiving the next steps in scientific fields and passing what is useful onto the next generation. Soon, it could take more than a human lifetime to achieve that level of expertise and mentorship. That could be the limit of our advancement.