Big History is an attempt to put history under a rubric that won’t fit, if you wish to do a science of history. But it barely bothers with that and is nevertheless a useful perspective. I used the idea for the fourth edition of WHEE, but only as a broad context for the ‘macro’ effect. And the latter can show us something that is lost in Big History: it is too big for the detail needed for a discussion of evolutionary dynamics. The reason can be seen in the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium': something of short duration can be lost to the long duration. In the ‘macro’ effect of WHEE that can prove fatal to understanding ‘how things happen’.
Darwinism endures on the fallacies of Big History: we lose the dynamic to the larger picture: millions of years hid short-acting evolutionary transformtions…
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap4_2.htm: this section of WHEE discusses the relationship of Big History to Universal History;
Big History is another idea wrecked by darwinian preconceptions.
We already have multiple ‘theologies’ of atheism': the issue isn’t really atheism but the cloud of dubious notions that are taken to accompany that: the new atheists have created a worldview so sterile it can only bankrupt in the end. Darwinism, for example. This view which was out of date at the time of S.J.Gould is deliberately turned into the foundation for this and other aspects of the ‘new atheism’.
PERIES: Michael, what do you make of this fast-track legislation?
HUDSON: It’s appalling. It’s so bad that when I try to describe it to professors who are not economists, or to foreigners, they can’t believe that there’s actually a law that is classified as secret. That the congressmen and senators can only read by making an appointment, reading in secret, without taking notes. That they will be accused under national security legislation if they tell anybody what it’s all about. It’s amazing that, what is happening is of such a great magnitude, people are not out in the streets.
What is at stake is something that has been under international law for over 350 years. And that’s the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It established the principle that nations are in charge of their own policy. The fast-track legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the European partnership, is so radical that it takes economic policy out of the hands of government and puts it in the hands of unelected lobbyists for the corporate interests.
Now, the funny thing is that only the Republican right-wingers and libertarians are making a point of saying wait a minute, how can a government let its legislation laws be declared illegal by an international court? Canada, the Prime Minister Harper, has already said that under the NAFTA act, North American Free Trade Agreement, which wasn’t really about free trade, America’s attempt to make the Volcker Rule to regulate banks is illegal. If the fast-track is passed by Congress, it will be illegal for America to regulate environmental pollution. It will be illegal for America, or impractical, to regulate the banks. All government regulations, if they cost the government money—for instance, if America were to fine British Petroleum $10 billion for environmental destruction, then America would be obliged under the court to pay back the $10 billion to British Petroleum. Saying wait a minute, you cannot pass a law regulating business unless you compensate the business for the result of any law.
So this court is to have authority over any law passed by Congress or the Senate, any national law. It is somehow to shift the ability to make rules out of the hands of elected officials and put them in the hands of unelected officials, very much like central banks have done by making financial laws by essentially bank lobbyists like Tim Geithner or the present Jacob Lew, or the Justice Department under Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch. You have essentially lobbyists for the corporate sector in charge of overruling legislation. So it doesn’t matter what the law says that are criminal penalties for banks or civil penalties for banks. If the courts refuse to enforce these laws, then the laws are nullified.
The Secret Origins of the CIA’s Torture Program and the Forgotten Man Who Tried to Expose It – Truthdig.
The witness reported men being hung by the feet or the thumbs, waterboarded, given electric shocks to the genitals, and suffering from extended solitary confinement in what he said were indescribably inhumane conditions. It’s the sort of description that might have come right out of the executive summary of the Senate torture report released last December. In this case, however, the testimony was not about a “black site” somewhere in the Greater Middle East, nor was it a description from Abu Ghraib, nor in fact from this century at all.
The testimony came from Vietnam; the year was 1968; the witness was Anthony J. Russo, one of the first Americans to report on the systematic torture of enemy combatants by CIA operatives and other U.S. agents in that long-gone war. The acts Russo described became commonplace in the news post-9/11 and he would prove to be an early example of what also became commonplace in our century: a whistleblower who found himself on the wrong side of the law and so was prosecuted for releasing the secret truth about the acts of our government.
Determined to shine a light on what he called “the truth held prisoner,” Russo blew the whistle on American torture policy in Vietnam and on an intelligence debacle at the center of Vietnam decision-making that helped turn that war into the nightmare it was. Neither of his revelations saw the light of day in his own time or ours and while Daniel Ellsberg, his compatriot and companion in revelation, remains a major figure for his role in releasing the Pentagon Papers, Russo is a forgotten man.
With darwinism science has thrown away its credibility and it is going to be hard to get it back. Is it really possible for scientists who work on complex physics to be in the dark on the question of the flaws of darwinism.
And this situation raises suspicions of deliberate deception due to misguided social darwinist/economic ideological manipulations. If true this effectively eliminates science as a truth teller for human confusions.