i've said this so many times before: aliens are more likely than god. but, that's not just a reflection on the likelihood of our origins, it's an analysis of religion, itself. if you follow the line of reasoning forward, it actually brings up the same question that you hear so often in challenging the religious stories: why doesn't god talk to us anymore?

where are the aliens, anyways?

i want to be clear about what i'm suggesting, first. there's a constant in our religious mythology, across generations, that god came from the sky. you can trace this in the indo-european language and across comparative religion, as well. we have this idea of the skyfather that is really almost universal in our religious myths, and that also extends to non-indo-european religions. everywhere you go, you have the father in the sky and the mother in the earth. is there something to this? well, it's embedded in the mythology. every culture has these stories of beings descending from the sky, and of humans ascending to the heavens.

a rank cynic would discard it as nonsense, but a scientist would seek a naturalistic explanation. if there are aliens in the universe, they are no doubt biologically alive entities that move through the universe in obedience to the laws of physics. that is, aliens are not a supernatural phenomenon but are rather a naturalistic one. so, one way to offer a naturalistic explanation for religion would be the suggestion of extraterrestrial contact, you'd just need to find some evidence for it in order to prove it.

i'll let you discard this as a hypothesis once the fossil record is complete. in the mean time, i'd support some active archaeological work seeking alien artifacts.

but, why don't they come here anymore, then?

maybe they're dead.

what it is is more evidence that canada is moving backwards while the rest of the world is moving forwards.

the prohibition on genome editing in canada should be ended immediately.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/canadian-scientists-fear-blowback-over-crispr-babies-could-undermine-their-work-1.4934732

i can only hope that farmers in the midwest are able to understand that when these politicians from out-of-state swoop in and start talking about ways to have them compete with each other, that they are not acting in their interests but against them.

as he unveils more policies, it's becoming clearer that sanders is not a socialist, but rather a dirty, stinky old progressive.

he's probably still a lesser evil, until such a time as a better candidate emerges.

but, i will do my best to criticize him from the left.

what kind of socialist argues for more competition?

c'mon.

wake up.

it's not 1919.

it's 2019.

it is very disappointing to hear so-called self-identified socialists advocating for an increase in anarchy in the production of food. that's the kind of nonsense you expect to hear from a conservative like elizabeth warren.

a socialist would understand that encouraging competition in food production could only harm the society's food security, leading farmers to undercut each either by increasing or decreasing production in order to hurt each other and drive each other out of business, thereby negatively affecting consumers and benefiting the banking class. i understand that there were some ignorant farmers that took this position roughly one hundred years ago, but i also understand that it was partly responsible for the devastating corporatization that took hold in the prairies preceding the dust bowl, and led to bankers on the coasts buying up the farms. competition is harmful to everybody except the rentier class and always leads to consolidation - and this is economics 101 in 2019. this is a foolish policy that will harm farmers and consumers and help bankers and the elite.

socialists understand that the way forward in food production must be to end competition between farmers by creating unions and co-operatives that help them work together in determining how much they plant and which markets they target. these unions and co-operatives would also lead to profit sharing. farmers should be in business together, not competing against each other.

in the existing world economy, the family farm is an absurdity. any policy designed to protect the family farm will merely isolate the farmer that lives on it, making it easier for the banks to step in in the long run. the way to push out agribusiness is not through increasing alienation, but through increasing co-operation. as mentioned previously: the choice that farmers have is between allowing the banks to come in and create an outside monopoly, or working together to create their own monopolies.

competition is over. deal with it.