~Chapter Twelve~                     GOD DIDN'T MAKE LITTLE CLONED APPLES--- "You can't say civilization don't advance, for in every war they learn to kill you in a new way." ---Will Rogers       Sometimes, I find myself envying anyone having a more simplistic view of life.  It's how politicians sleep at night, heedless of the problems that they as statesmen, are supposed to be helping to ease.  As for evolution, and those of us who aren't parroting the status quo, we just have to accept the current views as fact.  That is, until that change we're always bringing up does finally knock some sense into us as a species. I still can't help but wonder why diversity's seen as a threat, while conformity's all the rage. Genetic diversity is nothing more sinister than a down payment on survival. If people can't accept evolution as an engine that's involved in the formation of a different species, and how it adapted to change, then maybe we can really stir things up.  That is, do we dare suggest that  humans are still evolving too? We have nothing over the humble gypsy moth.  It's abundantly clear that we share many features shared by all life on the planet. From a strictly rational point of view, there are many more similarities between all life on Earth, than there are differences. While people are wasting their valuable potential for further growth by arguing over whether or not they came from apes, they'd be startled to discover that it goes much deeper than that.  Everything that's  dependant on DNA for procreation, be it plant or animal, has a single common ancestor--- the DNA itself.  It's the prodigy of all living things that've ever wiggled, swam, flew, crawled, or even took root on this world.  That means that when two people are in a fierce debate concerning whether or not humans and apes have a common ancestry, it's rather like a flake of snow and a drop of rain coming to blows as to whether or not they were born of water.  Time for a few comparisons now. Take nature's obsession with the number five, especially among the vertebrates. We all have five bodily projections --- the head and limbs respectively.  All of these heads have seven orifices: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth.  This is the case whether you're a fish, a fowl, or a puppy.  Small variations in this overall theme are dependant primarily on which tasks are required for your species' survival, but are all reflected in the others.  Then there's the arrangement of internal organs, nutritional requirements, dentition, copulation, defecation, and so forth.  These functions are virtually identical among species.  Even the exalted "us" begin our lives in the original form from which all other vertebrates came.  Ounce for ounce, cell for cell, the first shape that all back boned animals assume (us too), is that of an embryonic fish.  Before we ever snatched our first breath, we've all breathed through gill slits.  The evidence that all animals on Earth have this common ancestry is clear enough to anyone with a reverence for truth.  Just to admit it is a threat to some.  For one thing, it means that their entire belief system is predicated upon a lie.  That's a hard pill to swallow.  Even the simple act of eating becomes immediately less simple, if people begin realizing that they're essentially, eating one of their own.        I wonder if one of the reasons people separate themselves from this idea that all species are related, is because of how they continue to feed upon and enslave the lesser animals.  People say that to feed on the rendered flesh of another being is the way god intended it to be, but the stomach contents of prehistoric humans show evidence to the contrary.  It's a fairly safe bet that most of the primates (us too) started out as vegetarians.  When you look at mountain gorillas, don't let those threatening canine teeth fool you. These inoffensive giants dine almost exclusively on shoots and stalks.  Only a few of the other primates "evolved" into meat eaters, which was most likely the result of moving to less temperate climates.  We're just beasts of another color.        In the coming age, there will be ways to eat whatever a person chooses. All animals have to eat. Humans have complete control over what that is, but their choices are effecting an entire globe. This too has to change. There's already compelling enough evidence to believe that future foodstuffs will be grown from scratch.  Our meals will be generated for us artificially on the molecular level.  Artificially in the sense that it won't fall under the current definition of what's natural.  We already know there's work needed on that front.        Imagine a day soon, when a side of beef can be harvested (actually, cloned) from the blood cells of a cow. Mind you, we're talking about just the meat, and not the whole cow, or anything else w/ a mind of its own.  Our food at that point wouldn't even need to have a head for that matter.  Cloning technologies will allow the growth of tissues only.  Therefore, the only harm that will come to the bovine donor will be the gentle poke from a hypodermic needle. Great feasts will be gleaned from any animal one chooses, and without hurting a soul. But we'll touch on this in more depth near the conclusion of these dialogues.        For the moment, we're only trying to establish a link between natural selection, and how its example could yield to our potential to alter its somewhat vague course.  This will serve to affect the change that we're going to usher in, at least in principle.        Rather than waiting to see what redeeming graces might surface in our future through the rather arbitrary and time consuming means offered by nature, we should begin considering some of the traits we'll need that'll allow us to get beyond our current shortcomings.  We can in effect, determine which aspects of our character are ideal.         Such daring won't be out of contempt for the natural order, because we'll always have nature's example to thank for our ability to escape its detached method of doing things.  As was already know, whether or not we're ready, genetic engineering has arrived. Pandora would be envious, I'm sure. Will Eve be around to take a bite out of the first  cloned apple?    First, there needs to be a common consensus as to what traits should be considered desirable.  What will make us better suited to survival?  In truth, no one has the slightest idea.  More ominously, the subject is too easily exploitable.  Nevertheless, genetic manipulation's the reality that's about to change us, for better or worse. It's a lot less complicated to just let nature take its course, even though it's largely random, even reckless at times.  Keep in mind that the natural approach that the course of life has taken, has wiped out 99% of everything  that's ever existed.  Nature seems ever eager to try out newer models, which leaves the vast majority of the others on the cosmic scrap pile. It seems humanity's on the most current hit list.  The difference now though, is that if obliteration is to be our collective destiny, then it's us who'll  be lighting the fuse.  It's quite a predicament.  Evolution so far on this planet has wrought much savagery, but has also created a splendid diversity for DNA to do its job.  What fantastic solutions to short term problems have been pulled from the hat of natural selection.  There are times though, when that's simply not enough.  If we can learn anything from DNA, it's in how the arrangement of its peptides can engineer such amazing diversity of form and function. There's the astonishingly unique evolution of the giraffe. What a weird animal this is.  Its evolutionary success was contingent upon a neck that stretched to freakish length.  The reason for this was blatantly simple.  The best foliage available to grazing animals during frequent drought, was found in the higher canopy of the acacia tree.  If through random mutation, a species appeared that was better suited to get at the higher branches, then it was selected by nature to live on to dine another day.  A new animal had appeared, and remained to create more copies of this specific deviation from the norm.  Despite the decidedly freakish look of the giraffe, and it's less freakish relative, the Okapi, both animals continue to survive.  But their architecture was uncompromised with respect to the other animals that were less successful.  Both the giraffe and the Okapi have the exact same number of neck vertebrae as you or I.  Only vertebral length has been altered, with chevrons being elongated most dramatically. Shorter necked animals survived too, and the giraffe predecessors were counted among them.  Through mutation however, some were born with the kind of longer necks that would become suddenly in demand as African topography altered, and as the terrain became more arid.  If animals behaved as school children, the long neckers would likely have been prodded and teased by their peers, a sort of Rudolph the long necked reindeer.  But the meek shall inherit the savannahs, and yesterday's freak becomes tomorrow's rave.  The short neckers are suddenly cut from the loop, and the long necks are suddenly front and center on the stage.  It was the changing environment of a fickle continent, in this case Africa, that was solely responsible for how its denizens have evolved.  Also, it's tall grasses have produced generally taller species.  One of the ways that an animal gets taller, is by being born with increasingly lengthy necks and legs.  These are the ones that are favored to breed true. Before you know it (at least when measured in geologic time scales), here comes the giraffe, the elephant with its prehensile trunk, and the low grazers like the rhino, with its prehensile lip, for close cropping of ground vegetation. This isn't a natural history lesson so much as it offers a few examples of how evolution's clock is forever ticking.  The point has been made that change throughout Earth's history is generally beneficial.  The mutation that took place among humankind led to our larger brains, and our ability to reason things out, more or less.  More than either of these, is our uncanny ability to take our evolution into our own hands.  This will not be in contention before too long, but what of our hearts and souls? Do the advantages and faults of genetic engineering take these more subtle aspects of our nature into account? We'd better hope so, if we're to avoid the trappings of technologic advance that has plagued us so far in our quest for progress.  Nature has a way of balancing things out.  That way, no one species proliferates to absolute supremacy.  Humans have gotten away with murder so far, but when will nature step in and put an end to this roguishness?  In Africa, long necks not only made life easier in terms of how their food supply was secured, but this also gave them a heightened means to better spot the predators.  Surprise attacks by hungry lions hunkering down in the concealment of the grasses became increasingly rare.    How many times has the lion been forced to live with its growling stomach for weeks on end, all because Mr. And Mrs. Giraffe from their lofty position in life was able to look down and say to a hungry lioness, "peek-a-boo! I see you!"? And with those long tongues, did they add further insult by sticking them out defiantly at the indignant cat? Without the ability to reason, that was about the limits of their spirited attitude.  With humans, surely there's more.       We've already made a case about how as it was with animals, so it was too with humans.  We evolved right along side of them.  If we play our cards right, we'll continue to do so.  As you might expect, such evolutionary tactics were expressed eventually by all who lived in Africa, which coincidentally, happens to be the cradle of humanity as well it seems.         At least some of these prototypical humans (physically weaker mutations) were forced to migrate Northward, driven out by those species that were better equipped to handle the brutal sun, along with being bigger and stronger hunters.  A decided gap grew between the smaller bipeds, and those who were deemed physically superior by nature.         The pronounced differences between human architectures likely began then, and these differences can still be observed to this day. This isn't meant to be some racial slur, just the scientific version of the truth.  Nor is it a judgement call, although some might take it as such. In geological time, 3 million years isn't all that long.  Africans have retained the lengthier limbs (which allowed better navigation through the tall grasses of the open savanna), and the muscles attached to them were equally lengthy.  Basic physics will tell you that a longer muscle has more  spring, and therefore, more explosive bursts of stored kinetic energy.  It's the same reason that a longer rubber band can be shot across a room further.  Caucasians and Asians on the other hand (to name but two others) have comparatively short muscle groups.  They are generally, and these are flagrant generalizations it must be declared, better suited for acts requiring endurance.  When viewed with a strictly rational eye, people have evolved along similar, but decidedly different paths.  In the long run however, we're all destined to rejoin our fellows. All races have to offer each other, the best of several worlds (before it became global).  They have acquired along the way, attributes that would be highly beneficial to all of us when mixed together again.  Our species can only be strengthened in unity, and will fail miserably if we keep on insisting that we should remain apart.  Once we learn how to merge again, then maybe we'll be better able to make choices that are right for all of us.  This will bid particularly true as we attempt to trick DNA into revealing its secrets.  As we reach even further into our potential as a species through genetic manipulation, complete cooperation is absolutely essential.        Few of us can deny how the products of science,  good or ill,  is  gradually replacing the hollow promises made by politics and religion.  We're becoming more and more, a material society.  Why dream of the types of phantom miracles cited in religion, when such miracles can be brought into this world?        God gave us the horse, but thermodynamics provided us with the internal combustion engine.  Nature gave some animals the gift of flight through the lift principle, but humans created turbo props.  Through the pervasive method of science, the world is being transformed.  Not many of us will contest this new reality, but most remain spiritually lacking.  Machines are only machines.  When will we begin looking into the mechanics of  the spirit?        I find it curious how even the most pious among us will throw their faith aside in the face of some physical threat or affliction.  God might have the cure for what ails you, but only the physician might one day be able to fill out the prescription.      When the world was being systematically paralyzed by diseases such as polio, few priests provided as much relief to suffering as did altruists like Jonas Salk, and the vaccine he'd developed.  Although I shouldn't trivialize the contributions of good that our world's religions have donated to the human cause, I can't help but also remember the devastation that came with the crusades and the witch hunts, among other such campaigns of "conversion."  When the good is weighed with the bad, and when factoring in the segregation that faith continues to reap, I think my opinion on this matter is already a matter of record.        I'm nothing if not democratic.  The will to do good that is sometimes elicited in the righteous can't be ignored.  If religion can become a vehicle through which some are moved enough to do something about suffering, then who are we to question this?     Besides, the need to do good is a trait that in any form, remains preciously rare in our history.  Therefore, the desire to bring aid to the afflicted shouldn't be smitten simply because it is or isn't administered on behalf of a particular religion or sect.  Kindness is as kindness does.  It's a commodity that should be encouraged and appreciated, regardless of the source. The truth is, some acts of kindness are tainted by greed, selfishness, or ulterior gain.  There are those opportunists who depend on the suffering of others, so that they can lobby for a position that makes them appear to be merciful.  Once they make their kind gesture for all to see, the stage is set for them to profit from even greater suffering that's yet to come.  Nobody is more familiar with the concept of job security as are priests and politicians. Governments had recognized this quality of kill them with kindness long ago, and knew that in order to prosper, you must possess something that everyone else wants.  As is the case in most societies, the masses are placed in no position to have it.  This lesson in history can teach us well, if we're resourceful enough only to look back.  Recall one of the earliest examples of a successful governmental system.  By "successful" we mean of course that it provided a service to its people, while simultaneously keeping them deplorably dependant. China had discovered the alluring properties of opium, and had relied upon its narcotic effects to find and to open doorways into other worlds of consciousness.  This isn't new in the quest for spiritual enlightenment, and drug culture is almost always closely associated with a search for spirituality.  Native Americans used the hallucinogenic value of peyote in order to go on their own vision quests.  Altered states of consciousness can sometimes lead to other realms of reality, or so it's believed.  That's what the Chinese believed was going on as they indulged themselves with the opium pipe.  And, it's quite possible that chasing the dragon could indeed, open doors into heightened awareness.        I want to inject here, that it's not only people who can become addicted to hallucinogens.  Some bears for instance, will go to great lengths to procure for themselves a certain variety of berries.  In this case, it's the bear who's seeking an altered state, as it gathers up a copious quantity of elder berries, and buries them someplace safe.  When sufficient time has passed, the bear will return to dig them back up.  Only after the juicy fruits have been properly fermented, will the anxious animal gobble them up enthusiastically.  Why? Why would an animal want to eat this foul smelling and bitter concoction? The objective is to get drunk on its furry ass.        By the same token, why do human youths buckle before peer pressure, and ignore the nasty tasting beer as they're being cheered on to "chug-a-lug?" Both the bear and the college co-ed will endure a less than pleasant taste experience, seeking the powerful rush of an altered state of being.  Plus, for the bears at least--- it's just plain fun. All intelligent creatures reach a time when the state of being that they're used to experiencing is no longer enough.  They want to experience something that resides beyond their normal sensory range.  Going back to early China, it was generally only the wealthy who could afford the seduction of the poppy seed.  As usual, the rich ruled over the poor.  This is really just a twist on the survival of the fittest rule, with the word "fit" being replaced by the word "rich."  In either case, somebody's left out in the rain.  Inevitably though, a growing resentment within the ranks of the poor leads to out and out dissension.  Rebellious indignation becomes revolution, as violence erupts.  When British colonialists moved into China, they set up shop for themselves.  In their market, opium was a valuable commodity.  By employing Chinese emperors under threat of death, they were used as tools to contain the people.  Those in power had a host of things that the masses were never given, so to avoid further conflict, the poor were rewarded with the great gift of opium.  The opium induced dream state was offered up freely, to whoever wanted it.  Maybe that's from where the term "put that in your pipe and smoke it" originated, because that's exactly what the people of China did.  They did so in droves.  The powers that be were pleased at how docile and controlled the people became, as the drug did its work on them.  Let them dream, and come to appreciate this splendid act of generosity, this gift that was given free of charge.  And free the opium remained, up to and including the time when the drug's addictive nature took hold.       I'm not awfully sure, but didn't this lead to what historians call "the opium wars?" I think they were ignited when some emperor, or British lord decided that the drug would be provided to everyone initially. This is where it's painfully obvious how lacking I am when it comes to human history.  It's too depressing to me. Also, I'm far too impatient to actually do any research.  It's important that the feelings rushing through me now be captured in their purest form.  But back to this opium affair...         In other words, addicts were recruited by letting them sample opium for free.  Then, surprise--- now we're going to hold out on you.  At least until you're willing to do whatever's necessary to get that next, all important fix.  That's how slaves were secured, until they ultimately broke their chains through the violent overthrow of some dynasty or another.      All those wars and struggles as one class dominated another.  All of those desperate people doing desperate things just to get the attention they deserve for being alive. Please forgive me for the glaring inaccuracies that are sure to surface now and again. Like I said, history's too depressing for me to delve any deeper.  You don't need to touch it, smell it, or taste it to know that it's foul. All that's important here is, because of desperation, a lot of us are immersed in some pretty unpleasant business. The world of today is more full of that kind of desperation than ever before, and for the exact same sort of reasons.  A pathetic few are in sole possession of that which the majority of people are left wanting.  To this day, governments of the world are kept in business by keeping their people dependant exclusively on them.  Now, more than ever, a global government is essential.  Even in just mentioning "global government," all kinds of Orwellian nastiness comes to mind.  But we're not talking here about a global system that's predisposed to corruption.  It will be a group of thousands of altruists, who's contributing members will have the entire globe's needs at its core. We can no longer risk another violent overthrow of yet another unsuccessful daliance into power.  "Sticks and stones" may break our bones," but H-bombs can disperse us.       The prospect of a global government really does set off alarm bells in many people.  That's one of the things I most wanted to avoid.  Plus, the world doesn't need another fatalist screaming at people about how the skies are falling.  Still, it's hard to pretend that a real danger to our species doesn't continue to exist.  The cold war may be officially over, but the same old threats remain intact. So do new ones.        Regardless, I'm determined to stay optimistic about our collective future.  I spent most of my life trapped in darkness and despair, and tried several times to take myself out of that period of misery. I feel it's time I start being hopeful, regardless of how delusional it might seem.  Besides, we seem to be living in an age where delusion reigns supreme.        Having something so elusive as hope in my mind is pretty new to me.  When I finally received the kind of help which gave me a new perspective, I never would have believed that I'd allow myself a 30th birthday.  And yet ten years later, here I sit.  I'm still not all that thrilled about any prospects at 40, and though I still suffer bouts of the blues, my confidence grows in the belief that there's a much better future in store for us all.         So, whatever message that's imparted here from now on, I'll try and forego as much gloom and doom as  possible in such a gloomy and doomy world.  Great strides have been made in the years since the cold war.  For instance, I never thought I'd live to see the day when Germany reunited, and Berlin's wall would come tumbling down.  When it did fall, in this symbolic act alone, the world was shown that fundamental change could come overnight.  This was a "changing of the guards," so far as collective consciousness was concerned.  Then again, it could've been a ruse to lull us back into a false sense of security. A shift of consciousness is a kind of magic, seeming to materialize from thin air.  But, as we'll keep on saying, such changes are inexorably designed into the overall plan given laid out by nature.  This point can't ever be overly stated, since it's the underlying theme of all we've been talking about.  This predisposition for change allows us to be more adjustable to the highly flexible fabric upon which the entire universe is laid.  But it's the scope of this potential change that will discern itself from lesser degrees of flux, since it's only the monumental kind of transformation that ever gets noticed.  Put more simply, change is interminable, but it takes sweeping examples before we can become aware of it to begin with. Humans are afflicted with selective memory.  To cite a specific, there's the phrase "learn from your mistakes." A child gives us the example of getting burned by touching a hot stove.  Usually, the physical damage done to the careless tike isn't too serious, and a lesson has been learned.  In that one startling moment of the kid's life, an example of one of the things not to do has literally been burned into the child's consciousness.  Putting that rather cruel kind of lesson into a larger context, how many times does a society have to get similarly burned, before such a lesson will finally be taken to heart? How long before the damages already done to our society will supercede any options for reconsideration? When will we be able to take the mandatory first steps which are so essential in order for us to curtail any future insurrections?       Well, as I grew up (at least physically), I was always being inspired not by saints or Zen masters, but by heroes of science.  It bothers me that we're living in a time of impressive new discoveries, and yet I'm living in a country that's utterly rejects the methods of science.  Actually, it appears that fairy tales of creation are gradually eroding away the facts of how we came to be.         Here, most are oblivious to one of the most important disciplines we have, the scientific method.  How can people be so disenchanted with a methodology that's entire purpose is to understand the nature of virtually everything? I've always found it suspicious for instance, that the "daily double" question on the game show"Jeopardy!" is nearly always hidden in the science and nature column on the game board display, at least here in the States.         The producers of game shows in general are fairly sure that the categories dealing with science are sure to be the most difficult to answer, and therefore, most deserving of a bigger payoff.  Even the most well read of contestants usually falter when science is thrown their way.  America is one of the most scientifically illiterate nations on Earth.  I find this sad on one level, and infuriating on another.       It always seemed to me that the people who affect the most change in society are those who have chosen the sciences to best serve their cause in life.  Scientist always take the biggest chances.  Therefore, the rewards (and set-backs) have been great.  Their aims, almost without reservation, have been geared toward change. Science, like those subjects it examined, is ever evolving.  As far as I know, it's the only human discipline yet devised for which this can be said.         Everything else only serves to move us ever further from natural law.  We've even ritualized the natural act of procreation, making it socially acceptable only by our getting married.  Fortunately, that attitude seems to be shifting a little these days.  But if your vision is only gained by looking through exclusively human eyes, then you get only the human part of the equation.  It's easier to understand how nature has gotten lost in the translation. Fortunately for us, through all of history there have been those few who's sense of outrage made it imperative that they speak up.   One such person was Galileo.  Other thinkers before him (namely Copernicus) felt certain that the Earth revolved around the sun, but he alone had the courage to speak it out loud.  Everyone has heard of Galileo.  His name is often synonymous with defiance.  He was one of the precious few who had changed the way people saw their world.  Before Galileo, the sun and the stars were put in the sky to revolve around us.  To suggest otherwise was a direct assault on god.  Fortunately for Mr. Galilei, he was born into a more gentle time, and was not persecuted as harshly as others had been in the past.  His punishment was to be excommunicated from the Catholic church, and he spent the rest of his days technically, under house arrest.  Only in the 20th century, would he finally be exonerated for his indiscretion.  But it would be of no consequence to the long dead Italian astronomer.  When being read the sentence of his transgression he was rumored to have said, "That's well and good, since your god is too small for me." But, other than rebuking the moral certitude dolled out by the church, what was Galileo's crime? Why are all free thinkers customarily branded as heretics?       Because they do something so terrible, that it leaves us profoundly changed.  Individuals like Galileo, Newton, Einstein (his rival, Neals Bohr), and Koepler are among them because they removed us from the all important universe center, and stuck us into some poorly lit back alley.  Why's this so hard for people to accept, if they care at all? Is it because the credibility of the people in power is undermined, and they could suffer a decline in the number of people they get to boss around?        To my estimation, this is the price you should have to pay, if you present yourself as a person who has all the answers.  It's not only those in prestigious positions who live a life of denial (which is what you're doing if you pretend that you're somebody you're not).  We all have this fear of appearing weak, so we put on our stern face which we think signifies strength.  Putting up walls of moral superiority is ridiculous, because it deprives us of the contact we all need.  Being "holier than thou" may be in vogue, but it's not really going to help change anything. Our definition of what courage is has been set adrift too it seems.      All of us need approval, even if we disapprove.  People who are born male are taught that "real men don't cry," which tells them that they should hide their emotions.  I for one have no shame in being moved to tears by some drama unfolding on the silver screen, or if someone shows incredible bravery in the face of danger.  Not to cry once in a while seems to me, a terrible waste of tear ducts.     People born female are told to talk it out, and they come to believe that the only people with who they can share their feelings, are other women.  It's one more thought that's made to take bloom in our youth, and which leaves us feeling cut off later in life.  Granted, there are always going to be biological factors that will tend to keep people from seeing eye to eye (including those of the opposite sex), but should we be adding insult to injury on top of it? With all the current straining of tradition in its attempt to deny new ideals, someone's sure to burst an artery.  The old guard is foaming at the mouth as the world gets restless, and longs for a better way.  I think it's time for some honesty here. As soon as honesty becomes the best policy, there will be no further need for government.  People need something to believe in again.  Otherwise, what would be the point in having goals, much less actually trying to attain them?  Having a little self esteem would help, but since we seem to live in a world where it's hard to believe in one's self, it becomes the job of governments and religions to supply that belief.  Then we have a problem, because the goals that are set for us by them are impossible to reach. That's of course, because of the often contradictory nature of the rules.  We know it, and they know it, but lithargy  continues ruling the roost.  Why are we so adamant about preserving this sad reality? Well, what you choose to believe or disbelieve doesn't even have to be based on reality.  That's because the need to believe in something is being met. There's simply no real requirement for honesty in a society that refuses to believe it's even possible to achieve in the first place.  If you can't even be honest with yourself, then why should you expect others to be honest for you?  For every age, there will be a brave few who try pointing out such fallacies.  This doesn't play well with a government or other power structure, because such institutions utterly depend on infallibility.  Not only are governing bodies supposed to reflect the will of the people, but their words are also those of god's.  Their seizure of power, and their ability to maintain it was based (often exclusively) on this principality.  Power brokers  don't need some upstart coming along every century or so to stir up the pot of dissent. So yes, people like Galileo have a terrible effect on a society.  They force it into having to think.  Every decent oppressor worth (his) salt knows that with knowledge, does come power.  This is especially intoxicating when no burden of proof is needed to back up such knowledge.  That's why this valuable commodity is so easily monopolized by just a few.  What's needed to secure all this power? Of course, money.  It's quite literally a case of getting it for free, since it's those in control who print it up themselves.  It's a great gig if you can get it.  The down side of course, is that such shallow, 2 dimensional power structures are almost immediately destined to crumble.  It's an unstable affair at best, in that there are among leaders, those who also crave power.  Soon, there's a wolf at every door.  In every form of government, there's division.  It's an incredible thing that this form of policy making has lasted as long as it has.  When will we ever learn? Maybe it will be possible, if at long last, millions of impatient people finally learn how to think for themselves.  No self-respecting government worth its smoke screen  would have that.