Changing paradigms

A paradigm of course is a world view. In this case we are referring to the scientific paradigm, which seems to be loosing ground to creation theory. That is, God created the world in seven days. We human's like challanges and understanding how that creation came about is huge. We of course, also want to know why it occured, what God's message is in this.

For perspective, we need to look back before the change into the Scientific Theory. Most people believed in God as creator. Many rulers were still considered part god and part man. Mathmatical knowledge and other branches had built up enough information that individuals like Newton got excited about the new rules and theories. Decartes, who is also connected with the new scientific paradigm, was a philosoper. The beginnings of the field of science were know as natural philosophy, the philosophy of nature. Philosophers of the time sought knowledge or scienta in Latin. The word Science came from this latin word. From around the 1200's to until the 1840's science was known as natural philosophy. So, you see science started as philosophy.

Science has had a great deal of status for over four hundred years. Philosophy has remained in university courses catalogues because it is such a time honored clasic and gets at the existance questions that today's Science doesn't address.

Is it time for a switch back to philosophy and religion? Intelligent Design accepts science under the umbrella of religion. New Age movements have swung over North America and Europe and some of it's expressions are becoming mainstream. Eastern European countries long denied their religions are going back to them. The great changes in weather, fuel insecurity are causing great alarm. Where do we turn, to science or to a god?

Unpressidented change is what appears to be driving people to believe in god again. Has the secular trend has run its course.? Many changes occuring at once have left people with questions neither science or philosophy seem to be able to answer. Yet, science has brought us too far just to dump it, so it keeps a place in the new paradigm just under God.

Having said that, it will take some time, and possibly more than one lifetime to see how this change will play out. Science is still very strong. This may just be a little bump on the screen or the indication of a definate paradigm change. Chanses are strong that there will be new definitions for science, philosophy and religion.

If you are interested in this question see The Future of Religion at http://www.wnrf.org/cms/faq.shtml

Natural Resources -To use or not to use

When helping individuals and groups to understand why they take certain stances when it comes to a particular change, consultants and coaches can turn to Basic Values Charts. See more at: http://www.framtidsbygget.se/E/consult/index.htm bottom of the page.

For example, the values continuium upon which decisions to use or save natural resources will be made. Florence Kluckhohn, anthropologist, described how human beings orient themselves to nature, accepting that nature exists to serve humankind, or that humankind is subservient to nature, the middle ground being harmony with nature. How an individual orients him or herself along this “orientation” determines whether or not we save natural resources for the future or use them now. The decision is also influenced by how we think about people. If we think that people are basically out for themselves then it is incumbent upon us to make sure we have our piece of the pie. If we feel that people are basically good it is incumbent upon us to share nature’s bounty without destroying it for future generations. The beliefs each one of us have on these two continuums are usually unconscious, so unconsciousness that many of us never take a stand, we leave it to others. If we can help clients become articulate in voicing their values ground, they can become a part of the decision makering process and can more easily defend their rational for the conclusions they make.

The non-trend trend toward cleaner vehicles

A " Fuel Cell Today 2006 Worldwide Survey" was made just last year to show the growth of fuel cell use. Fuel Cells for small electronic divices is the largest area growing area. This means that computers and other small appliances, like telephones, hand-held computers etc are able to run from hydrogen.

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/FCTFiles/FCTArticleFiles/Article_1148_Fuel%20Cell%20Today%20World%20Survey%202006.pdf

Honda has a small version they are developing that can be used to warm water and heat a home as well as to fuel a hydrogen car. This is exciting and if it catches on it could mean that homes could be independent when it comes to heating and hot water. If it could also provide electricity for the home there would be less problems during the heavy storms predicted by global warming. Brown-outs and black-outs would be, in the beginning, only a problem for the poor. That could be easily solved by inclusion of solar power to run fuel cell equiptment. It appears that is the way we are heading.

Fractal Transactions

Futurist Thomas Frey offers an economic scenario for Internet payment. When you make a purchase on the Internet, several related businesses will be paid simultaneously, manufacturers, transportation, distribution, call center, website operator etc. Programs are currently being configured to this end.

The question for discussion is what are the consequences for the consumer. How does one get their money back and from whom? Will it be from the distribution center who sent the wrong item or the shipper who caused it to arrive months later? Who will be the legally responsible party? Do my lawyers have to talk to lawyers from all of the companies involved? The legal profession is going to love that! Fractal Transactions sound good for the companies who get their money much sooner, but what about the consumer and who is looking out for their rights?

Ending addiction problems

A Sign of the Times for January 2007: Scientists have discovered the brain system responsible for maintaining the addiction to cigarette smoking has been identified. The discovery was made when it was found that individuals with damage to a portion of the brain called the insula lost the urge to smoke and never relapsed unlike the four out of five smokers who have tried to quit.

Commentary: What are the possible consequences if this were to come true? If this signal system works for nicotine, it is assumed it could work with other addictive products. Drug/alcohol clinics, nicotine patches, many counseling services would dry up. Drug producers/ traffickers would loose their market incrementally as the technique/medication spreads. Farmers trying to survive on drug crops will loose their business and be forced to grow something else lucrative. Courts may use the treatment as a sentence, thus eliminating many individuals from jail terms.

On the other hand drug use might continue and a huge market for insula signal medicine, possibly called "the day after" medicine might be the biggest selling medicine ever created!