billandrews.co.uk

1 Government stats show vehicles travelling at 80mph use 25% more fuel than those travelling at 70mph. If we use less fuel the UK would be economically better off.
2 Driving would be very much less stressful for those obeying the speed limit as they would not be constantly having to change lane to avoid drivers coming up behind. This could result in less stress-related illnesses and make savings for the NHS
3 in a emergency stop a car travelling faster than 70mph will hit an obstruction 100m away at a much greater speed than the increase in the travelling speed. E.g at 80mph it will still be travelling at 30mph whereas the car obeying the speed limit will be stationary. Fewer accidents, fewer casualties and less damage to property would result, obviously saving the NHS, the police and the insurance companies money.
4 Each driver travelling faster than the speed limit is breaking the law willingly. This will affect their attitude to law breaking and to the police in a negative way, which could have implications for their conduct in other spheres of life.

Motorways are very easy to police for speed limits. Cameras can be set up on bridges a known distance apart and simply record the registration number of every vehicle with the time. The time between the records of pairs of cameras will give an accurate reading of the speed of every single vehicle passing between them. As it is an average speed, rather than a snap shot as recorded by a speed gun, this is a fairer system for controlling limits.

Why do we, as a species, think that there is a purpose to our lives beyond the immediate? Even more bizarrely do we think that there is another life beyond this one? Even more bizarrely still why do we think that if we do our best to stop enjoying life to the full this makes us a better person? How can we seriously believe that if we lead a ‘good’ life we’ll go to a different place for our next life than if we don’t?

Life is important, it’s amazing, miraculous even but it’ll end on this planet when the sun cools or some other astrological disaster happens. There may be life on other planets or in other universes but that doesn’t affect the argument.

What would an ‘afterlife’ be like? Somewhere where the good things we enjoy in this life are not offset against the downs we experience in this? One of the fundamental aspects of life is that it is a struggle and from that we get a good feeling when we triumph over adversity. Some individuals try to preserve themselves so they can be revived in the future when we have discovered how to extend our lives forever. Have they thought about the implications of that? Population growth is bad enough now with much of the population living in extreme poverty and thus subject to starvation and disease and with the most lethal disease ever to affect the human race, AIDS, causing millions of deaths annually. Without death there could be no new life, no babies, no children. Ideas would stagnate, everything would stagnate. Yet this is what Christian’s and Muslim’s alike strive for – everlasting life. This is what they will go to extreme lengths to try to achieve. Becoming monks and hermits or even suicide bombers.

Where has the idea come from that somehow most forms of enjoyment are bad? Why do Christians make sin and transgression so important? The 10 commandments were supposed to have been drawn up by Moses as a sort of constitution to keep law and order amongst his flock. Nowadays we have a much more sophisticated legal system which is there for a similar purpose. I’m just a man with quite high principles like many others, most, I like to believe. I don’t keep committing sin – so why should I be told I have to continually to ask forgiveness? Why should I have this burden of guilt thrust upon me? I suspect it’s more because at some time in the history of the church it was a philosophy brought in to subdue a gullible and superstitious  population.

We are just animals, at the moment a very successful species with the most intelligence. But we mustn’t get carried away. So do other species have an afterlife? And if so do they have a strict code that controls whether they go to heaven or hell? Non-human animals can be just as cruel as humans. Cat with mouse. Does their lack of self awareness excuse this treatment? Is this any different to an abused child themself abusing? Or a gang member attacking a member of another gang before he is attacked himself? Of course they should know better - but they don’t which is why they did it.

Not that I don’t believe in spirituality. We have taken life to another level. A level of art, music and scientific advancement.

Part 2

I was walking along the beach today and I was amazed by the movement on the sand beneath me. Vast numbers of tiny animals swarmed as they became aware of my approaching feet, which must have seemed enormous to them. I wondered what they fed on, presumably the washed up seaweed. In turn this made me wonder what the point is of their tiny lives. They seem so abhorrent yet they occupy they are animals the same as us. What is the purpose of their existence? – to produce more horrid little creepy-crawlies? to keep the decaying seaweed from cluttering the beach? to feed whatever their predators are? None of these possibilities are purposeful. It wasn’t much longer before I related their existence to ours and began again to wonder what the point of our existence is.

Then I further wondered why does there need to be a point? Why do many of us want to believe we’re here for a purpose in addition to that of being alive. Life has to be revered and enjoyed for what it is. Yet most religions seems to try to persuade us that we’re here as part of a larger plan. They then seem to try to persuade us that there is another better life after this one and that we should make sacrifices in this one to ensure we are in favour when we get to the next one. I eschew all that. I’m a practical person and I know I’m alive, lucky to be here, and I’m going to ensure I enjoy what I’ve been blessed with to the best of my ability. I don’t need rules imposed by a religion that espouses a master plan to keep my behaviour within certain boundaries. Being a civilised human being I will achieve that without behaving in an uncivilised way. I don’t see the need for a greater purpose – being alive is sufficient for me.

I see religion as a major source of evil. Of people assuming power over other people and seeking to persuade them that their way is the only true way. I see the Taliban and others less ruthless trying to impose Sharia law on a population. This law that removes most of the rights of women. I see the Pope persuading his followers that birth control is evil when the globe is in the middle of a population explosion that threatens it’s very existence. I read about immigrants in the UK murdering their own daughters because they have brought ‘shame’ on their families. The Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, Northern Ireland, 9/11 – the list of evil done in the name of God is endless. A believer seems to consider himself superior in some way to a non-believer, that he should then force his beliefs on the non-believer, even to the extent of doing without regard for the well being of the non-believer.

We, in the UK, should stop the indoctrination of children with various religions; we should ban faith schools and disestablish the church of England. The country will integrate more quickly then and become more peaceful.

1/ Dog shit – it’s everywhere so, as well as having to spend all the time out walking trying to avoid it, when I fail I have the horrible job of cleaning it off my shoe and sometimes my car or carpet.

2/ The barking and aggression I have to put up with on most walks. I’ve only been bitten once but I’ve had a number of scares and always feel threatened when a dog barks at me. Even when there is no chance of them attacking me I find the noise stressful.

3/ Friendly dogs that jump up at you and muddy your clothes and their owners who say “Don’t worry he’s only being friendly” and I’m too polite to do more than smile when what I want to do is shout “Get your wretched beast off me,” or something ruder.

4/ The awful smell in some of  my dog-owning friends’ houses.

5/ The hair and smell left behind by visiting dogs in my home.

6/ Having to listen to “doggy talk” about how clever, funny etc. somebody’s dog is.

7/ Having to make positive comments out of politeness about someone’s dog with total insincerity – something I don’t even do if Sue asks me if something suits her when honesty prevails.

8/ Having to decide whether to tackle an owner who has just let his dog defecate in a public place – I avoid conflict as a general rule.

Also unbelievable are owners who go to the trouble of removing the dog shit into little plastic bags and then slinging the whole lot into a nearby hedge. Are they trying to draw attention to the good deed they’ve done?

It is important to understand why more people don’t use public transport. It’s a lot to do with convenience and habit also pays a big part. I suspect that the last time many people traveled by bus buses were not as modern and comfortable as they are now and smoking was allowed on them.

Why is a car more convenient than public transport?

1/ Speed of getting from A to B

2/ Convenience of being picked up and dropped off door to door

3/ Not having to wait or being involved in timetables

4/ Able to carry goods – shopping from the local supermarket, children and all their paraphernalia, etc

Why is public transport more convenient than a car?

1/ Don’t have to drive

2/ Don’t have to think about parking

3/ If you rely on PT entirely don’t have the worry and expense of owning a car

How can the authorities influence the public to choose to go by PT?

1/ By making it cheaper to go by public transport – increase parking, fuel etc. charges and decrease fares

2/ By increasing the frequency and spread of PT

3/ By making buses and trains more convenient for carrying goods – including bicycles which can be used for part of a longer journey or for leisure – and shopping – wheeled trolleys like old people use could be made in different sizes and enlarged for the weekly shop and ramps designed for ease of getting them and pushchairs aboard.

4/ In large conurbations by providing free or reasonably priced personal transport (e.g. bikes, electric vehicles) at stations and other sites.

5/ By increasing the punctuality and reliability of PT.

The disadvantages of cars.

People often don’t realise what the downside of cars but if they cycle or live on or near a main road they do. Cars are noisy and dangerous. So noisy that it’s difficult to get away from their noise entirely, so dangerous if they were invented now health and safety would ban them. Cars spoil the centres of all our cities, towns and villages with their air and noise pollution and even when they’re not moving, just by being there. Parking clutters our roads and often our pavements and creates the needs for some of the ugliest of current urban development – the car park. Whether a tarmac wasteland or a multi-storey monstrosity car parks are a blight on the landscape. The need to park is more pervasive than is immediately obvious – planning regulations often require the provision of parking spaces. I recently had to flatten half of a lovely walled garden to obtain planning permission. I was converting a 9-bedroom Victorian terrace into two apartments of 2 and 4 bedrooms.

Then there are the roads that are continually expanding, taking up more and more land just in order to allow the motorist to get forever faster from A to B. Journey length is judged by time as well as by distance so by speeding up the system so people can go further in a particular length of time you increase the number of cars. As an example if 1 hour is the maximum commuting time that a person will consider this would equate to say 30 miles on country roads or 70 miles on motorways.

We’re just atoms mainly of oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. The atoms don’t know they are anything to do with us, they weren’t in the past and in the future they won’t be either. So does that mean our physical self is irrelevant. There is a continual metabolism so many of the atoms we were made of ten years ago and no longer with us any more. Are we therefore still the same person?

The first order is atoms, molecules, physical stuff – stones, stars, a table

The second order is life, any life. This is another dimension to just existing and is very fragile. Crush an ant, crash in a car. One second alive, the next not alive. They call that dead but really a corpse is back in the first order.

The third order is creativity, appreciation, knowledge. Something in the mind. This is in its creation and appreciation even more fragile than life. A flower is beautiful. It is beautiful for a reason, to be attractive to insects. They are also attractive to humans but that is a coincidence. After creation a work of art can survive its creator so we listen to Mozart, enjoy a Henry Moore sculpture.
A CD is in the first order yet contains information from the third order.

Religion is based on superstition and has been responsible for the most atrocious acts of violence over the millennia. A person prays for the recovery of themselves, of someone close to them or even for their side in a battle. Yet so many of us suffer. Do religious people really think prayer works. That there is a powerful being that will favour them just because they humble themselves in front this higher being.

Then there’s the promise of life after death in some nether world, again that is only granted to those who have worshiped this powerful being. Imagine walking down a path across which ants scurry about. Can you imagine if the ants were to pray that they might be spared being trodden on firstly that you could detect it and secondly that you would favour one ant rather than another? The idea is obviously ludicrous but the analogy is accurate. We even used to image a kind of human figure as our Lord and ruler. Real rulers have exploited this and deified themselves. It just shows the poor imagination of the believers, the lack of analytical thought and the inclination of humans to anthromorpholise everything – start with little children with rabbits that have human faces and talk.

Science has been a major contribution to the demise of religious beliefs in communities that take it seriously. Yet far from explaining everything in the end it appears that the position from which any measurement affects the result and thus makes it suspect.

So at last the world leaders are beginning to realise that the human race is in a bit of a pickle. The evidence has been staring them in the face for decades but they’ve chosen to concentrate on immediate, short term problems instead. Even now they are talking about a shortage of energy, a shortage of food and the problems of human pollution without facing up to the cause of all these problems – there are just too many of us on the planet and we’re increasing in numbers very quickly. The Chinese leaders, fortunately recognised the problem a generation ago and, because they were able to do so, took draconian measures to curb the growth. In democracies these kinds of measures are not as easy as any government that tried to introduce unpopular measures would be immediately voted out.

In most of the world, and particularly in the Western world, the freedom of the individual is given top priority. We should all be able to do what we like so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. A very good principle in theory but in practice there are problems, particularly when there is a shortage of something. The planning laws managed to restrict the freedom of the individual to build anything anywhere and thus protected the countryside, cities and towns. Now we need to restrict the freedom of the individual in many other ways to stop the harm these freedoms are doing. Most of all we have to address ways of stopping and reducing the population. If women were allowed just two children with the threat that a third child would be automatically taken away and given to childless couples and then they would be sterilised this would have that effect. (I suggested that it should be men who were sterilised but my wife pointed out that although it was far easier to do this it was much more difficult to police and therefore wouldn’t be effective.) A initial gentler approach could be tried – using advertising to make it obvious that having more than two children was unethical.

Of course governments would not be happy to do this because they would frighten the electorate – or would they? And such a move would be contrary to the way the whole capitalist system works with annual economic growth. Also there would be difficult times as the demographics changed and the proportion of people in employment became less favourable for the economy. However, compared with the disaster we all face if we do nothing these problems are small.

At the moment our leaders are still pussyfooting around. The Club of Rome published its report Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies in more than 30 translations, in 1972. Although we have not yet experienced the traumas predicted then, mainly because of advances in agricultural methods and discoveries of gas and oil fields not anticipated at the time the basic premises have not changed and we have wasted 36 years. Climate change has brought these matters very much to the fore but still there is little sign that anyone is prepared to tackle the problem of our increasing population head on.

Third World Charities

Many of us in the West give to relieve the suffering of those less fortunate than ourselves in the third world. We rightfully take that as a sign that we are caring civilised people. However many of us also are aware that in saving the millions of lives that we do we are contributing to an even greater problem, the over and unsustainable population of our planet. Some of us actually withdraw some or all of their support for these charities because of this situation and it would be to all their advantage if they recognised this and altered their policies accordingly. All humanitarian aid should be accompanied by birth control policies that ensure population growth ceases.