Science & Religion/Time & Eternity

I have come up with a resolution of the whole science vs religion arguments and as usual it's a simple agreement on vocabulary: scientists will agree to replace the noun "boson" with the noun "angel". When science claimed that the planets were pushed through their crystal spheres by “propulsion angels” the Church was fine with that. It was only when people wanted to start calling things “elliptical orbits” around “gravitational forces” that the Church got upset. Eventually, they've gotten over that, too. Now, if we can cooperate as believers and explorers instead of spending billions of dollars to understand secular sub-atomic particles at the LHC they can spend trillions to understand subatomic God. The evangelicals will dig deeper into their pockets to help us identify the Higgs angel and then measure how many can dance on the head of a pin!

Really it's all the same wolves in aging fleece with one significant change: scientists don’t have to admit they think a god created anything and believers don’t have to accept that no god was involved. Why is it so important to atheists to convince believers they are wrong if their belief doesn't affect their lives? Of course, this means that believers can’t make laws and try to control behavior on the grounds that “God said so!”, but then, God doesn't make anybody behave in any way even though He says so over and over again. How can believers justify restricting agency when God’s example is strictly and completely hands off?

Instead of science saying "See, this is how it happens so we don't need a god and therefore a god doesn't exist!" they compromise with "If there is God and we can't prove there isn't, well if we want to get to know HIM we have to know better how He does things." It's not a total surrender to "intelligent design" or celestial breath on a lump of clay, it is just recognition that God's omnipotence must be His omniSCIENCE. We drop the whole Scientology assertion that everything we experience is a sham of "the egg man", a figment of our spiritual imaginations. We admit there might be God and if God created everything and if everything includes the physical world we are experiencing (which makes it "good" instead of "bad" by virtue of provenance) then all we have to do is quit calling things "subatomic particles" and call them "subatomic angels" with the caveat that these angels may not be representations of humans or even human like matter. We admit that there MIGHT be spiritual matter of all sorts that we haven’t sorted out yet. We already admit that there might types of matter we can’t measure or define, so why not something called “spiritual matter”?

I came across a very interesting idea in C.S. Lewis the other day (I'm on a marathon re-reading everything of Lewis I didn't understand in sixth grade which means everything Jack wrote). He accepts the concept of eternity and then flips on its head the general human interpretation of eternity being synonymous with immortality. Eternity is most like the present because the present just "is". We've gone Zen, everything “is”. The future is the concept at greatest odds with eternity because it absolutely isn't. It's all sorts of "might be" and "may be" and "could be" with the erroneous assumption that we shape it. In actuality we determine our future by what we have done and what we are doing. This is bound to make existentialists uncomfortable who are going to assert that all religion is “fatalism”, but the contrary is true. Fate is not determined by a god in the future or past or even us in the future or the past, it is determined by us by what we are doing with the past.

We accept the past as eternity, because it too has “been” and indeed continues to “be”. We never "un-become" what we've done and we never "undo" what we've done (this has problems with relativity in some ways and in other ways confirms it). Now we are saying that whatever we did in the past still exists, and only what we do in the present can have an effect on the consequences. It's not exactly debits and credits where we're performing offsets or "equally good" for corrupt, it is spiritual evolution that might take, well, forever. We don't un-lose the trust we lost, we do something to earn it back (and here is where we have to turn energy into spiritual matter or regaining trust would be as easy as it was to lose it). We know that healing some past consequences requires a great deal of energy on top of the material manifestations required to compensate for past corruption.

What I taught yesterday in the lesson on atonement were two concepts: sin is something that results in the corruption of spiritual matter (which we need the atonement to expiate) and that God does not punish us for our sins: He will allow us to suffer the consequences if we choose. The corruption is the direct consequence of sin (the actual definition of sin being something that results in spiritual corruption whether God said it or not) and while God might be able to loan us a cup of spiritual perfection, He just gives us enough to cover what we can't fix, and that only if we ask. What we're dealing with here is getting to a point where our spirits are strong enough to prevent us from making physical choices that result in spiritual corruption. We're stuck with these silly emotions to communicate between body and spirit and we have to learn how to prevent our bodies from dumping too much testosterone into the muck. We also have to learn how to determine whether something physical introduced dose of testosterone into the muck of our emotions (like the beautiful, half-dressed girl) and when our spirits did it (like when we connect absolutely while making love with our wife). We can usually tell by our emotions as the testosterone subsides and we feel incredible joy or start looking around uneasily to see if somebody caught us.

Unfortunately we are best at compensating for the physical corruption we caused while we may still be 90-pound weaklings when it comes to taking care of the spiritual damage. As a matter of fact our whole experience on Earth is learning how to control the physical to prevent damage to body or spirit. Since we are not fully capable spiritually (maybe our hands are tied or maybe that muscle isn't strong enough) we have to borrow a little spiritual atonement from the Savior to expiate our spiritual corruption. We know we already had a great deal of spiritual strength to get here. Nothing in life really "heals" in the sense of bad gets better and becomes good, it heals according to its etymology of "becoming whole". Physically, corrupt cells die or are surgically removed and are replaced by healthy cells. Since we can't leave a vacuum physically or spiritually we must fill that space with healthy spirit or prosthesis. Either the atonement provides us with spiritual stem cells that we grow into healthy progression, or in some cases we may just receive a transplant from the infinite atonement store that fits our particular need. In any case we have to deal with possible corruption and rejection of the new spiritual matter.

In the end our future is never about what we will do, because what we will do is determined by what we're doing. When we don't understand this we latch on to the lie that we can mess around now and fix it later. When we tell ourselves that, if we simultaneously turn off the spiritual nutrition by leaving scripture, mediation, love and worship we will never turn it around. Repentance for today's stupidity is only possible as long as we accept that today's stupidity is sin, leaving ourselves susceptible to the restorative power of those who love us and just humble enough to admit that we aren't making a good decision. Once we break those ties, our future is decided. Only one thing can avert total destruction when we separate ourselves from atonement. That is the love of someone else who can arouse our desire love them back; to reach into us and relight the fires of righteousness.

Contrary to popular religious and theological meandering, the atonement did not start in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross at Calvary. It started when one amazing spirit said, “Send me, and the glory be thine.” At any time, Christ had the agency to say, “OK, I’m done. Sorry guys, I quit. Only a partial atonement is all I’m doing. I know that is terribly insufficient, but I quit.” However, just as we become a certain kind of person through our personal, spiritual discipline and evolve to a point where it may become impossible for us to lie, cheat, gossip, waste time, anger, hate, or be prisoner to any other single mortal foible, at some point it became impossible for Christ to go back on His word. Just as it becomes impossible for a mother to feel nothing for her child, it became impossible for Him to abandon His mission. And He’s is still doing it. It is infinite.

I don’t know if ever a specific scientist might acquire faith, or if a specific fanatic, ignorant believer will admit that there are eternal laws that must always be obeyed by everyone. That we may someday accept that everything that is done, every world that is created, every blessing that is obtained is based upon the appropriate behavior dictated by that law.

For my point, I will do both. My faith gives me power to accomplish things that are physically challenging. It’s my faith that allows me to wake up in pain and smile at a new day. It’s faith that allows me to work to heal physical, spiritual and emotional damage I have created. It is faith that helps me to feel that maybe I am doing some small thing that is beneficial, maybe even essential for the happiness of someone else. It is faith that makes love accessible.

It is science that fills my day with excitement. As I better understand current theories of everything I want to live another day to understand more. Science allows me to enjoy music in a way that is more profound and poignant. Science proves to me that everything can be healed. There will be an equal reaction. Mass times the speed of light squared will become energy. I can’t wait till I know how that happens.

The Second Amendment

It’s trite, but I believe in our right to arm bears. Claws and teeth are insufficient in a modern age. Laughs aside, I would want a Taurus 454 “Raging Bull” in my hand if I were being pursued by an enraged Grizzly. The goal would be stopping power because I can’t run at all and nobody can run faster than an enraged grizzly. Everybody that has been pursued by an enraged grizzly raise your hand. OK, we have now identified the tiny percentage of people Charles Darwin spoke about. In the 21^st century if you are doing something that irritates grizzly bears the gene pool might be better off without your contribution. I concede, though, that a tiny percent of the tiny percent of you that would find yourself in that situation may have a legitimate purpose to be in a situation that a grizzly would find unwelcome. You should probably be packing.

I understand the passion of the NRA to see the second amendment as a grail just short of life itself. What I don’t understand is why the NRA stops at the “assault rifle”. As anybody who has ever gone hunting knows, you can’t beat the M4A1 when you are surprised by a whole herd of deer that need to reach the pinnacle of their mortal purpose, having their heads mounted on a wall (in this day and age I don’t want to offend vegans with the idea that meat might be good for you or that they may be legitimate reasons to eat Bambi). Of course I know that you will never see a herd of dear with 5-point racks. Bucks insist on being the only “man” in the herd.

But what about the times only an FN SCAR CQC with its mounted FN40L-GL is enough? The grenade launcher is a part of this gun, so doesn’t the NRA insist on the right to buy these? Most of this rifle is, well, rifle. And you still can’t beat a FIM-92 for those times when some criminally minded airliner may have chosen your house as its destination. At 33 and a half pounds it looks just like a big rifle. Then there’s the StunRay whose manufacturers say “… will blind you into submission” with a light flash 10 times more intense than an aircraft landing light (all from a 75 watt bulb!) that overwhelms your visual cortex causing complete paralysis of the body at a distance that a Taser just envies. There’s also the “hard sound rifle” which has given me a healthier respect for my headphones. I can’t confirm it as real, but has a loyal following with HALO players. And all of these are just considered “small bore weapons” by NATO. Everybody knows that no group is complete without the venerable, reliable M2. Any Humvee (American Motors last gasp?) worth riding in has its M2HB or its baby sister the M240G. Yes the SAW is just a small bore gun, but when you need to shoot somebody 740 times in a minute (just under 13 times per second) it’s hard to beat [note: most gunners don’t exceed 100 rpm for prolonged use or the barrel becomes a little soft]. Of course, the Marines now want something with a little more accuracy.

Why doesn’t the “right to bear arms” extend to the Howitzer? Some of the best performances of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture have included the M198. And then there’s the world of smooth bore cannon. The Army realized early on that a 105mm round couldn’t do what a 120mm could from an Abrams tank. After all, it’s a  Chrysler. The original minivan is a Chrysler. Why can’t I have a 120mm RheinMetall on my Voyager? Anyone who has ever baked a pie knows how much more mass each millimeter gives you (for reference an 8” cake pan (assuming 1.5” inches high) gives you six cups while a 9” (same height) gives you 8 cups). Step up to a 10” and you’ve got almost 13 cups. Now instead of cake batter toss some high explosive and depleted uranium in there and watch the walls tumble down).

The point of this silliness is the same with all my friends in the NRA, and I have many friends carrying NRA cards. Except for the perspective terrorists, everybody will agree that the “right to bear arms” ends somewhere. In 1805 the standard musket in capable hands had a one in three chance of hitting a man-size target at 100 yards. This is the reason that you lined up as many musketeers as you could in a line. If you had 60 firing effectively you might bring down 20 of the enemy. The state of the art Baker Rifle, a flintlock, doubled that to 200 yards and Rifleman Thomas Plunkett is thought to have shot a French general at as much as 600 yards. With the improvement came a compromise. A skilled musketeer could get off 4 rounds in a minute while the time required to load and fire a Baker with its bullet in oiled leather (or more commonly linen) reduced the rate of fire to two rounds per minute.

Facts would indicate that for most Americans, the limit for the right to bear arms is in the neighborhood of what are characterized as “assault rifles”. I say this because it took most Americans agreeing with this idea for their representatives to ban them in 1994 (but only if that ban had a shelf life of 10 years). That’s quite an accomplishment when you consider the “Brady” camp has a budget of about $7 million/year while the NRA admits to between $100 and $300 million. They also seem to be able raise another $200 million with a toaster (I am not kidding). The problem is that whenever the characteristics of an assault rifle are defined someone can make some minor alteration (which can usually be unmade in seconds) to disqualify it.

I sincerely believe that if you took General Washington or President Jefferson and gave him an AK-47, the most prolific, most reputable, most reliable, most destructive bang for the buck they would say, “We had no idea people would want weapons of mass destruction in their closet. We were thinking muskets. You know a one in three chance at 100 yards maybe four times a minute.” FYI – An AK-47 on burst can fire 400 rounds per minute (600 rounds cycling rate). Yes, that is 100 times as many shots as the Founding Fathers had ever imagined. It is considered “inaccurate” by today’s standards because the stamped models only produce a 4” to 6” reliable target at 300 yards. Marksmen set its effective rate at up to 800 yards.

My point is that almost everyone recognizes that there is a limit, some limit somewhere defined as “the right to bear arms”. This is the crux of the argument about “constitutionality”. Once we admit that there is a limit to our right to the weapon, we have accepted that it is constitutional to set limitations on the right to bear arms without “infringing” on that right. As a matter of fact, one of the definitions of “infringe” is “to transgress or exceed the limits of” indicating that limits must first be established for infringement to incur.

There are estimated to be more than 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. A law making it a criminal offense to possess a gun would be about as enforceable as Prohibition. At the same time, a law restricting the sale of firearms would lend itself to reducing the availability of guns to criminals. The existence of guns could not accomplished completely, maybe not even effectively for years, decades or even centuries. The question is not “how much good would regulating firearms accomplish” but simply if regulating firearms would result in a benefit to the majority of citizens.

We frequently compare ourselves to Canada. We eat the same food, drive the same cars, speak mostly the same language and share a lot of our heritage. Canada has its share of deaths by GSW. Most of these are suicides. In the US 45% of gunshot deaths are homicide while only 32% are suicides. In terms of lives taken there is an obvious and proportionate correlation with the availability of firearms. There is also a correlation in the reduction of GSW with the increased control of firearms since 1991 in Canada, a 65% reduction. Obviously the number and percentage of lives destroyed by guns is much higher in the US.

A more appealing way to look at this might be the cost of gun violence. Who would not be willing to pay a little less tax? In 1991 GSW cost Canadians $6.6 billion. A similar study in 1992 showed the cost to Americans as $126 billion. I would be willing to promote a provision that gun ownership continue to be regulated as it is presently as long as all the costs related to GSW is paid by gun owners.

For those of you who reacted to the shooting of five and six year olds by creating more wealth for the makers and sellers of guns all I can hope is that you are not my next door neighbor. How sad it would be to live next to somebody who would rather shoot me than share a loaf of bread. . I assure you that you won’t have to hold a gun to my head to get half of my last loaf. How I would hate to survive in a world where the only reason I’m alive is because I shot you and my neighbors.

The gun lobby will tap into the lowest form of human manipulation to sell assault weapons. I don’t know a single gun control advocate who would find relevance or redemption in [NSFW] something like this, but it was one of the highest hits on “second amendment rights”. I think even the men of the world like General Washington and President Jefferson would be disgusted that their prayerful hours work is associated today with such an image. I hope I don’t know anyone who would pay $21.99 to own it.

Hiroshima

For the last several weeks I have been reading book after book about the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't know why I do this. I become frustrated, depressed and distraught when I read the details about the horrors of war, but since my earliest memories I have not been able to turn away from pictures and words of war while at the same time fearing such a horrible waste of humanity.

Some of the books concentrated strictly on the science, the physics of what happens when a small fraction of nuclear material is brought to critical mass. Some discussed the human and social tragedy that were direct results of the bombs, but did so dispassionately; strictly an empirical representation of death, disease and trauma. Many authors stated clearly in their introduction that their introduction that they were not going to address the morality or immorality of the bombs or try to assign blame. One, however, asserted that the whole question of blame is useless moving the argument from the citizens of opposed countries to the economic and social practices of those countries that brought people to put on uniforms and attempt to kill those who dressed differently. Eventually it all seemed to devolve to the point where one individual was trying to kill another because they would try to kill him.

I've mentioned before that I don't believe in the concept of innocent civilian bystanders. We choose to honor and support our executive and nation or we oppose it. If we pay our taxes and accept conscription we enable war. Weapons are rarely built by soldiers, they are built by citizens and every citizen from the school teacher who taught that employee math to the grocer who sold them breakfast is involved. The rations are grown by farmers and the money to pay for it all financed by bankers. Every one participates in the process, partly because of allegiance and patriotism and partly because of the need to pay for the necessities of life.

Some of the books were written specifically to address the morality of waging war with atomic weapons. This begs the question, "Is there a moral way to wage war?" This is where our irrationality stands up screaming. How is dying from a metal fragment through the chest more moral than dying from every cell of the body vaporizing? How can it be more noble to take a life with a rifle or a bayonet than it is with a Predator and a Hellfire missile? What we call "collateral damage" is killing the people who feed the soldiers, make their weapons, bring them information and generally enable war. How is killing as many people as you can in smaller batches preferable to killing them in one huge cataclysm?

To assert that there is a "immoral" way to wage war relies on the premise that there is a "moral" way to do it. War is about greed. Greed is always the primary cause. Someone wants something someone else has, which in the end all boils down to agency. Someone wants to impose their will on someone else in a way that will give them what they want. Any action, any method used is moral to protect and defend the exercise of agency. If we accept that "...all men are created equal..." this is the place where equality exists: We are all endowed by the Creator with the right to make our own decisions and choose for ourselves what we do with our resources.

There is no way to morally take away the agency of another. Efforts to explain it in terms of territory, money and resources are the details we use to obfuscate the motivation of the instigator to impose their will.

Witch Hunting

I ran errands today. Had to do a snow tire change over and spent 31/2 hours at Discount Tire. I got there at 7:50. There were 11 people in front of me and 10 people behind me. This is only meaningful because they had Fox news on in the waiting area. At some point I heard the commentator say, "I think it's time for the attorneys to get involved in the power outage aftermath of hurricane Sandy." Huh? I immediately thought of attorneys in $1,000 suits delivering a summons to St. Peter naming God as the defendant in suit demonstrating their clients losing precious profits due to how the storm destroyed the power grid and the order of steps taken to fix it. I realized that what they really are going to do is sue the power companies for their loss of profit while waiting for the power to be restored.

Despite most peoples understanding, witch hunting did not become popular until the late 15th century when everyone was suitably Catholic enough to know that drought, disease, pestilence and poor harvests had to be caused be the demons in their midst; He would never allow His pious Catholics to suffer, so it had to be the spells of witches; Especially because these women seemed to possess knowledge on how to treat and frequently beat the diseases. Sure enough after they had found and burned enough of them, the good times came back, testimony to the efficacy of the inquisition.

Litigation is the modern form of witch hunting. When something impinges on ones greed it has to be somebody's fault and if you file enough law suits the "guilty" will settle to avoid further costs. It’s easy to profile the guilty, they are the ones with more money than you, so they had to get money that should have been yours. This gives them a self-deceptive feeling of control over the silly whims of a God that doesn't seem to understand how important it is for rich people to get richer. He doesn't even seem to care if the poor people get richer, but they can't afford attorneys.

The greatest flaw of a "corporation" is it isolates the stupid and their money from their stupidity. Partnerships and a sole proprietorship created a balance that when somebody was sufficiently stupid, they lost their capital and couldn't afford to be stupid any more. The corporation not only allows them to protect their money when they're stupid, it allows them to be stupid with someone else's money. The joke about socialism is that "eventually you run out of other peoples' money". The flaw in a capitalistic system based on the corporation is that you never seem to run out of stupider people that will let you lose their money in your stupid attempt to get rich. Greed is very effective in lowering the IQ of any population.

An important note: Stupid does not mean you did something that wasn't financially productive although that applies; it usually means you took someone else's money in a way that was not sufficiently complex to be able to keep the money you took. As for investors, you got to spend their money while you were losing yours, usually to at least a 10 to 1 ratio.

Global Warming or Menopausal Hot Flashes

What we have come to call “Global Warming” may indeed be simply terrestrial menopause.

Our planet, exhausted after having raised homo sapiens from its first Cartesian awareness, through a childhood of prehistoric innocence, an adolescence of legend, scripture and modern industry has seen her offspring enter adulthood where we no longer live in close contact with our mother. Through our greed we barely notice her fertile decline and her finite resources and energy disappear.

As adults we try to exploit everything we have learned throughout our youth to realize our success, our pleasure and our lust. We suspect she shares our pride in having accomplished so much. Even as she now succumbs to the ravages of aging, she offers us whatever she has left, and we accept it with enthusiasm. We wouldn’t want to seem ungrateful.

As her children, we are arranging her post-menopausal, elder care even as her fertility dwindles alarmingly. We hope desperately that our plan for her golden years will be sufficient. We build it with hopeful diatribe. We resolve to change our behavior and honor her by legislating sanctions for those things that accelerate her decay, but try to rationalize our way out of neglect. We reason that by throwing money at her problems, levying fines for those things that corrupt and destroy her, we are buying her more time. We know she'll be happier in a nursing home than she would be as part of our busy household.

She still takes our calls if we will make them. Those are becoming less frequent. At least we always check in on Earth Day. Mostly she becomes more alone and more lonely as our lives are too busy addressing our own needs and our wants to deal with her geriatric decline.

One thing is certain; we won’t miss her when she’s gone for this is one relationship where the child will die long before the mother. She will "find herself" and go on to a new existence with a different persona. I wonder if she'll miss us.

Memories and Emotions

This morning I had set up a "smart" playlist from my "acoustic" directory. Just random songs from different artists from Carol King to The Best of MTV Unplugged. An old protest song from the 70's came on from the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young "4 Way Street" album "Ohio". I still marvel at the power music has to generate emotion and recall events from our past. I was a whole 13 years old when it happened. I recall being absolutely shocked that something like that could happen in America and I remember being tragically sad. I could not have understood all the philosophical, economic and political elements at the age of 13, but I remember hiding in my room because I was crying and didn't want to be teased.
As I grew older, I recognized that emotions created by the even covered a large spectrum of human feeling. A lot of people were angry. That seemed to be the most common. I remember that because I became very cautious and afraid. I was afraid of angry people, I couldn't predict their behavior. Anger is still the emotion that causes immense distress for me, whether it be my own or someone else's.

The real coincidence is that yesterday I was talking with a friend and we were discussing the differences between Kent State and Tienanmen Square. The more we tried to contrast them, the more we found similarities:

• Both were instances when the country's military was used against unarmed civilian citizens
• Both were the result of protest rallies
• Both countries justified their action because the protest demonstration was illegal
• Both included in their list of casualties spectators and passers by who just happened to be in the wrong place at the time
• Members of both military forces fired over the heads of the crowd to avoid killing a protester
• Both countries were under the control of a minority who considered themselves elite and above the law
• Both claimed it was none of the world's business what happened in their "internal affairs"

and fortunately:

• Both of them created a situation where the government was forced to evolve into a more democratic, representative authority

There are differences in the number of people killed: in Ohio it was exactly 4, in China the estimate ranges from 200 (PRC Government) to 3000 (Red Cross). The acceptable number for something like this is ZERO. I don't care if you're a hooligan in Boston or screaming communist in Ohio or even a jihadist throwing stones in your neighborhood in Babylon, the killing of unarmed civilians by military is not acceptable. Even in those few examples I find myself agreeing with some of the principled beliefs of both parties and sympathy for both sides of the battle. Significant differences create this result. The National Guard was not allowed access to tanks and the eight round M1Garand is no match for an AK47with a 30 round magazine.

When I was young, I was fortunate to have a big sister who would beat up anybody who picked on me. I discovered I was incapable of physical violence no matter the consequence, and if it hadn't been for Karen the consequences would have been much greater. But I knew something that prevented many a fight from ever taking place: Don't be in the same place as your antagonist! I also learned this was easy to accomplish without great effort or making it obvious you were avoiding conflict. Another think I learned is that if you are faced with a situation that is likely to turn out bad, run away! This has worked for me from the playground to a first date that was going someplace I didn't want to go.

We could argue the positions of protagonists and antagonists in these situations, but I don't believe any point of view ends with "we better shoot at these civilians" as a successful solution. For one thing, a lot of your friends get angry with you when you shoot their neighbors whether you like them or not.

We live in a great country. It is a country that has done many, many wonderful things that have benefited the world. America has even done things when there was no tangible benefit to us. Sincere leaders have chosen to do the right thing just because their hearts have led them to the right action.

The secret to becoming a better country is to learn our weaknesses, admit our faults and take the often painful steps to correct them. As I watch another political battle for the White House taking place, we are so busy advertising what the others are doing wrong that we have no resources left to discover what we are doing wrong which leaves us powerless to correct it. The consequence is that we can't even be sure of what we are doing right. We continue to amplify and justify the differences and don't seem to acknowledge where we agree. We are, it appears, becoming more and more subject to extinction.

Think Out Loud

There was a time when people believed that knowledge and discovery should be shared. Two companies that had pioneered technology, IBM and Bell Labs, had thousands of patents to their name. Included were things like transistors (those are the elements of a CPU or any solid state physics) and LASER (called MASER originally). They shared all existing patents issued through January 14, 1956 for FREE. Unlimited licenses to anyone and everyone. All future patents they agreed to share for a pittance of cost.

There is a philosophy that nothing is really invented, it is just discovered. Bell Labs didn't invent the solar cell, they just discovered that light hitting a silicon sandwich hit a natural n p n layer and released a flow of electrons (they'd already done that with selenium, but selenium was expensive and didn't generate much electricity). William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain claimed that had they not DISCOVERED the transistor in 1947, somebody else would have because several teams were working on the same semi-conductor physics at that time. The patent idea is sort of like the Puritans saying "We saw Cape Cod first so it belongs to us" to the Italians while the Native Americans are saying "We've been here forever." Both the Native Americans and Italians ended up paying money to Puritans to occupy Cape Cod.

A company's wealth came from innovation. Innovation was defined as "working with a new discovery to create products that were in daily use". Microsoft copied ideas and software from IBM and innovated MS-DOS which they got from Digital Research. Apple copied IBM, Microsoft and XEROX to innovate the Mac. Microsoft copied Apple and IBM and got Windows NT. History is littered with errors of who thought of something first.

Creation isn't making something from nothing; creation is organizing things in a way that is novel and different. How you implement that is innovation and if you do it well it doesn't matter if someone else copies your "invention" as long as you implement it better than anyone else.

Apple didn't invent home computing. Google didn't invent the internet. I have yet to see a media company create anything, they just try to control the source of media. In the past they earned money by innovating and facilitating the dispersion of that media through capture and play technologies. Now their function is to PREVENT the dispersion of that media unless they get paid for it.

If we allow things to continue on their current course, the big companies will hold copyrights and patents on everything that creates a sound and anything that manages a photon. We will have to pay a license fee to think out loud.