Watched "Planet of the Humans"

I watched the documentary of Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs. I have to agree with its critics: there are too many mistakes and unfounded assertions in it. This discredits the film and its makers. But, unfortunately, one problem it touched, but left without analysis, is overpopulation and overconsumption. It's risky to say that there are simply too many of us and too many of us can get what they want. At once you are accused of racism, sexism, etc. But sooner or later we must honestly ask the question: „Can our civilization continue as it is, and for how long?” It's nice to accuse white men to ignore the living conditions in the poor countries and deny to women the right to have as many children they want. But... When I was a little boy, just after the Second World War, my granddad told me there are two and a half billion of us in the world. Now we are nearly eight billion, and quite probably close to ten billion in 2100. It means that for every human being, there will be four times less resources, including arable land and fresh water, than in the 1940ies. At the same time, the living standards of more than a billion of people have drastically risen, and, accordingly, their use of world resources. How far can we go this way? In my childhood, we had ca 0,06 km² of land per person, including deserts and areas perpetually covered with ice. It is about 6 hectares, a small plot. Nowadays it's four times smaller – 1,5 hectares. And roughtly a half of it is „habitable”, and even a smaller part of the habitable land we can use for producing food and some other things we need (or think we need), as cotton. As to food, we can get a part of it from water, nowadays e.g.from acquaculture. We can grow crops on our roofs, although we need the roofs for solar panels, too. It's certainy hypocritical to accuse the Africans, Indians and South Americans of having so many children. It's our Western civilization that gave them this possibility, and our way of life and our living standard is something they are striving to. Who can deny them to want to live a better life, to imitate what they see every day from our TV serials? The good solution would possibly be: for us, to have a much lower living standard, and for them, a higher one? Is such a compromise feasible? Could a sensible majority of people agree with it? What would a sustainable standard of living concretely mean? I am nearly convinced that without a radical change of our way of life, of our values, we are approaching an ecological catastrophe. To avoid it, we need something our secularist, consumerist world has forgotten to take seriously. We need what the Pope Francis has written about: a repentance and an ecological conversion. Here, I am sure, religion and science speak with the same voice. And we have no other way than to take their warnings seriously. 

America first

One third of all COVID-infections are in the US, a quarter of the dead among them are Americans. If this is the result of Chinese disinformation and/or Russian propaganda, then the Chinese and Russians are really masters of hybrid warfare. It's thanks to them that Trump now has what he was eager to achieve -- America first.

Ценить то, что есть

Есть люди, которые ценят, нередко и любят мир, природу, других людей такими, какие они есть. И есть люди, для которых все это ценно лишь как материал, ресурс. Вещи, природа ценна, если из них можно изготовлять что-то другое, их менять на что-то другое, прежде всего -- деньги. Они думают, что нам надо преобразить мир, природу для наших нужд. И, конечно, изобретать новые нужды. Для первого типа людей в мире, в природе, есть что-то священное, если они верующие, то мир создан Богом и не наше дело его преобразить по нашему веленью и желанью. Природа не ресурс, а Божье творенье, чудо. Как и человек тоже не ресурс рабочей силы, а Божье творенье. Или просто что-то замечательное, исключительное. Человек -- чудесная частица Природы, Творенья, Божественного чуда. Как пишет замечательная эстонская поэтесса Мариэ Ундер: "В конце концов, все есть чудо." Если мы это понимаем, умеем глядеть на мир как чудо, нам станет ясно, что нам не столько нужно, что мы можем довольствоваться тем, что есть, миром, как он есть и не преобразить его, по меньшей мере не такими темпами, как сейчас. Может быть нынешняя пандемия -- упоминание человеку обо всем этом.

Esimene tõsine hoiatus

Lugedes internetis, kuidas koroonaviirus USA-s kiiresti levib ja Trump on nüüd saanud oma „America first”, tunneb mingi osa minust rahuldust, kuigi muidugi teine osa esimesele seda ette heidab. Aga olen ammu arvanud, et katastroof peab tulema, et inimestel natuke aru pähe tuleks, et see planeeti ja meid hävitav tsivilisatsioon leiaks endas taipu ja jõudu muutuda millekski, mis elab ja areneb loodusega kooskõlas. Mõtlesin ja ütlesin ka, et mida varem krahh tuleb, seda parem, ta on väiksem ja planeedist ning meist jääb ehk rohkem järele. Minu hääl ei kosta kaugele, aga on olnud teisi hääli, mis kostavad ja mida oleks ammu võinud kuulda võtta. Nagu Bill Gates'i hoiatust epideemia-pandeemia ohust, mis ta esitas 2015. aastal oma TED loengus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI

Inimkonda tõsiselt ähvardavate ohtude seas on külgehakkavaid haigusi nimetanud teisedki prominendid, näiteks kuninglik astronoom Sir Martin Rees. Paavst Franciscus on oma öko-entsüklikas „Laudato si” karmilt hoiatanud meid maailma laastamise eest. Tegelikult ongi praeguse kriisi põhjused ökoloogilised, on selles, et meie, inimesed, oleme hoolimatult, oma kitsaste ja vahel lihtsalt rumalate tahtmiste järgi joostes ignoreerinud looduse, meie koduplaneedi seadusi. Mis on olulises osas ka jumalikud seadused – sellele on väga veenvalt osutanud Franciscus.

Võib öelda, et oleme ökonoomika~ökonoomia nimel unustanud ökoloogia. Ja nüüd tuletab ökoloogia end ise meelde. Nii kliimamuutuse kui epideemiate kaudu, mis on otse looduse tasakaalu rikkumise tulemus. Pandeemia üks põhjus on, nagu ütlevad teadlased, selles, et oleme tunginud liiga lähedale teistele liikidele, puutume nendega liiga tihedalt kokku, sööme metsaloomi, peame neid lemmikutena jne. Teine põhjus on tsivilisatsiooni globaalne haare, see, et kõik inimesed planeedil puutuvad otse või kaude kõigi teistega kokku. On „kuue sammu” seadus, mis tähendab, et põhiosa meist jõuab tutvuste kaudu kõige rohkem kuue sammuga iga teise inimeseni, iga teine inimene on meie tuttava...tuttava tuttav. Kõige rohkem kuue sammuga jõuame nii Hitlerini, Stalinini, Marilyn Monroeni, Saddam Husseinini... Mis tähendab ka, et viiruski jõuab mõne sammuga iga inimeseni. Ja selletõttu tuleb globalismile esialgu mõneks ajaks panna pidurid. Praegu usume, et saame need pidurid veel selle aasta sees lahti lasta. Mina ei usu. Oht igatahes jääb. Ja see ei tähenda ainult seda, et tuleb võtta kasutusele rohkem abinõusid võimalike nakkuste piiramiseks, tõhustada, parandada, parendada profülaktikat, kasvatustööd jne. Vaid ka seda, et peame muutma oma tsivilisatsiooni.

Globalism on kapitalistliku tsivilisatsiooni vältimatu tulemus. Kui aksioom on kasumi maksimiseerimine, on vältimatu, et tootmine viiakse sinna, kus on odavat tööjõudu ja muid ressursse. Ja toodang viiakse sinna, kus tema eest saab rohkem raha. Ning muidugi: kasum on kõige alus, mis tähendab, et majandus, enamasti GDP peab pidevalt kasvama. Siin on üks ökonoomika ja ökoloogia selgeid vastuolusid: looduses ei saa miski pidevalt kasvada, loodus vajab tasakaalu ja hoiab ökosüsteemid, populatsioonid, protsessid tasakaalus. Kui see tasakaal kaob, taastub ta varem või hiljem ikkagi, ent see taastumine võib tähendada suuremaid, isegi katastroofilisi muutusi. Mis ootab ka nüüd meie tsivilisatsiooni, võibolla ka meie planeeti, kui Homo sapiensi tegevus jätkub vanaviisi. Paistab aga, et nüüd on meid tõsiselt hoiatatud. Peame oma tsivilisatsiooni, ennekõike majandust radikaalselt muutma, enne kui tuleb järgmine, juba karmim hoiatus. Tulemata ta ei jää.

Tsivilisatsioon on muutunud tohutuks masinavärgiks, mis enam ei teeni inimest, vaid mida inimesed peavad teenima. Inimene on tsivilisatsioonist pea täielikus sõltuvuses. Meil on vaja töökohti, raha, juurdepääsu igasugu teenustele. Me peaaegu ei saa elada ilma elektrita, veevärgita, autota, telefonita, internetita. Omal ajal andis tsivilisatsioon meile seda, mida meil vaja oli, nüüd surub ta meile pääle oma vajadusi, kasvatab ja ergutab meis uusi vajadusi, et niimoodi kasvatada majandust.

Inimene on loomult pedomorfne, on loom, kes jääb lapseks eluaeg, meie tsivilisatsioon ekspluateerib seda inimlikku nõrkust. Ta muudab meid ikka enam lasteks, kellele on vaja mänge, mänguasju, midagi uut, põnevat, erutavat. On mänge, mida võetakse väga tõsiselt – nii on majandusega, ent ka poliitikaga, sõjandusega. Maailmas, vaatamata viiruse karmile hoiatusele, jätkuvad jaburad geopoliitilised mängud, jätkub võidurelvastumine, NATO kasvatamine, vaenlase kuju loomine ja viimistlemine. Vaese kolhoosi raamatupidaja väljanägemise ja esinemisega Stoltenberg räägib Hiina, Vene ja muudest ohtudest, nagu oleks tõesti otsustav vahe sellel, kuidas elatakse Hiinas, Venemaal, Euroopas või Ameerikas. Selle vahe suureks puhumisel on vaid üks põhieesmärk: aidata majandusel, sh sõjatööstusel, kasvada, haarata rohkem inimesi sõjamängudesse, jätkata business as usual. Aga see bisnes, harjunud planeeti aina kiiremini rahaks ja tuhaks muutev elulaad ei saa jätkuda. Selle asemel peab inimsugu hakkama elama teisiti, suurel määral, kuigi targemini, pöörduma tagasi esivanemate tarkuse, olgu rahvapärimustes või Piiblis talletatu juurde. „Aina rohkem, aina kiiremini” asemel peab tulema „võimalikult vähe, tasa ja targu”. Sõltuvus globaalsest majandussüsteemist peab otsustavalt vähenema, inimesed, kogukonnad, riigid peavad õppima rohkem oma jõududega hakkama saama. Meil ei ole tulevikku, kui meie elu, tervis ja tulevik sõltub sellest süsteemist. Me ei saa edasi elada nagu haiged intensiivravi palatis igasugu torude ja aparaatide küljes.

Peame ümber hindama oma ideaalid ja ka õigused, ka inimõigused. Ei Jumal ega loodus ole meile annud õigust hävitada planeeti oma õiguste nimel. Kui süveneda Piiblisse, siis Jumal andis inimesele planeedi valitseda, mitte oma tahtmiste järgi ümber kujundada, ekspluateerida, laastada. Saada nii palju lapsi, kui tahame, reisida ja osta uusi asju nii palju kui tahame. Maailm ei ole tehtud inimeste tahtmiste järgi, ta ei arvesta nendega. Meie peame oma tahtmised ümber seadma maailma, looduse või Jumala seaduste järgi. Oleme Jumala maa, oma planeedi asevalitsejad ja peame teda hoidma. Vähe sellest, et peame progressi pidurdama, peame mõnelegi protsessile andma tagasikäigu, õppima kulutama vähem ressursse, õppima kasvatama ise endale osa toitu, saagima käsisaega, raiuma puid kirvega, pidama loomi. Elama mõnel määral nii, nagu elati nõuka-ajal, kui auto oli luksusasi, metsas ei tegutsenud harvesterid, värsket piima ja mune sai maalt naabri käest, kui endal polnud. Kas see perspektiiv meile meeldib või ei, pole põhiline. Selle, kuidas saame edasi elada, otsustab nüüd loodus. Või Vanajumal, kui soovime. Ja kummagiga neist ei saa teha kompromisse. 

Logos, language, parole

 In the beginning was the Word

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men.

2 Corinthians 3:2

It is certainly one of the most well known Bible quotations. But do we understand it, do we understand the meaning of the „Word”? I.e. do we understand the meaning of „Logos” of the original text of the Gospel by John: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ? -- „In the beginning was the Word”? Is it just „word”, an element of language and grammar, or is it reason, intellect, logic, of course, divine intellect we men share with our Creator to some degree? But perhaps Logos is something else, different from either of them?

Ferdinand de Saussure introduced into linguistics the dichotomy of langue and parole. Langue, language can be understood as a list of elements – words, morphemes, etc, and rules for joining them to create, generate parole, texts, to speak or write. Here, langue is certainly the inner structure of the parole, its logical core. Is then logos a kind of a divine langue?

When we look more closely at the text of the Gospel both in the original and in some translations, things may well be somewhat different. Greek „logos” does not mean simply „word” or „reason, intellect, logic”. It means also „speech”, that what is spoken, but also what is meant, what the person speaking wants to tell, the meaning of his/her talk. Studying how „logos” is translated in several languages, we see that the corresponding words in Russian/Church Slavic, Estonian and French have similar meaning. Both in ancient Russian and in Church Slavonic слово did originally not mean a word, but mainly talk, even story as in the „Story of Igor's army” -- Слово о полку Игореве. The same is true of the latin word verbum whose original meaning is „talk”. The Estonian word sõna nowadays means „word”; traditionally it meant „talk, what is said, language”.

In general, it seems clear that initially the words logos, verbum, слово, etc did not mean „word”, lexis, the element of lexicon, grammar. In the past people didn't turn much attention to words in this sense; what was important for them, was what was told, i.e. the meaning of what was told. Grammatical approach to language, dissecting the logos into separate elements and rules is a relatively modern phenomenon. We often learn a foreign language with the help of a grammar and a dictionary, and it may give us the impression that this is the way a language really lives and functions. That grammars and dictionaries generate a language, give us the possibility to speak and write in a language. In such approach langue is primary and parole – secondary. But the history of the expressions discussed here, points to the fact that their interdependance could be more complicated. The children learn their first language (or languages) always without contact with grammar or dictionaries. They learn the parole, learn to speak and usually, after a few years, their command of the language is perfect. Despite the theoretical advances in explaining this process of learning the first language, and the human linguistic abilities in general, a lot of questions still remain unanswered. I cannot pretend to answer them. Instead, I would like to touch some problems, especially the theological-philosophical ones raised the reinterpretation of the word logos.

Usually logos in St John's Gospel is understood in the light of Greek Platonist-Neoplatonist thinking, often as divine reason, stressing the connection between logos and logic. Here, the divine Logos is a kind of an universal grammar, logic of creation. But this is definitely not the only possible, and I doubt it very much, the best interpretation of the word. The God of the Bible is not rational in our human sense, not a planner or architect of the universe, creator of the best of possible words. Jesus too sees God, his Father, his other self, not primarily as somebody acting according to our understanding of logic or rationality. For Jesus, God is our loving Father, but at the same time he is unpredictable, impossible to understand as blowing wind. „The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going”. (John 3: 8). He is the Spirit, Hebrew ruach, („God is spirit”, John 4: 24), moving upon the face of the waters who created the world with his talk. And our Heraclitan world of panta rhei, the world in flux is similar to a text, talk, parole. The world is God's talk, an Anderssein of God's talk. Or even divine dance, as for the worshippers of the god Shiva in India. Music and dance are also a kind of parole, of rhythmical flow. We could even say that logos is the pulse that connects us, our life, our thinking, our creation, be it poetry, music, or dance, with the rhythms of the living world, of the Universe. In the logos is life; there is life, pulse of life in parole, but not in langue. Logos tells us that it is not time that is flowing, it is eternity. The Chinese have translated logos as tao: this translation connects two important concepts in two different cultures, and, of course, serves a bridge between these cultures, between East and West.

What is interesting is the fact that in Greek the word pneuma is usually translated with two words -- „wind” and „spirit”. In the original, there is only one word. Who is talking to us, is the Spirit, the Divine Wind. As the Son and the Father are one, the talk of the Son is also a pneumatic, spiritual talk. Not langue, but, of course, parole. What is important in talk, is not grammar, but meaning, content. A talk, a text, a poem, a story has a meaning, if it tells us something important, something new. A talk, a text that renews itself, is a part of the eternal creative renewal of the world. There have been many attempts to find out the langue, the logical system behind this talk. But God's logic is not human logic, thus all or nearly all attempts to find God's logic, read his mind, are doomed. There have also been attempts to look at the universe as a text, a message to us. I don't know whether we will ever succeed in finding its entire meaning. It can be a message to us, to somebody else, to every living being, or simply a talk in itself, a talk where the signifiant and the signifié are one. The logos is infinity talking to us, in us and with us. In God's infinite talk, the word and its meaning are one. Infinity has its own different logic. In infinity part can be equivalent to whole, son to father, word to its meaning. Infinity connects macrocosm with microcosm, fleeting thoughts with eternal life.

When we talk about infinity, about God, we cannot avoid talking in parables. The French word parole, as the verb parler comes from the late Latin words parabola – parable, and parabolare. In the Gospel the other reality is called The Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Kingdom. It's eternal, and, what is the same – infinite. As in the judaistic-hellenistic world, nolens volens also in Judaea and Galilee, the concept of infinity (as of eternity) was, in fact, not well understood neither popular, Jesus had to speak about it, about the totaliter aliter using the familiar opposition heaven -- earth. But he also told that the Kingdom of God is not here or there, refused to give its coordinates in space or time. In infinity, it's indeed impossible. But he said it is inside (within) people, us. We are a part of God's parole, his message. It's clear that, for him, the Kingdom is not on the Earth or in the Sky. It is infinitely far, but also infinitely near. We can discover it turning inside us. We live in eternity. Eternity is within us. Perhaps it is better to say that we are open to eternity, to infinity. We are just open, even if we don't see we are.

Kas sellist Eestit...

Kas sellist Eestit tahtsid? - küsitakse. Raske vastata. Palju toredat on, aga on mõned asjad, mis masendavad. Eestis on rahvuslikkus vaata et olulisem kui inimlikkus. Ja sellega ei saa kuidagi leppida. Kui inimene ei saa oma pensioni eest viisakat kohta hooldekodus, on see ülekohtune. Ebainimlik. Nagu seegi, kui liikumisraskustega invaliid peab palju raha kulutama taksodele, kui pidamatusega invaliid peab kulutama veerandi oma pensionist mähkmetele, milleta ta läbi ei saa. Kui raskelt haige, vahel pool-nõdrameelse omakse eest hoolitsemine jääb koduste mureks, kes nii ei saa töötada ja teistega suhelda. Soomes saab invaliidist lähedase hooldaja riigi poolt palka ja talle võimaldatakse ka vabu päevi ning puhkust. MInu jaoks on need asjad olulisemad kui rahvuslus ja omariiklus. Riik on piisavalt rikas, et hoolitseda kõigi nende eest, kes ise enda eest hoolitseda ei saa. Ja kui riik seda ei suuda või ei vaevu tegema, ei ole ta korralik riik.

Privileged minorities

I feel somewhat offended by the fact that one kind of minorities receives enormous attention and many privileges. I mean the sexual minorities. As e,g, transsexuals. People who don't believe that there are other genders besides men and women sometimes must apologize for their views. Those who believe in "binarism" must feel they are heretics, their convictions are a kind of heresy. Belief in what the Bible says: "Male and female created he them" has become a heresy. But there is something more important than this new non-binar orthodoxy. This is the fact that there are more stigmatized minorities than transsexuals or other sex-minorities. There are more colour-blind people than gays or transsexuals, and little is done for them. There are many jobs they cannot have, there are many graphics, maps and signs impossible or difficult for them to understand. Often it' difficult to understand, if the phone battery is fully loaded or not. I am one of those colour-blind people, for me orange or red and green are most often the same colour. I have written a memo to the European Parliament, got an answer in general terms, but so far the situation has not changed. There is no colour-blind liberation movement, no colour-blind pride parades. But I don't feel I need them. We can manage, we can live well with our impairment. I have second thoughts about the modern American-style agressive activism. But there are people who really are  deeply unhappy, discriminated and ostracized. I mean people with incontinence. Men and women who have to wear nappies for many years, even their whole life. In some countries these nappies are quite expensive and a person who needs them has to pay about a quarter of his/her pension for them. I know one such person very well. And it's largely because of her, I don't like all the noise about sexual minorities. Actually, they are a privileged minority among many minorities we don't notice, don't mention and most often don't help.