Ia Ia Xenu Fhtagn! (Poor Little Clams Edition)
Ahh, Ailee Slater, where would we be without you?
Today’s gem is about the wonders of Scientology, a religion cult founded in the 50s by hack sci-fi writer cum avid boater L. Ron Hubbard. Her first real claim made me spit coffee all over my monitor, the folks in the next cube must think I’m insane:
Perhaps the reason that Scientology is of so much interest to celebrities as well as to U.S. citizens in general, is that the religion of L. Ron Hubbard is at once logical and completely juxtaposed to the American way of life.
Yes, she just claimed Scientology is logical. I suppose that if one thinks believing a malevolent space-emperor killed a bunch of aliens on Earth 75 million years ago, imprinted their souls with false memories, and thusly caused all of human suffering is logical, then, yes, Scientology makes perfect sense. I mean, giving birth in silence and not talking to your kid for a week after seems totally reasonable to me, it must be the “medical establishment” keeping such technology out of the hands of the masses.
She does bring up the growing use of anti-psychotic drugs in children, but I think part of it is the same misnomer I spoke about here. I also wonder just how many kids are on anti-psychotics versus things like Aderall or Ritalin. I think it’s a perfectly good idea to question the use of speed-like substances to regulate the behavior of “hyperactive” children, or the use of compulsory psychological treatment, as Szasz has been for quite some time; however, it’s useless to confuse the issue by getting the terminology wrong.
This bit from the penultimate paragraph, though, is my absolute favorite of the piece:
As humanity and science continue to develop, it will be interesting to observe how much we continue to rely on the advances of technology, rather than the natural, balancing health capacities innate to the human body.
Since our ancestors came down from the trees all those years ago, we’ve been relying on technology for our survival. What on Earth do you think a rock tied to a stick is? Thing didn’t fall from the sky like that. Furthermore, I think there’s a good argument to be made that everything humans do is perfectly natural, as last I checked we were still constrained by the laws of physics. Natural has become a synonym for primative, and frankly I’m sick of it. Most of us are alive purely by the graces of technological progress during the last 100 years: vaccines, antibiotics, improved farming technology, cold storage, and on and on. Without those things most of our parents would’ve died and we never would’ve made it past the gamete stage. If all of these “chemicals” are so awful for us, why are we living longer, healthier lives? If all this progress is so terrible, can somebody explain to me why a life expectancy of 46.9 is preferable to one of 77.7?
Those two crazy Xenu-lovers Matt Stone and Trey Parker are going to be in Amsterdam August 23-26:
http://www.reason.org/events/
I think I might go. More placebos are legal there.
“Placebo”, “oxymoron”, and… keep your eyes open for others.
I’m surprised we haven’t gotten a scientology troll like on the last one of these, frankly.
And, Stees, if you mean to imply it’s natural that humans search for meaning in a random universe, sure, we super apes seem to be hard-wired for that. But, unless you’re some sort of Calvinist, humans get to pick how they ascribe meaning to the world. Some ways are, frankly, patently stupid. To name three patently stupid beliefs off the top of my head: That communism could ever work, Scientology, and Intelligent Design. There are a lot more out there, those were just the ones that came to me. I’ll toss in the belief that we were all better off living in caves, or that herbs are perfectly fine substitutes for actual medical practice, too.
Ah, a relativist.
If everything is natural, and assuming that techology — the rock and twig analogy — and evolution of thought are included in this “natural” unfolding, wouldn’t the devlopment of scientology–a theory as much as Christian creationism or OC not-so-much libertarianism be so, too? making your argument futile?
Good catch. I totally missed that, Olly.
“Is it possible that this generation has become dependent upon the industry of produced medicine, and that the placebo effect of natural remedies (such as warm milk for the insomniac) is no longer effective?”
Hee! That’s wonderful. Ailee Slater doesn’t know what the word “placebo” means.
HAIL XENU
I actually think the key to that statement is “relatively”. Relative to what? Cave men? I mean, you want a 46 year lifespan, go live in Haiti, where you can probably actually approximate a 1900 standard of living very cheaply.
“…considering the fact that earlier generations managed to stay relatively healthy despite the lack of a pharmaceutical industry.”
Never let the “facts” get in the way of a rant. Guess the ODE hasn’t changed 10 years after I left.
At a certain point, the brain begins to atrophy and eventually dies. What we are witnessing is clearly the first stage of dementia.
Timbo: Overpopulation is kinda scary? Define “overpopulation”, and try not to quote Paul Ehrlich. Most experts who worry about “overpopulation” offer nothing but gloomy false statistics and paternalistic claptrap.
Fixed
malevolent space-empErOr
I’d rather have cancer than die 30 years sooner, cancer is largely (if unpleasantly) treatable these days. Plus, even with a lifespan of 77.7 years, you can still off yourself at 46 if you want.
“can somebody explain to me why a life expectancy of 46.9 is preferable to one of 77.7?”
Less chance of cancer?
Less time spent doddering?
Those are on an individual level, and obviously not very compelling arguments in favor of shorter lifespans. On a collective level, overpopulation is kinda scary. However, I see a general downward trend in the reproductive urge in ‘advanced’ societies to compensate for longer lifespans.