Dear Mr. Willett,

I'm writing this letter as a thanks that is long overdue. For about a year now I have been visiting your website. I'm a sixteen-year-old atheist living in a small town in Illinois, and your site has been a great source of inspiration to me. My apologies in advance for the disorder in my letter, as I just sort of, wrote down whatever came into my head. A while ago I was searching for atheism on the Internet, and came upon your site. The articles were/are very well written. At first I mostly looked at the atheism articles because that's all that seemed to apply to me. Later, however, I started venturing into the other sections. The population crisis was something I realized needed more attention. This brought me to an interesting question. What is the ideal population of earth? I figure we would need a reasonable balance of the population. Enough people to successfully carry out great accomplishments of humanity (missions to mars? Locating life in the cosmos? All would require a decent amount of manpower to get the raw materials) but not so much as people go hungry, or that the world's resources are overused. I came about a figure of about 400 million, but am still debating. I figure that would be enough laborers, and enough not to suck our resources dry.

I'm not sure if this is a universal thing or not, but at our school it seems that concepts are stressed less and less. I feel as if that's something I have to learn on my own sometimes. In my biology course I'm taking, I receive test questions such as; "Name the 3 base combinations coding for the stop codon in DNA." This I realize is a good thing to know, but more to my interest is why they are there stop codons, why are there three? Why are they essential? These questions seem to really stress thinking to me, not memorization. Critical thinking seems to be an important part left out. I learn math formulas, they don't take much work, but the reasons they work are much more difficult to comprehend (and much more rewarding).

After reading some of your articles I figured you would enjoy hearing from a teenager living in the States, any questions feel free to ask, and thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Odi Brassicium

Odi is a pen name that I go by on the Internet, I don't like giving my real name out to Internet groups (except first name on some occasions) Odi Brassicium is a character in a story I once wrote for my literature class, it works well online because the name is rarely taken.

I've been tempted to post several times, the topics are very interesting, I always just kind of passed on by. My time is kind of limited as far as posting regularly. Since you never answered my question about the ideal population of earth, perhaps that would be a good topic starter.

In my original letter I believe I said “missions to mars”. I didn't say anything about colonization. The study of mars I think is a very important pursuit for the human race, and not just for the glory. Was there ever life on mars? Could there be still? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, I'd say an eventual mission to the red planet would be definetly worthwhile. We would be able to look at life with a completely different evolutionary history (and possibly even genetic code!) than life on earth. I'm for the colonization of mars only if it's necessary, it would take a heck of a long time. I believe I read several hundred years before it would be habitable, so it's not something we need to plunge into very soon. Especially until we figure out our problems on earth.

Hi my name is martin and im a 17 year old curious student from anchorage Alaska. Today I was just browsing around yahoo attempting to find a good site on atheism and free thought and things like that. By random chance I stumbled upon your great website! I have been browsing it for the past few hours and I find it truly inspiring. Most of your articles are really great reading. I especially agree with your views on world overpopulation. And I have also read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (all 5) and think them the funniest sci-fi ever written. They're just great. I wanted to express my appreciation for putting on such a good web site, you don't come across them that often,

martin schuster

Martin,

I was amused to read on your site that you were a C of E choir boy when you realised that religion was not for you. I had an 'on the road to Damascus' conversion to atheism when I too was a C of E choir boy. I was 10 years old (late 1950's), when one Sunday I watched an early edition of Patrick Moore's Sky at Night just before going to church for Even Song. A topic under discussion on the programme was the (fairly new) big-bang theory. During the service that evening, stood in the choir stalls, my thoughts were not with Nunc Dimittus etc but with The Sky At Night. The question came into my mind: “If God made the Universe, who made God”. I resigned from the choir the next day.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Martin

Martin (W),

I'm afraid the coincidence is wider than you think. Accepting the novelty factor, I know one should be careful not to read any particular significance into a coincidence but try this for size: I came across your web site by accident - Google states that it searches 1.6 billion pages. I noted your point about being an ex C of E chorister and emailed you my story. (Martin (B) see mails below).

You replied that you knew one other former English choirboy atheist convert, namely Martin Burn. Well I had a look at the English Atheist web site and low and behold found that this Martin Burn is none other than a gentleman I know from the past. We both worked in the same office (in the same team) of a US Computer Manufacturer. We have not seen nor communicated with each other for nigh on 10 years. In addition the three of us have the same (Christian?) name. It's a small world (wide web) isn't it?

Martin (B), Call me or e'mail me. I knew you were composing music all those years ago but I don't remember you being a tub-thumping atheist.

Regards,

Martin

Dear Sir:

You mentioned about angels and genitalia. I can assure you that archangels do have genitalia as well as humans do, but it is more complex. Have you ever seen the movie Cocoon? I can use this as a guide so you understand what I mean. In the movie you see the so called sexless form of the beings in the movie. You also see that there is a form of erotic interaction among the sexless beings when the female one has intercourse with the human male. This light is the dove light that is famous in scripture and is the most concentrated form of light. This is true. Sexless beings at this level is a whole body experience and is very intense. The asexual is through the eyes while the sexless involves the whole body within the eyes that is the unchangeable essence and is your identity. Then there is the bisexual which is more complex than the human body but still has gender parts. Then there is the human body which of course you are familiar with. This is very very complex stuff. I hope this helps.

Sincerely Donna

Martin,

I thouroughly enjoyed stumbling onto your web page. I occassionally, surf the web for atheist sites. The American Atheist newsletter, listed some atheist groups, which led me to yours.

I too, awoke at the age of 11-12 and found that "God" didn't make sense. For me, it was difficult, because I knew my parents would have hired a priest to perform an exorcism, if I told them. So, until I left home at 18, I kept it to myself. While in grade school, I tried to understand. I tried asking questions, but the priests told me to stop asking "those types of questions". I am a nurse, and I'm sure that somewhere in my studies, I read about consciousness changes at about 11-12.

One interesting thing that I've noticed this evening, is that I too like anchovies, as does Judith Hayes, another published atheist. Maybe there is a connection? I did read most of the "Where to start articles" and my head is beginning to swim. But, I just couldn't stop.

I live in Paducah, Kentucky, and only know of one other atheist in town. And he's not fun to be with. So, I'm feeling a little lonely, here. I take it that you are living in England. I only get there about every 3 yrs. Wish I could meet you, but I'll settle for e-mail correspondance. You've raised many good points. So far, I agree with them all. Maybe I should go back and read them again. As a nurse, I see many sick people whom are not anxious to die. Many go through agonizing deaths, trying to live for as long as possible. I understand some of the problems with over-population, and since I was raised Catholic, I know too well, the churches stance on birth control. If I didn't have to work for a living, I'd probably spend my days playing with my dogs and working on correcting the problems of the world.

Enough about me. Again, I really enjoyed your site and plan to visit often. I have plenty more to say, later.

Mary

We must thoroughly investigate this anchovy question, it seems very fishy to me.

If you want some bright and caring atheists to talk to you are in luck. I have managed to attract several over the last two years. Many of them are regulars on my Forum. I would strongly recommend that you pop along and see what goes on there, although you might want to read a bit more of the site first.

You might find the Forum quite refreshing because atheists are in the majority, although we do allow the odd Christian in for our amusement. I have had people send me messages from many different parts of the world who find it refreshing to have intelligent but unstuffy conversations about the big issues of life, the Universe and everything. You are not alone. We form an archipelago of reason across an ocean of superstition. And thanks to the Meme Machine and the Meme Machine Forum we can give ourselves a little encouragement in the grim task of converting billions of our fellow men to the true path to enlightened despair.

Feel free to converse by email, the Forum or even instant messaging if you want. Also if you ever write anything with a bit of structure to it that you want publishing I am happy to include good suitable pieces from any source. It is bad enough facing a Universe with no inherent justice or reason to exist, there seems little point in continuing to do it alone. Fortunately through the Internet there are lots of other options.

Martin,

A lot of your writing reminds me of myself... when I am thinking through something. Occasionally there seems to be a glimpse of reality, but it never seems to stick around for very long. One of my favorite quotes is, “A moment of clarity is worth a thousand prayers.” Anyhow, I haven't really been actively thinking about this kind of stuff for a while now. I've been busy with jobs, school, etc. Also, the 'real-world' situations (political, and so on) have been using up my brain power. However, my brain/body complex had decided that it's time for me to start thinking again... at least sometimes.

Note on your politics: Your "one world" view might be possible, I'm not really sure. Of course, nationalism is an extension of tribalism: the "ism" that allowed various groups of people to survive.

Human are primates. But unlike other primates, we have races. It seems likely that races are some sort of half-way point between an old species and a new one. In other words, the process of speciation (one species becoming another species) can be seen in the various races today. If you don't like the term "race"... then pick your own. So, think of it this way: humans evolved into different races on their way to becoming different species. Races further differentiated into Tribes, which had their own ways, beliefs, languages, behaviors, etc. These tribes evolved into civilizations, of one sort or another. Fast forward to today. You and I are alive because of the behaviors of our ancestors. The behavior of our ancestors was to be in Tribes.. with a fairly clearly defined "us" and "them". Today, these lines are being blurred. Right or wrong... it is an untested path, with no historical record of success. What IS successful is the way our ancestors lived in the past... which is the only reason we are alive. The instinct to protect our own is there for a reason; because it has been successful.

I don't think that changing the names of things in the world (countries, people, borders, etc...) will result in the type of world you are envisioning. It's not like "we" were some mass of clay, only to be shaped by corrupt politicians and greedy businessmen. Natural processes were at work. You don't change nature (in an important way) by changing the names we call it.

Also... the idea that everyone having a vote will result in a good outcome seems somewhat naive. Voting is like any other decision making process. Would you say that most human beings make good decisions? Even if there is no "we" that is making the decision, the decision making process IS being influenced by those with power. With the mass media, even more so. Behaviors, attitudes, tendencies, thoughts, feelings, and actions are all influenced by social pressures (perceived or real) and media. Media and power are in the hands of those with their own agendas, which, evidently, don't always seem to be for the betterment of humanity. Everyone in the United States has a vote (with a few exceptions), but voter turnout is low... and the mass of humanity known as "Americans" can be counted on to NOT use any critical thinking skills when casting their votes anyhow.

Bottom line: the current state of affairs is deplorable, but giving everyone a vote, or abolishing the behaviors that have led to our existence, doesn't seem to be a better state of affairs. In the end, we are just primates ("domesticated primates"). If we don't follow our animal instincts, our survival is in jeopardy. By the way, that doesn't really bother me. Even if we make all the right decisions, and cultivate all the right behaviors, etc.... our sun is still going to run out of fuel in a few billion years. If we manage to get out of the solar system, and start new civilizations around new stars... their fuel will also eventually run out. Everything that ever has been created, or ever will be created, will be burnt to a crisp, or simply decay into nothingness, no matter what we do.

Have a nice day!

-Erik-

Sorry for the delay. Every once in a while the number of unanswered emails in my incoming mail folder reaches critical mass and the guilt threshold is passed. Yours is quite near the top of the pile, I don't know whether my energy levels will survive until I have reached the bottom.

A bit of thinking does everybody good. The hard thing is finding just the right level of stimulation. That is where the internet scores, you can share intellectual discussions on any level from teletubby to Nobel prize. I have found my own niche with a few people who like to converse on (or near) my level. I have noticed that the really bright don't stay around for ever, and the stupid only make the odd bit of noise in passing.

I do not think the divisions that the man in the street knows as races have a great deal of significance. They are real differences. There is some variety between people but these differences have few real significances when it comes to politics. OK, Bolivians can work at higher altitudes, the Chinese can't digest milk or alcohol very well, West Africans make great boxers or sprinters but poor swimmers. These differences do not have much political and social significance. We cannot say that one race is so much brighter than another or more gullible, or naturally subservient.

Also the races are far too big to be practical units of genetic mutual self-interest. Looking after your son makes sense, and your nephews, perhaps as far as your sixth cousins, but after that it gets rather meaningless. The idea of scientific racism is scientifically bollocks. The best way to strengthen the nation is to allow the races to interbreed freely, to avoid the bad effect of recessive genes. Keeping the races separate weakens the genetic stock. Several human diseases like sickle cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis are slightly beneficial in single dose but fatal in double dose, encouraging the races to interbreed passes on those genes and increases immunity to disease while reducing the chances of children being born with a fatal double dose. However there is also some penalty for excessive outbreeding, some genetically inherited traits work in partnerships, on the macro scale consider teeth, instincts and guts, if a carnivore mates with a herbivore a mixture of traits is probably useless, think about teeth to graze coupled with an urge to hunt. On the smaller human scale the racial differences are smaller but there are adaptations that are acquired as sets. East Africans are tall, have good heat dissipation, resistance to tropical diseases and have adapted well to moderate cold, compared to a white man they can sleep much more comfortably under the stars on a cool night. But mate one with an Eskimo and what would be the result? If such a child were to live in the Arctic he would find his extra height a burden, his heat dissipation and disease resistance would be superfluous and his ability to sleep without shivering positively lethal, he may get frostbite and then gangrene.

The best possible strategy is rather close to what we seem to have by nature; a slight tendency to prefer our own race, but by no means exclusively. That tendency tends to work out well, we succeed in passing on good genes between groups and yet not upsetting the balance of traits that work well together. There is some fine tuning to be done, too many red-haired and fair skinned Celts in Australia and Arizona falling down with skin cancer, but with freer movement of people ahead perhaps we really will see the day dawn when the redheaded move themselves to New York, Boston and Melbourne and the easily and safely tanned move to Southern California? And those with seasonal affected disorder move to places with more winter sunshine and those with dairy allergies move to the Far East?

In the long run we have nothing to look forward to but warm death entropy but that is not on the human scale of things. If we play our cards right we could still have several millennia of good life here on our beautiful Earth.

Keep thinking, if nothing else it is exercise to keep the brain working, who knows, one day we might need it.

I thought your article 'Hold the dream' excellent. It would be wonderful if more people could read this because one grows up beleiving anything is possible if you work doggedly at it which is to a reasonable extent true but if you are not aware that perseverance is not everything and despite your dedication things may not work out you end up feeling that you are to blame for not being driven enough to have attained great success.

Self belief is the story the successful tell the unsuccessful to reduce jealousy and feelings of unfairness. It is a variation on many older ideas of everything that happens is fair, despite appearances. Reincarnation was another classic one, not getting a fair deal? It was because you were evil last time round, I have no sympathy, I am a prince in this life because I was virtuous before, SLAVE! Run that beggar down and set the cheetah on him for his impertinence.

In Europe in the middle ages the widespread belief was that the rich were nobles, of higher birth, better people, by the grace of God. To doubt the social system was to doubt the wisdom of God, which earned you a fiery stake. Those in charge and doing well need a good story. Self belief, the efficiency of the capitalist system, the sanctity of private property and inheritance and the hard work the rich do are all variations on this idea. Such ideas make the rich feel better about their unfair advantages and some of the poor swallow them too.

Hello:

I read some of the material on your website. It is well-organized and interesting. However, I find the overpopulation thesis to be incomplete - notice I did not say "wrong," just incomplete. Indeed, the problem may be overconsumption, which is somewhat exacerbated by overpopulation. But - as I live in the USA and can attest to this - commodity fetishism and the ridiculously massive and unhealthy consumption it encourages are very real problems. Additionally, one will find quite white supremacist discussions on TV, radio, papers, internet about how the Chinese and/or Indian hordes are going to "take over" with overpopulation. When one considers that a typical US citizen consumes as much as ten people in China, it is the US that is "overpopulated."

I'm also not sure about "hating the poor" and "what we should do with them" as if they're objects for your disposal. The attitude in the article is as anti-democratic and anti-freedom as any religion. Desperation of any kind produces anti-social, even psychotic, behaviors... but you can find these in the so-called "middle class" where psychotic consumerism, blithely indifferent to the labor conditions and environmental destruction behind the products, causes vastly more damage to people and the earth than anything "the poor" do. As a social worker from the US Southeast (becoming a teacher in an urban area in the US Northeast), I can attest to the isolation, conformity, and alienation of the suburbs as well as the difficulties presented by poverty in a society of great disparities of wealth. I think the values of the wealthy and the fearful "middle" are often as repugnant, and usually far more terrible in impact, than what "the poor" do.

One more point: it is interesting that in traditional societies where there is a "democracy of poverty" (i.e., no great disparity of wealth), many of the wealth/poverty-driven crimes don't appear.

I think (despite your protests) it would be easy to read your "anti-poor people" essay as fascistic, or at least anti-humanistic. I myself enjoy having very very little private property (I don't even own this computer) and only need a living wage.

I know people who live in the woods, in parks, in garbage bins AND WANT TO - seems fine to me. Ethical and moral pluralism on such matters should be affirmed and encouraged and not "destroyed." Everyone does not wish to live like you... however that is. The only issue is: does living in a certain way (i.e., like profit-seeking capitalists, like high consumption folks: most Americans, West Europeans) deprive others of basics like access to food, clothing, shelter, and simple medicines?

Also just an FYI: capitalism does not work for "the top 60% of society" if you mean the population within the sphere of this mode of production (or "world-system"). I don't think it works well for even 10%, but maybe one can make the case for 20%.

Thanks!

Stephen Kent Jones

Maine, USA

Hello,

I am totally against abortion.. There, I said it. Now please don't get me wrong, let me assure you that I am a atheist just like yourself. I have absolutley no need for any religion or any god in my life so my opinions are not motivated by such primitive thoughts. My views are always based on science, reason, logic etc. I don't believe in abortion and here is why- First of all, the only way for a person to come into this world is for the genetic material of it's parents to combine. For a specific person to be born, such as yourself , the said material must combine in just the right fashion, and at just the right moment for you to have been born. If your mother had had a headache on the night that you were concieved, causing your parents to put off their lovemaking untill the following day, it is very very very probable that someone other than the person you know as yourself would be the product. Not to mention that due to a woman's sensitive reproductive cycles it is possible that no conception at all would transpire. So you see, we are all very, very, very lucky to have been born. Now who are we to say to a fetus, “listen I understand that this is your ONLY chance in the whole history of the universe, ( billions and billions of years), to come into this world and experience conciousness. I understand that to have made it this far, ( a fetus ) you have already overcome unimaginable odds. We know all this but sorry, right now it would be a pain in the ass for us to allow you to be born so bye, bye. Better luck in the next big bang !!!”

I'm sure that you can understand what I am trying to say. The answer to the population explosion is not abortion but education in birth control. The answer to a better world is a new mind set for humanity, a mind set that has no use for barbaric and primitive concepts such as religion, patriatism, and nationalism.

Respectfully- Alan Ganem

Please write back with your opinion of my ideas.