Balance and Chaos; Creation and Destruction

    Balance.  All things that exist, exist because of a balance.  All things that die, die because of a loss of balance.  It's a principle governing the universe.   We can see this everywhere, including physics, biology, and human interaction.  

    When apposing forces are locked in a struggle for dominance, their opposing struggle forms a balance, and the right balance will become the catalyst for creation, and success of that creation.  As long as neither side over powers the other the two will exist, and create something from their struggle.  

    Yes, this is another theory, and we should all know that a theory is an explanation that may or may not be true.  It's another idea, I just can't keep out of my head, there is something about it that keeps drawing me back to it.  

    The sun sustains all life on earth. The sun burns because of a balance of forces, the force of gravity pushing inward, and the force produced by nuclear reactions pushing outward. The sun will keep this balance going for a long, long time, but eventually the sun will explode when the forces in the sun loose this balance.

    In order for planets to orbit the sun, the orbit must be at the correct angle, too steep or two shallow the planet would fall into the sun, or be lost into deep space. The planets that we see in the night sky, had the correct angle to their motion, and thus keep their occupation of the sky. Without this correct angle, objects would fall into the sun, or be lost out into space.

    So how long something can exist, is a matter of how long the balance can be kept, before it becomes imbalanced.

    Our bodies require salt, but too much salt, too much would lead to illness or death. We require heat, but not too much heat. Air pressure, but not too much air pressure. We require light to see, but not too much light or we would be forced to shield our eyes.

    I feel, that if we deeply looked around us, we would find that everything requires some amount of balance to exist. Without that balance, it's existence would be brief. All the things that become renewed or preserved with time, keep this balance as closely as possible.

    There are two states in the universe for all things, balance and unbalance. For a thing to be created and for it to last, a balance must be made. For a thing to be destroyed an unbalance must be made.

    Another interesting balance, is the balance needed in human society. A balance of ideas. A balance of views. A balance of power, and one of my favorites, a balance of ambition and modesty. If people can find a balance then success will be created. When a society becomes out of balance, it will create conflict and failure to a point that is eventually unsustainable. So many civilizations have disappeared through time, and I feel like each will have explanations of how one or more unbalances grew too to the point of causing their collapse.

    Even with the thoughts in our minds we must have balance. Conflicting desires are common in humans and all life that has to make decisions. Conflicting desires in our minds must find a balance for us to be capable of sustainable choices.

    While groups of people can debate, we can also have an internal debate in our own mind, and we often do.

    The main reason why I wanted to write about this, is because I feel like one of the balances we over look, is the need for opposing argument in our believe systems. We has human beings have limited abilities to understand things, even things we firmly believe we do understand. I'm not saying we can't be confident, but I am saying we can be confident that we humans are often wrong. Wrong about facts, wrong when judging other people, wrong when judging results from an experiment.     

    If we let ourselves think, we can help to improve our own beliefs and ideas. Ideas are easy to make, and hard to refine. Without using balance in how we consider all points of view, we can't refine our ideas. If our ideas are the lasting ones, the ones that survive despite all the opposition against them, then they can be used as a secure foundation for our systems of belief. New ideas have not had time to work out their imperfections, and may be unsafe to use as a foundation. I use the "may", as there is always uncertainty, but wisdom needs time, it needs experience, it needs to be tested against the oppositions it faces.

    If an idea comes from philosophers of any sort, however new and interesting it may be, until it becomes tested against the stresses of reality, it can't be truly understood. It's the difference between theory and practice. With balance, the things that survive and provide long term success are the ones that find a better balance.

    To make this post more meaningful, and less vague, I will list some of the opposing things, that are important to find a balance with.

• mercy and justice.
• suffering and pleasure.
• new ideas and old ideas.
• kindness and self preservation.
• humility and conquest
• logic and feelings
• sentimentality and ambition
• facts and intuition

    Some of the items I listed may seem very dangerous and negative, like conquest, or intuition over facts. The point I'm attempting to make is that these must be in balance, not on their own. Humility is good and peaceful, but a sense of conquest is needed to make a difference, yet if the drive for conquest is too great, then we may loose perspective on the real good and selflessness of our sense of conquest. Facts are so important, but there are times when using our intuition may lead to something good that the facts couldn't show us. Yet to ignore facts and embrace intuition too much may lead to us knowingly putting ourselves in harms way. An imbalance of obsession with just one of any of these items without it's opposite will create an unrealistic situation which will lead to brief success, followed by destruction, and loss.

    People all the time argue, and debate, that make points and counter points. The struggle to all get along is very difficult much of the time, for most societies. People can get along, they can find a balance of opinions, but that balance is going to have to include a greater balance inside ourselves, in our own beliefs. One extreme temperament must be balanced with another. Otherwise we are at risk of becoming emotionally entrapped by our own unbalanced passions. To embrace a balance of thought would cause us to gain the prize humans seek the most, mental growth.

  

    

Evolution verses Creationism

    One of the epic showdowns in the common culture conflicts is the disagreement on the origin of humanity.  This show down is the theory of evolution verses the theory of creationism by religion.  This battle started when Charles Darwin published "The Origin of species" in the year 1859, which taught a theory that all the diversity of life comes from living things mutating through generations, and natural selection of the most well adapted surviving to repeat the process.  In short, what works lives, and what doesn't dies, and over time living things change.  Because the earth is so big, with may different climates and regions there is lots of room for species to separate to different populations and mutate into different creatures, even very different creatures over time.  

    This theory, as the reader likely knows, came into conflict, as the explanation of how the world had been created, had already been told.  If there is one thing that commonly triggers human bias the most, it's likely being told that you are wrong.  Naturally, many people rejected the theory, in favor of what felt right to them, creationism.  

    At this point, I wish to show the arguments both sides have in this debate, I will attempt to be non-bias towards both sides as much as I am able. 

    In evolution, there is a long list of evidences that support the theory.  The fossils recovered from the ground seem to show creatures slowly changing over time.  Sexual reproduction seems to be designed to speed up evolutionary process.  The theory explains why so many creatures have similarities, in form and behavior, as change happens gradually and only with necessity.  It's easy to point out impossibilities in various theories of creationism, according to what is understood in science. Evolutionary scientists look at the world, and think, all clues point to the same answer, accidents that work, survive and create a world like this.  

    In creationism, evidence is not what is important, religion is a matter of intuition with faith to fill in what can't be understood.  Creationists point out, to truly know something is impossible, faith, in other words a trust in something that must be used.  Likely one of the best arguments creationists have, is that the universe is such a wonderous place.  Our human heart feels that some grand design must be behind it in some way, to them, that is evidence.  And the various creation theories all have this focus on purpose, not chance, or accident.  Creationists look at the world, and think, how could it all just be, without some force of intelligence to make it so.  

    So both groups believe they are right.  Some from either group even may villainize the other.  Our natural human instinct will push us to distrust and even hate people who think or believe differently then us.  I have seen creationists that distrusted the scientific community because of this, and I have even seen some scientists that have seen religion has an enemy, that is dangerous.  To be honest, with my own experiences, scientist tend to be the more mature, and patent ones in this debate, however there can be exceptions to this.  

    There is always danger, in villainizing those who act differently, look differently, or believe differently.  Extreme believes can grow in any group, because deep in us, is the emotional components of a warrior ready to fight and crusade against the enemy.   The right thing to do in an argument is to put off our natural selves.  We do this with mental exercise and by exposing ourselves to good influences that help us break from these impulses.  Stay away from angry mods, instead look for quiet discussions where both sides are allowed to speak, and both sides give effort to listen.  

    It never impresses me, when I see a person, however right they may be on a subject, dominate with anger over their foe.  If people are in physical danger, then anger can be helpful for that situation, but those situations are rare, and are only for real battlefields after humanity has already lost it's self, not the debates that hold civilization together.  I've been angry in debates before, and I find no joy in my personal history related to those moments.  I suppose this is a lesson that every deep thinking person will have to grow into.  Deep thoughts require deep control of our animal instincts that would have us kept as primitive people.  There are parts of our natural selves that are good to use, and parts that should give way to our ability to reason, and discipline.  Hate is one of these natural impulses, that will cloud our judgement.  

    I have witnessed many debates, some of them even good ones.  I have gone back and forth on this issue myself, and have arrived at the conclusion I will now give.  Both sides may not like my opinion.

    To supervise my conclusion.  I believe religion has never really had much in the way of evidence.  This has always been true, but people will often accept what is confidently taught to them, so the lack of evidence never was much of a problem.  Then came science, which said belief should be based on observation of evidence, not on what seems right, or feels right.  So does this mean, science wins?  No, like it or not, there is no clear winner in this case, because neither side has thought this through enough.

    This is what I mean.  To all those who believe in creationism, I say, evolution is the greatest evidence for the existence of God that has ever been confidently accepted.  More on that later.  Religion is not proven because ancient books are old.  To be fair, being old doesn't disprove them either.  To the religious I ask, if some of you dislike science or scientists, why?  How do you know that God is not a scientist?  God may very well enjoy this discipline of humanity, after all, if God created the universe, or a part of it, then it sounds like a scientist may be able to talk shop with God at some level of understanding.   I don't mean to offend those with religion, what I mean to point out, is that thinking, however limited, is better when it's controlled like science is.  It should be religions best friend, not an enemy.  

    Is not all of the universe a religious text in a way, cannot we know understand the maker a bit more, by understand the makers crafts?  If science gives us even a small amount of additional understand of this vast universe, then would we not examine closely this new understanding, just like sacred texts.   If God is the source of all truth?  Then wouldn't truth however it was found, as long as it was truth, be holy?  

    To the scientists, I say, why is it scientific to be an atheist?   Doesn't science teach to only believe in making conclusions from the observation of evidence?   Atheists look around the world, and say there is not evidence of God, but are they so sure they know what the evidence of God would look like?  Science has observed evidence that evolution is a process with living creatures, but how can this disprove the existence of intelligence in creation?  Who are scientists to determine what a greater intelligence would do with it's creation?  How does disproving ancient writings, disprove the existence of God?  If there was a hidden room behind a wall, does it not still exist when we have no evidence of it?  Does science really teach people to deny what is not proven, or disproven?  There may be some anthesis that think they have proven God doesn't exist, but I have never been remotely convinced by their logic, and I don't see how a true scientist would either.  

    Evolution is wonderful as a theory, I personally love it, and believe it.  However, the theory is missing a big portion of the origin explanation.  That is, how does it explain the human soul?  So, at this point, I can easily guess there is a lot of atheist's rolling their eyes right now.  If it's religious then it must be rubbish right?  Religion, that thing that is always suppose to be wrong, has come up with a concept call a soul, and it's the soul that is really what is alive according to common religious belief.  This explains death to them.  Well, I ask you this, what is the difference between a electronic computer, and a biological brain?   One has circuits, the other cells, and other differences, but do they not both store information, do they not both process input, and deliver output based on internal abilities?  Is a computer alive?  A computer can be very capable of processing information, even innovative, like living things, and making them better is just a matter of finding the right math to do it.  I feel like so many people have thought that life is created from intelligence, but how could that work?  So many living things live without brains, like plants and fungus.  I've heard atheists say the human body is like a computer that is turned off at death?  To me, consciousness is something that science hasn't yet come close to explaining.  We can't be just computer glitches gone right traveling through the universe on our two feet.  We are alive.  It's like the hidden room behind a wall, if we are not thinking of the possibility of it's existence, then it is truly hidden from us.   The question is, what really makes something alive?  If a bunch of atoms can come together and make a computer, and a bunch of atoms together can also make a living creature.  What makes the living creature alive, and the computer a non-living machine?  Are all thinks alive?  And intelligence makes them aware that they are alive?  My point, is that this is not answered?  Why do you need a living thing, to make a living thing?  Are we one consciousness that has been divided up trillions of ways into every living thing on earth?  I can't think of anything that could really explain life, and I feel like the hardest questions never get asked, when it comes to humans.  It's far from being answered, yet evolution is still sometimes explained as a strong theory, that solidly explains life, yet it clearly to me is still at it's beginning stages of explaining the origin of life.  

    Religion should love evolution.  Think about this, according to current theory, life on Earth started four billon years ago, but at that time life existed as singled celled life forms.  These cells were not like the cells that make up you and me, they were prokaryote cells, they had no nucleus.   Prokaryote cells are always singled celled life, so you can't make a multi-cellular life form from them.  Two billon years goes by with prokaryote cells being the only life on earth.  After two billion years, a mutation is finally ready, and eukaryote cells now appear.  Another half a billion years the eukaryote cells start to change into different kinds of cells.  About a hundred million years after this, these different eukaryote cells start grouping together to make multicellular life.  Different eukaryote cells make different living things, some become plants, some become fungus, and some very tiny creatures that move around.  There are so many points of interest to discuss in the evolutionary time line, and I just realized I can't write about them all.  

    Skipping to the point, one thing is very obvious to me, the necessary mutations to go from a prokaryote cells to a human being, keep getting closer together in the time line.  To finally see something resembling a fish is 500 million years ago, to have something like a mammal 100 million years ago, for something resembling a human, it takes 8 million years go.  But with all that accomplished, it is only 200,000 - 300,000 years ago that homosapiens appear.    

    The point to understand, is how far apart these events are separated in the timeline.  The evolutionary leaps are happening more frequently as the timeline progresses.  It seems to me, the more evolution establishes, the faster it gets and making a whole new stage of evolution.  

    So think about this.  If in four billion years, some prokaryote cells can become a human being.  What can human beings become in four billion years of evolution?  Whatever humans may become in four billion years, what could come from that living thing having another four billion years of evolution?  What limit would their be for life.  To have the power to create technology that can extend our body's ability.  All technology does this, tools extend the ability of our hands, vehicles extend the ability of our legs, cooking extends the ability of our digestive system.  Cameras around the earth extend our ability to see.  Medicine extends our ability to heal.  At what point does all this external technology possibly come back to directly update the abilities of our bodies, rather then augment them?

    Yes, this all probably sounds like science fiction, but to me, evolution is the best theory from science that shows that God is possible.  Is it possible that through evolution, something immortal and capable to creating this universe can exist?  Would that God create worlds in the same way others were created?  We don't know.  Yet with that thought, can we at least understand, that there are big things that we don't yet understand?  

    So to me evolution is the greatest thing given to religion.  Yet, religion rejects it.  This is an example, of how people should embrace truth.  That doesn't mean embrace everything people teach each other, because falsehood is possible, but if something is true, and it's embraced, it will become a boost for us.  We won't always know how, but it will help us somehow in the end.  Religion may need to have faith in truth, when it points to the unknown, and science may need to not rule out possibilities that it has not observed yet, or thought of yet.

    Perhaps our big problem in this debate is that we all think they know more then we really know.  

    

    

      

Money

     Money, is often misunderstood.  I'm surprised at this, because it's such an important concept in our lives.  So much of what happens in our lives is influenced by the use of money.  Yet, with this big subject, we setup expectations and conclusions about money that are truly odd.  Following my common style, I looked at common definitions of money, and will summarize what I have found.  

Common descriptions summarized:

• A medium of exchange.
• Assets or property that is owned by a person.  
• A particular object that is accepted as exchange of goods or services. 
• Money is wealth.

    These common definitions don't make very much sense to me, and they have not for a while.  Money can be a medium of exchange, but so can anything else.  Money is not wealth.  Money does not create wealth.  Money does not control wealth.  

    I hope I have created enough confusion, and if this doesn't all make sense, I will start a long explanation, because those are out of style it seems.  Money is rarely described in a way that makes sense.  What money really is, money is a measuring tool.  

    We have lots of systems of measurement, like kilograms and old English pounds are measurement types for weight.  Systems of measurement are very important in a modern world.  Money is just another measurement system like any other, only it's used to measure value during trade.  We trade products, we trade peoples voluntary time, we trade opportunities, we trade ideas.  

    So long as money is worth something to people, then it can be used in the process of getting wealth, but money it's self is not wealth.   My feeling is that this is the biggest misconception about money there is.  A database is just numbers, paper is just paper, gold is just gold.  When these things become money, that are given a power over society.  

    How happy would you be to have suddenly a million dollars of cash appear next to you?  Very happy.  Now image you are now transported to a tropical island all alone with no chance of rescue with your million dollars.  On this empty island there are no restaurants, no stores, no hotels and no people to staff them, what value does your money have?   This is my point.  Money is not wealth.  Money can potentially bring us wealth, when it works, but wealth it is not.  With money alone, you don't have a million dollars, just have a pile of heavy paper.

    This is why my definition makes so much more sense to me, and why the language we use around money doesn't make sense.  Does one "make" money?  Or does one "earn" money, or "acquire" money?  The only people that "make" money are the ones that manufacture it.  The rest of us are earning, gaining, or acquiring it.  Common language describing money leads us to indulge in fantasy about money, that it has some super ability to make everything better for us.  Money, has no power of it's self.  Power from money, is in the influence money has over people.  Money is useful, but only because it helps people organize their trade more effectively.  Money is powerful because people will often choose to honor it's value.  People have faith in money, and it's ability to provide an score or amount to something that can't be easily valued yet needs to be.  

    I have so often heard, how, "money makes money?"  Money does not make money.  What people are referring to is investments, and people can earn money from investments.  And how did they earn money from investments?  The same way all money is earned, by trading something.  What investors are trading is risk.  The investor risks money, and if the money is not lost by the investment, the investor is paid for assuming the risk.  Even if the investor creates a contract in which they would cease property if the money loaned wasn't repaid, they still have to risk the process of claiming the property, and hopefully getting the value or money they need from it.  

    I don't say all this to point out good guys or bad guys.  Trade is potentially a very good thing, when good judgement is used.  And the way human bias works, pointing out who are bad and who is good is much more complicated then people think.  There is a class struggle that has always been going on in human society.  The rich say the poor are not important like them, and the poor say the rich earn nothing unlike them.  The funny thing about rich people and poor people, is that they both think the other owes them something.  This post is about what money is, not about the squabbles we make over this age old debate over who has wealth and who doesn't.  

    Inflation is a fun concept in economics, and it's another example that money is only a system of measurement.  If you create more money, you have not created more wealth, instead with more money, the currency now only represents less of the economy.  

    What of the age old argument, I have heard so often; "money is evil."  Money does sometimes gets blamed for suffering in this world, but how can a tool of measurement be evil?  If people didn't have money, they would still want what other people have, and would scheme to get it.  They still would ignore the needs of people who are struggling while they were pursuing their own interests.  People would still judge others by their wealth, and yes without money there would still be wealth.  Money is no more evil than a kilometer can be evil.  Human behavior creates evil.  Saying money is evil is really how a child may understand something dangerous.  Somehow childish belief systems creep into adulthood, this is nothing to be ashamed of, it just happens.  Children need to sometimes understand things in a simple way, like calling something evil that has no intelligence, capable of choosing to be evil.  As our minds mature, we need to understand evil for what it is, something that only humans are capable of.  An animal can be dangerous, but it's following it's instinct, evil requires an amount of self awareness.  So humans can be evil, objects are just objects, not evil, and animals are just doing what they are capable of doing and are not evil.  It's so easy to fall into anthropomorphic way of thinking, and apply this to money.  Doing so we loose perspective, to fix the problems we think are created by money, we have to fix these problems with-in ourselves.   

    Long long ago, some very smart people figured out that rather then trading things, they could trade money.  Money is easy to carry, and easy to accumulate.  Money has a problem, our brain wants to think of money in an abstract way, and assign it meaning that it just doesn't have.  Money is important, money is useful, money is needed.  I'm not anti-money, money is great.  However, it's a great tool, nothing more.  

    My last illusion about money that I will attempt to discredit is "money solves problems."  Money helps trade, but the number of problems it solves ends there.  You can't solve a problem with money, and you still can't solve a problem with more money.  Problems are solved by people.  Yes, any problem a human being encountered that was solved, was not solved by money, it was solved by one or more persons.  Money can be used as one of the tools to solve a problem, but it will almost always not be the only tool, and tools will not solve a problem, people solve problems.  People have experience, people make plans, people use computers and write algorithms, people use tools and make tools.  Why do we indicate objects create success, people create success.  They may require tools to accomplish the success, and tools are important, and sometimes essential, but living intelligence solves problems, and only people have intelligence, not tools.  Automation of any kind is just another tool a person created.    So if there is a big problem that needs to be solved, what are the odds more money will solve it?  It depends on the problem, but likely money alone will not be enough, or may not be needed at all.  Because if something isn't being fixed, then what is really needed, is the thoughts, planning and experience of a person or persons.  Someone may say, "the project was failing, so we hired more workers, and we are back on schedule."  Well, to that, money payed for the works yes, but who hired them?  Who decided we needed more workers?  What research did they do to conclude that more workers were needed?  While money is important and perhaps an irreplaceable tool, it does not create success.  Even if you hire people, you still need them to make good choices, and learn or have learned the right skills for the job.      

    In conclusion, don't think that I'm indicating money doesn't mean anything, and can be spent without good judgement.  That would be foolish, always use good judgement in everything.  Personally, I love saving money.  I'm not a big spender, and it gives me joy to find ways of saving money, and a feeling of peace, when I can turn down a big expense.  It gives me a good feeling, knowing extra money is there, and has not been spent.  I feel safer, and safety to me is more important that luxury.   This is not the only good philosophy of money.  I can't describe the good ways and bad ways of using money in this post, and I don't feel I know them well enough yet to write about them.  Whatever your personal beliefs about money are, make it work for you.  Do you have to spend money?  No, it's a tool, if you don't need a tool, then put it on a shelf, and keep it save for when it's needed.  If you loose your money, because of some major bill that was out of your control.  Then don't worry, it was just a tool, and sometimes tools have to be used up to fix things.  One of the best ways to use this wonderful tool, is in helping others.  You have to be balanced in your choices, but each of us will at times get opportunities to use this tool to help others.   Perhaps the greatest lesson of money, is learning how we may use this tool, to bring something good into the world.  

    I like what money is, but I don't want in my own mind to become a servant of it, I want money to serve me.  

Why illegal drugs are bad.

     I feel like my posts have not been simple enough.  Long speeches are not popular today compared to the past.  So I'm going to briefly explain why I believe that drugs are bad for us.  By drugs I mean illegal drugs, and the misuse of legal drugs.  We are living beings, but more then that we are living beings with a brain.  Which means, our brain has to follow a algorithm in order to make decisions.  Now what that algorithm is like is a big mystery, however it's possible to get close to describing what it's doing.  To put it in my own words according to my own believe, that algorithm is using pleasure and pain to control behavior.  

    Yes, our mind is smart and can do things that can surprise us, but it's also very predictable.  Our mind wants pleasure, and it doesn't want pain, but the problem is that all pleasure requires pain first before pleasure can be obtained.  Now here is the complicated part, because some choices with pain in them will lead to pleasure, and other choices that also have pain will not lead to pleasure.  

    I can't seem to explain it with less words.  Our mind is trying to figure out which pain is profitable, and which is not.  For a farmer two-hundred years ago, this process works well, if the farmer plants their crops on time, the harvest is better, and eating creates pleasure.  The subconscious mind understands that planting at the right time is important to get pleasure again.  A rat will push a lever to get food in an experiment, so to do we push metaphorical levers all the time, in order to get a treat.  

    So why are drugs bad, because inside our brain is a list of all the pain that brings pleasure.  When we take a drug that gives us pleasure, the drug is added to the list, and it's set to a very high priority over other things.  Things like how you should work hard at your job, or get a better job, or get a job in the first place.  How you should study hard for the small business idea you have.  How you should take care of yourself so that others will be socially impressed by you, so you can form the social connections you need for your professional life.   

    More importantly what about family, family is on our list of things that bring pleasure, but if drugs is added to the list, it may and often does push family down the list, and drugs becomes more important.  

    Our fiction in entertainment is full of mythological creatures like zombies, and science fiction mind control of all sorts.  We are so intent on learning about these things, yet do we not see the mind control that is all over our society?  Mind, and mood controlling drugs hack our minds and change what is good and bad in a way we can little control.  How many drug addicts overcome their addition?  If they do overcome it, how well is their recovery?  No matter what they may have learned from their experience, think about how their lives could have been different without the mind control of those substances.  

    So many missed opportunities because of these substances.  When I watch entertainment, and I do watch a lot of it, I see so many different believes with drug use.  So entertainers want to make it into a joke, others want to show the tragedy of it, but only some.  It's clear many people are teaching a false believe that drugs are funny, and will bring happiness into your live.   All us anti-drug people need to stop trying to ruin the party.  Yes we can ruin a party but drug users and dealers will ruin peoples lives.  

    This is another thing that upsets me too, people need their own mind.  There own mind to find pleasure.  Live is full of pleasures, and we should seek after ones that are sustainable.  Because these pleasures will lead us to survival and prosperity, and the good things in live that money can't buy.  We need our own mind when we create relationships with others, both to protect us, and to help us accomplish it.  We need our own mind when we choose to work to create something, or improve something instead of stealing from what others have created.  

    Is pleasure good or bad?  I believe is a question of if the pleasure is natural not artificial.  Drugs are artificial pleasures.  We should avoid them at all cost.  They only justification could be medical use under a trained professional.  Not medical use for our selves.  Because if we take drugs, we metaphorically become like a zombie, with limited or no control over ourselves.  We cannot medicate ourselves with mind altering drugs, it obvious this is true when you finally see what they do to people.  

    People will become smarter, and wiser if they can give their natural mind a chance to work out how this world is supposed to be.