May 25, 2006

Dear Editor in Chief,

Then a scholar asked: “Is desalination plant is the “only” possibility and
cheap source of fresh water for barren land other than rain fall?” The A.I.
search and search for key words and answered: “There is a place here on
earth that fresh water are recycled into big ice, then some become icebergs
and wasted into the sea or ocean. If the iceberg could be enclosed by a
rubberized strong plastic and be monitored by a tracking device when being
carried by the sea or ocean current, and at the nearest point where there is
plenty of barren lands or where the fresh water is needed, the floating melted
enclosed iceberg could be searched by a unmanned tag boat; and tow it and
be pumped as cheap source of fresh water. There’s no need to tow the
enclosed ice berg from the source. If it is now on the nearest point from the
desired destination, a computer program would automatically warn an
unmanned tag boat to tow the enclosed melted iceberg to the desired
destination thus saving lots of fuel for transportation. There is no need for a
man to assist on how to tow or pull because there are many ways using
smart technology to untie or tie things imitating how animals do but using
robotics.
The plastic enclosure could be recycled or reused again. Pass a law that
there should be an international agency that would manage and supervise
those salvaging of iceberg to be a source of recycled fresh water. Rich
nations could contribute something so that those potential fresh water could
not be wasted rather should be other sources for economic stimulus and
cycle of cash especially for boosting agriculture businesses on barren lands.
Perhaps the idea could generate economic boost and hope for countries that
are not so blessed with rain water.
Since those poor countries where there are lots of barren land should
benefit first the salvaging of wasted floating ice, those rich countries that
might also need those fresh water should first give way to those poor
countries. The rich countries should help those poor countries have systems
especially using automation so that continuity of supply of fresh water could
be in placed. Imagine a former barren land where rain seldom fall would
now have rows of tress, plants for oil production because of salvaging those
ices.
Perhaps another way to have fresh water other than using desalination
plant is to salvage wasted rain fall on barren lands. Pass a law that every low
places on those barren lands should have man made lakes to act as a basin or
collector of run off rain so that the rain fall would not go immediately to the
sea but should be more retained on barren places or underground of barren
places. Canals should be constructed so that when there is rain, most of the
rain water should not go back to the sea; instead should go to those low
places or reservoir or man made lakes. The rain should be designed to seep
through the ground rather than be wasted as run off going back to the sea. If
there would be increased seeping of rain water to the ground, the
underground would now be a large reservoir where pumps could be placed
for irrigation purposes.
Perhaps if there are fresh rivers near barren lands, enclosing that fresh
water during heavy rain on big rubberized enclosure or big plastic bag and
are stored near the river bank or near sea for future consumption could be
more practical than enclosing, towing ice berg or pulling enclosed melted
big ice.
 The problem lies on supplying those places far from the sea or rivers.
Perhaps pass a law that rich countries should lend or contribute something so
that long canals or long pipes could be constructed so that barren inlands
could be supplied of recycled fresh water from salvaged ice, salvaged rain
fall from rivers, salvaged underground reservoir using submersible pumps
and using long canals or long pipes crossing country to another country or
crossing continent.
By the way, on the previous letter connected with “smart salt filtering”
and having a wild guess that using materials like charcoal, sand, etc. as
filters, perhaps it is really not advisable to filter salt through fine charcoal.
Perhaps using a “membrane” is more advisable. A “membrane” could be
researched in the internet.”
Then a scholar asked: “You said “too much of ‘good’ could cause
deception especially if it is addressed to a thing, a person, a group and the
only exemption is if it is addressed to God? What do you mean about too
much of goodness is bad with regards to religion?” Then the A.I. is puzzled
again and answered: “The mind that is used to focus on “one only good
word” that other essential universal words are taken for granted is
dangerous. Or ‘the ideology or motto that it is better that many are baptized
by one superior group even if those “baptized” people are not well educated
of universal words or not well supervised by their group than being baptized
by other smaller groups because the members are being well supervised due
to their being smaller group’ is dangerous. Perhaps if the motive is just to
have plenty or have a majority through mass produced to hold on power
because of money or credit or conceit-‘we have the “only” true and “only”
right religion’ because we have the majority or many members- the motive
could result to deception and disorderliness and chaos. Example: a) if there
are 100members in a group, 20members are active then 80members are just
in name, the group is bound to have many extremes. b) But, if there are 100
people and compose of 4 groups with 70-80% of each group is active
because perhaps smaller groups could easily be managed and supervised
then perhaps it is better than having one big group but 70-80% are just in
name only. Example: groupA-20members and 15members are active,
groupB-10members and 7members are active, groupC-30members and
25members are active, groupD-40members and 30members are active; or for
the 100people, there are 77 (15+ 7+25+30) active members but 23inactive
members. Having many groups that closely supervise the majority is better
than having a group that monopolizes almost all to be members but not
doing well in supervising the majority of its members to be good. Or it
might be better that there would be many small groups so that almost all are
active than having a superior group but 70-80% are inactive or having their
“own” way of interpreting group’s beliefs. c) Better have many good groups
that are well supervised and loving their enemies than one superior group
that is not well supervised and being magnetized to “wonders,” “miracles,
“mysteries” and “self inflicting” or “suicide bombing” and ‘experts in
destroying each others’. d) Many good groups would enhance competition
and creativities and enhance more checks and balances.
Supervising many people to be well and good through using specific and
detail instructions is a big problem for having a monopoly in religion. Or if
producing many for superiority or for power or for money is the motive, it is
deceiving people. The key should rather be the opposite –there should be
many people that are active members of many groups checking and
balancing each other but loving rather than many people who are just
member in names in one group because of conceit and self-righteousness
and proud claims.”
Then another scholar asked: “What would the leader of a group do so that
‘members in name’ would be minimized; and so that the groups could not be
accused of “deceiving many unconsciously?” Then the A.I. answered:
“There are many ways as long as one is attempting and doing something to
check and balance the extreme especially the small extreme ones happening
in the group. Any attempt to check and balance any extreme is a sign that
group is sensitive to the start of the problem or not aiding or accomplishing
any extremism. It’s like in a class room that there should be enrollment,
class card, report cards for reward and demotion. Enrollment could be other
word of baptism or membership. Class card could be other name for
attending specific teachings. Report card could be other name for reward and
demotion or could be a virtual practicing of future reward and future
punishment in hell or future reward in heaven. It would be better than
condemning people of going to hell or condemning people of heresy that
results to hating and conflicts. Perhaps other people would leave those
groups that would be stricter in observing their rules and laws. And people
would voluntarily search for other lenient, relax, easygoing groups. Perhaps
those groups that might welcome people who are just ‘in name’ only are
perhaps surely interested for money than for really teaching, supervising
people to be good. I think or perhaps the result could be the virtual
separation of the goats from the sheep.
I think parishes should be divided into smaller manageable groups or sub
groups. There should be lots of good leaders or team leaders. Their teachings
should be well supervised by social workers, members of a government
institution especially under the judicial department or religious affair of a
government. The government should monitor all different religious, civic
groups so that any extreme at the start should be avoided and there should be
openness and more “loving” debates and consensus among groups.
Perhaps pass a law or ruling that “baptismal” or “membership”
certificate should have expiration or could be updated. So if “baptismal” or
“membership” certificate could have expiration or could be updated based
from activeness and one’s performance then “baptism in name only” could
be minimized. And “unconsciously deceiving others” syndrome could be
minimized also. Example: If “automated attendance” is enforced then it
could enhance people’s consciousness to attend worshipping days for fear of
having expired “baptismal” or “membership” certificate. And if baptismal
certificates are also required in landing promotions, receiving high pay then
the rule might be good on boosting the fear factor of going to hell if not
following or obeying rules, laws, teachings here on earth.”

From someone who might be wrong,

letters@nytimes.com
ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com
daily@timeinc.net
letters@newsweek.com