update: Court’s verbal transcription
——–
Back in Court. We are given 10 minutes on the 9th Court of Appeal… Little time to argue the most decisive case that will set the outlook of this century. Indeed, despite the dismissive attitude of the mass-media and science establishment, the fundamental issue of the XXI c. will be the increasing capacity of technology to extinguish life:
90% of fish stocks might have disappeared, courtesy of computer guided fishing.
The new exploitation of deep water oil has brought a new high on spills by a company, BP, whose ‘experts’ affirmed, as CERN did, using the same expression, that it was ‘very unlikely’ a catastrophe in our lifetime. The same ‘belief’ was hold by the Mineral Management Service, the US agency overseeing offshore drilling safety, which is also the government’s second largest money maker agency at the tune of 13 billion $, trailing only the Internal Revenue Service. Its cozy ties with the industry, given the mutual interest in developing new oil-rigs makes its ‘safety standards’ and ‘safety reports’, certified by the ‘best experts’ in the field, like the LSAG safety reports on CERN, certified by the people working at the same nuclear company, a mere echo of ‘His master Voice’.
And so the ‘very unlikely’ of this kind of ‘safety standards’, happens once and again ‘very likely’… Only that the ‘very likely’ catastrophe at CERN will not have plugs to cap it.
10 minutes and a long journey from Barcelona to Hawaii on the antipode meridian. One of the reasons we put the suit there was precisely to signify that the entire planet Gaia was at risk. But we shall do the pilgrimage in a desperado last attempt to convince this judge that life matters more than technology.
It is indeed the key suit of the XXI century. If, as expected, the Judge bends to the power of the Nuclear Industry and the technocratic establishment at DOE, which oversees energy companies, like BP or CERN, accepting all environmental crimes as a lesser evil to our religious goal of technological evolution, the Court will set the legal future of other cases that try to prevent the extinction of life. This was the case of the Exxon Valdez spill ruling, which after years of litigation gave merely 500 million $ of compensation to the victims of the spill… less than a week of profits for Exxon. So oil companies realized they could keep their ‘safety standards’ and if they were lucky and have just one or two spills like the Exxon Valdez each decade, the costs will be always inferior to the expenses of true safety standards.
It all comes to a religious belief that the evolution of machines (let us use the true word that defines the ‘sanitized’ concept of technology), matters more than the evolution and preservation of life. Unfortunately our civilization confuses the future of life and mankind in this planet with the future of technology. It doesn’t realize that life is a fragile, complex informative game of light atoms. And technology – machines – are a far more powerful, evolving world of heavy metal-atoms that poisons life and kills us in the form of weapons. This duality of technology has never been understood or recognized by science. For science there are no collateral effects in the ecosystem of machines we are building. Certainly for physicists, the makers of all the weapons of mass destruction of modern history, to argue this truth is ‘taboo’.
So the concept sponsored by scientists is a religious one: the extinction of life by technology will never be argued, because we humans are ‘so special’ that our light carbon atoms that a mere lead bullet can destroy are somehow ‘immortal’. Now when this Christmas the evolution of legendary German guns and lead bullets has reached its maximal, with a 27 kilometer cannon that shoots lead at light speed, we ‘must’ affirm that religious immortality and open our shirts, show the naked body of Gaia, prepare us for the Hecatombe.
If as expected, the Judge rules in favor of the machine against mankind, the ruling will mean that the tree of science has no ‘bad fruits’, because we worship it; that the machine is God, the only entity whose actions we dare not to judge. And so sooner than latter even if we ‘are lucky’ and survive CERN a new accelerator will make black holes that will swallow us all; or a robotic company will create self-reproductive nano-robots that will convert us into grey-goo…
Those 2 menaces to our existence are in the corner of history. Chances though are that they will not be argued, as religious dogmas are not argued in our ‘polite’ civilization.
(Please don’t be so naive to believe that ‘celebrity-guru’ Mr. Hawking is right about black holes evaporating to the past. Mr. Hawking with his passionate attacks against Einstein’s well-proved work in physics and his black holes traveling to the past is the best entertainment in British science, since the Bishops’ controversy against Darwin. Now he is in a campaign to make the LHC a time-machine by creating black holes, which will be a ‘backdoor’ to other ‘baby universe’ to which escape if ‘evil aliens’ come here to hunt us, LOL… His work has the same amount of truth that the Bible in matters of human evolution, which doesn’t mean millions do ‘believe’ all about Eve, Adam Smith and Hawking’s time machines, also proposed as perfect tools to resurrect your father 
)
Beyond the LOL strategy carried about by CERN in its defense, which merely consists in NOT to go to Court, NOT to argue dangers, NOT to respect the environmental laws of Europe and America, and ask mankind to believe in the authority of its gurus, the serious truth about this case comes to this:
What future we want, a ‘future that doesn’t need us’; in which Gaia becomes a rock of dark, quark matter or a grey-goo of metal nano-bacteria or a future in which humans create a sustainable planet, in balance, in which life-organisms co-exist with mechanical devices that enhance our life. Or rather, can we choose our future? Or the straight-jacket of corporations, technological profits and addiction to stronger, faster, better machines have eliminated all human instincts of survival, and so we are programmed to self-destroy ourselves?
Today, we are running towards the non-future of extinction. And Mr. Alex Kozinski, the chief-judge of the 9th court of appeals, will at 9.00 Am on Thursday 17th June, 2010, decide if humans are going to put a fight for survival or are going to blindly accept the ‘manifest destiny’ of an Industrial Civilization so clearly expressed by Eric Fromm, father of Political psychology:
All what we asked in this suit was the right of human beings to judge their own future. This so far has been denied. In the same manner there is no argument among economists about the proper way to ‘grow’ in order to preserve life in this planet, there is no argument among physicists, computer scientists and engineers about the collateral effects of making experiments with machines that can kill all forms of life.
Yet if humans don’t care about their own survival, who will? Certainly the Fractal Universe won’t. We are nothing in the infinite scales of self-similar forms that populate the Universe.
Ultimately what Mr. Kozinski will decide is the old question: are we humans free or it is our destiny written by the laws of time?
Mr.Hawking got it all wrong. The true question about aliens is the Fermi paradox: why there are not visiting us? Why all the radio-signals of the Universe come from pulsars and black holes of quark, dark matter? Do all self-similar human/life beings born in self-similar planets end up creating LHCs and grey-goo nano-robots? It is that the end-goal of the human-kind, just a stage in the creation of the dominant dark matter/energy that makes up 96% of the cosmos?
Or do we have a ‘manifest destiny’ as the only free species, self-conscious of his own existence, able to steer and drive his route into the future, controlling the bad fruits of the tree of science and developing those who enhance our evolution and survival?
Mr. Kozinski, your decision in that Court will be the most important choice that any judge takes this century. As absurd as it might seem the time has come when a human being might decide the destiny of an entire species. I can’t make that choice, nor do DOE or CERN, a corporation whose employees sign ‘confidentiality statements’ of zero risk, and work as automatons, dedicated to preserve ‘the LHC from mankind’ (J.Ellis), can make that choice.
———-
