In the modern intellectual world, there is no greater delicacy than lamb. This is the age of plausibly deniable cannibalism, where man eats his own, pretending to be of an advanced and superior offshoot to the lesser beings he counts as his food. For the uninformed, the term ‘sheeple’ refers to those who go along with the general public, who are thought to blindly follow the words of another without giving them proper thought and consideration.
For many people in the world, there is another definition of ‘sheeple’; that is, anyone who does not share his or her own beliefs. Sometimes, it even includes those who share their beliefs, as the one making the definition may consider someone who believes for the wrong reasons to be amongst the sheep. This form of predation – intellectual, political, religious, or philosophical, etc – thrives upon self-aggrandizement. In the barest sense, it is the belief that one’s own mental faculties and logical abilities are either far beyond so many others, or those droves of unbelievers were led from one misconception to the next, snowballing to their present state of extreme ignorance.
Even without taking into account the numerous logical fallacies inherent in such a belief, it is still distinctly negative for the intellectual wellbeing of our society as a whole, as well as that of future generations. While some would go so far as to say that it is natural to downplay conflicting and contradictory beliefs, the utter inanity of portraying the opposition as sheeple is an ad hominem attack against their very ability to make a reasoned judgment. Taking the example of liberals versus conservatives, it is important to recognize where the differences are, and where they are not. Yes, they believe very different things, yet there is generally a form of reasoning that makes sense given their own individual experiences and perspectives.
Using that same example, there is a proper and an improper way to cast doubt on the beliefs of the opposition. For a liberal, it is common to say that the conservative is swayed by a belief in religion, or to an archaic modality, which has no place in modern society. That in and of itself is not invalid, provided that the liberal can show a relevant and substantiated link between the person’s religious or moral views and their opinions on current topics, as well as evidence that the belief is irrelevant or unacceptable in the modern world. It is when the liberal takes the stance that a conservative’s views are all or nearly all false, simply because they believe in what they believe, that the liberal is in the wrong. One cannot determine the validity of a moral standard in a vacuum, and use it as self-supporting evidence of its own falseness or irrelevance.
To give a historical basis to this, take the example of Galileo. In the early 1600’s, Galileo was condemned by the Church for heresy; rather than examine his evidence on its own merit, it was assumed to be false, morally wrong, and blasphemous, due to the fact that it did not ‘follow the Scripture.’ This man, who was later regarded as the father of modern science, fits perfectly under this definition of sheeple, as he was seen to be a sheep after the pattern of ‘Satan’ – one who did not think for himself, and was thus swayed to a heathen modality. If the majority of the world had continued to hold these views, it is entirely possible that science as we know it today would not exist. In its place, we would have God to explain the mysteries of the universe to us. Our quest for knowledge would have ended, if this man, this sheep, had been kicked aside even by those who would follow.
When man devours his own, it is not for the bare requirement of survival, but the opposite. Ostracizing and segregating those who differ from us in knowledge or opinion serves to do nothing but bathe in our own ignorance, to flounder in the deluge of our own mental wastes. It is in diversity that ideas are borne, and it is in diversity and honest scrutiny that they are flensed of errors and falsehoods, leaving a well-deserved nothing, or else a beneficial and worthwhile shard of truth in its place. Always remember that, no matter how tasty Soylent Green is, it will always be made of sheeple.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Quiet Terror
At the time of this writing, it is three in the morning, and I have just returned from enjoying a cigarette on a nearby park bench, enjoying the nearly full moon and the distant cityscape below me. The night is cool; a light scattering of clouds periodically floats across the sky, a mere wisp against the great emptiness of the heavens. The city lights beckon in a ceaseless flood of promise. Despite the allure of such urban beauty, my mind drifts to other aspects of my surroundings. The neighborhood that I am in is neither good nor bad – it simply is. There are those who wish to profit off the harm of others, and those who generally desire the best for their fellow man. It is the former that occupy my thoughts this night.
The park that I sat in was not one known for housing packs of roving drug dealers as the sun falls below the mountains, nor is it renowned as a place of violence. I myself am rather well built and armed with a dangerously sharp knife, as well as the knowledge and practice required to use it effectively should the need arise. Given these very real reassurances, why is it that my mind still actively considers the distant fear of being accosted? Why do I constantly check over my shoulder, watching for the silhouette of an approaching man who, despite all probabilities, is going to attempt to injure or rob me?
Earlier in the day, I took a walk through that same park. Children were playing, various rabbits and squirrels ran through the grass, and it was as safe and peaceful as any place could be. I felt no fear while the sun was out and shining, yet my return hours later left me anxious and distrustful of my very shadow. Is this the proverbial fear of the dark, the terror that grips the child's heart as a shadow falls across the floor? The icy knot that forms in the stomach as a noise startles you from sleep – surely it came from the closet, or perhaps under the bed. Is a grown man, one who prides himself on strength both physical and mental, truly apt to fear the unknown horrors that inevitably rise from the depths of the night?
I simply cannot believe that the mere occurrence of darkness is capable of such radical shifts in a man's heart. Yet it could indeed be more; darkness is the absence of light, ignorance in a world once filled with answers readily available. The human mind cannot independently verify that no monsters lurk just out of sight, and as such it conjures images of what could be there, literally willing into existence that which it fears most. In any aspect of life, whether it be walking through a park at night or facing 'the talk' with a girlfriend, that which is unknown seems to be replaced by the darkest terrors our mind can conjure.
However, as there is such ample fear in not knowing, what of those who do know? Is the apprehension greater if I know that a man is waiting around the corner to murder me? That thin line between realistic supposition and actual knowledge is a broad one, yet perhaps is one that most do not wish to cross. Take the classic example of Wile E. Coyote; we have seen countless times when he runs off a cliff, and the fear is apparent on his features. Yet he is still emotionally aloft until the point when he looks down, cementing his quiet fears into a reality, at which point he plummets to a painful end. This is precisely what I believe happens when a man turns from belief to knowledge.
In simplest terms, knowledge is terrifying. The phrase 'ignorance is bliss' aptly describes the relationship between our level of certainty and our emotional state; the possibility of a fear being without cause leaves open space for realistic doubts, cushioning the psyche from the inevitable blow. Yet when that cushion is stripped away, the remaining choices are vivid, exact, and generally incomplete. We are forced to realize that an action must be had, even if that ends up being an inaction. To recognize the terrors that beset us is to recognize that we can no longer return to the place of quiet fears and lingering doubts, blanketed by the insincere comforts of possibility.
To the average man, knowledge is a terror far beyond that which is imagined in its stead. If my midnight stroll had resulted in a violent confrontation, the fear – which might not have gripped me until after the event was over – would far surpass the disquiet in my gut. Those who stand ignorant of the world around them dot the earth, while others attempt to awaken them to the truth of reality. Yet to those who attempt to force knowledge upon the hapless and weak, they are perhaps doing more harm than good. A man who cannot handle the ugly truth of his existence is perhaps prone to irrationality – dangerous, unpredictable, and the antithesis of that which we should strive for. If a man confronts his ignorant fears willingly and with full knowledge of the horrors he faces, then he stands a much higher chance of recognizing and accepting that which is seen; it is rare that forced knowledge works as well or efficiently as knowledge that is sought for.
As I look out the window to the darkened vista beyond, I do not know what awaits for me in the black. I am as untold numbers of humans in the world around me; unknowing, gazing out and wondering what might be in store. Yet perhaps I will make one more excursion beyond the safe confines of my home, to see with finality just what stands beyond my bubble of safe ignorance. While it may be that I face utter terror in doing so, there is also a quiet safety in knowledge; should my fears be realized or not, I will know what the world beyond holds – and that is worth whatever risks may come.
The park that I sat in was not one known for housing packs of roving drug dealers as the sun falls below the mountains, nor is it renowned as a place of violence. I myself am rather well built and armed with a dangerously sharp knife, as well as the knowledge and practice required to use it effectively should the need arise. Given these very real reassurances, why is it that my mind still actively considers the distant fear of being accosted? Why do I constantly check over my shoulder, watching for the silhouette of an approaching man who, despite all probabilities, is going to attempt to injure or rob me?
Earlier in the day, I took a walk through that same park. Children were playing, various rabbits and squirrels ran through the grass, and it was as safe and peaceful as any place could be. I felt no fear while the sun was out and shining, yet my return hours later left me anxious and distrustful of my very shadow. Is this the proverbial fear of the dark, the terror that grips the child's heart as a shadow falls across the floor? The icy knot that forms in the stomach as a noise startles you from sleep – surely it came from the closet, or perhaps under the bed. Is a grown man, one who prides himself on strength both physical and mental, truly apt to fear the unknown horrors that inevitably rise from the depths of the night?
I simply cannot believe that the mere occurrence of darkness is capable of such radical shifts in a man's heart. Yet it could indeed be more; darkness is the absence of light, ignorance in a world once filled with answers readily available. The human mind cannot independently verify that no monsters lurk just out of sight, and as such it conjures images of what could be there, literally willing into existence that which it fears most. In any aspect of life, whether it be walking through a park at night or facing 'the talk' with a girlfriend, that which is unknown seems to be replaced by the darkest terrors our mind can conjure.
However, as there is such ample fear in not knowing, what of those who do know? Is the apprehension greater if I know that a man is waiting around the corner to murder me? That thin line between realistic supposition and actual knowledge is a broad one, yet perhaps is one that most do not wish to cross. Take the classic example of Wile E. Coyote; we have seen countless times when he runs off a cliff, and the fear is apparent on his features. Yet he is still emotionally aloft until the point when he looks down, cementing his quiet fears into a reality, at which point he plummets to a painful end. This is precisely what I believe happens when a man turns from belief to knowledge.
In simplest terms, knowledge is terrifying. The phrase 'ignorance is bliss' aptly describes the relationship between our level of certainty and our emotional state; the possibility of a fear being without cause leaves open space for realistic doubts, cushioning the psyche from the inevitable blow. Yet when that cushion is stripped away, the remaining choices are vivid, exact, and generally incomplete. We are forced to realize that an action must be had, even if that ends up being an inaction. To recognize the terrors that beset us is to recognize that we can no longer return to the place of quiet fears and lingering doubts, blanketed by the insincere comforts of possibility.
To the average man, knowledge is a terror far beyond that which is imagined in its stead. If my midnight stroll had resulted in a violent confrontation, the fear – which might not have gripped me until after the event was over – would far surpass the disquiet in my gut. Those who stand ignorant of the world around them dot the earth, while others attempt to awaken them to the truth of reality. Yet to those who attempt to force knowledge upon the hapless and weak, they are perhaps doing more harm than good. A man who cannot handle the ugly truth of his existence is perhaps prone to irrationality – dangerous, unpredictable, and the antithesis of that which we should strive for. If a man confronts his ignorant fears willingly and with full knowledge of the horrors he faces, then he stands a much higher chance of recognizing and accepting that which is seen; it is rare that forced knowledge works as well or efficiently as knowledge that is sought for.
As I look out the window to the darkened vista beyond, I do not know what awaits for me in the black. I am as untold numbers of humans in the world around me; unknowing, gazing out and wondering what might be in store. Yet perhaps I will make one more excursion beyond the safe confines of my home, to see with finality just what stands beyond my bubble of safe ignorance. While it may be that I face utter terror in doing so, there is also a quiet safety in knowledge; should my fears be realized or not, I will know what the world beyond holds – and that is worth whatever risks may come.
Monday, August 3, 2009
A Whoring Shame
For over two hundred years, the government of the United States of America has faced a running battle with prostitution. Owing largely to a sense of Christian moral outrage, the act of trading money for sexual acts has been stigmatized in nearly every aspect, resulting in its current illegality across the majority of states. Various organizations, groups, and individuals with specific ideals – religions, conservatives, feminists, etc – have all spoken out about the negativity associated with sex work, relying primarily upon useless and outmoded concepts of morality and decency to prove their case.
Before going into the specifics of legality, detriment, and benefit, it is useful to recognize the existing double-standard prevalent within America concerning sexual acts. Until the landmark decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, sodomy was illegal in every single state at one point in time or another. The Supreme Court finally ruled the statute as unconstitutional, yet the fact that such laws existed throughout the majority of American history is indicative of the American mentality concerning sexual acts. Provided reasonable concessions to safety – many of which are necessary for coitus – anal and oral sex are exactly the same as vaginal intercourse save for the possibility of procreation; despite this lack of substantial differences, it was still illegal.
In a facet of sexuality that is only scarcely divorced from prostitution, pornography is a massively successful industry within the United States. This is relevant to the prostitution double-standard by virtue of the fact that it is an industry centered around paying others for sexual acts. It is worth noting that the illegal act of payment for sexual intercourse does not state that such acts are legal if the transference of currency is not from the one receiving the act to the one perpetrating the act; this means that a man cannot have another pay a prostitute for the first man to utilize. The double-standard occurs in the fact that pornographic acts include the consensual intercourse of two or more individuals who are being paid to have sex with the other person(s).
What are the precise differences between prostitution and pornography? Legal status, taxes, testing for venereal diseases, and government oversight where applicable. Therefore, the legalization of prostitution mandates taxation, testing, and oversight. While this article is not intended to delve into the specifics of what would be needed to make legalized prostitution a reality – as its focus is instead on the various impacts and circumstances surrounding it – it is a simple matter to list the basics required. First would be an officially designated and inspected facility; this would serve as a hotel of sorts. Second would be regular testing for the prostitutes, and a required pre-visit on-site test for patrons, as well as enforced condom rules and limitations on the acts that may be performed. Third would be a constant tax on gross income for a company, rather than taxation for specifics of the service. Fourth would be regular physical inspections of the facilities, medical evaluations of the employees, and audits of the revenues.
With that said, there are numerous concerns that have been raised regarding the negative results and impacts of legalizing prostitution. Aside from the inane belief that prostitution is immoral – a ludicrous claim, given the fact that morality is dependent upon the individual rather than an objective system – the least plausible argument comes from feminists. The conjecture that prostitution is inherently degrading or exploitative of women does not take notice of the fact that males are also prostituted, or the fact that women often volunteer themselves to industries such as pornography, which – as mentioned above – is virtually identical to prostitution. The fact that men and women alike have been historically exploited due to the sex trade is something that happens with or without legality. Much as prohibition fueled the black market in the sale of alcohol, the illegality of prostitution fuels the illegal sex trade, reducing oversight and increasing risk to all involved.
Consider the fact that many strippers in legal clubs run by honest citizens accept money for sexual intercourse; such people often use stripping as a way to find customers. The escalation and ineffectiveness argument, which states that even legalized sex work would result in pimps and illegal control of funds and activities still existing or flourishing, again does not take into consideration that this is already a given fact in much of the legal sex industries of the U.S., partially due to a lack of oversight. Returning to the example of prohibition, the legalization of alcohol has since resulted in a vast reduction in the illegal making and selling of alcohol. Though moonshine is still produced and sold in parts of the country, the overwhelming majority of citizens buy their alcohol from legal sources, as it is safer, cheaper, and often of higher quality than the illegal alternatives. Those most likely to resort to illegal prostitution would be those who either are unable to purchase sex due to a disease or similar condition, or those who cannot afford the prices of the legalized alternative.
There is no effective solution to this. It is regrettably true that prostitution will likely always exist in an illegal format, even if legalized versions are created in the future. However, a program put into place in Australia with the intention of educating the populace has shown considerable success. As sex work is largely legal there, the education program has resulted in the sex worker portion of the populace to be amongst the lowest at risk for HIV within the nation, a feat that flies in the face of many who oppose legalized prostitution in the United States. While there will always be a black market, a safe and legally-run organization would inevitably increase the safety of both parties. Given the current political climate of the U.S., it is not likely that this will even be considered within the foreseeable future. Perhaps that time will be sufficient for the concerns for be formally addressed and resolved, with a solid foundation providing legality and safety to America's true national pastime.
Before going into the specifics of legality, detriment, and benefit, it is useful to recognize the existing double-standard prevalent within America concerning sexual acts. Until the landmark decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, sodomy was illegal in every single state at one point in time or another. The Supreme Court finally ruled the statute as unconstitutional, yet the fact that such laws existed throughout the majority of American history is indicative of the American mentality concerning sexual acts. Provided reasonable concessions to safety – many of which are necessary for coitus – anal and oral sex are exactly the same as vaginal intercourse save for the possibility of procreation; despite this lack of substantial differences, it was still illegal.
In a facet of sexuality that is only scarcely divorced from prostitution, pornography is a massively successful industry within the United States. This is relevant to the prostitution double-standard by virtue of the fact that it is an industry centered around paying others for sexual acts. It is worth noting that the illegal act of payment for sexual intercourse does not state that such acts are legal if the transference of currency is not from the one receiving the act to the one perpetrating the act; this means that a man cannot have another pay a prostitute for the first man to utilize. The double-standard occurs in the fact that pornographic acts include the consensual intercourse of two or more individuals who are being paid to have sex with the other person(s).
What are the precise differences between prostitution and pornography? Legal status, taxes, testing for venereal diseases, and government oversight where applicable. Therefore, the legalization of prostitution mandates taxation, testing, and oversight. While this article is not intended to delve into the specifics of what would be needed to make legalized prostitution a reality – as its focus is instead on the various impacts and circumstances surrounding it – it is a simple matter to list the basics required. First would be an officially designated and inspected facility; this would serve as a hotel of sorts. Second would be regular testing for the prostitutes, and a required pre-visit on-site test for patrons, as well as enforced condom rules and limitations on the acts that may be performed. Third would be a constant tax on gross income for a company, rather than taxation for specifics of the service. Fourth would be regular physical inspections of the facilities, medical evaluations of the employees, and audits of the revenues.
With that said, there are numerous concerns that have been raised regarding the negative results and impacts of legalizing prostitution. Aside from the inane belief that prostitution is immoral – a ludicrous claim, given the fact that morality is dependent upon the individual rather than an objective system – the least plausible argument comes from feminists. The conjecture that prostitution is inherently degrading or exploitative of women does not take notice of the fact that males are also prostituted, or the fact that women often volunteer themselves to industries such as pornography, which – as mentioned above – is virtually identical to prostitution. The fact that men and women alike have been historically exploited due to the sex trade is something that happens with or without legality. Much as prohibition fueled the black market in the sale of alcohol, the illegality of prostitution fuels the illegal sex trade, reducing oversight and increasing risk to all involved.
Consider the fact that many strippers in legal clubs run by honest citizens accept money for sexual intercourse; such people often use stripping as a way to find customers. The escalation and ineffectiveness argument, which states that even legalized sex work would result in pimps and illegal control of funds and activities still existing or flourishing, again does not take into consideration that this is already a given fact in much of the legal sex industries of the U.S., partially due to a lack of oversight. Returning to the example of prohibition, the legalization of alcohol has since resulted in a vast reduction in the illegal making and selling of alcohol. Though moonshine is still produced and sold in parts of the country, the overwhelming majority of citizens buy their alcohol from legal sources, as it is safer, cheaper, and often of higher quality than the illegal alternatives. Those most likely to resort to illegal prostitution would be those who either are unable to purchase sex due to a disease or similar condition, or those who cannot afford the prices of the legalized alternative.
There is no effective solution to this. It is regrettably true that prostitution will likely always exist in an illegal format, even if legalized versions are created in the future. However, a program put into place in Australia with the intention of educating the populace has shown considerable success. As sex work is largely legal there, the education program has resulted in the sex worker portion of the populace to be amongst the lowest at risk for HIV within the nation, a feat that flies in the face of many who oppose legalized prostitution in the United States. While there will always be a black market, a safe and legally-run organization would inevitably increase the safety of both parties. Given the current political climate of the U.S., it is not likely that this will even be considered within the foreseeable future. Perhaps that time will be sufficient for the concerns for be formally addressed and resolved, with a solid foundation providing legality and safety to America's true national pastime.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Weapons of Mass Consumption
Planet Earth – home to six and three quarters billion people. Given current circumstances in the scientific community and the realities of this world, it is the only home of the human race as we know it; it is where our species lives, and it will soon be where our species dies. The threat does not stem from our love of war or nuclear power, nor does it stem from a Mayan hiccup or alien menace. We do not face our extinction from devastation, but from prosperity.
In the first year of the common era, man is estimated to have numbered at two hundred million. That number did not double until some twelve-hundred years later; by the time of the American Revolution, humanity reached a comparative boom at just shy of one billion people. One hundred and twenty years passed before that number doubled; from the thirties to the seventies, mankind doubled again, breaking the four billion population mark. And now, just over thirty years later, we have reached this astounding number approaching seven billion. As technology advances, the population booms; the industrial era saw the first true expansion of humanity, while the eras of flight, electricity, and computers saw a much greater expansion, having seen mankind dot the globe.
Currently, the world loses roughly fifty-six million people per year; to counter this, it gains nearly one hundred and thirty-seven million – over twice as many born as dying. Rough estimates predict our population to gain two billion additional souls over the next forty years. Consider that the majority of that population will be borne into already populous centers of civilization; America, China, Europe. Already we face droves of people dying from starvation and other such causes in the third world. Add a third of our population to the mix and we will be hard pressed for resources. There simply is not enough land, water, wood, oil, or metal to sustain this massive influx of humanity. Barring a realistic way to transport and sustain human life outside of this fragile planet, we are fast approaching the boiling point.
When the oil wells dry up and the fields go bare, the wealthy will feel the clutch of mediocrity caressing their lives. That which sustains them will be gone, forcing them to either reduce their lives to that of the common folk, or else to deprive the common man of what few necessities remain. Overpopulation is a very real threat, and jokes of soylent green aside, it will either cause or lead to the downfall of our race. Wars will be fought for the most fertile pieces of real estate. Starvation will run rampant. Diseases will spread and men will turn to their innermost abilities of violence and thievery. Civilization will be lost in the ensuing chaos. The only question remaining is how to avoid this scenario.
Again barring the possibility of colonization outside of this planet, there are very few possibilities on how to prevent the overpopulation of the earth. Given the fact that humanity is deeply ingrained with the desire to reproduce, as well as the extreme difficulties of enforcing a population control, the most likely outcome is to push the mortality rate above the birth rate. This idea may appear callous, but only until one recognizes the simple truth that for most to live, some must die. This is true of life in general, yet a truth that we as humans attempt to divorce from. If we continue on in stubbornness and ignorance, we cannot make the choice of preventing the largest threat looming on the horizon. Yet even this purported solution is not without its troubles.
During World War II, the six-year conflict only averaged ten million deaths per year. The bloodiest war mankind has ever seen, and yet it is not even twenty percent of the total human losses faced per year in a state of relative global peace. Given this fact, it may not even be possible to exceed our current birth rate, despite the fact that the birth rate will decrease as the death rate increases. Civilization would still fall should murderers be encouraged to slay, or wars level entire cities of their denizens. Perhaps this world is simply doomed, with all that we know crumbling about the grand foundations of our own egotistical desires.
As the possibility of a deity storming down from the heavens to save us poor souls is not even worth taking the time to consider, we must manufacture our own luck, our own salvation. If we cannot push the death rate above the birth rate, let us throttle it while shifting our focus onto the only option left available. Should the entirety of the scientific community transfer their collective genius to the problems besetting space travel and colonization on a possibly hostile environment, even to the point of creating a renewable ecosystem capable of thriving in deep space, then let us cease attempting to save lives in the short term. Researches into cancer or autism may instead be shifted to ways to sustain muscle mass in a habitat devoid of gravity. The hordes of engineers constructing better and safer vehicles could focus upon the difficulties besetting a large, sustainable space vessel, capable of housing significant portions of our race.
It is time that we as humans stop our selfish attempts to prolong our happiness in the short term. We must focus on the utilitarian aspects of long-term survival, or accept the fact that our days are numbered far fewer than any would care to believe. Our survival is predicated upon this basic ability to focus on the long view, a trait that is regrettably absent in so many of our kind. The closer we come to our overpopulated, starving, and hellish future, the closer we come to removing any chance of survival. Even if our overpopulation were to reduce our numbers to a sustainable few, it would be unable to make and keep the advances that characterized our survival throughout history. The end would be delayed, but would not be prevented; such is the nature of man, who will procrastinate his way to the grave until all else is dust. And so it shall remain, until the end of days.
In the first year of the common era, man is estimated to have numbered at two hundred million. That number did not double until some twelve-hundred years later; by the time of the American Revolution, humanity reached a comparative boom at just shy of one billion people. One hundred and twenty years passed before that number doubled; from the thirties to the seventies, mankind doubled again, breaking the four billion population mark. And now, just over thirty years later, we have reached this astounding number approaching seven billion. As technology advances, the population booms; the industrial era saw the first true expansion of humanity, while the eras of flight, electricity, and computers saw a much greater expansion, having seen mankind dot the globe.
Currently, the world loses roughly fifty-six million people per year; to counter this, it gains nearly one hundred and thirty-seven million – over twice as many born as dying. Rough estimates predict our population to gain two billion additional souls over the next forty years. Consider that the majority of that population will be borne into already populous centers of civilization; America, China, Europe. Already we face droves of people dying from starvation and other such causes in the third world. Add a third of our population to the mix and we will be hard pressed for resources. There simply is not enough land, water, wood, oil, or metal to sustain this massive influx of humanity. Barring a realistic way to transport and sustain human life outside of this fragile planet, we are fast approaching the boiling point.
When the oil wells dry up and the fields go bare, the wealthy will feel the clutch of mediocrity caressing their lives. That which sustains them will be gone, forcing them to either reduce their lives to that of the common folk, or else to deprive the common man of what few necessities remain. Overpopulation is a very real threat, and jokes of soylent green aside, it will either cause or lead to the downfall of our race. Wars will be fought for the most fertile pieces of real estate. Starvation will run rampant. Diseases will spread and men will turn to their innermost abilities of violence and thievery. Civilization will be lost in the ensuing chaos. The only question remaining is how to avoid this scenario.
Again barring the possibility of colonization outside of this planet, there are very few possibilities on how to prevent the overpopulation of the earth. Given the fact that humanity is deeply ingrained with the desire to reproduce, as well as the extreme difficulties of enforcing a population control, the most likely outcome is to push the mortality rate above the birth rate. This idea may appear callous, but only until one recognizes the simple truth that for most to live, some must die. This is true of life in general, yet a truth that we as humans attempt to divorce from. If we continue on in stubbornness and ignorance, we cannot make the choice of preventing the largest threat looming on the horizon. Yet even this purported solution is not without its troubles.
During World War II, the six-year conflict only averaged ten million deaths per year. The bloodiest war mankind has ever seen, and yet it is not even twenty percent of the total human losses faced per year in a state of relative global peace. Given this fact, it may not even be possible to exceed our current birth rate, despite the fact that the birth rate will decrease as the death rate increases. Civilization would still fall should murderers be encouraged to slay, or wars level entire cities of their denizens. Perhaps this world is simply doomed, with all that we know crumbling about the grand foundations of our own egotistical desires.
As the possibility of a deity storming down from the heavens to save us poor souls is not even worth taking the time to consider, we must manufacture our own luck, our own salvation. If we cannot push the death rate above the birth rate, let us throttle it while shifting our focus onto the only option left available. Should the entirety of the scientific community transfer their collective genius to the problems besetting space travel and colonization on a possibly hostile environment, even to the point of creating a renewable ecosystem capable of thriving in deep space, then let us cease attempting to save lives in the short term. Researches into cancer or autism may instead be shifted to ways to sustain muscle mass in a habitat devoid of gravity. The hordes of engineers constructing better and safer vehicles could focus upon the difficulties besetting a large, sustainable space vessel, capable of housing significant portions of our race.
It is time that we as humans stop our selfish attempts to prolong our happiness in the short term. We must focus on the utilitarian aspects of long-term survival, or accept the fact that our days are numbered far fewer than any would care to believe. Our survival is predicated upon this basic ability to focus on the long view, a trait that is regrettably absent in so many of our kind. The closer we come to our overpopulated, starving, and hellish future, the closer we come to removing any chance of survival. Even if our overpopulation were to reduce our numbers to a sustainable few, it would be unable to make and keep the advances that characterized our survival throughout history. The end would be delayed, but would not be prevented; such is the nature of man, who will procrastinate his way to the grave until all else is dust. And so it shall remain, until the end of days.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Chasing the Sun
Whilst flying on my way to a much-needed vacation, a sobering experience caught my attention. Upon leaving the ground in Chicago, the sun was nearly setting; however, as the plane I was in reached thirty-seven thousand feet, the sun was in fact higher in the sky than it had been ten minutes previously, the product of placing the horizon much lower on the plane of sight between my window and the distant star. As I flew west, chasing the setting sun, it still dropped towards the horizon with such a serene note of inevitability that I could not help but contemplate the metaphor it represented.
It is the 2009th year of our Lord. Barrack Obama is president, and the economy is still deep within the slums it reached the previous year. The American Dream, that effusive lust for a slice of the wealth and glamour we were promised by simple virtue of our existence in this rotting nation, seems all the more unattainable for our financial woes. Yet still we plow on, certain that our break is just around the corner. The dream that we all share, the longing for a life above our current one, is the driving force behind our vain, capitalistic endeavors – and it drives us with the whip, biting at us should we falter, cracking down upon our heads with all the force of a banker's ample stomach.
This goal, this American Dream, this dystopia of lust and romance and filthy cash, is the sun. It is what we chase, day in and day out, through endless cycles of despair and heartbreak. Each day we bite down on the bullet, waiting for the time to come when we load that bullet to signal our cessation from the unified dream. Yet in the continuance of the metaphor, there are those who finally reach the sun; as would happen in reality, those people would soon find their beautifully glowing star to be an inferno of chaos, a maelstrom of fiery destruction visited upon them until nothing remains but free-floating hydrogen and a vague regret of simpler times. Those who reach their goal burn in whatever sense of the word seems most fitting; to be certain, some thrive – yet is the actuality of their dream anything but a pale specter of their preconceptions?
As I flew threw the air, thinking thoughts as no man should ever have the time to indulge, the sun finally set. Darkness settled slowly but surely across the land, blanketing my eyes in a thick deluge of impenetrable black. This is the true end of the American Dream, the one that devours its proponents and detractors alike. A lifetime of struggle, sacrifice, and vain wishing offers no solace to the man who is dying, suffocating in the darkness of his own despair. The dream is simply that; the whimsical emanations of a mind too unstimulated to satisfy its own nightly desires for activity. Darkness falls with an inevitability that is neither retractable nor satisfying to all but the most morbid and suicidal amongst us – and who can say what they truly feel in the face of such terrifying and overwhelming futility?
As the pushers of lotteries state: buy yourself a dream. This is America; we pay our lives and our loves for nothing but the chance to gaze upon the distant sun, telling ourselves with such a damnable surety that money, women, and happiness wait upon its surface, freely available if they can but stretch out a touch more, reaching with that barest trace of increased vigor. Yet when payment is due, it is the loss of a life wasted in ignominy that the reaper demands. Even those who embrace the temporary warmth of the sun waste away into emptiness, leaving nothing more substantial than a regret and a corpse. Welcome to America, land of the Golden Dream.
It is the 2009th year of our Lord. Barrack Obama is president, and the economy is still deep within the slums it reached the previous year. The American Dream, that effusive lust for a slice of the wealth and glamour we were promised by simple virtue of our existence in this rotting nation, seems all the more unattainable for our financial woes. Yet still we plow on, certain that our break is just around the corner. The dream that we all share, the longing for a life above our current one, is the driving force behind our vain, capitalistic endeavors – and it drives us with the whip, biting at us should we falter, cracking down upon our heads with all the force of a banker's ample stomach.
This goal, this American Dream, this dystopia of lust and romance and filthy cash, is the sun. It is what we chase, day in and day out, through endless cycles of despair and heartbreak. Each day we bite down on the bullet, waiting for the time to come when we load that bullet to signal our cessation from the unified dream. Yet in the continuance of the metaphor, there are those who finally reach the sun; as would happen in reality, those people would soon find their beautifully glowing star to be an inferno of chaos, a maelstrom of fiery destruction visited upon them until nothing remains but free-floating hydrogen and a vague regret of simpler times. Those who reach their goal burn in whatever sense of the word seems most fitting; to be certain, some thrive – yet is the actuality of their dream anything but a pale specter of their preconceptions?
As I flew threw the air, thinking thoughts as no man should ever have the time to indulge, the sun finally set. Darkness settled slowly but surely across the land, blanketing my eyes in a thick deluge of impenetrable black. This is the true end of the American Dream, the one that devours its proponents and detractors alike. A lifetime of struggle, sacrifice, and vain wishing offers no solace to the man who is dying, suffocating in the darkness of his own despair. The dream is simply that; the whimsical emanations of a mind too unstimulated to satisfy its own nightly desires for activity. Darkness falls with an inevitability that is neither retractable nor satisfying to all but the most morbid and suicidal amongst us – and who can say what they truly feel in the face of such terrifying and overwhelming futility?
As the pushers of lotteries state: buy yourself a dream. This is America; we pay our lives and our loves for nothing but the chance to gaze upon the distant sun, telling ourselves with such a damnable surety that money, women, and happiness wait upon its surface, freely available if they can but stretch out a touch more, reaching with that barest trace of increased vigor. Yet when payment is due, it is the loss of a life wasted in ignominy that the reaper demands. Even those who embrace the temporary warmth of the sun waste away into emptiness, leaving nothing more substantial than a regret and a corpse. Welcome to America, land of the Golden Dream.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Street Crime - Violence you can Trust
Throughout the history of human civilization, the vast majority of interaction has been based upon benefit to the individual undertaking such actions. This trend manifested itself in a number of sordid ways until reaching the modern era – the day of capitalism. In the capitalist world, benefit, success, and survival are predicated upon one individual profiting at the loss of another; this loss is compensated by something else of value, but that which is gained is based upon who has the upper hand. Workers gain money for their labor, but ultimately it is the employer who profits at the expense of those below. This system of dealing – both parties want something, with one party ultimately gaining the better advantage – is a form of legalized, moralized, and valued interaction, setting up the very foundation of capitalism.
However, it is also a very basic form of coercion, bordering on financial blackmail; if you want money to buy food, you will do what I say, when I say it. Food is a necessity for living, so at its core the statement is 'if you want to live, you will do what I say.' You gain the benefit of continued existence, while I gain the benefit of a better existence – a fair trade, right? While there is nothing to say that this is inherently wrong, it is still a principle founded upon deceit, as seen by the legal systems of these capitalist nations. Within the United States there exists a number of laws defining the types and manner of these transactions, using blasé terms such as 'fair' and 'equal', ignoring the basic founding principle that there is a set amount of money; for one to gain, another must lose.
Within this same society, however, lies a group outside of the civilized boundaries. The criminal, as he is known, has the same drive and ambition for money, for power, for stature and wealth and all the accoutrements associated to such a life, exactly the same as the businessman. Despite the romanticism of honor amongst thieves, it is a well known fact to those who do not revel in self-deception that criminality is selfish in nature, not altruistic; Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor, and the man mugging a liquor store is not attempting to put his son through college. The criminal class is one who, as often as not, recognizes that their goal is the acquisition of money by the means available to them. They know that they are breaking the laws of society, but such laws are merely the arbitrary opinions of those who would feed the poor with one hand while skimming the cream off corporate taxes with the other.
From this perspective, the honest businessman is one who denies that they are profiting off the losses of another; they blackmail life into someone's hands to feed their desires, yet hide behind false morality and civilization, denying their own desires for survival at the top of the chain. The criminal – one who is seen as false, deceptive, evil – is in fact honest with his desires to profit off the losses of another. The businessman might not be holding a gun to a little old lady's head, yet he would force three generations of that woman's family into effectual slavery through honest, legitimate business practices. Altruism is the lie, and those who would cling to it as a justification for actions they would do regardless simply perpetuate the arbitrary stigmatization that resulted in the sort of environment where 'crime' flourishes. The criminal is there by choice; sometimes his, sometimes the choice of those above, pulling the corporate strings.
This is not a glamorization of criminality, of course; despite the lack of an objective form of morality, there is at least a standing argument that some laws benefit large amounts of people. Criminals lie as often as not, yet they are apart from the honest citizens by virtue of the fact that they have not divorced themselves from the realities of the very nature that drives them. They are human, in the truest sense of the word, and the vilification of such beings reinforces the status quo that necessitated their 'anti-social' behaviors, beginning the cycle anew.
However, it is also a very basic form of coercion, bordering on financial blackmail; if you want money to buy food, you will do what I say, when I say it. Food is a necessity for living, so at its core the statement is 'if you want to live, you will do what I say.' You gain the benefit of continued existence, while I gain the benefit of a better existence – a fair trade, right? While there is nothing to say that this is inherently wrong, it is still a principle founded upon deceit, as seen by the legal systems of these capitalist nations. Within the United States there exists a number of laws defining the types and manner of these transactions, using blasé terms such as 'fair' and 'equal', ignoring the basic founding principle that there is a set amount of money; for one to gain, another must lose.
Within this same society, however, lies a group outside of the civilized boundaries. The criminal, as he is known, has the same drive and ambition for money, for power, for stature and wealth and all the accoutrements associated to such a life, exactly the same as the businessman. Despite the romanticism of honor amongst thieves, it is a well known fact to those who do not revel in self-deception that criminality is selfish in nature, not altruistic; Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor, and the man mugging a liquor store is not attempting to put his son through college. The criminal class is one who, as often as not, recognizes that their goal is the acquisition of money by the means available to them. They know that they are breaking the laws of society, but such laws are merely the arbitrary opinions of those who would feed the poor with one hand while skimming the cream off corporate taxes with the other.
From this perspective, the honest businessman is one who denies that they are profiting off the losses of another; they blackmail life into someone's hands to feed their desires, yet hide behind false morality and civilization, denying their own desires for survival at the top of the chain. The criminal – one who is seen as false, deceptive, evil – is in fact honest with his desires to profit off the losses of another. The businessman might not be holding a gun to a little old lady's head, yet he would force three generations of that woman's family into effectual slavery through honest, legitimate business practices. Altruism is the lie, and those who would cling to it as a justification for actions they would do regardless simply perpetuate the arbitrary stigmatization that resulted in the sort of environment where 'crime' flourishes. The criminal is there by choice; sometimes his, sometimes the choice of those above, pulling the corporate strings.
This is not a glamorization of criminality, of course; despite the lack of an objective form of morality, there is at least a standing argument that some laws benefit large amounts of people. Criminals lie as often as not, yet they are apart from the honest citizens by virtue of the fact that they have not divorced themselves from the realities of the very nature that drives them. They are human, in the truest sense of the word, and the vilification of such beings reinforces the status quo that necessitated their 'anti-social' behaviors, beginning the cycle anew.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Choking on Candyland
Does the hunter pity his prey? Does he somehow know that the death of one contributes to the life of another, and cry to the stars in lament for the life that was lost to feed his own? Or is the hunt simply a game, and the extinguishing of another life but the forfeiting of an irrelevant piece to achieve victory?
There are numerous ways to attribute this problem to humanity; the first is in the basic aspect of survival in its simplest form. The utmost goal of the human being is to survive – it is inconceivable that any species would have the dumb luck to survive for so long without that pure, basic instinct. It is natural to assume that the survival of the species is beneficial overall, while the survival of the individual becomes secondary; however, this concept only works in the classroom, due to the fact that it ignores the realities of personal survival. The species is important, yes, but the human mind tells itself that, so long as it personally is the one to survive, the race will similarly continue.
However, one of the primary issues with using the model of the hunter to reference human behavior is that such natures are seldom altruistic or utilitarian. Humans are indeed hunters, yet are divorced from the natural aspect of animals by virtue of their own intelligence; the ability to reason a personal belief in what constitutes 'enough' necessitates that the individual will place their own desires first, until such a time as they are fulfilled. This is not to say that human nature is wrong or immoral (as morality is but another facet of human construction, irrelevant to every aspect of life) but that it is often contradictory with the benefit of the species, as well as directly contrary to the purported beliefs of many hunters.
It is self-evident that human behavior, notably in capitalist societies, encourages one to profit off the losses of another. A man cannot gain money without another losing it; it is thus the desire of man to gain the most while losing the least, fueling ever-greater levels of profit. The purported morality and codes of ethics that we humans cling to are often riddled with justifications for our actions, or else are simply additional tools to achieve the purpose of profit. While there are certainly those who act altruistically, it is within the greater framework of deception and profit – thus the concept of charitable donations for tax write-offs was invented. 'Good' deeds are not given without a thought for what will be gained. Even the prevalent tenets of Christianity that plague Western society are predicated upon receiving an ample return for investment; what is a few dollars when the reward is eternal life, when those who do not give are condemned to fiery torture for an eternity?
Returning to the original question, it would appear the hunter does not pity his prey; in the case of honest, moral, law-abiding and possibly religious upright citizens, there exists countless methods of divorcing oneself from the realities of an action. The capitalist hunter does not even recognize that his prey must inevitably suffer for him to prosper, and as such cannot pity him. For those on the other side of the law, the brutal honesty and willingness to place oneself first likewise suggests that the survival of the hunter is the only relevant topic to consider. The prey is doing its part, and while some may indeed pity it, the suffering of the weak is irrelevant when compared to the benefit of the strong.
This mindset is crucial to the survival of the individual when the extent of humanity follows the same creed; only a universal adoption of species benefit over personal benefit would result in a change that, if not removing the need for prey, would likely at least introduce a stroke of compassion or pity. However, as such a lifestyle is deemed by the Western world to be the root of communism and evil, it is unlikely that our culture will transform willingly. Until and unless the day comes when the change is forced upon us, the hunter will continue to flourish...until all that is left is a row of sharp teeth sitting atop a decaying skeleton, alone in every sense of the word.
There are numerous ways to attribute this problem to humanity; the first is in the basic aspect of survival in its simplest form. The utmost goal of the human being is to survive – it is inconceivable that any species would have the dumb luck to survive for so long without that pure, basic instinct. It is natural to assume that the survival of the species is beneficial overall, while the survival of the individual becomes secondary; however, this concept only works in the classroom, due to the fact that it ignores the realities of personal survival. The species is important, yes, but the human mind tells itself that, so long as it personally is the one to survive, the race will similarly continue.
However, one of the primary issues with using the model of the hunter to reference human behavior is that such natures are seldom altruistic or utilitarian. Humans are indeed hunters, yet are divorced from the natural aspect of animals by virtue of their own intelligence; the ability to reason a personal belief in what constitutes 'enough' necessitates that the individual will place their own desires first, until such a time as they are fulfilled. This is not to say that human nature is wrong or immoral (as morality is but another facet of human construction, irrelevant to every aspect of life) but that it is often contradictory with the benefit of the species, as well as directly contrary to the purported beliefs of many hunters.
It is self-evident that human behavior, notably in capitalist societies, encourages one to profit off the losses of another. A man cannot gain money without another losing it; it is thus the desire of man to gain the most while losing the least, fueling ever-greater levels of profit. The purported morality and codes of ethics that we humans cling to are often riddled with justifications for our actions, or else are simply additional tools to achieve the purpose of profit. While there are certainly those who act altruistically, it is within the greater framework of deception and profit – thus the concept of charitable donations for tax write-offs was invented. 'Good' deeds are not given without a thought for what will be gained. Even the prevalent tenets of Christianity that plague Western society are predicated upon receiving an ample return for investment; what is a few dollars when the reward is eternal life, when those who do not give are condemned to fiery torture for an eternity?
Returning to the original question, it would appear the hunter does not pity his prey; in the case of honest, moral, law-abiding and possibly religious upright citizens, there exists countless methods of divorcing oneself from the realities of an action. The capitalist hunter does not even recognize that his prey must inevitably suffer for him to prosper, and as such cannot pity him. For those on the other side of the law, the brutal honesty and willingness to place oneself first likewise suggests that the survival of the hunter is the only relevant topic to consider. The prey is doing its part, and while some may indeed pity it, the suffering of the weak is irrelevant when compared to the benefit of the strong.
This mindset is crucial to the survival of the individual when the extent of humanity follows the same creed; only a universal adoption of species benefit over personal benefit would result in a change that, if not removing the need for prey, would likely at least introduce a stroke of compassion or pity. However, as such a lifestyle is deemed by the Western world to be the root of communism and evil, it is unlikely that our culture will transform willingly. Until and unless the day comes when the change is forced upon us, the hunter will continue to flourish...until all that is left is a row of sharp teeth sitting atop a decaying skeleton, alone in every sense of the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)