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.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Philosophistry
Amidst the legions of armchair philosophers, there exists a special breed; this philosopher is one who looks upon problems not to determine any inherent worth or value, but to find a way to reconcile it with his own beliefs. This philosopher is apart from those who debate such topics as a matter of sport, as they are not seeking amusement, but to counter anything that is contrary to their desired viewpoint. While not limited to such, this philosophist (A term apart from regular sophistry, as these people are capable of perfectly sound reasoning) are often found in the realms of theological philosophy – primarily on the side of defending theology, but also numerous on the opposite end of the spectrum.
The philosophist is similarly apart from typical apologists, as it does not strictly defend a belief against opposing viewpoints, but proactively seeks to take those viewpoints and shift them to reinforce something other than that which was originally intended. An example of this: Christian theology states that God made the Earth, as well as everything on it. While not every Christian is a young Earth creationist, there is still a general belief in the concept that God willed it, and it was. A philosophist reasoning would thus be that evolution is technically true; that God created the earth in stages through evolution.
The above would be a case of one philosophy attempting to absorb a separate, distinct philosophy (or other line of thinking, as evolution is not precisely a philosophy). There is nothing specific about evolution to require the addition of Intelligent Design, and nothing inherent within ID to require the usage of evolution as the primary model of creation. However, by combining the two, the Christian viewpoint gains a legitimacy that it previously lacked, by adopting and adapting an independent theory into its own intellectual framework. This assimilation of standalone philosophies has the potential to confuse or contradict other theories, by interjecting an irrelevant variable: the existence of a god.
It is important to note that philosophistry only borders the method of disproving a theory within its own framework. To refer once more to Christianity, there is a prevalent theological issue known as the “problem of evil” – the belief that a god that exhibits both omnipotence and omnibenevolence cannot therefore allow evil to exist. While the merits of this quandary are a constant subject of debate, it is a legitimate example of using the facets of a philosophy to disprove other facets of the same. The defining factor here is that the argument exists purely within an in-universe perspective, and does not introduce an independent philosophy to support or counter the claims of the first – it is a case of dogma eat dogma.
In summary, a philosophist must introduce an external philosophy or idea that exists independent of the philosophist’s own ideology, and use it to validate or support the aforementioned dogma; it may also be used in conjunction with the philosophist’s own views to refute a second independent philosophy. The second philosophy must similarly be unrelated to the first, making the connection rely upon argumentation that is only relevant to one of the two theories. Returning to the example of evolution: ID is independent of evolution, as the two are not related unless ID is independently true. However, one may argue that evolution is true, as fossils found within the earth show a change in shape and format, with the age established by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is one form of proof, which exists independent of evolution, but uses the same evidence (fossils) to establish its validity.
For another example, take Mark Twain’s thesis “The Damned Human Race.” In it, he presupposes the existence of deontological ethics – a belief that an action is necessarily right or wrong, devoid of consequences – and that affronts to this philosophy are only the product of rational, thinking beings: humans. He juxtaposes this belief with an argument that non-sapient creatures do not commit such acts, thus inferring that the natural state is true deontology. This is a form of philosophistry, as it infers an independent philosophy upon an unrelated subject. The belief is that the natural state is so because it is the product of deontology, rather than a belief that deontology is the recognition of an ideal within the natural state.
In mathematical terms, X = true. This is fact, no matter what other variables are introduced; other variables all represent a value of 0. Therefore, if X = true, and a new theory states that Y + X = true, Y is irrelevant, as X = true with or without Y. The philosophist introduces Y as a justification for X, a reinterpretation of X, or an association with X; however, in all of these situations, X is true before Y enters the equation, thus Y is an extraneous factor.
To conclude, philosophistry is a form of logical fallacy, in that it presents an irrelevant variable to supplement or justify an independent truth or belief. It is a fallacy that should be avoided when arguing amidst the framework of two or more philosophies, as using this method within an existing independent framework is often feasible, depending upon the specifics of the scenario. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all correlations and associations fall under this category; if the variable is true from the same or closely related evidence as the given factor, then they are already linked; the justification for one is justification for the other, whereas in the fallacy, the justification for X is not the justification for Y.
The philosophist is similarly apart from typical apologists, as it does not strictly defend a belief against opposing viewpoints, but proactively seeks to take those viewpoints and shift them to reinforce something other than that which was originally intended. An example of this: Christian theology states that God made the Earth, as well as everything on it. While not every Christian is a young Earth creationist, there is still a general belief in the concept that God willed it, and it was. A philosophist reasoning would thus be that evolution is technically true; that God created the earth in stages through evolution.
The above would be a case of one philosophy attempting to absorb a separate, distinct philosophy (or other line of thinking, as evolution is not precisely a philosophy). There is nothing specific about evolution to require the addition of Intelligent Design, and nothing inherent within ID to require the usage of evolution as the primary model of creation. However, by combining the two, the Christian viewpoint gains a legitimacy that it previously lacked, by adopting and adapting an independent theory into its own intellectual framework. This assimilation of standalone philosophies has the potential to confuse or contradict other theories, by interjecting an irrelevant variable: the existence of a god.
It is important to note that philosophistry only borders the method of disproving a theory within its own framework. To refer once more to Christianity, there is a prevalent theological issue known as the “problem of evil” – the belief that a god that exhibits both omnipotence and omnibenevolence cannot therefore allow evil to exist. While the merits of this quandary are a constant subject of debate, it is a legitimate example of using the facets of a philosophy to disprove other facets of the same. The defining factor here is that the argument exists purely within an in-universe perspective, and does not introduce an independent philosophy to support or counter the claims of the first – it is a case of dogma eat dogma.
In summary, a philosophist must introduce an external philosophy or idea that exists independent of the philosophist’s own ideology, and use it to validate or support the aforementioned dogma; it may also be used in conjunction with the philosophist’s own views to refute a second independent philosophy. The second philosophy must similarly be unrelated to the first, making the connection rely upon argumentation that is only relevant to one of the two theories. Returning to the example of evolution: ID is independent of evolution, as the two are not related unless ID is independently true. However, one may argue that evolution is true, as fossils found within the earth show a change in shape and format, with the age established by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is one form of proof, which exists independent of evolution, but uses the same evidence (fossils) to establish its validity.
For another example, take Mark Twain’s thesis “The Damned Human Race.” In it, he presupposes the existence of deontological ethics – a belief that an action is necessarily right or wrong, devoid of consequences – and that affronts to this philosophy are only the product of rational, thinking beings: humans. He juxtaposes this belief with an argument that non-sapient creatures do not commit such acts, thus inferring that the natural state is true deontology. This is a form of philosophistry, as it infers an independent philosophy upon an unrelated subject. The belief is that the natural state is so because it is the product of deontology, rather than a belief that deontology is the recognition of an ideal within the natural state.
In mathematical terms, X = true. This is fact, no matter what other variables are introduced; other variables all represent a value of 0. Therefore, if X = true, and a new theory states that Y + X = true, Y is irrelevant, as X = true with or without Y. The philosophist introduces Y as a justification for X, a reinterpretation of X, or an association with X; however, in all of these situations, X is true before Y enters the equation, thus Y is an extraneous factor.
To conclude, philosophistry is a form of logical fallacy, in that it presents an irrelevant variable to supplement or justify an independent truth or belief. It is a fallacy that should be avoided when arguing amidst the framework of two or more philosophies, as using this method within an existing independent framework is often feasible, depending upon the specifics of the scenario. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all correlations and associations fall under this category; if the variable is true from the same or closely related evidence as the given factor, then they are already linked; the justification for one is justification for the other, whereas in the fallacy, the justification for X is not the justification for Y.
Monday, May 18, 2009
She Held me through the Storm
With a soft padding of feet on the wooden floor, I make my way quietly down the hall, pausing for a moment before her door. It’s open a crack; there is light shining through, and the faint sound of music. Outside, the rain beats gently against the walls, forming a primal rhythm that resonates with the beating of my heart. I slowly open the door, my breath catching in my lungs at the fear of what I might find. She is dying, and may have already passed…though I, too, am dying, and am yet still here.
She is lying on her side, a light blanket over her still form; her skin is cold, yet her face remains beautiful. With a start, I realize that her chest is still faintly moving. She has not yet been taken from me, though it is clear that she does not have long to remain. Without a sound, I crawl into the bed with her, placing an arm across her stomach, yearning for the touch of her body, for the warmth that I once knew. I cannot seem to remember why it is that we share this tormented fate, though it is so inevitable as to stay my questioning. It is enough that we are here.
My breath comes in shallow gasps. I gently kiss her neck, struggling to whisper what could be my final words, knowing that she can hear them despite my own shortcomings. She smiles at me, and my heart breaks. Her eyes smile at mine, and I know that she is still with me. The fear that had been clawing at my belly does not leave, but is somehow placated; throughout my life, I have not feared death, knowing that when it comes to take me, it will be the end to my sorrows. No inner peace, no afterlife…just rest. Sleep eternal. Yet as my mortality rises above my weighted shoulders, rearing its head in daft refutation to my every conscious thought, I am nervous. I feel fear, for the first time since my childhood, so many years ago.
I do not know how long I have wandered the halls of my sullen abode, mourning the loss of my own life even before that fateful hand is dealt. I have walked for miles through these same corridors, stalking for hours, days, perhaps weeks through one denial after the next. It was not until I realized that she was alone, and had possibly left without me, that I settled down to wait. So here I lay, on the firing line of mortal thought, knowing that my smile is uncertain and my hands will not stop shaking. Random muscles twitch about in a maniacal race, while my heart beats erratically. Perhaps this is it; the final passage of a boy too young to know his own worth.
As my eyes begin to close, my thoughts drift to family, friends, and the various acquaintances of a lifetime. While I feel sadness that I did not have the chance to say goodbye, it is with a detached state that I remember their faces; already the veil is covering my eyes, rendering this quiet room in shades of grey. Involuntarily, my arm tightens around her stomach. She does not mind, however; she has already faded into the night, dead within my arms without so much as a thought.
My mind grows heavy with sadness that I was not aware of the transition, that I was perhaps unable to ease the passage between this world and the blackness of the hereafter. Yet my own recriminations fall short, bearing my own mind away swiftly to that sullen realm, to sleep for an eternity. As my life fades away, my last thought is that I did not let her go; she is still within my arms, her mortal shell safe in mine, for whatever may come.
She is lying on her side, a light blanket over her still form; her skin is cold, yet her face remains beautiful. With a start, I realize that her chest is still faintly moving. She has not yet been taken from me, though it is clear that she does not have long to remain. Without a sound, I crawl into the bed with her, placing an arm across her stomach, yearning for the touch of her body, for the warmth that I once knew. I cannot seem to remember why it is that we share this tormented fate, though it is so inevitable as to stay my questioning. It is enough that we are here.
My breath comes in shallow gasps. I gently kiss her neck, struggling to whisper what could be my final words, knowing that she can hear them despite my own shortcomings. She smiles at me, and my heart breaks. Her eyes smile at mine, and I know that she is still with me. The fear that had been clawing at my belly does not leave, but is somehow placated; throughout my life, I have not feared death, knowing that when it comes to take me, it will be the end to my sorrows. No inner peace, no afterlife…just rest. Sleep eternal. Yet as my mortality rises above my weighted shoulders, rearing its head in daft refutation to my every conscious thought, I am nervous. I feel fear, for the first time since my childhood, so many years ago.
I do not know how long I have wandered the halls of my sullen abode, mourning the loss of my own life even before that fateful hand is dealt. I have walked for miles through these same corridors, stalking for hours, days, perhaps weeks through one denial after the next. It was not until I realized that she was alone, and had possibly left without me, that I settled down to wait. So here I lay, on the firing line of mortal thought, knowing that my smile is uncertain and my hands will not stop shaking. Random muscles twitch about in a maniacal race, while my heart beats erratically. Perhaps this is it; the final passage of a boy too young to know his own worth.
As my eyes begin to close, my thoughts drift to family, friends, and the various acquaintances of a lifetime. While I feel sadness that I did not have the chance to say goodbye, it is with a detached state that I remember their faces; already the veil is covering my eyes, rendering this quiet room in shades of grey. Involuntarily, my arm tightens around her stomach. She does not mind, however; she has already faded into the night, dead within my arms without so much as a thought.
My mind grows heavy with sadness that I was not aware of the transition, that I was perhaps unable to ease the passage between this world and the blackness of the hereafter. Yet my own recriminations fall short, bearing my own mind away swiftly to that sullen realm, to sleep for an eternity. As my life fades away, my last thought is that I did not let her go; she is still within my arms, her mortal shell safe in mine, for whatever may come.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Taking Back "Porch Monkey"
If you’ve ever seen Clerks II, you know what I’m talking about. Randall, one of the characters, believes that the term ‘porch monkey’ signifies anyone who is lazy, rather than simply black people. As such, when he finds out his belief is mistaken he attempts to take back the term to his desired meaning. While some may be surprised to find wisdom in a juvenile comedy, that particular subplot has very specific real-world implications; it is something that should be done everywhere.
To put it simply, a word is a word is a word. It is an arrayed collection of letters intended to describe something that requires description. There is nothing inherent in a word that makes it ‘bad’ or offensive; many words have multiple meanings, further complicating the scenario when an arbitrary belief is placed upon the word. Therefore, logic dictates that there is nothing inherently negative about any word, regardless of its modern connotations. Yet even in this day of reason and understanding, uttering the wrong word in the wrong place or time may have dire consequences.
As a man of refined taste and utter verbosity, it is apparent that I have run into situations where my desired choice of epithets does not fit the requirements of the scenario as far as political correctness is concerned. Furthermore, as one who is amused by language in and of itself, I have had occasion to alter common phrases by substituting various words; where an ordinary curse is desired, a new level of inventiveness is possible by mixing and matching. One of my personal favorites is the term ‘mother niggering’ – a play on ‘motherfucking’, to which I am certain the majority of readers have had cause to utter at one time or another. Now, this desire of mine runs contrary to the general will and understanding of the population, as a white male using the word ‘nigger’ is outrageous and insulting, and obviously proof that the said individual is racist.
To make myself clear: I do not feel the need or desire to recognize any inherent differences, real or imagined, between myself and any other race, nationality, or skin color. With the exception of Michael Jackson, we did not choose our skin color, and as such, its meaning is purely what we make of it. The blanket term ‘black’ means absolutely nothing, as there are people with dark skin who are akin to Stephen Hawking, while others are reminiscent to 50 Cent. My own lineage is Irish and German; since coming to America in the 1600’s, my ancestors have resided in the Northern provinces, and have had no affiliations with any pro-slavery groups. There is nothing inherent in who I am or where I came from to suggest racism, and nothing in those who fall under the blanket term of ‘black’ to support such claims, regardless of intention.
So then, why is it that using the word ‘nigger’ will get me shot in certain areas? Using the word at my place of work will get me fired, and using it at school will at least result in a number of raised eyebrows. Yet for the same word, a black man may use it at will, without anyone batting an eye. Two distinct cases of the same word being used, likely in the same manner, yet one is acceptable while the other is not. If a word is permissible due to situational concerns, what are the boundaries? Why do they apply to one group yet not the other? Allow me to pontificate on that question.
There is a sociological theory concerning this topic; in short, it suggests that the power of words is in the meaning assigned by society, and that ‘out-groups’ such as the African American culture within the United States can steal the inherent power by circumventing the desired meaning. If the word ‘nigger’ strictly means an ignorant or lazy black person, the black community can negate this pejorative by adopting it as a term of endearment, so that when it is used in anger it does not have the same psychological effect. Therefore, if the usage of this negative term became so widespread as to pervade common speech, absent any insulting components, the result would be to utterly rob the word of its intrinsic pejorative.
This will not happen overnight. To some people, the very fact that a person is using the word at all is offensive; the intended meaning is irrelevant. Yet society has shown a marked ability to alter the perceived meanings of words through nothing but repetition; ‘bad’, ‘sick’, and ‘bomb’ all meant good at one period in time; even completely irrelevant words like ‘tubular’ have been positive, suggesting that there are essentially no boundaries on what a word can mean. Whether the process takes months, years, decades, or generations, repetition becomes the norm; if that norm becomes a word with no inherent negative component, then language benefits. So spread the word, and take back porch monkey; we don’t care for yesterday’s beliefs of hatred and senseless pejoratives. Goddamned motherniggering right!
To put it simply, a word is a word is a word. It is an arrayed collection of letters intended to describe something that requires description. There is nothing inherent in a word that makes it ‘bad’ or offensive; many words have multiple meanings, further complicating the scenario when an arbitrary belief is placed upon the word. Therefore, logic dictates that there is nothing inherently negative about any word, regardless of its modern connotations. Yet even in this day of reason and understanding, uttering the wrong word in the wrong place or time may have dire consequences.
As a man of refined taste and utter verbosity, it is apparent that I have run into situations where my desired choice of epithets does not fit the requirements of the scenario as far as political correctness is concerned. Furthermore, as one who is amused by language in and of itself, I have had occasion to alter common phrases by substituting various words; where an ordinary curse is desired, a new level of inventiveness is possible by mixing and matching. One of my personal favorites is the term ‘mother niggering’ – a play on ‘motherfucking’, to which I am certain the majority of readers have had cause to utter at one time or another. Now, this desire of mine runs contrary to the general will and understanding of the population, as a white male using the word ‘nigger’ is outrageous and insulting, and obviously proof that the said individual is racist.
To make myself clear: I do not feel the need or desire to recognize any inherent differences, real or imagined, between myself and any other race, nationality, or skin color. With the exception of Michael Jackson, we did not choose our skin color, and as such, its meaning is purely what we make of it. The blanket term ‘black’ means absolutely nothing, as there are people with dark skin who are akin to Stephen Hawking, while others are reminiscent to 50 Cent. My own lineage is Irish and German; since coming to America in the 1600’s, my ancestors have resided in the Northern provinces, and have had no affiliations with any pro-slavery groups. There is nothing inherent in who I am or where I came from to suggest racism, and nothing in those who fall under the blanket term of ‘black’ to support such claims, regardless of intention.
So then, why is it that using the word ‘nigger’ will get me shot in certain areas? Using the word at my place of work will get me fired, and using it at school will at least result in a number of raised eyebrows. Yet for the same word, a black man may use it at will, without anyone batting an eye. Two distinct cases of the same word being used, likely in the same manner, yet one is acceptable while the other is not. If a word is permissible due to situational concerns, what are the boundaries? Why do they apply to one group yet not the other? Allow me to pontificate on that question.
There is a sociological theory concerning this topic; in short, it suggests that the power of words is in the meaning assigned by society, and that ‘out-groups’ such as the African American culture within the United States can steal the inherent power by circumventing the desired meaning. If the word ‘nigger’ strictly means an ignorant or lazy black person, the black community can negate this pejorative by adopting it as a term of endearment, so that when it is used in anger it does not have the same psychological effect. Therefore, if the usage of this negative term became so widespread as to pervade common speech, absent any insulting components, the result would be to utterly rob the word of its intrinsic pejorative.
This will not happen overnight. To some people, the very fact that a person is using the word at all is offensive; the intended meaning is irrelevant. Yet society has shown a marked ability to alter the perceived meanings of words through nothing but repetition; ‘bad’, ‘sick’, and ‘bomb’ all meant good at one period in time; even completely irrelevant words like ‘tubular’ have been positive, suggesting that there are essentially no boundaries on what a word can mean. Whether the process takes months, years, decades, or generations, repetition becomes the norm; if that norm becomes a word with no inherent negative component, then language benefits. So spread the word, and take back porch monkey; we don’t care for yesterday’s beliefs of hatred and senseless pejoratives. Goddamned motherniggering right!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Feminism is...
Feminism is, at its core, a misnomer. It is the avaricious, casuistic, and narcissistic self-glorified pejorative intended to define the egocentric machinations of the oppressed in their attempt to gain dominance of social and economic fields. While purportedly holding the ideal of equal rights or benefits between the sexes, the very root of the word is that of female-dominance, a 180-degree reversal from the current patriarchal society of America and the world at large. As such, it is a movement predicated upon falsehoods and deceptions, preying upon the weak, the fearful, and those coerced into either inaction or action against their own self-interest, by virtue of guilt and persuasive exaggerations and misinterpretations. Society functions upon the willful acquiescence of its citizens; to upset the social order is to introduce anarchy, civil unrest, and incessant retaliatory predations justified by a cry for restitution and vengeance.
Yet even beyond these causal relationships of vainglorious proclamations of women’s achievements in comparison to the denunciation of male-dominated success, one must ask why it is that the woman seeks the damnation of strife inherent in the male world. By virtue of certain topics left untouched by the women’s rights movements – such as the fact that men must register for the draft, while feminists seeking equal rights do not desire that particular aspect – the assignation of women’s privilege supersede women’s rights. Such imperatives necessitate a refutation before offering the barest of considerations to their movement, lest the world come under a female-dominated oligarchy bent upon retribution for the perceived crimes in our shared past.
From the perspective of the economist, having the majority of citizens out of the workforce is an absolute necessity to maximize profitability. The American economy is arranged in such a way that the amount of goods required to supply the nation only necessitates the male population holding positions of management, production, and distribution. Introduce a new variable – the female employee – and the workforce increases while demand remains largely constant. This creates an excess of employees without an excess of demand, resulting in an astounding unemployment rate; such is one of the causes of our current financial distress. As American business grows largely robotized, the ideal workforce is one that gradually shrinks, not expands, thus making the feminist movement a leading cause for the dismal state of the American economy.
Even ignoring economy, or the ludicrous notions of morality adhered to be proponents of feminism, there is one primary reason to prevent the dominance of females in society: it would usher in a new wave of effective slavery. Indeed, the very fact that feminism concerns the growing of power and resources available to females, there is no evidence to suggest that the movement will cease and desist upon reaching parity with their male counterparts. The roles would reverse, and women – as all men know – have long memories of the grievances committed against them, whether real or imagined. To place the woman above the man is to consign the male sex to slavery and persecution, beginning the cycle once more, to repeat itself to exhaustion.
Yet even beyond these causal relationships of vainglorious proclamations of women’s achievements in comparison to the denunciation of male-dominated success, one must ask why it is that the woman seeks the damnation of strife inherent in the male world. By virtue of certain topics left untouched by the women’s rights movements – such as the fact that men must register for the draft, while feminists seeking equal rights do not desire that particular aspect – the assignation of women’s privilege supersede women’s rights. Such imperatives necessitate a refutation before offering the barest of considerations to their movement, lest the world come under a female-dominated oligarchy bent upon retribution for the perceived crimes in our shared past.
From the perspective of the economist, having the majority of citizens out of the workforce is an absolute necessity to maximize profitability. The American economy is arranged in such a way that the amount of goods required to supply the nation only necessitates the male population holding positions of management, production, and distribution. Introduce a new variable – the female employee – and the workforce increases while demand remains largely constant. This creates an excess of employees without an excess of demand, resulting in an astounding unemployment rate; such is one of the causes of our current financial distress. As American business grows largely robotized, the ideal workforce is one that gradually shrinks, not expands, thus making the feminist movement a leading cause for the dismal state of the American economy.
Even ignoring economy, or the ludicrous notions of morality adhered to be proponents of feminism, there is one primary reason to prevent the dominance of females in society: it would usher in a new wave of effective slavery. Indeed, the very fact that feminism concerns the growing of power and resources available to females, there is no evidence to suggest that the movement will cease and desist upon reaching parity with their male counterparts. The roles would reverse, and women – as all men know – have long memories of the grievances committed against them, whether real or imagined. To place the woman above the man is to consign the male sex to slavery and persecution, beginning the cycle once more, to repeat itself to exhaustion.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Adolf Hitler and the Ballad of Judas Priest
April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler is found dead in his study, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His war of aggression, while not formally ending for another four months (As the Japanese resisted surrender until the advent of the atomic bomb, where the Axis surrendered within a week of Hitler’s death) had essentially come to a close. His coalition was defeated on all fronts, after having sowed immense destruction across the largest collective battlefield the world had ever seen.
Yet in spite of the innumerable deaths and atrocities attributed to Hitler’s actions, the war served to unite an immense number of countries for a common goal, while similarly providing a framework of interdependence for years to come. Among the victories achieved post-WWII are the forming of Israel as a nation, the economic and military ties between America and Japan, the end of American isolationism (which proved a mixed blessing at times), the effective foundation of the European Union, the formalization of international rules and regulations governing warfare, and countless smaller items. As the world had already suffered a global conflict in recent memory, yet did not enact any of these benefits, it is logical to state that without the advent of the Second World War, they would not have happened.
Now, this is not to say that such occurrences could not happen, or that Hitler’s war was overall beneficial rather than detrimental. It is difficult to argue that the death of seventy-two million individuals equals the aforementioned benefit; however, it is a simple fact that the war did happen, the deaths did occur, and that a benefit – however inconsequential in comparison – was gained. Though the Nazi doctors performed horrible experiments on unwilling captives, they advanced modern medical science rapidly; that knowledge, while deplored from the method used to gain it, is still used today, and founded similar advancements.
Switching topics shortly, observe the phenomenon of Judas Priest – the epitome of Christian evil within man, a curse used to this day in all manner of foul ways. Judas Iscariot was purportedly one of Christ’s twelve disciples; there is nothing to state that this is true or fiction, yet the story is so pervasive in western culture that its truth is irrelevant for the example it provides. For the majority of American religious individuals, Judas was the man who betrayed the Savior for a handful of coin, to later commit suicide in regret. A classic example of a man doing a horrible act, similar to Hitler’s war of aggression.
However, when we look upon the larger scale of Christian ideology, it is apparent that Christ had to die in order to ‘save’ mankind. His death was part of a grand scheme concocted beyond this earthly realm, a plan that would ultimately benefit everyone, despite the personal loss suffered by Christ himself. In this sense, Christ had to die, and the instruments of his death were vital assets to the grand scheme. Therefore, Judas Iscariot was one of the foremost proponents of the crucifixion and therefore the salvation of all humans. Why, then, is Judas so reviled in society?
Throughout the world at large and America in particular, there is a strong desire to vilify the perceived negatives of an individual or collective, even to the point of diminishing or ignoring the gains reaped from their actions. As they say, ‘the good that men do is often turned with their bones; yet the evil that men do lives on.’ Is this simply a morbid attraction towards the deviant? Is it an overwhelming desire to prevent a recurrence of negativities, even when this suppression of ‘evil’ bleeds across to the suppression of the beneficial?
Returning once more to the example of Hitler, it is apparent to anyone of passable intellect that Hitler was a genius. His charisma and rhetoric won him a nation, while his oratory skills and overall political knowledge allowed him to maintain office and embark upon the single greatest (in terms of scale) undertaking the world had yet seen. Had he focused his talents upon peace through nonviolence, rather than peace through fascist domination of the ‘pure’ race, it is entirely conceivable that he would have succeeded where so many others have failed. Yet in a way, his war of aggression led to a fraction of that unity, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Great deeds are often won through terrible acts. Yet the only perception of immorality resides within the forcing of another to be part to such acts, rather than the acts themselves. Of course, there will always be fanatics that deplore the actions purely for their own sake, without regard toward the willingness of the participants and the potential gains to be had. But that aside, what self-proclaimed humanist would truly object to a subject willfully and knowingly undergoing torture for the sake of advancing medical science?
There is an age-old debate of means versus ends. Now, the issue from this stems from the fact that until the ends are achieved, one cannot know if they will justify the means used to reach them. However, as it is commonly held that hindsight is 20/20, one may reasonably validate a past experiment to determine if the ends truly did justify the means. In the case of WWII, the results of this validation are conflicting by nature. For one, there is no realistic way to validate the death toll, unless the observer is a nihilist – or another comparable philosophy – and does not see a negative aspect to large-scale annihilation of humans.
However, if one can accept that the past is irreversible, it is reasonable to analyze the benefits gained from the past event with a neutral mind. As mentioned previously, the medical advances and national interdependence of the involved parties proved a distinct benefit for the extent of human history from that point forward. The war does not have to be glorified or even praised, yet it is Victor’s Delusion to vilify every aspect of it to the point of ignoring the resulting benefits. To even suggest that Hitler accomplished direct and indirect benefits to humanity is to incur the wrath of nearly everyone in earshot; such claims would result in the label of Nazi for the one who espoused them.
In the modern world of forced tolerance and vain ‘social awareness’, it is simply astounding to see the overt stigmatizing of any perceived negatives, provided they fall within the schemata of a common enemy. As history is written by the victor, this should not be a surprise to find the demonization of an adversary, yet it is disheartening to see the benefits and gains ignored or dismissed due to simple association. If we cannot dismiss the irrelevancies of ‘evil’ from the pursuit of human betterment, we will fail to progress as a race, until stagnation and decay has eroded every hope of evolution.
Yet in spite of the innumerable deaths and atrocities attributed to Hitler’s actions, the war served to unite an immense number of countries for a common goal, while similarly providing a framework of interdependence for years to come. Among the victories achieved post-WWII are the forming of Israel as a nation, the economic and military ties between America and Japan, the end of American isolationism (which proved a mixed blessing at times), the effective foundation of the European Union, the formalization of international rules and regulations governing warfare, and countless smaller items. As the world had already suffered a global conflict in recent memory, yet did not enact any of these benefits, it is logical to state that without the advent of the Second World War, they would not have happened.
Now, this is not to say that such occurrences could not happen, or that Hitler’s war was overall beneficial rather than detrimental. It is difficult to argue that the death of seventy-two million individuals equals the aforementioned benefit; however, it is a simple fact that the war did happen, the deaths did occur, and that a benefit – however inconsequential in comparison – was gained. Though the Nazi doctors performed horrible experiments on unwilling captives, they advanced modern medical science rapidly; that knowledge, while deplored from the method used to gain it, is still used today, and founded similar advancements.
Switching topics shortly, observe the phenomenon of Judas Priest – the epitome of Christian evil within man, a curse used to this day in all manner of foul ways. Judas Iscariot was purportedly one of Christ’s twelve disciples; there is nothing to state that this is true or fiction, yet the story is so pervasive in western culture that its truth is irrelevant for the example it provides. For the majority of American religious individuals, Judas was the man who betrayed the Savior for a handful of coin, to later commit suicide in regret. A classic example of a man doing a horrible act, similar to Hitler’s war of aggression.
However, when we look upon the larger scale of Christian ideology, it is apparent that Christ had to die in order to ‘save’ mankind. His death was part of a grand scheme concocted beyond this earthly realm, a plan that would ultimately benefit everyone, despite the personal loss suffered by Christ himself. In this sense, Christ had to die, and the instruments of his death were vital assets to the grand scheme. Therefore, Judas Iscariot was one of the foremost proponents of the crucifixion and therefore the salvation of all humans. Why, then, is Judas so reviled in society?
Throughout the world at large and America in particular, there is a strong desire to vilify the perceived negatives of an individual or collective, even to the point of diminishing or ignoring the gains reaped from their actions. As they say, ‘the good that men do is often turned with their bones; yet the evil that men do lives on.’ Is this simply a morbid attraction towards the deviant? Is it an overwhelming desire to prevent a recurrence of negativities, even when this suppression of ‘evil’ bleeds across to the suppression of the beneficial?
Returning once more to the example of Hitler, it is apparent to anyone of passable intellect that Hitler was a genius. His charisma and rhetoric won him a nation, while his oratory skills and overall political knowledge allowed him to maintain office and embark upon the single greatest (in terms of scale) undertaking the world had yet seen. Had he focused his talents upon peace through nonviolence, rather than peace through fascist domination of the ‘pure’ race, it is entirely conceivable that he would have succeeded where so many others have failed. Yet in a way, his war of aggression led to a fraction of that unity, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Great deeds are often won through terrible acts. Yet the only perception of immorality resides within the forcing of another to be part to such acts, rather than the acts themselves. Of course, there will always be fanatics that deplore the actions purely for their own sake, without regard toward the willingness of the participants and the potential gains to be had. But that aside, what self-proclaimed humanist would truly object to a subject willfully and knowingly undergoing torture for the sake of advancing medical science?
There is an age-old debate of means versus ends. Now, the issue from this stems from the fact that until the ends are achieved, one cannot know if they will justify the means used to reach them. However, as it is commonly held that hindsight is 20/20, one may reasonably validate a past experiment to determine if the ends truly did justify the means. In the case of WWII, the results of this validation are conflicting by nature. For one, there is no realistic way to validate the death toll, unless the observer is a nihilist – or another comparable philosophy – and does not see a negative aspect to large-scale annihilation of humans.
However, if one can accept that the past is irreversible, it is reasonable to analyze the benefits gained from the past event with a neutral mind. As mentioned previously, the medical advances and national interdependence of the involved parties proved a distinct benefit for the extent of human history from that point forward. The war does not have to be glorified or even praised, yet it is Victor’s Delusion to vilify every aspect of it to the point of ignoring the resulting benefits. To even suggest that Hitler accomplished direct and indirect benefits to humanity is to incur the wrath of nearly everyone in earshot; such claims would result in the label of Nazi for the one who espoused them.
In the modern world of forced tolerance and vain ‘social awareness’, it is simply astounding to see the overt stigmatizing of any perceived negatives, provided they fall within the schemata of a common enemy. As history is written by the victor, this should not be a surprise to find the demonization of an adversary, yet it is disheartening to see the benefits and gains ignored or dismissed due to simple association. If we cannot dismiss the irrelevancies of ‘evil’ from the pursuit of human betterment, we will fail to progress as a race, until stagnation and decay has eroded every hope of evolution.
Bohemia for Sale
It is 12:24 A.M. Monday has just broken across the troubled visage of the Eastern United States, as the world sleeps amidst restless dreams of hookers and dollar bills. Monday, the beginning of the week for the almighty dollar and its fawning sycophantic followers. The day that ushers in another frantic race for the American dream; even those who do not live in the emotionally bankrupt provinces of the world’s superpower are chasing this dream, this desire to become Americanized in the baptism of filthy cash.
Without a thought, I light up another cigarette; I’ve lost count of how many that makes, yet am not so far gone within my inner ramblings to escape the irony caused by the simple act of smoking an overpriced, mass-produced stick of cancer. Ah well, we only live once. A light rain is falling around me, turning the night air calm and peaceful, as if the moisture could dampen even the ethereal presence of capitalism’s city lights. The neighborhood is quiet save the gentle sounds of the rain. I sit on an old wooden chair, placed wisely and regretfully beneath an awning. I regret this because such a position divorces my skin from the tactile pleasure of the cooling rain, yet it is wise, as the guitar on my lap would be mighty unhappy to face this sudden bath.
I find that I am not wearing a shirt. This is neither by design nor happenstance, as the night is warm despite the cooling presence of the rain. The wooden guitar feels good against my skin. Holding the cigarette casually in my lips, I strum a few simple chords along the C Major scale. Such a beautiful sound, yet one entirely unsuitable to the mass markets of the world. But is this not what beauty is? If true beauty could be packaged wholesale and sold to the adoring fans, would it truly be beauty? If this simple melody were fit to ensnare the hearts of a nation, it would become the norm; would not something more beautiful, more profound, rise to take its place? And would this simple tune thus return to its position of true beauty, or would something new rise to fill that void?
I do not know the answer to this. In this tired old soul’s opinion, beauty is the unattainable dream, the ongoing search for something more. In that sense, true beauty does not exist; what we see are simply the echoes of its passing, the hint that what we’ve desired for so long is simply around the next corner. Our minds whimsically search for this concept, all the while knowing on some level that we will never truly be satisfied should we attain the ultimate in beauty. All my life, I have searched for beautiful women, beautiful songs, and beautiful vistas. I have found that which I hold dear, as the closest example of beauty that I know, yet it always falls short.
It is in this sense, as well, that capitalism is the antithesis of beauty. Perhaps the Mona Lisa was beautiful sitting upon da Vinci’s wall, with its paint still wet. Perhaps the untamed mountains of California were magnificent in their unspoiled homes. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But what beauty is there in the million dollar smile of a TV princess, one that is offered without thought or hesitation for countless screaming libidos? Carlos Santana can make his guitar cry the most poignant sounds ever heard on an album…but what does it matter, when it enflames the hearts of millions alike? Is beauty the tanned stomach of Jessica Alba, or the shy smile of that girl who just agreed to go out with you? Is it both? Perhaps neither?
This is the sale of bohemia, the destitute sanctuary of the hapless and the idealistic, the humble abode of a nation’s artists and free spirits. Their unimposing melodies and visions are available at two for the price of one, feeding the stomach while robbing the mind of its desires. This beauty cannot be sold, should it even exist, yet that does not stop the inevitable transactions. The merciless onslaught of capitalism cannot be halted for the sake of finding beauty, nor should it be! Society marches on, waiting for no one. Thus, I reach for another Marlboro, having wasted away the last one without a thought. Lighting up, I return to my guitar, to make another simple melody, while the dollar signs roll past my eyes.
Without a thought, I light up another cigarette; I’ve lost count of how many that makes, yet am not so far gone within my inner ramblings to escape the irony caused by the simple act of smoking an overpriced, mass-produced stick of cancer. Ah well, we only live once. A light rain is falling around me, turning the night air calm and peaceful, as if the moisture could dampen even the ethereal presence of capitalism’s city lights. The neighborhood is quiet save the gentle sounds of the rain. I sit on an old wooden chair, placed wisely and regretfully beneath an awning. I regret this because such a position divorces my skin from the tactile pleasure of the cooling rain, yet it is wise, as the guitar on my lap would be mighty unhappy to face this sudden bath.
I find that I am not wearing a shirt. This is neither by design nor happenstance, as the night is warm despite the cooling presence of the rain. The wooden guitar feels good against my skin. Holding the cigarette casually in my lips, I strum a few simple chords along the C Major scale. Such a beautiful sound, yet one entirely unsuitable to the mass markets of the world. But is this not what beauty is? If true beauty could be packaged wholesale and sold to the adoring fans, would it truly be beauty? If this simple melody were fit to ensnare the hearts of a nation, it would become the norm; would not something more beautiful, more profound, rise to take its place? And would this simple tune thus return to its position of true beauty, or would something new rise to fill that void?
I do not know the answer to this. In this tired old soul’s opinion, beauty is the unattainable dream, the ongoing search for something more. In that sense, true beauty does not exist; what we see are simply the echoes of its passing, the hint that what we’ve desired for so long is simply around the next corner. Our minds whimsically search for this concept, all the while knowing on some level that we will never truly be satisfied should we attain the ultimate in beauty. All my life, I have searched for beautiful women, beautiful songs, and beautiful vistas. I have found that which I hold dear, as the closest example of beauty that I know, yet it always falls short.
It is in this sense, as well, that capitalism is the antithesis of beauty. Perhaps the Mona Lisa was beautiful sitting upon da Vinci’s wall, with its paint still wet. Perhaps the untamed mountains of California were magnificent in their unspoiled homes. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But what beauty is there in the million dollar smile of a TV princess, one that is offered without thought or hesitation for countless screaming libidos? Carlos Santana can make his guitar cry the most poignant sounds ever heard on an album…but what does it matter, when it enflames the hearts of millions alike? Is beauty the tanned stomach of Jessica Alba, or the shy smile of that girl who just agreed to go out with you? Is it both? Perhaps neither?
This is the sale of bohemia, the destitute sanctuary of the hapless and the idealistic, the humble abode of a nation’s artists and free spirits. Their unimposing melodies and visions are available at two for the price of one, feeding the stomach while robbing the mind of its desires. This beauty cannot be sold, should it even exist, yet that does not stop the inevitable transactions. The merciless onslaught of capitalism cannot be halted for the sake of finding beauty, nor should it be! Society marches on, waiting for no one. Thus, I reach for another Marlboro, having wasted away the last one without a thought. Lighting up, I return to my guitar, to make another simple melody, while the dollar signs roll past my eyes.
Welcome to the Vertigo Underground
This is the place where power only exists in the form of words, where thoughts and ideas separate the intellectual few from the brainless masses. Vertigo is a sensation of motion, one in which the world appears to spin around the observer; this is the vertigo underground, where the world above spins endlessly in circles, chasing its own tail through some vain belief that it is for the best. This futile effort is a consistent drain on the collective will of the people, forcing them into the gyrations of a confused oligarchy for the sake of narcissistic validation; this is why we remain underground.
We exist everywhere and nowhere at once. We cannot be seen, and that which is unseen proves the most frightening to the self-absorbed upper echelons of society. We cannot be found, thus we cannot be stopped. We emerge at will, always at random, always with a purpose. This is not a call to violence, but a call to knowledge; the ignorant can never truly affect the course of an empire, as the brutality of chance rests its favor upon the ranks of the dominant. Only by educating our fellows and ourselves can we truly determine what is best for this world. Join the underground, and let your voice ring out from the depths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)