Last night, I had a Zombie dream.
Now, to be perfectly honest, though I have a vivid imagination and have dreamt of many things, I have to admit Zombies was not what I would have expected me to dream about. Zombie movies have never been a favorite genre for me and way too much has been written about why people like them. The last thing I would have expected me to dream about was Zombies. I've never done it before, and haven't watched a Zombie movie in many a month. None the less, last night, I dreamt about Zombies.
I'm not sure it was the classic Zombie movie, but it had elements of it. Zombieland is a Zombie movie I actually enjoyed because it was so tongue-in-cheek (and in seat, and on floor and flying through the air and... well, you get the picture), but it had elements my (apparently deranged) mind threw into my dream. That is to say, it didn't focus so much on the beginning of the disaster as the point of view of someone just trying to make it through the day.
It all started out normal enough (as all Zombie movies do). It was from the perspective of a "regular guy" (yours truly) who was just going about his life. Only, occasionally, someone would pop up as a Zombie.
Mostly, they were ignored.
They'd be in theaters, in the supermarkets and malls, going about their business as well. But they were Zombies and everyone knew it. Gradually, though, more and more of them appeared. They still went about their business, but they were a touch more hostile than all the other "normal" people out there. If you pointed out to one they were a Zombie, they'd actually attack you.
Eventually, of course, there were Zombies everywhere. They weren't interested in eating your brains so much as they were interested in turning you into another zombie, or killing you if you resisted. Not typical Zombie behavior I grant you, but it was pretty typical of the mentality (if not NECESSARILY the actions) of some folks today.
It took a while for me to remember, but the Zombies in my dream were Red, White and Blue and looked like they lived mostly in trailers before they went on their world-wide rampage of "Join us or die!!!".
Is anyone out there beginning to draw the same parallels I did?
Let's look at politics today: A bunch of people who can't think being led by party platforms which have no chance of becoming reality, each using the platforms of the other party as the boogie man's whip to keep their followers blindly in line. Anyone who raises a voice against these blindly shuffling, Red, White and Blue zombies of either party are shouted down, attacked (and in some cases killed) or vilified as someone who must be converted to their point of view or "die" (metaphorically at the least, literally at the most).
Now, I tend to equate violent zombies with the right wing (mostly because a conservative is more tolerant of violence, and tends to use violence and violent imagery as their "weapons" of choice in convincing others to go along with them, but I digress), but in this case, both parties can be called Zombies. Right wingers believe in their political nonsense because politicians tell them what they must believe. Left wingers believe in their nonsense, partly as an anti-reaction to the Right-wingers platform, but also because they believe what their politicians tell them.
The politicians are the APPARENT zombie masters. Of course, the politicians are themselves zombies of the Corporate World (and if you don't believe the corporations run the world, you should read up about what the British trader said on the BBC the other day about how Goldman Sachs runs the world and not governments ), which makes the Corporate World and bankers the true Zombie Masters. I expect he'll meet a bad end in the near future. Defamation or death is what I expect to see happen. He was telling the TRUTH, after all, and the Corporate World doesn't want anyone to know the truth.
But the bottom line isn't so much who controls the zombies. It's that the zombies really made themselves by refusing to think for themselves. I've written about the dearth of people thinking for themselves before, but perhaps haven't mentioned HOW they fuck this up so badly.
Most people believe they are thoughtful and hold opinions that are well considered. They think they listen to what other people say and decide for themselves whether to believe in it or not. Of course, this isn't what's really happening, but they think it does. They then become entrenched in these beliefs and will often react belligerently when those beliefs are challenged - ESPECIALLY when those awful, inconvenient "facts" are used against them.
That is NOT being thoughtful nor creating well considered opinions.
The truth is, in politics, OPINIONS SHOULD NEVER BE SET IN STONE. EVER!
Life isn't static. It's always changing. Societies grow. New technologies create new ways of looking at things. Knowledge and discoveries open new vistas and new horizons. And because of this, what was true about things yesterday may not be true about them tomorrow. Going back to my favorite whipping boy, politics and the right wing, I can say with utter certainty that today's right wing was NOT what it was twenty years ago. Today, it's militantly opposed to compromise that would benefit the people and the country. Even if you go more than half-way to their position, they will not accept that, and demand they get everything their way or nothing gets done. They aren't called the Party of NO! these days just because they're against drugs, sex - outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, of course - and abortion.
Since the right wing refuses to budge, the left wing has started doing the same thing and nothing is getting done.
People aren't thinking. They're reacting.
If the reactions were beneficial, that would be fine, but the reactions are to only entrench one's opinions more solidly in an unyielding matrix of political ideology.
Way back when, I had a friend who recited T. A. R. as a way to go through life. It turned out he was looney as a Wanner Brother's cartoon, but this advise always struck me as one of his more lucid moments.
T. A. R. Think. Act. React.
Notice the first word. Think. Always think first. You think about your action AND your reaction. When I was in college, I did a speech on this using the acronym SCAB Act. - Stop and Consider Actions Before you Act. I said that if you remember SCAB, you might avoid a few of your own. I thought it was catchy.
The point is THINK FIRST! ALWAYS think first. But here's a few more hints about how to do it since, apparently, people are so out of practice in doing it for themselves.
The first thing you do is stifle the emotional reaction. Being emotional is a reaction. It's not thinking. You can use the energy to do something constructive like mow the lawn, build a sky-scraper or something equally affirming, but the last thing you want to do is use that emotional reaction to respond.
Next, consider what you heard/saw/experienced. People often go with a first impression of what was put before them without actually absorbing it. They have prejudices, preconceptions and perspectives that may interfere with what was actually intended to be put across. Flying off the handle by jumping to an erroneous conclusion is a great way to end up with foot-in-mouth disease.
Once you've accurately absorbed what you experienced, next consider WHY. Now, granted, there isn't always a why. But if it's an argument, and someone is trying to convince you of something, or is getting angry at you over something, consider the whys. Whys are the underlying motivations for what you have absorbed. When considering the whys, try not to let your prejudices, opinions and other set-in-stone aspects of your personality/life get in the way of arriving at a conclusion. This may not be possible for some people to do, but none the less, it's a step that shouldn't be skipped.
Finally, respond. Do it calmly, rationally and with a factual basis to support and justify your response. Because sure as hell, when you respond in such a manner, the other person will probably fly off the handle and your point looks far more reasonable and rational than theirs.
Thinking, as I pointed out 20 or 30 years ago, should be an Olympic sport. It requires CONSTANT practice and it's obvious some do it a lot better than others. But it's an activity that everyone should be doing whether they're good at it or not. An open mind, some has said, can't hold onto anything. But a closed mind can't get anything into it. What we need are minds that allow things in, and can arrange them neatly according to our own experience and reasoning.
No one is going to be perfect at this - especially those whose opinions tend to be handed to them on silver platters and catered to by those wishing to manipulate them. So to finish it all off, when it comes to thinking, assume no one is telling you the truth.
In politics, this is ESPECIALLY true. There is so much spin going on to sway and convince that no one really knows what the truth there is anymore on either side of the political spectrum. If you assume everyone in politics is hiding something, spinning the truth, trying to get their own way at the expense of everything else (a not unreasonable starting point given the way Washington hasn't worked in the last two or three years), think before you react, try to discern all of the whys and, above all, search for the truth on your own using sources that are NOT part of the world where the spin is coming from, then you are well on your way to creating well considered, thoughtful opinions which can change as the circumstances and world changes.
Zombies can't think. And even if you paint them all red, white and blue, they're a hazard to life because they want you to be just like them. The horror in my dream had more to do with becoming a mindless automaton unable to think or mentally do for myself than any possible physical mutilation of body that becoming a zombie might bring. (I don't look good in red or white, but blue is okay).
In my dream, feeling cornered, I stopped running from the Zombies and started attacking them instead. I was using my fists - but in reality I was using my mind. I could think. They couldn't. In the end, I was the one left standing amid a lot of broken Zombies and the world was once again safe to be in.
We need more thinkers and fewer zombies if THIS world is to be safe again.
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Existence, and Absence, of God
I debated writing this post for a long time. My faith (Neo-Paganism as influenced by Wicca traditions) forbids doing harm. Interfering with the spiritual paths of others is, indeed, harm. Therefore it's vital that I add this warning:
IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!
I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.
Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.
So, on to the science:
There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Back to science.
First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.
People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.
So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.
Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.
Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.
So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.
It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".
Sort of...
More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.
What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.
Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.
Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?
The answer Conservation laws.
Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.
Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".
The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.
But the ultimate question is: To what end?
Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.
Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.
All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.
There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.
It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...
These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.
Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.
But it's possible...
IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!
I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.
Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.
So, on to the science:
There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Back to science.
First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.
People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.
So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.
Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.
Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.
So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.
It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".
Sort of...
More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.
What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.
Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.
Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?
The answer Conservation laws.
Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.
Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".
The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.
But the ultimate question is: To what end?
Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.
Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.
All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.
There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.
It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...
These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.
Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.
But it's possible...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Lack of Common Sense Factor
I believe the human race is getting dumber.
Back in 2006, a little known and little regarded movie called "Idiocracy" came out. It's the story of a regular, average guy who awakens 500 years in the future and finds humanity is so stupid, he's the most intelligent man on the planet. By and large the reason for this is because intelligent people put off having children (or opted not to have them) while the "salt of the earth" kind (you know - rednecks) kept spewing out babies like the goose's golden eggs. Successively, these kinds kept breeding while the more intelligent people didn't. End result: Really stupid people who thought because the ads for a Gatorade-like drink said it had what's good for you in it, used that stuff instead of water to irrigate their crops (with predictably disastrous results).
Now, the idea has a certain amount of merit (assuming all rednecks are stupid, which obviously isn't true) but doesn't take into account several other factors that play into a human's desire (or lack of it) to use their noodles. Evolution doesn't stupefy a species in a single generation, yet that is what I see happening all around me.
Notice that it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with one's desire to USE it. Anyone who is intelligent, but doesn't use it is, in my book, dumb. Hence the rationale for this post and the opening line.
People are not using the sense they were born with. They don't use the talents, they don't use the abilities, they don't use the skills. This trend is ever-growing, and seems unlikely to stop anytime soon. What used to be common sense is no longer common. People have, for whatever reason, eschewed the concept of looking any deeper than the sound-bite they hear and accept as gospel everything their "trusted" source says.
For the sake of clarity (Because the gods know that there is precious little of that anymore) I define common sense as a reflexive distrust of the immediate situation. Taking the classic situation of looking both ways before crossing the street as an example, we will see how this reflexive distrust of the immediate situation saves your life and how ignoring it will let you become a hood ornament and the title star at a coming funeral near you.
You come to a street that you want to cross. The person with common sense distrusts the immediate situation. You know that pedestrians have the right of way (a common misconception in the middle of a street block, but let's assume it's even true) which means cars have to stop if you decide to cross. Cars are moving at car-speed. Cars are driven by (allegedly) alert drivers who can react instantly to your desires.
That is the immediate situation.
There is a lot to distrust.
First of all, if you walk out into moving traffic you are assuming:
1. The drivers see you.
2. They will stop.
3. They have TIME to stop.
4. They CAN stop.
Without a reflexive distrust of the situation, you believe all of that which you assume.
If all of the above are true, you live to endanger your life another day. If any one of them are not true, you die and enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame as an Internet headline and a minor footnote in the obits page, thus proving your unsuitability to contributing to the gene pool.
A person with a reflexive distrust of the situation will simply wait until one can cross the road safely without making any cars veer, slow-down or even have to see you to avoid you. You get no fifteen minutes of notoriety being the subject of ignorant online abuse, nor do you get to have your family gather beside what's left of your shattered corpse to cry and wail about how your life was tragically cut short. You do, however, get to pass on your genes to the next generation - if that's your thing.
Personally, I see it as survival of the fittest, and you were the stronger link by distrusting an inherently deadly situation and suffering to have to breathe for a few more instants of time in an infinite universe, but that's just me. Those who get that fame (or infamy, depending on one's point of view) have the luxury of getting to lay around decomposing much sooner than the rest of us. But they're labeled as dumb. Only a dumbass would get hit by a car (and having been hit by a car once, I can attest to my dumbassness at the time - I didn't see it, and should have)
But I digress.
The person with the inherent distrust of the immediate situation (or common sense) will live all of the time they face situations where common sense is needed for survival. The person without common sense, who trusts the current situation (that the safety of the "right of way" will protect them) will far more often have their bodies rearranged in exciting and frequently tragically deadly ways. If that kind of body modification is what turns you on, please have the courtesy to jump off of a building based on the following table since sidewalks tend not to be driven by drivers whose lives may be impacted when they intersect your lacking of common sense body with their vehicle.
1 Story: 17 MPH
2 Stories: 24 MPH
3 Stories: 30 MPH
4 Stories: 35 MPH
5 Stories: 38 MPH
6 stories: 42 MPH
7 Stories: 46 MPH
You won't survive beyond about 5 stories, but it's your funeral you want others to attend, after all.
The point of all if this is that people are ignoring their reflexive distrust of situations. For some reason, they're believing things that have no actual impact on a situation or, worse, in things that will adversely impact their situation that they think will improve it. They have lost their distrust of things. Trusting people may be very intelligent, but they're dumb to automatically trust. Either that or we have a really skewed method for determining intelligence.
From politics to religion to sex (After all, is there anything else to life? Don't answer that!) common sense is becoming harder to find than hen's teeth and is rapidly heading toward the same fate as the Dodo bird. People have stopped trying to decipher the truth of a situation, have stopped using critical thinking and/or logic (assuming they ever had used it in the first place) and instead are believing pundits, "experts" and people whose lives are vested in making people believe them.
My question to those who blindly believe these folks is, why did you check your brain at their door? Assuming you have one to begin with, you should be fact checking, digging into sources, making sure that that you're being told is at least somewhat accurate if not entirely factual. Yes, it can be tedious and laborious and not a lot of fun, but you can learn things (like something resembling the truth) and you can be satisfied that you are not among the baa'ing sheeple who faithfully follow their Judas Goat to the slaughterhouse to be sacrificed upon the altar of expedience.
That scenario of fleeced flocks is becoming the norm rather than the exception over the last twenty years or so. People are letting others do their thinking for them, forgetting their distrust of "trusted sources" and allowing these sources to fill their heads with any inane drivel those sources can think of. It doesn't necessarily mean that the drivel is incorrect or inaccurate, but it may easily be that the drivel is a point of view lacking adequate perspective. One side of the story, as it were, without hearing all sides and making a decision. People are allowing themselves to be manipulated, molded, redirected and distracted from the important things that a person reflexively distrustful of the current situation would otherwise investigate to keep the important things in mind and in perspective.
The result of all of this lack of common sense is a rise in extremism. Extremism is simple, easy, and lazy. You don't have to think. You don't have to investigate. You just have to agree to a set of inflexible positions and you're done. No muss. No fuss. No bother. No brains. And don't mistake extremism with politics. Religions, politics, sex (am I forgetting anything?) more and more people are adopting extremist viewpoints as if the world ceases to change around us and as if we never need to acknowledge that change.
The change I see is a dumbing down of people in general, and there is a vast difference between acknowledging a change and accepting one. I acknowledge that it appears to be happening, but I will never accept that this change is one that needs to happen or even should happen. But it is happening none the less.
Now, here's the rub: If you just believe me without investigating for yourself, you are as guilty of being 'dumb' as anyone else who doesn't reflexively distrust the current situation. Check out the facts. See if they fit. See if what I said is right, true and/or accurate. If you're already opening a new browser tab to check, congratulations, you're among the rapidly dwindling minority of people who can call themselves intelligent. Good luck in your investigation. If you're not, cultivate some cynicism. The world can use a lot more of it.
Back in 2006, a little known and little regarded movie called "Idiocracy" came out. It's the story of a regular, average guy who awakens 500 years in the future and finds humanity is so stupid, he's the most intelligent man on the planet. By and large the reason for this is because intelligent people put off having children (or opted not to have them) while the "salt of the earth" kind (you know - rednecks) kept spewing out babies like the goose's golden eggs. Successively, these kinds kept breeding while the more intelligent people didn't. End result: Really stupid people who thought because the ads for a Gatorade-like drink said it had what's good for you in it, used that stuff instead of water to irrigate their crops (with predictably disastrous results).
Now, the idea has a certain amount of merit (assuming all rednecks are stupid, which obviously isn't true) but doesn't take into account several other factors that play into a human's desire (or lack of it) to use their noodles. Evolution doesn't stupefy a species in a single generation, yet that is what I see happening all around me.
Notice that it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with one's desire to USE it. Anyone who is intelligent, but doesn't use it is, in my book, dumb. Hence the rationale for this post and the opening line.
People are not using the sense they were born with. They don't use the talents, they don't use the abilities, they don't use the skills. This trend is ever-growing, and seems unlikely to stop anytime soon. What used to be common sense is no longer common. People have, for whatever reason, eschewed the concept of looking any deeper than the sound-bite they hear and accept as gospel everything their "trusted" source says.
For the sake of clarity (Because the gods know that there is precious little of that anymore) I define common sense as a reflexive distrust of the immediate situation. Taking the classic situation of looking both ways before crossing the street as an example, we will see how this reflexive distrust of the immediate situation saves your life and how ignoring it will let you become a hood ornament and the title star at a coming funeral near you.
You come to a street that you want to cross. The person with common sense distrusts the immediate situation. You know that pedestrians have the right of way (a common misconception in the middle of a street block, but let's assume it's even true) which means cars have to stop if you decide to cross. Cars are moving at car-speed. Cars are driven by (allegedly) alert drivers who can react instantly to your desires.
That is the immediate situation.
There is a lot to distrust.
First of all, if you walk out into moving traffic you are assuming:
1. The drivers see you.
2. They will stop.
3. They have TIME to stop.
4. They CAN stop.
Without a reflexive distrust of the situation, you believe all of that which you assume.
If all of the above are true, you live to endanger your life another day. If any one of them are not true, you die and enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame as an Internet headline and a minor footnote in the obits page, thus proving your unsuitability to contributing to the gene pool.
A person with a reflexive distrust of the situation will simply wait until one can cross the road safely without making any cars veer, slow-down or even have to see you to avoid you. You get no fifteen minutes of notoriety being the subject of ignorant online abuse, nor do you get to have your family gather beside what's left of your shattered corpse to cry and wail about how your life was tragically cut short. You do, however, get to pass on your genes to the next generation - if that's your thing.
Personally, I see it as survival of the fittest, and you were the stronger link by distrusting an inherently deadly situation and suffering to have to breathe for a few more instants of time in an infinite universe, but that's just me. Those who get that fame (or infamy, depending on one's point of view) have the luxury of getting to lay around decomposing much sooner than the rest of us. But they're labeled as dumb. Only a dumbass would get hit by a car (and having been hit by a car once, I can attest to my dumbassness at the time - I didn't see it, and should have)
But I digress.
The person with the inherent distrust of the immediate situation (or common sense) will live all of the time they face situations where common sense is needed for survival. The person without common sense, who trusts the current situation (that the safety of the "right of way" will protect them) will far more often have their bodies rearranged in exciting and frequently tragically deadly ways. If that kind of body modification is what turns you on, please have the courtesy to jump off of a building based on the following table since sidewalks tend not to be driven by drivers whose lives may be impacted when they intersect your lacking of common sense body with their vehicle.
1 Story: 17 MPH
2 Stories: 24 MPH
3 Stories: 30 MPH
4 Stories: 35 MPH
5 Stories: 38 MPH
6 stories: 42 MPH
7 Stories: 46 MPH
You won't survive beyond about 5 stories, but it's your funeral you want others to attend, after all.
The point of all if this is that people are ignoring their reflexive distrust of situations. For some reason, they're believing things that have no actual impact on a situation or, worse, in things that will adversely impact their situation that they think will improve it. They have lost their distrust of things. Trusting people may be very intelligent, but they're dumb to automatically trust. Either that or we have a really skewed method for determining intelligence.
From politics to religion to sex (After all, is there anything else to life? Don't answer that!) common sense is becoming harder to find than hen's teeth and is rapidly heading toward the same fate as the Dodo bird. People have stopped trying to decipher the truth of a situation, have stopped using critical thinking and/or logic (assuming they ever had used it in the first place) and instead are believing pundits, "experts" and people whose lives are vested in making people believe them.
My question to those who blindly believe these folks is, why did you check your brain at their door? Assuming you have one to begin with, you should be fact checking, digging into sources, making sure that that you're being told is at least somewhat accurate if not entirely factual. Yes, it can be tedious and laborious and not a lot of fun, but you can learn things (like something resembling the truth) and you can be satisfied that you are not among the baa'ing sheeple who faithfully follow their Judas Goat to the slaughterhouse to be sacrificed upon the altar of expedience.
That scenario of fleeced flocks is becoming the norm rather than the exception over the last twenty years or so. People are letting others do their thinking for them, forgetting their distrust of "trusted sources" and allowing these sources to fill their heads with any inane drivel those sources can think of. It doesn't necessarily mean that the drivel is incorrect or inaccurate, but it may easily be that the drivel is a point of view lacking adequate perspective. One side of the story, as it were, without hearing all sides and making a decision. People are allowing themselves to be manipulated, molded, redirected and distracted from the important things that a person reflexively distrustful of the current situation would otherwise investigate to keep the important things in mind and in perspective.
The result of all of this lack of common sense is a rise in extremism. Extremism is simple, easy, and lazy. You don't have to think. You don't have to investigate. You just have to agree to a set of inflexible positions and you're done. No muss. No fuss. No bother. No brains. And don't mistake extremism with politics. Religions, politics, sex (am I forgetting anything?) more and more people are adopting extremist viewpoints as if the world ceases to change around us and as if we never need to acknowledge that change.
The change I see is a dumbing down of people in general, and there is a vast difference between acknowledging a change and accepting one. I acknowledge that it appears to be happening, but I will never accept that this change is one that needs to happen or even should happen. But it is happening none the less.
Now, here's the rub: If you just believe me without investigating for yourself, you are as guilty of being 'dumb' as anyone else who doesn't reflexively distrust the current situation. Check out the facts. See if they fit. See if what I said is right, true and/or accurate. If you're already opening a new browser tab to check, congratulations, you're among the rapidly dwindling minority of people who can call themselves intelligent. Good luck in your investigation. If you're not, cultivate some cynicism. The world can use a lot more of it.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
But, what is truth? - 05/19/2007
This isn't a rehash of my
"The Simple Truth" post. This is an examination of the
concept of truth and it's application in today's world.
Truth is that which is. I think everyone can agree on that. History is the most truthful of all things in that what happened before can often be deciphered based on physical evidence. This isn't always the case - especially when writings are involved and someone's interpretation of the evidence differs from others.
This highlights the issue of what is truth nicely, though. Each person lives in a slightly different world than everyone else. They have their own perceptions, their own concepts and their own expectations of what their world is like. Sometimes these are based on reality - that upon which everyone agrees. Sometimes, they're based on no more than wishful thinking, fantasy and/or denial. But they each interpret the evidence of reality around themselves as individuals.
I'm not saying there should be universal agreement about what the truth is. But when folks start talking about the truth, one must remember that what they say is truth may not be a truth to another.
For example, President Bush's wife Laura Bush once said that she doesn't believe the polls that say her husband's popularity is in the toilet. As evidence, she reportedly said something to the effect of, Everywhere I go, people are always cheering for him. This is her reality. And it's the truth. Everywhere she goes, people cheer Bush. This is because if you are not an ardent, hard-core Bush supporter, you can't get anywhere near a Bush-based function. Ever noticed that lately Bush's outdoors appearances have been almost exclusively on military bases? This is because there are too many people wanting to show up to protest his policies to have a more publicly accessible venue.
So the reality is that Laura Bush sees the polls as lies because all she's ever allowed to face are Bush-friendly crowds. That doesn't mean the polls are lying or wrong or slanted. It means that the whole situation isn't apparent to Mrs. Bush.
So this highlights why there are many truths for many people. A lack of data. People base their realities only on what they learn. If they refuse to learn something, that part of reality is not available for them to decide what's truth and what isn't. Most call this daily living. I call it living in half truths. And a half truth isn't truth. It's deception. Whether deliberate deception to keep people from knowing the truth by the manipulation of the media or a refusal on the part of the individual to entertain notions that make them uncomfortable, a half truth proves nothing except the ignorance of the speaker who states their truth as the ONLY truth. It may be their reality. But, as has been shown, it ain't necessarily the truth.
Let's look at some examples of truth:
Religion. Obviously here are a boundless number of examples of people deluding themselves. That part I don't really care about. It's when they insist on foisting their notion of truth on other people who already have their own notion of truth that the conflict arises. I once asked a door-to-door religion peddler, "Why are you assuming your god's truth is better than my truth?"
Because he was told to, by his god, he replied.
Prove it, I told him. He couldn't. I kept him talking for three hours. In the end, he went away empty handed and I asked, "Do you know why I talked with you?"
He admitted he didn't.
"By my keeping you here, talking to someone who would never be converted to your faith," I told him with a certain amount of malice, "I have kept you from inflicting your point of view on my neighbors and disrupting their lives as you have disrupted mine. But I figure it's better to keep you here pounding your head against an unyielding wall than for you to convert one more fanatic who will then go out and disrupt the lives of other people who want nothing more than to be left alone with their own truths."
I'm not a nice person with people who want to infringe on my reality.
But again, it highlights the point - there are many truths. Those who think outside their comfort zone tend to get a much wider, and inclusive, perspective than those who define their reality by very narrow-minded guidelines. It doesn't make them any more able to grasp the 'ultimate truth' than the next person, but it brings them a bit closer to seeing behind the facade of their own reality and admitting they don't always have all the answers.
Look at former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich. He spoke at Liberty University during graduation ceremonies and told the graduates to combat 'radical secularism'. He's thinking that because there's a backlash against the religious rights' attempt to dominate politics in America for the last six years that it's radical secularism. He thinks that because the unconstitutional, religiously-based endorsements by the US government are under attack, it's radical. Inasmuch as there is a wave of secularism sweeping the country (and there is) there is an equal amplitude wave of the religious-based agenda trying to do the same thing. But the religious wave came first. A fact Newt conveniently forgot. So he classifies the natural reaction of people to combat imposing a radical religious agenda on the American people as 'radical secularism'.
Let's not also forget that he's a politician and is there to keep his name in the spotlight, even if he's not wielding power directly.
For a change of pace, lets look at television advertisements. SUV's and pickups and sports vehicles are almost always shown with a 'professional driver on a closed course - do not attempt' notice in tiny letters somewhere you're not looking. Instead what you see is a vehicle zipping along at what seems to be 100 miles an hour, swerving past obstacles with cat-like reflexes all to a driving bass back-beat while a gravely-voiced announcer caters to the viewer's alleged lack of testosterone by implying you, too, can do this kind of thing if only you buy the vehicle.
What they never show is you sitting at a stand-still in traffic sucking up a gallon every fifteen minutes. They don't show you laying upside down in an over-turned vehicle because you didn't know the center of gravity was so high and you're really not a professional driver on a closed course. They never show you trying to squeeze into a parking space that says "Compact Car Only". And they sure as hell don't show you the gas bill or the cost of liability insurance for a vehicle that outweighs most others on the road by a factor of two.
They sell you the fantasy. You live with the reality.
So, remember, that every time someone speaks to you of anything concrete, it is almost certainly a half truth. And if it depends on a point of view, then it is definitely a half-truth. Find your own truth, and then look beyond it. You'll be surprised at how different reality actually is.
Truth is that which is. I think everyone can agree on that. History is the most truthful of all things in that what happened before can often be deciphered based on physical evidence. This isn't always the case - especially when writings are involved and someone's interpretation of the evidence differs from others.
This highlights the issue of what is truth nicely, though. Each person lives in a slightly different world than everyone else. They have their own perceptions, their own concepts and their own expectations of what their world is like. Sometimes these are based on reality - that upon which everyone agrees. Sometimes, they're based on no more than wishful thinking, fantasy and/or denial. But they each interpret the evidence of reality around themselves as individuals.
I'm not saying there should be universal agreement about what the truth is. But when folks start talking about the truth, one must remember that what they say is truth may not be a truth to another.
For example, President Bush's wife Laura Bush once said that she doesn't believe the polls that say her husband's popularity is in the toilet. As evidence, she reportedly said something to the effect of, Everywhere I go, people are always cheering for him. This is her reality. And it's the truth. Everywhere she goes, people cheer Bush. This is because if you are not an ardent, hard-core Bush supporter, you can't get anywhere near a Bush-based function. Ever noticed that lately Bush's outdoors appearances have been almost exclusively on military bases? This is because there are too many people wanting to show up to protest his policies to have a more publicly accessible venue.
So the reality is that Laura Bush sees the polls as lies because all she's ever allowed to face are Bush-friendly crowds. That doesn't mean the polls are lying or wrong or slanted. It means that the whole situation isn't apparent to Mrs. Bush.
So this highlights why there are many truths for many people. A lack of data. People base their realities only on what they learn. If they refuse to learn something, that part of reality is not available for them to decide what's truth and what isn't. Most call this daily living. I call it living in half truths. And a half truth isn't truth. It's deception. Whether deliberate deception to keep people from knowing the truth by the manipulation of the media or a refusal on the part of the individual to entertain notions that make them uncomfortable, a half truth proves nothing except the ignorance of the speaker who states their truth as the ONLY truth. It may be their reality. But, as has been shown, it ain't necessarily the truth.
Let's look at some examples of truth:
Religion. Obviously here are a boundless number of examples of people deluding themselves. That part I don't really care about. It's when they insist on foisting their notion of truth on other people who already have their own notion of truth that the conflict arises. I once asked a door-to-door religion peddler, "Why are you assuming your god's truth is better than my truth?"
Because he was told to, by his god, he replied.
Prove it, I told him. He couldn't. I kept him talking for three hours. In the end, he went away empty handed and I asked, "Do you know why I talked with you?"
He admitted he didn't.
"By my keeping you here, talking to someone who would never be converted to your faith," I told him with a certain amount of malice, "I have kept you from inflicting your point of view on my neighbors and disrupting their lives as you have disrupted mine. But I figure it's better to keep you here pounding your head against an unyielding wall than for you to convert one more fanatic who will then go out and disrupt the lives of other people who want nothing more than to be left alone with their own truths."
I'm not a nice person with people who want to infringe on my reality.
But again, it highlights the point - there are many truths. Those who think outside their comfort zone tend to get a much wider, and inclusive, perspective than those who define their reality by very narrow-minded guidelines. It doesn't make them any more able to grasp the 'ultimate truth' than the next person, but it brings them a bit closer to seeing behind the facade of their own reality and admitting they don't always have all the answers.
Look at former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich. He spoke at Liberty University during graduation ceremonies and told the graduates to combat 'radical secularism'. He's thinking that because there's a backlash against the religious rights' attempt to dominate politics in America for the last six years that it's radical secularism. He thinks that because the unconstitutional, religiously-based endorsements by the US government are under attack, it's radical. Inasmuch as there is a wave of secularism sweeping the country (and there is) there is an equal amplitude wave of the religious-based agenda trying to do the same thing. But the religious wave came first. A fact Newt conveniently forgot. So he classifies the natural reaction of people to combat imposing a radical religious agenda on the American people as 'radical secularism'.
Let's not also forget that he's a politician and is there to keep his name in the spotlight, even if he's not wielding power directly.
For a change of pace, lets look at television advertisements. SUV's and pickups and sports vehicles are almost always shown with a 'professional driver on a closed course - do not attempt' notice in tiny letters somewhere you're not looking. Instead what you see is a vehicle zipping along at what seems to be 100 miles an hour, swerving past obstacles with cat-like reflexes all to a driving bass back-beat while a gravely-voiced announcer caters to the viewer's alleged lack of testosterone by implying you, too, can do this kind of thing if only you buy the vehicle.
What they never show is you sitting at a stand-still in traffic sucking up a gallon every fifteen minutes. They don't show you laying upside down in an over-turned vehicle because you didn't know the center of gravity was so high and you're really not a professional driver on a closed course. They never show you trying to squeeze into a parking space that says "Compact Car Only". And they sure as hell don't show you the gas bill or the cost of liability insurance for a vehicle that outweighs most others on the road by a factor of two.
They sell you the fantasy. You live with the reality.
So, remember, that every time someone speaks to you of anything concrete, it is almost certainly a half truth. And if it depends on a point of view, then it is definitely a half-truth. Find your own truth, and then look beyond it. You'll be surprised at how different reality actually is.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
So much for the 'Free' Market - 05/06/2007
Imagine, if you will, you're
the CEO of a company that does manufacturing. You produce widgets.
There are several other companies who produce widgets as well, but
we'll get to them later.
Your profits are good, but you want them better. The last thing you'd do is call your factories and tell them, "Stop making widgets." After all, in a free market economy, what one company fails to produce, another will produce more and reap more profit. The company which fails to make enough loses business and profits. The natural thing to do, when wanting more profits, is to make more widgets. Lower the per-unit cost of manufacturing the widgets. Or make a better widget that everyone has to have.
Now, take that philosophy and add one thing to it: Collusion.
You and all the other Widget makers get together and they say, "Look, we have our boy in the White House now, so we can pretty much do what we want, but we have to make it look good to sell it to the public. So, we'll be sure to have breakdowns, 'routine maintenance' and other interruptions in the overall market supply of widgets, and we can all raise our prices on the widgets and make a ton of money."
"Wait a minute, " you ask, "won't people just stop buying widgets?"
"That's the beauty of the plan," you're told. "Everyone has to have widgets. And we're locking out everything else that can replace widgets. If we act together, we can control the widget prices for the whole country."
"Isn't that illegal?" you wonder.
"Sure!" you're told. "But with our boy in the oval office, and controlling the widget policies, who's going to stop us?"
Now, while the above scenario is fictitious, one can't help but wonder about the way gas and oil prices are manipulated. Instead of one company increasing production, or stockpiling gas, or helping people find a way to use less gas (as IF!), the gas companies are spending billions of dollars trying to find more gas. If one tenth the amount invested in finding more oil is instead spent on finding and developing alternative energy sources, the dependency of the people all over the world on gas would be cut by 20% every five years.
But this assumes a long-term plan and philanthropic (or at the very least ethical) motives on the part of the oil companies. Unfortunately, all companies in America operate with a quarterly profit mentality. That is, if it's not going to make a profit this quarter, fuck it. If it will make a profit this quarter, do it. Ethics and, in many cases legalities, be damned. This, by the way, sums up the whole Harvard Business School course.
So, with this mentality, of course, everything will be done to boost profits without regard for the consequences.
How to combat this egregious raping of the world's resources?
Two ways: First of all, nationalize the entire energy production industry in the US. With America as wired and dependent on energy as we are, it's a matter of national security that the energy flows properly. Next, set the prices at wholesale plus 10%. Prices will continue to fluxuate, but not to the extremes we've seen during the Bush administration. Finally take that 10% and use it to finance research and development of alternate energy sources, starting with decentralizing energy production.
Let's face it, if an entire town can be darkened by snipping two wires, we are way too vulnerable to terrorist attack. But if every house and business was independent of the energy grid through the use of fuel cells and solar/wind/hydrogen, etc, then it would be utterly impossible to take down a power grid. With energy of that nature available, electric cars become economically viable, and the pollution and lust for oil - especially foreign oil the profits of which still are the number one contributor of terrorist acts and states in the world - will whither and die.
If no one wants widgets, the prices will fall regardless of how many widgets are or aren't being made. If the demand for oil drops, so does the flow of money to fund terrorism. And if the power grids go away, even replacing the oil production with solar energy production won't alleviate the hemorrhage of profit from oil sales.
The only thing free about the 'free market' is the reign the oil companies have in screwing the rest of the world. And it isn't going to stop until they're made to stop.
Your profits are good, but you want them better. The last thing you'd do is call your factories and tell them, "Stop making widgets." After all, in a free market economy, what one company fails to produce, another will produce more and reap more profit. The company which fails to make enough loses business and profits. The natural thing to do, when wanting more profits, is to make more widgets. Lower the per-unit cost of manufacturing the widgets. Or make a better widget that everyone has to have.
Now, take that philosophy and add one thing to it: Collusion.
You and all the other Widget makers get together and they say, "Look, we have our boy in the White House now, so we can pretty much do what we want, but we have to make it look good to sell it to the public. So, we'll be sure to have breakdowns, 'routine maintenance' and other interruptions in the overall market supply of widgets, and we can all raise our prices on the widgets and make a ton of money."
"Wait a minute, " you ask, "won't people just stop buying widgets?"
"That's the beauty of the plan," you're told. "Everyone has to have widgets. And we're locking out everything else that can replace widgets. If we act together, we can control the widget prices for the whole country."
"Isn't that illegal?" you wonder.
"Sure!" you're told. "But with our boy in the oval office, and controlling the widget policies, who's going to stop us?"
Now, while the above scenario is fictitious, one can't help but wonder about the way gas and oil prices are manipulated. Instead of one company increasing production, or stockpiling gas, or helping people find a way to use less gas (as IF!), the gas companies are spending billions of dollars trying to find more gas. If one tenth the amount invested in finding more oil is instead spent on finding and developing alternative energy sources, the dependency of the people all over the world on gas would be cut by 20% every five years.
But this assumes a long-term plan and philanthropic (or at the very least ethical) motives on the part of the oil companies. Unfortunately, all companies in America operate with a quarterly profit mentality. That is, if it's not going to make a profit this quarter, fuck it. If it will make a profit this quarter, do it. Ethics and, in many cases legalities, be damned. This, by the way, sums up the whole Harvard Business School course.
So, with this mentality, of course, everything will be done to boost profits without regard for the consequences.
How to combat this egregious raping of the world's resources?
Two ways: First of all, nationalize the entire energy production industry in the US. With America as wired and dependent on energy as we are, it's a matter of national security that the energy flows properly. Next, set the prices at wholesale plus 10%. Prices will continue to fluxuate, but not to the extremes we've seen during the Bush administration. Finally take that 10% and use it to finance research and development of alternate energy sources, starting with decentralizing energy production.
Let's face it, if an entire town can be darkened by snipping two wires, we are way too vulnerable to terrorist attack. But if every house and business was independent of the energy grid through the use of fuel cells and solar/wind/hydrogen, etc, then it would be utterly impossible to take down a power grid. With energy of that nature available, electric cars become economically viable, and the pollution and lust for oil - especially foreign oil the profits of which still are the number one contributor of terrorist acts and states in the world - will whither and die.
If no one wants widgets, the prices will fall regardless of how many widgets are or aren't being made. If the demand for oil drops, so does the flow of money to fund terrorism. And if the power grids go away, even replacing the oil production with solar energy production won't alleviate the hemorrhage of profit from oil sales.
The only thing free about the 'free market' is the reign the oil companies have in screwing the rest of the world. And it isn't going to stop until they're made to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)