How to save the earth
Capital of Nasty Electronic Magazine
Monday, July 14, 2003 (623/87)
ISSN 1482-0471
By REVSCRJ
Disclaimer: this is just my take on it, and since I live in only a small bubble of perception in the vast Jacuzzi of humanity it must be (as all things from all sources) taken with the appropriate grain of salt.
That said, this began with a friend asking me:
"How do we uncorrupt ourselves?"
Since I am prone to short concise replies, I said this:
You used the plural so I assume you mean the (unwholesome) whole sum of people. This is neither pleasant nor easy, certainly not likely and will most certainly require bloodshed (not by necessity, but by stunted spiritual evolution).
There are six billion-plus humans which means that there is little hope for starting some isolated experimental society that, over time, would show, by demonstration, its superiority to the forms of government we have instituted.
Without such time-worn proofs the populace as a whole is basically too lazy and timid to try on a new governing system. "If it ain’t broke don’t fix it", well, its broke only you haven’t realized it yet and its only getting worse. This sheepishness is unfortunate but understandable--in a myopic fat-assed sort of way.
With this many folk in the world--about 6.5 months worth of seconds sized populace--there will not be the opportunity for a "Revitarianism", "Nicastratolagarchy" or some such "new" system spawned by a group governing themselves to show itself as "the way", there is neither the time nor the space. This is probably for the best, however, as I fear that the negative side of the mixed blessing that every being is utterly unique is that there is no one "way" which can possibly suit the over-one-person-for-every-year-of-the-earth's-existence massive population we have. I hope that I am wrong on that, as if I am then there is the possibility of avoiding a lot of special suffering and compromise of happiness.
Currently there doesn’t seem to be a governing system for a mass of any relative size that does not appear riddled to the core w/ corruption and greed (religious or political). Why? Well because mammals aren’t meant to live in hives. The whole special approach is flawed. Our pack dynamic is only efficient when small- when personal contact cannot be avoided, so that interpack problems MUST be dealt with. Our instinctual set is so geared at this being the default parameter that we have entire 'laziness' and 'disregarding' behavioural trait inborn to counterbalance against it. These faceless, powerless "1 of many" lives we lead cause those traits to throw us into terrible imbalance. This is why it is so generally difficult to care that there are starving children in Africa unless somehow you have personalized it by seeing one of your inner-pack [friends, family, etc.] starve.
Rule of mammalian thumb: once a committee needs to be made the pack has got too big; once an ID is needed the mass is too large. When it is possible to screw a stranger for the benefit of you and your friends mammalian instinct says "DO IT!" Why? Well because it means that your tribe will survive over theirs. It’s how genes get spread without the monkey having to think about what genes SHOULD be spread. Great- if the world and the species were in equilibrium. Perfect- if we hadn’t become so MANY that we MUST act like one pack or collapse taking many other species of flora and fauna with us en route.
Humans produce roughly 5.5 billion gallons (Canadians: do the math) of urine per day.
Why can’t we overcome these instinctual thrusts? We can but there are a number of things in our way and that number is 995,000 years (take or leave a few) of evolution versus 5,000 of even barely giving a fuck. I say this so that at least a little perspective can be put on things.
As a mass, I really can only see a couple of options:
Violent revolt that leads to the break up of the larger nations into thousands of tiny (though still too big) city states that allow for the governmental meme-pool to open up some and give room for the rise of Joe-Shmoetopianisim, or some other potential advancement. This is not a solution but a chance for a solution to be discovered. A Band-Aid, not a treatment. This would equate to much death, suffering, lack of resources, environmental depletion etc. for several generations in its wake. Sigh. Plus, to keep the revolution from living up to it name (ie: a complete circle) we would have to make sure that:
1) Those who crave the power of ruling us NEVER EVER are allowed to rule us again (or procreate for that matter) because invariably the trait of wanting power and the trait of deserving power DO NOT occur in the same person EVER;
2) We begin making the aesthetically high-minded rule us under the threat of death should they corrupt from the power (that’s a joke "Haha..ha..eh...")
Or optionally:
3) Start saying "fuck it" to the natural world, absolutely accept the hive, and let the mass become drones for the queen bee power elite. This would result in a total lack of individual rights and a deeper stratification between the workers, the drones, the privileged and the queens. This is both due to special necessity and the mammal turned queen bee's capacity for hoarding, waste and greed. On the plus side of this option resources and society could be managed quite well (a la "chocolate rations up 2 grams double plus good"). Its gross to me but it is a viable option that could preserve the species and bring harmony back to life with the planet because all it would take would be the decision of the queen bee to make it so. Personally I don’t credit them (the frickin' queens that lead us) with enough intelligence to choose that over extinction through over-consumption--actually, I don’t credit them with enough awareness to know about the choice in the first place, but its like the old bit that says "a dictatorship is the perfect government provided you got the right dictator" tempered by the Chinese one "Ants die in sugar."
In any event it seems fairly clear that we (and I include all nations in this) sure as hell don’t got the right dictators, and there is lots of sugar/smack/distraction whatever to go around.
What to DO though? Live life like you think it should be lived regardless of the ramifications of that. Currently I am homeless and trade computer maintenance/software tutorials and graphic design for food, cigarettes and coffee. In raw dollars I spend like 15 or so a week. I sleep on the beach. I teach high-school students creative writing. I read philosophically based poetry to a pack of 10-15 year old punk kids that like to kick in the walls of the place I sleep when it rains in hopes that they will think more or at least develop an interest in art. A couple of them have started writing poetry.
I help Food-Not-Bombs feed other homeless folk when I am able. I am going to aid some people with Sudden Oak Death identification for Park Services in Pfieffer (they cant pay me, but that’s okay because it needs to be done, and because of this I am willing to help in doing it, how unheard of is THAT) I dumpster dive and find stuff like stereos, bicycles, sealed and wrapped food etc. Things that work and were only tossed out because of the rationale "If we gave it away no one would buy the product, they'd wait for us to hand it out--lets just toss it." See what I mean about our packs only working when small? Only a corporate entity could rationalize like that.
There is a bagel place here that tosses rough 20lbs of bagels/ day in a garbage bag. In that bag there are sets of 6 that are further plastic wrapped. Not only obscene when people go hungry, but not biodegradable despite the bulk of its contents being so-guessed yet that I live in America?
What else? Don’t involve the police in anything period. If it needs big action- be a vigilante, or organize mob. Ugly? Yes. Better than the cops? By a shaving of a degree (depends on the mob, depends on the cause). Don’t involve any institution in ANYTHING you do unless it is one that is small and/or angled against systems that slow the growth of the species. Keep as much power out of the power mongers hands as you can and it will be redistributed into the people.
I don’t have a lot of faith in the average person but that’s a WHOLE FUCKLOAD more than I have in the string-pullers we got now. Most importantly: if you plan to procreate, have one child or adopt. Our most threatening problem, aside from instinctually designed blind selfish, self-destructive sociopath, is our numbers.
I pray for a plague that arbitrarily, quietly, and painlessly sterilize 2/3rds of the Human race.
REVSCRJ is a writer/musician living in Monterey, California. Constantly on the verge of homelessness, he hopes that you enjoy his work or else his life has been in vain. Contact REVSCRJ at revscrj@cloudfactory.org to lodge complaints, notify of lawsuits, or receive spiritual advice.
Comments
10 comments found
| [prev] The Sociology of the Breakup | Understanding the AOL Jargon [next] |
I saw an article name "How to save the Earth" and couldn't resist. It is filled opinions and contraversial options, some do-able and some probably not recommended. As for:
>1) Those who crave the power of ruling us NEVER EVER are allowed to rule us again (or procreate for that matter)
That is a definate given and start by saying, in most recent terms, look at who is head of the US right now, G. W. Bush. Very bad call for the people, if only we knew better then. That is just one on the list.
>2) We begin making the aesthetically high-minded rule us under the threat of death should they corrupt from the power (that’s a joke "Haha..ha..eh...")
As much as I am sure you meant as a joke, It is overly true. He/She who does not want power will use it properly when given to them, in theory but a good backed theory no less. There are cases to have proved that wrong though. And for:
>3) Start saying "fuck it" to the natural world, absolutely accept the hive, and let the mass become drones for the queen bee power elite.
The points you made about this one were good ones. They are alot like many imagine them but the people that don't are the one's that make me fear humanity. If people realized that ruining all of our natural resources that it would be a, more or less, cultural mess with people constantly fighting for an extra ration of food every week. That is not what I hope the masses of the world, mostly the US, wishes for our future generations. Even if, we only have so much time left on this planet that we shouldn't be destroying our own destinies. What scares me most is that some people may prefer the hive over the individuality of creation. If all was the same what would be point of procreating into a new. When creation stops all will cease to exist.
I must stop now for I could be here for a long time. Keep preaching brother Rev. Sean. Live life the way you should or that it should be for you and try to make other see the light, i.e. dumpstering for useful food, don't rush life, and keep the future in the past meaning it will happen when it gets here. Good luck with the Big Sur tree project, the Sudden Oak Death ID. That will be a fun one.
Disclaimer: this is just my take on it, and since I live in only a small bubble of perception in the vast Jacuzzi of humanity it must be (as all things from all sources) taken with the appropriate grain of salt.
This is certainly an interestingly-mixed metaphor -- mixed with too many margaritas in this hot weather, perhaps.
Those who crave the power of ruling us NEVER EVER are allowed to rule us again (or procreate for that matter) because invariably the trait of wanting power and the trait of deserving power DO NOT occur in the same person EVER;
I don't usually trust statements that include "never", or other absolutes, but this seems to be close enough to reality for all practical purposes. Unfortunately, it also seems that even people who deserve the power of governing are (almost?) always soon corrupted by it. Something to do with the nature of humanity, and the nature of Power itself. *sigh*
I don't have a lot of faith in the average person but that's a WHOLE FUCKLOAD more than I have in the string-pullers we got now. Most importantly: if you plan to procreate, have one child or adopt. Our most threatening problem, aside from instinctually designed blind selfish, self-destructive sociopath, is our numbers.
Yup. And I've discovered recently that some anthropologists are trying out the theory that war was invented only about 7,000 years ago, in connection with population density becoming large enough that people began to agglutinate into groups so much larger than extended families that they had to develop a formal
Organizational Hierarchy. It's at least an interesting speculation, though I think some of them might be a bit arbitrary in assigning "cause" and "results".
I pray for a plague that arbitrarily, quietly, and painlessly sterilize 2/3rds of the Human race.
This theme (or some variation on it) has been used in a number of science-fiction stories, and has resulted in some interesting -- but highly-differing -- speculations, not all of which are cheerful. Will the 1/3 who are fertile be
cherished, or will they be attacked (irrationally) by the outraged & jealous remainder? Will they be _required_ to produce as many children as possible? What will happen during the transition period when there are many people too old to work and few young ones coming along to support them? Will a society that has only a (comparatively) few children concentrate on giving them the best upbringing and education possible, or will it tend to ignore them in favor of hedonistic enjoyment before the deluge? What changes will occur in marriage patterns if only one of the couple is fertile? Will marriages come to include two fertile members of opposite sexes plus three or four more non-fertile individuals (sexes optional)? Assuming that there is some kind of "survival of the fittest" factor in operation now, will this be allowed to continue, or will even more of the children be groomed for, and eventually placed in, positions they're not (mentally or emotionally) capable of holding & performing well? Will the Requirements for the office of President of the United States come to include "... must be fertile, and have at least X-many children?
Actually, it seems likely that humans are not exempt from the ecological pattern of a species increasing until the carrying-capacity of its environment is reached or slightly exceeded, than crashing spectacularly (sometimes to the point of extermination). Mind you, at 75, with no descendants, I find this only abstractly interesting, and don't expect to live to see any conclusive results.
This is yet another good piece by REVSRCJ, with even more than the usual number of points worthy of careful thought, although this one seems (I'm too lazy to look up the back issues) somewhat less well-organized than most have been.
>>1) Those who crave...
>look at who is head of the US right now, >...if only we knew better then.
We should have. Nothing about his history, family, personna, or company should have led one to believe
that he would be presidential material.
Anyone whose father ran the cia AND was V.president during iran-contra, AND was President during the Gulf War. Oh and lest we'd forgotten: at the end of GBush sr.'s re-election campaign he became *poof* a sudden religious fanatic (trying to swing the Baptist Vote I suppose...) spouting bits about the nation going to hell, needing God, etc. Obviously these folk are diseased stock- I mean Jesus H! Didnt GB jr. run like 4 or 5 business' to the ground befor he became responsible FOR THE DAMN ENTIRE NATIONS FINANCIAL WELL BEING!!! THAT right there shows exactly how sheep like the American populace is- whats tht voter turnout? Hey! Made it into the 30%'s! Only 70% dont give a fuck! Wooo!
We knew better. It just didnt occur to us, or "enough of us" at least.
>>2)high-minded rule[rs] under the threat of death >As much as I am sure you meant as a joke,
Sort of. I find it funny when someone freaks out over being charged too much by say 20 cents. The amout of energy they exert is tremendous in their anger. Its like watching a leech suck itself. There is something horrific yet utterly slapstick about it. OR: "I laugh at terrible things".
>[desire/deserve power] There are cases
>to that have proved that wrong though.
Which? I know only a hodge-podge of past and present leaders well enough to know their character. I am pretty familiar w/ US history though, and of our leaders I would be hard pressed to find one who really wanted it that was more than innocuous at best, if not a bastard.
>If people realized-
Stop. Right there is the problem with humanity that is most frustrating. Open their pen doors and they'll either look at you stupified or blindly attack. Thought is considered "work" and "effort" which by some twisted devisings have become associated with "bad" in US culture and therefor to be avoided.
>we shouldn't be destroying our own destinies.
Is that possible?
>some people may prefer the hive
>over the individuality of creation.
A strong arguement can be made for it, really. My bone of contention w/ it is that I think our leaders horde WAY TOO GODDAMN UNIMAGINABLY GLUTTONOUS-TO-THE-CORE much to make the hive work well.
>When creation stops all will cease to exist.
Ooooh, just the lively part of it. Bear in mind that what you are born into you will consider the norm of things. Born into the hive, a hive dweller you be and all that it entails.
>Keep preaching brother Rev. Sean.
Better:
"Speak truth or shut up"
<3
REVSCRJ
"THAT right there shows exactly how sheep like the American populace is-"
Sheep-like hopeless romantics is what they are. Those who vote (primarily the older, richer and whiter)still see politicians as smilers, tv-buzzed and idolize-able. Nitty-grit is really not on the radar here in the land of pop.
"whats tht voter turnout? Hey! Made it into the 30%'s! Only 70% dont give a fuck! Wooo!"
Don't give a fuck, or ferment in a pool of learned helplessness, denial and fear?
"I laugh at terrible things".
The atomic bomb: gather up the country's best and brightest, and put them to WHAT task? Ha ha ha ha... ugh.
"our leaders horde WAY TOO GODDAMN UNIMAGINABLY GLUTTONOUS-TO-THE-CORE much to make the hive work well."
Communist "scare", ey?
">we shouldn't be destroying our own destinies.
Is that possible?"
Is time travel possible? It can be imagined: stuck in a formless void after the destiny-bomb destroyed the linear nature of earthly existance, a roving band of rag-tag survivors try to figure out what the fuck to do... Sci-fi flick in the works.
Better:
"Speak truth or shut up"
Better yet:
"Speak the truth, or at least entertain me; otherwise, shut up."
>...mixed with too many margaritas
>in this hot weather, perhaps.
Possibilities (because of phrasing):
1. you know me, and are not named Don Fitch. 2. you live close enough to where I do to know the weather. 3. you looked up the weather in my area (unlikely the way that "this" was used) 4. you assume I live in your vicinity or 5. I am having a paranoid episode.
[makes mental note to watch paranoia levels, lest single letters, plosives, in addition to the single words that only trigger it now]
Well anyway, moving on, to:
>I don't usually trust statements that
>include "never", or other absolutes,
Heh- good, and reflective of understanding the principle of it: if you were to "NEVER BELIEVE IN ABSOLUTES" you'd be a real fool. Not only would it be contradictory but it would also be a more prominent sign of an unconscious life/inner world.
>seems that even people who deserve the
>power of governing are (almost?) >always soon corrupted by it.
A single alpha monkey in the smaller pack/family order would NEVER have the degree of leaway that the bastards-of-the-earth do [hereafter:BOTE] are granted in a system composed of people that not only will they never meet (by the thousands or millions)but are at the same time a people that are (on the general whole) living unconsious lives- its unnatural. We have no instincts to aid in dealing with it. The objectively good-for-the-individual genespreading-survival tools of "greed" and "brutality" when manifest in the BOTEs become a horrific thing; couple it with the nearly inherent sociopathy that wealth seems to usher people into (not just material wealth) and you have basicly a sociological cancer that controls the host for certain but perhaps will also kill it.
>war was invented only about 7,000 years ago,
Certainly. Before that the individual had less free time because its primary concerns were still survival (find food, protect children, avoid predators etc) on a day to day basis (which makes warring seem as fucking stupid as it is) and our populations were still small enough that there was likely little to no compitition for resources.
>people began to agglutinate
You sound much like someone I know at the local University, there are few people who would use that in a sentance (for fear of butchering its spelling at the very least).
>a formal Organizational Hierarchy.
Bing- ever since the wheel: a downhill roll.
>Will the 1/3 who are fertile
> be cherished, or will they be attacked (irrationally)
Depends:
what region you are in (determines cultural import and reaction), and the individuals. Hell, we are close enough in organic chemistry and genetics to clonning that even if any sanctioned bodily comandeering occured it would likely be in the form of having the eggs of all the fertile women removed and lab grown en masse. DESPITE the hiddeous potential for eugenics this would, at least for awhile, put the population # in the hands of the species to decide.
>Will they be _required_ to produce
> as many children as possible?
At worst.
>What will happen during the transition period
Pain, toil, suffering, and tragidy. I would note though, that there are quite a number of possible ways the species could go in the comming eras, and most of them lean more toward: abomination, inhumanity, bloodshed-like-rain, and misery- so the "sterilizing disease" would really, by comparison, be sweet.
>Will a society ... concentrate on
> giving them the best upbringing and >education..or...ignore them in favor >of hedonistic enjoyment...?
Yes.
>What changes will occur in marriage
> patterns if only one of the couple is fertile?
Varied the same way as descibed above (region/individual), but provided there is no egg-seizure laws and share the common trait of a social-norm that excludes polyamory, I suppose that there would be even fewer people the next generation. I see that as good. I really dont think it would reach a "shallow genepool" state (theres just too many of us).
>will even more of the children be
>groomed for, and eventually placed in, >positions they're not (mentally or emotionally) >capable of holding & performing well?
Like I said: sucks to be that generation, but specieally and ecologically it would be a good thing (like best thing that could happen to it- provided the factories are safely shut down.
>seems...humans are not exempt from...a species increasing > until the carrying-capacity of its environment is >reached...then crashing spectacularly
Bell curve.
At 6.5 billion people, imagine what the downslope translates into in suffering. WE MUST CIRCUMVENT THAT! Er- that is- I feel like I should work toward that. [mental note: control self, dont command others- its counter to the goal of a self ruled people]
>Mind you, at 75, with no descendants,
>I find this only abstractly interesting, >and don't expect to live to see any conclusive results.
Ya never know... what if reincarnation is 'THE TRUTH' and eventually the world will be either a Hell(of, not on, Earth)or a paradise all dependant on what we, as life, decided to make it. Personally, I'd find it a bit fucked up, myself- but funny in a grandly sadistic-irony sense.
>this one seems (I'm too lazy to look
>up the back issues) somewhat less well >-organized than most have been.
Its a work in progress and I dont know the end yet.
Sue me. :) <3 REVSCRJ
>Sheep-like hopeless romantics is what they are.
I think you mistake willing blindess for hopeless romanticism.
> Those who vote ...see politicians as smilers,
>tv-buzzed and idolize-able.
The one thing that I am thankful for is that the powers that be are pretty **obviously** fuckers. I dont understand why they arent better at their evil by now, but then again I dont understand why the everyman doesnt see their heinoiusness glaring at them either. Point being: the cards are on the table face up and folk still dont seem to see them. Whether this is based in idolotry or hero-desperate-worship or not wanting to work as hard as they would should they allow themselves to see it is besided the point, they dont see it and so the cancecr grows.
>Don't give a fuck, or ferment in a pool of learned >helplessness, denial and fear?
Irrelavent- same result.
Sad sheep. Blind sheep. Content sheep.
Sheep.
<3
REVSCRJ
"I think you mistake willing blindess for hopeless romanticism."
There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two, save that "willing blindness" carries a more derogatory connotation and "hopeless romantics" holds a bit of explanation as to why they might willingly remain blind.
They remain blind because they would rather believe that what powerful people say is true, that America is a healthy nation on the side of good, that authority and 'the rules' are worthy of trust and respect. To belive the converse: that elected officials lie, that out big, fat nation is fouling up the world, that authority would, and does, break the rules whenever it suits them, to switch over and believe in the problem would be to challenge that warm-fuzzy feeling of pride-in-state that is nurtured within us from the time we can pledge allegeance to the institution.
So, preservation of war-fuzz lies over cold-hard truth equals hopeless romantic, no? Not to say that romance=lies, though unfortunately it often does.
"I dont understand why they arent better at their evil by now, but then again I dont understand why the everyman doesnt see their heinoiusness glaring at them either."
By "better at" do you mean "better at hiding"? Or "better at doing more evil with less energy imput"? Or maybe "better at crafting their evil deeds into cohesive, graceful attrocities that would appease any critic of the life-art"? I'll assume you meant the hiding one, and reply: why should they bother?
"Whether this is based in idolotry or hero-desperate-worship or not wanting to work as hard as they would should they allow themselves to see it..."
It's hard work to de-throne heros, to switch tracks when you've invested identity in the old one. It's also a rather frightening thing to think ideas that might alienate one from the middle, to think "leftist" things (again, crisis of identity). And, of course, our views of government could be written off as paranoia by the gated-community middle class (ha).
"Irrelavent- same result.
Sad sheep. Blind sheep. Content sheep."
Some truth isn't worth it's weight in words, mm? Maybe you don't care what state the "sheep" are in, but I do.
" ...is besided the point, they dont see it and so the cancecr grows."
Know your enemy; knowing why they refuse to see is empowering if you might happen to engage one in conversation.
end of line.
>There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two,
to be more specific: it seems that the motivation is less a "clinging to a illusion of what is better" which has a gothy soap operic beauty to it, I suppose, than it is a "fear of the amount of work the ramifications of seeing the truth would entail" which is, imo, contemptible.
>to switch over and believe in the problem
>would be to challenge that warm-fuzzy feeling...
You make a number of good points. Perhaps I have too much belief in the strength of the individual, I mean: are the general pop that controled/gulible/stupid? It seems more likely that they know it is "bad" and as long as they never know the specifics of "who's" bad it is they never need really change- an act of weakness, rather than utter halicinatory conditioning degrees.
>Not to say that romance=lies, >though unfortunately it often does.
Specieal pillow talk?
>By "better at" do you mean "better at hiding"?
Yes.
>It's hard work to de-throne heros,
Heros are crutches.
>Some truth isn't worth it's weight in words, mm?
Not at all. Evil is in intent. Even if the same results are caused. I hope for less suffering in the world, or "the path of least...". Now if those who cause the suffering mean well, it shapes my approach, but not my goal.
>Maybe you don't care what state the "sheep" are in,
I absolutely do.
>but I do.
good.
>Know your enemy;
Nowadays its more difficult to find your kin.
<3
REVSCRJ
"to be more specific: it seems that the motivation is less a "clinging to a illusion of what is better" which has a gothy soap operic beauty to it, I suppose, than it is a "fear of the amount of work the ramifications of seeing the truth would entail" which is, imo, contemptible."
Illusion of what is better? More like not seeing anything wrong, here in the land of opportunity, where anyone can get ahead with a little gumption (unless you happen to be black, or female, or handicapped, etc.), where hamburgers hamburgers are affordable and delicious (because the "real cost" is paid elsewhere than the register). The only problem in this country, really, is lay-about liberals who have nothing better to do than bleed from the heart. If they's get off their butts, show some ingenuity and start an enterprise maybe they could offer jobs to all those poor single mothers. But just see if those poor ladies are so used to taking handouts that they've forgotten how to work! (hm?)
So if there is nothing wrong with this country, there is nothing wrong with the way it's run. What's wrong with the country? Then why do all them Mexicans and people keep trying to cross over here?
Plus, what amount of work do we, the enlightened, actually do? knowing the truth, what are we accountable for?
"You make a number of good points. Perhaps I have too much belief in the strength of the individual, I mean: are the general pop that controled/gulible/stupid? It seems more likely that they know it is "bad" and as long as they never know the specifics of "who's" bad it is they never need really change- an act of weakness, rather than utter halicinatory conditioning degrees."
How many strong-individual, avid-thinkers do you know? How many of those could explain, with some authority, national current event? History? I can think of maybe 4, 5 tops who meet both criteria. We as a species are not designed to comprehend things at such a level. We've never had reason to and so it doesn't bring many of us much pleasure. Of those who do find motivation to educate themselves, many are motivated not by a pure desire to learn, but by the opportunity to thus gain status as an educated intellectual worthy of the corresponding respect.
In addition, we have adapted to be adempt mimics: first our parents, then our peers, then heros, bosses, what have you. We mimic behaviors, postures, beliefs. Often our mimiced beliefs are affirmed not by reason, but by association: I am a republican. Dad was a republican. I recall him explaining how republicans are good, hard-working family men while the scent of mom's apple pie filled the room. People are all a little bit logical and a little bit crazy, beasts of instict and association. Individuality is decision-making within a fine slice of realm. Imagine what you would be like had you been left in a white room from birth...
">It's hard work to de-throne heros,
Heros are crutches."
It's hard work to get off crutches...
"Not at all. Evil is in intent. Even if the same results are caused. I hope for less suffering in the world, or "the path of least...". Now if those who cause the suffering mean well, it shapes my approach, but not my goal."
My orginal words were: 'Don't give a fuck, or ferment in a pool of learned helplessness, denial and fear?' which, I must add, applied only to those who do "see the light", or dark as the case may be. Those of us humans who don't vote but do know what's up are certainly wrong in remaining inactive. So, do we sit around declaring them (us?) wrong? Or do we try to get them up?
If we try to get them up, shouldn't we educate ourselves as thoroughly as possible, shouldn't we try to understand what keeps them down so as to effectively help them rise?
If this is purely arm chair philosophy, them what place does irrelevance have? Isn't relevance reserved for tasks and things with structure? If this discussion is purely for our amusement, than isn't the only criteria for relevance 'that it amuses us'?
Oh, and isn't the result the same, but the motive different? And motive is what counts, right?
"Irrelavent- same result.
Sad sheep. Blind sheep. Content sheep. Sheep." ">Maybe you don't care what state the "sheep" are in,
I absolutely do."
Seems to conflict... maybe I've got the wrong angle (turns computer upside-down. Curses as cords become tangled around hot cocoa, spilling contents. Curses paper towel for not really locking in moisture. Lies! All Lies!) Maybe you meant that the state of the sheep was irrelevant in that caring-about-the-state-of-the-sheep-way:\
">but I do.
good."
Let me ammend: I care about them, except when I'm thinking about myself, or you, or whether I should go to the store and get onions, or some other bit from the stuffed box of crap-in-my-sphere. It's easy to over-look.
">Know your enemy;
Nowadays its more difficult to find your kin."
yeah, well maybe we all just expect to much, much more than we can offer. We expect gold from each other but we spend so much time tied up inside that we forget to pay attention to what we're offering in return. Kurt Vonnegut said that love was, in reality, little more than common decency. I'm not quite that jaded, but I do believe that love without equal parts common decency is lost.
The point is: there's plenty of lonely, well-intentioned people out there. You want kin? Go out and get some, but treat them well or you'll (deservedly) lose them.
>>>this has been another well-intentioned, probably hypocritical rambling. End of line<<<
That last paragraph, before the end line, didn't make much sense. I must have been on a tangent. Sorry.