Trying Their Fuedal Best

I'm interested in fantasy and people's choices in what they like to imagine.  As creatures capable of untruth what we choose to lie about can be very informative.  In this case, a popular area of fiction is devoted to the collapse of civilisation and the resultant aftermath.  It further seems a recent trend, one divergent from past fictions of isolated disasters, local terrors, and removed tragedies.  I don't know of many post-apocalyptic stories from history.  The only ones that come to mind are myths about floods, sinking islands, and the retribution of the gods.  The stories nowadays revolve around technological collapse, resource exhaustion, biological threats (zombies and super-viruses), and large meteorite strikes.  I recall a time when jargon like "extinction level event" was practically unknown.  This trend may have started in the 1980's with widespread concern about nuclear warfare and the resultant fallout.  Nowadays regular citizens are concerned about space debris and genetic manipulation.  This sort of threat, while incomprehensible in scope, effects everyone.  It feels personal because there is no way to escape it and so we would all be effected by it.  What happens after everything we know is destroyed?  What is left after our technologies fail?  Finally, what does it mean?  The farther we rise, the higher we have to fall from.  This seems to be a central concern of this new genre.

As a tenacious species we look for ways to overcome all obstacles to our survival.  It may well happen that we exhaust the Earth's energy reserves and survivors are reduced to pre-electrical/pre-petroleum technologies.  What could we then do?  How could we, as a species, continue?  I know a group of people who engage in the real-life re-enactment of the Medieval period (Society for Creative Anachronism or S.C.A.).  This is the other half of my inspiration for the post.  The S.C.A. was founded and continues as an educational group, and I understand their mission to be that of preserving history as a living thing.  I am not suggesting these good people are delusional or preparing for the collapse of civilisation.  It is fun and enjoyable to study and participate in these things for those individuals.  There is the possibility-however remote-that the skills and knowledge preserved by them would be needed, not that I wish to find out.

In the end, I think these two, unrelated things simply indicate a certain amount of dissatisfaction with present circumstances.  I think these and other factors demonstrate that people don't feel comfortable with all these technologies and just the amount of stuff.  If that is the case, I can certainly agree with the notion.

What I Couldn't Say to My Coworkers Over Lunch.

Talking about the "housing crisis" and how people need to live within their means or they should lose their houses. You are about to read my opinion, I don't actually have a disclaimer for this, like on a talk show or television program, other than you may not like it-but I do hope you read and think about it.

In this complex situation, where greedy people raised in a society that allows them to bend the rules if money is "made" and the goal is always-always-to better one's own situation; here the people doing the lending were greedy and the money made was at the expense of the borrowers. Certainly some of the people who borrowed the money were greedy and looking to improve their situation, but the burden lies on a broader swath of the population than just "those stupid, grabby poor people." The investment banks played their part, the lending institutions had a say, the brokers could have stopped it, and the actual, everyday people-who have lost the most-certainly wouldn't have signed up if they could have believed they were going to lose the place they live and a substantial amount of their time and capital. It's absurd to believe that anyone would have wanted to become homeless or bankrupt, or that they should be further punished for it! What about the brokers who pushed for the larger loans, who assured the people putting their lives and credit (because as much as financial institutions would like it, those are still two separate things) on the line that "it'll be okay"? Why blame the borrower who has been kept in the dark about the entire lending cycle, and in most cases poorly educated about money matters in general? Can you really say that these people, who were merely trusting the so-called 'experts' about what they should buy, were to blame? What happened is another example of capitalism gone wild: unregulated and self-perpetuating. This is something that could only happened in a country that does not put its citizens first, which values commodities over lives. This is a terrible and preventable catastrophe, much like the effects of Hurricane Katrina in the South U.S. That we continue to be bombarded by such terrors indicates that we are not valued beyond our ability to provide more for those who already have too much. Such has been the case for too long; despite all our advances, we are still subjects or serfs being forced to bow down to some self-proclaimed master. Just because we can change jobs makes us no less indentured, we are still kept insecure (and often desperate) within a system that is not designed to benefit the majority.

Why I Am as Valuable as You

I would like to examine the worth of a human from a purely scientific viewpoint, from which everything is measured and judged by empirical (based on observation of fact) evidence. Therefore, at it's most basic, we have a strong reason to allow everyone to be themselves and support their needs so that they live well. Every human is deserving of respect, each equal to the other, because we all carry the preservation of our kind within ourselves. Any one human can be the answer to a problem facing all and the continuation of humankind. From a recessive gene to a novel invention, some breakthrough or innovation that comes from an unlikely source, we know that these things happen. No one knows which traits will be adaptive, what will be needed to survive in the future, or when we may be called on to answer such a problem. The more diversity we have available, the more likely we will be able to continue as a species and persevere in the face of catastrophe. Instead of trying to limit our differences, or wanting to determine what "kind" of person is acceptable or desirable, we should focus on how all live and the elevation of each to their potential so that we are capable of answering any such crises of survival. Our solutions will otherwise prove insufficient and we will fail as a whole species to make any necessary adaptation, what we think of as the hallmark of humanity. On the other hand, there can be no survival without resources: space, food, clean water, the basic necessities. If there are an unsustainable number of humans alive, that does not allow for a solution or meeting the needs of those who are already alive. We cannot demand that others suffer or give up what they need so that there can be more people, or more of a certain group of people. When we cannot provide for those already alive we are not fulfilling the first promise: to allow all to reach their potential. When people do not have their needs met, they cannot be expected to think beyond how to meet their needs. That does not allow for invention or innovation, nor encourage higher-order thinking that is needed for overcoming larger problems. We need to be able to provide for all to preserve all, that is basic and obvious (although I am stating it here, so that we are sure to be clear and on the same wavelength). So, it seems we need a balance-which is not much of a surprise, as so much of life is balance. We need to maintain our diversity while keeping the overall population at a level that does not overwhelm the resources available.

Perception As Reality

Getting back to something I mentioned earlier, what I say doesn't matter. What is important is what you will understand from what I say-that is, what you think I am saying. The world is what you make of it; if you think that it is a scary place where everyone is out to do you harm, then you operate from that premise and it is true...for you. Every perceived slight weighs on your mind and confirms your opinion, whereas all contradictory evidence is discarded. I think that many will recognize this person, who says "I can't do anything right, everyone hates me!" Conversely, you can go through your existence with the opinion that everyone likes and respects you, so that no matter what anyone says you think of it as a compliment. However we demonstrate it, what comes from this argument is true for all: what you think of as the truth, becomes the truth. But only for you! Thinking something does not make it so for others; for instance, we can believe that some deity caused a tsunami that killed 100,000 people. However, that belief doesn't change the fact that it was a natural phenomenon caused by verifiable and observable actions and reactions. Putting aside how insulting it is to the survivors of the catastrophe who we-supposing for the moment 'we' support this "explanation"-who we would have accept that their loved ones died on the whim of some "superior" being that they may never even have heard of before. Further, that those who died somehow deserved it, because that is what we would be conveying to these people by saying some being had killed them and it has a plan that we believe in. Leaving out the fact that these people were living their lives that day much as they had unmolested for many years before this event, even disregarding all the subjective information, we cannot support this argument. This claim is no different than if someone were to come forward and claim that they had, through 'mental powers', caused the tsunami. This person can believe it, even be completely certain that they were responsible. That conviction does not mean that they are correct. Indeed, it is often the case that after some major event has happened many people will come forward with explanations. Whether it be alien forces (the God of the East Wind, those "dirty Commies", a mutant virus, etc.) or something more mundane ("Little Bobby knocked over the fence on accident."), there are numerous possibilities to blame it on, with varying degrees of plausibility. People have a basic need to understand things, we call it "curiosity", but it can be dangerous in that it leads some to seek excuses or explain these events with very unlikely things. Since there isn't an easily-understood, directly human-based agency to blame for it, these people will concoct involved and far-reaching "reasoning". It is difficult for these people to believe that there requires no external or extraordinary explanation for events, that things happen for certain, predictable reasons-whether we understand those mechanisms or not. It seems strange that a person with so much faith in one explanation has so little left to give the benefit of the doubt to any other. Yet this may be the key, that some peoples' beliefs require them to remain doubtless; as a result they cannot accept the reasoned arguments of others if they would throw the smallest doubt upon the believers' faith. It seems that this system would create many problems, however, and seriously delay and retard the progress of understanding the natural world. For each new bit of information would need to be weighed carefully against established beliefs to see if it conflicts and if it does, the new is rejected for the old. Until the microscope, it was thought that there were supernatural reasons for diseases and death. An entire world was discovered and its previously unseen inhabitants were finally linked to infections, illnesses, and decay. Before, people had believed that the afflicted had either displeased, offended, or not supplicated a deity or demon and that presence had "struck them down". How many hundreds of people had to die before belief caught up with science and allowed physicians to treat illness with something other than parlor tricks and humbuggery? Nowadays, I like to think that the great majority of people realize what actually causes a disease, a tsunami, locust swarms, and the like. Still, there are those who will continue to proclaim that their own personal god was responsible, either directly or ultimately. It is that inability and need to understand that drives people to seek solace in faith, however limited an explanation it may offer. Whatever name you choose to give it, belief is not fact, it is opinion, and cannot change the facts of what happened, except in the mind of the believing individual. To insist that we must all accept one explanation as "The Truth" without question-or even factual basis-is irrational, unfounded, and runs counter to known human behaviour.