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.
14 March, 2012
18 January, 2012
Occupy Your Democracy
Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%. I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue. Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more. I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years? Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.
My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead. Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out. If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't. The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies. Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with. Take back your time. Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work. As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!
My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead. Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out. If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't. The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies. Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with. Take back your time. Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work. As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!
Labels:
Action,
choice,
community,
Connection,
control,
free,
oppression,
power,
rights,
worker
02 November, 2011
Competition, Saviours, and the Fate of Us All
There is a persistent idea that there is one answer: an individual, a correct path, or "way". I see this in religions, with their "one true" gods and messiahs, in medicine, where disease A gets treatment B, and in government, where the answer to any and every problem is more and stricter laws being passed. This single-solution thinking leaves us vulnerable to snake oil salesmen when we pin all our hopes on this or that all-in-one device. This becomes magical thinking when we believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that one answer can be applied to every situation. It's also self-sabotaging when we expect only one thing from ourselves, one way of being. We are all complex and experiential animals who vary in reaction and ability, sometimes from minute to minute. We are capable of both amazing generosity and destructive selfishness. We can be both saints and sinners, brave and cowardly, knowledgable and ignorant. These are all just parts of being human. Expecting one without the other-thinking a person is only either "good" or "bad"-is childish. I am reminded of a phrase I heard years ago. I think many of us have heard of a "silver bullet" which eliminates a mythic problem. The real problem is neither of them exists; I mean neither the werewolves nor the "magic" bullet solution. The phrase which I heard is "silver buckshot" because there isn't one "bullet" that will dispel the "monsters" we need to deal with. Rather, by taking a larger-scale approach of putting a number of holes in the problem using different methods will we be able to truly and realistically solve these problems. In my judgement, single-solution thinking is destructive and deceptive, there is no one size that fits all. It is not about having the right answer, or even one that everyone can agree on.
I don't claim to have "the answer", or at least I should not-especially after this post. What I try to do is make observations and hope to instigate discussion. As individual and unique as every one is, as every individual is a universe unto themselves, I don't believe there can be such a thing as "one way".
I don't claim to have "the answer", or at least I should not-especially after this post. What I try to do is make observations and hope to instigate discussion. As individual and unique as every one is, as every individual is a universe unto themselves, I don't believe there can be such a thing as "one way".
23 September, 2011
Totally Brilliant Idea (Patent Pending)
In a flash of insight I had today the best idea of my life, and I've decided to share it with you here because I'm very excited about it. This harkens back to the series of posts I did on capitalism (09-10), which I'm sure you are familiar with. What I will do is to get an appropriately-trained genegineer with an adequately-stocked laboratory to alter the makeup of the bacteria for the most common illness (the "common cold") and then patent that organism! That would mean that every person who catches a cold will have to prove that it isn't mine or pay me royalties for usage of it! Thank you, SCOTUS!
I had recently been doubting my genius, but I feel vindicated now.
I had recently been doubting my genius, but I feel vindicated now.
02 September, 2011
Consent of the Governed
I brought up this topic in my post "Capitalism as Favoritism" of 15Mar09. The idea here being that laws only have as much effect and last only as long as they are adhered to by those being governed. This is not to say that laws cannot or will not be enforced by the sword or gun because it is certain that they oftentimes have been. We have seen throughout history where an oligarchical group keeps power by terrorizing the farmers, workers, whatever majority there is. However, even in the face of brutal repression by those using overt force there is a choice. It is this choice, the consent, that we are concerned with. These citizens stand up, most often individually at first, and demand change. Call it revolt, revolution, or reform-however it is characterized it signals the end of draconian rule by an elite class. I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not so. It is at this point that the governed consent to a law, series of laws, or entire government which become the new standard. Recognize that even now, after so many of these uprisings, there is still oppression and unfair rule by the elite. How, if there have been so many examples of these circumstances being imposed and overcome, is this still the case? How could it be that after overthrowing each dictatorship another springs up in its place? My supposition is that no real change has taken place and that the reform is simply a "changing of the guard", if you will. When the majority finally resist their government and succeed in changing the situation, they simply end up with a new elite class who hold the same interests: holding onto their power and status. My feeling is that the majority of people do not want to have the responsibility of wielding power or of adjudication. I think most people enjoy living a simple life of work, family, and leisure and that it is actually abnormal to desire domination and strife. I further suggest that it is this aspect which creates the systemic problem of a "ruling elite". Because it is only those few individuals who want to control and contend while others just want to get along and enjoy life. It automatically creates a divide between those ambitious few and the rest. I think it can be addressed and changed, but in most cases up to now it is ignored so the problem persists.
Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power. Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power. "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.
Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power. Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power. "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)