Civilziation: "It means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tryranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is Civilization- and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort and culture. Whien Civilization reigns in any country, a wider and less harassed life is afforded to the masses of the people." - Winston Churchill 1938
What happens then to society where civilians no longer rule, but vampires, soulless blood sucking entities that cannot die, that have no morality but exist only for their own prof-ligation and profit, and that have by process of parasitic invasion co-opted the wealth of the masses into vast zombie wealth funds that only they control, thus enthralling the population into considering the welfare of Wall Street tantamount to their own? More over, what then will happen to a society when its greatest warriors, and those most resistant to change or the usurpation of our traditions have instead been beguiled into thinking that up is down and black is white and that the market is 'free' and that the very levers of society by which one can cage and control such monsters, IE government, is inherently evil unto itself?
It falls.
That's what happens. The question is, what rises in its place? And given the preponderance of modern technology it won't be pretty. Given the inevitable advances to come in genetics, cybernetics, pharmaceuticals, memetics, and robotics, and it is frightening beyond imagining. One can hope that our society's warriors will shake off their enslavement before it is too late, but I'm not holding my breath. A few have, but not enough.
Note: It may seem by praising conservatives I'm some how bashing Liberals. I'm not. Liberals are our explorers and wondermakers are those who push the boundaries that keep our society from becoming static ossified pieces of crap. Conservatives usually are on the wrong side of history, especially in regards to social change, but it was liberals that did propose the idea of Eugenics at the turn of the century. SOMETIMES resistance to change is a good thing. SOMETIMES that person who stands up and says, "Wait a minute maybe we should think about this..." is a good thing.
The person who tells you 'no' is worth their weight in gold.
But not when they're no longer even grounded in reality.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
[Rant] Troy Davis
I can think of no clearer litmus test for your humanity than how you feel about this case.
The family of the officer that was slain wants, "Justice" to be done. The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. There are numerous studies showing this. But I'll be honest, if someone killed a member of my family, I'd probably want them to die.
But only if I was sure it was them.
A case with no physical evidence and especially one in which seven of the nine witnesses said that they were coocerced is not one that generates certainty. You do not put someone to death because you THINK it might be them. You do not put someone to death because you have a hunch it might be them. You only do so when there is absolutely no doubt and the crime in question is absolutely monstrous.
Quite frankly, when George W. Bush and his cronies are walking around free, then I don't think this nation has the moral justification to put anyone to death, much less someone who has had so many people recant their testimony.
The fact that multiple judges have still found him sufficiently guilty not to lift the stay doesn't mean much. This is the same justice system that allowed Citizens United to pass. This is the same justice system that has failed to prosecute the guilty and has harassed and destroyed the lives of the innocent.
I believe that there is something unknowable out there, something powerful. I don't claim to know what it is, despite many attempts to figure it out, but I do believe that there is something larger than ourselves in the spiritual realm, and if it has the slightest sense of true justice, the death of this man will curse and condemn this country like nothing we have done since Abu Gharib.
I know I stand as witness.
The family of the officer that was slain wants, "Justice" to be done. The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. There are numerous studies showing this. But I'll be honest, if someone killed a member of my family, I'd probably want them to die.
But only if I was sure it was them.
A case with no physical evidence and especially one in which seven of the nine witnesses said that they were coocerced is not one that generates certainty. You do not put someone to death because you THINK it might be them. You do not put someone to death because you have a hunch it might be them. You only do so when there is absolutely no doubt and the crime in question is absolutely monstrous.
Quite frankly, when George W. Bush and his cronies are walking around free, then I don't think this nation has the moral justification to put anyone to death, much less someone who has had so many people recant their testimony.
The fact that multiple judges have still found him sufficiently guilty not to lift the stay doesn't mean much. This is the same justice system that allowed Citizens United to pass. This is the same justice system that has failed to prosecute the guilty and has harassed and destroyed the lives of the innocent.
I believe that there is something unknowable out there, something powerful. I don't claim to know what it is, despite many attempts to figure it out, but I do believe that there is something larger than ourselves in the spiritual realm, and if it has the slightest sense of true justice, the death of this man will curse and condemn this country like nothing we have done since Abu Gharib.
I know I stand as witness.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
[Rant] Why I think your best option to change the country is to cover yourself in slime and vote for Huntsman in the GOP primary.
I have made no particular secret about my loathing of the current GOP. It is controlled by Tea Party fanatics who care more about their ideology than their country or their fellow man.
But Obama is a spineless coward who lets the Tea Party walk all over him.
So let's follow my logic: You can agree or disagree but its pretty simple really.
1) Are you an Obama Supporter?
a) If yes, skip to step 6.
b) If no, go to step 2.
2) Are you a Frothing Tea Party/AGW Denier?
a. If yes, Go to hell.
b. If no, go to step 3.
3) Are you a Republican?
a. If yes, Huntsman is the ONLY Republican who has not publicly denied the biggest threat facing our planet. He is a fiscal conservative with executive experience, and if you feel like your party has been stolen by crazy people, you have no better way of showing it than by choosing the most moderate candidate available.
Furthermore, all of the other candidates are theocrats OR Ron Paul. Note, if you are a theocrat, go to Step 2a. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, then I feel sorry for you. Ron Paul used to have principals until fairly recently where he began talking like a theocrat and abandoned his duty as a congressman.
Ron Paul Disgraces the Office of Congressman and insults the Presidency
I'm sure Ron Paul supporters won't care, but I don't care if you care any more. I have lost all respect for Ron Paul.
ALL respect.
4) Are you an independent?
a) If yes, go to step 5.
b) If no to go step 6.
5) Do you support a third party?
a) If you do, then you can still vote in the Republican primary and for your third party candidate in the general election. Look, the biggest message you can send to the Republicans right now that you don't like the way their party is acting is to pick the candidate LEAST like the rest of the party. If you vote in your third party election, they honestly aren't going to care. And you're still going to be able to vote for them in the general election.
b) If you don't, and just vote for the two parties, then the odds are you're disgusted with the two main parties. You can't influence the Democrats. No democrat has enough guts to step up to the plate to challenge Obama. Just "Throwing the Bums Out" doesn't do anything by itself. Look at Rick Perry. He's the leading Republican Candidate right now and he's everything bad about George W. Bush with none of the good! (And yes, even though I consider the man a war criminal, George W. Bush DID have some good qualities, especially compared to Rick Perry.)
6) If you are a democrat, are you happy with the way the REPUBLICANS are acting?
a) If you are, then you're either not a democrat (see step 2a) or you're gleeful because you think they're destroying themselves as a party maybe? If you are truly that cynical, then vote in the Republican Primary for some minor stupid candidate like Rick Santorum. Of course if he then actually wins, well then the jokes on you isn't it? But the Republicans are going to elect SOMEONE, and you might as well choose the lesser evil of the Republicans which happens to be Huntsman.
b) IF you are NOT happy with the way the Republicans have been acting, but want a sane opposition party, nothing will slap them in the face than getting in their nasty election and voting for Huntsman. They've been jamming the gears of the country for the last 25 years, the LEAST we can do is return the favor and jam up theirs.
But Obama is a spineless coward who lets the Tea Party walk all over him.
So let's follow my logic: You can agree or disagree but its pretty simple really.
1) Are you an Obama Supporter?
a) If yes, skip to step 6.
b) If no, go to step 2.
2) Are you a Frothing Tea Party/AGW Denier?
a. If yes, Go to hell.
b. If no, go to step 3.
3) Are you a Republican?
a. If yes, Huntsman is the ONLY Republican who has not publicly denied the biggest threat facing our planet. He is a fiscal conservative with executive experience, and if you feel like your party has been stolen by crazy people, you have no better way of showing it than by choosing the most moderate candidate available.
Furthermore, all of the other candidates are theocrats OR Ron Paul. Note, if you are a theocrat, go to Step 2a. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, then I feel sorry for you. Ron Paul used to have principals until fairly recently where he began talking like a theocrat and abandoned his duty as a congressman.
Ron Paul Disgraces the Office of Congressman and insults the Presidency
I'm sure Ron Paul supporters won't care, but I don't care if you care any more. I have lost all respect for Ron Paul.
ALL respect.
4) Are you an independent?
a) If yes, go to step 5.
b) If no to go step 6.
5) Do you support a third party?
a) If you do, then you can still vote in the Republican primary and for your third party candidate in the general election. Look, the biggest message you can send to the Republicans right now that you don't like the way their party is acting is to pick the candidate LEAST like the rest of the party. If you vote in your third party election, they honestly aren't going to care. And you're still going to be able to vote for them in the general election.
b) If you don't, and just vote for the two parties, then the odds are you're disgusted with the two main parties. You can't influence the Democrats. No democrat has enough guts to step up to the plate to challenge Obama. Just "Throwing the Bums Out" doesn't do anything by itself. Look at Rick Perry. He's the leading Republican Candidate right now and he's everything bad about George W. Bush with none of the good! (And yes, even though I consider the man a war criminal, George W. Bush DID have some good qualities, especially compared to Rick Perry.)
6) If you are a democrat, are you happy with the way the REPUBLICANS are acting?
a) If you are, then you're either not a democrat (see step 2a) or you're gleeful because you think they're destroying themselves as a party maybe? If you are truly that cynical, then vote in the Republican Primary for some minor stupid candidate like Rick Santorum. Of course if he then actually wins, well then the jokes on you isn't it? But the Republicans are going to elect SOMEONE, and you might as well choose the lesser evil of the Republicans which happens to be Huntsman.
b) IF you are NOT happy with the way the Republicans have been acting, but want a sane opposition party, nothing will slap them in the face than getting in their nasty election and voting for Huntsman. They've been jamming the gears of the country for the last 25 years, the LEAST we can do is return the favor and jam up theirs.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Rumors of my Demise Have Been Greatly
Exaggerated." - Mark Twain
After consideration, I've decided I will do the Dialogs, but, I will do them only after writing and then reviewing them, which will a) Make them somewhat more enjoyable for you and b) Help ensure that I'm meaning what I say and c) Allow me to focus on other things more.
I have decided that I still to somewhat of a degree consider this a waste of time in the sense that I think the odds of these two philosophies being reconciled are essentially nil, however if it could somehow work it would be delightful and I think I will, as an individual, learn a bit from the process.
So I'll be doing one of these every two weeks or so, but in the meantime, the set up.
Imagine a world, 30 years in the future, which has largely moved on except in the United States of America. Due to political grid lock and cultural nostalgia, the United States is in many ways recognizable as it is today.
A few exceptions:
For most people, the question of Global Warming is no longer an 'if' but a 'happening.' However, strangely, it hasn't really changed anyone's opinions on anything. Indeed, for many conservatives, the question has become whether or not to believe scientists who are predicting the rise of spontaneous artificial intelligence in the computers that run our daily lives, under the belief that God would never allow something like that to happen because only He can make a true mind or soul.
And there are cat people. Gay Marriage isn't an issue any more. George Takai's birthday is the equivalent of Martin Luther King Day. It is widely agreed that this is not because there are greater heroes of the GLBT movement but because George Takai's birthday is a lot more fun to have drinks and beers on, and dress up in outlandish star trek costumes. While no one says, "Kiss me I'm Gay" they do say, "Kiss me, I'm Takai."
However, this controversy has been replaced by a controversy over Bestiality, not the kind you might think but the voluntary injection of huge amounts of animal DNA into their genomes, so Furry's and several others have taken their desires to the next logical step and become partially animals. Certain of the same groups that currently have issue with Gay Marriage have instead taken issue with Bestiality, arguing that such people are no longer human, especially when their genetic populations started to breed true. This movement is largely regarded as Cat People Rights.
However, the most controversial element of the future is perhaps that of Augmented Reality, where people are able to shape reality to their whim, either a fantasy or sci version etc. Skilled AI programs and graphics allow this reality to even extend to the work place, and while there are mandatory neutral areas, it has begun to result in an extreme segmentation of society.
This worked out fine until the sleeper Z party, that believed in making Zombies a reality, managed to get elected to a majority of congress, 60 sets in the Senate and 5 out 9 members of the Supreme Court. Their first action was to impeach the President and the Vice President and install their Speaker as Speaker of the House. Majority Leader Reed and Acting Speaker Boner were at a loss as what to do.
Ex-President Snooki was rather put out as well.
And so the States have called together a constitutional convention to fix things. And in the process opened all kinds of ideas that had been sitting around for a while. For months, the two realities, liberals and conservatives have gone back and forth without making any progress whilst the nation festers.
In the meantime, our first scene will be two good friends, young interns, one from the Libertarian delegation, Wardicus, and one from the Liberal delegation, Grayicus, who shall have an initial dialog set up and nudged by their benevolent cafeteria worker, Samicus.
I'm sure you all wait in eager anticipation ;)
After consideration, I've decided I will do the Dialogs, but, I will do them only after writing and then reviewing them, which will a) Make them somewhat more enjoyable for you and b) Help ensure that I'm meaning what I say and c) Allow me to focus on other things more.
I have decided that I still to somewhat of a degree consider this a waste of time in the sense that I think the odds of these two philosophies being reconciled are essentially nil, however if it could somehow work it would be delightful and I think I will, as an individual, learn a bit from the process.
So I'll be doing one of these every two weeks or so, but in the meantime, the set up.
Imagine a world, 30 years in the future, which has largely moved on except in the United States of America. Due to political grid lock and cultural nostalgia, the United States is in many ways recognizable as it is today.
A few exceptions:
For most people, the question of Global Warming is no longer an 'if' but a 'happening.' However, strangely, it hasn't really changed anyone's opinions on anything. Indeed, for many conservatives, the question has become whether or not to believe scientists who are predicting the rise of spontaneous artificial intelligence in the computers that run our daily lives, under the belief that God would never allow something like that to happen because only He can make a true mind or soul.
And there are cat people. Gay Marriage isn't an issue any more. George Takai's birthday is the equivalent of Martin Luther King Day. It is widely agreed that this is not because there are greater heroes of the GLBT movement but because George Takai's birthday is a lot more fun to have drinks and beers on, and dress up in outlandish star trek costumes. While no one says, "Kiss me I'm Gay" they do say, "Kiss me, I'm Takai."
However, this controversy has been replaced by a controversy over Bestiality, not the kind you might think but the voluntary injection of huge amounts of animal DNA into their genomes, so Furry's and several others have taken their desires to the next logical step and become partially animals. Certain of the same groups that currently have issue with Gay Marriage have instead taken issue with Bestiality, arguing that such people are no longer human, especially when their genetic populations started to breed true. This movement is largely regarded as Cat People Rights.
However, the most controversial element of the future is perhaps that of Augmented Reality, where people are able to shape reality to their whim, either a fantasy or sci version etc. Skilled AI programs and graphics allow this reality to even extend to the work place, and while there are mandatory neutral areas, it has begun to result in an extreme segmentation of society.
This worked out fine until the sleeper Z party, that believed in making Zombies a reality, managed to get elected to a majority of congress, 60 sets in the Senate and 5 out 9 members of the Supreme Court. Their first action was to impeach the President and the Vice President and install their Speaker as Speaker of the House. Majority Leader Reed and Acting Speaker Boner were at a loss as what to do.
Ex-President Snooki was rather put out as well.
And so the States have called together a constitutional convention to fix things. And in the process opened all kinds of ideas that had been sitting around for a while. For months, the two realities, liberals and conservatives have gone back and forth without making any progress whilst the nation festers.
In the meantime, our first scene will be two good friends, young interns, one from the Libertarian delegation, Wardicus, and one from the Liberal delegation, Grayicus, who shall have an initial dialog set up and nudged by their benevolent cafeteria worker, Samicus.
I'm sure you all wait in eager anticipation ;)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
[News] American Parliament
Repost from Andrew Sullivan.
An American Parliament?
The United States Senate is the most disfunctional legislative body in a so called 'free' democracy in the entire world. People complain about the two party system yet in Parliaments all over the world, smaller parties are represented and help form moderating coalitions that often force the crazy people to chill.
An American Parliament?
The United States Senate is the most disfunctional legislative body in a so called 'free' democracy in the entire world. People complain about the two party system yet in Parliaments all over the world, smaller parties are represented and help form moderating coalitions that often force the crazy people to chill.
Monday, August 22, 2011
A pause for reflection
While I have a blind side on emotionally creating an 'us vs them' mechanic some times, quite frankly on many issues I'm quite convinced I'm firmly correct.
So what? You might say. So is everyone else.
Well, there is 'correct' and then there is 'Correct!'
Everyone agrees that things are broken in Washington and my Road Map (I think) does a pretty good job of showing why. To govern, you basically need a coalition of enough people to form a majority, and the dominant factions, the Glen/Rush Republicans and the Clinton Democrats are respectively taking advantage of the other factions in their party and Road Kill to get their majority.
I was trying to think outside of the box. I think it will be harder for Reagan/Roosevelt Republicans to take over their party again than for an outside coalition to win. I think that the LBJ democrats are too busy with their individual agendas to rise above them and are thus easily divided and exploited. I think the Roosevelt Democrats are too loyal to the party to break from it. The only movable pieces I saw on the board were Nolan Libertarians and Kucinich Democrats.
To form a governing coalition, the group must have a drive to win, be willing to form coalitions, and be able to convey platforms that will persuade others. I used to have hope for the Green Party but not for the last decade. Likewise Snowflakes, Conans and Archie Bunker Democrats aren't going to lead anything. *A* Conan might, like Ross Perot almost did, but he backed down at the last minute.
But by themselves Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats cannot wield sufficient might to shake the status quo, and Ron Paul Libertarians are effectively voting Republican at this point, or Republican and Libertarian and moving more and more into the orbit of the Republican party as the Republican party coopts some of their message, leaving the Nolan Libertarians behind.
Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats are extremely hostile towards each other. Nolan Democrats view the Kuccinich democrats as the ultimate statists (which I argue is actually LBJ democrats) whilst Kuccinich Democrats view Nolan Democrats are heartless thugs who are more concerned with destroying the government than with doing good to society.
I had an idea to use a polemic dialog ala the Republic, but in the last two days...I don't know. Because I think if these two sides could somehow forge their differences, they could make this a great country. Would Kuccinich Democrats abandon the idea of government first as a solution to problems? Would Libertarians agree to the idea that they had to PROVE their ideas could work (and do so in a way that could convince others in a modern day objective scientific approach) and accept state intervention in the areas where it does not?
My proposed dialog would look at a future where the idea was potentially more attractive but...in the last two days I'm reading things that make me wonder if this would be too farcical to try. Specifically based on the reactions I've seen from some Kuccinich Democrats to some of the more left leaning Libertarian ideas, I'm not sure if Kuccinich Democrats really can give up the idea that government is the solution even if it means trying to solve the problems that matter most to them, nor am I certain Libertarians are willing to give up the idea that Government *IS* the solution if their ideas are proven not to work.
And if that can't happen, talk of rebooting the constitution to help them get passed this obsession they have with it as a holy document based on their rather odd interpretation of it is pointless.
In short, my entire experiment in this might be for naught. I will watch for a week or two and see if I think there is even the slightest chance of this alliance, because really, if I thought Progressives could break the strangehold of the Clintonites *AND* actually convince roadkill to go in their direction I'd be tempted to go that way.
But I'd still be concerned that they'd take it too far. Road Kill demands moderation, and Kuccinich Democrats don't DO moderation well. Thus I don't think even the most persuasive or successful progressive campaign would be sustainable, which would hand things right back to the Clinton Democrats. Or worse, the Rush/Beck Republicans.
Conversely, even if somehow the Liberatrians gained a large amount of offices in a wave election, I don't picture it being sustainable, because to govern you have to believe that sometimes government IS the solution and for many of them the solution to failed attempts to fix the social problem (for those that even think some things Kucchinich Democrats regard as minimum standards of society are even problems worth addressing to begin with) would be to make government smaller, not larger. This is perfectly reflected in the Ron Paul Republicans within the Tea Party suggesting more tax cuts and smaller government to solve the Unemployment crisis, or being unable to accept 1 dollar in tax increases for 10 in cuts (and this is not hyperbole since Ron Paul himself recently stated this.)
This level of intractibility makes me think that even were I to have the powers granted me of all the great charismatics in history combined I could not reconcile these philosophies by any means at all.
Which leaves me with nothing.
I'll have to think on it.
So what? You might say. So is everyone else.
Well, there is 'correct' and then there is 'Correct!'
Everyone agrees that things are broken in Washington and my Road Map (I think) does a pretty good job of showing why. To govern, you basically need a coalition of enough people to form a majority, and the dominant factions, the Glen/Rush Republicans and the Clinton Democrats are respectively taking advantage of the other factions in their party and Road Kill to get their majority.
I was trying to think outside of the box. I think it will be harder for Reagan/Roosevelt Republicans to take over their party again than for an outside coalition to win. I think that the LBJ democrats are too busy with their individual agendas to rise above them and are thus easily divided and exploited. I think the Roosevelt Democrats are too loyal to the party to break from it. The only movable pieces I saw on the board were Nolan Libertarians and Kucinich Democrats.
To form a governing coalition, the group must have a drive to win, be willing to form coalitions, and be able to convey platforms that will persuade others. I used to have hope for the Green Party but not for the last decade. Likewise Snowflakes, Conans and Archie Bunker Democrats aren't going to lead anything. *A* Conan might, like Ross Perot almost did, but he backed down at the last minute.
But by themselves Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats cannot wield sufficient might to shake the status quo, and Ron Paul Libertarians are effectively voting Republican at this point, or Republican and Libertarian and moving more and more into the orbit of the Republican party as the Republican party coopts some of their message, leaving the Nolan Libertarians behind.
Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats are extremely hostile towards each other. Nolan Democrats view the Kuccinich democrats as the ultimate statists (which I argue is actually LBJ democrats) whilst Kuccinich Democrats view Nolan Democrats are heartless thugs who are more concerned with destroying the government than with doing good to society.
I had an idea to use a polemic dialog ala the Republic, but in the last two days...I don't know. Because I think if these two sides could somehow forge their differences, they could make this a great country. Would Kuccinich Democrats abandon the idea of government first as a solution to problems? Would Libertarians agree to the idea that they had to PROVE their ideas could work (and do so in a way that could convince others in a modern day objective scientific approach) and accept state intervention in the areas where it does not?
My proposed dialog would look at a future where the idea was potentially more attractive but...in the last two days I'm reading things that make me wonder if this would be too farcical to try. Specifically based on the reactions I've seen from some Kuccinich Democrats to some of the more left leaning Libertarian ideas, I'm not sure if Kuccinich Democrats really can give up the idea that government is the solution even if it means trying to solve the problems that matter most to them, nor am I certain Libertarians are willing to give up the idea that Government *IS* the solution if their ideas are proven not to work.
And if that can't happen, talk of rebooting the constitution to help them get passed this obsession they have with it as a holy document based on their rather odd interpretation of it is pointless.
In short, my entire experiment in this might be for naught. I will watch for a week or two and see if I think there is even the slightest chance of this alliance, because really, if I thought Progressives could break the strangehold of the Clintonites *AND* actually convince roadkill to go in their direction I'd be tempted to go that way.
But I'd still be concerned that they'd take it too far. Road Kill demands moderation, and Kuccinich Democrats don't DO moderation well. Thus I don't think even the most persuasive or successful progressive campaign would be sustainable, which would hand things right back to the Clinton Democrats. Or worse, the Rush/Beck Republicans.
Conversely, even if somehow the Liberatrians gained a large amount of offices in a wave election, I don't picture it being sustainable, because to govern you have to believe that sometimes government IS the solution and for many of them the solution to failed attempts to fix the social problem (for those that even think some things Kucchinich Democrats regard as minimum standards of society are even problems worth addressing to begin with) would be to make government smaller, not larger. This is perfectly reflected in the Ron Paul Republicans within the Tea Party suggesting more tax cuts and smaller government to solve the Unemployment crisis, or being unable to accept 1 dollar in tax increases for 10 in cuts (and this is not hyperbole since Ron Paul himself recently stated this.)
This level of intractibility makes me think that even were I to have the powers granted me of all the great charismatics in history combined I could not reconcile these philosophies by any means at all.
Which leaves me with nothing.
I'll have to think on it.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
[Phil] My Blind Side and My Theorum of Evolutionary Politics
So, I think the best way to find out what your blind side is wait for a criticism from someone who you respect, while given as the opposite point of view in a discussion as objectively as you can. Sometimes its flat out wrong. If someone told me, "You put too much faith in science" I'd smile and laugh because I know how messed up science can be but the PROCESS of science has given us amazing reproducible results again and again.
Recently the criticism was leveled at me, "You tend to think in Us vs Them filters." (Paraphrased). My initial reaction was that this was not true, but in retrospect, I agree. It is. But its relative. See, I understand that this is my EMOTIONAL reaction to something. I also know I'm a human being and that I'm influenced by my emotions. I try to override my emotions with reason as much as possible but I know I'm not perfect at it.
This is the value and importance of introspection. If you don't do it, you vastly increase the odds are that you've got not just one blind side, but many (or many related, hard to say and probably varies by individual.) Even worse, some people might think they engage in introspection when they actually engage in reinforcement. Its a tricky game, to be sure, but the results usually play out over time.
But I digress.
So I posit that this comes from another topic that has been bouncing around my mind of late, biology in politics. I think anyone can overcome their political or cultural beliefs with reason and tempered habit, but I think the EMOTIONAL way they react to something is hardwired biologically. I think reason can overcome it, but I think that the more aware you are of it, the more control you have.
I think reason, evolutionarily speaking, is a very recent abnormality, a mutation that is not as strong or ingrained into our natures as our emotions are. We've had millions of years to have our emotions drilled into us through natural selection (a subject on which Darwin was right by the way), but only a few hundred thousand to tens of thousands to have true reason. Or specifically Metacognition. Reason as the philosophers thought of it.
I think in terms of politics, behavior came from two axioms. On the one hand, you had individualists vs collectivists. That is to say, those who went out on their own and those that worked together to survive. The thing is, I think there is an evolutionary bias for the middle. Too solo, and reproducing is hard as is receiving aid when you need it. Too collectivist, pre science, and you risk disease. Major disease, where death is a horrible selector. Now I have no theory for this, but I do think that if the medium of the two is such, then I posit that those who are Biologically conservative fit this axiom.
In other words, we often think of individuals, such as Libertarians, as 'in the middle' with Conservatives on the Right and Liberals on the Left, but I would argue that Conservatives CAN and DO work in groups, but they are an 'us' vs 'them' mentality, vs Libertarians who are mostly, "Me + people who think like me" vs "Everyone the hell else" just short on the spectrum short of anarchists, who are very rare populationally speaking. Thus I think there is an evolutionary advantage to being conservative (at least in a pre science society).
I also think that the second axiom is 'New' vs 'Old.' Those who are willing to try new things ('what's that mushroom taste like?' vs stay with the old, "hell no i'm not eating that mushroom!') I think this is the older biological axiom. And I think that the 'individual' vs 'collectivist' stemmed from it, such that those who said, "Hey lets try this farming thing' won out vs those who said, "hell no, I wants to catch mean!", which snowballed such that a certain level of collectivism became the dominant gene pool but it trended toward 'Conservative'.
Exactly how much of this is there I don't know, but the basic idea behind it is pretty solid for a couple of reasons. The first, is that if you look at the Revolutionary War, you'll see that 1/3rd of the population favored Revolt, 1/3rd were Roadkill, and 1/3rd were loyalists. Now, which of these were biologically conservative? That's probably relative. Honestly, I'd bet there were spreads of all types in all three camps. But the split fascinates me so because it mirrors what we have today.
The thing that makes me most convinced there's some legitimacy to my theory is that we have already discovered some genetic correlation to some behaviors. There is indeed a risk taking gene, for example. And if we know some social disorders don't allow any social development at all that isn't learned by rote, then there is probably a spectrum of socializers vs non socializers.
Now, taking the 'tree hugger' position on this, I'd postulate that a healthy biological environment features a strong diversity of conservatives and liberals in a society. You need people saying, "Let's try this new thing" vs "Hell no I'm not eating that mushroom."
But its more complicated than that. We are also products of our culture. And a culture (or cultural faction) can be conservative or liberal. In my case, I was raised very conservative. And I believe that my anscestors on at least one side of my family have been very conservative as far back as you can go. And culturally speaking that line has been as well.
Over the course of my life I've been betrayed either institutionally or emotionally by most of the philosophies and institutions I was raised with. I have a very low tolerance for betrayal and a very long emotional memory. Where there is no apology or acknowledgement of fault, I don't forgive, though I do let it go in terms of caring about it, sometimes.
But if I am biologically conservative without the associating culture, that definitely explains an 'us vs them' lens point. Instead of the "us" being Republicans vs Democrats, in my case it was "Democrats vs Republicans" until the Democrats failed to have a spine and fight for what they believe and it became, "People who Give a Damn vs People that Don't." And its true. I respect people with ideologies more than I respect people who don't. I respect compassion, and I respect reason, and I respect introspection. I DO view everything through an "us" vs "them" label as I think a significant portion of our population does.
Fortunately, I'm capable of reason, and can see that flaw in my thinking and override it. Many can't.
Update: 9/20/2011 - I've noticed this post is read a lot. So let me clarify....just because I have a natural tendency to put people into an 'us vs them' categorization doesn't mean that I'm always WRONG to do so. Moreover, I'm capable of looking for and finding my blind spot and altering my behavior when its pointed out to me. If I say that you ignore science and are siding with companies that have paid researchers to bamboozle you, and you think you're smarter than them still but don't change your opinion, its you who is messed up, not me.
Recently the criticism was leveled at me, "You tend to think in Us vs Them filters." (Paraphrased). My initial reaction was that this was not true, but in retrospect, I agree. It is. But its relative. See, I understand that this is my EMOTIONAL reaction to something. I also know I'm a human being and that I'm influenced by my emotions. I try to override my emotions with reason as much as possible but I know I'm not perfect at it.
This is the value and importance of introspection. If you don't do it, you vastly increase the odds are that you've got not just one blind side, but many (or many related, hard to say and probably varies by individual.) Even worse, some people might think they engage in introspection when they actually engage in reinforcement. Its a tricky game, to be sure, but the results usually play out over time.
But I digress.
So I posit that this comes from another topic that has been bouncing around my mind of late, biology in politics. I think anyone can overcome their political or cultural beliefs with reason and tempered habit, but I think the EMOTIONAL way they react to something is hardwired biologically. I think reason can overcome it, but I think that the more aware you are of it, the more control you have.
I think reason, evolutionarily speaking, is a very recent abnormality, a mutation that is not as strong or ingrained into our natures as our emotions are. We've had millions of years to have our emotions drilled into us through natural selection (a subject on which Darwin was right by the way), but only a few hundred thousand to tens of thousands to have true reason. Or specifically Metacognition. Reason as the philosophers thought of it.
I think in terms of politics, behavior came from two axioms. On the one hand, you had individualists vs collectivists. That is to say, those who went out on their own and those that worked together to survive. The thing is, I think there is an evolutionary bias for the middle. Too solo, and reproducing is hard as is receiving aid when you need it. Too collectivist, pre science, and you risk disease. Major disease, where death is a horrible selector. Now I have no theory for this, but I do think that if the medium of the two is such, then I posit that those who are Biologically conservative fit this axiom.
In other words, we often think of individuals, such as Libertarians, as 'in the middle' with Conservatives on the Right and Liberals on the Left, but I would argue that Conservatives CAN and DO work in groups, but they are an 'us' vs 'them' mentality, vs Libertarians who are mostly, "Me + people who think like me" vs "Everyone the hell else" just short on the spectrum short of anarchists, who are very rare populationally speaking. Thus I think there is an evolutionary advantage to being conservative (at least in a pre science society).
I also think that the second axiom is 'New' vs 'Old.' Those who are willing to try new things ('what's that mushroom taste like?' vs stay with the old, "hell no i'm not eating that mushroom!') I think this is the older biological axiom. And I think that the 'individual' vs 'collectivist' stemmed from it, such that those who said, "Hey lets try this farming thing' won out vs those who said, "hell no, I wants to catch mean!", which snowballed such that a certain level of collectivism became the dominant gene pool but it trended toward 'Conservative'.
Exactly how much of this is there I don't know, but the basic idea behind it is pretty solid for a couple of reasons. The first, is that if you look at the Revolutionary War, you'll see that 1/3rd of the population favored Revolt, 1/3rd were Roadkill, and 1/3rd were loyalists. Now, which of these were biologically conservative? That's probably relative. Honestly, I'd bet there were spreads of all types in all three camps. But the split fascinates me so because it mirrors what we have today.
The thing that makes me most convinced there's some legitimacy to my theory is that we have already discovered some genetic correlation to some behaviors. There is indeed a risk taking gene, for example. And if we know some social disorders don't allow any social development at all that isn't learned by rote, then there is probably a spectrum of socializers vs non socializers.
Now, taking the 'tree hugger' position on this, I'd postulate that a healthy biological environment features a strong diversity of conservatives and liberals in a society. You need people saying, "Let's try this new thing" vs "Hell no I'm not eating that mushroom."
But its more complicated than that. We are also products of our culture. And a culture (or cultural faction) can be conservative or liberal. In my case, I was raised very conservative. And I believe that my anscestors on at least one side of my family have been very conservative as far back as you can go. And culturally speaking that line has been as well.
Over the course of my life I've been betrayed either institutionally or emotionally by most of the philosophies and institutions I was raised with. I have a very low tolerance for betrayal and a very long emotional memory. Where there is no apology or acknowledgement of fault, I don't forgive, though I do let it go in terms of caring about it, sometimes.
But if I am biologically conservative without the associating culture, that definitely explains an 'us vs them' lens point. Instead of the "us" being Republicans vs Democrats, in my case it was "Democrats vs Republicans" until the Democrats failed to have a spine and fight for what they believe and it became, "People who Give a Damn vs People that Don't." And its true. I respect people with ideologies more than I respect people who don't. I respect compassion, and I respect reason, and I respect introspection. I DO view everything through an "us" vs "them" label as I think a significant portion of our population does.
Fortunately, I'm capable of reason, and can see that flaw in my thinking and override it. Many can't.
Update: 9/20/2011 - I've noticed this post is read a lot. So let me clarify....just because I have a natural tendency to put people into an 'us vs them' categorization doesn't mean that I'm always WRONG to do so. Moreover, I'm capable of looking for and finding my blind spot and altering my behavior when its pointed out to me. If I say that you ignore science and are siding with companies that have paid researchers to bamboozle you, and you think you're smarter than them still but don't change your opinion, its you who is messed up, not me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)