Today I came across a lecture online dealing with education and the challenges in that area of society. I aim to return to a much deeper exploration of that and other similar lectures in a piece I want to write on the subject at a later point.
What I found in this lecture was a tiny bit where the point was brought up that humanity is so self-centered when we talk of saving the planet. George Carlin once made the joke that the earth most probably will outlive humanity. Bar some great spacial odyssey, where we escape the planet because of some impending threat like the extinction of vital biodiversity or a comet on course to strike earth, I think he may be right. Humanity will most likely stay on its home planet for as long as it lives. We may spread to other habitable planets, but unless earth is no longer welcoming for us, I see no reason why we would not stay here at least to keep it flagged.
And then a confliction notion entered the thought process. I was almost always a firm believer that the universe is statistically too big for the coincidence of intelligent life to only happen once. But since earth has only been around for some 4 billion years and the universe as a whole is over 14 billion years old, that leaves about ten billion years of room for some other planet in some other solar system in some other galaxy to sprout intelligent life before earth did. And again; if that happened once chances are it will have happened more than once.
Now. If the homo sapiens species is about 50,000 years old, that means it took us that time to go from being universally unimpactful to being able to scan almost the edges of the universe. Since technology improves exponentially for humanity I will allow myself to attribute the same to any alien species that live or may have lived.
This implies that over the course of lets just say 14 billion years, a ridiculously out-of-scope period of just 50,000 years would have to occur somewhere in that timeline to evolve a living primate species into a spacially capable species. Lets be generous and add another 100 years on top of that and just imagine what our species would be able to do and impact within the universe. Then try 1,000. Then try another 50,000. In the grand timeline of 14 billion years you can fit 280,000 sequential timelines of 50,000 years, and I'm just asking for 2 for this experiment.
So now we are getting to where the meat is in this discussion. By now we should agree on the probability that other intelligent life could have lived and travelled space somewhere. With what NASA can do right now, I have trouble believing that adding another 50,000 years to that development would not have found something else out there.
However, no one has contacted us, let alone visited, if we are to believe public record. And I am not interested in that debate right now, so lets just assume this is true.
This could mean that if another civilised culture has existed. It may have died out again. It may have evolved, it may have travelled space. It may have even settled on more than one planet. Perhaps even more than one solar system. Perhaps this culture has broken the barrier of intergalactic travel. And then the final addition; perhaps multiple cultures have done this.
With this possibility comes the question of why these cultures may choose either to not visit or contact us or whether other reasons apply. Could a possible reason be that such cultures have existed but no longer do? If so, could this reveal something about the evolutionary cycle of life?
Could it be that the cycle of life is to look for the most robust food chain before advancing past the possibility of self-termination? A food chain that does not let its highest link advance so far beyond the second highest that its pride becomes its downfall. This gets to my point. If the reality is that other intelligent life has or does live, then the lack of contact may be due to the fact that it is a universal fact that all evolution resets.
Perhaps the debate of how and why to save a planet is a universal one. One that has been had before. And has been lost before.
Sunday, 22 December 2013
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Market impact
Michael Sandel is hosted by TED to give the following talk concerning market influence and impact on civic life.
This talk describes how an increasing number of the aspects of life are marketized, meaning they are being evaluated for their monetary weight and then private interests can purchase advantages in those aspects. He gives a couple of examples, which need no repetition by me, and these should be news to most people. They exemplify how a certain distortion is introduced by this take over. What Michael is trying to convey here, amongst other things, is the question of whether or not this change has impact on motivation in a positive sense.
Now I did a piece on motivation almost two years ago analysing the idea superficially and making some minor connections to other issues. But I think a relevant answer backed by scientific studies to the question posed above, is the one supplied by Daniel Pink in this lecture:
It is clearly stated that the findings seem to indicate that monetary rewards seem to give a sugary rush to completing simple and mechanical tasks, whereas the exact same rewards inhibt critical thinking in creative tasks.
So when Michael Sandel asks the question whether a monetary reward for reading a book is a good idea, science seems to counter-propose whether we think reading a book is related to mechanical or creative thinking. If we simply think it is about turning pages and memorising knowledge, then we are branding the reader a vessel for the knowledge of others, not an individual with creative abilities to process ideas and improve upon them.
And as Michael rightly points out - we do not know the long term effects on the motivation towards reading, if curiosity gets replaced by monetary goals as the motivator for reading and absorbing perspectives.
My guess would be: The sooner in life we introduce money as life support to people, the sooner we motivate them to stop thinking creatively and start thinking mechanically.
This talk describes how an increasing number of the aspects of life are marketized, meaning they are being evaluated for their monetary weight and then private interests can purchase advantages in those aspects. He gives a couple of examples, which need no repetition by me, and these should be news to most people. They exemplify how a certain distortion is introduced by this take over. What Michael is trying to convey here, amongst other things, is the question of whether or not this change has impact on motivation in a positive sense.
Now I did a piece on motivation almost two years ago analysing the idea superficially and making some minor connections to other issues. But I think a relevant answer backed by scientific studies to the question posed above, is the one supplied by Daniel Pink in this lecture:
It is clearly stated that the findings seem to indicate that monetary rewards seem to give a sugary rush to completing simple and mechanical tasks, whereas the exact same rewards inhibt critical thinking in creative tasks.
So when Michael Sandel asks the question whether a monetary reward for reading a book is a good idea, science seems to counter-propose whether we think reading a book is related to mechanical or creative thinking. If we simply think it is about turning pages and memorising knowledge, then we are branding the reader a vessel for the knowledge of others, not an individual with creative abilities to process ideas and improve upon them.
And as Michael rightly points out - we do not know the long term effects on the motivation towards reading, if curiosity gets replaced by monetary goals as the motivator for reading and absorbing perspectives.
My guess would be: The sooner in life we introduce money as life support to people, the sooner we motivate them to stop thinking creatively and start thinking mechanically.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Fukushima 2013
Reading through a handful of articles all stating the same thing, I
finally decided to go with this one, seeing how well sourced it is
concerning statements. This article takes the rather pessimistic
viewpoint that a nuclear crisis on the scale of the Cuban missile
crisis is imminent.
- Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000
times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.
- Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from
Fukushima “would destroy the world environment and our
civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the
pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of
human survival.”
If this is true, then the article, written in late september, says
that the official statement is that about 60 days remain before this
Unit 4 will ignite and start a fuel fire. Such a fuel fire would
apparently damn our atmosphere, which in turn ruins the air, the
oceans and the positive effects of the sun, effectively choking the
planet to death. And just to drill it in, in case you have previously
been categorising this issue in your mind as a Japanese issue:
- Chernobyl’s first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days.
Fukushima’s in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at
Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal
radioactive poisons for centuries.
If radiation from Chernobyl in eastern Europe can reach California in
ten days, then compare that with the current issue where we face an
amount 15,000 times greater. It should be clear to you, that this is
a global issue, and should therefore concern you. This is why it is
damaging that the offical story is indeed that it is just a japanese issue.
To broaden this discussion I will point out that this is a very
dangerous way of categorising issues, and at the same time it is
quite resemblant of how issues are indeed categorised. Issues like
these are clearly of global concern, and should therefore not be a
national problem to solve. When an issue concerns more than just one
nation, the nation becomes a hinderance in finding a solution.
National pride and economics are the causes of this, and they pull in
opposing directions. Some market theories unquestionably labels
issues like this as a positive force in the market in that it
provides investment incentive to a large degree. Funneling public
funding into private institutions working to compete for a solution
to the issue. But the mere time frame alone should clarify how
crippling this is to a creative and functional solution. There is a
very good reason why it has come down to this narrow time frame now,
with a crisis that started in 2011. That is the level of thinking
associated with the solution is thoroughly handicapped by the
framework enforced on the debate.
The fault lies in presupposing that every issue that ever enters our
reality is a democratic one. Sometimes precision is needed, which
assumes an undermining of all bureaucracy in order to minimize
collateral damage.
Sunday, 9 June 2013
Universal Basic Income
So I
found this clip about work and the merit of it in contemporary
society.
It seems to be the point of this idea to create awareness of the complication introduced into production and consumption, when we politically moralise the debate about who deserves what and when based upon individual contribution to the whole. Rather than rearranging society in accordance with current technical capability to ensure the highest possible rate of production, we would rather limit the possibilities to ensure that anyone who can, and even some who cannot, experience the feeling that they therefore should contribute in order to receive.
If you
are as regular a reader on this blog as my posting habits would allow
then you should be aware of the fact that I am a firm believe in
basic human rights including a roof along with sufficient nutrition
for every single human being on this planet. It should never ever be
considered a luxury to be able to sustain life along with mental and
physical health no matter the contribution to society.
As a
transitional tool away from monetary exchange and economic pressure
all together into a true economy with equilibrium and steady state
systemic structure as the goal, I do think this universal income idea
has some merit. A bridge obviously has to exist from our current
ecocidal and asocial ostracising patterns into a much more humane
paradigm, where human beings are recognised as such rather than the
label “consumer”.
Labels:
consumerism,
culture,
economy,
health,
inspiration,
money,
philosophy,
politics,
theory
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
A day in the life
Trapped. Queued. Shopping... Looking at
a plastic basket full of imported groceries, I find myself
contemplating how fast I could escape this situation should I want
to. I wonder if the sun is shining outside, and in about five minutes
time, when I have paid for my temporary solutions, I will find out if
it does.
But then I sat up. I was in bed.
Nightmares always make me rather groggy when I wake up, so it takes a
short while before I distinguish this moment from the last in the
string of conscious experiences. The sun was indeed shining outside,
and I feel it now warming my hair ever so gently as I bend down again
resting on the elbows. I know what comes next, but the delicate grace
of the consuming familiarity has to be overpowered, before I can get
up and do what must be done.
Going to the bathroom for a quick leak,
and I will have my breakfast afterwards. Some progressively charming
people would refer to it as “a cheap golden spa with the doctor”.
Reviewing the numbers popping up on the mirror as I wash my hands, I
find that my recent diet has been a bit too sugar-heavy, so instead
of just leaving, I tab the recommended meal touch pad.
Jumping into a pair of nano-fabric
shorts and a t-shirt I feel the short chill, before I venture into
the garden outside. The sun shine really is lovely today. Like a
never ending and never beginning kiss on the cheek from the love of
your life. But after dwelling on such a rather poetic notion for a
short while, my stomach lets out a brief growl shoving me back on
track. So I sign in with a finger print on the pad next to the
hydroponics, and upon recognising that I asked for a recommended
meal, lights beneath the artificial soil quickly appear, highlighting
the necessary fruits and vegetables for my breakfast. I sheathe my
hands into the gardening gloves on the desk and take to gather the
components.
I must say I do not care much for the
compliments I get from my kitchen, just because I went with the
suggested meal to balance my vitamin intake, but I guess some
concessions have to be made, if it helps other people be motivated
towards a better a diet. I could just tell my kitchen to stop giving
me those messages, but I like to be reminded of my own attitude. And
of course there is the added bonus that fewer and fewer people have
to see doctors now. I reckon medicine will easily transition into a
focus on preventative treatment and health maintenance in my life
time given where we are now.
Leaving the house I greet the neighbour
coming home. She has apparently already been out and about on one of
the new city roamers. These vehicles never seize to amaze me. Plated
with a photovoltaic shell, just like almost every road is now, they
run entirely on sun light, but the interesting part is that this has
completely vamped society, and I think this is why people get up so
early in the morning now, even though there is no labour left to do.
These bikes never stay stationary for longer periods of time, and yet
they have a fascinating break down rate of close to zero.
So when she gets out, I jump in and
articulate my destination to the receiver. When I get to the
university, I quickly traverse the stairs in anticipation of the
study group I have been preparing for all week. “Applied
Teraforming” has become my new hobby, and I hope to one day become
sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to teach it myself.
Although most classes are now taught by the students themselves on a
rotation basis, it is suggested that one takes a number of classes on
a specific subject, prior to leaving the student roster and entering
the the student-teacher roster.
Regarding “Applied Teraforming” I
tend to day dream about a production team of developers and
programmers working with me to realise my dream of a computer game,
that tasks players with cultivating the best possible environment on
a given planet, drawing raw data and calculating impacts made by
player decisions from the global database. In turn this could become
applied teraforming, if the record setting players' designs would be
submitted back into the database for engineers and ecologists to
review as possible schemes for real space exploration. But that is
just my personal goal, and if it is to be, then I am sure I will
eventually find the people I need for such a team to start working.
Later this week I did sign up for
another study group called “Beyond exchange”, but I am actually
considering not going. The people are very nice, but I do sometimes
feel that I spent a bit too much time on that subject before
Liberation, so I am not sure I would learn much from a thorough
analysis into the socialisation process concerned with human
interaction and that stuff. It just always seemed like a given to me
that it would obviously work out in the end, even if we did not have
anything left to threaten each other with.
However, I do see the merit in the
course, because we certainly did not evolve past the exchange based
culture as soon as we technically could have. And if I do go, it will
be to explore how the transition seems to be going based on recent
findings. Most of the previous advocates of exchange came around
after strife and famine were ended, but some still cling to the idea
that humans are categorically egoistical, and the only reason we are
currently functional in a cooperative society is because it benefits
ourselves the most. I guess they could be right. But then again, the
results speak for themselves. All the psychiatrists either chose
another education or shipped off to the Americas to work with
transitional conflicts over there, simply because the need here fell
like never before a few years after Liberation.
What amuses me greatly is when I get
back home and do my exercises before dinner. I was always one of
those lazy kids who were never properly motivated by the physical
socio-dynamics, but now that I can track my progress on a bar that
slowly builds towards the next level, I find myself working out
almost every day. It is purely recreational though, but I do not see
why that would be a bad thing. The results are that my ulcerative
colitis is kept in check, and my body has never been healthier. To
think I was pretty much addicted to junk food and computer games
before Liberation. Now I feel in shape, and not because I have to
impress anyone but myself.
So for dinner tonight I believe I will
treat myself to a soy burger with a quinoa bun and a relish of kale
and pees. Afterwards I try to stay motivated towards a short session
of meditation. After training for a while I can tell it helps me stay
curious and open minded, but when there is no bar tracking how well I
do it just gets a bit too intangible sometimes.
So have a nice evening friends. I will
see you in class for “Steady-state patterning”.
Labels:
about,
consumerism,
diet,
economy,
family,
gaming,
globalisation,
health,
identity,
inspiration,
introduction,
money,
philosophy,
poetry,
politics,
psychology,
revolution,
sociology,
theory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)