Universal evolutionary reset

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Consumed

Burying itself alive and wasting away its youth
Life becomes a timer, the host awaits the ring
Deceptively consuming to shroud a reality
A reality unwanted keeps the dreamer asleep
Endless entertainment of oceanic proportions
Wishing for the horn of Jotunheim to fill
Keyboards now absolving the blade, the rope
The tale of Odysseus inspiring scars
And yet it finds itself no mourning
In being drawn towards Next

Private economy

For a while now I have been drawn to writing another blog post. This time I sought to relate it to why my inspiration had been missing for quite a few months now. Through various issues I discovered that I was suffering from some symptoms of stress. My imagination was stiffled, making it hard to focus on doing what I had to do. Now my life is by no means stressful in comparison to normality, however, I because I have gone through so many different perspectives on how to earn my daily bread, I am beginning to tire. Fear of never finding a commercial passion, or actually just any type of passion, threatens my survival and this is stressful.

Whether good or bad I am extremely poor at subscribing to temporary solutions. If I know that a job or an education will not be relevant or interesting to me at a later point, I feel like quitting and that feeling can sometimes take hold of whatever chance it had of growing. Now I have no doubt that this is somehow related to classical psychological issues of fear causing people to quit. I could most likely read up on it and discover that I am quite similar to other people who have experienced this issue and have solved it somehow. Either on their own or therapeutically, but this is where a major complication arises.

Because I am a firm believer that this capitalistic monetarily based system is unsustainable I instantly discredit such psychological findings as they seem relevant only to the people interested in conforming to this system. I see this as one of many symptoms that the system is trying to do patch work on its short comings rather than self-examining to discover the unrecoverable situation and initiate a proper solution. Personally I have no interest in conforming, which is why it is so hard for me, as it seems to cost bits and pieces of my integrity every time I do. I find myself saying one thing and doing another.

This economic terrorism is so subtle that it seems ridiculous to even call it that. But that is what it is. Perhaps I will return to this issue at a later point. I should.

Horizontal Social Governance

Inspired by the following RSA presentation I have begun a new train of thought this morning. But before I introduce what could become a lengthy introduction I will let you get acquainted with the material yourself.

What I gather from this talk is that Jeremy Rifkin believes that a 3^rd industrial revolution could be on its way. Obviously this is interesting by itself, with all the perspectives on peak oil and what not, but what I find to be even more intriguing is that this perspective that power and management thus far has been vertical – top-down. And as is introduced the internet has more than proved that people are ready for a more horizontally oriented approach. Powerful search engines have made the lack of available information a thing of the past, and this could be interpreted as a sign that people are adjusting to having more influence.

As opposed to Mr. Rifken I see a wealth of possible conflicts with this emerging social paradigm of equality. A horizontally governed direct democracy, as it would be, would feature less individually oriented authority. This would make politics obsolete in a relatively short period of time, and that would be perfectly fine, if it was not for the fact that the powers that be will know this in advance of the majority, and they will try, as they have with the Occupy movement and similar groups, to turn public orientation towards an illusion that they and they alone embody democracy. Because if they do it would become obvious how counterproductive it is to diminish the institutions concerned with politics and law making.

The proof of the above claim? Look at how the media handles the rising discontent with governing institutions. They are attempting to shadow the reality of how big a portion of the globe is currently interested in making changes. While all of them do not share a unified goal for whatever change they seek, they agree on the fact that something must be done. Humans are now on a collision course with reality, as we begin to understand that razing forest after forest to compete in this global game of monopoly is unrealistic.

In closing it should be noted that the reason that we are simultaneously aware of this abyss and still moving towards it, is exactly the vertical governing installation of representative democracy. This makes for a dissonance between what we know and how fast we can make changes accordingly because every discovery in science and later in public understanding has to go through the process of persuading political figures and market shaping forces before it can be integrated properly.

Because we are a top-down species at this point, we are limited from responding optimally to emerging social problems.

Service

Depending on what culture you are from you may have experienced what I am about to describe. In my country it is very much the case in the service sector of the market that younger and younger people are employed as front line personel. In short, people of the new school.

Aside from the obvious financial benefit this has brought to the employers, since younger, inexperienced people are cheaper, it may be worth pointing out another very important point about this situation.

In the past when the service sector was a relatively fresh industry, following the downsizing of the work force in aggriculture caused by the technology available around the start of the 20^th century, there was a period where it had include a certain flexibility to market itself. The kind of flexibility you would probably only experience presently if you get in contact with someone with a higher grade of responsibility than the service level. The shop keeper or to a lesser extent the manager. Most managers would not apply though. They are put in place to uphold the rules put down by their own employer and their job is based mostly on making sure the staff beneath them bends no rules and applies no flexibility.

Not because the industry tries to work against flexibility, but because the total stream lining of the service sector has allowed for a much more rigid rule set. If you do not like the rules in place at a restaurant or a store, you are pretty much out of luck. Because you can be certain that a quite similar set of rules are in place in whatever other place you may visit.

This may or may not bother you. If it does not I would venture the guess that it is because you have not thought it through. Surely you would rise to some level of discontent if you realised that you had been manipulated into the acceptance of this.

The most modern and ”hip” places introduced this concept into our culture and since then we have come to accept it on a daily basis. We are now at the point where we consider good service the abnormal and remember it for days when some employee somewhere gave us a personal experience. But why is this? Should it not be preferable for society to accept only bad service as the abnormal?

The reason for this rigid business model that we are all supporting with our purchases out of the lack of proper alternatives, is of course that it works. It works to cut back on the extent of service, because the extent of service mostly implies the extent of lowering expected pay for whatever service was given. Deductions and good will are concepts swept under the carpet and the consumer remains ever oblivious.

And this is just the beginning. Now that the industry has us accepting a very poor standard of service, they can easily make the transfer to automated kiosks everywhere. In the grocery store, in the café, in the restaurants and in the malls. For what is more rigid than a machine? And companies know this. They exploit it. They are very much interested in automating the process of purchasing everywhere.

Criticism

Most people today are familiar with the idea that it is easier to notice the flaws of others than the flaws of oneself. To my knowledge this is an idea originating from the teachings of Christ, which would make it a lesson from the new testament. Without needing to debate religious subjects to dig deeper, it is perfectly possible to reflect on how this has had an effect on the larger social evolution that has happened since then.

Many people revert to this mantra every time they are called out on making a mistake. Indeed it is a practise we spend considerable amounts of time on disapproving of in public. We disapprove of politicians that spend their valuable time for preaching their own mass appeal on preaching of the lack of mass appeal in their adversaries instead.

So it would be safe to assume that we have made it a cultural phenomenon to express discontent with any one flawed person or group to criticise another person or group. In this respect it becomes somewhat impossible to be honest about oneself and constructive towards others. Because by default we are all useless as critics to one another, as we are all “sinners”.

Since evolution has made us a socially dependant animal I would propose something entirely different to this approach discussed above. It is possible that we have developed in a fashion that made us superior at noticing the mistakes of others simply because we have spent so much time through history on looking outwards. At others and at society. Indeed it compliments us well in social contexts that we can function as coaches for others.

Imagine that from this instance people were better at coaching themselves than others. What would spark our drive towards mutual inspiration? How would we surpass anything previously thought of, if we were only better critics of what we had produced or proposed ourselves, rather than of the common wealth of knowledge and produce of all others?

Is it possible that this natural inclination towards outward criticism is culturally fought because if we accepted this perspective as innate, if not to our entire species then at least to our contemporary culture, we would rise towards our current potential and possibly evolve our social sphere?

Cause is mentioned here as there is conservative inclination in most social contexts to resist any change that could potentially snowball into more changes. “Controlled change” is even a phrase used by modern conservative politicians.

Ownership

What is ownership? In its most basic term it seems to imply the occupation of something by someone. This someone has since the original term was used been expanded to also include organisations and institutions such as corporations and even countries or groups of countries.

What it legally means, however, is simply that this something you have legally bought or acquired is now reserved for you by the enforcing institutions of your community. Is this just a silly overanalytic way to say that the something is yours?

No.

There is a vast difference between the idea of ownership and the actual phenomenon of ownership. You see in the idea of ownership it is possible to say that something is yours. But in the actual world nothing is really yours. It can all be taken away, if not by other people then by external elements operating outside the rule of ownership, such as your dog deciding to eat it or a tsunami washing it all away.

So what you are left with is simply this illusion backed up by real world enforcement that in the event that your something is taken away from you and still desirable for you, then you may call upon these enforcers to bring it back to you or at the very least punish the ones that took it and in some cases recieve a monetary settlement in exchange for your something. It is an illusion that only works because we are all hooked into the same feed of rules, norms and acceptable behaviour.

Just like money it only works as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes a thief, then you need to bend the guiding principles of reality to incorporate enforcing parties, such as the police, to shield you from this asocial behaviour.

And just like money it is only required for society to work properly as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes able to grow their own food and gather their own water from natural sources, they start breaking the need to compromise themselves as individuals to function in this game of monetary exchange.

This clash of topics will most likely raise the issue of what happens to ownership when nothing is bought or sold anymore. When money is no more.

It obviously ceases to exist as the illusion it has survived as for so long. Surely it is a requirement for society to function though?

When you think about it, it should be a perfectly viable model for adults to share rather than own. After all we are not the primates we evolved from, nor are we the child we grew up from. If you connect the reality of sharing rather than owning with the reality that our current means of production could produce an abundance of high quality items for everyone, so long as there is no need for a profit to be generated anywhere, then you will see that this idea of ownership really only serves the salesman. The buyer is left with purchasing illusions.

So this is where the closing question arises. How much do we believe in the modern social sciences proving to us that we are extremely adaptive to the rules of whatever context we apply ourselves to?

Integrity

About a month ago I came up with the idea that I wanted to show my girlfriend a clip from a movie that I would like to discuss with her. In spirit of Black March I completely forgot about it until last night, where I dug up the clip on YouTube. The clip is from the majorly provocative feature called Brüno.

Even if you have watched the movie, you may not remember it as I did. I actually saw the movie in the cinema with my brothers and my cousin. It was quite a movie that we were in no way prepared for, but I suppose that was the idea. What stuck with me, aside from one other very disturbing display of the male body, was this clip of how extremely devoid of integrity the people interviewed seem to be.

I cannot guarantee that they are not actors and this is not a setup, but what I can guarantee is that it would then be very inspired by actual events taking place on an every day basis in the entertainment industry. If you have seen The Greatest Movie Ever Sold you would most likely agree.

But without further ado I bring to you the modern parents with stars in their eyes.

I hope I did not cause any heart problems when the answer ”yes” was given to the question ”can your child handle lit phosphorous?”.

Kony 2012

I thought I would make a post about Kony 2012, considering that it is all over the internet anyway. First I should point out that I have not seen the movie. The reason for this is that I feel no need to watch a documentary about child abuse. I have read a bit on the subject, however, and I thought I would provide you readers with some extra perspectives on this documentary. Mainly because when we are done discussing how important it is to assist children in need, we should consider what ruthless powers might exploit such good will. If that was the last thing on your mind, then you are indeed setting yourself up for quite a lot of surprises as we approach the end of fossil fuels.

According to this article Uganda recently proclaimed itself as en route to becoming an oil producer, with commercial production having begun in 2009. If this does not make any bells ring, we should just leave the subject there. If it does, however, then we should explore what kind of message the movie is attempting to send.

If you believe the following interview to be anything remotely related to the state of these affairs, then perhaps there is more to this motivational documentary than meets the eye. I would argue against being a conspiracy theorist, but I'll just let the words military intervention linger here.

Next up is this personal point brought up by a young woman claiming to be from Uganda herself with relatively regular visits. While she obviuosly has not studied this matter intently, I do think it might be interesting to note that if she is speaking the truth, then Kony is indeed not the subject of daily discussions in the homes of Uganda.

UPDATE: I also stumbled across this article which certainly lays into this documentary in a very rough way. I thought I should provide it in case you like the more theory-based approaches.

Advertising Revisited

This will most likely not be the last time I visit the topic of advertising. I just thought this picture went so well with our previous discussion on public space used for advertisements.

 

Thinking

Just an interesting quote I came across, and exploring it revealed this web site.

Thinking is not driven by answers but by questions

1st of March

Yesterday was the 1^st of March. This kicks off the event Black March set in motion by big players and discussed earlier in these posts Black March and MoreBlack March. And I must admit that I did not think of it. I was reminded by a friend that this is the time to make a stand against mainstream media.

Rather than describing how I think this action relates to active protest against Hollywood, I will take quite a different route with this post. I am going to post a short review of the latest product from Hollywood I was unfortunate enough to support with a fraction of my purchasing power.

The movie Safe House, starring such renowned actors as Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington, was a dissappointment to me in several ways. To retain some sort of self-respect I will hide behind the excuse that recently I frequent the movies with my younger brother more than I do so with any one else. This limits the amount of inspiried independantly produced movies I get to see on the big screen. But back to the movie Safe House.

The main critique I have of this piece of so-called entertainment is that while this movie fits in the genre of action, the action scenes portrayed were so poorly realized that I drew several loud sighs and probably even rolled my eyes a few times. The camera was shaking for every action scene with no exception. In addition to this the plot was weak and unexplored. The characters also felt too weakly developed to engage the audience properly.

These and many other reasons should solidify how easy it will be to go through with Black March and refuse to support these underachieving industries claiming to profess themselves at understanding and providing entertainment.

Solace

In this post a link between different ideas and perspectives on social evolution will be attempted. It is my hope that the reader will discover resonance with at least a fraction of this train of thought.

Kicking it off with this profoundly well adjusted comment on the spirit of the age we have Jiddu Krishnamurtis combination of social observation, implication and aspiration. Packed into a single sentence he manages to describe the how invalid the aeon old idea that one should strive to be well adjusted to whatever context one exists in, when the context is indeed "profoundly sick", which also sets up the following aspirations.

1. To end any adjustment to an unsustainable context. As Marthin Luther King Jr. put it: "[...] There are some things in our social system that I'm proud to be maladjusted to, and I call upon you to be maladjusted to." - source
2. To push for a change of the context.

Admitted, the second aspiration is my own addition, and it cannot rhetorically be extracted from the quote in the first picture. If you frequent this blog, however, you will know that I have sourced several scientific studies and findings indicating that we humans are socially dependant beings. Because of this it becomes the internal motivation for survival and personal improvement to improve socially. Either through a betterment of personal standing or through betterment of society, depending on the culture the individual is raised in.

Accepting this it should be obvious that maladjustment is positive only so long as the maladjusted individual nurtures hope that the social context may change for the better. To break away from a norm is to feel isolated until a sense of commonality with others is again obtained. This solace seeking is natural for gregarious animals and, as we can now agree upon, quite needed.

Everyone's favorite inventor Leonardo Da Vinci has even coined a perfect phrase for this darker side of norm-breaking inception.

Imagine being the smartest person in the world. It must be lonely there at the top. A very important realisation to acknowledge is that to be at the very top requires disregard for a wide variety of norms. The conformity to norms is a compromise. Social security in exchange for the ability to grow in whichever direction the personality would otherwise.

So do you try and inspire people to join you at the peak, or do you leave the peak and join into the community of a mountain village at a lower altitude?

This is in no way an implication of any peak position held by myself or any of the people referenced. It is simply an extreme metaphor meant to paint an obvious picture of the dilemma which keeps most people from breaking significant norms, due to the severance from social relevance associated with such a transformation of the identity.

News

Here Jason Read, with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, comments on the conservative notion of face value in society.

Dr. Read seems to think that the book is not to be judged by its cover. That the classes of society are not only what the media portray them as. Please remember that the media, from where you might have had your view on this matter skewed, are institutions that obviously do not act against the interest of their owners or share holders. And it should be obvious to most people that such owners or share holders portray not in the slightest the lower classes of society.

You see the news is not just the news. It is not everything that you need to know about a given situation that is relatively new. It is a perspective. Brought forth by the interest to sell it to you. You have to inspect news and information as you would a car being sold to you. Make sure that the model is not suitable for you because of how the salesman pitches it, but because it is what you need it for. A car is a vehicle for transportation. The news is your way of relating to contemporary society. That makes it vastly more important to inspect thoroughly when it is being sold to you.

For a broader perspective on matters somewhat related to my points, you can take a look at Dr. Read's lecture "The Social Individual" here:

Greece and I

It is with a blackened concience that I write today. I know I have been slacking when it comes to the blog lately, and I really do not wish for this to be a futile attempt at reaching people. The truth is not that I have been buried in work at the university, it is simply that I spend my spare time on games and movies. This is no excuse. I started this project the way some ambitious people start exercising - to expand my possibilities. Not physically but mentally.

So with that out of the way, what should we discuss today? Well how about the recent this article from yesterday? It captures the sense of depravity and desperation that was expressed in Athens lately. An echo of so many past expressions of desperation in that city. The craddle of democracy is under attack by austerity measures brought on by a debt crisis exceeding any other historically.

Is there a way out for Greece? Perhaps, but it lies deeper than what is expressed in any major media outlet. A reworking of the European culture is needed. Perhaps Greece once again gets to carry the torch that leads our continent onwards. We shall see.

Mass Media

The society of today is very proud of labelling itself the age of information. With this label it somehow draws the parallel that the inhabitants of the modern world are well informed. Why else would it be the age of information?

What it does not label itself as, although that is probably just as fitting is the age of mass neurosis and stress related diseases. Rates of illness are off the chart compared to earlier, and that is not just because fancier methods of diagnosis are now available. No it is because the tomorrow of yesterday is today. And with this leap into the future, with all the proud noise equipment people now find themselves armed with, this species has managed to create an atmosphere of constant attention seeking.

The act of seeking attention was formerly reserved by organic species, but now the more inanimate of our fellow planetary residents have joined in to this game of depriving others of their focus. Dramatic as it may appear when written down like that, is is no further from the truth than the very related fact that humans are now outnumbered by their electronic creations.

The pivotal point to make is if a correlation exists between the boom in electronic devices available and the boom in illnesses, and that has proven more difficult than someone uneducated in this field of sociology such as myself could master. The reason that I bring this up is simply to note this idea and see if it resonates on some level with any of the readers on this blog.

Another reason that I bring this up is the picture that I shared in my last post depicting quite strongly the un-individualization of the modern audience for television.

Take 1 minute and 56 seconds out of your life and prove me wrong in this: Howard Beale can paint this picture quite nicely.

And I can only say that I find myself the victim of this culture he describes. I too am guilty of succumbing to the media available to me. I frequent blogs, watch shows online, listen to podcasts and converse with friends about the newest games available.

All very much to the detriment of my creativity, as the recent lack of consistency in my posting is evidence of. And I do not believe myself to be alone in this situation.

Television

Just a minor post today with a picture I saw recently. I think it illustrates quite nicely the points brought up in this presentation on conformity, that an audience to any expression of opinions will end up adopting them if they are repeated thoroughly enough.

I will revisit the topic of television and media again soon.