I'm going to take a sabbatical from life in order to better study for the GRE, which I have on the 13th of July. See you then.
DF
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
My Ideal World
Some would say that conditions in the world right now are worse than they have ever been, and that may be true for some things: climate change, modern war, public political scandals, etc. Those, however, did not prompt me to think about my ideal world; playing Pandemic 2 did.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
The game involves you creating a disease that is supposed to eradicate the human population while the human population eventually attempts to fight back by creating a vaccine to your virus/bacteria/parasite. The disease starts in a randomly assigned country, whether it is the United States or Madagascar. At a certain level, the disease becomes noticed (though the game is flawed in that it takes a long time for a country to notice an outbreak, whereas in real life 200,000 people exhibiting unique symptoms with the same disease would be very public) and countries begin to close their borders, their ports, and their air travel. While it is a game that takes a scenario to an extreme, it is worth thinking about.
For example, would countries cut off all communication with each other upon discovery of the disease within the affected country, or would medical aid flow into the affected country? Most likely, the latter would happen. The game makes no mention of this contingency. (Eventually, everyone in all affected countries become infected unless a vaccine is developed.)
How does this lead into my grandiose portrait of an ideal world? Two simple words: International cooperation, my friend.
In my ideal world (and political conservatives will likely vilify me for this), the world has a unified government. This unified government is all-encompassing, including all countries under one united Earth umbrella. Countries reserve a degree of autonomy, much like states do within the United States. The united world government, however, remains predominant in all cases dealing with law. Having all countries under one government would improve the world by:
-Expediting international cooperation in times of duress, such as during natural disasters.
-Ensuring universal human rights for all people.
-Bolstering the economies of traditionally weaker countries.
Before I begin talking about this world's economic system, it is necessary to state that countries dedicate more money towards education and scientific research than military spending, religious spending, etc. Health is paramount, so proven carcinogens such as tobacco are gone, as well as manufactured food additives, such as high fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oils.
At first, the economy would be based on traditional trade between countries, i.e. food, transportation, etc. Eventually, as technology develops, food and products will be commonly synthesized by advanced technology, thus rendering the trade of items for profit superfluous. (Research into this is being carried out in Japan already, though not as directly as I would hope.)
Thus, the economy would no longer be based in money due to an abundance of necessary goods.
This would entail a new fundamental philosophy of all human existence: Instead of each individual doggedly pursuing an accumulation of material capital in order to live well, the value of education and pursuit of knowledge would have to replace money as the driving force of mankind.
Knowledge can be progressed by the exploration of space. Humans have yet to break the seal on the vast scores of knowledge the galaxy, let alone the universe, holds. We reside as a veritable dust particle in a mansion. There is so much to explore and learn that only generations from now will humans truly understand their place in the universe. (That is, if this future comes to fruition.)
Being an Atheist, I can only hope that my imagined future is full of Atheists; however, that's unlikely, so tolerance for all beliefs will be a key concept in this overly idealistic future. Even more fundamental concepts that should be taught are logic, rationality, and empathy. A combination of the three, with each assuming an equal role in human relations and interaction, can assure equal understanding both between humans and the world in which we live.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. I may have neglected to mention some things, so just leave any concerns/questions in the comments section and I'll respond forthwith.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Technological Progress
15 years ago, no one imagined that wireless networks would be everywhere and available for every laptop to connect to. Tablet computers such as the iPad were only seen on TV shows such as Star Trek. Hybrid cars were unheard of. Some say that technological progress is inevitable, but what about technological regression?
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
If I were to ask you to imagine what surgery would look like in the Roman Empire, you would likely think of it as a dirty process, often involving an eventual infection and possibly even amputation. This, however, was not the case.
Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen, is known to have performed surgeries that are commonplace even today, and he performed them successfully. He created sutures, repaired broken bones, and even attempted to replace a missing part of a child's skull (he was initially successful, though the child died a few years later). He knew to sterilize wounds, and contrary to whatever you may believe, he did not simply leave a person's healing to the whims of Asclepius. His knowledge was lost after the empire fell, though it was rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Running water and working sewage systems are thought of as a discovery of the industrial age, though this is grossly incorrect. Rome had running water available for the masses, and even garrisons as far as England set up irrigation systems and plumbing systems that rival those of today. After the empire fell, the middle ages was full of, well, let's say dirty water.
Among other examples, ancient Greeks and Romans used flamethrowers (though without the extreme long range of modern ones), advanced catapults (moreso than the ones built in the Middle Ages), heliocentric models of the solar system (Aristarchus), tank-like vehicles, accurate calendars and star charts, and even batteries. What happened to all of this?
The most understandable explanation is that the Library of Alexandria, the repository for knowledge during the ancient times, was destroyed and much of the literature was burned after the advent of Christianity and Islam. Thus, technological progress stopped and regressed approximately 500 years to the point where plumbing was unheard of and amulets and magic spells were used to treat sicknesses.
You might be asking yourself "so what's the point of this lecture?" I suppose my point is to demonstrate that, no matter how much you want to believe that humans have always striven for great progress, we haven't. We've followed avaricious desires to the precipice and over the edge, and we've lost so much. Who knows, if the technology and innovation created in ancient times had not been lost, there may have been colonies on the moon and Mars, and maybe we would even be exploring extrasolar planets.
Sad to think about.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Sunday, June 5, 2011
"God is Love"
Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)