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.

"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

In Harmony

The Beatles, Queen, The Beach Boys, The Mamas and the Papas, and Fleetwood Mac (and possibly Mumford and Sons, if they keep up their good music). These are the bands that I have heard that have the best vocal harmonies, in no particular order. You can argue with me if you want, but you'd be wrong since I certainly haven't heard anything better. Listen to these and try to disagree.

In this, George, Paul, and John harmonize beautifully with either John or George (can't tell, though it's likely John) taking the falsetto and doing it beautifully. Each one of them takes an octave to sing and in beautiful fashion.


While you may have been expecting Bohemian Rhapsody (and I wouldn't blame you), I enjoy the fact that the background chorus sings different lines concurrently to what Freddy Mercury is singing as the lead vocalist. One of the greatest bands with vocal harmonies, hands down.


The Beach Boys were synonymous with great vocals in their time, especially since most of the sounds in their music are simply from one (or two) background guitars and their vocals.


The Mamas and the Papas were the quintessential example in a band utilizing their vocal harmonies to achieve fame.


Fleetwood Mac knew how to mix male and female vocals well, much like The Mamas and the Papas, though Fleetwood Mac relied more on an entire band than their vocal harmonies.


They have great potential.

That's all for now.
DF


As always, click this or be subject to the torture of incessant tickling by one of Santa's elves. I can make that happen.

Women.

To me, the most perplexing and mysterious species to inhabit the universe. I've heard many things about women, most of which is contradictory and confusing. For instance, I have heard that women like nice guys, but at the same time, they are attracted to "badassery." I have heard that women like smart guys, but at the same time, it isn't hard to find pretty women with less-than-brilliant guys.

I'm a nerd. I'm a vegetarian nerd. I'm a vegetarian nerd that hates contemporary music. I'm a vegetarian nerd that hates contemporary music who also plays sports. I feel badly if I even THINK that I might have hit an animal with my car. Based on that, should I not be swimming in interested girls?

Nope. Not even close. The first judgment of the opposite sex is based on appearance, dress, etc. (Though it sometimes boils down to parental issues, but I don't care to blather on about behavioral psychology.) I don't wear the pretentious, cheap crap that Hollister, American Eagle, Abercrombie, and the like sell. I buy my clothes at either A. Target, or B. Thrift stores. Actually, most of my clothes are from things like soccer and various college-associated junk, which I get for free. Whoop-de-doo.

I own one Hollister shirt, and that is because I was applying for a job there. I bought the shirt 15 minutes before the interview, and I didn't get the job. The shirt is extraordinarily tight. I don't like it.

So what if I don't put a tubful of gel in my hair, or don't wear the latest stupid clothing fads? A good pair of Levi jeans is worth a million bucks to me. Ideally, attraction would be based on emotional and mental characteristics. Pssh, yeah right. Our attraction to other individuals is based on the ancestral need to place good genes in our offspring. So what if I have blue eyes? I'm 5'8; being short doesn't help.

At least John Lennon figured something out.


Das Flüg