Wasted All Those Years

I've never understood people who consider failed relationships as a waste of time. It makes me wonder what they perceive life as. Is it a race to them? Was the time they chose to dedicate to that person during that period of time some type of diversion to completing the race with higher points? Ending the race that we're on, as we know it, is death. All the experiences between birth and death are the journey and every single thing we do on that journey shapes us in some way. Everything that happens to us, negative or positive, has the potential to be used positively in your life. For instance, a child burning its hand on a hot stove learned a valuable lesson. Taking that experience away gains that child nothing. Considering the time spent with a relationship that didn't work out as a waste of time is a horrible way to live life. Rather than scorning the time invested, how about using the experience as a valuable lesson for future decisions, and thus giving the "wasted time" a priceless value to the journey that is your life?

April 29, 2003

Savage Society

In the relative scheme of things, humans have only lived in this type of comfort for a fraction of the time we've existed on this planet (of the history that we know of). All of our actions and impulses and desires stem directly from our cave-dwelling ancestors. Just about every misunderstood action by any individual can be better understood by thinking in more barbaric terms. One of the more obvious examples of this would be all of our unusual sexual interests. Of the more common would be S&M. In prehistory, cavemen weren't really in a position to buy a cavewoman a drink at the local bar. Courtship, for much of our past, was probably a very barbaric and aggressive act. For our species to survive, both genders would have to desire this form of sexuality, or else the women would have been hiding in the hills, keeping away from men. Take almost any human action or impulse, and with a little thought on where we come from, you can get a better understanding of why we act as we do. The reason will almost always be that the world we have created is no more natural to us than the dog that pisses on the floor, or the cat that tears up the furniture.

April 24, 2003

Living Large

We always hear about how our resources will eventually be depleted, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. If you look at the neurotically obsessive way that Americans perceive work, you'll see that this is not going to change without changing the entire national perspective on nearly everything. Decades ago when computers were first being created, it was the general assumption that their purpose was to help reduce our workload. Well, it could have been that way, but we didn't let it happen. Instead, we have used technology to push everything into hyperdrive. Expectations of work output shot through the roof, and with the extra workload came higher usage of resources. Now, imagine if we were less power hungry (and I'm not talking on global or corporate level, I'm talking about on a personal level, with all the useless expensive knickknacks we feel we need in our lives). Would you trade off a less flashy standard of living if it meant the average workweek would be reduced from 40 hours to 30? We wouldn't have that superpower economy, but would we have greater fulfillment in life? Look at how Europe views work. We don't even know what the word "siesta" means in this country, and it sure would be nice if we did. We seem to overlook the fact that our technological advancements were designed to make our lives less complicated. We cannot continue like this. We will either deplete a very necessary resource soon, or our technology will be a much cheaper labor force than we are, and once that happens, what is to become of all of us? How long before a robot or computer are able to take over your job? Can you imagine it in the near future? Probably so, and that's not a good sign. What happens when everyone has been laid-off? Within your lifetime you will see a massive change in our society. We can either embrace it, or do nothing about it and suffer. Either way, it is coming.

April 22, 2003

The Day After

How much would be lost if a massive, worldwide catastrophe were to happen tomorrow? All the things you use throughout the day, do you know how they actually work? Cars? Radios? Television? Computers? Plumbing? Vaccines? Air-conditioning and heating? Do you know how to build a house as well as the one you live in? Do you know how glass is made? How steel is manufactured? Or rubber and plastic? Do you know how a telephone works? Do you understand agriculture enough to keep yourself fed? Can you successfully hunt and kill animals in the wild? Would you survive, or find yourself completely helpless? Our society is designed to biodegrade within one hundred years, for the most part. Consider the contents of many museums are usually no more than a few hundred years old, which in geological terms is a drop in the bucket. What of our culture would survive if something catastrophic happened? Probably no longer than seven generations, and at that point there would be virtually no proof our advanced culture ever existed. Who is to say that in the 50,000 years of our species existence that a similar thing did not happen 40,000 years ago? They were as capable as we are, and I strongly believe that very little would remain of their society with that much time elapsed, aside from maybe a few curious architectural feats, like those found in places such as Machu Picchu. The more a society depends on its advancements, the more feasible it is to be destroyed. So when was the last time you took a moment to appreciate the luxuries you have? And are you aware that we are now past due for an ice age?

April 17, 2003

Ice Age & Global Warming

Back in the 1970s, scientists were certain we were heading into an ice age. All signs pointed to this, and it seemed to be the general attitude that things would just get increasingly colder until we lived in an Arctic wasteland. Then came the seemingly contrasting theory in the 1980s of global warming, switching the general attitude from the freezer to the oven. So which is right? Ice ages are sprung quickly (and the word "sprung" is exactly how it works). The warmer it gets (and it is getting warmer, science will back that regardless of what the American government or right-wing talk show hosts say), the more the glaciers and icebergs in the Arctic will melt. In doing so, this disrupts what is known as the Atlantic Conveyor, which is the ocean current that stabilizes the temperatures in the northern hemisphere, especially Europe. Without it, Ireland and Scotland would be more like Alaska and Siberia. The Atlantic Conveyor relies on a certain percentage of salinity for it to function. Too much freshwater from the melted glaciers will break down the system, and when that happens it will be like opening the freezer door--there will be nothing to hold back that cold Arctic air. All weather patterns are connected, and when the Atlantic Conveyor is disrupted, so will be the airflow on the jet stream. Consider it like a rubberband, it can only stretch so much before it breaks. In global terms, this would be catastrophic. It is happening right now and there is nothing we can, or are willing to do at this point to reverse it. This is not my speculation, this is hard science that you can find with very minimal research. Global warming is key to ice ages. It's what caused them in the past, and it's what will cause them in the future. It's futile to argue whether or not our industry is responsible for accelerating the process. The effect is much more grave and significant than worrying about the cause. The real question is what are we going to do when it happens?

April 15, 2003

Freedom From Choice

Funny that Bush is considered a conservative. Anyone who asks for $1 billion a month for a war designed for his corporate bed-partners to have access to oil (no speculation there, think Halliburton) cannot be called conservative by definition. Is our economy not troubled enough? All the while we argue about what Democrats or Republicans are theoretically supposed to stand for (when in all actuality represent the same interests), they are free to do as they wish as we squabble the irrelevant details of the party platforms that they do not represent. A freedom of choice? I don't think so. There is no real difference in our two-party system, not like there should be. A real choice would be greater awareness and support of the two parties who do represent what the Democrats and Republicans are supposed to represent--Green Party (large and socialized) and Libertarian Party (small and non-invasive conservative). With those four parties to choose from, you'd truly have a freedom of choice in how you want to be represented.

April 10, 2003

Do The Right Thing

One major complaint I have against Christians is the idea that without religion we'd be savages. Religion doesn't instill values, good parents instill values. Besides, if this "God's Good People" thing was true, why would there be so many strange and unsavory cults, and why has there been so many wars based around religion? Has there been a war that didn't have a religion as at least part of its motive? Time to put away the superstition and give credit where it's due. Religion doesn't make you good, you make you good by possessing the ability to differentiate between wrong and right. People who think that every Christian is inherently a "Good Person" is naïve and ignorant and really should not be trusted.

April 8, 2003

Reverse Racism

The term "reverse racism" is itself a racist term. The dictionary definition of racism is: 'discrimination or prejudice based on race'. A racist isn't inherently a white person, as the term "reverse racism" assumes. Racism is prevalent in all cultures, stemming from cultural elitism (the belief each and every individual inherently has that their cultural background's values are more "right" and, therefore, wiser than others). Racism is color-blind. To assume that only white people are racist is in itself a racist opinion. There is no reverse racism. Only a racist would use such a term.

April 3, 2003

Skin

The concept of "race" is pretty preposterous. We have no clue where we come from or what "race" even is, and if we have any idea, it's that we are all descended from Africa. So does this not make blacks the "superior" or "pure" race? Technically speaking, yes it would. But racial purity is a bunch of hogwash anyway. Think about how far you can trace back your heritage. A few generations, if you're lucky. It's more than likely if you're from North America that you won't even be able to trace your roots to your ancestor's arrival on the boat a few hundred years back. Now consider the vast number of generations that are lost to your keen sense of racial profiling. After nearly 50,000 years of evolution, there is no way possible that there exists a pure race unless we are talking about those descended directly from Africa (that's if Africa truly is where our species began). But what does that really say? Nothing. As Emo Phillips once said, you can find much better reasons to hate people than the color of their skin. I couldn't agree more.

April 1, 2003