Archives for category: 1989

What are we doing here, anyway?

August 30, 2021 //

Plants transform water, minerals and sunshine into organic matter.
Herbivores transform plant matter into meat.
Predators cull the misfit among the herbivores.
Scavengers return the ‘discrete components’ back to where they belong. At the start of the cycle.

Please note that this train of transformations happens both above and below water.
That it includes all living organisms we know about.
And that it constantly reshapes the environment.

The oxygen we breathe had been produced, at first, by some primitive bacteria.
The soil which currently nurtures the plants which feed everybody else is a ‘by product’ of past and present organisms.

And so on.

Life is a web. Each of the species, a knot in this web.

Each member of a species gives some and takes some from the web. And, in doing this, keeps the web alive. Gives strength to each knot and keeps the entire web in one piece. In one functional piece.

At first, we – humans, as well at the rest of the apes, have been playing ‘top dog’.
We’ve always taken more than we’ve been giving back. Apes have very few natural predators, except for viruses and bacteria. But what we used to take wasn’t that much out of proportion as to make a noticeable dent. As to endanger the big picture.

Until we, humans, have invented agriculture.
Have actually enslaved plants and animals to serve us.
Shaped the world to cater for our needs. Transformed forests into savannas to feed our animals and savannas into fields for our crops. Then fields into cities for our dwellings and industrial parks for our factories.

Enslaving the nature hasn’t been enough. We have enslaved our own brethren to work in our place.
To take care of our animals, to tend our crops, to clean our houses, even to nurse our new-born.

And we have started to fight among ourselves. Attempting to control more and more of the Earth, we have stepped on each-other’s toes. Then ‘we’ have started to push back against ‘them’. By force, if necessary. By deadly force, if we saw fit.

Here’s were we stand now.

Our current contribution is negative.
We have polluted the planet way beyond its short term capacity to cope with all the refuse we’re stacking on its back.
We have burned enough of the fossil fuel which had been accumulated during hundreds of millions of years that we have thus changed the composition of the atmosphere. Changed it in the wrong direction…
By hunting and by ‘repurposing’ the land we have contributed to the huge bio-diversity loss we are currently witnessing.

Some of us have started to understand what’s going on.
Not only to understand but also to attempt to remedy the situation.

When one country had fallen under the ‘spell’ of terrorists – and a danger for all other countries, a large coalition of ‘interested parties’ have stepped in. And tried to make things right.
For a host of reasons, that effort turned sour. And the ‘interested parties’ have decided to leave.

Amid all that mayhem, a lonely soul had remained steadfast. And spun the Earth in the other direction in his desperate attempt to save his protegees from the advancing Taliban. In his successful attempt to save his protegees from the advancing Taliban…

“LONDON (AP) — A former U.K. Royal Marine who waged a high-profile campaign to leave Afghanistan with almost 200 rescued dogs and cats has flown to safety — with the animals, but without his charity’s Afghan staff, who were left behind in Kabul.
A privately funded chartered plane carrying Paul “Pen” Farthing and his animals landed at London’s Heathrow Airport on Sunday after a saga that gripped and divided Britain, raising difficult questions about the relative value placed on human and animal lives.“

The way I see it, we – humans, are here to impart meaning to everything we get in contact with.

Now, what’s the meaning of the ‘story’ above?

Are we finally understanding the responsibility we have towards the rest of the living world?
Or we’re still arrogant enough to do as we please? Without any consideration for what’s going to happen next?

As I said before. Humans don’t have any natural predators.
Except for bacteria, viruses … and other people.

A little over three centuries ago, a certain Thomas Malthus maintained “that infinite human hopes for social happiness must be vain, for population will always tend to outrun the growth of production.” Let me add that Malthus had been educated at the Jesus College in Cambridge – where he had received his master of arts degree in 1791, and had taken his “holy orders” in 1797. Had been elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1821, elected a member of the French Academie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, to the Royal Academy of Berlin… and so on…
Until now, Malthus has been proven wrong. We somehow managed to feed ourselves. In fact, despite the fact that we’re now roughly 8 times more numerous than we were in 1800, most of us eat far better than most of Malthus’ contemporaries. Live way longer. Lead far happier lives.
Not without ‘associated’ costs. Borne mainly by the environment. And by some of the ‘others’.

The problem being that the things which had worried Malthus – population growth and the limited nature of the Earth, are true only in part. Yes, population growth puts indeed a lot of pressure on the limited Earth we currently inhabit, but the main thing which limits our “social happiness” is our limited understanding of what’s going on here.

Our self centered and self serving image of the world.
Our own inability to find a long term, life preserving meaning for the things which happen around us.

To us.

By us.

h ttps://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
https://www.britanni ca.com/science/biodiversity-loss
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-europe-cats-dogs-kabul-2ef71936faed95629c5f258e3e7ff9ea
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Malthus
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006502/global-population-ten-thousand-bc-to-2050/

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00

$15.00

$100.00

$5.00

$15.00

$100.00

$5.00

$15.00

$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

Tags Kabul, Malthus, Natural predators, Rescued dogs and cats flown to safety, Taliban

Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, awareness, biology, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Psychology, re-definitions, skin in the game, teleology

“Parul legii”

August 24, 2021 //

In primul articol e vorba despre talibanizare. Despre talibanizarea Romaniei.

Inclusiv despre momentul in care capetenia Academiei Romane ne indeamna sa refacem ‘unitatea de nezdruncinat’ dintre biserica – evident ortodoxa, si natiune.
Prin intermediul – din nou evident, al familiei traditionale.

In al doilea, despre inconstienta. In principal, despre inconstienta la volan.”Unde te duci, inconstientule?”
Ce faci cand ai, in sfarsit, ‘putere de decizie’?

Dai ‘militaria jos din pod’?
“Există o singură soluție pentru toată aceeastă nebunie, pentru care militez până la capăt: „parul” legii.

“Pe bune?!?

“Parul legii” in tara care considera ca ‘legea este o bariera peste care sar caii, pe sub care trec cainii si in fata careia se opresc doar boii’?

Se plang unii ca asistam la ‘disolutia statului’. Manifestata si prin ‘indisciplina la volan’.
Pe mine unul ma cam doare undeva de disolutia statului. Si de indisciplina rutiera.
Astea doua sunt doar niste simptome.
Ne-am cam desprins de realitate.
Nu ne mai pasa de celalalt. Poate doar de rude. Si de tovarasii din gasca.
Nu mai intelegem ca de unii singuri – sau in grupuri mici, nu putem supravietui pe termen lung. Poate ca ne-o fi bine pe termen scurt – daca reusim sa tragem tunul ala pe care il tot visam. Sau daca ajungem la sfarsitul drumului fara sa ne pocnim de ceva.

Problema fiind ca daca reusim ‘tunul’ contribuim la demolarea societatii in ansamblu. Daca mergem ca nebunii pe sosea – in mod ‘inconstient’, contribuim la insecuritatea generala.

Ce ma doare este indiferenta generala. Nimanui nu-i mai pasa de nimic. Nici macar de soarta lui.
Nu-i pasa sau se comporta ca si cum nu i-ar pasa. Ceea ce e totuna.

Iar statul, adica cooperarea dintre noi, isi va reveni abia dupa ce ne va fi revenit noua mintea la cap.
Daca vom incerca sa intarim autoritatea statului inainte ca revenirea noastra sa fi avut loc, nu vom face decat sa instauram unul dintre multiplele fascisme disponibile.

Tags Academia Romana, disolutia statului, Familia Traditionala, indisciplina la volan, parul legii, unde te grabesti inconstientule, Unitatea dintre biserica si natiune

Categories 1989, alegerile pe care le facem, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, colaborare, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, Cu pielea la bataie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Incredere, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, Respect Mutual., Tara din care traim

Adam Smith to Ayn Rand

August 23, 2021 //

Basically, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand had the same thing in their minds.

How society works and how individuals meet their needs in a social context.

And both of them had reached the same solution.
That capitalism was good.

Unfortunately – for Ayn Rand’s fans, any similitude between them stops here.

Adam Smith had described a reality.
Something which had evolved, naturally, in the cultural milieu to which he had happened to belong.

Ayn Rand was trying to push a social model.

The fact that what Rand was trying to push was very close to what Smith had described is, indeed, important.
But the difference between something which had evolved naturally and the very same something which had been imposed, by force, is also important.

Let me give you an example.

Christianity.
Much of what we have today – from ‘human rights’ to the very concept of ‘science’, has it’s roots down in the principles exposed in the Bible.
South America is, now, a Christian territory. Populated by people who had immigrated as Christians and by people – just as Christian as the first category, who had been born to parents having other beliefs. Parents who had been forcefully ‘conversed’ to Christianity.

It’s easy to notice that people in South America don’t fare as well as those in Europe, North America or Australia.
Why? They are Christians, South America uses the same capitalism and the same democracy as the rest of the ‘civilized’ world… why are the results so different?

Don’t bring ethnicity into discussion!
The explanation is simple and has nothing to do with ethnicity.

While in Europe, North America and Australia Christianity and capitalism had evolved naturally – in the sense that they had occurred in Europe and had been translated by the European immigrants to North America and Australia, in South America – and in other places, Christianity and capitalism had been forcefully imposed by the immigrants upon the much larger local populations.

Just as Communism had been forcefully imposed by the Lenin led Bolsheviks upon the Russian People.

Forget about the fact that communism had failed, no matter how hard some people have tried to make it work, while capitalism works for real – when used properly.
My point is that whenever somebody tries to force something upon somebody else, the results will never rise to the expected level. No matter how good that ‘something’ might be.

Are you familiar with ‘you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink’?
Leading it to water is enough.
Whenever somebody becomes ‘enthusiastic’ enough to try to force a horse to drink, the results …. no matter how skillful the ‘enthusiast’ might be…

And there’s another ‘small’ thing which makes a hell of a difference.
Adam Smith’s main point was that the whole society benefits from the functioning of the free market. Where each ‘agent’ competes with the others towards meeting his own goal. Which competition – as long as it remains free, results in everybody – well, almost, having a better life.
Ayn Rand’s point being that the free market is there only for the benefit of the ‘strongest’. Which is in line with Lenin’s view on the matter… ‘The Bolsheviks merit to lead the revolution because they are the strongest…’

Tags Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Culture, forceful imposition, Lenin, social evolution

Categories 1989, altruism, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, Economy, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, teleology

Despre dictatură

August 22, 2021 //

Moarte dictaturii toleranței…

Păi dacă dictatura toleranței urmează să fie abrogată, înseamnă că …

OK. Da’ pân-la-urmă cum rămâne?

Mai avem voie să gândim? Și să le atragem proștilor atenția atunci când dau în gropi?
Tolerându-le între timp greșelile?

Sau va trebui să ne vedem de treburile noastre?
Lăsându-i pe proști pe unde se va fi nimerit să cadă?

Doar ca lucrurile nu sunt chiar atât de simple pe cât vor unii să le facă să pară…

Cum măsurăm ‘prostia’?
Cum determinăm cine merită să fie tolerat și cine nu?
Cine va face asta și utilizând ce puncte de reper?!?

Ce punem în locul toleranței?

Ne punem mâna-n gât?
Unul altuia?
După cum ne vine pe chelie?

Sau dăm Legiunea jos din cui?
Înlocuim dictatura toleranței cu intoleranța dictatorială?

Pentru că, nu-i așa, e mult mai simplu să măsori cu ‘Patul lui Procust’…

Dar ce te faci cu Iisus?

“Și au adus la El fariseii şi cărturarii pe o femeie, prinsă în adulter şi, aşezând-o în mijloc, au zis Lui: Învăţătorule, această femeie a fost prinsă asupra faptului de adulter; iar Moise ne-a poruncit în Lege ca pe unele ca acestea să le ucidem cu pietre. Dar Tu ce zici? Şi aceasta ziceau, ispitindu-L, ca să aibă de ce să-L învinuiască. Iar Iisus, plecându-Se în jos, scria cu degetul pe pământ. Şi stăruind să-L întrebe, El S-a ridicat şi le-a zis: Cel fără de păcat dintre voi să arunce cel dintâi piatra asupra ei. Iarăşi plecându-Se, scria pe pământ. Iar ei auzind aceasta şi mustraţi fiind de cuget, ieşeau unul câte unul, începând de la cei mai bătrâni şi până la cel din urmă, şi a rămas Iisus singur şi femeia stând în mijloc. Şi ridicându-Se Iisus şi nevăzând pe nimeni decât pe femeie, i-a zis: Femeie, unde sunt pârâşii tăi? Nu te-a osândit nici unul? Iar ea a zis: Nici unul, Doamne. Şi Iisus i-a zis: Nu te osândesc nici Eu. Mergi; de acum să nu mai păcătuieşti.”“

‘Și chiar crezi că o să înțeleagă cineva ce ai vrut să spui?’
‘Ce? Că n-ai decât să spui ce vrei dar că pentru a acționa trebuie să îndeplinești niște condiții speciale?
Iisus n-a osândit pe nimeni… ce ne îndrituiește pe noi să-mpărțim oamenii pe categorii?’

Tags Dictatura, Familia naturala, intoleranta, Patul lui Procust, prostie, sa arunci primul piatra, sa nu jignim sentimentele prostului, toleranta

Categories 1989, aroganta, cadre mentale, ce alegeri facem, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, coruptie, Cu pielea la bataie, Drepturile Omului, evolutie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Incredere, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, respect mutual

H cubed

August 19, 2021 //

Driven by hunger, trained by habit and enhanced by hope.

That’s how we, humans – a.k.a. conscious animals – operate.

Hunger must be satisfied.
Animals do it instinctively. They can be trained, some of them, only that training is based solely on memory and reward. Their individual contribution to the end result is small.

Humans do it conscientiously. As in ‘on purpose’. They identify first the available food sources – according to their training, rank them – according to their acquired tastes and to the relative ease with which food can be obtained from each of them, and proceed to feed themselves only after all these steps had been performed. However perfunctorily.
It is easy to notice that here individuals have a lot more lee-way. Their contributions to the process can be substantial.

In all of those three phases. And beyond.

When choosing.

When ‘training’ others how to choose.

And when determining that we’ve had enough. That time is ripe to let others feed themselves.

Why are all these people fleeing? From their own country?
Because the Taliban have arrived?

Why had the 300 000 strong, and well equipped, Afghan Army crumbled when left alone to face the 75 000 strong Taliban insurgency?
Because the Afghan government was corrupt? And because “All the major countries – probably except India – in the region had come to terms with the Taliban government.”?

What made these youngsters – very much similar to those above, to choose the Taliban side of the conflict?
And what made the Taliban ultimately more successful than the ‘democratically elected’ Afghan Government?
The Americans deciding it was time for the Afghan People to stand on their own two feet?

As I said at the beginning of the post, we, humans, have a lot more lee-way than the rest of the animals.
None of us is entirely free but each of us has some agency. Some power to influence the destiny of other people.
When exercising that power we’re all influenced by our previously received conditioning and by the present circumstances.
When pressed by ‘urgent considerations’ very few of us remain aware of the fact that present day decisions set the scene for what’s going to happen tomorrow.
When pressed by what we consider to be ‘urgent’ we forget about ‘primum non nocere’.
When caving in to urgency we forget that we are the ones going to live with the consequences of our present decisions.

The Afghans flee their country because they have lost hope.
The Afghan soldiers have caved in because they have lost hope.
The Afghans who have joined the Taliban have done that because they felt there was no other hope.

Who will have to make do in these circumstances?
When are we going to take responsibility for our own fate?
When are we going to start building our own hopes?

Bearing in mind that we have only one Earth at our disposal?
And that if we play our cards right, the sky is the only limit?