What is Truth?: Redux

                Many people who were noted for their ability to think have pondered the question: what is truth? The truth is out there, and it’s stranger than fiction. Like the sun and the moon, it cannot be hidden for long. There are only two mistakes to be made on the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting. The truth changes ever so slightly from person to person, from day to day - and yet we as individuals have very little power to change the truth of our lives. It is quite elusive, and yet when it hits us it is hard to miss.

                Happiness comes from within. The environment we live in shapes the way we view the world in ways we don’t yet fully understand, but the way we react to those views can change at any time we like, given the internal will to shape your perception of the world in a positive way. As a prime example, we can look to the very idea of knowledge. We all have felt at times that the world is simply too disorderly for people to leave a beneficial impact. The more we learn about our criminally mismanaged earth, the less likely it seems that we can do anything to change it. If we flip this perception on its head, we arrive at the conclusion that many famed philosophers have expressed: knowledge is power, and the more you know the more you can do. The process of flipping this perception has little to do with anything besides your own mindset.

                Knowing the truth requires a balance of humility and confidence. We must be humble enough to realize we may be wrong, and confident enough to know when we are right. Finding this balance is easier said than done. It takes a conscious effort in every waking moment of every day to make sure we are neither putting ourselves down nor inflating our egos beyond ourselves. In every activity we do, we can train ourselves to forgive and learn from our failures while praising our accomplishments.

                The world is a frightening place, and the more we learn the more dreadful it becomes. We can either fear what we don’t comprehend or cautiously wade into the chaos and learn all we can. We know from personal experience that fear has its place, and indeed we developed a sense of fear for our own safety. As a consequence, when we allow fear to dictate our lives we become stagnant – we trust what we are told and we rob ourselves of the opportunity to discover what life means to us.

*I paraphrased several quotes in the first paragraph.

New theories could mean new knowledge

                Upon reading this article regarding a new theory about the origins of life, I couldn’t help but to be both excited and a little skeptical. The new research seems intriguing and possibly quite promising, but as it hasn’t yet been proven it’s a little quick to begin the celebrations. I will say that there has never been any doubt in my mind that objective reasoning would produce greater knowledge than blind faith, and this attempt at another new theory is simply a new development in a long line of attempts to uncover our origins.

                The theory suggests that under certain conditions, matter inevitably evolves to produce life. Under conditions where heat surrounds the molecules and energy is abundant, Carbon atoms adapt to more efficiently spread that energy around and discharge heat. We’ve found that life is possible in conditions that we never expected to be possible, like in extreme heat or cold. With this theory, we come one step closer to understanding how life is possible, and we come one step closer to being able to predict where life might evolve. I say one step closer because the article states that while the equation the theory was developed from seems to be accurate, we aren’t yet sure about what conclusion they lead us to.

                What always baffles me is the unwillingness of certain people to even acknowledge the work of dedicated scientists attempting to explain where we came from. Often times, these people are highly religious – people who, you would think, would be anxious to find out all we can about our earth. I recognize that what we don’t understand can be frightening, but in my opinion it is better to try and understand science than remain ignorant to new developments. That said, certain parts of the article went over my head the first time through, which is to be expected; most people don’t understand a concept completely after reading a single article on the subject. However, with cumulative background knowledge and continued research, people can learn things they never thought they could.

Change the world with your money, 'cause how else would you do it?

               On worldwatch.org, under an article titled “The State of Consumption Today”, it is stated that the U.S., with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly a quarter of the total fossil fuels consumed globally in a year. Do we need fossil fuels to provide us with energy? Many intelligent people have crunched the numbers on wind, solar, and water power and concluded that we don’t need fossil fuels. Electricity could power the world as we know it now, but as the state of consumption around the world is increasing, what would happen if there were urban centers the size of New York and Los Angeles in every country? What if every city was a raging metropolis? Whether we like it or not, the world wants to live like Americans. For the first time in human history, we could provide every person on the planet with the basic resources they need to survive, while many are still fundamentally opposed to the idea. For most of this post, I’m going to pretend like the Red Scare never happened, and that providing people with food, water, shelter and education would be regarded as a noble endeavor. Could we really support the entirety of the present and future population of earth? The short answer is yes.

                

                Let’s assume that we aren’t just going to give this stuff away; we need some means of exchange, for now anyway. In the 1970’s, a town in Manitoba, Canada guaranteed its citizens a minimum income. As a surprise to free-market fundamentalists, people were still working and applying for jobs. Many people enjoyed lower stress levels and higher standards of living. We have programs like this for people who need it in the U.S., though many that could certainly use some financial help don’t apply or don’t qualify. A guaranteed “mincome” can improve the quality of life for people, and doesn’t deter them from working or educating themselves; in all actuality it provides them with the resource security to do what they enjoy with their lives and still find a way to contribute to society.

                So what are they going to spend this money on? Well we all need food. Traditionally, people needed to devote a huge space of land for food production. Imagine a fifty story high skyscraper filled with rows upon rows of food, with no soil needed. I first heard about hydroponic farms in the context of illegal marijuana growing operations, and I never realized that maybe we could use it for food until I was doing some research on some planet-changing technologies. The suggestion hit me like a ton of bricks. We could grow any crop in any climate using artificially created environments and provide more food with less space. This fits with the general trend of technology; we are becoming increasingly able to do more with less.

                You can’t grow food without water, and without water to drink you wouldn’t be able to survive even if your food was accounted for. Fortunately, our water purification systems are getting better and better, using the process of reverse osmosis to remove impurities from water. Desalination has even made drinking seawater a healthy possibility. We could implement community water purification systems in places where water is scarce, and those billion people who currently don’t have reliable access to clean drinking water would suddenly have a cornerstone of their wellbeing taken care of.

                People need shelter from the storm. In the last few years, minimalists have been coming up with incredible ways of living on a plot of land the size of a parking space. Aside from the new-age spiritual connotations of living on as little as possible that come along with these homes, communities of mini-houses have been used to provide shelter for homeless people. There is sociological evidence that suggests that living in smaller houses closer to your neighbors would increase your sense of community and acceptance; a vital change in mindset that could drastically improve the mental health of a person living on the street. Combine these new communities with free public transportation (the technology for which is now mind blowing), access to information (like in a library), and community ownership of the means of production (like a library for hydroponic gardens and 3-D printers) and you have a whole new portion of the population who can share their ideas with the world. A population where sharing is seen as a benefit to yourself as much as everyone else.

                With all of these basic needs of humans met, I believe there would be more people with a renewed obligation to pass on the academic achievements of our species to the next generation. As I’ve previously stated, education is crucial to the advancement of individuals and society as a whole. I haven’t done much research on education reform, but I’m sure if we spent half as much on public education as we do on national defense, our schools would be flooded with resources. Quite possibly, we wouldn’t need as much national defense if our corporations we more concerned with solving problems than making a profit, and if our citizens were properly educated they wouldn’t be as easily manipulated into being fearful of what they don't understand and desiring protection. If we stop giving our money to people determined to maintain their privilege and power to the detriment of others, we have the technology to create a better world.

                Yes, these technologies developed under capitalism, and when we weren’t sure we could provide for everyone, capitalism worked beautifully to build an incredible world, albeit with some major functional issues. At this point, we can provide for everyone, and many of those issues would likely be solved if we did. At this point, it has been proven that the pursuit of profit limits technological advancements by inhibiting cooperation and exchanging performance for affordability. We also know that our products aren’t designed to last, encouraging repeat purchases and an unprecedented level of waste. It’s been proven that people with more money are less empathetic to those that don’t have enough, and they justify their positions of power by convincing themselves they are more deserving than others. It’s been said that our public education system mostly functions to create docile, obedient workers; not critical-thinking, independent producers. However, with computers replacing more and more careers, the need for mindless worker humans is diminishing.

Capitalism no longer works when people aren’t being paid for labor, and unless you are a human that works with computers to do something that neither could do on their own, your job will be mechanized in the future. Not to mention the fact that what used to only be possible in factories is now possible in your living room, with the invention of consumer 3-D printers. With a little bit of education in the field of design and computer programming, we can make our own products and anyone can become a “job creator”, which really just means you are creating something that used to require humans.

In our society we have been told that humans are naturally competitive; in truth this trait developed at a time when scarcity was the norm and obtaining more than your neighbor was pivotal to your survival. This is no longer the case, and studies have proved that we are happier and more productive when we work together instead of against each other. We also know that we are incredibly adaptable to our environment, and are growing increasingly able to manipulate our environment for our benefit. It is tough to know where exactly to begin when faced with the problems of today, but we do know that there are solutions. Let me suggest that we begin the change by finding out whom these people are that are profiting from environmental degradation and social inequality; this is becoming increasingly easy to do with the internet. Then we stop giving them all of our money.

As a final thought, I recently read on the Wall Street Journal that following the UN Climate Summit, many investors, especially in Europe, are selling their oil stocks. Though the regulations didn’t seem to be anywhere close to the commitment desired by climate change activists, the reactive nature of investors might just help to legitimize the science that so many people have been denying for years. I found the story to be both an ironic anecdote and an elegant synopsis of my point; in our current socioeconomic system, the way we spend our money can literally change the world.

I am an addict.

Trigger Warning: This post contains descriptions of drug use.
             

                Time for some introspection. I’ve never been more wholly assured that I am an addict. It’s been almost a year since I’ve taken a drug that wasn’t prescribed to me, not including marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine. After all that time, I am still an addict, and I suspect I always will be. I am sober in writing this, besides my nicotine vaporizer sitting next to me and the amphetamines I take for ADHD making their way through my bloodstream. I suspect I could live without this upper in my system, but it is difficult. Depression and anxiety don’t hit as hard when I take my pills, though the fact that I take them creates a whole new cause for concern. They improve my standard of living, but at what cost? Is being chemically dependent on a substance worth having an improved quality of life? I still don’t know for sure.

                Marijuana has been the starting point of addiction for me. Smoking night and day was a part of my identity in the past; everyone in my life began associating me with the drug, including myself. It functioned in the same way that alcohol functions for many of my family members; the same way that any other drug seems to take over someone’s life, though fortunately without the agonizing withdrawal effects. This has been changing the last few months, as I’ve come to recognize my addiction and control the urge. I’ve gotten to the point where I can have weed and not smoke it. This is a trivial accomplishment to anyone who hasn’t struggled with self-control, but to an addict it is a sign of hope.

                If I pull myself back in time I can still feel the rush of certain drugs. The anxious sweat and chills at the beginning of an acid trip and the euphoric rush of oxycodone in my nasal cavity are sensations that I’ve come to know. These drugs are polar opposites in my mind. One gives you bursts of energy and tricks your brain into seeing ordinary objects as beautiful. The other simply numbs you to the experiences of life. As many people do, I felt eager to experience life following my three acid trips, spaced out over a period of three years. After developing an oxycodone habit, however, life didn’t seem as appealing. The same could be said for any opiate, benzodiazepine, or tranquilizer habit.

                George Carlin explained addiction with a greater understanding than any doctor I’ve talked to. Among other bits of wisdom on the topic, he said the more you take a drug, you will feel less pleasure and more pain with each additional dose. Carlin knew that people could overcome their addictions; something that many addicts fail to recognize. I’m thankful that I realized the story I was writing for myself was not something to be proud of, though I am not ashamed either. All of my experiences have made me who I am, and I’m fine with that. It will continue to be a struggle, but I am getting stronger every day. I still plan to eventually come off my medication and quit smoking cigarettes, though I don’t think that will happen if I don’t tell myself that I’m doing better every once in a while. If there was any point in writing this, it is to tell myself that I am doing better.

Chapter 2 Review

If you know me, you know I tend not to lie when I can help it. I read the 5 pages the day after they were assigned, and I have no idea what they said. I remember understanding and absorbing it, but the content is slipping my mind. Let's see. Concentrate.

Fortunately we have a pretty friendly class, and someone let me borrow their book for a quick review. The reading was a brief explanation of different writing styles and their uses. Specifically, persuasive writing styles that aim to either define or explain. I always felt that the best explanation include definitions and vice versa, so this distinction was a new concept to me.

It also spoke of the relationships that formed between students and their teachers. This reminded me of modern day scandals, though these practices were considered acceptable to the Greeks and Romans.

A joke is a joke is a joke...

There is truth in jokes. That’s what makes them funny. In jest nothing is sacred, especially not yourself. This is a bit of an extreme stance when criticizing something can get you killed, so there is a fine line you must walk. I’ve never thought of myself to be a particularly funny person, though I’m fascinated and delighted by those who are. The reason I hold them in such a high regard is that a funny person can show others something they didn’t know about themselves in a way that doesn’t seem demeaning. They can point out the disastrous absurdity of a situation and make you laugh at it. In the face of danger, they make people laugh without fear.

I tend to come across as a bizarre, paranoid, freakish individual when I’ve shown people facts that scare me, so I’ve learned to try and play it cool. You wait, and you wait, and when something strikes your fancy you poke it. You think about it, you think about it again from the exact opposite viewpoint, and you boil a situation down to whatever observed yet incomprehensible insanity is at play. Then you express it in any medium that you can, in a way that will make people laugh. That is the end goal for those that do it well. Not to oppress, but to inspire.

Comedy isn’t for everyone. If you can’t laugh at yourself or something you hold dear, then don’t listen. The comedian has perhaps a greater responsibility, because if you can’t make a joke about something without being incendiary, oppressive, or hateful, then you likely don’t understand the subject enough to make a joke about it. I believe if you are going to use comedy to bring a truth to someone, you must understand them, and use baby steps. If you offend someone outright you will make them feel as if they are being oppressed, especially if they already feel that way.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks in France shocked the world. Sony being hacked because of a movie shocked the world. Frankly it didn’t shock me. When you go out of your way to upset people who are power-hungry or violent, expect a backlash. They are obviously two very different scenarios, but they are similar in that they started as comedy. So in order to learn from our mistakes, let’s examine these scenarios.

Seth Rogen wrote a comedy about two idiots trying to kill a dictator. To most people, including those under his rule, Kim Jong-Un represents greed and abuse of power. Most citizens don’t have the resources to hack a corporation, and most citizens probably wouldn’t have the political motivation to stop the movie anyway. Therefore it was likely someone with a good deal of status and power that wanted to stand on the side of their leader that orchestrated the hack. This particular someone is currently benefiting from a great deal of corruption, and while they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they were brainwashed to believe it isn’t so, they should be set straight.

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo printed a picture of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is considered to be offensive to most Muslims. The practice isn’t specifically forbidden in the Quran, though there are books of supplemental teachings that forbid visual depictions of the prophet. The issue didn’t escalate until an inflammatory Dutch cartoon depicting the prophet was released in 2005. Protests and violence began to break out over the cartoon in 2006 when Muslim leaders began condemning the cartoons. 

Islam stresses that the prophet was a man, not a god, and idolatry leads to worship that no man deserves. If idolatry is what Muslims are worried about, creating a depiction of the prophet that is defaming him obviously wouldn’t go over well as a joke. If you remind yourself that Muslims face discrimination all around the world and just recently Muslim women lost the right to wear Hijabs in French schools, you certainly wouldn't forgive the killers, but you might sympathize with the frustrations of Muslims living in western society.

Killing people or censoring their speech isn’t a great way to warm them up to your way of life; neither is insensitivity to important cultural differences. While so many of us were concerned with our western ideas being attacked, a village known as Baga in Nigeria was being demolished. Believed to be the work of Boko Haram, the death toll is still unknown, though it is thought to be around 2,000. This attack is assumed to be politically and economically motivated using religion as legitimization, as Boko Haram has been on a land-capturing campaign for months.

If it didn’t happen on the same day as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I’m skeptical if the mainstream media would have talked about the attacks in Nigeria at all. I heard about it from an independent news source within a day, and a part of me believes that internet outrage over the lack of coverage is the only reason that it is receiving some screen time on networks now. This is the same group that was responsible for the kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian school girls a few months ago, and that story didn’t receive any coverage until the internet erupted. I only mention this to stress that we can’t forget there are other instances of violence happening every day all around the world, and often times they have more to do with economics and politics than ideological differences.

It isn’t horribly difficult to find world news if you know where to look. However, major media coverage of places and stories that people don’t know anything about can lead to stereotypes and a one dimensional view of a region. The evil or struggle in a region is not the only aspect of it. The culture must also be considered to understand human life in a region, and even still an individual is not shackled to the influences of their environment. No individual should be judged simply by where they are from, and one sided views of the world contribute to these misunderstandings.

Viewing the earth as a whole is difficult, but not impossible. Everything you do has impacts on your environment and other people, sometimes people on the other side of the planet. We are connected because we are all humans that live on the same planet, but true respect and understanding requires acknowledging cultural differences. Good and evil come hand in hand wherever you go; you can’t have one without the other. There will always be minor disagreements, and there will always be great existential conflicts of morality. What matters is how we deal with them, and making each other laugh is a good start.

Chapter 1 Reflection

While I was reading the first chapter, I was thinking about different arguments I heard that used different persuasive techniques. Politicians were floating through my brain, and the appeals they made to our emotions in order to manipulate our judgment. I remember hearing “scientists” committing logical fallacies on live T.V. in response to climate change. Memories of arguments with my dad came back when he would explain why things were the way they were by saying ‘that’s just the way it is’.

               

 ‘But why?’, I would ask. An argument that includes the assumed premise being argued was being used to hide something from me.

                I was also thinking about all the writers that I look up to of all different disciplines. Snapshots of headlines were running through my brain, some filled with facts, others inflammatory opinion, all designed to pull us in and make us believe. Certain jokes came to mind that I have heard that pointed out the absurdities of culture and politics, crafted in a way to point out the most surreal of human acts in brief highlights to get to the all-encompassing punchline. Then there were the public speakers who I dread having to listen to; those that simply speak elegantly with no content. What are they trying to hide?

                It might be apparent that I don’t remember everything that was in the reading. What I do remember is the idea that creating a compelling argument against an established institution is the responsibility of the rhetorician, while those defending the established institution just get to “sit there looking smug”. The multiple times I’ve seen Bill Nye debating climate change on Fox News came to mind, as well as many brave women fighting for insurance to cover birth control.

                The final thoughts I remember having on the first chapter were regarding the generic crimes of the times that Socrates was charged with and ultimately executed for. What were the generic crimes of some modern dictatorial states, or even democratic states? Corruption of youth sounded familiar, and if you change failure to worship the state gods with treason than the same ideas could be censored in a similar fashion today.