16:43 - Friday, Apr. 22, 2005
------- (This is a line [and topic] break. Just so we're clear.)
The first step is living. The second step is realizing the constructs of living. (Constructs:living::staying at home alone on a night when a murderer is loose when you're a sexy blonde woman with gigantic breasts:horror movies. Constructs:living::committing suicide at the end by means of wrist slicing and/or shooting oneself:short stories written by freshman girls in creative writing workshops.) The third step is analyzing these constructs. Methodically or not. Just so they're laid out, clear. The fourth step (which nobody gets to) is excusing oneself from the constructs and finding a better way.
Reasons we don't get there. Why? Most people want to. I don't come across very many people who think money is warm and fuzzy and brings out the good in people. Yet everyone continues to want higher-paying jobs. To pay off their debts. Why do they need to pay their debts? Because those who are being paid need to pay off THEIR debts to other people. None of whom, if you sat down and had a heart-to-heart with them, would venture to suggest that money is just the nicest, most trusting method of exchange possible. People don't want change unless they can be assured that at least millions of other people have already done so, and it's working. Since these 'other' people also will not change until someone else does, or more accurately a bunch of someone elses, nobody ever changes.
Unfortunately, my personal political views center around downsizing the Earth's population to a managable size (which would constitute effectively killing 7/8th of all humans), since no political system could possibly work with both 6 billion people AND the environment. I think if someone promised me that they were going to kill 7/8ths of all humans, but with one caveat, which would be that I was included in that 7/8, I would still agree. Long as the only people left alive were reasonably diverse (i.e. not all black people, not all white people, not all Catholic people, not all Republican people, etc.). No, really. I would.
I disagree with the biological construct built into all populations that there has to be jillions of its species wandering around everywhere using up everything for its own consumption and killing everything else, except things that directly benefit its survival and reproduction. Is it possible for one to disagree with one's own biological urges? My innate brain wants to have babies. I will probably have babies, against all logic. But I myself would die to cut down my species' population to 1/8 of its current size.
Apparently it is possible. Humans were handed a whole lot of contradictions when our brains evolved to their current gross bulging size. How can we use our intellectual advantage without taking advantage of others' disadvantages? How can we resist making tools and therefore automatically outcompeting everything else? How can we resist the natural urge to procreate, that natural urge that is built in so the species won't go extinct, even when that natural urge is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT with us because even if nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine millionths of our species suddenly became sterile, we would still be JUST FINE, and a whole lot less destructive, too?
09:19 - Friday, Apr. 22, 2005
18:27 - Thursday, Apr. 21, 2005