Regarding humanity
I posted this on facebook a few minutes ago. Want to post this here so I don't lose this. I posted this link to an argument from Jason Alexander against assault-style weapons being available for public purchase:
My response to that was this:
I haven't weighed in on discussions of gun ownership, largely because no one on my friends' list has actually started one that I've noticed. And I don't really care strongly about it one way or another. This is an excellent argument against assault style weapons. My response would be:
I agree that most anti-gun control people (at least those I can recall) likely do not fit the definition of a "well-regulated militia" - but who does? Literally, that is not a rhetorical question. Do we even have anything resembling a militia? If so, I'm not aware of it.
I would be in favor of requiring training certification before a gun purchase, but that wouldn't really do anything to stop the criminal factor - they could probably just get it faked - but it would increase the average skill level of gun owners so that when they do have one, and they do try to defend themselves against a criminal, it is much more likely to be successful.
As has been said ad nauseum, people determined to kill other people will still find ways to do them no matter what gun control laws exist. It probably shouldn't be incredibly easy to buy assault weapons, however I am less than confident in the governments' ability to monitor and stop illegal weapons' sales. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical in that regard, but it seems to me that greater gun ownership laws simply put the balance of gun power squarely in the hands of powerful criminals.
My primary fear that makes me lean against gun ownership laws in general is the (albeit fairly remote) possibility of a catastrophic event which leaves civilians banding together and fighting for themselves: Government collapse, government going 1984, or even sci fi stuff like alien invasion and zombie apocalypse. If there *were* some sort of event like that, we are ill-equipped for it. I think many young people like myself have similar thoughts.
Personally, I think everyone should be trained in combat. I regret my own inability to defend myself it would come down to it. I might have more to say, but I am unwilling to expose some opinions in a public forum. Or anywhere electronic for that matter.
Then the following conversation ensued:
[Khefreun] Hey V, I think you're raising a great point in light of recent events. There's two quotes I really love about the nature of law and regulation:
"The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual." - Mikhail Bakunin, one of the major theorists of Anarchy.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."-Thomas Jefferson, duh.
In order for the human race to experience true freedom, we must come to a pure being of these principles. While the capacity for free will to use an inherently neutral object to hurt someone is entirely possible, for someone to inhibit that free will in fear of the worst is, by definition, oppression; just as much as it is oppression to take another life. In my book, the only true solution is ascension. To get out of our primitive, survivalist paradigm and become something greater. You can't force anyone to do anything; you must be an example of a better way, and prove through actions what the purest Laws of Nature are. One day, the truth of all things will be undeniable; ignorance and fear will not have a leg to stand on. Until this day, the only thing we can do is be teachers of a better way.
[B] We should peacefully wait out the insipid nature of humanity? No amount of time or effort will ever eliminate the existence of effed up people ready to do effed up things.
[Khefreun] I'm afraid to say that notion is a fallacy. It's like saying if you have a broken leg, it'll never heal. It's like saying, "It's impossible to build this house! I'll need this and I'll need that." To believe that humanity will always be diseased in one way or another is to cripple yourself from ever achieving any kind of effective change. The only thing that stands in the way of Peace is laziness and ignorance; both of which have viable, practical cures.
[Ben] It's a nice idea, but I disagree. The human brain is a complex thing, and the more complex it is, the more potential there is for things to go haywire. Evolving, ascending, whatever you may want to call it.... I think that actually increases the risk.
12 hours ago · Like
[Khefreun] Risk of what, if I may ask? Chaos? Disorder? How does expanding our capacity to think and feel put us at risk?
[B]Mental problems. This is a terrible comparison, but think of all the problems that can arise with a computer as opposed to something much simpler, like an alarm clock. The more complex you get, the more potential problems you can have. Computers are constantly being upgraded, advanced & all the more capable. But it's impossible for there to ever be a day where they're completely bug free, virus free & immune to any problems. They're so complex, it's just not possible. Same thing with a brain, to me. What you're saying may be good for most people, but there will always be those with emotional/mental problems that can't handle them & are blown away to twisted places.
[Khefreun] By that analogy, we should have given up on computer technology as soon as it started. If we had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People wouldn't be coordinating instantly across the entire globe. We wouldn't be able to send stupid pictures to our friends at the push of a button. Of course there are going to be unknowns when confronting the future and growth, but that doesn't mean there aren't solutions for every challenge we encounter.
Back me up, V. There's an episode of Star Trek were the Enterprise comes across a crazy advanced alien ship that threatens to destroy them all. Throughout the whole episode, this one officer is freaking out cause space is so vast and crazy, and shit like this exists that can blow you into pieces. But Kirk, like a badass, keeps telling him, "No, our mission is to seek out the unknown; not to be afraid of it." In the end, they have a chance to turn the tables and leave the aliens stranded without power in their ship, but Kirk chooses to turn back and help them, even though their lives were just being threatened. Turns out, it was a super genius alien who was testing the humans to see whether they were worthy. Because of Kirk's faith and courage, the alien shared with the Enterprise his vast array of wisdom and technology.
I'm not saying that there aren't parts of the world that are fucked in a righteous way. All I'm saying is that should never stop one from being the best they can be. And if everyone can do that for themselves, then that makes the biggest difference for everbody.
I responded with the following argument:
Yes, that's the Corbomite Maneuver. Good episode.
First of all, I do agree that there will always be "mental illness," at least as defined by others. Many mental illnesses are simply reactions by the brain over time to a series of stimuli, either physical or environmental. Many of these may be caught or reduced, yes, due to increased understanding of psychology and improved environments. But some "mental illnesses" are more accurately simply aspects of personality or the side effects of high intelligence. These are much less easy to address, although a future world may have solutions.
However, I also agree that both individuals and races should strive to be the best they can be, because without the hope of change it's much harder - perhaps impossible - to evolve. For example, Star Trek is an example of a society that got past war and inequity and now live in harmony with each other. Many people have taken this beacon of hope and used it in their lives to excel - Whoopi Goldberg was inspired by Uhura, for instance. Without that character, who knows if she would ever have become an actress? People need hope, they need to believe in and strive for a better tomorrow because without it there is little reason to try.
And I do believe that society is possible to attain for us. The reason it does in the Star Trek universe is that it exists in a post-needs society; replicators and transporters and other technologies basically eliminate our current issues of resource provision and long-distance travel. If we could attain this level of technological advancement, we could probably have our own paradise as well.
However, that would depend strongly upon how our society has evolved otherwise up to that point. Instead of having Star Trek, we could instead have Stranger in a Strange Land - decadent, frivolous and amoral. Whichever society evolved, there would always be those who opposed it, either for reasons they find to be righteous or simply out of hate. Thus any society will always have some level of strife because humankind will never completely be in complete agreement on how to live their lives. I hope that never changes because a world where everyone agrees to live in the same society under the same ideas, the same way of life, is a world without the very need to change and adapt that got us there in the first place.
I hope for chaos. I hope for betterment of mankind and the restoration of the environment as well, but as far as I'm concerned, while living in peace and prosperity may well be attainable and is something that we should strive for, denying our baser natures takes away part of who we are. I never want to see a world where people don't want to fight. I don't want to see a world where people live in utter complacency. The art of the world that inspires me to create my own art are the ones that delve deep into our psyches, into the futility of living in a world with no defined meaning and the inevitability of death and change. Take away those things and art loses something beautiful.
I could see it being argued that we don't need those aspects of self. People will argue that we need to evolve beyond our primal selves and into the picture of paradise. And some people may argue that the only thing you need to worry about is yourself, and screw compassion and love and greater thoughts, because the only thing that matters in the end is survival. But if either things were taken away from the world, they would only return. Because people need the conflict to live. Conflict doesn't just drive art, it drives something within us, as well. It is the *conflict* of mental disease, chaos, anger and hate against compassion, love and reason that makes us want to be something different. Think of the episode of Star Trek, "The Enemy Within," where Kirk gets split into two - one full of compassion, the other primal instinct. Each half of Kirk, and that of the original animal sent through the transporter, cannot live without the other.
Obviously since this was on facebook no one had the opportunity to carefully research and craft their arguments (although I spent a good 40 minutes on mine), so it's bound to be a little rough.
My response to that was this:
I haven't weighed in on discussions of gun ownership, largely because no one on my friends' list has actually started one that I've noticed. And I don't really care strongly about it one way or another. This is an excellent argument against assault style weapons. My response would be:
I agree that most anti-gun control people (at least those I can recall) likely do not fit the definition of a "well-regulated militia" - but who does? Literally, that is not a rhetorical question. Do we even have anything resembling a militia? If so, I'm not aware of it.
I would be in favor of requiring training certification before a gun purchase, but that wouldn't really do anything to stop the criminal factor - they could probably just get it faked - but it would increase the average skill level of gun owners so that when they do have one, and they do try to defend themselves against a criminal, it is much more likely to be successful.
As has been said ad nauseum, people determined to kill other people will still find ways to do them no matter what gun control laws exist. It probably shouldn't be incredibly easy to buy assault weapons, however I am less than confident in the governments' ability to monitor and stop illegal weapons' sales. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical in that regard, but it seems to me that greater gun ownership laws simply put the balance of gun power squarely in the hands of powerful criminals.
My primary fear that makes me lean against gun ownership laws in general is the (albeit fairly remote) possibility of a catastrophic event which leaves civilians banding together and fighting for themselves: Government collapse, government going 1984, or even sci fi stuff like alien invasion and zombie apocalypse. If there *were* some sort of event like that, we are ill-equipped for it. I think many young people like myself have similar thoughts.
Personally, I think everyone should be trained in combat. I regret my own inability to defend myself it would come down to it. I might have more to say, but I am unwilling to expose some opinions in a public forum. Or anywhere electronic for that matter.
Then the following conversation ensued:
[Khefreun] Hey V, I think you're raising a great point in light of recent events. There's two quotes I really love about the nature of law and regulation:
"The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual." - Mikhail Bakunin, one of the major theorists of Anarchy.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."-Thomas Jefferson, duh.
In order for the human race to experience true freedom, we must come to a pure being of these principles. While the capacity for free will to use an inherently neutral object to hurt someone is entirely possible, for someone to inhibit that free will in fear of the worst is, by definition, oppression; just as much as it is oppression to take another life. In my book, the only true solution is ascension. To get out of our primitive, survivalist paradigm and become something greater. You can't force anyone to do anything; you must be an example of a better way, and prove through actions what the purest Laws of Nature are. One day, the truth of all things will be undeniable; ignorance and fear will not have a leg to stand on. Until this day, the only thing we can do is be teachers of a better way.
[B] We should peacefully wait out the insipid nature of humanity? No amount of time or effort will ever eliminate the existence of effed up people ready to do effed up things.
[Khefreun] I'm afraid to say that notion is a fallacy. It's like saying if you have a broken leg, it'll never heal. It's like saying, "It's impossible to build this house! I'll need this and I'll need that." To believe that humanity will always be diseased in one way or another is to cripple yourself from ever achieving any kind of effective change. The only thing that stands in the way of Peace is laziness and ignorance; both of which have viable, practical cures.
[Ben] It's a nice idea, but I disagree. The human brain is a complex thing, and the more complex it is, the more potential there is for things to go haywire. Evolving, ascending, whatever you may want to call it.... I think that actually increases the risk.
12 hours ago · Like
[Khefreun] Risk of what, if I may ask? Chaos? Disorder? How does expanding our capacity to think and feel put us at risk?
[B]Mental problems. This is a terrible comparison, but think of all the problems that can arise with a computer as opposed to something much simpler, like an alarm clock. The more complex you get, the more potential problems you can have. Computers are constantly being upgraded, advanced & all the more capable. But it's impossible for there to ever be a day where they're completely bug free, virus free & immune to any problems. They're so complex, it's just not possible. Same thing with a brain, to me. What you're saying may be good for most people, but there will always be those with emotional/mental problems that can't handle them & are blown away to twisted places.
[Khefreun] By that analogy, we should have given up on computer technology as soon as it started. If we had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People wouldn't be coordinating instantly across the entire globe. We wouldn't be able to send stupid pictures to our friends at the push of a button. Of course there are going to be unknowns when confronting the future and growth, but that doesn't mean there aren't solutions for every challenge we encounter.
Back me up, V. There's an episode of Star Trek were the Enterprise comes across a crazy advanced alien ship that threatens to destroy them all. Throughout the whole episode, this one officer is freaking out cause space is so vast and crazy, and shit like this exists that can blow you into pieces. But Kirk, like a badass, keeps telling him, "No, our mission is to seek out the unknown; not to be afraid of it." In the end, they have a chance to turn the tables and leave the aliens stranded without power in their ship, but Kirk chooses to turn back and help them, even though their lives were just being threatened. Turns out, it was a super genius alien who was testing the humans to see whether they were worthy. Because of Kirk's faith and courage, the alien shared with the Enterprise his vast array of wisdom and technology.
I'm not saying that there aren't parts of the world that are fucked in a righteous way. All I'm saying is that should never stop one from being the best they can be. And if everyone can do that for themselves, then that makes the biggest difference for everbody.
I responded with the following argument:
Yes, that's the Corbomite Maneuver. Good episode.
First of all, I do agree that there will always be "mental illness," at least as defined by others. Many mental illnesses are simply reactions by the brain over time to a series of stimuli, either physical or environmental. Many of these may be caught or reduced, yes, due to increased understanding of psychology and improved environments. But some "mental illnesses" are more accurately simply aspects of personality or the side effects of high intelligence. These are much less easy to address, although a future world may have solutions.
However, I also agree that both individuals and races should strive to be the best they can be, because without the hope of change it's much harder - perhaps impossible - to evolve. For example, Star Trek is an example of a society that got past war and inequity and now live in harmony with each other. Many people have taken this beacon of hope and used it in their lives to excel - Whoopi Goldberg was inspired by Uhura, for instance. Without that character, who knows if she would ever have become an actress? People need hope, they need to believe in and strive for a better tomorrow because without it there is little reason to try.
And I do believe that society is possible to attain for us. The reason it does in the Star Trek universe is that it exists in a post-needs society; replicators and transporters and other technologies basically eliminate our current issues of resource provision and long-distance travel. If we could attain this level of technological advancement, we could probably have our own paradise as well.
However, that would depend strongly upon how our society has evolved otherwise up to that point. Instead of having Star Trek, we could instead have Stranger in a Strange Land - decadent, frivolous and amoral. Whichever society evolved, there would always be those who opposed it, either for reasons they find to be righteous or simply out of hate. Thus any society will always have some level of strife because humankind will never completely be in complete agreement on how to live their lives. I hope that never changes because a world where everyone agrees to live in the same society under the same ideas, the same way of life, is a world without the very need to change and adapt that got us there in the first place.
I hope for chaos. I hope for betterment of mankind and the restoration of the environment as well, but as far as I'm concerned, while living in peace and prosperity may well be attainable and is something that we should strive for, denying our baser natures takes away part of who we are. I never want to see a world where people don't want to fight. I don't want to see a world where people live in utter complacency. The art of the world that inspires me to create my own art are the ones that delve deep into our psyches, into the futility of living in a world with no defined meaning and the inevitability of death and change. Take away those things and art loses something beautiful.
I could see it being argued that we don't need those aspects of self. People will argue that we need to evolve beyond our primal selves and into the picture of paradise. And some people may argue that the only thing you need to worry about is yourself, and screw compassion and love and greater thoughts, because the only thing that matters in the end is survival. But if either things were taken away from the world, they would only return. Because people need the conflict to live. Conflict doesn't just drive art, it drives something within us, as well. It is the *conflict* of mental disease, chaos, anger and hate against compassion, love and reason that makes us want to be something different. Think of the episode of Star Trek, "The Enemy Within," where Kirk gets split into two - one full of compassion, the other primal instinct. Each half of Kirk, and that of the original animal sent through the transporter, cannot live without the other.
Obviously since this was on facebook no one had the opportunity to carefully research and craft their arguments (although I spent a good 40 minutes on mine), so it's bound to be a little rough.