A recent article discussed how a radical Saudi writer named Abdullah Mohammad Al Dawood spoke about how men should molest women to keep that home. Anyone with any shred of decency can understand how molesting anyone (not only women) can’t possibly be a good thing in anyone’s eyes, human or God alike. When we read about these kinds of things we might assume the world is a terrible place or getting worse but in many cases this is actually the opposite of what is happening.
Whenever progressive ideas start to spread the first thing that happens is that the ideas start to get push back. When people believe their ideas and perceptions of the world are being threatened they will lash out in any way possible to maintain their perception of the universe. The pushing of progressive ideas will bring corruption or out dated individuals to the surface.
These outdated individuals will slowly become more radical in an attempt to hold on to their views. While this increase of radicalization is bad, it also accelerates the demise of their views. As people with outdated views become more radical, they isolate themselves. While their extremism might give them momentary fame, it will ultimately end with rejection. Extremism only holds when the extreme view is actually what the majority of people want. Further, if the person in question moves from merely speaking ideas to criminal activity, this could result in an almost complete and perfect credibility loss for the radical.
It is important to remember that a lot of humans don’t really have the faculty to change their core views. A human is completely capable of going to their grave believing the world is flat, but this capability does not make them any more correct. In these situations we must work around these radicals until either they die, fall in to obscurity, or change their views. If we focus on changing the world around radicals, instead of trying to change them directly, they will either change or die unaccomplished.
One of the easiest ways that we as architects can shape the best possible future for ourselves is to figure out the things that indirectly kill people. Whether we like it or not every action we do could potentially kill someone. How responsible we are for death is linked to how many “hops” there are to an event. If you do an action which causes a series of 15 connected events that leads to someone dying, you can’t really be held responsible. You also can’t be held responsible if you’re not really aware that what you’re doing is killing people. If you are aware that an action is killing someone, you are responsible.
Recently there has been a lot of commotion over gay marriage, particularly in the states. On one side of the issue you will have Christians who recite scripture saying and believing that this issue can lead to the downfall of civilization. On the other side of the issue you have people requesting equality. Generally I would not waste my time talking about civil issues because I believe most civil issues get resolved democratically. That said, I believe this is a special case scenario that can be utilized to show how lack of moral objectivity can lead to the death of humans.
So the church by not supporting homosexual marriage is by proxy not supporting homosexual monogamy and therefore is contributing to death by proliferating HIV.
A core concept in Christianity is the idea of monogamy. Monogamy has actual biological benefits that extend far beyond simple religious ideals. Monogamy decreases STDs, birth rates, and also contributes to having a proper framework in place for raising children. Monogamous relationships are by no means exclusive to Christianity but Christianity plays a role in supporting monogamy. From a general Christian perspective there is little difference between a homosexual who is monogamous and a homosexual that is promiscuous. So if you happen to be a homosexual looking for religious guidance you will quickly discover that if you cannot repress your homosexuality, you will be considered purely evil. What I mean by this is that to a lot of conservative Christians you will have no redeeming characteristics until you “free” yourself of homosexuality. This is hypocritical of course because Christian don’t do this with other types of sins, homosexuality is treated like leprosy.
A certain percentage of these homosexuals will be compelled to become promiscuous because a large group of people indirectly tell them it doesn’t matter. This promiscuity leads to all kinds of terrible things including the proliferation of HIV. So the church by not supporting homosexual marriage is by proxy not supporting homosexual monogamy and therefore is contributing to death by proliferating HIV. This is not the first time the Church has taken actions that contribute to the death of humans. The Catholic church has refused to send condoms to Africa before believing that doing so is promoting premarital sex but completely ignoring the fact that many Africans are not Catholic. In this way the Catholic church attempts to push their ideological views on other humans by allowing them to die.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I think homosexuals are perfectly capable of monogamy without any religious intervention. However, the reality is that humans draw strength from social groups and can also be devastated by social groups that reject them. If homosexuals were allowed to be both married and part of the church they would have a support group that they might not otherwise have and this in turn would contribute to better humans behavior such as monogamy.
While I am picking on the Church, this same idea can be applied to anything that needs moral direction. Humanity is the most important thing humans have. If we give up humanity for perceived morality, it is not actual morality.
When it comes to the economy, technology, and government the human race is relatively new to this. People will regularly make claims about certain policies working or not working but the reality is that on many issues there are so many variables involved that we can’t really know for 100% certainty if something worked or, more importantly, if something worked for the reasons we think it did.
Consider for a moment that a hundred years ago we didn’t have flight. We are facing problems today that humanity has simply never encountered before because we didn’t have the technology. Globalization is happening and we are really only scratching the surface. Flight is only one major change, more recently we have had the technological communication revolution (the internet) and fundamental changes in production because of automation.
With all of these things being relatively new it is really hard for anyone or any economist to really make perfect predictions for the future. We simply don’t have enough information yet. In 200-300 years humanity will have a trove of data to dig through regarding policies and the economic implications of those policies but right now all we can really do is make best guess scenarios. No one likes to think of themselves as being experimented on but that is actually the reality of what is going on right now.
In exchange for being able to witness some of the most fundamental changes in human history we pay for it by, unfortunately, being the test subjects of figuring out how all this is going to work out. It is important for us to recognize this because, as I have stated in other posts, it is very easy for us to be hyperbolic and make knee jerk reactions to things. We really are in one of the most important times in history. We are the explorers and discoverers of what will work for us moving forward in this new world we are creating for ourselves. Like anything worth doing there are heavy risks involved but I believe the risks, in this instance, are well worth it.
One of the biggest revelations I have ever had in life was that I was capable of being wrong. Not only can I be wrong, I can even be wrong about things I am sure about. Many of us might say that we could recognize when we are wrong or change our minds if we are proven wrong, but the reality is, most of us can’t.
In most cases we define our universe almost entirely by our personal experiences and this is highly dangerous. A series of unfortunate events can lead to you becoming bigoted. If we are slighted by a member of a minority, for instance, on more then one occasion we might shape our entire universe in a different way based on these experiences.
We are vicious about defending our experiences and the opinions we generate from them. We are so aggressive about it, that we will often surround ourselves in people that agree with us just so that we can believe we are right. It’s much easier, and satisfying, to surround ourselves with people that agree with us. We would rather ramble on for hours on end in agreement, not accomplishing anything, then to create purposeful friction which benefits not only ourselves but the entire race as a whole. The examples of this behavior are plentiful; the biggest being religion and politics. Outside of religion and politics you have major and minor social groups that conform to certain ideas or philosophies.
Hitler had some bad experiences with some Jewish people and decided it would be better if they didn’t exist. Ayn Rand witnessed the effects of extreme socialism and decided that the complete opposite has to be the answer. Karl Marx witnessed the distress of the proletariat and decided the only way to make everyone happier was through a complete abolishing of free enterprise. It’s very common for us to be hyperbolic. When something doesn’t work many of us assume the opposite is the answer and we rarely stop to think about the center.
What is at stake is everything. Without compromise, objectivity, introspection, and debate there can be no progress. Elolight will slip away from us.
People are constantly changing because we’re designed to change. However the human ego is highly resilient and we are all the center of the universe. While some can express humility or admit when they are wrong, most humans cannot be changed directly by other humans. In the case of fundamental change in the case of religious enlightenment, the people who are changed are usually looking to be changed before they come across any missionary. When people have conviction and have a yes/no answer to an argument, a resolution between the two can rarely be met. In a historical practical application this is why we have had religious wars. When it comes to changing people, you can’t make a rabbit spread wing and fly. However, it is possible to change people indirectly.
When two people engage in an argument it is because both have a large amount of conviction. The people who can be changed rarely have enough conviction to engage in arguments but they do listen. If your desire is to change people, it’s not about about a single person, it’s about everyone else. An argument is one of the best platforms to get your message out to the masses and should be treated as such. Forget trying to convince the person you’re arguing with to change but instead focus on everyone else around them. You cannot move an immovable rock, but you can move everything around it. Ultimately if you can change the world around someone, they will change their opinions when their instinctual desires to conform kick in, unless they are an Architect.
Politicians have utilized this tactic for as long as politics have existed. If you’re reading this post and wondering how to change a specific person in certain ways, there is only two tactics available, acceptance or compromise. If neither of those are an option then any effort you will make is a waste of time. The human ego is too strong, in most cases, to be susceptible to direct manipulation.
The history of our lives is defined through a series of reactions we like to call choices. The way we react is a direct result of exposure to previous circumstances that helped us establish a log of contextual discriminations that we will then use to make future choices in our life. It is highly probable that if we were exposed to a different set of circumstances (like being born some where different) and encountered a similar situation, the choice we would have made would be different than the one we made in our current lives. Thought it is highly difficult to know this for sure.
Belief in the deterministic view of life has a significant amount of challenges. Would a criminal still have committed a murder if they had better parents? This challenges the very core of morality because humans, generally speaking, are obsessed with blame. The biggest motivational and religious speakers will use blame to get their various messages across. Whether it is blaming sin, lack of vision, or passion; blame seems to be a primary motivational tool. Many religions will go so far to condemn people to an eternal after life of suffering based on the reactions they have in this life. We want to believe we have an extraordinarily large amount of control over our lives and to confirm this illusion we must blame others for their improper reactions. It takes exceptional types of human to publicly say that a rapist or murderer should still be treated like a human being because they are merely victims of circumstance.
There are some that believe that a deterministic view of life would undermine human society. That even if determinism is true, if it is public knowledge, people will use it as an excuse to commit crimes. However, people use far lesser excuses to commit crimes. It is a vicious circle because even the people who commit crimes want to believe they have free will and in doing so will also blame themselves before taking a more objective stance or view of their life. Determinism would require a psychological shift in humanity but would resolve a lot of existential as well as moral issues.
If we are a product of circumstance that means every blessing we have received is like winning the lottery. Any time we experience any joy at all it means a large amount of circumstances, that are beyond our control, lined up in order to make the event that brings us pleasure occur. In this situation envy ceases to exist and all pleasure derived from life becomes miraculous under the context of determinism.
A large debate that is always going on when it comes to government is what role the government should play. Some believe that the government’s role should be to act as a legislator to level the playing field while others think that the role of government should be larger encompassing things such as social programs.
The debate of the role of government exists only because true democracy doesn’t exist. The reality is that the government actually only has one role and that is to facilitate the transfer/spend of socially collected funds (taxes) to the most utilitarian of causes as dictated by the populous.
If the population at large wants regulation of markets then the government should transfer funds in support of that request. The problem of roles emerges because true democracy doesn’t actually exist and instead we have republic which is a group of politicians representing the population at large. While technology is getting to the point that true democracy could potentially exist, it is still unreasonable to have a true democracy at the current time.
This lack of perfect communication with the population has lead to the need to define “roles” of the government to try and blanket cover what people are looking for. The government has always been an organization that is supposed to organize large and collective objectives of the human race. If you were to eliminate government, you would have private organizations emerge that would take on the same managerial roles that government has without the proper over sight.
There are large problems, of course, with current government. The primary issue is that the people who run the government also need to be paid which ultimately leads to a negative scenario when trying to properly transfer funds to large projects. There is also the issue that the people running the government can also be selfish and this can lead to the government not properly representing the people. Ideally government would not be for the people, it would be the people. There would be no intermediaries between the people and the legislative process. To achieve Elolight we will need to resolve the communication issues between government and the people. This will be the only way we can truly move out of the first phase.