I sit here in a Starbucks, having been awake for about 24 hours, sipping coffee to keep going. An image on Twitter reminded me of how vast the universe actually is, not difficult for a scientific person to grasp, the notion that we are a tiny speck, inside a tiny speck, inside another tiny speck, of a tiny speck, of dust in this vast cosmos.
The sad fact is that no religious person truly grasps the concept of forever, much less infinite in any amount. Even Einstein, a deist, was hard pressed to comprehend it, thus why he was afraid of things like quantum physics.
It is easy to see how little they grasp about the concept of infinity, as they talk about "forever" as casually as if they are talking about tomorrow. This limited view keeps them from facing the most scary notion to a planet bound organism, that we float endlessly for all eternity through an infinite vast emptiness.
It also protects then from fearing their own myth, by not comprehending the notion of infinity, the "after life" becomes nothing more than a pleasant weekend getaway, instead of the truly horrific monotonous form of torture that it would actually be. Consider the vastness of the universe, and living as long as it would take to get from one side to the opposite if the universe stopped expanding today, using current space travel technology and an infinite source of energy.
Less than one percent of the way through the voyage you would have read every book ever written to date, including all alternatives, and all languages they have been printed in. Yes, you would even actually finish War and Peace, and every word of every scientific paper published and unpublished.
After two percent of the trip you'd have done every scientific test in the scientific papers you read, and verified them with several repeated tests. You would have the scientific understanding of a god at this point, nothing would be a mystery to you because of our inherent ability of inference.
Now we're just nearing the fourth or fifth galaxy of this trip, at three percent. Your tops scores on every video game ever written would be perfect, impossible for anyone to score higher. You would have ever race track memorized, every glitch mastered, ever combination perfected, every letter of every script known.
Any psychologically healthy human would have been insane three fold at this point, and there is still 97% of the universe left. You would have lived a thousand lifetimes just to get to the next galaxy, eaten more than a billion tons of food.
Food would literally be tasteless after only a few hundred years of thus trip, your taste buds would be unable to distinguish one flavor from the next out, because the repetition would would eventually cause the neurons in your brain to be flatlined in sensory input, all valences would be neutral.
Hallucinations, a combination of memory and imagination, would haunt you after only five hundred years because of the monotony. This is less than a hundredth of a percent of your trip too.
Adding more people to the trip would increase the degradation of sanity, after a few hundred years everyone would be paranoid of each other with violent consequences. This is not because of a biological flaw.
There's the catch, religious people will likely claim it's a biological flaw in our brain or body that would be removed after death, but this is not an effect of biology. The boredom is an effect of memory.
Unique memories always stand out to us, because they are easy to identify in the crowd. When no memories stand out we begin to lose focus, we call this phenomenon boredom.
The progressive insanity and delusion is an effect of logic, once all that is possible is known to a single logic center, it will make up new things to explore because curiosity is an inherent trait of logic, the need to explore. Religion seeks to destroy the curiosity, which always results in psychological instability because the logic engine of the intellect becomes damaged.
This can cause many things, almost always the loss of curiosity results in hallucinations of various degrees. You often hear religious people describing a relatively mundane event as "spiritual," even mentioning voices or visions.
These are hallucinations cause by logic methods being imbalanced. Much like a painter with only three colors, the picture is incomplete because there us no curiosity asking the important questions, so the gaps are filled in with random nonsense.
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
Humans Are Animals
So I am working on blogging more about my adopted cat, Pepper, right now, and I still keep seeing people deny that humans are animals. I find this troubling, not because they deny this very basic and well known fact, but their reasons.
Every time someone denies that humans are animals it's either "god dunnit" or "aliens dunnit." The problem is that neither of these would change this very basic fact even if true. Humans are animals by definition, life is broken up into kingdoms for scientific categorizing and we are categorized as animals because of our physiological traits.
Now for the psychoanalysis of this cognitive dissonance. The primary reason people want to deny that we're animals is not because they want to feel superior, but because they want to reason away their guilt. This means that they have, at some point in their life, needlessly harmed another animal.
This notion is more frightening for us who do not harm without a valid justification, because since we are animals, those same people are just as capable of harming another human. It does not take much to see that we are animals, and the denial is only a thin barrier, so once that barrier is pierced they become a danger to others of their own species if they do not feel guilt after realizing they were wrong.
For us friends of nonhuman animals, it's also worrisome in many other ways. These particular humans can use their "we aren't animals" excuse to hurt our best friends and the other animals we cherish, and many do. To make it clear, I am not against harming when there is a need, so long as it is as humanely as possible, I am speaking about all needless harm and torture of other animals.
One day our technology will advance enough that we will need to harm not other organisms, even plants, to survive. The problem is that most of the harm we do is unnecessary for our survival, and many times this harm endangers the entire species. To make matters worse, many of the people who do these things are proud of it.
Let's look at trophy hunting, the horrible act of cowardly shooting an animal that is trapped, from a distance. There is no courage in these people, no skill, no strength of any kind. They are cowards, weaklings, and generally useless even for humans. Being a boxer takes courage, even staged wrestling takes courage, but to fire a gun at an unarmed animal from hundreds of yards away does not take courage.
Karate takes skill, fencing takes skill, soccer takes skill, but using a high powered rifle with long range scope to fire at an imprisoned animal does not take any skill. This is actually a sign of how little skill you have, the scope does all the work now. Video gamers have way more skill than that, and most have never killed a fly ... too busy to swat one.
An iPhone user carrying an iPad and wearing an iWatch is wealthy. Someone driving a new, completely electric, fine tuned sports car is wealthy. Someone who climbs Mount Everest every summer is wealthy. But a trophy hunt is not a sign of wealthy, it's a sign of arrogance compared to the others.
Bill Gates donates large amounts of his money to charity, we know he's wealthy and we praise him for his deeds. Try doing something good with your money if you can't at least be trendy with it, instead of showing us how much of a coward you are.
Every time someone denies that humans are animals it's either "god dunnit" or "aliens dunnit." The problem is that neither of these would change this very basic fact even if true. Humans are animals by definition, life is broken up into kingdoms for scientific categorizing and we are categorized as animals because of our physiological traits.
Now for the psychoanalysis of this cognitive dissonance. The primary reason people want to deny that we're animals is not because they want to feel superior, but because they want to reason away their guilt. This means that they have, at some point in their life, needlessly harmed another animal.
This notion is more frightening for us who do not harm without a valid justification, because since we are animals, those same people are just as capable of harming another human. It does not take much to see that we are animals, and the denial is only a thin barrier, so once that barrier is pierced they become a danger to others of their own species if they do not feel guilt after realizing they were wrong.
For us friends of nonhuman animals, it's also worrisome in many other ways. These particular humans can use their "we aren't animals" excuse to hurt our best friends and the other animals we cherish, and many do. To make it clear, I am not against harming when there is a need, so long as it is as humanely as possible, I am speaking about all needless harm and torture of other animals.
One day our technology will advance enough that we will need to harm not other organisms, even plants, to survive. The problem is that most of the harm we do is unnecessary for our survival, and many times this harm endangers the entire species. To make matters worse, many of the people who do these things are proud of it.
Let's look at trophy hunting, the horrible act of cowardly shooting an animal that is trapped, from a distance. There is no courage in these people, no skill, no strength of any kind. They are cowards, weaklings, and generally useless even for humans. Being a boxer takes courage, even staged wrestling takes courage, but to fire a gun at an unarmed animal from hundreds of yards away does not take courage.
Karate takes skill, fencing takes skill, soccer takes skill, but using a high powered rifle with long range scope to fire at an imprisoned animal does not take any skill. This is actually a sign of how little skill you have, the scope does all the work now. Video gamers have way more skill than that, and most have never killed a fly ... too busy to swat one.
An iPhone user carrying an iPad and wearing an iWatch is wealthy. Someone driving a new, completely electric, fine tuned sports car is wealthy. Someone who climbs Mount Everest every summer is wealthy. But a trophy hunt is not a sign of wealthy, it's a sign of arrogance compared to the others.
Bill Gates donates large amounts of his money to charity, we know he's wealthy and we praise him for his deeds. Try doing something good with your money if you can't at least be trendy with it, instead of showing us how much of a coward you are.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Of Apes and Men
Even when I was young, I never understood why being related to a chimpanzee, or admitting we are apes, is such a difficult thing for religious people to do. It truly puzzles me. First, we have to be animals, there are only two other options to that one and minerals don't have imaginations.
Actually, I do understand the reason, what I don't understand is why they cannot .... grow up.
When we think of other species of animals, we often characterize and stereotype them to make them more comparable to our own species. This helps us to relate to them, one of the ways we see empathy helping our species learn to live with similar species in symbiotic relationships.
By stereotyping the species, we are able to identify those more like us, though it does have one flaw, which I am about to demonstrate why it's a flaw. So many have this stereotype of the "monkey throwing poo," or some other seemingly grotesque act.
Of course, these people are forced to ignore the fact that human children do, in fact, throw poo. Or even paint the walls with it, are very young ages. Watching a toddler explore the world around them, it's hard ignore just how similar we are to our distant cousins.
The denial of our similarities is a very complex subject, one that requires we look at many aspects of the human mind itself. The simplistic explanation is that every species has a segregation instinct, to distance themselves from those who they are not genetically compatible with for reproduction.
One of our beneficial traits is also a responsibility in itself, the ability to ignore, or even alter, our instinctual behaviors. It is the trait that not only allows us to advance our understanding of the universe, it is also why denying that we are apes is insulting to our species.
Very few species ever have the trait that allows them to control their instinctual behaviors like we do, it is a badge that should be worn with pride, and utilized as much as possible. But these people who want to deny our genetic lineage just because of a survival trait that's only suppose to prevent us from trying to breed with them are not using this rare trait our species have, they are, in fact, acting like apes more than anyone else.
It's rather ironic, the people who deny that humans are apes are behaving just like apes by doing so. So the next time someone denies our relatives in common with the chimpanzee or deny that we are not apes, ask them why they keep acting more like an ape than a human.
Actually, I do understand the reason, what I don't understand is why they cannot .... grow up.
When we think of other species of animals, we often characterize and stereotype them to make them more comparable to our own species. This helps us to relate to them, one of the ways we see empathy helping our species learn to live with similar species in symbiotic relationships.
By stereotyping the species, we are able to identify those more like us, though it does have one flaw, which I am about to demonstrate why it's a flaw. So many have this stereotype of the "monkey throwing poo," or some other seemingly grotesque act.
Of course, these people are forced to ignore the fact that human children do, in fact, throw poo. Or even paint the walls with it, are very young ages. Watching a toddler explore the world around them, it's hard ignore just how similar we are to our distant cousins.
The denial of our similarities is a very complex subject, one that requires we look at many aspects of the human mind itself. The simplistic explanation is that every species has a segregation instinct, to distance themselves from those who they are not genetically compatible with for reproduction.
One of our beneficial traits is also a responsibility in itself, the ability to ignore, or even alter, our instinctual behaviors. It is the trait that not only allows us to advance our understanding of the universe, it is also why denying that we are apes is insulting to our species.
Very few species ever have the trait that allows them to control their instinctual behaviors like we do, it is a badge that should be worn with pride, and utilized as much as possible. But these people who want to deny our genetic lineage just because of a survival trait that's only suppose to prevent us from trying to breed with them are not using this rare trait our species have, they are, in fact, acting like apes more than anyone else.
It's rather ironic, the people who deny that humans are apes are behaving just like apes by doing so. So the next time someone denies our relatives in common with the chimpanzee or deny that we are not apes, ask them why they keep acting more like an ape than a human.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Atheists Contradict Each Other
The title is something I hear quite often, with variations to suite a specific incident. It is also very incorrect. Let's go there ...
Ask a hundred christians the answer to something, you will get a hundred different answers, many will contradict each other as there is no standard with which to define who is accurate, and who is just making stuff up as they go along. The reason for this lies in their own "doctrine," a silly word that really means "bible" to them. The wording in the texts they claim to abide by is meant to be contradictory, the original con artists were actually pretty smart on this matter.
Thus you wind up with "interpretations," and nothing that is interpreted can ever be declared as fact for this very reason. The irony that these same christians often claim science is also "interpreted," talk about a total lack of education there. The reason they can often get away with this claim is the very same reason the title of this article is incorrect, atheist do often give a wide variety of answers to even the most solid fact.
But it's not "interpretation" that causes it, it's perspective. Perspective has nothing to do with interpretation, though interpretation is often skewed by perspective, the two are not mutually inclusive. What is really happening is that each atheist will have studied a different field in any particular area, and since fields overlap a lot you will get answers specific to their fields on the same topic quite often.
I'll use the evolution of the human eye as one of the most perfect examples of this. To a geneticist or biochemist you will be given a possible reason in which such an evolutionary track could occur, and there are many such possibilities. There are actually more possibilities of how this could occur than what actually did occur, because it only happened in with one such possibility.
In comes the paleontologist who will show you how we understand it did occur, through fossil and biological evidence found in our rocks. By looking at the fossils, then referring the known possibilities, it's pretty easy to figure out which one happened. This answer will be nearly indisputable fact, we have the records in stone.
While the two answers will appear to be very different, they are not. They appear to be different because of the fields of study, and thus the perspective of the one offering the answer. This is compounded by language, culture, and even current emotional state. Neither answer will be incorrect, both will be correct, they just address different contexts.
Oh, what a horribly misunderstood word, context if often touted as an excuse for interpretations of religious texts varying, which is really just ignoring all the other reasons for it. Context is essentially saying "in light of this information," which is more apt in describing the different answers you receive to scientific inquiries.
Science, the key to all our, real, understanding of the universe ... and beyond. Oddly enough there is not one "universe" but a bunch of them in what we can now just refer to as "reality." Science is not really a "thing" though, often people will incorrectly assume or imply that science just does. However, science is a tool, much like a hammer or computer, well, more like a hammer and a computer in one, as well as a stethoscope, a telegraph, a ... you get the idea.
It's a generic tool that, when used properly, can be used to find flaws in evidence. Science does not disprove assertions, it finds flaws in the evidence, and an assertion lacking evidence can, and should, be dismissed. That's what science does for us, it's like a filter, removing the rock and leaving us with gold.
It is no coincidence that us atheists are prone to studying scientific findings so much. For one, without all that worshiping of an imaginary being we have a lot of free time. Another is that we cannot be satisfied with one, simple, answer. We have to know more, when one answer is found we have to find other answers to compare them to. That's just a very common trait atheists share, and one that helps keep our species from looking like total morons.
So yes, our answers will vary; yes, we will disagree; and yes, no two atheists will ever be identical. But that's what makes us so much more human than most religious people.
Ask a hundred christians the answer to something, you will get a hundred different answers, many will contradict each other as there is no standard with which to define who is accurate, and who is just making stuff up as they go along. The reason for this lies in their own "doctrine," a silly word that really means "bible" to them. The wording in the texts they claim to abide by is meant to be contradictory, the original con artists were actually pretty smart on this matter.
Thus you wind up with "interpretations," and nothing that is interpreted can ever be declared as fact for this very reason. The irony that these same christians often claim science is also "interpreted," talk about a total lack of education there. The reason they can often get away with this claim is the very same reason the title of this article is incorrect, atheist do often give a wide variety of answers to even the most solid fact.
But it's not "interpretation" that causes it, it's perspective. Perspective has nothing to do with interpretation, though interpretation is often skewed by perspective, the two are not mutually inclusive. What is really happening is that each atheist will have studied a different field in any particular area, and since fields overlap a lot you will get answers specific to their fields on the same topic quite often.
I'll use the evolution of the human eye as one of the most perfect examples of this. To a geneticist or biochemist you will be given a possible reason in which such an evolutionary track could occur, and there are many such possibilities. There are actually more possibilities of how this could occur than what actually did occur, because it only happened in with one such possibility.
In comes the paleontologist who will show you how we understand it did occur, through fossil and biological evidence found in our rocks. By looking at the fossils, then referring the known possibilities, it's pretty easy to figure out which one happened. This answer will be nearly indisputable fact, we have the records in stone.
While the two answers will appear to be very different, they are not. They appear to be different because of the fields of study, and thus the perspective of the one offering the answer. This is compounded by language, culture, and even current emotional state. Neither answer will be incorrect, both will be correct, they just address different contexts.
Oh, what a horribly misunderstood word, context if often touted as an excuse for interpretations of religious texts varying, which is really just ignoring all the other reasons for it. Context is essentially saying "in light of this information," which is more apt in describing the different answers you receive to scientific inquiries.
Science, the key to all our, real, understanding of the universe ... and beyond. Oddly enough there is not one "universe" but a bunch of them in what we can now just refer to as "reality." Science is not really a "thing" though, often people will incorrectly assume or imply that science just does. However, science is a tool, much like a hammer or computer, well, more like a hammer and a computer in one, as well as a stethoscope, a telegraph, a ... you get the idea.
It's a generic tool that, when used properly, can be used to find flaws in evidence. Science does not disprove assertions, it finds flaws in the evidence, and an assertion lacking evidence can, and should, be dismissed. That's what science does for us, it's like a filter, removing the rock and leaving us with gold.
It is no coincidence that us atheists are prone to studying scientific findings so much. For one, without all that worshiping of an imaginary being we have a lot of free time. Another is that we cannot be satisfied with one, simple, answer. We have to know more, when one answer is found we have to find other answers to compare them to. That's just a very common trait atheists share, and one that helps keep our species from looking like total morons.
So yes, our answers will vary; yes, we will disagree; and yes, no two atheists will ever be identical. But that's what makes us so much more human than most religious people.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Information - Why the Free Information Has Increased It's Value
This era is often called the Information Age, a time when information became free, and at our fingertips. I have spent the last decade reading scientific papers, often donated by scientists who love to see someone fascinated in their area of expertise. I have watched lectures, of varying levels of education, for free on various sites. I have discussed this information with others, scientists in the fields and those studying them. All because I have the most insatiable sense of curiosity.
My primary focus has been on biochemistry, medicine, and neurology. This has brought me into neighboring fields of study to help supplement the information. I finally took a break then looked back on everything I had learned, refreshing my memory, basically. Suddenly it dawned on me, I had just learned enough to earn master's degrees in at least three fields of scientific research, and it didn't cost thousands of dollars. Far from it, most of it was completely free, often just for the asking.
First, what drew me to the fields was my strong background in chemistry, and a fascination with how chemicals interact with each other. When I learned that complex organisms were really walking chemistry labs, my curiosity got the better of me, I dove in head first. Picturing the chemical interactions within the human body became a way to relax, tracing the rout of a single carbon atom through all the chemical reactions while it travels into and out of the various cells. That sense of knowing something set my mind at ease during hard times.
But that's not the meat of this post, what I am illustrating is just how much more valuable information is today than ever before. Sort of the inverse of supply and demand constructs. One would think that the huge influx of free information, with all the excess junk also mixed in, the value of the information would fall to nothing. The junk is, luckily, not the reason for it increasing in value.
The reason it has increased in value is the same reason many lobby groups in the USA are trying to censor and control the flow of information, people can learn more than those who pay for it. This creates a huge imbalance of information in the real world, one which has upset many of those with higher educations to the point of decrying the internet as a whole. The phrase "where'd you hear that? Off the internet" is meant as a slur against those of us not stupid enough to pay for what we can get for free.
When I go to a doctor I have to pretend to be stupid, actually, the moment you betray even a small amount of knowledge in something, the rage that fills their mannerisms is plain to see. They genuinely hate you just for knowing even one thing that they spent thousands of dollars to learn. Professionals cannot tolerate any competition, nor do they like having their elitist clubs threatened by something they cannot control. So in spite of the fact that I know more about what's going on that most doctors, I play like I am ignorant so that I can get what I need from them, a second opinion and the proper medication legally.
I made the mistake of letting my general care doctor learn of just a small amount of what I knew, my diagnosis was accurate, her diagnosis made out of anger was not. Another doctor even said she was wrong, and stated my diagnosis was correct, even though I did not let him know it was my diagnosis. So the information I have learned is more valuable than the information they have learned, only because I learned it out of curiosity, for almost no cost, while they spent thousands in the hopes of making millions for that same information.
This does not mean you should take everything you read online as fact, far from it. You must sift through a lot of junk sometimes, forming connections online with various professionals can help, many of the ones who frequent the internet social sites are always too happy to talk about what they know. Scientists, real ones, who frequent social sites are also very happy to show off the papers they write that have passed peer review, meaning they are as close to factual as you can get at the time. That pesky peer review method, where everyone and their mother tries to destroy your hard work through any means possible, but more papers are withstanding this barrage every day.
That is he key to if a source is valid, the scientific method has produced an explosion of solid information that is often shared freely by those who utilize it. So don't be shy, learn what you can. Open up the links to scientific research, talk to the scientific communities, discuss and ask questions. Seek the lectures shared by universities, for free, on media sites. Most importantly, fuel your curiosity. Start letting the elitists know that they are no longer necessary, they can be replaced if they don't shape up, if they don't start treating everyone right.
My primary focus has been on biochemistry, medicine, and neurology. This has brought me into neighboring fields of study to help supplement the information. I finally took a break then looked back on everything I had learned, refreshing my memory, basically. Suddenly it dawned on me, I had just learned enough to earn master's degrees in at least three fields of scientific research, and it didn't cost thousands of dollars. Far from it, most of it was completely free, often just for the asking.
First, what drew me to the fields was my strong background in chemistry, and a fascination with how chemicals interact with each other. When I learned that complex organisms were really walking chemistry labs, my curiosity got the better of me, I dove in head first. Picturing the chemical interactions within the human body became a way to relax, tracing the rout of a single carbon atom through all the chemical reactions while it travels into and out of the various cells. That sense of knowing something set my mind at ease during hard times.
But that's not the meat of this post, what I am illustrating is just how much more valuable information is today than ever before. Sort of the inverse of supply and demand constructs. One would think that the huge influx of free information, with all the excess junk also mixed in, the value of the information would fall to nothing. The junk is, luckily, not the reason for it increasing in value.
The reason it has increased in value is the same reason many lobby groups in the USA are trying to censor and control the flow of information, people can learn more than those who pay for it. This creates a huge imbalance of information in the real world, one which has upset many of those with higher educations to the point of decrying the internet as a whole. The phrase "where'd you hear that? Off the internet" is meant as a slur against those of us not stupid enough to pay for what we can get for free.
When I go to a doctor I have to pretend to be stupid, actually, the moment you betray even a small amount of knowledge in something, the rage that fills their mannerisms is plain to see. They genuinely hate you just for knowing even one thing that they spent thousands of dollars to learn. Professionals cannot tolerate any competition, nor do they like having their elitist clubs threatened by something they cannot control. So in spite of the fact that I know more about what's going on that most doctors, I play like I am ignorant so that I can get what I need from them, a second opinion and the proper medication legally.
I made the mistake of letting my general care doctor learn of just a small amount of what I knew, my diagnosis was accurate, her diagnosis made out of anger was not. Another doctor even said she was wrong, and stated my diagnosis was correct, even though I did not let him know it was my diagnosis. So the information I have learned is more valuable than the information they have learned, only because I learned it out of curiosity, for almost no cost, while they spent thousands in the hopes of making millions for that same information.
This does not mean you should take everything you read online as fact, far from it. You must sift through a lot of junk sometimes, forming connections online with various professionals can help, many of the ones who frequent the internet social sites are always too happy to talk about what they know. Scientists, real ones, who frequent social sites are also very happy to show off the papers they write that have passed peer review, meaning they are as close to factual as you can get at the time. That pesky peer review method, where everyone and their mother tries to destroy your hard work through any means possible, but more papers are withstanding this barrage every day.
That is he key to if a source is valid, the scientific method has produced an explosion of solid information that is often shared freely by those who utilize it. So don't be shy, learn what you can. Open up the links to scientific research, talk to the scientific communities, discuss and ask questions. Seek the lectures shared by universities, for free, on media sites. Most importantly, fuel your curiosity. Start letting the elitists know that they are no longer necessary, they can be replaced if they don't shape up, if they don't start treating everyone right.
Shelter Life - A Time of Deep Insight
In previous posts I have stated I was "100% passable," that essentially means I have no traits that are considered opposite of my gender identity, even my voice and face offer no reason for anyone to question my gender. While this has produced a lot of complications and resulted in discrimination by the medical industry, it did offer me a very unique position in the shelter system while I was a resident of it. I had informed the staff of my situation, only to reduce the risk of discrimination from them, but the other residents had no idea.
This was not a deception, nor a lie, I never once lied to the residents, they just made their own assumptions and accepted those without question. Who was I to correct them, right? It was their belief and they were, and are, entitled to those beliefs, it is not my right to shatter their beliefs with facts and reality. At the time I just really didn't care, shelter life was about living through the day, and nothing more.
But this very unique position, being an atheist and transgendered, helped me to become more critical of what the women said, their choices of words and conversations. They spoke so openly around me, since I never added anything to the conversations and they believed I was just like them. What I had heard was appalling, today I speak against it all the time, working to dispel the myths and misconceptions I had heard in these times I was incognito.
The very few who managed to figure out what I was, usually by some rather aggressive curiosity, still did not see me as any different than the others, just more informed and a great source of information. The more educated women often turned to me as their encyclopedia of obscure information, information that they had not even considered studying until they met me. I was the sage of the shelters for women, considered wiser than my age, but you had to ask the right questions, or you'd not get the right answers.
The conversations of the others, the ones who never had any reason to consider me different than they were, had become the focus of my attention very quickly. There were other transgendered women in the shelters, one who's brain was scrambled by psychiatric medications for problems she did not really have, another was very young and passable enough as to not be seen as much of a threat, and the last that I knew of was an older one who had fallen prey to the nonsense and become an alcoholic. All the the three were always treated so well to their faces, the women behaved with respect and even acted like they were best friends of these women.
But when these transgendered women were not present, the vile hatred that filled the conversations regarding them was a shocking contrast. Many of the things they said about the one who had given up were so horrible that I cannot repeat them legally, or morally. Sure, she had become weak, fallen into a pit of despair, allowing the negativity of those around her break her own resolve. But that was no reason to hate her, it was only a valid reason to pity, and try to help, this poor creature. But the women honestly hated her, and for reasons that defied logic.
They would refer to her in the inappropriate gender when she was not present, and often say it was unfair she was allowed in their shelter. Before I left, I had already signed my lease and was working to leave so I saw no reason to remain the observer, I confronted one, asking why it is they believed a shelter was a place for sexual activity. It was at that moment they realized just who had been watching them for all that time, who was taking notes, and the look of horror on their face, the raw guilt of knowing they were complicit, was worth having endured hearing those horrible words they spewed.
Last I had seen, she was no longer a bigot, but instead treated everyone equally. Such a drastic change in a person, I was given hope for humanity by it. The damage she had done could never be repaired, but she was no longer a threat to humanity because of one simple question. The transgendered woman is still in that deep dark pit though, sadly, it does not appear she has the strength to lift herself from it, drowning her pain in alcohol. She could help so many people with her own story, if only she'd see the value of them.
The younger one was very stereotypical, one of those transgendered women who seemed to be only interested in sex and clothing. When I first met her I thought she may be a lost cause, that some people will just be stereotypes. I did speak with her, often helping her out when I could, offering a hand in friendship to her as often as I could. The other women seemed to have almost no interest in her, even when she was out of sight they didn't gossip about her at all. It was as if those who fit the stereotypes were somehow better than those who didn't, to them. That bothered me more than the gossip though, accepting that stereotypes are better is essentially saying we are all robots with predefined personalities.
I could never bring myself to tell her how much damage she was doing to the transgendered community as a whole, because even if she was a stereotype, it was still her choice to be who she wanted to be. It was that internal conflict that probably encouraged me to be so kind to her, it never occurred to me that sharing my story may change profoundly alter her perspective. She was an interesting person, often upbeat and without a care in the world. I was envious of her at those times, how even the worst of life couldn't touch her.
At that time I had started getting into a routine, which is the worst thing to do when living in a shelter, you become a permanent fixture of that culture. It felt like I had lost the will to fight, the will to cause change in the world. So I just regarded her as a distant friend, one who I would help when I could, when it was convenient. I should have become more involved in her life and formed a much stronger bond, but hindsight is always better.
She got out of the shelter system before I had, of course she had discovered what I was before that and seemed to regard me with some pity, and some respect. I ran into her one day, much later, and it was like seeing a different person, not just different, but a complete person. Her knowing me had altered her own perception of herself so much that I now saw a beautiful young, intelligent, and secure lesbian.
A rather surprising turn in what I had known, she had broken free of living the stereotype and become someone unique who no longer cared what society thought, and no longer behaved how society expected her to behave. I felt as if I had just seen a daughter graduate from higher education, at least I imagine the feeling was the same. I do not know where she is now, but I am certain she is well and happy.
The third transgendered woman, the one who's mind was destroyed by psychiatrists, I had never known her prior to that. Though I could say she is the second friend of mine that psychiatry has killed. You see, I always defended her, stood up for her even against those in charge. She is also what has encouraged me to actively fight against psychiatry, to take it to their throats. She was a very well educated nurse, before the psychiatrists got hold of her, well adjusted, pleasant. The people who knew her before they killed her would reminisce about how great of a person she was.
I had made friends with many of the staff, and one in particular had known this woman for many years, and seen what horrible monsters the medical community is to transgendered people. The staff member was a cis woman, one of those women who truly treated everyone equally and had no hangups at all. I am honored to call her a friend, but it was her who had informed me of the sad tale of the transgendered woman who was slaughtered by psychiatrists in the guise of helping her.
She had an emotional breakdown, a very common thing for many humans, our minds can only take so much stress before this happens. The best treatment for such a case is to place them in a safe environment and allowing them to just work it out in their heads. This is the only treatment that has ever worked, ever. But that is not what they did. Instead, the psychiatrist used her being transgendered as an excuse to declare her unfit, then force her to take medications that completely destroyed her. That is murder, it is a form of murder that is not only legal, but considered acceptable by everyone.
When she was finally released her mind was completely shattered. She could no longer differentiate between reality and imagination, her perception of reality was so skewed that she could not even remain focused on one task. She had a place to live, but kept returning to the shelter, the last place she had ever felt safe in. She had to be reminded to bathe, could not manage her own bowels or urination, and went on incoherent rants.
She would let very few people near her, trust was gone, and rightfully so. With no friends, and the one time she trusted some stranger they killed her, she was lost in a maddening cloud of reality and delusion. I still cry thinking about it, knowing full well that if I give them a chance, they will do that to me as well, just for being different then them. The rather peculiar part, something very few people knew, was that she would talk to me. Though I could only understand some of what she said, I listened to every word.
I always treated her with respect, always kind to her, never once did I mock or get angry with her. Sometimes her delusion would overpower her behavior, and she'd become a bit of a nuisance, others would scream and yell at her, demanding she be quiet and settle down. I'd glare at them for a moment until they were all silent, then calmly, politely, and respectfully ask her to calm down. The sheer anger of the other women when she would apologize to me for being too noisy was something of a mixed emotion. On one hand, it felt good to let them know that I was more capable of handling the situation than they were, but it was a horrible notion to think that they did not understand why my method worked better.
All our lives, the transgendered people are told what we should do, how we should act, what we should be. All our lives we are considered outcasts yet also expected to conform to being outcast. We are rarely ever offered any real choice in our lives, we treat everyone with kindness, treat everyone equally, and offer help when we can. But when we need help, when we are forced to put ourselves into dangerous situations, we are the ones blamed for it, always. We are scorned, tormented, beaten, and discarded. People feign friendship, then wish us harm when we are not present, insult us when we make even a tiny mistake.
Is it not enough that we have more problems to deal with socially? No, of course not, the medical industry does not care about us, they are just as abusive to us. When the safest place for a transgendered is in the shelters, there is something wrong with your society. It's not our problem, it's not our flaw, it's society that is wrong. When hospitals turn us away for simple needs, or worse offer us to the butchers we call psychiatrists, where can we turn for our health? When everything we do right is considered wrong, why should we continue to conform to your ideals? When we abandoned by those we once cared about, why should we care about anyone but our own?
Society does not teach us well, young and old, the transgendered community has no reason to regard society as important, nor valuable to us. Yet, we are all still have such kind hearts as to still hold out our hands in aid, not only to our own, but to other people. Who is the purest in a society, if not the one who society harms most?
This was not a deception, nor a lie, I never once lied to the residents, they just made their own assumptions and accepted those without question. Who was I to correct them, right? It was their belief and they were, and are, entitled to those beliefs, it is not my right to shatter their beliefs with facts and reality. At the time I just really didn't care, shelter life was about living through the day, and nothing more.
But this very unique position, being an atheist and transgendered, helped me to become more critical of what the women said, their choices of words and conversations. They spoke so openly around me, since I never added anything to the conversations and they believed I was just like them. What I had heard was appalling, today I speak against it all the time, working to dispel the myths and misconceptions I had heard in these times I was incognito.
The very few who managed to figure out what I was, usually by some rather aggressive curiosity, still did not see me as any different than the others, just more informed and a great source of information. The more educated women often turned to me as their encyclopedia of obscure information, information that they had not even considered studying until they met me. I was the sage of the shelters for women, considered wiser than my age, but you had to ask the right questions, or you'd not get the right answers.
The conversations of the others, the ones who never had any reason to consider me different than they were, had become the focus of my attention very quickly. There were other transgendered women in the shelters, one who's brain was scrambled by psychiatric medications for problems she did not really have, another was very young and passable enough as to not be seen as much of a threat, and the last that I knew of was an older one who had fallen prey to the nonsense and become an alcoholic. All the the three were always treated so well to their faces, the women behaved with respect and even acted like they were best friends of these women.
But when these transgendered women were not present, the vile hatred that filled the conversations regarding them was a shocking contrast. Many of the things they said about the one who had given up were so horrible that I cannot repeat them legally, or morally. Sure, she had become weak, fallen into a pit of despair, allowing the negativity of those around her break her own resolve. But that was no reason to hate her, it was only a valid reason to pity, and try to help, this poor creature. But the women honestly hated her, and for reasons that defied logic.
They would refer to her in the inappropriate gender when she was not present, and often say it was unfair she was allowed in their shelter. Before I left, I had already signed my lease and was working to leave so I saw no reason to remain the observer, I confronted one, asking why it is they believed a shelter was a place for sexual activity. It was at that moment they realized just who had been watching them for all that time, who was taking notes, and the look of horror on their face, the raw guilt of knowing they were complicit, was worth having endured hearing those horrible words they spewed.
Last I had seen, she was no longer a bigot, but instead treated everyone equally. Such a drastic change in a person, I was given hope for humanity by it. The damage she had done could never be repaired, but she was no longer a threat to humanity because of one simple question. The transgendered woman is still in that deep dark pit though, sadly, it does not appear she has the strength to lift herself from it, drowning her pain in alcohol. She could help so many people with her own story, if only she'd see the value of them.
The younger one was very stereotypical, one of those transgendered women who seemed to be only interested in sex and clothing. When I first met her I thought she may be a lost cause, that some people will just be stereotypes. I did speak with her, often helping her out when I could, offering a hand in friendship to her as often as I could. The other women seemed to have almost no interest in her, even when she was out of sight they didn't gossip about her at all. It was as if those who fit the stereotypes were somehow better than those who didn't, to them. That bothered me more than the gossip though, accepting that stereotypes are better is essentially saying we are all robots with predefined personalities.
I could never bring myself to tell her how much damage she was doing to the transgendered community as a whole, because even if she was a stereotype, it was still her choice to be who she wanted to be. It was that internal conflict that probably encouraged me to be so kind to her, it never occurred to me that sharing my story may change profoundly alter her perspective. She was an interesting person, often upbeat and without a care in the world. I was envious of her at those times, how even the worst of life couldn't touch her.
At that time I had started getting into a routine, which is the worst thing to do when living in a shelter, you become a permanent fixture of that culture. It felt like I had lost the will to fight, the will to cause change in the world. So I just regarded her as a distant friend, one who I would help when I could, when it was convenient. I should have become more involved in her life and formed a much stronger bond, but hindsight is always better.
She got out of the shelter system before I had, of course she had discovered what I was before that and seemed to regard me with some pity, and some respect. I ran into her one day, much later, and it was like seeing a different person, not just different, but a complete person. Her knowing me had altered her own perception of herself so much that I now saw a beautiful young, intelligent, and secure lesbian.
A rather surprising turn in what I had known, she had broken free of living the stereotype and become someone unique who no longer cared what society thought, and no longer behaved how society expected her to behave. I felt as if I had just seen a daughter graduate from higher education, at least I imagine the feeling was the same. I do not know where she is now, but I am certain she is well and happy.
The third transgendered woman, the one who's mind was destroyed by psychiatrists, I had never known her prior to that. Though I could say she is the second friend of mine that psychiatry has killed. You see, I always defended her, stood up for her even against those in charge. She is also what has encouraged me to actively fight against psychiatry, to take it to their throats. She was a very well educated nurse, before the psychiatrists got hold of her, well adjusted, pleasant. The people who knew her before they killed her would reminisce about how great of a person she was.
I had made friends with many of the staff, and one in particular had known this woman for many years, and seen what horrible monsters the medical community is to transgendered people. The staff member was a cis woman, one of those women who truly treated everyone equally and had no hangups at all. I am honored to call her a friend, but it was her who had informed me of the sad tale of the transgendered woman who was slaughtered by psychiatrists in the guise of helping her.
She had an emotional breakdown, a very common thing for many humans, our minds can only take so much stress before this happens. The best treatment for such a case is to place them in a safe environment and allowing them to just work it out in their heads. This is the only treatment that has ever worked, ever. But that is not what they did. Instead, the psychiatrist used her being transgendered as an excuse to declare her unfit, then force her to take medications that completely destroyed her. That is murder, it is a form of murder that is not only legal, but considered acceptable by everyone.
When she was finally released her mind was completely shattered. She could no longer differentiate between reality and imagination, her perception of reality was so skewed that she could not even remain focused on one task. She had a place to live, but kept returning to the shelter, the last place she had ever felt safe in. She had to be reminded to bathe, could not manage her own bowels or urination, and went on incoherent rants.
She would let very few people near her, trust was gone, and rightfully so. With no friends, and the one time she trusted some stranger they killed her, she was lost in a maddening cloud of reality and delusion. I still cry thinking about it, knowing full well that if I give them a chance, they will do that to me as well, just for being different then them. The rather peculiar part, something very few people knew, was that she would talk to me. Though I could only understand some of what she said, I listened to every word.
I always treated her with respect, always kind to her, never once did I mock or get angry with her. Sometimes her delusion would overpower her behavior, and she'd become a bit of a nuisance, others would scream and yell at her, demanding she be quiet and settle down. I'd glare at them for a moment until they were all silent, then calmly, politely, and respectfully ask her to calm down. The sheer anger of the other women when she would apologize to me for being too noisy was something of a mixed emotion. On one hand, it felt good to let them know that I was more capable of handling the situation than they were, but it was a horrible notion to think that they did not understand why my method worked better.
All our lives, the transgendered people are told what we should do, how we should act, what we should be. All our lives we are considered outcasts yet also expected to conform to being outcast. We are rarely ever offered any real choice in our lives, we treat everyone with kindness, treat everyone equally, and offer help when we can. But when we need help, when we are forced to put ourselves into dangerous situations, we are the ones blamed for it, always. We are scorned, tormented, beaten, and discarded. People feign friendship, then wish us harm when we are not present, insult us when we make even a tiny mistake.
Is it not enough that we have more problems to deal with socially? No, of course not, the medical industry does not care about us, they are just as abusive to us. When the safest place for a transgendered is in the shelters, there is something wrong with your society. It's not our problem, it's not our flaw, it's society that is wrong. When hospitals turn us away for simple needs, or worse offer us to the butchers we call psychiatrists, where can we turn for our health? When everything we do right is considered wrong, why should we continue to conform to your ideals? When we abandoned by those we once cared about, why should we care about anyone but our own?
Society does not teach us well, young and old, the transgendered community has no reason to regard society as important, nor valuable to us. Yet, we are all still have such kind hearts as to still hold out our hands in aid, not only to our own, but to other people. Who is the purest in a society, if not the one who society harms most?
Sunday, March 2, 2014
A Fond Farewell - The Dangers Of Smoking
At least this post could be, any of my posts could be my last, technically. That is part of what makes life both interesting, and scary, the thrill of not knowing what the future holds. However, that future becomes less and less of a mystery the more we learn about how the human body works, which tends to make life more scary and less interesting.
This is a flaw of modern medical science I had not considered, until just tonight. For the last week I have noticed symptoms that are common in throat cancer, and strep throat. Right now it is a toss up between the two, considering I live in a big city, going shopping is taking a huge risk with your health, you will come into contact with people who have all sorts of illnesses and not even know it. However, I have a very bad habit of smoking, and thus the throat cancer is also as likely as the other. This is what started me to thinking about my future, so suddenly, and what the implications of cancer would be.
It would be dishonest to say I am not genuinely scared about this, the awe and wonder, the splendor of life itself, has suddenly been overshadowed by the fear that I may have caused my life to be cut very short. Being only 39 years, I should have at least another 50 years of life, had I not been so stupid. I have mixed feelings about making this mistake, as you know I do not think we should regret anything we do in life, even our mistakes make up who we are, but this time I am beginning to feel regret about this one.
But let's look at this more in depth, to understand why I feel regret I had to think more on the decision that was such a huge mistake. What did I learn from it, oddly the addiction to nicotine is the one and only reason I did not try any really hard drugs, even so far as to avoid prescription pain medications whenever possible out of fear of becoming addicted to them. There are many pains I have never told my doctor about, because I know they will just prescribe pain medications for them anyway.
Okay, so that is one good outcome of the decision, but that can't be all, that can not in any way be the only good thing to come of it. Nicotine is suppose to have a benefit, and effect that's desirable, it's suppose to calm you, right? Well, yeah, sure, the same way sucking on a pacifier would calm you, and that's it. There is no real calming effect to smoking. The calming effect of nicotine is so mild that it is unnoticeable, the smoking itself has a much bigger calming effect, but that could be achieved by sucking on anything, really.
So then perhaps being an example of what not to do, well yeah, that's great, for the people who learn from your mistake. For you, being an example of what not to do has no benefit, none at all, because there are many more just like you, who made the same mistake as you, and none of you will stand out, or be remembered for that mistake. This is not a good outcome of your mistake, if anything it's beneficial for other people, but has no benefit to you, because the benefit to other people is when you become nothing more than another statistic.
Is smoking a part of my personality? Not really. It is one decision that would have had no impact on my personality at all. I learned little from it, had little change in influence because of it, and my social interactions would have never been impacted either way. It has the same impact on my personality as what I ate for lunch last year, during the Spring equinox did. I have found one decision, one choice, in my entire life that I can, and should, regret.
I still do not recant my assertion that you should not regret your decisions, but you should really consider why you made those decisions and consider if making a different one would impact who you are before you regret them. If the decision would not effect your personality, if you would learn nothing from it, if it would have only harmed you, then you should regret it. However, if a decision did result in something that would change your personality or teach you a valuable lesson, you should not regret it no matter how bad you think the outcome was.
I regret smoking, it would have been better and I would still be the same person if I had never started this bad habit. There is no benefit, there is nothing to learn from it, there is only danger, risk of a horrible life and death, that is all smoking has to offer. Yet, I still do not believe it should be made illegal, actually no drugs should be made illegal, because that actually does encourage people to do it more than making it readily available. We need education more than anything, I will always call education the cure-all for everything, because it really is the only thing that has demonstrated a flawless track record in decreasing problems in our species.
This is a flaw of modern medical science I had not considered, until just tonight. For the last week I have noticed symptoms that are common in throat cancer, and strep throat. Right now it is a toss up between the two, considering I live in a big city, going shopping is taking a huge risk with your health, you will come into contact with people who have all sorts of illnesses and not even know it. However, I have a very bad habit of smoking, and thus the throat cancer is also as likely as the other. This is what started me to thinking about my future, so suddenly, and what the implications of cancer would be.
It would be dishonest to say I am not genuinely scared about this, the awe and wonder, the splendor of life itself, has suddenly been overshadowed by the fear that I may have caused my life to be cut very short. Being only 39 years, I should have at least another 50 years of life, had I not been so stupid. I have mixed feelings about making this mistake, as you know I do not think we should regret anything we do in life, even our mistakes make up who we are, but this time I am beginning to feel regret about this one.
But let's look at this more in depth, to understand why I feel regret I had to think more on the decision that was such a huge mistake. What did I learn from it, oddly the addiction to nicotine is the one and only reason I did not try any really hard drugs, even so far as to avoid prescription pain medications whenever possible out of fear of becoming addicted to them. There are many pains I have never told my doctor about, because I know they will just prescribe pain medications for them anyway.
Okay, so that is one good outcome of the decision, but that can't be all, that can not in any way be the only good thing to come of it. Nicotine is suppose to have a benefit, and effect that's desirable, it's suppose to calm you, right? Well, yeah, sure, the same way sucking on a pacifier would calm you, and that's it. There is no real calming effect to smoking. The calming effect of nicotine is so mild that it is unnoticeable, the smoking itself has a much bigger calming effect, but that could be achieved by sucking on anything, really.
So then perhaps being an example of what not to do, well yeah, that's great, for the people who learn from your mistake. For you, being an example of what not to do has no benefit, none at all, because there are many more just like you, who made the same mistake as you, and none of you will stand out, or be remembered for that mistake. This is not a good outcome of your mistake, if anything it's beneficial for other people, but has no benefit to you, because the benefit to other people is when you become nothing more than another statistic.
Is smoking a part of my personality? Not really. It is one decision that would have had no impact on my personality at all. I learned little from it, had little change in influence because of it, and my social interactions would have never been impacted either way. It has the same impact on my personality as what I ate for lunch last year, during the Spring equinox did. I have found one decision, one choice, in my entire life that I can, and should, regret.
I still do not recant my assertion that you should not regret your decisions, but you should really consider why you made those decisions and consider if making a different one would impact who you are before you regret them. If the decision would not effect your personality, if you would learn nothing from it, if it would have only harmed you, then you should regret it. However, if a decision did result in something that would change your personality or teach you a valuable lesson, you should not regret it no matter how bad you think the outcome was.
I regret smoking, it would have been better and I would still be the same person if I had never started this bad habit. There is no benefit, there is nothing to learn from it, there is only danger, risk of a horrible life and death, that is all smoking has to offer. Yet, I still do not believe it should be made illegal, actually no drugs should be made illegal, because that actually does encourage people to do it more than making it readily available. We need education more than anything, I will always call education the cure-all for everything, because it really is the only thing that has demonstrated a flawless track record in decreasing problems in our species.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
"God Blessed Me" - The Hidden Ulterior Motive
When people do things selflessly, they often have little more to say than "it was the right thing to do." The more honest one would say "I thought it was the right thing to do" however selflessness is what I am addressing here. Oddly, the most heroic people on the planet are almost never interviewed, because without an ulterior motive they offer the fewest catch phrases, and least content to their interviews, and that won't attract viewers, readers, or listeners to media outlets.
So instead we are inundated with fake heroes, often citing that some imaginary deity helped them, or even going so far as to stretch the truth of matters to nearly unbelievable tall tales. But the "god helped me to ..." is the most insidious of the ulterior motives, because it masks itself as being selfless. The problem is that the large population of religious people will, without question, think this person is somehow special, and that's what the person who makes such a statement really wants. Another version of this is calling it miraculous, when it was nothing more than someone doing something correct, for a change.
I am railing against religion often right now, but then I have seen many people in the news who are using their religious ideals in manners such as this, and real heroes lost in the avalanche of texts on Twitter and other social sites because of it. This is really just a short post, sort of an addendum to my last post, though the topic is just different enough warrant it's own post.
So next time you hear someone claim their imaginary friend, who lives in the sky, helped them, or that it was some miracle, ask them why they feel so unimportant in their lives as to make something up as a means of garnering attention from others.
So instead we are inundated with fake heroes, often citing that some imaginary deity helped them, or even going so far as to stretch the truth of matters to nearly unbelievable tall tales. But the "god helped me to ..." is the most insidious of the ulterior motives, because it masks itself as being selfless. The problem is that the large population of religious people will, without question, think this person is somehow special, and that's what the person who makes such a statement really wants. Another version of this is calling it miraculous, when it was nothing more than someone doing something correct, for a change.
I am railing against religion often right now, but then I have seen many people in the news who are using their religious ideals in manners such as this, and real heroes lost in the avalanche of texts on Twitter and other social sites because of it. This is really just a short post, sort of an addendum to my last post, though the topic is just different enough warrant it's own post.
So next time you hear someone claim their imaginary friend, who lives in the sky, helped them, or that it was some miracle, ask them why they feel so unimportant in their lives as to make something up as a means of garnering attention from others.
Suicidal Atheists
The folly of many religious people is that they believe, not believe and not know, that us atheists are inherently suicidal. That makes as much sense as saying you are insane for not jumping off a cliff because you don't know how far down it goes. The reality of this is completely backwards, and this works for agnostics as well.
The notion of not knowing something will cause you to fear it, that is one of the instincts that have given humans the advantage over some other species, like lemmings. If we don't know what's after life, we will fear ending that life because of that lack of knowledge, so to those of us willing to admit we don't know, it would be illogical to assume we'd want to end our life. Even our strong curiosity cannot overcome this fear, because it's permanent, as far as we know.
However, that also means the inverse is true, those who know there is life after death would lose that fear, they would be willing to get there as soon as possible, even to the point of being suicidal. We do see this in many religious people, suicide bombers are the best example. They believe they know something so well that they are excited to get to that life after death, so excited that they are willing to blow themselves up. But if they admitted to themselves that they did not really know, they'd be to afraid to end this one chance to live so quickly.
This is one of the primary reasons religious people are so willing to kill, the fanatics at least, they believe they know that there is something after life so they do not see it as robbing a living organism of that life, they see it as a release. The question that comes to mind is: why don't they just end their own life?
The answer is more actually a perfect example of the hypocrisy that religion breeds, the one reason this delusion needs to be addressed more than all others. They have doubts. No matter how vehemently one claims to know there is a life after this, no matter how adamant they are that their god exists, deep down in their subconscious there is a doubt that prevents them from killing themselves. They know that they don't really know, that they are just buying some cookie cutter philosophy spoon-fed to them by someone else.
Deep down, everyone is an agnostic atheist, even those who are anti-religion. The problems arise when you deny that you don't know, that is when you create your own delusion, you have to be deluded to believe something without any supporting evidence that exists outside of your own perceptions. The scientific method has given us a way to test evidence, to ensure that the evidence holds true outside of our own perceptions by allowing others to test that evidence.
This is why religious people tend to hate real science. Yeah, I said "real" science. Anything can be called scientific, and who's to argue, however the scientific method is what separates real science from science fiction. Anything that exists in this reality can be tested, anything, that's a simple fact of the matter, one that cannot be denied by anyone with a functioning brain. That makes so-called miracles vanish, without even testing them, because for it to happen in this reality it would have to be tested.
That does not include things outside of this reality, but those cannot be tested within this reality, another simple, hard, and undeniable fact of the matter. We cannot cross the boundaries between realities to test what is outside of this one. That does not mean that other realities do not exist, nor that other possibilities are never played out, it just means this: What can be tested is reality, what cannot be tested is unknown.
It is that final fact that many of the new religious fanatics are perverting for their own ends, using it as a means to convince people that they know something more than they do. That is dishonest, for if you asked an atheist what's beyond this reality, an honest and true atheist would say: we don't know. But if you ask a religious person that same question, they will dishonestly attempt to convince you that they do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, making that not only a con, but also an outright lie. They have a doubt, lest they'd have gone there already and not be present to try to convince you of their lies.
That entire line of thought demonstrates the fact that a real atheist could never be suicidal, ever. Even when wracked with pain and suffering, and atheist will still fear the end, because as far as we know it means we cease to exist. Not existing anymore is even more frightening to the human mind than eternal torture, so much in fact that it is the only reason our species has survived long enough to extend our own lifespan.
For many years I did not worry about quitting smoking, to me it was something I'd get around to eventually but was not in any real hurry. I was raised religious, and even after leaving that religion, even after admitting to myself I did not know, I held to the hope that there may be something after this life. That one belief caused more damage than anything I knew. Recently I pondered what was after life, what it would be like to be dead, and I kept drawing a blank, literally. All I could imagine was simply not existing.
That scared me, it frightened me so bad that I actively started resisting the smoking addiction, paying attention to when I smoke, how much I smoke, and reducing it. That fear kept me awake at nights, I still wake with a start sometimes as my dreams will often feed on that fear now. When I think about being dead chills run through my body. The reason for this is that when I went for surgery recently, I got to experience not existing for several hours. When I woke I was in a panic, not because of the surgery itself, but because my mind knew there was something missing, time, sensory input.
The surgery had gone wrong, I was under far longer than I was suppose to have been. Recalling what it felt like, that absence, that moment of knowing that I did not exist for a short period of time, it frightened me. But instead of turning to religious nonsense, instead of running to the arms of some con artist with an easy answer for comfort, I started thinking about the entire matter logically. Now, I not only fear being dead, I also feel remorse for all that we have lost, the people who could have contributed so much to our species, their knowledge and wisdom being gone forever.
The notion of not knowing something will cause you to fear it, that is one of the instincts that have given humans the advantage over some other species, like lemmings. If we don't know what's after life, we will fear ending that life because of that lack of knowledge, so to those of us willing to admit we don't know, it would be illogical to assume we'd want to end our life. Even our strong curiosity cannot overcome this fear, because it's permanent, as far as we know.
However, that also means the inverse is true, those who know there is life after death would lose that fear, they would be willing to get there as soon as possible, even to the point of being suicidal. We do see this in many religious people, suicide bombers are the best example. They believe they know something so well that they are excited to get to that life after death, so excited that they are willing to blow themselves up. But if they admitted to themselves that they did not really know, they'd be to afraid to end this one chance to live so quickly.
This is one of the primary reasons religious people are so willing to kill, the fanatics at least, they believe they know that there is something after life so they do not see it as robbing a living organism of that life, they see it as a release. The question that comes to mind is: why don't they just end their own life?
The answer is more actually a perfect example of the hypocrisy that religion breeds, the one reason this delusion needs to be addressed more than all others. They have doubts. No matter how vehemently one claims to know there is a life after this, no matter how adamant they are that their god exists, deep down in their subconscious there is a doubt that prevents them from killing themselves. They know that they don't really know, that they are just buying some cookie cutter philosophy spoon-fed to them by someone else.
Deep down, everyone is an agnostic atheist, even those who are anti-religion. The problems arise when you deny that you don't know, that is when you create your own delusion, you have to be deluded to believe something without any supporting evidence that exists outside of your own perceptions. The scientific method has given us a way to test evidence, to ensure that the evidence holds true outside of our own perceptions by allowing others to test that evidence.
This is why religious people tend to hate real science. Yeah, I said "real" science. Anything can be called scientific, and who's to argue, however the scientific method is what separates real science from science fiction. Anything that exists in this reality can be tested, anything, that's a simple fact of the matter, one that cannot be denied by anyone with a functioning brain. That makes so-called miracles vanish, without even testing them, because for it to happen in this reality it would have to be tested.
That does not include things outside of this reality, but those cannot be tested within this reality, another simple, hard, and undeniable fact of the matter. We cannot cross the boundaries between realities to test what is outside of this one. That does not mean that other realities do not exist, nor that other possibilities are never played out, it just means this: What can be tested is reality, what cannot be tested is unknown.
It is that final fact that many of the new religious fanatics are perverting for their own ends, using it as a means to convince people that they know something more than they do. That is dishonest, for if you asked an atheist what's beyond this reality, an honest and true atheist would say: we don't know. But if you ask a religious person that same question, they will dishonestly attempt to convince you that they do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, making that not only a con, but also an outright lie. They have a doubt, lest they'd have gone there already and not be present to try to convince you of their lies.
That entire line of thought demonstrates the fact that a real atheist could never be suicidal, ever. Even when wracked with pain and suffering, and atheist will still fear the end, because as far as we know it means we cease to exist. Not existing anymore is even more frightening to the human mind than eternal torture, so much in fact that it is the only reason our species has survived long enough to extend our own lifespan.
For many years I did not worry about quitting smoking, to me it was something I'd get around to eventually but was not in any real hurry. I was raised religious, and even after leaving that religion, even after admitting to myself I did not know, I held to the hope that there may be something after this life. That one belief caused more damage than anything I knew. Recently I pondered what was after life, what it would be like to be dead, and I kept drawing a blank, literally. All I could imagine was simply not existing.
That scared me, it frightened me so bad that I actively started resisting the smoking addiction, paying attention to when I smoke, how much I smoke, and reducing it. That fear kept me awake at nights, I still wake with a start sometimes as my dreams will often feed on that fear now. When I think about being dead chills run through my body. The reason for this is that when I went for surgery recently, I got to experience not existing for several hours. When I woke I was in a panic, not because of the surgery itself, but because my mind knew there was something missing, time, sensory input.
The surgery had gone wrong, I was under far longer than I was suppose to have been. Recalling what it felt like, that absence, that moment of knowing that I did not exist for a short period of time, it frightened me. But instead of turning to religious nonsense, instead of running to the arms of some con artist with an easy answer for comfort, I started thinking about the entire matter logically. Now, I not only fear being dead, I also feel remorse for all that we have lost, the people who could have contributed so much to our species, their knowledge and wisdom being gone forever.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Best Time To Live - Nostalgia Is A Lie
We, as a species, have a habit of lying to ourselves, a lot. We often regale each other with stories of times past, painting them in this memorable light of perfection, as if we really enjoyed that moment more than now. But it's all a lie, really, a lie we tell ourselves. Being an emotional species we have a tendency to recall the extremes more than other things, like extreme happiness, fear, sadness, or even anger. But our minds focus more on what makes us happy, what makes us want to live, basically.
On it's own, this lie is not harmful, it keeps us going, we try to repeat those feelings of joy and enjoyment. But in the long run it can be very detrimental, if we insist on living in the past times we felt this way, we may lose the drive to move forward. We see this problem very clearly in those who reminisce about things they don't even recall, times they didn't even live.
Renaissance fans are probably the most notorious, they paint this era as perfect and rosy. Yet that era was full of disease, everyone was dirty, and you were lucky if your own food didn't kill you. People killed each other in the streets, law was only for those who could afford it, and pests were your pets. People knew almost nothing, other than who not to piss off in their neighborhood. Most children were abandoned or orphaned at young ages. People were not kind to each other in any meaningful way.
There are people who think the 1980s were so great too, simple lives, with no care in the world. I grew up in the '80s, trust me, it sucked, it sucked so much I do not miss anything in my childhood. People were still pretty violent, and rude to each other. The music was just random noise set to a beat with random words for lyrics. Art was bland and often monochromatic. Computers were still bulky machines that were just glorified calculators. Illnesses plagued us, even the common cold could kill you. Also, people denied most of the scientific understanding we had then, which was still very little compared to the best time to have lived.
The 1990s were not much better, we did get a handle on violence. Video games offered us better entertainment. Movies improved, so did the music, but the art was still horrible. Slang became very strange, the word "like" was abuse more than any other word in the English language. Medicine did improve a lot, but still had some major problems, diagnosing conditions was less than adequate. Technology finally matured, we got connected, began filling this new world with every bit of information we could find. But it was still far from great.
The 2000s are the best, right now, here, today, this very second. However, that will change, next year will be the best, then the next year, then the next year. Our species is always improving, that's a given, it's the fundamental drive for all living organisms. So yesterday will never be the best time to live, because today is always the best time to live. In 2050, when I am old and growing tired of living, I will look back on this and smile, because even when I am tired of living I will still know that I am in the best time to live.
Oddly, this is the thought that keeps me going, keeps me working to live in spite of the problems I face. Who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will find a way to make my problems better, that's the greatest thing about tomorrow, you never know what will happen. So if you ever hear anyone say they wish they had lived in some past era, point out all the great things we have today, here's a list we have this very moment that should make you feel proud to be alive today:
1. This is the most peaceful time in all human history, ever, in all ways. Sure, we have room for improvement, some locales are having problems, but over the face of the Earth, humans are kinder to each other now than any time before. This is a trend that has been going on for as long as we have been paying attention, people want to work for peace.
2. Information is free, and almost complete. We have access to the answer for almost any question you have about almost anything you could ever need, at the touch of a button or screen, in an instant. Technology is constantly improving, being updated, modernized. People are always adding what they know to this great pool of information that the technology records for us, from videos to maps, science to opinions, everything ever known.
3. Survival is not a struggle anymore, for most of us. Our medicine, our science, has made survival almost too easy. We don't have to toil in the fields all day just to eat, don't have to hunt our own food. If we are hurt we can get medical aid to help us heal, when we need a friend for support we can text or call them at any time. We have enough time to enjoy lives, to play games, read books, explore our world without the pressures of nature hounding us.
4. Illness does not mean a death sentence. In times past ailments would often mean death, you had no way to defend against them. Today we have vaccinations to prepare us against the worst, and medical technology to make sure a broken bone heals properly, and doesn't get infected. We have access to these everywhere too, though some people are restricted access by their governments, we're working on that problem. But it's there, it's possible to survive things which would destroy you.
5. You will never vanish, there will always be a record of your existence. In the past billions of humans have been completely forgotten, never shall we know what they knew, felt, or thought. But today everything about you gets recorded, you are here forever, this world shall not forget you exist so long as it keeps spinning. That is the closest thing to immortality you can have, no memory of you will be forgotten completely, ever. A thousand years from now something you post online may become the most important thing that saves humanity from destruction, and you will be there for it, because you will be remembered.
On it's own, this lie is not harmful, it keeps us going, we try to repeat those feelings of joy and enjoyment. But in the long run it can be very detrimental, if we insist on living in the past times we felt this way, we may lose the drive to move forward. We see this problem very clearly in those who reminisce about things they don't even recall, times they didn't even live.
Renaissance fans are probably the most notorious, they paint this era as perfect and rosy. Yet that era was full of disease, everyone was dirty, and you were lucky if your own food didn't kill you. People killed each other in the streets, law was only for those who could afford it, and pests were your pets. People knew almost nothing, other than who not to piss off in their neighborhood. Most children were abandoned or orphaned at young ages. People were not kind to each other in any meaningful way.
There are people who think the 1980s were so great too, simple lives, with no care in the world. I grew up in the '80s, trust me, it sucked, it sucked so much I do not miss anything in my childhood. People were still pretty violent, and rude to each other. The music was just random noise set to a beat with random words for lyrics. Art was bland and often monochromatic. Computers were still bulky machines that were just glorified calculators. Illnesses plagued us, even the common cold could kill you. Also, people denied most of the scientific understanding we had then, which was still very little compared to the best time to have lived.
The 1990s were not much better, we did get a handle on violence. Video games offered us better entertainment. Movies improved, so did the music, but the art was still horrible. Slang became very strange, the word "like" was abuse more than any other word in the English language. Medicine did improve a lot, but still had some major problems, diagnosing conditions was less than adequate. Technology finally matured, we got connected, began filling this new world with every bit of information we could find. But it was still far from great.
The 2000s are the best, right now, here, today, this very second. However, that will change, next year will be the best, then the next year, then the next year. Our species is always improving, that's a given, it's the fundamental drive for all living organisms. So yesterday will never be the best time to live, because today is always the best time to live. In 2050, when I am old and growing tired of living, I will look back on this and smile, because even when I am tired of living I will still know that I am in the best time to live.
Oddly, this is the thought that keeps me going, keeps me working to live in spite of the problems I face. Who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will find a way to make my problems better, that's the greatest thing about tomorrow, you never know what will happen. So if you ever hear anyone say they wish they had lived in some past era, point out all the great things we have today, here's a list we have this very moment that should make you feel proud to be alive today:
1. This is the most peaceful time in all human history, ever, in all ways. Sure, we have room for improvement, some locales are having problems, but over the face of the Earth, humans are kinder to each other now than any time before. This is a trend that has been going on for as long as we have been paying attention, people want to work for peace.
2. Information is free, and almost complete. We have access to the answer for almost any question you have about almost anything you could ever need, at the touch of a button or screen, in an instant. Technology is constantly improving, being updated, modernized. People are always adding what they know to this great pool of information that the technology records for us, from videos to maps, science to opinions, everything ever known.
3. Survival is not a struggle anymore, for most of us. Our medicine, our science, has made survival almost too easy. We don't have to toil in the fields all day just to eat, don't have to hunt our own food. If we are hurt we can get medical aid to help us heal, when we need a friend for support we can text or call them at any time. We have enough time to enjoy lives, to play games, read books, explore our world without the pressures of nature hounding us.
4. Illness does not mean a death sentence. In times past ailments would often mean death, you had no way to defend against them. Today we have vaccinations to prepare us against the worst, and medical technology to make sure a broken bone heals properly, and doesn't get infected. We have access to these everywhere too, though some people are restricted access by their governments, we're working on that problem. But it's there, it's possible to survive things which would destroy you.
5. You will never vanish, there will always be a record of your existence. In the past billions of humans have been completely forgotten, never shall we know what they knew, felt, or thought. But today everything about you gets recorded, you are here forever, this world shall not forget you exist so long as it keeps spinning. That is the closest thing to immortality you can have, no memory of you will be forgotten completely, ever. A thousand years from now something you post online may become the most important thing that saves humanity from destruction, and you will be there for it, because you will be remembered.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
And Then This Happened
Student Faces Major Trouble Over Knife Found In What He Says Is His Father's Old Car
I found this story in my Twitter feed, was bored and monitoring it for whatever caught my eye. As I read it, it is a very short article so take the time to do so now, I found so many examples of what's wrong with our cultures today.
The first clue to one of our biggest problems is the "random search" of a car driven by a high school student. Have we really reach the level of paranoia in which this is considered acceptable by society? To invade a child's privacy in such a manner does not give them much reason to respect the privacy, or lives, of anyone else. We are teaching them that people don't matter, is that what we really want them to learn?
They once tried to propose this in my school once, and my school was pretty violent at the time, the 80s were really violent compared to today. The student body, with the support of parents and many teachers, protested this notion so strongly that the board had no choice, they didn't employ such an archaic policy for us. Today the students have been beaten down by the authorities as to accept this policy, and that scares me more than the kids with knives. This scares me even more than kids with knives who intend to actually harm someone, because that's so rare now I haven't encountered one in more than a decade.
The implications of this are made worse by the fact that society does not question it, at all. A long time ago someone famous once said something very profound, if we are willing to sacrifice even our basic liberties for an illusion of security, we deserve neither. Of course I added my touch to the phrase, because security is truly an illusion, no government agency can really effectively protect it's people, that's just not possible. This is because our biggest threats are ourselves, no one else. No one can protect you from yourself. So giving these agencies the power to do what they want simply so we can pretend they are protecting us is ludicrous.
Okay, so back to the story before I go on and on. The next part that stands out was that it was not even his property, he was borrowing it. So not only was his privacy infringed on, his father's privacy was also trampled under the boot of an obviously authoritarian party. The reason for them being authoritarian is that they are taking what is unlikely to occur as justification for enforcing their authority. The reasons for the tool being present are perfectly valid on their own, however, even without those reasons, a knife is a tool far more than a weapon. If you want to get technical, retractable pens are more useful as weapons, those can be turned into dangerous projectiles with only simple modifications.
This entire situation only demonstrates why paranoia is so bad for us. Originally, in the 90s, they made a claim that violence was on the rise, which it was actually on a steep decline in that era. They attempted to blame video games for this, Super Mario was convincing kids to kill everyone around them, after they grew up and did a ton of drugs and alcohol of course. But we now know this was all nothing more than alarmists seeking a way to attack something they just didn't understand.
Today violence, the world over actually, is at an all time low. Mind you, we still have a lot of work to do, but not in the USA. Our violent crimes have been in check for a very long time now, I can remember when you had to carry a weapon at night, in rural Washington, just because us kids would rob you blind .... for fun. Now, I can walk down the streets of downtown Seattle without seeing any crime at all. We need to take back our paranoia, and focus on important matters, like helping other countries who do still have problems with serious violence.
Now here is where the story really takes a turn for WTF. They are considering punishing this student for something their father did, which was completely innocent and practically expected. This means he's guilty until proven innocent. Now remind me, what is it our justice system is based on? Oh, that's right, innocent until proven guilty. This is one of many stories that show our culture has completely discarded the basic foundation of our justice, the one thing that made the USA better than most other countries, the only saving grace in our government, and we are discarding it for a false sense of security from threats that don't even exist.
Parents, teachers, authorities in the USA, you are all wrong. Stop ignoring that fact, you are wrong, we have lost our soul here, the one thing that made this country great, the only reason I even liked the USA, you are destroying. This is not my country, my country had a sense of justice, equality, and freedom, not authoritarian dictators who want to tell you what to do.
I found this story in my Twitter feed, was bored and monitoring it for whatever caught my eye. As I read it, it is a very short article so take the time to do so now, I found so many examples of what's wrong with our cultures today.
The first clue to one of our biggest problems is the "random search" of a car driven by a high school student. Have we really reach the level of paranoia in which this is considered acceptable by society? To invade a child's privacy in such a manner does not give them much reason to respect the privacy, or lives, of anyone else. We are teaching them that people don't matter, is that what we really want them to learn?
They once tried to propose this in my school once, and my school was pretty violent at the time, the 80s were really violent compared to today. The student body, with the support of parents and many teachers, protested this notion so strongly that the board had no choice, they didn't employ such an archaic policy for us. Today the students have been beaten down by the authorities as to accept this policy, and that scares me more than the kids with knives. This scares me even more than kids with knives who intend to actually harm someone, because that's so rare now I haven't encountered one in more than a decade.
The implications of this are made worse by the fact that society does not question it, at all. A long time ago someone famous once said something very profound, if we are willing to sacrifice even our basic liberties for an illusion of security, we deserve neither. Of course I added my touch to the phrase, because security is truly an illusion, no government agency can really effectively protect it's people, that's just not possible. This is because our biggest threats are ourselves, no one else. No one can protect you from yourself. So giving these agencies the power to do what they want simply so we can pretend they are protecting us is ludicrous.
Okay, so back to the story before I go on and on. The next part that stands out was that it was not even his property, he was borrowing it. So not only was his privacy infringed on, his father's privacy was also trampled under the boot of an obviously authoritarian party. The reason for them being authoritarian is that they are taking what is unlikely to occur as justification for enforcing their authority. The reasons for the tool being present are perfectly valid on their own, however, even without those reasons, a knife is a tool far more than a weapon. If you want to get technical, retractable pens are more useful as weapons, those can be turned into dangerous projectiles with only simple modifications.
This entire situation only demonstrates why paranoia is so bad for us. Originally, in the 90s, they made a claim that violence was on the rise, which it was actually on a steep decline in that era. They attempted to blame video games for this, Super Mario was convincing kids to kill everyone around them, after they grew up and did a ton of drugs and alcohol of course. But we now know this was all nothing more than alarmists seeking a way to attack something they just didn't understand.
Today violence, the world over actually, is at an all time low. Mind you, we still have a lot of work to do, but not in the USA. Our violent crimes have been in check for a very long time now, I can remember when you had to carry a weapon at night, in rural Washington, just because us kids would rob you blind .... for fun. Now, I can walk down the streets of downtown Seattle without seeing any crime at all. We need to take back our paranoia, and focus on important matters, like helping other countries who do still have problems with serious violence.
Now here is where the story really takes a turn for WTF. They are considering punishing this student for something their father did, which was completely innocent and practically expected. This means he's guilty until proven innocent. Now remind me, what is it our justice system is based on? Oh, that's right, innocent until proven guilty. This is one of many stories that show our culture has completely discarded the basic foundation of our justice, the one thing that made the USA better than most other countries, the only saving grace in our government, and we are discarding it for a false sense of security from threats that don't even exist.
Parents, teachers, authorities in the USA, you are all wrong. Stop ignoring that fact, you are wrong, we have lost our soul here, the one thing that made this country great, the only reason I even liked the USA, you are destroying. This is not my country, my country had a sense of justice, equality, and freedom, not authoritarian dictators who want to tell you what to do.
It's A Boy - Maybe Not
Gender in humans has been something pretty skewed by ideology that we have lost sight of the most important aspects of life. Everyone from street people to medical doctors still insist they know better than everyone else. The reality is that we really don't know.
The first life forms on the planet, the ones we got our genetic start from, are all capable of asexual reproduction, they did not need to have any form of physical attraction for each other. But does that mean they had no genders or sexuality? Well, no, these early organisms likely had the same variations in gender and sexuality we see in the more complex life forms today, they just didn't need them, and had no brains to act on the genetically determined attractions.
As life forms became more complex, colonies of these earlier life forms evolving to work with other colonies, we call these "organs" now, genetic material needed more variation to keep the organisms alive. Enter sexual reproduction, as an option. The earliest life forms didn't need to reproduce sexually, they didn't require the sharing of genetic material, it was an option though. The life forms that did utilize this option, however, became more common, their populations grew faster and they adapted better to their environments.
Essentially, natural selection had more traits to select from because of the organisms that were mixing their genetic material with similar organisms, resulting in more variation, more life, and more chances for survival. This eventually produced more stable methods of reproduction, bisexual and orgy style methods being the most suitable for producing stable, and capable, offspring.
But life is like a weed in a garden, once it starts, there's almost no way to stop it. So organisms spread through the planet, covering it's surface completely. Plant life terraformed the planet so that other life forms could crawl on the dry portions as well. Life was booming, and the only real threat to life was other life. So the original methods of reproduction were no longer necessary, they actually had a drawback in that many species were quickly overpopulating portions of the planet. When plants do, they create too much oxygen and the atmosphere itself can become explosive as a result.
This eventually produced a collection of species that reproduced in a less efficient method, mono-sexual. A dichotomous gender system, one male, one female. This system slowed their growth, allowing the resources to be more easily divided among them, increasing their fitness within the world. But these species came from those who had other methods of reproduction, and thus the genetic material needed to drive reproduction included those of various other methods as well. This proves to be a huge benefit, because it slowed down the reproductive rates even more, allowing even more resources to be available for any individual of a species.
Fast forward to today, skipping the Triassic and other eras, and you now have modern species, humans being one of them. At first humanity embraced our primitive natures, even today we are very primitive actually. This prevented us from over populating our environment, allowing the resources to be more plentiful for each individual is what helped to make us a strong species.
It was all moving along swimmingly for a while, several million years went by and our species was improving in ways no other species had managed to improve. We learned to not only utilize our environment, but how to change it, what we now call genetic modification. Our methods were sloppy at first, but we were so very young then. But our population growth was not excessive, it was "just right" for our species, because not everyone was breeding, and people were dying at very young ages.
Then the worse thing could happen, people decided they didn't want to be animals anymore, which was not going to magically change us into something else. So they found ways to enforce this dichotomous gender system, using social engineering, we call it religion now. This caused more people to reproduce, more people to breed, and our population began exploding. Our only saving grace was that illness claimed more of us when our populations reached critical levels.
Then we figured out how to keep ourselves alive much longer, medicine, clean water, and other advances. We lost control of our population completely, yet people still hold onto this idea, the one idea that started this mess in the first place, that everyone should breed. This has not only created some serious social problems, psychological problems in children, and over all insanity in the general population .... it has ultimately caused us to become our own biggest threat.
Luckily, we are still intelligent, somewhat, enough to realize that these problems hurt each other socially and psychologically. So we are making strides in correcting the presumption that humans only exist to breed, however, most will still deny the bigger threat to our species. Over population of any species is a bad thing, not because it will stamp out other life forms, those will evolve into better life forms as a result, actually. It's a threat to our species because the resources for each individual will be reduced to a level that requires us to kill each other more than we do already.
We have worked for peace in our species, trying to end all wars, yet right now war is the most humane method of keeping our population in check. I would rather us be able to afford peace in the world, than to see the gender system remain a dichotomy just because of some ignorant humans who cannot mature beyond childish superstitions.
The first life forms on the planet, the ones we got our genetic start from, are all capable of asexual reproduction, they did not need to have any form of physical attraction for each other. But does that mean they had no genders or sexuality? Well, no, these early organisms likely had the same variations in gender and sexuality we see in the more complex life forms today, they just didn't need them, and had no brains to act on the genetically determined attractions.
As life forms became more complex, colonies of these earlier life forms evolving to work with other colonies, we call these "organs" now, genetic material needed more variation to keep the organisms alive. Enter sexual reproduction, as an option. The earliest life forms didn't need to reproduce sexually, they didn't require the sharing of genetic material, it was an option though. The life forms that did utilize this option, however, became more common, their populations grew faster and they adapted better to their environments.
Essentially, natural selection had more traits to select from because of the organisms that were mixing their genetic material with similar organisms, resulting in more variation, more life, and more chances for survival. This eventually produced more stable methods of reproduction, bisexual and orgy style methods being the most suitable for producing stable, and capable, offspring.
But life is like a weed in a garden, once it starts, there's almost no way to stop it. So organisms spread through the planet, covering it's surface completely. Plant life terraformed the planet so that other life forms could crawl on the dry portions as well. Life was booming, and the only real threat to life was other life. So the original methods of reproduction were no longer necessary, they actually had a drawback in that many species were quickly overpopulating portions of the planet. When plants do, they create too much oxygen and the atmosphere itself can become explosive as a result.
This eventually produced a collection of species that reproduced in a less efficient method, mono-sexual. A dichotomous gender system, one male, one female. This system slowed their growth, allowing the resources to be more easily divided among them, increasing their fitness within the world. But these species came from those who had other methods of reproduction, and thus the genetic material needed to drive reproduction included those of various other methods as well. This proves to be a huge benefit, because it slowed down the reproductive rates even more, allowing even more resources to be available for any individual of a species.
Fast forward to today, skipping the Triassic and other eras, and you now have modern species, humans being one of them. At first humanity embraced our primitive natures, even today we are very primitive actually. This prevented us from over populating our environment, allowing the resources to be more plentiful for each individual is what helped to make us a strong species.
It was all moving along swimmingly for a while, several million years went by and our species was improving in ways no other species had managed to improve. We learned to not only utilize our environment, but how to change it, what we now call genetic modification. Our methods were sloppy at first, but we were so very young then. But our population growth was not excessive, it was "just right" for our species, because not everyone was breeding, and people were dying at very young ages.
Then the worse thing could happen, people decided they didn't want to be animals anymore, which was not going to magically change us into something else. So they found ways to enforce this dichotomous gender system, using social engineering, we call it religion now. This caused more people to reproduce, more people to breed, and our population began exploding. Our only saving grace was that illness claimed more of us when our populations reached critical levels.
Then we figured out how to keep ourselves alive much longer, medicine, clean water, and other advances. We lost control of our population completely, yet people still hold onto this idea, the one idea that started this mess in the first place, that everyone should breed. This has not only created some serious social problems, psychological problems in children, and over all insanity in the general population .... it has ultimately caused us to become our own biggest threat.
Luckily, we are still intelligent, somewhat, enough to realize that these problems hurt each other socially and psychologically. So we are making strides in correcting the presumption that humans only exist to breed, however, most will still deny the bigger threat to our species. Over population of any species is a bad thing, not because it will stamp out other life forms, those will evolve into better life forms as a result, actually. It's a threat to our species because the resources for each individual will be reduced to a level that requires us to kill each other more than we do already.
We have worked for peace in our species, trying to end all wars, yet right now war is the most humane method of keeping our population in check. I would rather us be able to afford peace in the world, than to see the gender system remain a dichotomy just because of some ignorant humans who cannot mature beyond childish superstitions.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Garbage - The True Value of Psychiatry
Psychiatrists are often looked on for diagnosing the sanity of another person, or to determine if that person is a danger. In the USA our courts still give these witchdoctors the power to, essentially, end someone's life for any reason they see fit. I do mean any reason.
Psychology is a scientific study of behavior in humans, a very scientific one that utilizes the scientific method and incorporates information from solid sources. Yet psychologists are largely ignored in the USA, the people in charge still give psychiatrists a free ticket to torture, maim, and even kill patients who often need nothing more than a hug.
So what makes a psychiatrist no more than the modern witchdoctor? Simple, they have absolutely no scientific research backing up any of their claims. It's all based on stereotypes and personal opinion, often relying on the highly inaccurate anecdotes of other people. Basically, the psychiatrist just chooses who they want to destroy, and who they want to leave alone, the "mad scientist" archetype.
My common response to the difference between the two is "a psychologists asks you what you are thinking, a psychiatrist tells you how you should think." This adage is highly descriptive on so many levels, I will look at them all. The first being that we know, for a fact, that there is no real insanity, for if there was there would be no real sanity. Every type of thinking, or method of logic, is inherently unstable, that is the price of being an organic organism. This we know from neurology and genetics.
This means that a psychopath is no less sane than a pacifist, a vegan no less sane than a carnivore, and a hypochondriac no less sane than a sky diver. The problems arise when these modes of thinking interfere with social interactions in a manner that causes unnecessary harm to others. Note, that does not include one's self, which I will get into in a bit. A psychotic personality works very well as a military soldier, or even a slaughter house, because killing is the primary thought in their logic. In reality, most psychotic people are never a problem, and many do work in fields which killing is acceptable, or required.
I am a morbid personality type, everything my logic follows is mechanical and curiosity can cause me to do things which others may consider stupid, or insane. The reason it's considered morbid is that I am willing to look into things that others dare not contemplate, I know of the most painful way a human can die, for example. However, I am far from suicidal, I fear being dead more than anything else imaginable.
As for being a danger to one's self getting a free pass, it does anyway, all psychiatrists do is determine which calculated risks they approve and then deem all others "insane," often resulting in the destruction of many lives. But living is not simply breathing, and altering a personality kills that person, making them a completely different person. Psychiatrists employ many methods to kill someone, from drugs to electroshock "therapy," even surgery. Yes, even today psychiatrists, untrained as neurologists, can perform surgery on patient's brains, even in the USA.
They work around the laws by using consent forms, while the patient is under the influence of potent drugs. Ironically, these same methods available are ignored by medical doctors, who actually have the proper training to do surgery. But that is for another time. The psychiatrists have a license to kill, and no one ever questions it out of fear of becoming one of their victims. So what do we do? We fight back, inform the people in charge that these monsters are not only wrong on everything they assert as "sane," but that we are tired of them being given a free license to kill.
One of my friends fell victim to these murderers, she was talked into getting electroshock "therapy," which is only effective for combating extreme cases of seizures, by a psychiatrist. She is gone, her body is now inhabited by someone else, someone who is not her. That psychiatrist got away with murdering my friend, killing her in a savage way. Psychiatrists are no better than Gilles De Rais.
Psychology is a scientific study of behavior in humans, a very scientific one that utilizes the scientific method and incorporates information from solid sources. Yet psychologists are largely ignored in the USA, the people in charge still give psychiatrists a free ticket to torture, maim, and even kill patients who often need nothing more than a hug.
So what makes a psychiatrist no more than the modern witchdoctor? Simple, they have absolutely no scientific research backing up any of their claims. It's all based on stereotypes and personal opinion, often relying on the highly inaccurate anecdotes of other people. Basically, the psychiatrist just chooses who they want to destroy, and who they want to leave alone, the "mad scientist" archetype.
My common response to the difference between the two is "a psychologists asks you what you are thinking, a psychiatrist tells you how you should think." This adage is highly descriptive on so many levels, I will look at them all. The first being that we know, for a fact, that there is no real insanity, for if there was there would be no real sanity. Every type of thinking, or method of logic, is inherently unstable, that is the price of being an organic organism. This we know from neurology and genetics.
This means that a psychopath is no less sane than a pacifist, a vegan no less sane than a carnivore, and a hypochondriac no less sane than a sky diver. The problems arise when these modes of thinking interfere with social interactions in a manner that causes unnecessary harm to others. Note, that does not include one's self, which I will get into in a bit. A psychotic personality works very well as a military soldier, or even a slaughter house, because killing is the primary thought in their logic. In reality, most psychotic people are never a problem, and many do work in fields which killing is acceptable, or required.
I am a morbid personality type, everything my logic follows is mechanical and curiosity can cause me to do things which others may consider stupid, or insane. The reason it's considered morbid is that I am willing to look into things that others dare not contemplate, I know of the most painful way a human can die, for example. However, I am far from suicidal, I fear being dead more than anything else imaginable.
As for being a danger to one's self getting a free pass, it does anyway, all psychiatrists do is determine which calculated risks they approve and then deem all others "insane," often resulting in the destruction of many lives. But living is not simply breathing, and altering a personality kills that person, making them a completely different person. Psychiatrists employ many methods to kill someone, from drugs to electroshock "therapy," even surgery. Yes, even today psychiatrists, untrained as neurologists, can perform surgery on patient's brains, even in the USA.
They work around the laws by using consent forms, while the patient is under the influence of potent drugs. Ironically, these same methods available are ignored by medical doctors, who actually have the proper training to do surgery. But that is for another time. The psychiatrists have a license to kill, and no one ever questions it out of fear of becoming one of their victims. So what do we do? We fight back, inform the people in charge that these monsters are not only wrong on everything they assert as "sane," but that we are tired of them being given a free license to kill.
One of my friends fell victim to these murderers, she was talked into getting electroshock "therapy," which is only effective for combating extreme cases of seizures, by a psychiatrist. She is gone, her body is now inhabited by someone else, someone who is not her. That psychiatrist got away with murdering my friend, killing her in a savage way. Psychiatrists are no better than Gilles De Rais.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Doctors Who Care
Nope, the title does not describe doctors in the US, not by a long shot. Perhaps one out of every thousand doctors here does care about their patients, but that's being generous. Medical doctors in the USA probably care less about you than moth being hunted by an owl cares about the owl.
One of the key pieces of evidence is how many doctors wanted the health insurance act proposed by Obama and many other politicians, including most Republican politicians, enacted. What does this act do? It certainly does not require doctors to care for their patients, it does not force hospitals to take any urgent care patients, nor does it require that a patient's rights are honored.
All this act did was force every patient to pay for a middle man to deal with the doctors. Why would the doctors support this? Greed, plain and simple. If you have insurance, they will be paid, in full, by someone, even if you die because of their mistakes, or lack of care. A medical doctor can now get away with ignoring all your symptoms, ignoring all your ailments, and still be paid all the money they want.
The key to why this is a problem lies in the fact that you need insurance, even for basic care, regular checkups, and life saving medications. I am not for "handouts" at all, especially handouts for those who own yachts and overpriced cars. The insult to injury in all this, doctors are not basing their practices on scientific research at all.
There's why I hate doctors so much. A university physics professor once said, on a national program, that he had failed most of the medical students for his classes. This is very easy to see, when you see a doctor and happen to know a thing or two about biology or genetics, you can easily test them. Most doctors still assert that asexuality in humans is impossible, when not only is nothing impossible (according to scientific research), sexuality is a genetic trait and this means every possible behavior that we know of is possible within every organism that has a genetic system. Meaning, not only is it possible for humans to be asexual, it's one of those traits that will always be present in the population.
That is the simple test I use, being asexual I get to see their reaction when I explain to them what I am. Their expressions are often the first sign, but how their attitude changes is the most telling. Almost every time they take on the attitude that I must be ignorant or lying, not realizing that I have been studying biological sciences for the last decade, lacking anything better to do really.
So now the doctors can do whatever they want, ignore scientific research and information, even kill their patients, and still be paid a lot more than they deserve. All because of patients buying into the lie that insurance is the problem. This is often referred to as a placebo, create a solution that only appears to address some problem, then convince the people it does.
The danger of placebos is that they ignore the real problem, the root of the problem, something doctors are very skilled at doing in the US. They often claim "pain is not a symptom" to me, which I know is complete folly as pain is often the first alert, and primary, symptom of the most deadly and serious ailments. This phrase is simply a cop-out, a method of placating the patient so they can still get paid without having to do anything. Their reasons for not wanting to do anything will vary, though it takes a cold heart to not care about a patient, a very cold heart indeed.
So what is the real problem here? Greed, in the only industry that greed should not be present. I am not one to be nostalgic, I love the future, but in this instance the old way of thinking is better. Doctors use to take a "Hippocratic Oath," in which they promised to do what they could to make people healthy, even if it opposed their religious ideals. They took that oath very serious, often even giving free medical care to uphold it, and only those who did care about their patients became doctors. Then doctors started being able to charge more money, the economy improved and even the least of us lived as kings.
That was when the oath lost all meaning, the greedy people, the ones who learned they could make a fortune by duping the uneducated and naive masses, they began flooding the medical industry. Doctors today abuse patients as a means of gaining more money than they are worth, everything from hiding the true costs to dismissing important symptoms. But the one fact that bothers me is that these are almost all doctors in the US.
Doctors in various other countries are often more giving, or more understanding. Many will even take cash on delivery, some do not get paid until the patient is healthy, others will listen to patients through long distance communications without any promise of being paid for it. Doctors in Washington state are some of the most greedy though, a state I am currently stuck in through no fault of my own. I am sure others exist in other states, but as a general rule any US doctor should be suspect of being driven by only greed.
One of the key pieces of evidence is how many doctors wanted the health insurance act proposed by Obama and many other politicians, including most Republican politicians, enacted. What does this act do? It certainly does not require doctors to care for their patients, it does not force hospitals to take any urgent care patients, nor does it require that a patient's rights are honored.
All this act did was force every patient to pay for a middle man to deal with the doctors. Why would the doctors support this? Greed, plain and simple. If you have insurance, they will be paid, in full, by someone, even if you die because of their mistakes, or lack of care. A medical doctor can now get away with ignoring all your symptoms, ignoring all your ailments, and still be paid all the money they want.
The key to why this is a problem lies in the fact that you need insurance, even for basic care, regular checkups, and life saving medications. I am not for "handouts" at all, especially handouts for those who own yachts and overpriced cars. The insult to injury in all this, doctors are not basing their practices on scientific research at all.
There's why I hate doctors so much. A university physics professor once said, on a national program, that he had failed most of the medical students for his classes. This is very easy to see, when you see a doctor and happen to know a thing or two about biology or genetics, you can easily test them. Most doctors still assert that asexuality in humans is impossible, when not only is nothing impossible (according to scientific research), sexuality is a genetic trait and this means every possible behavior that we know of is possible within every organism that has a genetic system. Meaning, not only is it possible for humans to be asexual, it's one of those traits that will always be present in the population.
That is the simple test I use, being asexual I get to see their reaction when I explain to them what I am. Their expressions are often the first sign, but how their attitude changes is the most telling. Almost every time they take on the attitude that I must be ignorant or lying, not realizing that I have been studying biological sciences for the last decade, lacking anything better to do really.
So now the doctors can do whatever they want, ignore scientific research and information, even kill their patients, and still be paid a lot more than they deserve. All because of patients buying into the lie that insurance is the problem. This is often referred to as a placebo, create a solution that only appears to address some problem, then convince the people it does.
The danger of placebos is that they ignore the real problem, the root of the problem, something doctors are very skilled at doing in the US. They often claim "pain is not a symptom" to me, which I know is complete folly as pain is often the first alert, and primary, symptom of the most deadly and serious ailments. This phrase is simply a cop-out, a method of placating the patient so they can still get paid without having to do anything. Their reasons for not wanting to do anything will vary, though it takes a cold heart to not care about a patient, a very cold heart indeed.
So what is the real problem here? Greed, in the only industry that greed should not be present. I am not one to be nostalgic, I love the future, but in this instance the old way of thinking is better. Doctors use to take a "Hippocratic Oath," in which they promised to do what they could to make people healthy, even if it opposed their religious ideals. They took that oath very serious, often even giving free medical care to uphold it, and only those who did care about their patients became doctors. Then doctors started being able to charge more money, the economy improved and even the least of us lived as kings.
That was when the oath lost all meaning, the greedy people, the ones who learned they could make a fortune by duping the uneducated and naive masses, they began flooding the medical industry. Doctors today abuse patients as a means of gaining more money than they are worth, everything from hiding the true costs to dismissing important symptoms. But the one fact that bothers me is that these are almost all doctors in the US.
Doctors in various other countries are often more giving, or more understanding. Many will even take cash on delivery, some do not get paid until the patient is healthy, others will listen to patients through long distance communications without any promise of being paid for it. Doctors in Washington state are some of the most greedy though, a state I am currently stuck in through no fault of my own. I am sure others exist in other states, but as a general rule any US doctor should be suspect of being driven by only greed.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
The Double Standard of Typical
Often people will call something "normal" or "abnormal" when talking of human behavior, but not only is that inaccurate, it is also a double standard. The term "normal" cannot be applied to anything dealing in biological organisms, especially behavior, personality, and personal tastes. At best we can label it as typical or a social standard, however, to be more accurate it's nothing more than a common lie.
Let's look at one behavior, often thought of as "abnormal" or even a "perversion," the "adult baby." There are so many myths on this matter, so many false preconceptions that a psychologist could write an entire library to simply dispel the common myths. The most prevalent being that it's a sexual fetish. Yes, it is common for many to entwine sexual fetishes into the role playing, however that is not inherent in the term.
An "adult baby" is really just someone who acts, and enjoys doing so, like a infant or toddler, even to the extent of dressing as one and adopting a parental figure to help with the role playing. That's all it is, nothing more, no inherent adult themes or even any psychological traits. Many people enjoy role playing, there are two primary role playing industries that dominate every culture, the role playing games (RPG) and what is commonly mistaken for cosplay.
The role playing of sexual fantasies as a fetish is a subculture in the cosplay style role playing, though not, in any way, the larger portion of the industry. The SCA is the most dominant subculture in the cosplay style role playing, and yes, adult babies fit into the same type of culture as the SCA, the only difference are the types of roles played.
Suddenly this "adult baby" thing doesn't seem so strange, does it? Or perhaps the SCA culture seems stranger? There's the double standard I want to focus on. The SCA focuses on re-enacting the 17th century European life, though with so many inaccuracies it's almost laughable. The adult babies focus on re-enacting their childhood, with control over the way in which it develops. If you ask me, the adult babies are better than the SCA in that they admit they are taking artistic license with their role playing.
Other cultures also have this kind of double standard, the transgendered are another that is often forced into many double standards. First, many homosexuals will often treat transgendered as if they are somehow wrong, a double standard I have observed personally many times. Another is that even many transgendered think it's all about sex, even when some transgendered will be asexual, statistically expected, actually.
The other are video game fans, by those who claim video games make people violent yet go to a sports game where they bash in each other's heads for points. Video games cause complacency if they have any effect, this is something that was actually tested and verified through almost scientific methods. Turns out, when people are playing video games they can even ignore pain during surgery, their brain is too focused on the actual game. Quite the reverse of the common claim, yet we know that football has caused people to be violent on many occasions, the players are always violent during the game, since that is part of the game.
I put a bit more focus on the adult baby aspect for a special reason, I have a medical need that requires the use of something the adult baby types enjoy. But the standard versions fail to work so often. So I found a website that catered to the "adult baby," originally price shopping, and discovered their custom made products, designed for those who want more authenticity in their role playing, are actually superior to the standards of other companies. So, I now use those exclusively, even though it costs me a lot more than the others would since I cannot use insurance to pay for them.
So this double standard hurts me, a lot, and thus I see a reason to begin attacking all double standards like this. It's time we discard such childish things, and I'm not talking about the adult babies, and start advancing our species beyond the need to wrongly classify things as "normal" or "acceptable," just live, and let live.
Let's look at one behavior, often thought of as "abnormal" or even a "perversion," the "adult baby." There are so many myths on this matter, so many false preconceptions that a psychologist could write an entire library to simply dispel the common myths. The most prevalent being that it's a sexual fetish. Yes, it is common for many to entwine sexual fetishes into the role playing, however that is not inherent in the term.
An "adult baby" is really just someone who acts, and enjoys doing so, like a infant or toddler, even to the extent of dressing as one and adopting a parental figure to help with the role playing. That's all it is, nothing more, no inherent adult themes or even any psychological traits. Many people enjoy role playing, there are two primary role playing industries that dominate every culture, the role playing games (RPG) and what is commonly mistaken for cosplay.
The role playing of sexual fantasies as a fetish is a subculture in the cosplay style role playing, though not, in any way, the larger portion of the industry. The SCA is the most dominant subculture in the cosplay style role playing, and yes, adult babies fit into the same type of culture as the SCA, the only difference are the types of roles played.
Suddenly this "adult baby" thing doesn't seem so strange, does it? Or perhaps the SCA culture seems stranger? There's the double standard I want to focus on. The SCA focuses on re-enacting the 17th century European life, though with so many inaccuracies it's almost laughable. The adult babies focus on re-enacting their childhood, with control over the way in which it develops. If you ask me, the adult babies are better than the SCA in that they admit they are taking artistic license with their role playing.
Other cultures also have this kind of double standard, the transgendered are another that is often forced into many double standards. First, many homosexuals will often treat transgendered as if they are somehow wrong, a double standard I have observed personally many times. Another is that even many transgendered think it's all about sex, even when some transgendered will be asexual, statistically expected, actually.
The other are video game fans, by those who claim video games make people violent yet go to a sports game where they bash in each other's heads for points. Video games cause complacency if they have any effect, this is something that was actually tested and verified through almost scientific methods. Turns out, when people are playing video games they can even ignore pain during surgery, their brain is too focused on the actual game. Quite the reverse of the common claim, yet we know that football has caused people to be violent on many occasions, the players are always violent during the game, since that is part of the game.
I put a bit more focus on the adult baby aspect for a special reason, I have a medical need that requires the use of something the adult baby types enjoy. But the standard versions fail to work so often. So I found a website that catered to the "adult baby," originally price shopping, and discovered their custom made products, designed for those who want more authenticity in their role playing, are actually superior to the standards of other companies. So, I now use those exclusively, even though it costs me a lot more than the others would since I cannot use insurance to pay for them.
So this double standard hurts me, a lot, and thus I see a reason to begin attacking all double standards like this. It's time we discard such childish things, and I'm not talking about the adult babies, and start advancing our species beyond the need to wrongly classify things as "normal" or "acceptable," just live, and let live.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Life, Death - Why
Scientific research has allowed us to answer many of the questions in our reality, allowed us to begin to explore this cave we live in and see it with clarity no religion can offer. But there is one question no living thing has an answer too, the question of "why?"
I recently contemplated death, and life, the difference between living and existing. As I thought about death I came to a better understanding of why religion was invented, the sheer terror of thinking about just ceasing to exist sent me into a panic. For the first time in my nearly four decades of existence I was afraid of something, but it wasn't death, it was ceasing to exist.
So I pondered a bit, there is something unique about the human species, something that did change. Scientific research indicates that all our qualities and abilities exist in other species, so I had to dig for a difference between us and the other animals. That difference was not an easy thing to find, but it dawned on me, we ask "why?"
Whether the other species are capable of asking that one question, or they are simply unwilling too ask it, we cannot tell at this time. Though it's probably the single most important question in the universe. Eventually I came to the one question I cannot figure out an answer too, why am I aware?
Awareness is common, many species are aware of the self, but it dawned on me that we are the only ones who appear to have asked why we are aware. The discovery that I have made is that not all humans have, or are even willing too ask that question. Instead they take whatever promise they are handed and accept their fates. So maybe it's not all humans who are unique in this manner, perhaps it's only a few of us that are truly unique.
The problem with this line of thinking is the long list of implications that could, potentially, destroy the very fabric of society. In fact, it has several times in the past. Someone asked these questions, dreamed up some answer that they hoped was correct, and someone else, who was unwilling to ask these questions, saw the answers as fuel to placate the masses, to control the masses. We call these dreams "religion" now.
So here, as an atheist, I propose the new religion of the masses, the one with no invented answers, with only your own hopes to consider in place of a mass produced placebo. There has to be more than this life, not a continual life, or some form or reincarnation, but simply something more. How we live is not an issue, but consider that helping humanity progress and survive does help you to forgo death a bit longer, as well as ensure you at least have a chance to live on after your body dies in the memories of others.
Instead of accepting the dreams and hopes of someone else, keep asking the question, for if there is any hope of something beyond this, it's the questions that cannot be answered that will be the keys to gate. Instead of making decisions based on some ancient texts written to drive the masses into wars, make decisions based on well thought out logic.
The more you look at the universe with logic, the more sense all the simple answers make, like "how" or "when." Logic for these answers will also help you to make better decisions than some ancient texts filled with pipe dreams of barbarians and troglodytes. The most important question to ask is why you are.
I recently contemplated death, and life, the difference between living and existing. As I thought about death I came to a better understanding of why religion was invented, the sheer terror of thinking about just ceasing to exist sent me into a panic. For the first time in my nearly four decades of existence I was afraid of something, but it wasn't death, it was ceasing to exist.
So I pondered a bit, there is something unique about the human species, something that did change. Scientific research indicates that all our qualities and abilities exist in other species, so I had to dig for a difference between us and the other animals. That difference was not an easy thing to find, but it dawned on me, we ask "why?"
Whether the other species are capable of asking that one question, or they are simply unwilling too ask it, we cannot tell at this time. Though it's probably the single most important question in the universe. Eventually I came to the one question I cannot figure out an answer too, why am I aware?
Awareness is common, many species are aware of the self, but it dawned on me that we are the only ones who appear to have asked why we are aware. The discovery that I have made is that not all humans have, or are even willing too ask that question. Instead they take whatever promise they are handed and accept their fates. So maybe it's not all humans who are unique in this manner, perhaps it's only a few of us that are truly unique.
The problem with this line of thinking is the long list of implications that could, potentially, destroy the very fabric of society. In fact, it has several times in the past. Someone asked these questions, dreamed up some answer that they hoped was correct, and someone else, who was unwilling to ask these questions, saw the answers as fuel to placate the masses, to control the masses. We call these dreams "religion" now.
So here, as an atheist, I propose the new religion of the masses, the one with no invented answers, with only your own hopes to consider in place of a mass produced placebo. There has to be more than this life, not a continual life, or some form or reincarnation, but simply something more. How we live is not an issue, but consider that helping humanity progress and survive does help you to forgo death a bit longer, as well as ensure you at least have a chance to live on after your body dies in the memories of others.
Instead of accepting the dreams and hopes of someone else, keep asking the question, for if there is any hope of something beyond this, it's the questions that cannot be answered that will be the keys to gate. Instead of making decisions based on some ancient texts written to drive the masses into wars, make decisions based on well thought out logic.
The more you look at the universe with logic, the more sense all the simple answers make, like "how" or "when." Logic for these answers will also help you to make better decisions than some ancient texts filled with pipe dreams of barbarians and troglodytes. The most important question to ask is why you are.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Surviving is Not Living - The Medical Nightmare
Yes, I am still surviving, surprisingly enough, in spite of the medical industry of the USA. A quaint little story of my life will illustrate what I mean by that.
I have had some medical problems, lots of them recently, and each one has always been diagnosed wrong, resulting in nearly dying. Now I live with a lot of pain, and suffer every day because of the failure of doctors to diagnose something not only preventable, but common. So I went in to a specialist one time, they told me "pain is not a symptom," flat out denied the first symptom of any ailment.
I was attempting to get something diagnosed and stopped this time, before it became worse, before it cost taxpayers more money to correct. Yes, all my medical bills are covered by the taxpayers. Anyhow, the doctor simply denied there was anything wrong without a single test, the last time this happened I was admitted to the emergency room several times and needed an expensive, life saving, operation that could have cost only a few thousand dollars, but wound up costing the taxpayers more than $30,000 .... plus the costs of all those emergency room visits.
Anyhow, the answer to my complaint about it being a real problem was them attempting to lock me up, claiming I was suicidal in spite of me actually trying to save my own life again. A few thousand more from the taxpayers and they finally let me go. This is what psychiatrists are, a scam to be used by the state as a means of justifying more tax dollars to be funneled into the medical industry, nothing more.
So now the problem is getting worse, I am sleepless most nights, the pain becoming too great at times. But here's the real problem, doctors are not interested in the patients living, they are only interested in keeping the patients breathing so they can milk the insurance companies, and states, for every penny possible. Sounds like a bit of paranoia? Well, I would have thought it was nothing but paranoia 10 years ago, but nothing beats actually going through it.
But wait, there are statistics that help my case. This is where the patients are failing, you all need to start doing some research and demanding that doctors do their jobs. A majority of gallstone cases are diagnosed as "irritable bowel syndrome," basically means they are saying it's all in your head instead of something that will eventually kill you. Yep, my biggest brush with death was gallstones that were misdiagnosed. Thinking I was a rare case I didn't think too much of it.
Then I go online, yes, the internet. While there is a lot of junk online, there is also a ton of useful information, like the fact that my case is far from rare. Turns out I knew, personally, a dozen people online who had the exact same story about the gallstones. That piqued my interest and I started searching for more. To my shock, a Google search turned up more than a few hundred stories that were exactly the same.
Here's the kicker, the surgery for removing the gallbladder, in optimal situations, is only a few thousand dollars, and minimally invasive with a high success rate. The surgery required if there are complications is extremely expensive, and can be very invasive, requiring a longer recovery and hospital stay. Not to mention, there is a high chance of developing medical issues in the future because of the complications and invasive surgery.
This is a gold mine for the medical system, not the insurance companies mind you, but the actual doctors and institutions. Insurance companies have to pay for this, and if they don't, the taxpayers will pay for it all. The medical professionals are paid, in full, for their mistakes for the rest of what they call your life. But it's not really a life, is it? You are just surviving, pain and other problems making living very difficult, if possible at all.
This is the reality of the medical system in the US, the reality that is often whitewashed by the doctors and nurses, and administration. They point the finger at the insurance companies, to make sure you ignore their mistakes. It is time the US changes for the better, instead of one step forward, two steps back. We need to force this country to leap ahead.
I have had some medical problems, lots of them recently, and each one has always been diagnosed wrong, resulting in nearly dying. Now I live with a lot of pain, and suffer every day because of the failure of doctors to diagnose something not only preventable, but common. So I went in to a specialist one time, they told me "pain is not a symptom," flat out denied the first symptom of any ailment.
I was attempting to get something diagnosed and stopped this time, before it became worse, before it cost taxpayers more money to correct. Yes, all my medical bills are covered by the taxpayers. Anyhow, the doctor simply denied there was anything wrong without a single test, the last time this happened I was admitted to the emergency room several times and needed an expensive, life saving, operation that could have cost only a few thousand dollars, but wound up costing the taxpayers more than $30,000 .... plus the costs of all those emergency room visits.
Anyhow, the answer to my complaint about it being a real problem was them attempting to lock me up, claiming I was suicidal in spite of me actually trying to save my own life again. A few thousand more from the taxpayers and they finally let me go. This is what psychiatrists are, a scam to be used by the state as a means of justifying more tax dollars to be funneled into the medical industry, nothing more.
So now the problem is getting worse, I am sleepless most nights, the pain becoming too great at times. But here's the real problem, doctors are not interested in the patients living, they are only interested in keeping the patients breathing so they can milk the insurance companies, and states, for every penny possible. Sounds like a bit of paranoia? Well, I would have thought it was nothing but paranoia 10 years ago, but nothing beats actually going through it.
But wait, there are statistics that help my case. This is where the patients are failing, you all need to start doing some research and demanding that doctors do their jobs. A majority of gallstone cases are diagnosed as "irritable bowel syndrome," basically means they are saying it's all in your head instead of something that will eventually kill you. Yep, my biggest brush with death was gallstones that were misdiagnosed. Thinking I was a rare case I didn't think too much of it.
Then I go online, yes, the internet. While there is a lot of junk online, there is also a ton of useful information, like the fact that my case is far from rare. Turns out I knew, personally, a dozen people online who had the exact same story about the gallstones. That piqued my interest and I started searching for more. To my shock, a Google search turned up more than a few hundred stories that were exactly the same.
Here's the kicker, the surgery for removing the gallbladder, in optimal situations, is only a few thousand dollars, and minimally invasive with a high success rate. The surgery required if there are complications is extremely expensive, and can be very invasive, requiring a longer recovery and hospital stay. Not to mention, there is a high chance of developing medical issues in the future because of the complications and invasive surgery.
This is a gold mine for the medical system, not the insurance companies mind you, but the actual doctors and institutions. Insurance companies have to pay for this, and if they don't, the taxpayers will pay for it all. The medical professionals are paid, in full, for their mistakes for the rest of what they call your life. But it's not really a life, is it? You are just surviving, pain and other problems making living very difficult, if possible at all.
This is the reality of the medical system in the US, the reality that is often whitewashed by the doctors and nurses, and administration. They point the finger at the insurance companies, to make sure you ignore their mistakes. It is time the US changes for the better, instead of one step forward, two steps back. We need to force this country to leap ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)