Society is just irrational

Society is just irrational

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-the-incel-community-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/

So what does society want?

• for these seconds of society to not exist
• Or to not feel the way they do for the way they are treated
• or to not feel
• or to not express there feelings
• and some to act out. 

Society, modern society, has seconds, people who do not fit in, and we can form a community, like never before. We exist, we do, we live. Get over yourselves.

Our behavior is ultimately the result of our morals, ethics, emotions, and our own twisted logic. Our life in society made us the way we are. If you do not like the way we are, we are the result of your actions and our makeup. It is not our fault that society does not service our needs and are abusive. It is not your place to criticize the result of society's abuses. Some people are just living wild within our modern society. What else can they do?

Some of these events are just suicide by cop. There is no other way to look at it. 

The apocalypse is near

The apocalypse is near, but it is not what or how you think. The end will for all of us, by ourselves or a few at a time, as a result of time and climate change, and some will live on to their natural end.

We have gone through a period of massive population expansion to twice what the earth's atmosphere can support long term, so now we are at a point of selection and pruning down the unwanted people within society. Who are the unwanted? Those who cannot survive, for it is not a human force making the decision, but the environment, evolution and nature. Those who can live unassisted in the high carbon dioxide will be those who survive and reproduce, and survive and reproduce, as evolution has always occurred through growth and bottlenecks. The sixth extinction, with the humans as one of the species heavily impacted is what I am saying.

I do not expect that the human will go extinct. We are too adaptive and can manipulate our micro-environment. It will be those who are most adaptable that will survive, those who have nothing but there lives to lose, those who will do what they think it takes to survive. Morals, ethics, and what we know as civilization will be the first causality, government the second. The cash flow will dry up, and who knows what else. I expect that we old folk will just die and rot where we fall, in the later stages of decline, unless we have food stores, and then we will be killed for the food stores. It will be ugly, there will be no laws, no enforcers, just violence, until the people reduce in number and learn to grow gardens, and preserve food for winter, and return to a new agrarian society, that will support the much reduced population. I am thinking 25 to 50 % of today's population, with much of that being agrarian. I do not know what that population might look like, but in the long term, I think humans will survive; however the humans may not be of the same species as today.

The other choice is engineering ourselves out of the problem. What would that look like? Oxygen tanks or enriched air tanks and machines at the ready, but how will the economics of that work? Oh well, with my age a lung issues, I will likely be in the first few rounds of deaths.

Are we at the verge of splitting into two species? Quite possible. All that it will take is an effort to selectively breed a superior human, superior lung capacity, and intellect. Well, it is more a matter of choosing mates based on characteristics than emotions of any kind. Then reproducing. Love and the like will be secondary after family propitiation consideration... a second career, a second life, likely without much family, what ever that might look like... I do not know.   


       

The Trolley Problem

The trolley problem that I refer to is that old one, 5 people on one track, 1 on a side track, what do you do. The correct answer is all the choices are wrong. So it is suggested that least damning is the best. Business and organizations often get in this situation, and they will chose what is best for the company or organization, not what is best for society. That is their right. But what about places like Alberta Health. Do they make the best decision for the people or Alberta Health? If there is any doubt, Alberta Health looks out for Alberta Health. Consider the vaccination guidelines of statins. Is there any doubt.

So Consider the US position on war, since WWII. Viet Nam, to Syria. Ethically all wrong, for any violence is just wrong if we consider that cooperation is the essential of ethics, there are just wrong. Aggression is always wrong. Aggression sold as defense is wrong. Defense is, well, defense. But what is the choice to defense? Annihilation? But even defense, while necessary is wrong. There is nothing to be done but defense, but it is still just wrong. It is not cooperation. There is nothing right to be done when something wrong is being done.

So until we have peace, and all people are willing to cooperate, we ethic loving peoples are screwed. Considering the carbon dioxide problem, all humans are screwed, but oh well. More screwed. Each man for him self, primarily, or perhaps the family unit, for those of you that have a family unit.

Morals

How should we handle a person who has lower morals than ourselves?

If an organization is involved, the likely action will be the best for the organization. In the case of American Atheists, it was to fire David Silverman. It surprises me that he lasted this long with his interest in the smoke and booze, and prodigal ways at conventions with the AA credit card. I did not have any issues with him picking up rounds of drinks, but I thought AA might have something to say about it. Oh well. I was not aware of his philandering, but it does not sunrise me. AA did what it needed to do to protect the organization.

But my morals would not let me mess about as David is reported to have done, but the question is how should I deal with such people at a personal level? I have concluded that I will just not associate with such behavior, and will not associate with those who cannot separate reality and fiction. Is that wrong, to go to what I know is safe? I am old. I can get through with far less "old friends and relatives" So perhaps it is just easier to detach. Period. Oh well. 

The principal of existential ethics or individual ethics is that our life is the primary value in our lives, and we should not do anything that detracts or devalues that. So in the moral case above the other has risked there value, and I do not wish to be associated with the likes. But at the same time, is my life poorer without them in my life? It is a balancing act, a draw, an evaluation. There is no wrong answer. It is a choice, a decision. Does it all really matter any way?   

David Silverman

What did David do?

"In the time since the initial complaint was made, the Board evaluated internal documents and records and, based on that examination, made the decision to terminate Mr. Silverman."  from the AA website.

evaluated internal documents and records... that sounds finical to me.

and so the stomach turns...  

Individualism

Individualism, a Philosophy for Life.

 I rise in defense of Ayn Rand. She called it Objectivism as Existentialism was already in use by others. A more descriptive name would be Individualism. I am not a apologist for Ayn Rand, however, her philosophy holds many truths. She is a good rich source for magpie approch to philosophy for life.

 She speaks of selfishness in the same ideology or context as David Silverman speaks of Atheism, and thus leaves little doubt about what he is saying or overstating.  For Ayn Rand, the individual is the primary unit of morality, ethics, economics, and politics. She was raised in Russia during the Stalin years, and was well acquainted with the damage forced altruism does to the morals, the drive to produce, and state run economy. That is the altruism that she was opposed to. It is based on what people could be, not on what they are.

 Ayn Rand's metaphysics and epistemology is not unlike that of most atheists, but the details need a bit of better explanation. Her economics and political aspirations are likewise based on what people could be, not what they are, hence are naive, dated, or otherwise weird. The individual is the primary unit of society, and any other method of dividing society will not work long term once the individual realizes that they are to primary unit. Religions work because they actively enforce group think, a pejorative term for following the prescribed concepts without thinking. Once we see that the individual must be satisfied and not lied to, the individual must step away from the religion and the wrong concepts. 

We see the same on issue for people on AISH here. It is a better life than on a minimum wage income. That is just not right. AISH is untaxed, while minimum wage is taxed. That is forced altruism, as taking from the poorer to pay for the less poor. Just not right, for they are making slaves out of the people. The pursuit and lust after money is the root of much evil. Yes the bible has some good lines, but it demonstrates the problem of baiting people with moneys.


         

Individual vs Society

 Individual vs Society

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/04/06/china-v-vatican-official-says-no-religion-is-above-the-state/ 

So in our society, is the individual the unit or is the society, the government? China says that their state is greater than religion. There for sure, the state has control over the individual. What about here? It is not so clear. We would like to think individual but that is not true in so many situations.

The US was founded on the individual having the upper hand over the state. Canada it is not so clear. We we founded as Christian... well no, the founding fathers were some form of christian... but without christian sect... except for Quebec and Upper Canada, and the west was under their thumb. But all that has changed some.

I consider myself independent of the state; but I receive the old age security, medical, etc of the Canadian Citizen, as everyone does... well as much as anyone does. The Canadian Government, administered through the  provincial governments have made choices on what they will fund. But our society is breaking down. Consider the life a police officer here in Canada. At one time they were respected, member of the community. Now they are just revenuers, hiding behind lamp posts with their radar, ready to jump out and issue a ticket, or they will just mail it to you. Revenue, not safety. So is the individual or the state in charge. That same officer is then expected to deal with public, and the public is expected to be polite... good luck with that. You pissed in his rice bowl, and expect him to be nice. Good luck with that. Now the cops are nervous... when they stop anyone, the second has his hand on his gun.

So which is it, the individual or the state? Do not be fooled by elections. It is the power to develop the short list, not the selection from the short list that is the real power is. So is that a fair process. No. Oh well. Federally, Canada is a mess. We have too many parties, relational, and splinter groups. The unelected parties have too much influence, which is actually control. Oh well. I am too old to fight the system.

So what is the effect on the child that is told he was developing normally and then he got a vaccination and changed... and has always struggled. Do you think he will support vaccinations? It does not matter, the end is near. Co2 levels will take out the human population. The economy does not see the first two of reduce, reuse, recycle. There is no money in reduction, and reusing. Oh well.

So is it up to the individual? Yes. No one else can go against the state, the economy, and become frugal, cheep, and enjoy life. The state is power and money hungry and can never be satisfied anyway. It is up to each of us to enjoy our live as much as we can. Fuck the government.  

My Best Interests

Who has my best interests as there priority?  Not the US CDC. The Center for Disease Control, as there name implies is concerned with the spread of disease, not the health of the surviving. Andrew Wakefield produced a paper that showed a cluster of MMR vaccinated with autism, and it seems that early vaccination was the likely cause. The Drug manufactures and CDC discredited Andrew, oh well, but the cluster of autistic remained. Some have tried to produce guidelines to correct the problem (AlbertaHS, pre 2016) but caved. The CDC is correct that, for the control of the disease, that the vaccinations at one year is the best. Autism is not a disease, but a development issue, likely as a result of early exposure to mercury. By putting off MMR vaccination to 3 years, the rate of autism drops to about 1/2, and there are a few more cases of death due to MMR. But what about those children and the cost associated with raising a autistic from "birth to death"? Who pays for the severely handy capped? Not the CDC. It is not a disease issue.

So who speaks for the individual?  What right does the government have to push things on the individual? Well, no moral right. They may have a legal right, by force if necessary. In the world of overpopulation, as we now find ourselves, who will be looking out for the rights of the individual?

So we humans have long allowed religions to push beliefs onto the people. Some of these beliefs were just wrong, fairy tales, bullshit, and others were ok, but how does one separate fact from fiction? Not by the source. Consider the CDC, they are right if we fear diseases, but not if we fear autistic children. So who speaks for the individual in a overpopulated world? Just terminate the ungifted as a start? I would be gone. So how should we decide what is best for us? Assume everything is junk until it is proven and we have examined all sides? Not the CDC, they put to high of value on the fear of minor childhood disease, and not enough negative on a life of handicap.

So when it comes to morals, ethics and values, they come to us at three levels: the individual, externally from family, society, and like and from religion. The atheist can sort those from religion and abandon the bullshit, outdated, and just wrong, and retain the good, right and just.

But why do religions and government think they can force others to follow their arbitrary and goofy rules? What right do they have to even suggest that we should follow? The only thing of value is my life and the lives of others. Does it add to or detract from that value without making or becoming slaves? That is as far as I can take this now.