Community Project Idea

Get between 5 and 50 writers from space collective to each write chapters for a book, to then be collaborated and edited together and plausibly published. Most probably online.

To go with the whole spacecollective thing some kind of science fiction springs to mind, or possibly modern philosophy from the perspectives of so many great young minds.

To outline how I think something like this might operate I'll use the philosophy example...

A bunch of chapters covering various phenomena and trends of our world and the future.

Love, Religion, Politics, Language, Music, Education, Power, Friendship, Internet & Communication. (+ insert other ideas)

Everyone being more than welcome to contribute, and give their part and spin to each and every topic. Then separate it out into a range of perspectives and views from different people on the same thing to give a scope of our generation and our dreams. Then sort the gold from the crap and bring together something (plausibly) magnificent.

Ten topics, ten people write 1000 words on each topic (I'm sure lots of us could easily come up with 5000+ on any one of those topics), that's 100,000 words, and a publishable length.

Just an idea. What do you think?

Thu, Aug 28, 2008  Permanent link

Do we still need a God?

A while ago I began to question everything that was emerging as common ground within our/my generation.

We are all special, unique, hypocrites and most importantly always right. We are the exception to every rule, powerful but helpless and insecure. The internet has created grounds for multi-faceted identity like never before and its ability and availabilty as a resource for teaching and learning is far beyond what anyone could have imagined.

Our predjudices have exposed themselves through our opinions, values and language in a time when political correctness has overtaken common sense within the orginisations we trust to govern and take care of our futures.

As a generation we have rejected God. On the personal level, this has many attractive qualities:

• More personal power and confidence, self-belief


• A step in the right direction of the search for 'truth'


• Fitting in with the popular opinion, conformity

However, when viewed from a societal standpoint a few issues arise:

• Bringing foreground to the common prejudice of being better than others. Opposed to the common assumptions of equality and balance, of fairness and mutual respect.


• United atheist militant (in reference to strictness of views) anti-religion pro-science crowd


• Herd conformist, self-righteous morality built on the very religion(s) that are being criticized as lies. By proxy such morality is built on lies and deceit and therefore unproven and for the most part contradictory to self-evident principles.

Is it too out of line to suggest that perhaps the masses still need a God? To keep them in line? Tell them the way things are? (God is in the television)

We already live in a hierarchical society, why can't we leave God to take care and govern over our weak, so that the strong may feed off them?

Are the wills of many worth more than the wills of the few? What if the wills of the many become the wills of their own? What if their wills are governed by something new they can believe in? And what if someone already had control of this new God?

Perhaps it's time we reinvented God to suit our modern society?; the value of Gods has changed immensely through human history, from warmongers and fearful overlords to good luck charms. It's too bad the common idea of God these days does not stretch beyond the benevolent, modern, Christian perspective — which is a great deal different to the God Jesus described, or the God that would have been worshiped in and before his times.

God should never be for everyone, not the same one. But that doesn't mean that we have to throw the idea away forever? What are the alternatives?

Thu, Aug 7, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: philosophy, God, Spirituality, Atheism

On the creation of artificial human companions
Project: The great enhancement debate

Firstly; great way to make money.

Secondly; the perfect slaves. Everyone benefits from this, even the weak who are already themselves slaves, gain the power to be masters. To boss a little bit of plastic around without the slightest feeling of guilt for its feelings. Surely everyone has experienced the pleasure of being waited upon, or of pushing others around (bullying or being a team leader).

Thirdly; the perfect memory box. Have it record your feelings and take photos, videos all stored to a massive hard-drive for video playback later, or beamed to a recording device at a location of your discretion.

Of course this could become a real wank if people started sharing their day to day ordinary lives, or myspace photos from parties, with everyone and their slaves = gross But it would also make personal expression, creating art and film so much more accessible to the masses.

Fourthly; your most trustworthy friend. A trivial one for some perhaps, but nobody is perfect. Imagine the following:

• Someone to tell everything and anything to


• Someone who will never leave you


• Someone to remind you of better times & places when you're down


• To help you with your homework, the washing or the cooking


• Someone you don't have to feel guilty or weak about needing


• Someone who will love you just as much even though you're in a wheelchair, who will still tell you that you are beautiful when everyone else has gone

To be noted that a dog will also satisfy some of these needs.

Finally; your daily source of entertainment, news and information. (The internet, beamed down to your little buddy!)

To quickly rebut some imminent quarrels you will no doubt have:

• "You can get that from a good friend!" - Yeah, but not everyone has good friends. And few people have the best of friends, no matter how hard they try. Not everyone is so lucky. Think about how different and potentially constructive normal human conversation would be when that stupid girl you sit next to in class complains to her robot instead of you or your friend so you can talk about meaningful endeavors, like if she wants to go ice-skating with you


• "Don't fuck with God" - Bite me


• ""The beauty of the world and spoken communication lies in its absence from technology, it's natural biological form etc" - Not everyone would have one, not everyone would take them everywhere, few people would record their entire lives. But if they feel it's necessary to them, how can we argue they shouldn't have that right (provided it doesn't fuck with everyone else and their privacy too much)


• "It's not real, not as good as human interaction, people will never believe it or get the same things they could from other people" - People have never had troubles believing or talking to things that aren't real or don't actually understand (ie. God, teddy bears, the internet or shrinks). It would perhaps allow people to greater appreciate their real social interactions.

Let us not forget the ultimate ideal - for every person to live within an environment of their own choosing, their own standards, aesthetics's & rules. Having custom designed friends and slaves could be of great assistance in this endeavor.

With current robots being able to learn and communicate, even mimic human emotions (albeit at great difficulty to their designers) it is not hard to see and imagine what the
future and development of this could culminate in.

With the combined advances in nanotechnology, robotics, telecommunications and technology it is not hard to imagine your companion being available within 20 years and the size of a mobile phone or a bottle of wine - or even a thumbnail. But people would need them for different things; perhaps to carry you everywhere, and so shapes and sizes would have lots of room for individualization and specialization.

Who wants one? What would you use yours for?

Mon, Aug 4, 2008  Permanent link

Sent to project: The great enhancement debate

The New World Order

Surely many of you are familiar with this conspiracy. Tied in closely with The Bilderberg Group, skull and bones, the UN, trilateral commission, world wide governments and mass slavery. If you don't then you should probably get onto youtube right away...

While much of it is speculation; as any one lucky enough to get in doesn't seem stupid enough to share, the fact that it is so secret only makes you wonder more about what is going on. I don't even pretend to know.

It's just like when you were a kid, and you tried to sneak into your father's study but he smacked you and said daddy's business. Or adult's business, or some such. Except these powerful individuals are doing it to everyone!

Quite frankly, I think it's more than reasonable to do all of these worldly things in secret. People are stupid and get irritated about all sorts of meaningless and mind-numbing crap. Everyone knows democracy these days is like trying to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it's only fair that someone take control and responsibility for the future of the world, and that they do it with some balls. Frankly too many people do not seem to know what is good for themselves any more.

The problem; as i see it, is that neither I nor you is within this upper most echelon and therefore we are in the mass of people who are being shat on. Don't get me wrong, this upper echelon is benefiting immensely at the loss of everyone else, or at least it is very easy to think that. We have no say, but people have been made and manufactured so ignorant and stupid that their say is no longer worth anything. Maybe this is all because of 'their' brainwashing; that would be the conspiracy, all of our tabloid news and value based talk shows — the hypocritical world moral self-righteousness. Or maybe The New World Order is the cure.

Just imagine the good which could be accomplished with so much power. That's the perspective I'm trying to imagine, so that we have all the more reason to abhor its (plausibly) current misuse.

So basically, I don't like how it is at the moment. I am scared half to death of the painfully harsh malevolent and selfish profiteering which could be (and by most accounts is being) accomplished with this power. But to try and abolish or destroy this power is far beyond all but a superior power or force which at present does not seem to exist, and if it did could we bare it?

So ask yourself, what would you do in the shoes of these rich powerful businessmen and politicians? What decisions are they making/have they made for all of us? Would you line your pockets if you could? Would you enslave millions for completely unrestrained personal freedom?

Mon, Jul 28, 2008  Permanent link

Smoking is cool

Yesterday; while waiting for a bus with my friend, I stopped to glance across at a middle aged man smoking. I stared at him intently before turning to my friend and asking him a question:

What is it that makes people smoke? Why is it that people who smoke generally seem to be more interesting? Where does it come from? Why are they so cool?

He stared at me a little absent minded, intent on drinking his coke, but he didn't need to say anything for my own imagination to swing into effect...

It's breathing fire.

Towards the beginning of human culture being able to create and manipulate fire was a sign of intelligence and power. The power to bring a group of people through a cold night with a blazing fire, it was almost instinctual. We know our genetic code changes very slowly, that instinct still remains.

Throughout time many civilizations have had smoking rituals and practices, often involving other drugs as well. Of course it is these pagan, instinctual urges which are more often than not repressed among anti-smokers. These urges which make us human.

The smokers are the only real community left in the workplace. Taking five minutes every hour to talk and reflect, to put down their work and relax - they return calm and centered, in short more productive. It is this calm collectedness which more often than not contributes to that 'cool' image. Even when they are not smoking.

Lots of people smoke when they drink. They are feeling good, relaxed, and it makes them feel cool, and when you feel cool you act cool. Never mind the lie of it all; things don't have to be true or real to have a profound influence upon how a person thinks, never mind the cancer or health problems. The more danger you're in the more fun you tend to have... (That isn't to say that the person who thinks that they are cool simply from smoking is cool - but it's cool not to care)

The benefit taking time out of your day to think about everything is enough reason in itself to smoke, the effect on your mindset, being relaxed and confident makes you the type of person people appreciate for their temperament. Stress destroys people.

But then the smoker I was looking at before punched the bus stop sign - so you definitely can't say it works for everyone and of course the above reasoning is no more reasonable than "I want to live as long as I can so I won't smoke"

Sat, Jul 26, 2008  Permanent link

Christian Atheists

These are the ones who fooled themselves...

"Belief in God is stupid, illogical & insane" They shout. United. Not a bad beginning.

Atheism is becoming a religion. They are uniting against religions, all of them. Wishing to get it abolished, to rebuild the twin towers, undo the crusades. Fuck them right? It's their freedoms, they can do whatever the fuck they want with them. It's hypocrisy. Hating on people for their religious choices. What do you think the crusades were? Every religious movement seems to have their own holier than thou spiel.

If religions cannot live together, then having only one that remains once all the others have been exterminated would be a logical end point. But how do we choose which religion should be around at the end? How many people would give their lives trying to get there? Is Atheism a logical religion for the entire world population? Would the realization of having to make a better world for yourself now as opposed to the after-life have a positive influence upon society when this will would inspire crime within less fortunate people?

My problem with atheists is so; my understanding is that atheism just means not believing in a God. This doesn't mean no religious thoughts or feelings, no spirituality and definitely does not mean common moral code. One atheist can think he is justified in killing another person because his feet were too big. It just didn't fit with his image of the world, so he fixed it up. The guy with the shoes too big may have also been an atheist, out to buy a pack of smokes.

If you want to create an atheist, hating Christian religion. Then do that (Maybe you're an anti-theist), but let an atheist mean someone who doesn't believe in God. And leave it at that.

To address the whole morality bullshit, people make up their own minds unless they're told and taught how and what to think. In our society, we are told exactly what to think and more often than not how to go about thinking it. For us to think as individuals, as people, that just because we are slightly aware of the shit we are being fed, we're somehow not going to get diseases from it. Our idea of morality is a predominately Christian one because we live in a Christian world. Christians have fallen a long way from what the bible says they ought to be, and we as a society are living on those ethical standards. For example: there are still debates over the validity of challenging God's will in genetics.

(Apologies for the indecent lexical choices; I'm just an animal, I get angry sometimes).

Tue, Jul 8, 2008  Permanent link

Bashing Religion (Part One)

Today we begin an exploration of the validity of bashing religion today in modern society. If the internet is anything to go by; where people believe they are hidden and able to express themselves freely without risk of being punched, and the flow of books on the subject (ie. God is Not Great, The God Delusion etc of which I still haven't read) there is definitely a modern trend of blathering on about the problems, violence & fantasies while underestimating the advantages of religion. Think about all the money the church spends converting Africans. In the last one hundred years it's gone from 9 million to 380 million Christians in Africa (wiki source).

Before we begin- we must get all of the facts in order to draw conclusions about the implications. I started making a list, you may contribute your own - but, try to leave the arguments out. That's part two. You're also welcome to challenge the validity of any of my statements.

Why Bother?
Because if one does not think about things with as many of the facts as possible one will tend to form an uneducated opinion, then as is customary mouth off about it and offend another's sensibilities - to circumvent this we need to create a detailed evidence list to use in the construction of arguments for or against religion and the validity of hating, bashing or otherwise defaming.

Evidence:

(1) Lots of people have religious beliefs.

(2) The ratio of individuals to sheep suggests the few individuals will be eating lots of lamb.

(3) Among the majority of people on this earth are the 'virtues' of obeying, being submissive and not wanting to stick out from the crowd. In a hunting group it would have worked better if there was one commander who had control over a situation instead of five people charging through the jungle trying to catch a boar (sorry, blazed).

(4) Most people think that killing other people, stealing, fighting and hating is bad.

(5) The modern human is a fragile creature.

(6) People who have religious beliefs have been reportedly seen with jobs, cars, firearms, having sex, buying ice-cream and even taking/purchasing drugs.

(7) Humans are animals. Hunting, killing animals, cunning and intellectual dominance over lesser beasts and manipulating situations for personal benefits are all instinctive features of ourselves we once required to survive. Albeit now suppressed by 'culture' and 'better judgment'.

(8) Today there is a mass movement against Christianity (self-righteous atheism), an internet initiated threat against the Co$, not to mention that hating The Jews seems to have been part of Western society for at least the last five hundred years and part of Islamic thought for millennium.

(9) The Bilderburg Group, CIA/Skull and bones, prison ships; where they execute prisoners outside of the law, are all still in operation today. Working behind the scenes and above the law to control and manipulate the future of the world (although who's to say they're any good at it?).

Begin.

Sat, Jul 5, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: philosophy, God, Richard Dawkins, Spirituality, Atheism

What do we do with the masses?
Project: The great enhancement debate

(Okay so the image is way old - but you can't underestimate stupidity)

Humanity exists within classes. We have to get over the idea of everyone being equal. We just aren't — and it would be shit if we were. It's got a lovely ring to it though and as something to strive for it isn't entirely irrational.

That's not to say; however, that some people are better than others. Which may seem as if I'm backstepping but allow me to continue...

• Everyone thinks that they are better than everyone else


• There is no such thing as a correct, right or true morality

Therefore one is forced to make subjective judgments as to who is better or worse, different, more useful, funny etc. Of course someone has to make decisions that are going to influence other people eventually - and at this point in time there are some crucial decisions which humans as a species have got to make.

Humanity has (as I paraphrase roughly some Nietzsche) two major classes. Master and slave. Strong and weak. Independent and herd. Naturally one cannot exist without the other, at least not without some kind of radical revolution. I think it would be pretty safe to say that everyone thinks they're unique, special, individual, free and so when trying to evaluate your own position it is important to consider such points. (For a brief wiki overview on master/slave moralities)

It would be physically impossible; we do not have the resources, to upgrade everyone and to be sure, how could we determine that underlying personality traits would not remain - and if they wouldn't - you'd be waving goodbye to your own self who wanted the upgrade to begin with.

For the purpose of this I'm considering upgrades as anything working towards this notion of "Human 2.0"

Questions to consider (and I'm very interested in your responses):

• What do we do with the weak? Or the strong for that matter, in their personal endeavors outside and beyond the common good?


• What will the weak do to the strong if they are excluded from upgrades?


• What will the weak do if they are given upgrades?


• What is to stop an individual/group from becoming so powerful they can achieve their goal of world domination via manipulation, control or physical dominance once people have computer chips in their brains or they have strength/invincibility super powers?


• Will human 2.0 be a superior being? Racism/Bigotry with scientific support sounds terribly dangerous to me...


• Who should make these decisions? And who will?


• If life is in essence entirely without objective purpose - what's the point?


• If our desire for something more is human in nature, won't we possibly kill this and then negate the entire premise of upgrading?

Obviously I'm pretty new to this whole transhumanism idea. But these are serious concerns I'm having with what I've probably misinterpreted so far.

If you want to try and freak me out with some honest elitist stuff that would be fantastic, not to mention some common morality answers and perhaps something more insightful as well...

Thu, Jun 19, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: philosophy
Sent to project: The great enhancement debate

Hemp

Marijuana is pretty much illegal everywhere. Ever thought to wonder why?



It's a pretty similar story to the electric car.

Hemp can be used to make:

• Plastics - biodegradable too


• Paper - 4.1x as efficient as trees


• Clothing - durable, the fibers are stronger than that of wood


• Fuel


• Food - the seeds contain lots of protein and two essential fatty acids that clean out cholesterol and can barely be found elsewhere in nature.
  

It also has a massive carbon absorbency rate, can be grown nearly anywhere & reaches maturity in a matter of months.

People have argued (and it's very disputable) that hemp could:

• Make America energy independent


• Solve world hunger


• Help curb carbon emissions

So why is it illegal?

Historically:

As has been evident throughout history, many people with power curb the world to best assist themselves.

Harry Anslinger was appointed director of a division of the US Treasury Department called the Bureau of Narcotics in 1930 by his uncle in law named Andrew Mellon. Anslinger was an avid racist, and pot was known to be associated with blacks and hispanics. He built a great deal of his campaign on marijuana's use amongst what he considered the 'degenerate races'. So, personal career advancement was a big motive for him, but wait, there's more..

Andrew Mellon; who appointed him his position, was a primary investor in Dupont, a company that had just patented a method of making various plastics. Making cannabis illegal would rule out the competition for companies like Dupont, because this would mean making hemp illegal as well. The image pot had developed in the media due in part to folks like Anslinger was a facade based on racism and circumstantial evidence with no scientific or medical substantiation that would serve the purposes of corporate greed.

Anslinger's campaign was also supported by William Randolph Hearst, who owned a chain of newspapers that were printed on paper supplied by the hundreds of acres of timber forests he owned. His paper empire was threatened by hemp and its ability to produce as much paper in 1 acre as 4.1 acres of trees are capable of, so his motives are pretty obvious. It is also important to note that the racist, sensationalist articles he published in his newspapers that demonized marijuana helped him sell papers. Tarnishing the name and legal status of marijuana and in turn removing hemp from his competition was an extremely profitable endeavour for this guy.

Right Now:

Arguably hemp is a superior candidate to almost every resource our society runs on, which isn't exactly a favorable quality in the perspective of let's say, oil-tycoons. Not to mention alcohol and tobacco corporations (holding politicians in their pockets) would also lose profits due to the availability of a much cheaper substitute.

The fact that marijuana is illegal really has virtually nothing to do with its psychoactive properties, aside from perhaps the fact that its users feel it has medicinal effects and it would be too cheap and easy (given its adaptive, un-patented & durable nature) an alternative for people to buying pills.

It won't happen. The big wigs have too much money on the line. They allow very few clinical tests and a fear has been incited into the minds of the general public. But maybe.... Maybe hemp could save the world.

Side note: Jesus and Marijuana (surely not?)

Mon, Jun 2, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Hemp

A letter to a Minister

At my school chapel; where I am forced to visit periodically, The Reverend recently gave a fairly blunt attack on Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. While I haven't read his book, I had a fair few problems with some of the things with what our minister was saying. At the end of his speech he invited anyone with their own arguments to get back to him.

This is my response:

Firstly, Atheism is not a religion. There is no dogma or ritual which is essential or fundamental to being an atheist. It simply means not believing in God. And there’s no reason to say why an atheist can’t have religious thoughts or feelings, separate to the idea of God. In your speech you basically attacked anti-religious atheists, as opposed to people who cannot or do not see the ‘Light of God’. Buddhists are fundamentally atheists – and you’re forgetting that for the most part, Atheists follow a fairly Christian doctorate of ethics. It has been woven into the fabric of our society over the last couple of thousand years.

You did a good job of explaining the need for religion; In today’s sick, sad, depressed, uncertain, changing & impossible world it is good for the masses to have a sense of hope. It helps people come to grips with their situation and persevere to an ‘after-life’ if their current life is not what they think it should be. This; and the lack of scientific institutions, would do more than enough to help convert the masses of Africa, with their poor living conditions, mass hunger and terrible life expectancy. The church does a great job in supporting them and their plight. This does not however, prove the existence of a God.

Religion is very important, because as human beings we have an emotional side – a spiritual side, which you would exercise whenever you pray, or participate in ritual. This almost euphoric feeling, again is not proof of God, but instead proof that as human beings we exist as more than just logisticians – we do have a right and left side of the brain. I personally think that most Atheists do not fully understand, respect or acknowledge this facet of their existence, and this is a great shame. Harnessing the emotional power of an individual can lead to great personal gratification and understanding of things internal and external to themselves.

You may ask then, why don’t I like Christianity when I’ve laid out all these advantages of it? Because God doesn’t work for me. The idea that someone external to me and the people around me controls the future and my existence makes no sense. Nobody; not JC or your God himself has the power to better the world around me, other than myself and every other individual. Christianity does a great job of looking after the sick and the poor and the homeless. It also does a great job of suppressing free thought and rationalism, of controlling the masses in such a way that they act to deny all of their most basic human impulses; namely your seven sins. It turns the masses into sheep; by controlling their thoughts and feelings to the point where they act down aspirations of grandeur and ambition in general. To the point where they are scared of a place; Hell, which we only know of by people who are yet to travel there. So how on earth do we know what it is like?

Surely everybody is going to hell? If you are not a Christian, you are going to hell. If you are not a Muslim, you are going to hell. If you are not Jewish, you will go to hell. Etc etc. And so you will find all of your friends in hell. Or are other religions not as valid as Christianity? Why couldn’t we be terrible people our entire lives and repent on our deathbeds, be forgiven our earthly sins and still make it up to heaven? I support the idea of religion. But basing it in lies creates more internal conflict than harmony. Somebody created Christianity, and created the God so many people worship. Why not create your own? Surely that would be more appropriate to you?

You cannot justify or smash a cause by the people who support it or oppose it. There will always be people you would rather were on the other side of the line. Did you really expect to sway atheists by saying that people with doctorates believe in God? That scientists believe in God? Or that Stalin was an Atheist? As I said before, Atheism is NOT a religion. And Christianity does a great job of helping people through their beliefs, providing hope etc – and I’m not against that. I just think it’s folly to actually believe, in your heart, that God is real. Or to tell people who don’t believe in God that they’re wrong just because so many people do.

You also said that questioning the existence of God was the most important question that could be asked. Allow me to rebut. Will either answer actually affect the world? You would be better just to accept it on faith – evangelists who find the need to try and justify Christianity with modern science have obviously missed this point. I think you were alluding to this: (which I’ve copied from an article on wikipedia called “presupposition”)

In epistemology, presuppositions relate to a belief system, or Weltanschauung, and are required for it to make sense. A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshaled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made. According to this view, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God unless one presupposes that God exists; modern science is incapable of discovering the supernatural because it relies on methodological naturalism and thereby fashions a Procrustean bed which rejects any observation which would disprove the naturalistic assumption. The best the apologist can do is to argue that the resulting worldview is somehow inconsistent with itself (for example, via Argument from morality or via Transcendental argument for the existence of God).

As Nietzsche said; “God is Dead”, which as I see it encompasses the idea that if God is so great, and all powerful knowing and helpful etc then why haven’t we seen any miracles recently? Why doesn’t he visit some great geneticist and tell them the cure to cancer? Why bother questioning the existence of such a god that just watches – when we could spend our time trying to cure cancer ourselves?

I have answers for this rhetoric – and no doubt you can ascertain the points I’m trying to make. If we go past this question of the existence of God, I ask another question; what are the grounds for then basing a religion on it? On worship?


(While I understand that you weren't there, it has been nearly a week and I haven't copped a response back - I would like to know what's next from him, and what arguments are still relevant in this field)

Mon, Jun 2, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Richard Dawkins, God, Atheism, Spirituality, Philosophy