People, you suck.
When I was younger (and less of a calloused bastard), I was willing to believe that human beings' pernicious behavior was restricted to particular unsavory individuals or select groups. Likewise, I would write off unscrupulous behavior as isolated incidents in the lives of otherwise good people. In short, I used to believe that bad behavior in people was circumscribed in some way, either in time or into individuals.
The more I experience it, however, the more I believe that bad behavior in humans is so pervasive as to damn our whole species. This is not an anomaly. We are not a nice species, and I understand why the other ones shun us.
Exhibit A: People who talk in movie theaters. I hope that there is a special place in hell for people who talk in movie theaters. Not only does such behavior reflect a poor understanding of physics -- sound travels! -- but also a truly cavalier attitude to the feelings of others. But this only damns the movie-talkers themselves.
What speaks poorly for the rest of humanity is that we do not have these people taken out back and shot to prevent them from transmitting their disrespect to the another generation. But we don't do anything close to that. Instead we sit there like chumps enduring their stubborn jackassery, when any properly run species would have had them liquidated by mutual consent long, long ago.
Exhibit B: Global warming, budget deficits, smoking, etc.
What do these all have in common? These problems all exist because people are seem completely incapable of thinking farther than two weeks into the future. We as a species have an attitude about the future comparable to a reckless teenager speeding drunken down a curving highway, comfortable with the caveat that "if I die, at least I will leave an attractive corpse."
Let me put this another way. You have no doubt heard the Jack Kerouac quote that everyone repeats:
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"
That is the dumbest nonsense I have ever heard in my life. Let me paraphrase. The only people for me are those so cognitively horse-blindered that they consider the pithy phrase "live fast and die young," an adequate maxim to live by. Given the choice between the sane and the crazy, I choose crazies -- crazies who are going to spout nonsense to me about spirituality while they fritter away their mercifully brief lives in a state of unemployed poverty.
Imagine a society composed entirely of such people. It's attitude towards savings and work would no doubt bring it very rapidly to a point of collapse. (Oh wait...that is basically our society...)
It is this attitude of present-thinking that is going to screw us in the end, but that isn't the saddest part. The saddest part is that when confronted with our impending doom -- doom which is quite clearly the consequence of our own behavior -- we persist in thinking that living in the moment is a desirable trait.
Exhibit C, D, E, etc.: Ask youself whether we as a species should feel proud of the following phenoma:
- War and genocide
- The manifest failure of free trade agreements in spite of their well-documented benefits
- Believers in UFOs and homeopathy
- Amway
- That Hollywood stars are allowed to speak in public about subjects not immediately related to their art
- That Not Another Teen Movie and all of its sordid spawn were made and continue to make money
You no doubt can come up with more. Should we be proud of these things?
We are making asses of ourselves in front of the other species. I have it on good authority we will not longer be invited to the parties of the respectable ungulates, and I see no reason to blame the hosts.
This is how bad it has gotten. You know the scene in the Matrix where Agent Smith compares the human species to a virus. Every time I see an ad for Fool's Gold, I root more and more for the machines.
- Log in to post comments
"Houyhnhnm" came the swift response
I'm confused... The masthead claims you enjoy watching bad movies, yet you complain about Fool's Gold. Is it not bad enough?
I wrote in my journal during the 1996 campaigns that we are a nation of fools, as only a fool looks to an idiot for leadership. Add to that, the foolish have developed into a critical mass. Similar to nuclear fission, once this mass is achieved nothing can prevent subsequent chain reaction. Regardless, matter how hard the benevolent intelligent work to improve society, the malevolent, manipulating the foolish, will be able to undo or prevent any improvement.
We are slaves to our emotions regardless of training and discipline. I believe the cause is the primacy of the emotional mind. To get to the logic and reasoning facilities, the stimuli must first pass through that emotional sector. The exit of those logical ports passes through the emotional portion once more. So you have only one pass in "cold" reasoning while the "hot" emotions get 2 chances at modifying behavior and input. If we perceive the action as emotionally satisfying, we are fully engaged. If the action lacks that emotional input, then it will only gather half our attention.
Well said! I agree with almost all of your points.
Keep blogging.
I'm reminded of the Biblical passage in which Elijah complains to God that all Israel had turned to idols; that they had killed all the other prophets and were trying to kill him to. God replied: "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Because of how media attention is distributed, it may seem that we are a nation of fools. We never see those seven thousand. But who is really looking to the clowns in the spotlight for leadership? Nobody I know. Most people I know lead their lives quietly, and with a good deal more wisdom than the flamboyant fools of Hollywood or the pandering fools of Washington.
Kerouac is part of a literary movement that emphasizes style over substance, eloquence over having something thoughtful to say. That's appealing to the intelligent but immature. But most folks eventually grow up and realize that such glittering rhetoric is to wisdom as fool's gold to the genuine article.
Looking at American society today is like squinting through an evil mirage to catch a glimpse of the Taj Mahal. It's easy to look at pop culture or politics and be depressed about the future. But if you get out in the world a bit and meet people who work and think for a living, who love their families and plan for their futures, and you'll see there's still a lot to admire in our society.
Nathan your optimism is, well, optimistic. Unfortunately as Jake points out, it has little evidence to support the position and overwhelming evidence that refutes it.
The founders of this nation feared what is currently occurring: rule by demagoguery. For that reason they created 2 rules - Senators selected by the state legislature, President elected by Electoral College. The intention was to prevent the ignorant (not stupid - simply uninformed) from being manipulated by the malevolent. Unfortunately the Senate selection process was abused by corporate/trust entities and brought about direct election of senators and the Electoral College never lived up to its promise of being a ethical firewall. As such, the efforts of the last of the Enlightenment has been undone.
There's a corollary in social sciences that states humans, given a choice, will always take the easy path. Studying the positions of the political candidates, formulating an independent opinion based on ones own values and education, then acting with those two concepts in play is not easy. Selecting a political party and marching lockstep to their beat is easy. Which of these two are in play? As Noam Chomsky famously pointed out, Americans are not stupid, just look at their fascination with sports statistics and their ability to manipulate and analyze the numbers. This demonstrates they are capable of abstract thought and extrapolation. Nonetheless, the electorate is easily manipulated and distracted.
Your last paragraph exemplifies my position. First, you make the assumption that critics of popular society are blind to the wonderful qualities of individuals. Of course people love their families, it's absurd to suggest otherwise. Plan their futures? Are you aware of the savings rate in the US? Then you make this backhanded comment that "if you get out in the world..." I for one have been out in the world. I am a veteran who served in Europe, Asia, and across the United States. I've lived in places and interacted with populations far beyond that of many diplomats. I did not reach this conclusion because I lack experience, I reached this conclusion because I experienced it, first hand and personal. As a nontraditional graduate student at a public university, I am exposed to the next generation on a daily basis. I cannot say I'm confident in the future. As Jake can likely attest, MD/PhD programs are not bursting with American born students, rather they are a minority. (My wife is a professor in a similar program.)
I especially like your analogy that we are glimpsing the Taj Mahal through some atmospheric disturbance. Are you aware the Taj Mahal was constructed by a Muslim? That it is a mausoleum to the rulers wife? That it is patterned after the Safavid concept of heaven on earth. Yes indeed, America was once a noble experiment with purpose. However, like the Taj Mahal, it has been ransacked and stripped of its former glory. While it is still "beautiful" it is but a shell of its former glory and only houses the dead.
Here's the money quote:
"No matter how hard the benevolent intelligent work to improve society, the malevolent, manipulating the foolish, will be able to undo or prevent any improvement."
Jake, A question about blood doping and possibly Floyd Landis' doping test. Is it possible that Floyd may have 'topped up' his blood with some of his own stored blood(cold stored, no anti-coagulants, preservatives, etc., but had put that blood aside at an earlier time when he was using or had recently used testosterone? Presumably Floyd and his handlers would know that using Testosterone would be useless near or during the tour, but the boost of extra red blood cells would help. Maybe the blood was 'doped'? Thanks, an ardent cyclist.
You support an organization which excluded Ron Paul from speaking. This in itself is against science at it's core.
Science is the search for truth. All science must include all circumstance. No ommission or fact or possible fact.
If by your own action you create an outcome then your science is flawed.
You know this!!!!!
So don't complain. You brought it on yourself. Let Dr. and I repeat DOCTOR Ron Paul speak. You may not agree with him, but science seeks truth and required all the facts to make a decision. Otherwise you live in belief and religion and not fact.
Look to your own for the problem and see your error of observation. You call yourself a scientist? hmmmmmmmmm
..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in peoples minds.
Samuel Adams
With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. Abraham Lincoln
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
The state cant give you free speech, and the state cant take it away. Youre born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free
Utah Phillips
quixotic quest
Jake my friend, just you wait 'til you get to see the Solow model in your macro class. :)