organism(s)

The human species has a particular advantage over other species that is often forgotten…I was reminded of this in an article on creating a way-station for scientific research on mars, in the question of what the buildings should be made of, scientists were recommending mud and waddle huts instead of something more akin to futuristic sci-fi ideas, shocking at first, but then, incredibly genius. The idea being that it is far more practical to work with what you have, rather then it is to introduce an unknown.

And the reasoning is completely logical, the advantage that modern man has is that we have a good 5000 year record of civilization and 1000s more than that in the record of the species…this record contains millions of experiments, some successful other not, however this record gives society a massive amount of information…and we should draw on that vast information base when thinking of solving contemporary problems.

Further to the point is the concept at the heart of all is: we have not come this far alone.

The idea may be simple, but the implications and ramifications that stem from this are earth-shaking. In truth, we function like an organism, the individual has a role and a specific importance, however, that role is part of the larger whole. One individual’s success is dependent on those around them. The great leaps that we have made in the last few centuries have only come about due to the greater efforts of the global community.

Singular vision does not exist in the human community, and for that matter, nor does singular success.

These realizations beg a different model and a different application of theory. The great chasing of personal wealth that is typified in the great American dream is quite frankly impossible and the illusion of it is what in many ways is destroying our culture and dooming our environment.

Socialized and institutionalized applications of redistribution are what will lead us to greater accomplishments in science and technology; they will also lead to better infrastructure that will enable the support that society needs…That redistribution can be defined as financial, informational, and simple yet necessary raw sustenance, as they will lead to stabilizing and strengthening the base that supports us all, allowing society as a whole to make gains. Many of these things have become buzz words in contemporary politics: socialized health care, improved education, and greater funding for academic/cultural development. However, like all other concepts they need to be contextualized, so that we may be able to implement them and go forward; the more that humans understand the organism principle the better.

My personal frustration lies with the question of delivering this contextualization: when I consider that we are a species with incredible powers of communication and the tools to disperse said communication, oddly, we still seem to have many difficulties. Why is that when I read the daily news, there seems to be a significant lack of focus…or in other words, only a minority of people seems to be keeping their eye on the prize. Perhaps we forgot what exactly that prize is. Fighting each other be it by business or war, does not further our development, or for that matter, our survival.

Art & Politics

Reading the news and observing American culture, something I have not had the option to do for some time, I have noticed that there seems to be a bit of duality going on here. There seems to be a two-headed snake in the grass.

Sometimes there are news articles in which hope for a new century is founded and then other times it seems that we are on some dangerous path. Nonetheless, change does seem to be in the air, but it seems to me that we are going to have to be mindful of how those changes come about. An example here locally, is that a school board has decided to ban the viewing of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" on the grounds that Global Warming is theory. Why are there pockets of America where the virtues of science are still being questioned? Or better yet, what happened to common sense? Even if we were to debate as to whether Global Warming is theory or not, the fact of the matter is that the fundamental message in this film is that we have one planet with limited resources. If one were to take a business minded approach to viewing this predicament, it is clear that it is not a conservative approach to continue using natural resources that are not replenish-able. It is by far, more logical to utilize and procure resources that are renewable. In fact, it is very logical and financially secure to obtain and develop renewable resources as this leads to a market that has no foreseeable end; a far more sensible business plan. As entrepreneurial capitalism seems to be leading this country more than anything, why is such logic so difficult to understand? What furthermore does not make any sense, and especially in this particular case, is that it is seemingly the people that are standing up for big business, further proof that our system is corrupt.

And then there is this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/environment/jan-june07/climate_01-22.html. Several Chief Executives of some major corporations pressed Bush to place federal mandatory caps on carbon monoxide. Quite a shocker, as it is seemingly against conventional wisdom expounded by bleeding-heart environmentalists that the corporations are to blame. Or is it? Is it perhaps evidence of something else? To para-phrase Ralph Nader, the consumer has the power in our economic system. More simply, as the dollar controls our society, then the one who has the dollar is the one who controls the system. We are often lead to believe that is some mystical entity that actually controls the dollars when in fact, as we are a consumerist society, the control really does lie with us. Spending that dollar is an act of endorsement. Buying a hummer supports the war effort. Installing and purchasing Green Power takes money away from the coal-fired power companies. They loose money and they start to listen.