For two disparate events to collude, some property must be common.
Indistinct from any force affecting objects in a three-dimensional space, spherical projection and reception dictates an effect of occlusion to be inherent. How is this overlooked.
Not withstanding any precepts of temporal cohesion, collusion may be indicated via spatial relation. Considering this, one then ponders what of a mechanism of occurrence that is located in a fixed region in space.
Indeed, this then leads to the question of spatial locality. A natural supposition is to only consider locations in relation to others at a given moment whence forces and interactions are mathematically considered to be existent. Why I am given to immediately dissecting a singular moment from a stream of time; I can not see. I must revisit this thought process; we can not consider spatial consistency through time if we disregard the flow of time in spatial relations.
And what of collections? We can consider a singular point, be it of time or space. But then, any multitude of such points immediately must include an assumption of relation, and this very relation is that which I question. For the definition may be made in a multitude of manners and that very definition determines the outcome of your predictions.
But you claim a consistency, a regularity, a homogeneous essence of space and time. Think again, your relativistic idol has discredited this notion a century past.
Without any predictability there is no predictability, you say! Well then, my friend, take a leap of faith and simply consider the possibilities; for within this pool of the imagination lies further insight into the simplification of this realm for your empowerment; predictiveness; manipulation; appreciation.
I am not a mind's mouth swallowing a conscious being. I am not a thought flow inherent in my skies. I am not a reality that surrounds your being! I am not a sanity in a web of ether! Such a dream is only accosted so let me pass.
Tears, tears; I can not see. Blurred vision, blurred mind, hope rises, hope shines. Desperate or beckoning; torn to pieces and united in confusion.
Throw it away or hold it up high; I can not believe this gift is not to be given. Strange, comforting, depressing; let me stroke your hair and I bleed.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thursday, December 23, 2010
thought provoking but annoyingly difficult to read unstructured rambling
Consider two events - a ball that is thrown (event A), and a ball that is dropped (event C). Consider these two events must exist. Set aside any reason for this requirement at the moment, and simply consider their existence a requirement.
Such a requirement would then require the intermediate event of a ball that is caught (event B) to occur. So the pair of events A and C conjure the existence of event B. All three events are stages in a temporal stream.
We could consider the possibility that gravity acts in such a manner.
Consider two masses in space. At one stage in time, they are separate (stage A). At another stage, they are together (stage C). If these two stages must exist in the same temporal stream, then stage B - motion from one stage to another - must occur.
Additionally, there are more known properties to gravitational attraction than simply spatial attraction over time. There is an acceleration, and it is proportional to mass. Let us ignore the mass and consider the aspect of acceleration.
Interestingly, when considering acceleration, inertia must be accounted for. And inertia seems an even more innate property of the universe, or at least one that is even more simple, than gravity.
So we could consider inertial velocity in a temporal stream scenario. Two separate positions in space must exist, and the object must travel between them. Objects of different inertial velocities would travel between the positions in different amounts of time.
The idea is defining the manifestation of temporal streams, so different amounts of time works here. We could postulate a faster speed, which traverses space in less time, ..
Hold on. We usually think of space in terms of 3 dimensions, like a graph paper of cubes. But if you're talking about individual objects in space, you could just as easily reference coordinates spherically or in any other manner. A constant velocity isn't necessarily constant depending on your vantage point so...
We could consider a faster speed as simply less interaction with other bodies (other bodies at other relative velocities that is).. indeed if another body has the same relative velocity then we have plenty of interaction and thus the relative velocity between the two is zero... so
so if velocity is simply a measure of the amount of interaction between bodies, and faster bodies have less interaction with other bodies..
an intertial trajectory 'requires' for whatever reason the body to be at its current place and at its destination, and the velocity - or amount of interaction with other bodies - dictates how much of that special stuff - time - is conjured into existence between the two stages.
its interesting i should consider velocity as a measure of interaction with other bodies since as i stated in an earlier post, less interaction between bodies seems to allow a more loose interpretation of the order of events, that is they aren't strictly placed into a temporal order.
maybe velocity is simply a measure of how much of a connection a body has with other bodies. the 'stuff' of that connection would be something special i suppose. but if you can reduce the connection to other bodies, the velocity changes.
of course, the velocity has direction. we think of speed as slower faster.. but really velocity is simply zero or more, with a direction (relative to some other body).. so if velocity is simply a measure of some kind of connection with other bodies, and we can modify this connection, then how does directionality come into play?
perhaps you can think of the universe as consisting of countless bodies all moving in different directions at different speeds. any given body has a velocity and it shares a connection with all other bodies with the same speed and direction.
so anyway all motion is relative, and u like to think of one body moving fast and one sitting still, but really each body thinks their still and the other is moving fast. its all relative.
all we can say is as relative velocities are further and further apart, the interaction between the two bodies is smaller and smaller (or faster.) This means less time! Cool we have a property of the universe with a specific effect on time... in a manner of speaking.
So if these two required moments in a temporal stream conjure intermediate moments, then the property of relative velocities can define how the intermediate moments are conjured.
Interesting
Seems like there would be an infinity of intermediate moments. I mean if an object must traverse from point A to point B then I don't see any reason to define a limit to just how miniscule of a distance that body could move through space through any miniscule segment of time - so there are an infinity of moments between the two positions.
It really does make one ask how we can ever get from point A to point B. Sure we can blow this off with our understanding of limits in calculus and the concept of infinity.. but there is still an infinity of moments so how can this happen.
We can talk of an infinity of sections of space in the length of a pencil but our demarcation of units be it inches or centimeters will allow us to give a finite reading. So as too it can be with time such that we can refer to a millisecond or what have you.
But the notion of motion seems somehow different. Although really you are combining two concepts that can be defined in finite terms - a finite length of space in a finite time - so whats the problem.
Well yes we can define it so we can understand it - but a piece of mass must actually make that traversal, and there is actually an infinitum of moments for this to occur.
Obviously any given moment must be defined to occur over a known length of time, and hence we have a finite event. But the velocity seems to determine how much of that can occur - its absurd really
Perhaps my mind wants to think in digital terms or something. As if there are somehow less moments of traversal for a fast object than a slow one. This is actually true, it takes less time. But if there is an infinity of moments, then there is not less moments. Only less time.
An infinity of moments, but a finite amount of time. So the faster object traverses in less time, but still over an infinity of moments. If we want to compare moments between the slower and faster object, then we can say for any given moment there will be greater traversal of distance - but that is if we define a moment as occuring over a given duration of time.
Indeed with faster traversal there will be less moments of a given duration of time occurring. But still, there will be an infinity of moments - of arbitrarily short duration. That is the kicker - we must allow the possibility that a moment can occur over an infinitesimally short duration of time.
Thus the universe is infinite.
But this thing we call time - the thing that isn't infinite - is arbitrarily defined. We count revolutions of an atom and that's our time. It's bullshit.
The constant is the infinity of moments, not the finite time. It's bullshit to define velocity in terms of time, because that's just relative measure. Maybe what I said above is better - velocity is a measure of the connection between objects.
So with a lesser connection between objects, and a traversal occurring over infinite moments.. the less connection and lesser interaction explains lesser revolutions of atoms occurring while the traversing object is in sight.
Somehow my bullshit definition of velocity being a measure of "connection" allows us to explain the revolutions of atoms per observable traversal, rather than just saying those revolutions occur because that much time passes - which is a recursive and meaningless explanation.
Such a requirement would then require the intermediate event of a ball that is caught (event B) to occur. So the pair of events A and C conjure the existence of event B. All three events are stages in a temporal stream.
We could consider the possibility that gravity acts in such a manner.
Consider two masses in space. At one stage in time, they are separate (stage A). At another stage, they are together (stage C). If these two stages must exist in the same temporal stream, then stage B - motion from one stage to another - must occur.
Additionally, there are more known properties to gravitational attraction than simply spatial attraction over time. There is an acceleration, and it is proportional to mass. Let us ignore the mass and consider the aspect of acceleration.
Interestingly, when considering acceleration, inertia must be accounted for. And inertia seems an even more innate property of the universe, or at least one that is even more simple, than gravity.
So we could consider inertial velocity in a temporal stream scenario. Two separate positions in space must exist, and the object must travel between them. Objects of different inertial velocities would travel between the positions in different amounts of time.
The idea is defining the manifestation of temporal streams, so different amounts of time works here. We could postulate a faster speed, which traverses space in less time, ..
Hold on. We usually think of space in terms of 3 dimensions, like a graph paper of cubes. But if you're talking about individual objects in space, you could just as easily reference coordinates spherically or in any other manner. A constant velocity isn't necessarily constant depending on your vantage point so...
We could consider a faster speed as simply less interaction with other bodies (other bodies at other relative velocities that is).. indeed if another body has the same relative velocity then we have plenty of interaction and thus the relative velocity between the two is zero... so
so if velocity is simply a measure of the amount of interaction between bodies, and faster bodies have less interaction with other bodies..
an intertial trajectory 'requires' for whatever reason the body to be at its current place and at its destination, and the velocity - or amount of interaction with other bodies - dictates how much of that special stuff - time - is conjured into existence between the two stages.
its interesting i should consider velocity as a measure of interaction with other bodies since as i stated in an earlier post, less interaction between bodies seems to allow a more loose interpretation of the order of events, that is they aren't strictly placed into a temporal order.
maybe velocity is simply a measure of how much of a connection a body has with other bodies. the 'stuff' of that connection would be something special i suppose. but if you can reduce the connection to other bodies, the velocity changes.
of course, the velocity has direction. we think of speed as slower faster.. but really velocity is simply zero or more, with a direction (relative to some other body).. so if velocity is simply a measure of some kind of connection with other bodies, and we can modify this connection, then how does directionality come into play?
perhaps you can think of the universe as consisting of countless bodies all moving in different directions at different speeds. any given body has a velocity and it shares a connection with all other bodies with the same speed and direction.
so anyway all motion is relative, and u like to think of one body moving fast and one sitting still, but really each body thinks their still and the other is moving fast. its all relative.
all we can say is as relative velocities are further and further apart, the interaction between the two bodies is smaller and smaller (or faster.) This means less time! Cool we have a property of the universe with a specific effect on time... in a manner of speaking.
So if these two required moments in a temporal stream conjure intermediate moments, then the property of relative velocities can define how the intermediate moments are conjured.
Interesting
Seems like there would be an infinity of intermediate moments. I mean if an object must traverse from point A to point B then I don't see any reason to define a limit to just how miniscule of a distance that body could move through space through any miniscule segment of time - so there are an infinity of moments between the two positions.
It really does make one ask how we can ever get from point A to point B. Sure we can blow this off with our understanding of limits in calculus and the concept of infinity.. but there is still an infinity of moments so how can this happen.
We can talk of an infinity of sections of space in the length of a pencil but our demarcation of units be it inches or centimeters will allow us to give a finite reading. So as too it can be with time such that we can refer to a millisecond or what have you.
But the notion of motion seems somehow different. Although really you are combining two concepts that can be defined in finite terms - a finite length of space in a finite time - so whats the problem.
Well yes we can define it so we can understand it - but a piece of mass must actually make that traversal, and there is actually an infinitum of moments for this to occur.
Obviously any given moment must be defined to occur over a known length of time, and hence we have a finite event. But the velocity seems to determine how much of that can occur - its absurd really
Perhaps my mind wants to think in digital terms or something. As if there are somehow less moments of traversal for a fast object than a slow one. This is actually true, it takes less time. But if there is an infinity of moments, then there is not less moments. Only less time.
An infinity of moments, but a finite amount of time. So the faster object traverses in less time, but still over an infinity of moments. If we want to compare moments between the slower and faster object, then we can say for any given moment there will be greater traversal of distance - but that is if we define a moment as occuring over a given duration of time.
Indeed with faster traversal there will be less moments of a given duration of time occurring. But still, there will be an infinity of moments - of arbitrarily short duration. That is the kicker - we must allow the possibility that a moment can occur over an infinitesimally short duration of time.
Thus the universe is infinite.
But this thing we call time - the thing that isn't infinite - is arbitrarily defined. We count revolutions of an atom and that's our time. It's bullshit.
The constant is the infinity of moments, not the finite time. It's bullshit to define velocity in terms of time, because that's just relative measure. Maybe what I said above is better - velocity is a measure of the connection between objects.
So with a lesser connection between objects, and a traversal occurring over infinite moments.. the less connection and lesser interaction explains lesser revolutions of atoms occurring while the traversing object is in sight.
Somehow my bullshit definition of velocity being a measure of "connection" allows us to explain the revolutions of atoms per observable traversal, rather than just saying those revolutions occur because that much time passes - which is a recursive and meaningless explanation.
random mutterings of a conflationary mind
It appears a common choice is to restrict our repository of knowledge and our capacity to accumulate further knowledge in an attempt to secure our existence.
In such an instance a line must be drawn between freedom of knowledge and its loss. I doubt location of such a line itself is ever a regimented process, but rather an impulsive or instinctual selection.
A lack of knowledge by definition would deter a reasoned decision from being made.
..
I wonder how the names of things are chosen; I wonder if there is any psychological study into how the names of things themselves affect how those ideas may manifest themselves in the human mind, statistically.
They say even the color and orientation of a room has an effect on the psyche. Surely the words we choose to represent the raw ideas and thoughts in our own minds must too, have an effect.
Such a consideration seems to be practical and logical, yet I do not recall ever reading text of such a nature. Perhaps it is a well-guarded tool of security.
..
Security itself is a large industry. There is security of persons, of facilities, even of nations. The US federal budget is notorious for being overwhelmed with national security expenditures.
Certainly, the security of knowledge, too, must have a well-funded demand. It would not surprise me to find that many subtle psychological axioms find themselves well-guarded.
In such an instance a line must be drawn between freedom of knowledge and its loss. I doubt location of such a line itself is ever a regimented process, but rather an impulsive or instinctual selection.
A lack of knowledge by definition would deter a reasoned decision from being made.
..
I wonder how the names of things are chosen; I wonder if there is any psychological study into how the names of things themselves affect how those ideas may manifest themselves in the human mind, statistically.
They say even the color and orientation of a room has an effect on the psyche. Surely the words we choose to represent the raw ideas and thoughts in our own minds must too, have an effect.
Such a consideration seems to be practical and logical, yet I do not recall ever reading text of such a nature. Perhaps it is a well-guarded tool of security.
..
Security itself is a large industry. There is security of persons, of facilities, even of nations. The US federal budget is notorious for being overwhelmed with national security expenditures.
Certainly, the security of knowledge, too, must have a well-funded demand. It would not surprise me to find that many subtle psychological axioms find themselves well-guarded.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Question the authority of concepts within your own mind.
Like the concept of order. What is temporal order? A progression of events through time.
Consider two stars, countless light years from each other. A solar flare occurs on each. How do we determine which happened first? This should be a valid question, yes? We can say one happened before the other.
Just because we define a method through which we can authoritatively state one happened before the other, does our method have any significance or consequence? What is the significance of defining how events have a temporal order? In the context of solar flares on stars, it doesn't seem to matter much..
There is no difference between the order in which solar flares on stars occur, and the order in which a ball is thrown and caught. Time is time, despite lengths of space or complexity of interactions between one event and the other. At least, time is such a vital, independent property of the universe that its absoluteness in this regard doesn't seem questionable. Things happen in a certain sequence.
Considering solar flares on distant stars, however, it seems plausible we could define the stream of time in a multitude of ways in which one flare or the other occurred first. Perhaps this is because there are so few dependent events between the two. In contrast, a ball thrown and caught has a specific order. Certainly, a ball couldn't be caught before it was even thrown..?
What if the mechanics of the entire universe were concretely defined such that there is no randomness, no unexpected nature of anything..? In such a universe where everything has a fate, the event of the ball being thrown and the event of the ball being caught must not necessarily be considered as one occurring before the other.
The mere definition of either event necessitates the existence of the other. They are merely interdependent, but order is only an arbitrary label we give the events. Sure, you could argue, but what if we add a third event? Consider a ball thrown, a ball caught, and then a ball dropped. The ball must be caught before being dropped, yet it must be caught after being thrown. The ball couldn't possibly be dropped after being thrown without a catch occuring!
Indeed, the addition of a third event introduces the possibility of necessary intermediate events. This forces the events into a defined temporal stream - no longer could we consider these three distinct, independent events. We can argue over the direction in which time progresses along the stream, but it seems the stream must be followed nonetheless.
Perhaps we could consider only the throw and the drop as existing events.. in order for them to exist together in the same stream of time, the third event of a catch must also be forced into the stream. This is an interesting perspective, but it seems to only be a logical "discovery" of events in a stream. This discovery isn't necessarily linked to the existence of the events themselves, but merely our awareness of their necessity.
It's interesting to postulate the existence of a physical metaphor to such a discovery. For instance, electrical or magnetic attraction between bodies occurs over space. What if such an attractive interaction occurs over time. If we could conjure two distinct events that exhibit an attractive interaction over time, then the two could come together into a stream. That is, the interaction could force intermediate events to form between the two events to allow a stream to exist.
Am I a genius or just crazy? I don't know, but sometimes I freak myself out.
Like the concept of order. What is temporal order? A progression of events through time.
Consider two stars, countless light years from each other. A solar flare occurs on each. How do we determine which happened first? This should be a valid question, yes? We can say one happened before the other.
Just because we define a method through which we can authoritatively state one happened before the other, does our method have any significance or consequence? What is the significance of defining how events have a temporal order? In the context of solar flares on stars, it doesn't seem to matter much..
There is no difference between the order in which solar flares on stars occur, and the order in which a ball is thrown and caught. Time is time, despite lengths of space or complexity of interactions between one event and the other. At least, time is such a vital, independent property of the universe that its absoluteness in this regard doesn't seem questionable. Things happen in a certain sequence.
Considering solar flares on distant stars, however, it seems plausible we could define the stream of time in a multitude of ways in which one flare or the other occurred first. Perhaps this is because there are so few dependent events between the two. In contrast, a ball thrown and caught has a specific order. Certainly, a ball couldn't be caught before it was even thrown..?
What if the mechanics of the entire universe were concretely defined such that there is no randomness, no unexpected nature of anything..? In such a universe where everything has a fate, the event of the ball being thrown and the event of the ball being caught must not necessarily be considered as one occurring before the other.
The mere definition of either event necessitates the existence of the other. They are merely interdependent, but order is only an arbitrary label we give the events. Sure, you could argue, but what if we add a third event? Consider a ball thrown, a ball caught, and then a ball dropped. The ball must be caught before being dropped, yet it must be caught after being thrown. The ball couldn't possibly be dropped after being thrown without a catch occuring!
Indeed, the addition of a third event introduces the possibility of necessary intermediate events. This forces the events into a defined temporal stream - no longer could we consider these three distinct, independent events. We can argue over the direction in which time progresses along the stream, but it seems the stream must be followed nonetheless.
Perhaps we could consider only the throw and the drop as existing events.. in order for them to exist together in the same stream of time, the third event of a catch must also be forced into the stream. This is an interesting perspective, but it seems to only be a logical "discovery" of events in a stream. This discovery isn't necessarily linked to the existence of the events themselves, but merely our awareness of their necessity.
It's interesting to postulate the existence of a physical metaphor to such a discovery. For instance, electrical or magnetic attraction between bodies occurs over space. What if such an attractive interaction occurs over time. If we could conjure two distinct events that exhibit an attractive interaction over time, then the two could come together into a stream. That is, the interaction could force intermediate events to form between the two events to allow a stream to exist.
Am I a genius or just crazy? I don't know, but sometimes I freak myself out.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
we can say a step takes a definite amount of time, and it seems plausible to spend an infinite amount of time walking. if a step takes an infinite amount of time, then we'll never finish the first step, so is it still possible to spend an infinite amount of time walking?
iteration seems to be a half dimension. that is, one dimension is a number line. a one dimensional quantity is a number, and that can be positive, negative, zero.. but iteration, the process of maintaining a quantity of items counted, is half of a dimension. it's a number that only increases. there is no addition, subtraction.. its just a count.
interestingly, if we look at just one number in the number line, say the number one, it contains an infinite number of values between it and two. yet we can still reach the number two, we don't get stuck forever counting all the values before we get to two. because we iterate. we draw an imaginary line in numerical dimensioned space and consider it to be the next place of iteration. indeed.
iteration seems to be a half dimension. that is, one dimension is a number line. a one dimensional quantity is a number, and that can be positive, negative, zero.. but iteration, the process of maintaining a quantity of items counted, is half of a dimension. it's a number that only increases. there is no addition, subtraction.. its just a count.
interestingly, if we look at just one number in the number line, say the number one, it contains an infinite number of values between it and two. yet we can still reach the number two, we don't get stuck forever counting all the values before we get to two. because we iterate. we draw an imaginary line in numerical dimensioned space and consider it to be the next place of iteration. indeed.
Monday, July 19, 2010
spick n span
clean living, organized belongings.
these are things i feel are essential to have. without these, the mind reflects its surroundings, becoming chaotic.
clean living requires maintenance. clothes & sheets must be washed. floors must be swept. shelves must be dusted. counters must be sanitized. tubs, sinks and toilets must be cleaned. this all takes time. by reducing these loads, we can reduce time spent cleaning (or hire a maid, wouldnt that be nice.) so reduce floorspace. use hard floors instead of carpet, which holds less dust. filter out dust in the ductwork. less/smaller bathrooms. less countertop space. really, scaling everything down will free up more time to just enjoy life.
organizing belongings requires maintenance. we need to keep things in their place, or they tend to clutter up. we also need to prune things we dont need. we need organized storage for both in-use items and stored items. shelving and closets provide space for such storage. reducing the number of belongings also keeps this under control. invest in items that perform multiple tasks to replace multiple items. share when possible.
these are things i feel are essential to have. without these, the mind reflects its surroundings, becoming chaotic.
clean living requires maintenance. clothes & sheets must be washed. floors must be swept. shelves must be dusted. counters must be sanitized. tubs, sinks and toilets must be cleaned. this all takes time. by reducing these loads, we can reduce time spent cleaning (or hire a maid, wouldnt that be nice.) so reduce floorspace. use hard floors instead of carpet, which holds less dust. filter out dust in the ductwork. less/smaller bathrooms. less countertop space. really, scaling everything down will free up more time to just enjoy life.
organizing belongings requires maintenance. we need to keep things in their place, or they tend to clutter up. we also need to prune things we dont need. we need organized storage for both in-use items and stored items. shelving and closets provide space for such storage. reducing the number of belongings also keeps this under control. invest in items that perform multiple tasks to replace multiple items. share when possible.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
it's food, dude
i've heard the sentiment time and again throughout my life that if a person isn't willing or capable of holding a job, they deserve to starve, be homeless, or just plain suffer and die. i can't say i've ever understood it.
in fact, the first few times i heard it, i was repulsed. how can you overlook the cruelty and inhumanity of needlessly allowing, even condoning, suffering. i don't see a job as being so essential. i suppose images of hordes of lazy, drugged-up low-lifes living off welfare checks is what people have in mind. i don't think being lazy, drugged-up, or unappreciative of wealth and material possessions is good. but worth death and suffering?
we could go on a tangent and ask what kind of situation is deserving of inflicting or permitting human suffering or death. i suppose that would help clarify things. but, i am aiming this ramble more toward aspects of the economy and the basic needs we see for civilized people.
is it really so hard to harvest food and distribute it.. providing housing is a much greater undertaking, requiring much initial investment. but we haven't even gotten the food thing down yet. perhaps here in the US, with food stamps, we have. but even of that i'm not sure. i don't know anything about food stamps. are they provided at the state or federal level? what are the qualifications? how does a person even find out if they are qualified? with my current level of knowledge on the subject, i could starve to death if i went broke.
with today's technology - machinery to automate and minimize labor for harvest, preparation, packaging.. and computing to track the needs of individuals, we could easily provide basic nutritional needs to every human. but it seems there are many people who don't think we should.. which i suppose brings us back to the initial philosophical debate.
if people shouldn't suffer and die, then what about other creatures, or plants for that matter. it really does drive to the heart of things, doesn't it. are people honestly afraid of the planet being overrun by lazy drugged-up stupid people? i think we'd have to try and visualize how the world would be affected by such a change.. and perhaps look for ways to preserve civilization - its institutions, its character, or whatever is deemed critical for survival and happiness.
in fact, the first few times i heard it, i was repulsed. how can you overlook the cruelty and inhumanity of needlessly allowing, even condoning, suffering. i don't see a job as being so essential. i suppose images of hordes of lazy, drugged-up low-lifes living off welfare checks is what people have in mind. i don't think being lazy, drugged-up, or unappreciative of wealth and material possessions is good. but worth death and suffering?
we could go on a tangent and ask what kind of situation is deserving of inflicting or permitting human suffering or death. i suppose that would help clarify things. but, i am aiming this ramble more toward aspects of the economy and the basic needs we see for civilized people.
is it really so hard to harvest food and distribute it.. providing housing is a much greater undertaking, requiring much initial investment. but we haven't even gotten the food thing down yet. perhaps here in the US, with food stamps, we have. but even of that i'm not sure. i don't know anything about food stamps. are they provided at the state or federal level? what are the qualifications? how does a person even find out if they are qualified? with my current level of knowledge on the subject, i could starve to death if i went broke.
with today's technology - machinery to automate and minimize labor for harvest, preparation, packaging.. and computing to track the needs of individuals, we could easily provide basic nutritional needs to every human. but it seems there are many people who don't think we should.. which i suppose brings us back to the initial philosophical debate.
if people shouldn't suffer and die, then what about other creatures, or plants for that matter. it really does drive to the heart of things, doesn't it. are people honestly afraid of the planet being overrun by lazy drugged-up stupid people? i think we'd have to try and visualize how the world would be affected by such a change.. and perhaps look for ways to preserve civilization - its institutions, its character, or whatever is deemed critical for survival and happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
