Apocalypse Now, or very soon

It wasn't just my imagination.  The 50's had 7 apocalyptic movies, the 60's had 13 apocalyptic movies, the 70's had 23 apocalyptic movies, the 80's had 30 apocalyptic movies, the 90's had 29 apocalyptic movies, the 00's had 55 apocalyptic movies, and the 10's have 20 apocalyptic movies to date projecting to over 60 for the decade.  I like to think about the end of the world as much as the next guy, but not this much.  Movies run in cycles, capitalizing on what has made money before and repeating the formula until it doesn't make any more money.  The 12-21-2012 popular culture idiocy probably had something to do with it, but there is an undercurrent of interest in the end of the world.  I have no evidence to back it up, but my impression is that the salivating masses have a subliminal understanding that our way of life is not sustainable for the 7.1 billion residents.  People have an intuition that the future is not the shiny object that their parents held dear in their imaginations.  We continue to make significant progress and continue to rely on  antiquated technology to support us.  It's the smell of mustard gas and roses.  I don't know what the future will bring, except that it will be different from our current condition.  Change is the only given.  

Memorial Day

In the United States we honor fallen soldiers on Memorial Day.  What is referred to as their sacrifice is held in the highest reverential regard.  Soldiers dying in war is a given.  So is war.  While we have manage to stay the wholesale carnage visited in the first half of the 20th century, we still resolve mainly ideological and economic differences with the time honored tradition of taking up sides and killing each other.  From the perspective of political and military leaders, the soldiers killed are a necessary use of resources to accomplish  political goals.  For the family and friends of the fallen soldier, it is an irreplaceable loss in their lives.  We have decided to organize ourselves into states and use variations of the free market system to distribute wealth.  We also recognize war as a legitimate way of reconciling differences.  Again, because the people deciding on war are not the family and friends of the people who are going to fight it.  We are, like every other species on the planet in a fight for survival and will employ violence to enhance our survival.  We are also a sentient species that is aware of our actions and their consequences.  We need to change our behaviours, but there will  be many more Memorial Days before what is obvious is what we do.  

Crime, Punishment, and the Social Contract Part 3

The question is then should any society exercise the prerogative to cast out transgressors of the social contract?  Yes, with certain conditions.  Everyone should agree to and understand the social contract and the consequences of non-compliance.  We do not do currently do this.  The social contract is an ambiguous lecture in some philosophy or social science class, if that.  We have to clearly define what is expected of a citizen and what they get in return.  They can then opt in or out.  Opting out means they physically remove themselves from society and relocate to another.  Opting in means that they understand  and accept the social contract.  Like any contract, if they are not in compliance they accept the consequences.  The remaining Boston Marathon terrorist should be taken out and executed.  Such severe violations of the social contract are without redemption.    The shoplifter should be remanded and the social contract reviewed and renewed.  The white collar criminal that steals billions of dollars and can't provide restitution should also be executed.  The recidivists need to be judged on the cost of their crimes, the cost of incarceration, and their ability to provide restitution.  Nature evolves in part because of natural selection.  Society can evolve partially using the same principal.  This is in no way tied to either Eugenics or Social Darwinism.  

Crime, Punishment, and the Social Contract Part 2

As I discussed in the previous installment, when egregious crimes are committed against the collective and in violation of the social contract, is it either moral or civilized to execute the offender with quick and extreme prejudice?  Only if we are able to discern a just society.  Pol Pot thought he had a just society and over a million people lost their lives.  On the other hand, it is possible to find perhaps millions worldwide who would think the United States government is in the same league with the Khmer Rouge.  Opinions do not matter.  Empirical evidence and the scientific method are all we have to discern policy in even such an ambiguous area as how to run a civil society.  The question then runs to whether or not a quick execution is in the long term survival interests of our society.  If the evidence, as in the Boston Marathon bombing, is incontrovertible, then the expense and consternation of trial by jury and incarceration for some decades is an undue burden on society.  We don't currently apply that standard because we are so afraid of the inexact quality of our senses and reason that we would rather let murderers go free than execute an innocent man.  We have good reason to be cautious, and we have good reason to proceed.  Understanding how we discern the difference between Knowledge and Certainty should be the first stone on which any societal structure is built.  If we understand that, we can have a society in which the social contract is both enforceable and beneficial.    We will always have scarce resources and the ability to apply those resources to bring about a civil society rather than using them to support the degradation of civil society.  This is topic exceeding the short length of a blog.  For a more detailed explanation: http://www.roguewolfinc.com/thebrassswancosmology.htm

Crime, Punishment, and the Social Contract

The recent arrests in Cleveland and the judgement in Phoenix have brought up the issue of what to do with the most blatant violations of the social contract.  By the social contract, I mean the inherent agreement between human beings in a society that they act in a civil manner to each other.  There should be an actual contract, signed at the age of legality or adulthood.  At 18 years of age every person should sign a contract with the rest of society agreeing to act in a civil manner.  Or they could opt out, dropped off at one of the Aleutian islands with others of a similar bent to fend for themselves.  The signatories would then be obligated to abide by the contract and face the consequences of the law if they don't abide.  The most heinous violations, could, depending on the state, result in the loss of life by the offender.  But we're reluctant to do so.  Of the approximately 3125 inmate on death row, 33 were actually killed by society in 2011.  The latest examples of aberrant behavior will follow the same policy of trial, appeal, and incarceration for around a decade before the sentence is carried out.  We are so scared of executing an innocent person that we run around for, at times,  the life of prisoner trying to get the job done.  The Cleveland kidnapper, rapist, murderer and torturer could be taken out his cell this afternoon and have his life terminated.  We don't, but it wouldn't be civilized or moral.  Or would it?  To be continued   

Don't care if you are or aren't or may be

There was an NBA  player who recently announced he preferred the company of his own gender.  I don't care.  I work with people who prefer the company of their own gender and I don't care about that part of their lives either.  Of all of the people I encounter on a daily basis,  99% of those people have nothing to do with my sexual preference and that is a good thing.  The media loved the story because it was entertaining and because there is a small  population of emotionally stunted  people who react strongly on both sides of the non-issue.  Adults can do whatever they want with their nasty bits to whatever adult will consent and it is none of anyone else's business.  The only reason to get upset is when religious sheeple and dullards think they have the right to tell people what to do with their nasty bits.  The don't have that right and should get back to putting Creationism on the same level as Science and other such nonsense.  Someday, we will all be bored with what who does what with whom, or perhaps not.

Jon Stewart and the White House Correspondents

The ridiculous event of the White House Correspondents dinner was a pointed and obvious symbol that the Fourth Estate is lost.  Celebrities and Government officials and the people who are supposed to be the watchdogs of society all joking and parading before the cameras like an episode of American Idol.  The News organizations have abandoned their Fourth Estate obligations in favor of profits.  The profits are derived from the transition from a journalistic organization to an entertainment delivery channel.  It doesn't matter what was presented, as long as it garnered ratings.  So, we have reporters sharing the limelight with the people the should be investigating.  Jon Stewart's Daily Show skewers the politicians and news organizations alike, and we all have a good laugh.   We should be running screaming into the streets when the truth about politicians is revealed.  It's not the politicians or the new organization's fault, they are merely grabbing all the money they can with the two good hands god gave them.  The Fourth Estate has been retired by masses.  It is the salivating masses that has chosen entertainment over journalism.  It has changed and weakened our democracy irreparably.